Sexist Ashford?

With his Saturday announcement that he’s just going to keep re-running and re-running, Brad Ashford has decided that NO women should be the Democrat nominee for Congress!

Ashford had been jockeying with his wife Ann about who within the family should run. The East-Coast newspapers were featuring the family squabbling. Ann has been Tweeting up a storm, trying to show how much of a Democrat she could be (though being, you know, a former Republican).

And then don’t forget that Kara (CAR-uh) Eastman unveiled her first campaign video, showing that she is surrounded by activists, water champions and other non evil, capitalist, white, male, lawyers.

So Brad’s decision means that he not only shoved the missus to the curb (argue all you want Ann — only one of you is in this race now, and it ain’t you), but he’s staked out his ground as the not-Kara candidate.

And now even the Wall Street Journal notes, “He also got pushback from people saying it would be sexist if he ran instead of his wife.”

(Brad: Well, so what? What’s wrong with being sexy?
David St. Hubbins: Sex-ist, Brad.)

Of course that’s not news for the establishments Democrats. They oppose U.S. Senator Deb Fischer and her great work for Nebraska. They opposed Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert with their latest white, male career politician.

And one of their central committee members even resigned from the state Democrat leadership because she was sick of them supporting their white, male lawyers year after year.

And then here comes Brad…again.
Running for Congress…again

(Oh but THIS time he doesn’t like the pipeline! See, totally different!)


Heath barred?

In the mean time Ashford told the OWH that, “he talked to (Heath) Mello before making his decision and Ashford’s understanding is that Mello isn’t planning a 2nd District run.”

After Ashford went door-to-door with Mello during Mello’s ill-fated Mayoral run, it would be something of a dagger in the back if Mello set out against him.

Of course Mello had the city-council seat if he wanted it, but decided to dive for the brass-ring instead. Now?


Hopefully Jane Kleeb and the Nebraska Dems can find a spot for this white, male, “pro-life”, pro-KXL Pipeline, Bernie Sanders-denying, go-getter.


Gone Fischering

Speaking of U.S. Senator Deb Fischer, she was in Omaha on Friday holding another town hall meeting.

And, per usual, protesters were there to try to yell her down.

But don’t worry, protesters. Senator Fischer will totally bend to your will because you are noisy and rude. That is the best way to get her attention, and convince her to change her mind on the top issues of the day.

And then be sure to yell at veterans who might suggest that they agree with her.

Oh, and jeer at anyone who compliments Fischer on work that she has done in the state.

You have it nailed down for how to behave in these kind of situations. No doubt you will get your point across to not only Fischer, but to all Nebraskans on whatever it is that you demand.

(Is she “hearing but not listening” or “listening but not hearing”? I always forget…)



And as life imitates art imitates life…President Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow…and the blue-haired lawyer from the Simpsons:

I also gotta say, this was pretty funny:

Follow @LeavenworthSt on the Twitter
Like Leavenworth Street – the talk of Nebraska politics on The Facebook


  1. anon says:

    Ann should go for the republican nomination, the publicity would sate the shiftless Ashford’s more than being elected, she probably would get support from fellow flakes like Krist and McCollister, it would take the sting out of the spanking out of the loss by both of them

  2. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for giving the correct pronunciation of Kara. I don’t recall the anti-capitalist while male lawyer bashing from viewing Kara’s campaign video. Your characterization is totally fake news. But thanks for letting us know about Kara’s campaign.

  3. Sparkles says:

    Ashford.. sexist.
    Puh lease.
    Not a scintilla of evidence to support your supposition, but you got the sensationalist headline you were seeking, didn’t ya.

    Then there’s sexism and.. your party. Your whole party.
    But alas, proving sexism against the GOP is like… well, you know, fish in a barrel.
    Let’s raise the bar – how about we skip sexism in favor of – violence against women.

    For instance –
    Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith both voted against the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act. So did Mike Johanns when he served in the Senate. Johanns not only opposed it, he went so far as to vote to attempt block it’s advancement in the Senate.

    And Deb Fischer?
    Glad you asked.
    Deb Fischer was the one and only female Senator to abstain from co-sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act.

    And Jeff Fortenberry not only voted against it, he was super deceitful about his vote, and he got caught –
    “Here’s How a GOP Congressman Opposed the Violence Against Women Act—Then Pretended He Was for It”

    I remember at the time trying to figure why in god’s name would anybody vote against something like the prevention of violence against women.
    Then it struck me: Jeff Fortenberry + in god’s name.
    Fortenberry voted against the bill because he was carrying water for Jeebus, at the instruction of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
    Because apparently.. Jeebus hates women. Or more precisely, Jeebus hates women who happen to love other women, and Mexican women.

    Isn’t it remarkable that the Republican base can totally ignore (or openly embrace) real, verifiable heinous shite like Republicans (en masse, Fortenberry was joined by 159 GOP cohorts) opposing the reinstatement of the Violence Against Women Act, yet they’ll blindly suck up and regurgitate crap like; Brad Ashford is a sexist.

    • The Grundle King says:

      Sooo…is there a violence against men act that provides the same legal protections and rights as the VAWA? And if not, is that because violence against men doesn’t exist? Or it’s just not a big deal…like a joke that people can laugh about?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Man Sparkles you sure have a good deal of time on your hands and a terrific memory if it serves you correctly. I think sexism goes far deeper than anything here on this blog including Brad’s emergence for another run. Legislating a law called “Violence Against Women Act” sounds good on its face, but hardly paints a story of any depth. Try again.

    • Sparkles says:

      Everything I stated was accurate.

      The final bill to reauthorize the VAWA passed the Senate by a vote of 78 to 22.
      Every one of the 22 nay votes, a Republican.

      It passed the House 286 to 138.
      Every one of the 138 nay votes, a Republican.

      March 6, 2013, USCCB web site –
      USCCB Committees Express Concerns Over Domestic Violence Legislation
      WASHINGTON—The chairmen of four committees and one subcommittee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a joint statement to voice their concerns on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act…
      “All persons must be protected from violence, but codifying the classifications ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as contained in in S. 47 is problematic,” they wrote.

      March 6, 2013 – US News & World Report –
      “Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act Isn’t Helping the GOP”
      Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Tennessee joined 10 other GOP women in voting against the measure, stating: “I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups.”

      And who exactly are these “different groups” that Marsha Blackburn and her GOP counterparts find undeserving of protection against violence? Who exactly is it in America that the GOP considers ‘fair game’?
      Seems they’re the same people the Catholic Bishops, on behalf of Jesus, find undeserving.
      Women. Women in previously unprotected classes – lesbians, Native Americans and the undocumented.

      But, I’m sure none of this makes any difference to you.

      • sparkless says:

        Who says the Catholic Bishops speak or act for Jesus? Or is that just another break from reality for you?

      • Anonymous says:

        2013 or 2017? What difference does it make if the same old same old prevails? What does not get fixed in 2013 remains for 2014, then 2015, then 2016, then 2017, all the way to 2020 if that’s what it takes to get better legislators. Isn’t it a shame that we have the same old same old year after year? It costs taxpayers a lot to send the Congress to the hill and the taxpayers don’t get their concerns addressed. Throw the bums out and get new bums. At least then we have an excuse for the same old same old year after year.

      • Gerard Harbison says:

        The Violence Against Women Act was a classic piece of feel good legislation that had unintended consequences. It pushed mandatory arrest policies that had the paradoxical effect of increasing domestic partner violence (b/c women didn’t want the husband, often the primary breadwinner, arrested.). It ignores the fact that most domestic violence is minor and mutual.

        Its real triumph was allowing a woman in New Mexico, who was convinced she was being beamed coded messages from her TV, to get a TRO against David Letterman. He was then banned from owning a gun, because of a frivolous complaint by a psychotic woman who had never met him.

        It’s a classic example of virtue-signaling; it shows you’re ‘pro-woman’, but ignores the actual effects of the law.

      • Sparkles says:

        As always, there’s merit to Harbison’s argument. (it’s – ‘the bill’s not perfect’ argument)
        The academic and women’s/feminist communities did in fact debate the research about best practices relating to the reduction of violence.
        Of course, what used to happen to imperfect bills (before corporations took over government in it’s entirety and installed their hand selected puppets) is that the imperfect bill was continually tweaked and improved over time with the assistance of experts and academicians.

        But the fact remains, the academic argument was never cited by Republicans (imagine that) as a reason for their NO votes. Who knows how many were even aware of it?
        House and Senate Republicans were quite clear about their motivation and (when cornered) quite clearly expressed it – which is why I went to the trouble to provide you their reasoning – in their own words. (which you conveniently and summarily dismiss)
        The expressed motivation for their opposition to the bill was that it extended coverage to “different groups” (Marsha Blackburn), and it codified into law “sexual orientation” (USCCB).
        And who were those “different groups”?
        The bill was updated to include protection against violence for immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans.

        Finally, you’re welcomed to call support of the law, virtue signaling.
        It permits me to call opposition to the law, xenophobia, homophobia and racism.

  5. Kara Hood says:

    Get out the Popcorn folks. Kara and her band socialist do gooders will finish off the Democratic Party from ever being relevant in Nebraska again. Even Comrade Kleeb sees this. Kara doesn’t even need to win the primary to accomplish this feet. If they lose the primary her socialist supporters will stay home in the general and Bacon will win in a landslide. It seems resisting and not winning is new goal of the NDP

    • Mr. Blonde says:


      Those “socialist do gooders” who have stepped forward to support Kara are -the- leaders of your community. Each of them highly accomplished.

      Q: How many troglodytes does it take to screw in a light bulb?
      A: Two. One to screw it in, and one to bash it to bits when the light comes on.

  6. Sparkles says:

    “Senator Fischer will totally bend to your will because you are noisy and rude. That is the best way to get her attention, and convince her to change her mind on the top issues of the day.”

    Ahem, ahem (throat clearing):
    TEA Party.

    • it's alive! the moral majority of the left. says:


      Which the left is trying to emulate hoping it will produce the same results as it did for the Tea party. Along with other interpretations of conservative actions they believe will vault them to the top again.
      How far they have fallen from their self righteousness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.