GOP lawmaker: No cash for campaign arm because it backs gays

[Chomsky]

As if Mr. Trumps recent Mexican immigration comments aren't causing enough concern for the Republican Party leadership, I just came across this little tid-bit:

+++

"Garrett first responded that his procedural vote against leadership was a matter of conscience. Then he stunned the room with this explanation: He had not supported the NRCC in the past, he said, because it actively recruited gay candidates and supported homosexuals in primaries."

Source: Politico - 'GOP lawmaker: No cash for campaign arm because it backs gays'

+++

So, is this Congressman unique or a minority, within the GOP?

Some within, say he is:

"Some lawmakers grew noticeably angry, pointing out that the NRCC does not get involved in primaries, nor does it care about the sexual orientation of candidates."

And indeed he may be.

But the problem with individuals like this, is: even when viewed as isolated or infrequent incidents (whether optimistically, or not), they feed a narrative. And in an election year, your political opponents are already very skilled & motivated at creating narratives of you without needing any additional 'inside help'! So why reinforce negative images? In 2012, we saw how a painted narrative causes hyper-attention to the smallest of details and presumed nexus to the narrative - Governor Romney couldn't even comment upon the trees in Michigan "looking the right height", without being seen as 'out-of-touch'.

I'm beginning to believe the multitude of Republican Presidential candidates is a cruel double-edged sword for the GOP. Yes, many candidates ardently competing, exhibiting many ideas, generates excitement and draws interest; but it also exposes them to so many more opportunities for political faux pas.

In this way, the limited Democratic field may work to their advantage, although I don't underestimate Secy Clinton's ability to shoot-herself-in-the-foot, all on her own-some! She strikes me as a lousy candidate to be honest, but at least she doesn't have to worry about 15 other yahoos possibly dragging her down with her party.

[Now how nasty it gets between her & Sen Sanders, remains to be seen - somehow I can't quite see Bernie slinging really nasty dirt, but I'm sure he'll score plenty of logical & sensible points]

 

[joG]

As if Mr. Trumps recent Mexican immigration comments aren't causing enough concern for the Republican Party leadership, I just came across this little tid-bit:

+++

"Garrett first responded that his procedural vote against leadership was a matter of conscience. Then he stunned the room with this explanation: He had not supported the NRCC in the past, he said, because it actively recruited gay candidates and supported homosexuals in primaries."

Source: Politico - 'GOP lawmaker: No cash for campaign arm because it backs gays'

+++

So, is this Congressman unique or a minority, within the GOP?

Some within, say he is:

"Some lawmakers grew noticeably angry, pointing out that the NRCC does not get involved in primaries, nor does it care about the sexual orientation of candidates."

And indeed he may be.

But the problem with individuals like this, is: even when viewed as isolated or infrequent incidents (whether optimistically, or not), they feed a narrative. And in an election year, your political opponents are already very skilled & motivated at creating narratives of you without needing any additional 'inside help'! So why reinforce negative images? In 2012, we saw how a painted narrative causes hyper-attention to the smallest of details and presumed nexus to the narrative - Governor Romney couldn't even comment upon the trees in Michigan "looking the right height", without being seen as 'out-of-touch'.

I'm beginning to believe the multitude of Republican Presidential candidates is a cruel double-edged sword for the GOP. Yes, many candidates ardently competing, exhibiting many ideas, generates excitement and draws interest; but it also exposes them to so many more opportunities for political faux pas.

In this way, the limited Democratic field may work to their advantage, although I don't underestimate Secy Clinton's ability to shoot-herself-in-the-foot, all on her own-some! She strikes me as a lousy candidate to be honest, but at least she doesn't have to worry about 15 other yahoos possibly dragging her down with her party.

[Now how nasty it gets between her & Sen Sanders, remains to be seen - somehow I can't quite see Bernie slinging really nasty dirt, but I'm sure he'll score plenty of logical & sensible points]

I still cannot believe they would run Clinton with all her baggage. And BS is also hardly what the country needs in a time of growing fiscal limits.

But say, can you see anyone you want to be President?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

vile.

 

[Chomsky]

I still cannot believe they would run Clinton with all her baggage. And BS is also hardly what the country needs in a time of growing fiscal limits.

But say, can you see anyone you want to be President?

Actually, no (as of yet).

I like a lot of what Senator Paul has to say, but I can't buy into the full-on Libertarian platform, even though I have a fair amount of leanings there.

Crazy or not, Sen Sanders is also saying a lot of things I like, and I think the fears of his being a self-described 'socialist' are a bit over-rated. But I'd need to see a lot more of him.

I do have great respect for Sen Webb - but he's currently too unacknowledged, get in.

I'm not crazy about either party, but can tolerate the Dems slightly easier (we differ greatly on some entitlements), but only barely - both parties seem to have slipped-off into corners foreign to me.

I need to see how the main presidential actors develop.