Meh

"And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity."
Ecclesiastes 2:19

Today's primary day...whoop de frickin' doo.

You're probably going to be hit up by people pitching cheap, sentimental, claptrap.  Your "Patriotic duty" or some such nonsense.  Maybe something about veterans. 

Whatever.  97%(+) of the people who win today are going to suck within five years.  90%(+) are going to suck from the second they're sworn in.

Now, look, we're not saying don't vote (although we can't justify spending more than ten minutes in line).  Especially if you live somewhere where there's an open primary for state rep or Congress.  Furthermore, there are plenty of people running you should vote against (Kay Granger and Delia Garza come to mind).

But if you do choose to vote today, do so with very, very, very low expectations.

Cuz' you're gonna be disappointed with 97%(+) of these clowns.

In other words:



Do what works best for your schedule.

Bottom Line: Keep your expectations very low....

GRANGER'S Fundamental Problem is that she's Completely and OBVIOUSLY LYING

"A righteous man hates lying,
But a wicked man is loathsome and comes to shame."
Proverbs 13:5

Came across this drivel scrolling through Twitter:

Few things in politics are more cynical than a leader’s (or prospective leader’s) eleventh-hour “conversion” on an issue that for many of us is simply a matter of principle.

Who can forget President Barack Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage?

Or Sen. Mitt Romney’s flip from pro-choice governor to pro-life presidential candidate?
A bit closer to home, we have the declared evolution of Fort Worth’s own Rep. Kay Granger on abortion, a transformation some voters are meeting with skepticism.

....

As recently as 2007, when she was serving as a campaign surrogate for (quite ironically) Romney, Granger called herself a “pro-choice Republican.”

There must not have been many Republicans watching that MSNBC interview 13 years ago, because when video of her pro-choice declaration re-surfaced as part of an aggressive primary challenge from businessman Chris Putnam, many conservatives, myself included, were shocked.

The article goes on to argue that we should trust Granger because she's been endorsed by a couple of allegedly "pro-life" money laundering organizations and...something about Trump.

Poppycock.

Granger's problem, no matter how she wants to beat around the bush, is that she's a 24-year incumbent.  In that time, she's never actually lifted a finger to do anything about it.  O.k., fine, she voted for a couple bills that tinkered around the edges.  Anyone who thinks that's even remotely close to good enough is, at best, a cheap date.

But where the piece becomes particularly asinine is in the comparison to Trump.

Trump was running in a general election against someone who was known to be completely terrible.  In that instance, there's a case to be made for going with the unknown over the guaranteed bad outcome.  While this website never found that argument particularly satisfying, it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

Granger, by contrast, is running in a primary.  For a safe Republican seat.  Chris Putnam, meanwhile, has been endorsed by the only credible pro-life organization in this state.  In this case, upgrading makes total sense.

None of this is difficult to understand.

Bottom Line: After 24 years, a record of doing (at best) the absolute bare minimum isn't good enough.

TAL Endorses Incumbent Congresswoman who told MSNBC she's "pro-choice"

"How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart,"
Jeremiah 23:26


Shot:

Chaser:

Pretty self-explanatory.

It's been a running joke for years that TAL would endorse Sarah Davis if she cut them a big enough check.  Granger is...pretty much the federal equivalent.  You can learn about her record here.  At best, it's weak.

Bottom Line: Just...wow.

Kay Granger stands for NOTHING (except Cronyism and Patronage); We Have Proof.

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

The Trib has a write up on the primary in CD-12...see below:

When Granger first ran for Congress in 1996, both parties courted her as a candidate.

Wow.

Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know.

You stand for so little that "both parties courted her as a candidate."  Just keep the money flowing to her friends, cronies, and unqualified hack son.  Wall St. will cover the rest.

It's just so craven.

Bottom Line: Maybe it shouldn't surprise us, but we still find the blatantness of the whole thing astounding.