HomeDemocratsNina TurnerNina Turner Keynotes The Journey For Justice Conference
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I’ll just put this hit piece on Nina and OR here for discussion. There were a couple of troubling things brought up. Fund raising doesn’t seem to be as good as hoped. I do think that they should have stayed out of the Cordray/Kucinich race, especially given the result. But the article ignores the real successes OR has had. Probably OR should concentrate most at the local level, which they actually already do.



Consider the print source. Politico is conservative RW. I would start worrying if RW rags didn’t do hit pieces on our side! LOL. A lot of these young candidates who were inspired by the Bernster’s campaign are raising their own campaign coin. They can always use the funds and visibility raised by groups like OR. 🙂 But, they are also doing it on their own. A very good thing IMO. T and R!!


As anticipated, this is a true hit-piece (Why interview OR’s enemies about how they’re doing? Why make your thesis “OR is failing and it makes Bernie look bad” even though you can’t make a connection between Bernie and the organization?).

Other thoughts:

– The attempt to paint Nina as an opportunist using the org to boost her own profile is utterly unsubstantiated. Having seen many of her speeches, I think she balances bringing her own story to bear with promoting the endorsed candidates and telling their narratives very well.

– BUT I would like to know more about this staffer Figaro; it’s a terrible look to have a Trump apologist so close to the organization. Glad they are phasing her out.

– They need to address Latino issues ASAP; we cannot give the corporate Dems any opening to divide progressives, because you can be sure they’ll exploit it.

– The nugget OR should take away from this is regarding the endorsement process, which I also feel has been a bit scattershot/arbitrary. What they did in Georgia (I take Vince Fort’s concerns seriously) and Ohio is far too careless for an organization of this stature. There’s no place for the cliquish behavior alleged; you fight that by having a more transparent process, including naming who makes the decision, and setting clear deadlines for candidates to submit their materials.


Another decision that would have turned out differently if the seat Gorsuch is occupying had not been stolen


The Supreme Court says employers can prohibit their workers from banding together to dispute their pay and conditions in the workplace, an important victory for business interests.

The justices ruled 5-4 Monday, with the court’s conservative members in the majority, that businesses can force employees to individually use arbitration, not the courts, to resolve disputes.

The outcome does not affect people represented by labor unions, but an estimated 25 million employees work under contracts that prohibit collective action by employees who want to raise claims about some aspect of their employment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the contracts are valid under the arbitration law. “As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable. But as a matter of law the answer is clear,” Gorsuch wrote.

In dissent for the court’s liberals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision “egregiously wrong” and likely to lead to “huge underenforcement of federal and state stautes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.” Ginsburg said that the individual complaints can be very small in dollar terms, “scarcely of a size warranting the expense of seeking redress alone.” Ginsburg read a summary of her dissent aloud.


Way to go, Roberts court! Continue to vaporize respect for the institution you inherited and have dragged into the mud. It will be that much easier for a future court to overturn every single one of your awful decisions (and perhaps reform the institution to make it far more accountable than it currently is).

Skip to toolbar