Franklin Countys First News

Politics & Other Mistakes: Golden-locks and the three Trumpettes

Al Diamon

Democratic 2nd District U.S. Rep. Jared Golden has a propensity for making a damn fool of himself every time he opens his pie hole. For instance, Golden recently told the Associated Press his split votes on impeachment came “from the heart.” Apparently, Golden is unaware that voters didn’t send him to Congress to make important decisions using his cardiovascular system. Next time, he should try the neurological one.

Young Jero has gone to great lengths to make his sorta-one-side-sorta-the-other position on the question of whether the Windbag in Chief committed high crimes and misdemeanors appear thoughtful. Or at least not stupid. Trump’s phone call to the president of Ukraine “clearly demonstrates corrupt intent,” he wrote in a long and tortured explanation of his decisions. So, Golden voted to impeach him for abuse of power.

As for obstruction of Congress, Golden somehow determined that Trump’s refusal to cooperate in the investigation of his insidious activities was “excessive” and “provocative,” but in no way illegal because the court system could have compelled him to cough up documents and witnesses. Golden claimed lots of bigtime legal scholars support that view. But not a single other member of the U.S. House bought this creative analysis – possibly because it’s ridiculous.

Golden did get one thing right. He admitted “my decision is bad politics, angering Democrats and Republicans alike.” Also, independents, Greens, libertarians and people who don’t align with any ideology but prefer our elected officials to display some slight affinity for logical thinking.

Before his wishy-washy impeachment decisions, Golden faced a difficult path to winning a second term. The 2nd District is conservative and disinclined to suffer fools. That makes the incumbent congressman a poor fit on both counts. But for Republicans to oust him from the seat he won so narrowly in 2016, they need a candidate who can appeal to voters outside the GOP’s relatively narrow base, by which I mean somebody who can relate to the aforementioned disgruntled independents and other assorted outsiders. So far, the three contenders for the opportunity of taking on Golden have failed to present themselves in manners likely to win over the non-crazed segment of the electorate.

Eric Brakey is a former state senator and unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate. No split votes here, because Brakey loves Trump. Whatever the president did or didn’t do, Brakey thinks it’s all great. Not surprisingly, whenever Brakey makes that point, he appears to be slightly deranged. That’s not a major improvement over stupid.

Dale Crafts is a former state representative. The only person he likes more than Trump is Jesus Christ. Or maybe ex-Gov. Paul LePage. In any case, Crafts believes the answer to all our problems is a healthy dose of Christianity. In a district with one of the highest percentages of non-religious citizens in the country, advocating theocracy may not be perceived as an upgrade.

Adrienne Bennett is a former spokeswoman for LePage, when he was governor. That means she had to defend a lot of pronouncements so absurd they make Golden’s stands on impeachment seem sensible. Credibility is going to be Bennett’s major issue. She claims she’s all in on Trump, but with no track record to support that contention, you could be excused if you have doubts.

Nobody in this sad little trio is an overwhelming favorite to knock off Golden. The best the winner of the Republican primary in June can expect is to hold a slight edge over the Democrat, thanks to Trump’s frayed coattails in a district he won solidly in 2016.

All of which means Golden might stand a chance of surviving his chronic inability to take a coherent position on controversial issues (the impeachment explanation is only the latest in a chain of wimpy excuses for appearing not to know where he stands). But his slim shot at winning re-election depends on him doing one thing really well for the next 11 months:

Shutting up.

After all, silence is supposed to be golden.

No need for you to follow that advice. Email me at

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

11 Responses »

  1. More garbage from the mouth of Al

  2. If blindly following what other congressmen do is Al’s idea of leadership, he should think about closing up shop. I personally don’t agree with Golden on this vote but I read his statement and think he’s at least giving it to us straight. Bruce would have taken this vote, not explained it, and camped out in a ladies restroom until the storm blowed over.

  3. Alan, why does it have to be a "ladies" restroom? I thought we were past all that men/ladies stuff and restrooms were gender neutral. Try to be a little more "woke" please.

  4. Al, Here's the thing, during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious(the ATF's gun walking op where they purposely let illegal gun buys at border gun dealers to occur between 2006 and 2011) congress then GOP held in 2012, subpoenaed AG Eric Holder and his boss Fmr. Pres. Obama, Obama claimed executive privilege and the GOP took the subpoenas to federal court, Rep. Adam Schiff serving since 2001, was on the house intelligence committee(which oversees the DOJ and many others) in 2015 when the federal court ruled against Obama stating the materials that were requested were not privileged, Obama appealed to SCOTUS, as of 12/30/19, the justices have not made a ruling on the subpoenas. Having said that, here is what Rep. Schiff said when asked directly by NPR reporter Steve Inskeep what Schiff thought about Trump taking the house dems to federal court over the context and validity of the subpoenas in regards to executive level witnesses and their testimony(which Trump has already declared executive privilege) here is Schiff:(direct quote) "This is not something that we can simply defer indefinitely. And of course, those witnesses that we would want to bring in for additional evidence have made it very clear they will tie us up in courts for months and months and months — potentially even beyond the next election" Schiff knows all about how this works after witnessing during the Obama administration in 2015, so rather than risk the biased impeachment getting shut down in the inquiry stage, the dems just decided to push through and charge Trump with obstruction of congress instead(even though it's BS, it would look good to the public and dem's voter base) so Trump catches an imeachment article(charge) for doing something he can legally do. I don't agree with Golden on anything, but on this I do. As for his voting on the other article, he should have just voted like Tulsi Gabbard did.

  5. Golden will win. He has the election fraud called RCV in his favor. The Dems are poised to steel local elections all over the country. Just as they did in 2016 and 2018.The majority party (The Independents) better wake up and vote strictly Republican. I think it would be ideal if we could completely eliminate the Democrat Party. Once that's done we will have to eliminate the Republican Party. The Dems first because they are the most destructive.Not until we have one party of American citizens who believe in "We the People" instead of We the Government will anything that helps the tax payers get accomplished.

    Abolish the 2 Parties!

  6. Golden's move was the weasel's way out. Despite what HB says, blocking someone from fulfilling his/her duty by ignoring a subpoena, is a crime and in BOTH cases the US Marshalls should have arrested those who ignored the subpoena. Both cases are obstructing justice and should be dealt with as such. The hypocrisy being brought out in this impeachment is overwhelming - from both sides. The issue here is that trump did commit an abuse of power and did obstruct justice, PERIOD. He violates the emoluments clause of the US Constitution on a daily basis. So, in the example HB cites, this is OBSTRUCTION and so is what trump did. Why Obama wasn't held accountable is past history and he should have been held accountable. Does that change anything about what trump did? NOPE is the correct answer. The sad truth is that many people support party or person over country and that is actually treason. Golden is playing to his constituents and not 'playing' to the facts. That route is clearly the weasel trail.

  7. Ozerki, Can you cite an example of a foreign king, prince, president or dictator giving Trump an emolument? Or the part of the constitution that says the president can't have executive privilege,
    Here, Article 1 section 8: Powers of congress: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    I couldn't find anything in there that said the executive officer had to do whatever congress told the executive officer to do, maybe I missed something.

    And the reason Obama wasn't punished for claiming executive privilege was because Obama didn't break the law, congressional hearings are not criminal hearings and are not conducted as such, just because the house asks for something, there are no laws that say they are going to get it.

  8. I love reading these responses. It often shows just how ignorant and naive most Americans truly are about politics and human nature. If you wonder why Republics never last more than a couple hundred years - here's your answer!

    Not Hrtlss and the other informed folks...but maybe people who wish for "one party rule"....WOW! And you think people wouldn't violently rebel if/when that were to occur, whether by vote, RCV, or not??? That's special.

  9. Question for Mr Golden.

    Who would these terrorists like Iran vote for as our leaders?
    Dems or Reps?

    We all know it would be Dems.
    Remember how IRAN kept our American citizens hostage for hundreds of days,,, and let then go IMMEDIATELY when a Rep defeated a Dem (Reagan beat Carter) as the new President.
    These terrorists only understand strength,,, not fear and Democrats.
    They hear the "squad" and the Dems outrage against our self defense while saying nothing about the butchering these regimes have done and are planning to do in the future.
    These Terrorists would vote for the Dems because they have nothing to fear from them.
    It sucks but that's the way it is.
    Their call, not ours.

    We can either sit back like Carter did and the Dems do now, or we can defend ourselves like we just did by taking out that Iranian Butcher *now HE WAS A REAL MONSTER).
    This is the real world,, they (meaning those in power) have always hated us because we don't adhere to their religious beliefs.
    The Dems are helping them with their weakness against them and their hatred for half of us in this country.

    IS Mr Golden going to vote Democrats and support the terrorists or not?
    Find a new party Mr Golden.

  10. Mr Golden,,

    Did you know that on September 11 2001,
    As explained by a Democrat.

    Did you know that one of the Terrorists who implement such "SOMETHINGS" against us was sent to the ever after where he can no longer murder masses of innocent people?
    Did you know that the one who authorized the elimination of this Murderous Butcher was called "A MONSTER" by yet another Democrat?

    Did you know that neither one of these Democrats (or the other now critical Democrats) ever uttered a single word of outrage against the recently departed Terrorist while he was Murdering Thousands of Innocent People and Plotting Many More "SOMETHINGS" AGAINST INNOCENT PEOPLE?

    The question is,,

    Time to take a stand against these dangerous idiots in the Deomcratic Party.

    What will you do sir?

  11. AOC is concerned (afraid) that eliminating a mass murderer will cause retaliation that may endanger "innocent" people.
    So she called her own president a monster for approving the opportunity presented to him by our intelligence community to eliminate the threat this guy presents to the whole world.
    Aoc and her Democrat buddies have no problem ignoring the real monsters dirty deeds as they only refer to him as a "high government official.
    These Democrats are blinded by hate to the point that they are willing to magically transform a bad guy into a good guy,, just to make the president look bad.

    Why doesn't CNN and the like interview some family members of this Iranian butchers victims? They number in th be thousands already.
    Why isn't aoc and the Democrats concerned about "those innocent lives lost?

    Because just like the terrorists, they are blinded by hate.
    They are letting a killer off the hook to win an election.
    Shame on you hateful cowards in the Democratic party.

    I am asking Golden to condemn AOC and her domestic terrorist buddies in the Democratic Party and join us in thanking those that sent this Murdering Evil to never never land.
    Let's quit playing little fraidy cat and start protecting our people instead of helping the bad guys kill more...
    Jared Golden knows better than to go along with the now insane Democrats.
    Let's see what he actually does about it.