UNITED STATES REBIBLICANS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

UNITED STATES REBIBLICANS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

On November 4, 2014, voters will, once again, have the opportunity to vote for the candidates of their choice in both the United States House and Senate races. There will be 33 Senate seats up for grabs and all of the House seats.There are currently 41 Senators who have made our list of “ReBiblicans.” Of those 41, there are 15 running for re-election. Until filing time we won’t have an accurate picture of the number who will be vying for the other 18. It is incumbent upon the electorate to know who these individuals are and what they stand for.

There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Of those 435 there are 217 who have met our criteria to be considered “ReBiblican.” This means that, while they might not be true Dominionists, they proffer, support, vote for, and promote legislation that infringes upon civil and human rights, and they pander to Dominionist groups and organizations. The criteria that we use is as follows:

  1. They      perpetuate the war on women
  2. They      are anti-Affirmative Action
  3. They      are against same-sex marriage and adoptions
  4. They      are against the separation of church and state
  5. They      believe that the United States      is a Christian Nation
  6. They      believe in faith-based initiatives
  7. They      believe in an absolute right to gun-ownership
  8. They      believe in the privatization of public education and social services
  9. They      are against providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers
  10. They      believe in an expansion of the military and further insurgency
  11. They      foster hatred toward Muslims
  12. They      consistently vote in a manner that furthers the Dominionist agenda

Now, it should be noted that embracing one or two of these beliefs does not make them a ReBiblican. They must consistently cling to at least four of these, and either author or support legislation that furthers this agenda. That not only means that some who are not on the list are “marginal” at best, but that those who are on the list present a clear and present danger to the American way of life.

Below you will find a list of the 217 members of the House of Representatives who have met the criteria, and who will be up for re-election in 2014. We have a great opportunity to unseat these individuals.  Our next endeavor will be to identify those in various state elections – a mammoth task.

Alabama

Jo Bonner – resigning in August

Martha Roby

Mike D. Rogers

Robert Aderholt

Mo Brooks

Spencer Bachus

Alaska

Don Young

Arizona

Paul Gosar

Matt Salmon

David Schweikert

Trent Franks

Arkansas

Rick Crawford

Tim Griffin

Steve Womack

Tom Cotton

California

Doug LaMalfa

Tom McClintock

Paul Cook

Jeff Denham

David Valadao

Devin Nunes

Kevin McCarthy

Howard “Buck” McKeon

Gary Miller

Ed Royce

Ken Calvert

John Campbell

Dana Rohrabacher

Darrell Issa

Duncan D. Hunter

Colorado

Scott Tipton

Cory Gardner

Doug Lamborn

Mike Coffman

Connecticut

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE!*

Delaware

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING DELAWARE IN THE HOUSE!*

Florida

Jeff Miller

Steve Southerland

Ted Yoho

Ander Crenshaw

Ron DeSantis

John Mica

Bill Posey

Daniel Webster

Rich Nugent

Gus Bilirakis

Bill Young

Dennis Ross

Vern Buchanan

Tom Rooney

Trey Radel

Mario Diaz-Balart

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Georgia

Jack Kingston

Lynn Westmoreland

Tom Price

Rob Woodall

Austin Scott

Doug Collins

Paul Broun

Phil Gingrey

Tom Graves

Hawaii

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING HAWAII IN THE HOUSE!*

Idaho

Raul Labrador

Mike Simpson

Illinois

Peter Roskam

Rodney L. Davis

Randy Hultgren

John Shimkus

Adam Kinzinger

Aaron Schock

Indiana

Jackie Walorski

Marlin Stutzman

Todd Rokita

Luke Messer

Larry Buschon

Todd Young

Iowa

Tom Latham

Steve King

Kansas

Tim Huelskamp

Lynn Jenkins

Mike Pompeo

Kentucky

Ed Whitfield

Brett Guthrie

Hal Rogers

Louisiana

Steve Scalise

Charles Boustany

John Fleming

Rodney Alexander

Maine

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING MAINE IN THE HOUSE!*

Maryland

Andy Harris

Massachusetts

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE!*

Michigan

Dan Benishek

Bill Huizenga

Justin Amash

David Camp

Fred Upton

Tim Walberg

Mike Rogers

Candice Miller

Minnesota

John Kline

Erik Paulsen

Michele Bachmann

Mississippi

Alan Nunnelee

Gregg Harper

Steven Palazzo

Missouri

Blaine Luetkemeyer

Vicky Hartzler

Sam Graves

Billy Long

Jason T. Smith

Montana

Steve Daines – considering Senate run in 2014

Nebraska

 

Jeff Fortenberry

Lee Terry

Adrian Smith

Nevada

Joe Heck

New   Hampshire

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING NEW   HAMPSHIRE IN THE HOUSE!*

New   Jersey

Frank LoBiondo

Jon Runyan

Chris Smith

Scott Garrett

Rodney Frelinghuysen

New   Mexico

 

Steve Pearce

New   York

Peter King

Michael Grimm

Chris Gibson

Chris Collins

North   Carolina

 

Renee Ellmers

Walter Jones

Virginia Foxx

Howard Coble

Richard Hudson

Robert Pittenger

Patrick McHenry

Mark Meadows

George Holding

North   Dakota

 

Kevin Cramer

Ohio

Steve Chabot

Brad Wenstrup

Jim Jordan

Bob Lotta

Bill Johnson

Bob Gibbs

John Boehner

Mike Turner

Pat Tiberi

David Joyce

Jim Renacci

Oklahoma

 

Jim Bridenstine

Markwayne Mullin

Frank Lucas

Tom Cole

James Lankford

Oregon

 

Greg Walden

Pennsylvania

 

Mike Kelly

Scott Perry

Glenn Thompson

Jim Gerlach

Mike Fitzpatrick

Bill Shuster

Tom Marino

Lou Barletta

Charlie Dent

Joe Pitts

Timothy F. Murphy

Rhode   Island

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING RHODEISLAND IN THE HOUSE!*

South   Carolina

 

Mark Sanford

Joe Wilson

Trey Gowdy

Mick Mulvaey

Tom Rice

South   Dakota

Kristi Noem

Tennessee

 

Phil Roe

Jimmy Duncan

Chuck Fleischmann

Scott DesJarlais

Diane Black

Marsha Blackburn

Stephen Fincher

Texas

 

Louie Gohmert

Ted Poe

Sam Johnson

Ralph Hall

Jeb Hensarling

Joe Barton

John Culerson

Kevin Brady

Michael McCaul

Mike Conaway

Kay Grange

Mac Thornberry

Randy Weber

Bill Flores

Randy Neugebauer

Lamar S. Smith

Pete Olson

Kenny Marchant

Roger Williams

Michael Burgess

Blake Farenthold

John Carter

Pete Sessions

Steve Stockman

Utah

Rob Bishop

Jason Chaffetz

Vermont

*NO REBIBLICANS REPRESENTING VERMONT IN THE HOUSE!*

Virginia

 

Rob Wittman

Scott Rigell

Randy Forbes

Robert Hurt

Bob Goodlatte

Eric Cantor

Morgan Griffith

Frank Wolf

Washington

 

Jamie Herrera Beutler

Doc Hastings

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Dave Reichert

West   Virginia

Shelley Moore Capito

Wisconsin

Paul Ryan

Jim Sensenbrenner

Tom Petri

Sean Duffy

Reid Ribble

Wyoming

Cynthia Lummis

Advertisements

18 responses to “UNITED STATES REBIBLICANS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  1. One problem I have with the list…

    I like it that you have more than one selection necessary to declare someone a Rebiblican, but at the same time, I am a gun-owning and second amendment supporting liberal, and I belong to a blog filled with the same, and there are a lot of us. I think that “absolute right to gun ownership” should not be in the criteria for that reason (for most of us, the “absolute” right to own and bear arms IS a liberal thing… based on the freedom of the individual).

    Like

    • I also have been a gun owner forever, but absolutely recognize the need for gun control laws. Just like everything else, regulation is essential in order to maintain order. The 2nd Amendment has been bastardized into an unrecognizable tool having little to nothing to do with its original intent. If followed to the “T” – only males between 18 and 35 would be allowed to own any guns at all.

      Background checks, closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons are all legitimate and necessary. To cling to the notion that owning an automatic weapon is “freedom”…is really paranoia.

      Like

  2. It’s interesting that you say this, and I have had this conversation with others. You know, I own a gun – and always will. The politicians, however, who are targeted here based upon an absolute right to gun ownership are generally those who believe that background checks should be eliminated, that there should be no restrictions, and that assault rifles fall into that category. I don’t know that I would consider that a “liberal” thing, as those politicians who believe that it is their God-given right generally embrace several of the other criteria that puts them on the list. Consequently, I have to disagree when you say that it is a “liberal” thing.

    Like

    • “Assault rifle” is a loaded term for a semi-automatic rifle with replaceable clips and which is not automatic (machine gun, which are against the law unless you have a special license). By definition, my little 22 is considered an “assault rifle”… and if you’ve ever had to face a dog pack or (hypothetical) truckload of dominionist bigots on the warpath, a single-shot won’t cut it.
      That’s the style of gun I like… and I keep running into people who don’t want me to own one, even though they don’t know me – they figure if I like that sort of gun, I’m some sort of dangerous nut who needs to be controlled. That I object to… just as many other liberal gun owners like me also object.
      Isn’t liberalism based on the freedom of the individual to do what he or she wants, unless that freedom takes away the freedom of others? What about my freedom to own the type of gun I prefer?

      Again I restate that I think that by including absolute right to gun ownership as a characteristic in the list for Rebiblicans, you’re ignoring a lot of gun-owning liberals.

      Like

      • Well…it appears that we are just going to have to disagree on this issue. It’s a touchy subject that always generates passionate responses. Personally, I don’t think for the ReBiblicans the issue is about gun ownership – it’s about restrictions and background checks. Do you oppose background checks? Do you think that any person should be able to purchase a gun without one? Where does it stop? What kind of weapons should not be available to the public?

        As to being able to do what he or she wants – I don’t think that’s “liberalism” – or necessarily freedom – that’s anarchy, especially considering the current state of the mental health of this nation.

        Again, I can see that we are just going to disagree on this issue while agreeing in general that dominionism is a threat to the nation. What I find really interesting is that virtually every politician on that list deems an absolute right to gun ownership an issue without compromise. I’m not so certain that I’m too comfortable with a bunch of right-wing, fanatical zealots having free reign to tote firearms down the streets of my neighborhood given today’s climate.

        Like

        • I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. You may not understand the whole situation why I am totally opposed to any form of gun control whatsoever (I fear it).

          I should explain further. In this hellhole of a county in which I live, the very first person that would be disarmed (or had their rights limited) would probably be me – we very well remember the calls for disarming people in the 70s (and recently too). It ties into race relations and race politics in the Southeast… and is a long story. The “powers that be” don’t like us because they couldn’t eliminate us, and our regaining freedom of religion and our civil rights* really angered them and the dominionists, for whom we were a potential captive audience (if they weren’t trying to kill us or drive us out of the country and take our land – that is if they discovered who we were in the first place). I remember when that happened and the rage that was expressed, although at the time I didn’t have a clue about my real heritage and ancestry. Anyway, they know quite well that I’m American Indian around here. I’m proud of it and refuse to be ashamed.

          The dominionists and the Klan are not likely to ever disarm (the promise of dying before disarming is sincere), and as members of my tribe can attest, the Klan wants a return to gun control for us, while their “rights” (including the “right” to harm or kill those they hate without risk of being killed themselves) remain inviolate – I’ve seen first-hand the reality of this and private ownership of guns (and not just single-shots) keeping us from becoming victims.

          For these reasons and others, I’m terrified of any hint of “Gun Control” and don’t trust the “authorities” to have my best interests at heart – I expect just the opposite in fact. I’m also concerned about “registration” as I remember it being proposed as a first step to confiscation (back in the 70s). Go to the Lakeland Ledger and read about what has been going on in the Lakeland PD – if “Karma” were real, I would expect half of “Law Enforcement” in this region to be in prison – but it’s not and only a few have experienced a bit of “what goes around comes around” (I’ve known for years that a lot of stuff was going on without ever being dealt with). Thus “law enforcement” can’t be trusted – because their reality is what has been coming out lately (people I know say the exposure is long overdue). Indeed, I try to live my life as carefully and law-abiding as possible so as to avoid their attention, because my experiences of 35 years of life in this area showed me how much of a danger they can be to minorities and the poor, while they break the rules and the law with little concern for consequences.

          *- In 1979: before that practicing our traditional religion was against the law. In 1980 that move was followed by regaining the right to exist, the right to access and testify in the courts, the right to live in our traditional area, and freedom of movement (plus the Trail of Tears law and the law granting whites the right to shoot Indians after dark in Georgia or Florida were repealed).

          Like

          • First, let me thank you for that explanation. I am very familiar with the area in which you live. Being born and raised in South Florida, in a time when racism and the Klan were the order of the day, I am also familiar with your plight. Additionally, many of my ancestors were Native American and I am quite familiar with the heinous acts that have been, and continue to be perpetrated upon those of such heritage.

            For those unfamiliar with Dominionism, I must tell you how I got involved in this struggle. Growing up in a home that was steeped in racism and bigotry wasn’t easy for me. I never adopted the hatred or shared the prejudices of my family. Throughout the 60’s I got caught up in the Civil Rights Movement and learned a good deal about human nature.

            Later, I found myself the victim of a vile group of neo-Nazi’s. I won’t go into the grisly details, but suffice it to say, I saw racism and hatred up close and very personal. Afterwards, I dedicated my life to fighting against organized hate groups. In 1999, I started a group called Citizens Against Hate. We were extremely instrumental in exposing and breaking up a number of neo-Nazi and Klan groups. The organization remained active until 2010.

            During that time, I came into contact with something called the Christian Identity Religion. It is generally associated with racist groups, and in particular the Aryan Nations. Believing that all non-whites are nothing more than “Mud-Races,” and in the extermination or deportation of all non-white individuals, the religion itself is, of course, dangerous. However, what I began to run into was the parallels between that religion and what is known as Reconstructionism.

            This led me into the realm of Dominionism. I slowly began to realize that this was much bigger – much more dangerous, than Christian Identity if for no other reason than the sheer number of adherents. As organized hate groups became much more decimated and fractured, I witnessed many of the members becoming more stealth and entering a more “mainstream” lifestyle – many headed into the political arena – many adopted the dominionist religion. Couple that with the number of seated politicians who had come straight from the old White Citizens Council, we had a recipe for disaster.

            It had become quite evident to me that Dominionism is the biggest threat to our American way of life.

            Now…with all of that being said, I understand your fear of gun control – to a point. However, I also understand that most of the acts of extreme violence that have been perpetrated upon us in the last couple of decades have been perpetrated by individuals on the extreme right. Of course, there are exceptions.

            It is those on the extreme right who sound the alarm at the very mention of background checks or restrictions – sending a wave of fear through gun-owners across America that our guns are going to be confiscated. Yet, there has been no such action taken. I can assure you that should a mass confiscation be conducted, it would not go well – for the government. You know that, I know that, and the government knows that.

            Requiring background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, and banning assault weapons will NOT end the violence. But, it might slow it down. Until we address the dire state of mental health in this country, nothing will stop a crazed individual from violently attacking others. However, to do nothing, is playing right into the hands of the extremists.

            There are very few major nations have the right to bear arms configured in their Constitution. Even fewer (as in we are the only one) have gun control legislation as a hot button political issue. According to the most recent statistics, the U.S. is the most violent core economy in terms of gun related deaths. Additionally, we have the dubious distinction of the highest rate of school shootings in the world.

            To deny that something needs to change, is to be like an ostrich burying your head in the sand. To believe that someone is coming to confiscate our firearms is to live in a state of paranoia that I believe is unrealistic in 2013. To rule out gun control based upon the personal paranoia that you are the one threatened is overlooking the dangers posed to the rest of the citizenry, including our children – and that’s selfish.

            Again – those kinds of controls are not going to SOLVE the problem. But they can, certainly, lessen the threat. Sane, responsible, level-headed gun enthusiasts should not fear background checks. And, who, other than the military, needs an assault rifle? I don’t remember who it was, but one of these nutty dominionist politicians was being interviewed and was asked where does it stop. When the host asked him if the 2nd Amendment’s Right to Bear Arms include hand-held missile launchers – the nut said “YES.” So…I ask you…Where do we draw the line?

            Do you honestly believe that in the framing of the Constitution the Founding Fathers intended that right to include high-capacity assault rifles and missile launchers?

            Like

            • A hunting rifle IS an “Assault Rifle”, and the language is BS – part of the 70s attempt to ban guns (which I very clearly remember). Most people think “assault rifle” means machine gun… not true. You can’t own machine guns – they’re against the law. You ban “assault rifles”, you’ve just made me a criminal – and I WILL NOT give up my right to self-defense, much less my right to hunt (part of my heritage).

              Guns aren’t the problem, as you admitted. Why go after a surface thing rather than the real problem… a screwed up culture which stresses the hell out of the poor and working people, while the rich laugh all the way to the bank (and whimper if they are five minutes late for their latte)? A culture where winning is everything, even if violence is the only way to achieve winning – and the looser might have a just claim to winning?

              You’re advocating against my rights, and that scares the hell out of me and makes me even more uncomfortable with “Gun Control”. I will never compromise on the subject, because in essence you’re advocating that I suffer so you can think you solved a social problem (it won’t). You win the “assault rifles” battle, you’ll learn that the problem is still there, and what will be next? Pistols (which btw I hunt with)? Single-shot rifles and shotguns? When will it end?

              It’s not selfish either. I’ve been threatened with gun confiscation by the local pigs… damned near arrested for even owning a gun while poor (the pig came into the place where I was living and was going to confiscate my 22 and my black-powder rifle and pistol, but my landlord, who had some property and money and therefore demanded some respect, stopped him and kept him from arresting me – I’d been attacked while trying to jog and had called the pigs regarding self-defense. The person on duty sent out an officer to arrest me for having a gun while living in a known poor area and wrongly thought I’d stepped outside my door with it – even though I had the written permission to have my guns there and to take them outside if I wished – it was in the country).

              There are lots of honest and law-abiding gun owners out there, and we aren’t the problem. Passing laws only hurt us but do nothing for the criminally insane or crooks. It won’t “protect the kids” either. The fact is, there are kids being attacked all over the globe, even in countries like China where gun ownership (except by their …police… and military and elites) is outlawed. I keep telling people cultural change is what is needed, and then gun ownership would become a moot point. We aren’t the bad guys, but we’re treated like it.

              That’s why I keep feeling caught in the middle. I get attacked and harassed from people on the left, and hated by (and don’t fit in with) “the right” … and insulted by both sides because I refuse to submit to their definitions, who want people like me legislated against or gone.

              Oh, by the way… missile launchers have been against the law for decades, just as machine guns (automatic rifles in other words) have been (what people wrongly think assault rifles are). They’ve been against the law since before the 60s. That’s not what I’m talking about. If that’s what you’re talking about, you’re flogging a dead horse.

              Like

              • First, let me remind you that I didn’t say that missile launchers were legal. I was merely relaying the mindset of an extremist fool.

                Second, I end up being caught in the middle of the extremist right and left all the time since I am neither of those things.

                Third, I have a feeling that the fear and the venom with which you present your arguments stands in the way of productive conversation or persuasion.

                Fourth, we are not talking about “kids all over the globe.” We are talking about American kids who are sent off to school everyday by parents who want nothing more than to see them become productive and useful members of our society and who are gunned down by crazed nut-jobs who have managed to take advantage of the 2nd Amendment and the loopholes surrounding gun sales.

                We are talking about people who try to put a little enjoyment in their lives by going to dinner and movie, only to have their lives snuffed out while sitting in a theater and holding their loved ones hand – all because some whacko was able to get his hands on a firearm.

                We are talking about politicians who make an attempt to connect with their constituents by holding a town hall meeting and the people who attend that meeting being mowed down by a lunatic with a gun.

                Perhaps we should all wear bullet-proof vests and dress in SWAT style uniforms before going out the door to school, or work, or for an evening of fun. What about OUR rights? What about the right to enjoy life, get an education, and feel safe and secure in our surroundings?

                This conversation started with you claiming that the freedom to do what one wants is being infringed upon and that an absolute right to gun-ownership is a “liberal thing.” You took issue with having your rights infringed upon – what about those of us who want to see our children and grandchildren born into a world where they don’t have to be concerned about dying at the hands of psycho with a gun?

                Sure, there are many social issues to be addressed, but the shooter in Sandy Hook wasn’t an oppressed minority – he wasn’t poor, or stressed out by the culture that you mentioned. The kids who shot up the Columbine School weren’t either. James Holmes, the shooter in Aurora, Colorado didn’t fit the bill. Jared Lee Loughner didn’t even know that our culture was screwed up. I could go on and on, for certain.

                A Walkaway – I have heard all of the arguments time and time again. As I said before, this is an issue upon which we will probably never agree. However, there comes a point where fear overcomes all reason and rationality. I’m sorry that you have had the kind of experiences that have resulted in such fear, however, I urge you not to let it cloud good judgment. No one is coming for your guns. But, at some point, we have to make this a safer environment by a number of ways. In doing so we need level-headed, rational individuals who can look at the whole picture – not just a microcosm that is their world.

                Like

  3. We got a hell of a pack of them-thar Rebiblicans way out here in the wild, wild far west of California, don’t we? I’m going to do everything in my power to get rid of my current Rep, that’s for sure! But I’ll try not to hold my breath because getting them out once they are in is a tough row to hoe in farm country where the farmers all vote Rebiblican because that’s the way their Daddy voted and the way his daddy before him voted. I’m so glad my grandparents were progressive union members who taught me to consider the common good and to THINK for myself!

    Like

    • Uh…Cali – when I was doing this research I was amazed at the sheer number in California. And…that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many others who are right on the cusp, not to mention the state and local idiots who are playing right into their hands.

      I wish we had more activists like you who are CAPABLE of thinking for themselves. We have a helluva lot of work to do!

      Like

      • You aren’t just a-whistlin’ “California Here I Come!” The job ahead for the next three years and three months is DAUNTING. We’d really been hoping Obama would get to name another SCOTUS judge, or two even, but that’s probably not going to happen unless Ginsberg retires, and that won’t help us, it will hurt us because Obama will have to replace her with someone who is more “centrist” just to get that judge through the process. But maybe I’m wrong. If we retain control of the Senate we could push through a progressive judge.

        Like

        • Unfortunately, cali – I don’t think Obama is going to be able to get much of anything through this Congress. The only hope we have comes in those 2014, elections. One of the things that I tell everyone is that these Congressional races are the most important – yet they bring out the least amount of voters. Look at what happened in 2010!

          Hopefully, the electorate is fed up enough to go to the polls and vote wisely, but I just don’t have that much faith in the voters any more. I think this is going to be a knee-jerk election with people voting against rather than for – and not casting an educated ballot.

          You’re right – we need to look at the SCOTUS. But, I think there is little chance of that this term. We had better hope that a presidential candidate comes along who isn’t a ReBiblican. Imagine a Rand Paul, a Ted Cruz, or a Rick Santorum as your next President. If that were to happen, we could kiss it all goodbye.

          Like

  4. Dave Camp in MI is reportedly NOT running for re-election, although he is still holding fundraisers..he may be running for Levin’s Senate seat though.
    I had an interesting email exchange with him about ALEC, to whom he has spoken. When I asked him to end his association with them, he replied that “ALEC is concerned with state legislation, and I am a US Congressman.” Right. Every GOPer here in MI is aligned with ALEC, from Snyder on down.

    Like

  5. Sallyinmi – LOL! LOL! LOL! Camp’s response is typical! ALEC has it’s fingers in everything! Who does he think he is kidding? And…you are so right about Michigan!!! I am in the process of compiling a list of ALEC politicians – it is daunting to say the least!

    Like

  6. BTW… maybe support for and/or membership in ALEC should be on the list. (The politicians down here seem to be trying to hide that fact as much as possible.)

    Like

    • I think you are right there. I am in the process of compiling a list of politicians who are affiliated with ALEC. Let me tell you that there are a TON!

      Like

      • I’m sure you can count LaMalfa as ALEC affiliated as his last job was as a state senator. His replacement is, as well. He was a state representative before his new senate job. Jerk made us hold a special election (costing MILLIONS) because he wouldn’t just resign from his congressional seat– OH NO. The possibility of losing that fat state paycheck was just to frightening, apparently. So all the people in his former district had to have a special election with all that it entails.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s