Guest Commentary: We Need a Fighter, Congressman Garamendi

Share:
Screen shot from video of Congressman Garamendi’s Town Hall Meeting Sunday night in Davis

by Emily Hill

As many of you have heard by now, the local grassroots organization IndivisibleYOLO requested that John Garamendi, our local representative in the House of Representatives, hold a town hall meeting to hear from his constituents. I was excited when he agreed late last week to hold the town hall, happy to see he had the guts to hold one in this new political environment, and looked forward to him responding to concerns brought forward.

I don’t know exactly what I was expecting. I had never met Rep. Garamendi before, and although I was disappointed he attended Trump’s inauguration, my general sense was that Garamendi was a good Democrat who would oppose Trump’s creeping fascism and racism.  I went into the town hall interested and very much on Garamendi’s side.

I certainly didn’t expect to leave the town hall deeply frustrated with and disappointed in the congressman.

First, let me tell you what I saw at the townhall.  The Veterans Memorial Theater was packed, standing room only, with more than 400 people squeezed inside. I heard that many more were turned away.  Garamendi’s staff was there, taking photos and videos.   Much of the local political crowd was there – Mayor Robb Davis, State Senator Dodd, State Rep Cecilia-Aguilar.  Most importantly, there were several hundred constituents, many holding signs.

The town hall began well enough.  Rep. Garamendi warmed up the crowd, pointing out that he and his wife had attended the Women’s March the day after Trump’s inauguration.  He then opened it up to constituents, and for the next 90 minutes, Rep. Garamendi fielded a variety of questions from the audience.   Many of his answers resonated with the audience:  judging by the applause, we were all very much in favor of the public option for healthcare, and in favor of a national popular vote instead of the electoral college, and in favor of Roe v Wade and women’s rights in general.  Rep. Garamendi is clearly on the right side for many of the important issues facing the nation. He also cares about people’s safety, interrupting the town hall to warn of evacuations from the serious Oroville Dam spillway erosion.

But on the most important topic of the moment, the topic that clearly is motivating so much passionate grassroots energy, Rep. Garamendi fell frustratingly short.  Rep. Garamendi completely failed to pick up the vibe of a crowd that was desperate for leadership and strong public stances against Trump.

Over and over again, when asked what he personally was going to do to fight Trump, Rep. Garamendi essentially threw up his hands.  “The Republicans control Congress,” he reminded the audience more than once.  Everybody in the room knows that… but what we don’t know, is what is Rep. Garamendi going to do personally to impede the Republican agenda?  Ann Block, a Davis resident, perhaps summarized it best: “He kept telling us what we already knew instead of telling us what he planned to do about it.  I would have loved to hear about legislation he’s proposing, or amendments he is proposing to Republican bills, to slow them down.”

Joanna from Davis asked a great question about Democratic complacency. “Trump is doing absolutely the opposite of draining the swamp.  Look at his cabinet nominees.  Why are we hearing little to nothing about the hypocrisy in the drain-the-swamp promises?”

Rep. Garamendi again effectively threw his hands up in the air:  “Trump sucks all the oxygen out of the room, and our heads are spinning.  All of us are just overloaded.”  He described Trump as a magician, expert at manipulating the press.  Noticeably absent: any specifics about what he, Rep. Garamendi, was going to do to try to take back some of that media oxygen.

Here is another example of deflecting the question.  Anoosh Jorjorian, local coordinator for Rainbow Families, asked, “Trump has been threatening California economically.  Given that we are the sixth largest economy in the world, what can you and other CA representatives, do to turn around that economic pressure onto the Trump administration?”  He replied that California will not secede (nobody suggested that), and then told her to go get involved.  Anoosh is already heavily involved, but that isn’t the question… what is Rep. Garamendi going to do to leverage California’s economic power?  Who knows?

Perhaps most surprising to many of the women (and men) in the audience, however, was that Rep. Garamendi repeatedly suggested that women holding the microphone (and only the women) treat it like it was their boyfriend and told them to “kiss it”. A questioner later pointed out that it was inappropriate, and to his credit Rep. Garamendi apologized.  But it’s disheartening that a Democratic representative to Congress in 2017, from California, needs to be told, in short, not to be creepy.  (To quote one of my friends after the town hall:  “blech… I need to take a shower.”)

This behavior clearly rubbed many people the wrong way.  Another local woman, Darcy Hannibal, stated, “He has a bad habit of trying to disarm the questioner with a joke or a ridiculous diversion.  He needs to stop doing that.  It is creepy and patronizing.  By the winces, sighs, and head shaking all around me, it was pretty clear most people were put off by it.”   Kayln Coppedge agrees.  “I’ve never cared about a Town Hall before in my life. Today I streamed it from home. While I understand using humor to connect with one’s audience, it seems tone deaf to make so many jokes when people are paying attention, showing up and doing the work because we are scared. We need someone who is prepared to fight for us. While I felt Garamendi was agreeing with the majority of his constituents present he certainly didn’t seem to grasp the fear and concern of his voters.”

So, to summarize, here’s what we didn’t see at the town hall.  We didn’t see a representative who made any concrete, specific commitments to do anything to stand up to Trump.  We didn’t see a representative who could articulate any strategy to connect to the grassroots energy in front of him.  We didn’t see a representative who would even choose a side on the upcoming DNC chair election (Ellison vs. Perez).  We didn’t see a representative who offered anything beyond lukewarm, pro forma anti-Trump rhetoric.  In short, we didn’t see a representative who understands that 2017 is different from 2016 – and that we need a fighter.

Democrats need to take back control of the narrative and go on the rhetorical offense. Garamendi needs to demand Trump’s tax returns, over and over again, ad nauseum, until they give in.  Garamendi needs to demand to dig into the Trump administration’s ties to Russia, over and over again ad nauseum, until the truth is revealed.

Says Kari Peterson, another Davis local:  “I wanted to see more fire in Rep. Garamendi.  Desperate times call for fierce, coordinated measures.  We need leadership ready to fight for our values and be totally prepared to press congress and the administration.  We are ready to fight, we’re already fighting, and we need our reps to do their job!   I think the crowd tonight was frustrated and wanted to hear how the democrats are going to hold the new president and his cabinet accountable.  People don’t want steady, cool, patient leaders who play the game the old way.”  Similarly, Roberta Millstein wrote an excellent piece in the Vanguard about the town hall exhorting Rep. Garamendi to “be bolder” in the fight against Trump.

We hope that Rep. Garamendi hears this message, that our district needs a representative who will fight Trump tooth and nail, fight him in every forum, fight him in every town hall, fight him every single moment congress is in session.

What we don’t need is a representative adept at explaining away the complacency of the establishment.   I want to give Rep. Garamendi the benefit of the doubt that he will catch up to and match his constituents’ passion, but I am incredulous and frustrated that he seems to be missing the mood of the country.

Despite my frustration with the Congressman, I was incredibly inspired by the crowd at the town hall:  by the huge turn-out, the passion that came through in the questions, and by people’s deep concern for the future of our country.  If Rep. Garamendi takes his cues from the energetic constituents who showed up last night, we will be similarly inspired by him.

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

49 thoughts on “Guest Commentary: We Need a Fighter, Congressman Garamendi”

  1. Tia Will

    People don’t want steady, cool, patient leaders who play the game the old way.” 

    While I share the frustration of many at the town hall meeting and would like to hear a bolder, more coherent strategy from all of our Democratic leaders, I want to point out that this sentiment, when deployed by the right is exactly what brought us the current Trump administration. The desire to eject the steady, cool, patient leader is not without its own dangers.

    1. Roberta Millstein

      Tia, a person could be a steady, cool, patient leader and still be someone who takes strong and bold stands.  I think Bernie Sanders would have been such a leader.  I think Elizabeth Warren could be such a leader.  The two things are not mutually exclusive.  I think the key phrase is “who play the game the old way.”  We need new strategies.

  2. Roberta Millstein

    Emily, thank you for this great piece.  It sums up very well both some of the specifics as well as the general feel of the event.  I share your impressions of what happened and what could have happened (what we hoped would happen) but did not.

    Democrats need to take back control of the narrative and go on the rhetorical offense. Garamendi needs to demand Trump’s tax returns, over and over again, ad nauseum, until they give in.  Garamendi needs to demand to dig into the Trump administration’s ties to Russia, over and over again ad nauseum, until the truth is revealed.

    Yes, this.  The Republicans are much better at playing this game than the Democrats are.

    We hope that Rep. Garamendi hears this message, that our district needs a representative who will fight Trump tooth and nail, fight him in every forum, fight him in every town hall, fight him every single moment congress is in session.

    Yes.

    Despite my frustration with the Congressman, I was incredibly inspired by the crowd at the town hall:  by the huge turn-out, the passion that came through in the questions, and by people’s deep concern for the future of our country.  If Rep. Garamendi takes his cues from the energetic constituents who showed up last night, we will be similarly inspired by him.

    Yes!  Rep. Garamendi, I hope you hear this.  We are ready to work alongside you, to fight with you.

  3. David Greenwald

    “We hope that Rep. Garamendi hears this message, that our district needs a representative who will fight Trump tooth and nail, fight him in every forum, fight him in every town hall, fight him every single moment congress is in session.”

    I think my question is what does that look like?  The Senate can block things, the house really can’t if you are in the minority.  So is it that you are hoping that he does?

    1. Emily Hill

      David, great question.  I think everybody recognizes that Rep. Garamendi doesn’t have the power now to get things done in the house.  That means he has to take it to the public, using forceful and overtly anti-Trump language.   Specifically, Rep. Garamendi should hold regular press conferences where he

      Demands investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia

      Demands Trump’s tax returns

      Explicitly says “Trump is a racist” at every opportunity (if Paul Ryan can call Trump’s comments “a textbook definition of racist,” why can’t Garamendi?)

      States the fact that Trump is a threat to national security (somebody who is too dim to realize you shouldn’t turn country club restaurants into a situation room)

      Shames his Republican colleagues for exchanging their integrity, and putting our country in danger, merely for the hope of passing some conservative legislation

      In addition, Rep. Garamendi should be turning every interview into a referendum on Trump. As an example of a missed opportunity, in his recent interview on MSNBC (posted yesterday on IndivisibleYOLO’s facebook page), when asked if he would work with Trump on an infrastructure bill, Rep. Garamendi said, “Well, I’d certainly want to see what the proposal is.”  

      That answer is unacceptable.  Here is a question for Rep. Garamendi:  if given the opportunity to work with a 1930’s style authoritarian leader to “make sure the trains run on time,” would he have had to “see what the proposal is?” Or should he say, “I’m not lending any support to a fascist no matter how good the financial incentives are!”    Rep. Garamendi should have responded instead that Trump and his team lie more than they tell the truth, have no credibility, are intent on destroying our democratic institutions, and couldn’t possibly be trusted or worked with.
      Here is another missed opportunity:  today Rep. Garamendi gave a radio interview (Morning Briefing on SiriusXM) discussing the resignation of Gen. Flynn, and he completely failed to note that Flynn was just the tip of the iceberg.  He merely expressed the hope that Trump choose a replacement who is “really knowledgeable, capable and trustworthy.”  That would certainly be a first for Trump – but more importantly, why not take this golden opportunity to demand an investigation?  Why not state that Flynn was now the third member of Trump’s team to resign because of improper ties to Russia?  Why not forcefully state that Trump himself needs to be investigated?

      Aside from media appearances, I’d also say Rep. Garamendi needs to start holding regular town halls. Sunday’s was so packed that only a tiny fraction of the people got a chance to ask questions and he needs to hear from more of them, especially as my strongest impression of the night was that he was completely out of touch with his constituency.   I’d also strongly encourage him to continue reaching out to IndivisibleYOLO and the other grassroots organizations that are springing into action in his district.  We want to cheer him on – but he has to give us something to cheer for.

       

  4. Ron

    “. . . repeatedly repeatedly suggested that women holding the microphone (and only the women) treat it like it was their boyfriend and told them to “kiss it”.

    Why is it that I know not to say something like that?  (I’m not even a politician.)

    I can only guess that the Representative was clumsily trying to diffuse frustration, in the room.

    Good analysis, regarding the things that our Representatives can actually do at this point (e.g., communicating with the media, harnessing the economic power of California, etc.)

    “He described Trump as a magician, expert at manipulating the press.”

    Oh, my (sarcasm intended).  (Hint – he’s no magician.  Every day, there’s negative press about Trump, and there has been for some time.  Of course, that didn’t stop him from getting elected.)

    Wondering what happened to the effort to abolish the electoral college.  (Same problem with the Senate – two for California, two for Wyoming, two for Alaska, etc.)  Votes of those living in states with large populations are effectively diluted. Didn’t Clinton win the popular vote by almost 3 million? (And, we’re just accepting the outcome as the way it should be?)

    Also, there’s Congressional votes coming up within a couple of years, and Trump will probably run again in four years.  Perhaps that’s where more energy should be focused?

     

  5. Colin Walsh

    Congressman Garamendi and every other honorable Congress person should do everything they can to launch an investigation into Flynn, and the Republican administrations ties to Russia and they should do it immediately. Any delay will only allow for time to scatter, obfuscate and destroy evidence.

     

    1. Keith O

      Any delay will only allow for time to scatter, obfuscate and destroy evidence.

      Like Obama’s administration delayed investigations and scattered, obfuscated and destroyed evidence into Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Clinton and the State Department’s misuse of emails, etc….

      It worked very well for them.

        1. Keith O

          Not at all, you seem to have forgotten how the emails disappeared and computers were destroyed in the IRS and the Clinton, State Dept. emails scandals.  Investigations were delayed for years in hopes that the stories would die down.

      1. David Greenwald

        So for every single thing that happens, you’re going to try to find an equivalent in the Obama administration?  Trump can do no wrong?  Or Trump is immunized from wrong doing by implication with past presidents?

        1. Colin Walsh

          Flynn may not have been the first to ever resign, but he just might be the fastest.

          Keith, you do agree though that there should be congregational and DOJ investigations into what Flynn did right?

  6. Ron

    I know that I’m in the minority regarding this, but I’m still more concerned about Pence, if Trump is removed.  (Not on “hot topic” things like immigration, but an overall more conservative ideology.)  Plus, Trump draws more attention and opposition than Pence would, which might make it more difficult for Trump to get anything done.

    There certainly would be less “media spectacle” every day.  Wondering if some of the major news organizations would secretly miss Trump.

    1. darelldd

      I have similar concerns, Ron. Pence is a real politician who knows what he’s doing and has a grasp on government’s role and even the constitution. Some of the frightening things he stands for will be done methodically and legally, unlike the total crap-shoot that’s going on today…. that seems destined to failure.

        1. Eric Gelber

          So how is Trump “a real threat to our democracy”?

          Seriously? Quickly, off the top of my head:

          He is ignorant of how our constitutional democracy works, including separation of powers.
          He believes his actions are not subject to review.
          He denigrates the integrity of the courts (going well beyond reasoned disagreement with particular decisions).
          He has no respect for freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the Establishment Clause.
          He has insulted allies and threatened to undermine longstanding alliances.
          He is thin-skinned and acts on impulse.
          He draws moral equivalences between the U.S. and Putin’s Russia.

          All this and much more. And he’s only been in office for three weeks. (I almost forgot: He’s a pathalogical liar.)

        2. Tia Will

          David

          I would have agreed with your 9:47 am post until Pence’s indefensible backing of the most ridiculous claims of POTUS. His willingness to accept the frankly crazy narrative of POTUS on multiple events demonstrates that he is willing to deceive just as much as the other members of the current administration in order to obtain and retain power.

  7. cornford

    Excellent article Emily.  A couple of hours ago I posted this on Nextdoor in response to a developing conversation  there on Garamendi:

    I am in total agreement with Stephen, and no I do not think we make up a small minority. For too long “us” Democrats have put our faith in or ignored the fact that all too often we are represented by “business” or moderate Democrats and look where that has got us. The discontent with the neo liberal Democrats was manifest in the extraordinary support that Bernie Sanders garnered. In the wake of the Trump victory, and the first three weeks of this admin, there is even more anger and discontent among Democrats. Locally this was evidenced by the hundreds of people that turned out (with at least half not able to gain admission) to the Garamendi town hall meeting. Locally and regionally in Curry and Dodd, we are represented by people who get funding from groups not generally associated with the Dem. party–oil companies, Big Pharma, agribusiness, the charter school movement (Ed-Voice), Health Care companies, real estate interests, finance and bankers. et al. Just got to Ballotopedia, Cal-Access, the Secretary of State’s Office if you do not believe me. In addition the DE, specifically Anne Ternus-Bellamy, have written articles about the sources of funding our local state Dems. For an excellent overview article on this phenomenon see: “In Plain Sight: The Rise of Corporate Democrats in California.”
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22In+Pl

    I’ll not bore or detain people further with an analysis of Garamendi’s mixed record except to say that no-one on NextDoor or the DV mentioned this fact about him. I quote directly from Wikipedia: “Garamendi voted on Nov. 19, 2015, for HR 4038, legislation that would effectively halt the resettlement of refugees from Syria and Iraq to the United States.[43]”

  8. Linda Deos

    Thank you Emily for your article today. I, too, want a leader that is going to lead and not continue with the same old same old of days past. Rep. Garamendi seems to be of the old (literally and figuratively) guard. I also agree with the comment that we can fight Trump here in California and that we need to stay on Curry and Dodd to be leaders in that fight.

  9. Tia Will

    I also agree with the comment that we can fight Trump here in California and that we need to stay on Curry and Dodd to be leaders in that fight.”

    To say nothing of Feinstein and Harris the latter of whom has been vocal since in Washington, but has not had time to establish a voting record yet.

    1. Roberta Millstein

      Re: Harris.  Yes.  For example, she is calling for a public, transparent, bipartisan fact-based investigation into Michael Flynn’s involvement with Russia and Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election.  Her petition is here.  Harris is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, as is Feinstein.  I don’t know if Feinstein has made a statement or not.

      1. Roberta Millstein

        Feinstein has now issued a statement; it’s here:

        “General Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor is an important first step, but there are a growing number of questions that must be answered.

         

        “What else is there to know about contacts between Trump’s advisors and Russian officials?

         

        “What actions did the White House take when the Justice Department warned—weeks ago—that General Flynn posed a risk of blackmail by Russian officials?

         

        “Did the White House limit his access to classified documents and briefings and was he still advising the president on national security concerns?

         

        “Did General Flynn act alone or did others connected to Trump know about and authorize his communications with Russian officials, including his discussion of U.S. sanctions?

         

        “Congress and the American people deserve a full and fair accounting from the White House without delay. And we must ensure that ongoing investigations into Russia’s interference with the 2016 election remain independent.

         

        “These questions go to the heart of our democratic processes and national security and must not remain unanswered.”

         

    1. Tia Will

      Keith

      As I have pointed out repeatedly, no party has a lock on honesty or integrity. And any individual can register as a member of any party they like. So please clarify just what exactly you think this explains.

  10. April Genung

    Democrats need to take back control of the narrative and go on the rhetorical offense. Garamendi needs to demand Trump’s tax returns, over and over again, ad nauseum, until they give in.  Garamendi needs to demand to dig into the Trump administration’s ties to Russia, over and over again ad nauseum, until the truth is revealed.

    This, this, this!

    I hope someone prints out these comments and mails them to Garamendi. Maybe I’ll do that! He needs to know that his constituents are desperate for their voices to be turned into action. This isn’t business as usual anymore. We need him to be on our side in words and in deeds.

    1. Howard P

      You appear to mean “his constituents” who agree with you… his constituents include those who didn’t vote for him, and many others who did vote for him, but whose views differ from yours… but I guess they are not worthy of equal representation… whatever…

      You and others seem to espouse the notion that “to the victors belong the spoils”, and/or ‘tyranny of the majority’ (as to the voters who re-elected Garamendi)… same problem plagues much of the Republican party… but you seem to be OK with the concept, if it fits your views… that kind of thinking, on either side of the aisle is our biggest threat as a nation…

      I’m not wired to be a ‘partisan’… I’m wired to think and hold moral values… deeply…

      Yet for many, it is a game… a game of numbers…

      1. Roberta Millstein

        Perhaps April simply assumes that other constituents will speak for themselves.  Should she speak for those she disagrees with?  Or should she advocate for the policies that she thinks are right? You make a lot of assumptions about someone who has written a few short sentences.

        1. Howard P

          He needs to know that his constituents are desperate for their voices to be turned into action. 

          Democrats need to take back control of the narrative and go on the rhetorical offense. Garamendi needs to demand Trump’s tax returns, over and over again, ad nauseum, until they give in.  Garamendi needs to demand to dig into the Trump administration’s ties to Russia, over and over again ad nauseum, until the truth is revealed.

          This, this, this!

          Looks like she was quite clear the equivalency of the two statements… appears to be very clear that Garamendi should, in her view, be a strong, vocal, aggressive, partisan Democrat first, with absolutely no mention of representing all in the district… on matters that are important to her (and, perhaps, you?)…  back at you, you wrote,

          Perhaps April simply assumes that other constituents will speak for themselves.  Should she speak for those she disagrees with?  Or should she advocate for the policies that she thinks are right? You make a lot of assumptions about someone who has written a few short sentences.

          I voted for Garamendi each time he ran… I do not agree with all his positions, agree with many… using your words (paraphrased), “should Garamendi speak only for those he agrees with”? [or where he thinks the most votes are?]
          Please… think…

        2. Ron

          Howard:

          You have a point, regarding April’s use of the word “constituents”.  (Probably should have said “many of your constituents”, although even that may not be provable.) Actually, it’s generally most accurate to speak only for yourself, unless you’re actually a representative of some group. (If a recipient receives a lot of similar individual messages, he/she can draw their own conclusions.)

          I believe that you’re kind of a “stickler”, regarding precise language.  Not a bad thing.  But, to be honest, I think most of us knew what April meant.

        3. Howard P

          Don… is the concept “nuance” familiar to you?  Have you not been able to see both sides/multiple sides of an issue, articulate each, then come up with an informed opinion?  If not, glad you’re not running for office…

          I’d expect my rep to reflect his/her district is divided, listen to all, and state that, but at the end of the day, they need to problem solve, and at the very end of the day, vote aye/nay… the problem solving (not compromise, but problem solving) piece seems to be missing in this discussion… if you can’t/won’t see that, I can’t help… guess you support the ‘tyranny of the majority’, if you are in the majority…

          Hope you can live with that given the makeup of Congress and the presidency… I won’t…

        4. Howard P

          Ron… unlike you when you say, “to be honest, I think most of us knew what April meant.”, I’m not a mind-reader… if you have those qualities, great!  Tia often makes a good point… “don’t tell me what I think/believe”… one of the things I deeply respect about Tia… I’d add, from my perspective, “don’t you presume to tell me what to think/believe/do”… those would be ‘fighting words’…

          And yes, I do believe in precision when using words, on sensitive topics, … but “stickler”? Nice side-swipe…

        5. Ron

          Howard:

          It wasn’t intended as a true swipe at you.  I just suspect that you use words in a very literal manner (more than I do, I guess).  It’s fine – keeps me on my toes. (That’s what I meant by “stickler”.)

          But, I’d have to guess that April realized that she wasn’t speaking for “all” constituents.  (If that’s what she actually meant, it wouldn’t comprise common sense.)  Since her post was otherwise logical, I didn’t even notice her use of the word, in that context.

          And actually, it’s probably not “incorrect” to use the word “constituents” (meaning more than one).

          No big deal. Just “shootin the breeze”, I guess. (Now, I guess I’ll have to look up exactly what that means!) 🙂

  11. Tia Will

    “should Garamendi speak only for those he agrees with”

    I think that minus the condescending “please…..think”, Howard is making a valid point. Who should a representative speak for ?  There are a several reasonable points of view on this issue.

    1. He should speak for the majority of those who elected him ( his supporters). This would seem to have some validity because it is their interests that he was supposedly advocating for or he would not have been elected. However, this does not address the validity or morality of the majority  view or how he convinced them to vote for him and so falls short on several counts.

    2. Should he speak for the majority of the constituents in his district ? This might be a reasonable proposition given that he is a representative for all. But what happens when they are evenly split ? What happens when he cannot in good conscience support what the majority favor ?

    3. He should speak for himself based on his own conscience. This also has some merit since we are all responsible to ourselves in how we conduct our lives and he presumably has persuaded enough voters on enough issues to have won election. But what happens ( other than not being re-elected) if his conscience takes him too far from the position of his supporters.

    “Thinking” about this issue perhaps does not lead to as straight forward a conclusion as some might contend.

    1. Howard P

      We all need to ‘think’… Tia, the context of most of this is “dichotomous”…  thought you reject that… being ‘partisan’ these days (for Davis, Democrats good, Republicans evil) is counter-productive to actually problem solving and moving forward, IMHO [and put that in there because it irritates Tia… just to be playful]

      ‘Hard-line’ positions and uber-advocacy, threatens the ACA concepts, immigration rationality, etc. IMHO (meant as playful).

      Little is “straight forward”, unless you are looking thru a telescope with cross-hairs and have a damn good backsight…

      Thinking, and good moral/philosophical underpinnings are what we need now… not loud voices, saying “hooray for our side”… the thoughtful voices need to be consistently articulated…

       

       

       

  12. Tia Will

    is the concept “nuance” familiar to you?”
    Wow. You are really on a roll this evening. If the recent shenanigans in the news have you on edge, I have a lot of empathy. If not, I am at a loss as to why the biting tone.

    1. Howard P

      So, there is no “nuance”?  Everything is “black and white”?  Wow, sea change for you!

      Which shenanigans do you refer to?  Flynn is gone, rightfully so… suspect Kellyanne is next… the Ninth Court did the right thing… am not seeing the sky falling… do you?

      Don responded to my post in a confrontational way… I know not why.  I responded, pretty gently, I think.

      And Don missed the gist of my please/think comment… wasn’t even aimed at him…

      Unclear what your “on a roll” comment meant… will you elaborate?

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for