Ask yourself how you will feel on November 4^th if a candidate you support loses the election by less than a dozen votes? Will you be able to honestly say that you gave it your very best shot? Will you regret that you did not do more?

You can avoid that feeling of regret. Across the country, and certainly here in Iowa, candidates and local party organizations are pushing hard to get out the vote. Turnout matters. Contact any of those organizations and ask what you can do.

If you’d like to help an Iowa House or Senate candidate get out the vote in their local district, here’s the link to the chart that will tell you which candidates Insufferable Wenches of Iowa have endorsed.

Iowa Candidates

This is the shortest Substack article I have ever written. That’s because you need to quit reading on the Internet and get off the couch. Devote every free moment to making this big blue wave as big as possible.

You have one week.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

Subscribe now

But the voters who now realize that Trump is lying to them are probably still believing a lie that Republicans have been pushing for decades. It’s a message that has been baked into America’s psyche. Voters believe Republicans have cut their taxes, and they think that’s a good thing. Democrats have been labeled as “tax and spend” and voters believe that’s a bad thing.

Taxes are not inherently bad. You want someone to pick up your garbage, you want someone to inspect meat packing plants, and you want FEMA to respond quickly to natural disasters. You should also want your government to raise enough tax revenues so that it does not go further in debt. Currently, we are spending about $1.36 trillion per year on just the interest on our national debt, according to U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. That’s more than we spend on the military budget and more than we spend on Medicare.

While I can argue that taxes are a good thing, I acknowledge that no one gets a warm and happy feeling when you talk about taxes. Everyone hates paying their taxes. That’s not going to change, but Democrats must fight the fallacy that waste and fraud suck up a lot of our tax dollars. The rich bitches who are controlling the Republican party have also pushed the lie that any of your money that goes to a social safety net is benefiting a bunch of lazy goldbrickers.

There is some good news on this issue. For the first time in my memory, Democrats are polling better on the economy than Republicans. More specifically, according to a poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, about two-thirds of people think the tax provisions in the 2025 Big Beautiful Bill favored the wealthy.

Despite that, the recent barrage of political ads indicates political advisors still believe saying “tax cuts” is a winning message. There are dueling ads between Iowa’s gubernatorial candidates with Lahn saying Sand will raise your taxes and Sand promising to cut taxes. Iowa Senate candidate Ashely Hinson’s recent ad starts by mentioning voting for tax cuts, and MAGA.INC is now running an ad that rebrands the Big Beautiful Bill (which is unpopular) as the “Working Families Tax Cut.” It mentions cuts to taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security specifically and uses a clip of Minority Leader Jeffries to emphasize that every Democrat voted against the bill.

MAGA.INC is running their tax cut ad in Texas, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, West Virginia, and here in my home state of Iowa.

If you live in Iowa, the last item on your ballot this year is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. Like tax breaks passed by Republicans at the national level, recent changes to Iowa tax law have favored the rich. When Democrats have a majority in the Iowa legislature again, I hope they will rectify this. This ballot initiative is Republicans’ attempt to block that.

The League of Women Voters, the Des Moines Register, and the Cedar Rapids Gazette have all spoken out against this. Fair Taxes for Iowa’s Future said, “It’s a gift to the wealthy.” But I still fear that many voters’ knee jerk reaction will be to vote in favor of anything that makes it harder to raise taxes.

I have already voted early. I voted No on this issue. I really wanted to write in “Hell, No!” but that would have spoiled my ballot, so I resisted the urge.

I am not writing to you today, gentle reader, just to tell you to vote no on this constitutional amendment. What you need to do is circle back to all those family, friends and coworkers that you have talked to recently about having a plan to vote. Make sure that they understand that this proposed constitutional amendment is an overt attempt to protect the rich.

When it comes to taxes, we are fighting decades of misinformation from the Republican party. In Iowa this year, it’s important that we fight against that as hard as we can.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

Subscribe now

There was an ad paid for by WinSenate, a Democratic super PAC aligned with the Senate Majority PAC, that said Representative Ashley Hinson voted against releasing the Epstein files. Fact check that and you will be told the claim is false. Hinson is now running an ad saying she voted to release the files and rebuking Democrats for a false ad.

I feel that Hinson is winning this round. It’s a shame. Hinson can rightly and effectively be criticized concerning the Epstein files. What a shame that she can now brag about voting to release the files when she, and her Republican party, blocked it for so long.

Is it just too difficult for the average voter to understand? The following paragraph is my explanation in under a minute. I have timed this. I can read it out loud in exactly 60 seconds. It should take you less time if you don’t move your lips when you read.

For months, Democrats demanded a vote to release the Epstein files, but Republican Speaker Johnson would not bring it to the floor. In September 2025, Democrats filed a Discharge Petition to force a vote. For 71 days, they were one signature short. The deciding 218^th vote was finally cast by the newly sworn Democratic Representative Grijalva on November 12, 2025. This was after Speaker Johnson delayed seating Representative Grijalva for 50 days — the longest-ever delay in seating a duly elected member. On November 18, 2025, the House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by 427 to 1. Rep. Ashley Hinson was in lock step with the Republican majority the whole way. Yes, in the end, like almost everyone else, she voted to release the files. For months before that, however, when her support could have made a difference, Hinson failed to stand up for women and girls.

If Hinson was in favor of releasing the Epstein files, why did she not sign the Discharge Petition? All this happened in 2025, when the emails Hinson was sending to constituents always proudly stated that she was part of “Team Trump.” Although she never mentions Trump’s name now, she has continued to vote along party lines in 2026. It appears the other ads she is running – the ones that claim she has always worked across the aisle to get things done – just aren’t true.

Four Republican Representatives did cross the aisle. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was even co-author of the legislation. He was defeated by a Trump-backed candidate in the primaries. Two others, Mace and Greene, did not seek reelection. The fourth, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, is currently in a tight reelection race.

Hey, Ashley! It’s not too late to do the right thing. Four Republicans have signed on to the “Epstein Files Transparency Act II” a follow-up petition to bring forward a bill addressing the fact that the DOJ still has not released or has heavily redacted over 3 million Epstein-related documents. You are flooding Iowa with ads saying you are in favor of releasing the files and with ads saying you will work across the aisle. Why is your name not on this current petition?

It’s a good thing Democrats will take control of the House next year and we won’t have to wait for Representatives like Hinson to grow a spine in order to get things done.

But now, I will turn my ire to the Democrats who ran the original ad. Saying Hinson voted against releasing the Epstein files was not only false, but it was also a stupid mistake to make. You could have said, “When we needed one more signature to force a vote on the Epstein files, Ashley Hinson did not work across the aisle.” You screwed up and now Hinson is the one who looks good on this issue, and you have no way of undoing the damage you have caused.

Years ago, Walter Cronkite would have explained this to America and the majority of voters would have heard him. But in today’s “information age” is there any way to get the truth out when the message is just a little longer than “voted yes” vs. “voted no”?

The truth is Ashley Hinson, like the vast majority of Republicans, delayed releasing the Epstein files for as long as she could. None of those Republicans who voted yes to release the files, when finally forced to go on the record, are going to be in the next edition of Profiles in Courage.

Ashley Hinson did not stand up for the Epstein survivors when it counted and even now is not working across the aisle to get the rest of the Epstein files released.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

Subscribe now

I feel like a fake, all the time.

I’m just a mom. A single mom who’s been working two jobs just to keep food on the table- not to pay the bills. If I’m being honest, the months where the bills get paid in their entirety are few and far between. There isn’t enough money to go around, there never has been. Between the $400 utility bill, the $350 cell bill, feeding four almost full grown kids, and the house- I could work two more jobs and it wouldn’t be enough. Kids need food, kids need clothes and shoes, kids need money for lunch, and I need to pay the fees for sports and get the cleats.

I didn’t choose to be a single mother, I don’t believe many moms do. The father of my children chose to be a dangerous person, he chose for me. My single-parenthood is the consequences of his actions.

It’s so hard to focus on how to change our country when your brain is constantly doing the math of paying the utility bill or putting gas in the car. Cars, ugh. Right now, I have the only working car in my family. Five people, three drivers, one working car. One car has an unknown issue that we cannot figure out- a new fuel pump, battery, and some random hose later- the damn thing still won’t work. And the other lost first and second gear, it needs a new transmission. We have one, but there is only one of us talented enough to fix it, and he’s out with an injury to the knee. So, one car to be relied upon by five people who combined have a total of three jobs, college classes, high school x2, football practice, physical therapy for the knee, and all the other random stuff that comes up.

Money is tight, and I have accepted that it will always be tight no matter how hard I work, because that’s just life.

But, it’s a lot.

In typical fashion, I decided a while ago that I am clearly capable of miracles (ha!). I can absolutely take care of all of those things, fully participate in Wenches, help my amazing daughter run for office, and launch a nonprofit organization to help the underserved people of our communities in a building that needs a whole lot of love and work to be even a little presentable. I can do that.

Then that thought creeps in, who the hell am I to be doing any of this? I should be taking the time I put into Wenches and Third Space and use it to get another job to help pay my own damn bills, at least that’s how I feel the people around me look at me. How can I possibly help other people when I am barely making it by myself?

And then I think of my life in the larger picture. I have worked two jobs for a very long time. I’ve raised four fantastic human beings, by myself. I’ve put a roof over all of their heads, loved them and fed them- and they’re happy people. And while they’ve experienced traumas that most people will never experience, they’ve grown into empathetic and loving human beings who want deeply to help others. I have worked miracles.

I’ve held my father’s hand as he passed away from the cancer he no doubt acquired from his years of working around pesticides and chemicals, and the smoking probably didn’t help. I stood side by side with my child as she testified against the man who abused her for years. I stood toe to toe with the man who abused my children, as he tried to steal them from me. I fed four kids on a $9/hour wage for two years. I’ve kept things running for 14 years without losing my everloving mind, at least not permanently. My life could completely crumble with one missed paycheck and there are so many amazing people who have it so much worse than I ever have. I owe those people my effort and my compassion.

But even with all that, I still feel like a phony most of the time.

What business do I have doing any of this?

It doesn’t matter. No matter how much of a faker I feel like I am, no matter how hard things get in my own life, and no matter what other people think of the work I do, I will keep going.

I deserved better. My kids deserve better, and I want them to see how important community is. We ALL deserve better than what we are getting from our government right now. We deserve drinkable water, our health should not depend on our incomes, and we are owed good and decent human beings who represent us in our government. Our stomachs should not have to growl through feeding our families. We should not have to choose between groceries and a doctor’s appointment.

We deserve better, our children deserve better.

Generations to come will live based on our actions right now, so if I need to feel like an imposter to work for change, then I’ll be an imposter.

Heather Staton, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Insufferable Wenches

I am proud to say that, as hard as it is, all my children made the transition to adulthood. They all moved out of my house, support themselves, and seem to be doing a pretty good job of taking care of the day-to-day business of living. I am particularly proud of my disabled son who single-handedly for more than a decade has successfully navigated the required paperwork from the Department of Human Services and Social Security. It’s not easy keeping those agencies happy, but it is vital.

This week, when the Trump regime proudly announced that they were cutting 760,000 people from the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, I thought of all the people who do not do a good job of adulting.

In a press conference, VP Vance and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said that letters had been sent to the people they were cutting and the fact that they did not reply was proof that these were all fraudulent participants.

This was the same attitude when Republicans passed a big bad budget bill in 2025 that is expected to knock 10 to 11 million people off Medicaid, mostly through work requirements and more frequent reporting rules. The message seemed to be that if you failed to jump through all the hoops they set up, it proved that you were defrauding the system.

I don’t think for a minute that the majority of the folks kicked off Medicaid and ACA subsidies were fraudulent claims. I think most are just people struggling to get by. They may be working two jobs and still stressing over how to pay the bills. Despite all the pressures, some manage to keep all the balls in the air. Others are having trouble adulting. I have sympathy for these people.

In this week’s changes to the Affordable Care Act and last year’s changes to Medicaid, they are kicking some people off the program simply because they aren’t very good at adulting. It’s only logical to assume that this is a more common problem for those living in poverty than it is for the general population. My kids had parents who taught them how to complete forms, who modeled the importance of doing the paperwork, and who they could come to for help and advice. Lots of people don’t have that advantage.

India May, a beloved member of Insufferable Wenches and now a candidate for the Iowa House of Representatives from District 58, shouted out to Joni Ernst, “People are going to die.” at a town hall in May of 2025 at which Ernst was trying to defend kicking people off Medicaid.

Before there was Obamacare, the teenage granddaughter of a coworker of mine died. She had an asthma attack, but they delayed going to the emergency room because they had no health insurance nor the money to pay for another emergency room visit. I thought of that young woman, robbed of her life, when Joni Ernst said, “Well, we’re all going to die.”

Delayed care is one harm of cutting coverage. Lack of preventative care is another. There is also the financial loss to hospitals who provide treatment without getting paid. Rural hospitals are struggling. Ottumwa lost its hospital in February. Other hospitals in Iowa have already cut back on services with OBGYN care usually being the first thing to go.

India May was right. If you take medical coverage away, people die - more than 16,500 unnecessary deaths annually from the cuts to Medicaid alone, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine. There are so many studies, and when you include the cuts to the ACA subsidies, the numbers range up to 51,000 preventable deaths a year. If this information is easy for me to find, the Republicans who are cutting these programs must know it, too. It’s just astonishing that they don’t care.

They are killing thousands of people, and they just do not care.

When they announced this week that they were removing another 760,000 people from ACA subsidies, they proudly said that it would save $2.2 billion. First, it should not just be about money when people’s lives are at stake. Second, that $2.2 billion number is only about one tenth of one percent of the current year’s budget deficit. It’s an even smaller fraction of our $40 trillion debt.

Here’s a message for the Republican party: You’ll never fix your budget problems by kicking marginalized people off health care. You’ll have to go after the big fish.

But Trump commuted the sentence of Philip Esformes who was convicted of $1.3 billion in fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims. Trump commuted Lawrence Duran’s sentence and waived remaining fines and restitution after he was convicted of $205 million of fraudulent Medicare claims. There are others who have been convicted of multi-million-dollar fraud who have either received clemency or had their sentences commuted by Trump. Plus, there’s Rick Scott who was CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation when it settled the largest Medicare fraud case in US history, resulting in $1.7 billion in federal fines. He’s now a Republican Senator from Florida.

It’s just a fact that, historically, Democratic administrations have done a better job of fighting waste and fraud than Republican administrations. That’s because they actually believe in the programs they are administrating and put competent people in place who want those programs to be successful.

But the rich bitches have sold a large swath of voters on the idea that the Republican party will go after those “other” people who are living off your tax dollars. They’ve been selling this crap for years. In the 1970’s, Welfare Queen was the name they slapped on this. Their strategy has always been to make you fear and hate people of color and immigrants. The rich and powerful want voters to think that your personal financial problems are because of people who don’t look like you. The real problem is, of course, the rich and powerful.

I will admit that fraud exists and I want Republican voters to admit that there are people who deserve and need services from government that they are not receiving. The question then becomes which of those two things bothers you most.

Look at your neighbors and you will find someone suffering because they cannot access the assistance they need. It’s easy to find them here in Iowa. It’s estimated that 27% of farmers lost affordable medical coverage when the enhanced ACA tax credits were eliminated at the end of 2025.

As election day approaches, I wish I could get this message to everyone. Do not fall for the lie that Republicans are fighting fraud. Their draconian cuts are killing people. Vote with love and sympathy in your heart and you will vote against this.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

Subscribe now

“Politicians are all bad”

“All politicians lie”

These are all talking points that are used to disengage voters.

If you think all “politicians” are bad, you’re not actually paying attention.

Part One: The Money

Political party insiders don’t choose who runs for office- voters do. That is the entire point of the party primaries. Political party leadership is not to chime in until after the primaries, then they are to support whomever wins the party primary. Now, we can talk about outside influence, dark money, and superpacs... that is an entire conversation all together, so let’s talk about it.

Here in Iowa, there was a huge influx of dark money during the party primary for US Senate. The race between Zach Wahls & Josh Turek was absolutely funded by what you would call party insiders. And yes, I am talking about VoteVets almost $10 million dollar ad buy. VoteVets is a 501(c)(4) organization that supports democratic candidates and works to elect military veterans.

There are two parts of this I want to talk about: Why VoteVets backed a non-veteran candidate, and why VoteVets could be considered “Dark Money”

Josh Turek is not a veteran, he has never served in the military, and there were some veterans that took issue with this. In my opinion, while Josh Turek was not a vet, his dad was. While I don’t think being the child of a veteran should automatically be considered a veteran, I do believe this was a fair endorsement. Turek’s fathers exposure to Agent Orange during his time serving lead to Turek’s Spina Bifida. So, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for a veterans organization to endorse Josh Turek. However, I will say one of the many commercials put out by VoteVets during the primary campaign did imply that Turek was a veteran, and that I do take issue with.

VoteVets is by definition Dark Money. Dark money is the term used to describe political spending when the source of the money is for all intensive purposes hidden. Organizations like VoteVets collect money from outside sources; individual contributions, corporations, and sometimes, even other countries. These types of organizations are not legally bound to reveal where or who their money comes from and often move money through shell corporations until there is no longer a paper trail leading to the original donor. So there is no way to track where the money comes from. For all we know, some rich guy in Antarctica could have financed the entire $10 million dollar ad buy.

It is incredibly important to note that candidates themselves are not allowed to work directly with Dark Money groups. 501c4 orgs have to operate independently from campaigns. They are not allowed to share information like polling data, strategy, or plan ads with candidates. So candidates have no control over what Dark Money groups put out, which in my opinion is part of the problem.

So why is this allowed to happen?

Citizens United.

Citizens United v. FEC

Citizens United is a conservative nonprofit founded in 1988. Their purpose:

“Citizens United is dedicated to restoring our government to citizens’ control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, we seek to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Our goal is to restore the founding fathers’ vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.”

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor unions can spend an unlimited amount of funds on political campaigns. The argument being that the First Amendment includes political spending. The Supreme Court ruled that political spending is protected free speech, regardless of whether it comes from an individual or a corporation. Because of this ruling, we now have unlimited political action committees (PAC), grossly increased outside spending from special interest groups, and election influence that makes it incredibly difficult to navigate truth from falsehoods.

The Citizens United ruling gave corporations a booming voice in our government. This does NOT give corporations and special interest groups a vote, but it does elevate their voice in elections and make us, regular voting individuals, work harder to vote.

When corporations are allowed to pump millions into dark money groups and our elections, we see political ad after political ad on our TV’s. We see an election ad every time we open YouTube, or turn on Hulu. These ads interrupt our nightly social media scroll, and infiltrate our living rooms.

Before 2010, we had to decide which candidate we thought would do a better job, and if they were telling the truth in their advertisements. Now we have to research every ad we see to find out if the dark money group or PAC behind the ad is being truthful, or if the ad is intended to confuse us. This makes voting more difficult, especially for those who vote based on the candidate and not on the party. If you vote party lines, none of this actually matters because you know how you’re voting regardless. However, 729,471 voters in Iowa do not belong to a party. These are Independent voters, they don’t vote party lines. As a former Independent voter, I did not vote based on party. I watched the debates and ads, I asked questions, and I researched. Previous to the Citizens United ruling, it was a whole lot easier to look into what a candidate stood for. You already knew candidates were going to lie about each other, so you just didn’t listen to them when it came to their opponent.

Now, we have constant ad streams, some are truthful, but most are not. Many are inflammatory, cherry picking, or just flat out lies. These ads imply that something is true, without merit or proof. A lot of times providing sources that are completely inaccurate.

One of VoteVets commercials implied that Josh Turek was a Veteran. Josh Turek is not a Veteran, his father was. One of Zach Lahn’s commercials tells us Rob Sand took $13 Million Dollars from a Big Ag Corporation. The reality is, Rob Sand took a $13 Million dollar donation from his wife, who is CEO of The Lauridsen Group, which specializes in animal proteins and health supplements.

Fun fact: Americans For Prosperity is also a Dark Money group. Founded by billionaire industrialist conservative mega donor brothers Charles & the late David Koch, AFP promotes itself as promoting individual freedom all while supporting legislation that limits just that. And who spent years working for Americans for Prosperity? Zach Lahn. So it isn’t surprising to see advertisements trashing Rob Sand coming from outside organizations.

Facts matter, and this is politics. Politicians and special interest groups are not going to give you the facts, they’re going to do whatever it takes to win- even if that means painting a good person as being an absolute monster.

Now, sidenote: As a former Independent voter, I noticed there was a party that leaned into slander and fear mongering a bit more than the other, which is one of the reasons I am no longer an Independent voter. Although I reject the idea of party lines and will continue to vote for whomever I think will do a better job, I also wanted to be a part of choosing the candidate, and you don’t get to vote in the party primaries if you’re not registered to a party. I could go on and on about the downfalls of being an Independent Voter, but that is for another time. You can let me know in the comments if that is something you’d like me to dive into.

So who is working to end Citizens United?

Democrats.

Circle back, Citizens United is a conservative 501c4. Essentially, it is a non-profit/PAC hybrid that can take money from literally anyone and anywhere, and funnel it back into elections.

Republicans are not going to stop this from happening, because it benefits them the most.

There are absolutely democratic 501c4 organizations. And quite honestly, they are unfortunately necessary. There has to be a balance, or one party would be running around putting out a false narrative and the other side would have no defense. (And I think we can be grown ups here and admit that regardless of a two-party system, there will always be sides.)

So, while the republican caucus is working to bulk up their Dark Money wallets, Democrats are working to ban the system.

Money Out Of Politics.

Enter End Citizens United. On the End Citizens United page, their mission reads:

“Fixing our democracy by getting big money out of politics and protecting the right to vote. We’re working to end our rigged political system by electing reform champions, passing meaningful legislative reforms, and elevating these issues in the national conversation. For 10 years, End Citizens United has been a leading voice for meaningful campaign finance reform. We’re proud to work in partnership with real democracy champions to overturn Citizens United, end the unlimited and undisclosed money in politics, and protect and expand the right to vote.”

End Citizens United (ECU) is a Political Action Committee (PAC). They operate just as political parties (yes, political parties are basically giant PAC’s) in that they have to disclose their donor information and report to the Federal Election Commission. All of their donations are public information and available online.

ECU endorses candidates that support getting money out of politics. Some notable endorsements are Kamala Harris, James Talarico, Jon Ossoff, Ro Khanna, and Abdul El-Sayed.

This election, End Citizens United has endorsed Josh Turek, Lindsay James, Sarah Trone-Garriott, and Rob Sand.

This November, there is a whole lot more than candidates on your ballot, and campaign finance reform is one of them.

Vote accordingly.

Part Two Coming Soon

Heather Staton, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Insufferable Wenches

When I started looking online for the ad and the photo, I found that it is actually a photo that was taken in 2013 inside an El Salvador prison. I also learned that right-wing super PACS have been using this photo in ads since at least 2022. They use this picture to create fear of immigrants – even though the men depicted are not immigrants.

This fearmongering is essential in persuading people to accept extreme policies that drastically reduce legal immigration, halt asylum, and increase deportations. “You should be afraid” is how those in power have always gotten people to go along with their agenda to suppress and brutalize marginal populations. For centuries, they have told us black men are violent and rapists. We are told our daughters won’t be safe if transgender women are allowed to use a bathroom or locker room. In 2020, Trump told us even our dogs and cats were not safe!

The Turek campaign estimates that $55 million in dark money is being spent by his opposition in Iowa’s Senate race. I can only assume that the Win It Back PAC and others are pushing a white nationalist agenda in other midterm contests across the country using this same menacing photo of three scary shirtless men who aren’t even actually immigrants to the United States.

Those of us who reject the idea that this creepy photo is what immigrants look like, may have an image in our minds that is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his cute bunny hat became a viral symbol of U.S. immigration enforcement when he was detained in early 2026. We breathed a sigh of relief when Liam was returned home on February 1 but we continue to fret about the average of 226 minors who are in ICE custody every day.

But these are the two extremes – scary, tattooed gang members vs. sweet little 5-year-olds. The real answer to “What do immigrants look like?” is – they look like any other large eclectic group of people. They are all ages and nationalities, and each has their own personal story. One thing they have most in common is that they chose this country. I wish our country had the moral character to choose them back – to say, yes, you have the type of character and work ethic we value, and we really don’t care about the color of your skin.

Roughly 29% of ICE detainees have a criminal record, but most of those are minor offenses, such as traffic violations or immigration infractions. To flip that, in means 71% of detainees don’t even have a traffic violation! Estimates of how many are violent criminals range between 3% and 5%. If there are murders and rapists still at large, I hope ICE focuses their efforts on finding those people.

In an attempt to meet an arbitrary quota, ICE arrests have reached new highs, roughly 50,000 total arrests in July this year, and nearly 51,000 in August. 65% of Americans say that ICE has gone too far, according to a Marist poll. Sure, deport violent criminals, but leave the gardeners, construction workers, line cooks, and nurses’ aides alone. Over the past year, we have taken notice of the contributions immigrants are making in our economy and have gained a deeper appreciation of the diversity all around us. We should all follow the examples set in Minneapolis, Portland, Maine, and San Antonio, Texas and rally around our immigrant neighbors.

And I hope that the next Congress will pass comprehensive immigration reform. I hope we will welcome more refugees and asylum seekers. I hope we will eliminate the backlog and long delays in immigration courts. I hope we will grant citizenship to those in our midst who have already shown what good citizens they can be.

I hope we will not be fooled by an old photo taken in an El Salvador prison.

I will include one more photo that puts an edge on the question of what immigrants look like. You may remember this image from June 2019 - twenty-five-year-old Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his 23-month-old daughter, Valeria, lying face down in the shallow water of the Rio Grande. They had sought asylum at the U.S. border, but after long delays because of the “metering” policy, they attempted to swim the Rio Grande. This photo is my best argument for why the U.S. needs comprehensive immigration reform now.

Carol Folkers, Editorial Director
Insufferable Wenches of Iowa

Subscribe now

Exxon Mobil reported second-quarter profits of $14.53 billion, doubling its earnings from the prior year. PBS News. Chevron nearly quadrupled its second-quarter profit to $12.07 billion compared to the previous year, according to The New York Times. And Trump’s investment accounts have made millions of dollars trading energy stocks since the start of the Iran War.

You already know how much extra you are paying per gallon at the pump. You feel the pinch when you pay for a tank of gas. Fox Business Report estimates that consumers have already spent $55 billion more for gas and that cost goes to $115 billion when you add diesel and other motor fuels. Even Fox has noted that these costs hit low- and middle-income households the hardest.

Polls and primaries have proven that the winning message for the 2026 midterm elections is “fight corporate greed” and “help people who are struggling to pay bills.”

However, when Democrats use this message, some voters are skeptical, and rightly so. In 2021 and 2022, when Democrats had the White House and both houses of Congress, what did they do to rein in the excessive profits that were part and parcel of the post-Covid inflation? At the same time inflation was peaking, the Dow Jones and S&P indices were putting in new highs because of stronger the usual corporate earnings. Congress passed no legislation to correct it, the DOJ was not aggressively going after price gouging, and President Biden was not using his bully pulpit to call out corporate rapacity.

When Democrats say that they will fight to correct the widening income inequality in the US, voters need to believe that they actually mean it this time.

Not only is big oil the perfect poster child for this, but Democrats in Congress have legislation ready to go. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna have introduced The Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. This bill ensures the money will be returned to people who need it the most by using an income-capped approach. Trump might even sign such a bill. He has said that oil companies are “making too much money.”

Here is my message to every Democrat running for the US Senate and House.
I am writing from the state of Iowa, so I’m talking to you Josh Turek, Christina Bohannan, Lindsay James, Sarah Trone Garriott, and Dave Dawson.
To convince voters that a Democratic Congress would take action, we need to hone the message. Don’t say, “I care about kitchen table issues.” Be specific. Tell voters that clawing back billions of dollars in excess profits from big oil is just one example of how Democrats will make their life better.
Your ads, the issue page of your website and your stump speeches should all be featuring this specific message: Give Democrats a majority in the House and Senate and we will go after the big oil companies.

If this makes Charles Koch and Americans for Prosperity, come after you, wear it as a badge of honor.

Big oil has given you the perfect campaign message. Use it wisely.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

It’s been an exciting year for progressives. Mamdani was elected mayor of New York City. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary and Florida state representative Angie Nixon won her Senate primary. Here in Iowa, we have some exciting progressive candidates running for the Iowa House of Representatives.

In national, state, and local primary elections, you can find examples of voters choosing progressive candidates. Some, like Mamdani and Nixon are members of Democratic Socialists of America. Others are not.

Voters have changed the definition of electability. There is a highly motivated group of voters who want a candidate committed to delivering change. They want someone who will fight the takeover of our government by rich bitches and corruption. They want their government to take bold action to remedy the vast and still widening income inequality. They want help with the cost of housing, medical care, and childcare.

Progressive candidates who are now running in the mid-term elections have strongly voiced those concerns.

There are a couple of other things they have in common.

• None of them had the support of the Democratic party establishment. Most of them were vastly outspent by opponents. They won with a grass-roots team of enthusiastic volunteers.

• All of them ran in Democratic primaries. Even if they are also a member of the DSA, they were running on the Democrat’s ticket. Whether or not you agree with everything on the DSA’s platform, if you have any understanding of what it would take to launch a viable third party in the United States, it’s obvious why.

So, in spots around the country, what I wished for one year ago is coming true. Progressives have become active in the Democratic Party.

But changing the Democratic Party is still a distant goal.

The Democratic establishment still honestly believes that electability = centrist. They’re wrong. 2026 voters want spice not milk toast. They also are beholden to big money – maybe not as blatantly as Trump is, but beholden, nonetheless.

To overcome this, it is going to take time. I mean that in two ways. First, it won’t happen overnight. More importantly, we – the progressive voters – are going to have to be active members of the party, investing our time and energy to force change. Eventually, party leaders who will not change with the times will be voted out. But to have a say, you must first be in the room.

We can’t just stand outside and throw rocks at them. The change must come from within. Progressives need to be on the inside.

And time is running out. The election is eight weeks away. After November 3, activity will die down for a while. I am asking you to become active in your county Democratic Party now. Call them today and ask how you can help. Is there a local candidate you would like to support? Could you volunteer to be a poll watcher?

If you are not active in the Democratic Party, you have no chance of changing the party.

The world belongs to those who show up.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

As a resident of U.S. House District 2 in Iowa, I have been a constituent of Ashley Hinson since 2021. Notice, I did not say that Hinson has been representing me. She has not represented my position on any major issue. I call and write. It doesn’t help

I have been reading her emails to constituents for years. When Hinson started her campaign for the US Senate, those emails changed.

Throughout 2025, almost every email emphasized that she was proud to be a member of Team Trump. Now, her weekly emails never mention his name.

Look at her Senate campaign’s website or watch Hinson’s ads. You will find headlines that even a progressive can agree with. The issues page starts with “Lowering Costs and Growing the Economy.” Gosh, we are all for that. She’s running a TV ad that says, “Our veterans deserve a hell of a lot better, our health care companies are ripping you off, and members of Congress should not trade stocks.” I agree with all these statements.

Ashley Hinson is trying to make you think she cares about the things you care about. But she is two-faced. She is disingenuous. She is a hypocrite.

This is the important part: I am not saying that Hinson has flip-flopped.

Only Hinson’s language has changed. Ashley Hinson has not. While she tries to project this softer image and concern for issues that the majority of Iowans care about, she continues to predictably vote with Team Trump, even if she doesn’t want to say his name.

On April 17^th, Hinson’s email to me talked about the strain that the high cost of fertilizer puts on Iowa farmers. She wrote:

“As many of you know, I introduced the bipartisan Fertilizer Research Act in November to increase visibility into the factors that drive costs and supply—examining competition, long-term market trends, and
regulatory costs that may be driving these prices higher.”

Hinson talked about fertilizer costs without ever mentioning Trump’s war against Iran and how the closing of the Strait of Hormuz affected fertilizer and gas prices. Unbelievable! Did she think we wouldn’t notice? We did and we also noticed that she has voted 11 times against the War Powers act – Congress’s attempt to force Trump to end his illegal war.

On April 16^th of this year, Hinson voted to end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Haiti.

This year she also voted for Trump’s SAVE America Act requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

And she still is proud of voting for what the Republicans call the Big Beautiful Bill and what I call an atrocity. That bill cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by about $186 billion. the largest reduction in the program’s history. That bill cut about $1 trillion in federal Medicaid and CHIP spending. Trying to defend this inhumanity at a town hall is what ended Joni Ernst’s Senate career.

Ashley Hinson often brags about voting for the atrocious BBB but never mentions SNAP or Medicaid. Instead, she says your life is better because of tax cuts.

The pro-Hinson ad that probably angers me the most is not from the official Hinson campaign. It is paid for by Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative PAC funded largely by the Koch family network. It claims that the average Iowan family saved $3,320 because of Trump’s tax cuts.

Here’s how averages work. If I have $1 and Charles Koch has $74 billion dollars, then Koch and I have an average of $37 billion dollars. But I’m still sitting here holding only one buck.

According to The Budget Lab, almost half of households got an income tax cut of less than $100 in 2026 under the new tax law. Tax cuts can’t help someone whose income is so low that they don’t pay Federal income taxes. $100 in cuts doesn’t solve the problems of those who are struggling with the cost of food, gas, housing, medical insurance and childcare.

But on her website and in her ads, Ashley Hinson still tries to sell us on the idea that tax cuts are the answer to a better economy.

As Ashley Hinson gives lip service to issues we all care about, I will remind you of what Insufferable Wenches have said many times. Look at the voting record.

Ashley Hinson is desperately trying to redefine herself because the Republican positions – things Hinson has reliably voted for in the House of Representatives, are losers in the 2026 mid-term elections. She is trying to run away from her voting record.

I am calling her out as a hypocrite.

I ask all Iowans to look at Hinson’s voting record. Instead of trusting what she says, look at what she does. If Iowan voters do that, Hinson will lose and Josh Turek will be the next Senator from Iowa.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

ESPN: Kanter Freedom ejected after confrontation with Sky’s Cloud

I was at work and this exact topic came up. One of the men I work with talked about how he had heard that a handful of NBA players had said they planned to enter the WNBA by claiming to be women. The man I was working with asked me how I felt about it, knowing that we are on two very different sides of the political spectrum. I told him, as I am telling you right now, this is a ridiculous conversation that shouldn’t be happening- not just here, but at all.

Now, before you get your panties in a twist and start calling me a TERF, let me explain.

The conversation shouldn’t be happening, because these men should simply shut the fuck up.

I’m so tired of misogynistic men claiming to “protect women” when all they’re actually doing is seeking attention. If these men actually wanted to “protect women” then they would fight for women’s healthcare access. They would fight to make sure women paid the same as their male counterparts. They would take their wives seriously when they ask for help. They would WORK to hold other men accountable.

But instead of this, they show up at women’s sporting events and in our comment section screaming “WHAT IS A WOMAN?”

These men aren’t “protecting” women, they are USING women to gain attention: What good men, screaming in women’s faces to… protect other women?

Fun fact: There is not a single transgender player in the WNBA. Not one. Yet google the WNBA and see how many articles come up about the topic.

So, like I said before: This shouldn’t be a conversation that is happening.

The man I was working with asked me, “Don’t you think it’s important for men to protect women and women’s sports?”

NO, NO I DON’T. We don’t need your “protection” we need you to butt the fuck out.

There is a congressional candidate running his mouth about the appearance of his female opponent. Seem’s it is completely acceptable for this man to comment on a woman’s body, but somehow not acceptable for us to say he has tiny dick energy and should lay off the sugar… of all kinds. Mind you, the female candidate has not once commented on this man’s appearance or his personal life. Meanwhile there is another candidate, who is also a male, claiming these two are just picking fights with each other, completely ignoring the misogynistic attacks.

In another situation, I had a respectful debate with a candidate recently over red-flag laws. When I say respectful, I mean it. He was absolutely respectful, as was I. He is against restrictive gun laws of any kind. I am pro 2A, however, I do believe that measures need to be taken to make guns less accessible to people with a history of violent crimes and domestic violence. You don’t have to agree, but you also cannot say you are for “protecting women” and oppose measures that do just that. I believe after that conversation that candidate understood where I was coming from and maybe even learned a couple things he didn’t know before- which is the point.

However, we chose to endorse another candidate who has a history of fighting for the rights of women and voting in favor of women’s access to healthcare, among other things. Some of the comments on this announcement were soaked in misogynistic undertones, and we called it out. The response was that: before running, the male candidate co-founded a men’s group that teaches feminist values. And I think that’s fantastic, providing the other co-founder has actual lived experience as a woman. Because if not, that would be almost as bad as a white woman starting a group that teaches black culture… clearly a white woman would have no business teaching about the lived experience of black people because they would not fully understand the lived experiences of black people.

So, while the intention is good in some of these examples, you know what they say about intention.

Misogyny surrounds politics, it always has- and it is LONG past time for more women to start calling it out, and for more men to simply shut the fuck up.

Kamala’s laugh was too obnoxious.

AOC wore red lipstick and was a bartender.

Hillary was blamed for Bill’s infidelity.

Monica Lewinsky was blamed for Bill’s infidelity.

Sex workers are demonized, instead of the men seeking them out to cheat on their wives.

Women are forced to carry out a 40 week pregnancy, while men are allowed to just… leave, often without any responsibility of taking care of the child they helped create.

Eighty-one cents to a male’s dollar.

Women are expected to care for the children, but also work, but also not miss out on time with their kids, but also do the housework, but also only take six weeks off of work to recover, but also make sure you have enough time to bond with your baby, and don’t forget to take them to the doctor for checkups, but outside of work hours because having children isn’t an excuse to miss work. But that’s why women make less money than men right? Because they have to take care of the children so they aren’t as reliable?

If you don’t wear makeup, you’re a slob. If you do, you’re a whore.

God forbid you don’t drop that 30 pounds of weight from pregnancy immediately, but if your husband gained 30 pounds- it’s just dad bod and totally acceptable.

Grown ass men, throwing dildos on the floor at WNBA games… How exactly is that protecting women again?

You cannot protect women by degrading them.

So, to the men: Stop fucking protecting us. We don’t need your protection, but we’d like your solidarity. Sit the fuck down and let us talk on our own behalf.

Trans lives matter

Trans women are women

And these men ain’t shit.

Heather Staton, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Insufferable Wenches

Vilifying any German who opposed the Nazi’s as a communist was a useful rhetorical tool in Hitler’s successful rise in power. When I toured Dachau in 2019, there was a large museum exhibit of political posters from 1920’s and 1930’s Germany. The posters that opposed the rise of fascism were fascinating. Yes, there were Germans fighting back. But the Nazi posters were starkly striking – continuing referencing communism (generally called Bolshevism at the time) and featuring images of flames and devils and skulls.

There are dozens of ways Trump’s second term in office have mimicked the Nazi playbook. Enough for a whole other article. Unfortunately, he has been successful with many of these plays. But this one won’t work.

1. 1930’s Germany was much closer, both geographically and chronologically, to the communist revolution. The communist party, with a stated objective of revolution, won about 17% of the seats in the 1930 German Reichstag election, making it the third largest party. By contrast, the CPUSA in 2026 has about 11,000 total members. That’s about .00003% of the US population. It’s been decades since the “red scare” was a scary thing

2. Hitler’s economic policies were popular with voters. Germany made major investments in the Autobahn and military spending. The unsustainability of this spending helped lead to World War II, but during the 1930’s, the German people were feeling better about the economy. That is certainly not true in Trump’s America.

3. We don’t care what Trump calls us. We will ignore labels and focus on issues.
   The primary season is almost over. Across the country, Democratic candidates running for offices at all different levels of government self-identify as either centrists, liberals, progressives, democratic socialists, social democrats, or socialists. Their label is not what won them the nomination.
   Democrats have chosen candidates who have promised to be fighters. Voters passionately want someone who will fight to take money out of politics and who will fight to put money back in their pockets.
   Voters are mad as hell and they want change. Trump’s pathetic name calling can’t change that.

At home here in Iowa, there are a slew of attack ads calling gubernatorial candidate Sand and Senate candidate Turek “liberal.” In a world in which some are debating if candidates in other races are socialists and Trump is calling them communists, “liberal” seems to be a rather tepid attack.

Whether we are accused of being liberal or communist, the answer should be the same: “Call me whatever you want but first, look at my positions.”

Rob Sand prioritizes reversing the privatization of Medicaid, oversight of the millions being spent on private school vouchers and universal Pre-K. Josh Turek’s website says he will fight to cut taxes for the middle class and close loopholes for billionaires and big corporations, raise the minimum wage, stop price gouging on food and pharmaceuticals, and repeal cuts to SNAP.

The rich bitches funding the gigantic right-wing political PACs think that these positions are “too liberal for Iowans.” They are dead wrong. Democratic candidates in Iowa are promising to fight for things Iowans want.

India May, candidate for IowaHD #58 supports protecting Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA from rollbacks, supporting home health care and independent living for seniors and disabled Iowans, and funding programs to improve Iowa’s water quality. Brett Mohler’s website, IowaHD #26, lists the Iowa Healthy Waters Act, funding public schools and keeping hospital and clinics open. Leila Staton, IowaHD #54, highlights public money for public schools, clean water, expand healthcare coverage – including OBGYN, and prioritize farmers over corporations.

I could go on but you get the idea. Up and down the ballot, Democratic candidates are promising to fight for things voters want. Make sure you know who is running in your area for local and state offices. Find out what they support and, if you agree, support them.

Our job in the little time remaining before November 3, is to reach as many Iowans as we can, constantly sharing where Democrats stand on issues. People need to know that these are the candidates that will fight for them.

We don’t care what Trump calls us. His name calling will not drive the dialogue. These are serious times and we are only interested in talking about serious issues.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

Subscribe now

Question #1 - Look at these pictures:

What comes next?

Question #2 - Look at these pictures:

What comes next?

Question #3 – Look at this picture:

What comes next?

That was easy, wasn’t it? You choose A every time, right?

If you did, your brain just told you that Iowa Democrats are going to make important gains in upcoming elections.

I say that because the picture in Question #3

is actually a chart of the of the Iowa State Senate from 1992 to 2025, showing the number of seats held by Democrats vs. Republicans.

This chart changed directions in 2025 when Mike Zimmer flipped Senate District #35 and Caitlyn Drey flipped Senate District #1 from red to blue in a special elections.

Do not think charts are unimportant. Everyday millions of dollars of trades of stocks and commodities are based on signals from charts. When analysts see a chart line change directions like this, they know the line will probably continue to move in that new direction for a while. You thought that, too, when you picked answer A which supposes Democrats will pick up seats this November and then continue to make gains until they once again are in the majority. You did not choose B in which each party continues with roughly the same number of seats, nor did you choose C in which Republicans would gain seats.

If you prefer fundamentals over chart analysis, there is even more good news. Trump’s approval rating in Iowa is underwater by 10 points. Rob Sand and Josh Turek are generating excitement at the top of the ticket. Hard-working Democratic candidates for the Iowa House and Senate are hammering their opponent’s positions on important issues that Iowa voters care about (affordability, health care for all, clean water, education funding, etc.) The blue wave that is poised to inundate the nation will not miss Iowa.

Too many people have been calling Iowa a red state. That mindset is wrong and it is dangerous. Yes, Republicans currently have the majority, but Iowa has been a swing state all my life. Sometimes, it was a blue state. Whenever it swung red, Democrats worked hard to swing it back.

Iowa has been a swing state all your life, too. If you are only ten years old, you have only seen Republican rule in Iowa, but that doesn’t change that fact that it is only a temporary condition. (Also, if you are only 10 years old and are reading political commentary on Substack, please introduce yourself to me in the comment section. You are a person I would like to know!)

As optimistic as I am, it would shock the socks off me if Democrats won a majority in either the Iowa House or the Iowa Senate in 2026. However, I believe we will make gains. Republicans will not have the supermajority needed to override a veto by Governor Sand. It would be great if the Republican majority is so thin that they will have to work with our Democratic Representatives and Senators to create more intelligent legislation – something better than what they’ve been pooping out in the past few sessions.

And in a few years – a long time for my imaginary 10-year-old reader but a short time for me – I believe Democrats will have a majority in both the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate.

If you share my optimism, do not let it be an excuse to put less effort into the elections on November 3rd. Rather, let it energize you for the next 100 days. A lot of people are going to have to work very hard to make this a reality. Be one of them.

The first article I wrote for Substack one year ago was entitled I Was a Swinger in the ‘70’s. in which I said, “Some say that Iowa is now solidly red, but I refuse to accept that. Now is the time to make Iowa swing back.”

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Over the last year, the term “Do-Nothing Democrats” has made its way around pretty heavily. JB Pritzker called out democrats for not standing up to Trump and blaming marginalized voters for democrat losses. Pritzker said, “Those same do-nothing Democrats want to blame our losses on our defense of Black people, of trans kids, of immigrants, instead of their own lack of guts and gumption.” And he is absolutely right.

We’ve watched people like Cory Booker make performative gestures of resistance, and then pose in photos with war criminals and take AIPAC money. This isn’t uncommon in the Democratic Party. Indivisible and Leaders We Deserve have both targeted do-nothing democrats, Indivisible calling them out and refusing to support, and Leaders We Deserve helping young progressives challenge their seats.

We have do-nothing democrats here, in Iowa. The ones that don’t fight back against extremely harmful bills, the ones that actively choose to be divisive in support of their favorite candidate, the ones that barely show up to vote during session, the ones who ignore the struggles of their communities and only show up for photo ops, and the ones who make promises they don’t keep. And in my opinion, they need to go- but that’s a whole other topic.

I don’t want to talk about those do-nothing democrats. I want to talk about the do-nothing democrats right here at home. In our neighborhoods, in our friend groups, in our state.

Let’s start with what a do-nothing democrat is, at least in my mind: A do-nothing democrat is someone who bitches on their facebook page constantly about the state of the world, but never talks with their friends and family about their concerns. They scream about Trump, but have no idea what’s happening right here in Iowa. Someone who makes a public show of their beliefs, but doesn’t practice what they preach in real life. People who call out candidates and politicians for not being active in their communities from the comfort of their living room, giving every excuse not to volunteer or donate to their local food pantries. These are the people who only make it out when it benefits them- including but not limited to photo ops and free food. They’re the people that repeat fear-mongering nonsense online, without fact checking a single thing. They’ll come to a No Kings rally but then not show up to vote.

This is probably going to be an unpopular and slightly polarizing statement: It’s easy to believe conspiracy theories when you don’t know how shit works, and at this point if you don’t know how shit works- it is your own damn fault. We have a wealth of information at our fingertips. It has never been easier to find information on how the government is supposed to operate, how to vote, or how elections are carried out. There are activist and advocacy groups everywhere. Many of which focus on single issues so it is not hard to find one that focuses on what you care about, so there really is no excuse not to be involved.

But life is just so busy… girl, don’t I know it. I’m a single mom with four kids, two jobs, football camp and practices, doctors appointments, a kid running for office, an entire advocacy & activist organization, and soon a non-profit organization that will serve the community that I love. I found the time. Is it easy, absolutely not. Do I miss out on things, yes- often. Are my kids sometimes annoyed that I am on yet another zoom call? Yeah. My son may actually go on strike if I make him cook dinner again. But he knows I am doing this for him. He knows that I want a better world for him to grow up in, for all of us to grow up in. For my kids, and for yours. And because I believe in democracy.

But I also believe democracy should be rooted in community, and service of that community. And I refuse to be a hypocrite. I will not sit idly by, in the comfort of my living room screaming into the void and do nothing else.

I will scream into the void while comfy in my living room after getting home from those football games, and I will organize before going to work. Then I will volunteer to help my local candidate on the weekends. Then I will gather school supplies to distribute to kids whose parents are struggling to make ends meet. And I will take my tired and overworked ass to the polls, knowing that I did every single thing I could to make damn sure we don’t allow this to happen again.

I will do it all, because I refuse to be a do-nothing democrat.

Heather Staton, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Insufferable Wenches

The Iowa Democratic Party and many of its supporters have their panties in a twist as the national party decided today that Iowa will not hold the status of First-In-The-Nation in the 2028 Presidential Election. I can admit, it’s a hit to the ego.

Here’s my opinion: It’s not wise to build on a crumbling foundation.

Iowa is (hopefully) making its way out of a 12 year stint of Republican majority. I have A LOT of hope that we will absolutely fight our way out of this 12 year nightmare this November. I also think that success will be because of two things: Donald Trump’s epic fumbles, and organizers working on the ground.

I will undoubtedly catch shit for having this opinion, but that hasn’t shut me up in the past and I have no intention of it shutting me up now.

I genuinely think it is ridiculous to expect the national party to pick Iowa as the first when we’ve had a republican majority for so long. And I truly feel that instead of focusing on being first in the nation, we should focus on mowing our lawn before mowing others.

We have a full slate of pretty amazing democratic candidates running all across Iowa. There are STILL people stepping up to run in uncontested districts. We have people like Brett Mohler running in Iowa House District 26. Brett has the incredible gift of speaking to people on any part of the political spectrum with such kindness and consideration that it is impossible to dislike him. We have people like Rachel Burns running in House District 7, who has come back for round two after her loss (ugh) to Wendy Larson this past December. Rachel recognizes how important it is for people to have options on the ballot, no matter how “red” or “blue” the district may be. And my personal favorite (for obvious reasons) Leila Staton in House District 54, who at 22 years old, is regularly referred to as one of the hardest working candidates (and not by just me). We’ve got Jim Vowels in Senate District 29, one of the most genuinely nice people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. We’ve got India May, Shawn Olorundami, and Andrew Fitzgerald. All of these people have stepped up to make sure Iowans have options on the ballot this November.

These people are working their butts off, and right alongside them you will find us, organizers. County parties, Bitches Get Stuff Done, Indivisible, Insufferable Wenches, and so many others. Volunteers who spend their weekends door knocking, Iowans contributing their hard earned dollars, and the candidates themselves- putting in countless hours. Missing out on family time, relaxation, and their everyday lives to make sure that Iowa finally has a fighting chance.

So I say: we’re not first in the nation, so what? We need to lead Iowa before expecting to lead the nation. We’ve got work to do right here at home. What if we took all the time and effort we put into pleading to be first, and instead used it to show the country why we should be.

Heather Staton, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Insufferable Wenches

If you don’t believe that the Trump regime will do something unthinkable during November’s election, let me ask you this:
On January 5, 2021, did you think there was going to be a violent insurrection at the Capitol the next day?

In a prime-time address on July 17, Trump tried unsuccessfully to lay out the reasoning for federal interference in elections. (I’m going to get a little off the subject here, but need to point out the NBC, ABC and CNN didn’t even carry the speech live. CBS did but sandwiched it with fact checking. Fox carried the speech followed by comments that “Fox News has not seen that evidence yet and is not in a position to evaluate the accuracy of the president’s statement and claims at this time.” It’s hard to appreciate just how unprecedented this is for a presidential address. We are living in interesting times!)

Trump has been pushing hard for what he calls the Save America Act. It would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and sharply curtail mail-in voting. Experts tell us it has no chance of passing in the Senate. Let’s hope they’re right.

Trump also issued an Executive Order in March that attempts to weaponize the USPS and requires states to create “citizenship lists” and share those with the Federal government. This month, he sent a letter to states threatening election officials with criminal prosecution. Organizations such as the League of Women Voters and the ACLU have been fighting these things in court, and – for the most part- winning.

Those things are happening now, but I want you to look ahead to November 3^rd, when Trump may send ICE agents or the National Guard to polling places under the guise of “security” and the very real possibility that he will try to seize ballot boxes and voting machines. Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center. warned: “We have very real concerns that they’ll try to weaponize law enforcement either to disrupt or interfere with the elections while they’re in progress, or after ballots have been cast before they’re certified.”

I was happy to hear that Senate Democrats and election experts met recently to discuss “doomsday scenarios” for the mid-term elections. I hope they continue to work on this because we should have a national plan for what supporters of democracy will do if the Trump regime tries to mess with the November vote.

Where would Trump send troops? He has said that he is sending monitors to three Michigan cities for their primaries on August 3^rd. Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and Attorney General Dana Nessel have issued statements pushing back, stating that they will fight federal interference in Michigan elections. I’m going to be interested in how that goes.

Ohio and North Carolina are two good examples of states with a Senatorial seat and some House races in play. Is Trump more likely to send troops to Ohio, which has a Republican Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State or to North Carolina where all those offices are currently held by Democrats? I can’t answer that. Maybe he’ll do both.

And maybe they’ll be coming to Iowa. We have a good chance of flipping a Senate seat and two or three House seats. (God, I hope it’s three.) I fear that makes us a prime target.

It might be troops establishing a threatening presence at polling places or it might be an attempt to seize voting machines. We need a state plan and local plans to prevent these things, and I cannot find evidence that those plans have been started.

I don’t trust our Republican Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State to protect our ballots. Iowa’s Secretary of State, Paul Pate, sent Iowa’s voter registration information to the Feds, including sensitive data such as partial Social Security numbers and driver ID. In other states, Democratic Secretaries of State fought the DOJ and have been winning in court.

This is a good reason to vote for Democratic Secretary of State candidate Ryan Peterman who called out Pate this week, demanding more transparency on what data was shared. But even if Democrats sweep in Iowa in November, they don’t take office until January. Too late for what we may be facing in November.

And if they come for our ballots, it will happen fast.

Our response must be fast, too. If people are scared away from the polls or the chain of custody of ballots is broken, those things cannot be undone. That’s why Democrats (and all lovers of democracy) need a plan. We need war games.

You run war games to be sure you are prepared for anything. To do this right we need people with legal expertise, we need people who will think outside the box, and we need people from both state and local levels. The right people need to have judges on speed dial and know they are standing by. Reactions outside the norm and even outside the law should be considered. County Auditors from Polk, Linn, Johnson and Black Hawk County should be included in planning, because they may find themselves on the front lines, facing down a federal order to seize ballots.

I don’t have an answer for what the plan should be. I want people smarter than me to create a plan.

Here’s what I am doing:
I’m sending an email to the ACLU of Iowa, legal.program@aclu-ia.org, Rita Hart, chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, chair@iowademocrats.org, my district’s Democratic representative to the Iowa House, and my Democratic county auditor. I am asking each of them to spearhead an effort to make plans for responce scenarios for the upcoming midterm elections. The emails are basically a shortened version of this Substack.

I ask you to do the same. Feel free to use my arguments or plagiarize me as much as you want.

And, as always, the other thing we can do is get out the vote. It is a shame to say that we can’t just win but must win by such overwhelming margins that Republicans cannot question the outcome. Particularly when Trump is still disputing the outcome of an election that he lost by over 7 million votes in 2020.

But it is true. We are living in interesting times.

Carol Folkers,
Editorial Director

Leave a comment

I’m here to tell you that writing postcards for candidates just got a whole lot easier! Introducing Markers for Democracy: a completely volunteer organization that focuses exclusively on down-ballot progressive candidates, specifically ones who are poised to flip seats and/or break conservative majorities (JUST WHAT WE NEED in the Iowa House and Senate.)

The truth is that down-ballot candidates are often overlooked and almost always severely under-resourced, but Markers for Democracy’s efforts have shown that handwritten postcards can boost up-ballot turnout by as much as 2.5%! Collectively, Markers for Democracy members have written more than 1 MILLION postcards since 2018 and now IT’S YOUR TURN!

Markers for Democracy’s website makes the process seamless and efficient. Once you are approved for a PFD (Postcards for Democracy) account (by filling out this form), you can access postcard campaigns and start writing for candidates right away! Write as often and in whatever quantity works for your schedule.

All you have to do is select the race you want to write for and how many addresses you want and voila! You receive a list of addresses and the script to write on the postcard. Candidates provide this script to Markers for Democracy so all you have to do is copy it onto your postcard, no interpretation necessary!

What’s the cost, you may ask? The only cost is the purchasing of postcards and stamps by you. And Markers for Democracy makes that even easier too! With their VistaPrint Shop, you can purchase voting themed postcards for as little as $0.50/ea (with free shipping over $50, whoo!!)

And I bet you didn’t know that postcard stamps are cheaper than regular stamps, did you?? USPS Postcard Forever Stamps are currently $0.65/ea. Doing the math, that ends up costing about $120 to send 100 postcards. Can you imagine the impact we Wenches could have if we each sent 100 postcards?? (P.S Expect postcard and stamp orders to arrive about one week after ordering.)

For reference, I’m a full-time working parent of active elementary kids and I’m able to write an average of five postcards per day. Sometimes I request one address at a time because I’m not sure how much time I’ll have to write each time I sit down. But honestly, requesting more addresses is so INSANELY EASY that I don’t mind doing one at a time.

HERE’S THE REALITY: Currently Markers for Democracy has more national campaign requests than they have writers to write, so they aren’t able to host every campaign that is submitted. HOWEVER, if there is an influx in IOWA WRITERS, they may be convinced to host an IOWA CANDIDATE sooner rather than later.

CALL TO ACTION: If this sounds like it’s right up your alley and you’ve been looking for a tangible way to affect positive change, follow these steps to start writing!

1. Request a PFD account

2. Order postcards

3. Order postcard stamps

The answer is obvious. We are people who care about other people. In fact, the main reason I care about politics is because I care about people.

For a century, conservatives have called us bleeding heart liberals. They thought it was an insult. I don’t. I am very proud to be a bleeding heart liberal.

While you can find literary examples going back centuries using the phrase “bleeding heart,” it was introduced into political dialogue by a conservative columnist Westbrook Pegler in 1938. In that particular column, he was criticizing liberals for their support of an anti-lynching bill. He was arguing that the bill was unnecessary because the rate of lynchings had fallen to “only” eight to fourteen a year.

The communist hunting Senator, Joe McCarthy, used the phrase in an attack against Edward R. Murrow in the 1950’s. Ronald Reagan used it often during the 1980’s.

Lately, we are more often accused of being the lunatic left or socialists or communists. I don’t identify with any of those labels, but I do identify as a bleeding heart.

I have a deep compassion for disadvantaged groups. I want social justice. I not only want a better safety net for the poor, but also an economy that gives everyone a chance to better themselves.

I care about politics because I want my elected officials to feel the same way. I want my elected officials to fight for economic opportunity, social justice, and basic human rights like health care, food, and housing.

So, first comes the desire to help my neighbors and that leads to why elections are important to me.

If you are a bleeding heart liberal too, make sure you are doing both: giving your time, money and energy to support people who need help and working hard to elect candidates that are also bleeding heart liberals.

If you are inspired to do more to help those in need, here is an easy place to start. Again, this year, Insufferable Wenches of Iowa is collecting and purchasing school supplies to be distributed in August from a site in Waterloo, Iowa. With your help, our goal is to triple the number of students we were able to supply last year. We have chosen this service project because we know many families struggle to buy the required school supplies.

You can help with a donation of either supplies or money.

• If you would like to purchase supplies, you can drop off items at 165 Montrose Rd, Waterloo (Tote on front porch) We have created wish lists on both Amazon and Walmart. Amazon has better prices if you are buying in bulk. Walmart might be better for smaller quantities.

• Monetary donations enable us to buy in quantity for the best prices. Any amount is appreciated, but a gift of $68 will fill one backpack. We are an entirely volunteer organization, so 100% of your donation will go to the purchase of school supplies.

The wish lists and links for donations can be found at:

https://insufferablewenches.org/school-supply-drive

Tell the world that you too are a bleeding heart liberal.
Thank you for your support.

Carol Folkers
Editorial Director

Let’s talk about the political implications this will have.

The vultures are already circling so to speak.

The corporate democrats are already saying “I told you so” with a “We know what’s best for everyone” tone. The media is blaming the victim and Bernie Sanders. And anyone who isn’t blaming the above, is blaming the victim.

I literally saw a woman online say, “This is opening a dangerous door yall wont be able to close. You just showed them that all they have to do is pose a he said/she said scenario against anyone opposing power and greed and boom that candidates life is over.”

Isn’t that what we’ve always been told? Stay quiet, don’t ruin our chances. SHUT UP FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

Here’s the thing, this entire situation could have been avoided in my opinion. I’d like to say the Democratic party should have vetted this man, but their morals aren’t exactly a pinnacle of integrity when it is run by corporate democrats who are owned by corporations, special interests, and other countries. And let’s be so honest, they definitely didn’t recruit him.

Insufferable Wenches have been screaming from the rooftops that anyone should be able to run for public office, while we mostly speak in terms of state level government, this also applies. Anyone should be able to run for public office, but we think running for public office should require vetting. However, we don’t trust EITHER party to run that process.

So, who’s fault is this mess?

Is it Bernie Sanders? Because he dared to try and find candidates outside of the corporate dems who want to work to make real change in the United States. I don’t think so. I’ve got beef with Bernie on a lot of things, this isn’t one of them.

Chuck Schumer and the corporate dems? For turning the party of the people into the party of the almighty donations? A little, but not entirely. Their refusal to listen to voters has left many on the left flank desperate for change, and desperate for populous messaging. We all want one of US to represent US, not another corporate PAC owned mouth piece.

What about the victims? Is it their fault for not telling soon enough, or loud enough for us to listen? Absolutely not. Zero fault lies with victims of abuse.

What about that group of consultants (one of which is a wack job conspiracy theorist who says things like “The government wants us to believe…” In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Senior Strategist for the Platner Campaign, Daniel Moraff, said that their team found Platner in a semi-viral video. They ran Platner’s FEC report and saw that he had donated to Bernie Sanders multiple times, and that was enough for them. When asked if they had vetted Platner, Daniel said he had paid a firm a chunk of money to vet. He claims the tattoo did not show up in the vetting process- but some of the reddit posts did, but they didn’t believe that was enough to lose him the election.

Let me repeat myself, Senior Strategist who found a video of Platner online and asked him to run for senate after seeing ONE video, said he did not believe that his racist and disgusting comments on reddit were enough to lose a Senate election. Platner’s comments like, “Holy fuck, how about people just take some responsibility for themselves and not get so fucked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to? Men and women, you make a choice to consume enough of a substance to lose your self control. So if you don’t want to be in a comprising situation, act like an adult for fucks sake” make a whole lot more sense now.

So yeah, Daniel Moraff is ONE of the villains in this story.

The actual villain in this story is Graham Platner. Period. This should not need any explanation.

Unfortunately, the republicans will claim it’s the democrats fault. The corporate dems will continue to blame the left and the DSA, and warn against any candidate outside of their chosen clones. The left will blame voters, the media will blame the victims, and Graham Platner will blame everyone but himself.

Let’s be clear, Graham Platner was not chosen by the Democratic Party OR Bernie Sanders. He was chosen by consultants.

Yesterday, Graham Platner said he planned to take some time to decide the best path for his campaign. He attempted to hold the democratic party hostage by expressing to them that he would only agree to step down if the candidate they presented him with had the same platform as he presented. Every endorsement he received was rescinded, and the current electeds that supported him like Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna were publicly calling him to step down, yet he was still making demands.

Let’s be real, Graham Platner was not progressive, he was a power hungry middle aged man who took advantage of a historical shift in politics to benefit himself. He was not running to make a difference in the lives of Mainers, he was running for self-gratification and elevation. And he has yet to apologize to his supporters for any of it.

And because of this, the “outsider” movement is being questioned, and will take a hit. This situation will scare progressive leaning moderates back into the establishment dem shell. And that sucks.

But we won’t fall for it. Every party has a shitty candidate, whether in Maine or in Iowa. There is at least one candidate that does not deserve to be in a position to run, but they are. And the “blue no matter who” crowd can’t wait to tell us that we need to support them.

Believe women. Fight for progress.

Heather Staton, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Insufferable Wenches

Recently, a woman came forward with allegations of Graham Platner raping her five years ago. She is an ex-girlfriend of Platner. Her name is Jennifer Racicot. She met Platner on Bumble in 2019 and they dated casually for roughly two years. She said they were texting and she had explicitly told him it was not a good night, and she did not want him to come over. The texts went quiet so she assumed he understood. But 30 minutes later he showed up drunk and entered her home through an unlocked door. She repeatedly told him no, and realized quickly he was not listening to her. She says she tried to fight him off and push him away, but at some point she realized it was no longer her choice, and it was going to be less harmful if she just got it over with.

I saw her interview with Jake Tapper of CNN. And the absolutely disgusting and misogyny soaked question that pissed me off to my fucking core was, “So, you allowed him to rape you?”

Excuse me? Allowed? First of all, no one can ALLOW themselves to be raped. What in the victim blaming garbage is this? THIS was a VIOLENT sexual assault, Racicot described her antique sewing kit being knocked over in the altercation, and there being sewing needles all over the floor. She described the forcefulness and the blank stare in Platner’s eyes as he continuously tried to force himself on her. That is rape, Jake Tapper.

When someone is held at gunpoint, told to give up all their money and they hand over their wallet, are they allowing themselves to be robbed?

No. They are getting robbed either way, but are choosing to take the safest route to ensure they make it out of that situation alive.

Jennifer Racicot did not allow Graham Platner to rape her, she chose the path that would cause her the least amount of harm. She handed over the wallet and hoped he would go away.

This story went public, and immediately comments and posts of: Why did she wait 5 years? Show us the proof! She’s a political op! And my personal favorite, That’s not rape, that’s regret.

The way we treat women as a country and as a society is abhorrent.

According to RAINN 443 thousand people over the age of 12 experience sexual violence in the United States every year. 1 in 6 women will experience rape in her lifetime. 82% of rape survivors in the United States are female, and over 68% of those rapes will occur in or near the victims home.

98% of perpetrators are held to no account, and face no consequences. According to RAINN, out of every 1000 reported sexual assaults, 50 will lead to an arrest. Every minute in the US, someone is sexually assaulted. Literally, right now at this very moment that you are reading this sentence, someone is fighting off a sexual assault. And in the next five minutes, there will be five more. And it is likely the assailant will be someone the victim know, because only 31% of rapes are committed by a stranger to the victim.

Jennifer Racicot did not report her rape, but she did go to therapy. When we posted about her story on our Facebook page, we were met with “Why did she wait 5 years?” She didn’t wait five years. She just didn’t report it to the police. She went to therapy, she told those close to her, and she moved on with her life. I think it is safe to assume that she didn’t report it to the police for multiple reasons, one being that she knew her rapist. She was dating him. They had mutual friends, their families knew each other, they were from the same area. And, as a woman, why would you report it to the police if there is only a .5% chance your rapist will be held accountable?

Have you ever had to sit through a police interview as the victim of sexual assault? For those of you who have, I’m deeply sorry, because I have and I know what it feels like to be asked the most demeaning and condescending questions. You feel like you are on trial. You are asked why you allowed this person into your home, what were you wearing, how much did you have to drink, did you SAY “no”, why you didn’t fight back, why you did fight back, are you sure you said no, who was there to see it, did you manage to get any evidence, are you sure he heard you say the word no, you know this could ruin his life, and it goes on and on. And that’s in the off chance you are interviewed by someone who takes you seriously.

I don’t blame a single woman who chooses to not report, and move on in the way that is least traumatic for her. Victims of sexual violence are required to relive the trauma of their assault multiple times. It starts with reporting. You call the police and report your assault, and if it is taken seriously, you will have to repeat the details of the worst thing that has ever happened to you multiple times, and to multiple people. Let’s say you are one of the “lucky ones” that are actually believed, and your assaulter is arrested. Now you have to speak with attorneys (not your attorney, but the one that represents the city, county, etc). Then you have the joy of sitting through depositions, and get to be interrogated by your rapist’s attorney- in the same room as the person who assaulted you, face to face. You finally move past depositions to trial, where you must tell the gory details of your assault, into a microphone, in front of a jury, lawyers, your rapist, their friends and family, your friends and family, journalists, and a bunch of strangers sitting in a gallery- and potentially even on television. And in the meantime, you get to deal with harassment from your rapist and their crew of losers who scream loudly online about how he’s such a good man and would never. You’re afraid to go to the grocery store, but you’re afraid to be home alone. You’re being called all kinds of names, usually implying that you’re a whore because that is the go to for people who defend rapists. People at your job whisper about you as you walk by, and even the people closest to you question whether you’re telling the truth. God forbid you have a picture on social media from 5 years ago wearing a crop top.

I don’t blame a single woman who chooses not to report.

When women talk about the mental load they carry, it doesn’t just apply to their homelife.

There is no “I believe women, but” You either believe women, or you don’t.

Now, back to Graham Platner. Three women have now come forward about his problematic and unsettling behavior toward women. Three. And there are still people on the internet defending this man. The man with a problematic tattoo, racist reddit posts, using slurs in interviews, sharing Christian Nationalist posts online, the cheating scandal, and now two women have come forward about his violent behaviors, and now allegations of rape.

And there are still people defending this man. And there are still people asking why she didn’t come forward five years ago.

In my opinion, which admittedly means absolutely nothing, Graham Platner was not a public figure five years ago. He was a veteran with PTSD and a drinking problem. Reporting her rape would have done them both more harm than good. He most likely would have faced no consequence, and she would have been known as the jilted ex-girlfriend of that poor soldier who defended our country and didn’t deserve any of this.

So why would she come forward now? I don’t know, maybe because the guy is running to represent the entire state of Maine in the United States Senate? Maybe she thought it was important that a rapist not be put in office (cough cough). Or maybe it doesn’t actually matter what her reasoning is, because it is her story to tell, her life that will be changed, and her trauma to repeat.

Graham Platner, of course, says these accusations are categorically false, of course, but has now suspended his campaign, as he should. And now the establishment dems are using this as their opportunity to shame us back into falling in line, which I will talk about in Part 2, coming soon.

Written by:

Heather Staton, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Insufferable Wenches