Press "Enter" to skip to content
Russian aggression, American response

Russian aggression, American response

March 13, 2018

jones

The President’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said it is “incontrovertible” that the Russians intervened in America’s 2016 elections. The President rebuked McMaster for the statement. Daniel Coats, appointed by the President last year as Director of National Intelligence, joined other top American intelligence officials in warning that the Russians will continue interfering in our elections.

More recently, the head of the National Security Agency, Admiral Mike Rogers, testified that Russia would continue its hostile actions against the United States because it has paid little price for its past aggression. Our top intelligence and security officials say they have received no directives from the President to protect America.

For reasons apparently known only to him, the President has taken no punitive action against Putin’s Russia, nor has he even acknowledged that they committed acts of aggression against the United States. This, even though the U.S. Congress, by an overwhelming vote, passed legislation urging and authorizing the President to punish Putin and his cronies for violating American sovereignty. What gives?

It is possible that the substantial Russian election interference documented in the Mueller indictment changed the outcome of the election, but that is beside the point. No matter what, the election will stand. There is absolutely no reason for the President to continue to deny Russia’s hostile acts against America. And, absolutely no reason to hold off on taking action to counter further Russian cyber aggression.

I grew up in a Republican Party that took the Russian threat to America very seriously. By countering Soviet aggression wherever it rose its ugly head, we were able to prevail against the USSR. Had we meekly rolled over and allowed it to continue its dirty work unchallenged, the outcome would likely have been very different. Back in my Republican days, anyone who denied clear-cut aggressive Russian action against American interests would have been branded an out-and-out traitor.

Now, Putin is trying to reconstitute what President Reagan called the “Evil Empire.” He has developed new cyber weapons to use against us and also renewed the old Soviet nuclear threat against our country. But, our President absolutely refuses to protect this great country from those threats. That is not likely to make America great.

Rather than disputing the indisputable, the U.S. should be vigorously building its cyber defenses and developing a tough offensive capability. We are at a juncture in the electronic era much like we found ourselves in during the infancy of the rocket age. The Soviet Union caught our attention with the launch of its Sputnik satellite, demonstrating it had the lead in a new technology with military applications. We had to up our game in that arena. Now, the Russians have shown their expertise in the offensive use of cyber systems and it is incumbent on this country to take steps to counter that threat, not to deny it.

The time has come for top administration officials to clearly speak out about the danger of failing to counter Russian aggression. The words and deeds of McMaster, Coats, Rogers, and others demonstrate that they understand the seriousness of the new Russian threat and want decisive American action to punish past actions and prevent future aggression. If behind-the-scenes entreaties will not work, those officials must publicly step forward to protect America’s vital interests.

Furthermore, members of both parties need to stand up and demand decisive action to counter Russia’s hostile actions against the United States. Congress must demand that the President carry out the punitive measures it enacted into law last year. It is time for our Congressional delegation to take action to protect the security of our country. It should not be a difficult decision to stand up for America.
 

Notes . . .

Notes . . .

March 12, 2018

notes

Sometimes it's the audience that prompts some reflection.

That's not a comment on Representative Suzanne Bonamici, from Oregon's first congressional district, and who held one of her twice-yearly (two series of them annually in the district's counties) town hall meetings in McMinnville this evening. Her discussion was a straightforward report, from her eye view, of what's happening in Congress at present. There's a lot of caution, watching and questioning, by her description, which sounds about right.

When an audience member asked whether Congress is as dysfunctional as it seems to be, she gave her most noteworthy answer: No, probably not. Yes, there are a string of problems, which have gotten a lot of attention. But while the bigfoot stories clump around, lots of smaller-scale activity goes on, to little notice, underneath. She cited a string of measures she's working on with Republicans, on subjects ranging from job training to tsunami preparation.

That seemed to be of a piece with the audience.

Sometimes, in these town halls, some people get overheated and start stomping out of their proclamations rather than coolly asking questions. Sometimes someone will start to take over the proceedings by going really long-winded, delivering their own speech rather than a concise question.

Didn't happen tonight. Everyone was courteous and to the point, and emotions were dialed down.

That may or may not be typical, of course. And you can speculate over the various possible reasons for a quieter, calmer town hall. It was a mostly Democratic-friendly audience, by all appearances; was the thinking, in part, that we've now just a few months to go to changing the political world in D.C.? (That change might include a subcommittee chair for Bonamici if the House changes partisan control with the next election.)

Whatever the reason, something feels a little different. - rs
 

A deep state?

A deep state?

March 12, 2018

rainey

One of the moral issues all of us face from time to time is this: is it right to support a concept or an action we may know is wrong or is without factual basis or do we reject it for those same reasons?

Here’s one I’m wrestling with at the moment. Members of the Trump “family” - and a few other conspiratorial minds - are screaming there’s a “deep state” cabal working against our president. On the one hand, that’s highly doubtful. On the other, I hope so, because, left unchecked, the man is just plain dangerous to our survival!

Let’s set a common definition for that term “deep state.” The words are most often used by conspiratorial types to describe a “deep rooted civil service - or other behind-the-scenes group - at work to undermine elected officials.” Including presidents.

The latest White House denizen to publically use the term is Trump’s second son who lumped Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Ellen DeGeneres (?) together as “forces for evil.” Said it on Twitter. Just like Dad. Bannon and Faux Neus like it, too. And use it often.

It’s really too easy to poke sticks at anyone in the Trump family or others who think of him as our “political savior.” But, there’s a serious bent to this as well. Which brings about my ambivalence.

Some weeks ago, I used this space to highlight a couple of Air Force generals publically stating they would not necessarily follow a presidential order to unleash the force and nuclear weapons. The qualifier used was the question of a “legal versus illegal” order. I’ve since discovered there are as many legal definitions of those words as there are generals. Or staff attorneys. Whom we don’t have time to consult when there are incoming warheads.

But more evidence is piling up - as in some ‘50's-‘60's movies about renegade generals - that the military and other agencies are going their own ways on things. Rogue, if you will.

Case-in-point: last year, Trump said “no transgender people in the military.” The Pentagon, however, now says, as of January 1, transgender enlistees have been - and still are - welcome.

Case-in-point: Trump made a big public issue of claiming our embassy in Tel Aviv will be moved to Jerusalem. But State Department professionals - not Trump-appointee Tillerson - are saying there are “no plans in the foreseeable future” for such action.

Case-in-point: Trump continues to berate and insult North Korea’s leader while State Department professionals - not Trump-appointee Tillerson - continue back-channel discussions with counterparts in North Korea, South Korea, China and Japan.

Case-in-point: Trump pulls U.S. out of climate accords so individual states are now signing up directly with foreign governments.

Case-in-point: Trump’s own staff attorney did not tell him he had the authority to fire an F.B.I. director because his own staff attorney figured that’s just what Trump would do.

Case(s)-in-point: Trump continues demanding a stop to immigration - even legal immigration - but eleven courts have overruled him.

Upper level civil service professionals have often walked different paths from political appointees. That’s not new. What IS different is it’s currently being done more openly - more “in-your-face” - than previously. Especially in military, State and DOJ issues.

Trump has repeatedly proven he cannot cooperate with - nor countenance - people who are experts in their fields holding any different view from his. He refuses to recognize his job is not to call every shot but to oversee departments of government while recognizing it’s the professionals who really know what ’s going on. And how to do it. They may - and should - bend to changing political guidance. But we’re starting to see open defiance in some quarters.

Which brings us back to “deep state.” Is institutional resistance to Trump and his authority real? And, if so, who’s in charge? Which decisions will be carried out and which ignored? Is someone - or many someone(s) - working deep underground to subvert the power of the Presidency or just Trump? And, if so, who? And, to what end?

For the first time in my life, I go to bed at night wondering (a) if I’ll wake up and (b) if I do, to what? I have no use for Trump. He scares me. I want him gone. Preferably today.

But, he IS the President. He DOES have certain constitutional powers at his disposal. He DOES have the legal right to exercise them. And, what scares me more than him, is the idea that others may actually be working to thwart the lawful exercise of that authority.

We live in a technological (read nuclear, world-ending) environment requiring immediate decisions that can - within minutes - result in life-ending consequences. The evidence seems to indicate a “going-my-own-way” attitude in some portions of our government. Despite Trump, that’s not the way to run a country.
 

Idaho Briefing – March 12

Idaho Briefing – March 12

March 11, 2018

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for March 12. Interested in subscribing? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

Friday night marked the end of candidate filing – for partisan and judicial offices, at least – for this year, and more than 300 candidates signed for offices at the legislative level and up. You’ll find them all in this issue.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma on March 8 sent Idaho officials, including Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, a letter rejecting the state’s plan for a “skinny” health insurance plan. Such a plan, it said, runs afoul of the Affordable Care Act.

A group of eight senators and two representatives introduced a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will use revenues from energy production on federal lands to help pay for the over $11 billion maintenance backlog at our national parks.

Bipartisan legislation led by Senators Mike Crapo and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and cosponsored by Senator Jim Risch, cleared the Senate today by voice vote. The measure, S.97, known as the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, would create partnerships between private-sector innovators in nuclear energy with government researchers to create the next generation of clean, advanced nuclear power.

Due to a shortage of beds in Idaho’s prisons and jails, the Idaho Department of Correction will soon move 100 more male inmates to the Karnes County Correctional Center in Karnes City, Texas.

The State Board of Education on March 2 voted to take official positions on five separate pieces of education-related legislation being considered by state lawmakers. Board members voted unanimously to support three bills and to oppose two others.

Hunters took more elk and white-tailed deer in 2017 than in 2016, but mule deer harvest was down. With a much milder winter so far, Fish and Game biologists expect the drop in mule deer harvest to be short lived as herds recover from last year’s difficult winter across Central and Southern Idaho.

The Salmon River Ranger District on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests will release the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Hungry Ridge Restoration project, for public review and comment.

PHOTO The two co-chairs of the budget-writing Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, Senator Shawn Keough (second from left) and Representative Maxine Bell (second from right) were celebrated at an event on March 9 as their panel moved toward wrapping budgeting for this session. (image/Idaho Department of Health & Welfare)
 

Education money laundering?

Education money laundering?

March 11, 2018

A guest article by Levi Cavenner, an educator from Canyon County. His web site is IdahosPromise.Org.

You wouldn’t be blamed for thinking that Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, had tutilege from a drug cartel’s money launderer while he was drafting the school voucher bill passed by Idaho’s house last week. A cursory read of the legislation makes it painfully obvious what the proposed law really is: a money laundering scheme.

The goal of money laundering, of course, is to conceal the origin of dollars. Except, in this case, the origin of the money is painfully obvious and the purpose of the legislation is also equally so. See, here’s the deal: Article Nine, Section Five of Idaho’s Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the state cannot distribute money to sectarian entities.

And instead of having a legitimate debate about amending Idaho’s Constitution, Rep. Vander Woude has instead come up with a convoluted plan in which money will be distributed by a quasi government scholarship fund entity to pay for students to attend private schools including religious institutions.

If it doesn’t make the dental fillings in your teeth hurt to see the contortions the bill goes through to avoid actually upholding both the wording and substance of Idaho’s constitution--something, as it turns out, our legislators took an oath to protect--then you might need a trip to the dentist for a checkup.

But don’t let the law stop you. Idaho’s school voucher bill, known formally as the Guided Education Management Act, or HB 590, passed Idaho’s House last week with votes from Gem State representatives. It now heads to the Senate.

And let me be clear: If you are a supporter of the possibility of using state dollars for students to attend private institutions, then let’s have that debate on amending Idaho’s Constitution. It is a legitimate policy question that it appears the citizens of Idaho are interested in having.

But that’s not what this legislation is. It is a blatant workaround that avoids both the text and intent of Idaho’s governing document. If it doesn’t scare you that our elected representatives are actively seeking ways to avoid enforcing the foundation of Idaho’s law, then perhaps skip the dentist office in favor of a different type of hospital.

Because that’s exactly what this is. Vander Woude, at least, is honest enough to admit that this is the first step in a greater scheme to eventually have the state subsidize businesses or individuals who donate to the slush fund ... err, scholarship account, to pay for kiddos to attend private schools by providing a tax credit.

See, the state can’t provide the money directly as it would be a clear violation of the law. So instead, in a series of mental gymnastics and suspension of disbelief, the state will instead operate a laundering racket where the money, per se, didn’t come from the state. And the fund, per se, is not necessarily operated under the management of the state. So therefor they aren’t breaking the rules. Get it?

Keep in mind that no group, others than those who stand to benefit, wants this legislation. The Idaho Education Association, the Idaho School Boards Association, the Idaho Association of School Administrators, and the Idaho Board of Education all stand in opposition to the bill which is the kindle for a larger voucher based system in Idaho.

We all want to do what's best for kids. For some families, private schools provide an excellent option. But let’s not abandon both the text and intent of our state’s laws for the sake of expediency in providing that education option.
 

Road ahead for TR and ICT

Road ahead for TR and ICT

March 10, 2018

trahantlogo1

Many years ago Richard LaCourse and I would sit around and toss ideas about what the perfect Indigenous newspaper would look like. LaCourse, at the time, was trying to create a new publication in Washington, DC. Imagination was his currency.

What was possible?

LaCourse had a lot of experience answering that question. He had helped build the American Indian Press Association. He had edited or written for several tribal newspapers, including his own, The Yakama Nation Review. He launched a one-person crusade to raise the standards of Native American journalism.

I even remember the first time I heard him do that. It was on Feb. 24, 1977, at a workshop in Spokane. A workshop speaker was telling tribal editors that they worked for tribal councils and should slant the news accordingly. LaCourse stood up. Angry. Shaking his finger. “Are you aware of the 1968 law that guarantees freedom of the press in Indian Country? Indian newspapers should be professional, straight reporting operations, and your assumptions about cheerleaders for a point of view has nothing do do with the field of journalism. Why are you making this presumption?”

I am thinking of Richard LaCourse as we begin Indian Country Today’s third chapter. The goal is to build on the legacy of LaCourse—as well as from the first two chapters of Indian Country Today. The publication was founded by Tim Giago in South Dakota in 1991 and was followed by the ownership of the Oneida Nation of New York.

It’s hard to think of a better word than legacy, actually. The word is from the 14th century Latin legatus, an ambassador, envoy, a deputy sent with a commission. A century later the word had shifted and become associated with property, a gift. Both definitions fit. The gift is all of the work done before. The commission is the tasks ahead.

Indian Country Today is now owned by the National Congress of American Indians—but we will act independently. We are creating a framework to ensure that. But our primary task is the same as LaCourse’s vision: Professional, straight reporting that tells stories about Indigenous people and our nations.

I’d like to thank the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) for engaging in this experiment. It would have been easy to say, “well, no.” Especially when the challenges of independence are factored into that equation. The NCAI has a long history of working with the Native press (even while our missions are different.) One of the great journalists of her generation, Marie Potts, a Maidu, and editor of California’s Smoke Signals best writing in Washington while on working on a fellowship with NCAI during the late 1960s.

The best way I know how to demonstrate our independence is to produce solid, thoughtful journalism. Every day. So there is a lot of hard work ahead. (And we will need some time to make this so.)

What does this mean for Trahant Reports? For the time being I will cross post on Trahant Reports and Indian Country Today sites. I have a lot of material I am working on for the elections ahead, Indian health, and other policy issues. So more, not less.

And Indian Country Today is back in business and we are ready to serve.

Our goal is to hire a team in Washington, create (and fund) reporting fellowships around the country, and build capacity for freelance contributors. We want to be partners, not competitors, with tribal newspapers, public media, and web publishers.

I have been teaching journalism for the past seven years and I am always telling students that this is a time of great opportunity. The digital world means that we can reach our audiences instantly. We can communicate ideas. We can explain a complicated process. We can expose wrongdoing. Or write a story of pop culture that makes us smile.

We can invent a new kind of news organization, one built on the currency of imagination.
 

Something different

Something different

March 9, 2018

stapiluslogo1

Politics in West Virginia has been stunned this season by a congressional candidate, Richard Ojeda, a one-term legislator and former Army paratrooper. A Democrat, he is running for Congress in a strongly Republican U.S. House district (open this year, as the Republican incumbent is running for the Senate), and his candidacy is the talk of the state. Where he goes, crowds develop, and they chant his name.

One description called him “JFK with tattoos and branch press,” but a lot of his appeal is this: He’s fierce. He was a key spark behind the recent West Virginia teachers’ strike - the strikers love him - and he generates reports like this in Politico: “Ojeda uncorked a nearly unbroken, 13-minute tirade in which he called lobbyists ‘the absolute scum of the earth,’ said they should have to wear body cameras in the Capitol, said they shouldn’t even be allowed ‘in the damn Capitol’.” Not what you might think of as a stereotypical coastal Democrat.

He won’t necessarily win. Then again, he might.

Some of this came to mind when I heard from Jim Fabe, a newly-filed Democratic candidate for Idaho lieutenant governor in Idaho (one of two as this is written). He said in an e-mail that he has been “a licensed dentist in Idaho since 1979, in addition to a stockbroker, insurance agent, major in the US Army and a farmer.”

He has an unusual and complicated background. For example: “In 2006 I was recruited to serve using my degrees of DDS and MBA in the United States Army. I entered as a major because of my background, experience and foreign language skills. I helped with computer based human identification, which is creating a data base of dental x-rays; panoramic (jaw) x-rays and DNA to identify soldiers. My role was to supervise the entry of the dental x-rays and the panoramic x-rays that was made by technicians, enlisted service members, lieutenants and captains.” That’s a little different.

What is he concerned about? He cites climate change (from a farmer’s perspective), managing growth in Idaho (something not many candidates have discussed), health care (with a position unlike any I’ve heard elsewhere, across the spectrum) and addressing credit interest rates.

One of his immediate prompts to run was: “I want to answer to my 16 year old son: which adults created a safer environment for our children. I believe that the right to life for school age children is more important than the civilian use of military weapons.”

But before you pigeon-hole him on guns, consider what else he has to say on the second amendment: “Create a well regulated militia of ages 30-59. All able bodied/able minded citizens will be required from age 30 to 59 to train and be proficient with handguns and rifles. Eliminate guns for ages less than 30, and 60 and over, to reduce school shootings and suicides. Elimination of assault weapons for civilian use. Distinguish between militia and army use of weapons.”

That should make for an interesting discussion.

Don’t consider any of this an endorsement of the Fabe platform; I’d just say here it’s an interesting mix. But that’s the point.

Candidates like Fabe, and Ojeda, are outside the mold, and shouldn’t be treated as cookie-cutter candidates. More than a party label ought to be in the mix as voters make their choices.
 

Notes . . .

March 8, 2018

notes

Chris Carlson, who writes a regular column here and has penned a couple of books for Ridenbaugh Press (Medimont Reflections and Eye on the Caribou), has a new book coming out. It relates the history of the Hells Canyon federal recreation area; Caxton Press is the publisher. From an Idaho State University release on the book:

Idaho State University alumnus and 2017 Professional Achievement Award winner Chris Carlson has written a new book “Hells Heroes: How an unlikely alliance saved Idaho’s Hells Canyon” that will be available in April.

“It is the story of the politics that went into ultimately providing federal protection to this unique asset in Idaho that many Idahoans aren’t even aware of,” said Carlson, who has spent many days hiking in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area both on the Canyon’s river trail and in the Seven Devils. “It’s one of my favorite places in Idaho.”

Carlson, a long-time Idaho journalist and former press secretary to the late Idaho Governor and Interior Secretary Cecil D. Andrus, graduated from ISU with his Master of Arts Degree in English literature in 1970. He received his Bachelor of Arts Degree in English literature from Columbia in 1968.

Carlson said the book is broken into two parts, the first focusing on the efforts of Brock Evans of the Sierra Club who brainstormed on how to get the canyon protected. It was fiercely debated whether the canyon should be a national park or have a different designation.

The second part focuses on how Sandra Mitchell, now the executive director of the Idaho Recreation Council, worked to keep the Snake River in the recreation area open to jet boats and other motorized watercraft.

“The focus is on two fights and two heroes and is an interesting story most Idahoans are not aware of and would enjoy it if they read it,” Carlson said.

Rick Johnson, executive director for the Idaho Conservation League, has written the book’s forward.

 

It’s up to us

It’s up to us

March 8, 2018

richardson

Some years ago, I was flying home to Boise from Washington, D.C. I was on the Chicago to Boise leg of the trip; the night sky was clear, and I was looking forward to seeing my family and getting to sleep in my own bed.

As we drew closer to Boise, I became aware of a higher level of activity than usual by our flight attendants. Then the captain’s voice came over the intercom. He told us he could not confirm that the third landing gear had come down. We would have to make an emergency landing at the airport.

The plane grew very, very quiet very, very quickly. Everyone gave the captain their rapt and total attention.

He told us that the flight attendants would be instructing us on emergency landing procedures and urged us to listen carefully. He didn’t need to ask.

People had begun praying quietly, reaching for the hand of their seatmate — whether a traveling companion or a stranger — and totally focusing on the situation at hand.

There was a baby on the flight and people began passing pillows to her mother to help cushion her, if needed. The flight attendant started to talk, to instruct us in the ways in which we could brace ourselves for landing. The urgency and anxiety in her voice, more than anything she said, conveyed the potential seriousness of our situation.

Then we circled and circled and circled. In retrospect, I understand that the pilot was draining the plane of fuel. The circling seemed endless. Looking out the window, I could see a fleet of emergency vehicles, lights flashing, waiting for the plane’s descent – smooth or otherwise.

My mind was focused on one thing: my family. I wanted them to know that I loved them, that I had been thinking of them, that they meant everything to me. Then, after what seemed like an endless descent, the flight attendant screamed: “Get down!”

All the passengers reacted at once, in unison. It seemed as if we collectively held our breaths. Amazingly, our landing was feather light. The third landing gear had worked. When the captain said, “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Boise,” the plane erupted in cheers.

Today – all of us – every man, woman and child in this country – are passengers on a plane. The name of the plane is the U.S. Republic. It is a big, sturdy somewhat cumbersome plane, but it has flown through often turbulent skies for more than 200 years.

Some who have piloted this plane were less than proficient in the cockpit; however, the second officer, flight traffic control and the ground crew seemed to compensate for any deficiencies. But now we have a captain who hasn’t read a flight manual; he isn’t looking at the instrument panel; and he doesn’t know how to use the intercom. Totally self-absorbed, he's looking in the mirror. And he’s tweeting.

As the plane careens through the skies, we passengers are left to hang on for an increasingly bumpy ride. The GOP Senate in the traffic control tower and the GOP House on the ground seem unconcerned that the plane is in trouble. The second in command is enthralled by the captain who invited him along for the ride. He gazes fondly at the captain and does nothing to steady our flight.

As we are jostled about, the plane bobbing and weaving, few of us are confident that our pilot will land the plane safely. In fact, many of us know he cannot.

It is up to us, the passengers, to find a way. And to do this, we must work together. We must pay attention like never before. We must listen carefully to one another, take care of the most vulnerable, and replace the flight attendants and ground crew the first chance we get. We must act in unison as if our lives depend on it.

The 2018 midterms provide that opportunity and we must seize it. We can’t risk bouncing aimlessly in the skies for three more years, or worse, learning too late that the landing gear never came down.
 

Paratrooper candidate

Paratrooper candidate

March 7, 2018

stapiluslogo1

Richard Ojeda, a former Army paratrooper and now a Democratic candidate for the U.S. House in West Virginia, oftens hears crowds chanting this as he campaigns around his district:

“Oh-jed-ah! Oh-jed-ah!”

His district, by the by, voted in 2016 for Donald Trump by a 49-point margin.

In a season that has generated a lot of unusual candidates, Ojeda has to rank as one of the most distinctive. He is unmistakably an Army vet, a former paratrooper with a hard-core approach. A Politico article that is the best profile of him so far (better may yet come) calls him "JFK With Tattoos and a Bench Press", and that's not bad shorthand.

There's nothing remotely weepy or whiny or sob-story about him. He was one of the prime pushers behind the remarkable West Virginia teachers strike - the tens of thousands of people involved in that seem to love him - and his message to them goes something like this: “You keep making that noise, ladies and gentlemen! This is what union is right here! Hey! Shoulder to shoulder! Don’t take a step back! Y’all deserve it!”

He has a number of things in common with many other Democrats - that's clearly the party for him. Socially conservative in some ways, he is also pro-choice, pro-Dreamer and has backed a measure moving toward marijuana legalization.

But that's far from the whole story.

Ojeda apparently gets along well enough with West Virginia's one major remaining Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin, b8ut they are nothing alike. Manchin has been described, fairly (and he wouldn't want to argue) as maybe the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Ojeda is quite different, openly and delightedly at war with - for example - the energy companies who run so much of the state. Here's a quote from him about the coal industry: "We are on the next Saudi Arabia! They’ve said that — the energy people said that! So, if we’re on the next Saudi Arabia, obviously they want it to be just like Saudi Arabia, where you have about 10 people driving around in Lamborghinis and everybody else eatin’ sand sandwiches! That’s what they want. Guess what? No!"

Manchin may have personal loyalty built up over many years, and that may be enough to see him through to re-election this year. Or it may not. But his style of getting along with the powers that be is hardly energizing West Virginians, and Ojeda's approach is.

That shouldn't come as a surprise, even in the heart of Trump country - in fact, especially in the heart of Trump country. Ojeda is talking revolt. That's talking the language of a lot of people in an area like this.

People in places far from West Virginia, but sharing some of the points of view so widespread there, might be wise to pay attention.