Matt Lewis: The Cringe Campaign: Why Democrats Can't Manufacture Cool

"Spring is in the air, and Democrats are rummaging through the political closet and trying on different looks. When just a little more than a quarter of registered voters have positive views about you, a makeover sounds appealing. But manufactured cool is cringe — and gimmicks won’t save a party that’s forgotten how to be real.

Rebranding advice is plentiful, if conflicting. James Carville thinks Democrats should just get out of the way and let Trump self-destruct (a strategy that might work for the midterms, but eventually a party has to stand for something). Meanwhile, David Hogg, the new vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, wants to spend millions purging the party’s incumbent geriatrics — a bold move that could sabotage a promising election night.

At least Hogg (who wants to replace the domesticated oldsters with more combative young progressives) is tapping into the zeitgeist. His scheme channels the inevitable “appeal to the youth” phase of an identity crisis — for the same reasons divorced dads buy convertibles. Americans, in general, tend to prioritize style over substance, especially when we’re spiraling.

The latest fad — which overlaps with some of Hogg’s goals — is the “dark woke” aesthetic (a fancy term for progressive politics dressed up in an edgy, confrontational style). The problem? Anyone who remembers that cringe TikTok video Dems put out back in March is aware that nothing screams “desperation” like an over-the-top attempt at relevance.

Because yes, the Democratic brand is cooked. Worse: It’s lame. People used to think the party was cool (or at least cool-adjacent). They had Barack Obama, George Clooney and a monopoly on cultural capital. Now they have the burden of being the “adult” party (and not the naughty kind). Adults pay taxes and send follow-up emails.

Democrats, amazingly, have become the hall monitors of American politics. And what do they have to show for taking on this responsibility?

Meanwhile, the GOP — formerly the domain of Dockers dads, pious prudes and Young Republicans — pulled off the unthinkable. They became the chaos agents. The punk rockers. The party of middle fingers. The reversal has been astonishing.

It’s no surprise that Democrats want to reclaim this low ground. They didn’t get into politics to be the spreadsheet managers of the republic. They wanted to wear sunglasses indoors and quote Aaron Sorkin dialogue in real life. They imagined themselves as the effortlessly cool John F. Kennedy, with that tousled movie-star hair, poolside tanned skin and those classic Ray-Bans that always made him look like he just walked out of a GQ shoot.

The problem? Cool doesn’t work when it’s forced. Ask any middle schooler (I’ve got two). When today’s Democrats lean too far into their edgy side, it doesn’t look like an organic vibe shift — it looks like panic in skinny jeans. “We’re raw now! We clap back! We vibe with Gen Z!” Yeah, sure. Right after the PAC luncheon and before the panel discussion on infrastructure reform.

Which brings us back to Hogg and his crusade to boot the boomers. In theory, replacing career politicians with meme-fluent progressives sounds refreshing. In practice, dumping millions of dollars to primary your own team is a) unlikely to actually happen and b) colossally stupid.

Let me be clear: Democrats should resist the temptation to attack their own incumbents and avoid cheap gimmicks overtly designed to be perceived as young or cool.

So what should Democrats do?

First, recognize that the top of the ticket is everything, and that choice won’t be made until 2028. The next Democratic presidential nominee will define the party’s brand. In the meantime, no one knows or cares if the assistant deputy whip is chic or if the ranking Democratic representative on the Armed Services Committee has a great social media presence.

What is more, while parties can try to select a certain type of standard bearer, the track record ain’t great. If the GOP establishment had their way in 2016, we’d have seen a ticket pairing a 45-year-old Cuban American male with a 44-year-old Indian American female. But there’s a reason you never saw any “Rubio/Haley” bumper stickers. GOP primary voters had other ideas about that “brand” identity, and — putting aside the chaos and authoritarianism — it sort of worked (at least, electorally).

Second — something you can control — prioritize doing your job and helping everyday people. Demonstrate authenticity and passion.

Talk like you mean it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) does that. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) does too. Not because they’re trying to be cool — but because they aren’t. They show up, say what they believe, and don’t fake it.

Do stuff that matters. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) just provided an example of that. Not exactly the hippest guy in the room — but he recently flew to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man wrongfully deported under Trump and detained in a Salvadoran prison.

Van Hollen didn’t just show up for the cameras. He showed up because it mattered (for Garcia and for anyone who cares about due process and the rule of law). And honestly? That’s kind of cool.

Because when chips are down, authenticity, passion and substance are the only things that really matter. Get those right, and people might think: “Huh. They’re not trying to be cool. Maybe that means they are.”

And if not? At least you’re not the guy rapping about climate change through a TikTok filter while democracy collapses behind you." 

Source:NBC News with a look at DNC Vice Chairman David Hogg. Someone needs to remind Mr. Hogg that that the DNC is not a high school & he's not the Vice Chairman of DNC High Student Senate.

From Matt Lewis

I think Matt Lewis made his point here when he said: "Meanwhile, the GOP — formerly the domain of Dockers dads, pious prudes and Young Republicans — pulled off the unthinkable. They became the chaos agents. The punk rockers. The party of middle fingers. The reversal has been astonishing." 

Whoever your "hipster hero" is, whether it's George Clooney, (if you are a Gen-Xer like myself and Matt Lewis) perhaps Brad Pitt for my generation... maybe Bruce Willis or Sam Jackson for the Boomers.. or whoever that person might be and from whatever generation, people who are "cool"... are just that. They don't have to tell people that, they don't have to act that way, because they just are. They're genuine articles when it comes to "coolness". 

I think especially in politics and government when someone tries to look or seem "cool'... to "go viral" on social media, they look like the 45-50 year old dad, who has 3 kids, who is bored with himself and his life, so he decides the way to "fix his life" is to:

grow a goatee, 

wear their heir back with an entire bottle of gel, everyday  

speaks exclusively in pop culture references and catch phrases

is always seen staring at his phone and with a coffee cup, etc... they don't look real. They look like someone who is suffering through a middle age, pop culture crisis. They look like they're trying to be something that they're not. 

As Matt Lewis also said as well: "Rebranding advice is plentiful, if conflicting. James Carville thinks Democrats should just get out of the way and let Trump self-destruct (a strategy that might work for the midterms, but eventually a party has to stand for something)." 

The next Democratic leader, will be their 2028 presidential nominee, or even presumptive nominee, whether they're headed to the nomination, but don't have enough delegates to make that official, or already have the nomination And if that person is a successful politician, running a good campaign, etc, that campaign will go a long way in deciding what the Democratic Party is going to look like politically and culturally 3 years from now. 

Until 2028, whether it's considered "cool" or not, (especially by the Millennials and Gen-Zers) the job of the Democratic Party is to be the adults in the room. Not to become the issue themselves and remind voters why they didn't like them in 2024. They didn't like them in 2024, because Democrats were seen as out-of-touch, with everyday, hardworking Americans. And if anything were seen as too friendly with pop culture and let pop culture do their political work for them, instead of the politicians themselves.  The Kamala Harris campaign is the perfect example of my last point.

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Donald Trump’s Not Playing 3D Chess — Maybe Not Even Checkers

"In this video, Chris Cillizza explores a long-running debate about Donald Trump: Is he a master political strategist playing "3D chess," or is he simply improvising and reacting in the moment? Drawing from a recent Atlantic interview and Trump's own words in "The Art of the Deal," Cillizza argues that Trump operates without a long-term plan, instead reacting instinctively to media, public reaction, and his own impulses. Like a stand-up comedian testing material, Trump gauges what resonates and doubles down on it, making his presidency more about tactical day-to-day reactions than strategic foresight." 

Source:Chris Cillizza has 10 words for Donald J. Trump.

From Chris Cillizza

This is the part of "The Art of The Deal" that Chris Cilliza is talking about: 

"Most people are surprised by the way I work. I play it very loose. I don’t carry a briefcase. I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can’t be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you’ve got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.

 

There is no typical week in my life. I wake up most mornings very early, around six, and spend the first hour or so of each day reading the morning newspapers. I usually arrive at my office by nine, and I get on the phone. There’s rarely a day with fewer than fifty calls, and often it runs to over a hundred. In between, I have at least a dozen meetings. The majority occur on the spur of the moment, and few of them last longer than fifteen minutes. I rarely stop for lunch. I leave my office by six-thirty, but I frequently make calls from home until midnight, and all weekend long.

 

It never stops, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present. That’s where the fun is. And if it can’t be fun, what’s the point... 

From Penguin Random House

So "The Art of The Deal" came up during 1 of Karoline Levitt's "press conferences" 2 weeks ago. Safe bet she's never read the book either: 

"She never lets facts get in the way of whatever partisan argument that she's trying to make. 

I'm willing to bet that Karoline Leavitt has never read "The Art of The Deal" either. Or, she's just lying about that. Either 1 could definitely be true. It's easy to see why a businessman who went bankrupt 6-7 times, who is looking at a debt in New York State of 500-million-dollars because of how they did business in Manhattan, would try to run a federal government and national economy like this. To put it simply: President Trump doesn't know what the hell he's doing...

From The New Democrat

I don't completely disagree with what Chris Cilliza is arguing here. I guess I would just put it differently and risk sounding more humorous. I don't think Donald Trump plays chess or checkers. 

I'll tell you who Donald J. Trump reminds me of in how he operates and does business:

Cillizza and I are both Gen-Xers and we both remember the 1980s and 1990s fairly well. There was a popular ABC sitcom back then called Growing Pains. Kirk Cameron (who perhaps is famous for different reasons today) played Mike Seaver, the oldest child in Seaver family. His character was an immature, underachiever, born to be professional conman: 

You could catch Mike Seaver redhanded walking out of store with a truck load of unpaid for merchandise, on videotape  and he could lie his way out of that. He would say the truck is not his, someone stole his receipt, he would claim a casher ranged him up but now the cashier has either forgotten that, or is lying about not ringing him up in the first place. 

And 1 of Mike Seaver's favorite cons that he used to get people to do things for him, that they don't want to do, or wouldn't do for him voluntarily, would be tell his sister or brother: "Let's flip a coin to decide who does this". But Carol or Ben wouldn't know that Mike's coin is a one-sided coin and Mike always picks the correct side. It always comes up tails or heads. 

To make a long example and reference shorter: Donald Trump also plays one-sided coin as well... but he always picks the wrong side, which is why he screws up so badly. He's like the head football coach, whose team never even bothers to practice, let alone puts any game plan together: 

So no thought put into the costs of unilateral, across the board tariffs on everyone, (except Russia, of course) and the economy retracts 1st quarter 2025. 

President Trump talked about firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell a couple weeks ago, even though he legally can't fire Chairman Powell... the Stock Market suffers a huge loss that day and the President backtracks on that the following say. And then are many more examples like that. 

My point here is Donald Trump's off the cuff, make things up, take things as they come, strategy, works for him as an entertainer and reality TV star. But it didn't work for him as a businessman. How many 6 time bankrupt successful businessman do you know of, who has to rely on the tax code and all the credits and deductions in it, just so he can pay his bills are you aware of? And it's not working as President of the United States either. It didn't work the first time and he's now more unpopular than ever. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Kasie Hunt: Kevin Hassett: Suppliers Bear The Tariff, Not US Consumer

"CNN's Kasie Hunt and White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett discuss auto tariffs, the ongoing trade war and Amazon's tariff charge." 

Source:CNN talking to Donald Trump's economic propagandist Kevin Hassett.

From CNN

From The Hill:

"National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett defended President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs that have stoked concerns about the United States economy.

During a Sunday interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Hassett said he doesn’t believe there will be a “big effect on the consumer in the U.S.,” noting that more than 50 countries are also “coming to the table” to negotiate... 

From The Hill

At risk of knowing the answer to my own question here: do you have to lose your brain, first, before you are even qualified to work for Donald Trump for anything? 15-20 years ago... even 10 years ago, Kevin Hassett was essentially a neoconservative supply sider on economic policy. He was someone who believed in open markets, tax cuts pay for themselves, deficits doesn't matter... this is what he believed back then. He was someone who also didn't like tariffs at all because he knows they're not just taxes, but middle class tax hikes. And he goes from that to saying: "Suppliers bear the tariff, not US consumer". 

And if Mr. Hassett said that under oath, he probably technically could avoid a perjury charge when he says that it's the suppliers bear the costs of the tariffs... But what he leaves out is that they only bear at first. Then they pass them down to their consumers. 

So when the U.S. Government passes tariffs on another country, (like the People's Republic of China) 2 things happen: 

their products become more expensive in America because it's not Chinese companies, or the PRC Government that's going to eat those costs. It will be the American consumer. 

And then 2nd, China starts sending fewer of their products to America, because now they're too expensive because of the tariffs for most Americans and they take their business somewhere else, which weakens the supply chain in America. 

What I'm giving you is really an economics 101 lesson that Mr. Hassett probably got in college 40 years ago. But he's either forgotten that (because to work for Donald Trump, you have to lose your brain, first) or, (and this is my guess) he's simply lying for his boss on national TV. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jesse Dollemore: Karoline Leavitt Talks About ARRESTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES!!!

"Jesse talks about the interaction between Fox News’s Peter Doocy and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt when Doocy asked if the White House was considering arresting Justices on the United States Supreme Court." 

Source:Jesse Dollemore with a look Dictator Don's chief political propagandist, Karoline Leavitt. I wonder if her parents know that she skips kindergarten class every day to work at The White House.

From Jesse Dollemore

This is obviously very easy for me to say because I'm not a judge (Federal or otherwise) or a law enforcement officer or agent, prosecutor, etc. But we have a presidential administration that doesn't believe in the rule of law or the Constitution. They only believe in the word and judgment of 1 man. Which is what national political cults do. So when I say something like: 

"It's your duty as a government official, especially if you are in law enforcement or in the judiciary, to stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution, even if that puts your own individual freedom at risk, you have to do that for the sake of your own country". 

That might sound something like: "Easy for you to say. You are not putting your own ass on the line here". 

Which is true. But if they can arrest judges simply because they don't like the decisions that they make, they could arrest podcasters and bloggers for the opinions that they give and facts that they share. 

But as long as we have law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, and members of Congress standing up for the rule of law and the Constitution, as long as we're doing these things collectively... every time DOJ brings a bogus (to be real kind) case against someone and they do that simply because they don't like what that person has to say or how they're dong their jobs, but not for actually doing something illegal, we'll all be protected from Donald Trump's reality TV big government. And he'll never become a king or dictator in America. And all these bogus (again, being kind) cases will get tossed out like the pieces of trash that they are. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michele Tafoya: Crisis? What Crisis?

"What is the Biggest Problem in America?

Is there a single one?

Numerous polls suggest there are many issues troubling people these days, but some issues rank higher than others.

As usual, the economy ranks high on most voters’ list of concerns. It is the one area that affects us all.

But the economy won’t mean a thing to anyone if America commits suicide. If we continue to focus on our immutable differences, ignore signs of social and cultural decline, and cave into Leftist and socialist ideology, we could find ourselves in a dark and scary place.

Ronald Reagan saw America as a “Shining city on a hill.” It baffles me as to why so many in this country seem to want this place tarnished and ransacked. Last week’s episodes examined what brought us to this stormy time. And we got the inside scoop about the making of “Reagan... 

Source:Michele Tafoya from Minnesota. She should've stuck with sports.

From Michele Tafoya

Perhaps someone can explain to me (and good luck with this) how someone who is a clear Donald Trump and MAGA supporter, (whether Michele Tafoya has ever admitted that or not) now sounds like Jimmy Carter. If MAGA agrees with each other on anything other than that Donald Trump is not just better than Jesus Christ, but God himself, they agree that they hate President Carter. And yet you hear or read (depending on how you are getting this) 1 of their supporters say: 

"Numerous polls suggest there are many issues troubling people these days, but some issues rank higher than others.

As usual, the economy ranks high on most voters’ list of concerns. It is the one area that affects us all.

But the economy won’t mean a thing to anyone if America commits suicide. If we continue to focus on our immutable differences, ignore signs of social and cultural decline, and cave into...

So in July of 1979, America looked was essentially trying to deal with an economic nightmare. Not just that economy was headed in recession, (which is bad enough for most politicians) but even if you were making a good living back in summer of 79, the basic necessities were too expensive for most Americans, because of double figure inflation and interest rates. Even if you could afford enough energy for your home, cars, business, etc... there wasn't enough to go around. You had to like get on a waiting list or something, just to fill up your car. And President Carter knew all of this and decided to give a speech about it. It was called the "malaise speech" by network news and others. But it as his "crisis of confidence speech. And this is some of what he was talking about: 

"The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways.

It is a crisis of confidence.

It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth of July. It is the idea which founded our nation and has guided our development as a people. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We’ve always believed in something called progress. We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.

Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has been part of the living history of America, even the world. We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in the search for freedom; and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose... 

From American Rhetoric

If you were an average American back in 1979 and you watched and listened to President Carter's speech that night... you probably wanted to hear the President talk about what we could do to bring down inflation, interest rates, produce and get more affordable energy. But instead what you got from the President of the United States, was: 

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose." 

That's what President Carter's response to Americans concerns about the cost of living and not just the cost of energy, but the fact that there wasn't enough energy to go around for everyone, even if you could afford it. His response to Americans who had these concerns was to blame them for their own problems and that he was powerless or unwilling to do anything about them. So when Michele Tafoya says: 

"As usual, the economy ranks high on most voters’ list of concerns. It is the one area that affects us all.

But the economy won’t mean a thing to anyone if America commits suicide. If we continue to focus on our immutable differences, ignore signs of social and cultural decline... 

I think of President Jimmy Carter from July 15th, of 1979, even though I was 3 years old at that point and obviously have no memory of that speech. 

And then my second response here is, imagine if Kamala Harris was President of the United States right now and the economy was in the exact same condition as it is now and a President Harris had the same job approval and economic numbers that President Trump has now: would MAGA be talking about the "the state of American culture" and our "our crisis in American culture"? Of course not. They would be talking about how bad the economy is and probably calling for President's Harris's impeachment right now. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Bill Scher: Budget Reconciliation Could Be the Beginning of The End of The Republican Party

"Civil War: Steve Bannon and House Speaker Mike Johnson represent dueling factions of the President's coalition. Asked by a reporter on Wednesday if he supported a millionaire’s tax, President Trump replied, “I think it would be very disruptive because a lot of the millionaires would leave the country.” Credit: Associated Press

“Presidential campaigns are like MRIs for the soul,” said David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s former campaign strategist. I believe a corollary is that the budget reconciliation process is like an MRI for the soul of a political party.  

The filibuster-proof process often begins with assumptions of party unity on major issues members and activists, only to discover fissures festering under the surface. 

In 2017, Republicans found out the hard way they were not united around repealing the Affordable Care Act. After that reconciliation bill dramatically failed on the Senate floor with John McCain’s famous thumbs down, Republicans recovered with passage of a different reconciliation bill on the issue that had long kept the GOP together: tax cuts. 

Eight years later, Donald Trump is again president, Republicans are again in control of both chambers, and they again struggle to reach a consensus around health care. The House budget resolution—nonbinding legislation but a necessary step in the reconciliation process—instructed the committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid to come up with $880 billion in spending cuts. But the Senate version did not follow suit, and several House Republicans signaled they wouldn’t vote for Medicaid cuts that large in the final bill.  

It is not surprising that Republicans still lack unity on health care. The Affordable Care Act remains popular, but improving health care is a complicated subject, and complexity is not a strong suit of the modern GOP. Trump ran in 2024 claiming to have only

It is surprising that Republicans dove back into the health care thicket by making potentially unpopular Medicaid cuts a central focus of their budget reconciliation bill. And more surprising than that their other focus—taxes—is not uniting the party as it used to. 

The Washington Post reported earlier this week: 

President Donald Trump’s inner circle is weighing whether the White House should back raising taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million per year as part of the GOP’s 2025 tax legislation, according to two administration officials and three other people briefed on the matter.  

While the prospect of a tax hike has gotten a largely chilly reception among Republicans on Capitol Hill, Vice President JD Vance and budget director Russell Vought have expressed openness to the idea in internal administration deliberations and are viewed as supportive, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks. Stephen K. Bannon, who served as the president’s chief strategist during his first term, has been publicly urging Trump to endorse the plan in part as a way to defang Democratic attacks on the GOP as the party of  “concepts of a plan” regarding health care, an unintentionally farcical acknowledgment that there was little political upside in offering health care policy details.  

 the rich. 

The Republican Party’s branding as the party of tax cuts has already been besmirched by Trump’s tariffs, which, in effect, are taxes on imported goods. But no Republican in Congress voted to impose those tariffs; Trump did it alone. The prospect of voting for an income tax hike is far more combustible for the Republican rank-and-file, so much so that Trump quickly put out the fire.  

Asked by a reporter on Wednesday if he supported a millionaire’s tax, Trump replied, “I think it would be very disruptive because a lot of the millionaires would leave the country.” This is a bogus excuse. The Wall Street Journal noted, “To escape taxation, wealthy Americans would need to renounce their citizenship and pay capital-gains taxes as if they sold their assets. Even if they did that and moved abroad, they would still pay U.S. taxes on U.S.-sourced income.” But Trump’s public rationale is less important than the position itself. He appears unwilling to instigate an intra-party confrontation over taxing the wealthy.  

However, the mere introduction of the idea may prove to be a fatal toxin injected into the party’s bloodstream. 

Low taxes are not just an issue for the Republican Party; it’s the defining issue. As I cited earlier this month, the late conservative commentator Robert Novak once declared, “God put the Republican Party on Earth to cut taxes. If they don’t do that, they have no useful function.”  

But Steve Bannon, the former Trump administration adviser and MAGA movement leader, has promoted a reorientation of the GOP away from the “donor class.” In January, Bannon told conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, “I don’t want to increase taxes on the wealthy just because I believe in soak the rich. Maybe I do, but I would not want to be part of policy. I want to do that to get our financial house in order because we just can’t keep borrowing a trillion dollars every 100 days.”  

(Bannon also told Douthat that he supports “significant spending cuts, starting in defense.” In keeping with his supposed working-class allegiance, “Medicare and Social Security are off to the side.” On his podcast in February, Bannon offered a mixed message on Medicaid cuts: “Get into that discretionary spending. Get into the Pentagon. Get into Medicaid. You got to be careful because a lot of MAGAs on Medicaid … You just can’t take a meat axe to it though I would love to.”) 

Bannon could be discounted as just a loud guy with a podcast. But as the Washington Post story suggests, he appears to have a sympathetic ear with Vice President Vance, who is positioned to shape the post-Trump GOP. The Post reported: “Vance’s openness to higher taxes in some circumstances has provoked alarm among some conservatives given his strong position to claim the GOP presidential nomination in 2028. In 2023, Vance said he opposes further cuts to the corporate tax rate, which the president’s 2017 tax law lowered from 35 percent to 21 percent. While in the Senate, Vance also explored bipartisan measures to close tax loopholes for large businesses.” 

And a few members of the House suggested they were willing to raise taxes on the wealthy. NBC News reported that Freedom Caucus member Chip Roy of Texas said in an interview, “he’s open to any policies that prevent new deficits, including allowing higher tax rates.” Representative Andy Harris, the Freedom Caucus chair, told Fox News, “Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the highest tax bracket was 39.6%; it was less than $1 million. Ideally, what we could do – again, if we can’t find spending reductions – we say, ‘OK, let’s restore that higher bracket, let’s set it at maybe $2 million income and above’ to help pay for the rest of the president’s agenda.” 

These voices don’t come close to representing most of the House Republican Conference. Speaker Mike Johnson surely was speaking for the majority when he told Fox News on Wednesday, “I don’t think we’re raising taxes on anybody. What we’re trying to do is prevent the largest tax increase in U.S. history.”  

The second sentence was likely a passive-aggressive shot at Trump’s tariffs, revealing the intra-party tensions and intellectual incoherence, threatening the party’s fundamental identity. Bannon argues for higher taxes on the wealthy to reorient the party away from the “donor class” and toward the “working class.” But Bannon is a huge supporter of Trump’s tariffs, which are regressive tax hikes that are disliked by a majority of all Americans.  

Both sides of the GOP tax divide are trying to do the impossible. Bannon’s populists want to balance the budget, but, as Bannon told Douthat, “we’re not going to do it on the back of the little guy.” So he supports spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy, but also tariffs and, to some degree, Medicaid cuts.” Traditional Republicans like Johnson want to balance the budget, but they refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy, which pushes them towards politically dangerous, draconian spending cuts for popular programs like Medicaid and (for some) Social Security and Medicare. On Wednesday Bannon, recognizing that he has likely lost the argument for a tax increase on the wealthy, vented on his podcast, “The simple math is: Unless you raise the taxes at the upper bracket, the math doesn’t work.” 

Both camps seem to have forgotten the politically astute lesson from former Vice President Dick Cheney: “Deficits don’t matter.” Cheney’s running mate, George W. Bush, didn’t worry about deficits, pushed through traditionally conservative tax cuts, and tacked on a not-so-conservative expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drug costs en route to a re-election victory in 2004—the only time a Republican presidential candidate won an outright majority of the popular vote since 1988. (Then, in his second term, Bush tried to privatize Social Security, and his popularity sank.)  

Prioritizing extreme deficit reduction forces Republicans to take positions that in one way or another threaten their coalition of business-class and working-class voters. This is why a budget reconciliation bill isn’t quickly and neatly falling into place.  

In the worst-case scenario, Republicans’ reconciliation bill effort will collapse, and in the ugly aftermath, their intra-party rifts will harden into existential schisms. More likely, a reconciliation bill with tax cuts of some sort will be stitched together, and a veneer of unity will remain for the time being. But Republicans will have to worry about how long that unity can last.  

The last major party to disintegrate was the Whig Party, which formed in opposition to Andrew Jackson’s aggressive exertions of executive power. Once Jackson was long gone and slavery became the dominant political issue, the Whigs no longer had a reason to exist, and so they didn’t.  

Since the Civil War, Republicans and Democrats have found ways to adapt to changing political circumstances—hot wars, cold wars, economic crashes, civil rights movements—and stay relevant. Today’s Republican Party is in a delicate position because the changing political circumstances are its own president and his allies violating its longstanding principles and losing public support in the process.  

In recent years, the GOP coalition has been held up by trust in Trump’s economic know-how, devotion to tax cuts, and culture war fearmongering. The faction of “Never Trumpers” during the first Trump administration wasn’t significant enough to prevent Trump’s takeover of the GOP. But the first Trump administration delivered a significant tax cut package and a few Supreme Court justices, to boot. This time, Trump’s tariffs have undermined the first two pillars, and the open discussion of tax hikes on the wealthy further destabilizes the second.  

Is culture war fearmongering enough to justify and sustain a party’s existence? If not, then it won’t." 

Source:The Washington Monthly with a look at Steve Bannon's MAGA Party. Mike Johnson is just a lieutenant or captain in Mr. Bannon's Washington.

From The Washington Monthly

I guess where I would disagree with Bill Scher here is that I think when the Republican Party fell into line with Donald Trump in 2016-17, that was "the end of the Republican Party". 

Let's just start with the fact that to be a "Republican" (in ideology, not registration) you have to first at least believe in the concept of a republic. If you don't believe in the separation of church and state, or you want an official religion in your country, (whatever the religion is) you are not a "Republican". 

I was talking to my mother today about the Canadian Federal elections. She asked me who do I think is going to win. I said probably the Liberal Party. And then I asked her: "Do you want to know why Donald Trump doesn't want the Conservatives to win in Canada?" She responded by saying: "Why?" And I told her because Donald Trump is not a Conservative. Canadian Conservatives probably remind Donald Trump of the so-called moderate Republicans in Congress. And he simply hates those people.

I mean that's what Donald Trump's political party is now. Sure, there are members of the "Republican Party" today who are still Conservatives, including in the Congress. Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, Representative Mike Lawler from New York and perhaps a few others. But this is Donald Trump's and Steve Bannon's party now. 

The MAGA Party is not: 

pro-business 

pro-rule of law 

they are not a conservative constitutionalist party. 

This is a party that puts cultural over everything else. And if they believe in conserving anything its, it's Blue-Collar Joe from Youngstown, or whatever small, blue-collar town you want to name in America. They want to conserve small town, blue-collar culture in America. The MAGA Party is completely: 

anti-cosmopolitan 

anti-pluralist 

anti-multiculturalism 

anti-education, 

anti-elitism. 

They're basically opposed to anything that has made America great and what made us Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill. 

As far as the reconciliation process in Congress, this is what I posted about that in March and I have nothing to add to that right now: 

"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." 

From The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Sam Stein & Sarah Longwell: Donald Trump Goes Off The Rails in WILD New Interview

"Sarah Longwell and Sam Stein share their takes on Donald Trump's wild interview with Time Magazine, which exposes his incoherent plans for immigration, tariffs, and the economy." 

Source:The Bulwark with Sam Stein & Sarah Longwell. They're not talking about Donald Trump's latest sandwich.

From The Bulwark

The TIME interview with the President of the United States: 

"President Donald Trump emerges through a pair of handsome wooden doors on the third floor of the White House. On his way down the wide, carpeted staircase, he passes portraits of his predecessors. Nixon is opposite the landing outside the residence. Two flights down, he has swapped the placement of Clinton and Lincoln, moving a massive painting of the latter into the main entrance hall of the mansion. “Lincoln is Lincoln, in all fairness,” he explains. “And I gave Clinton a good space.” But it’s the portrait around the corner that Trump wants to show off. 

It’s a giant painting of a photograph—that photograph, the famous image of Trump, his fist raised, blood trickling down his face, after the attempt on his life last July at a rally in Butler, Pa. It hangs across the foyer from a portrait of Obama, in tacit competition. When they bring tours in, everyone wants to look at this one, Trump says, gesturing to the painting of himself, in technicolor defiance. “100 to 1, they prefer that,” he says. “It’s incredible.”

Making his way out to the Rose Garden, he walks up the inclined colonnade toward the Oval Office, describing the other alterations to the decor, both inside and out. His imprint on his workspace is apparent. The molding and mantels have gold accents now, and he has filled the walls with portraits of other presidents in gilded frames. He has hung an early copy of the Declaration of Independence behind a set of blue curtains. The box with a red button that allows Trump to summon Diet Cokes is back in its place on the Resolute desk, behind which stands a new battalion of flags, including one for the U.S. Space Force, the military branch he established. A map of the “Gulf of America,” as Trump has rechristened the Gulf of Mexico, was propped on a stand nearby... 

You can read the rest of yourself at TIME Magazine

When Donald Trump talks to anyone other than FOX News, Newsmax, some far-right, MAGA podcaster, or someone like that, he's forced to listen to real questions. Instead looking at people standing in line to kiss his ass, or people in front of him paying him to kiss his ass. 

So when the President had to deal with real journalists, he's not getting questions like: 

"Mr President, why do you love America so much?" 

Mr. President, you still think America can be saved from the Un-Americans?" 

Mr, President, what made you so successful as a businessman and reality TV star?" 

He instead gets real questions like: 

"Mr. President, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against you in the deportation case, saying you have to give these immigrants due-process. Are you currently enforcing that order?" 

Or: 

"Mr. President, you were elected President in 2024 to bring down the cost of living in America. But during your first 90 plus days as President, groceries and the cost of living in general has gotten more expensive. What's your plan to make life more affordable for average Americans?' 

And the problem is, Donald Trump doesn't have any good answers to any of these questions. The Stock Market has lost 10 trillion on his watch. Imagine that happening to either President Biden or President Kamala Harris, if she were President right now. Thanks to the President's trade war. But also prices are going up, people are stocking up right now because they're worried that basic necessities will be too expensive for them a few months from now, which is hurting the supply chain in the economy. 

So President Trump just goes back to the only play that he knows by heart and just talks about how great he thinks he is and how great he thinks America will be, with nothing to show why he believes those things, because he has nothing to show anyone right now. 

Right now Donald Trump is like the incompetent lawyer in the courtroom, who has no case, whose client is obviously guilty and he's simply just trying to buy time, before his client is either convicted, or he gets sanctioned by the judge. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Is This The End For Pete Hegseth?

"Pete Hegseth, who [checks Truth Social] is still the Secretary of Defense, woke up to some brutal headlines today.

In the wake of the revelation that he had gone around Pentagon protocols and had Signal installed on an office computer and the news that his chief of staff was resigning to become a part-time government employee, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal dropped stories that suggest the end may be near for Hegseth.

Here’s the Journal headline: “Polygraph Threats, Leaks and Infighting: The Chaos Inside Hegseth’s Pentagon.”

The piece details how Hegseth, enraged by the leak that he was planning to give Elon Musk a briefing on war plans related to China, threatened several top Pentagon officials with a polygraph test to prove they had not done the leaking.

“I’ll hook you up to a f**king polygraph,” Hegseth allegedly told then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Chris Grady.

Not a great look!

The Post story paints a similar — and unflattering — portrait of Hegseth. This paragraph, in particular, is rough:

Defense officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be candid about the situation, have described Hegseth, 44, as paranoid and increasingly isolated. He is surrounded by only a small team of people whom he trusts and has become keenly focused on daily news coverage dissecting his missteps and decision-making.

Having been reporting on and observing politics for the last two-plus decades, I can tell you that this is how it looks near the end. An embattled political figure, driven to the point of distraction by all of the negative media coverage about him, bunkers in with only the people who tell him what he wants to hear.

That story very rarely ends well — for the person in Hegseth’s shoes that is.

Now, this is a whole new political world. Hegseth has been utterly defiant — publicly — in the face of the spate of negative stories. And Donald Trump likes fighters — people who don’t just wilt when the media horde comes for them.

So, maybe Hegseth survives! But man does it look bad for him at the moment... 

Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at the Pete Hegseth story.

From Chris Cillizza

"Pete Hegseth is under increasing scrutiny as reports of dysfunction and controversy within the Pentagon mount. He reportedly bypassed security protocols to install the Signal messaging app on a government desktop and has become increasingly isolated, relying on a small circle of trusted allies. Two major reports—from The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal—describe him as paranoid, obsessed with media coverage, and quick to accuse staff of leaks, even threatening polygraph tests. Several top aides have resigned, including his chief of staff. Critics argue that Hegseth is focused more on his image than on his responsibilities, and while Donald Trump appreciates loyalty, his patience may be tested. The video suggests this could be the beginning of the end for Hegseth’s tenure." 

From Chris Cillizza

From The New Democrat earlier about Pete Hegseth: 

"If you privately polled the Senate Republican Conference, or slipped some truth serum in their favorite coffee or favorite alcohol beverage, (according to Senator Mullin) or they were under oath, they would privately tell you that Pete Hegseth has no business serving as a Defense Department intern, let alone as Secretary of Defense. That he's better qualified attending Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, and attending anger management meetings, then being responsible for America's national security. But President Trump wants Hegseth, so that's who he gets, according to a sold majority of the Senate Republican Conference. That's my guess... 

From The New Democrat

And from The New Democrat on Tuesday about Pete Hegseth: 

"And to respond to a point that Jane Harman made on CNN: Donald Trump only fires his loyal staffers and cabinet members, when they become a problem for him personally. The President firing people has nothing to what with what's in the best interest of the country, because he doesn't care about that. (To be real) 

And as former Representative Harman said, Pete Hegseth is now embarrassing The White House and the President because he was Donald Trump's original choice for Secretary of Defense. But it's now quite obvious that the Secretary of Defense can't even be trusted with classified information. And it's becoming harder for Congressional Republicans (House & Senate) to defend him against anything that comes up against him, especially if they're in for tough reelection battles in 2026." 

From The New Democrat

I would respond this way: 

If Pete Hegseth cared about Donald J. Trump... I mean, actually cared about him, at least wanted him to do well politically and is not just at The Pentagon right now because he thinks it's great for his career in the MAGA movement, I think he resigns a month ago. I mean sharing classified information on a chat app... why not just Tweet that information instead? If that's not a fireable offense for a national security official, what is? And now it's happened again, a month later. And he could've easily saved face on that and said something like: 

"The Un-Americans in the media are out to try to destroy our great leader and I've become too much of a distraction in our great cause to save America from the Un-Americans and therefor I'll resign as Secretary of Defense." That could've been his resignation letter to President Trump and the President probably accepts that.

I think that's what Secretary Hegseth's resignation letter to President Trump would look like, if he actually cared about the President and simply wasn't trying to hang on, because he thinks stepping down would be bad for his career or something. 

Yes, I'm sure MAGA voters, just everyday Americans who don't make they're living in and out of politics, probably do love Donald J. Trump. But his associates, his career allies, his MAGA soldiers... Donald Trump is just a launching pad for their business and political careers. The more they're loyal to him and the more they claim to love him, (even though to them in private, he's a big loser, who actually knows very little, if anything about government policy) the better these Trump associates do for themselves. 

If Pete Hegseth leaves The Pentagon, it won't be voluntarily. The White House Chief of Staff or Vice President Vance will tell him that he can either resign or be fired, because he's become too big of a distraction and the Defense Department can't work with him anymore because of how much of a security risk and leak that he really is. But I don't see Secretary Hegseth resigning for the reasons I just gave. That's my theory. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Kasie Hunt: Donald Trump Writes ‘Vladimir, STOP!’ After Russia Launches Deadliest Strikes On Kyiv Since Last Summer

"US President Donald Trump said he is “not happy” after Russia launched its deadliest wave of attacks on Kyiv in nine months, telling President Vladimir Putin to “STOP!” as he attempts to push Ukraine to agree on a contentious ceasefire proposal. Moscow sent 70 missiles and 145 drones toward Ukraine, mainly targeting Kyiv, in an attack that leader Volodymyr Zelensky said was aimed at pressuring the United States." 

Source:CNN with a look at the wannabe dictator & a real-life dictator. See if you can tell for yourself who is who.

From CNN

From the President of the United States: 

"I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!" 

From Donald J. Trump

So this is my reaction to Donald Trump's "Truth" about Vladimir Putin and Russia: 

Imagine witnessing a guy beating up another guy in the street, or just outside some store, on a sidewalk, or something like that and you are only person around who is actually witnessing this and your response to something like: 

"Hey! Stop doing that. You are hurting him. That's unfair. You want to get in trouble? I'll tell on you!" Even though you are physically strong enough to at least get the bully off his victim and stop the immediate assault... or at the very least, yell for help, call 911, etc. You would look like the high school geek, who can't even stand up for yourself, let alone someone else. 

If Donald Trump had a conscience and any sense of shame, he wouldn't have been embarrassed about his "Truth" about Russia's bombing on Kyiv, because Russia wouldn't even gotten the opportunity to do this. 

Vladimir Putin is no more scared of Donald Trump, than the kitty is scared of the mouse. Vlad has no more respect for Don, than the rebellious high school class, has for the 85 year old substitute teacher, who walks around with a cane, who is going to be there for a week. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: WOW! Fox News GIVES UP On Donald Trump in SHOCKING TWIST

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Fox News surprisingly turning against Trump on some of their programming during the day." 

Source:Medias Touch with a look at FNC anchor Brett Baier and President Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida) 47th President of the United States & 1st wannabe dictator.

From the Meidas Touch

I have several reactions to this: 

On the Fox News poll: CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite delivered his own editorial arguing that there was not a military solution to ending the Vietnam War... in 1968. President Lyndon Johnson was like in the mid 30s in popularity at that point, largely because of the Vietnam War, as well as rising crime rates, American culture changing too fast for the so-called middle Americans, especially older Americans, etc. And President Johnson's reported response to the Cronkite editorial was: "When you've lost Walter Cronkite, you've lost Middle America." 

I'm not saying Fox News speaks for "Middle America". But when you are Donald Trump, the DeFacto leader of the MAGA movement and you can't even crack 50% in a Fox News poll, you are not even polling 40% on the economy, under 50% even on immigration... you know you are unpopular. That there's something rotten in The White House and it's not just Donald J. Trump (reported B.O. issues) but what they're doing now is not even working politically for them and is hurting their party in Congress as well.

The Fox News poll also suggest that the Left is simply wrong about FNC, at least to this extent: President Trump has an 86% approval rating with the Republican Party, but his overall approval is 44%, according to Fox News. Which tells us the entire Fox News audience is not just small town, blue-collar, rednecks, etc. That Democrats watch FNC, Independents, as well as mainstream Republicans, not just the populist far-right in the country. 

As far as Jesse Watters: I'm about 10 years older than Ben Meiselas and as a Gen-Xer, I remember all those Star Trek reruns from the 1980s and the films as well from that decade. Jesse Watters who is also a Gen-Xer, would get my reference, if he saw this... I think he looks like Commander Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy) from the Starship Enterprise, with the smooth black hair, thick sideburns. I would bet anything that Watters is not nearly as intelligent and even as funny as Dr. Spock. But that's who Watters reminds me of. 

If you are an Alfred Hitchcock fan, like myself, you've seen North By Northwest. Watters also looks like Leonard (played by Martin Landau) from that film. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dateline: John Hinckley - Diary of a Dangerous Mind

"For the first time on television, Dateline NBC will reveal recently uncovered pages from John Hinckley Jr.’s diary, which he began writing after he was arrested for trying to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Special NBC News Correspondent Troy Roberts reports." 

Source:NBC News with a look at John W. Hinckley JR.

From Dateline

So I saw this documentary last night on Oxygen and this is why I'm talking about it today. As well as the fact that it's another slow news day in Washington and I have literally nothing better and more interesting to talk about on The New Democrat right now. I guess beautiful, warm weather, can bring news to a sudden stop in the nation's capital. 

I'm just going to give the the interesting chapters in this documentary one-by-one and tell you what I think about them. 

1. So before John Hinckley could ever get to trial for the attempted assassination of President Ronald W. Reagan, they first had a hearing in Washington to determine Hinckley's sanity. He thought he should try to kill the President, because he was obsessed with actress Jodi Foster and he thought she hated him so much then she wanted the President dead. If that's not an insane reason to kill someone... I would like to know what is. 

And the prosecution argued that Hinckley knew what he was doing at the time. He's an intelligent, educated man, he knew where the President would be, was able to get a gun and fired at him. And I''m sure that is right. But I don't see how you can argue that Hinckley was in the right frame of mind when he did this assassination attempt.

2. Ronald Reagan forgave John Hinckley even when he was in the hospital trying to recover from the assassination attempt. Whatever you think of Ronald Reagan, the man was a Christian and he just didn't pretend to be one for political reasons. Unlike certain other politicians today. But President Reagan's son, Ron JR. not only didn't forgive Hinckley, but thinks Hinckley should never be released and should still be locked up an institutionalized today. The President's wife, Nancy, never forgave Hinckley either. 

Ron Jr. is sort of talked about as some left-wing, hippie, or something, who is always antiestablishment, and talking about compassion and forgiveness , etc... the opposite of his father. But its Ron JR. the son, not Ron SR., the father, who thinks Mr. Hinckley should never be released to society as a free man. 

3. And the affair that John Hinckley had while being institutionalized at St. Elizabeth's in the 1980s. The woman that he had an affair with, was Leslie DeVeau. She was there because she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, for murdering her daughter. St. Elizabeth's knew about this affair. They even had sex together while they were both there. But did nothing to stop them because they thought it was therapeutic.

One of the main differences between a prison and a secure forensic hospital, (which is essentially what St. Elizabeth's was) is that you don't get a life without the possibility for parole, if you are found not guilty by reason of insanity... even for murder. The judge might say you need to be at a secure forensic hospital for this amount of years before you can even be under review for release. But after that point, if the hospital and judge thinks you are ready to return to society as a free person, you'll be released. 

And John Hinckley's case is an attempted assassination anyway. So even if John Hinckley was found to be sane and guilty, he would've gotten a release date, or 30 to life, or something like that, by his original trial judge. John Hinckley was granted an unconditional release in 2022. He now has a job, is able to support himself, and has stayed out of trouble. So in this case, the system worked the way it's supposed to. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

David Pakman: Karoline Leavitt Drops DISGUSTING BOMB On Live TV

"Karoline Leavitt, Donald Trump's White House Press Secretary, tells numerous obvious lies once again on live television" 

Source:David Pakman with a look at White House Minister of Government Partisan Propaganda, Karoline Leavitt.

From David Pakman

I'm willing to bet (perhaps not my life savings... certainly not my life) that David Pakman is at least smart enough to know this (but you wouldn't know that based on how he talks about Karoline Leavitt) that she's not up there to share facts and information with the public, especially the mainstream media. 

Karoline Leavitt is only there to talk about how "totally awesome" or "absolutely fabulous" Donald Trump is and the rest of the Trump Administration is. And how everyone who opposes them, including their own people, or just tries to hold them accountable, (like the mainstream media) sucks... according to her and President Trump. So take everything that this White House says about anything, with a year's supply of salt. Just buy that salt while you can, while you can still afford it, and while stores are still able to sell it.

So to spend 6 minutes of your own time on a YouTube video, talking about how much Karoline Leavitt ducks and weaves, and dodges, serious questions about this administration and just gives a lot of partisan spin about how "absolutely fabulous" things are now (which is so far from the truth, you would need a telescope to find it) and how much things sucked just 6 months ago, (which again has no basis in fact) I think is a waste of time on Mr. Pakman's part. 

I'm only explaining all of this because I want everyone to know who is just starting to get familiar with the Karoline Levitt's of the world and the rest of the MAGA mouthpieces... they're not in the news or even information business. They're in the government partisan propaganda business. 

So when this White House says things that are completely false or just flat-out lies, don't act like you just saw the man on the Moon, having a drink with Pete Hegseth. Because there's nothing surprising or even newsworthy about that. Karoline Leavitt is simply doing the job that President Trump hired her to do: Minister of Government Partisan Propaganda. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Matt Lewis: If President AOC Governed Like Donald Trump — But in Reverse

"As Republicans roll the dice on rule of law, they forget history’s inconvenient truth: today's power grab could be tomorrow's undoing.

The other day, a Texas congressman named Brian Babin suggested that America should take a page from El Salvador dictator Nayib Bukele and “fire” judges.

I responded by asking whether Babin would support future president Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez firing judges who have the temerity to stand in her way.

My tweet was an intellectual exercise in futility. Babin didn’t respond, and why would he? Republicans have long since given up on empathy — that quaint, outdated concept of putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes: 

Matt Lewis: Would you agree if/when President AOC fires judges who stand in her way?

U.S. Representative Brian Babin: Bukele fired activist judges and took his country back.

We should take notes, clean house, and fix America now.

From Matt Lewis

"Still, once upon a time — and by “once,” I mean approximately five minutes ago — it was considered a cornerstone of democratic sanity to understand that the emergency powers, legal gymnastics, and constitutional vandalism you cheer today might be weaponized against you tomorrow.

To help Republicans imagine this possible scenario, I thought it might be instructive to imagine what President AOC might do if she inherited the Trumpian toolbox. You know, just to see how it fits.

Imagine it’s the year 2030. The headlines write themselves:

President AOC pressures major media and tech platforms to boot conservative voices, accusing them of spreading “toxic capitalism” and “environmental treason.” The White House press secretary assures reporters this is “not censorship, just carbon neutrality.”

Hunters (read “militia members” and “climate deniers”) from red states mysteriously vanish, blamed for “driving up emissions with their Dodge Rams, bloodlust, and fentanyl-fueled nihilism.” They are sent to Universal Basic Wellness Retreats, which become colloquially known as “Green GITMOs.”

AOC opens a boutique hotel in Brooklyn, where foreign ambassadors pony up large sums of money to her (note: Cuban and Venezuelan diplomats stay at government expense).

AOC targets white evangelical churches who are “preaching an oppressive ideology that we don’t like,” by threatening to revoke their tax-exempt status unless they fly rainbow flags and offer drag story hour for Sunday School.

The DOJ opens a criminal investigation into Fox News, citing "emotional harm caused by capitalist disinformation." Hannity flees to Hungary.

An MSNBC host is named Secretary of Defense, with a mandate to reorient military strategy toward the existential threat of air conditioning.

The IRS dispatches armed agents to audit rural gun shops under suspicion of “hoarding generational trauma.”

Billionaires are ordered to wear bodycams, which livestream to a public accountability TikTok. When Republicans complain, liberals accuse them of being “pro-anonymity,” which is now a hate crime.

AOC ignores a Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment rights, calling it illegitimate due to the Court’s “GOP-packed bench of oil lobbyists in robes.” Legal scholars clutch their pearls. AOC tweets a meme.

Every church is required to install a wind turbine or face daily fines. As she tweets, “Jesus may have flipped tables, but now he’s expected to charge Teslas.”

These are just a few possible chapters in our speculative dystopia — feel free to add your own in the comments, ideally while your constitutional protections still permit satire.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect Republicans to heed our warnings. They’re not afraid of future tyrants. They’re too busy auditioning for one.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t solely a thought experiment. It’s a warning. Every norm shattered today is a roadmap for tomorrow’s leaders — whether they are on the right or the left.

If Republicans want to avoid this dark future, they might consider behaving as if the rules still apply — because one day, they might.

These are just a few possible chapters in our speculative dystopia — feel free to add your own in the comments, ideally while your constitutional protections still permit satire.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect Republicans to heed our warnings. They’re not afraid of future tyrants. They’re too busy auditioning for one.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t solely a thought experiment. It’s a warning. Every norm shattered today is a roadmap for tomorrow’s leaders — whether they are on the right or the left.

If Republicans want to avoid this dark future, they might consider behaving as if the rules still apply — because one day, they might." 

Source:U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democratic Socialist, Bronx, New York)

From Matt Lewis

I think Matt Lewis's main point here gets to the lack of forward thinking on the MAGA wing of the Republican Party right now. That everything is about now and what they can do now. And maybe they really do expect that Donald J. Trump will become America's 1st dictator and they'll just get away with it. And Democrats will never have the opportunity to do crazy, dictatorial things, but coming from the far-left in the future, because there will be no future. We'll just become Donald J. Trump's Dystopian States of America... his latest and last political reality TV show. 

But then my first point here is about the political boomerang: everything that's done in Washington at the Federal level, sets precedent for it being doing again in the future, but coming from different people, from the other party, especially when you are talking about partisan actions: 

President Bush and the Republican Congress of 2003-04, passed their own health care bill dealing with Medicare, through reconciliation, with no House Democratic votes, in late 2003. Democrats did the same thing to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010, with no Republican votes in Congress... House or Senate. 

Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster to pass President Obama's executive and judicial nominees back in 2013. 3 and 1/2 years later, Senate Republicans eliminated the filibuster so they could get President Trump's Supreme Court nominees through with just a simple majority. 

And I could go and on and on... but hopefully anyone who sees this, has better things to do than to talk about partisan precedents in Congress and how they can come back to bite the other party. 

I hate everything that Donald Trump and MAGA stands for. But the fact is his term will be up in early 2029 and he'll be forced to leave The White House, whether he wants to or not. And that's what MAGA with their myopic political vision doesn't see. America will still be a liberal democratic republic, in early 2029 and we may have a Democratic administration then, with a Democratic Congress. 

So for the pure fun of it, let's assume current U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (some people know her simply as AOC) (Bronx, New York) becomes President of the United States and takes office in January, 2029: 

Just from my perspective, this is the only way I see Representative O. Cortez winning The White House 3 years from now... assuming she never moderates and never gets elected to the U.S. Senate, first: 

Similar to 2015-16, there are like 20 different Democrats for President. Most of them are center-left Progressive types, but similar with Donald Trump who got a little competition from what was called the Tea Party back then... there are like maybe 2-3 other Socialists who also decide to run for President as a Democrat as well. 

So no one running for President, or the mainstream media is even taking AOC For President seriously. And she knocks the other Socialists out, because she's the only 1 who can raise any money at all and who has a name. 

And the supposed frontrunner Democrat, whether that's Gavin Newsome, or Kamala Harris, maybe someone else, is not taking AOC For President seriously either and if anything they're ignoring her in the early, summer, perhaps even fall debates in 2027. 

See what I'm saying? The only reason why Donald J. Trump won The White House in 2016, is because he ran for President in a very crowded Republican field., where almost no one could get 35-40% of the vote in any of the Republican primaries. But in the Republican primaries, winner takes all in most of their primaries. It's winner-takes-all in most of those primaries, which means you can win a lot of primaries there with 3-10 voters and get all of those delegates. 

So to move up my hypothetical a little bit: 

The country is now in recession, thanks to the Trump Administration's trade war and national debt bomb they're setting off because of all the deficit spending and Vice President J.D. Vance couldn't run away from President Trump, even in a Ferrari sports car, or even fly away from him, and he gets tied to the President as tightly as a death row inmate who is about to be executed and the Democratic Party unites being Ocasio-Cortez and even Independents, perhaps even a few white-collar Republicans, because similar to back to 2016, America was ready for any change from the current situation of the country. 

So now for the really fun part

Just for the record: I don't see Alexandria O. Cortez as a Communist... even as a Chavez/Maduro style Neo-Communist. That might be a newsflash for people who read The New Democrat and see how we talk about other Socialists. 

To me, as a President, I think AOC would be more like a George McGovern, or Bernie Sanders as POTUS: someone who is a small d democrat in political practice in how they govern. But way too far to the left of even her own party, to be an effective leader in moving Congress and passing anything consequential as a result. And would probably be a one-termer, unless she moderated as was able to work with the next Republican Congress and even be able to run against them for reelection as well. 

But let's say I'm wrong (for the first time in my entire life, LOL) and Matt Lewis is correct here: 

So in President Ocasio Cortez's first month as President, she signs all sorts of executive orders dealing from everything to banning junk food and soft drinks, from the Federal level, to outlawing eating meat from the Federal level, to outlawing sports bars. And that's just from the left-wing feminist dream list of things they would want her to do. 

So now President Ocasio Cortez loses all of these executive orders in court and she orders her Attorney General Larry Tribe, to arrest all these Federal judges and even the 9 U.S. Justices who ruled against her 100% of the time. And the Attorney General goes along with all of that. 

When Congress votes down President Ocasio Cortez's budget that would double even middle class tax rates and people on the wealthy would pay between 90-100% and guts the national security, and law enforcement, and intelligence budgets by 70% and maybe only 30 House Democrats vote for it and 1-2 in the Senate, she passes her own Socialist budget through executive order. But this time it gets through, because remember she just fired all the Federal judges who voted against her cultural war executive orders and we now have a new Supreme Court, because she just fired the previous justices through EO and no one's left to stop her. 

As I said before, I don't see AOC as a Communist. And maybe Matt Lewis and I just disagree on that. But as I also said before, there's a political boomerang affect in Washington. What 1 party tries to do to the other, can come back and kick in the ass just 2-4 years later. 

There might be some actual Communists out there in America right now thinking: "Look at what we could do, if only we win The White House and stack the administration behind us". 

If you really are a Republican and you actually care about not just your party, but America as well, you need to be saying no to Donald Trump's effort to try to become an American dictator. If for no other reasons, the practical reason that you don't want America to ever become a Communist State. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.