A few topics that may be of interest:
- Obama on Guantanamo: ‘This is about closing a chapter in our history’ — Yeah, but it’s still probably not going to happen.
- Senate Republicans rally around plan not to hold hearings for Supreme Court nominee — I thought everybody had agreed that this was a very foolish position for the GOP senators to take. How’d we get back to this?
- Donnie Myers nabbed on DUI charges AGAIN — Activists say he should get help or resign. I ever tell you about the time Donnie waved a .45 pistol at me? It wasn’t loaded — I think.
- Should Britain get out of the EU? — The PM says no; “Red Boris” says yes. What say you?
- Carson says Obama not black enough — No, really. Talk about the pot calling the kettle an Oreo…
- U.S. Looks Into 14 Reports That Zika Virus Was Spread via Sex — So, are we sufficiently terrified yet?
Related Posts
best pop song so far2016
https://soundcloud.com/firerecords/robert-pollard-my-daughter-yes-she-knows
I think I’ve told the story about Donnie and the gun before, but here it goes.
Donnie has this great presentation he likes to give to groups about the murder of The State’s first editor, N.G. Gonzales, by Lt. Gov. James Tillman in 1903.
Once, about 10 years ago, we invited him to give his presentation to staff at The State, for employees who didn’t know the story.
At the part of the story in which Tillman shoots the editor — which I suspect is Donnie’s favorite part — he had me stand in for N.G. Then — playing the part of Tillman — he reached into his briefcase, pulled out the gun, and brandished it at me.
I smiled at his theatrics (not that I’m so brave, but on the remote chance he meant to shoot me, he had the drop on me, so I might as well go out with a show of bravado). But you know how some people have a phobia about guns, the way others do about snakes or rats? Well, Ann Caulkins, our then-publisher, was like that — didn’t like the idea of firearms one bit, and never wanted to see one. (I was once on a road trip with her and other members of senior staff, and we passed a chain gang. Ann got upset at seeing the guard’s shotgun.) Ann about had a stroke when she saw that .45, which might as well have been a cannon to her. For an instant, she thought Donnie had gone mad and was going to shoot me.
But he didn’t…
Is that cute ambulance-chaser,Bryan going to represent him?
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Excuse me?
Cute?
Absolutely adorable.
So Donnie Myers pointed a real pistol at you without your consent… and you did nothing about it? I don’t know who the bigger fool is. Every gun should be treated like a loaded gun, many people are killed every year by an “empty gun”. Personally I would have beat his ass.
I like your solution. Decades ago, in the South, a duel might have been in order. Passed down through several generations of bubbas, we now gonna “beat his ass” or “whup his ass.”
I can’t remember whether he pointed it straight at me or not — which is why I used the deliberately vague “brandished at”…
I had been scratching my head the other day, wondering what you thought I should have done — and it just hit me. I could have done THIS…
That was a really dumb stunt.
Any decent gun-owner would never point a firearm at another person for fun, for show, for demonstration.
If someone asked me to be a part of such a stunt, I’d assume they were drunk, ignorant, or both.
As a CWP holder, if I saw something like that I would likely call the police to report someone was pointing a pistol at someone. The folks doing that would deserve it.
Obama is digging for something for his legacy to be remembered by. Gitmo isn’t closing anytime in the next year.
Donnie Myers is a drunk who should have been run out of office after the first DUI conviction. The poor Lexington Mafia just can’t get away with anything anymore.
My second reply to Mr. Howard: .
Donnie Myers has two really good political instincts that have served him well in LexCo.
— His tough attitude, including courtroom theatrics, on punishment, including the death penalty.
— His ability to be one of the good old boys and bubbas in LexCo.
Well, I’m sorry to see Lindsey Graham succumb to peer pressure on this:
This was a colossal miscalculation. How do the Senate Republicans see this gaming out?
I read their letter; it’s not legacy-making stuff. It isn’t surprising that Cruz was a signatory to this petulance – but until I heard Graham at Bush’s end of the road rally with 43 I would have thought he would have found a way to say no to such a misguided and nihilistic stance.
This is why any way you cut it Mitch McConnell isn’t going to get his way. On the one hand it supports the insanity of Trump’s candidacy, and on the other galvanizes both Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans to support a Democratic nominee. It’s a lose / lose posture. And one sure to continue to tarnish the already corroded Republican mantle.
How does an adult U.S. Senator succumb to peer pressure? Why not call it what it is: a politically calculated move by a guy who has seen his reputation destroyed by a colossal failed run for the Presidency and endorsing an establishment candidate in his own state without delivering any support?
It’s just Lindsey being Lindsey. Check the election calendar and you’ll be able to predict what Lindsey will say every time.
So, I wonder, how are they going to handle his nominee, the honorable Republican governor of the great state of Nevada? I understand he is now being vetted.
Before y’all answer that…
Please go to this post, which deals with that…
Sen. Graham’s nonsensical position on Supreme Court nominees — taken from his current response to constituent mail on the issue:
“I have historically supported judicial nominees that were qualified for the job, even if I disagreed with their philosophical views. However, in 2013, Democrats upset the traditional bipartisan cooperation required for confirming judges by exercising the nuclear option, which lowered the threshold required for confirming judges. As a result, for the remainder of President Obama’s term in office, I will only support a consensus nominee to replace Justice Scalia.”
Oh, I think that position is fine — that we should have consensus candidates. The problem is, how do we get there?
Actually, maybe this very situation is how we get there.
… a situation in which the Republicans absolutely refuse to play ball, so the Democratic president tries to back them into a corner by choosing someone they can’t possibly object to.
So this could have a happy ending. But the president AND Congress have to be willing to give — and give on something you’d never expect them to give on. For instance, sure, Sandoval was Republican, but a pro-choice Republican — which in Supreme Court terms, means he might as well be a Democrat….
I don’t think that’s a high-probability scenario. In order to get the Senate to come back from their position of “No Hearings, No Votes” it would have to be a fairly conservative nominee. (Sandoval has removed his name from consideration, by the way.)
Also, if history is any guide, wherever you place the blame (and you can assign the blame wherever you like), it’s undeniable that Obama and Congress don’t have a great track record of working together on much of anything.
I agree — Obama’s unlikely to want to bend far enough to shame the GOP into holding hearings.
But, this situation does hold the possibility of compromise…
Drunk driving isn’t funny. Alcoholism isn’t funny. Allowing LexCo’s chief prosecutor to be both is nothing short of shameful.
i would like to see Donnie Myers charged with attempted murder. That would be the appropriate thing to do here.
He’s an alcoholic who is hurting his liver and heart severely.
He should spend a year in jail and then a months in rehab.
The term self immolation comes to mind watching the Republicans behavior on the SCOTUS vacancy. Why don’t they just hold hearings then vote the nominee down if she is too liberal? By not even holding hearings they dramaticly reduce their chances in the fall. What better way to drive up Dem turnout than this extreme behavior? And don’t counter by suggesting this would drive up GOP turnout. They already vote in droves. Plus with Trump at the top of the ticket the Democrats would be guaranteed both the senate and White House.
bud, at one time I would have agreed with your comment that with Trump at the top, Democrats would be guaranteed both the senate and White House but now I am not so sure. If the wave of discontent continues to gain momentum, he could very well be the next president. If the wave crests before the election and support wanes, that is a different ending but for now, I no longer hold to the belief the voters will come to their senses in time to avoid Trump’s nomination. He could be the one to bring out the ones in the past who stayed home because they didn’t believe they were represented. A poor excuse I know but then my dentist told me about a friend who constantly complained about politics but boasted about never voting. All my dentist could tell him was to just shut up and don’t complain if you don’t vote.
Trump is a skilled and manipulative individual who can turn a defeat into a victory. Hence his ability to make millions off of a bankruptcy and do it legally. You might not like the comparison but to his supporters, he is their version of Barack Obama, a different voice in a sea of sameness during this election cycle.
As for the SCOTUS vacancy issue, years ago Joe Biden held the same belief that any nomination for a SCOTUS judge should be held until the next president was elected. If truth be told, if the situation were different and a Republican was in office, Democrats would be demanding a nomination be delayed until the next president was sworn in. Same mirror, different reflection.
Caucus results extrapolated to the larger Republican voter base is risky if not foolish business. Trump broke through his ceiling, but not in a regular-style primary election. Let’s just hope that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.