Ogles Ousted. More Socialist Kool-Aid. Trump’s Ballroom.
Ogles Ousted
Despite the president’s endorsement, Andy Ogles lost his reelection bid to former agriculture commissioner Charlie Hatcher by six points. Trump had called Ogles “a Conservative Warrior who has strong support from his Community.”
The New York Times called this an upset — a knee-jerk reaction since the paper never took the time to actually analyze the race. Right-wing media mourned his loss, and some even called for Trump to bring him into his administration.
However, many of us conservative Tennesseans breathed a sigh of relief. Ogles may have been the most intellectually challenged member of Congress. He posted controversial comments claiming “homosexuality has no place in America” and that “pluralism is a lie.” He also posted that “Muslims don’t belong in American society” and called for Zohran Mamdani to be deported after Mamdani won the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York. Asked about U.S. support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, Ogles said, “You know what? I think we should kill them all if that makes you feel better. Everybody in Hamas.” He added, “Hamas and the Palestinians have been attacking Israel for 20 years. It is time to pay the piper.” In a later statement, he dismissed media coverage of the exchange as “Marxian,” saying, “I stand by Israel and their right to punish Hamas on a scale of Biblical proportions, including their accomplices.”
Ogles was also under FBI investigation over his campaign finance records. It was never made clear where he got the $320,000 he loaned his own campaign. I know plenty of people who agree with Ogles’ comments, but that’s not the main reason I wanted to see him gone. He may have been a firebrand who said out loud what other elected Republicans only thought privately, but behind those comments was an intellectually vapid human being. Tennessee’s Republican establishment was clearly embarrassed by him. Gov. Bill Lee and former Gov. Bill Haslam defied Trump by endorsing Hatcher instead. Charlie Hatcher’s voting record, for what it’s worth, will likely be indistinguishable from Ogles’.
More Dumb Socialism
What exactly is the leadership of the Democratic Socialists of America thinking? In their manifesto — beyond the ten agenda items I covered in an earlier post — they’re clearly trying to recruit new members (useful idiots) by painting a picture of what a socialist takeover would supposedly look like. In “A Day Without Capitalism,” they ask readers to “imagine taking a day off from work in a future without capitalism”:
- You work as much as you’re able and no more than needed, and you control your own labor and see it put to good use. It’s not just a job to pay the bills.
- Speaking of bills, you don’t really have them anymore. You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses — they’re common goods and utilities.
- What do you do on your day off? Maybe in the morning you walk your kids to school, run errands, or go to a doctor’s appointment. In the afternoon you might play a sport, practice a new skill, read, or plan a trip. In the evening you could meet up with friends or family, eat together, catch a movie, or head to the park.
- A socialist day off could look like any good day now. But what if you were free to spend your time as you liked without worrying about cost or dreading going back to work? What if you didn’t have to think about rent or loan payments at the end of the month, or saving for college, or affording groceries?
- What would it actually be like? It’s been said that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. But just because it’s hard to imagine doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it happen. Workers deserve more.
Do people really believe this garbage?
More on Trump’s Ballroom
The D.C. Circuit Court, in a 2-1 ruling, has halted construction on Trump’s White House ballroom. As with most decisions these days, the focus immediately shifts to who appointed the judges. Here, the majority were appointees of Biden and Obama, with a Trump appointee in dissent. I’m less interested in who appointed whom than in what the law actually says — or implies. The court ruled that the president cannot demolish the East Wing and begin above-ground construction without congressional approval.
Of course, the president had already razed the East Wing and is well into building the over-budget ballroom by the time this ruling came down. Trump will now have to appeal to the Supreme Court — and it’s worth remembering he already lost this case once before, in a lower court, which ruled that the White House belongs to the people of the United States, not to whoever currently occupies it.
What would Republicans have said if Obama had wanted to tear down the East Wing to build a basketball court? Or if Clinton had wanted to add a WWE arena? Oh, wait — that was Donald Trump.
haroldblackphd.com 