BluegrassBulletin.com

Russia Matters

Vladmir Putin may be losing his grip on reality says German Chancellor Merkel.  Hillary Clinton compares Putin to Nazi Germany.  Putin timed his threats over the Ukraine to coincide with a pre-announced launch of an inter-continental ballistic missile.  He sent a warship to Cuba, is patrolling very close to our maritime borders, supports Iran and is making deals with Communist China.  Russia matters.

Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld both said the same thing within the past week.  Our president has conducted himself in a way that has given the rest of the world the clear impression that we are weak economically, weak morally, weak militarily and have a weakened political system that is weak on threats to democracy.  In other words, Obama has made America more vulnerable in direct contravention of his first and foremost job, protecting the security of our nation and defending our Constitution.

Now, having diagnosed the very serious condition in which we find ourselves, what do we do to heal these problems and how much time do we have to get back on our feet?  The answer is: we have precious little time and we need radical change.

Impeachment takes too long and it would get hung up in the Senate.  Obama's term in office isn't up until January 2017.  So how do we rid ourselves of this sickness?

We must take back the majority in the Senate, increase our seats in the house and move swiftly to remove him from office or at the very least deny him any power over our future.

If you really think that the world is just awash with enthusiasm over Obama then let's assume you are right.  Why would they be?  Is the rest of the world thrilled that we have enjoyed so much prosperity?  Do they celebrate our successes?  No.

The rest of the world is like a pack of wolves at our doorstep, living off the scraps we throw into the yard but waiting patiently for the one opportunity to exploit our weakness to come inside, take all the food and eat us in the process if possible.

Why does Russia matter?  Because they have just demonstrated for the rest of us how totally inept and dangerous the Obama administration really is.

Texas Tea Not What It Once Was

POLITICO says the days of the robust, ascending Texas TEA party may be over.

[A]s voters go to the polls Tuesday for the state’s primary election, it’s clear the tea party’s heyday in the Lone Star State — at least for the moment — has passed. A push to unseat two of the GOP establishment’s most prominent figures, Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions, has all but collapsed. And nearly all of the 23 House GOP incumbents seeking reelection are expected to glide to primary wins, many against underfunded, obscure tea party opponents.

It would make sense for 2014 to be a good year for the tea party crowd. After all, public resentment toward President Barack Obama is running high in many parts of the country, and midterm years tend to be dominated by an older and whiter set of voters — in other words, the kind of people who might describe themselves as tea party voters.

Yet for Texas conservatives, the heady days of 2010, when Perry suggested at a tea party rally that the state may eventually want to secede from the union, or 2012, when Cruz shocked an establishment candidate on his way to political stardom, seem like a distant memory. The Texas tea party’s struggles in a Republican year is a disappointment and, some say, reflects a deeper concern: that the once all-powerful movement isn’t as organized or effective as it once was.

“I don’t think the tea party has coalesced in 2014 the way they did for Ted Cruz in 2012,” said Toby Marie Walker, president of the Waco Tea Party. “But Ted was an anomaly — he was the perfect candidate in the perfect storm.”

Showmanship versus Statesmanship In Senate Again

When the debt ceiling votes were whipped (counted ahead of being cast) it became very clear that Harry Reid's democrats had more than enough to send the funding bill to the President for his signature.  But that didn't stop Ted Cruz from trying to hog the spotlight again by threatening a filibuster.  McConnell put a stop to those shenanigans.

The foolishness of being nothing more than an ineffective show off has worn thin with many in government.  Senator Ted Cruz wanted to filibuster the funding bill knowing all the time that in the end it would pass.  He knew this might force another government shutdown and in the process do great harm to the chances of republicans in the upcoming election cycles.  But he didn't care.

In the end enough republicans said "enough is enough" and shut him up.  The bill was destined to pass, and did, by a vote of 55-43, strictly along party lines.  Not a single republican voted for the bill.

Considering that the GOP is trying to get the majority in the Senate where they can then leverage their opposition into a defeat of such measures in the future, and that Ted Cruz and others are so blind to the need to control the majority in order to get their agenda advanced, it is clear that once again it was statesmanship that came to the rescue.

And for you tantrum throwers out there who insist that there must always be someone like Ted Cruz willing to take a stand, even if it means going against your own party, I hope you learn a lesson here.

The majority controls.  Right now the democrats have the majority.  No republican senators voted for the debt ceiling bill.  If we act as a united front we increase our chances of becoming the majority, where our nay vote will carry the day.  It's called being united in opposition as opposed to just showboating.

Thank you Mitch McConnell for making a very tough decision which was not politically popular.  That's the mark of a statesman.

The Problem Isn't Republicans, It's The Hated View Of Republicans

EDITORIAL RANT

I was once asked by a news paper editor if I was a Republican, or a TEA partier.  I told him that I prefer to avoid labels because they are over-broad.  I am who I am, think what I want and try to have good reason for what I think always willing to be persuaded, if possible, where I am wrong.

As Emerson once said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would emphasize the word "foolish" in that quote as I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in being consistently wise.

I know many people who are registered to vote under different banners who think very much alike on many issues.  The Republicans certainly have no special claim to the "right to life" issue, the "right to bear arms" issue, the right to be free from intrusive government regulations issue or many other issues that are of real concern to people regardless of their party registration.

But listen to the haters and you would think that all Republicans are evil.  Such thinking is over broad, over inclusive and born of a little mind.

Dea Riley, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor with the late Gatewood Galbraith recently posted this to her Facebook page:

Come on Dea.  Do you really think that all persons in the Republican Party openly embrace exclusion, elitism and social categorization?  That we are all radical fascists seeking to impose a specific ideology/theology on everyone, embracing intrusion into individual rights?  That certainly doesn't define me, and neither does it define or describe many of the republicans I know. That is an insult.

But you are in good company.  MSNBC which has turned out to be the great hater of all things republican made up out of thin air a claim that "conservatives" hate bi-racial families. 

My God!  First of all there was no "conservative" backlash last year which the facts prove and which caused MSNBC to amend it's tweet to remove the word "conservative".  But that doesn't cure the problem.

The far left, the liberals in the democratic party and yes, even some of the TEA party liberals who are hiding out under the banner of "constitutional conservatives" hate republicans so much that they refuse to see that we are all individuals, with individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

As a republican I still believe in individual freedom, and that is because like our founders I believe that my life is a gift from God and that I am endowed by Him with inalienable rights.

As a republican I still believe that when a government fears the people there is hope for liberty, but when the people fear the government we have tyranny.

As a republican lawyer I defend the constitution every day, which on some days means that I defend the rights of people to do things, and say things with which I might personally disagree, but they have the right to do and say them.

And as a republican I have no compelling desire to see that we control people through a particular theology.  I am a Christian and my faith teaches me that I am to love my neighbor, introduce them to God when the chance arises, but recognize that they operate with free will and their choices are their own.  Do I want everybody to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Quaker or a Mormon or a Pentecostal?  Of course not.  As a Christian I would like everyone to know and accept Christ and I think the best way to do that is to live what I believe to the best of my ability and introduce them to each other.

But as an American, who believes that people should be free from government dictates as to whether and how they worship, I do oppose the goal of radical Islam to force the world to capitulate to their twisted worship of a pedophile prophet or be killed or enslaved.

And likewise I oppose any effort, by any person or group of persons to enslave people under any ideology, including the disgusting political game that addicts people to government hand outs, destroying their sense of self worth, de-incentivizing them to reach their full potential and thus enslaving them to the masters who they eventually think are the only ones who can provide for them.

The problem in this nation isn't republicans, it's the irrational, unsupportable, off the chart hatred OF republicans.  And THAT my friends is not an accident. 

Hating republicans is not the natural consequence of an honest study of history.  It is not the result of deductive reasoning.  Hating republicans is the cold and calculated strategy of those who wish to fundamentally transform America into the kind of nation our founders and thousands upon thousands of our best and brightest ever since have fought to prevent.

It is unfair to say that all democrats are far left liberals.  It is unfair to say that all republicans are cracker-assed racists.

We are all Americans.  We all have the right to want and pursue different paths to happiness.  But hatred of others is destructive.

You may assign to me a desire to run things by my theology, but only on this one point.  In my view, hatred has no place in America.  I would prefer that we love each other, and all people, as we love ourselves. 

If that was our guiding principle, I believe everything else would fall into place.

Peter King Ramps Up Criticism Of Rand Paul

New York Congressman Peter King, who is exploring a run for the White House in 2016,  has ramped up criticism of Rand Paul in comments on "The Morning Joe".  According to POLITICO King has accused Rand of using fear and paranoia to appeal to his base.

“We can have honest differences about what [NSA’s] policies are, but what Rand Paul is creating is hysteria,” King said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday. “When Rand Paul is comparing [NSA Director] Gen. [James] Clapper to [leaker Edward] Snowden, saying Clapper belongs in jail with Snowden, talking about how all phone calls are being listened to, trying to create this paranoia among Americans that the NSA is spying on everyone, the fact is he has not been able to cite one abuse by the NSA.”

King said the Kentucky Republican “creates this illusion” of spying in an attempt to play off Americans’ fear in an “offensive” way.

“The same reason he was saying he was worried about the CIA using drones to kill Americans in Starbucks. He is playing on some sort of … fear mongering, isolationism,” King said. “Rather than using intelligent arguments, as people could well do, he is resorting to fear, he’s appealing to the lowest common denominator. And I find that very offensive.”

Related articles

Is Rand Paul 'Part of that Hate-America Crowd'?

AWFUL... Republican Peter King: Rand Paul Lies - 'Doesn't Deserve to Be US Senator' (Video)

Massie Gloats Over Stevens Decision

Steve Stevens assessed his position when considering the urging of many friends to challenge Thomas Massie for the Fourth District seat in Congress and decided that he would not run.  Massie gave an update on his actions in Congress to a local TEA party group and when asked about Stevens said this:

“I think that rocket blew up on the launch pad,” Massie told the tea party crowd on Monday. “It didn’t even get one inch off the ground. Once you start running the numbers and looking at how that would play out, it would be a replay of races that we have seen before, and I’ll just leave it at that. I’m trying to be gracious.” [Cincinnati.com]

This is gracious?  Stevens said he would not run because he really didn't have the fire in his belly.  That says more about Stevens priorities than Massie's strength.

But this type of attitude, particularly when surrounded by your core group is not uncommon.  In the past comments by George Allen, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to what they considered loyal core supporters have come back to haunt them.

Massie's report to a TEA party group was that the outcome of a challenge to him would be a "replay".

He may very well avoid a challenge this year and certainly self confidence has become a very important part of the typical candidate's persona of late, but Massie would do well to avoid the trappings of the "typical" candidate and strive for the more humble role of a servant to others, as so many of America's founders did, particularly since his core group cherishes those days so much more than the modern era of political behavior.

Despite his claim of "graciousness", he was not.

Does Rand Paul's Support Come From The "Hate America" Crowd?

Representative Peter King of New York had this to say about Rand Paul:

The New York Republican accused Rand Paul of “lies” and “misperception” :

“So Rand Paul does not know what he’s talking about. And, Rand Paul is really spreading fear among the American people. And, he also today, I understand on the show, he was also was comparing General Clapper to Snowden. To me, he’s either totally uninformed or he’s part of that hate America crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s. In any event, he doesn’t deserve to be in the United States senate for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies to be honest with you.“ [Gateway Pundit]

What he was referring to was a comment by  Rand on the  Sunday shows discussing his lawsuit against the NSA over illegal snooping.  In some of those comments he had this to say:

"I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison; I think that's inappropriate, I think that's why he fled, is that's what he faced," Paul, a possible 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said on ABC's "This Week." "Do I think it's OK to leak secrets and give up national security [information] that endangers lives? I don't think that's OK, either. But I think the courts are now saying he revealed something the government was doing that was illegal."

Paul, who's pushing a class-action suit against the National Security Agency over its data collection tactics, has said that Snowden and Clapper should "share a prison cell," charging that Clapper lied to Congress.

"It is a grand tradition," he said. "Part of that tradition is, you pay the consequences. If you break the law because your conscience says you have to, you stand trial." [POLITICO]

So the question I have for readers today is this: Does some part of Rand Paul's support come from the "hate America" crowd that Congressman King mentioned?

Let's take a look.

Clearly there is a portion of the Obama support group that one could argue hates many things about America.  Dinesh D'Souza has made the argument that Obama is out for revenge over what his father hated which is "colonialism", the kind of attitude he attributed to the United States participation in "raping" third world countries of their riches to make Americans rich.

In addition Obama has aligned himself with radicals and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who clearly hate many things about America.

So, is Rand Paul courting those folks?  I think not, but on the other hand he might find some support among the less militant among the remaining sixties liberals who like his stance on personal freedom and pot and the kind of things Richie Havens and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were singing about.

But who among the GOP crowd might be pegged as part of the modern day "hate America" crowd?  Well, that depends upon which America you are talking about.

The "big business" America which has become the controlling interest in most legislation and regulations over the past thirty years has its share of supporters.  They don't hate America.

But the small business, ultra conservative TEA party crowd does have its share of "hate America" folks.  At least they seem to hate the incumbent elected officials who they view as ruining America.  They see America headed in the wrong direction.  And some of them even hate many of the institutions of America such as party politics, checks and balances and the orderly interpretation of the Constitution through the court system.

Some of the more militant among this last bunch seethe with contempt for the "mainstream", which of course is the American mainstream and tend to lean very far toward the very liberal philosophies of Libertarianism and even anarchy.  They hate that America won't let them steer the ship of state, are angry about it and do in fact pose some threat to our national security.

And then out there on the real fringes are those who are systematically plotting against America, the true enemies of our way of life, whether driven by religious extremism or a desire to consume our resources even if it means war.  They are the ones who stir up civil unrest, engage in acts of terrorism to disrupt society and take advantage of every opportunity to destroy America because they truly, to their core, hate us.

Obviously Rand Paul is not courting the support of any of the fringe or the near fringe.  But, and I say this with obvious respect for Senator Paul, the razor's edge he walks in order to build his own constituency on his way to a 2016 run for the White House is a topic of frequent discussion in the media.  Clearly any divergence from the hard line of the TEA party gets him nailed by its members.  Any time he leans toward a more moderate position his TEA party friends try to pull him back.  And then he goes and tries to win them over again by standing firm on issue after issue of greatest concern with them, like his lawsuit against the NSA.

I'd like you to weigh in on this, but in my humble opinion, Rand Paul does in fact get some of his support from those who hate the way America has been run, who hate the excesses of our government and hate the fact that they seem to be fighting the very people they entrusted with the reins of power.  Is this what Peter King was referring to?

Those of us who have been standing up for civil liberty, freedom from government overreach, demanding accountability and honesty from our elected officials for as long as I have don't consider ourselves as hating America, but rather loving all that is good about America and hating that those are the very, most precious things about the America we love which we seem to be losing.

Rand has the chance to stand very tall in this fight, but he needs to be very careful not to give in to the other forces at work on the fringes and in the shadows.  The closer he becomes with what can be labeled "extreme" positions the more frequently he will have to face accusations like those of Peter King and though his TEA party friends might rush to his defense he will have to work that much harder, and spend that much more money to discredit people like King than he needs to.

TEA Party Liberals To Face Battles On Multiple Fronts In 2014

Ron Paul lovers take credit for the TEA party movement based upon a 2007 money bomb event on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  Those involved in the modern larger TEA party movement deny Paul's paternity and say that they began Feb. 19, 2009 when CNBC’s Rick Santelli gave what is now known as the “rant heard around the world".

But there can be no doubt that between 2007 and 2009 there was nothing like the modern day TEA party movement anywhere on the radar screens of current events.  Today however things are much different.

Those who got there feet wet in politics as a part of the new and larger TEA party for the most part got involved due to the crashing economy, anger over the government bailouts and in reaction to many of the worrisome ideas being advanced by Barack Obama.  Over time the Ron Paul folks, the Libertarians, the anarchists and smart democrats changed the dynamics of the TEA party to their own ends.

What was once considered to be a movement designed to move the GOP back to its fiscally conservative platform has morphed into a protest movement which seems more devoted to altruistic ideals than pragmatic solutions.  Fixing problems in a real world sense is far less appealing to the TEA party than crashing the system entirely by removing anybody with any experience under the banner that everybody except their candidates are corrupt.

Straying from their original goal of being more conservative republicans into being the party of disruption has caused them to face a number of new challenges in 2014.

The US Chamber of Commerce and the business community in general have joined forces and declared war on the TEA party.

Now it appears that the social conservatives are about to gear up in the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP.

It shouldn't be assumed that the second front in the battle for republican votes will be fought alone by the TEA party.  Granted it has become more of a de-facto Libertarian organization when it comes to social issues, but Social Conservatives led by groups like The American Principles Project, Gary Bauer’s American Values outfit, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Americans United for Life, the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage are now plotting to raise and spend mega-millions to move the GOP back on the track it took during the Bush years. [POLITICO]

How will this new dynamic affect TEA party efforts?  It may be too soon to tell, but the libertarian influences in the direction the movement has taken could prove problematic in the face of pressure from social conservatives.

For example, the idea that abortion should be a state's right to decide sounds a lot like the argument that abortion should be a woman's right to decide, a position which social conservatives will likely find unacceptable.

And neither is the Ron Paul position on prostitution and legalizing drugs likely to set well with the Family Values folks.

What might this battle on two fronts do to the TEA party movement?

On one hand the fiscal conservatives could take charge and return the movement to its original position making it a representative group for the "cut taxes, cut spending" republican ideology.

On the other hand, the Ron Paul libertarians might already have taken such control of the movement that it will have no choice but to act solely as a spoiler, unwittingly helping democrats and along the way losing members who don't want anymore democratic votes controlling the House and Senate agendas.

Or there could be a rising wave of libertarian thought in the nation that, through the TEA party, could change the direction of the country and cause tremendous social upheaval, much like the protests of the sixties did which of course were followed by years of liberal governments and devastating international blunders.

But one thing is clear.  The liberals in the TEA party movement will face a very big hurdle this year fighting their battles on multiple fronts in 2014.

Related articles

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

Told Jah: TEA Party Leader Avowed Democrat

Social conservatives' big money plans

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

POLITICO has a piece up on top of its website today that starts like this:

If this was a dud year in Washington, get ready for 2014 — the year to “go small.”

Lawmakers had already lost their appetite to “go big” this year, letting reforms of immigration, guns and the Tax Code slip away in the face of gridlock and dysfunction.

And now there’s a new problem. Lawmakers are reluctant to rely on the federal government to get anything done — a guilt-by-association consequence of Obamacare’s botched rollout. Republicans have called it an indictment of more than a website, but of Big Government itself.

While Democrats argue the problem is obstructionism — not ideology — the result will be the same: As Washington laments the end of a do-nothing year, lawmakers are fully prepared to do as little — or even less — in the new year.

“I think anything that has a significant expansion or role for the federal government is going to be problematic,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a top Republican message strategist, told POLITICO. “Because I just think there’s going to be such a cynicism and skepticism attached to any promises made with regard to the federal government’s role.”

Ron Paul, the Grand Poobah of the smaller is better ideology has been saying that the Republicans and Democrats are all the same, even saying on some occassions that they are all part of the same party.

Does this mean that his brand of governance which has usurped the TEA party movement has finally caught on?  The answer is no.

The reaction that POLITICO is predicting for 2014 is more a response to the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration and a growing uneasiness with what many used to dismiss, but now fear, are his nefarious plans for America.  In fact most of the anger and angst of the TEA party was born in reaction to Obama, has fed off of Obama's agenda and is still a reactionary movement rather than a pro-active one.

I saw this meme on Facebook sent out by a local TEA party group:

 

You have to ask yourself, what does this really say to people?  Is it some sort of rallying cry to keep the flames of discontent burning hotter than ever?

The phrase "More Constitution" means what exactly?  Lower taxes?  Taxes are undesirable no doubt, but they are certainly constitutional.  Does it mean more civil liberty?  We certainly have suffered in this area lately and numerous cases are working their way through the court system which ultimately decides, as the arbiter of these debates, what is and what is not constitutional.

How does this meme fit into the reality of political life?  What, no republican who wants more civil liberty and lower taxes can be trusted, and neither can any democrat?  Then who?  What other party is out there?  Aren't most of the TEA party candidates running as republicans?  And isn't it a fact that in places where they do, for the most part, they give democrats an added advantage of being able to run on their liberal agenda while republicans eat each other alive in primaries?

So just what does the observation of the POLITICO piece mean.  Has the TEA party won the battle of ideas in Washington?  Is there really some meaning to the concept of "More Constitution" that is controlling how elected officials act?

No, and no.

The fact is that even the proper role of government, as seen even by TEA party types, is considered dangerous territory.  Standing up in favor of building bridges and fixing roads, and repairing a half century or older infrastructure lights a match under the "big spender" accusers who have found a way, much like the protesters of the sixties did, to get attention in front of cameras and try to steer the policy of the nation.

Spend no money, collect no taxes, go to Washington, do nothing, dismantle the federal government, weaken our military, and withdraw into a kind of isolation that fools people into believing that the world will just leave us alone and allow us to prosper so long as we don't intervene in anybody else's business.

Foolhardy, reckless, ignorant thinking like this makes America vulnerable to the evil forces at work in the world.  If the worst happens it will be on the shoulders of those who failed to take charge in difficult times.  The blame will be squarely upon the heads of those who would give Israel over to the Palestinians, chemical weapons to Assad, control of Afghanistan to the drug cartels, who would remove border security and issue terms of engagement to our military that told them to stand up and take the first shot before firing back.

War is, as the saying goes, hell.  And hell is at our doorstep.  The last thing we need is a nation of bong hugging gamers driving the ship of state.

If the TEA party really wishes for an America that used to be, maybe they ought to be asking things like, where are the real men, the John Wayne's of our time, instead of asking that old time policy be implement by a bunch of impotent 'fraidy cats. 

Think about it.  America was strong, and stood up for itself in the days the Ron Paul folks wish they could return us to.  To get there might take a much tougher, rougher approach than the rally attending, flag-shirt wearing, malcontents and protesters can deliver on their own.

If a do nothing Congress is the result of a TEA party victory, then I think Merle might have asked the right question a long time ago: Are the good times really over for good?

 

Paper Chronicles Widespread Dislike For Massie

When Thomas Massie from Vanceburg ran for Congress in 2012 people thought he stood no chance.  He surprised everybody and won.  Since then people from the Fourth District have been watching to see if he would turn out to be the kind of Congressman we had come to expect.  He didn't and now a challenge is likely.

In an article printed in the Kentucky Enquirer it was reported that Steve Stevens, former head of the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce is exploring a run against Massie and that this announcement brought a standing ovation from Northern Kentucky Business Leaders.

The people of this district have enjoyed a very close relationship with their congressmen.  Jim Bunning was a hand's on kind of guy who took constituent services to very high level.  He was engaged in the community, visible, approachable and though pegged as a tough guy, he and his staff were beloved fixtures showing up everywhere and interested in serving people.

Massie on the other hand remains a virtual stranger to most people except the small group of core TEA party folks that support him.  He isn't a regular at local high school football games, doesn't mingle with the community, has basically ignored the business leaders and local leaders in pursuit of a private agenda pushed by the Ron Paul nay sayers in Congress.

His only appeal is to those people so fed up with government that they see Massie as their personal protester.

But serving the community isn't on Massie's list of things to do.  Instead of representing the district, he represents an oddball ideology which is clearly out of step with the majority of the hard working families in the Northern part of the Commonwealth.

Even Geoff Davis, who began his tenure as a bit of a stranger, knew better than to ignore the people of his distict.  He came to know the leaders that the people had chosen to represent them at the city and county and district level, he worked closely with business leaders and took a very strong conservative stand on the issues of greatest importance to his constituents.

But Massie by contrast spent his first few hours in the new Congress making enemies with leadership.  His sole vote for Justin Amash to be Speaker of The House was out of step with every single other republican in Washington.  But that vote was more than a vow of loyalty to the Ron Paul revolution, it was a slap in the face to the people of the Fourth District.

Not only is a new interstate bridge across the Ohio river a much needed upgrade to our nation's infrastructure, but it would bring millions if not billions of dollars in economic benefit to our community.  Construction and supply businesses would prosper, jobs would be created and a new sense of hopefulness would rise with the bridge structure itself.

In addition, the bridge would connect the Fourth District with Cincinnati, the home of the current Speaker of The House, John Boehner.  Massie's day one slap in the face to the established leadership in the House ruined any chance that he might have had to be effective, though it is doubtful that was ever part of Massie's plan.

Massie is so white hot devoted to his fringe ideology that he blew any chance of getting Boehner to support the bridge project and cast himself in the role of perpetual loser in the world of Washington political contests.  Like it or not, Washington is about politics and politics is a contest of power where those in power use their status to reward friends and punish enemies.  Massie's votes have made the people of this district the enemy so long as they vote to keep him in office.

The only hope for our district to get back on track is to make it clear that we acknowledge our mistake and find a speedy way to correct it.

Is Steve Stevens the right choice?  I don't know yet, but one thing is clear, we need to end the error.