Formidable Candidate Joins Crowded Race for Ohio Senate Seat; Gibbons Is a Businessman, Not a Politician

Photo Credit: Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

Cleveland businessman and 2018 Ohio Republican Senate candidate Mike Gibbons announced plans to make a run for the Ohio Senate seat currently occupied by GOP Sen. Rob Portman, who will be retiring. This 2022 race is shaping up to become the most competitive Republican primary in the country.

Gibbons released his announcement video to Fox News on Tuesday morning. He joins three other candidates including Jane Timken, a former state Republican Party chair, former state treasurer and former two-time Senate candidate Josh Mandel and Cleveland businessman and luxury auto dealership giant Bernie Moreno, according to Fox.

“I’m a businessman, not a politician. I’m blunt, plain spoken, and I tell it like it is,” Gibbons tells voters in the video below.

The pro-Trump conservative believes it’s time “to stand up to the cancel culture and the lies of those who seek to divide us. I believe that families matter. Churches matter. Neighborhoods and small towns matter. I believe that we need to secure our borders, stand for life, and defend our 2nd Amendment rights.”

“The left is working around the clock to destroy everything President Trump accomplished during his time in office… they’re counting on us to go away – to cower before the power of Washington, D.C., and their media enablers. But I’m not going anywhere. I’m ready for battle,” he said.

He has an impressive biography and emphasized the value of hardwork in achieving success. Gibbons “grew up in Parma, a working-class suburb of Cleveland. My father was a high school teacher and a wrestling coach. My grandfather was president of the laborers union.”

Strolling through the company’s Cleveland headquarters, Gibbons says, “I started my own business at the age of 37, working alone in a small office with just a phone and a desk.” He built this into a lucrative investment banking firm called Brown, Gibbons, Lang and Company.

He understands “that politicians don’t create jobs, businesses do. I know because I’ve done it.” Through his company, Gibbons said he’d “helped dozens of homegrown Ohio companies expand and add jobs, providing strategic and financial advice and much needed capital.”

“I’ve achieved financial success beyond my wildest imagination. I’ve achieved my American dream. Now I’m running for the U.S. Senate to make sure other people have the ability to achieve their American dream,” Gibbons concluded.

Fox reports that Gibbons will initially invest $5 million of his own money in his campaign. The media outlet indicated that several of Gibbon’s current and potential opponents can and likely will draw upon their own wealth to finance their campaigns.

Moreno, who has already declared his candidacy, could use his fortune to fund his campaign. Of the other two declared candidates, Mandel has $4.5 million remaining from previous campaigns and Timken has collected $2.1 million since launching her bid six weeks ago, according to Fox.

Additionally, “last month PayPal co-founder and billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel contributed $10 million of his own money into a super PAC that would support Vance if he runs.”

The natural candidate for the open Ohio seat would be the outspoken Rep. Jim Jordan. Almost as soon as Sen. Portman announced his retirement plans, however, Jordan said he had no plans to enter the race, a decision that surprised many Republicans.

On the other side of the aisle, current Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan is expected to run for the seat.

Republicans are hoping to take back the Senate in 2022 which means they need to pick up just one additional seat. They will be “defending 20 of the 34 seats up for grabs in 2022.”

TX GOP Candidate Knows ‘How to Handle Nancy Pelosi and Stop Her Bullsh**’

Photo Credit: Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

A former professional wrestler from Las Vegas has thrown his hat into the very large ring of candidates vying for the vacant seat of the late Republican Texas Rep. Ron Wright.

The Daily Caller reports that six-foot-seven Dan Rodimer entered the race at the last minute. “The special election has 22 other candidates including Wright’s widow.” The former WWE wrestler is a father of six, and a law school graduate.

In his campaign ad below, “Big Dan” tells voters, “Texas has big problems. We need a big fighter to solve those problems.” Here are some of the highlights:

The commies in D.C. are ruining America. We have a big problems … I know how to handle Nancy Pelosi and stop her bullsh**.

(Steps into a pile of manure) I’ll put a boot right in her socialist platform.

Men in women’s bathrooms, boys in girls’ sports, higher taxes, higher gas prices. They’re building a wall around D.C., but they’re not protecting our borders. They’re laughing at us. Now they’re going to try to take away our guns. (Sound of a gun being cocked.) Oh, hell no.

I moved my family of seven back to Texas because I want to raise my kids in Constitution friendly state. Here in Texas, we are free. We live free.

“The communists in D.C. want to shut down our churches, close our businesses, indoctrinate our children, communism in our classrooms, make our daughters unsafe in sports and school, destroy American borders and our American history. We must stop them.”

“Hire me to represent you and I’ll go to D.C. and kick some left-wing a**.”

Rodimer is brash and a bit over-the-top, but this is what we need in Washington. Although their personalities are different, his “in your face” manner would ruffle liberals feathers in a big way.

The problem in D.C. is that Republicans are too timid. For some, that may be politeness, but for others, it looks like fear. Democrats need to be called out and utterly humiliated for the actions they’ve taken over the last few months.

Republicans would be wise to take a lesson from the Biden Administration’s absolute mortification in Alaska at the hands of the Chinese. Rather than being cowed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s (accurate) accusations, top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi gave as good as he got. He shot right back with a list of America’s shortcomings. When it was Yang’s turn to speak, Blinken inexplicably dismissed the press. This prompted Yang to embarrass him by asking why did that. After all, Yang chided, America was a democracy. In a recent post about these talks, I wrote that Yang had neither fear, nor respect for Blinken or anyone else in the Biden Administration.

We need strong politicians to fight back against the Democrats’ massive power grab.

If I lived in Texas, Rodimer would have my vote.


Here are a few posts from Rodimer’s Twitter page:

Black Leaders Take Aim at Sens. Sinema, Manchin Over Refusal to Nix Filibuster; ‘They Are, in Effect, Supporting Racism’

Photo Credit: Image by mjimages from Pixabay

The Senate website defines the filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” This device is meant to prevent the party in the Senate minority from being completely overpowered by the majority party.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why the filibuster is bad news for Democrats:

“It’s simple: none of the progressive issues that Democratic candidates and congressional leaders are discussing today will become law unless we do something about the filibuster.”

“If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell expects to be the Grim Reaper of progressive policies, the scythe he’ll use is the Senate filibuster. Unless we change the rules.”

With a 50-50 balance of power in the Senate, Democrats control the upper chamber by the slimmest margin possible.

Current Senate rules require a minimum of 60 votes to pass legislation. Some Democrats have hoped to abolish the filibuster so that only a simple majority of 51 votes (50 Democratic senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote) would be necessary to advance their progressive agenda.

Their latest challenge is that two Democratic Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have both quite strongly announced their opposition to abolishing the filibuster.

Just two months ago, a representative for Sinema told The Washington Post’s White House reporter, Seung Min Kim, that “Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

Up until then, conservatives had been counting on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to save us from being overrun by leftist lesiglation. Manchin won re-election in 2018 in a state that went overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump by nearly 40 points in 2020 and over 41 in 2016.

Shortly after the announcement from Team Sinema, Politico reported that Manchin was “emphatic” that he “will not vote to kill the filibuster.” Asked if there were any scenario in which he would change his mind, the senator replied: “None whatsoever that I will vote to get rid of the filibuster.”

Protecting the filibuster is essential to protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Even with the filibuster in place, Democrats can do and have already done a lot of damage. But their major radical initiatives, such as the Election Reform bill which passed the House earlier this month, granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and stacking the Supreme Court, can be blocked by the Republicans.

Naturally, Democrats are trying to exert maximum pressure on Sinema and Manchin to change their minds.

Politico has interviewed several black civil rights leaders to find out what they plan to do about this. According to Politico, “top [civil rights] officials framed the choice as existential for a party that depends on Black and brown voters — and they are planning pressure campaigns privately and publicly to make that clear.”

Rev. Al Sharpton plans to hold town halls and rallies in Sinema’s and Manchin’s home states. He said, “The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism. Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that.”

Sharpton cautioned Democrats that if they fail to end the filibuster, then “civil rights leaders might have less reason to help generate enthusiasm and turnout in the 2022 midterm elections without being able to point to actual laws Democrats passed.”

Sounds like a threat.

He added, “Many of us, and certainly all of us in the civil rights leadership, are committed to policies and laws and causes, not to people’s political careers. We’re not into that. We want to change the country. And if there is not feasible evidence that we’re doing that, it is not in our concern to be aggressively involved.”

Sinema and/or Manchin may yet flip, but I would be willing to bet it wouldn’t be because Al Sharpton and his merry band of civil rights leaders come to their states and call them racists.

Although politicians are famous for flip-flopping, after putting out such a strong statement of opposition as her representative did in conversation with the Washington Post reporter, I would be surprised if Sinema caved. Sharpton’s actions might just make her dig in her heels a little deeper.

Manchin, on the other hand, strikes me as less resolute than Sinema. However, he did say he was “emphatic” he wouldn’t vote to end the filibuster.

There is another option. The Senate could potentially create a carve-out specifically for voting rights legislation, a measure they’ve taken before. The Senate has created exceptions to the filibuster in the past for confirmations of Supreme Court nominees and for budget reconciliation (which is how the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was passed).

Manchin is currently the only Senate Democrat who is not a co-sponsor of the voting reform bill known as S. 1.

On Wednesday, Manchin told reporters, “I think all of us should be able to be united around voting rights, but it should be limited to voting rights.”

But if the bill were to be limited to votings rights, according to CBS News, “it would strip provisions related to campaign finance and ethics reform, which are key priorities for progressives.”

In a Tuesday statement, “Manchin expressed concerns about S. 1, and said that he would support bipartisan legislation on voting rights.” The statement said:

As the Senate prepares to take up the For the People Act, we must work toward a bipartisan solution that protects everyone’s right to vote, secures our elections from foreign interference, and increases transparency in our campaign finance laws. Pushing through legislation of this magnitude on a partisan basis may garner short-term benefits, but will inevitably only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.

He issued another statement on Thursday in which he reiterated his opposition to creating a carve-out to the filibuster rule specifically for voting rights. He noted that would be “like being a little bit pregnant.” You either kill the filibuster or you keep it.

Let’s hope that both he and Sinema stand by their pledges not to abolish the filibuster. All Republican senators, even those whose votes can’t always be counted on, such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are unanimously opposed to ending the filibuster. They are also opposed to the voting reform bill.

Sinema and Manchin are the only thing standing between us and the enactment of the Democrats’ entire radical agenda.  Let’s hope they stand strong.

Throngs of Supporters Showed Up to Welcome Biden at First Stop of ‘Help is Here’ Tour


No, not really.

Biden arrived in Chester, Pennsylvania on Tuesday for the first stop on his “Help is Here” cross country tour to promote his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan. In the video below, a group of approximately 30-40 supporters are shown waiting for the President’s arrival.

Inexplicably, The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin reports that Democrats believe this stimulus package is going to be so “transformational” for so many Americans that even Republicans and Independents will flock to Democratic candidates in 2022.

Martin argues:

Triumphant over the signing of their far-reaching $1.9 trillion stimulus package, Democrats are now starting to angle for a major political payoff that would defy history: Picking up House and Senate seats in the 2022 midterm elections, even though the party in power usually loses in the midterms.

Democratic leaders are making one of the biggest electoral bets in years — that the stimulus will be so transformational for Americans across party lines and demographic groups that Democrats will be able to wield it as a political weapon next year in elections against Republicans, who voted en masse against the package.

Martin writes that Democrats are a bit worried because of their party’s results in the 2010 midterms. Prior to the election, they held the presidency and both chambers of Congress, as they do today. The Obama Administration had rammed through a $787 billion stimulus plan and Obamacare. Consequently, Democrats lost 63 seats and their majority in the House. While they still held the majority in the Senate, they lost six seats. The loss of control in the House prevented them from enacting the rest of their agenda – fortunately.

Anyway, it appears that Democrats have taken the wrong lesson from their 2010 experience and they’re moving full-steam ahead. Martin tells his readers that, “It has become an article of faith in the party that Obama’s presidency was diminished because his two signature accomplishments, the stimulus bill and the Affordable Care Act, were not expansive enough and their pitch to the public on the benefits of both measures was lacking. By this logic, Democrats began losing elections and the full control of the government, until now, because of their initial compromises with Republicans and insufficient salesmanship.”

Recently, Martin notes, President Biden discussed the 2009 Recovery Act with House Democrats and said, “We didn’t adequately explain what we had done. Barack was so modest, he didn’t want to take, as he said, a ‘victory lap.’ ”

If you say so Joe.

Americans understood precisely what they had done in both cases and didn’t like it. And Barack Obama was not exactly a shrinking violet. He also had a stable of surrogates who were happy to shill on his behalf.

I hope Democrats do run on it. Most voters won’t see it as they do. Americans aren’t going to be so happy to learn they’re now on the hook for the financial mismanagement of Democrat-run cities and states and union pension funds. Moreover, much of the spending from this boondoggle of a plan won’t even begin until 2022 or later.

Democrats, perhaps knowing they may lose (at least) the House next year, want to ram through as much of their agenda as they can before the midterms. They can still do a lot of damage without control of Congress.

If the scant showing of support in Chester, PA is any indication for their excitement over the relief plan, I’d say that Jonathan Martin is likely wrong and they may not want to remind people of this misguided, one party, piece of legislation in 2022.

Read Martin’s article here.