Never say Never

Screen Shot 2016-05-24 at 11.58.57 AMThe LJS’s Don Walton has one of those Walton-esque write- ups today. He tells of a Nebraska Republican (who looks like he spends most of his time in Arizona these days) who says he is going to vote for Hillary.

He is talking about Randy Moody of Lincoln, who was once upon a time, the Lancaster County Republican Chairman.

Moody has now taken to the Arizona Republic Op-Ed pages to say that Republicans should vote against that evil Donald Trump.

And Don Walton tells about that Op-Ed, and a few other details about Moody: He worked for Sen. Roman Hruska, Rep. John McCollister, Rep. Virginia Smith and Gov. Charles Thone. He ran for Lt. Governor.

Oh, and he is also the co-founder of Republicans for Planned Parenthood.

And while Moody cites Senators Ben Sasse and Lindsey Graham not supporting Trump (last time I checked, it was because Trump isn’t conservative enough for them), it doesn’t exactly seem like he is on the same page as them for why he is supporting Hillary:

“Hillary Clinton has never wavered in her support for reproductive rights.”

Mr. Moody was/is a “Republican”.

Then again, he butted heads with Nebraska Treasurer Kay Orr in 1984, complaining that the party was too conservative.

He didn’t like the direction that Jack Kemp was taking the party.

So you’re going to hear from all types who take various positions on this election. Just don’t count on the local Democrats, like Walton, to give any context of where people stand. All that matters to him is that you see “Republican voting against Trump” in bold letters. Got the headline?

That’s all that matters for them.

 

Still the One

A third candidate would seem to give some conservatives and other Trump-haters peace of mind that they didn’t vote for Trump. It will also let them convince themselves that their candidate has a shot.

They’re wrong. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post and others hate Trump. And they also dislike Hillary.

But having a more conservative major candidate helps Hillary Clinton become President. The third party doesn’t have a shot. It is pure fantasy.

Nonethless Jennifer Rubin picks the one “candidate” who she thinks she can still convince — because his reasons are easier to pick apart: Ben Sasse. (And she gives the “10 reasons Sasse should jump in the race.”)

Mitt Romney said no, and considering he has also been through the wringer, no one would consider that he hasn’t done his duty. But she figures she can still get Sasse, even though he continues to say no (has little kids).

But the real reason Sasse won’t run is that he is smart enough to know that there no chance he could win. Further it would permanently damage him for a future run. He would be forever labeled, “the guy who put Hillary in office”.

That stink don’t wear off.

 

Finding Neverland

My position on the #NeverHillary, #NeverTrump non-voters and third-party voters should be pretty clear by now.

But I continue to read columnists on both sides of the issue, and I hope you will too.

So, here is Jonah Goldberg, in National Review, giving his thoughts on the matter. (I interviewed Jonah on The Wheels Down Politics Show podcast regarding the death penalty issue.)

Jonah is in the “I will never vote for Trump camp.” However, read the article and note his caveat.

And then there is Dennis Prager, he of the online Prager University. He mentions those conservatives in the #NeverTrump camp — and specifically Jonah Goldberg — and gives his thoughts.

You can read Prager’s position, here.

And then you can give YOUR thoughts in the comments.

 

Tomorrow Never Dies

And when you want to keep up with these and other thoughts, you should follow @LeavenworthSt on the Twitter, and Like Leavenworth St. on The Facebook.

And then, tell your friends, enemies, #NeverTrump-ers, #NeverHillary-ers, #NeverJohnson-ers AND #NeverStein-ers.

And tell your Mom, because, call your Mom.

63 comments

  1. P.J. says:

    Randy Moody was always out of step with the Republican Party of Nebraska and the National Republican Party because of his pro-life views. Anyone that portrays him as a real Republican does so just to cause divisions in a pro-life, conservative Republican Party.

    • The Grundle King says:

      Why would Sasse do a joint press conferences with this guy? It’s Trump that has the most in common with Mr. Moody when it comes to views on abortion.

      That is, of course, unless you’re actually foolish enough to believe that ONLY NOW is Trump being sincere on his views towards abortion.

  2. bynd says:

    Proudly standing on the outside for a long time I have to say, any partisan of the Dems or Repubs who believe they have a high road with their candidate is a perfect example of why the system is so putrid and dysfunctional. There are no really principled members of either party. Just some who think that by spouting off their dissatisfaction they look more holier than thou. Both sides like to believe their side is holier than the other one. The only ones they fool are themselves. But it is a great circus.

  3. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    We had to battle Randy and others all through the 90’s wanting to take pro-life planks out of the GOP platform. It was a welcome respite when he moved to DC to take a job with NEA. Now at least he’s in AZ part of the year but not far enough away for Don Walton to write about him. And Jennifer Rubin, hang it up. How many articles has she written where she mentions Sasse as a 3rd Party candidate? I’m beginning to think she and Bill Kristol are obsessed with him.

      • Oracle says:

        Why do you and your ilk have such an obsession with calling a 3 month old fetus a baby?

      • The Grundle King says:

        @ Oracle,

        Why do you and your ilk have such an obsession with drawing up arbitrary lines upon which you seek to deny that a living human organism possesses any human rights?

      • Oracle says:

        GK, actually I adhere to the Jewish tradition that it’s not a life until actually born. But unlike you, I will respect other’s views up to a point, and am willing to accept some restrictions on abortion. But if you insist that a zygote is as human as I am, then this is just your opinion, and you shouldn’t be forcing everyone to live by your opinion. I went to Catholic schools for 12 years, and was actually taught to think for myself. You can’t find anything in the bible that directly talks about abortion. And Jesus had nothing to say about it, though he had plenty to say about hypocrites.

      • Khan says:

        Oracle, you could’ve responded to GK with a simple “I don’t know.” There was no need to bring the Jews, Catholics, and Jesus into it.

      • Oracle says:

        Khan, that’s the only way I could even attempt to show GK that he doesn’t really know either,

      • The Grundle King says:

        “Khan, that’s the only way I could even attempt to show GK that he doesn’t really know either,”

        That I don’t really know what?

        All we ever hear from you folks is how we need to keep religion and politics separate…and you might be shocked to know, that I’m inclined to agree…except that your ilk takes it to another level by often asserting the people of faith shouldn’t even be allowed to vote based on their conscience and religious beliefs. You want to keep church money out of politics? Fine. You want to prevent churches from lobbying the government? Fine. But you cannot deprive people of the right to vote according to their beliefs…regardless of whether their beliefs are rooted in religion, or rooted in absolute hatred of religion.

        Now, back to the matter of abortion. You contend that you’re trying to show me that there’s something I don’t know. What is that exactly? That the various religions consider life to begin at different points of development? Based upon your history, I think it’s safe to say that you should believe that religious views on human development are completely immaterial to the discussion. And the fact that the various religions disagree with each other is evidence shows just WHY we shouldn’t rely on religion to tell us where life begins. Whether the developing fetus has a ‘soul’, or whether God/Allah/FSM already ‘knows’ that fetus in the womb, and acknowledges his/her existence…it’s also completely immaterial.

        Also immaterial is what you or I decide to call it. You insist on ‘fetus’ as a way to minimize it’s value and to sanitize the discussion. Regardless of what you want to call it, there are a few pesky facts that cannot be denied.

        – The organism that grows inside a human mother’s womb has DNA that defines it as being H. sapiens sapiens. Scientists also refer to such individuals as “humans”.
        – Each human’s DNA is unique to each individual, making each developing human a separate and distinct organism.
        – Each developing human organism is composed of living tissue. That organism metabolizes food and oxygen. The organism is, by any scientific measure, alive.

        So, regardless of how developed any human organism is, three basic facts remain. It is human. It is unique. It is alive. A unique, living human.

        Whether it has drawn a breath, or is even capable of breathing…whether it’s self-aware or even sentient…it’s all semantics. Arbitrary lines drawn to justify the destruction…the killing… of a unique, living human. Whether or not you accept my view on the matter is immaterial as well. If I told you that it was my opinion that Earth was not, in fact, the third closest planet to our solar system’s sun…would you accept my opinion because, well, you’re a tolerant liberal and that just what you folks do?

        Of course not. You’d reject my view because it’s at complete odds with scientific fact. So don’t act like you’re doing the world some huge favor by ‘accepting’ other people’s viewpoints. I never asked you to accept my views, and I don’t expect you to. I would, however, ask you to consider holding yourself to the same standard that you hold others to when it comes to matters like, say…climate change. Accept scientific fact, and act accordingly.

      • Sparkles says:

        “So, regardless of how developed any human organism is,”

        Erroneous.

        Fetal viability.
        Settled law.
        Settled science.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Viability is a moving target Sparkles…that’s the only settled science.

        And all laws are “settled” until they’re changed. I thought you knew our system of government better than that.

        Oh, and regardless of whether the fetus is “viable”, it is still alive. Or do you dispute that scientific fact?

      • Tony Oberley says:

        There are numerous examples of aborted babies surviving and going on to lead normal lives. Just google Abortion Survivors.

      • Sparkles says:

        Viability is a moving target only if your means of measurement is a geologic time scale.
        A scale in which, if all geologic time (4.543 Billion years) were compressed into 1 year, modern man – homo sapiens sapiens – arrived on the scene only in the final hour of the final day.

        So, when you guys overturn Roe, we’ll revisit the subject.
        Or – when the evolution of mankind, or a yet unimagined medical device is capable of altering fetal viability outside the womb – we’ll revisit the subject.

        Until then you’re free to believe that life begins at closing time for all I care, but neither the law nor science are on your side.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Sparkles, I have no idea what you’re referring to with your ‘geological time scale’ argument. Viability…as in the fetus’s ability to survive outside the womb…is absolutely a moving target. 40-some years ago (in the days or Roe v. Wade), the fetal age of viability was generally considered to be about 28 weeks. Of course, with advances in modern medicine, at least half of all children born at 24 weeks survive. Even some born at 22 weeks go on to live healthy, normal lives…all thanks to science.

        When one considers how far medicine has advanced in the past 40 years, coupled with our ever-increasingly rapid advances in technology, it’s not too much of a stretch to think that the fetal viability age will be significantly lower 40 years from now.

        Of course, quibbling over the viability argument ignores the most important facet in all of this…which is that the SCOTUS (IMHO) erred when they weighed the privacy rights of the mother against the ‘compelling interest of the state’. In truth, the privacy rights of the mother should have been weighed against the basic human rights of the unborn…seeing as the unborn have much more at stake than ‘the state’. In such a case, I can’t see how anyone with a conscience could prioritize a woman’s right to privacy over another human’s right to live.

        And as far as the “settled law” stuff goes, please do regale us all of your vigorous defense and support of ‘Citizens United’ and ‘Heller’. If that is to be the standard by which we decide which subjects are worthy of debate, then I expect liberals/progressives to shut up about campaign finance and gun control until those court cases are overturned.

      • Sparkles says:

        Grundle.

        Fetal viability “is absolutely a moving target. 40-some years ago”
        40 years ago you were right.
        40 years ago.

        Read the literature.
        Yes, medical medical/device advances in the last 40 years have made it possible for the survival of ever more premature infants, pushing back a 24/25 week viability to as early as 21 weeks.

        Those medical devices/advances have reached their limit.
        It is the lack of respiratory and central nervous system development that prevents postpartum survival.
        Science has no way to intervene in the antepartum development of a fetus to advance either of these processes. We can’t push faster development of cells and synapses.
        Although, in several hundred years (on a geologic time scale), human evolution is likely to make possible ever earlier (viable) birth and science is certain to breach new frontiers that are today unimagined.

      • Sparkles says:

        “I expect liberals/progressives to shut up about campaign finance and gun control until those court cases are overturned.”

        Liberals and progressives are capable of controlling the White House, the Senate, and although a long shot this cycle, even the House.
        Liberals and progressives aren’t enamored with and saddled by f***ing clowns like Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich etc..

      • Oracle says:

        GK, I don’t believe human life begins until birth. My opinion is just as valid as yours, and is backed by as much evidence as yours. So my conscience is untroubled.

      • Khan says:

        “GK, I don’t believe human life begins until birth. My opinion is just as valid as yours, and is backed by as much evidence as yours. So my conscience is untroubled.”

        Sounds like you wouldn’t have had much trouble with the Three-Fifths Compromise, either, which similarly devalued human life in an arbitrary way.

      • Oracle says:

        Sounds like you wouldn’t have had much trouble with the Three-Fifths Compromise, either, which similarly devalued human life in an arbitrary way.

        Why would you think so? It was arbitrarily applied to other humans. It’s purely an article of faith where you treat a zygote the same as a fully developed human.

      • Khan says:

        No, in order to justify the Three-Fifths Compromise there had to be a general if unspoken agreement that the slaves were subhuman. No more specious than your reasoning concerning where life begins.

        It’s no article of faith that a nascent human is chromasomally unique with its own sovereign biological functions from the moment of conception. That, beyond any scientific dispute, is life. That you don’t consider it such until it’s beyond the birth canal and can look you in the face is purely arbitrary.

        And, as far as that goes, so are the arguments concerning “viability,” which is just a big, fat smoke screen. Anyone who has ever spent even a few moments caring for an infant knows that.

      • Oracle says:

        Khan, you can believe whatever you want. Just don’t push for laws that codify your beliefs over mine. Your reasoning is just as “arbitrary” as mine.

      • The Grundle King says:

        No, Oracle…the beliefs expressed by Khan and myself are not “just as arbitrary”, because they rely upon scientific evidence. You cannot escape that…and I have a feeling that’s why this is so touchy for you. You just can’t come to grips with the fact that the science is stacked against you…so you fall back to this bogus hogwash of “well, it’s my opinion and it’s just as valid”. Yes, it’s your opinion…but it’s completely invalid.

        And Sparkles…how in the hell can you say that the medical advances have “reached their limit”? You have no idea what the limit actually is, unless you can see into the future. The people of 40 years ago could not have accurately guessed at what our technology would be like today. Likewise, there’s no way you can accurately guess at what technology will look like 40 years from now. Lest you presume yourself an ‘oracle’ of a different sort.

      • Oracle says:

        The organism that grows inside a human mother’s womb has DNA that defines it as being H. sapiens sapiens. Scientists also refer to such individuals as “humans”.
        And an acorn is the same as an oak tree.

        Yes, it’s your opinion…but it’s completely invalid.
        Who are you to decide this? And “science” doesn’t prove your point. You are just giving your interpretation of science, heavily shaded by your faith.

      • Khan says:

        “And an acorn is the same as an oak tree.”

        Evidently you missed False Analogy Fallacy day in the logic course at your Catholic school, along with Appeal To Tradition Fallacy day.

        You’re like a child with her fingers in her ears.

      • Oracle says:

        Khan, your only proof that it is a “False Analogy” is that you don’t like the derived conclusion. In other words, just because you call it a false analogy doesn’t make it so.

  4. Sharpie says:

    What if Bernie ran third party and split the Democrat vote? At that point is there a legitimate opportunity for a true conservative to shoot the gap and win as a “fourth party candidate”?

  5. yet says:

    Yet, my party right or wrong is more important than the actual person nominated I guess. Trump lied about how much money was given to the vets, yet, my party right or wrong. Hillary lied about, well, everything. But, yet, my party right or wrong.

    Maybe, someday, we should wake up as a country and realize that we ought to vote for people not the party. But alas, that won’t happen.

    • Macdaddy says:

      The 2 people nominated are shite. Vote for whomever you want and on whatever basis you want, but you’re still voting for a POS.

      • bynd says:

        RL: Those who favor abortion talk about science and when they define a baby as human. At the same time, they want children to be allowed to determine what gender they are. Yet science states the human brain is not fully developed until the early 20s even age 25. Therefore children do not have the mental acuity to determine their gender. At the same time, Justice Kagan pointed out in the decision talking about children being sentenced to life without parole, how it is many times outside forces which directs how children act and think. So how do children who don’t have the mental acuity decided they are a different gender than their sex? Bottom line, those who claim they follow science do so when it supports their agenda, otherwise they ignore it. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, but at least be consistent in your justification.

      • Oracle says:

        the human brain is not fully developed until the early 20s even age 25…

        So, that doesn’t mean sexual identity isn’t developed much earlier. I didn’t need a fully developed brain to walk at an early age. You need a logic course.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, Science deals with aspects of brain development, but it does not say that any particular decision is necessarily beyond a minor’s capacity. If you are suggesting that competence should be taken into account when dealing with gender reassignment, no one disagrees. What you do not do is point to any evidence that is not being done in an appropriate manner. I presume surgery is not finally done until a mature enough age, if you have evidence to the contrary point to it. Your argument assumes that doubts about full insight into consequences limits the use of the death penalty, therefore consistency requires all other decisions of minors that have life ending consequences ought to be limited perhaps your consistency argument might make sense. Since minors can not consent to surgery the problem is solved. I see no other analogy.

  6. The Grundle King says:

    Can’t wait for the Trumpkins to show up and skewer Moody, after they have already said that they “don’t care” about the issue of abortion.

    • anon says:

      There have been a number of questionable political candidate changes on the issue, so if you are against Trump, very well,. Try the Nazi scenerio

  7. Ricky says:

    I hope Sassy does run for President then he will get some tough questions thrown at him, not like the softballs Walton and Morton ask.
    We want to know if Sassy had a hand in writing the “torture memos” and why Sassy was not paying attention to the US House Page scandal when Mr Foley was having affairs with male pages and Sassy was supposed to be a supervisor of the page program in DC.
    Then if he ran for President, people can put him under the microscope and inquire about the weird parenting habits of Mr and Mrs Sasse.
    Run Ben Run!
    RIcky from Omaha

  8. The Eye Ball says:

    Streetsweeper,

    Dead wrong. Several internal polls show Libertarian Parry will take more away from Hillary than Trump which for some Trump haters, this is information to vote straight for Hillary. Eeeks!

  9. bynd says:

    Oracle @ 4:14. God says he new you before you were born. Hair color, eye color and all the rest. So if you knew that about your child in the womb, would you kill it regardless of age? God even knows when a sparrow dies. Say what ever makes you sleep at night, but don’t put words in Gods mouth when his children are being slaughtered. Especially when 90% are for the convenience of the woman.

      • Khan says:

        Anyone who has taken a “logic course” should know that Appeal To Tradition is fallacious. You’re the one who brought up appeals to Jewish and Catholic tradition and then shifted the goal posts (another fallacy) when Bynd alluded to actual scripture.

      • Oracle says:

        My argument was based on the beliefs of the person I was arguing with 🙂 Strictly for bynd.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Bynd, the scripture passage isa poetic expression of God’s concern for creation, not a legal text I do not think it is relevant to abortion. Why policy should be based on how you think scripture should be read escapes me.

  10. yet says:

    Trump’s recent attacks on Hillary regarding Bill’s affairs contradict what he had said about the issue not many years ago but, yet again, my party right or wrong.

  11. Lil Mac says:

    “We should wake up as a country and realize that we ought to vote for people not the party. But alas, that won’t happen.”

    That is exactly what is happening today with Trump and Sanders. Sanders has never been a member of the Democratic Party. He’s supporting the opponent of the DNC chair. And Trump was hit by every GOP party boss and yet GOP voters voted for Trump over 16 alternatives.

    In almost every election, candidates start out with zero % support. As some drop out and voters watch the interplay, voters choose and shift. Trump started out behind Bush in 4 polls and then voters shot Trump ahead. But nobody was originally for Trump. He’s new to politics. So too Sanders was unknown to most. For partisans, sticking in the party often matters but that too varies from voter to voter, as do their views of issues. Same with Sanders.

    It is silly to think candidates don’t sell their own case and rise or fall by it. Or that parties hypnotize voters. It is the delegate manipulation by party bosses that voters are rebelling against today by voting not violence. — Of course, it was Democrats not Republicans who rioted in 1968 against the Democratic convention. Just as Democrats not Republicans are rioting today against Trump and may also riot if Sanders falls to Hillary. These Socialist Liberals are our own homegrown violent zealots, instead of Islamic, they are Socialistic. And of course, they blame others for having brash words that drive these violent Democrats to violence. — But apart from that difference, party bosses on both sides are squirming today because voters are voting against parties. Everybody, partisan or not, is acutely aware they will have to live under whomever wins.

    • The Grundle King says:

      Many words to say very little.

      Nobody would contend that, prior to Trump effectively securing the nomination, Trump voters were putting party above person. Of course they voted for the person (Trump) over the party. The same could probably be said for those who supported Cruz, as he was widely disliked by Republican party honchos.

      The only problem is that, now that Trump is the presumptive nominee, all the Trumpkins have changed their minds (as their dear leader is known to do) and now thinks that folks SHOULD fall in line and vote for the party. What changed? Just because ‘their’ guy is now ‘the’ guy? If voting person over party was good before, it’s good now. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

  12. bynd says:

    Sparkles:

    “Science is settled”. Spoken by one who has no idea what they just said. Rarely is science settled. Ask a scientist.

    Oracle: You seem to be confusing sexual identity with gender identity. One is physical, sexual; the other mental, transgender. So your argument makes no sense. Maybe you should understand the topic before commenting on some one elses logic.

      • Tony Oberley says:

        Being gay or transgender are chosen lifestyles. Have nothing with genes, babies, or anything else like that.

      • Oracle says:

        And how do you know this? Do you know anyone gay or transgender? Really getting tired of homophobic beliefs passing as knowledge. You, sir, are an idiot.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Bynd, not sure the distinction you are making makes sense. It presupposes an Aristotelian essentialism as the model of biology, not sure it appropriate, and in any event we rarely do genetic testing for sex.

  13. Dale Gribble says:

    interesting, Don “DiMaggio” Walton mentions how Moody voted for Goldwater, you know the 1964 GOP candidate who had he won would have fought for LGBQT marriage, transgender rights, unisex bathrooms, abortion on demand while turning Vietnam into glass parking lot and keeping segregated water fountains back here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.