President George W. Bush: Remembering His Vice President Dick Cheney

"Former President George W. Bush eulogized former Vice President Dick Cheney and opened up about the process that led him to pick Cheney to be his running mate." 

Source:CNN with a look at President George W. Bush (Republican, Texas) delivering his tribute to his Vice President, Richard Cheney.

From CNN   

President Bush's statement on the passing of his Vice President Dick Cheney: 

"The death of Richard B. Cheney is a loss to the nation and a sorrow to his friends. Laura and I will remember Dick Cheney for the decent, honorable man that he was. History will remember him as among the finest public servants of his generation – a patriot who brought integrity, high intelligence, and seriousness of purpose to every position he held... 

From the Bush Center

And here is part of President Bush's speech today: 

“Dick was a calm and steady presence in the White House amid great national challenges. I counted on him for his honest, forthright counsel, and he never failed to give his best,” Bush said in a statement. “He held to his convictions and prioritized the freedom and security of the American people.”

Cheney died Monday night due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular diseases, according to a statement from his family. He was 84.

In our long discussions about the qualities a vice president should have – deep experience, mature judgment, character, loyalty – I realized that Dick Cheney was the one I needed,” Bush said. “I’m still grateful that he was at my side for the eight years that followed...

From Texas Tribune

To start off on more of a negative point first and then I'll get into what I really want to say here:

The 2 worst president's in my lifetime, (I'm in my late 40s) are current President and George W. Bush. Even though I would pick President Bush 100% of the time over President Trump... if for no other reasons George Bush is an American patriot and a very good and honest man. 

As far as President Bush's speech today... not that difficult to see why he was elected President of the United States, twice. Of course he is 25-26 years older today than he was when he ran for President the first time back in 1999-2000 and he's now 79 years old. So he's obviously aged a lot since 2009 when he left The White House. 

But the G.W. Bush that you saw today give that speech, is the same man who was elected President of the United States in 2000. He's always been a very calm, folksy, humorous man, who is also a great storyteller. The old political phrase and test: 

"Is the candidate someone you want to have a beer with?" 

That could've been written for G.W. Bush. And the answer of course would've always been yes. He would be someone you would want to go to ballgames with, and drink a whole keg of beer with. (Especially during George's drinking days. Ha. ha) Because he's such a friendly and funny guy and someone you would want to get to know and be social with. Unlike a lot of other American politicians, even from his generation, where hanging out with that person, might be as exciting as being stuck in Washington traffic, driving a big wheel. 

The whole story about how Mr. Bush went about choosing his Vice President in the spring and summer of 2000 and he consulted his father George H.W. Bush about that and H.W. suggested that his son choose Dick Cheney to manage that process for him. And after a few weeks or months of this, G.W. tells Dick Cheney: 

"After all of this and the process, the best man for me to choose for Vice President, is you". (Close paraphrase) 

Dick Cheney's public service career goes back to the late 1960s, when Richard Nixon was President and Mr. Cheney got a job in the Nixon White House and worked his way up to becoming President Gerald Ford's Chief of Staff in 1974. So he comes from the Ronald Reagan/Tip O'Neal era when even partisans knew that the people from the other party, weren't bad people, or Un-American. They were just different politically, ideologically, perhaps even culturally as far as where they were from, how they grew up, etc. Which is my broader point here. 

The Bush's, the Cheney's, the Clinton's, and others, come from an era where you could beat the hell out of someone politically, without losing yourself and becoming worst than the person that you are saying is so bad for the country. And I miss that era of American politics. The smash mouth, take no prisoners, compromise is surrender style of American politics... I believe escalated during the Bush/Cheney years in the 2000s. And it's gotten worst the last 16 years. But they never viewed Democrats as the enemy, or as Un-American. But just as their political opponents. Which is why there was such bipartisan gathering of both Democrats and Republicans at the Vice President' funeral today. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: Donald Trump Mentioned Multiple Times In Epstein Emails

"The White House said Wednesday that the release of Jeffrey Epstein emails that mentioned Donald Trump “prove absolutely nothing, other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.” Asked whether Trump ever spent time at Epstein’s house with one of his victims — as one of the newly released emails suggests — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that Trump had kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago for being a “creep” and also described the convicted sex offender as a “pedophile.”  

Source:CNN with a look at the MAGA Don and his chief propagandist.

From CNN

"Top Trump administration officials met with a key GOP lawmaker about an effort in the US House to force a vote on releasing Justice Department case files related to Jeffrey Epstein, according to multiple sources familiar with the meeting." 

Source:CNN with a look at White House chief propagandist Karoline Leavitt.

From CNN

I think former Donald Trump advisor and current CNN political analyst David Urban makes the case for why The White House should've already released the Epstein files:

“No, I mean, I don’t think, and at the end of the day, I don’t know if it’s gonna break apart MAGA. But the issue is bigger. Steve Bannon, I think, nails it here directly. It’s really not about Jeffrey Epstein, it’s about accountability. I think the base, you heard Trump talk about this for a long time, there’s a two-tier system of justice in America, and the elites get protected, and the FBI protects them, and the deep state protects them.”

From AOL

The New Democrat has been very clear on why we believe the Epstein files should've already been released: 

8/19/2025 

"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...

From The New Democrat

9/02/2025 

"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

And from yesterday: 

"After tomorrow, there will be 214 House Democrats in the 119th Congress, after Adelita Grijalva is sworn in tomorrow. Now, I'm not going to say there will be 50-60 Republicans who will vote for Representative Massie's petition. I don't know where Representative Ro Khanna and others are getting that information. But I could see 15-20. And those members who will probably be the Republicans who will probably lose reelection next year, if they run for reelection. But voting for the Massie petition could help whatever reelection chances that they have in 26, at least in the general election."

From The New Democrat

I mentioned this back in August, but this is Watergate 52 years later. It's just a different White House that is trying to save the President's coverup. But at least during the Nixon Administration, the Department of Justice was not just cooperative with the Watergate investigation, but they were actually running it, for the most part. Congress finally gets involved in the investigation in the Senate with their Watergate committee in the summer of 1973. 

Nothing has changed for me since August. But President Trump is ever more unpopular now than he was 3 months ago. The White House gets to reopen the government, but only to deal with the Epstein files crisis. The President is now in the mid to upper 30s in approval, thanks to his bad economy, because of his tariffs. And this coverup is just making that problem worst. 

So if for some godforsaken reason I managed to find myself advising President Donald Trump about anything, (perhaps everybody else in Washington either moved out or abandoned him, or he locked everyone else up for being disloyal to him) this is what I would tell the President:

"The economy is a big enough problem for you. I realize you don't care about the Republican Party. But if they get hammered in Congress a year from now, your life will get a helluva lot worst. All the House and Senate investigations... you won't be a lame duck in the next Congress. You will be a dead duck with very little power and not much ability at all to effect the agenda of the country. 

But if you release the Epstein files, you can move on from here and spend the next year on the economy and make the political lives of Congressional Republicans a lot better. And give them a fighting chance to retain Congress. The American people won't dislike you any more than they already do, if the Epstein files come out. Some of your supporters will probably just see you as a bigger badass than they already thought and love you even more. 

But the longer your coverup of the Epstein files last, the worst off you will be. And your days as a dead duck President will come a lot sooner. And your last 2 years as President will be even worst than they are right now." 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Boris Sanchez & Brianna Keilar: Pollster Shares Prediction For Race That He Thinks Could Send 'Shockwaves'

"Ahead of crucial off-year elections, in places like California, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, pollster and communications strategist Frank Luntz joins CNN's Boris Sanchez and Brianna Keilar to share his predictions and discuss what he believes is at stake for voters nationwide." 

Source:CNN talking to Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

From CNN

So I just want to hit on one solid point (not that he only had 1 solid point) that Frank Luntz said here. And then we're going to go back in time to 2006 and I'm going to give a flashback about the political scene then and how that relates to 2025-26. 

So Brianna Keilar asked Republican pollster Frank Luntz a typical, mainstream media question: 

"OK Frank - what do you think tomorrow votes will say about the state of the political situation and how Americans feel about President Trump?" (Not her exact words. But very close) 

And Luntz responded with a very intelligent answer and said: 

"Tomorrow, the people won't decide what this means for President Trump and the Republican Party. The media will do that instead. Tomorrow, there are 3 local elections: 

A mayoral race in New York City 

Governors race in New Jersey and Virginia". (Again, not his words exactly. But very close) 

And before I give you the political flashback... before I got back to my desk today, a caught a CNN panel discussion with Kasie Hunt's show. And they were basically talking about the same thing. And it's not that they all agreed, but even a left-wing Democrat (Ashley Allison) and Republican pollster David Urban (who was MAGA before MAGA was cool in the Republican Party) agreed on this key point: tonight's election results are all local. 

In the Democratic Party, tonight's election results won't decide the debate between mainstream liberalism (or real liberalism) versus socialism. (Which is what some people call progressivism) These contests will decide New York City, New Jersey, and Virginia. NYC tends to be to the left of everyone east of the West Coast anyway, by-in-large. 

Tonight, assuming Democrats win all 3 races, all 3 elections will be local. With the winner of those races (assuming Democrats) running the race that's best for them and their community. Not trying to force mainstream liberalism (the real liberalism) or socialism, down the throats of the rest of the Democratic Party. 

And to give you the political flashback I was talking about... go back 15 years and it was either right before the 2010 mid-terms, or right after them and I was watching a C-SPAN panel discussion and they were talking about the impact of those mid-terms. And they had former U.S. Representatives Tom Davis (Republican, Virginia) and Martin Frost (Democrat, Texas) on that panel. 

And Representative Frost talked about the 2006 mid-terms where Democrats won back the House and Senate that year. And he was involved in the House Democrats effort to win back the House. He handled the recruiting for the Democrats. And he was basically making the same point that Frank Luntz made, but put it differently. He said the reason why Democrats won the House back in 06, is because they were able to target about 60 (give or take) House Republican seats, when they only needed to pick up 15 to win back the majority. And they made all of those races local. 

In 05-06, Democrats recruited candidates to fit the districts that they would run in. Instead of trying to find the most left-wing candidates they could find to win every race. Or the most mainstream Democrats that they could find to win each race. They picked and choose based on who was the best candidate to run in each race, based on the particular district, the incumbent they were running against, the issues the district were dealing with, etc. House Democrats didn't make the 2006 mid terms national and neither did Senate Democrats. They made every race that they won in that cycle, local. 

20 years ago, the way American voters tend to feel about Democrats, is not that different from today: 

Democrats are too left-wing or socialist 

Soft on defense, soft on crime, won't protect the streets and the country, etc. 

But Democrats won back Congress and a majority of the governorships, anyway. Why? Because the candidates that won, who defeated Republican incumbents, weren't seen as too far-left, too elitist, out-of-touch, soft on everything important, etc. 

The mainstream media like to say that Zohran Mamdani or Alexandria O. Cotez, or some other Socialist, is the future of the Democratic Party, because they're popular in their own communities, they're young, are hip, relate extremely well in pop culture, etc. But Democrats won't win back he House in 06 with Socialists running everywhere. Won't matter how cool young people think they are. They're just too out-touch for too many American voters, win everywhere where Democrats will have to win to take back the House and even come close to winning back the Senate. 

But Democrats make every district and state race local next year and run candidates that fit that district, whether it's a Socialist or mainstream Liberal, (you know, real Liberals) and they could have a great year next year. And a great year, or blue wave, is not about just winning back the House and picking up 5-10 seats. But picking 15-20-25 House seats and even winning back the Senate, or at least getting very close, with a 2-3 seat pickup. And you do that with candidate quality, not trying to turn the Democratic Party into a socialist party, or a just for Liberals party. 

You can follow me on Facebook, and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Inside Edition: New Questions About President Trump's Health After Recent MRI

"There are new questions about President Donald Trump's health Monday after he revealed that he had an MRI at his hospital check-up earlier this month. The White House has not released the results of the president's tests. His doctor wrote a memo, stating in general terms, that Trump underwent "advanced imaging … to ensure optimal cardiovascular health" and concluded that "President Trump remains in exceptional health."

Source:Inside Edition with a look at Don King. I mean King Don... uh, you know what I mean.

From Inside Edition

I'm going to ask you to use some real brain power here and use your imagination skills... sort of pretend you are on an episode of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone and imagine (if you will) that Donald J. Trump was just an ordinary politician. Forget about him being a mainstream Republican... because that went out of the door with disco in the early 1980s. That would seem unimaginable. But try to look at him as an ordinary politician... if you can.

So Donald Trump is just your everyday Joe Jones politician. Except that he's 79 years old and President of the United States. So the President gets an MRI and a physical. If you were President of the United States right now and you were 79 years old, with the same poor diet that DJT has and the same lack of exercise that he gets, and you are saying you latest health results were "perfect", wouldn't you want to release them to the public the day before they came out? (If that were possible) But Donald Trump doesn't do that because he expects everyone to just take his word for it. 

So-called independent journalists like Chris Cillizza and I'm sure others, as well as establishment journalists like Jake Tapper and others, have always argued that they don't report on crazy things that Donald Trump says and does, because he's always been like that and it's not crazy for him. As if always being crazy doesn't make you crazy. I can't explain the logic in that, but you are free to give it a shot. 

People with perfect mental health, don't drop AI videos of someone, or himself taking a dump (to keep it clean) on people who are peacefully protesting their government. And that's just 1 example of 1 of the crazy and irresponsible actions that this man has done as President of the United States. 

People in perfect physical health, don't have swollen ankles and see their hards blackening... especially when they're not of African or South Asian descent. I'm not a doctor, but he obviously has some type of skin condition and issues with his ankles right now. 

But since Donald John Trump sees himself as an American king, (which was 1 of the points of the No Kings protests) he doesn't feel the need to share his health records and updates to his "peasant population", also known as the American public and media. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Sara Sidner & John Berman: John Bolton Arrives At Federal Court a Day After Being Indicted

"John Bolton arrived at federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Friday morning. Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser-turned-adversary, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland on Thursday." 

Source:CNN with a look at Ambassador John Bolton.

From CNN

I will get into the John Bolton story as well. But just on a personal note first: (and since this is Friday, I feel the freedom to do this) isn't great to have the real Sara Sidner back at CNN? 

The Sara Sidner you see in this video, looks a lot like the Sara Sidner in this photo. This is the Sara Sidner from 2022, or even back in 2011 when she was an international correspondent at CNN. Tall, plus-sized, beautiful, long, black hair, and a beautiful babyface. I thought she had the best hair, at least at CNN back in 2022. She's a woman that I would call a beautiful plus-sized baby, because as tall and big bone as she is, she has the face and smile of a little, baby cutie. Her hair is a little shorter now then it was 3 years ago before she got sick and she's lost a lot of weight to help her stay healthy. But she has her hair back and looks absolutely beautiful. 

Source:CNN anchor Sara Sidner.

As far as the John Bolton case: You could look at this case from 3 different ways:

You could look at it from a partisan point of view and not just as a Democrat, but as a Conservative Republican, who simply doesn't like Donald Trump and his MAGA party. (Doesn't like might be generous) Or as a Democrat, who doesn't like John Bolton, but who believes in the rule of law and doesn't want to see even Republicans get prosecuted simply because they oppose Donald Trump. 

You could also make a political lawfare argument here as if you are a defense attorney and saying that if they had the same evidence against someone like Pete Hegeseth, (who just happens to be Secretary of Defense) that DOG would've never brought this case against Secretary Hegseth. Why? Because the Secretary is an ally of President Trump. But since Ambassador Bolton has been in opposition to the President, at least since the President fired him back in 2018, that's the only reason why DOJ is prosecuting him today. 

And then there's the lawyer's-lawyer argument and you heard that in this video from Tom Dupree and Michael Moore (not that Michael Moore) where they're looking at the evidence that DOJ has already made public against Bolton and talking about the case based on that. 

Did New York Attorney General Leticia James prosecute Donald Trump back in 2023-24 because she doesn't like him and wants to put him prison? 

Did Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecute Donald Trump back in 24 because he doesn't like DJT and wants to see him in prison?

The answer to both of my questions is obviously yes. But the point is both the NY Attorney General and Manhattan DA had excellent cases against President Trump. That's why they won those cases. And the Bolton case is not that different, if any different from those 2 Trump cases. 

I'm not a lawyer, don't even pretend to be 1 even in my mind, let alone on TV. But I know enough about the law and juries to know that at the end of the day, if the prosecution has a case for conviction, regardless of the reason or reasons for bringing the case at all, they'll probably get their convictions. And that's what the Bolton case will come down to as well, if it makes it that far. Does the U.S. Attorney have a case for conviction in this case, or not. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Situation Room: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blames Republican Leaders For Government Shutdown

"Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) joins CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown to discuss the government shutdown." 

Source:CNN talking to U.S. Representative Marjorie T. Greene (MAGA, Georgia) about President Donald J. Trump (MAGA, Florida)

From CNN

I think this quote right here pretty much sums up Marjorie T. Green's political career right now: 

"I'm 1 of those who gets real tired of political drama when it's not actually solving the problem". 

She's not saying she's against "political drama". Just when it's not solving whatever perceived problem that's she trying to solve. That would be a fair interpretation of the Representative's quote there. 

So, unlike CNN, or at least CNN anchors Wolf (I should've retired 10 years ago) Blitzer and Pamela Brown, I'm not buying Marjorie T. Greene's little political show here. She was hardcore MAGA from day 1 when she elected to the U.S. House 5 years ago. She tried to have Speaker Mike Johnson removed from office 18 months ago, because he agreed to the Senate short-term funding bill back then and he didn't shut down the government back then. 

Up until 3 days ago, perhaps a week, you wouldn't find a more loyal MAGA political soldier to Donald J. Trump, then Majorie T. Greene. There's something else going on here that I'm going to get into. 

So 3-6 months ago, Representative Greene was considering a run for either Governor of Georgia, where Brian Kemp is term limited there, or running for U.S. Senate against Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff. But this is what Senator Kevin Cramer (Republican, North Dakota) said about MTG running for Senate from Georgia: 

“We need to have the absolute best candidate, and that includes electability. It’s very difficult to apply a formula for a very gerrymandered, very conservative congressional district into a statewide election with as much diversity as Georgia has. That is a swing state that’s pretty independent-minded,”

From The Hill

Representative Greene was talked out of not running for U.S. Senate, by the Senate Republican Leadership. And for good reason: Georgia is sort of like for the Republican Party, what Virginia is now for the Democratic Party. It's a state where a mainstream Republican should win statewide there, assuming they don't have a lot of ethical baggage. But you put a far-right candidate, like an MTG there and that state becomes very competitive, if the Democrat is a mainstream candidate and not a Socialist and some left-wing cultural warrior, identity politics, candidate. 

Representative Green's own official reasoning for not running for Governor of Georgia for 2026, is: 

 “A very established men only Republican firm that is overseeing the state’s slow slide from red to blue.

The ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine wheeling and dealing at the hunting clubs and country clubs does not reflect the sentiment and issues of the vast majority of Georgia voters". 

From Politico

That was MTG's response to the Georgia Republican Party for declining to endorse her potential bid for Governor of Georgia, for next year. 

You can easily get into trouble and even put your own credibility at stake, when you question the motives of people, while you are not able to prove them, especially when it comes to politicians. But MTG  has been in the House of Representatives for almost 5 years. I don't think she wants to still be there 10-15 years from now. 

MTG represents 1 of the reddest, most Republican gerrymandered, MAGA, House districts in the country. She obviously wants more for her political career than to represent 700,000 people who at times perhaps sound even crazier than her: 

Who think that "Jewish space laser" theories are real

 That Joe Biden stole the 2020 election

That America is being destroyed from within by Jews and Latinos, Jewish bankers, etc... 

That gay people want to eliminate straight people. 

And unfortunately I could go when it comes to whacked-out, far-right, MAGA conspiracy theories in this country.

But for someone like a Marjorie Taylor Greene to ever be able to represent anything other than a gerrymandered, MAGA district, in rural Georgia, to getting elected in a big, diverse state like Georgia, (11 million people) she is going to have to drop her political escaped mental patient routine and sound and act like a mainstream Republican. You know, like a Conservative (for example) and be able to compete in the parts of Georgia where most of its residents live, which is the Atlanta metro area and the big counties there, as well as Savannah.  The parts of Georgia that are very urban and suburban, even blue. 

Georgia is not Mississippi. (Duh!!!) You can't win statewide in Georgia as a Republican, with just Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, blue-collar, rural voters. You have to compete and win in the cities as well. This is what Marjorie Taylor Green's call to political sanity campaign is really about: her winning Georgia. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Kate Bolduan: This Is An American Public That Is Willing To Go To A Shutdown

"Kate Bolduan talks with CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten about the public opinion surrounding the government shutdown." 

Source:CNN Kate Bolduan & Harry Enten. Perhaps you can tell for yourself who is who.

From CNN

As my colleague Derik Schneider wrote last Friday. As you'll see, Derik is not impressed with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's political intelligence in this latest Washington soap opera that will probably be known as the "Schumer shutdown": 

"And just for a point of clarification: when I said last week about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's political 'intelligence": "If Leader Schumer lost his political brain in the Potomac River or some place... perhaps he went out drinking with Senator Markwayne Mullin 1 night and lost all his brain cells. (Inside Washington joke...

Yeah, looks like I've overestimated Leader Schumer's political "intelligence" on government shutdowns... at least so far. he still has 4 days and some change to fold faster than the "House Freedom Caucus" when it comes to big government funding bills. Or, like a mouse who is surrounded by a pack of kitties. 

Or, maybe Leader Schumer did lose his political brain in the Potomac River 1 night. 

Or, Leader Schumer went out drinking with Senator Mullin (inside Washington joke) and gave up his political brain cells for all the alcohol that he could pay for. Perhaps Senator Mullin was an inside plant by The White House to get Leader Schumer drunk one night, so he would be political braindead to even contemplate doing this...

From The New Democrat

So if you take the word of this latest CNN poll (and I believe Harry Enten is a solid pollster and political analyst) you would have to think (don't worry, you won't get arrested if you don't think this) that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is only listening to 1/2 of his party right now. And that 1/2 probably doesn't work of the U.S. Government, is not on Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, aren't military veterans, etc. Perhaps just the partisan activist wing of the Democratic Party. 

And if you stick with this political theory, Leader Schumer is ignoring other 1/2 of his party... government workers, military veterans, people on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc... people who run or own businesses that have contracts with Uncle Sam and are at risk of either losing those contracts or having them suspended, because the government is shut down. 

As well as people like myself, who write about these issues for a living, who care about the future of the country, who don't want the Donald Trump's of the world to have absolute power in this country. And who want a Democratic Party that is able to hold the Trump's of the world accountable. 

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...

From The New Democrat

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. 

As I said back in February as far as how Democrats, especially the Democratic Leadership, should oppose President Trump and MAGA: 

When you see your arch-enemy is drowning in the ocean. don't throw them a lifeline. Let them drown. 

When you see your arch enemy's house is on fire and no one is there to do anything about it, don't even offer to spit on the fire, let alone dump your own water on it, or call 911. Just let the house burn down. 

Let MAGA burn our national house down. Hopefully they don't destroy the country. But don't help them do that, or try to get in their way, outside of what's going on in the courts and at the state level. Show American voters this is exactly who you voted for and the consequences of that fateful decision. And tell them and show them there's a better way on the campaign trail and why you deserve to be in power again.

From The New Democrat 

The Carville doctrine (authored by longtime Democratic strategist James Carville) is still the right approach here. You don't have to like what MAGA is doing, you don't have to vote for it. What you should do is take what they're doing on the campaign trail and use it against them to get more Democrats elected to Congress in 26. And then maybe you can win back the entire Congress, not just the House. 

But you when become the issue yourself and a reason for why government isn't working, like when you shut the government down, you give voters an opportunity to think: 

"We don't like the Republicans right now. But the Democrats seem like they're part of the problem as well. How would electing more Democrats and even given them power in government, make things better?" 

Which is not the attitude that you want voters thinking about when they go to the voting booths 13 months from now.

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

"Don Lemon breaks down the new revelations from Kamala Harris’s book, 107 Days. What does she reveal about her time in office, and what do these insights mean for how we understand the 2024 election?

Don digs into the details, discusses whether Harris should have taken a different approach, and explores what her reflections tell us about the past, and the path forward for Democrats." 

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

From Don Lemon

As Erik Schneider said back in December: 

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

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

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

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

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

From The New Democrat

From ABC News: 

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

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

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

"Yes," Harris said, "and I, and I actually have reflected on that, and I've written about that."

"Would that have mattered if you did?" Strahan asked Harris...

From ABC News

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

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

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

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

minorities serving in the military 

women working at all 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can follow me on Facebook, and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Brianna Keilar: Markets Soar As Americans Sour On The Economy

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

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

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

From CNN

As I wrote about the economy 10 days ago: 

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

From The New Democrat

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

Astead Herndon said: 

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

And as Matt Egan said in this video:

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

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

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

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

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

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Inside Politics With Dana Bash: America Lost Jobs For The First Time Since 2020

"Friday’s jobs report painted a miserable picture of the labor market in practically every metric. 

In addition to the weaker-than-expected monthly total of 22,000 jobs added last month and the revised June figures showing the economy shed jobs for the first time in five years, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.3% from 4.2%" 

Source:CNN with a look at the American economy.

From CNN

I don't claim to be an economist... but only because I'm not. Hopefully that's not too simple for anyone who sees this and just seems like a natural fact instead. I guess I could dress up like an economist, or get a blue suit somewhere, perhaps grow a beard, get a pipe, etc... but it's almost 2 months until Halloween. Besides, I gave up Halloween when I was like 15. And if I were to dress up for Halloween... safe bet it wouldn't be as an economist. 

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

But what I'm really interested in here, is something I know something about, which is the politics here. As Astead Herndron said on this panel: 

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

As my colleague Derik Schneider said on Tuesday: 

"If I'm Ken Martin (the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee) right now, I want September to be about the slowing Trump economy, with weak job growth, rising prices, and weak economic growth, etc and winning the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the Epstein files. 

Again, if I were Chairman Martin, I don't want September to be the month of Chuck Schumer's government shutdown and when will Federal employees get to go back to work and will the one's who are still working during the government shutdown... will they get paid for the work that they did when the full government reopens, etc. 

I don't want the Democratic opposition to be the issue this September and remind voters why Democrats lost in 2024. I want everything to be about MAGA and this MAGA government and their incompetence and corruption, led by their Dear Cult Leader, Donald John Trump...

From The New Democrat

That's the politics of this situation of this moment right now. Republicans are in complete charge of everything in Washington, when you look at the executive branch and Congress. And Republicans will argue that Senate Democrats can block just about everything and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can stall Congress, pretty much all he wants. Fine. But the key words here are: 

"Senate Democrats can block just about everything" 

Everything that Republicans have done since taking over in January, has been by themselves. Either though reconciliation through Congress, where the House and Senate can both pass legislation, just by majority vote, with no input from Democrats at all, or through President Trump's executive orders. And remember back in April when the President announced his tariff policy and how much he bragged about that and then go up 5 months later and job growth is even weaker now, and inflation is higher and Republicans are in complete control in Washington. 

And if Democrats are smart (meaning we're not talking about Chuck Schumer's government shutdown 2-3 weeks from now) and don't politically shoot all their toes off as they're climbing the hill to take back Congress next year,  or at least the House and win a bunch of governors races and legislatures as well, 2026 should be a great year for them. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ghislaine Maxwell: Lying Her Head Off For a Pardon

"Kristy Greenberg, former top prosecutor and host of Courtside with Kristy Greenberg, breaks down the transcript of the interview Todd Blanche had with Ghislaine Maxwell." 

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell and her "friend" Donald J. Trump.

From Talking Heads With Harry Litman

"The Client List Cover-Up: Why Maxwell’s Story Doesn’t Add Up" 

Source:Nancy Grace with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell's story.

From Nancy Grace

From what I wrote about this story last week relating to the Epstein files: 

"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... 

From The New Democrat

I'll tell you what I personally think of this story. (Even if you are completely not interested in what I have to say about this) But before I do that, there are 2 excellent points that David Axelrod and Kristy Greenberg have made about this story, that I want you to focus on, first. 

CNN political analyst David Axelrod, who is a longtime Democrat, including Democratic political strategist, is also perhaps the best Democratic analyst and political analyst in general, when it comes to tossing out the garbage (to put it mildly) and laying out "what's what and who's who" and just putting it out there. I think he had the best social media post about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate", when he said: 

"Two questions:

1) What does a convicted sex trafficker consider "inappropriate?"

2) If she WERE trying to win a parole or commutation--or a transfer to a minimum security, "Club Fed" prison camp--aren't these precisely the things she would say?" 

From David Axelrod

I think Kristy Greenberg hit a home rune (or, should I say "grand slam" since that word has something to do with both baseball and tennis and the US Open is going on right now) when she was talking about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate". Greenberg was talking about the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (who still seems to think that he's Donald Trump's defense lawyer) and he asked Maxwell: 

"Did you ever hear Mr. Epstein ever say or do anything that President Trump did anything inappropriate with anybody in your world?" 

And Maxwell responded with: 

"Absolutely never in any context."

So Kristy Greenberg's point here is that you don't let the defendant (or in this case convict) get to decide for you what is "inappropriate" and what is "appropriate". She's been in prison for 5 years now because she was convicted of a lot of inappropriate actions. (And based on the evidence, did some really inappropriate things) And we're not talking about serial jaywalker, (if you are a serial jaywalker, stay out of Washington and Chicago right now) or a shoplifter, who only steals because they are addicted to gum. 

In Ghislaine Maxwell's case, we're talking about a sex trafficker, who was involved with Jeffrey Epstein in this criminal enterprise, for 20-25 years, before they finally got caught in 2019. But according to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, she qualifies as someone who knows the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate". If Ghislaine Maxwell knows anything about "inappropriate", she knows how to behave very badly. And even how to get way with it, up to a point. She was a woman behaving very badly, for. a very long time. 

And if the Deputy Attorney General of the United States is going to make Ghislaine Maxwell a spokesperson for what's "appropriate" and "inappropriate"... why stop there? Why not he invite the Idaho college serial murderer Bryan Kohberger to give a series of speeches on the importance of human life and being pro-life? He could give those speeches from his prison cell since we all know how private of an individual he his and doesn't like coming out of his closet very often. 

I don't want to make too much light of Bryan Kohberger, (even though I have already done that) but and I think this is Kristy Greenberg's point here, when you give the power to the defendant, to decide what's "inappropriate" or "appropriate" and you are a government attorney, (like I don't know, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States) you are no longer acting as the attorney for the people here. You are now acting like a defense attorney, who wants to make the convict here (Ghislaine Maxwell) a friendly witness for some other case that you are working on here. The only thing that Mr. Blanche is trying to do here, is to clear his client, Donald Trump, of having anything inappropriate to do with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. 

We have an expression... or joke, here at The New Democrat about liars. And it goes something like: "She has the credibility of a compulsive liar". And if we were talking about a man here... replace "she" with "he" in our little expression. If the Southern District of New York didn't have Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein dead to rights on the sex trafficking, where Epstein is probably looking at life in prison, if he didn't take his own life and went to trial and Maxwell got 20 years, she would be a convicted perjurer right now, as well.

And yet this is the person that Trump.Inc wants to use as their character witness to prove that Mr. Trump wasn't seriously involved with either of these distinguished individuals. Back in 2017, President Trump said he thought the U.S. Department of Justice was his own personal law firm. 8 years later, looks like he's gotten that wish. 

You can follow me on Threads and Facebook.

You can also se this post on WordPress.