HomeCandidates 2018Beto O'Rourke10/6 Weekend News and OT
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thanks, Benny!


Def better than King:

Fighting for an economy that works for all of us, putting Main Street ahead of Wall Street on behalf of family farmers and working families

A health care system that is affordable and accessible for all of us to ensure that Iowans never again need to worry about healthcare as a barrier to living free, productive, and successful lives.

Putting Iowa values back at the center of public service by having a government that works for us, not corporate interests and mega donors.

Every stand I take in Congress will be in pursuit of these goals, and the needs of the people in Iowa’s 4th Congressional district.

I was going to make supporting M4A my defining measure of support, but some of these guys are so much better than their Republican opponent, I’d have to say yes. I feel for them, bc if they were a bit more progressive and inspiring, they’d have an even better chance (imho, of course).

Some of them may be persuadable, once they get in.

It’s hard for me personally, though, to send my little amounts to someone who’s not for M4A. Never say never.

Who are those 2 you are supporting, Benny, again?

James Thompson and ___________?


Here’s “Something Bold” Democrats Can Do: Conduct the Kavanaugh Probe White House and GOP Refused to Have

With a thread on Twitter Friday evening, Briahna Gray, the senior politics editor for The Intercept and a contributing editor for Current Affairs magazine, laid out a plan of attack for Democrats that would rely not on hand-wringing over their Kavanaugh defeat, but instead focus on truth-telling and fact-finding that would put the Republicans, especially Collins, on the hook for the sham process they facilitated to ram him through. In the series of tweets, she wrote:

Instead of their reactive brand of politics, Democrats might consider doing something bold, like publishing the results of an independent investigation into all the sources the FBI neglected to question, & holding an hours long press conference at which those witnesses speak.

They’ve let Collins & the like get away with pretending like Ford’s is an isolated claim. They should ask the Princeton theology professor (we know how the right like’s credentials) to “corroborate” Ramiriez’s claims. And if she’s willing, she should give testimony too.

They should have all of the classmates who’ve been calling into the news shows and writing letters, including the clerks who have withdrawn their support, take the mic: Make visible the testimony that the FBI ignored, & make a spectacle of their mishandling of the investigation.

Even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, Collins should not be able to get away with the claim that it’s “more likely than not” that Kavanaugh is innocent of behaviors beneath the dignity of the court. It’s obvious to most of us, but it needs to be made more obvious to Maine voters.

Last point: Let’s not forget that we’re still waiting on these Kavanaugh documents, and Dems will look silly objecting to whatever eventually comes out if they act complacent now

Obviously, if they won’t turn Manchin, they aren’t likely to do this. Still, maybe Bernie and Warren could lead on something like this. We know people like Whitehouse would likely follow. Like M4A, just bc it doesn’t seem likely doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push for it and let our critters know what we expect.


Wouldn’t it be funny since since Murkowski plans to vote present and have her vote not count Manchin would change his mind and vote No thus Kavanaugh isn’t appointed–one can dream 🙂 🙂 Right now the R’s lose one vote due to his daughters wedding.


Murkowski’s voting “present”? People can stop thanking her.


as of last night anyway, that was a long time ago though


It’s Your Post Office. Keep It.
Take it from a postal worker: If the U.S. sells its public mail service, consumers will lose big time

The USPS has long been a concern of mine. Postal workers are protesting on Oct. 8th, with the chant, “U.S. mail is not for sale.”

“A bipartisan 2006 law, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, law mandated that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits 75 years into the future. That means we have to fund retirement benefits for postal employees who haven’t even been born yet.”

“[This Congressional mandate] drained $5.5 billion a year out of Postal Service funds and accounts for more than 90 percent of its losses. In fact, if it weren’t for this manufactured pre-funding crisis, the USPS would have reported profits in four of the last five years — all without receiving a dime of taxpayer money.”


These survivors saw “tears” well up in his eyes. Must be a crocodile.

West Virginia Survivors Say NO To Kavanaugh
For the sake of every survivor, and for and every one of us who will be harmed by the anti-democratic decisions Kavanaugh will make if he gets a lifetime appointment to the Court, it’s time for your conscience to be heard loud and clear


Here’s a Reality-Based Battle Plan for the Midterms and Beyond
It is imperative that Democrats win, and win big, in order to bring the Trump agenda to a screeching halt

There is a subconscious fantasy we are all carrying around inside our heads: that once the Democrats win the House, and maybe even the Senate, they will form a bulwark against all the efforts by Trump and the Republican Party to destroy the nation. The fantasy extends to the 2020 presidential race, when a Democrat will supposedly win the White House, and we will finally see every horrific undoing of our rights reversed. Departed federal staff will be reinstated, Environmental Protection Agency deregulations will be reversed, fuel-efficiency standards will be restrengthened, and the Paris Accord rejoined. Immigrants will be freed from detention, allowed to remain in the country safely, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency will be abolished. Future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh will be impeached (and maybe even Clarence Thomas!), and so on and so forth. Such fantasies are a coping mechanism for the despair we are feeling.

But given the lack of fiery conviction among Democrats, none of those things will come to pass, and at best we can expect a holding pattern against worse damage. Democrats want to ride to victory on the wave of Trump hatred and resume business as usual. But nothing will change unless we push them hard to be so much more than simply “not-Trump.” Not only does the party need to actively undo Trump’s damage once it takes power, it needs to go well beyond what Obama achieved and address the very ills that generated the rise of Trump in the first place. Yes, it is a tall order. But then again, so much of our safety and security is at stake.

We have (sort of) been here before. During the last months of George W. Bush’s presidency, liberal and progressive activists, horrified by his regressive policies, poured all their energy into replacing Bush with anybody but a Republican like him. Once progressives met Obama, we were enamored by just how different he was from Bush on the surface, and, like a handsome boyfriend who gets away with abusive behavior by virtue of his attractiveness, we let Obama get away with far too much because we were carried away by the romantic notion of progress he offered, simply by being so different from his predecessor—articulate, brilliant, seemingly empathetic and compassionate. Ultimately, Obama helped make some modest gains toward a progressive future but fell short in so many ways.

If the past two years has taught us anything, it is that we must remove Republicans from power and do so with aggression and righteous anger. If that means replacing them with Democrats (or independents or third-party candidates), then that is our immediate task, first and foremost. Our next task is to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire with as much fervor as we demanded an end to Trump and Trumpism. It is imperative that we remember Democrats are politicians, not activists. They want power and have adopted lip service to the ideals of liberalism to get it. They are not inherently compassionate and progressive. It is we who are and we who must keep the fire under them alive.

Most of me is saying, “yes!” Another part of me is saying, “How do we elect Dems just because they are Dems AND hold their feet to the fire?”


A moral philospher and an attorney/law prof compare Kavanaugh and the Republicans to a criminal gang that has taken control of the nation:

What if in all evident respects the process and appointment to the highest judicial office of the land operates like a criminal conspiracy with a vice-grip on all three branches of government—in the words of Madison, the very definition of ‘tyranny’—with now the Supreme Court itself fixed to ignore and override basic issues of justice and morality for the next generation in a situation of cumulatively unprecedented social and environmental crisis?

We have already seen the unraveling of even the need to appear objective, disinterested, above the political mob mentality and thuggery of this ruling faction in one long train of abuses, false statements and lying with impunity under oath. The reckless and grasping nature of the Kavanaugh appointment, in short, shows an unbound faction of power treating its position of tyrannical rule as its personal property and right


His speech and actions under oath, to the US Senate, is enough for him to be disbarred and lose his law license.


The Challengers: Can the New Sun Belt Progressives Defeat Conservatives in the Midterms?

I just started listening to this podcast from the New Yorker, Dorothy Wickenden and Ben Wallace-Wells. Starts off with Beto.


Gillum more progressive than Beto, sez Ben.


Gillum may be slightly more progressive than Beto, but they are awfully close in their respective issue stands.


Warren inches closer to just saying it.

The consequences won’t touch only Maine. This past Saturday, I attended a town hall with Elizabeth Warren in Holyoke, Massachusetts, where a schoolteacher asked Warren if she would be running for President. The surprise was not in Warren’s reply, in which she edged toward announcing her candidacy, saying that she would take a “long, hard look” at the race immediately after the midterms, but in her description of why she might run, which was all about Kavanaugh. “I watched eleven men too chicken to question a woman themselves,” she said. “I watched powerful men helping another powerful man. . . . I thought, Time’s up.’ ” Warren continued, “It’s time for women to go to Washington and fix a broken government, and that includes a woman at the top.”


Maybe the Dems were trying to be “sober” compared to Kavanaugh, but the author is right: they could have asked much more dramatic, incisive and revealing questions.

Where was the senator asking “If someone says ‘boofing’ means anal sex and not flatulence as you claim and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ isn’t a drinking game as you claim under oath, but a reference to sex between two males and a female, would they be lying?” or “Amnesty International has recommended that your nomination be slowed since you could be involved in violations of international law. So, are you a war criminal?”

Such a senator was not to be found. Some senators laid the basis for showing Kavanaugh lied under oath. And perhaps they expect that he will be impeached once they get a majority. But who knows what happens between now and then.

In terms of making the case to the public in a way that could not be ignored, they at best fell short. The
best a few senators could bring themselves to do was mumble something about perjury when what was needed was to run down the litany of evidence he had lied under oath before the Senate.

[Kavanaugh] and Republican senators put on their act of moral outrage that should have come from the critics of Kavanaugh. Perhaps there was some of the genuine anger in the streets in protests against Kavanaugh—that seem to have come too little too late—but at best rarely from the committee hearing room.

And those optics largely prevailed—all part of the same scummy system.


I could not agree more.


If The Rule Of Law Means Anything, Kavanaugh Must Be Impeached
If a federal judge can get away with lying to Congress, why do we even have sworn oaths?
by Nathan J. Robinson

At this point, my position on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination is quite simple: you cannot flagrantly violate a sworn oath and be placed on the Supreme Court. Someone who lies to the Senate in sworn testimony is not just unqualified to be a justice, but they should not be any kind of judge at all. Judges must take oaths seriously, because if they treat them as meaningless, then it’s unclear why they should mean anything to anybody. If Brett Kavanaugh lied to the Senate in his testimony, his nomination must be withdrawn, and he must be impeached and removed from office. Alger Hiss was sent to prison when he lied to Congress, Roger Clemens was prosecuted just for allegedly lying to Congress about baseball. I do not think there is much room for disagreement about this principle….

Arguing about the investigation’s scope obscures the clear message Democrats should be pushing to the public: Kavanaugh lied under oath about important factual matters related to a serious allegation. His nomination must be withdrawn, and he must be impeached. Republicans can muddy an argument about the FBI investigation; you say it’s shoddy, we say it’s thorough. It is far more difficult for them to respond to the very clear evidence of Kavanaugh’s false and misleading testimony. Ask them how they justify the vicious lie about Renate. The lie about the calendar, the lie about witness statements. And what about all the evasions? Remember, the oath is to tell the whole truth.

There is simply no way for any marginally honest person to support Kavanaugh’s confirmation. If he is placed on the bench, sworn oaths will be meaningless and the rule of law will be a joke.

My bold.


This might clear up a few things with regards to impeachment.


Introduction Important Cases
In the United States, the word “impeachment” is merely the term for the proceeding that begins the process of removing an official from the government. Thus, while this particular section of the Constitution sets the broad outline for what is expected of a federal judge (that he or she sit in “good Behavior”), other officials can be impeached as well, including the President of the United States himself (see Article II, Section 4). The process of what is colloquially known as impeachment contains two steps. The first step, the one that is technically the impeachment, is taken by the House of Representatives. By a simple majority, the House can vote to impeach a federal official. This process is akin to an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding. Then, once the official is impeached, the Senate holds a trial to determine if the official should be convicted, in which case the official is removed from office. The Senate, however, needs a two-thirds majority to convict. Very few federal officials have ever been impeached, and even fewer have been convicted and removed from office. By way of example, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but he was not convicted by the Senate. The impeachment of federal judges, in fact, is often an even more murky process than the impeachment of other officials. While Article II, Section 4 contains some vague guidelines for what warrants impeachment proceedings – and this section relates to federal officials in general – Article Three only explains that judges are supposed to remain in office only while in “good Behavior.” This is an incredibly open-ended standard. Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached and only eight have ever been convicted and removed (most recently, Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana in 2010). But even then, the “articles of impeachment,” the list of misconduct the accused is on trial for, have described quite a wide range of inappropriate behavior.

I am guessing that this would also refer to Supreme Court Judges.


that 2/3 is a higher bar. i guess the stacking is looking better and better. (60 votes.)



a couple of tweets from Peter Douche. ( I fully understand the second one.)


good ones!

which reminds me–i’m going through another tech thing. if you don’t see me as much, starting next week, i’ll be taking a morning tech break, plus getting stuff done….



I had to avoid the internet over the weekend for my mental health.


I just checked out the Dem Senate twitter account.

There a bunch of videos of Senators stating their displeasure with Kavanaugh.

You know what is missing?

A video of DINO Joe Manchin voting YES!


Too little too late. Hey that could be the new motto!


Seems like a pretty honest yard sign if you ask me.

comment image?itok=w3Flh54F

A Texas woman is speaking out after local police removed a yard sign she made in protest of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court after multiple sexual assault allegations were brought against him.

Marion Stanford told The Washington Post in an interview released on Saturday she was forced by police to have a sign she made depicting an elephant, the Republican mascot, with its trunk up a girl’s skirt removed from her yard last week, otherwise she would face arrest.

“It is pornography, and you can’t display it,” Stanford recalled a police officer telling her on Tuesday. Stanford said she was told to either remove the sign, allow police to confiscate it or refuse and get arrested.

City officials denied to the Post that the officer threatened arrest.

Stanford said she made the sign last week after watching drama in the Senate surrounding Kavanaugh’s testimony and that of Christine Blasey Ford, a college professor who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault while they were in high school.

“underlining by me”


This just dawned on me. Murkowski’s vote was not as honorable as it appears.

Here is why. By voting ‘Present” she assured a confirmation of Kavanaugh. Even if that lowlife Manchin voted against confirmation the vote would have been tied 49/49 with the deciding vote being caste by Pence.


Something good for a change.


Quite noticeable that there was no mention of the other Vermont Senator Leahy but then again he was a superdelegate for Hillary.

Skip to toolbar