Brad Smith

The Institute for Free Speech @InstFreeSpeech is looking for a new President. A great opportunity for an enthusiast for free speech in political campaigns. See details here: talentmarket.org/job-opening/pr…. For more on IFS, check out ifs.org

Darryll Jones of “Jonesing for Nonprofits” writes about IFS Research Director @KnowlesGardner’s fascinating NAACP v. Alabama research. darryllkjones.substack.com/p/the-past-is-…

I have thought that Republicans will get hammered in November, but the Democratic hysteria over the Virginia Supreme Court decision suggests maybe things aren’t so dire for Republicans after all.

@jamesetta_w Nice try, but no, that’s not what the court found. It found that both a 75% white and a 40-45% black district was perfectly legal if drawn for political reasons, but not if drawn for race. This really isn’t hard.

What Clyburn is saying here is actually very important. The court found a way to rule that a 75% white district (higher than SC’s total non Hispanic white pop.) is legal if you call it a political gerrymander, but a 40 or 45% Black district is an illegal racial gerrymander.

We stand against compulsory indoctrination. Great work by attorneys for @InstFreeSpeech

Campaign finance disclosures should fight corruption, not fuel political voyeurism says Tiffany Donnelly of @InstFreeSpeech. And she's right. thehill.com/opinion/campai…

@briannalyman2 Yes.

The attacks on the VA Supreme Court are a threat to democracy. The greatest threat to democracy since the Civil War. (Am I doing this right?)

The Virginia case was decided under the Virginia Constitution, which has no effect in Texas, etc. In Rucho, the Supreme Court held that gerrymandering was not justiciable under the federal constitution, but Congress or the states could address it. Virginia did, passing a constitutional amendment to ban gerrymandering. Then, this year, they tried to get rid of the Constitutional Amendment. But they failed to follow the rules of the state Constitution for proposing an amendment. That's why it was ruled unconstitutional by the Virginia Supreme Court. The decision is irrelevant to Texas, as the Virginia constitution does not apply to Texas.

@JonathanTurley So all the other gerrymandering such as Texas, all designed to steal votes from minorities, not unconstitutional, hunh? Love how you are aligning with the new Jim Crow. Pathetic.

The collective primal scream session is continuing over the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court that Democrats violated the Constitution in the gerrymandering vote. Yet, Sen. Tim Kaine offered a moment of unintended levity when he questioned why the Court waited so long...

One can criticize Donald Trump for many things, but one thing Trump never did was get a Nazi tattoo.

The idea that if you offer a person a wage, and they accept it, you are “stealing” from them, seems an abuse of the English language, an immoral concept deployed to build hatred and division in support of polices that otherwise would not be accepted.

Well, I guess it's about time we got an *authentic* Nazi in Congress, not one of these Mitch McConnell types the left just calls a Nazi. For years the left has complained that Congress is full of Nazis; but as there weren't really any, I guess the left has decided to try to elect one. Naturally, the Bulwark is joining them to support Graham Platner. Heaven forbid Susan Collins, a sensible moderate, should represent Maine. If Platner wins, it will be to the ever-lasting shame of Maine voters. I will always refer to him as (Platner, NSDAP-Maine).

“The only disclosure that makes sense to me is when a substantial sum is given directly to a candidate,” @DavidLKeating said...(Disclosing small donors) is of questionable value beyond the public’s voyeuristic interest.” dcjournal.com/lawsuit-aims-k…

@charlescwcooke Well, this does appear in the Bulwark.

What? South Carolina has a black Senator. His name is Tim Scott. He’s a Republican. You can’t gerrymander Senate seats. What world do these people live in?

Should the government be mass collecting and storing information on your political views, associations, and friendships? We think not.

Don't overreact to data centers. They offer relatively low-impact growth, and tend to lower, rather than raise, the cost of residential electric.

@hmmthatisdumb @RichardPeil So you oppose depreciation allowances for business assets. Got it. Thank you. Please address why you think some of the other things you don't like are bad for growth and employment. Hint: A good place to start, though you didn't mention it, might be "green" subsidies.

@CommishSmith @RichardPeil It is not wasting money. No one is making that argument… it is a policy decision in favor of richer larger corps. Also it was the throw away at the end of my examples and is the most trivial compared to the others. Funny how you are grabbing onto that one

When people complain that tax dollars are given away to billionaires in "corporate tax breaks and subsidies," it would be helpful if they would define exactly which "tax breaks and subsidies" they mean, and why they are not justified. While Republican priotities would take many hits, I suspect such specificity would reflect especially poorly on Democratic priorities. But we don't really know when people won't tell us what "tax breaks and subidies" they mean.

@steelcoldsnitch @RodDMartin Sure, whatever.

@CommishSmith @RodDMartin Lee surrendered to the most lenient terms in western military history, and only after the entire South was collapsed. Again, not a whipping.

Everyone loves asking: “If Grant was such a great general, how come he lost nearly every battle to Lee and suffered way more casualties?” Robert E. Lee himself had a very different answer. “I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant’s superior as a general. I doubt his superior can be found in all history.” — Robert E. Lee The entire question is built on two flat-out falsehoods. First: Grant didn’t “lose nearly every battle.” There was essentially ONE continuous campaign — from the Wilderness in May 1864 straight through to Appomattox in April 1865. Grant seized the initiative in the very first clash and never gave it back. Lee spent the rest of the war reacting to Grant’s moves. When Lee attacked in the Wilderness hoping the old forests and bogs would save him (like they always had), Grant didn’t retreat north like every previous Union commander. He simply disengaged, slid south, and flanked Lee again. Lee never dictated the terms of battle after that day. James Longstreet had tried to warn the Army of Northern Virginia: “We’ve never faced anyone like this man.” They didn’t listen. They learned fast. Second: The casualty comparison ignores that Lee was almost always the defender. Context matters. But the deeper truth is bigger than any single clash. Lee still fought war the old way — disconnected battles, win-loss record like a sports season. Grant fought the next war: coordinated campaigns across multiple theaters, using railroads, telegraph, navy, and engineers to keep relentless pressure until the enemy simply could not continue. Grant didn’t win by accident. He made contact and maintained it until victory was inevitable. Lee fought the last war. Grant wrote the blueprint for the next one. That’s why he was great. That's why he won. Change your mind yet? Drop your hottest take on Grant vs. Lee below. 🔥

@steelcoldsnitch @RodDMartin I dunno. Who surrendered to whom?

@CommishSmith @RodDMartin If sustaining 100% casualties in your best corps is ‘whipping’ your enemy than Grant was not half the general the midwit’s say he is.

@wingod @RodDMartin Disagree with the last. There were lots of competent generals on both sides, but I would take Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan over Lee, Jackson, and Stuart. Hancock over Longstreet. Thomas over Bragg, Meade over Longstreet... etc.

Actually, it was the physical resources of the union, coupled with the statement about Grant "he fights". The Confederacy, with 1/10th the population, and 1/25th the industrial base never had a chance in a war of attrition. The Confederacy had far better military leadership, but without resources, you can only hold on so long.

@steelcoldsnitch @RodDMartin Kind of a long-winded way of saying Grant knew how to whip Lee, and he did.

Tactically, Grant was little more the John Bell Hood. Aggression without calculation; ordering frontal assaults against entrenched positions without reconnaissance. The men literally refused him more than once. Grant lost 60k men in only 6 weeks against Lee. By the time they reached the James, the 2nd Corps, the premier infantry corps in the Union army, reported more casualties sustained than the # of men they had at muster when the campaign started. Despite overwhelming odds in both men and material, Grant never bettered Lee in the open field. It took G an entire year to whittle Lee’s army away, largely under siege, and even then, he had to collapse the entire South first to force Lee’s surrender. Also, attrition isn’t a strategy, it’s cope. Lee > Grant

Had Lee had more resources, what makes you think Grant would not have adapted? Over the course of the war, Grant showed a remarkable dexterity in adopting strategies and tactics to the time and place. The Vicksburg campaign is a masterpiece of maneuver never equaled by Lee. Along w/ Fts. Henry & Donelson, it showed his ability to move as rapidly and decisively as Lee did at Chancellorsville. Belmont demonstrated his ability to control the action despite having significantly inferior numbers. The Gettysburg and Antietam campaigns suggest that Lee was not all that great at maneuver when on the offensive.

@RodDMartin Grant was a good General, you’re right. But if Lee had Grant’s resources he’d have defeated Grant early. Your analysis of Lee is as erroneous as the one you criticize about Grant. Lee’s tactics would have been completely different with more resources.