Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

There's a famous story about how Lana Turner was discovered: sitting in a Hollywood drugstore, sipping a soda. Next thing you know, she's one of the most sought after "It" girls of the 1940s.

There may be some key details left out of that account, but one can assume, at least in theory, that it makes sense.

What doesn't necessarily make sense? The recent fever pitch over 78-year-old Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who has been adopted by a new generation as "Auntie Maxine."

Waters has spent more than four decades in public service but it's only now that she's become the political crush for young progressives. That's due to her fierce attacks of President Donald Trump and his new administration. While other politicians practice staid soundbites, Waters is extemporaneous and unpredictable. But usually her message is along the lines of "Impeach 45!"

That has made her deep raspy voice and withering facial expressions almost inescapable recently.

Although she's been a staple of cable news shows on CNN and MSNBC, Waters' popularity and reach have surpassed the traditional political audience and grabbed ahold of young left-leaning hearts and minds.

In the past month alone, she's appeared at the MTV Music Awards where she basked and curtsied in the roaring applause of a standing ovation that went on and on. She's been featured in the Huffington Post, Teen Vogue, Ebony and The Washington Post's "Cape Up" podcast.

But it was probably a January article by humor columnist R. Eric Thomas on Elle.com that catapulted the septuagenarian to stardom with the selfie-taking set and led to her new, familial nickname.

Apparently, Thomas, who has a Lana Turner story of his own — he was hired by the magazine after being discovered on Twitter — was home watching C-SPAN, when Waters serendipitously appeared on the screen.

Thomas had found a new muse.

If you haven't seen the performance that launched hundreds of thousands of tweets, take 30 seconds to watch the whole thing. But if you don't have the time, here's what you need to know: Waters had left an intelligence briefing with then-FBI Director James Comey. She was not pleased with what she had heard.

"Yes, can I help you? What do you want?" is how she addressed reporters.

Thomas can't help laughing as he recalls watching it unfold in real time. "I was like, 'Who is this person?'" he said, "She walks into a press conference like they're already on her last nerve."

He was delighted, flabbergasted and inspired and that led to this unforgettable paragraph:

"I have never seen anything like this outside of a family reunion. Rep. Waters is definitely that auntie who got rich selling Avon and doesn't really like your father. Or any of these low-rent people. But you sit by her so that she can stage-whisper critiques with a mouth full of potato salad."

So, technically, the words "Auntie Maxine" may never have been strung together by Thomas, but he takes full credit anyway.

"It's on my business card!" he bragged.

Asheya Warren is among Waters' legion of fans and says the congresswoman's frank style and "shade"-throwing skills are what appeal to her.

"It's the way she says what she says," Warren said. Older women like Waters get a pass to freely speak their minds, added the 30-year-old.

Once a woman is over 60, she said, "You're able to say whatever you want to, whenever you want to. My mom does it, her two sisters do it, my grandmother did it, and again, that's why that 'Auntie' moniker is so well received."

Waters is thrilled by it all.

"I am surprised and honored to be so enthusiastically supported by millennials," she said by phone from her office in Los Angeles.

She says millennials — though she may be a little generous with that designation — stop her on the street, at the mall and in restaurants, with the same cry. "Auntie Maxine! Oh my God, can I take a picture?" they squeal in excitement.

Waters recognizes she's filling a void left by today's professional politicians, who are sometimes afraid to state their genuine opinions fearing a backlash from constituents or the potential loss of their seat. "But I'm not afraid that," she said defiantly. "I will speak my mind."

And if that makes you want to call her "Auntie," be ready. She likes giving hugs.

When pro-lifers begin organized stalking so that their opponents can never escape it, that will be a new experience for the left.

Just like when the Republicans blocked Obama's Supreme Court nominee, that was a new experience for the left.

Not a new experience at all. The Right has been stalking and worse for several decades. Here's a story from 2002:

Like I said, the Right has been stalking and murdering the Left for decades. Your threats are empty. The only thing that's changed is the Left is taking nonviolent confrontation to the Right, and the Right is worried.

nothing compared to what it will be like when pro-lifers are able to prevent their targets from even going grocery shopping.

Stalking and murdering have already been used against the Left.

When the Left starts getting confrotational, the righties won't know how to handle it.

4. Republicans, what was the problem with not beginning hearings on Obama's nominee?

You do realize it may come back to bite you in the ass in the future.

And if the nominee could not get out of committee, the nomination would have died. Why not go that route? At least rules would have been adhered to.

When the Left starts getting confrotational, the righties won't know how to handle it.

But they do know how to handle it. They adopt the same tactics and use them against the left.

And if the nominee could not get out of committee, the nomination would have died. Why not go that route? At least rules would have been adhered to.

I do not believe that the Republicans broke any rules.

I am confused by a number of things. Maybe it is because I believe most people are reasonable and I don't understand why they cannot maintain a consistent point of view. So just to give some pause to the back and forth, I would like to point out a couple of things.

1. Democrats, why is it not ok for a cake maker to refuse service because of someone's belief while it is ok for a food establishment to refuse service because of someone's beliefs?

For God's sake, Democrats! As good as it feels to throw mud... alienating the very people you need to win elections is an incredibly stupid political strategy.

During President Bill Clinton's first and second terms of office, he nominated 24 people for 20 federal appellate judgeships but the nominees were not processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. Three of the nominees who were not processed (Christine Arguello, Andre M. Davis and S. Elizabeth Gibson) were nominated after July 1, 2000, the traditional start date of the unofficial Thurmond Rule during a presidential election year. Democrats claim that Senate Republicans of the 106th Congress purposely tried to keep open particular judgeships as a political maneuver to allow a future Republican president to fill them. Of the 20 seats in question, four were eventually filled with different Clinton nominees, fourteen were later filled with Republican nominees by President George W. Bush and two continued to stay open during Bush's presidency. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the United States Senate during the 110th Congress, and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee under Reid, repeatedly mentioned the controversy over President Clinton's court of appeals nominees during the controversy involving the confirmation of Republican court of appeals nominees during the last two years of Bush's second term. Republicans claimed that Democrats were refusing to confirm certain longstanding Bush nominees in order to allow a future Democratic president in 2009 to fill those judgeships.

During his presidency, Clinton also nominated 45 people for 42 federal district judgeships who were never confirmed by the United States Senate.

1. Democrats, why is it not ok for a cake maker to refuse service because of someone's belief while it is ok for a food establishment to refuse service because of someone's beliefs?

Blickers wrote:

This is your idea of blocking a nomination? She gets confirmed a month after she's nominated,

OK so I guess she wasn't one of the many who were blocked. But there were many others who did get blocked, and that is what inspired the Republicans to block Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court.

there is a difference between being born with a sexual orientation and choosing to behave badly.

Or for her actions associated with her job in the administration.

You can't refuse service to someone because of the group they belong to,

Quote:

You can't refuse service to someone because of the group they belong to,

You can look at my response to ehBeth for fuller response to your post, but in a nutshell I will simply say that the gay couple were not refused service because of the group they belong to (I guess you mean that they were gay) but because the action they wanted to undertake (getting married) was inherently disagreeable to the baker. Seems the same to me. You may not see it that way, but that does not make you right. And my seeing it my way does not necessarily make me right.