Catherine Rampell: Donald Trump Is Falling Into the Same Trap That Ensnared Joe Biden

"THE PARTY IN POWER just lost an election because the party out of power hammered them hard for not cutting prices. If that sounds familiar, it’s because pretty much the same thing happened last year, except the antagonists have swapped places.

Turns out it’s easy to win while running as an outsider promising “affordability.” It’s much harder to actually do anything about it.

It’s doubly hard if you insist the problem doesn’t exist in the first place and suggest voters should just shut up about it. Triply hard if your economic policy agenda (cough-cough, tariffs) cuts in the opposite direction, making life more expensive.

In short, President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans have learned nothing from how badly Joe Biden and the Democrats bungled inflation. Instead they’re repeating some of the same mistakes and adopting the same useless gimmicks. Only this time, they’re also pursuing policies that make the problem worse.

Affordability crisis? What crisis?

USUALLY TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES are great at creating their own alternative reality, and getting their voters to buy into it. Tax cuts pay for themselves? Sure. Horse dewormer cures your ills? Swell. Immigrants are eating your pets? You betcha.

This strategy is a bit more challenging when it comes to the cost of living, because voters presumably notice whether their grocery and electricity bills have gone up or down. Not that that has stopped the White House from trying.

In the past week, Trump has called complaints about affordability a “con job” orchestrated by the Democrats. Asked about voters’ anxiety on the economy—as documented in numerous polls—Trump told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham: “I think polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we’ve ever had.”

Not only that, he has stressed, but maybe prices are already falling!

As he explained to reporters last week, “The reason I don’t want to talk about affordability is because everybody knows that it’s far less expensive under Trump than it was under ‘Sleepy Joe Biden,’ and the prices are way down.” Republicans, he has said, can win on the issue if only they resolve to “talk about the fact that prices are down.” (To be clear, prices are not down. They’re still rising, up about 3 percent in September from a year earlier.)

In some ways this is a more strident version of what Biden and the Democrats did during the first year of his term.

For most of 2021—until, coincidentally, the weeks leading up to Thanksgiving—Democrats and allied commentators often downplayed or dismissed public concerns about inflation. The significance of rising inflation had been, well, inflated by media exaggeration, right-wing “propaganda,” and Republican lies, they stressed. Surrogates and pundits said stuff like this even as inflation seemed increasingly un-transitory, and continued shooting upward; in November 2021, the headline consumer price index was 6.9 percent higher than it was a year earlier...

Source:Catherine Rampell is an economic affairs columnist.

From The Bulwark

In Donald Trump's world (perhaps that's also called The Donald) it's not: 

censorship when he does it, 

not corruption when he does it

inflation doesn't exist on his watch

he's not a dictator, even though he believes that he he has the power to do whatever he wants to do, or whatever he doesn't want to

pardons don't count, if they come from a Democrat

and everything that is negative that's going on either about him, or his administration, the state of the economy, his personal fitness for the office... that's all fake news. 

The term "alternative universe" has been used a lot during the last 10 years. Why? Because we've had a professional reality TV star, whose only professional success in life, has been as a reality TV star... trying to either become President of the United States, or has been President the last 10 years. And remember: it's not real, it's just reality TV. 

So Mr. Trump has taken from what he's learned from reality TV 20-25 years ago and has applied that to his politics and style of governing. And most of his fans/followers must also be reality TV fans, because they believe everything that The Donald says and does. And that he's never wrong about anything: 

It's always someone else's fault 

that didn't happen 

it's all fake news. That's the fan base of Donald John Trump. 

And to respond to something that Catherine Rampell has said: the only thing that Donald Trump has learned from Joe Biden, is that's it': 

always someone else' fault 

or the situation is not as bad as the media is reporting it to be 

or the people are just overreacting to what they're seeing and feeling in their own personal lives 

or it's better now than it was before they came to office, etc. 

Not that difficult to see why Mr. Biden is no longer President. When you tell the voters that they should believe you, instead of what they're actually seeing and feeling in their own lives, that tends to backfire. American voters tend to not want to be told that they are stupid, or crazy, they are overreacting, etc. They want their politicians to first acknowledge that their problems are real, especially if they happened on the politician's watch. And then address those concerns and tell them what they're doing to try to fix those problems and help he people improve their own lives. 

But Donald Trump never became President to "make America great again". He became President because he wanted absolute power and probably nothing else.

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Adam Kinzinger: You Can’t Bulldoze The People

"Adam Kinzinger breaks down the stunning election results and what they mean for the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s political future. From California’s Prop 50 victory to Democratic blowouts in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York, Kinzinger shares his insider perspective on why the GOP is struggling, how authenticity is winning voters, and why “you can’t bulldoze the people.”

Source:Adam Kinzinger with a look at Election Night 2025.

From Adam Kinzinger

As my colleague Erik wrote yesterday: 

"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."

From The New Democrat

I think Adam Kinzinger's key point is this: 

"1 of the things that Rahm Emanuel (Democratic House Campaign Committee Chairman - 2005-06) did very well in 06, is that he recruited Democratic candidates who looked like the district that they were running in.

You couldn't run a Zohran Mamdani or another Socialist, in a conservative district in Texas. Just like you couldn't run a "Conservative Democrat" in New York City. Maybe you could, but that Democrat wouldn't win the Democratic primary in New York." (Not Adam Kinzinger's worst closely, but very close) 

I know the far-left hates Rahm Emanuel for multiple reasons, but 1 in particular is ideology. And this is at his playbook from 05-06 and how Democrats won back the House in 2006 and I'm sure the Senate as well that year: 

Geographic Reach: As Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in the 2006 election cycle, Emanuel championed a strategy of recruiting candidates who could win in historically Republican-leaning "red" districts. This meant supporting candidates who were often more moderate on social issues or fiscally conservative.

Candidate Diversity: He supported a wide array of candidates, including those who held different views from the party consensus on issues like abortion (pro-life Democrats) or gun control, to ensure the party could compete in diverse districts and build a larger governing majority.

Focus on Common-Sense Issues: In recent comments, Emanuel has suggested Democrats should "stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom," advocating for a shift in focus to kitchen-table issues and concerns that resonate with a broader swath of the electorate.

Pragmatism over Ideology: His approach is often described as pragmatic and "cold" in its analysis, prioritizing electability and legislative majorities over ideological purity.

Winning First: The core of the strategy is that a party must win elections to govern and implement any part of its agenda. Expanding the tent is seen as a necessary step to achieve that goal. 

You can find this on Google

Look, I'm not a centrist/moderate. (Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) I'm a JFK Democrat, just like the rest of The New Democrat. We're all JFK Liberals. So this is not about arguing for a "centrist/moderate" Democratic Party, to try to take down Donald Trump and MAGA. But at the end of the day, political parties are only in the business to win. The more they win, the more they are able to govern, the more money they're able to raise, the more voters they bring in... assuming that they govern well. The latter is obviously always the hardest part

A big reason why Abigail Spanberger won in Virginia on Tuesday and Mikki Sherrill won in New Jersey on Tuesday, (along with who they ran against and President Trump) is because they're both center-right, fiscally responsible, national security hawks, who will protect the streets in their states. Who also connected very well with ordinary voters in their states and addressed the economic concerns of the voters in their states. But neither of them would've even won the Democratic primary in New York, or San Francisco... or any other big city in America with a large Socialist faction in it. 

The reason why New York City will have a Socialist Mayor next year and the next 4 years, is because the economy is bad up there, a lot of people are struggling and Zohran Mamdani spoke to the concerns of those voters and made his whole campaign about affordability. And the fact that NYC has a large Socialist bloc (at least compared with other big cities) didn't hurt the Mamdani campaign either. But Mamdani probably couldn't win statewide in New Jersey, definitely not in Virginia... perhaps not even in New York State. 

The Left is already talking about socialism is the way to go and that they've finally taken over the Democratic Party, or are about too. They're obviously entitled to believe that. The problem is most of the country still doesn't want a socialist government, they sure as hell don't want a socialist party. But for the Democratic Party to be successful next year and going forward, they are going need Socialists to run and win where they can. And for the real Liberals to run and win in the rest of the country, especially where Republicans currently hold those seats. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tim Miller: Marjorie Taylor Greene Turns On Mike Johnson?

"Tim Miller joins MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle to take on the House taking five weeks off during a government shutdown to the absurd “autopen investigation” that’s distracting from the Epstein files. He calls out MAGA lawmakers for pretending to be populists while their trade wars hammer farmers and consumers, and reacts to Steve Bannon’s bizarre talk of a Trump third term." 

Source:The Bulwark Tim Miller talking to Stephi Baby Ruhle about ex-Crazy Baby Marjorie T. Greene.

From The Bulwark

As Fred Schneider wrote about U.S. Representative Marjorie T. Greene 3 weeks ago: 

"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." 

From The New Democrat

I'm not going to say something like: 

"You know there's something rotten in Denmark, when even Marjorie Taylor Greene can sound like a mature, responsible, sane, and even intelligent politician".

Or, something like 

"It's official: insanity has been cured and we can now let all the mental patients out. How do I know this? Because even our favorite mental patient Marjorie Taylor Greene sounds reasonable, responsible, intelligent, and even sane now. So the next person that calls Marjorie, "Crazy Marge", could be looking at a libel suit". 

Don't worry, I'm not going to say that. Correction: I'm not going to make those two comments again. 

As Fred said 3 weeks ago, the distinguished Representative from the Peach State, wants something more from her career, than to sound a career politician from Mississippi, or West Virginia. She wants to play in the big leagues, politically. And that means not just getting elected statewide, but getting elected statewide in a big, swing state, (like Georgia) where she would have real competition, especially from a Democrat, in the general election. 

To paraphrase Fred: the Crazy Baby act on MTG's part, might just be that. That''s what she did to become a MAGA star. But MAGA might be even to whacked-out, too far from Planet Earth, even for the Marjorie T. Greene's of this world.

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: Socialism Humor

“Building on columns from May and July, let’s enjoy five more reasons to laugh at socialism.

Though we may want to cry after seeing this first bit of satire since Donald Trump has morphed into Bernie Sanders and is having the government take partial ownership of various companies.

Next, we have a reminder that we should be nice to our socialist friends when they suffer trauma.

Our third item points out that socialism is for the young and hardy (actually for the naive and foolish).

Next we have some helpful ways of diagnosing a health emergency.

As usual, I’ve saved the best for last.

This final meme shows that capitalism “exploits” us by providing many products, albeit at a cost. Socialism, by contrast offers nothing, but at least it is free.

Reminds us that the choice is full socialism or full stomachs. Or maybe this bread meme is most appropriate." 

Source:Dan Mitchell talking about the Socialist Don.

From Dan Mitchell

If some of Dan Mitchell’s comments here don’t make sense and you are wondering what he’s referring to, it’s because it’s his own personal captions about photos that he posted on his own blog about socialism. And those photos aren’t here, except for the first 1.

So 1 of MAGA’s favorite targets and talking points, is of course Socialists and socialism. Their Dear Leader Donald J. Trump attacks Socialists and socialism, almost every time he’s talking about Democrats. Fine. But he has a credibility problem here and the photo on this posts shows you exactly what I’m talking about.

So in a year Donald John Trump, who is almost completely, personally, responsible for the January 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol, who also happens to be a convicted felon, (but not for the felonies that a lot of Americans wanted him to be convicted of) is reelected President of the United States, just a couple months before, a Socialist wins the Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York City.

You would think Zohran Mamdani’s winning the Democratic nomination for MYC Mayor and who is also the most likely Mayor of New York, (unless NYC Republicans get a brain and Curtis Silwa drops out of the race) would be a great target for Donald Trump and his MAGA Party. 1 problem: as much as they’re bashing socialism, the U.S. Government is buying and taking parts of private companies and threatening to take over other companies, if they don’t change their politics.

As I wrote about Donald Trump’s socialism back in August:

“As Erick Erickson’s said on his blog post:

“When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk…

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there’s no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy…

From The New Democrat

To hear Donald Trump or any other MAGA head talk about how bad socialism is, would be like:

hearing Vladimir Putin talk about the need for peace in the world… or at least in Europe, or in the Slavic world.

Or Donald Trump talking about the need for law and order, the rule of law, peace and civility in our politics. As well as talking about the dangers of lawfare in our politics.

Or Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about the need for moderation in Congress.

Ilhan Omar and Rasheda Tlaib both giving speeches in opposition to antisemitism.

It would be almost impossible (unless you were on a 2-week binge consuming nothing but alcohol and meth and somehow managed to survive that experience) to take these people seriously, when they’re talking about those issues. So maybe as the the photo on this post suggests… assuming the Trump Administration continues their own policy of state socialism, that the next time they’re speaking out against socialism, they something like:

“We taking down socialism by taking down 1 private company at a time, until the root out all of the socialism in America”. Just as they’re building their own socialist empire to replace the 1 that they claimed was socialist.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

MAGA: Donald Trump's Political Reality TV Show

So over the last few weeks, including this weekend, I saw a couple of blog columns about MAGA and what it really is. The first from Jonathan V. Last (from The Bulwark) arguing that what's called "conservatism" today, is basically just the 2020s version of fascism. He didn't put it that way, but that's what he's arguing. 

Jon Last argues that what's called "MAGA", is really just a "domination fetish" by these folks to take down everyone who tries to oppose them, even through government force. And if you look at the indictments of President Trump's former national security advisor, (John Bolton) his first FBI Director, (James Comey) and now the Attorney General of New York State, (Leticia James) you could certainly argue what Jon Last is arguing here:

Source:Britannica with a look at Donald J. Trump's political cult movement.

"So let’s start at the very beginning: What did “conservatism” used to mean?

At the foundational, philosophical level, conservatism was about slowing the pace of change in order to avoid unintended consequences. Which is why the obverse of conservatism wasn’t “liberalism,” it was “radicalism.”1

Radicals wanted rapid, systemic changes. Conservatives prioritized three things that buffered systemic change:

The rule of law

Subsidiarity

Institutions...

From The Bulwark

Jon Last would go onto say in making his arguing about conservatism versus radicalism: 

"Radicalism insisted that change must come, as quickly as possible and by any means necessary. If laws stood in the way, then they should be overturned or obviated. If local or state governments were recalcitrant, then the federal government must overrule them. If institutions slowed change, then they must be either captured or scuttled...

Last is arguing that "MAGA" is not about conserving, but imposing their radical vision of change on the rest of the country: And if you try to oppose them, they'll use government force to try to stop you: 

"You are with us 100% of the time, or we'll treat you like criminals".

 Just saw that last week with U.S. Representative Jim Jordan in an interview saying that he would be open to impeaching Federal judges, simply for ruling against President Trump. 

This is what I wrote about 3 weeks ago about what's called MAGA today and their relationship with Christianity:

"Now, based on what I showed you from URI, does that sound like MAGA today? 

Does their Dear Leader Donald John Trump sound like a man who believes: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Is what you hear from FOX News, or Newsmax every night (assuming you even watch FOX News or Newsmax) sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Do you think any of these MAGA podcasters, their reality TV stars, their religious zealots who bash people to their face, for being gay, or simply using their First Amendment of free speech, to speak out against the President of the United States... do those people sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living...

From The New Democrat

If there is any religion that "MAGA" follows, (and of course there are exceptions to every rule in the rule book) it's a religion that was founded by Donald John Trump back in 2015. And the core of this religion is essentially this:

"We're the real Americans. Anyone who tries to oppose us, are the Un-Americans, including Conservative Republicans". 

And if this "MAGA" religion has any core to it, it's everything is about The Donald and yourself in this movement. Get everything that you can for yourself. Don't worry about breaking any laws or rules because as long as MAGA is in power, The Donald will protect you. Which is a long way from the conservative rule of law value of: 

"Government of laws, not men" 

So 1 of the main reasons why I call Donald Trump's movement a political reality TV show, because if you look at lot of his cast members, they look like reality TV show characters, starting with his wife. 

I''m not in the habit of speaking ill of Melania Trump, but that "marriage", is nothing more than a business relationship. As long as the money is good for her, she'll probably never leave him. And as long as she meets her husband's political needs, like having a wife in public, etc, he'll keep her around. 

But you look at the President's cabinet with his Secretary of Homeland Security Krsti Noem  and her $50,000 Rolex. She doesn't look like a public servant. But a reality TV character on some show that films her high-end lifestyle. 

The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth... he's there because he looks and sound good on TV and his 100% loyal to The Donald. Not because of anything that he knows about national security policy. 

The press secretary Karonline Levitt... she's not there to inform the American people about what The White House is doing, what the President is up to, for the most part. She's there to talk about how great she thinks her boss is and bash everyone who opposes them. And she like her boss sees the mainstream media as "the enemy of the American people". So she's there to bash them, every time she gets a serious question. 

A couple final points about "MAGA" and then I will close. MAGA originally stood for "Make America Great Again". Well, if even you took that seriously 10 years ago, it implies that America wasn't already a great country. Which is insulting to a lot of Americans, including Republicans. But that's not what they're about. They're about: 

"Get mine and as much as I can after that. And defend The Donald 100% of the time regardless of the costs of the consequences. Never treat him anything less that God himself". 

MAGA is not just an insult to conservatism, with their beliefs in radicalism and blowing up the system and see the Constitution and the rule of law as annoyances to their political agenda, but they're an insult or Christianity as well. Because they don't believe in "love my neighbor as myself", "do onto others as done to myself". They believe in the opposites of that. 

"MAGA" believe in a political philosophy and religion, that up until 10 years ago, didn't exist in America... or certainly wasn't out in the open. Which is just 1 reason why and also because Donald John Trump is the founder of this movement, I call "MAGA", just his political reality TV show. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Matt Lewis: The Un-Dynamic Duo

"Donald Trump has made politics into a dystopian reality show he loves to host, but Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are playing by the old rules — and the mismatch may cause Democrats to get blamed for a government shutdown.

This is not because they’re dumb (they’re not) or incompetent (as the top Democrats of the Senate and House and as representatives of New York, both have risen to positions that require a Lyndon Baines Johnson-esque dexterity most of us couldn’t sustain for a single PTA meeting).

You can see it playing out in the government shutdown. Schumer and Jeffries seem almost neurologically incapable of operating in the world Trump has created — one where politics is less about governing or even persuasion, and more about staying on offense and generating spectacle.

Schumer exudes old-fashioned backroom politics and insider deal-making, which is another way of saying that he’s scripted, sweaty and stilted. It’s not that he’s bad at speaking; it’s that the kind of speaking he has mastered — the methodical, over-enunciated style that once charmed donors and editorial boards — is the equivalent of trying to fax something in 2025.

Jeffries, by contrast, is calm and disciplined. He speaks slowly, often channeling a rhythmic pattern that is reminiscent of a preacher or litigator. In a different era — the kind of era when “normal politics” still existed — this trait might have worked brilliantly. Today, it just feels tired. He’s supposed to be the hip one, once marketed as a “bad, brilliant brother from Brooklyn.” But his recent attempts at communication feel more like a corporate onboarding seminar.

And it’s not like he’s compensating for this shortcoming by electrifying the progressive base. Jeffries’ recent praise for New York Mayor Eric Adams (calling him a man who “served courageously and authentically for decades”) was a bit like praising Nickelback for artistic innovation. It’s not just inaccurate; it’s weirdly tone deaf to the moment.

To be fair, competing with Trump’s megaphone requires a skill set that is closer to professional wrestling than to 20th century politics. Trump is chaotic and often incoherent to the point of parody. But, and this is key, he never sounds like a normal politician.

In a game where authenticity — however poorly defined and cynically constructed — is the only real currency, the Democrats’ undynamic duo come across as high-functioning androids.

Countering Trump’s superpower calls for Democrats who can compete in the attention economy: leaders who feel authentic, actually enjoy picking constant political fights and understand that “going viral” is the new “getting quoted in the New York Times.”

Indeed, the only Democrats who have shown any capacity for being able to survive in this era have been Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and California Gov.r Gavin Newsom.

Schumer and Jeffries do not have these skills, despite having plenty of material to work with.

Case in point: Republicans are about to make healthcare more expensive for millions of Americans. In theory, that’s a devastating talking point. In practice, it’s difficult to imagine Schumer and Jeffries delivering it in a way that can compete with Trump’s bogus assertion that the Democrats are shutting down the government because they want free healthcare for illegal immigrants and “transgender for everybody,” whatever that means.

Faced with these mistruths and the anemic response we’re getting from Schumer and Jeffries, the best-case scenario may be that Republicans — by virtue of being the “anti-government” party — take some blame for a government shutdown. But that’s not a strategy. That’s hoping partisan inertia is still on your side.

Regardless, the shutdown is merely the latest example of Democrats struggling to compete with MAGA. The larger problem is that the Democratic Party doesn’t really have a communicator right now. It hasn’t had one since Barack Obama left the stage.

It’s probably not fair to compare a congressional leader with a presidential candidate. But even by the standards of modern congressional leaders, Schumer and Jeffries are ill-equipped for the task at hand.

Democrats need someone with Newt Gingrich’s manic energy, revolutionary zeal and theatrical flair, coupled with Nancy Pelosi’s more pragmatic toughness and ruthless discipline. This is to say, someone who understands that politics is now a form of entertainment, but who still has the moral seriousness to prevent it from devolving totally into nihilism.

Instead, they’ve got two men who might as well be AM radio hosts trying to livestream on Twitch.

Ultimately, the Democrats’ communications crisis won’t be solved until they have a presidential nominee who can actually speak the language of the moment. Until they can find one, Democrats are stuck with two guys who are no match against a man who has turned political chaos into performance art.

And if Democrats don’t find one — and soon! — they won’t just lose the narrative: They’ll lose the country that depends on it...

Source:Matt Lewis has been a Never-Trump Conservatives from day 1.

From Matt Lewis

My colleague Derik Schneider already made the policy, as well as political argument for why Chuck Schumer and his Senate Democrats, should've never even considered shutting down the government and giving Donald John Trump the unilateral power over the government and budget, that the shutdown now gives him. This should've been game, set, match, (as they say in tennis for why Leader Schumer should've never had gone through with this:

"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

And Fred got into why Leader Schumer is actually doing this right now, on Wednesday: 

"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

And as Erik said yesterday: 

"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

So now that's we're in day 3 of the 2005 government shutdown, this sort of takes me back 45-46 years ago during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-80. It's 1 thing if this is over at some point next week, regardless of how it ends, but if we're still talking about the current shutdown 2-4 weeks from now, a lot of us are going to sound like CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, or ABC News anchor Ted Koppel: 

"It now day 30 of the 2025 government shutdown". 

I don't mean to make light of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Only to make the point that 45 years, the Iran Hostage Crisis and the presidential election of 80, were like the only things that the media was interested in talking about, because that's really the only thing that people were interested in... as well as the economy. That's how much the IHC dominated American politics back then. That's how much the government shutdown will dominate American political news for however long it goes on. 

I would like to talk about the jobs report today. But guess what: there is not jobs report to talk about because a lot of the people who work on it, have been laid off because there's no money coming in to pay them, or to pay for their work. 

I would like to talk about the Epstein files and when Congress, or at least the House will vote to release them. But because of the shutdown, Speaker Johnson is in no hurry to swear in Representative elect Adelita Grijalva because she would vote to release the Epstein files. But because of the shutdown, he can now claim that he doesn't have time for that because he has to deal with the shutdown. 

To sort of back up what Matt Lewis is saying here... since House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been so politically tone death on this and apparently are only worried about their own political futures, (or, that's what they care about the most) they've gone through this political Kamikaze mission and are hoping that the longer this last, the more blame Congressional Republicans and President Trump will get for this and they'll be forced to compromise with the Democrats. Apparently unaware or ignoring the fact that what the President wants to do right now as President, he doesn't need Congressional approval, or even a fully operating government, to carry out his partisan political agenda. As Derik mentioned last week: 

"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...

The point is, under the ADA, the President gets to decide who gets to work and who stays home during the shutdown. So he could literally and legally right now, lay off as many government workers that live in states that are currently represented by Democratic senators. He could also literally and legally cut off Federal funding for blue cities like New York City, which he already announced he was going to do yesterday. 

And just to close on this point. There's no way Congressional Democrats will win this shutdown. The longer it goes on, the longer Senate Democrats, especially in purple states have to hear about their government workers not being able to go to work, who don't have any money coming in because of the shutdown, the media will report on it and it will become known as the Schumer shutdown. (If it isn't already) 

But the President, Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, rather take huge losses in polling (which is sort of what they're already doing) then to compromise with Leader Schumer and give Senate Democrats the health benefits that they're looking for, especially since the President can almost enforce his own government funding bill through the ADA, during the shutdown. 

But even though the Democrats can't win this battle of policy or political grounds, Republicans could still lose it politically and give Democrats a huge win on health care going into 2026. All Republicans have to do is say: 

"The reason for the Schumer shutdown, is because Chuck Schumer is worried about losing a 2028 primary race to AOC. He's letting Socialist Democrats run the shutdown right now".

That's all Republicans have to do. They are at the 1 yard line and ready to score the game clinching TD. But instead of just calling a QB sneak, they go shotgun and kick the ball out of bounds for a touchback, from their opponents 5 yard line (to use American football jargon) giving the Democrats the ball at the 20 yard line, with a chance to win the game themselves. 

And what I'm referring to here is what Vice President Vance, Speaker Johnson, Senator Barrasso, and today Senator Ernst, claiming that the reason for why the government is shut down today, is because Democrats want to give health care to illegal immigrants. Democrats will never win this battle, but Republicans could still lose it and set up a major political problem for them going into 26. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. 

Salena Zito: Our Counterculture Revolution is Here & it is a Revival

"Something big is happening with America’s young people. It has been building for the past two years. It centers on faith, purpose, and a renewal toward more traditional American values. This new American youth counterculture movement looks very different from the one that burst onto the scene in the 1960s.

Sixty years ago, the youth movement on college campuses set out to upend our culture’s status quo — the rebellion created a seismic cultural and political shift away from post World War II traditionalism.

And for the next 60 years, we inched towards leftist ideologies that began with noble purposes such as the Civil Rights Act and equal pay for women. Then we went from center-left to leftist to far left. The ideology infiltrated all of the dominant cultural centers: government, institutions, technology, academia, corporations, Hollywood, and legacy media.

And church attendance across all faiths, particularly among our young people, plummeted.

Pretty soon, what was once the counterculture was now the status quo — it had the power and influence on society. It wasn’t until COVID and the unbearable totalitarianism of its impact on our society that people began to see that our dominant cultural power base needed a dose of its own medicine.

Every counterculture movement is a rebellion against the dominant culture. Now, our young people are leading the way by rejecting the conformity demanded by our culture and its elite gatekeepers who crush dissent from anyone who questions their authority.

What has been missing for many young people is a relationship with God. I first noticed this soft awakening in 2023 when walking across the Roberto Clemente Bridge here in Pittsburgh and saw hundreds of young people literally jumping in the water while religious music was playing on the shore line.

It was a spontaneous baptism that included hundreds of young people who decided this was the day they would accept Jesus into their lives. The moment was powerful and moving — just as powerful and moving as two Sundays ago when days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, young people showed up at The Sanctuary Church in the Hill District of Pittsburgh. They came by the droves to express their faith.

“And what we are witnessing across this country is an awakening with our young people, a true revival.”

These moments are not anecdotal. Two recent reports have shown a dramatic shift among young people and their relationship with their faith. First, the Pew Research Center released a report showing that the decades-long decline in Americans identifying as Christian leveled off, followed by a survey done by the Barna Group that showed that downward trend is now in full reverse.

And who is driving the return to church? These reports show the rise in faith is being driven by those in their 20s and 30s.

“Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus.”

Last Thursday, a remarkable moment happened on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh when 600 college students showed up for a first-ever “Pitt for Jesus” event. There, it was clear we are in the midst of a revival.

The event featured nearly 100 baptisms, live worship music, prayer, testimonies by athletes and a spiritual awakening among young people that was profound to experience.

Sunday’s memorial service for Charlie Kirk was an example of a large revival. These young people have behaved boldly since the horrid murder, but not in the way our current cultural curators find acceptable, as Erika Kirk said on Sunday.

“These past 10 days after Charlie’s assassination, we didn’t see violence. We didn’t see rioting. We didn’t see revolution. Instead, we saw what my husband always prayed he would see in this country. We saw... 

Source:Salena Zito is a syndicated, right-wing, political columnist.

From Salena Zito

So I guess my response to Salena Zito is a counterpoint to what she's arguing. I'll be the contrarian to what she's trying to argue here. 

She's essentially saying that church attendance is up and more American are finding God again because: 

"Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus...

But according to the United Religious Initiative: 

"Jesus Christ's core religious philosophy, deeply rooted in his Jewish heritage, centered on the love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons. His teachings also included radical ethical principles, such as the importance of seeking the Kingdom of God, giving to the needy, and pursuing peace and nonviolence, all presented within an apocalyptic framework of God's impending intervention in history... 

From the United Religious Initiative

Now, based on what I showed you from URI, does that sound like MAGA today? 

Does their Dear Leader Donald John Trump sound like a man who believes: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Is what you hear from FOX News, or Newsmax every night (assuming you even watch FOX News or Newsmax) sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Do you think any of these MAGA podcasters, their reality TV stars, their religious zealots who bash people to their face, for being gay, or simply using their First Amendment of free speech, to speak out against the President of the United States... do those people sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living..."?

Now maybe Salena Zito managed to find the last of the true believers (when it comes to Jesus Christ) on the far-right in America. But these folks aren't religious, as far as how they practice their own lives and what they believe. If they have a "God" at all, that person is Donald John Trump. Or, that's the person that they view as God. 

I don't agree with political satirist John Fugelsang on everything. He's way to the left of me and the rest of this blog, ideologically. But he's a helluva lot more Christian than Donald John Trump and his hardcore followers, could ever dream of being... even in their longest and best marijuana, or meth highs, and during their best drunk fantasies. And I'm going to give you a few of his quotes about people who claim to love the Bible, even though they've never even read the damn book, or understand it: 

John Fugelsang: The only way you can follow both Trump and Jesus is if you've never read either of their books. 

I've come to view Jesus much the way I view Elvis. I love the guy but the fan clubs really freak me out.

People get God and religion confused. I think God is a bit too hip to join any of his unauthorized fan clubs.

You can find the rest of his quotes on AZ Quotes

American fall into religious cults because they're lost and they find someone 1 day, or perhaps the actual cult leader, who sounds so pure and intelligent, that it's like hearing from Jesus Christ himself. But what they don't know, is the cult leader is not actually following the text of Jesus, or the Bible itself. He's at best taking samples of what Jesus said, or what's in the Bible and blowing them up to fit his own agenda. 

I don't enjoy calling people cultists, even for comedic reasons, but that's what Donald John Trump's base is. They seem him as the Son God (that they don't even believe in, or at least don't understand) and have decided to take every word and action that this man makes, regardless of what he says and does, and treat it like it's from the Son of God. Which is why he's always had hardcore base of 35% (give or take) and another 10-15% of the country with him on presidential election days, simply because they can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, for any reason whatsoever. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Erick Erickson: The Dividing Line

"I think every American should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want. I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.

I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.

I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions.

We, as a sane and civil society, should not normalize publicly gloating over a political assassination. Outside of the militant libertarians, this should be something everyone agrees on. You might express those views among friends and, frankly, if a friend recorded you and made it public they’d both not be your friend and I’d advocate no sanctions against you for having voiced that view privately among friends. It’s the public championing of an assassin we need to shut down.

Americans used to have two basic things we all agreed on.

Nazis are bad.

No one should get killed for expressing their views.

What the left has done is attempt to expand the definition of the former to get around the limitations of the latter. If anyone the left disagrees with is a Nazi, well Nazis need to die.

It’s just wild to see people believe Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed for his speech, but the same people think it is a bridge too far for one to lose their job over believing that.

I am fine with doctors, nurses, teachers, professors, soldiers, and others losing their jobs for supporting, justifying, or defending the assassination of an American they do not like. I am not fine with anyone losing their jobs saying nasty things about Charlie Kirk that do not include justifications for or defenses of the assassination. And I really vehemently oppose prosecuting anyone for “hate speech” or other speech. Sadly, the United States Attorney General seems to think there is both “free speech” and “hate speech,” which she believes is not free speech and might be something the DOJ targets. That is not the law and is indefensible.

The Attorney General, on Fox News, went so far as to claim the Christian baker should be forced to bake the cake for the gay wedding — an argument the Supreme Court rejected. In Pam Bondi’s case though, it was the threat to prosecute a business that opposed printing fliers for a Charlie Kirk rally. If Bondi wins that argument, you will be baking the cakes for the trans birthdays.

Heather Cox Richardson has one of the largest substack subscriber bases on the planet. She is a leftwing historian who many, many people on the left go to in order to put the day’s event’s in perspective. Essentially, she tells them what to believe. Here she is September 13th... 

Source:Erick Erickson on Substack.

From Erick Erickson

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about free speech yesterday: 

"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." 

From The New Democrat

There are a couple points here from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on and then I'll tell you what I think about them. 

Erick Erickson talking about free speech in reference to Charlie Kirk's assassination last week: 

"I think every American should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want. I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.

I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.

I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

This is the key point here: 

"I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

I literally asked Mr. Erickson yesterday on Twitter about in reference to his point: 

"I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..

This is what I asked him: 

"What should be the consequences for speech that you don't like?" 

From Twitter. He hasn't responded to my question.

The 2nd point from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on, is something that he said on Twitter yesterday: 

"There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi." 

From Twitter

Since apparently Mr. Erickson doesn't want to answer what he thinks should be the "consequences" for people who use speech that he doesn't like... I'm going to tell you what people are able to do and what they can do in response to speech that they don't like, including hate speech. 

I'm not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole... any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated... anything that they want to talk about. 

But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That's what's known as an exchange of ideas and open debate. 

And to Mr. Erickson's 2nd point: ""There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi."

I don't even take the United Nations seriously on everything, let alone agree with them on everything. I mean the People's Republic of China (which is still a Communist State) is a member of their Human Rights Council. But I think their definition of hate speech is pretty solid: 

"Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor".

Of course hate speech exists. And it's not just used against minorities, women of all backgrounds and gays in America. It's used against everybody, including Anglo-Saxon-Protestant males in America. Just because you believe hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, (which I do) doesn't mean you have to pretend that it doesn't exist. Even though you have the First Amendment right to do that. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: Socialism From Republicans Is Just as Bad as Socialism From Democrats

“When Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic nomination in the New York City Mayor’s race, many Republicans warned that his plan for government-run grocery stores was socialism.

Since Mamdani wasn’t threatening (at least not yet) to shut down private supermarkets, his plan would not lead to the usual consequences of socialism, such as bread lines and food rationing.

But it is a given that his plan would be a money-losing boondoggle.

So Republicans were correct to mock and criticize his vote-buying scheme.

Yet I wonder if those same Republicans will also condemn Donald Trump’s far more expensive and far more damaging plan to have the government become a dominant shareholder in Intel.

For more information on this depressing development, let’s start with the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial about Intel last week. Here are some excerpts…

Source:Dan Mitchell is no one's Socialist.

From Dan Mitchell

FOX News anchor Jesse Watters from last night arguing in favor of Socialism. Conservatives, where have you gone? We miss you: 

“Prices are still high. Can’t Trump just bring in some corporate executives and just say guys, there’s going to be a socialist revolution in this country if you don’t do something, please do something?”

From Barbara Sobel

Being a Gen-Xer who came of age during the early 1990s, I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party was the party of economic freedom, private enterprise, keep the government out of the economy, taxes and regulations down, let the “free market” and mother nature take it’s course, etc. That’s why Conservatives became Republicans in the late 1960s, especially after the emergence of the New-Left in the Democratic Party, along with the Cold War as well. 

But go up 20 plus years with the emergence of Donald John Trump and his political takeover of the Republican Party… the Department of Defense might no longer be the Department of Defense… maybe it’s the “Department of War” now, but the Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party.

I know hearing “the Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party”, sounds like “fish are no longer fish”, “prison inmates are no longer prison inmates. They’re now institutional guests.” But my point here is what’s called the Republican Party today, is at the very least no longer a conservative party. This is no longer the Republican Party of fiscal and economic conservatism, or even of national security conservatism. This is now just Donald Trump’s party and whoever is there, are only his guests and are only allowed to stay, as long as they’re 100% loyal to The Donald. 

The New Democrat has been talking about Donald Trump being a Socialist, since back in May when I wrote a counter-post to conservative columnist Kevin Williamson’s piece arguing that Donald Trump is-in-fact a Socialist. And here is some of what I wrote about that: 

“And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they’re desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can’t spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now.

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the “king of reality TV”, sounding like a Socialist, because he’s talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn’t doing as well… I don’t think there’s anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist… but he’s a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that’s exactly what he will do.” 

From The New Democrat

And even Larry Kudlow who gets down on his knees to pray to his Dear Leader Donald every day on his show… even Kudlow didn’t like the President’s socialist proposal for the U.S. Government to become part of Intel a couple weeks ago. Here is some of what I wrote about that: 

“As I’ve said before, (or something close to this) Larry Kudlow, Erick Erickson, and Steve Moore, are no one’s radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. Pre-Trump, both Kudlow and Moore would be what you would describe as Northeastern, country club, neoconservative, supply-side, Republicans. They were people who believed that government should be out of the private sector and just let companies operate freely in what they would call a free market.

Erick Erickson, perhaps a little to the left (key word being little) but he’s basically the Gen-X, male version of someone like a Phyllis Schlafly from the 1960s and 70s. Very radical as a right-wing culture warrior, but not a racist or an ethnic bigot. But someone you could describe as a true believer when it comes to what has been called Christian Nationalism. But someone who combined his radical, right-wing cultural war politics, with a more conservative-libertarian view of government when it comes to economic policy.

So when you even have people who are true Conservatives when it comes to economic policy, tell you that state socialism is a really bad idea and you are also on the Right, you should at least listen to them. Unless you are not a Conservative, and more of a State Socialist and someone who thinks… 

From The New Democrat

But I think my colleague Erik Schneider made the key point about Donald J. Trump back in August as far as how The Donald governs and does his own business: 

“If you know anything about Donald John Trump, you know that the only 2 things that he believes in, are himself and absolute power for himself. He’s not interested in political philosophy and doesn’t really practice any particular political philosophy. I’ve made this point before but if he thought acing and talking like a Socialist… hell, a Communist, would guarantee himself absolute power over anyone who even tries to confront him and challenge his power, that’s what he would talk and act like.

Donald Trump chose American, Anglo-Saxon nationalism, 10 years ago, because he saw a group of Americans who thought America wasn’t just going to hell (to paraphrase Eric Schnurer) but has been there at least since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

And DJT rightly calculated that if he became their leader, (cult hero or icon, god even, would be more accurate) he could use these people (which is exactly what he’s been doing) to not just become President of the United States, (which is something he thought about doing since his early 40s) but obtain absolute power for himself and be untouchable for the rest of his life. If you think about it, his “MAGA” movement, is the best con he’s ever pulled and probably the best political con ever pulled in American history, as far as how successful he’s been with it politically… 

From The New Democrat

To put it another way: Donald Trump is the Nihilist of American politics. He believes in nothing, at least philosophically. For you Seinfeld fans, if your show is the show about nothing, Donald J. Trump would be the perfect character for your show, because he’s about nothing other than himself. That’s why we have a President who is a registered Republican, but who is sort of governing like a Socialist on economic policy, because he thinks that personally benefits him, which is the only thing that he’s ever interested in.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.