James Carville: Advice For The Democratic Party

"James Carville says it’s time for Democrats to ''roll over and play dead"

Source:Michael Smerconish talking about James Carville's advice for the Democratic Party.

From Michael Smerconish

"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 Fox News

I apologize if I ever said that Fox News is "completely useless". 

Something else from James Carville's  NYT essay:

"The whole thing is collapsing. The Democratic Party doesn't need an Elizabeth Warren or somebody else pacifying, or advocacy groups in Washington, (which by the way, I wish these people were useless, they're actually worst than useless) they never learn to shut up, and this whole thing... 

Someone who commented on Carville's NTY essay: 

"I don't think we should complain about every decision that Donald Trump makes...

From what I wrote about this on Tuesday in response to the so-called Political Girl Leigh McGowab: 

"See, whatever you think of what Leigh McGown 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. 

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

Look, what do left-wing Democrats expect Chuck Schumer and company to do: 

filibuster every piece of legislation that Republicans try to bring to the floor, just to prevent Republicans from passing anything at all? 

Perhaps threaten government shutdowns unless Trump and company gives the Left everything that they want on every issue on every piece of legislation that is brought up? 

Silly question. Of course the left-wing of the Democratic Party expects the Democratic Leadership to do that. 

Maybe they want Hakeem Jeffries to tell all of his 215 members in the House to walk out every time House Republicans bring a bill up to a floor for vote. No maybe there. That's what the Democrats version of the political escaped mental patients (a phrase that was coined by The New Democrat) expects the Democratic Leadership to do for them.

But, just as Leigh McGowan is wrong about Democrats (who are the minority party both in the House & Senate) need to offer alternatives to the bad legislation that Trump and company are bringing up, so is the rest of the left-wing of the Democratic Party is wrong about how the Democrats should act as the opposition. As the great political humorist P.J. O'Rourke said many times: 

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.”

That's exactly what the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress is doing right now: 

They're raising prices on hard-working American families. They're weakening economic and job growth with their tariffs, which also affects the cost of living in this country. 

They're laying off air traffic controllers, right when we're having more plane crashes. 

They're denying emergency disaster relief resources to their own voters in West Virginia (of all states) and North Carolina. You are not going to find another state that drinks Donald Trump's Kool-Aid more than West Virginia.

They're kissing the feet of dictators like Vladimir Putin, while threatening to invade with military force our allies and abandoning our allies, like Canada, Mexico, Europe, and now Ukraine.  

And they're pardoning violent criminals, when crime is going up in this country. 

I guess I part company with James Carville, but only on this point: Democrats still and will continue to oppose the Trump Administration, but in court, every time the President writes another unconstitutional executive order. 

And Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries will not only not deliver a single Democratic vote in either the House or Senate, every time Republicans try to pass something on their own, but they'll lock in all of their 215 members in the House and 47 in the Senate to vote against everything that Republicans try to pass on their own. But as far as offering their support, or offering compromises, or even alternatives, to whatever the President and Republican Congress tries to do on their own... I go back to 1 of my main points from Tuesday: 

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. 

You can follow me on my Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

President Trump & Vice President Vance Lecture & Berate President Vlodomyr Zelensky

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Trump cancelling all peace talks with Ukraine after Trump had a meltdown in the Oval Office with Zelenskyy before the world media." 

Source:Meidas Touch showing President Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida) making President Vladimir Putin (Russian Federation) very happy.

From the Meidas Touch

"President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance got into a heated exchange with visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Friday over U.S. support for Ukraine in its ongoing fight against Russian forces.

The back-and-forth between the three men took place during what’s known as a pool spray, when the White House provides access for a limited number of members of the media to observe and report on a meeting or event.

After Zelenskyy shared his skepticism that U.S. diplomacy with Russian President Vladimir Putin will be successful, Vance told Ukraine’s president that it was “disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

“You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict,” Vance told Zelenskky, while also noting that Ukraine has issues bringing more manpower into its military.

Trump told Zelenskyy, “You're gambling with World War III, and what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”

Ukraine has been pushing for security guarantees from the U.S. to prevent further Russian incursion on Ukrainian territory. While Ukraine is set to sign an economic agreement that will give the U.S. 

access to the European country’s rare earth minerals, Trump has said in recent days that the U.S. was not going to make security guarantees “beyond very much. We’re going to have Europe do that.”

After the tense meeting, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he has “determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations.”

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office,” Trump said. “He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

Source:PBS News showing President Donald J. Trump's (MAGA, Florida) & Vice President J.D. Vance (MAGA, Ohio) berating of President Vlodomyr Zelensky.

From PBS News

"WATCH: Zelenskyy 'needs to resign' or 'change' after tense Trump meeting, Sen. Lindsay Graham says" 

Source:PBS News showing U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham's (MAGA, South Carolina) talking points for President Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida)

From PBS News

This was my response to Senator Graham: Apparently Donald Trump told Senator Graham what to tell the press. Because he's just repeating the President's talking points.

From my Threads page.

So imagine if someone kidnapped your kids and your spouse and someone comes and tells you if you gave them your home and every dollar that you currently have and give your business up to them (and if that's not enough) and while they are trying to extort you, they tell you how much they think you suck and if you weren't so weak, your spouse and kids would've never been kidnapped in the first place, etc, but they'll get your spouse and kids back for you, if you just give them everything that they want. Oh, there's 1 more thing: you have to thank them for what they're doing for you and not just to you. Because that's what's going on here. 

In a meeting that was advertised as a deal between President Vlodomyr Zelensky and President Trump over the security of Ukraine and what America would continue to do for them, Trump/Vance saw it as an opportunity to repeat 1 of Vladimir Putin's talking points: “You're gambling with World War III, and what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.”

Translation: according to Vladimir Putin, if America and Europe assist Ukraine in its national defense of their own country against Russia, that would start World War III. It's complete garbage. But when you have garbagemen in The White House, (no offense to real life garbagemen)  you get a lot of garbage coming from both the President and Vice President of the United States. Especially when the President is in bed with the President of the Russian Federation and the Vice President is in bed of the President of the United States. (Vlad tucks in Don after Don tucks in J.D. every night)

Going forward, I don't think there's any real lesson here for President Zelensky or Ukraine. They must have already known that Donald Trump and company aren't honest brokers here. The only way they would get any real assistance here, is if that assistance from America to Ukraine personally benefited Donald J. Trump, or his presidency, at least. Like that so-called mineral deal that has been talked about. And as President Zelensky told Europe himself in that speech in Munich, Germany 2 weeks ago: 

"Ukraine's President Zelenskyy calls for the creation of the "armed forces of Europe" amid new line by Washington Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for the creation of an "armed forces of Europe" to guard against Russia, appearing to suggest that the United States may no longer come to the continent's aid.

Zelensky, speaking on the second day of the Munich Security Conference, said Ukraine's three-year fight against an invading Russian army has proved that a foundation exists for the creation of a European army that has long been discussed among some continental leaders.

"I really believe that time has come," he said. "The armed forces of Europe must be created... 

Zelenskyy insisted that "three years of full-scale war have proven that we already have the foundation for a united European military force. And now, as we fight this war and lay the groundwork for peace and security, we must build the armed forces of Europe."

From CBS News

If there wasn't enough evidence that Donald Trump is not an honest broker when it comes to Ukraine, (for anyone whose just coming out of a coma, or is sober for the 1st time in 3 years... perhaps you escaped from a political cult) today's meeting is all the evidence that you need. If Ukraine could secure some air cover, like a no fly zone, even a partial no fly zone from lets say Britain, or Germany, France, Italy, or a combination of all those countries, to protect it's territory from the Russian Air Force, that would be would a real "game changer". That's what Europe did to help knockout the Gadafi regime in Libya in 2011. And Libya is a much larger country than Ukraine in territory. You could fit almost 2 Ukraine's inside of Libya. 

But the Trump Administration is not a defender of the free world. If anything, they see democratic countries as a threat to them and much rather do business with authoritarians. And it's been time for Europe to step up and defend themselves. And this could be a start of them stepping up and taking care of their own business to secure Ukraine from Russia, as well as the rest of this huge democratic coalition against the Russian Federation and even Donald J. Trump.

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Roll Call: Political Theater: The Congressional Republican Budget Blueprints

"Usually, when Congress gets down to the wire on a legislative deadline, the Senate tells the House what is possible and the House more or less goes along with what the Senate can pass, given its procedural limitations such as the filibuster. But the budget process, or what passes for the budget process these days, can scramble things a bit, and what we are observing now is a closely divided GOP-majority House turn the tables on the closely divided GOP-majority Senate. Asked about the extent of House-proposed cuts to the Medicaid health program, for instance, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., replied, “I don’t love that.”

But here we are. In recent days, the Senate and House have both passed versions of their own budget resolution, one of the key steps in constructing a so-called reconciliation bill that will cut spending and taxes and enact GOP legislative priorities without having to deal with the usual Senate roadblocks. But there’s a long way to go until something heads to the president’s desk, so we’re going to talk about what’s been happening and what is going on with CQ Roll Call’s illustrious Budget Tracker, David Lerman." 

Source:Roll Call with a look at U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (MAGA, Missouri)

From Roll Call

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about this yesterday: 

"So what this means is the House didn't pass a Federal budget last night and the Senate didn't pass 1 last week. What they did instead was (if Cillizza is correct) is just pass blueprints and lay out their goals for what they want to pass and cut in the Federal budget this year in Congress. So if that's true, then this is where this discussion could be a lot of fun... or at least interesting... at the very least, it no longer sounds like a Senate filibuster where a senator is reading from a phonebook. (Sorry for the Congressional joke) 

So what this means is that House Republicans as of right now, can't even agree with themselves on what to cut from the Federal budget and how much, in order to pass the President's agenda as it relates to military spending, border security, extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, etc... 

From The New Democrat

As my colleague Rik Schneider wrote about this yesterday:

"And to Carl Higbie's point about "tax cuts automatically paying for themselves": if that were true (and fish could fly and dogs said meow) then how come every time the Republican Party has passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts, they've always had sunset provisions in them? Meaning they expire lets's say 5-10 years later and have to be extended by Congress to stay law. The answer because the Congressional Budget Office (which is Republican controlled) doesn't agree with that line of thinking. ("Thinking" might be too generous of a word here) 

So the CBO tells the House and Senate that they either have to pay for their tax cuts through budget cuts, or raise new revenue up front, or they have to have sunset previsions in them to be able to pass through reconciliation and not be subjected to the 60 vote rule in the Senate. 

I'm all in favor of border security and for a stronger defense in America... depending on how the legislation is structured. But when you campaign on the national debt and Federal deficit being too high, wouldn't you want to do something about those issues once you are in office and have the power to fix those problems? Instead of trying to figure out how you get around your own budget rules and trying to pass your legislation onto the national debt card, through reconciliation?" 

From The New Democrat

On a less serious note first: I think it would easier to balance the 7 trillion dollar Federal budget (that's currently running a 2T$ deficit) then it would be to find the right balance between what would be acceptable to both the House and Senate. Meaning 1 bill that could get a majority vote in both chambers. 

Yes, American voters gave us Donald J. Trump as President and gave us a Republican Congress. The catch is, they gave Republicans bare majorities in both the House and Senate. But the House Republican Leadership and the Senate Republican Leadership are trying to govern as if they have like 250 votes out of 435 in the House (instead of just 219-434) and that they have 60 votes in the Senate out of 100, instead of just 53. 

And cutting Medicaid, just to cut it, or to pay for tax cuts isn't popular right now. And with those tight majorities in Congress, the entire House Republican Conference is not MAGA. They have like 100 members. And there are what's left of the center-right of the Republican Party, that represents blue and swing districts, who are going to be in tough reelection battles next year, who don't want to vote to gut Medicaid and other public assistance programs, just to gut them, or to pay for tax cuts. 

And House Republicans only have a 2 seat majority right now, (put of 435 seats) so if they try to cut too much for the so-called moderates, or not enough for MAGA, there goes their reconciliation budget bill. 

Democrats got a good political lesson in 2022 about overstepping their political mandate from 2020. And now it looks like we are in the very early stages of American voters giving Congressional Republicans a lesson about political mandates as well. And even if Republicans are successful here and get their agenda through Congress, it could be very unpopular and cost them at least the House, if not the entire Congress in 2026. But we will see. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Donald J. Trump: The Penny For a Penny's Worth Politician

"May I just say that the stupidest, most despicable, most self-defeating political “tactic” in our present hyper-partisan climate is the accusation that victims of today’s horrific wildfires, floods, and such are getting what they deserved because of their political views. 

Start with this month’s catastrophic floods in Appalachia. If you’ve never had a river gushing into your home and town, you can’t imagine the destruction, muck, stench, injuries, death, and despair. Yet, various numbskulls who profess to be progressive have posted taunts online, chortling that these devastated victims are red-state, small-government Trump voters who don’t deserve government’s helping hand in their time of dire need.

Likewise, right-wing MAGA squads, including some GOP congress critters, routinely jeer at wildfire victims in blue states and cities, gloating that hellfire is righteous punishment for “ungodly” people who oppose Trump’s “divine mission.”

Hello—this is not politics, it’s disgraceful inhumanity. And those who engage in it are skuzz, insults to America’s democratic ideals of the Common Good... 

Source:Jim Hightower with a look at Donald J. Trump's America.

From Jim Hightower

From Kyle Kulinski: 

"Trump BETRAYS MAGA & BLOCKS FEMA Money To Red States!" 

Source:Secular Talk giving you a look at Donald J. Trump's America.

From Secular Talk

Just to push back one something that Kyle Kulinski said here first and then I'll get into my broader point. 

I'm going to be the prick here and lay in to the people who voted for Donald J. Trump for President and are now having to live with that the very consequential decision. And what do I mean by that? I'm the guy who says to other people: 

"We warned you. You voted for Donald Trump anyway. We did our homework about the 2024 presidential election. You obviously didn't... or are on some national or political suicide mission and have some death wish that Donald J. Trump can deliver for you." 

Kyle Kulinski literally said in his video when talking about the 2024 presidential election: "Not trying to be an asshole. But we warned everybody. We warned everybody...

But if you look at the urban dictionary of asshole: "A person who is intentionally cruel, obnoxious and heartless. Assholes are most often male. A female who follows these traits is referred to as a bitch." 

At least with a prick, that person is going to let you know what's wrong with you, what's not working, and that's probably all they'll do for you. So I and the rest of The New Democrat weren't being pricks in 2023-24, when we were putting out all that information about why Donald J. Trump shouldn't even be eligible for a tour of The White House, (even if he paid for it with his own money) let alone ever be anywhere close to winning his party's nomination for President again. We, along with almost the entire Democratic Party, not just the leadership, we're making it very clear why Donald J. Trump has no business ever being President of the United States again. 

But we have a lot of voters who are simply too dumb, too lazy, or simply don't give a damn about their own future's, or the future of the country, or were on a national or political suicide mission, to pay attention to the presidential election and current affairs in this country.

Donald John Trump is the penny for a penny's politician. Whatever you think of this man, you are getting what you voted for. His entire business as well as political careers are now an open book. People just have to open and read the damn thing about him. And with the internet and social media, very easy to find out the necessary information about him. 

Trump runs for office saying he's going to do all these great things and "make America great again', and it not going to cost anybody anything. And he's got 75-80 million voters locked in for him every time he runs for President. That's a lot of political suicide missions being flown. I wonder if those pilots are aware that Trump Administration is gutting the Federal Aviation Administration. Which means there might not be enough air traffic controllers to land their planes. Oh wait, these are political suicide pilots. (Meaning Trump voters) So I guess they don't care. 

And to push back on something that Jim Hightower said: "May I just say that the stupidest, most despicable, most self-defeating political “tactic” in our present hyper-partisan climate is the accusation that victims of today’s horrific wildfires, floods, and such are getting what they deserved because of their political views...

Are these voters (not just rural West Virginia and North Carolina voters) getting what they deserved? The short answer is no. We have a Federal Emergency Administration Agency that's literally in the business to help people when get hit by a major storm or a flood, etc. 

But, if you were to buy a used car that had a 100,000 miles on it and the salesman told you that it was as good as new, even better, which is why he's only going to charge you full price for this used car (by the way) instead of adding an additional 10% to what the car did sell for at full price. So you buy the damn car and it breaks down on you a mile down the road from the used car lot. Wouldn't you at least be partially responsible for that? 

We have a lot of uneducated consumers in America. That's why there's so much spam in our email and why we get spam calls and text's. But we have a lot of uneducated voters as well. And that's the people that the Donald John Trump's of the world rely on, prey on, to keep their careers going and to live the comfortable lifestyle that he expects to live. 

Just go back to September when North Carolina and Georgia was devastated by that hurricane. Instead of going there and accessing the damage of those communities to see how he could help President Biden, Governor Cooper in North Carolina, Governor Kemp in Georgia, deliver the resources that those communities need to try to deal with the hurricane damage there, he lies and claims that the President is ignoring them. Governor Brian Kemp publicly contradicts Mr. Trump's lie within hours and said that he talked the President right away about the situation. Governor Kemp cares about his state. Donald Trump sees Georgia as nothing but a political tool for himself. 

The aftermaths of the hurricanes in the Southeast and Mid Atlantic should've been a damn good clue for anyone who is paying attention, whose currently sober, sane, and who is not a moron (hopefully that's not a limited club) that Donald Trump doesn't actually care about the people in these states. he just wants to use them. But they voted for him anyway. So who's fault is that? I'll give you a clue: not the people who warned them about him. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Carl Higbie: Harsh Words For Republicans After House Budget Bill

"On Wednesday's "Carl Higbie FRONTLINE," Carl talked about the latest budget bill that Democrats voted against, broke down the lasted budget bill the House passed, and more." 

Source:Newsmax anchor Carl Higbie.

From Newsmax

This is what's actually in the House Republican budget resolution: 

"The budget resolution directs congressional committees to craft their own proposals to hit spending targets, increasing or decreasing funding by adjusting programs and policies that fall under their purview. Republicans want to cut trillions of dollars in spending to pay for trillions in tax cuts, while increasing funding in some areas.

Though Senate Republicans have pushed for two bills to address Mr. Trump's priorities, House Republicans are pursuing one major bill to address border security, defense and energy priorities, along with $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. 

Their plan calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a 10-year period and instructs a number of committees to find ways to reduce their budget impact, while increasing spending for several other issue areas. The House Ways and Means Committee is tasked with implementing the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over a decade. The resolution would also raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.

Here are the areas where spending would increase:

Up to $110 billion in additional spending for the Judiciary Committee

Up to $100 billion for the Armed Services Committee

Up to $90 billion for the Homeland Security Committee 

Here are the committees that are tasked with finding the cuts:

At least $880 billion by the Energy and Commerce Committee 

At least $330 billion by the Education and Workforce Committee 

At least $230 billion by the Agriculture Committee

At least $50 billion by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee

At least $10 billion by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

At least $1 billion by the Financial Services Committee

At least $1 billion by the Natural Resources Committee

The final product must be deficit-neutral to comply with reconciliation rules, and Republicans are relying on economic projections that show the tax cuts would spur economic growth that would increase tax revenues. Those projections have been questioned by outside experts and Democrats who describe them as overly optimistic. One analysis found that the budget proposal would allow for a deficit increase of $2.8 trillion through 2034." 

From CBS News

And I apologize to no one for not automatically taking the word of Carl Higbie or any other Newsmax host... even seriously, let alone as actually factual. He has his audience that he has to keep on board in oder to stay in business and on the air. Even if that means leaving out facts and simply lying about "no taxes on tips", or any entitlement reform even dealing with Medicaid, let alone Medicare and Social Security. 

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote earlier today: 

"So what this means is the House didn't pass a Federal budget last night and the Senate didn't pass 1 last week. What they did instead was (if Cillizza is correct) is just pass blueprints and lay out their goals for what they want to pass and cut in the Federal budget this year in Congress. So if that's true, then this is where this discussion could be a lot of fun... or at least interesting... at the very least, it no longer sounds like a Senate filibuster where is senator is reading from a phonebook. (Sorry for the Congressional joke) 

So what this means is that House Republicans as of right now, can't even agree with themselves on what to cut from the Federal budget and how much, in order to pass the President's agenda as it relates to military spending, border security, extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, etc...

My point here is, for Congress to pass legislation through reconciliation, the legislation has to be related to the Federal budget, they have to pass a budget first, or at least a budget blueprint, and the legislation has to either be paid for, (meaning it doesn't add to the deficit) or it has to have sunset provisions in it. If they want their legislation to be permanent, (meaning Congress would have to repeal the legislation later on for it to go away) the legislation has to be paid for in the bill that it passed. 

So to go to 1 of the points that Chris Cillizza is making here: the Republican Congress is going to either have to pay for the President's agenda, either though budget cuts, or revenue raisers (like new taxes or fees) or there's going to have to be a sunset provision in their reconciliation process. Meaning Congress and the President would have to agree to extend the law later on, or let it expire later on. 

And right now, the Republican House is 880 billion dollars short in paying for their legislation. That's a huge number. That's basically the entire military budget right now. Which is why House Republicans have been looking at Medicaid for their cuts in the last 2 weeks. And their members are finding out right now that is very unpopular and would be very difficult to vote for politically. Which is probably why the House didn't actually pass a Federal budget plan last night. Just a blueprint for one." 

From The New Democrat

And to Carl Higbie's point about "tax cuts automatically paying for themselves": if that were true (and fish could fly and dogs said meow) then how come every time the Republican Party has passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts, they've always had sunset provisions in them? Meaning they expire lets's say 5-10 years later and have to be extended by Congress to stay law. The answer because the Congressional Budget Office (which is Republican controlled) doesn't agree with that line of thinking. ("Thinking" might be too generous of a word here) 

So the CBO tells the House and Senate that they either have to pay for their tax cuts through budget cuts, or raise new revenue up front, or they have to have sunset previsions in them to be able to pass through reconciliation and not be subjected to the 60 vote rule in the Senate. 

I'm all in favor of border security and for a stronger defense in America... depending on how the legislation is structured. But when you campaign on the national debt and Federal deficit being too high, wouldn't you want to do something about those issues once you are in office and have the power to fix those problems? Instead of trying to figure out how you get around your own budget rules and trying to pass your legislation onto the national debt card, through reconciliation? 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: The Republican Budget Bill is a LOT Less Than Meets The Eye

"Chris Cillizza discusses the House Republican budget bill, highlighting that its promises may not align with its actual provisions. The bill proposes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1.5 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade. However, it lacks specific details on which programs will face cuts, leading to uncertainty about its true impact. Cillizza points out that while the bill aims to advance President Donald Trump's legislative agenda, it has faced opposition within the GOP, with some members expressing concerns over potential deep cuts to Medicaid and other social programs. This internal division suggests that the bill's advertised benefits may not fully materialize, as significant negotiations and revisions are likely needed to secure broader support." 

Source:Chris Cillizza talking about Speaker of the House Mike Johnson's (MAGA, Louisiana) budget blueprint.

From Chris Cillizza

I posted a question on Threads about this to Chris Cillizza: 

I have a question. If Congress (House & Senate) were to agree to the House's resolution, (big if) would they then have to come up with the 880 billion dollars in cuts, to pass the President's agenda through reconciliation?

From my Threads page. 

I think Chris Cillizza is pretty smart when it comes to Washington politics. I think his career at The Washington Post and CNN back that up. So let's say he's completely right about what he's saying here. (For the sake of discussion, at least) 

So what this means is the House didn't pass a Federal budget last night and the Senate didn't pass 1 last week. What they did instead was (if Cillizza is correct) is just pass blueprints and lay out their goals for what they want to pass and cut in the Federal budget this year in Congress. So if that's true, then this is where this discussion could be a lot of fun... or at least interesting... at the very least, it no longer sounds like a Senate filibuster where a senator is reading from a phonebook. (Sorry for the Congressional joke) 

So what this means is that House Republicans as of right now, can't even agree with themselves on what to cut from the Federal budget and how much, in order to pass the President's agenda as it relates to military spending, border security, extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, etc. 

If you have are having trouble sleeping right now: here's a look at the Congressional reconciliation process: 

Named for Senator Robert Byrd, the Byrd rule (Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act) was first adopted in the mid-1980s to limit extraneous provisions from inclusion in reconciliation bills. Because reconciliation bills are considered using expedited procedures in the Senate, the Byrd rule is aimed at preventing the use of reconciliation to move a legislative agenda unrelated to spending or taxes, and to some extent it limits Congress’ ability to use reconciliation to increase deficits – at least over the long-term. The Byrd rule prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” measures in reconciliation, defining “extraneous” as follows:

measures with no budgetary effect (i.e., no change in outlays or revenues);

measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target;

measures outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision;

measures that produce a budgetary effect that is merely incidental to the non- budgetary policy change;

measures that increase deficits for any fiscal year outside the reconciliation window; and 

measures that recommend changes in Social Security.

From the House Budget Democrats

In the 117th Congress, (with feels like 4 years ago) House and Senate Democrats passed a stimulus bill through reconciliation in 2021. The bill wasn't paid for, but it passed reconciliation rules because it had a sunset provision in it. Meaning the provisions in the bill would expire 2 years later. 

A year later, Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, to try to deal with rising inflation. (In case anyone was wondering) All the provisions were paid for. 

My point here is, for Congress to pass legislation through reconciliation, the legislation has to be related to the Federal budget, they have to pass a budget first, or at least a budget blueprint, and the legislation has to either be paid for, (meaning it doesn't add to the deficit) or it has to have sunset provisions in it. If they want their legislation to be permanent, (meaning Congress would have to repeal the legislation later on for it to go away) the legislation has to be paid for in the bill that it passed. 

So to go to 1 of the points that Chris Cillizza is making here: the Republican Congress is going to either have to pay for the President's agenda, either though budget cuts, or revenue raisers (like new taxes or fees) or there's going to have to be a sunset provision in their reconciliation process. Meaning Congress and the President would have to agree to extend the law later on, or let it expire later on. 

And right now, the Republican House is 880 billion dollars short in paying for their legislation. That's a huge number. That's basically the entire military budget right now. Which is why House Republicans have been looking at Medicaid for their cuts in the last 2 weeks. And their members are finding out right now that is very unpopular and would be very difficult to vote for politically. Which is probably why the House didn't actually pass a Federal budget plan last night. Just a blueprint for one. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Leigh McGowan: The Rich Get Richer

"So the Republican budget plans to cut Medicaid by $880 billion so they can offer more tax cuts to the ultra Rich that is their real plan that is what they're voting on today. Do you know what the budget of Medicaid is it's $880 billion so to be clear the Republicans plan to destroy Medicaid which is the health care for 72 million Americans so that rich people can have even more money they're trying to be subtle about it the resolution doesn't explicitly call for tax to Medicaid. But there is virtually no other way to achieve the $880 billion in savings the resolution calls for without slashing Medicaid so it's smoke a mirrors baby smoke and mirrors. 

And I'm curious knowing that is that what people voted for is that what Republicans want their representatives voting for because Democrats aren't helping with this this is a republican plan the Democrats tried in budget reconciliation to get the Republicans to add an amendment to the bill that said they would leave Medicaid alone. But the Republican Senators voted against it they tried to get an Amendment added that said no one who makes over a billion dollars a year should get a tax cut. But the Republicans voted against it so this is literally their plan you can listen to them talk online or on TV or in town halls about waste and Fraud and Abuse. 

And about how this bloated government excess is forcing them to fire government workers and cancel government contracts but we now know that nearly 40% of all the contracts Doge has canceled so far will produce zero dollars in savings.Zero because if you had a contract for say a million dollars and the government had already paid 800,000 of that canceling that contract doesn't save you a million dollars as Doge math pretends. It does at most it saves you $200,000 but you just wasted 800,000 on something you can no longer use. 

If we wanted to save money, we would be doing things like canceling the billions of dollars in subsidies we give to oil and gas companies or pharmaceutical companies both of who make billions of dollars a year in profit. Why do they need taxpayer money what are the taxpayers getting out of that deal but nope we're not going to touch that the contracts and jobs that doge is cancelling are the ones that employ American workers and fund American farmers and take care of American veterans and feed the American people. All which positively affects the American economy. But the Republicans instead have chosen to give that money away to industries that don't need it and don't give back talk about waste. 

Hell if the Republicans really want to save money if they truly cared about balancing the budget it wouldn't be from cutting Medical Care to our oldest citizens and poorest children. They would be doing what good old sleepy Joe did and funding the IRS because America leaves trillions of dollars that is trillions with a tea in unpaid taxes on The table every year from the very richest Americans and corporations. Because our tax revenue service doesn't have the money or manpower to go after our biggest tax cheats. 

There are trillions of dollars available to the American government that we just don't bring in because the people responsible for collecting it cannot compete with the high-powered lawyers and accountants the rich can afford. 

So if you're looking for Fraud and Abuse there is your culprit. But no we're not going to collect taxes on the rich that they already owe. Republicans have already cut 6,000 IRS employees no we're going to let them keep dodging their taxes and give them lower rates and more write-offs. We're going to give the ultra rich and the billionaires and the corporations more money while we cut National Park Rangers and cancer researchers and food safety inspectors and air traffic controllers. 

We are going to watch the Republicans vote for a budget that ensures people lose access to medications and doctors and services so that people who don't need anything can have more while people who have nothing can get less you you vultures you people clearly did not read enough." 

Source:Politics Girl Leigh McGowan.

From the transcript of the Politics Girl video.

See, whatever you think of what Leigh McGown 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. 

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. 

If the Republican Party holds their people together in the House and Senate, they can pass just about anything that's not subjected to the Senate filibuster, on their own. But when they try to pass unpopular, partisan legislation on their own, especially with only a 2 seat majority in the House of Representatives, out of 434 seats, they get into trouble. And that's exactly what they're trying to do right now. 

Right now, the MAGA wing of the Republican Party are considered the bad guys with the voters. They're trying to gut our air traffic controllers, our law enforcement, even the military. Because they want to send migrants to Cuba and extend the Trump tax cuts and even cut taxes further or high-earners and corporations. These aren't popular proposals, along with gutting Medicaid. 

So why the MAGA House is burning down, why would House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries throw Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise a political lifeline and offer an alternative to what the MAGA House is doing, that could become just as unpopular as what House MAGA is doing, after House MAGA demagogues it? 

The only real advantage to being both the opposition, as well as minority party in the U.S. Government, is you aren't responsible for governing. Except when there's legislation that has to be passed for "the good of the country" and the party-in-power doesn't have the votes to pass what needs to be done on their own. 

As long as the House Republicans are scrambling to come up with 1-2 votes to pass their budget bill, the only thing Democrats should be doing is attacking the unpopular aspects of legislation. Not offering to spit on the fire in the MAGA House, or offering to dump your water bottle on it, or offering political lifelines so they don't drown politically. Which is what House Democrats would be doing by offering an alternative to what House MAGA is doing, or offering their votes. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jesse Dollemore: Rachel Maddow Defends Joy Reid After MSNBC FIRES ALL NON-WHITE PRIMETIME HOSTS!!!

"Jesse talks about Rachel Maddow's response to the brutal mass firing of non-white hosts by MSNBC corporate. These dismissals and role changes impacted Joy Reid, Katie Phang, and Alex Wagner, as well as an unknown number of support and production staff." 

Source:Jesse Dollemore doing his impression of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" over MSNBC's firing of Joy Reid and Katie Phang.

From Jesse Dollemore

I guess I have a few responses here and I'll just get into them one after another. 

I guess my first response here is somewhat minor and even perhaps humorous and goes into what my colleague Derik Schneider was talking about yesterday when he was talking about the left-wing racial term "people of color". And it goes to Jesse Dollemore's racial (if not racist) implication that Joy Reid, Katie Phang, and Alex Wagner lost their MSNBC shows because they're "people of color". And here's part of what he said about that: 

"But the fact is, all people have color. Some have darker complexions, some have lighter complexions, some people are somewhere in between." 

But if Reverend Marin L. King's America dream to ever come true, shouldn't we stop judging and looking at people based on their color and complexion? And instead look at people based on "the content of their character"? 

From The New Democrat

If Alex Wagner and Katie Phang are "people of color", then how come Rachel Maddow and Ari Melber (who are both Jewish) are not? Especially when these 4 MSNBC anchors all have similar, if not identical complexions? 

And my major point here is going to sound like I'm arguing that MSNBC (which is owned and operated by NBC News) is part of the broader Democratic Party, which it's not. But the 2 things are related and the fact is MSNBC (and perhaps NBC News as a whole) is a lot friendlier with Democrats, then let's say Newsmax or Fox News. (Just to name a couple of right-wing news outlets) And the Democratic Party right now simply has a political "brand" problem. They're seen as too left-wing and anti-white. 

And to respond to another racial (not not racist) accusation made my Jesse Dollemore about why Joy Reid was fired by MSNBC: She wasn't fired  because she's an African-American woman. She was fired because she seems too far-left for the corporate media structure of MSNBC, as well as too far-left in general. And MSNBC is saying her ratings and support are down as well. And she has a tendency to come off as someone who doesn't like "white people". Not afraid to use racial language against "white people". But she'll be first person to always accuse other people of racism (at least when they're on the right) about any potential criticism of anyone the Left calls a "person of color". 

I mean every time someone on the left-wing in American politics, loses their media job and they are a minority or a woman, the far-left always freaks out about it, they do their best impersonation possible of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". And they wonder why no one who isn't already on their side politically and culturally, doesn't watch their programs, and why they have to raise money from their viewers and readers, just to try to stay in business. And Rachel Maddow last night didn't pass up her opportunity to "cry wolf" over the firing of Joy Reid:

"Rachel Maddow defended recently fired MSNBC colleague Joy Reid Monday night and told her audience, “I think it is a bad mistake to let her walk out the door.” The decision by the network to cancel “The ReidOut” also “feels indefensible,” she added.

She added that it is “unnerving” that “on a network where we have got two non-white hosts in prime time, both of our non-white hosts in prime time are losing their shows, as is Katie Phang on the weekend. And that feels worse than that, no matter who replaces them. That feels indefensible, and I do not defend it...

From The Wrap

So my broader point here is the Democratic Party, as well as it's friendlier (if not not friendly) news organizations has a brand problem. Part of that is ideological. Democrats are seen as people who won't defend the country protect the streets, that they hate wealthy people, especially "white" wealthy people. But part of that is also cultural and racial. It's not that they're seen as too minority, but as anti-white. And view blue-collar, small town, Caucasian Americans (especially Anglo-Saxon Protestants) as ignorant and not worthy of their attention and even campaigning for. 

As my colleague Rik Schneider mentioned on Friday when talking about how the Democratic Party can come back in 2026-26: 

"And to go to another point made by Adam Kinzinger said and why I love his conservatism: let's make this opposition movement about defeating Donald Trump and MAGA, period. Not about how many different genders and sexualities we can create, if we just had more Federal funding. Or nationalizing health care, banking, energy, etc, or outlawing private wealth and individual initiative.

Lets as the opposition in America, leave the crazy politics for the political nuthouse. And perhaps visit those people on visiting day when we need to be entertained. As well as a good reminder that is not who we want to be or where we want to end up. Let's stay focus on the mission of making Donald Trump's current term as POTUS, his very last and completely knocking the MAGA movement out-of-power in Washington and in as many places around the country as possible." 

From The New Democrat

Not crying racism when every time a left-wing minority TV commentator or anchor is fired, would be a step in the right direction there. 

If the Democratic Party and it's friendly news outlets want to not just survive Donald Trump/Elon Musk's era of oligarchic/monarch style of big government, with no checks and balances left on their individual power, but come back stronger than ever and be able to send the message that their style of of government is not what American people wanted, they should be doing as my colleague Ederik Schneider talked about yesterday: 

"Before I go much further into this, I want to lay out what Rik Schneider and I mean when the use the word "liberal", or "liberals". or "liberalism". Because we're not talking about mainstream media's (including The Atlantic's) definition of those terms. We mean it in the liberal democratic sense. We're talking about people who believe in liberal democracy. No some left-wing, big government approach to government, society, and culture, etc. But people who believe in the liberal values that come from liberal democracy...

From The New Democrat

But, if the left-wing of the Democratic Party, including several of MSNBC's anchors and former anchors are satisfied as being seen nothing more than as the Green Party that's stuck inside of the Democratic Party and hasn't figured out how to get out of there, so they've decided that instead of just leaving the Democratic Party for the Greens, they'll just try to take over the Democratic Party instead, the Rachel Maddow wing of the Democratic Party will always be seen as the kids at the kiddy table, that's just a small part of a very large Democratic Party. And they'll continue to have very little, if any influence over the Democratic Party leadership. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

David A. Graham: What Would a Liberal Tea Party Look Like?

"A new president has taken office, elected in response to widespread economic dissatisfaction. Now he’s trying to make big changes to the government, and some voters are upset. They’re angry at the president’s party for backing the changes, and they’re angry at the opposition party for not doing more to stop it.

That’s a fitting description of what’s going on now, but I was thinking of 2009, when the Tea Party movement erupted amid Barack Obama’s attempt to pass major health-care reform. Over the past week, some signs have emerged of a shift in the national mood that feels similar to what the country experienced back then. As the effects of Elon Musk’s rampage through the federal government are starting to be felt, some people are getting angry. Trump’s net approval rating is slipping slightly. Americans are upset that he’s not doing more to fight inflation. A small number of Republican elected officials are timidly voicing their concerns about certain Trump moves. And at town halls across the country, members of Congress are getting earfuls.

“How can you tell me that DOGE, with some college whiz kids from a computer terminal in Washington, D.C., without even getting into the field, after about a week or maybe two, have determined that it’s OK to cut veterans’ benefits?” a man who described himself as a Republican and an Army veteran asked Representative Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma.

“Why is the supposedly conservative party taking such a radical and extremist and sloppy approach to this?” a man asked Representative Rich McCormick of Georgia. (He’s the congressman who recently suggested that students should work to earn school lunches.)

“The executive can only enforce laws passed by Congress; they cannot make laws,” a lawyer from Huntsville, Texas, chided Representative Pete Sessions. “When are you going to wrest control back from the executive and stop hurting your constituents?”

All three of these districts are strongly Republican, but Republicans aren’t the only ones taking flak. Democratic voters’ frustration with their party’s leaders, who are widely seen as either flat-footed or acquiescent, is growing. At a town hall in New York, a man told Democratic Representative Paul Tonko that he was happy to see him demonstrating outside the Department of Education, but he wanted more. “I thought about Jimmy Carter and I thought about John Lewis, and I know what John Lewis would have done. He would have gotten arrested that day,” the man said. “Make them outlaw you. We will stand behind you; we will be there with you. I will get arrested with you.”

For anyone who was paying attention during the rise of the Tea Party, the echoes are unmistakable, although the screen resolution on cellphone videos of these encounters has improved in the past 16 years. With Democrats out of the White House and the minority in the House and Senate (and with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court), many on the left have been wallowing in despair. Now some are seeing signs of hope. The Tea Party helped Republicans gain six seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the House in the 2010 election. It changed the trajectory of Obama’s presidency, launched the careers of current GOP stars including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and paved the way for Donald Trump.

If this is progressives’ 2009 moment, though, what would a Tea Party of the left look like? Simply attempting to create an inverse of the original Tea Party seems to me like a fairly obvious loser—no one wants a cheap dupe. In 2010, liberal activists formed something they called the “Coffee Party USA.” That got plenty of press attention but didn’t have nearly the impact (or organic reach) of the Tea Party.

To recover their mojo, Democrats need some sort of organizing principle, real or purported. The Tea Party claimed to be concerned with fiscal discipline and limited government—activists organized around the Affordable Care Act. In retrospect, that premise is hard to take at face value. Many Tea Party supporters and prominent politicians ended up being Trump supporters, even though he blew up the national deficit and has made dubious promises not to cut social-insurance programs. (More interesting are figures such as Senator Rand Paul, an early Tea Party star who continues to sometimes clash with Trump on topics including foreign policy, spending, and intelligence.) What connects the Tea Party and Trump is racial backlash to Obama, the first Black president. Polls and studies found a connection between Tea Party support and racial-status anxiety, resentment, and prejudice.

One challenge of creating a liberal version of the Tea Party is that what liberals want right now is so basic. The opposite of what Trump has done in his first month in office is good governance—careful, measured administration. But that doesn’t make a good bumper sticker, and it doesn’t inspire crowds.

Representative Jake Auchincloss, a Massachusetts Democrat, has warned against Democrats trying to offer voters a “Diet Coke” version of Trumpian populism. “Voters who ordered a Coca-Cola don’t want a Diet Coke,” he told the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently. “There are two different parties. We have to start by understanding who our voters are not and then understanding who our voters could be—and go and try to win them over. If you’re walking to the polls and your No. 1 issue is guns, immigration, or trans participation in sports, you’re probably not going to be a Democratic voter.” Auchincloss said Democrats need to focus instead on voters who are worried about the cost of living.

One possible rallying point for progressives is Elon Musk. Unlike Trump, he has no voter constituency, and polls show that he’s unpopular. Watching the world’s richest man sack park rangers, firefighters, and veterans in the name of bureaucratic efficiency is ripe for political messaging. Anecdotal evidence from town halls suggests widespread anger at Musk. But there are risks to homing in on Musk. Democrats’ attempts to paint Trump as a plutocrat haven’t done much to blunt his populist appeal. Besides, if Musk gets bored or Trump tires of him and pushes him out, the movement will have lost its focal point.

Another option is a revitalization of the anti-Trump resistance that defeated the president in 2020 and led to poor Republican performance in 2018 and 2022. Trump won the 2024 election not so much because the resistance failed but because it dissolved amid frustration with Joe Biden. Key constituencies—suburban white women, Latino voters—that moved toward Trump in the most recent election might turn back against him if they’re reminded of his flaws. Then again, voters who are disgusted with the Democratic Party aren’t guaranteed to return simply because they’re also disgusted with Trump.

Ultimately, Democrats will return to viability only if they’re able to learn from and absorb grassroots energy. One reason the Tea Party was so successful—electorally, at least—was that it capitalized on frustration with Republican leaders but ultimately became subsumed into the GOP. Old leaders such as House Speaker John Boehner were swept out; new candidates ran for offices from school board and dogcatcher up to senator, governor, and president. Democrats could certainly use an infusion of fresh ideas—and new leadership." 

Source:The Atlantic with a look at the opposition to Donald Trump/Elon Musk's form of government.

From The Atlantic

As my colleague Rik Schneider wrote on Friday: 

"If 2017-18 was the resistance where Democrats of all political backgrounds (except for Democrats who voted for Donald Trump) and Conservative Republicans really just donated their time and even careers, to oppose President Donald Trump on everything... (meaning everything that is bad) that movement is all but gone now. Those people, including The New Democrat are still around. But that movement which really just a pro-liberal democracy, Constitution, and rule of law party, ran its course. 

The American values that "The Resistance" were promoting, were not what Independent voters and unfortunately even a lot of mainstream Republicans, and even some blue-collar Democrats, were thinking about when they voted in 2024. The 3 election cycles before 24? Yes. What they were thinking about was, according to the polls: 

Milk, is too expensive, eggs are too expensive, and groceries and energy are too expensive in America, to allow for the Democrats to hang onto power. Or, that's what they were telling the pollsters. Those things are now more expensive than they were in October. But in Trump World, they don't allow facts to interfere into a political argument. 

So to go to what Tim Miller and Adam Kinzinger are talking about: we need a positive pro-democratic movement, that relates to the problems that the new Trump Administration is creating for America... 

From The New Democrat

Before I go much further into this, I want to lay out what Rik Schneider and I mean when the use the word "liberal", or "liberals". or "liberalism". Because we're not talking about mainstream media's (including The Atlantic's) definition of those terms. We mean it in the liberal democratic sense. We're talking about people who believe in liberal democracy. No some left-wing, big government approach to government, society, and culture, etc. But people who believe in the liberal values that come from liberal democracy: 

"Liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy,[1] or substantive democracy,[2] is a form of government that combines the organization of a democracy with ideas of liberal political philosophy. Common elements within a liberal democracy are: elections between or among multiple distinct political parties; a separation of powers into different branches of government; the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society; a market economy with private property; universal suffrage; and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all citizens. Substantive democracy refers to substantive rights and substantive laws, which can include substantive equality,[2] the equality of outcome for subgroups in society.[3][4] Liberal democracy emphasizes the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. Multi-party systems with at least two persistent, viable political parties are characteristic of liberal democracies... 

From Wikipedia

So when The New Democrat is talking about a "Liberal Tea Party", we're actually not talking about a Tea Party. That's more of a right-wing populist political term. But we're sure as hell not talking about some socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) political movement made up of political hipsters, yuppies, and the aging Hippies from the Boomer Generation.

What The New Democrat is talking about is a liberal opposition movement, to Donald Trump/Elon Musk's illiberal and anti-conservative oligarchic/monarch form of government . And the way we you do that is to explain, especially to the Independents, mainstream Republicans, and blue-collar Democrats (the so-called gettable's in politics) that even though Donald Trump and his political company ran on: 

Lowering the cost of living for average Americans, including groceries, energy, housing, etc... those things are actually more expensive now, then they were in October. 

The government jobs that Elon Musk's DOGE are eliminating, those are military jobs, those jobs are in law enforcement, prosecutors air traffic controllers, energy, including not just nuclear power, but our nuclear weapons as well. Remember, Donald Trump and his company also ran on "making America safe again". How you do that when you are firing people from the military, law enforcement, air traffic controllers, the scientists at our nuclear power labs, etc? And you are only firing these people because they might not be 100% loyal to Donald J. Trump, the wannabe king/dictator of America? 

So we're talking about a liberal (in the liberal democratic sense) opposition to Donald J. Trump and his company because of their illiberal and anti-conservative form of government and why their policies are bad for America. And explaining those things to the gettable voters who voted for him. As well as working to fundraise and organize resources for candidates who believe in American liberal democracy and want to conserve it. 

This is not about opposing Donald Trump/Elon Musk and their political company, simply to oppose them and they are part of the Republican Party and we want to put the Democrats back in power, at least in Congress. But to get the far-right in America out-of-power in the Federal Government and in many state and local government's as politically possible. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.