Liberalism: A Brief History

“What is liberalism? It is easier to say what it is not. It is not what came before it, a worldview that gave kings and emperors the divine right to rule and that conferred on their subjects whatever lot in life they were lucky or unlucky enough to be born into. It is not rooted in the theology of any one religion, nor in the imagination of any one thinker.

Liberalism is an amorphous set of ideas, constructed on the fundamental principle that people are endowed with basic inalienable rights–to life, liberty and property–that they should be equal before the law, and that they should have a say in how they are governed and how society is organized. Where people’s rights come into tension, any resolution should be arrived at through reason, with tolerance for people’s differences. Liberalism imagines a world that progresses to the point where conflicts are resolved peacefully.

Finally, liberalism is flawed. It has been capacious enough both to advance universal human rights and to accommodate slavery and the denial of women’s right to vote. The technological progress valued by liberals has given humanity horrible weapons of war and the power to annihilate itself. Yet liberalism also inducted an era of co-operation among democracies after the second world war, including the relatively free movement of goods, capital and people across borders…

Source:Walt Blackman with an excellent look at Liberal icon, John F. Kennedy.

From The Economist

I believe The Economist gave you a pretty good idea about what liberalism actually is. I’m going to give you an excellent idea about what liberalism isn’t. As well as give you an idea of what I believe liberalism is in my own words and tell you what I think are the biggest threats to it as well are.

So there are 2 competing philosophies in the western world to liberalism. Which is strange because 1 is very similar to liberalism and the other has very little, if anything to do with liberalism. Sort of what like elephants have to do with fish, or Martians have to do with Humans. But because the s-words are still seen as 4-letter words and being called an s-word by a lot of these folks… you think they were just called a terrorist, or a rapist, etc. You would think they are so insulted by that, that they would want to sue you for libel or something.

So the philosophy that’s a lot like liberalism, when you are talking about the belief in individualism, individual freedom, freedom of choice, personal responsibility, rule of law, property rights, equal rights, equality under law, free speech, etc… that philosophy is obviously what’s known as libertarianism.

The Libertarian movement came out in the late 1960s and and early 1970s, in response to the New-Left Socialist radicals, who the mainstream media was labelling as “Liberals,” even though they never had much in common with Liberals. As well as closeted leftists who preferred to be known as “Liberals”, especially during the Cold War in the 1960s and 70s, when socialism was seen as like a political disease in America.

Libertarianism was also a response to the growing cultural war movement in the Republican Party, with all Christian fundamentalists in America, moving into the Republican Party. In the 1970s, what’s called “MAGA” today, was known as the “Christian Right”.

I think a lot of Americans, but smaller in numbers with the growing number of Americans who are figuring out what liberalism actually is and what it isn’t, who also believe in free speech, personal freedom, free choice, the rule of law, property rights, equal rights, quality opportunity… when the Americans who don’t think that’s what liberalism really is, when they think of “Liberals”, they think of people… guys at least:

who don’t shave, or always have some type of facial hair, with either a really militant looking short haircut, or are longhaired

who speak primarily in hipster dialogue,

who view the Che Guevara’s of the world and other Socialist radicals, as their heroes,

who drink coffee all day

don’t eat meat

only watch women’s sports when it comes to sports, perhaps soccer as well,,, they think of the late 1960s and early 1970s Hippies, but 55 years later.

And the so-called “liberal women”, are people who think:

that women should rule the world and most men are pigs

who only wear long, baggy pants, when it comes to pants

who primarily only wear sandals or sneakers when it comes to footwear and don’t like socks

who eat and talk like the male hipsters in this movement. And the only sports that they watch, are women’s sports and perhaps soccer, just like with the men.

But liberalism is about the freedom of the individual. It’s not some cultural or ideological movement that argues that everybody has to be the same, has to think the same, talk the same way, dress the same way, has to live the same way, have the same resources as everyone else, in order to be decent, morale people.

Liberals believe that if women want to have purple hair, or green hair, shave off their hair voluntarily… that’s their right. But you are not making a liberal statement by doing that and telling people you are a Liberal. You are just making and living by your own personal choices in life.

Liberalism is about the individual, Hipsterism is about being cool and being in on all the latest cultural trends. Socialism is about the collective and using big government to make sure that no one has to live without he basic necessities in life.

And as far as the biggest threats to liberalism in America and the rest of the western world… we’re already seeing that, especially on the far-right, but not exclusively on the far-right. But the biggest threats to liberalism on the far-right, are demagogues who are seeing their majority populations in their country, at least the lower educated and blue-collar factions of these populations, who have lost ground economically and culturally due to multiculturalism and globalization.

And these demagogues, who are just wannabe dictators, living in democratic societies, see the “left behind” as their tickets to obtaining absolute power in their country. And they tell them that if you get behind them 100%, all the time, on absolutely everything, they’ll solve their problems for them. When the fact is all they care about, are themselves and obtaining as much absolute power for themselves as possible, which no checks and balances on their power, and keeping that power for as pong as they possibly can.

The Economist also has a very good description of the biggest threats, at least to western liberalism:

“The greatest threat to liberalism today comes from within Western democracies. The two elections of Donald Trump, the electoral gains of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party in France, and the Brexit referendum along with, more recently, the growing popularity of Nigel Farage and Reform UK in Britain, demonstrate the appeal of nativist populism. The global financial crisis of 2007-09 and liberalism’s failure to correct rising inequality almost surely contributed to this populist surge, which has pinned the blame for social problems on scapegoats such as immigrants, minority groups and liberal elites. With universities, science and media under intensifying attack, liberalism has an daunting challenge to restore confidence in its ability to solve modern social problems.”

The New Democrat has been a liberal blog since we went online back in 2009. John F. Kennedy is 1 of our heroes. And in 1960, then Senator Kennedy, when he was running for President, gave an excellent definition of what it means to be a Liberal:

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, “Liberal”? If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But, if by a “Liberal,” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say that I’m a “Liberal.”

From The American History Project

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

Posted in The Economist, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Situation Room: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blames Republican Leaders For Government Shutdown

“Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) joins CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown to discuss the government shutdown.”

Source:CNN talking to U.S. Representative Marjorie T. Greene (MAGA, Georgia) about President Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida)

From CNN

I think this quote right here pretty much sums up Marjorie T. Green’s political career right now:

“I’m 1 of those who gets real tired of political drama when it’s not actually solving the problem”.

She’s not saying she’s against “political drama”. Just when it’s not solving whatever perceived problem that’s she trying to solve. That would be a fair interpretation of the Representative’s quote there.

So, unlike CNN, or at least CNN anchors Wolf (I should’ve retired 10 years ago) Blitzer and Pamela Brown, I’m not buying Marjorie T. Greene’s little political show here. She was hardcore MAGA from day 1 when she elected to the U.S. House 5 years ago. She tried to have Speaker Mike Johnson removed from office 18 months ago, because he agreed to the Senate short-term funding bill back then and he didn’t shut down the government back then.

Up until 3 days ago, perhaps a week, you wouldn’t find a more loyal MAGA political soldier to Donald J. Trump, then Majorie T. Greene. There’s something else going on here that I’m going to get into.

So 3-6 months ago, Representative Greene was considering a run for either Governor of Georgia, where Brian Kemp is term limited there, or running for U.S. Senate against Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff. But this is what Senator Kevin Cramer (Republican, North Dakota) said about MTG running for Senate from Georgia:

“We need to have the absolute best candidate, and that includes electability. It’s very difficult to apply a formula for a very gerrymandered, very conservative congressional district into a statewide election with as much diversity as Georgia has. That is a swing state that’s pretty independent-minded,”

From The Hill

Representative Greene was talked out of not running for U.S. Senate, by the Senate Republican Leadership. And for good reason: Georgia is sort of like for the Republican Party, what Virginia is now for the Democratic Party. It’s a state where a mainstream Republican should win statewide there, assuming they don’t have a lot of ethical baggage. But you put a far-right candidate, like an MTG there and that state becomes very competitive, if the Democrat is a mainstream candidate and not a Socialist and some left-wing cultural warrior, identity politics, candidate.

Representative Green’s own official reasoning for not running for Governor of Georgia for 2026, is:

“A very established men only Republican firm that is overseeing the state’s slow slide from red to blue.

The ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine wheeling and dealing at the hunting clubs and country clubs does not reflect the sentiment and issues of the vast majority of Georgia voters”.

From POLITICO

That was MTG’s response to the Georgia Republican Party for declining to endorse her potential bid for Governor of Georgia, for next year.

You can easily get into trouble and even put your own credibility at stake, when you question the motives of people, while you are not able to prove them, especially when it comes to politicians. But MTG has been in the House of Representatives for almost 5 years. I don’t think she wants to still be there 10-15 years from now.

MTG represents 1 of the reddest, most Republican gerrymandered, MAGA, House districts in the country. She obviously wants more for her political career than to represent 700,000 people who at times perhaps sound even crazier than her:

Who think that “Jewish space laser” theories are real

That Joe Biden stole the 2020 election

That America is being destroyed from within by Jews and Latinos, Jewish bankers, etc…

That gay people want to eliminate straight people.

And unfortunately I could go when it comes to whacked-out, far-right, MAGA conspiracy theories in this country.

But for someone like a Marjorie Taylor Greene to ever be able to represent anything other than a gerrymandered, MAGA district, in rural Georgia, to getting elected in a big, diverse state like Georgia, (11 million people) she is going to have to drop her political escaped mental patient routine and sound and act like a mainstream Republican. You know, like a Conservative (for example) and be able to compete in the parts of Georgia where most of its residents live, which is the Atlanta metro area and the big counties there, as well as Savannah. The parts of Georgia that are very urban and suburban, even blue.

Georgia is not Mississippi. (Duh!!!) You can’t win statewide in Georgia as a Republican, with just Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, blue-collar, rural voters. You have to compete and win in the cities as well. This is what Marjorie Taylor Green’s call to political sanity campaign is really about: her winning Georgia.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, and Threads.

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Senate Judiciary Committee: Pam Bondi VS Dick Durbin & Adam Schiff

“Jesse talks about Pam Bondi’s abysmal day of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she merely repeated the canned lines as responses that were clearly written for her by Stephen Miller or Donald Trump himself.”

Source:Jesse Dollemore talking about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s latest Trump reality TV performance.

From Jesse Dollemore

I don’t have much to say in response to what Jesse Dollemore is saying here. At best, you are just getting the MSNBC prime time, partisan analysis, advertised as news, from Dollemore. But you are free to listen to every word that comes out of his mouth… if you have nothing better to do. If that’s the case, I feel sorry for you. But I will give you my “just the facts, Jack’ routine here and then tell you what I think about that.

If Attorney General Pam Bondi just in her opening statement said: “I’m not here to answer any serious questions from Democrats”, from the beginning, she could’ve saved taxpayers a lot of time and money and this committee hearing would’ve been a lot shorter and she would’ve been back at DOJ, or could’ve gone home from the Dirksen Senate Office Building, a lot sooner.

But when you work for Donald John Trump, you are not a “public servant”, at least not anymore. There are exceptions, but the Pam Bondi’s, the Pete Hegseth’s, the Steve Miller’s, are the general rule in Donald J. Trump’s latest political reality TV show: “Trump Takes Over Washington, America is next”.

When you work for President Trump, you are a performer, a political reality TV performer. If he doesn’t think you are 100% loyal to him and he doesn’t think you look good and sound good on TV… you could be a 4 star war with more medals, that the New York Yankees trophy case wouldn’t be large enough to hold… but you could forget about ever being his Secretary of Defense. If you care more about America, than you care about him. And that’s just 1 example.

I mean we see this everyday with the President’s “press secretary”. Karoline Leavitt is no more a press secretary, than fish are elephants. She’s only there to give MAGA’s latest partisan and tell people how great she thinks her boss is.

So when you see the exchange between the Attorney General and Senator Adam Schiff, yesterday… Senator Schiff already knows that and he wasn’t there to let her use his time to talk about much she thinks Democrats hate America, or how much she thinks the the Senator sucks, or “is he even a real lawyer”, etc. The Senator used his time to layout the questions that he would liked to be answered, if only there was someone at the witness table there who was even qualified to answer his questions. And I think Senator Schiff did a very effective job at that.

And while Senator Schiff is dominating his time, the Attorney General is trying to speak over him, while the camera is still on him, not her, talking about everything that has nothing to do with what he wanted to talk about, which was the use and authorization of the National Guard, Tom Homan being caught taking a bribe, the Jim Comey trial, etc. But had the Senator had given her anytime whatsoever, all she would’ve done was talk about how bad a lawyer she thinks he is, crime in Los Angeles, and California wildfires, etc.

My colleague Ederik Schneider talked about the Attorney General’s appearance at the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday:

“Anytime anyone is testifying in front of Congress… (House or Senate) especially if they have a legal background, (like being a lawyer, prosecutor, attorney general, etc) they have to know that everything that you say to members of Congress and to their committees, can be used against you. Attorney General Pam Bondi, back in February, said there was an Epstein client list on her desk to review…

From The New Democrat

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on FacebookThreads, and Twitter.

Posted in Jesse Dollemore, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Senate Judiciary Committee: Pam Bondi Tells Senators There Was No Epstein Client List

“US Attorney General Pam Bondi, when questioned about the Justice Department’s decision not to release files on Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigations, accused Democratic senators of accepting campaign donations from an Epstein associate.”

Source:Reuters with a look at U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, today.

From Reuters

Anytime anyone is testifying in front of Congress… (House or Senate) especially if they have a legal background, (like being a lawyer, prosecutor, attorney general, etc) they have to know that everything that you say to members of Congress and to their committees, can be used against you. Attorney General Pam Bondi, back in February, said there was an Epstein client list on her desk to review:

“Back in February, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the Jeffrey Epstein client list was “sitting on my desk” for review, which is why she’s…

From Newsweek

But she tells Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) today in front of the Judiciary Committee:

“I said I had not yet reviewed it, and if you see our memo on Epstein, you will see our memo on Epstein clearly points out that there was no client list”.

From CNBC

So the Attorney General was wither lying back in February, or was wrong back then, or even worst, she was lying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, or she can’t admit that she was wrong when she said she was going to review the Epstein client list, that was on her desk back in February.

But we won’t know, at the very least, whether there was ever any client list from Jeffrey Epstein, until the Epstein files are released. But it’s easy to see why 3-4, 4-5 Americans, including 2/3 Republicans, (according to the polls) want the Epstein files released, because they don’t believe the President, or the Attorney General on this. Here are some of the polls that show overwhelming support for releasing the Epstein files:

Marist Poll (October 2025): Found that 77% of Americans want all Epstein files released, with victims’ names redacted. Party breakdowns showed strong support from:
Democrats: 84%
Independents: 83%
Republicans: 67%
Yahoo News/YouGov Poll (July 2025): Found that 84% of Americans would approve of the government releasing all information it has on Epstein.
Washington Post Poll (July 2025): Found that an “overwhelming majority” supports releasing all files, with 83% of Republicans, 86% of independents, and 90% of Democrats agreeing.

From Google

This is not a Republican versus a Democrat issue. This is The White House, DOJ, and President Trump’s most loyal supporters, versus roughly 4-5 Americans.

You can also see the followup piece to this at The New Democrat

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on FacebookThreads, and Twitter.

Posted in Reuters, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Scher: Republicans Can End the Government Shutdown Today

“If Republicans don’t want a bipartisan deal, they can kill the filibuster. So why aren’t they?

The longest federal government shutdown in American history is 35 days, spanning December 2018 and January 2019. Technically, it was a partial shutdown because appropriations for some agencies were approved before the beginning of Fiscal Year 2019. It is also the only government shutdown directly instigated by a President of the United States, one Donald J. Trump, who wanted to hold the government hostage until Congress agreed to give him billions for building a border wall.

Since then, America has had 2,440 days of fully operating federal governance. (Joe Biden pitched a perfect game.) Trump is back, and the streak has ended. With zero Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations bills passed by Congress, this shutdown is total, save for essential employees.

My bet is that this shutdown will break the 35-day record, with no partial shutdown asterisks.

Why? Because Trump doesn’t care if the government shuts down. He has no interest in what most of the federal government does, beyond what it can do for him. Through the Office of Management and Budget, he has the power to deem certain government workers essential, which fulfills his desire to exert unilateral power.

Democrats, all things being equal, do care about what the federal government does. But Trump is already stripping the civil service down to the studs while asserting unlimited executive powers. Democrats, for the most part, do not want to abet Trump’s agenda with passive votes for Republican spending bills, nor are they afraid of taking blame for any of the consequences of a shutdown.

Perhaps they should be. I have already expressed my disagreements with the tactical choices by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. But Trump begins this standoff with much of the public aghast at his chaotic authoritarianism; a new New York Times poll shows majorities believe Trump has “gone too far” by pressuring media outlets, sending the National Guard into cities, and with immigration enforcement generally. Trump has been such a colossal chaos agent and has been so dismissive of bipartisan negotiations that Democrats have reason to believe he won’t escape blame for one more act of chaos, even though Democrats have complicated their preferred narrative by making their own demands regarding renewal of expiring health coverage subsidies.

Moreover, Democratic Party favorability is already pretty low, just 33 percent in the Real Clear Politics average. A shutdown probably can’t make it go much lower and could give it a slight boost if frustrated rank-and-file Democrats are energized. Having said that, the poll number Democrats will want to keep a closer eye on is the generic congressional ballot, where they now hold a slight edge. Slippage there in reaction to a shutdown may prompt calls for surrender. Short of that, Democrats should have no problem allowing the federal government to stay closed and pinning the resulting chaos on the person tagged as the “Chaos President” before he even held the office.

Might Schumer wobble? Some Democrats were frustrated when he shied away from the shutdown standoff in March. And Punchbowl News’s Andrew Desiderio reported on Monday that “Schumer has approached a small group of Senate Dems to see if they’re OK with short-term [spending bill] (10 days, for example), but with a caveat—assuming Trump agrees to a negotiation on [Affordable Care Act] subsidies.” Punchbowl subsequently reported that the small olive branch “drew the ire of House Democrats.” Schumer didn’t propose it when he met with Trump.

Just as rank-and-file Democrats are pressuring Schumer to walk away from the negotiating table, Trump is doing everything possible to push him away. Following that meeting, Trump posted on his social media page a deepfake video of Schumer telling a sombrero-clad Jeffries, over a track of mariachi music, “we have no voters anymore because of our woke trans bullshit” so “if we give all these illegal aliens free health care, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us.” Republicans had some ground to stand on in arguing Democrats were instigating the shutdown by insisting on renewing expiring health coverage subsidies. Still, they sacrificed that ground by lying about what Democrats were demanding. Beyond the substantive dishonesty, attempting to humiliate Schumer only gives him a political incentive to stand his ground.

And so does Trump, spending precious time, as the shutdown clock ticks, telling military leaders to expect deployment to American cities to fight a “war from within” in apparent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Furthermore, Democrats have an available response to Republican attempts to shift all the blame onto them: Republicans don’t need us to open the government. They can change Senate rules and suspend or eliminate the filibuster on a party-line vote. And Republicans can’t argue that they think changing the rules on a party-line vote—the so-called “nuclear option”—is a terrible violation of Senate norms because Republicans literally changed the rules on a party-line vote three weeks ago to speed confirmation of judicial nominees. If they don’t go nuclear and kill the filibuster to keep the government open, that shows how little they care about keeping it open, and how much they care about creating excuses for vilifying Democrats.

(Longtime readers of my work know I like the filibuster, so I have no ulterior motive in goading Republicans into abolishing it. But let’s get real: Senators in both parties have gone “nuclear” enough that the filibuster rule is already hanging by a thread.)

All this is to say that we shouldn’t expect a shutdown to end anytime soon, primarily because Trump is a reckless authoritarian with no obvious interest in negotiations or in maintaining the bulk of what the federal government does, and far more interested in scurrilous political combat.?”

Source:Wikipedia with a look at U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (Republican, South Dakota)

From The Washington Monthly

As I wrote about this 10 days ago:

“So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, gets to decide who is essential and who is nonessential, when it comes to the federal workforce. Meaning, who gets to show up to work, who has to stay home, who has to show up and work for free, during the shutdown.

In case anyone who sees this, was born last night, (and if you are able to read before you even reach 1 day old, I’m fairly impressed) Donald John Trump is currently President of the United States and Russell Vought is currently the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Do you really want these two “gentlemen” in charge of what stays open and is closed, who gets to go to work, who stays home, who has to work for free, during a government shutdown?

Mr. Vought is 1 of the chief authors of Project 2025, which is a document that lays out how a President Trump could claim and use more executive authority, then the Constitution currently gives the President of the United States. And how they could essentially get away with that. Is this who you want in charge of the government shutdown in Washington?

At least if Congress passed a government funding bill, (whatever you actually think of the actual bill) there are laws there that the courts can protect, requiring the executive branch to spend this amount of money, with this amount of workers in place enforcing those spending requirements. But put Trump and Vought in charge, thanks to your shutdown, there’s no one left in place who could even try to hold the President and OMB accountable during a shutdown…

From The New Democrat

My colleague Kire Schneider and I have thought about the last 4-5 days (of the 2025 Schumer shutdown) about what Bill Scher is talking about here, about how Senate Republicans should simply end the shutdown and eliminate the filibuster on appropriations and omnibus spending bills, which is what is currently being blocked in the Senate, by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

And I don’t personally know Senate Majority John Thune… never even met the man, but he’s been in Congress long enough, has been in the Senate Republican Leadership long enough, he’s smart enough, that it would be surprising to anyone who is familiar with him and Senate rules, to believe that he also hasn’t thought about doing this himself. But to Bill Scher’s question: why hasn’t he already done this? Or my question: why isn’t he planning on doing this?

Bill Scher is right and I’ve already argued this myself and covered that 10 days ago… the President doesn’t need Congressional approval to do what he wands to do as President, which is execute his tariffs on our democratic allies around the world, use the government to pressure his political and ideological opponents and protect his political allies through government power, regardless of what they have done and the evidence against them.

If The Anti-Deficiency Act and OMB Director Russ Vought isn’t enough reason to convince you of how world record breaking, politically stupid and tone death, that the Schumer shutdown is, how about the fact that the Trump Administration doesn’t need to the government to be fully operational to do what they’ve been doing, since they came back in power in January.

This, along with the ADA, should be game clinchers for you. Either 1 of them, you could rest your case to being opposed to the Schumer shutdown and supporting Senate Democrats votes to end debate on the Senate funding bill and to reopen the government, today.

I get the fact that Chuck Schumer is now 75 years old and has dedicated his life to being a career politician and political leader. 44 years in Congress, 20 of those years in the Senate Democratic Leadership, are pretty good smoking guns there. And I get the fact that he doesn’t want to have to run against Representative Alexandria O. Cortez in 2028, just to save his Senate seat. But this is not Chuck Schumer versus the Trump Administration. Every political decision and political tactic that he pulls as Senate Minority Leader, especially when they’re public, effects his caucus, the Democratic Party, and the rest of the Federal Government. Especially the civil service, when you are talking about government shutdowns.

I guess my message for Leader Schumer and the left-wing (to be kind) of the Democratic Party is this: the Democrats lost in 2024. That’s why we have a big Orangeman in The White House, who is crushing (or certainly trying to) everyone who has opposed him before, or is trying to block him now. (To mix my metaphors here)

And when you don’t vote, or you vote for the other party, or vote for a party that in a good year, gets 1-3% of the vote, your party loses and generally loses badly. And there are real consequences to being out-of-power, like being both the opposition party and the minority party at the same time. The 2 biggest ones being accountability and not being able to set the agenda… not writing the legislation that ultimately becomes law.

Democrats can say this is about protecting health care and the ACA subsidies all they want… this is about protecting Chuck Schumer’s political career, at the expense of everyone else and appeasing the far-left of the party. Who would burn down the house to save a plant. And if you think health care is a good political issue for you… the people are with you on that 1. Why not take that to the campaign trail and make it a huge issue for yourselves for 26. That’s 1 of the advantages to being the out-party: you get to make the case against the in-party, while not having to take any responsibility for when the in-party screws up… as long as you don’t shut the government down!!!

If I’m Senate Majority Leader John Thune right now, I’m calling for the nuclear option to block filibusters on Congressional appropriations bills. Which means that Senate Democrats could use that against him and Republicans in 2029, if Democrats are completely back in power then. But it would be good for the country to not have to through this anymore twice a year, it would give Congress (House & Senate) more incentive to pass their appropriations bills every year, knowing that the Senate Minority Leader won’t be able to block any of them, just with his caucus.

And the Senate nuclear option here would establish that when 1 party if elected with both The White House and Congress, that they’ll be able to get their own budgets and budget agenda through Congress every year that they’re in power.

I would also be in favor of requiring that all Congressional appropriations have to be clean and can’t add to the deficit, in order not to be subjected to the Senate filibuster, so this is power is not abused. As as allowing the minority party (House & Senate) to be able to offer relevant amendments and alternatives to the appropriations bills on the floor. But I doubt that’s what Majority Leader Thune would pass, if he went nuclear on this.

Chuck Schumer, who up until a month ago, still seemed like he was 1 of the best political tacticians in the entire Congress. But his gross incompetence and political selfishness, his own political self-preservation, has really angered The New Democrat here and is making us sound like Independents now. What the fuck, Chuck! (To be frank) But don’t worry, we’re still JFK Democrats.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on FacebookThreads, and Twitter.

Posted in The New Democrat, The Washington Monthly | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Matt Lewis: The Un-Dynamic Duo

“Donald Trump has made politics into a dystopian reality show he loves to host, but Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are playing by the old rules — and the mismatch may cause Democrats to get blamed for a government shutdown.

This is not because they’re dumb (they’re not) or incompetent (as the top Democrats of the Senate and House and as representatives of New York, both have risen to positions that require a Lyndon Baines Johnson-esque dexterity most of us couldn’t sustain for a single PTA meeting).

You can see it playing out in the government shutdown. Schumer and Jeffries seem almost neurologically incapable of operating in the world Trump has created — one where politics is less about governing or even persuasion, and more about staying on offense and generating spectacle.

Schumer exudes old-fashioned backroom politics and insider deal-making, which is another way of saying that he’s scripted, sweaty and stilted. It’s not that he’s bad at speaking; it’s that the kind of speaking he has mastered — the methodical, over-enunciated style that once charmed donors and editorial boards — is the equivalent of trying to fax something in 2025.

Jeffries, by contrast, is calm and disciplined. He speaks slowly, often channeling a rhythmic pattern that is reminiscent of a preacher or litigator. In a different era — the kind of era when “normal politics” still existed — this trait might have worked brilliantly. Today, it just feels tired. He’s supposed to be the hip one, once marketed as a “bad, brilliant brother from Brooklyn.” But his recent attempts at communication feel more like a corporate onboarding seminar.

And it’s not like he’s compensating for this shortcoming by electrifying the progressive base. Jeffries’ recent praise for New York Mayor Eric Adams (calling him a man who “served courageously and authentically for decades”) was a bit like praising Nickelback for artistic innovation. It’s not just inaccurate; it’s weirdly tone deaf to the moment.

To be fair, competing with Trump’s megaphone requires a skill set that is closer to professional wrestling than to 20th century politics. Trump is chaotic and often incoherent to the point of parody. But, and this is key, he never sounds like a normal politician.

In a game where authenticity — however poorly defined and cynically constructed — is the only real currency, the Democrats’ undynamic duo come across as high-functioning androids.

Countering Trump’s superpower calls for Democrats who can compete in the attention economy: leaders who feel authentic, actually enjoy picking constant political fights and understand that “going viral” is the new “getting quoted in the New York Times.”

Indeed, the only Democrats who have shown any capacity for being able to survive in this era have been Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and California Gov.r Gavin Newsom.

Schumer and Jeffries do not have these skills, despite having plenty of material to work with.

Case in point: Republicans are about to make healthcare more expensive for millions of Americans. In theory, that’s a devastating talking point. In practice, it’s difficult to imagine Schumer and Jeffries delivering it in a way that can compete with Trump’s bogus assertion that the Democrats are shutting down the government because they want free healthcare for illegal immigrants and “transgender for everybody,” whatever that means.

Faced with these mistruths and the anemic response we’re getting from Schumer and Jeffries, the best-case scenario may be that Republicans — by virtue of being the “anti-government” party — take some blame for a government shutdown. But that’s not a strategy. That’s hoping partisan inertia is still on your side.

Regardless, the shutdown is merely the latest example of Democrats struggling to compete with MAGA. The larger problem is that the Democratic Party doesn’t really have a communicator right now. It hasn’t had one since Barack Obama left the stage.

It’s probably not fair to compare a congressional leader with a presidential candidate. But even by the standards of modern congressional leaders, Schumer and Jeffries are ill-equipped for the task at hand.

Democrats need someone with Newt Gingrich’s manic energy, revolutionary zeal and theatrical flair, coupled with Nancy Pelosi’s more pragmatic toughness and ruthless discipline. This is to say, someone who understands that politics is now a form of entertainment, but who still has the moral seriousness to prevent it from devolving totally into nihilism.

Instead, they’ve got two men who might as well be AM radio hosts trying to livestream on Twitch.

Ultimately, the Democrats’ communications crisis won’t be solved until they have a presidential nominee who can actually speak the language of the moment. Until they can find one, Democrats are stuck with two guys who are no match against a man who has turned political chaos into performance art.

And if Democrats don’t find one — and soon! — they won’t just lose the narrative: They’ll lose the country that depends on it…

Source:Matt Lewis has been a Never-Trump Conservative since day 1.

From Matt Lewis

My colleague Derik Schneider already made the policy, as well as political argument for why Chuck Schumer and his Senate Democrats, should’ve never even considered shutting down the government and giving Donald John Trump the unilateral power over the government and budget, that the shutdown now gives him. This should’ve been game, set, match, (as they say in tennis for why Leader Schumer should’ve never had gone through with this:

“So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, gets to decide who is essential and who is nonessential, when it comes to the federal workforce. Meaning, who gets to show up to work, who has to stay home, who has to show up and work for free, during the shutdown.

In case anyone who sees this, was born last night, (and if you are able to read before you even reach 1 day old, I’m fairly impressed) Donald John Trump is currently President of the United States and Russell Vought is currently the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Do you really want these two “gentlemen” in charge of what stays open and is closed, who gets to go to work, who stays home, who has to work for free, during a government shutdown?

Mr. Vought is 1 of the chief authors of Project 2025, which is a document that lays out how a President Trump could claim and use more executive authority, then the Constitution currently gives the President of the United States. And how they could essentially get away with that. Is this who you want in charge of the government shutdown in Washington?

At least if Congress passed a government funding bill, (whatever you actually think of the actual bill) there are laws there that the courts can protect, requiring the executive branch to spend this amount of money, with this amount of workers in place enforcing those spending requirements. But put Trump and Vought in charge, thanks to your shutdown, there’s no one left in place who could even try to hold the President and OMB accountable during a shutdown…

From The New Democrat

And Fred got into why Leader Schumer is actually doing this right now, on Wednesday:

“But I actually think there’s something else going on here. I don’t like questioning political motives of people, especially who are currently in government, even members of my own party where you would have more credibility in doing that. But as the Minority Leader said so himself for why he didn’t go through with the shutdown back in March, when talking to Sunny Hostin on The View:

“First I’d say, Sunny, no one wants to fight more than me, and no one fights more than me. We got to fight smart. It is not true — that bill had far less — it was bad, I hated it,” Schumer said. “But it does far less damage to — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are far more susceptible to being eliminated, which is what that horrible Musk — can you imagine this guy Musk, a billionaire, saying $1,100 for a senior citizen is not necessary? Or a Ponzi scheme…

Leader Schumer’s official reasoning for not shutting down the government in March… he didn’t want Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Office of Management and Budget to get to decide who gets fired, laid off, has to work for free, who gets paid and who doesn’t, who gets their public assistance checks, who doesn’t, while the government is shut down. So what’s changed?

What has changed in the last 6-7 months, is after the government funding debate in March, where Senate Democrats just let that bill go through with a majority vote and didn’t block it… is Chuck Schumer took a lot of political heat from his left-wing of the party… The Squad and their supporters. There was talk about U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez challenging Schumer in the 2028 New York Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

Chuck Schumer is 75 years old, he’s been in Congress since 1981, he’s been in the Democratic Leadership since 2005. He’s the definition of a career politician. Take him out of public office, would be like forcing fish to swim without water. Being a politician and a political leader is the only thing he knows and wants to do.

And Leader Schumer apparently thinks the way for him to save his Senate seat, is too look cool and tough for “The Squad” and look like he’s fighting for them, even if that means putting the future of the Democratic Party at risk and quite frankly the country, if voters think Democrats aren’t ready to govern again next year…

From The New Democrat

And as Erik said yesterday:

“Because Leader Schumer made the right decision not to shut down the government in March, the so-called Squad (which most of the time looks no more professional and experienced than the Columbia chapter of Students For a Democratic Society) threatens his job and tells him he has to step down, or face a primary challenge… probably from U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez in 2028. She’s probably not just the most popular and powerful Socialist, inside of Congress right now (sorry, Senators Sanders and Warren) but probably the most powerful and popular Socialist outside of Congress as well.

So the reason why the government is shut down right now, even though it gives the power to the President to cut and layoff at will as many people as he wants, during the shutdown, because 75 year old Chuck Schumer (who has been in Congress since 1981, served 9 terms in the House, now in his 5th term in the Senate) is worried about losing his job 3 years from now. So this is just 1 reason why The New Democrat is calling this government shutdown, the Schumer shutdown. Because it’s not based on what’s good for the country, or even the Democratic Party next year, but what’s good for Chuck Schumer’s political future…

From The New Democrat

So now that’s we’re in day 3 of the 2005 government shutdown, this sort of takes me back 45-46 years ago during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-80. It’s 1 thing if this is over at some point next week, regardless of how it ends, but if we’re still talking about the current shutdown 2-4 weeks from now, a lot of us are going to sound like CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, or ABC News anchor Ted Koppel:

“It now day 30 of the 2025 government shutdown”.

I don’t mean to make light of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Only to make the point that 45 years, the Iran Hostage Crisis and the presidential election of 80, were like the only things that the media was interested in talking about, because that’s really the only thing that people were interested in… as well as the economy. That’s how much the IHC dominated American politics back then. That’s how much the government shutdown will dominate American political news for however long it goes on.

I would like to talk about the jobs report today. But guess what: there is not jobs report to talk about because a lot of the people who work on it, have been laid off because there’s no money coming in to pay them, or to pay for their work.

I would like to talk about the Epstein files and when Congress, or at least the House will vote to release them. But because of the shutdown, Speaker Johnson is in no hurry to swear in Representative elect Adelita Grijalva because she would vote to release the Epstein files. But because of the shutdown, he can now claim that he doesn’t have time for that because he has to deal with the shutdown.

To sort of back up what Matt Lewis is saying here… since House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been so politically tone death on this and apparently are only worried about their own political futures, (or, that’s what they care about the most) they’ve gone through this political Kamikaze mission and are hoping that the longer this last, the more blame Congressional Republicans and President Trump will get for this and they’ll be forced to compromise with the Democrats. Apparently unaware or ignoring the fact that what the President wants to do right now as President, he doesn’t need Congressional approval, or even a fully operating government, to carry out his partisan political agenda. As Derik mentioned last week:

“So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, gets to decide who is essential and who is nonessential, when it comes to the federal workforce. Meaning, who gets to show up to work, who has to stay home, who has to show up and work for free, during the shutdown…

The point is, under the ADA, the President gets to decide who gets to work and who stays home during the shutdown. So he could literally and legally right now, lay off as many government workers that live in states that are currently represented by Democratic senators. He could also literally and legally cut off Federal funding for blue cities like New York City, which he already announced he was going to do yesterday.

And just to close on this point. There’s no way Congressional Democrats will win this shutdown. The longer it goes on, the longer Senate Democrats, especially in purple states have to hear about their government workers not being able to go to work, who don’t have any money coming in because of the shutdown, the media will report on it and it will become known as the Schumer shutdown. (If it isn’t already)

But the President, Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, rather take huge losses in polling (which is sort of what they’re already doing) then to compromise with Leader Schumer and give Senate Democrats the health benefits that they’re looking for, especially since the President can almost enforce his own government funding bill through the ADA, during the shutdown.

But even though the Democrats can’t win this battle of policy or political grounds, Republicans could still lose it politically and give Democrats a huge win on health care going into 2026. All Republicans have to do is say:

“The reason for the Schumer shutdown, is because Chuck Schumer is worried about losing a 2028 primary race to AOC. He’s letting Socialist Democrats run the shutdown right now”.

That’s all Republicans have to do. They are at the 1 yard line and ready to score the game clinching TD. But instead of just calling a QB sneak, they go shotgun and kick the ball out of bounds for a touchback, from their opponents 5 yard line (to use American football jargon) giving the Democrats the ball at the 20 yard line, with a chance to win the game themselves.

And what I’m referring to here is what Vice President Vance, Speaker Johnson, Senator Barrasso, and today Senator Ernst, claiming that the reason for why the government is shut down today, is because Democrats want to give health care to illegal immigrants. Democrats will never win this battle, but Republicans could still lose it and set up a major political problem for them going into 26.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on FacebookThreads, and Twitter.

Posted in Matt Lewis, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chris Cillizza: The Dirty Little Secret That Led Democrats To a Government Shutdown

“The government shutdown isn’t just about policy fights over Obamacare subsidies or Donald Trump. At its core, it’s about politics — and one politician in particular: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In this video, Chris Cillizza breaks down how AOC’s pressure on the left has shaped Chuck Schumer’s decisions, why the Senate Minority Leader is looking over his shoulder at a potential 2028 primary, and how that fear is influencing Democrats’ shutdown strategy.

Could this really be the AOC shutdown?

Why Schumer’s March vote still matters today
🔹 The growing tension between Democratic leadership and the progressive left
🔹 What AOC’s 2028 options — Senate or White House — mean for the party’s future…

Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democratic Socialist, Bronx, New York) not even glasses make AOC look older and look experienced.

From Chris Cillizza

My colleague Fred Schneider mentioned what Chris Cilliza said here, yesterday. And this was his argument:

“But I actually think there’s something else going on here. I don’t like questioning political motives of people, especially who are currently in government, even members of my own party where you would have more credibility in doing that. But as the Minority Leader said so himself for why he didn’t go through with the shutdown back in March, when talking to Sunny Hostin on The View:

“First I’d say, Sunny, no one wants to fight more than me, and no one fights more than me. We got to fight smart. It is not true — that bill had far less — it was bad, I hated it,” Schumer said. “But it does far less damage to — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are far more susceptible to being eliminated, which is what that horrible Musk — can you imagine this guy Musk, a billionaire, saying $1,100 for a senior citizen is not necessary? Or a Ponzi scheme…

Leader Schumer’s official reasoning for not shutting down the government in March… he didn’t want Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Office of Management and Budget to get to decide who gets fired, laid off, has to work for free, who gets paid and who doesn’t, who gets their public assistance checks, who doesn’t, while the government is shut down. So what’s changed?

What has changed in the last 6-7 months, is after the government funding debate in March, where Senate Democrats just let that bill go through with a majority vote and didn’t block it… is Chuck Schumer took a lot of political heat from his left-wing of the party… The Squad and their supporters. There was talk about U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez challenging Schumer in the 2028 New York Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

Chuck Schumer is 75 years old, he’s been in Congress since 1981, he’s been in the Democratic Leadership since 2005. He’s the definition of a career politician. Take him out of public office, would be like forcing fish to swim without water. Being a politician and a political leader is the only thing he knows and wants to do.

And Leader Schumer apparently thinks the way for him to save his Senate seat, is too look cool and tough for “The Squad” and look like he’s fighting for them, even if that means putting the future of the Democratic Party at risk and quite frankly the country, if voters think Democrats aren’t ready to govern again next year…

From The New Democrat

So this was my argument for why Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and company for not shutting down the government back in March:

“I hate to break it to the far-left in America, but the U.S. Government is not the administration building at Columbia University, or any other preppy, Northeastern, elitist, university. You can’t just shut it down and then go home, or go back to your dorm and wait for someone else to clean up your mess for you.

And if you shut down the government… sure, you can claim to be “badasses” and the coolest people on campus. But then what? The mainstream media and MAGA can’t blame the Democrats for a government shutdown this week? Why? Because there isn’t 1.

So what does the far-left do instead? They attack the Democratic leadership for not shutting down the government and call Chuck Schumer to be replaced, because he wouldn’t shut down the government. And then they wonder why they’re never in charge of anything serious and important, at least in Washington. But I’ve never wondered that.”

From The New Democrat

I’m going to start off with something that’s going to sound really harsh here and then I’ll get into my stronger argument. I think Chuck Schuner is having a Joe Biden moment. (I know that sounds really mean)

But remember after June, 2024 debate, where President Biden looked like he was half asleep on the debate stage with Donald Trump, for most of that debate… struggled to just finish his own sentences and fill out the time that he was given to speak. And the Democratic activists were already calling for the President to step down the presidential race that night.

But how does President Biden react? Like any other career politician who is way past his prime and now has a very good look at the end of his career. For about 10 days, the President bunkers down and essentially telling people he’s going nowhere. But reality sets in:

he’s told that if he stays in he race, his campaign funds will be cut off.

His own campaign staff telling him he’s not only already lost all the swing states, but would now lose Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia, even… New Jersey would be close, etc.

And reality finally set in and the President finally dropped out. And perhaps you also remember the rest of the 2024 campaign yourself.

Because Leader Schumer made the right decision not to shut down the government in March, the so-called Squad (which most of the time looks no more professional and experienced than the Columbia chapter of Students For a Democratic Society) threatens his job and tells him he has to step down, or face a primary challenge… probably from U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez in 2028. She’s probably not just the most popular and powerful Socialist, inside of Congress right now (sorry, Senators Sanders and Warren) but probably the most powerful and popular Socialist outside of Congress as well.

So the reason why the government is shut down right now, even though it gives the power to the President to cut and layoff at will as many people as he wants, during the shutdown, because 75 year old Chuck Schumer (who has been in Congress since 1981, served 9 terms in the House, now in his 5th term in the Senate) is worried about losing his job 3 years from now. So this is just 1 reason why The New Democrat is calling this government shutdown, the Schumer shutdown. Because it’s not based on what’s good for the country, or even the Democratic Party next year, but what’s good for Chuck Schumer’s political future.

My colleague Derik Schneider made the political, as well as policy argument for why Leader Schumer and company shouldn’t have gone through with this, last Friday:

“So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, gets to decide who is essential and who is nonessential, when it comes to the federal workforce. Meaning, who gets to show up to work, who has to stay home, who has to show up and work for free, during the shutdown.

In case anyone who sees this, was born last night, (and if you are able to read before you even reach 1 day old, I’m fairly impressed) Donald John Trump is currently President of the United States and Russell Vought is currently the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Do you really want these two “gentlemen” in charge of what stays open and is closed, who gets to go to work, who stays home, who has to work for free, during a government shutdown?

Mr. Vought is 1 of the chief authors of Project 2025, which is a document that lays out how a President Trump could claim and use more executive authority, then the Constitution currently gives the President of the United States. And how they could essentially get away with that. Is this who you want in charge of the government shutdown in Washington?

At least if Congress passed a government funding bill, (whatever you actually think of the actual bill) there are laws there that the courts can protect, requiring the executive branch to spend this amount of money, with this amount of workers in place enforcing those spending requirements. But put Trump and Vought in charge, thanks to your shutdown, there’s no one left in place who could even try to hold the President and OMB accountable during a shutdown…

From The New Democrat

You would think that someone who has not just been in Congress as long as Chuck Schumer, but in the leadership as long as Leader Schumer, would know about The Ant-Deficiency Act. But that’s not what the Democratic Leader is reading right now. He’s reading his own poll numbers, especially in New York. And that’s all he seems to care about right now.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

Posted in Chris Cillizza, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Kate Bolduan: This Is An American Public That Is Willing To Go To A Shutdown

“Kate Bolduan talks with CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten about the public opinion surrounding the government shutdown.”

Source:CNN Kate Bolduan & Harry Enten.

From CNN

As my colleague Derik Schneider wrote last Friday. As you’ll see, Derik is not impressed with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s political intelligence in this latest Washington soap opera that will probably be known as the “Schumer shutdown”:

“And just for a point of clarification: when I said last week about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s political ‘intelligence”: “If Leader Schumer lost his political brain in the Potomac River or some place… perhaps he went out drinking with Senator Markwayne Mullin 1 night and lost all his brain cells. (Inside Washington joke…

Yeah, looks like I’ve overestimated Leader Schumer’s political “intelligence” on government shutdowns… at least so far. he still has 4 days and some change to fold faster than the “House Freedom Caucus” when it comes to big government funding bills. Or, like a mouse who is surrounded by a pack of kitties.

Or, maybe Leader Schumer did lose his political brain in the Potomac River 1 night.

Or, Leader Schumer went out drinking with Senator Mullin (inside Washington joke) and gave up his political brain cells for all the alcohol that he could pay for. Perhaps Senator Mullin was an inside plant by The White House to get Leader Schumer drunk one night, so he would be political braindead to even contemplate doing this…

From The New Democrat

So if you take the word of this latest CNN poll (and I believe Harry Enten is a solid pollster and political analyst) you would have to think (don’t worry, you won’t get arrested if you don’t think this) that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is only listening to 1/2 of his party right now. And that 1/2 probably doesn’t work of the U.S. Government, is not on Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, aren’t military veterans, etc. Perhaps just the partisan activist wing of the Democratic Party.

And if you stick with this political theory, Leader Schumer is ignoring other 1/2 of his party… government workers, military veterans, people on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc… people who run or own businesses that have contracts with Uncle Sam and are at risk of either losing those contracts or having them suspended, because the government is shut down.

As well as people like myself, who write about these issues for a living, who care about the future of the country, who don’t want the Donald Trump’s of the world to have absolute power in this country. And who want a Democratic Party that is able to hold the Trump’s of the world accountable.

But I actually think there’s something else going on here. I don’t like questioning political motives of people, especially who are currently in government, even members of my own party where you would have more credibility in doing that. But as the Minority Leader said so himself for why he didn’t go through with the shutdown back in March, when talking to Sunny Hostin on The View:

“First I’d say, Sunny, no one wants to fight more than me, and no one fights more than me. We got to fight smart. It is not true — that bill had far less — it was bad, I hated it,” Schumer said. “But it does far less damage to — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are far more susceptible to being eliminated, which is what that horrible Musk — can you imagine this guy Musk, a billionaire, saying $1,100 for a senior citizen is not necessary? Or a Ponzi scheme…

From The New Democrat

Leader Schumer’s official reasoning for not shutting down the government in March… he didn’t want Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Office of Management and Budget to get to decide who gets fired, laid off, has to work for free, who gets paid and who doesn’t, who gets their public assistance checks, who doesn’t, while the government is shut down. So what’s changed?

What has changed in the last 6-7 months, is after the government funding debate in March, where Senate Democrats just let that bill go through with a majority vote and didn’t block it… is Chuck Schumer took a lot of political heat from his left-wing of the party… The Squad and their supporters. There was talk about U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez challenging Schumer in the 2028 New York Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

Chuck Schumer is 75 years old, he’s been in Congress since 1981, he’s been in the Democratic Leadership since 2005. He’s the definition of a career politician. Take him out of public office, would be like forcing fish to swim without water. Being a politician and a political leader is the only thing he knows and wants to do.

And Leader Schumer apparently thinks the way for him to save his Senate seat, is too look cool and tough for “The Squad” and look like he’s fighting for them, even if that means putting the future of the Democratic Party at risk and quite frankly the country, if voters think Democrats aren’t ready to govern again next year.

As I said back in February as far as how Democrats, especially the Democratic Leadership, should oppose President Trump and MAGA:

When you see your arch-enemy is drowning in the ocean. don’t throw them a lifeline. Let them drown.

When you see your arch enemy’s house is on fire and no one is there to do anything about it, don’t even offer to spit on the fire, let alone dump your own water on it, or call 911. Just let the house burn down.

Let MAGA burn our national house down. Hopefully they don’t destroy the country. But don’t help them do that, or try to get in their way, outside of what’s going on in the courts and at the state level. Show American voters this is exactly who you voted for and the consequences of that fateful decision. And tell them and show them there’s a better way on the campaign trail and why you deserve to be in power again.

From The New Democrat

The Carville doctrine (authored by longtime Democratic strategist James Carville) is still the right approach here. You don’t have to like what MAGA is doing, you don’t have to vote for it. What you should do is take what they’re doing on the campaign trail and use it against them to get more Democrats elected to Congress in 26. And then maybe you can win back the entire Congress, not just the House.

But you when become the issue yourself and a reason for why government isn’t working, like when you shut the government down, you give voters an opportunity to think:

“We don’t like the Republicans right now. But the Democrats seem like they’re part of the problem as well. How would electing more Democrats and even given them power in government, make things better?”

Which is not the attitude that you want voters thinking about when they go to the voting booths 13 months from now.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, and Threads.

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tara Palmeri: EXCLUSIVE: Deciding Vote Blocking Epstein Files Tied To Ghislaine Maxwell

“What hidden connections could a U.S. senator have to Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle?

In this exclusive episode, reporter and researcher Abi Baker and I to dive into my bombshell investigation from The Red Letter, uncovering Senator Lisa Murkowski’s ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her husband, Scott Borgerson, through elite Arctic Circle conferences and powerful Alaskan donors. You can read the full investigation here at:Tara Palmeri.

We break down how Murkowski, the deciding vote against releasing the Epstein files, shares a tangled web of connections with Maxwell. From Senate hearings to high-profile events, we reveal the details and ask why transparency remains elusive. Check out the full story at TaraPalmeri.com and join us for part one of our series, The Reckoning, as we hold those blocking the Epstein files accountable.

How do Murkowski’s ties to Maxwell influence her vote on the Epstein files—drop your thoughts in the comments below.”

Source:Tara Palmeri I believe with the scoop of the day.

From Tara Palmeri

Also from Tara Palmeri:

“How one survivor is exposing Senator Lisa Murkowski’s quiet ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her husband Scott Borgerson.

Here’s the thing about the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: they’re not going away. In fact, they’re hellbent on forcing Congress to pay attention after being ignored for decades. That’s why I’m launching The Reckoning, a series spotlighting how survivors are taking justice into their own hands because no one else will. These reports will track how they’re breaking chains of silence and demanding accountability from leaders while the Justice Department still refuses to release the Epstein files.

Part one of the series zeroes in on Epstein survivor and Alaskan Marijke Chartouni, who has turned her attention to Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the deciding vote on September 10 to block the release of the Epstein files. Chartouni uncovered Murkowski’s longstanding ties to Ghislaine Maxwell’s husband, Scott Borgerson, and the many occasions Murkowski appeared on stage with Maxwell at ocean-advocacy conferences. They were appearances that, intentionally or not, helped launder Maxwell’s name even as she was publicly linked to Epstein…

From Tara Palmeri

As I wrote about this 2 weeks ago:

“Senator Murkowski making the case for Congressional term limits with just this 1 statement right here:

“The amendment was a surprise and disrupted the normal process of working on the defense bill.”

This is what you can sound like when you’ve been in Congress for over 20 years: you run out of good policy arguments to vote against something that could hurt you with your right-wing, if you vote against them and instead rely on procedure, because you don’t want to offend other voters in your state, or hurt your credibility in Washington…

From The New Democrat

So what Tara Palmeri and her associate discovered through their investigation, would explain why Senator Lisa Murkowski sounded like a senator who was just wrapping up a 20 hour filibuster and instead of just reading out of the local Washington phonebook, or reading from a children’s book, or the ingredients from a bunch of can goods… she instead says:

“The amendment was a surprise and disrupted the normal process of working on the defense bill.”

That was the official reason for why Senator Murkowski voted against the release of the Epstein files, 18 days ago. But the real reason looks like that this distinguished Senator is probably in the Epstein files, or at least in the Ghislaine Maxwell files. Because she has a working relationship with Maxwell’s ex-husband, Scott Borgerson.

Now, if there is evidence that Mr. Borgerson is, or was a campaign contributor to 1 of Senator Murkowksi’s campaigns, that would be what we call in Washington a smoking gun. But at least we now know the real reason why she voted against the release of the Epstein files. And it has nothing to do with Congressional procedures and rules.

This Murkowski-Borgerson connection, you could say this is 1 reason why people hate Congress and their representatives. 1 problem with that: the people keep voting for the same people over and over who are primarily, if not exclusively interested in their own political careers. So who’s fault is that?

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on FacebookThreads, and Twitter.

Posted in Tara Palmeri, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michele Tafoya: Kimmel Wasn’t Silenced

“I wish that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, whom I recently hosted on my podcast, had not spoken the way he did about Jimmy Kimmel’s reprehensible — and false — remarks on last Monday’s edition of his late-night show.

Optics matter, and Carr’s language sounded like a threat.

But ultimately, it was Disney/ABC that suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s show, not the federal government.

We may never know the precise details of the decisions made by Kimmel’s bosses. But what we do know is that the First Amendment was not violated.

Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress made no law that led to Kimmel’s suspension.

Free Speech allows you to say whatever you want. But there may be consequences for what your words. The government can’t punish you, but your employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values.

The outcry over Kimmel’s suspension has been predictably over-the-top. And it has also been rooted in misinformation about the First Amendment.

Kimmel was misinforming his audience on publicly owned airwaves, which are licensed by the FCC. The stations complained. Action was taken.

Kimmel has not been silenced, as many Hollywood and political screamers have ridiculously and falsely claimed. Kimmel can go to Satellite radio, cable television, the Internet, or anywhere else he wants and continue his career. Hell, he can go on tour and perform live.

The First Amendment has NOT been violated. Jimmy Kimmel has NOT been silenced.

And something else can also be true: no one is entitled to a late-night show on network television. Nothing in the Constitution gives anyone that privilege.”

Source:Substack Michele Tafoya. Don’t let her adorable disposition fool you.

From Michele Tafoya

As I wrote about this 10 days ago:

“I mean assuming we survive the Trump Administration (perhaps I should start praying for that everyday) and the next President (hopefully starting in January, 2029) is a pro-Constitution, pro-rule of law… pro-law & order, (if you will President) does MAGA really want a Democratic administration, going after the Greg Gutfeld’s, the Sean Hannity’s, the Jesse Watters, the Laura Ingraham’s? Because they all have bad habits of flat-out lying, or not even knowing what they’re even talking about, when they do their commentaries (advertised as news) every night to their audiences.

I would bet anything that 4 years from now, if there is a Democratic administration at that point, MAGA and company will start pretending to be “champions of free speech again”, if a Democratic led FCC starts targeting their commentators…

From The New Democrat

To be completely fair… all cards on the table, (as they say… somewhere) this blog post from Michele Tafoya, was published 8 days ago. Which is a day before ABC announced that Jimmy Kimmel Live is coming back and his first show back would be that Tuesday night. And she obviously didn’t know that the Kimmel suspension was about to be over.

But as Michele Tafoya said:

“I wish that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, whom I recently hosted on my podcast, had not spoken the way he did about Jimmy Kimmel’s reprehensible — and false — remarks on last Monday’s edition of his late-night show.

Optics matter, and Carr’s language sounded like a threat.

But ultimately, it was Disney/ABC that suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s show, not the federal government….

ABC only suspended Jimmy Jimmel after:

“On Wednesday – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, publicly criticized ABC for Kimmel’s remarks, threatening regulatory action.

That same day – The suspension followed decisions by major station owners like Sinclair and Nexstar to preempt the show on their local ABC affiliates.

On Thursday – aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters that networks giving him bad press “maybe” deserve to have their licenses taken away.
Trump also stated that it would be “up to Brendan Carr” to make such a decision, calling the FCC chairman “outstanding” and a “patriot…

From The New Democrat

So Kimmel was only suspended after the FCC threatened to pull ABC’s broadcasting license. Does Michele Tafoya want to talk about this story from the perspective of a defense lawyer, (which she’s not) or from the perspective of a journalist (which she’s also not)? The journalist gets all the relevant facts that they can and puts them out there. The partisan commentator (which is something that Michele Tafoya is clearly more than qualified to be) just puts out the facts that best supports whatever partisan argument that they’re making. Just like with a defense lawyer who only as their client to represent.

And her 2nd point:

“Congress made no law that led to Kimmel’s suspension.

Free Speech allows you to say whatever you want. But there may be consequences for what your words. The government can’t punish you, but your employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values…

She’s technically correct that Congress didn’t make any law on this case. What she’s leaving out is that they didn’t have to. The FCC can pull licenses of television networks, which is what they threatened to do in ABC’s case, because of Jimmy Kimmel’s comment about Charlie Kirk and MAGA. With ABC responding to that by suspending Jimmy Jimmy Live for about a week. So it was government pressure that led to the Kimmel suspension.

And as Michele Tafoya also said:

“The government can’t punish you, but your employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values…

“You employer has the legal right to suspend or terminate you for saying something that does not align with their values…

Hate to break it to Tafoya, ABC is not a church, it’s not a religion, not a religious organization. It’s a for-profit company as a broadcast network. Like their parent company, Disney, ABC is in the business to make money. They suspended Kimmel because the FCC threatened pull their license had they not. They brought Kimmel back because of the outcry from the Kimmel suspension and they were losing money keeping Kimmel off the air. The same reason why Sinclair and Nexstar brought Kimmel back last Friday.

This has nothing to do with “values”. As my colleague Kire Schneider likes to say: “Money talks and bullshit walks”. The “bullshit” here being the Kimmel suspension in the first place. The “money” part being all the money that Jimmy Kimmel brings to ABC, as well as Sinclair and Nexstar. $70 million a year alone, just from the TV show on ABC, for ABC, alone.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on FacebookThreads, and Twitter.

Posted in Michele Tafoya, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment