Bill Scher: The Democrats Shutdown Strategy Is Bad

Posted on September 26, 2025 by Derik Schneider

“The president’s decision to threaten mass layoffs of federal workers should prompt Democrats to shift course.

With little chance of passage for legislation to keep the federal government open before the new fiscal year begins on October 1, President Donald Trump instructed federal agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—not temporary layoffs during a typical government shutdown, but permanent layoffs that would leave thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands—of American workers unemployed.

The Washington Post asserted that “the directive increases pressure on congressional Democrats.” This is incorrect. The directive is intended to pressure congressional Democrats because they don’t want to see the civil service decimated, but it does the opposite. By eagerly compounding the negative consequences of a shutdown, Trump is complicating any attempt to pin a shutdown solely on Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrats are flying close to the political sun by making policy demands in exchange for keeping the government open, focusing on the looming expiration of enhanced levels of Affordable Care Act subsidies. Last week, Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor, “We want to keep the government open by engaging in bipartisan negotiations, where we can address some of the grave harms Donald Trump has caused to our healthcare system and help Americans with the cost of living.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also centered on health care, telling reporters on Wednesday, “Any agreement related to protecting the health care of the American people has to be ironclad and in legislation.”

As I wrote earlier this month, every past attempt to use government shutdowns to extract policy concessions has failed, even when the policy demands are politically popular, because “shutdowns make people forget what you have to say. Public attention shifts to how shutdowns hurt average Americans and how one political party is willing to harm constituents to play political games. Once public opinion quickly turns, the shutdown agitators invariably realize the shutdown failed to provide negotiating leverage and eventually cave.”

Democrats might take solace that Trump is blundering towards at least partial ownership of a shutdown, but they are still at high risk of owning a piece for themselves.

From The Washington Monthly

My counsel to Democrats was and is to walk away from the negotiating table completely, because Republicans have already broken faith by clawing back money from the last bipartisan spending deal. With Trump and his budget director explicitly trashing the idea of a bipartisan appropriations process, Democrats have additional ground to say: Republicans want to keep the government open by themselves, so any shutdown is their problem to solve, not ours. If that means Republicans need to suspend or end the filibuster to do it, that’s also on them. Last week, Trump even said of the opposition party, “Don’t even bother dealing with them.”

In a New York Times column, Nate Silver argued Democrats should swap tariffs for health care as the issue to link to keeping the government open, since Trump’s tariffs are demonstrably unpopular and could “drive a greater wedge between Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans.” I believe this still violates the cardinal rule about shutdown demands: No matter how popular the demand is in a vacuum, that popularity will be overwhelmed by the unpopularity of the shutdown.

Silver expressed sympathy for my proposal but fretted, “The message—actually, we’re not negotiating, we’re refusing to negotiate; you have your majorities and all of this is your problem—would require a lot of discipline in practice, and Democrats aren’t very good at that.” I disagree! It’s a simple message succinctly articulated by Nate Silver!

It doesn’t need detailed policy explanations. Reporters can’t probe for weaknesses by suggesting hypothetical compromises. Once Democrats say they’ve walked away from a table that Republicans never invited them to join, there’s essentially nothing left for them to discuss or do. Media attention will quickly shift away from the Democrats, as the focus turns to: So, what will Republicans do to address this crisis?

To quibble with Silver’s summation of the message, “we’re refusing to negotiate” should be replaced with “Trump is refusing to negotiate.” Combined with Trump’s mass layoff plan, this gives Schumer and Jeffries an off-ramp from their current doomed-to-fail strategy. Democratic policies that poll well cannot bring Trump to heel because the president is a budding authoritarian who ignores polls. If you propose an idea that helps people, he will counter with one that harms them and dare you to escalate further.

If it wasn’t clear that Trump and his Republican allies were not good-faith negotiating partners before, it should be now. Forgive the glib sports analogy, but you can’t win a game with someone playing an entirely different game. So, stop playing…

Source:The Washington Monthly: “Democrats’ Shutdown Strategy: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., hold a news conference on the GOP reconciliation bill, at the Capitol in Washington, on Wednesday. Schumer and Jeffries are gambling with government shutdown brinkmanship. But Trump’s plan for mass federal layoffs is proof he won’t negotiate in good faith, and the Democrats should walk away. Credit: Associated Press”

From The Washington Monthly

As I wrote about the almost Chuck Schumer government shutdown back in March:

“So it looks like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and company have selected option a, which is to try to block this bill in hopes that Senate Majority Leader John Thune would sit down with Leader Schumer and they would work out a compromise. That’s a really risky play. A lot of political incentive for the Majority Leader to say:

“No. We’re in charge, we won the elections, we have The White House and Congress. Go ahead and shut the government down and take the blame for it”.

Which would be my response even as a Democrat, (from a political standpoint) if the Democrats controlled The White House and Congress right now and someone was drunk, high, stupid, and crazy enough (trust me: plenty of people with all those characteristics at once in Washington) to elect me Senate Majority Leader.

If John Thune doesn’t compromise here, this would be the best case scenario:

Senate Democrats relent and buck their leader and maybe 10 of them vote for cloture, just to avid the government shutdown on Friday.

Worst case scenario: the government shuts down this weekend because Leader Schumer holds his members together and. So now we’re in a shutdown next week and maybe Senate Democrats relent then because the politics here for them (especially if they’re up for reelection in 26) is too bad for them…

From The New Democrat

And as I wrote about this last week:

“There is a very good reason why we’ve only had 1 government shutdown that was pushed by the opposition party when they were also the minority parry in Congress, but had enough seats in the Senate to prevent funding bills from going through, with just a simple majority vote… at least in the Internet age: this would never work!!!

The Ezra Klein’s, the Ron Filipkowski’s, and anyone else on the activist far-left in America, will just say:

“Republicans are in complete control of the government. Even a Senate Democratic led shutdown would be blamed on The White House and Congressional Republicans, because they are in complete control. And most Americans don’t understand the cloture rule in the Senate”.

Fine. But there’s 1 big problem with that: Most Americans still get their news from the media. The national Washington media understands Congressional rules and procedures that look like they could’ve been written in Greek or Arabic, as far as how complicated they are.

The voters will learn very quickly that if the government shutdowns, it will be because of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his Senate Democrats. 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…

From The New Democrat

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. (Ha, ha)

This is the point that I want Democrats, especially left-wing Democrats, who read this to focus on and it’s from Bill Scher, who is no one’s MAGA man or, even a conservative:

“The president’s decision to threaten mass layoffs of federal workers should prompt Democrats to shift course.

With little chance of passage for legislation to keep the federal government open before the new fiscal year begins on October 1, President Donald Trump instructed federal agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—not temporary layoffs during a typical government shutdown, but permanent layoffs that would leave thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands—of American workers unemployed…

So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, get 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.

As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said so himself back in March:

“I believe it is my job to make the best choice for the country, to minimize the harms to the American people. Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open, and not shut it down.

A government shutdown would give President Trump and his allies “the keys to the city, state and country. While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse.”

From CBS News

If you a person of the Left, (whether you personally identity as center, left-wing, or far-left) and you think that shutting the government would be a good thing, because as actress/comedian Nancy Lee Grahn said the other day:

“Democrats, the Republicans are gonna shut down the government which will cause unspeakable pain to Americans. Make them own it. And use that time to explain and educate the world in easy to understand language as to what the Republicans have done, and why THEY and their billionaire benficiaries and donors are to blame for everyone’s pain.”

From Nancy Lee Grahn

Maybe you are a leftist who thinks this is your way to get back at Donald Trump: “Yeah, man… this is our chance to take a stand against the man!” Or in this case, The Donald. Perhaps unaware that 1969 ended 56 years ago and militant left-wing groups like The Weather Underground and Students For a Democratic Society went out of business not shortly after the 1960s ended… at least on our calendars.

Or, as Nancy L. Grahn said: “Democrats, the Republicans are gonna shut down the government which will cause unspeakable pain to Americans. Make them own it… Which translate to, let the government shutdown and then try to put that blame on the Republicans for it.

And another thing; taking political advice from entertainers, like in Nancy Lee Grahn’s case is so good, it can be difficult to tell when she’s being serious… that’s like taking medical advice from your local mechanic and ignoring your doctor. Except in that case, you are only putting your own health a risk. But in this case, you are putting the country’s economic health, as well as out system of checks and balances, at risk.

Again, as Nancy L. Grahn said: “Democrats, the Republicans are gonna shut down the government which will cause unspeakable pain to Americans. Make them own it… If this is your line of political “thinking” right now, I have some really bad news for you.

Just think about how badly this week as gone for Trump and company:

Jimmy Kimmel back on ABC

Democrats win their 2nd straight House election in 2 weeks, with overwhelming numbers

House Democrats and Representative Tom Massie (Republican, Kentucky) now have the votes in the House to pass the release of the Epstein files

Even Sinclair has brought back Jimmy Kimmel, with their announcement today.

If Chuck Schumer and his Senate Democrats shutdown the government next Wednesday… the media is longer talking about:

Jimmy Kimmel and what he has to say about MAGA and company.

They’re no longer talking about Epstein files.

Or another bad inflation report for The White House, or another bad jobs report for The White House.

All they’re talking about next week, is the Schumer shutdown. And the American people will learn very quickly who’s fault this is. They’ll know that Congress can’t pass a government funding bill, even though the House already passed 1, because Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer won’t let his members vote for cloture on the House bill. Sorry for a lot of inside Washington lingo here. But this is where I live and work.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

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

Salena Zito: Our Counterculture Revolution is Here & it is a Revival

Posted on September 25, 2025 by Rik Schneider

“Something big is happening with America’s young people. It has been building for the past two years. It centers on faith, purpose, and a renewal toward more traditional American values. This new American youth counterculture movement looks very different from the one that burst onto the scene in the 1960s.

Sixty years ago, the youth movement on college campuses set out to upend our culture’s status quo — the rebellion created a seismic cultural and political shift away from post World War II traditionalism.

And for the next 60 years, we inched towards leftist ideologies that began with noble purposes such as the Civil Rights Act and equal pay for women. Then we went from center-left to leftist to far left. The ideology infiltrated all of the dominant cultural centers: government, institutions, technology, academia, corporations, Hollywood, and legacy media.

And church attendance across all faiths, particularly among our young people, plummeted.

Pretty soon, what was once the counterculture was now the status quo — it had the power and influence on society. It wasn’t until COVID and the unbearable totalitarianism of its impact on our society that people began to see that our dominant cultural power base needed a dose of its own medicine.

Every counterculture movement is a rebellion against the dominant culture. Now, our young people are leading the way by rejecting the conformity demanded by our culture and its elite gatekeepers who crush dissent from anyone who questions their authority.

What has been missing for many young people is a relationship with God. I first noticed this soft awakening in 2023 when walking across the Roberto Clemente Bridge here in Pittsburgh and saw hundreds of young people literally jumping in the water while religious music was playing on the shore line.

It was a spontaneous baptism that included hundreds of young people who decided this was the day they would accept Jesus into their lives. The moment was powerful and moving — just as powerful and moving as two Sundays ago when days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, young people showed up at The Sanctuary Church in the Hill District of Pittsburgh. They came by the droves to express their faith.

“And what we are witnessing across this country is an awakening with our young people, a true revival.”

These moments are not anecdotal. Two recent reports have shown a dramatic shift among young people and their relationship with their faith. First, the Pew Research Center released a report showing that the decades-long decline in Americans identifying as Christian leveled off, followed by a survey done by the Barna Group that showed that downward trend is now in full reverse.

And who is driving the return to church? These reports show the rise in faith is being driven by those in their 20s and 30s.

“Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus.”

Last Thursday, a remarkable moment happened on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh when 600 college students showed up for a first-ever “Pitt for Jesus” event. There, it was clear we are in the midst of a revival.

The event featured nearly 100 baptisms, live worship music, prayer, testimonies by athletes and a spiritual awakening among young people that was profound to experience.

Sunday’s memorial service for Charlie Kirk was an example of a large revival. These young people have behaved boldly since the horrid murder, but not in the way our current cultural curators find acceptable, as Erika Kirk said on Sunday.

“These past 10 days after Charlie’s assassination, we didn’t see violence. We didn’t see rioting. We didn’t see revolution. Instead, we saw what my husband always prayed he would see in this country. We saw…

Source:Salena Zito is a syndicated, right-wing, political columnist.

From Salena Zito

So I guess my response to Salena Zito is a counterpoint to what she’s arguing. I’ll be the contrarian to what she’s trying to argue here.

She’s essentially saying that church attendance is up and more American are finding God again because:

“Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus…

But according to the United Religious Initiative:

“Jesus Christ’s core religious philosophy, deeply rooted in his Jewish heritage, centered on the love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons. His teachings also included radical ethical principles, such as the importance of seeking the Kingdom of God, giving to the needy, and pursuing peace and nonviolence, all presented within an apocalyptic framework of God’s impending intervention in history…

From the United Religious Initiative

Now, based on what I showed you from URI, does that sound like MAGA today?

Does their Dear Leader Donald John Trump sound like a man who believes:

“love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons…”?

Is what you hear from FOX News, or Newsmax every night (assuming you even watch FOX News or Newsmax) sound like people who believe:

“love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons…”?

Do you think any of these MAGA podcasters, their reality TV stars, their religious zealots who bash people to their face, for being gay, or simply using their First Amendment of free speech, to speak out against the President of the United States… do those people sound like people who believe:

“love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living…”?

Now maybe Salena Zito managed to find the last of the true believers (when it comes to Jesus Christ) on the far-right in America. But these folks aren’t religious, as far as how they practice their own lives and what they believe. If they have a “God” at all, that person is Donald John Trump. Or, that’s the person that they view as God.

I don’t agree with political satirist John Fugelsang on everything. He’s way to the left of me and the rest of this blog, ideologically. But he’s a helluva lot more Christian than Donald John Trump and his hardcore followers, could ever dream of being… even in their longest and best marijuana, or meth highs, and during their best drunk fantasies. And I’m going to give you a few of his quotes about people who claim to love the Bible, even though they’ve never even read the damn book, or understand it:

John Fugelsang: The only way you can follow both Trump and Jesus is if you’ve never read either of their books.

I’ve come to view Jesus much the way I view Elvis. I love the guy but the fan clubs really freak me out.

People get God and religion confused. I think God is a bit too hip to join any of his unauthorized fan clubs.

You can find the rest of his quotes on AZ Quotes

American fall into religious cults because they’re lost and they find someone 1 day, or perhaps the actual cult leader, who sounds so pure and intelligent, that it’s like hearing from Jesus Christ himself. But what they don’t know, is the cult leader is not actually following the text of Jesus, or the Bible itself. He’s at best taking samples of what Jesus said, or what’s in the Bible and blowing them up to fit his own agenda.

I don’t enjoy calling people cultists, even for comedic reasons, but that’s what Donald John Trump’s base is. They seem him as the Son God (that they don’t even believe in, or at least don’t understand) and have decided to take every word and action that this man makes, regardless of what he says and does, and treat it like it’s from the Son of God. Which is why he’s always had hardcore base of 35% (give or take) and another 10-15% of the country with him on presidential election days, simply because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, for any reason whatsoever.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Chris Cillizza: Why Republicans Are Suddenly PANICKING Over Jeffrey Epstein

Posted on September 24, 2025 by Erik Schneider

“Republicans in Washington are sounding the alarm over a move that could force the release of the Department of Justice’s files on Jeffrey Epstein. Kentucky Rep. Tom Massie says he now has the magic number — 218 votes — thanks to support from every Democrat plus a small group of breakaway Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert.

That means, for the first time, the House could vote on whether to compel the DOJ to make its Epstein investigation public — a vote Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP leadership have tried to block. So why are Republicans in such a panic? And what happens if this really goes to the floor…

Source:Chris Cillizza talking about Donald Trump’s big House fire.

From Chris Cillizza

The New Democrat has already made the case for why DOJ should have already released the Epstein files. As Fred Schneider said back in August:

“The speculation (and I’m sure it’s true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn’t want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he’s all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there’s probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein.

But my point is, for reasons that I’ve already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He’s already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won’t dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public.

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about “family values”, morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That’s not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer… if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump’s professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger “rockstar” and “badass”, after the Epstein files are released…

From The New Democrat

And as Derik Schneider said 2 weeks later:

“As far as the Epstein files, it’s hard to imagine a sitting U.S. President being more unpopular than Donald John Trump. He’s now in Joe Biden’s range as far as political unpopularity, with his low 40s and upper 30s approval rating. Releasing the Epstein files even with him all over them, couldn’t hurt himself anymore than what he’s already done to his own political standing. If anything, it would probably just make him seem cooler with his reality TV base and perhaps even Independents who voted for him, because they think he’s a “badass” or something:

“Yeah!!! The Donald rolls with pimps and sex traffickers!!! He’s even a bigger badass than we thought”.

From The New Democrat

I’ll get to what Chris Cillizza said… later. But first I want to make more of an observational and practical point about the problems with trying to govern a 435 member institution, with just a 3 seat majority (Speaker Mike Johnson must feel like he’s president of a high school student council, instead of the U.S. House of Representatives) and the weakness of running a scorched-earth political campaign, where the ultimate goal is just to have 1 more Electoral College vote, than your opponent.

Just go back 20 years… President George W. Bush had a 15 seats majority in the House of Representatives. Even that, is a small majority, by modern standards, but if G.W. Bush was all over the Epstein files, like water in a pool, ketchup on fries, gold diggers on wealthy men, etc… (let your imagination run wild on that) imagine (if you will) that George and Jeff met somewhere in Texas in the 1970s… maybe Epstein visits Texas looking more more female recruits and they became friends during G.W.’s drinking days… 4 votes Republicans wouldn’t be nearly enough to get a discharged petition passed about anything. House Democrats, or maverick Republicans, or a combination, would’ve need 16 House Republicans to vote with all 202 House Democrats, to pass a discharge petition about anything, back in 2005-06.

But unlike Donald John Trump, George Walker Bush (whatever you think of the man personally and politically) was a big tent Republican. It wasn’t just the far-right and center-right Republicans who didn’t like him, but who voted for him anyway, and 1 more independent than what John Kerry got back in 2004. President Bush locked down all the Republican base and won the independents with a solid majority. Why?

Because he was more trusted on national security than the Democrats

He was pro-legal immigration, who didn’t scare minorities, gays, or women.

He wasn’t a wannabe dictator, or a criminal, not a convicted felon, or insurrectionist, fraudster, womanizer, etc.

At least before Hurricane Katrina, Americans tended to like G.W. Bush, at least personally, even though his 2nd term was very rough for him and his party, politically. Donald Trump doesn’t have any of the political attributes that even President Bush had. Outside of his Anglo-Saxon fundamentalist base, his professional, urban reality TV people, and his MAGA bros… no one in America even thinks that Donald J. Trump is even a decent man.

So when you run a political campaign that’s only geared to your base and no one else and you treat anyone who even dares question you, about anything, as nothing but traitors, criminals, and terrorists,… sure, you can win a presidential election doing that in our social media political climate, but your governing majority in Congress, will be very slim because you got the other half of the country and more people, who are always against you.

You win the election going scorched-earth, but you don’t expand your party, even in Congress. And when you get in trouble politically, like with the Epstein files, that puts pressure on your own party to do something about it. And when you are only working with a 3 seat majority in the House, out of 433 seated members, (as of today) it doesn’t take much for your party to act against you, in the House.

Now if anyone is still awake after reading all of that, I’ll get into what Chris Cilliza is talking about as well.

So with Adeliate Grijalva’s (daughter of former U.S. Representative, the late Raul Grijalva) winning her father’s old House seat, House Democrats now have 214 out of 433 seated members in the House. So, yes, unless Speaker Johnson calls for a permanent vacation and House recess for the rest of this Congress, Representative Massie will get his discharge petition sighed and passed, with the help from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries delivering all 214 House Democrats to vote yes.

But don’t break out the cigars and champaign just yet. (Especially if you don’t smoke or drink alcohol) The Mike Johnson permanent vacation and recess crack, is just a half-joke. The House Republican Leadership might try something like that, just to prevent the House from voting on this resolution. But it probably won’t work.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, and Threads.

Posted in Chris Cillizza, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Don Lemon: HOT TAKES! – Kamala Harris Book BOMBSHELL!

Posted on September 23, 2025 by FredSchneiderUS

“Don Lemon breaks down the new revelations from Kamala Harris’s book, 107 Days. What does she reveal about her time in office, and what do these insights mean for how we understand the 2024 election?
Don digs into the details, discusses whether Harris should have taken a different approach, and explores what her reflections tell us about the past, and the path forward for Democrats.”

Source:Don Lemon being very candid about Vice President Kamala Harris’s new book.

From Don Lemon

As Erik Schneider said back in December:

“And then we get to Kamala Harris who for the most part inherited a strong campaign, as far as the organization, the people, the infrastructure, the finances. What she gave it, was energy, enthusiasm, and the only way I can put this but political adorableness, where she’s just so cute and sweet as a person, it’s really hard not to like her, if not love here. Assuming you are not a neanderthal jackass, who thinks that the only job that women should have, is to stay home and make their husbands happy.

On the downside, Vice President Harris not just starts off Election 2024 as an unpopular Vice President, with a approval rating at around 35%, but where maybe 1/2 American voters (depending on what poll you look at) don’t even know who she is, what she believes.

I was calling for on my Threads page back in July, that Kamala Harris needs to do a series of townhalls, maybe a week after figuring out exactly what kind of presidential campaign she wanted to run and do those townhalls in just the swing states in the beginning. So people, especially Independents and Republicans who didn’t want to vote for Donald Trump, as well as blue-collar Democrats who were considering voting for Donald Trump based on the economy, could get a good idea of who she and what here values are.

The Vice President doesn’t do any townhalls until October. It’s September with CNN anchor Dana Bash, before she does any network interviews at all. So it’s not just running for President late, which wasn’t her fault, but starting out real late in the gates to even do an interview, that I think set her back. And her first townhall at all was in October with Univision News and CNN.

And far as as the Harris Campaign’s strategy, it seemed to be about maxing out yuppy, white-collar, especially female, yuppy, white-collar voters, of all political backgrounds, including urban and suburban Republican women, to vote for her. And hope African-Americans fall in line, where they were even dragging with President Biden, who did so well with them in 2020. And as far as blue-collar Democrats, I guess they left that up to Governor Tim Walz…

From The New Democrat

“Former Vice President Kamala Harris told “Good Morning America” on Tuesday that she does regret not personally challenging former President Joe Biden’s decision to run for reelection.

In an interview with “Good Morning America” co-anchor Michael Strahan, Harris said it was “reckless” of her to not raise her concerns with Biden choosing to run for reelection.

“Do you regret not voicing your opinion in that moment?” Strahan asked Harris, who wrote in her campaign memoir “107 Days” out Tuesday that the reelection decision was Joe and Jill Biden’s to make.

“Yes,” Harris said, “and I, and I actually have reflected on that, and I’ve written about that.”

“Would that have mattered if you did?” Strahan asked Harris…

From ABC News

I just want to start off with something that Don Lemon said and then I’ll tell you what I think about all of this as well. Don Lemon:

“I live in the real world. These are the people (referring to Donald Trump’s voters) who voted for someone who pardoned the insurrectionists. These are the people… Americans, who voted for a person who is a convicted felon. So I would love to give my fellow Americans more credit than that. It is the choir that will probably vote for you. But to also win, you also need some converts. I mean people from the Right. You have to read the room, understand the time that we live in, how they’re going to use it…

So, that was Don Lemon’s response to Pete Buttigieg’s response to Vice President Harris explaining why she didn’t pick him for her running mate, because she essentially didn’t believe that the country was ready for a gay Vice President, especially serving the first female President of the United States. Which is what Kamala Harris would be right now, had she won the 2024 election.

Just to pick up on Don Lemon’s point here…. I don’t know what the percentage of these voters are, but there’s always going to be (and I’m in my late 40s now) a bloc of American voters who simply didn’t get the memo that it’s no longer 1955. And these folks are always going to have a problem with:

minorities serving in the military

women working at all

African-Americans and other minorities voting, running for office, serving in high office

Gays living and working out-of-the-closet, etc.

And they’re always going to be a big enough bloc of those voters, to swing any close election to the Right, if Democrats try to get to far in front of them culturally and try to force the New America that they hate, with all the diversity and freedom for all, downs their throats. And I’m sure Pete Buttigieg sounds really cool with younger, lefter, Democrats with his:

“I give the American people a lot more credit than that”.

But he’s not operating in the real political world with that attitude. The only world that he might be operating in with a line like that, is the 1 where he sees himself as the next President of the United States. Which might be the only thing that he’s thinking about anyway, right now.

And no, I’m not saying minorities can’t serve, or shouldn’t run for high office. I’m just saying that when Democrats run for President, run for governor, they have to understand how dominant race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and culture, are still dominant with a major bloc of the American electorate.

And moving on, we covered why Vice President Harris lost last year and early this year. But now I want to get into 1 of the mistakes that she actually admitted that she made. This is 1 is about her not intervening as President Biden’s own, damn, Vice President and not trying to make any case to the President that he shouldn’t run for reelection in 2024, especially after he announced that he would only be one-term President back in 2020…

And we can all talk about not just hindsight, but political hindsight as well and I was looking for a clever quote online for this post about hindsight, but I didn’t find anything that I like that much so I’ll just tell you:

With 20/20 hindsight, we could make learning a lot less interesting and make self-improvement a lot less necessary. Because there would be no more: “If I had only done this instead, then that would’ve happened and I would be a lot more successful now”. But part of being human is learning about yourself, especially where you come up short, so you know how to get better. And “that’s all fine and good”.

But Kamala Harris was President Joe Biden’s Vice President for 4 years. He was already pretty unpopular after 2 years and going into year 4, he was looking at a mid 30s approval rating, while trying to run for reelection with that.

The Vice President of the United States is only as valuable as the counsel and advice, the support that she or he can give the President. As much as Vice President J.D. Vance probably disagrees with this, the Vice President is not in office to verbally and publicly kiss the ass (to be frank) of the President everyday.

There are times when the VP has to bring bad news, including about the President, to the President’s attention, so the President has all the information and evidence available, to make the best decision about how to move forward, even as it relates to their own political career.

Of course it would’ve come off as self-serving for a sitting Vice President of the United States, to tell her own President, that he shouldn’t run for reelection again. But she wouldn’t have had to tell President Biden: “Why don’t she step down from the reelection effort, so I can run instead”.

What the Vice President could’ve done instead, was explain to President Biden this is why you shouldn’t run for reelection, because you are going to get beat badly in November for a whole host of reasons. And just as important: you’ll take down the Democratic Party with you and will be remembered as the political loser who didn’t know how to quit when the time came.

But Vice President Harris didn’t do that. She stuck with White House line that everything is swell in Pleasantville. Or use a Naked Gun reference: “There’s nothing to see here!!!” With burning buildings in the background. And it cost her and her party, everything.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, and Threads.

Posted in Don Lemon, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Connell McShane: ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ Returning To ABC

Posted on September 22, 2025 by kireschneider

“The Walt Disney Company announced Monday it will resume production of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on Tuesday after suspending the late-night talk show last week over what the company called “ill-timed and insensitive” comments regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”

Source:News Nation with a look at Jimmy Kimmel Live. That’s right, he ain’t dead yet.

From News Nation

As Ederik Schneider wrote about Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension on Friday:

“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

I would say that what ABC is doing here: “Is taking a strong stand for the First Amendment, the free press, after they realized the error of their ways and have decided to make amends with Jimmy Kimmel and every other comedian and commentator who has the big balls to say anything critical about Donald Trump, or any of his allies”. But then I would be lying. And we don’t do that here at The New Democrat. (At least when we’re under oath) So I’m not going to start now.

There’s actually something else going on here. Perhaps this expression here is not 100% app, but there’s the old expression: “Money talks and bullshit walks”.

The money part of this story is all the revenue that Jimmy Kimmel brings in for the American Broadcasting Company (that some know as just ABC) and the fact that ABC doesn’t want to lose its $70 million a year, just from the show on air alone. And Ederik pointed out on Friday, they only suspended Kimmel’s show because President Trump and the FCC threaten to take away ABC’s broadcasting license away, had they not had suspended Kimmel over his Charlie Kirk “MAGA gang” comments.

The bullshit part in this story from the expression, “money talks and bullshit walks”, is the fact that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended over a bad joke that he made about Charlie Kirk in relation to MAGA and the joke fell flat and offended a lot of people.

Imagine if Johnny Carson, Dave Letterman, Dick Cavett, Jay Leno, etc, all got suspended over every bad joke that they made… we wouldn’t have any full-time late night talk show hosts 20, 30, 40, years ago, because they would all be getting suspended… perhaps after every show. The best comedian in the world is not going to be funny 100% of the time and at times will offend a lot of people, even when they’re funny.

But as long as money still talks in America and we’re still at times able to give bullshit a kick in the ass and tell it to get the hell out of here, there will always be room in our country for the Jimmy Kimmel’s and other comedians like him.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Posted in News Nation, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liz Wolfe: Did You Ask the FCC If You Can Make That Joke?

Posted on September 19, 2025 by Ederik Schneider

“Plus: America’s cocaine habit, how Charlie Kirk handled South Park, and more…

Jimmy Kimmel pulled off the air: Yesterday evening, ABC News (a subsidiary of Disney) announced it was suspending comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show “indefinitely” following factually inaccurate comments he made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of course, comedians have no obligation to be factually correct. Kimmel’s show is intended as a hybrid between comedy and news, though, so it’s fair to wonder whether he does. “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” said Kimmel during his Monday night monologue. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.” A montage of President Donald Trump followed, making fun of how, though people have claimed Kirk was like a son to the president, he’s moved on rather quickly.

It wasn’t especially good or funny. It also was somewhat anodyne. To overly psychologize for a moment, I wonder whether Trump pivoted to talking about construction at the White House when reporters asked him about Kirk’s death because he is, in fact, distraught about it but didn’t feel up to going there. We can’t know. Kimmel’s shot felt cheap. But Kimmel is allowed to be bad—he’s been bad for a while.

The issue is that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Brendan Carr suggested the agency might punish ABC, pulling its broadcast license in retribution. On conservative Benny Johnson’s podcast, Carr suggested Kimmel’s comments were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the FCC was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” said Carr, ominously. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

“Just before ABC’s announcement, Nexstar Media Group said that its stations that are affiliated with ABC would pre-empt Kimmel’s show ‘for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight’s show,'” reports CNBC. Nexstar, which owns 10 percent of ABC’s affiliate stations, is in the process of securing FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger with Tegna, which owns roughly 5 percent of the affiliate stations.

“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” wrote the president on Truth Social. “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”

Courage sure is an interesting word choice, given that Trump’s own agency threatened them with consequences (though he’s not wrong if we’re solely judging him as a media critic).

“I don’t think this is a legal issue,” said former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno on CNN. “I don’t think this can be pointed to the FCC or the Trump administration and say, well, this is about them going after Kimmel because of what he said. Personally, I think it’s more of a cultural issue. And I got to tell you. I’m about as moderate a Republican as you can get. I’m from New York. I have not been comfortable watching late-night television for 15 years because when you have conservative leanings and you’re constantly mocked and you’re constantly feel like you’re doing something wrong, you shut it off. You don’t watch it anymore.”

Some people have made the point that the FCC might have given Disney/ABC cover to do something they already wanted to do, and do it in a way that makes the Trump administration look like the bad guys:

I also think this point is very fair, which is that this didn’t start yesterday. If you haven’t noticed the extraordinary media jawboning—indirect censorial pressure directed at private companies from the federal government—over the last few years, you haven’t been paying much attention:

“The government pressured ABC—and ABC caved,” wrote Ari Cohn of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “The timing of ABC’s decision, on the heels of the FCC chairman’s pledge to the network to ‘do this the easy way or the hard way,’ tells the whole story. Another media outlet withered under government pressure, ensuring that the administration will continue to extort and exact retribution on broadcasters and publishers who criticize it. We cannot be a country where late night talk show hosts serve at the pleasure of the president. But until institutions grow a backbone and learn to resist government pressure, that is the country we are.”

Cohn makes a good point, both that this is the direct result of government coercion that is wrong and disturbing, and that these institutions should not be in the business of caving. It’s disturbing to see massive law firms, media outlets, and organizations that should have some amount of fuck-you money choose the path of cowardice. But given that Disney has been interested in fighting the government before (albeit in a different context), the fact that they weren’t willing to do so this time makes me think maybe Kimmel was already a goner…

Source:Reason Magazine contributing editor Liz Wolfe.

From Reason Magazine

Libertarian commentator Yaron Brook has some great observations about free speech and Attorney General Pam Bondi:

“Pam Bondi’s Horrible Take on Charlie Kirk and Free Speech Sparks Huge Backlash”

Source:Yaron Brook with a look at the Chief Consigliere for The Don of Washington.

From Yaron Brook

We already have 3 posts about the attacks on free speech in America this week. Mine will be the 4th… but that’s only 4 posts out of 5 days. So what are you complaining about?

Erik Schneider:

“I’m just getting to Chris Cillizza’s point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful.

And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech… then we have an Attorney General who doesn’t even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has.

1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is… we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison… have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous.”

From The New Democrat

Rik Schneider:

“I’m not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole… any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated… anything that they want to talk about.

But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That’s what’s known as an exchange of ideas and open debate…

From The New Democrat

Derik Schneider:

“But as Erik and Rik have already mentioned this week, we believe liberal democracy and free speech is for everyone, not just people who agree with us. As the great Conservative Ronald Wilson Reagan said:

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor”.

To make a partisan statement: I’m willing to bet anything that Donald J. Trump completely disagrees with President Reagan on this.

The point we’re making here at The New Democrat, is American liberal democracy is big enough for the Charlie Kirk’s, the Pat Buchanan’s, the Phyllis Schlafly’s,.. even people as verbally disgusting as David Duke and Don Trump. As well as “The Squad” and their far-leftist allies.

The main reason why the Communist Party is even allowed to exist in America, is because we have the First Amendment (that they don’t believe in) and their ideology is so unpopular, that they would never even have any real power in this country, anyway.

The reason why the far-right is able to exist, is agains because of the First Amendment. But their ideas are so bad an unpopular and even though they’re in power now in America, at least the executive level, we still have checks and balances that can contain them. And they peacefully won the election last year.

So America has never been a majoritarian democracy. As much as President Trump may want to rewrite the First Amendment, perhaps even erase it through executive order, our checks and balances won’t allow him to do that. We’re not a majoritarian democracy, we’re not a social democracy. But America is a liberal democracy and 1 of our liberal values is free speech for everyone. Not just for the educated and the enlightened (to paraphrase Rik Schneider from yesterday) but for everyone that calls America home.”

From The New Democrat

On Tuesday, Erik told you that The New Democrat will have a series of 3 posts about free speech in America in relation to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Yeah… Erik lied, because this is the 4th. Actually, when you write in the Blogosphere, news changes so fast and sometimes you have change your plans to try to keep up with it, which is the real reason why this is the 4th 1 because of ABC firing heir late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, because President Trump doesn’t like him.

So, no one at The New Democrat is a lawyer, but what I’m going to give you a circumstantial case for why and how the Trump Administration used government pressure on ABC, to fire Jimmy Kimmel. And then I’ll respond to what both Liz Wolfe said, as well as Yaron Brook.

So on Monday night, ABC late night talk show host said this about Charlie Kirk and MAGA:

“The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

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”.

This information courtesy of Google

As my other colleague Fred Schneider wrote on Threads last night:

“Does MAGA really want a left-wing Democratic administration to have the same power over speech that they don’t like, that the Trump Administration is trying to use right now? Of course not. But that’s what they’re going to get, if they keep trying to cancel people simply because they don’t like their speech.”

From Fred Schneider

This is the Liz Wolfe comment that I want you to focus on… but not like a lazer. Because that cliche is so old that’s it’s now the great grandparent of, “it is what it is”. But this is what she said:

“Of course, comedians have no obligation to be factually correct. Kimmel’s show is intended as a hybrid between comedy and news, though, so it’s fair to wonder whether he does. “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” said Kimmel during his Monday night monologue. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.” A montage of President Donald Trump followed, making fun of how, though people have claimed Kirk was like a son to the president, he’s moved on rather quickly.

It wasn’t especially good or funny. It also was somewhat anodyne. To overly psychologize for a moment, I wonder whether Trump pivoted to talking about construction at the White House when reporters asked him about Kirk’s death because he is, in fact, distraught about it but didn’t feel up to going there. We can’t know. Kimmel’s shot felt cheap. But Kimmel is allowed to be bad—he’s been bad for a while..

So, “comedians have no obligation to be factually correct”. Now, similar to tabloid publications, tabloid shows, they can’t just openly defame and lie about people, especially for profit on air. You could say Jimmy Kimmel’s comment:

“The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

was in bad taste and I would agree with that. You could also argue that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) controls on air licenses in America. I might disagree with that, but even if that’s right, as Fred Schneider said:

“Does MAGA really want a left-wing Democratic administration to have the same power over speech that they don’t like, that the Trump Administration is trying to use right now? Of course not. But that’s what they’re going to get, if they keep trying to cancel people simply because they don’t like their speech.”

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.

And Attorney General Pam Bondi’s on going after hate speech:

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” Bondi said in an interview with “The Katie Miller Podcast” that aired Monday, appearing to shrug off First Amendment concerns.

We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything — and that’s across the aisle.

You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live. There is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society…

Yaron Brook responded to the Attorney General’s comments with:

“Now, will somebody tell me what’s the differences between this and the WOKE Left? Somebody tell me what’s the difference between this and what the Left (I would argue far-left) about hate speech? Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment… since when? That’s why the First Amendment is there, to protect hate speech…

To answer Yaron Brook’s question: the only difference between the far-left and far-right in America when it comes to hate speech and political correctness, is the same difference between coffee house hipsters when it comes to their coffee: they all drink coffee, but they don’t all drink the same coffee drink. Someone like espresso, some like lattes, etc.

When it comes to political correctness when it comes to the far’s in American politics, you can say whatever you want, just as long as you are on your team and they agree with you. But when the other side says something “:hateful”, then they label that hate speech and not protected by the First Amendment.

And just 1 more thing about Jimmy Kimmel and I’ll finally end this: (and go check to see if it’s still Friday or not, or if it’s Saturday morning with the sun coming up) if you are a Gen-Xer like myself, you are old enough to remember when “Republicans” at least claimed to be in favor of the “free market” and free speech. They don’t pretend anymore. They now control all the levers of the government, except for the courts. And when you say or do something that they don’t like, the Constitution doesn’t exist in their world. And they’ll come after you with as much force as they can get away with.

In a true free market and liberal democracy, (which is America is struggling to hold onto everyday during the Trump Administration) the Jimmy Kimmel’s, the Greg Gutfeld’s, the Seth Meyers, the Sean Hannity’s, the Jesse Watters’s, the Laura Ingraham’s, the SNL’s, would have the freedom to communicate and express whatever they think on current events, as much as they want… short of defamation, libel and incitement. And their audiences (what’s known as the free market) would get to decide how good or bad they are and whether they should stay on the air or not. But that’s not the world we live in right now.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

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

Jonathan Zimmerman: Don’t Shut Down Free Speech in Charlie Kirk’s Name

Posted on September 18, 2025 by Derik Schneider

“The slain conservative activist was a vigorous debater in the public square. Silencing discourse in his name betrays the 31-year-old’s legacy as would canceling those criticizing his views.

Charlie Kirk championed free speech as a fundamental American value. So, it’s sad—and ironic—that the murder of the 31-year-old conservative activist has triggered a fresh round of censorship, alarmingly aimed at teachers and other government employees. Educators in a dozen states have been fired or placed on leave for online statements that criticized Kirk or expressed approval of his death.

Education Week notes the breadth of the surveillance of educators: Teachers in “California, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas have been fired or placed on leave ahead of investigations into alleged social media comments critiquing Kirk and implying approval of Kirk’s death.” In Washington, D.C., at the State Department, Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary who essentially serves as the secretary’s number two official, wrote online that “I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action,” referring to Mr. Kirk’s killing. “Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the @StateDept can protect the American people.” And a Republican lawmaker in Colorado called on the state’s Democratic governor to dismiss a state employee who posted that Kirk was “a white man who spews horrid shit against every marginalized community.” John Phelan, the Navy secretary, posted a message saying that sailors or Marines found to be “displaying contempt toward a fellow American who was assassinated” would be “dealt with swiftly and decisively.

I thought that’s what happens in authoritarian countries: government officials monitor public expression and penalize those who say the wrong thing. But it’s happening in the United States of America.

Let’s be clear: teachers have no right to propagandize in their classrooms about Charlie Kirk or anything else. But the ones who were fired or suspended last week commented on social media, imagining it was a forum for free and open dialogue. While there may be some extreme statements for which educators might be investigated, even in their social media postings, such as racist and pedophilic remarks, their comments about Kirk were political musings not germane to their teaching duties.

Republicans used to worry that technology companies censored speech via content moderation and other restrictions. Now they’re calling for restrictions to ensure nobody besmirches Kirk. One GOP representative said he planned to use “Congressional authority” to compel tech companies to ban any user who “belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

Many of these censors also praise Kirk as a tribune of free speech.

In many ways, he was. By his own estimate, Kirk spoke at 150 colleges and universities each year. He eagerly challenged left-leaning students via his signature tagline, “Prove Me Wrong.”

That rarely happened. Kirk was older and more eloquent than most of the students he took on. He was also a voracious reader, which helped him expose their ignorance and biases.

And he posted these exchanges on social media, drawing millions of viewers. In one video, a student claims that Kirk—who never graduated from college—lacks “qualifications” to speak about economics. “Who is Milton Friedman?” Kirk replies. Of course, the student doesn’t know…

Source:The Washington Monthly with a look at MAGA activist Charlie Kirk.

From The Washington Monthly

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about free speech on Tuesday:

“I’m just getting to Chris Cillizza’s point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful.

And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech… then we have an Attorney General who doesn’t even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has.

1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is… we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison… have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous.”

From The New Democrat

And as Rik Schneider wrote about free speech yesterday:

“I’m not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole… any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated… anything that they want to talk about.

But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That’s what’s known as an exchange of ideas and open debate…

From The New Democrat

I would be the first to tell you that I’m not an expert on the late Charlie Kirk. Never met the man, never attended 1 of his speeches, etc. Really all I know about him right now, is from a few clips in the last week or so which him talking about his support for the 2nd Amendment and seeing his past comments about women, gays, and transgender people, all comments that put him probably as far to the right of the Phyllis Schlafly’s of the world, the Patrick J. Buchanan’s… far-rightists like that.

I’m only saying this because The New Democrat is still trying to figure out if Charlie Kirk was a true believer when it comes to free speech, or was it just 1 of his partisan talking points that he like to throw around, when the fact is he only believed in free speech for people like him and perhaps everyone else on the Right… just as long as they never criticized him, or anyone else on the far-right in America.

But as Erik and Rik have already mentioned this week, we believe liberal democracy and free speech is for everyone, not just people who agree with us. As the great Conservative Ronald Wilson Reagan said:

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor”.

To make a partisan statement: I’m willing to bet anything that Donald J. Trump completely disagrees with President Reagan on this.

The point we’re making here at The New Democrat, is American liberal democracy is big enough for the Charlie Kirk’s, the Pat Buchanan’s, the Phyllis Schlafly’s,.. even people as verbally disgusting as David Duke and Don Trump. As well as “The Squad” and their far-leftist allies.

The main reason why the Communist Party is even allowed to exist in America, is because we have the First Amendment (that they don’t believe in) and their ideology is so unpopular, that they would never even have any real power in this country, anyway.

The reason why the far-right is able to exist, is agains because of the First Amendment. But their ideas are so bad an unpopular and even though they’re in power now in America, at least the executive level, we still have checks and balances that can contain them. And they peacefully won the election last year.

So America has never been a majoritarian democracy. As much as President Trump may want to rewrite the First Amendment, perhaps even erase it through executive order, our checks and balances won’t allow him to do that. We’re not a majoritarian democracy, we’re not a social democracy. But America is a liberal democracy and 1 of our liberal values is free speech for everyone. Not just for the educated and the enlightened (to paraphrase Rik Schneider from yesterday) but for everyone that calls America home.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, Twitter.

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

Erick Erickson: The Dividing Line

Posted on September 17, 2025 by Rik Schneider

“I think every American should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want. I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.

I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.

I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions.

We, as a sane and civil society, should not normalize publicly gloating over a political assassination. Outside of the militant libertarians, this should be something everyone agrees on. You might express those views among friends and, frankly, if a friend recorded you and made it public they’d both not be your friend and I’d advocate no sanctions against you for having voiced that view privately among friends. It’s the public championing of an assassin we need to shut down.

Americans used to have two basic things we all agreed on.

Nazis are bad.

No one should get killed for expressing their views.

What the left has done is attempt to expand the definition of the former to get around the limitations of the latter. If anyone the left disagrees with is a Nazi, well Nazis need to die.

It’s just wild to see people believe Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed for his speech, but the same people think it is a bridge too far for one to lose their job over believing that.

I am fine with doctors, nurses, teachers, professors, soldiers, and others losing their jobs for supporting, justifying, or defending the assassination of an American they do not like. I am not fine with anyone losing their jobs saying nasty things about Charlie Kirk that do not include justifications for or defenses of the assassination. And I really vehemently oppose prosecuting anyone for “hate speech” or other speech. Sadly, the United States Attorney General seems to think there is both “free speech” and “hate speech,” which she believes is not free speech and might be something the DOJ targets. That is not the law and is indefensible.

The Attorney General, on Fox News, went so far as to claim the Christian baker should be forced to bake the cake for the gay wedding — an argument the Supreme Court rejected. In Pam Bondi’s case though, it was the threat to prosecute a business that opposed printing fliers for a Charlie Kirk rally. If Bondi wins that argument, you will be baking the cakes for the trans birthdays.

Heather Cox Richardson has one of the largest substack subscriber bases on the planet. She is a leftwing historian who many, many people on the left go to in order to put the day’s event’s in perspective. Essentially, she tells them what to believe. Here she is September 13th…

Source:Erick Erickson on Substack.

From Erick Erickson

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about free speech yesterday:

“I’m just getting to Chris Cillizza’s point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful.

And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech… then we have an Attorney General who doesn’t even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has.

1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is… we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison… have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous.”

From The New Democrat

There are a couple points here from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on and then I’ll tell you what I think about them.

Erick Erickson talking about free speech in reference to Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week:

“I think every American should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want. I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.

I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.

I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

This is the key point here:

“I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

I literally asked Mr. Erickson yesterday on Twitter about in reference to his point:

“I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

This is what I asked him:

“What should be the consequences for speech that you don’t like?”

From Twitter. He hasn’t responded to my question.

The 2nd point from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on, is something that he said on Twitter yesterday:

“There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi.”

From Twitter

Since apparently Mr. Erickson doesn’t want to answer what he thinks should be the “consequences” for people who use speech that he doesn’t like… I’m going to tell you what people are able to do and what they can do in response to speech that they don’t like, including hate speech.

I’m not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole… any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated… anything that they want to talk about.

But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That’s what’s known as an exchange of ideas and open debate.

And to Mr. Erickson’s 2nd point: “There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi.”

I don’t even take the United Nations seriously on everything, let alone agree with them on everything. I mean the People’s Republic of China (which is still a Communist State) is a member of their Human Rights Council. But I think their definition of hate speech is pretty solid:

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”.

Of course hate speech exists. And it’s not just used against minorities, women of all backgrounds and gays in America. It’s used against everybody, including Anglo-Saxon-Protestant males in America. Just because you believe hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, (which I do) doesn’t mean you have to pretend that it doesn’t exist. Even though you have the First Amendment right to do that.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Posted in Free Speech, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Chris Cillizza: Donald Trump’s Attorney General Doesn’t Understand How Free Speech Works

Posted on September 16, 2025 by Erik Schneider

“Pam Bondi just made a big mistake when it comes to understanding free speech and the First Amendment. In a recent podcast interview, she claimed that “hate speech” isn’t protected under the Constitution. That’s just not true.

In this video, I break down:

What Bondi said — and why it’s wrong
The actual history of free speech and hate speech in America
Key Supreme Court cases that prove hate speech is protected
The real (and narrow) exceptions to the First Amendment, like incitement and threats

The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect speech we all agree with. It exists to protect the speech we hate — and that’s a point Pam Bondi, as Attorney General, seems to have missed.”

Source:Chris Cillizza making the case for free speech.

From Chris Cillizza

Here is Attorney General Pam Bondi’s quote on free speech:

“The Trump administration will be targeting hate speech…

This will be part of a 3-part series on The New Democrat this week about free speech and how we define it. My post and then Rik Schneider will have something tomorrow and then Derik on Thursday.

Anyone familiar with this blog knows that we’re what liberal columnist Kirsten Powers call “free speech nuts”. She doesn’t call us that, but how that’s how she describes her own support for free speech in America. And we feel the same way about free speech as well. We even have a section in this blog called Free Speech (of all things) where we write about… well, free speech. (The cat is finally out on the bag on that 1)

Whether you like the humor here or not, it’s very quick, pointed and even at times dark. We don’t swear as much as you see from a lot of other blogs (even though we believe swearing is covered by the First Amendment) but the freedom to offend (to paraphrase George Carlin) is also covered by the First Amendment. And we take advantage of that right whenever we feel it’s justified.

When you write about politics and politicians for a living…. unless you want to be 1 yourself, (I guess no one is hiring Kamikaze pilots right now, just politicians) if you don’t make fun of politicians, you don’t have a sense of humor, because they’re so corrupt as a profession and in many cases their voters are even worst.

And if you care about how our tax dollars are spent, you’ll go crazy by not releasing some of that frustration on the people who give us the government that we all pay for and you’ll go crazy. So when you see my argument here for free speech, hopefully it doesn’t sound foreign to you, at least based on what you’ve seen from this blog before. But hopefully it at least looks like English.

Now, on to what I really want to say here. I have some recent personal experience here from last Thursday, where I posted something that actress/comedian Nancy Lee Grahn (for you General Hospital fans) said about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. She said on Threads:

“The Presidential Medal of Honor is now equivalent to the Walmart Shopper of the Week.” In response to President Trump announcing that Charlie Kirk will be rewarded with the President Medal of Honor. I reposted that on Threads and Facebook as well.

Someone responded to my Facebook post with this in referring to the fact that Charlie Kirk will be rewarded with the PMH:

Kimberly Eident Chytil: “She needs to be fired”.

And I responded with: “For what?”

And then Kimberly Eident Chytil responded with: “For comments about Charlie Kirk”.

And I responded with: “So you are saying she (meaning Nancy L. Grahn) should be fired for expressing an opinion about Charlie Kirk. 1 thing that Mr. Kirk claimed to be in favor of, was free speech”.

You can see that whole discussion (loose definition of discussion) on my Facebook page.

I’m just getting to Chris Cillizza’s point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful.

And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech… then we have an Attorney General who doesn’t even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has.

1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is… we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison… have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

Posted in Chris Cillizza, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Brianna Keilar: Markets Soar As Americans Sour On The Economy

Posted on September 15, 2025 by FredSchneiderUS

“Consumer sentiment in the US is sliding to near historic lows as Americans grow increasingly frustrated with the economy. But don’t tell that to stock traders. The S&P 500 has hit four record highs this month.

CNN senior reporter Matt Egan and CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten break it down.”

Source:CNN News Central. On a personal note: Brianna Keilar is something to see on her feet.

From CNN

As I wrote about the economy 10 days ago:

“My quick analysis about this jobs report, is employers and consumers don’t like tariffs. (Don’t need to be a Nobel Prize economist to figure that 1 out) When employers are worried about prices going up and equipment and all the things that they need to keep their business going.. when the cost of business for them goes up, or they’re worried about their cost of business going up, like with tariffs, they hire less because they’re worried about their cost of business too much, to expand their business. When employers hirer less, production also goes down because they have fewer employees working for them…

From The New Democrat

There are a couple points that I want you to concentrate on, first.

Astead Herndon said:

“Usually when we get to this point in politics, we ask the question “who is to blame… who will the voters blame?” I think Trump has actually taken care of that question for us because he made such a show about tariffs, he made such a stamp of this as his economy…

And as Matt Egan said in this video:

“The Stock Market has taken off ever since President Trump announced he was suspending his “Liberation Tariffs”. And the Federal Reserves has shown signs that it will cut interest rates to deal with the weak job market…

Now, if the Fed does cut interest rates this week, or next month, how much do you want to bet that President Trump will have some longwinded (to be kind) Truth Social post, or news conference… taking the credit for the Fed cutting interest rates. I would consider betting my house on that, if I were expecting $10 million in return from that bet. But the reason why consumer spending and the job market are weak right now, is because the President’s trade policy.

I mean if someone blows their house up and then all the sudden they come to the conclusion that they just made a horrible mistake and they call the fire department, you don’t give that person credit for putting out the fire that they started. (Assuming you are not stupid, crazy, drunk, or high. Perhaps not a safe assumption today) But Donald J. Trump is what you would call a political arsonist, as well as a political narcissist, so of course he would do that.

Now to my political analysis: it’s still the economy, stupid. (To paraphrase James Carville from 1992) That’s how Democrats won back complete control of the Federal Government in 1992. If Harry Enten is correct, as long as that 56% number is anywhere in the ballpark, as far as people who think the economy is getting worst… and if Democrats just focus on that, as well as the Epstein files, and not how you shut down the government and find a way for Republicans to get the blame for that, 2026 should be a great year for them.

Because Americans tend to vote with the pocketbooks and when 1 party is in complete control of the government and the economy is bad, that party tends to get the blame for it and gets voted out-of-power.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

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