The Wheels Down Politics Show – Patrick Borchers

(Click above to play in the browser or Direct download by clicking here, or by searchingWheels Down Politics on iTunes.)

PatBorchers01In an interview with Creighton Law Professor, and former Dean, Patrick Borchers, Jerry Kratochvil asks, and gets a response from, Borchers regarding his plans for elective office.

Borchers also talks about his background, his views on the current administration’s Constitutional activities and his thoughts for his legislative priorities.

Borchers also talk about his time at Creighton Law, and the time he has spent with Justice Clarence Thomas.

You can find this, and all of our podcasts at and by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.


  1. Paranoid...Calculating...Pathetic says:

    So over the weekend, a random Republican lawyer, who happens to live in District 39, gets leaked as a potential candidate for Congress. Within MINUTES he’s getting hammered with multiple posts with detailed citations to case law. Case law! After the rumor is quickly shot down, this blog is used to bash him over the weekend. And surprise, surprise, Patrick Borchers announces his candidacy for … wait for it … District 39 first thing Monday morning on this blog. Talk about transparent. Paranoid much?

  2. Anonymous says:

    The st sweeper post was that Weir was rumored to be running for “congress” not LD 39. Had there been a mention or update in that post about him possibly running in 39 ——- then yes, it would be strange considering Borchers announces today on the podcast his candidacy for LD 39.

    All of the previous focus (posts and comments) has been on CD 2 candidates. I suspect that some of the congressional dist 2 early potentials (Bacon, Murante, Osborn) could have been stirring the pot for fear of Weir getting in.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Conspiracy theories always abound on here on who is behind the barage of attacks on possible candidacies. Here’s another twist. Shane Osborn also lives in district 39 and he is a potential candidate for congressional district 2. Professor Borchers was also Osborn’s US Senate Douglas County campaign chairman. It only takes one comment to fuel the fire of changing the subject and increase negativity. It could be just a liberty caucus crony.

  4. Anonymous says:

    True @ 12:43pm. There was one comment in there yesterday that changed the focus to district 39. From there the conspiracy theory started. So the Weir dissenters may not be the LD 39 Borchers Bunch? It could be the CD 2 Bacon Bits? The Murante Mafia? or The Osborn Wingers?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Who cares about all this bs? I care about getting a woman elected to Congress in district 2 and in leg dist 39! 2016 will be all about the woman’s vote!

  6. Anonymous says:

    As Patricia Arquette said, “It’s us women who have given birth to every taxpayer and citizen.” I will go one step further. We also gave birth to all of the rumored candidates in Cong Dist 2 and Leg Dist 39!

    As the men eat their own on this blog, let’s support a conservative woman for Congress and every legislative seat in 2016! Women Win!

  7. Anon says:

    @ 11:43 I hate to break up the conspiracy party, but I donate $100 to the Red Cross if this podcast was recorded today. I know two people who have been interviewed by Sweeper and each case it was posted about four or five days after it was recorded, which would put the recording back in the middle of last week.

  8. @1:22 and @1:43 says:

    There’s a word for people who think that women should be given a preference just because they were born that way, and the word is “Democrat.”

  9. Anonymous says:

    If we are talking about “women” in office. Laura Ebke was a big disappointment on the electoral college change vote. She turned on a lot of people and conservative groups who gave their time and money.

  10. Herman Aphrodite says:

    If a man said women “eat their own” he’d be accused of hating lesbians. But women say the same thing about men here and that goes unchallenged. Why? It is after all grossly bigoted. It is hateful. And its Un-American.

    When a blogger says “I care about getting a woman elected to Congress” and to the state legislature and that “2016 will be all about the woman’s vote!” I ask you, is Lizzy Borden okay for you? You say “a woman”. Do you have any disqualifying concerns other than the person have a vagina? What if the candidate is a former man who had a sex change? All you say you want is a woman. Lucretia Borgia?

    You are a bigoted person. Worse, you don’t even try to hide it.

    Good government cannot come from voters like you. But rather from thoughtful fair voters, male or female or hermaphroditic or sexless, who vote for the best candidate to run our government.

  11. KHDS says:

    Maybe Pat can cutback the huge taxpayer subsidy of the wasteful University of Nebraska and State College System. Close Peru State and Chadron State. Peru, in particular, is pointless.

    Taxpayers pay up because they think Cornhusker football is the same as the entire University system.

    We need accountability! How much of a tax subsidy does Creighton, Midland and Hastings receive? Zero.

  12. Congratulations Mr. Ashford says:

    You oppose winner take all because you don’t want Republicans to win in CD-2. Congratulations Mr. Ashford. Republicrats will hand you a big present tomorrow.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Herman, why is it bigoted to say you want women in office? If all that is being touted is men, men, men and someone has the temerity to say, “what about women” how is that bigoted?

  14. Anon @ 6:10 says:

    I have voted for and given money to lots of women candidates. I’m a huge fan of Gwenn Aspen, in particular. But I like her because of her policy stances and her character. I don’t give a fig that she’s a woman. When you come out and say “it’s all about getting women elected” well, no, it’s not. It’s about getting true conservatives elected. If you want to vote for Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren in the presidential race over Scott Walker (or whomever) because “it’s all about women winning” be my guest — it’s a free country. But I won’t be joining you, and it has nothing to do with their anatomies. It has to do with the fact that Clinton and Warren have ruinous policies and Walker doesn’t.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Well yeah 9:18, I was referring to conservative women not just any woman. Kind of unlikely that followers of this blog would be working to get libs, men or women, elected.

  16. Anon @ 10:58 says:

    OK, but that puts you in a tricky spot. If you had a male candidate who’s better qualified and his views were closer to yours (say 90% overlap) who you vote for a woman if her views were only a 70% overlap with yours? If so, you’re just engaging in affirmative action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.