President Volodmyr Zelenskyy: The Trump Peace Plan

"President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday that Ukraine has to confront the possibility of losing its dignity or risking the loss of a key partner as it figures out how to respond to a U.S. peace proposal to end Russia-Ukraine conflict. (Produced by Elaine Carroll)." 

Source:Associated Press with a look at President Volodmyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

From the Associated Press

From the Center on American Progress: 

"The Trump administration’s 28-point plan for peace in Ukraine that leaked this week does not create a path out of the war; it merely repackages the Kremlin’s long-standing demands and presents them as diplomatic breakthrough. The Russian proposal speaks for itself: It demands that Ukraine surrender territory, accept limits on its armed forces, and curb Western military assistance. It punishes the victim and shields the aggressor from any cost—a dynamic that leads to more instability, not peace.

European officials understood the danger immediately. Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen captured the central flaw when she warned that the plan “completely ignores the principles of the UN charter.” Her point reflects an underlying truth: Peace at any cost is no peace at all; it formalizes the outcome that Russian President Vladimir Putin spent years trying to impose on Ukraine by force, signaling that borders can be changed at will and that diplomatic settlements will invariably reward territorial seizure when the victim lacks the capacity to resist.

The proposal also removes Ukraine’s ability to deter a future invasion. A diminished Ukrainian military cannot defend the country, and restrictions on Western weapons give Russia the time and space to rebuild its forces. Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk called the plan a “creeping capitulation” because it locks in Russia’s territorial gains, cedes additional unoccupied territory in the Donbas, prohibits NATO membership by legal statute, and strips Ukraine of the long-range strike capabilities it needs to blunt another offensive. Such a deal guarantees only one outcome: a future attack by Moscow where it can truly finish the job.

Such a deal guarantees only one outcome: a future attack by Moscow where it can truly finish the job... 

From the Center On American Progress

I'm going to tell you the 3 key elements of the "Trump peace plan" and explain why this is completely unacceptable not just for Ukraine, but Europe as well and then I'll do a little speculating about why President Trump is proposing this. A little spoiler alert about the latter: it's not what you might think it is. This is not about Donald Trump doing Vladimir Putin's dirty work, or taking his side. It's something else. 

So under this "peace plan": 

Ukraine has to give up the Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, which make up the region of Donbas. 

They will also have to reduce the size of their current military, which along with western aide are the only things that are keeping Ukraine from becoming part of Russia right now, along with their President, Volodmyr Zelenskyy. And they will also get less military aide from America in the future. 

And Ukraine still would not be allowed to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (That some people know as NATO) 

So why do I call this the so-called Trump peace plan and put "Trump peace plan" in quotes? 

So imagine someone kidnapping your child or your spouse and the kidnappers tell you that if you give them a million dollars, for each, you can have both your wife and child back. And the cops and FBI tell you that you only way you are going to get your wife and child back, is if you pay off the kidnappers and they don't arrest them and just let them go. If you were to take that deal, you are just inviting future kidnappings against your family, because the future kidnappers will think they can just kidnap this man's wife and kid, they'll get paid off for that, and be able to walk away for free. 

What Vladimir Putin's Russia did to Ukraine back in 2022, was essentially a foreign kidnapping, as much as it was an illegal invasion. But they didn't kidnap just 1 man's wife and kid. They kidnapped thousands, if not 10s of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands (maybe more than that) of Ukrainians and took them to Russia to be kept as their prisoners. Along with all the Ukrainian territory that they stole. 

So for Ukraine to just give up Donbas and reduce its military, and get less foreign aide in the future, to not be able to join NATO... sure, Russia will temporarily pull out of Ukraine, except for Donbas. But now they've just been rewarded (by the United States, of all country's) for their illegal invasion and kidnappings. And now they'll be able to do this again to Ukraine in the future and perhaps other vulnerable Slavic countries in the future. 

So why is Donald Trump doing this? 

Do I think Donald Trump likes Vladimir Putin? Perhaps. But I think its President Putin's power and be able to control an entire country, especially a country as large as Russia, that is what President Trump respects the most about Putin and is probably jealous of that. And along with the past and I'm sure the current business and financial interest that The Donald has in the Russian Federation, that makes it harder for him to take a strong stance against the Putin government. Because it's not America that The Donald cares about, but it's The Donald. 

But I think what's really going on here, is Putin is making Trump look really bad and really weak. Mr. Trump when he was running for President in 24, promised that he would end the War in Ukraine on day 1 of becoming President. He's now been President for about 10 months. And guess what? Ukraine is still fighting to keep Russia from completely taking over its country. 

And along with the President' weak political situation at home, the struggling economy, low 40s approval rating, the Republican Party in position to get politically wiped out next year... the President sees this as an opportunity to look like he's trying to make peace and be a peacekeeper and long like a great man. 

Blog alert: The New Democrat is off next week for Thanksgiving. But TND will be back the following Monday after Thanksgiving. And I'll be back in about 3 weeks.

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Meaning of The Populist & Populism

"A "populist" is a political figure or movement that claims to represent the interests of the ordinary people against a corrupt or out-of-touch elite. Populist rhetoric often divides society into "the people" and "the elite," positions itself as a champion of the former, and can appear on both the left and right of the political spectrum. While it can rally disillusioned voters and be a democratic force, it is also frequently associated with anti-establishment sentiment and can be seen as a political insult. 

Key characteristics of populism

"The people" versus "the elite": At its core, populism posits a division between a virtuous, unified "people" and a corrupt, self-serving "elite".

Representation of "the people": Populist leaders claim to be the sole legitimate representatives of the will of the people, often in contrast to mainstream political parties and institutions.

Anti-establishment sentiment: Populism often reflects a deep distrust of the established political, media, and financial institutions.

Appeals to emotion and identity: It frequently relies on emotional appeals and can be nativist or xenophobic, especially on the right.

Political spectrum: Populism can exist on both the left and right of the political spectrum, with left-wing populists focusing on economic inequality and right-wing populists often emphasizing cultural or national identity" 

Source:PA Times We The People.

You can find all this on  Google

So over the last 6 weeks or so, especially during the government shutdown, I've had some time to think about this myself. If you are familiar with my blogging and The New Democrat in general, you certainly sense we are Democrats. But I seriously doubt that any mainstream Republican (like a Conservative, for example) would say that I or TND are overly partisan. 

We don't hate Republicans. We certainly dislike people who are registered Republicans, but who don't act or talk like Republicans. (Like MAGA, for example) We sure as hell don't hate, or even dislike Conservatives. We post a lot of their material on this blog. We had a post from Adam Kinzinger, just last week. And as hard as this might be to believe (sort of like seeing people flying around on flying rugs) Liberals and Conservatives actually have a lot in common. The difference is really about Conservatives believe in conserving and Liberals believe in moving forward. 

My point here is, I've been a registered Democrat since 1998, when I voted for the first time as a 22 year old. Like a lot of other Gen-Xers, I was a big fan of Bill Clinton and that's why I became a Democrat. And I've been blogging since 2009. But I lean more on the independent side when it comes to my own commentary and what I say on social media. I believe in what's best for the country, what's. best for people who are just trying to get ahead, who are perhaps struggling. Not what's best for the Democratic Party, or any other political party.

As I copy and pasted from Google: "Populism can appear on both the left and right of the political spectrum...

The point there is that populism in of itself, is not a political philosophy. Just like nationalism is not a political philosophy. This is not populism versus liberalism, or conservatism, libertarianism, or socialism, communism, etc. It's populism versus people who think that the powerful and the elite knows what's best for everyone else and therefor should be in charge of society, perhaps even the people themselves. How Populists vs the Oligarchs. (If you want a shorter and more simple comparison)

This is not about class warfare either. I believe in education, I love wealth. I think those things should be encouraged and supported and that more Americans should have the opportunities to be successful and be in complete control of their own personal destiny as well. This is more about the wealthy and highly educated, not being so powerful, that they get to make all the key decisions about the future of the country and the people. While ordinary Americans are not just left out even in the decision making and central planning, but left behind as well. 

When I think of populists, I don't think of people who rarely if ever had to even drive themselves around, let alone go to a grocery store to buy groceries. And then claim that they are a populist when they run for President of the United States. And we just don't have many politicians who fit at least my definition of a populist. Because American politics is so much about "what's in it for me and how do I advance my own political career", instead of what's in the best interest of the country... what would do the most good for the most people, regardless of which party or politician it might be good for or hurt. 

I have a lot of respect for the Kennedy Family and the Kennedy School at Harvard. But for someone to win a Profile in Courage award from them... a Democrat voting to reopen the government, or a Republican voting for the release of the Epstein files in Congress, might be all that it would take to win that award today. Which is sort of like winning a ballgame by forfeit. (There was simply no one else even available to give that award too) 

Not many Liz Cheney's left in American politics who are simply willing to give up their political careers, to stand up to a man, the leader of her own party... because she sees that man as wannabe dictator, strongman, who is bad for America. And she cares a lot more about her country, then any 1 political party. 

When I think of a populist, I think of someone who might not come from a deep poor, rural, or run down community in an inner city or someplace, where just getting enough food to eat when they were growing up and getting a decent education was a real struggle for them. But I do think of people who come from average means. Maybe the child of military personal, or a cop, factory workers... perhaps they were the first person in their family to get a college education and work a job, maybe 2 jobs, just to support themselves while they were in college. 

Someone who comes from average means, who has never forgotten their own upbringing, but who has made it by working really hard and being really good at what they do. Who has taken advantage of every opportunity that has come their way. Maybe someone, like a mentor, who saw a real talent in them and encouraged them to explore it and see what they can do with it. 

The populist is someone who fights for average people, because those are their people. Those are the communities that they come from. The old expression "they never forgot where they came from"... to me that's a real populist in America. Whether that person is a Liberal, (such as myself), or a Conservative, or a Socialist, Libertarian, etc. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: My Five BIG Takeaways From Election 2025

"The 2025 election is over — and the results weren’t even close.

Democrats dominated across the board, from the Virginia and New Jersey governor’s races to key ballot measures in California. But what does it all mean?

In this video, I break down my five biggest takeaways from Election Night 2025 — what happened, why it matters, and what it tells us about the political landscape heading into 2026 and beyond.

Here’s a quick preview:

1️⃣ Donald Trump lost — and his reaction says everything.

2️⃣ Gavin Newsom quietly had the best night of anyone in politics.

3️⃣ Latino voters have officially become the ultimate swing vote.

4️⃣ Why Democrats shouldn’t mistake 2025’s wins for a 2028 coronation.

5️⃣ The GOP’s Trump problem isn’t getting smaller — it’s getting worse.

Plus, a bonus takeaway: the 2025 results could reshape how both parties approach 2026." 

Source:Chris Cillizza on the Democrats great night.

From Chris Cillizza

Just a personal observation, first and then I'll get into what I actually want to talk about and try to sound serious... just for a little bit. 

Either Chris Cilliza was in a hurry today and had to be somewhere else, (like 60 seconds after this video was completed) or he lives in a coffee house and has been drinking nothing but coffee all day. Because this was a 12 minute video and he just zipped right though it. Or maybe that's what you have to do to sound cool on YouTube today... you have like 5 points, get to the point and finish what your saying. Like someone who is trapped in a water tank and is running out of air.

So here is my takeaway and I'll respond to what Chris Cillizza said.

So it's not just Donald Trump who lost last night and might be the biggest loser. It's really his MAGA movement (which is really just MDTG: Make Donald Trump Great) that lost, everywhere. I mean the 2 governor races with New Jersey and Virginia, and NYC.

New Jersey: 

New Jersey is a state of 9.5 million people or so. That equals about 5 million eligible voters, perhaps less, if not everyone is an American citizen. And Democrats have about 900,000 more voters than Democrats. That's a major advantage. 

Yes, Republicans can win statewide there, but not by pretending you are so some good ole boy from Hickville, running for Governor of Mississippi, or some other some other MAGA red state. Or Blue Collar Joe from Hackensack, who thinks anyone with a college education, and wealth, is some type of elitist, American traitor or something. 

The so-called "angry white man" campaign, doesn't work in New Jersey, when you have a unpopular Republican President and New Jersey voters are pissed off at the national government because the high cost of living and all the government closures, which cost them good jobs. 

But this is all news to Republican nominee for Governor Jack Ciattarelli, who if you looked at his campaign for Governor, you might think he was running for Governor of West Virginia, maybe Kentucky. 

But the only way a Republican wins statewide in a sate like New Jersey, is running as a Reaganite. You focus on economic issues and affordability. You paint Democrats as tax and spend, fiscally irresponsible leftists. And you tell New Jersey voters how you are going to make the state more affordable and talk about expanding economic freedom and opportunity. That's how Chris Christie and Christine T. Whitman won 2 governors races, each, in New Jersey. Not about making their whole campaign about gay teachers in public schools, boys in girls bathrooms, or claim that Democrats want Sharia Law to take over the America, etc. The whole, damn, MAGA culture war. 

Virginia: So let's  talk about my neighboring state just across the Potomac River. 

So the political makeup in Virginia, is roughly 3 million Democrats and 1.7 million Republicans. That's in a state of about 9 million people. But try to convince Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears (Republican nominee for Governor) of that. Again, wrong candidate, in the wrong state. In a state where she has a deficit of over million voters going into the election, she's talking about transgender issues and trying to tie the Democratic nominee, U.S, Representative Abigail Spanberger, to Jay Jones texting scandal. 

Look, if this were Kentucky, the Earle-Sears culture war, might work. Probably not because they care about affordability and jobs as well. In West Virginia, definitely. Because education and economics, really "ain't their thang", just as long as you are with them on religious and cultural issues. But Virginia, just like with New Jersey, and New York City... highly wealthy and educated states, that have both lost a lot of jobs under President Trump and places where it's expensive to live. But Lieutenant Governor Earle-Sears thought, that the way you win Virginia is try to convince Virginians that they're wrong and Virginia should just become part of West Virginia culturally, politically, and educationally.  

This is just me, but I think the MAGA leadership in the Republican Party thought that the way you win in Virginia, is not to "moderate" (which means sounding like a Conservative Republican) but to change the gender and complexion of the MAGA candidate. I'm sure that's tough to hear, but I think that's obvious. 

New York City:

Look, not everyone in New York is a Socialist. At the end of the night, Zohran Mandani only got 50% of the vote and Andrew Cuomo got 41%, and Curtis Silwa got 9%. And if Mamdani gets off to a slow start and his agenda becomes unpopular or stalls, because the City Council doesn't want it, the new Mayor's numbers will fall way under 50%. But in a city like NYC, that tends to be way to the left and everyone in the country, that's east of the West Coast, even a Socialist can win there, when economic times are tough and you have an unpopular Republican President. 

And to talk about Chris Cillizza's broader point about who won and lost that night and what that means going forward, I have 2 points here: 

1. As the late, great former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (Thomas Tip O'Neill) so famously and accurately said: all politics is local. So what does that mean? Of course Republicans are going to try to tie the broader Democratic Party, including the real Liberals and Progressives, with the Socialists, now that NYC is going to have a Socialist Mayor and that 1 of their U.S. Reps. (Alexandria O. Cortez) is a strong, potential, contender for the Democratic nomination for President in 28. But they were going to do that anyway. And they have nothing else going for them right now, anyway. They're completely in charge in Washington and their leader has a 37-40% job approval, depending on what polls you look at. 

2. But as DNC Chairman Ken Martin told CNN last night, the Democratic Party is a big tent party. So that means Liberals (like The New Democrat) and most mainstream Democrats. But it also means a party that has Socialists, as we saw last night in New York. And since neither faction is big enough to govern this country by themselves, they need their center-right, their center-left, and their left-wing, working and getting elected together. Instead of 1 faction of the party trying to wipe out the other faction, before they try to defeat the Republicans. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Hill: Mike Johnson BRUSHES OFF Trump Third Term Rumors

"House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Tuesday morning brushed off rumors that President Trump would be seeking a third term, saying that he has fun 'trolling the Democrats.'"

Source:The Hill with a look at the U.S. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (MAGA, Shreveport, LA)

From The Hill

Also from The Hill: 

“It’s been a great run, but I think the president knows — and he and I’ve talked about the constrictions of the Constitution, as much as so many of the American people lament that. 

I don’t see a way to amend the Constitution, because it takes about 10 years to do that, as you know, to allow all the states to ratify,” Johnson said... 

From The Hill

Just to show you the 22nd Amendment and what Speaker Johnson is talking about here: 

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once". 

From Library of Congress

And the Speaker can try to make fun of Democrats all he wants to, but no question that Donald Trump would try to get a 3rd term, if he thought he could. And there's reason to believe that the President is looking into getting passed the 22nd Amendment. And Steve Bannon has already said as much when he was talking to The Economist last week about this. 

But if even freakin Mike Johnson, who would win a Donald Trump ass-kissing contest 100-100 times (I apologize to anyone who might have had food in their mouths when they saw that) and has probably even risked the future of the Republican Party, by being as loyal as he has to The Donald.... if he even not just knows that the 22nd Amendment prevents a 3rd term as President of the United States, then I would have to think that anyone who understands the 22nd, (like the U.S. Courts, FEC, etc...) that they already know this as well. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

John Thune & Chuck Schumer: Government Shutdown Press Conference

Senate Majority Leader John Thune: "Good afternoon. I think the American people are wondering when the Senate Democrats are going to end their temper tantrum and vote to reopen the government every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks. People work for the federal government. Now, fortunately, the Trump administration has been able to make sure that our troops, our military, gets paid for a while longer. But there are limits to what they can do.

But, they will have a ninth opportunity today to vote open the government. They had an opportunity yesterday and they will have, if necessary, a 10th opportunity to reopen the government tomorrow. All we need, all we need are five courageous Democrats with a backbone who aren't afraid to buck their leadership, who are marching them right over a cliff. 

Chuck Schumer may think that every day gets better for them politically, but I can tell you that is not the experience of the American people. This needs to end. We can end it today. The bill is sitting at the desk. We're going to get a chance to pick it up and pass it open up the government and get to work for the American people". 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "Well, here we are on day 15 of the Trump shutdown. That's right. It's now over two weeks since Republicans shut the government down because they refuse to negotiate and fix the health care crisis that they themselves created. In fact, House Republicans haven't been here doing their job in weeks. Thousands of federal workers continue to work and not get paid. House Republicans continue to get paid and don't work.

Cost is the number one issue facing American people. How are they going to pay each week their bills and because of Trump's tariffs, because of what they did on electric rates, because food costs are going up so much, and health care is the tip of the spear of that cost increase. And yet Republicans are not moving forward.

The bottom line is they won't even negotiate with us. So that's a premature question. But of course I'm not going to negotiate in public. We need to address the crisis that is afflicting and that's the right word, the American people.

Republicans hold the blame for the government shutdown "because they refuse to negotiate... 

Source:Associated Press covering at the Senate Majority Leader's press conference.

From the Associated Press

But as the Senate Minority Leader said so himself back in March about why he didn't shut down the government then: 

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

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

From The New Democrat

So the 1st question here should be: what has changed from March to now October? Like any good lawyer, I'm asking a question that I already know the answer to. This is what has changed in the last 7 months: 

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

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

From The New Democrat

If you are wondering why I'm posting all this background information and you are thinking that I'm doing it because I'm worried about some insomnia crisis going on in the country (that of course Robert F. Kennedy JR knows nothing about... or, is just denying it) I can see why you might believe that. But there's another reason for it. What Chuck Schumer is doing here (and I think it's now safe to say that he's the distinguished Minority Leader from New York) is taking a page out of Donald J. Trump's. 

Is this how all New York politicians try to govern? Someone you don't like says something bad about you in public, someone you thought was an ally, or just someone you know doesn't like you... and what you do in response is to have them inducted simply because you don't like them. That's what Donald Trump has done in the last couple of weeks. 

This is a little different from Leader Schumer. Instead of cancelling next year's midterm elections, (President Trump hasn't done that yet) because he's worried about his party getting their political tails handed to them, (to be kind) the Senate Minority Leader shuts down the government because he's worried about losing to Alexandria O. Cortez in 2028 and he doesn't like how the Trump Administration governs.

When you were a kid and you wanted to go to some concert or movie or something on a school night with your friends and you knew you would be home pretty late, if you went to it and your parents said you can't do that because you have to get up early next morning for school... perhaps you had the big test or something... what was your response to your parents saying no... or what would you have done? Would you run away from home so you could do whatever you want and not have to listen to your parents say no to you? Some kids have done with with horrible results that soon followed. 

But hopefully you were disappointed but understood why your parents turned down your request. And maybe they said something like: 

"If you do well on the test, you can go to any concert or movie that you want on Friday night and stay out all day on Saturday and go out that night as well. And we'll even give you the money for that". 

That's how a mature adolescent would respond to that and how I think intelligent parents would've handled that. That's would part of the carrot and stick approach to parenting: you lay down solid and understandable rules and expectations for your kids and reward them when they do well. 

But there are times, even when members of Congress can look like immature 16 year olds who think they own the world because they have all the latest fashions and gadgets and follow the "hottest" celebrities. And it's not difficult to see what Congress on a good day, gets around 20% in approval (and with that 20% made up of only meth heads, alcoholics, and mental patients) because being there is almost never about serving your constituents. 

Congress is like some social club that the members love so much that it cost them work and other opportunities because they spend so much time there and love the perks so much. And love it so much, that losing their membership there, would be like someone stealing your home and family on the same day. They can't see themselves out of their club that much, to the point that they will do anything in their power to stay there as long as they can, regardless of how many innocent people they have to hurt. 

I'm not a political psychologist... not sure if 1 even exists. But that's going on with Chuck Schumer right now. The government is shut down right now because he won't let his members vote for cloture on the only bill that has a majority of support in the Congress, to reopen the government. And he's doing all of this because he's worried about losing his exclusive membership to this political club, known as the U.S. Senate and end also ending his membership in the U.S. Congress. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liberalism: A Brief History

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

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

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

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

From The Economist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who speak primarily in hipster dialogue, 

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

who drink coffee all day 

don't eat meat 

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

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

that women should rule the world and most men are pigs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The American Presidency Project

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

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

Could this really be the AOC shutdown? 

Why Schumer’s March vote still matters today

🔹 The growing tension between Democratic leadership and the progressive left

🔹 What AOC’s 2028 options — Senate or White House — mean for the party’s future...

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

From Chris Cillizza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The New Democrat

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

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

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

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

From The New Democrat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The New Democrat

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

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Why Republicans Are Suddenly PANICKING Over Jeffrey Epstein

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

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

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

From Chris Cillizza

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

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

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

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

From The New Democrat

And as Derik Schneider said 2 weeks later: 

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

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

From The New Democrat

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

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

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

Because he was more trusted on national security than the Democrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

In this video, I break down:

What Bondi said — and why it’s wrong

The actual history of free speech and hate speech in America

Key Supreme Court cases that prove hate speech is protected

The real (and narrow) exceptions to the First Amendment, like incitement and threats

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

Source:Chris Cillizza making the case for free speech.

From Chris Cillizza

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

"The Trump administration will be targeting hate speech... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kimberly Eident Chytil: "She needs to be fired".

And I responded with: "For what?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cillizza: Donald Trump Said No Lewd Letter To Jeffrey Epstein Existed

"That looks a WHOLE lot like what the Wall Street Journal described back in July:

The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The letter concludes: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

At the time, Trump insisted the whole story was a fraud. “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he told the Journal. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women. It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

Trump went on to sue the Journal’s reporters, Journal publisher Dow Jones and its parent company News Corp for defamation. He is seeking $10 billion — yes with a “b” — in damages. The suit claims that the letter was “nonexistent... 

Source:Chris Cillizza on The Wall Street Journal's breaking story about President Trump.

From Chris Cillizza

Also from Chris Cillizza: 

"Donald Trump long insisted that the infamous Jeffrey Epstein “birthday book” letter didn’t exist. He even sued The Wall Street Journal for reporting on it. But this week, the House Oversight Committee obtained the actual letter — and it looks exactly like what was originally described.

So what does this mean? Did Trump lie about writing the letter, or is it somehow a forgery? In this video, Chris Cillizza breaks down the evidence, Trump’s track record with the truth, his history with Epstein, and what this revelation could mean for the broader fight over releasing the Epstein files." 

From Chris Cillizza

Our whole point here... or 1 of our 2 major points (to go along with the fact that convicted felons aren't good spokespeople when it comes to morality and what is appropriate and they don't make credible witnesses, especially when they're serial liars) is the whole Watergate lesson: the coverup is always worst than the crime. Which is why Fred Schneider and Derik Schneider have been arguing for The White House and DOJ to just put it all out there, instead of pretending that it doesn't even exist at all... or it's just some "Democratic hoax." As Fred Schneider wrote 2 weeks ago: 

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

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

The main lesson from Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats have failed to learn the last 50 plus years, that once a bad story is about to break, or has broken, is that the worst thing that you can do is to try to cover it up. What you do, is what a good lawyer would do in court: get the bad information and evidence about your side out, before the opposition and the media does it for you. Get ahead of the story and put your own spin on it, before you lose the narrative of it. 

As long as The White House and Trump DOJ try to cover up this story, the longer it will be in the news, along with the slowing economy, rising prices, everything else that has gone wrong since Donald Trump became President again. And that's not where you want to be going into an election year. So of course they should release."

From The New Democrat

And as Derik wrote last week: 

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

"Yeah!!! The Donald rolls with pimps and sex traffickers!!! He's even a bigger badass than we thought" 

Or phrase that last part anyway you want."

From The New Democrat

But when you don't get everything out there that's against you, before the other side (including people in your own party) and the media does it to you, you are now the armed robber who decides to shoot the people in the bank, because he doesn't want any witnesses and you don't decide to do that until you have the money. You just added not just multiple murder 1 counts to your criminal conspiracy, on top of your armed bank robbery. You just made it worst for yourself. 

The White House and DOJ already know how much of Donald Trump is in the Epstein files, from the case that the first Trump DOJ put together against Jeffrey Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell, from back in 2018-19. Now it's just a matter when the Congress and the people will get the whole story themselves, or most of it. And how the public gets that story. 

Donald Trump could lie literally until American football is played on the Moon in real life. He's literally capable of doing that. But the more he lies about this and the more the people know what's actually the truth instead, the worst he and his party look. Which isn't a good thing for a President with a low 40s approval rating, presiding over a weak economy, with weak job growth and rising inflation, going into an election year. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.