The Scottish Secession vote is over. The Secessionists lost—by 10 percentage points. That is significant. In my opinion, it was a wise choice.
We’re now seeing some of the demographics of the voters. In general, the older Scots voted to stay in the UK. The younger, twenty-somethings, steeped in European socialism, voted to secede. They point to the North Sea oil fields and those around the outer islands as sources of income. One problem they’ve overlooked…or more likely ignored, is that those North Sea oil fields are in international territory. Territory that is closer to Norway and in several areas, inside Norwegian sovereign territory.
Another oversight is just who will those ‘outer islands’ choose? Are they Scottish? Not necessarily. The British WW1 and WW2 naval base at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands is one such example. While they have some Scottish ancestry, a hundred or more years as a Royal Naval base has diluted their loyalties from Scotland to the UK. Some if the smaller islands are closer to Ireland than Scotland. To whom would they align?
All open questions. And, fortunately, questions that will not need answers. At least, not at this time.
But the Scottish referendum, brings secession before the public, the American public. The result of discussions on that topic may be surprising to those in Washington. Reuters reports the 1 in 4, 25% of Americans would prefer to secede from the Federal government in Washington, DC.
(Reuters) – The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.
The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.
Anger with President Barack Obama’s handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.
But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.
“I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done,” said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. “The state would be better off handling things on its own.”
Scottish separatists proclaim that the idea of independence will never die. A growing number of Americans are adopting that thought as well—independence from a tyrannical central government. To quote Roy Gustafson above, “The state(s) would be better off handling things on its (their) own.”
A week or more ago I asked the question, if Chad Taylor is unfit or incapable of holding the office of US Senator, would he not also be unfit or incapable of holding his office as Wichita District Attorney? It appears I’m not the only one asking that question.
On Thursday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taylor; he can withdraw and have his name taken off the ballot. The justices accepted Taylor’s argument that he meant to declare that he is incapable of serving:
We conclude the plain meaning of “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” contained in Taylor’s letter effectively declares he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected. Simply put, the phrase operates as an incorporation by reference of this particular requirement…
So Taylor is out. Coverage of the decision has focused on the conclusion that the removal of Taylor’s name from the ballot will help Orman and hurt Roberts’ chances of re-election. That’s of course the national significance of the decision. But in Kansas, questions will remain. Why did Democrats nominate a candidate who is incapable of serving? And just why is Taylor incapable? Also, Taylor is the district attorney of Shawnee County in Kansas. Is he capable of doing that job? And if he is, why is it that he is capable of serving as district attorney but incapable of serving as senator?
From the start of his campaign through the Aug. 5 Democratic primary (which he won with 53 percent of the vote), through the beginning of September, Taylor told voters he was the best choice to represent Kansas in the United States Senate. Then, overnight, he decided he was “incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected.” He owes the voters of Kansas an explanation of what happened.
I skipped most of the article and reproduced only the last few paragraphs. You can read the entire column here.
The NRSC and Karl Rove have come to the ‘pubs out here in flyover land with their hands out—for our money. They spent their money fighting us in the primary. Now it general election time and they are broke.
There’s an old adage that says, “What goes around, comes around.” You should have thought of that, Karl, before you betrayed the conservatives across the country to prop up your elitist buds in Washington.
No money for YOU!
The result of Rove’s and the NRSC’s tactics during the primaries this summer may have cost those Washington elitists control of the Senate.
posted at 7:23 am on November 7, 2010
The National Republican Senatorial Committee spent $3 million in the week before the election on the ill-fated campaign of Carly Fiorina, despite polling that showed her trailing by 9 points to the tiny Marxist Barbara Boxer (Fiorina ended up losing by… 9.8%).
In the mean time, Ken Buck lost by a tiny margin in Colorado; Nevada’s Sharron Angle lost by a similar narrow vote total, Dino Rossi was edged by Patty Murray in Washington, 27,000 votes swung the election against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and and Joe Miller is hanging by a thread in Alaska.
In Alaska, the final results may not be known for some time, but the NRSC’s final ads actually ended up helping Lisa Murkowski in her write-in campaign against GOP nominee Joe Miller. Instead of attacking Murkowski — the candidate who most threatened the party’s nominee — the NRSC instead took aim at Democrat Scott McAdams, who had no chance of winning. Any support they drove from McAdams was far more likely to go to Murkowski than to Miller — meaning the NRSC effort probably did more harm than good for Miller’s campaign.
In other words, the NRSC’s idiocy — combined with outrageous remarks by Karl Rove on national television — likely doomed four or five true conservative candidates to extinction.
In the post-election debrief, the Nixonian RINO contingent of Whimsy Graham, John Cornyn and the rest of the NRSC’s ludicrous cadre of losers blamed… staunch conservative Jim DeMint, who had funded a handful of Tea Party-backed Senatorial winners like Pat Toomey (PA), Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Lee (UT) and Ron Johnson (WI).
Oh, but that $8 million spent on Fiorina’s campaign didn’t hurt at all — right, boys?
I know one thing: that $3 million spent in the final weeks on those five campaigns could have swung four or five seats to the GOP. But the idiots at the NRSC are selfish, insular Beltway Republicans who are wedded to the status quo.
News flash, boys: we just stamped expiration dates on your foreheads.
You can read the entire column on Hot Air. What Karl Rove and the NRSC has sown, so will they reap.