Connect with us

Opinions

The Conservative Picks for the Indiana Primary

Published

on

In keeping with my commitment, I am searching the nation for the top Conservative options in order to prevent RINOs from betraying their campaign conservative stances. In the past primaries, specifically Illinois, it was incredibly disappointing how Conservatism performed at the ballot. In neighboring state, Indiana, things look a little more hopeful.  A common theme in this edition will be the opposition of incumbents who voted for Omnibus. Indiana is a red state and its districts change slightly once in a while. Nonetheless, I don’t see any blue seats flipping while the Blue Wave will likely target the 2nd and the 9th most heavily.

Best Picks: Jonathan Lamb, Diego Morales, Steve Braun, Trey Hollingsworth, Richard Moss
Worst Picks: Luke Messer, Jackie Walorski, Larry Bucshon, Jim Baird
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: US Senate

US Senate

Here we have a three way race between Mike Braun, Luke Messer, and Todd Rokita. Messer and Rokita are current Congressmen looking to upgrade to the less accountable Senate office. That being said recent events have made the vetting process rather easy for this race. Luke Messer is a complete and utter RINO, endorsed by RINO Rep. Susan Brooks. Messer voted for the Omnibus spending bill thus disqualifying him from consideration. Todd Rokita is far more fiscally responsible and has remained strong in the era of Trump. Rokita voted against Omnibus and measures that funded Planned Parenthood. Mike Braun is a current State Rep. and very wealthy outside of politics. In politics however, he isn’t that conservative. His voting record shows that he isn’t the most free market friendly; for instance, he voted against decreasing regulations on hair braiders and voted to increase regulations on car dealerships (probably a bill made in response to Tesla). I wrote an entire article on this race in particular. This race sucks because the only actual Conservative is Todd Rokita and he is a bumper sticker. I have a hard time seeing Mike Braun as the more favorable option. He has the smell of a RINO and is a cronyist. I don’t really like the options at-hand but my gut says Todd Rokita is the safest bet.

Conservative Pick: Todd Rokita

District 1

Democrats have a stranglehold on the 1st with David Visclosky running for reelection. The GOP has six potential challengers. John Meyer had a failed 2016 election run and perhaps that is reason enough to discard him. Roseann Ivanovich is an attorney running on business focused issues. However, she offers problems on her website, not solutions. And I am skeptical of candidates that focus on student debt. They usually aren’t that strong. In 2014, Mark Leyva lost to Visclosky, though he at least made it to election day unlike Meyers. What is really likable about Leyva is his detailed platform and stance on the US Constitution. I believe he would make a strong candidate. The other candidates aren’t formidable enough to go into detail on.

Conservative Pick: Mark Leyva

District 2

Jackie Walorski is seeking reelection as a Republican. She has an F Liberty Score and participated in the Omnibus Spending Bill. Mark Summe, is a graduate student at the University of Notre Dame, and is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of chemical and biomolecular engineering. He also isn’t running a serious campaign. Nontheless, a losing shot in the dark is a message to send to Walorski.

Conservative Pick: Mark Summe

District 3

The incumbent, Jim Banks is running unopposed.

District 4

With Todd Rokita looking to upgrade, he’s leaving a hole to be filled and this is a tight race to fill it. The biggest candidate in this race appears to be Steve Braun. Braun is running as the Conservative. He has a good standing with the NRA and the endorsement of Indiana Right To Life. Also running from the right is Diego Morales, businessman and political outsider. Morales is well educated and well versed in international affairs. In dealing with immigration, Morales speaks with personal experience as an immigrant from Guatemala remaining firm against amnesty for DACA. This was in sharp contrast to Jim Baird. Baird is a State Rep with underwhelming Conservative credentials voting against pro-life and pro-gun measures in 2017. RINO watch initiated on Baird. Enter Jared Thomas who looks to be the low funded grassroots option pledging to cap his campaign at $50000. Though claiming to be Christian his stance on abortion is incredibly weak and his stance on gun rights suggests that he would compromise them in face of crisis like Rick Scott. There are other candidates such as Tim Radice but I don’t think he stands much of a chance against the others. Nonetheless, everything about him indicates, he’s a principled candidate. This is a good race with the good problem of multiple good candidates.

Conservative Pick: Steve Braun or Diego Morales

District 5

Shamefully RINO Susan Brooks is unopposed.

District 6

While Todd Rokita abandoned his seat to pursue the Senate, likewise so did Luke Messor. This race is another feeding frenzy. The biggest name in the race is Greg Pence. You might recognize the last name because he is the older brother of the Vice President. Naturally, Greg Pence is snagging all of the major endorsements. Surprisingly this hasn’t gotten a whole lot of attention. The David facing off against this Goliath is Jonathan Lamb an entrepreneur and political outsider. Lamb is running independent of Trump focuing on Conservative values and policies. This approach is refreshing as Conservatives hate being caught in the middle of a Trump Establishment vs Big Government GOP battle. Lamb’s positions are that of a Constitutional Conservative. Greg Pence may be a fine Congressman, but it seems as though he’s running because of dynastical politics and not so much his own accord. Also, if he’s older than Pence, maybe he ought not run. Jonathan Lamb is a youthful face to add to the Conservative movement, and is a top pick.

Conservative Pick: Jonathan Lamb

District 7

District 7 is in the grasp of Democrats and the GOP is responding with little vigor in this race. Donald Eason Jr. seems like the best candidate in this race given his lack of history campaigning for this seat in the past along with his wholehearted small government stances.

District 8

Incumbent Larry Bucshon is a very fiscally irresponsible Republican. Unsurprisingly he voted for Omnibus and funded Planned Parenthood on multiple occasions. The good news is, he faces two challengers. Enter Rachel Covington. She doesn’t seem all that conservative, but she does offer unique solutions including tackling the national debt. I ultimately wouldn’t recommend her because by her own admission she’s a utilitarian, a philosophy that regards collective happiness over individual rights. Richard Moss is the other challenger, a more aggressive one at that. He is actively campaigning on Bucshon’s leftism. Moss is a Conservative and the best option against Bucshon.

Conservative Pick: Richard Moss

District 9

Trey Hollingsworth has been representing the 9th since only 2017. In this time he has remained fiscally conservative opposing Omnibus and other fiscally irresponsible debt deals. His opponent, James Dean Alspach was documented supporting universal healthcare at a debate sponsored by a pro-single payer organization. Hollingsworth didn’t attend that debate. Considering that Alspach is running from the left, Hollingsworth is a nobrainer for a second term.

Conservative Pick: Trey Hollingsworth

 

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Dallas Halcomb

    May 8, 2018 at 12:18 pm

    Rokita is the Conservative choice? Good Lord, Smarmy RINO is the best we have for this seat? He has a D Liberty score. And I don’t know (or really care) what his NRA score is, because the NRA only cares about Gun Issue voting, and ignores everything else, even if it would ultimately affect gun rights in the long run. (And I’m a Life Member, and have signed up 12 others as Life Members). I’m almost willing to risk it on Braun, just because he’s no worse than Rokita

    • Ray Fava

      May 8, 2018 at 8:26 pm

      I can understand the appeal of Braun. Businessman background and not currently part of the swamp, but the more I learned the less I liked. If he has a D rating at the end of one term, I’d consider it a win for his fans. But he’s a RINO. Either way Conservatives in the Senate aren’t getting any reinforcements from this state. On the plus side Greg Pence is surely better than Messer and the winner from IN04 won’t be worse, hopefully.

      Thanks for the comment!

Leave a Reply

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

Opinions

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

Published

on

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

When news broke today that Ed and Brian Krassenstein from #Resistance fame had their Twitter accounts permanently banned, reactions from both sides were predictable. Those on the left pointed at the event and said, “see there’s no Twitter conspiracy against conservatives.” Meanwhile, conservatives’ reactions were mixed between thinking it was Twitter’s attempt to balance things out so they don’t get sued all the way up to rejoicing that the site may have finally learned its lesson.

None of this is true. According to Twitter, they were banned for using bots and paid engagement.

“The Twitter Rules apply to everyone,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement. “Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.”

While the brothers will go down in Twitter history as a rare example of prominent progressives getting banned, the reality is their removals from the site were economic. That’s rarely the case for conservatives who get banned for hateful speech or whatever the latest label is for telling people to “learn to code.” In fact, I don’t recall a single conservative getting banned for paid engagement or bot use. It happens, I’m sure, but as far as I can recall it hasn’t been the reason for any major political accounts to get the ax.

Either way, I oppose this and nearly all bannings that aren’t the result of spam, illegal activity like doxxing, spreading malware, or porn. If they want to stop bots and paid promotions, they should be catching these accounts and sending them stern messages. They can reduce their visibility. But if someone artificially inflates their engagement without using Twitter ads, they can and should be dealt with in ways that fall short of getting banned. Same holds true for most “hateful speech” that seems to unfairly target conservatives. Again, as long as the speech used is not breaking the law, it should be allowed.

Or, Twitter could simply establish that it’s a content site and not simply a platform. They would lose their protections, but at least they would be in line with the letter of the law. As it stands, they get platform protections while acting to police activities that are against the notion of free speech and therefore should not be allowed to continue getting platform protections.

Speech is free or it isn’t.

Comparing the Krassenstein’s permanent suspensions to any of the recent prominent conservative account suspensions is invalid. They weren’t banned for what they said. They were banned for bots and paid promotion. Conservatives are still being targeted.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

‘Star Trek: Picard’ looks like it’s going to be a social justice warrior’s take on the future

Published

on

Star Trek Picard looks like its going to be a social justice warriors take on the future

Gene Roddenberry had one rule for the Star Trek franchise. The future had to be a perfect utopia. In his vision, man had evolved to a point where it had no character flaws: no malice, no greed, no secrets. There wasn’t supposed to be a Section 31, the dark NSA-like secret group. War was to be avoided at all costs. Even conflicts between Starfleet personnel had to be manufactured to pass muster; someone had to be mind-controlled for there to be fight between officers.

After his death, it didn’t take long for his rule to get broken again and again.

Perhaps this was a good thing, at least from the perspective of a modern audience that prefers to see internal conflict over pure humans operating in an impure galaxy. After all, his vision may have launched the series, but the franchise hit its stride after his death. Or did it?

The Star Trek franchise has never been a true blockbuster, at least not in a world with Star Wars and the MCU. It has a strong following and its winning people over from generations who were born after Captain Jean Luc Picard’s The Next Generation wrapped up on television to start making movies. But its ability to stay relevant has relied heavily on shifting storylines and new perspectives that are a far cry from Roddenberry’s original ideas.

None of this is necessarily a bad thing, but the upcoming CBS show, Star Trek: Picard, threatens to not only take the franchise into unexplored territory but also fundamentally change the character many of us have grown to love. And if my hunch is right, they’re going to do it by turning arguably the most beloved character in the franchise (sorry Kirk and Spock) into a social justice warrior.

Hints of a different type of Picard story have been swirling around the show since its inception. Patrick Stewart said he wanted this 20-year-older version of the Picard to be very different from the warrior-explorer-diplomat that we’ve admired for decades. Considering the direction he and CBS have both gone in recent years, that gave me the feeling they were going to have a betrayed Picard get drawn back in to right wrongs and fight for the little guy, as any good social justice warrior should. Now that they’ve released a teaser, my hunch has only been reinforced.

I hope I like it. but I have a very nasty feeling that I won’t. I have a horrible sense that they’re going to ruin a great character and tear down Roddenberry’s legacy for the sake of being socially conscious and progressively preachy. We’ll see.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Pelosi’s endgame strategy: Impeach Trump during general election season

Published

on

Pelosis endgame strategy Impeach Trump during general election season

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been playing a balancing act for the past few months. On one hand, she has to stop her caucus from becoming too zealous about impeaching President Trump, fearing the same public backlash the GOP received in 1998 during impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. On the other hand, she needs to keep the specter of impeachment alive so she doesn’t start getting attacked by the radical Democratic base who want the President out immediately.

But lost in the mix is the speculation that Pelosi is fully prepared to impeach the President, just not yet. She wants to bring impeachment and all the mud that will be flung at the President as a result during the heart of general election season.

Evidence of this is all circumstantial but compelling. In a closed-door meeting with committee heads yesterday, she instructed her team to keep up the pressure through investigation after investigation. This would normally not be enough to appease impeachment hawks like Maxine Waters and others, but their clear support for the strategy is an indicator that they’ve been promised vindication at a better time than now. Otherwise, there’s enough support for impeachment among the base for them to continue beating the drum louder and possibly even call for Pelosi’s ouster.

It’s also conspicuous that lower members of the Democratic totem pole haven’t gone after Pelosi, including known antagonists like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

Pelosi knows her time is short if things don’t go her way quickly. She was able to gather support from opposition within her caucus by promising to only serve as Speaker for two years. But she has no intention of stepping down if Democrats retain control of the House of Representatives through the 2020 election. Instead, she intends to build her credentials by strategically beating the President, not only on the political arena but in the 2020 election itself. No, she’s not running, but if she launches her impeachment hearings in a way that can earn her credit for the Democratic nominee to win, she will have solidified her seat as Speaker for as long as she wants to stay there.

It’s a huge gamble. Depending on how the impeachment proceedings go in the eyes of the public, she could do enough damage to help kick the President out of the Oval Office. On the other hand, she could seal her own fate if the President wins as a result of sympathy he’s able to garner from the political move of a well-timed impeachment proceeding. It has the potential to backfire spectacularly if the public sees it as a dirty trick, one that could even cost the Democrats control of the House.

But in reality she doesn’t have much to lose. If she impeaches now when it won’t affect the election or if she chooses not to impeach at all, there’s a very good chance she’ll be held to her word to step down as Speaker in 2021. If she delivers the White House to the Democrats, she’ll be locked in her Speaker seat indefinitely.

This should infuriate Democrats more than Republicans, especially the growing radical wing of the party. Their goal, as stated by the Justice Democrats, is to take over the party from within. But Pelosi’s moves are not only meant to harm Republicans but also increase the power over the Democratic Party held by the establishment.

We may be witnessing the swampiest tactics every put on display from Capitol Hill as Speaker Pelosi plots the takedown of a sitting President. Some say she’s impotent, but clearly she’s a viper with plenty of bite left.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending