Steve King and Roy Moore Don’t Belong in the GOP

[TomSea]

Steve King and Roy Moore Don’t Belong in the GOP | National Review
By Jonathan S. Tobin
August 6, 2019 12:22 PM

And it’s Trump’s job to stop the pair from sabotaging Republican hopes in 2020.

The president is always the leader of his party — even when he rose to power in the face of fervent opposition from the party’s leadership and congressional caucuses. But with that power comes responsibility, which means it’s time for President Donald Trump to start throwing his weight around in the manner of traditional party leaders. He must pull every lever available to him to ensure that two problems in particular aren’t on the ballot in November 2020.

The problems are named Steve King and Roy Moore, and it’s vital for both Trump and his party that they do not win Republican primaries next year. If they do, the GOP will risk losing an Iowa House seat and an Alabama Senate seat that the Democrats shouldn’t have any chance of winning — but more important, these men will serve as an unnecessary and dangerous distraction to a president and a party that will be fighting for their lives in 2020.

Read more at: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/steve-king-and-roy-moore-dont-belong-in-the-gop/

This looked interesting, I'm not saying I agree necessarily. Candidates do need to make a good impression.

[corbe]

   I'd add about 240 Republicans, in both Houses, to that list.

[truth_seeker]

Shouldn't voters in their districts select who they prefer?

[corbe]

   As opposed to Boehner, Ryan, the twin Mc's (McCarthy & McConnell) and Trump?  Absolutely!

[skeeter]

Sounds like a purity test to me.

[Cyber Liberty]

Sounds like a purity test to me.

Yes it does, and that makes the article TL/DR.  Even if it's short.

[EasyAce]

Shouldn't voters in their districts select who they prefer?

Ordinarily you might think, yes.

But we bear in mind:

Representatives may represent isolated districts, but Senators represent entire states. And both (pork barreling and other localised concerns to one side) do business not just on behalf of isolated districts or states, they do business that affects all districts in all states, the entire country.

They will write, or vote for, or vote against, or even abstain from voting on, legislation that affects the entire country.

They may even---devoutly enough to be wished, considering the volume of existing law that makes government a public nuisance, though terribly unlikely to happen, unfortunately---write or vote for legislation aimed at repealing such laws as do make government a public nuisance.

And it's not exactly a new-ish phenomenon to see those who don't live in such states taking active concern over who might become candidates in and from those states. For all manner of reasons. If we've objected rightly enough to the lack of mind that sent the likes of AOC to Crapola Hill from one state for assorted and sundry reasons (and many objected to the prospect of her being elected there, regardless of her home state), there's nothing wrong with pondering and when necessary objecting, for various reasons, to the prospect of others being sent there from elsewhere.

[Bigun]

Ordinarily you might think, yes.

But we bear in mind:

Representatives may represent isolated districts, but Senators represent entire states. And both (pork barreling and other localised concerns to one side) do business not just on behalf of isolated districts or states, they do business that affects all districts in all states, the entire country.

They will write, or vote for, or vote against, or even abstain from voting on, legislation that affects the entire country.

They may even---devoutly enough to be wished, considering the volume of existing law that makes government a public nuisance, though terribly unlikely to happen, unfortunately---write or vote for legislation aimed at repealing such laws as do make government a public nuisance.

And it's not exactly a new-ish phenomenon to see those who don't live in such states taking active concern over who might become candidates in and from those states. For all manner of reasons. If we've objected rightly enough to the lack of mind that sent the likes of AOC to Crapola Hill from one state for assorted and sundry reasons (and many objected to the prospect of her being elected there, regardless of her home state), there's nothing wrong with pondering and when necessary objecting, for various reasons, to the prospect of others being sent there from elsewhere.

Since the advent of the 17th amendment, Senators are elected by the voters of their respective states and until the 17th is repealed, I'm quite sure that will remain the case.  All the extraneous falderal notwithstanding.

[Sighlass]

Wow, I don't think any liberal publication could word this any more injurious if they tried.

Lets look...

The same is true in Alabama, where Judge Roy Moore is threatening to play the same destructive role he did in 2017, when his scandal-ridden candidacy was enough to turn a certain defeat for Democrats into an unexpected victory.

Like King, Moore has always been an outlier among Republicans. Years ago, when he was on the bench, he famously flouted rulings regarding church–state separation issues, earning him a populist following in the state. And after the state’s governor appointed colorless placeholder Luther Strange to fill the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions (who left to become U.S. attorney general), Moore handily defeated Strange — 55–45 percent — in a primary-runoff election.

At that point, two things happened. Trump endorsed Moore in the general election, and evidence emerged about Moore having engaged in predatory behavior with underage girls.

First off article says "evidence emerged".... What evidence? The evidence I say was nothing more than the WAPO going down to help some women make up stories with the assistance of some fellow that lost a big divorce case against his wife which Moore was the judge... A fellow that hated republicans and had a gay brother that worked at WAPO that was married by a sitting liberal on the SCOTUS (while the issue of it's legality was before her)....

There was no evidence... what there was was a determined liberal conspiracy to make sure Roy was never elected.... With California democrats funneling money to set up fake Russian bots, fake Facebook pages, fake lying YouTube ads, and run "Project Birmingham".... All the while having the liberal section (RINOs drunk with power) of Congress work to fund everyone but Roy Moore (outspent 10 to 1). Trump after campaigning against Roy finally made a half butt attempt to pretend to support him but wouldn't bother to enter the state in doing so. 

The article chooses to use the words "Scandal Ridden" to describe his term... but I didn't see a scandal at all, I saw a man use the law to preserve the Alabama constitution as the people voted it (at nearly a 90% ratio to define marriage as one man and one woman). IOWs, a man that did his job, which was to do all in his power to preserve our constitution from a ever leftist changing liberal takeover by using left-leaning judges to usurp the job the other two branches of government were suppose to control.

Even the NY Times admitted Roy was right in his rulings... (and thus admit Roy was a crafty fox where the law was involved)...

I liked the Washington Examiner's take on it better ... so will link both article where Roy was proven right in his judgement.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-the-1960s-havent-returned-to-alabama

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/magazine/in-sort-of-defense-of-roy-moore.html



_________________________

I, as an Alabama voter, ask please present any real credible evidence against Roy Moore... just because he does not belong to the GOPe country club does not count...

I bet this same author defended Kavanaugh... Yep... he sure did...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/anti-defamation-league-anti-trump-anti-semitism/

and this...

Has the Kavanaugh Battle Vindicated Trump Voters?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-battle-vindicated-donald-trump-voters/

The total war on Kavanaugh is why so many Trump voters wanted someone who would fight... I guess some folks don't care to fight the good fight anymore... at least without their glorious leader (feather in the wind) at the helm. All I know is Roy was a fighter, and still fights the good fight unlike any other candidate I have seen. Perhaps that scares some folks... and not just in Washington, but on small political boards as well.

I hope both get elected, I will not hold my breath in doing so, but I also will not call evil good and good evil.
 

[Bigun]

Wow, I don't think any liberal publication could word this any more injurious if they tried.

Lets look...
 

First off article says "evidence emerged".... What evidence? The evidence I say was nothing more than the WAPO going down to help some women make up stories with the assistance of some fellow that lost a big divorce case against his wife which Moore was the judge... A fellow that hated republicans and had a gay brother that worked at WAPO that was married by a sitting liberal on the SCOTUS (while the issue of it's legality was before her)....

There was no evidence... what there was was a determined liberal conspiracy to make sure Roy was never elected.... With California democrats funneling money to set up fake Russian bots, fake Facebook pages, fake lying YouTube ads, and run "Project Birmingham".... All the while having the liberal section (RINOs drunk with power) of Congress work to fund everyone but Roy Moore (outspent 10 to 1). Trump after campaigning against Roy finally made a half butt attempt to pretend to support him but wouldn't bother to enter the state in doing so. 

The article chooses to use the words "Scandal Ridden" to describe his term... but I didn't see a scandal at all, I saw a man use the law to preserve the Alabama constitution as the people voted it (at nearly a 90% ratio to define marriage as one man and one woman). IOWs, a man that did his job, which was to do all in his power to preserve our constitution from a ever leftist changing liberal takeover by using left-leaning judges to usurp the job the other two branches of government were suppose to control.

Even the NY Times admitted Roy was right in his rulings... (and thus admit Roy was a crafty fox where the law was involved)...

I liked the Washington Examiner's take on it better ... so will link both article where Roy was proven right in his judgement.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-the-1960s-havent-returned-to-alabama

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/magazine/in-sort-of-defense-of-roy-moore.html



_________________________

I, as an Alabama voter, ask please present any real credible evidence against Roy Moore... just because he does not belong to the GOPe country club does not count...

I bet this same author defended Kavanaugh... Yep... he sure did...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/anti-defamation-league-anti-trump-anti-semitism/

and this...

Has the Kavanaugh Battle Vindicated Trump Voters?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-battle-vindicated-donald-trump-voters/

The total war on Kavanaugh is why so many Trump voters wanted someone who would fight... I guess some folks don't care to fight the good fight anymore... at least without their glorious leader (feather in the wind) at the helm. All I know is Roy was a fighter, and still fights the good fight unlike any other candidate I have seen. Perhaps that scares some folks... and not just in Washington, but on small political boards as well.

I hope both get elected, I will not hold my breath in doing so, but I also will not call evil good and good evil.

   And I join you in hoping for the election of both.

[EasyAce]

Since the advent of the 17th amendment, Senators are elected by the voters of their respective states and until the 17th is repealed, I'm quite sure that will remain the case.  All the extraneous falderal notwithstanding.

Thank you Captain Obvious! 

But Senators still represent whole states, not isolated individual districts within those states, whether the voters put them there or whether, pre-Seventeenth, state legislatures did.