Newsnight With Abby Phillip: Elissa Slotkin Has "White Flag Energy" in Dem Civil War, Says Jamaal Bowman

"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are testing out new party messaging, emphasizing the importance of fighting for working class voters. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) hit AOC and Sanders, saying "what have they actually done?" Former Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman called Slotkin's comments "white flag energy." 

Source:CNN with a look at former U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman (The Squad, New York) and U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (Democrat, Michigan)

From CNN

U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: “This isn’t just about Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us too,” Ocasio-Cortez said to applause. “But what that means is that we as a community must choose and vote for Democrats and elected officials who know how to stand for the working class... 

Trump anded the keys to Elon Musk and is selling this country for parts to the richest people on the planet for a kickback. In exchange, they will bankroll his campaigns and those of his allies.”

U.S. Senate Bernie Sanders: "the wealthiest Americans – saying the richest among them “have fun flying off into outer space on their very own spaceships.”

“And maybe they should stay there,

They are like heroin addicts – they need more and more and more,” he said. “And if they destroy Social Security and Medicaid to get what they want, that is what they will do.”

From CNN

Just when I think CNN is almost completely useless: they show a conversation that is really at the heart of the Democratic Party right now: which direction should they be moving in and how to combat Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. And the two sides represented here: The James Carville's and the AOC's. 

The Carville's representing the political rope-a-dope strategy of strategic, political counter-punching. 

And the AOC's who want to burn the house down and not so much concern with who gets burned in the process, just as long as the house gets burned down, so they can rebuild the Democratic Party in their left-wing, militant, socialist, badass, image, and perhaps take over the government as well. 

The New Democrat supports James Carville  here: 

"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 New Democrat also supports Senator Elissa Slotkin on this as well: 

"Senator Elissa Slotkin laid out the game plan last night for how Democrats, not just in Congress, but at the DNC level, the state level, as well as the activist level. need to act as the opposition party. 

What Senator Slotkin (Democrat, Michigan) said last night is inline with what Fred was talking about last week: 

The Democratic Party shouldn't be acting like some shadow opposition party where they offer their own alternatives to every piece of bad legislation that Congressional Republicans bring up, or an unlawful, unconstitutional executive order that President Trump signs. 

Or, instead to go to what James Carville was talking about last week: Democrats shouldn't become the obstructionist party (which is basically what the left-wing of the party wants them to be) but instead let the people see who bad Republicans are at governing, especially when they have all the power. " 

From The New Democrat

But The New Democrat doesn't support AOC and company on this: 

"See, whatever you think of what Leigh McGowan is proposing here, it's the wrong approach, even if you like what she's proposing. At least the politics of it, even if you agree with her ideas. What she's talking about is proposing an alternative to what House Republicans are trying to jam through the House right now, but seem to be short on votes. 

I'm with James Carville on this: 

"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." 

From The New Democrat

With all due respect to Jamaal Bowman: 1 of the reasons why he's not still in the U.S. House today, is because he lost his Democratic primary in 2024. Why? Because he represents a House district that has a large Jewish Democratic population (not uncommon in New York City) and was seen as antisemetic and not addressing the needs of his own district. 

And former Representative Bowman not just lost an election, at least partially, based on his own past ethnic and racially based statements about how you talk about Jews and other European Americans, I'm not sure you want to be throwing around terms like "white flag energy" (which can be interpreted to having multiple meanings) when talking about Democrats from another race. 

As The New Democrat has been saying, really since right before President Trump's State of The Union and really every since, almost everyday since... it's easy to talk about how much Democrats should fight and how partisan the leadership of the party should be, when you are out of office, or you've never even been in a tough reelection battle in your entire political career. 

Senator Bernie Sanders literally represents the Socialist Republic of Vermont. (Their own nickname, not mine) 

Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez represents a district in New York City, where if any Democrats fails to get less than 80% of the vote there, that's a close election for the Democrat.

Senator Elissa Slotkin represents Michigan. She beat former U.S. Representative Mike Rogers by 0.3% of the vote. Michigan is the definition of a swing state. The presidential nominee who has won Michigan since 2008, has also won the presidential election. 

Bernie and AOC, and the rest of The Squad in Congress,  can afford to be "political badasses" and attack not just Donald Trump every chance they get, but even Democrats as well and pay zero price for that. 

The Elissa Slotkin's, the Jon Ossoff's, the Mark Kelly's, and other swing state Democrats in the Senate, and all the swing district Democrats in the House, don't share Bernie and AOC's political luxury here. They need Independents and in some cases mainstream Republicans, and a solid share of the blue-collar vote in their states and districts, to even get reelected. 

And these are things, facts (actually) that the left-wing of the Democratic Party, who seem more interested in their political, pop culture appeal, than anything else, have never understood about the Democratic Party. Which would also explain why they're never in leadership. 

The Democratic Party is only successful, when it's a big tent party. And that includes not just Socialists, but militant Socialists. But it also includes Progressives and Liberals who have a big tend perspective not just about their party, but the rest of the country as well. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meisleas: FOX News LOSES IT On AIR As President Trump APPROVAL PLUMMETS

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Fox News getting more desperate than ever as Trump’s approval keeps plummeting." 

Source:Medias Touch with a look at MAGA News.

From the Meidas Touch

From Yahoo News: 

"As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) looks to slash waste and correct inefficiencies, one DOGE advisor revealed it's "hard to really grasp the scale" of problems facing the IRS.

"A huge part of our government is collecting taxes. We cannot perform the basic functions of tax collection without paying a toll to all these contractors. We really have to figure out how to get out of this hole. We're in a really deep hole right now," DOGE representative Sam Corcos said Thursday on "The Ingraham Angle."

The "DOGE bro" shed light on his work within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to trim the federal government fat alongside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent... 

Bessent, who was recently confirmed as President Donald Trump's treasury secretary, added "one of the biggest surprises for me is just seeing how these entrenched interests, they just keep constricting themselves around the power, around the money, around the systems, and nobody cares."

"Many of the employees are fantastic. It's this consultant group. They're like a boa constrictor. They're like a python," he said. "They've constricted themselves around our government, and the costs are unbelievable. They're being passed on to the American taxpayer."

"The entrenched interests, the consultants, the Democrats, mainstream media, they just want to blow this project out of the water," Bessent told Ingraham. "This is the opposite of government efficiency, not elimination, not extinction. Sam and his crew are making it more efficient to work for the American people. So what's wrong with it working better, cheaper, faster, and with more privacy?"

Bessent said his top three priorities for the tax collecting bureau are "collections, privacy and customer service," and he argued, "None of those are being well served."

"We want people to feel satisfied that they are getting the service they deserve, that they're paying their fair share and not more, not less. And that it's done quickly, smartly and privately," he said."

From Yahoo News

From Money Wise: 

“Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream,” Bessent said during a speech at the Economic Club of New York on March 6. “The American Dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security.”

His remarks come at a time when many Americans continue to grapple with high costs of living amid Trump’s threats to impose further tariffs, which experts believe will drive up prices in the short term.

Bessent was later pressed on the issue during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“Are you saying that the Trump administration is comfortable to have consumers pay more for goods in America?” host Kristen Welker asked.

“Not at all,” Bessent replied. “What I’m saying is the American dream is not ‘let them eat flat screens.’ If American families aren't able to afford a home, don't believe that their children will do better than they are [doing], the American dream is not contingent on cheap baubles from China, it is more than that. And we are focused on affordability, but it's mortgages, it's cars, it's real wage gains.”

From Money Wise

Secretary Scott Bessent's line: "Many of the employees are fantastic. It's this consultant group. They're like a boa constrictor. They're like a python," he said. "They've constricted themselves around our government, and the costs are unbelievable. They're being passed on to the American taxpayer."

Reminds me of this expression: "The expression "you can never trust a snake" is a common idiom used to describe someone who is deceitful, untrustworthy, and potentially dangerous, often implying they are scheming or manipulative. It's rooted in the image of a snake, a creature often associated with stealth and danger." 

I'm just wondering of the Secretary is speaking from personal experience here. And perhaps cluing in Laura Ingraham's viewers about his own trustworthiness.

Which would explain Fox News host Laura Ingraham less than enthusiastic expression and response to Secretary Bessent when the Secretary compared Federal workers to snakes. 

I'm willing to cut Donald Trump's government officials some slack, in this sense: most of them weren't even politicians, or appointed officials before they got their current government jobs. Most of them are oligarchs or very hyper-partisan political activists and commentators from MAGA Land, with very little if any government experience before becoming secretary of this, that, or the other thing. 

And because of the business and political backgrounds that these Trump officials have, that makes them very out-of-touch with even everyday MAGA voters who are paying President Trump's higher prices today, because of his tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs that these countries like in Europe are placing director on Donald Trump's own voters: people who live in small towns and rural communities, who can't afford to pay higher prices on their basic necessities of life. 

I mean this would explain how a man who is worth 500 billion-dollars would make the statement: “Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream,”. Because higher prices on basic necessities doesn't affect him. 

Now, if Scott Bessent were looking to buy a new yacht, Rolls Royce, a new mansion in South Carolina or Virginia, etc, and interest rates were let's say 10%, that would affect him. He might decide not to buy those new luxury items until interest rates came down and perhaps inflation as well. But this man will never have to worry about how he's going to put groceries on the table, meet his mortgage payments... his kids probably already graduated college, etc. So he doesn't think about those things, which is why he doesn't mind making life harder for people who doesn't even think about. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Meet The Press With Kristen Welker: President Trump ‘Can’t Unilaterally Dismantle' Department. of Education Without Congress

"President Trump signs an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. Former Education Secretary John King Jr. says he expects to see bipartisan support in Congress to maintain the “vital functions” of the department." 

Source:NBC News with a look at Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida) 47th President of the United States & 1st wannabe dictator. And Linda McMahon who is about to be the former U.S. Secretary of Education?

From NBC News

From U.S. News: 

"President Donald Trump and billionaire ally Elon Musk are testing the limits of executive branch power.

Legal experts agree that Trump does not have the Constitutional authority to dissolve government agencies, like the Department of Education.

The Supreme Court will likely have to weigh in on whether a president can drastically downsize an agency... 

The question of whether a president can close a congressionally established agency, like the Department of Education, is easy to answer: No. That’s according to the multiple constitutional, legal, administrative and political analysts who have weighed in on the topic for this report.

“Most of these things are just simply illegal,” says David Super, a professor with a specialty in constitutional law at Georgetown University Law School. “The new administration has decided that they don't think anyone is going to insist on the checks and balances system anymore, and that we can go to a vastly stronger president – a presidency that is probably closer to George III than George Washington and that no one will stop them.”

From U.S. News

I would love to be proven wrong here, but from what I've been reading, I'm not seeing anything in the Constitution that says the President can either, or not unilaterally eliminate executive departments that were created by Congress, all by himself: 

"The Constitution does not establish administrative agencies or explicitly prescribe the manner by which they may be created. Even so, the Supreme Court has generally recognized that Congress has broad constitutional authority to establish and shape the federal bureaucracy. Congress may use its Article I lawmaking powers to create federal agencies and offices within those agencies, design agencies' basic structures and operations, and prescribe, subject to certain constitutional limitations, how those holding agency offices are appointed and removed. Congress also may enumerate the powers, duties, and functions to be exercised by agencies, as well as directly counteract, through later legislation, certain agency actions implementing delegated authority... 

From Congress.Gov

From what I have been reading, the Supreme Court in the past has ruled that Congress has the sole authority to establish or eliminate executive departments. But that doesn't mean the John Roberts Court would adhere to that. 

So that poses a practical question from me to any practical Republicans out there, like a Constitutional Conservative: (for example) do you really want some future left-wing Democratic president to have the same power to eliminate executive departments, as Donald J. Trump? Because that's exactly what the Supreme Court would be granting, if they let President Trump go through on unilaterally eliminating the U.S. Department of Education. 

I think this is a question that not just Chief Justice Roberts, or Justice Amy Coney Barrett (who have served as a check on DJT's power in the past) need to be thinking about, but Justice Neal Gorsuch as well. 

Final point on this: imagine someone as far to the left as Dr. Jill Stein (who ran for President the last 4 cycles for the Green Party) somehow wins the Democratic nomination for President in the future and they know even a Democratic Congress, with large majorities (House & Senate) wouldn't agree to eliminate the CIA, or FBI, or gut the Department of Defense, or Homeland Security,., so what this Socialist President does is sign an executive order to unilaterally eliminate those agencies and departments by himself, or herself. I doubt any serious, mainstream, Republican today, would want that. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Bill Scher: The Filibuster is Working - You Just Can’t See It

"The same Dems who argue to keep the filibuster ‘for when we need it’ do not use it when we need it,” posted Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. The New York Democrat’s complaint followed Senate passage of the House Republican “continuing resolution”—aided by 10 Senate Democratic caucus members who supported cloture—that kept the government open without restraining President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional attempts to impound congressional appropriations.  

Her accusation of hypocrisy is widely echoed in the party but it’s misdirected. None of the 10 voted to preserve the filibuster in January 2022, when Democrats tried to suspend the filibuster rule to pass voting rights legislation. Back then, Democrats were thwarted only by conference members Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who are no longer in the Senate. (One of the 10, Senator John Fetterman, wasn’t in the Senate at the time but is on record supporting the abolishment of the filibuster.) 

Does Ocasio-Cortez’s larger point—that the filibuster is useless for Democrats because Democrats don’t use it when it counts—have merit? Still, no. The filibuster is not impotent and dormant. It’s very much alive, constraining the GOP legislative agenda every day, even if it doesn’t feel that way during Donald Trump’s tumultuous second term.  

Provocative bills that have reached the Senate floor have mostly been filibustered (as Sinema pointed out during a snarky X exchange with Ocasio-Cortez this month). Two weeks ago, Senate Democrats blocked a bill that would have banned schools that receive federal funding from allowing transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams. In January, they derailed a bill that would have put doctors performing emergency late-term abortions at risk of criminal penalties, as well as a bill that would have sanctioned International Criminal Court officials for issuing an arrest warrant to the Israeli Prime Minister. Filibustering those bills was not without political risk for Democrats, but they did so anyway... 

The most significant impact of the filibuster is on the bills that never come up for a vote. 

Much of the controversy surrounding the modern application of the filibuster centers on it effectively creating a 60-vote threshold to pass any legislation since 60 is how many votes are needed to end debate with “cloture.” Instead of old-fashioned “talking filibusters” that require great endurance and subject the instigators to public scrutiny—think Mr. Smith Goes to Washington—we get “silent filibusters” that require no effort and prevent bills from reaching the floor.  

Today’s GOP legislative agenda is severely constricted despite having a majority in both chambers. Congressional Republicans are mainly focused on what they can stuff into a reconciliation bill, which under Senate rules is filibuster-proof but can only include budget-related provisions. They are angling for radical cuts to Medicaid to finance huge tax cuts for the wealthy and may succeed. But we know from the Build Back Better bust of 2021 and the failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 that passing party-line reconciliation bills is harder than it looks.  

If Democrats had abolished the legislative filibuster (or effectively abolished it by setting a precedent for suspension by simple majority vote), then there would be no stopping a far-right, fascistic legislative freight train. And that would have been a precursor to packing the courts, which, as I argued last month, we should be eternally grateful did not happen. While under increasing strain from Trump, our constitutional system of checks and balances is one of the last guardrails. While the filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is in line with the spirit of the Constitution, which is designed to prevent tyranny by the majority. Granted, with Trump—who has never won a popular vote and is underwater in polling averages—we have an aspiring minority tyrant. But we still need every check to avoid sliding into authoritarianism. 

Filibuster opponents from the left once scoffed at the threat of an unchecked Republican trifecta. The right will be constrained by public opinion, the argument went, or they will pay a price at the next election. Such statements are heard less frequently now, as they have been supplanted by concerns that we will never have a free election again. But the Constitution’s diffusion of powers, abetted by the filibuster, ensures elections will happen on schedule in 2026 and 2028, allowing the public to bury a GOP agenda they never fully understood or supported.  

Until then, the filibuster silently works daily to limit the carnage this Republican-controlled Congress can unleash. In 2021, when Democrats took the White House and both chambers of Congress, they almost scuttled the filibuster. The next time Democrats win a trifecta, I suspect their memories of the Trump trifecta will be long enough that they won’t again flirt with such danger." 

Source:The Washington Monthly with a look at U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democratic Socialist, Bronx, New York) doing what she probably loves to do the most and perhaps loses sleep because she can't wait to get to the office and do again: taking questions from Washington reporters.

From The Washington Monthly

I swear almost every time that Representative Alexandria O. Cortez speaks about anything, especially relating to Congress, she proves not just why he's not in the Democratic Leadership, but that at least suggests that she has no interest in being in the Leadership either: 

"The same Dems who argue to keep the filibuster ‘for when we need it’ do not use it when we need it,” 

From U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez

I could understand a freshman member of the House not understanding House rules, yet. That person has only been on office for a couple months now. But she's been there since 2019 and has at least flirted about wanting to be promoted in Congress by getting elected to the Senate. Yet, she has no idea how the Senate filibuster seems to work, when it's used, how it's used, the consequences that come from using it, when the Senate Minority Leader asks for votes to block legislation that the majority is pushing, etc. Even though she's been a part of every major Congressional battle and debate in Congress the last 6 years. 

This key point from Bill Scher is also my point as well: 

"Today’s GOP legislative agenda is severely constricted despite having a majority in both chambers. Congressional Republicans are mainly focused on what they can stuff into a reconciliation bill, which under Senate rules is filibuster-proof but can only include budget-related provisions. They are angling for radical cuts to Medicaid to finance huge tax cuts for the wealthy and may succeed. But we know from the Build Back Better bust of 2021 and the failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 that passing party-line reconciliation bills is harder than it looks. " 

That fact that Congressional Republicans need reconciliation between the House and Senate, to avert a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, is all you need to know how effective the filibuster is. 

And the fact that Republicans need around 900 billion dollars in budget cuts to pay for their 880 billion dollar economic package, that includes new military spending, border security, and new tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as to extend their tax cuts from 2017, that mostly went to wealthy individuals and corporations, proves that the filibuster is still alive and well. 

Without the filibuster, Congressional Republicans wouldn't need reconciliation. They could just borrow the 880 billion or so and leave Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Defense alone. Which would cause other problems for them as well. Which could be part of a future discussion. 

But the fact that Congressional Republicans need 880 billion either in new cuts, or in new revenue, to pay for their economic package and how unpopular those cuts would be and politically painful they would be, especially for mainstream House Republicans, who have a solid number of Democrats and Independents in their districts, proves that the filibuster is still alive and well and very effective right now. 

Just because you have a political tool, but don't always use it, doesn't mean it's not there, or even the threat of it isn't there. Imagine Alexandria Cortez, or someone like her as Senate Democratic Leader right now: Congress would never be able to go home, because Senate Democrats would do all the talking and even Donald Trump might be able to find a way to keep his big mouth shut (at least once in a while) and let the Democrats feel the political pain, instead of him. She would be the most unpopular person not just in Congress, but in all of Washington and perhaps New York, if she were leading the Senate Democrats right now. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

Laura Ingraham Interviews President Donald Trump

"President Donald Trump sits down with Fox News' Laura Ingraham for an exclusive interview to discuss the latest on his call with Russian President Putin, deportation flights for migrant criminals, 'rogue' judges attempting to halt his agenda, DOGE, trade policy and more." 

Source:FOX News talking to Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida) 47th President of the United States & 1st wannabe dictator.

From FOX News

From Mediate: 

"Fox News host Laura Ingraham pressed President Donald Trump over his treatment of Canada relative to the way he treats U.S. adversaries in an interview that aired on the network Tuesday evening.

Ingraham’s  interview with the president premiered on Tuesday evening’s episode of The Ingraham Angle. When they got to the topic of Canada, Trump reaffirmed his stance that Canada was “meant to be” the 51st state and claimed the U.S. didn’t need Canada’s lumber or automotive manufacturing exports. That prompted Ingraham to ask another question:

INGRAHAM: But you’re tougher with Canada than you are with some of our biggest adversaries. Why?

TRUMP: Only because it’s meant to be our 51st state, and I mean that.

INGRAHAM: OK, but we need their territory. They have territorial advantage. We’re not gonna let them get close to China, right?

TRUMP: Look, I deal with every country — indirectly or directly. One of the nastiest countries to deal with is Canada. The people that now — this was [former Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau — the people that good old Justin — I call him “Governor Trudeau” — his people were nasty, and they weren’t telling the truth. They never told the truth. You know that, you know, they’d say, “Well, we don’t charge.” Well, they do. They charge tremendous, they charge tremendous; and, if you look at dairy products, what they’ve done to our farmers — I’d go up to Iowa, I’d go up to different places, Nebraska — and they would always complain about Canada, how they get ripped off. Do you know that Canada has a 250% tariff? Two-hundred and fifty. Nobody knows that. They charge us numbers that are crazy. We have a very big deficit with Canada–

INGRAHAM: $60 billion.

TRUMP: Much more. We have much more–

INGRAHAM: I don’t think so.

TRUMP: –just so you understand. We subsidize Canada, and I like Canada. I love Canada." 

From Mediate

Just a little background of what I think of Laura Ingraham first and then the interview: 

I think she's a right-wing, hyper-partisan demagogue, who a best is very loose with the truth. But she's not stupid or crazy. You see that just in the opening of this interview with President Trump where she said that The White House readout of the conversation between the President and President Vladimir Putin: "As a positive reading of the conversation"

And then Laura Ingraham literally asking the President when talking about Chief Justice John Roberts statement on the President attacking Federal judges because they ruled against him: "Are there any court orders that you wouldn't defy?"

Think about that: a Fox News anchor... I mean there's no one more MAGA than Laura Ingraham. Her right-wing populist record, goes back to the 1990s, if not father. She's a saner, more intelligent version of Ann Coulter. And she's asking the Dear Leader of the MAGA movement (who also just happens to also be President of the United States) "Are there any court orders that you would defy?"

And the thing about Canada... no one, even in the U.S. Department of Defense, actually expects us to invade Canada. I'm also willing to bet that there's no one in the U.S. Department of State, who actually believes that Canada would just agree to become part of America. But Donald Trump throws this out there, because he sees Canada as weak and that he can push them around. 

And the rest of this interview is Donald Trump just being the Donald J. Trump: the king of political reality TV in America: meaning everything he actually says, isn't actually happening. Just a bunch of political garbage: 

And the President trying to blame everyone else in the world for problems he caused. 

And the President trying to spend 10 minutes talking about everything in the world, except of for what Laura Ingraham asked him, before Ingraham cuts him off and tries to get an answer to her actual question. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer VS The View

"Farah Griffin weighs in on the continued fallout over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's decision to back the GOP spending bill and why she thinks government shutdowns are bad for everyone. Then, she reflects on her time working at the Pentagon and the White House and if she has any career regrets." 

Source:The View's Alyssa F. Griffin & Brian Teta.

From The View

"Robby Soave and Marianne Williamson react to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) media interviews explaining why he supported the recent Republican funding bill." 

Source:The Hill talking about U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York)

From The Hill

"Schumer responds to Democrats questioning his leadership after backing a Republican spending bill. He also discusses the relevance of his new book, "Antisemitism in America: A Warning." 

From The View

The View panelist Sunny Hostin to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: 

“It gives me no pleasure to say this to you, because we are friends, but I think you caved,” Hostin said pointedly. “I think you and nine other Democrats caved. I don’t think you showed the fight that this party needs right now, because you’re playing by a rulebook where the other party has thrown that rulebook away.”

So, in my view, what you did really was, in supporting that GOP partisan bill the Democrats had no input in, you cleared the way for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to gut Social Security,” she said. “To gut Medicare, to gut Medicaid. Why did you lead Democratic senators to play by that book that the Republicans are not playing by."

Leader Schumer responding to Sunny Hostin: 

“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?”

If you have two choices, one bad, the other devastating; one chops off one of your fingers, the other chops off your arm? So I want to fight, and we are fighting, we’re going to fight every day,” he explained." 

Source:The View talking to U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York)

From The View

The New Democrat has been very clear on Chuck Schumer's decision here: 

"Any shutdown must end eventually. But in the aftermath, Trump and his bureaucratic goon Elon Musk could tell vast numbers of employees that they needn’t return to work, accelerating their plans to hollow out the federal government and embed MAGA loyalists in what remains of the civil service. In fact, WIRED reports, based on anonymous Republican sources, “that Musk has wanted a government shutdown … in part because it would potentially make it easier to eliminate the jobs of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, essentially achieving a permanent shutdown.” During shutdowns, employees deemed “nonessential” stay home. Musk, who has said anyone nonessential shouldn’t be in government, could use a shutdown to take advantage of any nonessential classifications.  

The resist-everything-everywhere-all-at-once argument theoretically compels Democrats to filibuster so that their fingerprints aren’t on any legislation that abets the Trump-Musk plan. But a shutdown can abet it, too. Moreover, a shutdown would trigger a blame-game dynamic in which Republicans can shift blame from Musk’s rampage to Democrats for the increased dysfunction. No matter what Democrats do, they risk public ire... 

If Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made a mistake last week on this, it was indicating on Wednesday that he would try to block the bill until there was some bipartisan funding agreement that could be reached between Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans. But as I said about last Wednesday... 

From The New Democrat

"I'm with James Carville on this: 

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. 

Right now, Republicans control The White House and both chambers of Congress, not just the House and White House. They have everything, including the Senate and Supreme Court. They are in complete charge and completely responsible for the nation's welfare as far as what passes and what doesn't... 

From The New Democrat

"Democratic strategist James Carville called on Democrats to make a "strategic political retreat" in a guest essay for The New York Times on Tuesday, telling members of his party "to play dead."

"Allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight, and make the American people miss us. Only until the Trump administration has spiraled into the low 40s or high 30s in public approval polling percentages should we make like a pack of hyenas and go for the jugular. Until then, I’m calling for a strategic political retreat," he wrote. 

"With no clear leader to voice our opposition and no control in any branch of government, it’s time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political maneuver in the history of our party: roll over and play dead," the strategist continued.

"Carville compared his suggestion to a "tactical pause," and argued the Democrats needed to stop regularly playing defense against the Trump administration's actions.

"It’s a vision move — get out of the hour-to-hour, day-to-day combat where one side (ours) is largely playing defense and struggling to defend politically charged positions (like explaining D.E.I. or persuading voters to care about foreign aid), and take time to regroup, look forward and make decisions about where we want to get to over the next two years," Carville said.

He said Americans were likely not waiting around for lawmakers and commentators to make the same old arguments to criticize the president. 

"They’re tired of it, and our Democratic voters are tired of watching us moan and groan to cover up our impotency out of power. They want us to be smarter than that," he added."  

From The New Democrat

"Sen. Schumer tells 'The View' a government shutdown would have given the Trump administration the freedom to slash programs it views as nonessential, with little to no recourse for Democrats to pursue."

From The View

"I knew it was a difficult choice, and I knew I'd get a lot of criticism or my choice, but I felt as a leader I had to do it," Schumer told “The View” hosts.

I hate" the funding bill because it creates a "slush fund" for President Donald Trump, his adviser Elon Musk and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought to "push around."

But a shutdown, Schumer said "would have devastation like we have never seen.”

It would have given the Trump administration the freedom to slash programs it views as nonessential, with little to no recourse for Democrats to pursue. Programs like Medicaid and SNAP or funding for mass transit could have been indiscriminately slashed, he said.

"You have two choices: one bad, the other devastating," Schumer said. "One chops off one of your fingers, the other chops off your arm.”

He said he was being "trolled" by Trump when the president congratulated him for passage of the bill on Trump’s Truth Social platform." 

From Yahoo News

You can talk about Sunny Hostin's response all you want: 

“It gives me no pleasure to say this to you, because we are friends, but I think you caved,” Hostin said pointedly. “I think you and nine other Democrats caved. I don’t think you showed the fight that this party needs right now, because you’re playing by a rulebook where the other party has thrown that rulebook away.”

So, in my view, what you did really was, in supporting that GOP partisan bill the Democrats had no input in, you cleared the way for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to gut Social Security,” she said. “To gut Medicare, to gut Medicaid. Why did you lead Democratic senators to play by that book that the Republicans are not playing by. " 

But no one on The View had a response for why Leader Schumer did what he did and his reasoning for it. Why? Because they know he's right. You really want The White House, especially OMB and Elon Musk to get to decide which Federal programs are shut down and which aren't? The answer to that should be: "Oh hell no!" Or, feel free to use your own imagination. 

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. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Mike Murphy: The Curious Case of Elon Musk, MAGA & Electric Vehicles

"Today’s post lives at that busy crossroads of business and politics.

Yesterday, the busy elves at the American EV Jobs Alliance (where I’m Founding Elf) released a fascinating report on Elon Musk’s numbers in a national poll we did after the election

The data tells a odd but impressive story: Elon has sped from EV Jesus to MAGA superstar with neck-snapping speed, creating all sorts of complicated cross currents. On one hand Elon’s new MAGA Avenger could have a strong positive effect on future Republican consumer acceptance of EVs. (There is some evidence in the data he already has.) That said, to date there is little evidence he is personally interested in doing anything like that. I think the cause of EV adoption is longer of any interest to Elon with his current role as Acting President of the United States, Twitter yob and Federal HR Berserker being so much more fun.

So then, how is Elon’s new Bond villain status among so many non-GOP current and potential EV buyers affecting Tesla’s brand? It’s not pretty. (Quite the ol’ gender gap for Elon too.)

A good tell in the data? Elon v2.0 is far more popular with pick-up truck drivers… than with EV owners!

Let’s just say you should be glad, very glad, you are not Tesla’s head of marketing…

From Michael Murphy

"Elon Musk is more popular with pickup truck drivers than EV drivers"

Source:Michael Smerconish talking to Republican political strategist Michael Murphy. Can you guess which 1 is Michael?

From Michael Smerconish

Mike Murphy's: "Elon Musk is more popular with pickup truck drivers than EV drivers", line, reminds me of then Governor Howard Dean's late 2003 or early 2004 line, when he was running for President and still in contention for the Democratic nomination, about people who would be called Donald Trump voters today: 

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. It’s time that Democrats address guys with gun racks in the back of their trucks". 

From POLITICO

Now, Howard Dean took a lot of heat for that and not just from right-wing, blue-collar Republicans, especially from small towns, who voted for George W. Bush for President in 2000 and 04, as well as some small town blue-collar Democrats who voted for G.W. Bush in both elections as well, for being a cultural bigot, a Northeastern elitist, (or something) who doesn't like rednecks. (To be frank about it) But Mike Murphy, who is a blue-collar Republicans from Detroit, who worked for the Bush's, as well as John McCain, can get away with that. 

Another Mike Murphy quote talking to Michael Smerconish: 

"You are never going to get Bubba (referring to stereotypical Donald Trump voters) to buy a Ford Lightning pickup to run your tools off that would (by the way) beat a lot of cars in a drag race, if he has to put a Save The Whales sticker on the back of his pickup next to the NRA. You are not going to win the virtues thing here. So quit trying!"

I don't claim to be an expert on Elon Musk.... but only because I'm not. I also don't claim to be an expert on: 

Brain surgery

Astro physics

Field hockey... 

But only because I'm not. But what I do know about Elon Musk is very clear: he's not a politician, doesn't want to be. He's a businessman... an oligarch. If he thought he could make a billion dollars producing nothing but vegan foods and other products and thought campaigning to outlaw meat, junk food, and soft drinks, so his vegan business would be even more successful, that's exactly what he would do. Even while still eating cheeseburgers (and I don't what he actually like to eat) with fries and washing that down with chocolate milkshake. And that would make him very popular with the Hippie-Left in America, (to keep it real) even if they founded out that he still eats meat and likes his junk food and soft drinks. 

I think the mistake that the Left (if not far-left) made with Elon Musk pre-MAGA, was to think that he is one of them, because his company makes electric vehicles. 

The Left supporting Elon Musk, was the same mistake that Independents and perhaps even blue-collar Democrats, as well as Arabs, Latinos, and even urban African-Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 24, but are now regretting that: they tried taking their final exam (meaning the 24 presidential election) without doing any of the work and the studying needed to pass that exam. And they all failed miserably and a lot of them are at least starting to regret their votes.

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.