Connect with us

News

Ted Cruz’s opponent: We should ban AR-15s and I don’t give a sh*t what the NRA thinks

Published

on

Via Chris Pandolfo, does this guy know he’s running in Texas? A state where a mass murderer was stopped by a citizen with his own AR-15 not long ago before he could kill any other people?

Never trust a man with one name, my friends. At least unless it has “pundit” stuck on the end.

I think Erick Erickson’s hunch about O’Rourke’s strategy is probably correct:

Only a candidate who already knows he is going to lose would be so bold.

The DSCC and DNC are already abandoning O’Rourke. Most major outside groups will not pour money into his race. The only folks who will support him are liberals giving money to “the cause” and outside groups trying to use O’Rourke as a way to boost liberal turnout in swing, suburban congressional races.

O’Rourke was a longshot to begin with. After he underperformed during last week’s primary while Ted Cruz blew the roof off, getting more votes than all Democratic candidates running statewide combined, he looks like a no-shot. That’s why Cruz was whispering about the risk of a blue wave engulfing Texas before the vote: By raising expectations for the left and encouraging Republican turnout to send a message, he may have smothered O’Rourke’s campaign in its infancy. How much money do Democrats really want to spend on Beto! now? The smart play for O’Rourke is to lose as a loud-and-proud unapologetic liberal, knowing that’ll win him some admirers in the national party and among cable news bookers.

And in fairness to him, arguably the loud-and-proud liberal play is the smarter way to go, as counterintuitive as that may seem. It makes sense to run as a centrist Democrat in a red state if your GOP opponent is flawed and the Republican base is wrestling with whether to support him. If X is the GOP nominee and there’s a sizable “anyone but X” contingent on the right, then the Democrat should logically run as a centrist “anyone but X” figure himself, someone who might not thrill Republican voters but seems unlikely to upset the apple cart if they send him to Congress. See, e.g., Roy Moore and Doug Jones. Cruz doesn’t have enough flaws to replicate that dynamic in Texas, though. He’s unlikable and alienated some Trumpers with his convention speech two years ago but he has Trump’s endorsement now, is whip-smart, and votes reliably conservative on all major issues. There may be an “anyone but Cruz” faction among the right in Texas but not like there was for Moore in Alabama.

In which case, if you’re O’Rourke, what do you gain by running to the center? You’ll disenchant your liberal fans and do little to attract conservative ones, who’ll see you as a pale imitation of a Republican who’s only pandering for votes anyway. Arguably the smarter move is to be the liberal firebrand, keep your fans excited and motivated, and keep the media interested. Maybe, if everything breaks just right for Democrats and a huge national wave gathers, you’ll squeak to a shock victory. If not, then you’ll probably lose by 15 points rather than the 12 you would have lost by if you’d run as a centrist. Shrug.

Besides, although it’s nutty to think that bashing the NRA will make you a senator in Texas, it’s not nutty to think that bashing it will appeal to lots of people, including gun owners. A YouGov poll taken two weeks after the Parkland shooting found the NRA’s favorable rating at 36/45, a departure from the usual even split between admirers and detractors. Even after the Newtown massacre its numbers were only 36/37. It’s been the designated scapegoat for the Parkland shooting, especially among the Stoneman Douglas students, and that’s taken a toll. Plus, as BuzzFeed demonstrated recently, opinions on gun laws differ between gun owners who are NRA members and gun owners who aren’t. Among NRA members, just 24 percent support a proposed nationwide bans on AR-15 versus 75 percent who oppose it. Among non-members who own a gun, the split is just 45/51. O’Rourke might not alienate as many Texans as you think in floating this idea. But enough will be alienated for this and other reasons to reelect Cruz safely.

Exit question: Is it true, as Trump claimed on Twitter, that there’s “not much political support” for raising the legal age to purchase long guns to 21? YouGov found support for that idea at 65/23 among the entire population and at 61/32 among gun owners. BuzzFeed likewise found support among gun owners, 53/46 among NRA members and 76/22 among non-members. There may not be much political support among Republican politicians but there’s support among the public. If Trump wanted to lead on the issue he’d have many voters on both sides behind him.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Christine Ford Says “There Is Zero Chance” She Would Confuse Kavanaugh with Fellow Student in 36 Yr-Old Incident She Just Remembered 6 Yrs Ago

Published

on

By


Brett Kavanaugh, Georgetown Prep school classmate Chris Garrett

Is this a case of mistaken identity? 

Accuser Christine Blasey Ford is waging a war on Trump’s SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh with decades-old, unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault in an effort to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Ford says she first remembered the 36-year-old incident just 6 years ago. Ford does not remember where it took place, when it took place, who was there but accused two other males of being present who have vehemently denied her accusations.

Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations and even told Senator Orin Hatch he wasn’t at the party in question.

Ed Whelan, Justice Scalia’s former law clerk and president of conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), came out in defense of Brett Kavanaugh and said compelling evidence will come out next week exonerating Kavanaugh.


On Thursday afternoon, Ed Whelan started dropping pictures and evidence that may blow Christine Ford’s case wide open.

The “Maryland suburban home”–the scene of the alleged sexual assault described by Christine Ford to WaPo as being ‘not too far from the Columbia Country Club’ may have belonged to Kavanaugh’s friend named Chris Garrett, says Ed Whelan.

On Thursday night Ford’s attorneys insisted Ford knew it was Kavanaugh in the room.
Ford also said she would hang out with both men and socialized with them.

It will be interesting to hear what Judge Kavanaugh has to say about Ford’s latest claims.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

An attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, said Thursday that her appearing at a hearing on Monday to detail her claims is “not possible” but that she could testify later in the week.

Debra Katz, Ford’s lawyer, relayed the response to top staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, requesting to set up a call with them to “discuss the conditions under which [Ford] would be prepared to testify next week.”…

…Amid the maneuvering, the nomination was roiled further late Thursday by incendiary tweets from a prominent Kavanaugh friend and supporter who publicly identified another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s as Ford’s possible attacker.

Ed Whelan, a former clerk to the late justice Antonin Scalia and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed to floor plans, online photographs and other information to suggest a location for the house party in suburban Maryland that Ford described. He also named and posted photographs of the classmate he suggested could be responsible.

Ford dismissed Whelan’s theory in a statement late Thursday: “I knew them both, and socialized with” them, Ford said, adding that she had once visited the other classmate in the hospital. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Dianne Feinstein: ‘Twas the media that outed Kavanaugh’s accuser

Published

on

By

Is that right? The way DiFi puts it here, you would think Christine Blasey Ford’s name appeared like a bolt from the blue in the pages of the Washington Post on Sunday afternoon. In reality, the press had spent the previous 72 hours murmuring about a mysterious letter in Feinstein’s possession that may or may not contain a serious allegation against Kavanaugh. No one would say what the letter alleged but the Intercept knew that Feinstein knew something about it. BuzzFeed also knew that Feinstein knew something. Under pressure, Feinstein herself announced that she had finally referred the matter to the FBI. After sitting on it for two months. Six days before the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote.

All of which is a long way of asking: Who do you suppose it was that tipped the media to Ford’s accusations, putting them in a position to “out” her at the eleventh hour?

Tom Cotton has a zany theory.

Democrats outed her. Maybe not Feinstein personally or someone acting at her behest, but someone in the Capitol high enough up the chain to have known Ford’s name. (Given that the Intercept and BuzzFeed are both online-only outlets, I’d guess the leaker trended younger.) And the very obvious reason they did so was because they were frustrated that Feinstein had held this weapon for two months and never used it, even during the closed session of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, leaving him on track to join the Court before the end of the month. A liberal, possibly on Feinstein’s own staff, shoved Ford into the spotlight for reasons of political expedience. Feinstein can babble all she likes about respecting the privacy of victims but them’s the facts.

Also, not to nitpick, but no one “outed” Ford. Unless I missed something, at no point did any media outlet reveal her identity against her wishes. She chose to speak on the record to WaPo over the weekend after Ronan Farrow and outlets like BuzzFeed came knocking, believing that someone *would* end up revealing her name against her wishes before long. But no one (I think) actually did so before the WaPo story came out. Whether Democrats might have been so frantic to stop Kavanaugh that they would have forced Ford’s name into print if she had declined to speak up this past weekend is a fascinating what-if. Probably they would have — which seems to have been Ford’s conclusion too. Again, so much for the privacy of victims.

Charles Cooke wonders if Ford ever really wanted to testify at all:

Dianne Feinstein has not yet submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee the original letter she was sent by the accuser. The Democratic party is almost universally calling for an FBI investigation that it knows full well is not going to happen, and should not happen, and using its absence as a reason for the hearing to be delayed. And, right on cue, certain figures on the Left have begun to play this both ways: Originally, the lack of an invitation to testify was cast as a “silencing act.” Now, the Senate’s broad invitation to the accuser to testify in whatever way she sees fit is being cast as . . . yes, as a “silencing” act. Perhaps there is something else going on here, but sure looks to me as if the aim is to delay, delay, delay — and keep the accuser as far as is possible from being required to take an oath.

Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth have both submitted statements to Grassley’s committee via counsel, notes Cooke. That’s enough for a criminal indictment if facts emerge to show they’re lying; submitting false information to a congressional panel amounts to lying to a federal official just as submitting false information during an FBI interview does. The one and only player in this drama who has yet to send a statement to the committee, as Cooke points out, is Ford herself. That’s curious, although of course not proof that she’s afraid to tell her story under oath. I think she will testify since that’s the foreseeable outcome of her decision to go on the record with WaPo. She knew that her testimony would be demanded after the story appeared and that it’d look very bad if she refused to provide it. She must have resolved to testify this past weekend, with the last few days of will-she-or-won’t-she drama little more than a PR play to frame the upcoming hearing as unfair no matter what happens.

Here’s Scarborough, who spends most of his time bashing the Trump Party nowadays, crystal clear on who it was that “outed” Ford.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Sen. Lindsey Graham Fires Off Midnight Tweet: “Kavanaugh Nomination is Still on Track – Stay Tuned!”

Published

on

By


Senator Lindsey Graham; Photo: Twitter avatar

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) fired off a midnight tweet praising President Trump and reassured the American people that Kavanaugh’s nomination is still on track.

“Stay tuned!” Lindsey Graham said.

“Great job tonight by President @realDonaldTrump in Las Vegas laying out how strong America has become economically and how much safer we are with a strong military.”

Graham then said: The President is dead right about Judge Kavanaugh being highly qualified, the right person for the job, and also right about letting process play out.

Kavanaugh nomination is still on track. Stay tuned!


Senator Lindsey Graham was referring to the President’s comments during his rally in Las Vegas wherein he praised Brett Kavanaugh.

Graham has certainly changed his tune as of late–usually no ally to the President, he vowed to get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as quickly as possible.

Christine Ford has accused–without corroborating evidence–Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a drunken high school pool party decades ago.

Accuser Christine Blasey Ford believes she runs the U.S. Senate as she continues to make outrageous demands of how and when her hearing will be held.

The lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee her demands for her public testimony at a hearing–preeminent is that Judge Brett Kavanaugh testify first and that he not be allowed to be in the hearing room when she testifies, reported TGP’s Kristinn Taylor.

Laura Ingraham reported the scheduled Monday hearing where Kavanaugh and Ford were invited to testify may be postponed. Kavanugh accepted but Ford has declined so far to appear Monday.

“Two sources have told me that @SenateMajLdr is WAVERING and may ask to further delay Monday hearing. GOP base will be in full revolt if so. Tune in tonight!”

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close