Category Archives: Uncategorized

2018 = 1984

19 Friday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Clean is dirty.

The right wingnut funded Missourians First has signs opposed to Amendment 1 springing up all over like mushrooms. And mushrooms grow in…

And bullshit is always bullshit.

Does anyone think the people who put these signs up on their property really know who paid for them?

Missourians First is the pop up committee (established on August 10, 2018) funded with $200,000.00 from Rex Sinquefield which is opposed to the CLEAN Missouri intiative (Amendment 1) for ethics, campaign finance, lobbying, and redistricting reform on the November ballot.

On October 11, 2018 Missourians First filed a Limited Activity (under $500.00 for the period) quarterly campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Let’s see, Missourians First (really, Rex Sinquefield at this point) is adamantly opposed to a constitutional amendment that will:

Require that legislative records be open to the public by ensuring that the legislature operate under the same open records law as other public entities in Missouri

Require politicians to wait two years before becoming lobbyists after the conclusion of their final legislative session

Eliminate almost all lobbyist gifts in the General Assembly by banning any single gift worth more than $5 — that means no more steak dinners, expensive booze, junkets or sports tickets. This rule would eliminate more than 99% of the lobbyist gift giving happening in Missouri.

Lower campaign contribution limits for state legislative candidates to limit the influence of big money and lobbyists in state government.
Establish new campaign contribution limits for General Assembly candidates— $2,500 for state senate, and $2,000 for state house.
Limit the ability of individuals and organizations to circumvent caps by counting money from single-source committees towards totals for original, actual donors.
Stop legislative fundraising on state property.

Ensure that neither political party is given an unfair advantage when new maps are drawn after the next census by asking a nonpartisan expert to draw fair legislative district maps, which would then be reviewed by a citizen commission.
Add fairness and competitiveness as required criteria for new district maps
Protect the political power of minority communities against vote dilution
Ask an independent state demographer to lead on technical work in creating district maps, instead of entrusting political appointees to do all of that work

That would explain a lot.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: we’re not surprised (October 9, 2018)

Tonight’s McCaskill-Hawley debate: a quick rhetoric post-mortem

18 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

This debate was televised; it’ll be repeated tomorrow at noon on NPR (I think) and most Missouri newspapers will touch on the high points. Consequently, I’m not going to get bogged down (much) in a critique of the substance in these quick notes, but rather offer my impressions of how each candidate performed in terms of  rhetorical effectiveness. Forewith:

Hawley

  • I learned that he’s the father of two little “guys” – it was, in fact, pounded into my brain via incessant repetition. Hawley seems to have no other go-to when trying to describe motivation.

CONS:

  • He lost on substance:
    • He’s obviously spent a lot of time memorizing campaign slogans and GOP talking points.
    • He’s wasn’t ashamed to repeat said slogans and talking points over and over; it’s was insulting to the intelligence of his auditors.
    • He’s wasn’t willing to get lost in the weeds of facts and figures; those he did summon were often incorrect or misleading
    • Since his answers consisted of lots of canned campaign hash, he had lots of time to leave the podium and show his interlocutors (and the TV audience) just what a nice, personable young man he really is.
    • He was perfectly happy to twist facts and mislead his listeners. For example, in answer to a question about whether or not he would support cutting Social Security and Medicare in order to address the Trump deficit, he answered that he would not support cutting these programs for current recipients or those who would receive benefits in the near future – a standard GOP dodge to avoid scaring current pensioners when they propose to privatize or whittle the programs away. He consistently misrepresented the impact of the ACA on insurance prices by failing to note that the growth in premiums is a response to efforts by the GOP congress and the Trump administration to sabotage the program.
    • He continued to repeat specific misleading points even after his facts had been corrected, e.g., he insisted a second time – even after McCaskill corrected his earlier statement – that she supported the “Waters of the U.S.” rule. In fact, McCaskill actually joined Republicans to vote to scrap the rule in its then form.
    • He seemed awfully studied and slick and determined to do the full George W. Bush – repeat dumb talking points over and over.
    • He was consistently on the attack – understandable since he doesn’t have a record of achievement to which he could refer.

PROS:

  • Hawley won on style:
    • He spent lots of time repeating campaign slogans. It may seem insulting to careful listeners, but rhetoricians tell us that to effectively persuade large numbers of people, we need to keep the message simple and repeat it over and over. Hawley’s got that routine down and he probably went over well with lots of viewers.
    • He’s not willing to get lost in the weeds of policy talk. We’re told that complicated, fact-filled arguments go right through both ears for many listeners, so this was probably a positive for Hawley who delivered answers that were simplistic often to the point of dishonesty – but with an air of authoritative conviction.
    • Since his answers consisted of lots of canned campaign hash, he had lots of time to leave the podium and show his interlocutors (and the TV audience) just what a nice, personable young man he really is.
    • He was calm, collected and cool as ice. If McCaskill got under his skin, he didn’t let anyone know except when he decided that a little high (or medium-high) dudgeon could be exploited for rhetorical effect.

Claire McCaskill:

  • She’ll soon be a grandmother for the 12th time – and, no, she only let that fact drop once – there was no serious effort to curry favor via grandchildren. Thank God. I don’t need my politicians “humanized,” just competent.

PROS:

  • She won on substance:
    • She had her facts down – and almost everything she says can be verified.
    • She devoted more time to describing her positions than describing her opponents shortcomings. This approach was notable in the concluding statements; Hawley spent used the statement to continue condescending to McCskill who is, he implied, past her use-by date – to paraphrase, a good enough person whose desiccated liberalism doesn’t resonate wth today’s Missourians.
    • She could concentrate on her achievements because she has a real of record of hard work and experience that informed her answers.
    • She didn’t condescend to her audience. She seemed to assume that they could deal with what goes into making policy and don’t have to be fed responses cribbed from TV ads.
    • She made it clear that she tries to represent all Missourians, not just a particular tribe, even if it means that she makes all Missourians angry at one time or another (not all at the same time, though).

CONS:

  • She lost on style
    • She had all her facts down, lots of them – and tried to cram them all into short answers which can have the effect of making them seem less coherent or convincing. Also lots of people, we’re told, just don’t listen to or remember complex, detailed responses. (Although I personally was delighted with her command of facts and nuance – that, after all, is where the “truth” lies.)
    • She seemed to become agitated and uncomfortable much of the time which undercut her effectiveness
    • She seemed overeager at times which contrasted with Hawley’s relaxed demeanor.
    • Even though she clearly wanted to emphasize her centrism, she could have done so and still defended many of her past positions more forcefully, with less meandering explanation. There’s no need for her to be apologetic.
    • She can be good at being forceful and letting her tough side show – I’ve seen her do it. I wish she’d done it more tonight.

Summary

Tonight’s debate seemed like an exercise which was intended to show whether substance dominates style or vice versa,  the outcome of which we probably won’t know until November 6. You have also probably also noticed – particularly in regard to Hawley – that many of the “pros” are also “cons.” That’s because it’s all a matter of perspective.

* Slightly revised for style an clarity (11:43 pm, 10/18/2018).

State Rep. Derek Grier – not so moderate after all?

18 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

I first met my state representative, Rep. Derek Grier (R-100), when he was canvassing in my neighborhood prior to the 2016 primary elections. He seems to have sussed my proclivities, or, perhaps, realized that the formerly right-wing suburbs were changing. His argument to me was that he was a common sense moderate, far less extreme than Mike Allen, his GOP primary opponent and the husband of the former, term-limited incumbent, Sue Allen.

Grier won the primary, ran unopposed, got elected and that was about the last I heard from him apart from periodic “newsletters” that rarely did more than list new legislation or an occasional slap-dash constituent “opinion” survey. However, in a year that saw the success of right-to-work-for-less legislation, tax cuts for the rich, inroads against women’s reproductive rights, failed efforts to regulate legislators’ lax ethical behavior, and secure adequate funding for infrastructure and education – not to mention the resignation of a Republican governor on grounds of moral turpitude, I heard not a peep from Rep. Grier about where he stood on any of these contentious issues.

So imagine my surprise this week when I received a card listing the “accomplishments” of Rep. Grier’s two years in office, gathered under the rubric of “promises made, promises kept.” My first response: what promises? Could it have been that implicit promise he made during the 2016 primary to moderate the far-right agenda espoused by so many members of Misouri’s GOP?

Certainly, if one looks closely at Rep. Grier’s accomplishment list, at least two of the three highlights he selected to campaign on, such as the anti-human-trafficking bill, HB 1246, emphasize bipartisan appeal. What’s even more interesting is what he’s not drawing attention to. He certainly isn’t boasting about the fact that  his legislative voting record in its entirety lines up almost perfectly with the destructive far-right, anti-worker agenda of the state’s GOP majority. Evidently, he doesn’t want to dwell on votes that indicate support for right-to-work-for-less.  Or his support for restrictions on reproductive freedom – the list is long and not at all bipartisan.

Nor, do all of Rep. Grier’ selected legislative activities stand up well under scrutiny:

—  The main jewel in Rep. Grier’s crown, HB 1719 and HB 1710, legislation which he himself authored, in his words, “eliminated regulations [i.e. licensing standards] on professionals in Missouri.” The bills would respectively recognize professional licenses issued in other states, and change minimum age requirements for some professions. Unfortunately, the first bill also contains a provision that forbids any private licensing entity from using the words “certification” or “registration,” a provision that excited the ire of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards (CFPB) and the Financial Services Institute. These groups pointed out that this provision could invalidate the credentials of many certified financial planners in Missouri. The Center for Association Leadership broadened the complaint, asserting that it would have a serious negative impact on a much larger range of professionals, including doctors, lawyers, etc.  Sloppy, sloppy.

— Rep. Grier co-sponsored HB 2540 which he claims “provided a tax cut to citizens and businesses.” It did cut taxes. For rich folks. Already I’m hearing complaints about ballot initiatives, etc. that would raise sales taxes that have already reached 10% or more. These taxes are being levied in order to pay for services that used to come out of general funds. And here’s Rep. Grier bragging about beggaring the state and forcing citizens to choose between regressive taxes or loss of vital services?

— Although he did not include it among his list of accomplishments but added it as an aside, Rep. Grier also takes credit for voting “to fully fund the education foundation formula.” That’s not much of a boast, though, given that the GOP-controlled legislature voted to change the formula to conform better to the amount of spending that they deigned to allocate to schools, rather than allocate the amount required by the earlier version of the formula.

I recently watched on Netflix an episode of the Australian TV series, Rake,  which presents the misadventures of a dissipated, renegade lawyer, Cleaver Greene. Greene asks at one point about an American politician, “So he’s a moderate Republican? He’s just a little bit pro-life, a little bit pro-gun, a little bit anti-gay?” What this series of rhetorical questions imply is that in the real world, when decisions have to be made, folks usually have to break one way or another, and I would suggest, based on his total voting record rather than campaign flim-flam, that Rep. Grier breaks to the not so moderate right whenever it really counts.

Jason Smith goes all Trump; lies about motor-voter laws and immigration

12 Friday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Rep. Jason Smith (R-8) has decided to go all in on Donald Trump’s “signature issue” for the midterm and has sent out a press release decrying “the evils of immigration.” In the process he also copied Trump’s modus operandi by resorting to lies and conspiracy theories:

Cities in California, Illinois, and Maryland are taking the extreme step of disregarding their state constitutions and registering illegal immigrants to vote in elections.

This is the latest push by the radical left to give illegal immigrants the rights and privileges reserved for American citizens, without any respect to the rule of law and our immigration process.

What Smith’s on about is automatic motor-voter registration laws. Unfortunately for Smith, the conservative claim that these laws will permit non-citizens to vote has been thoroughly debunked. For instance, in reference to California – which has experienced difficulty in duplicating the seamless implementation that characterized the process in states like Oregon – non-citizens are neither automatically registered nor empowered to vote:

FactCheck.org

The false story, on dangerous.com and circulating on Facebook in recent days, is the latest in a series of such claims, which misrepresent a law designed to increase voter registration among U.S. citizens in California. Users of the social media site flagged the story as potentially false and rightfully so.

Snopes:

While it’s true that undocumented residents living in California can obtain driver’s licenses, the state has not passed any laws that also provide them the right to vote. The New Motor Voter Act was passed in an effort to improve voter turnout, and while this law does automatically register citizens to vote when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses, that action only applies to citizens who have already attested and/or documented an eligibility to vote.

Smith’s diatribe is full of such dishonest assertions – he basically hits all the low points that Republicans are using to try and muddy the current sad state of our immigration policy in the U.S. – policy that the GOP, which controls the legislative and executive branch of the government, could have the changed to fit their preferences at any time in the past two years. Somehow, despite any evidence, Rep. Smith manages to conflate Democrats desire to enact a humane and functional border policy with advocacy for “open borders.”

But, of course, these specious claims have another truly evil purpose: to present Democrats as irrational radicals, Trump’s “angry leftwing mob,” perhaps even, as lyin’ Donnie would have it, evil. Democrats who are repelled by images of babies torn from their mothers’ arms are characterized as cynical and casual lawbreakers by a cadre of demonstrably cynical scofflaws with whom Rep. Smith has chosen to identify himself.

Will dishonest attacks on Democrats pay off? Will demeaning and lying about Democratic lawmakers and their efforts to solve the problems posed by desperate brown people trickling over the Southern border divert attention away from GOP failures over the past couple of years? Maybe – but there’s a good case to be made that the obvious racism that shores up the GOP immigration stance and the brutality that it attempts to justify might backfire come November. After all, most Americans are neither cruel nor stupid.

Roy Blunt defends the indefensible, a.k.a. Brett Kavanaugh

09 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Missouri’s junior senator, Republican Roy Blunt, has finally deigned to give us, via the GOP House organ, Fox News, his version of their Kavanaugh talking points:

The key comments here are his claims that “unfair” and “unrealistic” Democrats sat on Dr.  Blasey-Ford’s story  until late in the process and then declared Kavanaugh “guilty until proven innocent.” Since Fox’s Maria Bartiromo didn’t seem to want to push back on these assertions, I would like to offer the following  observations:

— Although evidence indicates that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s account of the reasons for the late timing is accurate, the entire question amounts to little more than a red herring. The real issue is whether credible claims of serious wrong-doing should be ignored and not be fully investigated because they didn’t emerge earlier during more general routine vetting; innocent until proven guilty presupposes that a fair and transparent effort to secure proof will take place.

— One might also note that whether or not Kavanaugh is, as Senator Blunt asserts, one of the “most vetted candidate in the history of confirmations” is not a real answer to credible claims by his Democratic colleagues that the very curtailed and limited investigation into this specific allegation was inadequate.

Sen. Blunt is to be commended for not picking  up on the shameless GOP whine about how Blasey-Ford’s credible accusations endanger those poor, quivering, white males who might be falsely accused of sexual assault. Yes, false accusations of rape are made – in, it is estimated, only 2 – 10% of cases. It follows that that 90%+ rape allegations are verified. And, of course, the way to verify the truth of any allegation of sexual assault is a full and unbiased investigation of the sort that the GOP-controlled senate and the White House did not allow to take place in the Kavanaugh case. Wonder why, anyone?

Finally, Blunt, riding high on the results of a Marist poll from last week, that found GOP enthusiasm for voting heightened after the Kavanaugh hearings, predicts that if Democrats continue to raise issues about the legitimacy of Kavanaugh’s appointment, the “strategy” will backfire. In other words, the GOP wants to put down a potential on-going firestorm before it blows their narrative out of the water – and they’re counting on past Democratic spinelessness in the face of conservative attacks to do the job.

However, today a CNN poll which, unlike the Marist poll, was taken after the confirmation of Kavanaugh, should give Senator Blunt pause when it comes to trying to scare Democrats out of demonstrating their anger about a stolen Supreme Court appointment: in response to a question about voting enthusiasm, 62% of Democrats say they are “extremely or very enthusiastic to vote, up seven points since September.” In contrast, 52% of Republicans reported enthusiasm about voting in November, a result that is only 2% higher than in September.

Maybe Senator Blunt ought to help his senate leadership cronies retool some of that nasty, Trumpian Kavanaugh spin they’re spewing. It’s possible that even a few Republicans are embarrassed to belong to a party that elevates misogynistic,  biased, lying, judicial hacks to positions of power and prominence.

*Edited slightly for clarity (6:20 pm, 10/9/2018)

 

A statement from Jason Kander

02 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Jason Kander (D) [2016 file photo]

A statement, this afternoon, from Jason Kander:

A personal announcement

About four months ago, I contacted the VA to get help. It had been about 11 years since I left Afghanistan as an Army Intelligence Officer, and my tour over there still impacted me every day. So many men and women who served our country did so much more than me and were in so much more danger than I was on my four-month tour. I can’t have PTSD, I told myself, because I didn’t earn it.

But, on some level, I knew something was deeply wrong, and that it hadn’t felt that way before my deployment. After 11 years of this, I finally took a step toward dealing with it, but I didn’t step far enough.

I went online and filled out the VA forms, but I left boxes unchecked – too scared to acknowledge my true symptoms. I knew I needed help and yet I still stopped short. I was afraid of the stigma. I was thinking about what it could mean for my political future if someone found out.

That was stupid, and things have gotten even worse since.

By all objective measures, things have been going well for me the past few months. My first book became a New York Times Bestseller in August. Let America Vote has been incredibly effective, knocking on hundreds of thousands of doors and making hundreds of thousands of phone calls. I know that our work is making a big difference. And last Tuesday, I found out that we were going to raise more money than any Kansas City mayoral campaign ever has in a single quarter. But instead of celebrating that accomplishment, I found myself on the phone with the VA’s Veterans Crisis Line, tearfully conceding that, yes, I have had suicidal thoughts. And it wasn’t the first time.

I’m done hiding this from myself and from the world. When I wrote in my book that I was lucky to not have PTSD, I was just trying to convince myself. And I wasn’t sharing the full picture. I still have nightmares. I am depressed.

Instead of dealing with these issues, I’ve always tried to find a way around them. Most recently, I thought that if I could come home and work for the city I love so much as its mayor, I could finally solve my problems. I thought if I focused exclusively on service to my neighbors in my hometown, that I could fill the hole inside of me. But it’s just getting worse.

So after 11 years of trying to outrun depression and PTSD symptoms, I have finally concluded that it’s faster than me. That I have to stop running, turn around, and confront it.

I finally went to the VA in Kansas City yesterday and have started the process to get help there regularly. To allow me to concentrate on my mental health, I’ve decided that I will not be running for mayor of Kansas City. I truly appreciate all the support so many people in Kansas City and across the country have shown me since I started this campaign. But I can’t work on myself and run a campaign the way I want to at the same time, so I’m choosing to work on my depression.

I’ll also be taking a step back from day-to-day operations at Let America Vote for the time being, but the organization will continue moving forward. We are doing vital work across the country to stop voter suppression and will keep doing so through November and beyond.

Having made the decision not to run for mayor, my next question was whether I would be public about the reason why. I decided to be public for two reasons: First, I think being honest will help me through this. And second, I hope it helps veterans and everyone else across the country working through mental health issues realize that you don’t have to try to solve it on your own. Most people probably didn’t see me as someone that could be depressed and have had PTSD symptoms for over decade, but I am and I have. If you’re struggling with something similar, it’s OK. That doesn’t make you less of a person.

I wish I would have sought help sooner, so if me going public with my struggle makes just one person seek assistance, doing this publicly is worth it to me. The VA Crisis Line is 1-800-273-8255, and non-veterans can use that number as well.

I’ll close by saying this isn’t goodbye. Once I work through my mental health challenges, I fully intend to be working shoulder to shoulder with all of you again. But I’m passing my oar to you for a bit. I hope you’ll grab it and fight like hell to make this country the place we know it can be.

Jason

Jason Kander (D) – Warrensburg, Missouri – June 20, 2013.

A few of the responses on social media this afternoon:

Kathy Griffin @kathygriffin
Thank you for sharing your story @JasonKander…not an easy thing to do. I wish you all the best and look forward to your return when you’re ready.
[….]
1:44 PM – 2 Oct 2018

Jennifer Palmieri @jmpalmieri
@JasonKander is so talented & accomplished, could be hard to imagine he was enduring so much private pain, but I have seen it happen to a lot of folks in politics. You never know what’s happening in someone’s life. Be kind. Love to him and @dianakander
[….]
2:17 PM – 2 Oct 2018

Sarah Kendzior @sarahkendzior
I have so much respect for @JasonKander, a great Missourian. Wishing him the best during these hard times.
[….]
1:44 PM – 2 Oct 2018

Molly Knight @molly_knight
This will save lives. You are an extraordinary human, @jasonkander.
[….]
1:47 PM – 2 Oct 2018

In the front yard:

Monarch

02 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

This afternoon in west central Missouri:

Monarch. F 6.3, 1/1000, ISO 800, 200 mm, 25 mm extension tube.

Via the United States Fish and Wildlife Service:

Petition to protect the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act [pdf]

…Overall the North American monarch population has declined by more than 90 percent in the past two decades based on comparisons of the most recent population size estimates to the 20-year average. Numbers of monarchs east of the Rockies have declined by more than 90 percent since 1995; at most recent count, in winter 2013-2014, monarchs east of the Rockies dropped to the lowest number yet recorded, continuing the progression toward declining numbers seen over the last decade. Similarly, numbers of monarchs west of the Rockies have declined by more than 50 percent since 1997. The significant threats facing the monarch are high in magnitude and ongoing…

Monarch. F 8.0, 1/1000, ISO 800, 145 mm, 25 mm extension tube.

Josh Hawley smells blood in the water and attacks Dianne Feinstein

01 Monday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

GOP Attorney Josh Hawley got some bad news today when CNN’s latest polling numbers put him 3 percentage points behind Democrat Claire McCaskill whom he hopes to replace in the Senate. The poll shows McCaskill with 47 percent to Hawley’s 43 percent. The new poll reverses the last polling that put McCaskill 2 percentage points behind Hawley.

Senator McCaskill and Hawley are still within the poll’s margin of error, but those of us who have been thoroughly turned off by the bible-thumping GOP boy wonder are nevertheless cheered by McCaskill’s upwards trajectory. We were particularly pleased after reading about Hawley’s crude effort to prove that he’s not too prissy to be a good little team player:

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R), who’s running against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), is calling for a special counsel to investigate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and her staff over the handling of sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“It raises very troubling ethical question … and that’s why I’m calling today for a special counsel to investigate the conduct of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, her staff and all other relevant party for violating the confidentiality of Dr. Ford and obstructing the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Hawley told reporters on a Monday conference call, referring to the first woman to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

Nothing like jumping on a leaky boat in one’s haste to get in on the action and get a share of the booty. Hawley should probably think it over very carefully before he spews more of this sort of righteous rhetoric; the effort to deflect attention from an ethically very flawed SCOTUS candidate to Senator Feinstein’s hypothetical misbehavior has the stench of pure desperation – not to mention stupidity. Bogus investigations don’t impress anyone but the terminally dim-witted anymore.

Just think about what Hawley is proposing: Imagine that a man, hearing anguished cries, trespassed by entering a vacant building where he discovered a serious crime in progress which he reported. Now imagine that the perpetrator of the crime was ignored by the police when they arrived – apart from a few officers who apologized for causing him distress – and instead the putative trespasser was denounced, investigated and punished for the crime of trespassing, which was described as a serious ethical lapse.

Wouldn’t you want to know why the law refused to focus on the real criminal and instead pursued a possible minor miscreant? Similarly, don’t you want to know why Hawley won’t focus on finding the truth about the SCOTUS nominee, particularly if, as he claims to believe, that, lacking a thorough investigation, the “corroborating” evidence is currently insufficient?

Finally, why is Hawley ignoring the rather strong evidence that Judge Kavanaugh has lied to the members of the Judiciary Committee on numerous occasions during the past weeks? Isn’t perjury at least as serous as Senator Feinstein’s effort to respect the wishes of Dr. Ford? And, incidentally, doesn’t the fact that, Dr. Ford has indicated that she’s not at all bummed out by Senator Feinstein’s actions indicate that Feinstein’s lapse, if any, is pretty damn trivial?

Shouldn’t Hawley try to be a little more honest with us about what he’s really doing? Do you think it could have something to do with those very close polling numbers? Just asking.