Steve Scalise, David Duke, and Electability Over Principle | RedState

Kudos to RedState's very own Erik Erickson for this straightforward piece on today's "scandal" over newly elected GOP congressman Steve Scalise (LA 1st District) and a speech he did 12 years ago to a white-supremacist group while he was still a state legislator.

Erickson moves beyond the argument over whether Scalise's single act of speaking to such a group is evidence of racism and hit the GOP leadership where it really hurts:

Putting electability over principles.

Steve Scalise, David Duke, and Electability Over Principle | RedState

BREAKING (Not Really): GotNews' Chuck Johnson Resorts to GradeSchool Insults! - UPDATE!!

In a somewhat comical change of pace here at IndieRadicals, I've decided to have a bit of fun at Charles "Chuck" Johnson (renowned and reviled conservative author/journalist)..

For those of don't know or follow Mr. Johnson on Twitter, his the creator/editor of GotNews and has a rather colorful reputation on Twitter.

To put it simply, he is arguably one of the most divisive folks in American politics on Twitter today. For every supporter, he seems to have a dozen or so haters (and I mean haters!). 

Why?

Well, his method of journalism is definitely not what most would call conventional and he often specializes in digging up "dirt" on those he deems necessary/deserving. This ranges from liberal politicians to those at the center of some news story (including the man who killed two members of the NYPD just 8 days ago). 

His main goal is to expose, embarrass, and ultimately dismantle the so-called "mainstream media".

Which brings us to tonight's not-so breaking news.

While exchanging insults with Jordan Hoffman (freelance reporter for NY Daily, The Guardian, and Times of Israel), Chuck's usual "wit" seems to have been exhausted and he began to resort to tactics more akin to grade-schoolers..see below:

Then again, is arguable that Mr. Hoffman resorted to childish tactics first...

Still, for someone who mocks the MSM and makes it his business to destroy everything they stand for, one would expect him to take the "high ground" when arguing with a member of the MSM..

But hey, who actually lives to their own movement's expectations?

Now back to our regularly scheduled political programming...

UPDATE:

Must be doing something right, because shortly after I published this post, Mr. Johnson "un-followed" me on Twitter!

I was so sad, I almost quit Twitter right then and there..then I remembered that I couldn't possibly care less if folks can't take the truth and a bit of satire ;)

Carry on folks!

What's Wrong with Congress Today: Congressman Pleads Guilty to Tax Faud, Refuses to Resign House Seat

First, I want to say kudos to RealClearPolitics' Caitlin Huey-Burns for the informative article that inspired this post...

We are often berated with polls showing just how unpopular Congress is to the vast majority of Americans, but then again, few President's have much luck getting a majority of Americans to give them a proverbial 'thumbs up' for how their doing at their jobs either. So why the fuss?

The sheer scale of the public's disapproval of Congress is what should really catches folks' attention.

In a report released by the good number-crunchers at Gallup last week, 2014 was found to be the second to worst year for congressional approval since 1974. Just for those keeping score back home, only 2013 was a worse year for Congress. On average, Congress' approval rating for 2014 was just 15% (based on roughly a dozen polls taken since January 2014).

Now, before we get into WHY these numbers are so low, let's address one possible complaint out there about such polls. A lot of folks reading this are probably thinking, "so what, Congress has always been horribly unpopular".

Not true as it turns (something that surprised even me!)..

Also per the good folks at Gallup, while Congress has only rarely has the approval of a majority of Americans (occurring during the years immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks), they regularly had yearly average approval in the 35-50% range during the mid to latter-half of the 1990s.

There were also a few years where their ratings were as terrible as the last few years (1979 and 1992 specifically), they have never before been so consistently low year after year as they have been recently.

But here's what the scary truth is: Many in Congress couldn't care less.

How do I know that? Because of stories like that inspired this post today on RealClearPolitics.

Rep. Grimm of New York (R) has recently pleaded GUILTY to a felony tax fraud charge and also issued a "statement of facts" that acknowledges guilt in several other related charges (ranging from lying under oath to hiring undocumented immigrants), carrying a possible prison sentence of up to 36 months.

BUT he doesn't feel at this time that he could resign he newly re-elected House seat anytime soon.

That's right folks, this guy was just re-elected (rather comfortably I might add) to another 2-year term in Congress. What's worse is that these charges were known during much of the campaign and were (not surprisingly) used by his Democratic opponent in attack ads, but were not enough to scare off his constituents from voting..

Even with all these potentially damning legal charges against him during an election year, this former FBI agent won re-election by a 13 point margin.

So, wins re-election with 20 criminal charges filed against him, pleads guilty to one felony charge and de facto admits to the other 19 charges just 6 weeks after the election (convenient as hell), but thinks he is perfectly able and obligated to continue serving in Congress for the next 2 years.

THAT...is your tax dollars at work folks.

Dirtbags like Rep. Grimm are I fear, not the exception BUT the rule. Just as we saw in Texas' now infamous District Attorney-DUI showdown, regardless of party affiliation, many politicians in America today seem to be think they are ENTITLED to that cushy seat the voters have put them (whether directly or indirectly), illegal activities be damned.

What's potentially even worse is that such a large majority of congressional district voters seemed perfectly OK with looking past their charges during his campaign. Was it a "better the devil you know" situation or just blame complacency on the voters in his district?

Either way, just goes to show that some politicians will try to get away with just about anything to win your vote and sadly, far too many of us are just along with it, which makes US part of what's wrong with Congress today..

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

Can Jeb Bush win Iowa? - POLITICO

With talk of the next presidential election cycle starting to heat up, focus will begin to increase the how many the potential contenders could perform in the early background states...

..and for better or worse, my home state of Iowa is one of those battleground states and as such, it is finding its way in the political news ALREADY..don't they know most Iowans barely surprised the 2014 election cycle without throwing their remotes at their televisions?

Regardless, POLITICO's James Hohmann has made the argument is his piece published today that former Florida governor Jeb Bush should NOT be underestimated in early states like Iowa. On the flip side, neither should anyone assume his name recognition will win him votes by that alone..

My take:

Bush, likely to get beat over the head with the, "any immigration reform without mass deportation is AMNESTY!" frenzy from pathetic partisans on the Right, will definitely have his work cut out for him among Iowa GOPers, who have a strong activist wing.

On the other hand, in a general election, I feel very strongly that Jeb Bush could win my home state as he could not only win most of the GOP vote but also has a good chance of winning a solid share of the state's moderates.

Gov. Branstad seeks to end Iowa GOP straw poll - New York News

Branstad seeks to end Iowa GOP straw poll - New York News


In this interesting piece of political news from home, Republican Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa is pushing to end something of a GOP tradition in Iowa presidential politics: the Ames Straw Poll.

This poll, which is often a rallying point for hot-blooded supporters of the GOP's more "colorful" candidates, has been a tradition for over three decades..but it also has many critics.

For one, at least since I have been following politics, the Ames Straw Poll is, to be blunt, absolute rubbish..especially at predicting who will win Iowa's presidential caucus.

Over those same three decades, the Ames Straw Poll has only occasionally predicted the correct caucus results in the state and in the last two presidential cycles has been popularized by the supports of more extreme or 'off-the-wall' GOP contenders, such as Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul.

So as a good gauge for seeing who the real contenders are for the GOP, the Ames Straw Poll doesn't seem to be of much help, which does make one wonder what the point of it really is.

If the poll doesn't seem to help get our name out in Iowa and win you the caucus, then why bother?

Kudos to the Associated Press' Catherine Lucey for this story (re-posted in the New York News).

Who Voted How on 'Cromnibus' Bill? Have a Look for Yourself!

Given how much the "Cromnibus" spending bill was talked about over the last few days and the last-minute Senate vote last night approving the bill, an observer may be wondering.."how did my Senator vote?"

Well, wonder no more!

Thanks to the good folks at govtrack.us, you can see the state-by-state breakdown for how each of the 96 senators on the floor last night actually voted.

Sites like GovTrack are an invaluable source for those who want to not only remain informed about how folks in Congress are actually voting, but also providing a handy fact-checking tool for  the next election cycle who the usual game of finger-point on who voted for what begins..

For my part, I found it quite interesting that both current U.S. Senators from my home state of Iowa (Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Todd Harkin) voted "nay" on the bill, though I suspect for VERY different reasons..

Remember folks, an informed electorate is a dangerous electorate, if you're a member of Congress that is..

Senator Elizabeth Warren's Stand Against 'Cromnibus' Bill, First Real Spark for 2016?

The debate leading up to the U.S. Senate's vote last night on the so-called "Cromnibus" bill to fund the federal government through next year was arguably the biggest political story this weekend (and a minor distraction from the Senate Torture Report).

One of the reasons for the attention placed on this vote was not just the prospect of another government shutdown, but the fact that opposition against the bill came from the political "edges" of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

On the Republican side, Senators Cruz and Lee acted as their usual "rogue" selves and challenged that bill largely on the grounds that it wouldn't stop President Obama from carrying out his executive action on illegal immigration (though the bill does stop funding for the Department of Homeland Security 7 months earlier than the rest of the federal government). No big surprise there..

But the fact there was vocal Democratic resistance to the bill is what was truly surprising.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a much talked about prospective Democratic contender for the 2016 Presidential nomination, emerged as the leader of the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party in the Senate and challenged the bill for COMPLETELY different reasons than Senators Cruz and Lee. They decried the bill because of what they see as a 'roll-back' of financial regulatory reform put into place after the 2008 crash.

True to their words, the leaders of opposition from both parties against this bill voted accordingly but nevertheless, the bill passed a close 56-40 vote last night.

Now that the bill has passed, many in the political media have moved to Senator Warren and how her  stand against this bill could be her first real spark into her (potentially) eventual presidential campaign.

Until now, Warren's name has been thrown around as possible "anybody but Hillary" candidate so as to, at the very least, not present the image of Hillary Clinton being the inevitable candidate in 2016, without any kind of action by Warren to show she was truly interested in being a contender..until now.

So perhaps we WILL get to see some fireworks on the Democratic side this next presidential election cycle after all..

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

"Highlights" from the CIA Torture Report..

Changing gears a bit from the usual political back and forth and how "protesters" across America are effectively ignoring AND destroying the legacy left by great men like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr...

Today's top story is unarguably the "torture report" released by the U.S. Senate concerning the tactics used by the CIA in the years after the 9/11 terror attacks.

The report is a bit lengthy and thankfully, several good folks online have already skimmed through it and pulled out some rather disgusting and disturbing "highlights" for us to try and wrap our heads around (via Dylan Matthews of Vox).

My feelings concerning "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a bit complicated but I'll leave with this simple "truth": EIT is, by the reasoning of any SANE human being, torque. Period.

The debate over whether EIT is torture or not is, and has always been, a false narrative meant to distract folks from the reality: We tortured suspected terrorists to get information that we felt would be vital to the national security of this nation.

Thus, the REAL debate should be this: Should our national security be driven by the idea of "the ends justify the means" or should it be driven by the concept of doing everything within our power to protect this country WITHOUT stooping to the moral level of our enemies?

That, is the question we as Americans have to answer...

DISCLAIMER:

All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer. 

The Unnecessary Death of Eric Garner- National Review

In a time of high emotion across the country over several recent cases of African-Americans dying in altercations with law enforcement, it's nice to read a rational opinion piece from, of all places, a well-known conservative media source, the National Review.

Specifically, NR's editors recent piece titled, The Unnecessary Death of Eric Garner.