Another stupid attack on Micah Caskey

carry back

Another mailer came from that same group attacking my rep, Micah Caskey.

Again, it relies entirely upon an assumption that voters are mentally feeble.

This time, the accusation is that Micah doesn’t support “2nd Amendment rights” because he didn’t vote for a “constitutional carry” bill.carry 1

I don’t know what Micah thinks about “constitutional carry” and don’t really care. The other Caskey, our resident 2nd Amendment guy Bryan, sees no need for such a provision in South Carolina, which is a “shall issue” state. In other words, if you can own a gun, no one can refuse to issue you a permit.

“Constitutional carry” is the kind of litmus test issue that shows how far gone alleged “conservatives” are today. Once, when real conservatives roamed the Earth, you’d get attacked if you didn’t support a balanced budget amendment. Now, you have to support the kind of hyper-pro gun legislation that is only important to the kind of people who like to freak out the citizenry by carrying a weapon down a city street simply to assert that “I got a right to!” (I know those aren’t exactly the same thing. I’m just thinking there’s probably a lot of overlap there.)

At least, with these people that’s the standard. To the extent that they can be said to have standards.

My favorite bit: “He may talk a big game, but…” You mean, like, when he mentions (which he seldom does) carrying a rifle into combat in Iraq as a United States Marine, stuff like that?

Another good part: “I don’t need the government’s permission to defend myself!” That’s right, you don’t. And you never have. Which underlines how unnecessary that bill was.

Anyway… I’m going to ignore that and take comfort from this straw poll that the Lexington County GOP did at their June meeting. Nathan Ballentine proudly tweeted it out because he got 72.9 percent.

Micah Caskey got 97.6 percent. Sounds like he might have earned the right to “talk a big game…”

De4_RDlUYAAAXTx

27 thoughts on “Another stupid attack on Micah Caskey

  1. bud

    Brad, I think the reason you’re not getting much traffic on the posts critical of cheap political attack ads and the awfulness of Donald Trump is that folks have already formulated an opinion and don’t feel much point in weighing in. It’s a political weariness taking hold. Apparently Trump and most of the Republican party has made the conscious decision to just write off half, or more, of the population and just push through an agenda of nationalism and science denial with the fervent support of alternate facts die-hards. It is really a soul-sucking political environment in which to live.

    The electoral strategy is vested in a combination of (1) Fox News propaganda (2) voter suppression (3) gerrymandering and (4) electoral college math. These are the four pillars of Trumpublican rule that allows Trump and his minions to dig in their heals and never work with anyone who is not a true kool aid drinking loyalist. The discouraging thing is that this could work for long enough to make their grip on power very difficult to shake if the economy continues to grow. In the meantime the scandals and cruelty will continue at both the state and national level.

    Reply
    1. Mark Stewart

      The perspective from SC is very different than the direction the rest of the country is moving toward; which basically is just moving far away from Trump.

      SC may catch on. Eventually.

      Reply
      1. Doug Ross

        I’d be interested to know which states that Trump won in 2016 you think would go for Hillary today? I don’t see it in the Pittsburgh area which was one of the leading indicators of why I thought Trump could win back then. Has he lost any states in the South? How about the Rust Belt? I’m not saying the number is zero but when you say “the rest of the country” I’m not sure it’s as great a shift as you would suggest. All I see is the voice of the opposition getting louder, more crass (sinking to Trump’s level), and still suffering from PTSD (Post Trump Success Disorder).

        Reply
        1. Mark Stewart

          Please get off Hillary, Doug. We are looking forward, not back.

          You do understand, do you not, that Trump is just a grifter? Trump is (unintentionally) doing his best to destroy the GOP, and they seem mostly too willing to take the beating as they have bought the idea that they can gain from the con. It’s a moral and civic suicide.

          I was happy to be called a Rhino before when the GOP swung toward the Tea Party Conservative nonsense; I am even more comfortable with the term now that it means opposition to Trump’s chaos and self-immolation. I am not here to drag our country down, destroy her reputation as a beacon of freedom and liberty, nor promote divisiveness as a tool to boost intolerance. The vast majority of this nation is not on board with that, either, but too many remain paralyzed by Trump’s dazzle and the GOP’s pap.

          Reply
          1. Doug Ross

            So when you said the rest of the country outside of SC was moving far away from Trump, who are you talking about? The rest of the country includes those people who voted for Trump in 2016, right? Where are you seeing the Trump voters who would vote for a Democrat today? I spend half my time in Pittsburgh and I don’t sense it. I spent a week in Alaska and didn’t hear any anti-Trump talk.

            So who are all these people who are moving “far away” from Trump and who are they moving toward? Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? Kamala Harris? Democrats aren’t even assured of taking over the Senate and House after two years of the supposed worst President in history. If that doesn’t happen five months from now, how can you claim that the rest of the country is moving far away from Trump? In your world, it should be a landslide victory for Democrats in November. That’s not happening.

            I won’t be voting for Trump in 2020 and don’t “support” him now. I just am not on the derangement bandwagon that requires constantly saying the world is falling apart. I’m hoping the Starbucks CEO Schultz or Mark Cuban makes a run for it in 2020. They actually sound coherent and don’t have the political baggage of the typical candidates.

            Reply
            1. Mark Stewart

              I can’t explain a kaleidoscope to a binary thinker. Why would I be able to explain to you that one can be a Republican and still understand that Trump is a blight on our nation and that those who continue to support him and his chaos are equally culpable?

              Why do I have to be a Democrat to oppose Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, John Bolton, Mike Pence, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo, Wilbur Ross, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, the no-quiet KellyAnne Conway Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or Mick Mulvaney, – let alone all the scammers who have already been flushed from the administration? This is an incompetent administration lead by a grifter and filled with sycophants. No Republican should be proud of what they have wrought; and to stand idly by as this national immolation continues is to be complicit oneself.

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                You don’t (have to be a Democrat to oppose those abominable people). It’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest you do.

                Democrats are pretty much irrelevant to me on the national level. The people out there that I find myself agreeing with most closely are David Brooks, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, John Kasich, Robert Kagan, Bret Stephens, Ross Douthat, David Frum, Bill Kristol… tell you what, here’s a longer list of the kinds of people who view Trump to a great extent the way I do.

                I can’t identify with the Democrats’ mindset. Sure, some of them oppose Trumpism for the right reasons, but a lot of them are just doing what they usually do — opposing someone because he has an “R” after his name. And y’all know the sort of disdain I have for that kind of attitude.

                Democrats, by and large, tend to think that the solution to all problems is to elect more Democrats. Which is as mindless as Republicans thinking the solution to all problems is to elect more Republicans.

                The real solution, right now, is to STOP electing lunatics. Or at least, that’s a START toward a solution…

                Reply
          2. Doug Ross

            And until Hillary says she isn’t running again, she is fair game. She and Bill are still out pounding the streets and collecting checks.

            Reply
          3. Doug Ross

            So how do Democrats come up with a strategy to counter this?

            Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett and J.P. Morgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon told CNBC the U.S. economy is in rare form and could continue to prove strong for years to come. In an exclusive joint interview with CNBC’s Becky Quick, Dimon and Buffett cited several aspects of the economy as reasons for optimism. “Right now, there’s no question: It’s feeling strong. I mean, if we’re in the sixth inning, we have our sluggers coming to bat right now,” Buffett said in the “Squawk Box” the interview that aired Thursday.
            “I’m no good at predicting out two or three or five years from now, although I will say this: There’s no question in my mind that America’s going to be far ahead of where we are now 10, 20 and 30 years from now,” the 87-year-old billionaire added. “But right now, business is good. There’s no question about it.”

            Seems like Warren thinks things aren’t all doom and gloom like the post-Hillary support group. Look outside your own small circle and you might find that people aren’t finding 2018 to be the worst time possible to live in the U.S.

            Reply
            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              Let me repeat Mark’s question: Why do you keep mentioning Hillary? What on Earth does she have to do with anything in 2018? If you want to talk history, I find the early years of our republic, leading up to the election of 1800, more interesting.

              Or how about the battle of Fredericksburg? I’m working on something for a client about Maxcy Gregg (who died at that battle), so that’s on my mind right now…

              Reply
              1. Doug Ross

                Has she announced that she won’t run in 2020? Mark said the rest of America is moving away from Trump. Therefore, they would have to be having remorse about not voting for Hillary. I’m saying it’s not that huge a wave of people have flipped.

                When she decides to end her political career, then she is no longer part of the political story in the U.S. today. Until then, she carries the stigma of losing to the worst President in history. And until people like you and Mark realize that you don’t speak for a very large section of American voters, I’ll keep bringing her name up. She gave us Trump with her terrible campaign… and until she is repudiated by Democrats for her performance, she shoulders the blame for what we have today.

                Reply
                1. Brad Warthen Post author

                  This is nonsensical: “And until people like you and Mark realize that you don’t speak for a very large section of American voters, I’ll keep bringing her name up.” What does the first part of that sentence have to do with the second? It sounds like WE’RE the ones bringing up Hillary, and you’re trying to tell us we’re wrong to do it. Which is backwards. Why else would our alleged cluelessness (which remains to be seen), cause you to keep bringing up an irrelevant name?

                2. Doug Ross

                  No, you and Mark keep telling me to move on from Hillary. I will when she moves on to retirement. Even Bill was out this week hawking a thriller novel and acting all righteous about the metoo movement like he was a victim. I wish they both would just go away. Until they do, they are fair game as the heads of the Democratic Party. If you want to replace Trump, you gotta go thru them.

                  I saw a good term for the Democratic Party today: gerontocracy. A party run by a bunch of old geezers. Bill, Hillary, Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Menendez. Rich white senior citizens speaking for the diverse fractured sects within the party. Good luck with that.

                3. Brad Warthen Post author

                  Uh-huh. And what’s your point.

                  As I’ve explained here about a gazillion times, I don’t look to the Democratic Party to be of much help to us. If you want to argue with someone who does, you need to look elsewhere. I sure as hell have no intentions of “going through the Clintons,” and I’m pretty sure that Democrats themselves would consider that a bizarre notion.

                  The future of that party — if it even has a future — is through young people like Conor Lamb, people with broad bipartisan appeal…

                4. Doug Ross

                  Conor Who?

                  You really think some unknown is going to lead the party?

                  The next candidate will be kissing Hillary’s ring to get an endorsement.

                5. Brad Warthen Post author

                  Actually, no. Of course whoever leads in the future will want and need those Hillary loyalists (Democratic women of certain age and some others). But there’s a different approach among some of the younger Democrats.

                  You’ll see if Dems are serious about moving forward if they DO capture the U.S. House and THEN elect someone other than Nancy Pelosi as speaker, which (among younger Dems) there is serious sentiment for doing.

                  Republicans have successfully demonized Hillary and Nancy to the point that it doesn’t really matter what they do or say; they have to move aside for the party to have a chance…

                6. Barry

                  Agree Brad.

                  My son is 17 and is somewhat of a liberal on most things (as are most of his friends).

                  They are quite attracted to younger Democratic (and a few moderate Republican) candidates with military experience.

                  There is a long line of military vets, especially moderate Democrats, this time around across the country. Most are fairly young so it might be an election cycle or two before most hit the national stage in a profound way but a wave is definately coming.

                7. Richard

                  “My son is 17 and is somewhat of a liberal on most things (as are most of his friends). ”

                  Weren’t we all? Some of us outgrew it once we actually went into the workforce.

              2. Richard

                “they have to move aside for the party to have a chance…”

                Now who’s going to convince them that that’s a fact. Hillary and Pelosi aren’t going anywhere. It’s like telling South Carolinians that Strom Thurmond needs to be replaced… as long as they run they’ll be elected.

                Reply
                1. Brad Warthen Post author

                  Speaking of which — when looking for something unrelated this morning, I ran across this old cartoon by the late Doug Marlette. Probably from about the time Ms. Pelosi became speaker. Based on my experiences as Robert Ariail’s editor, I’ll bet he took some heat on that one (some folks being so touchy about depictions of women in politics)…

                  2007-07-10_124509_cartoonpelosi

  2. Mark Stewart

    Doug, O/I is an artificial construct; and just one of many ways humans have theorized analytical rigor. When discussing anything social it fails as a framework. I don’t know what else to say.

    Reply
            1. Scout Cotham

              I think he is saying some people look at things with an either/or lens – like there are only two options. If it is not this, than it must be that. two options = binary.

              Whereas other people see many more possibilities. More than two.

              For example, moving away from Trump does not singularly mean moving towards Hillary. Hillary is no longer relevant. One can move away from Trump without it having anything to do with Hillary. And since that election is not going to happen again, whether or not moving away from Trump now might mean considering voting for Hillary is also irrelevant.

              Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *