The Hill: Mike Johnson BRUSHES OFF Trump Third Term Rumors

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

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

From The Hill

Also from The Hill: 

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

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

From The Hill

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

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

From Library of Congress

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

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

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Will Marshall: In a liberal Society, Equity is a False Idol

"Over the last two decades, progressive activists have introduced lots of sententious words and euphemisms into the U.S. political lexicon. 

Examples include microaggression, intersectionality, cisgender, BIPOC, Latinx, “the unhoused” (that is, the homeless), returning citizens (ex-convicts) and “pregnant persons” (formerly “women”). 

For those not up to speed on the latest academic conceits and ideological fads, including non-college voters streaming out of the Democratic Party, progressives might as well be speaking Esperanto.

They have also infused old words with new meanings. Take “equity.” Specifically, it means ownership in a house or stocks. But in its new meaning, it is used more generally as a synonym for fairness. 

Now, it has become a pillar of DEI — the hallowed trinity of diversity, equity and inclusion that defines today’s “social justice” ethos. In this context, “equity” conveys a demand for something stronger than mere equality.

The National Association of Colleges and Employers, an enthusiastic advocate of DEI, parses the difference by defining equity as “fairness and justice” that is “distinguished from equality.”

“Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances.”

After the George Floyd-Black Lives Matter summer of 2020, bureaucracies set up to inculcate DEI spread like kudzu throughout government, colleges and public schools, philanthropies and private companies.

Job applicants were taxed with describing how they would endeavor to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in their daily work.

Democrats duly clambered aboard the equity express. On his first day in office in 2021, President Biden ordered federal agencies to develop Equity Action Plans to advance “racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government.”

But DEI’s reign was brief. Working class voters, across racial lines, saw it at best as a distraction from their struggles with high living costs and worries about immigration and crime, and at worst as a coercive regime set up by self-righteous elites to correct their thoughts and speech.

Their antipathy toward progressive moralizing played a significant role in sinking Kamala Harris and the Democrats last year and returning the failed coup plotter, President Trump, to the White House.

The president believes he won a mandate to stamp out all vestiges of DEI in America. His minions are firing anyone in the federal government associated with diversity and affirmative action programs. 

In yet another example of executive overreach, Trump also is threatening private colleges, businesses and civic institutions with political retribution if they don’t fall in line.

How should Democrats respond to this MAGA version of cancel culture? The same way they should have responded to the left-wing original — by standing up unequivocally for liberty of conscience and free speech. 

But they should also reflect on the ferocity of the public backlash against a sectarian identity politics that subordinates the general welfare to the pursuit of “equity” for favored groups.  

Maybe it wasn’t such a bright idea for progressives to abandon Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society in favor of group preferences, DEI, critical race theory, and related ideas that fragment Americans along lines of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. 

Fixating on the differences between groups makes it impossible to build a broad, center-left alliance, especially when non-college Americans, a majority of the electorate, are either left out of the left’s hierarchy of victimized groups or assigned the oppressor role.   

Democrats, however, should reject race essentialism and equity not because they’re unpopular, but because they are illiberal.  

In America’s liberal tradition, individuals have inalienable rights and liberties, not groups. That many originally were excluded from equal citizenship is reason to apply these principles universally, not discard them... 

Source:Columbia Business School with a look at Progressive Policy Institute President, Will Marshall.

You can read the rest of Will Marshall's column at The Hill

The great comedian, as well as political and social satirist George Carlin had some great observations about what he called "soft language", which is what Mr. Marshall is talking about here as well, but put it differently: 

"George Carlin says soft language hides reality and makes life less lively.

Euphemisms are words that make harsh things sound nicer but can cause misunderstanding.

Using soft language, people might miss the real message because it hides the truth.

Soft language is a phrase coined by American comedian George Carlin to describe euphemistic expressions that "conceal reality" and "take the life out of life."

"Americans have trouble facing the truth," Carlin said. "So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it" (Parental Advisory, 1990).

Under Carlin's definition, euphemisms are the closest synonym to "soft language", although the "softness" is implied to be an effect of the euphemism's usage. When a euphemism is used, its purpose is to soften the impact of something shocking, crude, ugly, embarrassing, or something along those lines. Carlin's point is that this indirect language may spare us some discomfort, but at the cost of vividness and expressiveness.

A corollary to this is jargon, which is specialized language for particular fields. On the surface, its intention is to express specialized ideas more clearly and specifically. In practice, however, jargon-heavy language tends to obscure the point rather than clarify it....

From Thought Co

And here is George Carlin's 1990 standup appearance about what he called "soft language": 

"One of my favorite George Carlin bits in which he describes the sterilization of the American language. From the 1990 special Doin' it Again." 

Source:Rob Logan with a look at comedian George Carlin in 1990.

From Rob Logan

My first response here is: if you don't like the Pat Buchanan's, the David Duke's, the Rick Santorum's, the George Wallace's, (from way back) and today, the Donald J. Trump's of the world, taking over our government and politics in America and giving them so much power over everyone else... you can't ignore and leave behind 10s of millions of Americans, simply because you don't like their culture, or what part of the country their from, where they went to school, etc. 

The next Democratic nominee for President in 2028, could get 100% of left-wing vote. And no, I'm not talking about Progressives. I'm talking about hard-core, leftists, people who sometimes can even make Socialist Bernie Sanders seem somewhat mainstream... but even if the next Democratic nominee gets 100% of the socialist vote in the next presidential election, in and outside of the Democratic Party, this person even completely shuts out the Green Party nominee, (where all Democratic Socialists should live and belong) the Democratic will still lose to the "Republican" nominee in 28. Assuming it's only Socialists who vote for the Democrat. 

At least pre-Donald Trump and his so-called MAGA movement, in order to win a presidential election in America, you had to lead a big tent political party to win the election. That might not still be the case with the so-called Republicans today. I mean Donald Trump basically won in 16 and 24, by running to the right of even Pat Buchanan... certainly George Wallace from 1968. He at times, could look like an escaped mental patient, who decided to run for President while he was on the run and somehow won anyway. Why? Because to do a lot of small town, blue-collar voters, the Donald Trump's of the world, don't look like mental patients. Perhaps they're crazy Uncle Joe, but they see the Trump's of the world as fighting for them and as very entertaining. 

But the big tent standard, sill applies to the Democrats. Whether it's fair or not, when Democrats look and sound like escaped lunatics, they get held accountable by the mainstream media and Independent voters. And when "Republicans" do that: 

"Well, we know they're crazy. But someone here has to be responsible and show some real leadership. And we pick the Democrats to do that for us. And when they try to out-crazy the Republicans, we'll vote for the Republicans because we know they're crazy and it's not an act". 

Mark Twain once said: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

I think this could be applied to Democrats, at least mainstream Democrats in how they respond to MAGA. Except I would amend that to say: never try to out-crazy, crazy people, because they're crazy and know how to be crazy. And you are just acting, anyway. And 1 crazy party in America is too much for a solid majority of Americans, anyway.

So if you are a Democrat right now, especially a mainstream Democrat and you actually want to get elected President and not just run to to raise your profile, you need to be a big tent Democrat. And big tent Democrats I'm sure will have some Socialists and coffee house hipsters, who think they're the coolest people in the world because they speak their own social language and put down or "own" anyone who speaks different from them. 

But the next Democratic nominee for President is going to need all the mainstream Democrats as well and they're also going to need blue-collar Democrats, who voted for Donald Trump 3 times because they somehow got conned into believing that he represents them and fights for them. As well as Independents from all social and economic backgrounds, who are tired of the political dysfunction, the corruption, and chaos in Washington and think maybe there's a Democrat who can lead the country responsibly again. 

And to Will Marshall's first point about what George Carlin called "soft language" and where he said: 

"Over the last two decades, progressive activists have introduced lots of sententious words and euphemisms into the U.S. political lexicon. 

Examples include microaggression, intersectionality, cisgender, BIPOC, Latinx, “the unhoused” (that is, the homeless), returning citizens (ex-convicts) and “pregnant persons” (formerly “women...

That's 1 of my points here as well. You don't win presidential elections in this country by trying to convince more than half of the country that they're ignorant and aren't capable of speaking for themselves, so you are going to try to do that for them.

All this "soft language", trying to make people feel better than they deserve to feel and trying to replace terms that might not seem as offensive as the real term that actually describes who someone is and what the actual truth is... American voters aren't children. That should be obvious enough. Otherwise, they wouldn't even be eligible to vote. Most intelligent, sane, and sober people, (which seems like a very small club in America every passing day) can handle the truth, if you just give them a chance to hear it. 

As Will Marshall also said: "How should Democrats respond to this MAGA version of cancel culture? The same way they should have responded to the left-wing original — by standing up unequivocally for liberty of conscience and free speech...

In any true free society, you are going to have people who not just make more money than others, but make a helluva lot more money than others, because they either had better opportunities, or did a better job of taking advantage of the opportunities that they were given. That's why in a liberal democracy, like America, total equality, especially total wealth equality, is never the goal. The goal in a true liberal society, is quality opportunity for everyone and what they do with the real chance at freedom, is up to them. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Representative Jasmine Crocket Gets Backlash From The Left For Her Hot Mess

"Robby Soave and Lynda Tran react to "The View" hosts scolding Rep. Jasmine Crockett  (D-T.X) over her comments about Texas Governor Greg Abbott." 

Source:The Hill with a look at U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett (Democrat, Texas)

From The Hill

"Backlash Over Rep. Crockett's Gov. Abbott Comments" 

Source:The View with a look at U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett (Democrat, Texas)

From The View

U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett's (Democrat, Texas) own words about Government Greg Abbot: 

“Y’all know we got Governor Hot Wheels down there,” Crockett said. “And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot (expletive) mess, honey.”

And then Representative Crockett trying to clean up the manure she dumped in the kitchen. This is why you never let your horse into your house. You can imagine how well that went: 

"I wasn’t thinking about the governor’s condition—I was thinking about the planes, trains, and automobiles he used to transfer migrants into communities led by Black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable," Crockett wrote on X." 

From USA Today

Just yesterday The New Democrat on social media was talking about who Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham was talking about how The White House was handling Signal Gate: "Seriously: even freakin Laura Ingraham is asking questions like: “How did a journalist get added to a Signal group chat among top Trump officials discussing a U.S. military strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen?" When even Fox News knows MAGA is screwing up... you know they screwed up."

From The New Democrat

And now today, The View (which is like MSNBC daytime in the primetime) is talking about how Representative Crockett screwed up in how she not just got caught mocking Governor Greg Abbott (Republican, Texas) who is a paraplegic, but how she tried to explain her comment and tried to deny what she knew she did. 

Representative Crockett saying she didn't know Governor Abbot was a paraplegic... imagine being caught on video tape trying to walk out with a coat at a department store, or something and of course you get caught doing that and your response is something like: "That wasn't me. That must have been my twin". And you don't even have a twin. I mean she's from Texas too: 

Does she ever go home? 

Does she ever look at the media there? 

I'm willing to bet she's at least met Governor Abbot at some point. Did she think he was too lazy to stand up or something? 

When intelligent people fall in ditches, they tend to pick themselves up and climb out of the ditch. But in Jasmine Crockett's case, she decides that since she's already in the ditch, she might as well try to dig for gold, or something. 

Do you really need any other reason why The New Democrat for the last month now has endorsed James Carville's political approach of strategic rope-a-dope and counterpunch? 

Let the Republican Party be the Republican Party of the Marjorie T. Greene's and Lauren Boebert's, who can only get any political publicity at all, when they make a break for the wall and escape their political asylum's and do something crazy on the street. They're the party of Donald Trump and his political reality TV show The Keystone Cops At The White House. 

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the people. Not the crazy people. The people who work hard, play by the rules, trying to get ahead in life. Not trying to make life harder for good, intelligent, responsible, hard-working Americans. As James Carville said: 

"Allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight, and make the American people miss us. Only until the Trump administration has spiraled into the low 40s or high 30s in public approval polling percentages should we make like a pack of hyenas and go for the jugular. Until then, I’m calling for a strategic political retreat," he wrote. 

With no clear leader to voice our opposition and no control in any branch of government, it’s time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political maneuver in the history of our party: roll over and play dead," the strategist continued... 

From The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Hill: Donald Trump's Gaza TAKEOVER Plan Sparks GOP Reaction

"Drew Petrimoulx chats with The Hill’s White House columnist Niall Stanage about President Trump floating the idea of the U.S. taking over the Gaza Strip, saying America should be responsible for clearing the territory of rubble and unexploded bombs and proposing an “economic development.” 

Source:The Hill with a look at President Donald J. Trump's (MAGA, Florida) potential business opportunity for Gaza.

From The Hill 

Here are some of Donald Trump's past statements promoting his own brand of American imperialism. 

From the Detroit Free Press: 

"President-elect Donald Trump made his case Tuesday for Canada, a country of some 41 million people, becoming part of the U.S., saying he would use "economic force" to try to join the two nations and get rid of what he called an "artificially drawn line" between them.

"Canada and the United States, that would really be something," Trump said at a news conference at his Florida resort.

Trump added that the U.S. doesn't need "anything they have," including vehicles manufactured in Canada. "I'd rather make them in Detroit," Trump said. But he argued that it makes sense for Canada to become part of the U.S. if it is going to rely on the U.S. economy and military to the extent he said it does." 

From the Detroit Free Press

From Newsweek: 

"President-elect Donald Trump has suggested that Mexico and Canada should become a U.S. state if they want to continue receiving subsidies from their neighboring country.

Trump has threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico unless the countries reduce the flow of migrants and drugs into the U.S. He defended his tariffs plan telling NBC News' Meet the Press on Sunday that the U.S. subsidizes Mexico for almost $300 billion a year, as well as Canada for around $100 billion annually.

"We're subsidizing Canada to the tune of over $100 billion a year. We're subsidizing Mexico for almost $300 billion. We shouldn't be—why are we subsidizing these countries? If we're going to subsidize them, let them become a state," Trump said. "We're subsidizing Mexico and we're subsidizing Canada, and we're subsidizing many countries all over the world. All I want to do is have a level, fast, but fair playing field."

He appears to be referencing the U.S. trade deficit between the two countries while exaggerating the numbers. The trade deficit in goods and services was nearly $41 billion with Canada, and more than $162 billion with Mexico in 2023, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures... 

From Newsweek

From CNN: 

"President Donald Trump reiterated his vow to “take back” the Panama Canal on Sunday, warning of “powerful” US action in an escalating diplomatic dispute with the Central American country over China’s presence around the vital waterway.

“China is running the Panama Canal that was not given to China, that was given to Panama foolishly, but they violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen,” Trump told reporters.

Hours earlier, the diplomatic stir caused by Trump’s repeated and publicly stated desire for the US to retake control of the canal had appeared to ease after Secretary of State Marco Rubio, making his first overseas trip as the top US diplomat, met with Panama’s President Raúl Mulino... 

From CNN

From BBC News: 

"President Donald Trump has said he believes the US will gain control of Greenland, after showing renewed interest in acquiring the autonomous Danish territory in recent weeks.

"I think we're going to have it," he told reporters on Air Force One on Saturday, adding that the island's 57,000 residents "want to be with us".

His comments come after reports that Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen insisted Greenland was not for sale in a fiery phone call with the president last week.

Trump floated the prospect of buying the vast Arctic territory during his first term in 2019, and has said US control of Greenland is an "absolute necessity" for international security... 

From BBC News

If you wonder why both Donald Trump and Elon Musk are considered allies of Vladimir Putin's Russian Government... 1 of Russia's propaganda agencies, Tass, quotes Mr. Musk's negative comments about Democrats like from then Vice President Kamala Harris: 

"Elon Musk claims war mongers back Kamala Harris’ 'puppet regime'

According to Elon Musk, those within the US administration who support Vice President Harris "profit off of wars," a situation he described as "insane... 

"Warmongers want the Kamala puppet regime [is] because they want more war," Musk told US TV host Joe Rogan in an interview.

According to Musk, those within the US administration who support Vice President Harris "profit off of wars," a situation he described as "insane." He also claimed that the so-called "war profiteers" despise Republican candidate Donald Trump... 

From TASS

Agains from CNN: 

"I Will Stop Wars, Make America The Greatest': Trump Claims US Election Win In Rousing Speech

CNN-News18 reports from Washington DC" 

From CNN

From NBC News talking about a bipartisan group of members of Congress on President Trump's plan to take over Gaza:

"Deranged' and 'problematic': Bipartisan group of lawmakers bashes Trump's Gaza proposal

Trump said Tuesday night the U.S. "will take over Gaza" and send in troops "if necessary."

Criticism and concern spread across both sides of the aisle Tuesday night after President Donald Trump announced that the United States “will take over the Gaza Strip.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the proposal “problematic,” adding that he does not think his constituents would be excited about sending U.S. soldiers to take control of Gaza.

“We’ll see what the Arab world says, but you know, that’d be problematic at many, many levels,” Graham said...

From NBC News

On a more lighter note first: if you are an Arab-American right now (especially Palestinian) who voted against Kamala Harris in 2024 because you thought she was the "war monger" or too close to the Jewish State of Israel,.. are you feeling pretty stupid right now? Especially the Arabs who possibly cost Vice President Harris Michigan all by themselves, along with urban African-Americans who perhaps voted for Donald Trump. 

I mean, along with his unconstitutional executive orders, where the President is trying both to amend the U.S. Constitution, as well legislate and terminate government agencies and departments, by himself, from The White House, the only thing that Donald Trump has been doing in his 1st month in office, has been threatening to take over sovereign countries and territories. Oh right... and appointing people who are clearly unqualified for the positions that they're being appointed too.

This is literally from the America Fist Institute: 

"An America First approach to foreign policy acknowledges the reality of the world for what it is and other nations for what they are, rather than how the foreign policy establishment would like them to be. This premise offers the surest path to working productively with other nations in a manner that advances Americans’ interests and security while avoiding economic overreach and unnecessary military conflicts. This approach entails a focused and judicious use of military power not only to deter adversaries, but, if deterrence fails, to fight and win our Nation’s wars. Utilizing the U.S. military for its intended purpose ensures America does not become entangled in prolonged efforts such as nation- building exercises abroad... 

From the America First Institute

And to get back to Gaza.: this is also from BBC News: 

"Trump's real-estate instincts clash with his America First worldview

When a real-estate developer becomes the US president, don't be surprised if American foreign policy includes a heavy helping of real-estate development.

That's probably the biggest conclusion to draw from Donald Trump's stunning proposal for the US to take over Gaza and turn it into a resort for all the people of the world to enjoy – a "Riviera of the Middle East", in his words.

It also presents the latest iteration of a question that has persisted as long as Trump has been involved at the highest level of American politics.

Should Trump's Gaza development plan, which includes the resettlement of more than two million Palestinians and US "ownership" of the contested lands be taken literally or seriously? Both, or neither?

Trump's proposal flies in the face of the deeply held wishes of the Palestinian people and has been summarily rejected by the Arab nations that would have to play an integral part in resettling those displaced from war-torn Gaza."

From BBC News

So Donald Trump goes from an American Nationalist "who always puts America first", to just another American oligarch, who puts his own business and financial interests, over everything else that he's involved with. The difference here is that he just doesn't have governmental power, but he's the President of the United States. 

I realize that American voters have always held Donald J. Trump to a much lower standard when it comes to old fashion, American values, like honesty, decency, and morality. And when he does something really bad, they just put it aside and saying something like: 

"That's just Trump being Trump". 

Or they blame it on the Democrats and say:

"The Democrats should've stopped him before he did that..." 

I along with more than half of the American electorate whose never wanted Donald J. Trump to ever be able to even visit The White House, (even if he did pay for a White House tour, with his own money) have been suffering and trying to live with the fact that American voters (primarily Independents) hold Mr. Trump to a much lower standard than every other American politician, at least since we've been able to get our news on TV. 

But there comes a time when someone can go so far that it actually has real world affects on this country, where a lot of Americans would actually suffer the consequences of having a madman, an oligarch, wannabe dictator, as their President. And I'm just wondering what it would take for about half of the American electorate to see that Donald J. Trump is not only not worth it, but we need to abandon him for the sake of the country. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Hill: President Trump's Controversial Nominees Yesterday

"Drew Petrimoulx chats with The Hill’s Alexander Bolton as three of President Trump’s cabinet nominees face an uphill battle for confirmation. Alex gives his take on what’s next for Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

Also in your Debrief: Trump looks to kill New York City’s congestion pricing program, and Israel bans a key aid organization ahead of another hostage release this weekend." 

Source:The Hill with a look at National Intelligence Director nominee Tulsi Gabbard's bad day in front of Congress.

From The Hill

Also from The Hill: 

"Atop Gabbard’s to-do list on Thursday was winning over a pair of Senate Republicans who are believed to be on the fence about her nomination: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Todd Young (Ind.). She cannot afford to lose even a single GOP vote on the committee.

Young, a former Marine intelligence officer, pressed Gabbard hard about Snowden, seemingly unimpressed with her answers.

He asked about a House Intelligence Committee report that found Snowden “caused tremendous damage” including “to military, defense and intelligence programs of great interest to America’s adversaries.”

Gabbard reiterated her oft-used line that Snowden “broke the law” and that she would push to avoid a repeat instance in the future. The answer did not appear sufficient for Young. 

“It’s notable you didn’t say, ‘Yes, he clearly hurt, in various ways, our national security,’” Young responded. 

Young went on to ask about how she thinks rank-and-file members of the intelligence community will receive her given her past comments about Snowden and whether he “betrayed the trust of the American people” — adding that marks the definition of a “traitor.”

Gabbard once again said Snowden broke the law and repeated similar lines she peppered members with on Snowden-related questions.

Young finally retorted that Snowden was watching the hearing and declared it would do her a world of good “if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower … harmed national security by breaking the laws of the land around our intel authority... 

From The Hill

From The Economic Times: 

"During the tense Senate confirmation hearing, Sen. Amy Klobuchar grilled Kash Patel over his past controversial statements about the FBI. Klobuchar pressed for more time, clashing with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who reminded her of the rules." 

Source:The Economic Times with a look at the heated exchange between FBI Director nominee Kash Patel & U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (Democrat, Minnesota)

From The Economic Times

I think I'm agreement with The Hill right here. Not often have I said that in the last 6 months where a lot of their email alerts has looked very soft-MAGA, if not pro-MAGA. But I don't think Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy JR., will get out of committee. The margins or just too tight there and with no Democrats on either the Senate Intelligence or Finance Committee saying they'll vote for either nominee. Which means President Trump can only lose at most 2 votes. And he can't lose a single vote on the Intelligence Committee. And Senator Todd Young looks like a no right now for Gabbard. 

As my colleague Fred Schneider said yesterday about Tulsi Gabbard's hearing: 

"This is what Senator Michael Bennet (Democrat, Colorado) was trying to get at here by simply asking Tulsi Gabbard whether or not she thinks Edward Snowden who illegally declassified classified U.S. military and intelligence secrets, so even rogue states like Russia, Syria, and Iran could have that information... was a traitor or not. And she knows about this story because she was in the U.S. House from 2013, 2021 and was in the U.S. Army before that. 

Imagine being a teacher and you have a class of students of just party girls and boys, who never do any homework, never study for anything (other where the next party is going to be and how much alcohol they can get away with) and every time you give them an assignment or test, they all fail the assignment and test. That's what it must be like for these senators to try to interview Bob Kennedy, Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth. (A couple weeks ago) They can't, or won't answer the most basic of questions, because they don't either know the answers, or are worried about offending their dear leader." 

From The New Democrat

It's not just Senator Michael Bennet (Democrat, Colorado) who has real issues about Tulsi Gabbard when it comes to her commitment to America's national security. And not 1 Democrat on the Intelligence Committee is going to vote for her in committee. Its Senator Todd Young (Republican, Indiana) who is a Marine veteran, who also has serious problems with Gabbard on Edward Snowden as well. And perhaps her statements in favor of the Russian government and the Syrian government. 

As far as Senator Amy Klobuchar's (Democrat, Minnesota) exchange with Kash Patel who is President Trump's nominee for FBI Director... she was just repeating his statements that he made in public and wondering if he still stands behind them or not. 

The best questioners in Congress tend to be lawyers, generally prosecutors because they know not just what to ask, but how to ask the questions. Kamala Harris proved that when she was in the Senate and made most of her very brief time in Congress about her ability to question witnesses in committee. Senator Adam Schiff did the same thing when he was in the House. Senator Klobuchar who is also a former prosecutor, is doing the same thing here. 

Senator Klobuchar was simply trying to see if Mr. Patel stands by his past statements and record or not, especially his anti-FBI and anti-law enforcement statements. And he refused to give yes or no responses to these simple questions and basically claimed that he was taken out of context. Good thing for him that the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a court of law. Because the lawyer would've just showed him his statements and perhaps provided the video of them and he would've been forced to answer yes or no on most of them, or be held in contempt.

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Hill: Matt Gaetz Ethics Report Finds 'Substantial Evidence' of Statutory Rape, Drug Use & Law Violations

Source:The Hill with a look at former U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz (MAGA, Florida)

"The report accusing former republican congressman Matt Gaetz of sexual misconduct, illegal drug use and receiving improper gifts was released today. The report found ‘substantial evidence’ of statutory rape, drug use. President Joe Biden commutes death row prisoners. Plus, accused UHC CEO killer Luigi Mangione plead not guilty today in a Manhattan courtroom." 

From The Hill

"The House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” that former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) paid a 17-year-old high school student for sex when he was 35, used illicit drugs like cocaine and ecstasy, and obstructed Congress’s investigation into his conduct.

Those conclusions come in a highly anticipated report released Monday that capped the panel’s years-long, on-and-off investigation into the former Florida congressman.

The House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” that former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) paid a 17-year-old high school student for sex when he was 35, used illicit drugs like cocaine and ecstasy, and obstructed Congress’s investigation into his conduct.

Those conclusions come in a highly anticipated report released Monday that capped the panel’s years-long, on-and-off investigation into the former Florida congressman.

“The committee concluded there was substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” the report says.

Gaetz has repeatedly denied having sexual contact with a minor and other wrongdoing. Last week, in anticipation of the report’s release, Gaetz said he had engaged in “embarrassing, though not criminal” past behavior. 

On Monday, he filed a last-minute lawsuit to block the Ethics Committee from releasing the report.

“These claims would be destroyed in court — which is why they were never made in any court against me,” Gaetz told The Hill on Monday ahead of the report’s release, in reference to the Department of Justice (DOJ) declining to file charges after investigating Gaetz for similar matters." 

From The Hill

As I said last week on The New Democrat about my feelings about Matt Gaetz: 

"How much do you want to bet that if Matt Gaetz was never elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (which would've been his real public service to America... staying out of public office) that he would be some MAGA Bro in Florida, with his own podcast, going online and on air, probably drunk, smoking weed, slapping the asses and grabbing the breasts of the women who worked for him when they walked by to give him news updates, or whatever they gave him or wanted to tell him, and perhaps would go on Greg Gutfeld's show on FOX News, as an analyst, or something. I would take that bet. 

Matt Gaetz is a MAGO Bro, perhaps even a MAGA militant, who got elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Which is a serious job for serious people. (Despite all the nasty but credible rumors to the contrary) But he's no more serious as a person, then your average professional "reality TV star", who earns their living by getting into trouble and dumping drinks on people and getting into fights at nightclubs. 

So this is what happens when professional political celebrities like a Matt Gaetz, or perhaps in the future a Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Lauren Boebert, (whose already had her own legal issues and had to move out of her House district, just to barely get reelected again) get serious positions in government. These jobs blow up in the faces because they're simply not professional, mature, and responsible enough for them. They're the political version of late night or overnight talk show hosts, trying to make it in prime time, with their first opportunity. 

This part right here sounds very George Santos of Matt Gaetz: "Converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gifts,” according to an announcement by the panel last summer". 

As I said on my Threads page about an hour ago: "Just the fact that Matt Gaetz is admitting to "embarrassing behavior", says a lot. He's really worried about the House report going public."  

From The New Democrat

To paraphrase The Great George Carlin: we get the politician and "public servants" that we deserve. Meaning, in any democracy, we get the people who got the most votes in the election that they ran in. And I'm sure former Representative Matt Gatez did a lot of bad things here. My post about this last week about this story makes it very clear how I feel about this man. 

But at the end of the day: 

this man even will all the baggage and the fact that Donald Trump's own DOJ had this man under investigation for the exact same issues back in 2018 the House Ethics Committee investigated him for, including in this Congress and he still got reelected anyway in 2024. And the only reason why he's out of public office now, because he resigned because he was worried about what the House Ethics Committee had on him and perhaps didn't want to risk being censured and getting kicked out of the House. All these facts at least suggests that the voters in his district didn't care, or weren't paying attention to this. 

But as MAGA Republicans like to say: we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. And just because Matt Gatez's own voters wanted him back in the House for the 119th Congress, doesn't automatically mean that's what they get. Mr. Gaetz is responsible for living by and following by the same rules as every other American citizen. And he resigned from the House simply to try save what's left of any future political career. 

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Hill: Bill Press: Who's The Real Liberal- Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Source:The Hill-

Source:The Hill 

You want to talk about European social democracy and Far-Left socialist politics in America, or do you want to talk about Center-Left pragmatic progressive and liberal politics in America? If you want democratic socialism and social democracy, Bernie Sanders other than Representative Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008, hands down is the most socialist major party candidate for president ever. You can’t out socialist and socialist especially if you’re not a Socialist, which Hillary Clinton obviously isn’t. But if you want to talk about the American Center-Left which in Europe would the Center-Right and perhaps even further right like in Germany with the Free Liberal Democrats, Hillary Clinton hands down is the real and only Progressive and in the presidential race.

This is the danger with lumping in everything on the Left into one political faction and calling everybody the same thing. Communists aren’t Liberals and neither are Democratic Socialists. Liberals are people who believe in equal opportunity, rights and justice for all and individual freedom for all based on the liberal values I just mentioned. Not a big government big enough to manage people’s lives for them. Bernie Sanders and other Socialists go much further than that and say that individual freedom and rights are not enough. And believe in welfare rights based around a big centralized welfare state and that people have a right to essentially to not be poor and be taken care of with their money by government.

So of course Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders, because she’s not a Socialist. The test to see who is more progressive than the other is not this inside the beltway game about whose the furthest left. But who has stronger progressive values. Who has a better record in seeing that those values become law and come into being. Not whose going to tax and spend the most, but whose going to accomplish the policy objectives that Progressives believe in. And again hands down and even though Hillary Clinton’s only service in Congress was her eight years in the Senate which is less than a third of Bernie’s time in Congress and Bernie is in his 26th year in Congress and served in the House before the Senate, Hillary has a better record of accomplishing progressive objectives. Which is why she has so many more endorsements from actual Progressive Democrats. Like from House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn and I could go on.
MSNBC: Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton Spar Over Progressive

The Hill: Kevin Cirilli: New Democrats Looking to Strike Against The Warren Wing

Source:The New Democrat

Blogger Andrew Sullivan about a year or so ago wrote a piece called something to the effect “where is the liberal Tea Party”. Where is the liberal alternative to the Tea Party. And he was talking about Occupy Wall Street and how it failed because it doesn’t have the resources an and doesn’t tend to like money anyway because it is more of a Far-Left socialist oriented group to begin with. And he was talking about OWS as if it was supposed to be the left-wing Tea Party.

This blog wrote a piece arguing that the liberal Tea Party doesn’t exist yet. But there center-left Democrats and center-left Democratic groups who more than have the resources to create a group that could take on Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to give Democrats an alternative agenda to look at. That would prevent us from going back to the McGovern days when the hard left if not Far-Left of the Democratic Party was in charge. And as a result costs the Democratic Party 5-6 presidential elections with four of those losses being landslides from 1968-88.

Because mainstream center-left Democrats like Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis were forced to take such hard left positions in order to get the support of these groups that they had to have to be able to compete. Which is something that Democrats need to have to avoid again as we have put ourselves in position especially with the growing younger and minority voters and have brought working class voters back into the party of being the governing party in America for years to come. The New Democrats, the center-left liberal wing of the Democratic Party could be the faction that prevents the party from going back the McGovernism of the 1970s and 80s.

Groups like the New Democratic Network, Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way and the New Democrat Coalition in the House of Representatives could save the Democratic Party from the Far-Left. That wants to return the party back to 1970 or something when the New-Left emerged on the scene. And take the party that not just believes in the safety net for people who truly need it, but make us a party that is about the welfare state and big centralized government regardless of income level. That would be big enough to take care of everyone in the country. They would want to revamp if not rewrite the U.S. Constitution and take us from a Federal Republic that is a liberal democracy. And turn America into a Scandinavian social democracy.

But the New Democrats like America for what it is and what we represent and our form of government and way of life. They just want more people to have the freedom to be able to live their own lives. Which is where Americans tend to be both right and left. They don’t want government to take care of them, but for people who need it they want the freedom to be able to take care of themselves. Which is why I call the New Democrats center-left, because they are on the Left, but they are about where Americans tend to be politically. People who like both economic and personal freedom and don’t want government trying to manage their lives for them from either an economic or personal perspective.

The New Democrats are both business and worker friendly. They are not anti-business, anti-capitalist and certainly not anti-private enterprise. They are also anti-worker or anti-union. They are in favor of all of these things as long as they are good for the country and are not unaccountable and they are also well-connected online. And because of these things could build the network or networks, organization or organizations, the movement that could lead the Democratic Party for an indefinite period. Because they are where Americans tend to be and where a lot of Democrats tend to be who are not political activists. And could save the Democratic Party from the Far-Left. Unlike the Republican Party that is run by the Far-Right.

The Hill: Keith Laing: Senator Bernie Sanders: $1T Infrastructure Bill Would Be Cheaper Than Iraq War

Source:The New Democrat

Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be Bernie Sanders if we wasn’t proposing things like a trillion-dollars in infrastructure investment to rebuild America. And I agree with him as far as the amount of money that we should invest to rebuild this country and how that money would be spent. Which would to prioritize much needed infrastructure projects around the country and repairs that must be done to avoid future accidents and to put as many Americans back to work as possible.

The only areas where I disagree with Senator Sanders is how to finance this. What the Senator is talking about is funding this investment through the U.S. Government and taxing corporations’s oversees profits and eliminating tax breaks that they get at home. That part I don’t disagree with, except I would use that revenue differently. But the process is where I have the main problem, because what he’s talking about needs to go through a broader tax reform package that needs to be worked out in Congress between the House and Senate, with President Obama involved. Whatever tax reform that the President and Congress work out would probably a trillion-dollars by itself.

Tax reform and infrastructure are two different issues that should be treated separately. You could invest a trillion-dollars in infrastructure, pay for it without borrowing and not need to do tax reform to get it done. And do tax reform as a different bill. Both are important issues that have to be dealt with to get the type of investment in America that we have to have to make our economy as strong as possible. You could tax oil, you could tax gas, you could raise fees, you could tax things that aren’t very healthy for society. Like tobacco, alcohol and marijuana if it ever legalized federally. And you could bring in the private sector to invest in our infrastructure.

What we could do is to set up a National Infrastructure Bank that would work independent of the U.S. Government, but lets say owned by them. Similar to the Federal Reserve or Amtrak, that would be non-profit. And use this first trillion-dollars to get the NIB up in running and to prioritize infrastructure projects around the country. Consulting the private sector, state and local governments, as well as the Feds. And bringing in private investors to finance these projects around the country. But Senator Sanders bill is an excellent start to a critical issue for the country that has to be addressed.

The Hill: Mike Lillis: Time For House Democrats to Elect New Leaders?

Source:The Hill

Nancy Pelosi has been the leader of the House Democrats for the last twelve years. Eight of them after this Congress as Minority Leader and of course four of them as the first female Speaker of the House from 2007-11. She was also the first Minority Leader in Congress, House or Senate and the first party leader in Congress House or Senate as well. She's been a very effective leader as far as fundraising and keeping her caucus united against things Democrats don't want. And a very effective vote getter for things that needed to be passed even when compromises with more moderate Democrats and Republicans were made.

She's had a very good run and time even with eight years as the Minority Leader. But at some point new leadership needs to come in to take the House Democratic Caucus to the next level. For them to get back to where they should be with well north of 200 seats in the House. After this election they may be under a 190 seats in the House and needing a wave in 2016 to win just win back the House with a small majority. She led them back from what was looking like a permanent minority party in the House pre-2006 when they won back the House of Representatives and guided them through the Tea Party revolution of 2010-11 and managed to win back some of those seats in 2012.

But now going into the next Congress House Democrats will be in worst shape then they were even in 2011 when Republicans took over the House and worst shape than they were in 2003 when Leader Pelosi became the Minority Leader under President Bush. The sky has fallen and the House Democratic Caucus has bottomed out and is going to look a lot different in the last two years of the Obama Administration. House Democrats already have good young leaders that could move the caucus through this period and hopefully back to the majority in the near future.

Leader Pelosi and her deputy Assistant Minority Leader Jim Clyburn and Minority Whip all have distinguished careers in the House and as Democratic leaders. But they are all in their mid 70s inheriting a younger more energetic, but much smaller House Democratic Caucus. I think they should all step down and let someone like Chris Van Hollen, Xavier Becerra, Jarred Pollis and others step up and lead the House Democrats though this next period and hopefully back to the majority in the next two to four years and give the House Democratic Caucus a much different look and feel.

The Hill: Niall Stanage: Five Figures On The Left Who Could Challenge Hillary Clinton

Source:The Hill

With all due respect to Hillary Clinton, but assuming she actually does run for president, which I don't think is a safe assumption, she is going to need a strong challenge from the Left even the Far-Left if she is going to run a strong effective campaign that not only wins her the Democratic nomination for president, but unites the party behind her as well. And not seen purely as an establishment figure, or the best available option that Hubert Humphrey was in 1968 trying to lead a very divided party.

And I say assuming that Hillary Clinton runs for president and it isn't a safe assumption yet because it is not clear whether she actually wants the job other than having something else to put on her resume or complete her resume. Because she hasn't given anyone at least publicly much if any reason why she wants to be president and what she would do as president. Other than her resume and hoping to be the first female President of the United States. Which might be enough for the feminists in the party and the hard-core Hillary supporters, but not enough for her to win the actual nomination.

She is going to need a Center-Left liberal New Democrat that can challenge her from her own wing of the party to push her for those voters and maker her earn them. And that is where Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland comes in. Or former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold could push her for those voters as well. And is someone who appeals to the hardcore Left of the party and even Far-Left. She is going to need to be pushed by the Far-Left of the party as well because she is going to need those voters to be elected president and that is where Senator Bernie Sanders can obviously push her. The only self-described Socialist in Congress.

And Hillary is going to need the FDR/LBJ New Deal/Great Society Progressives behind her as well for the summer and fall of 2016 if she is going to be elected president. And of course that is where Senate Elizabeth Warren comes in, but it is not clear if Senator Warren even wants to be president or even run for president. And perhaps she does not want to divide the party when there's a strong chance of electing the first female President of the United States. Besides Senator Warren seems to like being in Congress right now and perhaps has her own goals there.

Presidential nominations aren't given to people. They have to be earned especially by people who don't like making their politics and records clear and have somewhat of a thin resume where it is hard to define their politics and accomplishments. Hillary Clinton has only been in the public eye as a candidate or public official since late 1999 and has held public office for twelve years during this year. And doesn't have a very long record of private sector experience either. So if she wants to be president, she is going to have to earn that and prove to Democrats she not only wants the job and this is where she stands on all of the key issues. But why she is the best candidate for the job.

The Hill: Judd Gregg- Dems Now Look Ahead to Hillary

Source:The Hill 

At risk of sounding like a sexist, even though I'm not, I'm not on the so-called HRC Bandwagon just yet, because the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton president in the third month of 2014 is more than 2.5 years away from the 2016 presidential election and she's not running as a liberal or a progressive or a centrist but as what I call a safe, electable, "resume" Democrat. In other words, vote for her not only because she can win but also because of what she's done in the past and what she's been doing since her husband left the White House 13 years ago.

I have a prediction:  Senator/Secretary Clinton or whatever title she goes by now (I doubt it's First Lady) will not be elected president unless she's able to communicate why she wants the job other than being the first female President of the United States.  It is an awesome job in the real sense of the word because of the power and responsibility that comes with it. It is the most important job in the world and even the far left now understands that, as much as they may hate giving America credit for anything positive. Some Democrats, hopefully real center-left liberals, will run to fill the void left by Mrs. Clinton if she decides to run for president without a message and vision for the country.

That Democrat will probably be under 60, or just 60 in Brian Schweitzer's case, or perhaps in my generation and born in the 1960s or so.  That person will be charming and well-liked, and be able to communicate with young people, raise a lot of money from them, and get them to organize and work for him or her. This sounds familiar because that is how a freshmen U.S. Senator from Illinois got elected president in 2008.  He was from the post-Clinton generation and had a different message than Hillary did in 2008. Actually, he had a message and Hillary had a name and would have represented a milestone had she been elected President. 

What the Clinton campaign should've learned from 2008 is that a great name or even a great resume, which she doesn't have, is not enough to be rewarded with the most awesome (again real sense of the word) job in the world. You have to at least know why you are applying for it beyond setting some new milestone, and you have to be able to explain to people why you should have the job. And this should go without saying, you have to be able to communicate what is it exactly you would do with the job if you were hired. And these are questions I believe Hillary hasn't answered and why she isn't President now.  She will need to address these issues to get the job.

The Hill: Judd Gregg: Progressives Play With Words, Truth

Source: The Hill- U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren-

Source:The Hill

When I think of liberalism, I look to the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our Constitutional Amendments, because that is where the core of liberalism is. Whether it is modern or classical and the reason I mention that is because classical liberalism is modern liberalism that is liberalism when it first came to America was about individual rights and freedom today and it still is. The difference being that people who are called Liberals really aren’t Liberals in many cases. The purpose of this post to explain that.

When you think of what is supposed to be called progressivism, but it certainly isn’t progressivism in the Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt or perhaps even Henry Wallace tradition of progressivism, what is supposed to pass as progressivism today in short is a form of leftist collectivism. The main core of it is that "some people simply have too much and that is not fair. And what we need to do is take from them to make sure everyone has what they need". And of course the Federal Government will decide who needs what and can have what.

Where I agree with Senator Judd Gregg in his column in The Hill today, is that modern progressivism is really a form of socialism or modern socialism. Not Marxist socialism intended to wipe out private enterprise, but that "you need a central state big enough to make sure that no one has too much or too little that we move better or forward progress even when we are moving together. And that allowing people to move forward on their own, Some will make mistakes and others will do too well even and that is somehow unfair".

It is not just that let’s say Modern Progressives or Collectivists, Socialists even are different from Liberals when it comes to economic policy, but social policy as well. It is not just economic freedom that is dangerous to the collectivist mind, but personal freedom as well. That the idea of prohibition that "government needs to be able to protect people from themselves in how they spend their money and even what they can do with their own bodies. And what they can put in their own bodies as well". And how we can talk to each other with the political correctness movement. And trying to create a nice society through law even.

The main difference between the Modern Progressive or Collectivist and Liberal has to do with the Collectivist Society versus individual rights and having an Educated Society. In the Collectivist Society we would all move together as a country in one direction. With the central government leading the way to decide what is best for us. With a Liberal Educated Society, the individual would have the freedom because of their knowledge to be able to make these decisions for themselves. And that is also the difference between the far-left and center-left in America.
Sargon of Akkad: Illiberal Progressives