1776

Mark Meadows had a really good gig going until he decided to follow Trump. He represented a House district in NC that votes GOP every election, not even close. Cawthorne got elected out of the same district Meadows vacated to become Trump’s chief of staff. Meadows is paying the price for following Trump. I believe every single one of his kind are going to pay for their very poor choices regarding their actions around the January 6 debacle.

The Uvalde response can’t get enough scrutiny. It was a total cluster. It has been reported that a father that was trying to move toward the school perimeter was tasered. One of the moms trying to go beyond the police line was cuffed. All while a massacre was in progress.The parents were pleading with the cops to please act. WSJ is reporting the killer stood outside for 12 minutes shooting at a funeral home located across the street from the school prior to entering the school building. In days and weeks to come I have a pretty good feeling this is going to be a really ugly conversation around the response to this travesty. It needs to be.

Loser. AA is a poor GM.

fwiw, my choice for SS was Story. I’m not a big Baez guy.

Read, ‘The Yom Kippur War’ by Abraham Rabinovich. Kissinger worked his ass off in that war. Thank God he held the office he did at that point in history. Shalom.

What is it with your obsession with the right wing? Seriously.

I stand by my belief that we maintain two Senator representation from every state. Be it Texas, NY, Florida, California, whatever. You’re really trying to misrepresent what I’ve made very clear. I stated earlier, we aren’t going to agree on this. You and the “common talking point” thing. Clearly, you have no idea where I am politically.

You think I’m telling on myself? Weird comment. Beyond that, we’re not going to agree on changing Senate representation.

Sadly, you probably aren’t trying to be funny. But you are totally wrong.

Either side of the political spectrum can make the very same argument you’re making in your comments above at some point depending on their perspective and the make up of the court. Honestly, where do you draw the line in adding justices? Appreciate your opinion.

And I’m sure that if it were the case that DC was a hothead of conservative voters you’d be just as excited about awarding them two seats in the Senate.

And that was the intent of the founding fathers when they established the Constitution. The purpose of the structure of our government forces debate and equal representation, regardless of state populations. Again, the flip side is West Virginia is told to sit in the corner and simply do as told by the good folks in California and New York…or…compromise! The conversation that isn’t happening here is that Senators are not bound to vote their party affiliation. There is a presumption here that if the Democrats have 55 Senators that they should, without question, expect 55 yes votes. Anyone that dares vote their constituents desires is betraying the party. This is true from either party. I see how Manchin drives the party crazy. If he fell in lockstep with the administration this wouldn’t even be a topic.

The Democrats are in possession of the Executive Office , the House of Representatives and the Senate with the tiebreaker (VP). I understand your frustration but how do you contend with the fact that the Democrats are in control and at the same time state that the minority rules?

I would ask you, why aren’t people of Wyoming deserving of the same representation as California in the Senate? There is a reason the phrase, “fly over states” exists. I understand your point but don’t think we’ll agree on this.

Yes, a lot has changed in 275 years. Confederate General Stonewall Jackson was born in present day West Virginia but at the time of his birth was born in The Old Dominion, which I believe you probably already know. WV seceded from Virginia during the war.

Can you imagine adding house members with the two parties where they are now? I can’t imagine there would ever be an agreement on the numbers or districts. Current districts are constantly being challenged through the courts now. The only thing Washington can agree on is that it can’t agree on anything. Then sometimes, that’s not a bad thing.

Yes, I do realize that the number can and has fluctuated.

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

Are you suggesting the elimination of states as we know them today?

Political figures have, for the most part, evolved into self serving beings. They themselves are placing themselves above law. That the choice between Trump or Biden for the top office in the land is on us, the voters. Incumbents win the overwhelming majority of races. Politicians insulate themselves from accountability in numerous ways. An article in WSJ reported the other day that only 22% of the population can name only ONE branch of government! We have an ignorant and uninformed voting base that is terribly uninformed and under educated. I’ll bet as much as 75% of voters in this country can’t name their U.S. House representative. There is so much wrong in this country now it is shameful. Why don’t voters remove these cons from public offices? A population willing to accommodate poor character in leadership won’t improve any government or country.

Populations varied from state to state in 1787 as well. The population apportionment of representation is through the House of Representatives. The founding fathers purposely intended for the Senate to be represented evenly by the states. The purpose of the Senate is, in large part, to check the whims and shenanigans of the House. The Senate was in intended to be a check point on extreme ideas and legislation coming from the lower House. As much as I abhor politics in general these days, I believe the Senate is satisfying that expectation to a degree. The idea of six year terms with 1/3 of the Senate facing the voters every two years is intended to maintain a degree of stability in that chamber. If the Senate is determined by population per state, there will be under representation in the Senate by smaller states. The argument that the Senate should be determined by population undermines the intent of the founders. The government in general was in need of a mechanism to guard against powerful majorities, not endorse them. The separation of powers, though muddied and skirted by today’s self serving politicians, was designed to make it difficult for significant change without strenuous debate and compromise. It would be a mistake to determine Senatorial representation by state population. A Congress (Senate & House) based solely on populations would literally deny smaller states a voice in Washington.

Disagree entirely on the above comment. Read Catherine Drinker Brown’s book, ‘Miracle at Philadelphia.’ The book details the arguments laid out during the making of the U.S. Constitution. To this day I am in awe of how these men foresaw what they did in 1787, drawing from historical precedents, good and bad, to bring our constitution to realization. Franklin’s words become more prescient by the day regarding our republic.

To repeat, but for a few well placed trash cans, Hinch would be just another name in the phone book.

Al loves him some Mexicans.

The 10 year benchmark is currently sitting on 2.728%. That’s down from being above 3.0% last week. The bond massacre has taken a breather recently.