MAMAW’S PORCH N POLITICS

Pull up a chair, folks. Sherrod Brown came to the porch, and we had a few things to talk about. I've known Sherrod Brown since 2008. That's a long time in politics, and an even longer time when you consider everything Ohio and this country have been through since then. Sherrod, Ohio's former United States Senator, is running again for the Senate. But when he joined us on Mamaw's Porch n Politics, our conversation wasn't simply about campaigns, elections, or the usual political talking points. We talked about veterans. We talked about the cost of war. We talked about history, family, and the responsibility we have to one another. And, because this is Mamaw's porch, we even managed to work chocolate milkshakes into the conversation. Now THAT is what I call a proper porch visit. A Porch Full of History One of the first things Sherrod noticed was the collection of photographs of veterans in Mamaw’s family. Those pictures aren't just decorations. They're stories. They're generations of service, sacrifice, and American history, much of which never makes it into the history books. Our conversation turned Quanah Parker, Comanche, being Calvin’s great grandfather. He made decisions to protect his people and their land. We also discussed the limited military roles available to some Native Americans during World War II. It was a reminder that military service in America has never been one simple story. Native Americans, Black Americans, women, and countless others have served a country that did not always extend the same opportunities and protections to them. And yet, they served. As an Army veteran myself, I find those histories important. We cannot fully appreciate military service without acknowledging the complicated history of the country those service members defended. Veterans Don't Want to Take Anything Away From Anybody This was the part of our conversation that particularly stayed with me. Sherrod talked about a gathering of veterans in Jackson, Ohio. They had invited about a dozen people. Forty-five showed up. Now, anybody who has organized a gathering in rural Ohio knows that's a pretty significant turnout! But it wasn't the number of people that impressed Sherrod most. It was their attitude. He described veterans concerned about their benefits and access to VA services. Yet he also talked about something he had heard from veterans hundreds of times. Some were reluctant to claim the benefits they had earned because they worried they might be taking something away from another veteran. Think about that for a minute. These men and women served their country. Some came home with injuries that would follow them for the rest of their lives. Others carry wounds that nobody can see. And they're worried that asking for help might deprive someone else. Sherrod explained the problem with that thinking. When more eligible veterans use the services available to them, it helps demonstrate the need for adequate funding. That is a message every veteran needs to hear. Your VA benefits are not charity. They are not a handout. And using them does not make you selfish. They are part of the commitment this nation made when it sent you into military service. You fulfilled your obligation. Now the country has an obligation to fulfill its own. The Cost of War Doesn't End When the Shooting Stops During the discussion, Sherrod turned to my husband, Calvin, whom many of you know as Farmer or Poppa. He talked about something Calvin had raised earlier in the conversation. The cost of war doesn't stop when the war ends. Sherrod put it plainly: "The costs of war go on and on and on and on." He mentioned PTSD and the continuing financial costs associated with caring for people returning from war. That statement deserves more attention than it usually receives. When politicians talk about the cost of military operations, they often focus on the immediate expenses: equipment, personnel, transportation, weapons, and deployment. But what about the soldier who comes home with a traumatic brain injury? What about the veteran who cannot sleep because the war is still playing in his head fifty years later? What about the family trying to understand why the person who came home is not quite the same person who left? What about the spouse who becomes a caregiver? Or the children who grow up living with the consequences of a war they never experienced? Those costs don't disappear when somebody signs a peace agreement. They can last for generations. Calvin is a Vietnam combat veteran. I know from our lives together that war can leave its mark long after a soldier hangs up his uniform. Our son is an Iraq/Afghanistan combat veteran. Both came home with wounds visible and invisible….but wounds just the same. Calvin suffered years later from the effects of Agent Orange on top of his other injuries. Our son suffers from the effects of taxic burn pits, on top of his injuries. He benefits from the PACT Act that Sherrod Brown pushed through. And I know that many veterans, particularly from Vietnam, came home to a country that didn't understand what they had experienced. Some were barely more than children when they went to war. They came back carrying memories and injuries that would shape the rest of their lives. When we discuss sending Americans into another conflict, we owe those service members more than patriotic speeches. We owe them a serious accounting of what war will cost, not just today, but thirty, forty, and fifty years from now. And we owe them the care they were promised. And Then There Were the Chocolate Milkshakes Now, before you think the entire conversation was solemn, let me assure you that Sherrod can wander down a conversational rabbit hole just like the rest of us. Somehow, we got onto food. And chocolate milkshakes. Sherrod shared a story about a close friend who had passed away far too young, shortly after Sherrod was elected to the Senate. His friend apparently had a rather amusing way of describing Sherrod's relationship with food. For Sherrod, eating was like stopping at a gas station. You pull in, fill up, and go. Apparently, he isn't particularly interested in being a gourmet food critic. I had to laugh. Here we were discussing some of the most serious issues facing our country, and suddenly we're talking about chocolate milkshakes and whether eating is simply a matter of refueling. But that's the beauty of a porch conversation. You get the person, not just the politician. You hear the stories about old friends, family, and the little things that make somebody human. And sometimes those moments tell you something that a carefully prepared campaign speech never could. Can We Afford to Keep Trying? Later in our conversation, we turned toward a much bigger question: whether we can afford to keep trying to make things better. Sherrod's answer was simple. "The answer is we can't afford not to." He acknowledged the frustration of people who wonder whether progress can happen quickly enough. But his response was that we have to try. He went on to begin telling us about his mother, who grew up in a small Georgia town during the Jim Crow era. That history matters. It reminds us that the America we live in today did not simply arrive fully formed. Changes in civil rights, opportunity, and equality came through generations of struggle, legislation, court decisions, organizing, and ordinary people refusing to accept the world exactly as it was. Progress has never been guaranteed. And it has rarely been easy. I think about that whenever I hear somebody say that nothing can change, that politics doesn't matter, or that there's no point in getting involved. I understand the frustration. Believe me, folks, there are days when Mamaw could wear out an entire vocabulary of colorful Army expressions before breakfast. But frustration and surrender are two very different things. We can question our elected officials. We can demand explanations. We can insist that government do its job. And we can keep participating, even when progress seems painfully slow. What I Took Away From Sherrod's Visit Sherrod Brown is back on the ballot in Ohio, challenging Senator Jon Husted in the 2026 U.S. Senate election. That's the political context of this visit. But what interested me about our conversation was how quickly we moved beyond the election itself. We talked about veterans who hesitate to use the benefits they've earned. We talked about the lifelong costs of war. We talked about Native American history and military service. We talked about family memories, the Jim Crow South, and whether Americans can still make progress. And, of course, chocolate milkshakes. That's the kind of conversation I want Mamaw's Porch n Politics to be known for. I don't want candidates simply repeating their campaign advertisements. I want to hear them talk about the people they meet, the problems those people face, and what they believe government should do about them. I want to hear the stories behind their positions. And I want the people watching to have enough information to ask their own questions and make their own decisions. Because when the election is over, the problems we discussed on the porch will still be here. Veterans will still need care. Families will still be dealing with the consequences of war. And Americans will still be asking whether their government is listening. Those are conversations worth continuing. And that's why I keep inviting people onto my porch. Pull up a chair. Pour yourself some coffee. We've got plenty more to talk about. And Sherrod, next time, maybe we'll have a chocolate milkshake waiting. — Mamaw

By LJ Parker — Mamaw's Porch n Politics Sunday Morning Coffee with Mamaw and Miss Carmel Well, hey y'all. Pull up a coffee and set a spell, because Miss Carmel and I are plum wore out. Lord have mercy, what a week. Between Washington, Moscow, billionaires trying to run the country, politicians who apparently misplaced their backbones, and the never-ending parade of hypocrisy, I'm beginning to think Miss Carmel and I need a chiropractor on retainer. And we still have more to go. Now, before we get into the serious stuff, I heard a joke about those promised $5,000 checks that supposedly everybody's going to get if Republicans win. Apparently, somebody suggested you could take that money down to Mar-a-Lago and buy yourself a hamburger and a small dessert. Five thousand dollars for a hamburger and dessert? Well, isn't that just a modern-day let them eat cake moment? Of course, I wouldn't start spending that imaginary check just yet. But let's get to what really has me fired up. Pootie Poo, Ukraine, and the Art of Blaming the Victim I have a question. Why does Donald Trump seem to have such a difficult time remembering who invaded whom? Russia invaded Ukraine. Not the other way around. Vladimir Putin launched the full-scale invasion in February 2022. Volodymyr Zelensky didn't wake up one morning, drink his coffee, and decide to invade Russia. Yet every time the discussion turns to energy prices, sanctions, or negotiations, it seems that Ukraine is expected to make concessions while Russia's responsibility for the invasion gets pushed into the background. Now, I served in the United States Army. I understand something about defending your country. Imagine China invaded the United States. Would we sit quietly while another country told us which military targets we could strike? Would we be grateful for weapons but accept endless restrictions on defending ourselves? Oh, hell no. We'd be fighting tooth and nail. That's exactly the point I was making to Miss Carmel. Ukraine is a much smaller country fighting a much larger aggressor. Its people have endured destruction, displacement, and years of war. And still they fight. I've wondered aloud what explains Trump's approach to Putin. I've even speculated about whether Putin has some kind of leverage over him. But wondering isn't proof, and nobody should mistake that speculation for an established fact. What we can examine is policy: sanctions, military assistance, diplomatic pressure, and the messages sent to both Kyiv and Moscow. Those decisions have consequences. And I believe America should be asking whether its policies are helping an invaded nation defend its sovereignty. Slava Ukraini. Meet the Broligarchs: When Billionaires Become Too Big for Their Britches Now, let's talk about the broligarchs. You know who I'm talking about. The extraordinarily wealthy technology executives whose businesses, political spending, and government relationships have made them major players in American public life. Take Elon Musk. His companies have received substantial government contracts, particularly through SpaceX. Starlink has also played an important role in Ukraine's communications infrastructure. That raises legitimate questions about what happens when a privately controlled system becomes important to military operations and national security. Who makes the decisions? Who is accountable? What happens when a company's interests and a country's interests don't line up? And why should any single billionaire have so much influence over systems that governments and ordinary citizens depend upon? Those of us of a certain age remember Ma Bell. Remember when AT&T was such a dominant force in American telecommunications that the government pursued an antitrust case, eventually resulting in the breakup of the Bell System? There was a reason for that. Competition matters. Concentrated power matters. And today, the same fundamental questions deserve attention when it comes to technology platforms, communications infrastructure, and companies holding enormous amounts of personal information. Then there's campaign money. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision helped reshape political spending by protecting certain independent expenditures. It did not simply remove every contribution limit, but it did contribute to a political environment in which wealthy donors and organizations can spend enormous sums trying to influence elections. I don't think a billionaire should have a political megaphone thousands of times louder than the average American's simply because his bank account has more zeros. And before somebody tells me that's just capitalism, let me remind you: Capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. One is an economic system. The other is a system of government that is supposed to give citizens a political voice. We ought to be capable of protecting both free enterprise and democratic accountability. Government Isn't Supposed to Be a Kissing Contest Miss Carmel and I got to talking about presidential appointments. Here's the way I see it. When a president appoints somebody to a major government position, the question ought to be whether that person has the experience, judgment, and qualifications to do the job. Not whether they can flatter the president better than the next fellow. Loyalty has always played a role in politics. That's nothing new. But loyalty cannot replace competence. And that's precisely why the Constitution gives the Senate an advice-and-consent role for many important appointments. Those confirmation hearings are supposed to mean something. Senators should ask hard questions. They should examine qualifications, potential conflicts of interest, and the nominee's understanding of the law. And they ought to do it regardless of which party occupies the White House. Because government officials don't work for the president personally. They work for the American people. And the American people deserve something better than a government where everybody is afraid to disagree with the boss. The Tate Brothers and the Women Nobody Should Forget Now, this part of our Sunday conversation wasn't funny. Not one damn bit. We discussed reporting about Andrew and Tristan Tate, their legal troubles in Romania and Britain, and the political connections they developed in the United States. The brothers have faced serious allegations, including human trafficking and sexual offenses. They have denied wrongdoing, and allegations must not be confused with convictions. But the underlying subject deserves attention: the exploitation of women. We should be asking hard questions about how alleged trafficking networks operate, how victims are protected, and whether wealth or political influence can affect legal proceedings. The brothers' departure from Romania for Florida in February 2025 prompted questions about the circumstances surrounding the lifting of their travel restrictions. Reporting has examined their political relationships, but those relationships alone do not establish that Trump personally intervened in a Romanian court proceeding. That's a distinction worth maintaining. And it doesn't diminish the seriousness of the questions. Because women and girls are not commodities. They are not inventory. They are not products for somebody else's profit. And when women speak up about exploitation, they shouldn't be dismissed, ridiculed, or told to be quiet. Which brings me to something I hear from trolls every so often. 'Granny, shut up and go make some cookies.' Well, sugar, I've got news for you. I can bake cookies, discuss international law, explain a congressional hearing, and tell you exactly what I think about political corruption. Sometimes all before lunch. Being a grandmother doesn't mean I've surrendered my brain. And getting older sure as hell doesn't mean I've surrendered my voice. Ohio Politics: Appointed Is Not the Same as Elected Let's bring this conversation back home to Ohio. During our show, Miss Carmel and I talked about the special election involving Sherrod Brown and Jon Husted. When J.D. Vance left his Senate seat to become vice president, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine appointed Jon Husted to fill the vacancy. Now, Husted is serving in the Senate. That makes him the incumbent officeholder. But there's an important distinction. He initially got there through an appointment, not by winning an election for that Senate seat. The special election allows Ohio voters to decide who will serve the remainder of the term. And I think voters deserve to understand exactly how that works. We also discussed the FirstEnergy scandal, which remains an important chapter in Ohio political history. The scandal involved a massive bribery scheme connected to Ohio's House Bill 6 and led to criminal convictions, including that of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder. Questions about political relationships and accountability surrounding that scandal deserve careful scrutiny. But association with the controversy is not, by itself, proof that every politician mentioned committed a crime. That's why evidence matters. That's why investigations matter. And that's why I believe the same standards should apply regardless of party. Guns, Democrats, and the Snowflake Business One of our Porch Sitters brought up firearms. She talked about being a gun owner and believing that responsible citizens should be able to protect themselves. Well, Miss Carmel and I both understood what she meant. I'm an Army veteran. I've handled weapons, trained with them, and qualified with them. So the idea that every Democrat is afraid of firearms or wants to confiscate everybody's guns is simply not an accurate description of the party's voters. Americans have real disagreements about firearm regulations, background checks, public safety, and constitutional rights. Those disagreements deserve serious discussion. But stereotypes don't help anybody. And as for calling people snowflakes? Miss Carmel and I ha

Mamaw is checking in with Brian Bengs...on year later after he announced he was running for US Senate as an Independent in South Dakota. #MamawsPorchNPolitics, #BrianBengs, #ruralamerica , #agriculture #affordability #independentvoices @votevets @RebelHQ @MeidasTouch @DemocracyNow @thepoliticschicks @BengsforSouthDakota

Hey y’all! Pull up a chair, pour yourself a coffee, and let’s talk. Because I was more tickled than a pup with his first bone to welcome Brian Bengs back to my porch. We first met nearly a year ago, when Brian was in a camper during a terrible snowstorm. That’s the beauty of this porch: no fancy studio required. Just real people having conversations about things that matter. When I reminded Brian how long it had been, even he was surprised. But this time, our conversation went straight to the kitchen-table issues that keep people awake at night. The Rural America That Washington Keeps Missing I asked Brian what he was hearing from people on the ground in South Dakota. Not from political consultants, not from a glossy campaign memo, but from the folks he meets walking through towns. Some of those people voted for Donald Trump, perhaps more than once. My question was simple: how are they feeling now? Brian pointed to the affordability crisis. As he put it, people are struggling to afford groceries and a tank of gas at the same time. That is not an abstract debate about economic indicators. It is the daily arithmetic of a family deciding which bill can wait. A $1,200 Fill-Up and a Very Real Warning Brian shared a call he received from someone in a South Dakota town of roughly 200 people. The caller said he had just spent $1,200 filling his semi and more than $100 filling his pickup truck. His message to Brian was blunt: he could not keep doing this. Brian also described diesel prices approaching seven dollars a gallon during harvest season. Those were figures reported in our interview, not independently verified statewide averages. But the larger point deserves attention: when fuel costs soar, the consequences travel through every part of the agricultural economy. A farmer needs diesel to work the fields. A trucker needs it to move the harvest. A processor needs energy to keep food moving. And eventually somebody has to pay. Usually, that somebody is sitting at a kitchen table trying to stretch a paycheck. Tariffs, Cattle and the Cost of Dinner Brian described pressure on farmers from tariffs and on cattle producers from beef imports and market competition. Those pressures are not identical, and their effects vary by producer and market. But they belong in the same conversation about the vulnerability of rural communities. I reminded him that Ohio is a major agricultural state, too. People who have never driven past a cornfield sometimes forget how much of America depends on what happens outside its cities. Here is the question that keeps me up at night: what happens when producers and processors can no longer pass along their rising costs? And what happens when consumers can no longer afford the food on the shelves? Those questions ought to be keeping our elected officials awake, too. Showing Up Instead of Assuming Votes One thing I wanted to talk about was the difference between meeting voters and taking them for granted. I challenged the idea that an incumbent can simply assume rural voters will fall into line. Brian described walking through towns, being recognized from his ads, and having people approach him to talk. That matters. Whether someone agrees with Brian Bengs or not, people deserve to be heard face-to-face. Rural voters are not a political prop. They are families, business owners, farmers, veterans and workers who know when the numbers no longer add up. A Little Pharaoh Talk on the Porch And because this is Mamaw’s Porch, of course we had a moment of humor. Somebody made a crack about a leader acting like a Pharaoh—and how things did not turn out especially well for the Pharaohs. We had not rehearsed a thing. Somehow the conversation rolled right into my next question, as if we had planned it all along. Sometimes a laugh opens the door to the serious point: no elected official is royalty, and no officeholder is entitled to anybody’s vote. Why Independent Voices Matter Near the end of the portion of our conversation shared here, I spoke about the need for independent senators who will challenge the usual partisan machinery. I also reminded listeners that even small contributions—five, ten or fifteen dollars—can make a difference to campaigns they choose to support. Whatever your politics, learn about the candidates, ask difficult questions and demand answers about what their policies will mean for your community. Our government is supposed to answer to us, not the other way around. Pull Up a Chair. We’re Not Done Talking. We were talking about something as fundamental as whether people can afford to work, grow food and feed their families. And honey, that is not a small thing. It is the whole ballgame. Thanks for joining us on Mamaw’s Porch n Politics. Always pull up a chair and a coffee, and let’s talk. There’s always room for one more. Love, Mamaw

Pull up a chair, grab your coffee, and let's talk about something that ought to concern every single one of us: accountability. There are people who would dearly love to see the International Criminal Court weakened or eliminated. And wouldn't that be convenient? The International Criminal Court exists to prosecute some of humanity's most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It isn't perfect. No international institution is. But the answer to imperfect justice shouldn't be getting rid of the courthouse. Consider Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. Both have been the subjects of ICC arrest warrants. Those warrants are not convictions, but they raise serious allegations that deserve judicial examination. And that brings me to something I've been thinking about. If we could just get Putin, Netanyahu, and a couple of other fellas together at The Hague, we might have ourselves a pretty good euchre game. For those of you who don't know euchre, it's a card game we take pretty seriously here in Ohio. Four players, two partnerships, and plenty of opportunities to discover who's bluffing. Now wouldn't THAT be an interesting table? But behind the humor is a deadly serious question: Are powerful world leaders going to be held accountable to international law, or have we decided that the rules only apply to people without armies, money, and political connections? The United States has an enormous amount of influence in the world. How we choose to use it matters. And I don't believe justice ought to depend on whether somebody is politically convenient. That's something worth discussing over Sunday morning coffee. Mamaw's Porch n Politics — where we talk about the things that matter, even when they make folks uncomfortable.