Virginia is Back at the Center of the Political Universe - Vote Northam

Our home - Ralph Northam Hampton get out the vote operations

Living in Virginia can be politically exhausting given the fact that we have important elections every year, not that many voters seem to pay much attention.  Getting out the vote is a never ending task year after year and the husband and I find ourselves on numerous host committees for fundraisers. This year's Democrat primary for the 2017 gubernatorial candidate is no exception.  WE ARE BACKING RALPH NORTHAM in every way that we can (Perriello is very weak on LGBT rights issues, not to mention that he's changed his position on almost every issue).  Last weekend and and again from yesterday through Tuesday night (Tuesday is the actual primary) our home is the Hampton base for the Northam get out the vote effort in this city.  We have had literature drop volunteers in and out of the house and phone banking volunteers here from morning to night (the first will arrive today at 8:00 am) with our kitchen staged with food and snacks for all of the volunteers.  The husband and I have even been filmed for a Ralph Northam campaign ad that will run at some point.  What is maddening is how so few people seem to be paying attention despite the huge impact the occupant of the Governor's mansion has on everyday life.  As the Washington Post notes, all of the campaigns are faced with voter in attention.  Here are excerpts:

On Tuesday, Virginians will pick one Republican and one Democrat to go head-to-head in November’s election for governor. The contest is shaping up to be the nation’s first competitive statewide race of the Trump era. But it’s more than that.

The outcome could point the way forward for two major political parties torn by populist ­establishment infighting. It will test whether the forces rocking Washington will consume state-level races. And it will show whether Democratic fury at Trump materializes at the polls — something that could turn the 2018 midterms into a wave election.

But first comes the primary. And canvassers for the three Republicans and two Democrats competing for the nominations are finding an electorate that seems largely tuned out.

“I tend to think the worst possible place for a candidate to become known is in the middle of the Donald Trump presidency,” said Stephen J. Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington. “News out of Washington has become an extraordinary obsession these last six months, and that makes it virtually impossible even for candidates for governor to get all that much media and public attention.”

About a month before the primary, fewer than 2 in 10 Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning voters said they were paying “very close” attention to the governor’s race, and a significant number were undecided, a Washington Post-Schar School poll found.

 

“All these things at the national level have sucked all the local energy out of the room,” said Sharma, who after a little research settled on Northam.

The outcome of the Democratic contest will hinge on turnout, political strategists say. Northam would benefit from a smaller electorate made up of longtime party stalwarts, who skew older. A surge of young people and progressives inflamed against Trump could help Perriello. Both campaigns are chasing the African American vote, which could make up as much as 25 percent of the electorate.

The Democratic race probably will turn on the voter-rich Washington suburbs, where neither Northam nor Perriello has a natural base. Northam is from the Eastern Shore; Perriello is from Charlottesville.

Voter participation always drops sharply in Virginia’s off-year elections, especially for late-spring primaries. In 2008, nearly a million voters cast ballots in Virginia’s Democratic presidential primary. The next year, just 319,168 Democrats, or 6.3 percent of registered voters, turned out for the party’s hard-fought primary for governor.

This is the first time in Virginia history that both parties are holding contested primary elections for governor on the same day, said Geoffrey Skelley of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. (Some years, the parties opt for nominating conventions instead.) That could help boost turnout.

Skelley sees signs of life on the Democratic side, with requests for absentee ballots twice as high in that party’s primary as in the Republican contest. Voters have requested nearly as many absentee ballots for Tuesday’s Democratic primary as they did for their party’s March 2016 presidential primary — 26,783 this year compared with 28,412, according to the Virginia Public Access Project. Republicans have requested 13,882 ballots compared with 27,569 for the March 2016 presidential primary.

The lopsidedness could reflect the relative competitiveness of the Democratic contest: Polls show Northam and Perriello in a tight race while Gillespie has enjoyed a double-digit lead over Stewart and Wagner.

In the homestretch, the candidates are trying to stay visible and get their voters to the polls. Each campaign takes a different approach, depending on financial resources, political ties — and the personalities of the candidates.  The contrast is most stark among the Republicans.

On the Democratic side, the financial picture is also lopsided — Northam had $1.3 million available as of June 1, while Perriello had $734,000 — but both have enough to air TV ads.

Both also have big-name backing. Northam has a lock on Virginia’s elected Democrats while Perriello has nationally prominent progressives.

Northam’s team can count on canvassers from the state’s gun control, abortion rights and gay rights groups as well as the state’s Democratic heavy hitters: on Saturday, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) gathered with Warner and Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to launch door-knockers for Northam across Northern Virginia.

As all five campaigns make their final push, some see an opportunity in those blank stares.

“There are people who are saying ‘I don’t even know about the candidates,’ ” said Brown, Stewart’s Shenandoah Valley field director. “They can be persuaded. . . . You can rally some people into going and voting.”

Bernie Sanders Cancels Meeting with HIV Activists

With both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders courting all aspects of the LGBT vote, especially in advance of the New York State primary last month, both Clinton and Sanders agreed to meet with HIV activists this month in Indianapolis.  Now, Sanders has cancelled and failed to reschedule or communicate with activist groups he had agreed to meet with.  The Washington Blade looks at the strange cancellation and cessation of communications.  Here are highlights:

Bernie Sanders has cancelled a meeting with HIV advocates his campaign affirmed days before the crucial New York Democratic primary he would attend, according to the activists who sought to arrange the meeting. The 30-minute meeting between Sanders and HIV advocates was set for May 13 in Indianapolis.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton also agreed to meet the activists, who say they’re are still on track to meet with her Thursday for one hour in New York City.

Hilary McQuie, director of U.S. policy and grassroots mobilization for the HIV/AIDS group Health GAP, told the Blade the Sanders campaign cancelled the meeting without explanation. “He did cancel — no reason given and they have not rescheduled,” McQuie said. “We feel a bit burned by the bern, and hope they will answer our emails now.”

Peter Staley, a New York-based gay rights and HIV advocate, told the Blade HIV advocates before the unexpected cancellation were in daily contact with the Sanders campaign. “They sent a ‘need to reschedule’ email last Sunday (for our Tuesday meeting), and then bizarrely stopped communications completely after that,” Staley said.

“We’ve been emailing and calling every day since then, including warning them days ago about our intent to go public.” According to a statement announcing the cancellation from the Brooklyn-based HIV and homeless advocacy group Housing Works, attendees were informed on April 30 the Sanders meeting was cancelled, which was two days after many of them purchased expensive, last-minute plane ticket to attend the event.

Although the Sanders campaign promised to “reschedule” as soon as possible, it has yet to propose a new date, time or city, the statement says. The Sanders campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment late Sunday to confirm the meeting with HIV advocates was cancelled or to explain why the event would be nixed.

Charles King, CEO of Housing Works, said in the statement he’s among Sanders’ supporters, but the candidate’s decision to cancel the meeting is “incredibly disappointing.” “I have been a supporter of Bernie Sanders, and was proud to vote for him in the New York primary,” King said.

“It is disheartening to see the ‘revolutionary’ candidate who claims to value grassroots organizing and visionary politics not make time in his schedule to meet with us. He is supposed to be the guy who walks the walk, but all we’ve heard the past six weeks is talk—and fairly tepid, reactive talk at that.”

Ramon Gardenhire, vice president of policy and advocacy for the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, said Sanders should remain true to his word to meet HIV advocates. 

Can Bernie Sanders Win in November?

The GOP presidential contest seems to go from one new low to another, making it clear that any Democrat is preferable to any of the GOP clown car occupants. For Democrats, therefore, the issue becomes one of which of the two leading Democrats can win not just the primary contest but the general election contest in November 2016.  As previously noted, I am on the fence and I am most concerned about insuring a GOP defeat since the prospect of any of the GOP slate in the White House is downright frightening.  A piece in the Daily Kos argues that Bernie Sanders is the better choice against Hillary Clinton.  I'd love to hear readers' thoughts on this.  Here are article highlights:

I’m beginning to believe Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency.

Since Bernie announced his candidacy, I’ve been torn. On the one hand, I’ve long admired Sanders.  It’s hard not to respect someone who was born the same year that I was and has paid his dues as a liberal activist and politician.  On the other hand, I feel it’s time for a woman to be President and I like Hillary.  And, given the slate of truly dreadful candidates, any Democrat is preferable to whomever the GOP eventually nominates.

For the past eight months I’ve told anyone who asked me, “I believe Hillary will win the Democratic nomination.  But, Bernie’s candidacy serves a useful purpose: it will push Hillary to the left.”  Meanwhile, the contest exposed Clinton’s weaknesses and demonstrated Sanders can harness the energy of the “activist” part of the Democratic base.

Nonetheless, my decision whom to support for the Democratic nomination does not come down to policies or gender or age (although in an ideal campaign I would prefer to support a younger progressive woman); it’s refusing to be satisfied with the Democratic Party “business as usual” process.

There’s two wings of the Democracy Party: an activist wing filled with “do gooders” who, each day, slog through the peace and justice trenches taking on issue after issue.  And an establishment wing composed of  “people of privilege,” the Democratic portion of “the one percent.”

In 2016, Bernie represents the activists and Hillary the establishment.  On May 6^th, when I saw Hillary in San Francisco, she talked about the role of money in American politics, “fixing our dysfunctional political system and getting unaccountable money out of it even if that takes a constitutional amendment.”  However, since then Hillary has run as an establishment Democrat.  Bernie Sanders has made money in politics his central issue.

When each candidate was asked what she or he would do to bring the country together, Bernie replied, “The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.”

When asked about his Wall Street policy, Bernie Sanders responded:

The first difference [between him and Clinton] is I don’t take money from big banks. I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs… But here is the issue, Secretary [Clinton] touched on it, can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions and when they are providing speaker fees to individuals? [$600,00 to Clinton in one year.]

In 2016, Hillary Clinton is running the same campaign as Barack Obama in 2008.  Obama was an establishment Democrat, a person of privilege, running on progressive policies but not addressing the issue of money in politics.

Clinton has three weaknesses:  First, she does not have a central campaign theme, a core message.  (On Sunday night she offered, “I want to be a president who takes care of the big problems and the problems that are affecting the people of our country everyday.”)

Second, she’s identified as a Washington insider.  Likely Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has surged to the lead of the Republican pack by running as an outsider.  He’s effectively channeled voters’ anger at Washington by positioning himself as a maverick who doesn’t need to accept contributions from big money.  If Clinton were the Democratic nominee, Trump could attack her as part of the Washington establishment and as someone beholden to big money.

Finally, a lot of voters don’t like Hillary Clinton.  

Don’t misunderstand me.  If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee then I will support her.  But now that I think Bernie Sanders has a chance to win the nomination, I’m going to push him (even if he is an old white guy) because he’s got a winning message,  strong progressive values; and is most likely to ignite the Democratic activist base.

The key question is whether or not Bernie Sanders can win independents and moderate voters.  The activist base of the Democrat Party is not enough to guaranty victory in November. 

Heretick Defeats Anti-Gay Johnny Joannou in Primary

Steve Heretick

In yesterday's Democrat primary, Steve Heretick defeated anti-gay Del. Johnny Joannou and sent the fossilized Democrat in name only into political retirement.   While news stories focused on Joannou's opposition to Medicaid expansion, Joannou also had a documented anti-gay voting record in the House of Delegates.  Given the nature of the 79th district, Heretick is presumed to be the winner come November.  Heretick's win underscores how progressives working together can make a difference.  Joannou was so reactionary that even the lunatics of the Tea Party came to his aid .  Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

Steve Heretick upset longtime Del. Johnny Joannou on Tuesday in the Democratic primary for the state House 79th District.  With all precincts reporting, Heretick claimed 52.7 percent of the votes while Joannou took 47.2 percent.

Joannou, who has served more than 30 years in the General Assembly, hadn’t faced a challenger since 2007.

Heretick, a former Portsmouth City councilman, said Joannou’s conservative voting record was out of touch with the district.

Specifically, Heretick, 54, attacked Joannou for his opposition to expanding Medicaid under the federal Affordable Care Act and for not doing enough while the state was negotiating a deal to bring tolls to Hampton Roads to pay for a second tube at the Midtown Tunnel.

Heretick said it felt good to beat an “entrenched” incumbent backed “by the city’s old guard.”
“I really do feel like we’ve overcome a tremendous amount of opposition and I’m pleased to say that we’ve done it with a lot of progressive groups,” Heretick said.

Joannou declined to comment Tuesday night.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe supported Heretick. "We're happy with everything that's happening," said Morgan Finkelstein, a spokesoman for the Democratic Party of Virginia. 

Heretick created a website, www.johnnyjoannou.com, that referred to Joannou as “our Tea Party delegate.” Indeed, members of the Tea Party and the National Rifle Association backed Joannou.

Members of the Portsmouth Tea Party came to his aid by encouraging members to vote in the primary, hoping to stop a more liberal candidate from getting to Richmond. Because it's a heavily-Democratic district, the primary winner is likely to win the seat in November.

Good riddance to Joannou.

Anti-Gay Johnny Joannou Faces Primary Challenge

Challenger, Steve Heretick

Some would argue that Del. Johnny Joannou has been a Democrat in name only.   On important issues, he has repeatedly sided with far right Republicans in contrast to fellow Democrats.  On gay rights issues, Joannou has been most disappointing.  When Tracy-Thorne-Beglund was up for appointment to the bench in Richmond, Joannou failed to support him and took the coward's approach of not voting at all.  When Attorney General Mark Herring made the determination not to defend Virginia' foul Marshall-Newman Amendment, Joannou joined the Republican chorus of critics.  The political blog Blue Virginia has called Joannou outright homophobic.  And on an issue important to hundreds of thousands of Virginians - i.e., Medicaid expansion - Joannou again sided with the forces of backwardness in the Virginia GOP.  It is far past time that Joannou be pushed into retirement.  Thankfully, as the Virginian Pilot reports, Steve Heretick, a Portsmouth attorney and former Portsmouth city councilman, is challenging Joannou in the June 9th primary.  It is crucial that people turn out and vote for Heretick.  Here are highlights from the Pilot:

Voters might be more focused on beaches than ballots, but the June primary contest for this House of Delegates seat is high stakes.

That's because the Democrat who wins will likely have an easy road come November in the heavily Democratic 79th district, which covers parts of Portsmouth and Norfolk.

Del. Johnny Joannou, 75, a Portsmouth attorney and fixture in the statehouse for decades, is facing a rare challenge.

Steve Heretick, 54, a Portsmouth attorney and former Portsmouth city councilman, is looking to unseat him in the June 9 election.

Heretick is going after Joannou on two main issues: Medicaid expansion and tolls.

He criticized Joannou for being the only Democrat in the 2014 General Assembly session to vote against expanding Medicaid - as allowed under the president's Affordable Care Act - to insure as many as 400,000 low-income Virginians. The measure failed in the General Assembly.

"We have the best health care technology and close to half a million working people in this state who have already paid for it who can't access it because of people like Johnny Joannou," he said.

Heretick also accused Joannou of not doing enough to stop the tolls that started last year on the Downtown and Midtown tunnels. The tolls were the result of a deal brokered by former Gov. Bob McDonnell and the Virginia Department of Transportation with a private company to build a new Midtown Tunnel and other road projects.

Specifically, Heretick said Joannou could have used his status as a member of a powerful House budget committee to try to block the deal. Joannou is one of six budget "conferees" in the House.  "You get one of these issues in a generation - and he didn't do a thing," Heretick said.

 Again, if you live in the  79th district, which covers parts of Portsmouth and Norfolk, get out an vote for Steve Heretick.

Sharon McDonald for Norfolk Commissioner of Revenue

Sharon McDonald at the HR Pride Wine Tasting Fundraiser

Tomorrow is primary day and I hope Norfolk voters who read this blog will make a point of going out and voting for Sharon McDonald for Norfolk Commissioner of Revenue.  I am no longer a Norfolk resident myself, but I do own and operate a small business in Norfolk and can attest first hand that Sharon McDonald is one of the few Norfolk elected officials who "gets it" and actively seeks to assist small businesses.  Sadly, for the most part Norfolk City Council does little more than lip service about small businesses.  Sharon backs her statements with actions.

As I noted in my recent column in VEER Magazine, Sharon's competitor seems like a decent guy, but he has no experience and in terms of being an LGBT ally, he's been missing in action.  In my VEER piece I said the following:

In contrast to Poston, her opponent, Sharon McDonald is a veteran campaigner and her support of the LGBT community has been stunning.    McDonald was an Out in the Park sponsor in 2012 and is a sponsor again in 2013.  In addition, last year she was at the flag raising ceremony for the beginning of the Out in the Park festivities and gave a short interview which was posted on the Hampton Roads Pride website.  And her involvement with the LGBT community doesn't stop there.  She has attended many networking events held by Hampton Roads Business OutReach, the local LGBT chamber of commerce, and other LGBT organization events.

It's one thing to say you support small business or that you support the LGBT community.  It is something else to actually follow through on one's words.   Sharon McDonald has made good on her words time and time again.  We need her to carry the Democrat standard this November.  Please vote for her tomorrow.

Clarence B. Jone: It's Time For A Primary Challenge of Obama

Clarence B. Jones is scholar in residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University. On top of that, he's black and a progressive. And he is now admitting that its time that progressives start the process of finding a primary challenger to take on Obama in the lead up to 2012. As readers know, I lost all confidence in Obama - who I now typically refer to as the Liar-in-Chief - over numerous issues, and not just LGBT equality issues. It began when he surrendered toe public option in health care reform before the measure was even out of the box and it's been downhill from there. The DADT debacle and the failure to see even the remotest movement on the passage of ENDA and/or the repeal of DOMA have been icing on the cake. Obama has basically abandoned those who elected him and seems to somehow believe that by kissing the GOP's ass he's helping his re-election efforts. Or maybe he believes that with a far right GOP opponent such as - God help us - Sarah Palin, progressives will vote for him in 2012 no matter how much he betrays his campaign promises. Worse yet, I suspect that after January, 2011, we will see only more and more give aways to the far right. Here are highlights from Jones' column at Huffington Post:
*
Can't tell you how it happened. All I know, it just happened. Been thinking and reading a lot about President Barack Obama. Lots of news commentaries about his alleged lack of leadership on this or that issue. About his disappointing the Gay and Lesbian and Transgender Community on his election pledge to end the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the armed services. And his disappointment by the anti-war coalition, who supported him because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, only to find that he has escalated the US's involvement in Afghanistan. Now, after the midterm election victories of the Republicans, he seems willing to compromise on his pledge to end tax breaks for the rich.
*
In previous blogs, I have tried to contribute to a constructive analysis and dialogue about Obama's presidential leadership. Several readers accused me of being an "apologist" for Obama.
*
[C]heck out the video clips of the panorama of faces that assembled in Grant Park in Chicago after the election results confirmed his victory. Check out the million + people who came to Washington to witness his Inauguration. It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected as President of the United States. But, regrettably, I believe that the time has come to do this.
*
It is time for Progressives to stop "whining" and arguing among themselves about whether President Obama will or will not do this or that. Obama is no different than any other President, nominated by his national party. He was elected with the hard work and 24/7 commitment of persons who believed and enlisted in his campaign for "Hope" and "Change."
*
You don't have to be a rocket scientist nor have a PhD in political science and sociology to see clearly that Obama has abandoned much of the base that elected him. He has done this because he no longer respects, fears or believes those persons who elected him have any alternative, but to accept what he does, whether they like it or not.
*
It is time for those persons who constituted the "Movement" that enabled Senator Barack Obama to be elected to "break their silence"; to indicate that they no longer will sit on their hands, and only let off verbal steam and ineffective sound and fury, and "hope" for the best.
*
The pursuit of the war in Afghanistan in support of a certifiably corrupt Afghan government and the apparent willingness to retreat from his campaign commitment of no further tax cuts for the rich, his equivocal and foot dragging leadership to end DADT, his TARP for Wall Street, but, equivocal insufficient attention to the unemployment and housing foreclosures of Main Street, suggest that the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012.

Admiral Mullen Shows Honor and Integrity - Obama remains Missing in Action

While I never trusted the Pentagon to not try to skew the DADT report, I have been overall pleased with it. Moreover, I have been impressed with some of the military leadership who understand - without directly stating it - that DADT is an assault on the U.S. S. Constitution and the supposed guarantee of equality and religious freedom for all citizens. If DADT is not repealed, the U. S. Senate will be confirming to the world that America and it's Constitution are a fraud. Via America Blog here are remarks made by Admiral Mullen when challenged by John McSenile:

*
"With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Sen. McCain, it is true that, as chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a service chief myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.
*
"You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don't think for one moment that I haven't carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor."
*
And meanwhile what's the Liar-in-Chief doing? According to the Washington Blade, NOTHING! The man is proving again and again that his honesty and truthfulness is ZERO. All those campaign promises meant NOTHING. Here are highlights from the Blade:
*
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he’s unaware of any attempt by President Obama to convince fence-sitting senators to support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal following the release of the Pentagon report on the military’s gay ban — but said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made calls to influence lawmakers.
*
Asked by the Washington Blade on Wednesday whether the president has been reaching out to senators following publication of the study, Gibbs replied, “Not that I’m aware of.”
*

I stand ready to work on the campaign of any Democrat that will challenge Obama for the 2012 nomination. If that challenger is credible, I know MANY folks who are ready and waiting to drop Obama like a putrid hot potato.

The Clintons And Gays

I know a number of LGBT individuals who are fanatic Clinton supporters. To be honest, I do not understand their thinking. If nothing else, Bill and Hillary can be relied upon to do what is expedient for them in terms of winning votes or raising money. Unfortunately, other than in the form of lip service, loyalty to their supporters, particularly gays, is not their strong suit. It never has been. In this regard, Andrew Sullivan has a timely post (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-clintons--2.html#more) that looks at the cynical manner in which the Clintons have treated gays in the past and references John Aravosis’ research in the process (http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill-clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html). Why gay voters think they can trust Hillary when Obama has better positions on gay issues is astounding to me. If you do not believe me, do some investigation of your own. Just remember that Hillary does not even reference that LGBT voters exist on her campaign website.Here are some highlights from Andrew’s post:

Many readers expressed disbelief at my claim that the Clintons ran anti-gay ads on Christian radio stations in 1996. Did I have proof? Actually, John Aravosis recently provided a very extensive round-up of what happened back then. It's all true. Here's an excerpt from a Log Cabin briefing at the time:

In an article in today's Washington Times, entitled "For Christian Radio, Clinton Changes Tune on Gays, Abortion," it was reported that the Clinton-Gore campaign "shrugged off" angry calls to shelve the radio ad. The article cited reports from gay and lesbian groups that the campaign might delete the portion of the ad which boasts of Clinton signing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but "Clinton campaign spokesman Joe Lockhart said there are no plans to alter the radio ads, which will run for 'a few more days.'" After boasting about Clinton signing the anti-gay DOMA, the ad concludes with the line: "President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it."

John also notes that Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to triangulate against gays in 2004. Kerry refused. But the Clintons have used gays in two ways since their careers began: to get money (an untapped resource that the Clintons shrewdly figured out early on), and to pivot to win red-state votes. Remember that the Clintons used this tactic in 1996 - not a close election, or one in which they even needed to gay-bait to win. But they did. It helped a little. And they knew the gays were pathetic enough to keep supporting them.