Throwforward Thursday

Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 12.40.17 PMAs mentioned 2 days ago, Paul Aaron’s name has come up as a potential GOP candidate in Nebraska’s 2nd District. Aaron was president of the Pinnacle Sports Network, a name you know from the Husker radio broadcasts.

While there is no confirmation yet on Aaron’s interest, his name is not the only one that has been making the rounds. Another is Omaha City Councilman Franklin Thompson. While he has not made any visible moves toward a campaign effort, his name often comes up as someone who could be interested.

And then, sort of in the background is still Chip Maxwell. Maxwell filed a FEC report under “Maxwell for Congress” for the recently completed quarter.

Maxwell reported contributions from 5 individuals for a total of $9,400.

***

ICYMI, the OWH said that former Omaha Fire Chief Mike McDonnell will run for the state legislature in District 5, Heath Mello’s current seat.

McDonnell is a Democrat.

No word yet from Nebraska GOP Chairman Dan Welch on McDonnell’s bid.

Welch and McDonnell frequently butted heads while Welch was on the Omaha City Council and McDonnell was Union President of Omaha Firefighters Local 385.

McDonnell is currently a “labor educator” at UNO.

***

I hope you will take a listen to my podcast interview with GOP Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson on The Wheels Down Politics Show yesterday.

I focused my questions to Dr. Carson about the President’s recent announcement of the Iran nuclear deal, and he gave very candid, straightforward answers.

You will also note that currently Carson is listed as about #5 in the “Top Ten” of current GOP candidates — which is the threshold for participation in the upcoming Presidential debate on FOX.

It is a very short and sweet 20 minutes — just perfect for your commute or workout.

5 comments

  1. gauze bag says:

    Huckabee says “The selling of unborn body parts by Planned Parenthood is grotesque” and he plans to federally “defund Planned Parenthood.”

    “Grotesque” is in the eye of the beholder. I assisted on suction abortions in federal surgeries. Before that I volunteered to deliver warheads onto men, women and children. Only a hypocrite would find killing kids one-at-a-time a bigger deal. Yet most Americans, partisan or not, applaud my medals for one while cringing in horror from the other.

    If a mother wants to kill her own child, who are we to say she must instead raise it? And who is Huckabee to say taxpayers must spend 18 years paying to raise each?

    The larger problem is everyone’s hypocritical addiction to federal subsidy. Cancer disguised as help.

    Why is the IRS subsidizing marriage, child raising, home purchase, or business bailouts? If you cannot afford to get married, own a home, run a business, or have a child, then you shouldn’t. Indeed to have a strong society you mustn’t. Irresponsibility must be discouraged not paid. Subsidy pays the most unfit and unable people to keep buggering on. And so we are buggered.

    Logic demands every “free” abortion come with a demand to sterilize the woman. That is useful. After all, she has control of her body. It is her “choice” and if she wants you to either fund her abortion or pay to raise her fleet of bastards, its your obligation to disincentive that.

    Responsible people sterilize themselves when genetically ill or unable to afford more children. It is the irresponsible who seek abortions. Government is then irresponsible if it fails to sterilize them if it can. Sell sterilization as “No More Periods, EVER!” and the idiots will clamber for it. But don’t be surprised to find Huckabee shy away from federal sterilization. It creeps out voters, who like being hypocritical shits.

  2. Pete says:

    Here’s why tax incentives for marriage are an economically worthwhile idea:

    Without the family unit this country crumbles to the ground. Without families, we don’t grow. We don’t produce enough future high earners to prop up social security and medicare, let alone enough future tax payers to pay for the left’s precious social programs. Regardless of the objective righteousness of marriage and the family unit, the Government must encourage marriage and the formation of families in order to stay afloat.

    Happily married young couples like me and my wife, the type who go out every weekend to spend hundreds on dining and entertainment, are too important to the economy. The next step from there- young couples with kids who spend tens of thousands on healthcare, sports equipment, tubas, clothes, etc… are just too damn important. I don’t think I really need to go much further because the point is clear: For every dollar of subsidization that goes into the marriages that the left and libertarians detest so much, the economy and government likely get back several.

    There’s a lot of subsidies that I’m in favor of cutting. Marriage isn’t one of them. I’m not saying people would stop getting married, but it’s a worthwhile investment because, and I’ll say it again here, without the family unit, this country would crumble to the ground.

  3. The Grundle King says:

    @gauze bag:

    “If a mother wants to kill her own child, who are we to say she must instead raise it? And who is Huckabee to say taxpayers must spend 18 years paying to raise each? ”

    False choices abound.

    Maybe you missed it, but many years ago, Nebraska instituted a ‘safe haven law’, meaning that any mother who wishes to may leave her baby (up to 30 days old) at the hospital, no questions asked. This means that the newborn baby, rather than have it’s skull crushed and brains sucked out of his/her head, may live with the chance to be adopted by loving parents who may be unable to have their own children.

    This means that the only justifiable reasons to abort a child would be due to rape or incest (which account for only a small, small minority of abortions), because the pregnancy threatens the life/health of the mother (also a small, small minority of abortions), or because the child is afflicted with a medical condition that will render him/her unable to survive outside of the womb (do I really have to say it again?).

    BTW, I’m sorry that you feel there is some sort of moral equivalency between the accidental killing of children as the unfortunate result of the collateral damage of war, and the cold-blooded killing of an unborn child as the expected result of the collateral damage of casual, careless sex. May you find some small measure of solace in the fact that the former died as a result of orders that you received from your superiors, whilst the latter died as a result of actions that you apparently engaged in willfully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.