A reader has sent me the following information about a “listening session” that Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican, will be holding this coming Monday.
Please get the word out. For those in Susan Brooks area of the 5th Congressional District of Indiana, she will be holding a “listening” session in the Indianapolis area on Monday August 6 at the Lawrence Readiness Training Center, 9920 E 59th Street, Lawrence, Indiana (Indianapolis East-side). She needs an earful as she has been weak on women’s issues and against women’s right to choose. She is rarely available in Indianapolis and this is an opportunity to show up and be heard. This is the closest we will ever get to a Town Hall, which she will not do.
I have known Susan Brooks since the early 1980s. For most of that time, I considered her a friend–not a close friend, but certainly someone simpatico. From what I could tell, she did a good job as U.S. Attorney and as Deputy Mayor, and she practiced criminal defense law with one of the lawyers I most admire, Rick Kammen. (Among his other virtues, Rick has represented Guantanamo detainees, and he is as decent and compassionate as he is skilled.)
Then, of course, she was elected.
The woman I had always assumed was pro-choice trumpeted her antagonism to abortion. The woman I had always considered reasonable was suddenly “all in” to the agenda of a President that she had to know was deranged. A lawyer who had defended the civil liberties of criminal defendants turned into a lawmaker willing to vote for judges opposed to the rights of women, gays and criminal defendants. The woman who attended numerous community meetings as Deputy Mayor became virtually inaccessible to constituents and unwilling to hold Town Halls at which she might be challenged, or forced to defend her increasingly indefensible positions and support for Donald Trump.
Brooks became one of Trump’s most ardent supporters, voting with the President 98.9% of the time, according to Nate Silver. (Based upon Trump’s margin of victory in the 5th district, she would have been predicted to vote with him “only” 85.9 % of the time.)
What were some of those votes? Well, she opposed a carbon tax. She signed onto a resolution supporting ICE and its current immigration tactics. She voted with her party to roll back Dodd-Frank regulations put in place to prevent bankers from engaging in the practices that triggered the 2008 recession, and for the repeal of measures to protect consumers from discriminatory markups on auto loans. She opposed limiting the ability of officials to search and read private messages collected incidentally as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
She has also been a reliable anti-choice vote, most recently voting to make abortion illegal after 20 weeks. Despite her former experience with criminal activity and gun violence, she voted to make concealed carry permits valid across state lines–a position that most law enforcement professionals view as anathema to reducing gun violence.
And of course, she voted for the execrable tax “reform” bill – a 1.5 trillion dollar giveaway to the richest Americans at the expense of the middle class, who will have to finance the exploding debt and deficits caused by the tax measure. (Doing so will be made more difficult by the administration’s persistent, successful efforts to increase the costs of healthcare by sabotaging the Affordable Care Act –efforts that Brooks has enthusiastically supported).
Unlike Indiana embarrassments like Todd Rokita and Jackie Walorski, Brooks is intelligent– she knows how much damage is likely to be caused by these and other measures she has supported. I can only assume that her slavish devotion to this disastrous administration is a cynical effort to foreclose a primary challenge in a district that has been gerrymandered to be reliably Republican.
Staying in office evidently trumps integrity.
Brooks’ Democratic opponent–a businesswoman named Dee Thornton whose positions are far more reflective of those of 5th District voters, according to polls I’ve seen–is an underfunded political novice. Even in a year that promises the possibility of a blue wave, the odds are against her. But if you are one of the many 5th District constituents who thought they were electing a moderate and have subsequently been disappointed, you should register that disappointment, and send Brooks a message, by voting for Dee Thornton.
Meanwhile, Monday’s meeting is a rare opportunity to voice your disapproval in person.
To me, Susan Brooks is the poster child for one statement made above:
“Staying in office evidently trumps integrity.”
Not sure how she sleeps at night.
So what is good for the goose (Donnelly) is not good for the gander (Brooks)?
Teresa: I should have made it clear that Brooks is a Republican. Locals, of course, know that.
Sheila: You miss my point. You seem to say that the Republican candidate should be chastised for disappointing her constituents, but not the Democrat candidate who has disappointed his. And both doing so to keep their office. OK for the Democrat but no OK for the Republican. Maybe it is not OK for either.
As thoroughly gerrymandered as the District she represents might be, the demographics have changed since the last decennial and its redistricting. There are a lot more apartment complexes, especially in parts of Hamilton County that lie within the Fifth. A large percentage of the people who live there consists of millennials. Polls cost money – more so in a post-landline era. The Fifth is listed as “safe” by Ballotpedia. I haven’t seen results of any polls. She won re-election by a margin of 100K votes in 2016. I fervently hope this is a “sleeper” district.
Theresa at 6:56 am:
“OK for the Democrat but no OK for the Republican. Maybe it is not OK for either.”
Can we now see what the problem is going to be by November if we continue on this same route?
There’s a serious problem of ETHICS, that those like Theresa are not going to go along with. It’s not just William, Todd, and M.L., there’s many more to come.
Teresa–No, you miss MY point. This year, disappointing Democrats must get a pass if we are to have any chance of saving this country from the cult that is the current GOP. In normal times–if we ever get those times–both should be held accountable.
“For those in Susan Brooks area of the 5th Congressional District of Indiana, she will be holding a “listening” session in the Indianapolis area on Monday August 6 at the Lawrence Readiness Training Center, 9920 E 59th Street, Lawrence, Indiana (Indianapolis East-side).”
My bad; this being Susan Brooks, I jumped to the conclusion that attendees would be the ones doing the “listening”…still not quite clear that she will be the one “listening” at this forum. Watching her in action during my years working in the City-County Building; I found her to have a caustic personality, much suited to Goldsmith’s self-important governing of his underlings – and everyone in the building were his and her underlings in their estimation. I have seen and read nothing of her actions to disabuse me of this view. Goldsmith gloated, Brooks sneered and continues sneering and Trump simply rages on, using his ego as a battering ram. Brooks is of the ilk and one of the few women Trump might deign to support in the election.
She may claim this is a “listening” session; but will she actually HEAR anything coming from the attendees?
I hope those of you in the 5th district are able to give Susan Brooks the thrashing that she deserves on Monday.
Regarding Jackie Walorski, who is in my district, she has been forced to relent to debating her opponent. She has refused to meet with her constituents since she was elected. I do not have statistics on hand, but she may be right in line with Brooks in voting with the prez. Walorski represents only her wealthy gop donors and consistently votes against her constituents.
Thanks, Marv. I do think of myself as ETHICAL and try to put those ethics at the top of my decision making. Like you I suppose.
I’ve contacted Mrs Brooks’s office many times and always received a boiler plate response that does not answer my questions or comments. These listening sessions are just window dressing. The bigger issue is that she does have a democratic opponent, but there does not seem to be any real infra structure, or money to support the type of run that would stand a real chance against the Brooks machine.
The disaster that occurred in Germany and elsewhere in the 30’s and 40’s resulted from the FAILURE of the “ETHICAL FRONT” in Germany to take hold. That was the only thing that could have stopped it.
Didn’t we learn anything from the Nazi past? I’m afraid not.
Theresa,
You’re right. Ethics has to be number #1; if not, you can’t effectively resist a MOVEMENT like we’re now facing in the U.S. You won’t be able to resist. You’ll fold too easily. You’ve compromised your soul.
Marv: WHAT?????
I may have something we can all agree on. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently stated that the word Gerrymander should be pronounced with a hard G. It is, after all, named for Elbridge Gerry (pronounced Gary), of the great state of Massachusetts. So let’s have no more of that Jerrymandering nonsense.
Vote blue!
Thersa,
“Marv: WHAT?????”
I’m very, very, sorry; I wasn’t referring to you. I know you have ETHICS. I should. I’ve been a commentator, along with you, for the past three years on this blog.
Theresa,
Sorry for leaving the “e” out. Standing up to Trump is going to be very difficult. Most of us are not in the habit of having to confront a real life MONSTER, including myself.
We need to be very careful with out words, which I failed to do. Sensitivities will be near the breaking point.
Peggy; an outhouse by any other name smells the same.
Vote Blue!
Vote BLUE! Stop the RED TIDE.
I am in Brooks District. I wrote her a letter urging her to support HR 676 – Enhanced Medicare for All. I received a boiler plate letter back, which was critical of the ACA. No big deal, I think ACA is terrible also, which is why I believe HR 676- Enhanced Medicare is the only rational route. Her solution is return health care to the states, and “restore” the “free market”.
Actually the Brooks letter was similar to a letter I received from Donnelly. Donnelly supports ACA, but beyond that it was more “free market” crap.
Dee Thornton supports at least according to her Web Page Medicare For All. See – http://deethorntonforcongress.com/dee-on-the-issues/
Thornton needs to get her campaign in gear.
A good Democratic Candidate who is active and also supports Medicare For All is Liz Watson here Indiana, she is running against Trey Hollingsworth. Hollingsworth is like Brooks, i.e., he has taken a duck and cover approach.
I didn’t realize that refusing to hold town hall meetings was so pervasive. Tennessee Trey Hollingsworth down here in the 9th District is just following GOP protocol! He refuses to debate, refuses to hold public meetings. Go Democrat Liz Watson!
Teresa, this seems like a prime example of voting for people who aren’t ideal. Brooks is a republican and her democrat opponent is most likely more reasonable/amenable to more progressive ideas. Even a Donnelly level democrat would at least be an improvement – and not a nominal one – over the current situation in Brook’s district.
Donnelly is definitely not my favorite portion of the (I suspect mythical) blue wave. However, when given a choice between Donnelly or Braun – it’s pretty easy to say my preference between the only two choices is Donnelly. It’s all well and good to write in Saint Francis, but it doesn’t seem to be a particularly helpful choice. The choice will be: Donnelly (ugh) or Braun (OH, MY GOD NO!). Thems the cards in your hand, period. a pair of twos is still better than nothing.
More than 3 years ago I attended a Brook’s ‘listening session’ at the Glick Community Center on 71st near Michigan Road. Constituents were greeted politely with warm smiles and directed to the library where we were given an information sheet to complete. It had two purposes: the subject we wished the MOC to hear, and our address, to verify we were in fact a constituent. When we finished it we were given a number. When our number was called we were escorted into the meeting room where the Congressperson was standing in the middle of the room, with an aide beside her holding a stop watch. Several other staff were around the room and a burly Deputy Sheriff was at the exit door on the opposite side of the room from where we entered. I had to talk fast, I quickly learned, because when I paused for a breath Ms Brooks countered my statement. I think another aide took notes. I did not get the impression Susan gave two hoots about my position (on reducing the use of fossil fuels). The timekeeper moved forward as the end of the listening drew near, with a threatening scowl obviously telling me my time was up. She pointed to the exit door. The Deputy gave me a warm smile and laughed quietly when I thanked him for maintaining order. Be prepared for an assembly line type listening session of 3 minutes.
Dirk,
Sadly…sadly your argument “Better than nothing” is the only one that works in favor of voting for Donnelly. What does that say about Indiana Democrats?
Connie Latas says “To me, Susan Brooks is the poster child for one statement made above:
“Staying in office evidently trumps integrity.”” Connie, you’re making it too complicated–Susan Brooks is the poster child for one word Sheila uses above: “execrable.”
Theresa (sorry I missed the H last time!),
I don’t disagree. “Better than a sharp stick in the eye” isn’t the best get out the vote message. But, I still don’t want the sharp stick in the eye instead.
Most Indiana Dems (or many at least) are going to be in the Blue Dog category, so the conventional wisdom says. I’d like to see a more progressive candidate run to see what the turn out would be like. But, you have to get that progressive out of the primary to make that happen. Once you get to the general, you don’t have much choice left with how our parties/voting is setup currently. And currently is where we live.
Here is something to ponder. Per the latest Gallup poll party affiliation stood at Republicans 26%, Democrats 30% and Independents 41%. There is a big message there.
Dirk,
What happens if “Better than nothing” wins in November. Then what? One thing for sure…….the Obama administration will have looked like “paradise.”
Theresa was right from the start……”Maybe it is not OK for either.”
Marv,
I think you probably take a page out of the Republican playbook and, if possible, you primary Donnelly. Then, you get your preferred candidate in the General. Obviously, the incumbent has significant institutional advantages but it is possible. Fear of a primary challenger has moved Republicans from right to insanely right. So, I would think, fear of a primary challenger could move democrats from right to slightly left at least. Gerrymandering is awful, but I suppose we could at least make it work for us as much as possible until we can correct it.
There isn’t much alternative. The other choices – stay home or write in Mickey Mouse in protest doesn’t actually help and you end up with Trump/Trumpish people. When asked if i’d rather fight a match or a ranging California wildfire, I know which one i’d pick.
Toward creating an ETHICAL FRONT:
“Many activist groups and organizations will project a virtual front that is far greater than their physical reality……. In extreme circumstances, we could see an entire movement that, online, looks like a genuine threat to a regime [like Trumpism] when in fact its efforts represent little more than a clever use of technology and actually pose no threat whatsoever. By raising expectations and creating false hope around a movement’s prospects for success, opposition groups that can’t ultimately rise to meet the challenge may do more harm than good, serving as a costly distraction for the rest of the population.”
“The people who surface in the next wave of dissident leaders will be the ones who can command a following and crowd-source their online support, who have demonstrable skill with digital marketing tools, and, critically, who are willing to put themselves physically in harm’s way. Digital activism, especially when done remotely or with anonymity, lowers the stakes for the would-be protesters, so true leaders will distinguish themselves by taking on physical risks that their supporters cannot or will not take.[That is what Nassim Taleb meant by his words: SKIN IN THE GAME].”
“The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations, and Business” by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2013).
From the front flap: “Eric Schmidt is one of Silicon Valley’s great leaders, having taken Google from a small startup to one of the world’s most influential companies. Jared Cohen is the director of Google Ideas.”
Can anyone here – or anywhere in the state of Indiana – come up with an alternative to “grit your teeth and vote for Donnelly” to maintain the current Democratic numbers and hope to increase it. Subtracting from the current minority makes no sense no matter how you try to add it up. One minus one equals zero…leaving us with the total of Republican Senator Braun.
Dirk,
I won’t respond. Sheila doesn’t like personal attacks which I would like to smother you with.
Did anyone listen to Sarah Sanders yesterday?
“The disaster that occurred in Germany and elsewhere in the 30’s and 40’s resulted from the FAILURE of the “ETHICAL FRONT” in Germany to take hold. That was the only thing that could have stopped it.”
We are headed for another “putsch” by whatever the Trump-ites call themselves unless the “ethical front” stands up to these bastards.
A great article: What Should Democrats Do to Win?
The pundits and analysts come forth on TV, in print, on the internet: Will there be a “blue wave” in November, or will the Democrats blow it?
If there were a poll of pundits, it would show a vast majority believe the best way forward is “middle muddled moderation”. The goal, according to them, is to move the “purple people”. The politically androgynous folks in red districts who have a bluish side. Trump voters who might be disillusioned or disgusted enough to switch. They warn that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are radical! Suburban ladies that the Dems are counting on to vote against the p***y-grabber will panic, stay home, just making sure the leaves are raked from their autumn lawns.
If you’re not looking at the real problems, you can’t get to real solutions. Instead, you take polls, come up with an assortment of issues, have the pros write slogans for them, and the candidates go out and sound like focus group phonies. Which they will be.
Democrats calculated, voters, polls numbers, and money. But they stopped thinking. They’ve had no new ideas or grand ambitions since Lyndon Johnson.
Even Obamacare was developed at a right-wing think-tank and first road tested by a Republican governor, Mitt Romney. The social issues, gay marriage, gay rights extended to the entire LGBT community, legal weed, Me Too, Black Lives Matter, bubbled up from activists. The party was a follower, not a leader.
Bill Clinton should be counted a very successful president in almost every way. But two years after he was elected, Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years. They also lost the Senate.
The Democrats no longer had an ideology. They continued to triangulate. They gave up territory step by step. It should be blindingly obvious and irrefutable, as well. There is no compromise with Republicans.
Just as with Clinton, Obama lost the House after two years, with the largest swing since 1948. Republicans also got 29 of the 50 governorships, and picked up 675 state legislator’s seats.
When Bernie Sanders was running in the primaries against Hillary Clinton, his positions were radical. But now, Medicare for all, free higher education, a $15 minimum wage are common parlance. “Socialism” has become an acceptable word. Among the things Democrats should have learned from Republicans is that ideas get legitimised by simple repetition. Even bad ideas that have failed in reality. Even ideas based on lies. But these happen to be good ideas. Democrats should stick by them adamantly.
The Democratic Party wants candidates who sound “mainstream” enough to appeal to stray Republican voters, who raise money and don’t insult or frighten money. But those are the attitudes that opened the door to Trump, lost the House, the Senate, and a host of state governments.
It’s time to bet on the radicalism. Though most of what radicals are asking for is normal in most Western European countries. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/larry-beinhart/80475/what-should-democrats-do-to-win
=======================================================================
The problem with the Corporate Establishment Democratic Party is the farther the Reactionary Right Wing Republicans move to the Right, the Corporate Establishment Democratic Party moves right also. Since the Republicans win to the Right, the Democrat strategy is to follow along, making themselves indistinguishable. Donnelly is a good example of this.
Thus, the “center” is now re orientated. Ike, Nixon and Ford would be too “liberal” for today’s Reactionary Right Wing Republicans.
I do not want another Ike, Nixon or Ford, I want a leader like FDR with courage, even an LBJ would work, without the Vietnam War.
Marv,
If nothing else, that’s a better alternative than a pillow. I suppose I’ll take my victories where I find them. I thought my position was extremely practical, but I guess everyone thinks that about his or her own position. Life’s funny that way.
Vernon,
Thanks. And you don’t create the ETHICAL FRONT after November; you do it right now. It’s about more than voting, it’s about FREEDOM. $$$$ are not FREEDOM. Is the Democratic Party leadership afraid of FREEDOM? It looks like they are. I’m beginning to think that’s our biggest problem.
See: “Freedom for Sale: Why the World is Trading Democracy for Security” by John Kampfner (Basic Books, New York, 2010).
“I skate to where the puck is gonna be, not where it has been.”~Wayne Gretzky, NHL great
you aquintance,another McEvil?
don trump jr, says the movie birth of a nation,is akin to the demos platform of being nazis?
he must be taking new york city,back alley law school from guiliani..
this is the crap, wannabe fox newsroom,one america news produces…
There was a time when my reaction to today’s activity here would have been, meh, it’s local Indiana politics that I have no stake in . Not now. What’s different?
Through most of my life it was the candidates, not the party, that needed to be considered primarily. There were good and bad Republicans and Democrats and the good ones were not party toadies so they voted in the interests of their locals and that made it a locals only election.
I don’t know all of the forces that caused the change but it’s clear to me that by far the biggest problem in the country right now is the Republican Party. They according to the news that I have taken in over the last 20 or 30 years can scarcely be called a political party. They are simply a business selling influence to those who can finance propaganda that keeps them elected. There seems to be zero thought given to what does the country really need to be successful.
That’s why this year every election counts the same to everybody both local and distant. We will not be back on the path of the majority of us, the middle class, being in control of the country as liberal democracy promises until the Republican business fails and a two political party system is back in control.
Will the two be the Democrat and Republican? Maybe, maybe not. What difference does do labels make? What’s important is for the middle class, we the people, to be offered individuals who compete to deliver what’s best for us, not the fringe billionaires or multi-national corporations. In fact we need to clarify for them also that they too serve us, not visa versa.
This year is an election to fire the Republican business no matter the individual candidates in order to contain the Trump debacle. It’s only for two years until we can fire him and his gang of thieves. We can hope that firing the party this year will help in their recovery but if they prefer being a business to a political party they can be. What have we lost in ditching them?
The TEA PARTY, like the NAZI PARTY, is a “THIRD FORCE” created outside of traditional party politics. In Nazi Germany, there was a FAILURE to create a competitive “THIRD FORCE” within the so-called liberal opposition, the same is true so-far in the U.S. with respect to the TEA PARTY.
The idea of an ETHICAL FRONT came to late to the Germans. By the time it started to gain momentum, Adolph Hitler had changed the “political landscape” by invading Poland and starting WW.II.
Have we learned this lesson from history? So far, the answer is a resounding….NO.
In my won way I am an “idealist” too. I loved Bernie and his policies. Still do. Donnelly disappoints me. Still will. That said, Donnelly will vote Dem MOST of the time. Braun will seldom, IF EVER vote with the Dems. The problem is getting Democrat control of the Senate and House in preparation for ousting the greatest shame of our lifetimes from the oval office. Vote for Donnelly. Vote for Donnelly period. It isn’t about ethics–it is about survival. Set your pride aside and do what is necessary. This is politics, not philosophy so get real.
“own” not “won” Sheesh!
Marv – Wayne Gretzky also said that “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” That was the philosophy of FDR, whose acronym agencies took several unconstitutional hits from the Supreme Court of that day. He shook off such defeats and returned to the fray the same day the Supreme Court would declare one of his new agencies unconstitutional and, through perserververance, gave this country a New Deal and the greatest boom ever (till Reagan with his trickledown economics and massive tax cuts for the rich came on the scene along with his firing of the air controllers and the beginning of serious wage inequality which caused our economy to underperform to this day).
Brooks may be intelligent, as Sheila notes, but so are many others who profess allegiance to the ignoramus now sitting in the Oval Office, an ignoramus who has decided, inter alia, to host Putin and visit with Iran’s leader, both murdering dictators and inciters of terrorism who are lended legitimacy of their tenures as a result. Intelligent Republicans such as Brooks have traded their sense and souls for political purposes and are Trump cutouts who represent only the Trump base among their constituencies. It will be difficult but not impossible to remove such Machiavellians greedy for power, but We the People need to try our best to do so and, like FDR, if we fail this time, there’s next time only two years distant. We must persevere, because “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.”
Wray,
“Vote for Donnelly. Vote for Donnelly period. It isn’t about ethics–it is about survival. Set your pride aside and do what is necessary. This is politics, not philosophy so get real.”
I’d hate to be on your lifeboat.
Marv
“I’d hate to be on your lifeboat.”
Sadly, it seems I’m on yours–and with the same concerns.
Gerald,
“Marv – Wayne Gretzky also said that “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.”
I know that. That’s why we need the ETHICAL FRONT right now. Without it, you’re supporting a LOSE/LOSE situation. Wonderful. If the Democrats LOSE in November, they LOSE and if they WIN WITHOUT ETHICS in 2018, they will LOSE again to Mike Pence in 2020.
Standing- up NOW is our only chance for a future. The Republican Party is VULNERABLE RIGHT NOW. This is our only chance to defeat both Trump and Pence.
Sheila, you hit the nail on the head. As you know, we have the same history with Susan. I don’t even recognize this person who is inhabiting her body! I hope she is ashamed of what she has become. As for the listening session, it sounds like she’s scared to have a room full of people and prefers to hide one-on-one. Despicable! Makes me really long for the Bill Hudnut and Andy Jacobs days!
Wray,
Marv
“I’d hate to be on your lifeboat.”
“Sadly, it seems I’m on yours–and with the same concerns.”
Both ways are dangerous and it’s sad. I agree. But, I’ve traveled these DANGEROUS WATERS for over 50 years, and I’ve always kept myself in the position to make it home, SAFELY.
I don’t know anyone else who can say that. Maybe you do.
Wray; we are fighting within the party on the Donnelly issue, how very sad that is. Isn’t not voting for him voting against the Democratic party, the residents of the state of Indiana and voting against our own best interest? How can that be maintaining ethics? How do we reach them? Like you; I loved and still love Bernie and all he stands for but when he stood down and asked us to put our support behind and vote for Hillary, I gritted my dentures and cast my vote. At the same time there was no question that she was the most qualified among the four presidential candidates but was the worst possible first choice of a woman presidential nominee.
I will catch flack for that comment; but let it come. I will again grit my dentures to cast my vote for the party, not for the person.
Marv
It seems you are one of a kind . . . that is you speaking of course. I bow to your perfection.
Wray,
You don’t need to bow to me. I didn’t say not to vote for Donnelly. I believe that you believe everything has to do with voting, like most everyone on this blog. For example, Charles Koch doesn’t run for public office and he’s probably more important to your political future than either Donald Trump or Mike Pence. You better believe, that’s a BIG ETHICAL PROBLEM.