Are Americans Strong Enough To Resist The Siren Call Of Fascism Trump Has Unleashed?

Trump's fascist goon squad unconstitutionally occupying Portland tear-gassed the city's mayor yesterday, something Trump seems to have particularly enjoyed and taken great pride in. Robert Kuttner termed what's happening in Portland Full-On Fascism. With their silence and in some cases with their cheers, Members of Congress from his own party have given Trump the green light. "Trump," wrote Kuttner, "has run out of other strategies, so he is pursuing a long-standing fantasy of having a personal secret police force that is beyond legal control. Last week, unidentified storm troopers dispatched from Border Patrol units descended on Portland over the objections of state and local officials. They made random arrests without any regard for due process, and jailed and brutalized citizens. If Trump gets his way, Chicago, New York, and other liberal bastions that he doesn’t like will be next. The gambit, worthy of Putin’s anonymous armed green men and Hitler’s SA, is sinister and brilliant. It brings America close to civil war, pitting illicit federal power against lawful state and local authority. It divides progressive mayors from fascistic police forces that reject civil authority. In Chicago, where Mayor Lori Lightfoot asked Trump to keep his shock troops out, the head of the police union has urged them to come."

Trump’s grand design is to use his secret police to provoke physical clashes, which then become the pretext for sending in more storm troopers. America is seen as falling into civil disorder, and Trump (having provoked the disorder) poses as the law-and-order president.

What might stop this? Two things. One would be large numbers of Republicans objecting to this illicit use of paramilitary power. So far, libertarian Rand Paul has been very lonely.

Republicans in principle are against arbitrary executive power, but opportunism trumps principle. They shame themselves, like the German conservatives who enabled Hitler.

The other firebreak is the courts. After the unlawful invasion of Portland, Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, asked the U.S. district court to enjoin Trump’s illegal action. The ACLU has filed its own suit.

If these actions persist, we can expect expedited review by the Supreme Court. Once again, as will occur when Trump tries to steal the November election, the fate of America’s democracy could well come down to one man.

He’s preferable to Trump, but I sure wish John Roberts were a more reliable defender of constitutional government.

Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach (D) noted that the predictable result of Trump's attack on Portland "is to inflame the situation, and obviously there is nothing about this which is compatible with democracy. They did a lot of this sort of thing in Chile and Argentina in the 70s and in Russia now. In Russia, many of the people seized go on to have truly unfortunate falling-off-balcony accidents, sometimes several on the same day. A lot of clutzes there. In America, we are not supposed to use the federal government’s military assets for domestic policing. That’s why they don’t send the nuclear submarine Ticonderoga to your house to search for weed. We also don’t arrest people at all unless there is either an arrest warrant or the appropriate police witness a crime being committed. And if we detain you, we tell you who is doing the arresting and why. We read you your Miranda rights. Hell, we are even supposed to give you one phone call."

Aside from all the democracy-schmemocracy problems with this, it is extremely dangerous. You have to comply when the police arrest you. You are under no obligation to comply if a bunch of anonymous dudes with guns try to grab you off the street and cram you into the back of a Land Rover. Some people might legitimately be frightened and resist, and then, well…what could go wrong?

Trump, and his Twap Wigit Bill Barr have now promised to invade a number of other cities that don’t want them. It seems that they want to normalize this as they’ve normalized so many other gashes to the heart of our democracy. But is this really creeping “fascism”?. Well, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC has put out a list of 12 signs that a country is heading towards fascism. Look at this list and tell me which ones we are not currently experiencing.

• Powerful and continuing nationalism
• Disdain for human rights
• Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
• Rampant sexism
• Controlled mass media
• Obsession with national security
• Religion and government intertwined
• Corporate power protected
• Labor power suppressed
• Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
• Obsession with crime and punishment
• Rampant cronyism and corruption

There is a famous “Doomsday Clock” that tracks how close we are to nuclear war. During tense times we’ve gotten as close as three minutes to midnight. I am unaware of a “Fascism Clock”, but don’t be surprised if someday you see me with a version on Shark Tank. But I can only imagine if such a clock did exist, we would already be hearing the chimes. If we don’t stop this now, when will we?

Bernie warned his followers yesterday that "We are in a very dangerous moment in American history. Last month, as you'll recall, Trump had peaceful protestors outside of the White House in Washington, D.C. viciously attacked by federal agents who wore no identification. As we speak, in Portland, Oregon, federal agents in combat gear and unmarked vehicles are pulling protesters off the streets and jailing them without charges, despite opposition from local and state officials."

He is sounding the alarm that "What Trump and his allies are now doing is 'normalizing' the use of federal troops to patrol and make arrests of American citizens in communities throughout the country. Today it is Portland, Oregon. Tomorrow, Trump is suggesting it could be New York City, Chicago or Philadelphia. Next, your hometown. This is what a police state is all about."

Make no mistake about it: Donald Trump does not believe in democracy, our Constitution or the rule of law.

He is working aggressively to suppress the vote and, in the midst of this terrible pandemic, is vigorously opposing the right of citizens to vote by mail. He has ignored decisions of Congress, which is why he was impeached. He has contempt for a free press and has called the media 'an enemy of the people.' He has used his office for blatant personal and political gain, running the most corrupt administration in modern American history. He has ruptured our relationships with long-time democratic allies around the world while he embraces right-wing authoritarian leaders in Russia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, the Philippines and elsewhere.

Yes. We must all come together to defeat Trump in November, but we must also act right NOW to stop the movement toward authoritarianism and a police state.

That is why I am introducing legislation with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon which would greatly curtail the activities of federal military forces in our communities. This bill would limit their ability to conduct crowd control to properties immediately surrounding federal buildings without the invitation of the Governor and Mayor, require federal agents to wear visible IDs, and ban them from making arrests or detentions in unmarked vehicles.

...Too many Americans fought and died to defend American democracy to let President Trump move us even further in an authoritarian direction... Trump's strategy of hateful rhetoric and using a crisis to seize more power is nothing new. It has been used by authoritarian leaders throughout history. Our job NOW is to stand together, fight back, and stop the movement toward authoritarianism and a police state.

Blue America is a citizen's organization co-sponsor of Jeff Merkley's petition to let Trump know Authoritarianism has no place in America. "Trump," wrote Merkley "would rather be a tinpot dictator than the president of a democratic republic. His Department of Homeland Security is using unmarked paramilitary forces to patrol the streets of Portland, Oregon. In recent days, those federal agents have attacked protestors and grabbed people off the streets into unmarked vans. This is unacceptable and it must change." His petition outlines 4 demands:

• We must require federal agents and the agency they work for to be clearly identifiable.
• We must prohibit the federal misuse of unmarked vehicles.
• We must prohibit federal agents from patrolling city streets, outside of federal property, unless invited to do so by local authorities.
• We must require agencies to disclose how many personnel have been deployed and for what mission when they’re sent into our cities.

Congress must prohibit these police state tactics. The American people must speak out. You can make your voice heard-- in a manner of speaking-- by signing here.

The next fascist might not be as incompetent

Jamie Raskin offered a piece of legislation that would prevent any president of pardoning himself for criminal activities. "We've never had a president attempt to pardon himself," said Raskin, Maryland's best member of Congress and a constitutional law expert, "and no president has ever come close to that point, but with Donald Trump all things are possible, and we want to make it completely clear that our understanding of the Constitution is that it does not include the possibility of the President pardoning himself."

"I Used To Think I Could Live With Fracking"-- Guest Post By Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach

Recently, my staff and I toured fracking sites in Washington County near Pittsburgh. Our tour included well-heads, pipeline construction and related infrastructure. We also met with numerous residents and local officials effected by fracking. As a member of my state senate’s “Environmental Resource and Energy” Committee, I have read a great deal about fracking, and I have participated in dozens of hearings on the topic. Yet, until I actually flew out to see what was happening for myself, I didn’t fully grasp exactly what living in a hot-bed of fracking is like. In many ways, this trip was an epiphany for me.

I used to think I could live with fracking. We were told, by both Democratic and Republican administrations, that fracking was a much cleaner alternative to the coal my state produces so much of. It was a ramp down on the road towards a fully-renewable society. Plus, it was going to be an economic life-line for a part of the state that desperately needs one. I thought that as long as we taxed it for good purposes, fracking was a relatively benign form of energy.

However, over the past couple years, I’ve nursed growing doubts about my position. The more I read, the more I saw what was happening in other states and what those states were doing about it, and the more I spoke with the members of my staff who have toured western Pennsylvania repeatedly, the more suspicious I became that I had been sold a bill of goods. That’s why I decided to head out west to see for myself. As I took tour after tour in Washington County, I came to see that I was very wrong. After this tour, my growing concerns about fracking are an abstraction no more. What we saw was very real, and it was devastating.

As we toured well pads, the paths of pipelines, the “swimming pools” which held fracking water and the new roads winding through people’s property, it became clear how the thousands of wells dotting western Pennsylvania are decimating the environment and destroying lives. People can’t pull out of their driveways in the morning. People can’t sleep because the process is loud. People are being pitted against each other as the shale industry tells one neighbor that he can’t make any money because another neighbor won’t agree to let them use her property. Creeks and streams are being polluted. But most consequentially, people are getting sick.

While the environmental impact was troubling, the human impact was almost unbearable. We met a woman named Janis who lost her son to Ewing’s Sarcoma, one of the rare cancers appearing with shocking frequency throughout shale-country. And we met another woman who started losing her teeth shortly after fracking came to her neighborhood. Her skin is covered with pink splotches and her mouth always tastes of aluminum. Four of her cats have died young in the past year. We met numerous others who described similar symptoms.

Obviously, people who are dealing with a situation like this are almost always trapped. Their houses are virtually worthless, so they can’t sell them and move to a safer community. One of the most heartbreaking things we encountered were the tearful people who desperately want to move and stop exposing themselves and their families to what they perceive to be poison, but there is simply no way for them to do that.

It’s easy to understand why people are deceived. Most of the emissions are invisible to the naked eye. It all seems so clean. But if you look through the lens of an infrared camera, you see toxic discharge belching into the air. We also learned how the glut of methane means that the sale of ethane is how the wells really make money. Ethane is destined for the “cracker plant” in Potter Township along the Ohio River where it is converted into “nurdles”, tiny plastic pellets which last virtually forever and are the cause of much of the plastic pollution inundating our landfills and oceans.

We were also told that the industry also invests heavily in local supervisor and judicial elections, so people who complain have no redress from officials who owe their position to the frackers. They fracking companies also give donations to local libraries or little league teams to build good will in the community. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. But the people fighting to protect community health and the environment can’t match, so their voices are often drowned out.

This is only a small sample of what we saw in Washington County. I deeply regret my earlier belief that regulation and taxation could make fracking palatable for Pennsylvania. It’s clear to me now that we have no choice but to end it now, and I have just introduced legislation to do just that.

Building The Bench-- Meet Malcolm Kenyatta

Last month Malcolm Kenyatta won an open seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives against Republican Milton Street with 95.29% of the vote-- 21,382 to 1,050. This district includes parts of North Philadelphia, Feltonville, Francisville, Glenwood, Hunting Park, Kensington, Northern Liberties and West Poplar and, demographically, is 61.8% black, 25.5% white and 13.4% Hispanic. The win is being hailed as historic because Kenyatta, a third-generation activist just became the first openly LGBT candidate of color elected to the state legislature. He had a brush with fame in 2016 because of an ad Hillary Clinton's campaign made out of a passionate introductory speech he have when introducing her at her first Philly campaign rally of the 2016 election:



The video up top, though, was made by an old college friend of Kenyatta's, Tim Harris, who had, according to Emily Buder at The Atlantic "followed the activist’s trajectory since graduation. When he heard that Kenyatta was planning to run for the Pennsylvania state legislature, Harris knew he had to be there with a camera. His short documentary, Going Forward, depicts Kenyatta’s experience of Election Day, from his 5 a.m. wake-up call to his historic victory as the results are announced late that evening. Along the way, Kenyatta drives around his neighborhood to talk to voters and addresses tough questions about the realities of what he will face in office.

Harris told The Atlantic that he intended to capture “what Election Day is like for a lower-level candidate campaigning in a district that’s desperate for a solution.” Kenyatta has long been an outspoken critic of policies that negatively affect his community. The film makes evident his personal investment in the issues his potential constituents face. “Malcolm actually knows the people in his district,” Harris said. “We could have made a feature out of him saying ‘Hi’ and hugging people.”

While filming, Harris and his team took a fly-on-the-wall approach. “We interviewed Malcolm during the quieter, more introspective moments,” he said.

At one point during the day, Kenyatta catches wind of an adversary who is attempting to discourage people from voting for him due to Kenyatta’s sexuality. Harris said he was pleasantly surprised by the candidate’s reaction. “He didn’t hesitate in wanting to speak with that person, and when he did speak with them, he did it in such a respectful way,” Harris said. “His ability to laugh it off was incredibly admirable.”

“Malcolm basically rejected all forms of negativity while he was campaigning,” Harris added. “Everything was about what he wants to do to improve his community.”

The person whose political judgment I trust most in the legislature, state Senator Daylin Leach, is very enthusiastic. "Malcolm," he told me earlier today, "arrived on the scene with tons of talent-- he’s an inspirational speaker, and has a passion for public service. I could certainly see Malcolm becoming a progressive leader in Harrisburg. I’m looking forward to working with him and all the new Democrats joining us at the capitol in 2019." Before the anti-red wave hit Pennsylvania's super-gerrymandered state Assembly last month, there were 78 Democrats in the 203-member state House. Today, Rep. Kenyatta is one of 90 Democrats there. And the state Senate had 16 Democrats out if 50 and now has 21.

Is A Republican-Lite, Pro-NRA Approach Sometimes Needed For A Democrat?

Friday morning's post, How Many Pro-NRA Candidates Is The DCCC Trying To Sneak Into Congress This Cycle? Way Too Many, dealt with the Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who:

• back an NRA line
• are DCCC darlings.

We dealt with Conor Lamb, whose PA-18 special election is less than a month away: March 13. It's a pretty red district with a PVI of R+11. Trump beat Hillary there by a massive 58.1-38.5%. She under-performed Obama and Trump over-performed Romney. For Lamb to win, he will really need a massive wave and everything going his way. Last week the House Blue Dog coalition formally endorsed him-- just in case anyone had any doubts about where he stood.

As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline, Lamb had raised $557,551 and had $412,186 on hand and his Republican opponent, state Rep. Rick Saccone had raised $214,675 and had $199,938 on hand. Those figures were largely obliterated as the NRCC and other GOP outside groups spent $2,160,880 attacking Lamb as a Nancy Pelosi clone and another $825,182 bolstering Saccone. The DCCC spent $236,000 on Lamb's behalf. Since those officially reported expenditures, the RNC reports it will spend $1 million on a GOTV operation and Ryan's SuperPAC has invested $1.7 in anti-Lamb ads and has opened 2 field offices in the district. The DCCC ad, up top, is mediocre, unemotional and ineffective. It ran for 2 weeks and ended Feb. 12. As the Republican support for Saccone goes into overdrove, the DCCC seems to have left the field of battle entirely.

The most recent polling-- Feb 14-- by Monmouth tests 3 models, one for low turnout, one for high turnout and one with a surge model (akin to a big blue wave). Saccone wins in all 3 scenarios, but Lamb comes closest in the surge model-- 49-46%, within the poll's margin of error. In other words, Lamb needs Democratic enthusiasm if he's going to even have a chance. But... unlike Alabama, where unbelievable minority participation won the day for Doug Jones, there are virtually no minorities in PA-18. It's a very white district-- 2.3% black, 1.6% Asian, 1.4% Latino. That's not going drag Lamb over the finish line.

So what's Lamb doing to pull this off? Taking the Jon Ossoff route, AKA, Republican-lite. After the NRA/GOP massacre in Florida this week, Lamb took a standard Republican line.

Democratic congressional candidate Conor Lamb said Friday that new gun laws aren't the answer to preventing more mass shootings like the one at a Florida high school this week.

Lawmakers should instead improve the effectiveness of existing background-check laws, said Lamb, 33, of Mt. Lebanon, who is campaigning for a March 13 special election in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

“I believe we have a pretty good law on the books and it says on paper that there are a lot of people who should never get guns in their hands,” Lamb said at a campaign event in Carnegie. “And we know that the background check system is not achieving that result. What I think it's going to take is people in Congress who are willing to do more than just talk, who are willing to actually work together and stay late, if it requires that, and do some things that would really produce change.”

He didn't provide specifics on what he thinks might produce that change.

When asked whether he would support background checks for people who buy weapons at gun shows and online-- checks are not currently required for all private sales in those situations-- he said, “I'd be willing to look at proposals that would strengthen our background check system, but I want to start where the broad agreement already is, and the broad agreement already is that we're not doing a good enough job keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental health conditions and with criminals.”

Lamb said changing individual laws-- such as a proposed ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines-- isn't the place to start addressing gun violence.

“I think that the emotions that a lot of us are feeling right now are very raw because we know that there's not one thing we can do with the stroke of a pen or one thing you can ban,” he said. “We need a comprehensive answer on mental health.”

...The National Rifle Association, which fights against new gun regulations, endorsed Saccone last month and has given him an A+ rating based on his votes in the state House. He received $1,750 in campaign donations from the NRA Victory Fund from 2010 through 2014, according to state campaign finance records. He received about $5,700 in that time from the group Firearm Owners Against Crime, which has also donated $750 to his congressional campaign, according to the records.

Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach: "The problem is that the pro-gun nuts are already voting for the Republican. All this will do is suppress Democratic and Independent enthusiasm for Lamb. It would have not only been the right thing to do, but smarter politics to boldly say 'It may not be popular, but we need to pass reasonable legislation to stop this slaughter.' He would have been a hero, rather than another panderer."

David Gill is running for the Democratic nomination for Congress in a Republican-held district in central Illinois. I didn't ask him about guns but in preparation for a Blue America letter asking for last minute contributions for his get out the vote operation, I asked him for a closing statement. He's taking a very different approach than Lamb. If you prefer it, please consider tapping on the thermometer below and contributing to Dr. Gill's campaign.

My campaign team and I have worked hard to position myself to succeed in the primary on March 20. Voters here have been very excited about my message of single-payer healthcare, a $15/hour minimum wage, and tuition-free access to public higher education and trade schools.

We view the November general election as a golden opportunity to move toward real change; given my past performance against the Republican incumbent, we have no doubt that I can defeat him this year. And when I get to Washington, I intend to be a game-changer, using my background as an emergency medicine physician to counter the myths advanced by those who oppose single-payer, and to help lead the charge to the type of health care system that FDR envisioned for us 75 years ago.

But first, of course, I have to survive on March 20. And this primary is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. I'm taking on establishment-backed candidates who refuse to stand up for single-payer, the Fight for 15, or tuition freedom. I'll be out-spent, but not out-worked: my staff and I, and our passionate volunteers, have knocked on thousands of doors and talked with thousands of voters. And those Democratic voters are done with half-measures, they're done with Republican Lite. They are demanding a shift toward a government focused on ordinary people, and as a lifelong progressive populist, I look forward to being a part of such a seismic shift.

Great News For Pennsylvania Voters From The U.S. Supreme Court (No, Really)

The Republicans got greedy and now the whole state will be redrawn

A friend of mine called last night and I could practically hear him biting his nails. He was being driven to distraction over his fear that the U.S. Supreme Court-- and especially his neighbor Samuel Alito-- was about to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling striking down the legislature's über-partisan gerrymandering. Today the Alito-- for the U.S. Supreme Court-- denied the request from Senate President Joe Scarnati and House Speaker Mike Turzai to delay drawing new congressional maps. That means they either finish by Friday or the state Supreme Court draws the districts themselves!

They better get busy! They've stalled and wasted a month. If they already started working on it today, they have almost 5 days, more or less. Oh, and they have to get Gov. Tom Wolf (D) to agree with whatever they come up with. The Philly suburban districts are going to look a lot different, that's for sure. The worst gerrymandered district (PA-07) will certainly be gone and will probably turn into a more compact Delaware County district, although the population is only around 560,000 so it will have to include a bit of either Montgomery or Chester. (The incumbent, Part Meehan, has already announced he's not running for reelection, primarily because he was caught using tax payer funds to pay off a woman staffer hush company, although a less friendly map may have played a significant role as well.) If it includes some of Montgomery, I'll bet state Senator Daylin Leach, who lives there, will jump back into the congressional race. This morning he told me this: "If you had asked me 5 years ago what 3 things I would most like to see accomplished in Pennsylvania I would have said 1. Marriage equality, 2. legalizing medical marijuana, and 3. fixing the obscene congressional gerrymander. I am ecstatic that with today's US Supreme Court decision all 3 things on my wish list have been achieved. Finally, the voters will again be relevant in Pennsylvania congressional elections. This is a great day for democracy, at a time in our history when democracy doesn't have a lot of great days.;"

I'm going to guess that the other incumbents besides Meehan who are freaking out today are Ryan Costello (PA-06), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-08), and Keith Rothfus (PA-12)-- and whomever was planning on taking over for Charlie Dent (PA-15), Tim Murphy (PA-18), Bill Shuster (PA-09) and Lou Barletta (PA-11) all of whom are leaving Congress.

The progressive Democrat opposing Rothfuss seemed buoyed by what Alito did a few hours ago: "Today's decision to stay out of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was a huge win for constitutional law, Democracy and the people to choose their representatives instead of the representatives choosing the voters. The playing field has been leveled in Pennsylvania, Keith Rothfus will have to run on his record and platform and that will not fair well for him. A millionaire lawyer backed by the Koch Brothers will have to convince the voters of the new district that he is a better representative than the veteran and scientist from Washington county. Although it's still a David versus Goliath story in terms of money, I believe that I have the people behind my message and today's decision has put the power of the election back into their hands."

And Jenny Marshall, a candidate in North Carolina was feeling solidarity today for the Democrats in Pennsylvania. She said that "The Supreme Court's decision regarding Pennsylvania's legislative maps gives me hope for the future of North Carolina. In our state, gerrymandered maps have diminished the freedom of constituents to choose their elected officials. Instead, our elected officials choose their constituents. The practice of unfair maps and political gerrymandering must come to an end if we hope to uphold the most basic tenets of our democracy. I am hopeful that North Carolina will be next to receive a Supreme Court order for fair maps."

Meanwhile, just moments ago-- back in Pennsylvania-- far right extremists in the state legislature, led by crackpot Cris Dush sent out a co-sponsorship memo for the impeachment of Justices Max Baer, David Wecht, Debra Todd, Christine Donahue and Kevin Dougherty.

Pennsylvania Ordered To Un-Gerrymander Before The Midterms (ie, Immediately)

Meehan will be the first Republican flushed away

As if things weren't bad enough for Chester the Molester, his gerrymandered district-- the only thing that has kept him in Congress-- is being wiped off the face of the map-- literally! Pat Meehan is done for... and he's not the only Pennsylvania Republican who is, either. He's been exposed for using tax payer money as hush money to quiet a woman staffer has his age he was molesting; Paul Ryan kicked him off the Ethics Committee. And how the most gerrymandered district in the country is going bye-bye... as he will soon be. As expected, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the contemptible congressional map as unconstitutional because it was drawn to drastically-- "clearly, plainly and palpably"-- benefit Republicans. The Justices ruled that the 2018 elections must be fought under new fairer boundaries.

The justices gave the Republican-controlled Legislature until Feb. 9 to pass a replacement and Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf until Feb. 15 to submit it to the court. Otherwise, the justices said they will adopt a plan in an effort to keep the May 15 primary election on track.

The decision comes amid a national tide of gerrymandering cases, including some that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Democrats cheered the decision to toss out a Republican-drawn map used in three general elections going back to 2012. The map, they say, gave Republicans crucial help in securing 13 of 18 seats in a state where registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 5 to 4.

“We won the whole thing,” said David Gersch of the Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer law firm in Washington, D.C., which is helping represent the group of registered Democrats who filed the lawsuit last June.

The defendants-- top Republican lawmakers-- said they would ask the U.S. Supreme Court this week to step in and put the decision on hold. The state court’s decision lacks clarity, precedent and respect for the constitution and would introduce chaos into the state’s congressional races, they said.

The Senate’s top Republican lawyer, Drew Crompton, called the timeline to draw new districts “borderline unworkable,” but said Republicans will do everything they can to comply.

The decision has immediate implications for the 2018 election, meaning that 14 sitting members of Congress and dozens more people are planning to run in districts they may no longer live in. The deadline to file paperwork to run in primaries is March 6.

It also has implications for GOP control of Congress, since only Texas, California and Florida send more Republicans to the U.S. House than Pennsylvania.

Republicans who controlled Pennsylvania’s Legislature and governor’s office following the 2010 census broke decades of geographical precedent when redrawing the map, producing contorted shapes, including one dubbed “Goofy kicking Donald Duck.”

They shifted whole counties and cities into different districts in an effort to protect a Republican advantage in the congressional delegation. They succeeded, as Republicans in the delegation grew from 12 to 13, even as Pennsylvania lost a seat to account for the state’s relatively slow population growth.

...The nation’s high court has never struck down an electoral map as a partisan gerrymander. However, Monday’s decision in Pennsylvania could provide a new avenue to gerrymandering claims.

It is the first state court decision to throw out a congressional map because of partisan gerrymandering, said Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Li said there isn’t a clear federal basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to step into the case, and that the state Supreme Court should have the final say in a case under state law.

“That’s a real long shot,” Li said, “but the stakes are high and it’s not surprising that (Republicans) would ask.”

Pennsylvania Republicans in the legislature packed Democrats into a few districts to divide a 50/50 state's 198 congressional district in such a way to guarantee the Republicans 13 seats. Other ridiculously-drawn districts besides Meehan's (PA-07), include PA-13 (Brendan Boyle's), PA-06 (Ryan Costello's), PA-16 (Lloyd Smucker's), PA-10 (Tom Marino's), PA-11 (Lou Barletta's), PA-12 (Keith Rothfus'), PA-18 (open) and PA-03 (Mike Kelly's). I asked state Sen. Daylin Leach who had gone to hear the oral arguments. He was overjoyed: "After fighting this battle for 15 years, I'm thrilled the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has chosen to strike down the obscene gerrymander we've been living under and make the voters relevant again."

Matt Cartwright, who represents Scranton, Wilkes Barre and Nazareth in a bizarrely carved out district in eastern PA, is one of the only sensible members of Congress from Pennsylvania. This morning he asked, "Tired of incessant bickering in Washington? Sick of Democrats and Republicans just talking past each other?  Fed up with Congress oscillating from hard-left to hard-right, depending on which side wins? Annoyed that vast amounts of Congressional time is taken up repealing or undoing whatever the last majority accomplished, instead of making steady, sensible, lasting bipartisan progress on the issues that really matter to people? If so, you should share my abiding dislike for partisan gerrymandering, which, with Citizens United, I regard as one of the twin cancers mortally threatening our American democracy. I applaud the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s brilliant decision yesterday. It is a bright, shining beacon of hope for our democracy, and an example to other States on how they can do their part in helping our nation find its way out of the morbid mess we’re in right now."

UPDATE: Today's Special Election-- Another Huge Swing Blue

House District 35 southeast of Pittsburgh-- the Monongahela Valley, McKeesport-- leans blue. Hillary beat Trump there 58-39%. Last November Marc Gergely (D) resigned after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor charges relating to an illegal gambling machine ring. He had just been reelected 62.5% to 37.5%. Democrat Austin Davis beat Republican Fawn Montgomery-- the same candidate Gergely had beaten in 2016 but he beat her by a massive 74-26%, primarily because disheartened Republicans didn't show up to vote and Democrats did. Turnout was slightly over 10%.

Is There A Way Back For Men Who Made Women Uncomfortable?

Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach is an old friend. “The Liberal Lion” of the legislature, when he decided to run for Congress against Pat Meehan (PA-07) last year, he quickly became the front-runner in a crowded Democratic primary field. And then he got caught up in the #MeToo movement. He wasn’t accused of raping anyone or feeling up anyone or using his office inappropriaterly to pressure women to have sex with him or anything like that. But the accusations of making women uncomfortable with his ribald humor caused the Democratic establishment-- who never liked him anyway-- to demand that he withdraw from the congressional race and resign from the legislature. He decided to suspend his campaign and do some serious soul searching. I still don’t know what he’s going to do but yesterday the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an op-ed, What I’ve Learned he had penned. I noticed he isn’t accepting federal campaign contributions any longer.

The last few weeks have given me time for introspection.

Prior to the recent story about me in the Inquirer, I was aware that reporters were calling dozens of my employees, former employees, acquaintances, and opponents to ask them if I had ever made them or anyone they knew uncomfortable. That sort of scrutiny tends to put one in survival mode, triggering something akin to a flight-or-fight response. When the story finally came out, I was angry and defensive. I lashed out, which I regret.

As I began trying to reckon with what happened, I reached out to friends, colleagues, and even some people who don’t think very highly of me. I did a lot of listening.

I learned that I have been largely oblivious to the nature of power dynamics and privilege, both between men and women and between employers and employees. I have never considered myself very powerful or intimidating. I have never been comfortable with a hierarchical structure and have always tried to create working environments that were informal and relatively egalitarian. Thus, I was under an incorrect assumption that anyone who had an issue with me would feel free to address me directly. I now understand that people, especially young women, might be reluctant to approach me with concerns about humor they aren’t comfortable with.

I also asked people if I had ever done anything to make them uncomfortable. Frankly, I was looking for reassurance, hoping for responses like “Absolutely not, Daylin.” There was a good bit of that, which I am grateful for. But some people were candid in telling me that my humor could be off-color or offensive. Some told me they had been offended by my humor in the past, while some told me others might feel that way.

My discussions with others didn’t end at humor. I have always been a somewhat touchy person in conversation with both men and women and, therefore, I always assumed it was OK. But not everyone has the same comfort level with touching. It never occurred to me to even think about this before, which I am mortified to admit.

All of this has left me shaken. It has also taken a toll on my family and staff.

I spent my childhood in profoundly uncomfortable situations. I had very limited parental contact, no siblings, and lived in a series of challenging foster homes. I learned early on that humor and personal contact were ways to make friends and put people at ease. This is not an excuse, but an explanation. While many people have said positive things about my humor over the years, it is clear now that my sense of what is and is not welcome in a given situation has, at times, been flawed. I was sometimes impulsive and thoughtless. That needs to change. I should never put humor before kindness.

As I’ve contemplated where to go from here, one thing is certain: I am truly sorry for ever saying or doing anything that has made anyone uneasy, uncomfortable, or distressed. If there is any way to make things right, I want to do that. If anyone wants to contact me to talk about this, I’m easy to find and eager to listen.

The novelist Craig Silvey wrote that an apology “doesn’t take things back, but it pushes things forward.” I think the best way for me to apologize is to change my conduct. I promise to do that.

I am trying to learn. I know this won’t satisfy everybody, but hopefully, over time, any skeptic will be convinced of my sincerity. I believe that there must be room for growth and forgiveness on this issue and in all areas of life.

We are living through a time in which humanity seems to be in desperately short supply. I hope we can all look at each other as flawed human beings who are constantly trying to improve. I promise that is what I will be trying to do.

Lots Of Tragedy To Go Around-- Due Process Could Be Very Helpful

In his delineation of the tragedy of Ruben Kihuen, Jon Ralston wrote Monday that it was Reid who elevated "someone with so many known ticking time bombs in his past." Ralston expressed sympathy, not with the Democratic Party establishment or even Kihuen but with so many people who "had reposed faith in and who so many must now re-evaluate. His announcement that he will not run for re-election, as inevitable as August triple-digit temperatures in Las Vegas, is unalterably sad for so many young people, especially Hispanics, who believed in the first DREAMer in Congress... [They] saw Kihuen as a symbol of hope in a Trumpian world where their futures are uncertain. And it wasn’t just DREAMers-- Kihuen has been a heroic figure to many younger Hispanics and others, too, people who saw him as the embodiment of the American Dream. Imagine their nightmare now.

I find some of the rationalizations I have heard whispered-- he was single, women threw themselves at him, the women never said anything, back then-- to be grotesque. I understand denial by those close to him, perhaps. But everyone else needs to open their eyes and see Kihuen for what he is: A playboy-as-predator who has exploited many professional situations with women and caused them to feel he cared only about sleeping with them. He was relentless in his pursuit, not taking “no” for an answer and either not considering or not caring that they were people who were dependent upon him, be it for votes or a salary.

...There are other stories out there. There are women who have experienced Kihuen’s relentless and juvenile attentions, unwanted and parried, who simply do not want to have their stories told. That is their right, and we will apply no pressure on anyone put in a difficult situation by Kihuen or any other elected official who has misused the power dynamic. The women these men have diminished and demeaned have the right to say when and whether their stories are told.

Which brings me to the question of whether Kihuen’s attempt to stave off resignation will work.

Kihuen, too, is a gambler. Just as he bet that none of these women he harassed would ever come forward-- maybe he thought they were thrilled he was coming on to them or believed his superior position would intimidate them-- he is rolling the dice that he can survive for a year with the floodgates not opening.

I thought the New York Times’ Alex Burns put it well, describing what Kihuen and fellow harasser Blake Farenthold are doing as a “plea-bargain,” trying to get their parties to allow them to have the lesser punishment of not running to avoid resigning.

(My guess is that in his current state of delusion Kihuen might actually believe that by March, when filing opens, the Ethics Committee will clear him and he can run again. Denial is powerful when one is clinging to one’s job title for dear life. More on that in a moment.)

The thought is ludicrous that Kihuen can possibly be effective-- as if he ever has been-- when the leaders want him gone and his Democratic colleagues from Nevada have either said he should resign or implied he should.

There was also a post Monday morning from Politico noting that several Democratic senators are urging Al Franken to reverse his resignation. In fact, Joe Manchin "who urged Franken not to step down to begin with-- at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation-- said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats," calling Gillibrand's lynch party "atrocious." They also noted that Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who issued a statement calling for Franken's resignation, has since told him privately that he regrets doing so."

“I think we acted prematurely, before we had all the facts,” said a third senator who has also called for the resignation, and has since expressed regret directly to Franken. “In retrospect, I think we acted too fast.” The senator asked not to be named because of the political sensitivity of the issue among Democrats.

As we mentioned yesterday, state Senator Daylin Leach-- the front-running candidate for Pat Meehan's suburban Philly seat-- has come under attack and and that attack became more serious as Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat up for reelection-- a weak, insecure, frightened guy, in way over his head, who is deathly afraid of pissing anyone off-- called for Leach to resign from the state Senate. "This disturbing behavior is absolutely unacceptable. Sen. Leach should resign," the governor said in a stinging rebuke of a fellow Democrat. "While he has been a leader on important policy issues, this conduct cannot be excused. As I have said previously, this is not a partisan issue. The lack of adequate structure for victims to report this type of behavior and feel protected is inexcusable, and underscores that Harrisburg’s culture must change." Leach is an old friend. I asked him if he was planning on resigning or withdrawing from the congressional race.

He told me he is "absolutely" staying in the race and absolutely not resigning. "Nobody can make me resign. And I never would. And if anyone wants a different nominee, they are going to have to beat me in a primary. Lets see if they can do that." A couple hours later I got a press release from his office saying "I am taking a step back from the congressional campaign to focus on my family..." Sunday night Daylin sent me a very long, "too long," he told me explanation of what was going on from his perspective. Monday I asked him if I could run it and he said ok. I doubt you'll see anything like it anywhere else.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has released a story which mentions me in connection with the #MeToo movement. I feel compelled to respond. First, I will lay out a chronology of how this story came to be, then I will tell my side of the story, and finally, I will offer some thoughts on where we are now as a country.

In 2014, when I ran for Congress, a woman (Colleen Kennedy) volunteered for my campaign. She worked enthusiastically and the campaign ended without incident. In fact team and I helped her find another job in politics and for some months after the campaign, she continued to express her support for me on social media.

I was therefore surprised when 6 months later, this supporter attacked me on twitter for what she mistakenly believed was me missing a vote on an education bill. She said I was a false progressive and a hypocrite, etc. When I tried to explain, she continued to attack me, so I disengaged from her and have not interacted with her since.

In June of this year, the first press stories about me contemplating a run for Congress in PA-7 appeared. At that time, out of the blue, I began hearing about a whisper campaign claiming that I was a sexual predator. Such whisper campaigns, while insidious, are not uncommon in politics. When I first ran for office in 2002 there was a whisper campaign that I was an anti-semite. Given that I was a life-long practicing Jew, (albeit with a non-Jewish last name) this was easy to disprove.

After several weeks, we heard from numerous people that my former supporter from 2014 was behind this. She did not claim that I had ever done anything to her, and in fact I was never alone with her in my life. This was just something she believed.

She proceeded to approach numerous press outlets and tell them that there were all kinds of sexual harassment complaints filed against me with the Senate, and she encouraged reporters to file “Right to Know” (RTK) requests to access said complaints.

Despite this former supporter’s representations, the answers to the RTK requests revealed that no ethical, civil, criminal or employment complaints had ever been filed. Most of the media then abandoned the story.

The exception was a pair of reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Despite clear evidence that their “source” was not credible, they persisted and filed a second RTK request for the names of all “employees, interns or contractors” who had ever worked for me.

The Inquirer then began calling select former staffers and asking leading questions with no basis in fact. For example, “Did Daylin Leach ever do or say anything that made you uncomfortable?” If they said no, they were asked “Did he ever make jokes that made you uncomfortable.” If the answer was still no, they asked, “Did he make jokes that COULD make someone uncomfortable?” If still no, then “Would it surprise you to hear that others were uncomfortable?”

I know these things because many of the staffers, colleagues and political opponents they contacted, called me immediately afterwards asking me what the calls were all about, and to tell me word-for-word what was asked. The people who called were unanimous in their feeling that The Inquirer reporters were really hoping to hear something unseemly about me.

It is important to note that at this point, no one had come forward and complained that they were either the victim or had first hand knowledge of anything improper I had done.

If someone files a suit, or holds a press conference, it is perfectly legitimate to contact that person to check out the story. But what The Inquirer did in attempting to manufacture a scandal was so antithetical to basic journalistic ethics that I, and people I told about it, found it hard to believe.

Also since this started in June, I had been hearing that my primary opponent, Dan Muroff, was pushing the whisper campaign started by my former supporter. Several people called me to say that members of Mr. Muroff’s team and Mr. Muroff himself were calling them and saying versions of “something bad is going to come out about Daylin, so you had better support Dan.” [Ed- I might add at this point that, s an officer of a PAC, I've heard exactly the same thing from Muroff supporters and have heard the same thing from several campaigns in other parts of the country about other candidates trying to take advantage of what I sometimes refer to as "The Terror."]

We then became aware of the very close personal relationship between my former supporter and the Muroff campaign. Specifically, it was relayed to us that my former supporter and Dan Muroff’s campaign manager were “best friends.”

Concurrent with The Inquirer filing their initial RTK request, the Muroff campaign and my former supporter started referencing The Inquirer as where the damaging story about me was going to appear (despite the fact that there was no appropriate reason that either of them would have been notified of the RTK request).

I can’t express how personally painful the Muroff connection to this story was for my wife Jen and me. We had thought of Dan as a very close friend. We had been to each other’s homes (and his boat) and hung out as couples many times, and I had always supported Dan when he ran for office previously. This year, Dan chose to move into district I’ve lived in for 19 years to run for Congress, which he has every legal right to do. But he was very angry that I was running for the same seat.

Despite calling many of my former employees, The Inquirer was still coming up empty. In fact, the

I never claimed to be anybody’s Meow. But I knew I always treated my employees well. That’s why I have one of the lowest turnover rates in the Senate, and why many of my employees have stayed with me for well over a decade.

Over the course of the 31 years since I graduated law school, I have had more than 300 female employees, interns, and students. Not once has any ethics complaint, lawsuit, or criminal charge ever been filed against me. Further, nobody has ever complained to me, or quit a job, or dropped a class because of any conduct I engaged in.

This does not mean that I was a perfect person or that it’s not possible that someone could have disliked me, or felt unhappy with something I said or did. Certainly in the course of normal human interaction, very few people never say the wrong thing or are never perceived as annoying. But it seems like the bar which triggers some sort of full investigation by a respected newspaper should be higher.

Eventually after calling numerous people, the Inquirer notified my office that there were “allegations”. As presented to us, there were 4 allegations. They were all anonymous. The reporters wouldn’t tell me who was accusing me, or when specifically the incidents happened, or even what exactly they were about. Here is what I was told:

1. Someone said that in 2008, at the campaign office I told a joke referencing a wet T-Shirt contest as a fundraiser.
2. Also in 2008, also at the campaign office, there was a discussion of the attractiveness of Hollywood actresses, and I had offered my opinion.
3. In 2012, I had said “something” that “made a DNC volunteer mad” at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte. Said what? To who? Where? What context? The reporter indicated she didn’t know any of that information.
4. An unnamed attendee at a political fundraiser who did not work for me, said that during a conversation about getting petitions signed, I had momentarily touched her leg, not in a sexual way, but that she had felt uncomfortable nonetheless.

It is important to know that the RTK requests did not provide the names of the people described above as the RTK does not cover campaigns. It only applies to state employees. These were not state employees. So how did they find these people? It turns out that they are connected to the Muroff campaign and my former supporter.

In fact, 3 of these 4 allegations were from Aubrey Montgomery, a woman who now claims she was very upset about my sense of humor when she worked on my campaign in 2008, but who has continued to donate to me, come to my house for parties, give me advice, and pretend she was my friend in the years since.

I would now like to respond to these allegations. As I see it, they fall into 2 categories. The first one is humor.

I find it ironic that the Pennsylvania media loves to write stories tut-tutting about my humor. These same reporters have enthusiastically invited me to raise them money by performing comedy at their annual charity Gridiron Dinner for the past 9 years. The lead Inquirer reporter on this story has come to see me perform many times.

Some may remember that a reporter named Mario Cattabiani wrote a long expose about my humor 12 years ago. Yet after one of my gridiron performances, he took the time to call me and say that I was the “funniest comedian he had ever seen.”

Those who know me know that humor is an integral part of my personality. Frankly, it literally saved my life during a difficult childhood. I never met my father who ran off before I was born. My mother did her best, but had a lot of issues and was not a particularly engaged parent. I was placed in a series of foster homes which were often neglectful and even abusive. It was only by seeing the world through an absurdist lens was I able to cope.

I also think humor is a force for good in a very dark world. It helps us get through tough times, and is invaluable to me as an elected official. I am one of the most requested speakers in the state because I give a good speech, which is usually, in part, funny. Humor diffuses tension and makes people feel included. It’s one of my few traits of which I am unambiguously proud (as opposed to my hairline, singing voice, pole-vaulting ability, etc.)

The vast majority of my humor is not in any way sexual. Like most people, i joke around about food, or New Jersey, or the news or something Donald Trump said, or…New Jersey. But I am not pure. I have on occasion laughed at or told off-color jokes. I will admit to liking Sarah Silverman, or South Park or Chris Rock. But while I laugh at that sort of thing, that is not the brand of humor I usually use.

My humor is never mean. It is never directed at someone present. It is mostly self-deprecating, and if anyone is the butt of my jokes it’s almost always me. (or Trump, but…I mean..come on!). I’d also note that my jokes have gotten tamer over the years. Maybe its just a function of aging.

As for the specific jokes allegedly told in the campaign office, I honestly don’t remember them. It’s a lot of years to remember a joke. And frankly, without any context, or even hint as to who else was present, they don’t sound like things I’d say. But putting all of that aside, are silly jokes told in the presence of other adults a decade ago really worthy of an expose in the Philadelphia Inquirer?

The other allegation involves me touching someone’s leg. And to be clear, I do not know this person. She did not work for me. I have had no contact with her before or since. I am told I had a brief conversation with her about getting ballot petitions signed. As for touching the leg, I have absolutely no memory of this conversation or any interaction with her leg.

That said, as a general matter, it is possible that I touched her leg. I do sometimes touch people, men and women, when I am talking to them. I might place a hand on a shoulder, or clasp a fore-arm, or punctuate the end of a conversation with a pat on the back or the knee and a farewell. Some of you have seen the recent viral video of Representative Matt Bradford touching Representative Darryl Metcalfe’s arm, and Rep. Metcalfe freaking out.

Well, I sometimes do the same thing (the Bradford thing, not the Metcalfe). I always viewed it as a way to connect, and often do it without even noticing. Again, I have never received a complaint.

Further, I will concede that it is not all that difficult to tell me and George Clooney apart. Yet, for whatever reason, I am touched all the time. My shoulder or arm is clasped, strangers and acquaintances put their arms around me for photographs, I am hugged, kissed and patted on the back a number of times every day when I am out in public. I never interpret these touches as sexual, because they aren’t.

But maybe this woman didn’t like some man touching her leg. And she has every right to not like it. It’s her body. But there was nothing sexual about it, and nobody alleges there was. In fact, the reporter specifically told me that nobody alleged that I touched them in a sexual way.

And again, why this is a story in the newspaper is not clear. I am far less touchy than many other people we all know (see e.g. Joe Biden). And if we are doing a story on everyone who ever touches anyone else in politics, or in life, the Inquirer will have to add a new daily section to the paper.

As someone who has been dragged through this for several months, I’d like to conclude by offering some thoughts on where we are.

First, to be clear, the recent discussion of sexual assault is long overdue. Harvey Weinstein is a monster. He has raped or assaulted scores of women. He should be in prison. Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore and Donald Trump appear to be serial predators. No person should have to endure or fear this sort of assault, not only on their body, but on their dignity and their very worth as a human being.

I have spent my life fighting to change the laws to reflect our highest aspirations for gender equality. Equal Pay legislation, access to emergency contraception, contraception equity, the banning of shackling of pregnant prisoners, and mandatory paid family leave are all my bills. All of my employees who have children may take 3 months of paid maternity (or paternity leave). If you search Youtube, you will see my repeated and passionate floor arguments against efforts to restrict women’s reproductive choices.

I hire and promote women aggressively. Women have been my Chief-of-Staff on the legislative side, and four of my campaign mangers on the political side. I have supported groups like Emerge to increase the number of women elected to office in our Commonwealth. I am married to an incredibly strong woman who is among the most talented psychologists practicing. Our daughter Brennan, at 16 has already taken on the national right-wing attack machine and is currently in Washington DC as a US Senate Page.

Obviously, a good history on women’s rights is no justification for bad conduct. But I do believe in assessing allegations as thin and obscure as the ones against me, intent is important. And whether one has a history of respecting or disrespecting women is relevant.

However, I worry that there are some off-notes about the current frenzy over sexual misbehavior. We want to stop predatory and demeaning behavior. We don’t want to stop all normal human interaction. We don’t want to metaphorically turn every humorous quip or innocent pat into an unpardonable crime.

If a man or a woman is uncomfortable with a non-sexual squeeze of the arm or an offered high-5, then they should feel free to say so and that should be respected. But the default option should not be that men and women view each other as radioactive. We shouldn’t all wear Hazmat suits to work for fear that the slightest arm-brush will trigger an investigation.

Men who have done horrible things to women, using force, or groping or persistently propositioning or sending unwanted obscene photos, etc., should be held to account. But having men steeped in terror, staying up nights wracking their brains for who in the last 40 years they may have told the wrong joke to, or who might have misinterpreted a congratulatory hug on the receipt of good news as a sexual come-on does not help women. Fear is not respect. And avoidance is not equality.

We must also remember that our entire system of justice is founded on the notion of due process. Credible accusations of serious misconduct must be taken seriously. But blind belief of either side in a dispute is not a part of our justice system for a reason. Remember, in the context of the current discussion, some of those accused will be our brothers, sons, fathers. They deserve to be heard too.

What I’m saying is that exposure and reckoning have their place, but so does proportionality and a recognition of how people actually live their daily lives. I’ve been to many work-places, not just my own. People pretty much are the same in all of them. They like to be friends, or at least friendly with their co-workers. They like to laugh and feel connected. They want to feel safe within a bond of trust. And trust comes from seeing your colleagues as real people.

I wish the media was more responsible and focused on how our elections are being stolen or what its like to live in deep poverty, or maybe how our current economic policy disproportionately harms women, and less on gotcha stories designed to earn clicks. I wish they covered actual stories rather than tried to create sensational ones. But I can’t control that.

What I can do is refuse to let a newspaper, which allowed itself to be weaponized by a rival political campaign stop me from fighting for what I’ve fought for all my life. And that’s exactly what I will do.