Trouble Now and on the Horizon

This is bad. But there is something worse- and far more significant.

Adam Jentleson,in the past has worked for John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, and John Fetterman (yes, that John Fetterman). Why he was working for inarguably the most pro-Israel Democratic senator, and arguably the most pro-Israel senator of any, is an intriguing question:

One difference between the war in Iran and the one in Gaza is that while the war in Iran is heinous for many reasons, Netanyahu is committing a genocide in Gaza. https://t.co/Mx1TcvzIeH

— Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) August 13, 2026

Senior Policy Analyst Peyton Lofton of No Labels wrote last September 

According to the Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics, which is based in Palestine’s West Bank and not controlled by Hamas, there were 2.19 million Gazans at the end of 2022. By May 2025, PCBS says, Gaza’s population was 2.11 million – a decrease of about 80,000 people or 3.6% of the pre-war population. 

While they haven’t released figures for 2025 yet, the CIA is a little more optimistic than the PCBS. By the CIA’s estimates, there were 1.99 million Gazans at the end of 2022 compared to 2.14 million in mid-2024, an increase of about 145,000 people or 7% of the pre-war total. 

So, Gaza has either shrunk by 80,000 people or grown by 145,000. Which of these figures is more accurate? We’ll probably never know.

My guess is that the Gazan population has declined marginally. However, Lofton notes

During the Rwandan Genocide, for example, an estimated three-quarters of the Tutsi ethnic group were murdered over the course of 100 days. And in the Holocaust, some 60% of Europe’s Jews were killed or forced out by the time the war ended – and the population never recovered.

We've all heard of the Holocaust. Yet, the genocide in Rwanda occurred fairly recently, and we have heard as much about that from Jentleson as we have the extermination of Iranian dissidents this past January. Similarly, Beijing's crusade in Xinjian province against the Uygurs, including mass detention, ethnic cleansing, widespread murder, and sterilization of the women seem not to have piqued Jentleson's curiosity.

Anger at Israel over its war against Hamas in Gaza is widespread among American youth, as Jentleson suggests. However, some individuals have more interest in the Mideast and more luxury to be engrossed in the subject. Those would be the affluent and, especially, the college educated, especially whites.  Jentleson is too embarrassed or dishonest to admit that, but the truth does not vanish because it is uncomfortable.

Moreover, Tanden's observation that there have been few protests against the war against Iran conducted by the USA compared to anti-Israel protests is obviously accurate.  Israel may be committing war crimes, which is a matter of interpretation, and is acting badly. That does not mean it is committing genocide- it is not- and Operation Epic Fury is a U.S. action ordered in our name by an individual we elected President.

And that is the problem- it is being conducted by Donald J. Trump. The vast majority of congressional Republicans are blindly following President Trump and most of them are intimidated by him. In many cases, Trump controls their political future, in which one kind word can lift them from obscurity and one complaint can send them into political obscurity. 

Yet, we assume that Democratic activists are immune from such pressure. Protests against Israel are held almost routinely now while protests against Trump's war are uncommon. There may be many reasons for that, but one of them is intimidation, treading lightly to condemn the man who calls his enemies "communists" and far worse, and who once called for the execution of his own Vice President.

And his sway over a large portion of the electorate is unprecedented in American history. The betting here is that Jentleson and others realize this and know that they are far safer attacking Benjamin Netanyahu and the nation he unfortunately leads.

.... which brings us to the bigger potential problem for Israel and American Jews and it's not from the left.

Trump: Chuck Schumer, who's a Palestinian. He's a full-fledged Palestine . In fact, I'm looking for Palestinian garb. I'm going to send it to him for his birthday. I know him very well. pic.twitter.com/qaKsb5lt2y

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2026

This is bigoted remark toward Palestinians, whom it is assumed are bad simply because they are Palestinian. 

But history teaches us that bias against one group is usually accompanied by bias against one or more other groups.  And Donald Trump has accused Chuck Schumer of being "a full-fledged Palestine" (sic), sparing Hillary Clinton, Hakeem the Dream Jeffries, and Nancy Pelosi his ethnic slurs.

Today, Donald Trump is pro-Israel because its head of state is conservative; secular; in power on the basis of support from religious extremists;bent on consolidating power in the executive brandh; being investigated for criminal violations.  Sound familiar?

However, Bibi Netanyahu will not be in charge forever, and possibly not beyond this year. Barring death, Donald Trump will remain.   It is not unlikely that at some point, he will turn against Israel, and he will not do so by citing serious and significant ideological differences.  His base will follow him because his base always does. And if this happens, the likes of Ilhan Omar, Abdul el-Sayed, Adam Jentleson and others will be inconsequential in comparison.

                   

Share |

A Good Start

There are several reasons prominent Democrats could have cited in endorsing their nominee, Abdul el-Sayed, in his bid to defeat Mike Rogers in the U.S. Senate race in Michigan. This is one of the best:

Democrats are united by a common purpose: putting a check on Donald Trump by defeating his Republican enablers and taking back the Senate. We look forward to working with Abdul and Democrats across Michigan to win this seat in November,” the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand, who chairs the Democratic Senate campaign arm, said in a joint statement.

They could have sat this one out, as thus far has Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin, whose courage rivals that of Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who voted for the nomination of Todd Blanche as Attorney General because, it appears, Donald Trump otherwise would be even meaner to him. Slotkin also did not endorse in the primary race between el-Sayed and Haley Stevens, preferring the Sgt. Schultz approach. 

In promoting the nominee, Schumer and Gillibrand might have stated "hurt people hurt people" while explaining the bruising primary battle between el-Sayed and Stevens. Theoretically, they could have endorsed el-Sayed's vigorous campaigning featuring his friendship with Hasan Piker.  Piker, who has himself enthusiastically endorsed Hamas over Israel and blamed the USA for 9/11, has added to his greatest hits collection:

Hey @AbdulElSayed, do you agree with Piker on this? Do you agree it is ok to rape the daughters of wealthy people? https://t.co/ajZYa5fInU

— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) August 7, 2026

More realistically, such Democrats could defend the nominee's scapegoating of AIPAC and defend his constant refrain about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. A few lies from a Senate candidate cannot compare to the never-ending lies from the President. Instead, they gave about the best possible argument for supporting Abdul el-Sayed, that the highest priority is "taking back the Senate".

Certainly, they could have done even better, such as by lauding the party's nominee for supporting "universal health care". El-Sayed goes further by advocating Medicare for All, which is the means to the end of assuring universal health care. Most of the more centrist Democrats, such as Haley Stevens, either oppose Medicare for All of have remained noncomittal. 

The sweet spot for centrist or moderates endorsing progressives such as el-Sayed would be to applaud the candidate's support for universal health care while they ignore the issue of the more ambitious Medicare for All.   Whatever Americans think of the latter approach, most clearly approve of the goal of health care for all. Done smoothly, Democratic politicians can assert support for universal health care and, if they wish, avoid offering specifics.

For some bizarre reason, prominent centrists and moderates (unfortunately) skeptical of MFA avoid coming out even for universal health care.  Nonetheless, Chuck Schumer and the others did their best to rally support for the party's candidate, even though they- wisely- wanted him to lose to Haley Stevens.

 They didn't lavish praise on their candidate; they attacked the very unpopular Donald Trump. And they took a dig at his "Republican enablers," subtly ridiculing the opposition, including their own Senate colleagues. Democrats act as if they're allergic to criticizing Republicans lacking the initials "DJT," but here they did.. If other Democrats follow suit, they even have a chance of wresting the Senate from Republicans, even with candidates such as Abdul el-Sayed.

Share |

Knives at the Gunfight

The word you're looking for, Senator Durbin, is "Republicans."

Last July, President Joseph R. Biden

condemned the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, calling on all Americans to denounce such "sick" violence.

The US president was quick to call for unity in the hours after a gunman shot Trump in the ear, killed one member of the crowd and injured two others at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The gunman was shot dead by Secret Service agents.

In a statement issued within an hour of the attack, Mr Biden said there was "no place in America for this. We must unite as one nation to condemn it. It's sick, it's sick"...

He said he was "grateful to hear that he's safe and doing well. I'm praying for him and his family and for all those at the rally. Jill [Biden] and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety."

The White House later said Mr Biden spoke to his Republican election rival by telephone after he had left hospital, while Biden campaign managers said they were pulling television adverts as quickly as possible in the wake of the attempt on Trump's life.

Nor did other prominent Democrats leave the condemnation of their political rival as Vice President and likely Democratic presidential nominee Kamala

Harris said in a statement that she was "relieved" Trump was not seriously injured in what she described as a "senseless shooting".

"Violence such as this has no place in our nation," she added. "We must all condemn this abhorrent act and do our part to ensure that it does not lead to more violence."

Ms Pelosi, the former House Speaker who helped impeach Trump twice, said she was praying for him.

"As one whose family has been the victim of political violence, I know first-hand that political violence of any kind has no place in our society. I thank God that former President Trump is safe," Ms Pelosi wrote on X/Twitter.

Ms Pelosi's husband suffered a fractured skull and other injuries after a man broke into her California home with a hammer trying to find her.

Both Mr Clinton and Mr Obama echoed the comments, saying violence had no place in politics and wishing Trump their prayers.

In that case, Mr. Trump was wounded by a bullet or  by shrapnel. Fast-forward eleven months and

Days after a Minnesota state lawmaker was killed and another injured in a "politically motivated assassination," President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he would not call the state's governor, eschewing a traditional presidential response to tragedies.

"Why would I call him? I could call and say, ‘Hi, how you doing?’ The guy doesn’t have a clue," Trump said, referring to Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., who was the vice presidential contender facing off against Trump's ticket in 2024. "He’s a mess. So I could be nice and call, but why waste time?"

Presidents have historically called state and local politicians on both sides of the aisle to lend their support in the aftermath of violent tragedies like natural disasters or high-profile shootings.

Trump is asked if he’s called @GovTimWalz: “I’m not calling him … he’s a mess so you know, I could be nice and call him but why waste time?”

(@atrupar) pic.twitter.com/50Ifh67tsS

— Chenue Her (@ChenueHer) June 17, 2025

In a now-deleted post, Utah Republican senator Mile Lee had tweeted

“this is what happens When Marxists don’t get their way.” In another, he posted a photo of the suspect in the case and captioned it, "Nightmare on Waltz Street," an apparent reference to the state's Democratic governor, Tim Walz.

Senatee Minority Leader (God help us!) Chuck Schumer and Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar:and Tina Smith each appeared to have asked Senator Lee to take the post down. The Utahn did so, though  removing a scurrilous post after right-wingers have digested and applauded it does not make the situation any better. Its message already has been received by supporters and its impact made. There has been no apology or concession of error and if deletion makes them feel better, there are many qualified therapists in the Washington, D.C. area.

But leave it to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin to take it one step further (backward).  On the Senate floor, he declared (at 2:09 of the video below) in decrying Lee's action

Another one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle tweeted around the shooting "the degree to which the extreme left has become radical, violent, and intolerant is stunning and terrifying." To attempt to politicize this tragedy is absolutely  unsettling. This rhetoric from elected officials is beyond dangerous and incites even more violence. It is reprehensible and must be called out on both sides of the aisle- both sides of the aisle.

Say it, Durbin. Say it: Republicans. Democrats call political violence out consistently and make no attempt to defend it. Yet while a few Republicans have criticized the crime "others have used it as an opportunity to poke fun at their Democratic opponents, or suggest that they somehow instigated the violence.": Critically

on X, prominent rightwing figures were quick to promote conspiracy theories about what happened. Elon Musk, the erstwhile Trump sidekick who runs Tesla, shared a tweet from a pro-Trump account that read, in part: “The left has become a full blown domestic terrorist organization.”

 “The far left is murderously violent” Musk wrote in his reply, which Lee shared, adding: “Fact check: TRUE”.

Laura Loomer, the rightwing extremist who is said to have played a role in encouraging Trump to fire national security officials, alleged the suspect had ties to the “No Kings” protests that took place nationwide on Saturday, and that Walz knew him.

They do it because it works. Literally in the case of the pro-forced birth Trumpist in Minnesota and Kyle Rittenhouse (also in Minnesota), the far right brings the guns. The more responsible and respectable Republicans in public life take their cue from them, and especially from Donald Trump, fomenting a civil war. . Democrats are bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The likes of Durbin, Schumer, Klobuchar, and Smith don't understand that virtually every Republican is not their friend. These individuals- Stepfords, mostly- are more than "the other side of the aisle." They don't feel the shame you want them to, and will continue to support the fascistic authoritarian in the White House. It's not "both sides." It's yours, and Donald Trump.

Share |

Leadership Needed

On May 13, 2025

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned Republicans and federal law enforcement against sanctioning or arresting three Democratic New Jersey lawmakers who were involved in a tense immigration protest.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned Republicans and federal law enforcement against sanctioning or arresting three Democratic New Jersey lawmakers who were involved in a tense immigration protest.

“They’ll find out. They’ll find out. They’ll find out,” Jeffries said Tuesday when asked how he’d respond if officials arrested or sanctioned Democratic Reps. Rob Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman. “That’s a red line. It’s a red line, it’s very clear.”

The three Democrats were inspecting the new ICE facility, which is set to play a major role in White House Northeast immigration operations, and were involved in a scrum when federal agents arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who authorities said was trespassing.

Six days later we learned 

The Justice Department has filed charges against a Democratic member of Congress, alleging that she assaulted law enforcement officers during a protest outside an immigration detention facility in New Jersey earlier this month.

Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., faces two counts of assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officials in connection with an incident at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark, according to court documents made public on Tuesday.

Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba, who served as Trump's personal attorney and previously worked as counselor to the president, announced the charges against McIver on X on Monday night, before they were made public.

On Tuesday, McIver told NBC News that she had learned of the charges on social media after Habba posted about them.

After President Trump in April reduced federal aid to Harvard University by $2.2 billion, thus slashing medical research, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated "We sent him a very strong letter just the other day asking eight very strong questions about why this isn't just a pretext," everyone laughed. Broadly mocked, Schumer faced faced calls for his resignation from leadership of the caucus as criticism of the Democratic Party for being leaderless grew.

But now that Hakeem Jeffries' "red line" was crossed with the charging of Representative McIver, the House Minority Leader has responded with..... a strongly worded press release. "Everyone responsible for this illegitimate abuse of power," read the joint statement from Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark, Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, Vice Chair Ted Leu and Assistant Leader Joe Neguse, "is going to be held accountable for their actions."

Fat chance, that. It's possible that the caucus will in the next few days do something more than it has, or that Senator Schumer did in the Harvard matter, but it has not done so thus far. However, as of now, this looks a lot like President Obama's reverse Theodore Roosevelt, "speak softly and carry a big stick."

In the summer of 2012, President Obama pledged that if President Bashar al-Assad were to cross a "red line" by employing chemical weapons against domestic rebels, Syria would face "enormous consequences."  Assad called Obama's bluff a year later by dropping sarin gas outside of Damascus with no military response from the most powerful nation on earth. 

Chuck Schumer did not rise to the occasion. Thus far, Hakeem Jeffries has done even less in response to a direct attack upon his caucus, a criminal charge against one of its members.  He has not only failed to deliver, he threatened and then failed to deliver. The caucus cannot afford a paper tiger and if he does not respond forcefully in a manner at least reasonably effective, the Minority Leader should be replaced.

Share |

Folding

Prior to ten Democrats joining every Republican on a cloture vote which would lead to keeping the government funded while President Musk and Donald Trump destroy it, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer already was facing a

moment of turmoil after retreating from his initial vow to block a six-month government funding bill written by Republicans, a move that infuriated fellow Democrats in the House and liberal advocates — and raised questions about his effectiveness as party leader in the Senate. 

Schumer, who has served as Democrats’ leader in the Senate for eight years, has typically managed to find consensus within his party. But he now finds himself on the defensive in one of the first major legislative fights of the second Trump administration, even drawing rebukes from longtime allies.  

In an extraordinary move, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Senate Democrats to defy him and reject the GOP bill, while continuing to push for a shorter-term bill to keep the government funded ahead of a midnight deadline. 

Pelosi is correct, even if her rationale is classic Nancy P.:

“Democratic senators should listen to the women,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Appropriations leaders Rosa DeLauro and Patty Murray have eloquently presented the case that we must have a better choice: a four-week funding extension to keep [the] government open and negotiate a bipartisan agreement.  America has experienced a Trump shutdown before — but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse.” 

Alternatively, listen to DeLauro and Murray because they're right, not because of their chromosomes. It takes a gay male (coincidence? very likely) anti-Trump libertarian/conservative Republican to get to the correct position for the valid reason. In the video below, Tim Miller stated (at 1:19 of the video below)

Even if you acknowledge that- that there wasn't a real end game for Schumer to stop the horribleness that we're all experiencing, he still had a political imperative to do everything in his power to fight it in the meantime.

There are a lot of things that Chuck Schumer could have done besides just folding. He could have held an actual filibuster on the Senate floor today that demanded that all of the Social Security offices stay open so our seniors can get the money that they paid into the system. He could have said that he's going to hold up all of the nominees- Dr. Oz is going to be confirmed today. he could have said that he's going to hold up all the nominees as long as Elon Musk continues to illegally fire government workers.

He could have shut the government down for a little while until the Republicans met a simple, early, popular demand- maybe, it's about the VA, maybe it's about Social Security, maybe it's about actually appropriating the funds that Congress has approved.

It would have been fun, and even useful, to watch GOP Senators vote up or down on an amendment about Social Security. They'd either have to vote with Democrats or against Social Security and the latter is very, very dangerous politically.

But that's not what Chuck Schumer wanted and Miller appears to know why. He continued

Donald Trump and Elon Musk are not co-kings. You can make them negotiate- force them, force Donald Trump to negotiate with you. Bring him to the table.. The era of letting Republicans break all the rules, not follow any of the laws, run roughshod over the Democrats, while the Democrats just continue to try to protect every possible existing norm and institution, that era is over, O.K.? That era ended the moment Donald Trump won in 2024, alright?

Of course, Miller does not think that the era of letting Republicans break all rules, not follow laws, and run roughshod over Democrats is over, but that it should be over and Schumer's party leadership be challenged. Pelosi agrees but gender preference may be one of her considerations. Miller added

We might not like that. I don't like that. I'm an institutionalist. I wish that we could protect our institutions but that's not what time it is right now. It is a time for fighting, it is a time for sometimes having to sacrifice some turf, having to sacrifice even certain members in the public interest of the greater good of taking these guys on and making them own their chaos, make them own the chaos they're creating. don't be a participant in the chaos they're creating. "Elections have consequences," Republicans bellow. The result of the elections was Republican control over the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. Then, government gets shut down. Notwithstanding GOP messaging of the "Schumer Shutdown," the Democratic Party, whose House members wanted to negotiate with the opposition, should have been able successfully to blame the GOP for the shutdown. It's their chaos, make them own it.

Being an institutionalist, as Miller understands, works in normal times. However, that's "not what time it is right now." Institutions, rules, and laws once meant something. But that ship has sailed amid a hostile takeover of the US government, and of democracy.

Share |

Blind Obedience

Some day, somewhere a reporter or news host will ask Representative Mike Lawler of New York why he is so fond of Benjamin Netanyahu.

The coordinated effort by Schumer, Pelosi, and other Dems to undermine Netanyahu is all about trying to keep the Democrat party’s base together in November. Make him the bad guy to try and keep the pro-Hamas crowd happy. It’s total insanity. https://t.co/lBbDcx2h2G

— Mike Lawler (@lawler4ny) April 9, 2024

In his speech in the House chamber on March 14, Majority Leader Schumer

-called on "the Israelis, the Biden Administration, the Qataris, the Egyptians, and anybody else at the (negotiating) table" to "continue doing everything possible to get to a deal" which would include freeing every hostage;

-encouraged the USA to "provide robust humanitarian aid to Gaza and pressure the Israelis to let more of it get through to the people who need it;"

-urged the Israeli government to "prioritize the protection of civilian casualties when identifying military targets;"

-noted "Hamas has heartlessly hidden behind their fellow Palestinians by turning hospitals into command centers and refugee camps into missile-launching sites" whose "soldiers use innocent Gazans as human shields"- and berated "most media outlets covering this war and many protesters opposing it" for placing "the blame for civilian casualties entirely on Israel;"

-recommended "a negotiated two-state solution- a demilitarized Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in equal measures of peace, security, prosperity ,dignity and mutual recognition;"

-criticized as "a fatal impediment to progress" those Palestinians who "don't acknowledge how their insistence on an unequivocal 'right of return' is a fatal impediment to progress;"

-lamented that "many people, especially on the left, seem to acknowledge and even celebrate this right to statehood for every group but the Jews;"

- recognized that "Israel moving closer to a single state entirely under its control would further rupture its relationship with the rest of the world, including the United States;"

-noted that the "four major obstacles to peace" are "Hamas and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways; radical right-wing Israelis in government and society; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu;

-urged "all sides" to "reject from the river to the sea thinking;"

-suggested "there is enough strength in the Arab world to get President Abbas to step down and to support a gradual succession plan for responsible Palestinian leaders to take his place;"

-advocated "normalization with Israel" by "Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations" as "the foundation of a grand bargain in the Middle East that will finally make meaningful Palestinian statehood a reality;"

-proposed that the USA "demand that Israel conduct itself with a future two-state solution in mind;"

-asserted that "holding a new election once the war starts to wind down would give Israelis an opportunity to express their vision for the post-war future"- but that the USA should not try "to dictate the outcome."

It's a long list- but that's the point. All you hear from Republicans such as Lawler is that Chuck Schumer wants the Israelis to interfere with the affairs of another nation and remove Benjamin Netanyahu. To some, recommending that Israel have another election- after the war starts to wind down- is to overthrow a legitimate leader and 1/6/21 was a mere riot. And what you hear from the media when Republicans simply and trivialize this speech in this manner is.... nothing. No correction or even a follow-up question.

The speech of Majority Leader Schumer was not anti-Israel, as Mike Lawler and some other Republicans have portrayed it.  The government of Benjamin Netanyahu facilitated the funding of Hamas by Qatari for several years. it obtained more than a year before 10/7/23 what The New York Times terms a "blueprint" which was followed "with shocking precision."  Last July, Israel's signal intelligence agency "warned that Hamas had conducted an intense, daylong training exercise that appeared similar to what was outlined in the blueprint."

That warning was rejected by the military as Qatar continued to prop up the government in Gaza. However, Netanyahu was obsessed with hatred of the Palestinian Authority and the possibility of creation of a Palestinian state.

It's not clear that the likes of Lawler and Donald Trump are particularly fond of Israel. But Benjamin Netanyahu is indicted for fraud, breach of trust, and accepting bribes in three separate instances. And he has been trying to limit the power and oversight of the judiciary in order to centralize power in the office of Prime Minister. And he laid the groundwork for the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history.  

The Senate Majority Leader had the temerity to suggest that the Israeli voters have a chance- sometime in the near future- to render their judgement on their Prime Minister. However, many Republicans are fiercely loyal to Netanyahu, who undoubtedly reminds them of their own party's beloved leader.  That may not fully explain the fondness toward the Israeli Prime Minister but it certainly seems to be a worthy point of inquiry.

-

Share |

Thorough Examination

In light of the rumor that RFK Jr. will select Aaron Rodgers to be his running mate, it is timely to tell Ari Fleischer and his fellow travelers: R-E-L-A-X.

I don’t ever again want to hear a Democrat lecture about foreign interference in an American election. With his speech today, Chuck Schumer forfeited any claim the US can make about foreign nations staying out of our elections. https://t.co/nETLkUTJfP

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) March 15, 2024

Of course, Fleischer is flacking for Donald Trump and acolytes, who will deny to their lasting, lying breath that Putin's Russia did not work to elect Trump to the presidency. And Fleischer should not go hysterical over the speech of Majority Leader Schumer, a longtime ally of the State of Israel, whose assessment of the war against Hamas was realistic, respectful, and reasoned (alliteration day!).  

In his lengthy speech (transcript here), Schumer described in detail what he labeled the "four major obstacles standing in the way of two states."  They are, in his words, Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways; radical right-wing Israelis in government and society; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways.

Schumer's speech instantly became famous for his support for "holding a new election once the war starts to wind down," which should be promoted more promptly. However, he recognizes- and is willing to admit- that

The Palestinian people must reject Hamas and the extremism in their midst. They know better than anybody how Hamas has used them as pawns, how Hamas has tortured and punished Palestinians who seek peace.

 Quite frankly, I haven’t heard enough Palestinian leaders express anguish about Hamas and other extreme elements of Palestinian society. I implore them to speak up now, even when it may be hardest. Because that is the only true way to honor the lives of all those lost — by transcending the enmity and bloodshed, and working together in good faith for a better future.

 Once Hamas is deprived of power, the Palestinians will be much freer to choose a government they want and deserve. With the prospect of a real two-state solution on the table, and for the first time, genuine statehood for the Palestinian people, I believe they will be far more likely to support more mainstream leaders committed to peace.

 I think the same is true of the Israeli people. Call me an optimist, but I believe that if the Israeli public is presented with a path to a two-state solution that offers a chance at lasting peace and coexistence, then most mainstream Israelis will moderate their views and support it.

 Part of that moderation must include rejecting right-wing zealots like Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and the extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank. These people do not represent a majority of the Israeli public, yet under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s watch, they have had far too much influence.

 All sides must reject “From the river to the sea” thinking — and I believe they will if the prospects for peace and a two-state solution are real.

Schumer describes the concerns of both Israelis and American Jews and their justified concern about Israel's plight. Regrettably, he does not explicitly call out religious extremism, which has played a major role in the Israeli response to the October 7 murders and an even greater role in the Hamas attack itself. However, as this war has dragged on, it its clear that in any discussion of the Middle East, the phrases "Islamic terrorism," "Islamic extremism," and "Orthodox Jewish extremism" may not be uttered.  

Nonetheless, Schumer does understand that beyond Hamas and Israel, there is a third player in the Middle East which is critical to a peaceful and just resolution. He notes

Beyond the Israeli and Palestinian people and their leaders, there are others who bear a serious responsibility to work towards a two-state solution. Without them, it cannot succeed.

Middle Eastern powers like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and other mainstream Arab states can have immense power and influence with the Palestinians. Working with the United States, they must responsibly deploy their clout, their money and their diplomacy to support a new demilitarized Palestinian state that rejects terror and violence. I believe they have the leverage to do this with the support of the majority of the Palestinian people, who want what any other people want: peace, security and prosperity

Not all Jews are the same, as is blatantly obvious for the lack of support for the Netanyahu government among Israelis. Nor are all Arabs, or Muslims, or the individuals labeled "Palestinian," a reality which serves as a premise for Chuck Schumer's analysis. He has not presented a blueprint but has presented a more balanced view of the crisis than Ari Fleischer and others are giving him credit for. 

               

1. 
   

Share |

Of Distractions

In the video below from October of 2022, The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian slams Republicans because they want to force a debt showdown to cut what conservatives luxuriate in calling "entitlement programs."  At approximately 1:58, she shows a graphic from New York Magazine noting

Bloomberg's Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed seven Republican contenders to lead the House Budget Committee. They all said, with varying levels of specificity, that they plan to instigate a debt ceiling standoff to force Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health-care programs.

Those would be, respectively, Social Security and Medicare, which Kasparian recognizes as vital lifelines for most individuals and families. She adds (at 14:07)

I hope people understand why it's that they spend all of their time crying about CRT, which doesn't exist in grade school. Crying about trans athletes, when they can't even name a single trans athlete that's impacting anyone in their state. The reason why focus on these made up boogie men is to scare their own voters and distract from the fact they want to rob their own voters of programs they've paid into.

So true- and yet, in their own way, Democrats do something similar. They're not trying scare people to distract the attention of their voters from what party officials want to do. However, they try- successfully- to distract their own voters from what they should be doing by giving them some red meat- their own culture war hot button issues.

Today we protected marriage equality in the U.S. Senate.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) November 29, 2022

Putting aside the Senator's obvious problem with English grammar- the concern was not marriage equality in the US Senate but marriage equality in the country- the emphasis Klobuchar and some other Democrats placed on this was remarkable, and telling.  

On November 29 the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act with 61 votes, including those of twelve Republicans. The Democratic-controlled House then passed the legislation, which was quickly and signed into law by President Joe Biden at a "triumphant White House ceremony." Notwithstanding Klobuchar's boast that the action "protected marriage equality," prohibition by any political jurisdiction of same-sex marriage already had been outlawed (in Hodges v. Obergefell) by the United States Supreme Court. The Respect for Marriage Act provides assurance that if the Supreme Court were to take up the same issue again and reverse its decision, a state which outlaws the union would be required to recognize the marriage of two men, or two women, conducted in another state. The law guarantees full faith and credit for same-sex and interracial marriages, and does little if anything else.

But that didn't stop many Democrats, Biden and Klobuchar only two of them, from touting the law and ignoring a far more urgent matter. Eight days prior to the Senator's triumphant tweet, Peter R. Orazag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, explained

In October, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned that Republicans are planning to use the debt limit as leverage to demand spending cuts, potentially including Social Security and Medicare — cuts that President Biden will not accept. Now that Republicans have won control of the House and McCarthy is potentially the next speaker, the threat is real....

The debt ceiling — now $31.4 trillion, a level that stands to be pierced by the third quarter of 2023 — is an anachronism. Congress enacts changes to tax law and entitlement programs (such as Social Security and Medicare), and sets non-entitlement spending each year. These decisions, in turn, exhaust the policy levers available to control the level of U.S. government debt. (The evolution of debt is also influenced by the economy, market interest rates and other factors, but those are mostly outside the control of policymakers.) So having a separate limit on the permitted level of debt is redundant.

As the Government Accountability Office has written, “The debt ceiling does not control the amount of debt. Instead, it is an after-the-fact measure that restricts the Treasury’s ability to borrow to finance the decisions already enacted by Congress and the President"....

There are two ways to de-risk the situation in the lame-duck session of Congress. One is regular order, which would require the cooperation of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a number of sitting Republican senators wise enough to join Democrats to address the issue now. But this may well not happen.

The other option involves a new budget resolution, which would facilitate using the reconciliation process to raise the debt limit, as was done in 1990, 1993 and 1997. This approach would require two votes — the first on the budget resolution and the second on reconciliation. It would take up about two weeks of Senate floor time, but it could be accomplished with only 50 votes.

Any Democrats averse to taking such a painful vote now should consider how much leverage their party will lose once Republicans control the House — and how much higher the risk of default will be then. It’s generally not a good idea to enter a negotiation with a ticking time bomb and a counterparty willing to let it go off.

The next two years will be turbulent in any case. The president and Congress can make them less risky by addressing the debt limit in December.

Nonetheless, the President and Congress did not address the debt limit then. Instead, as was reported a few days later, Senate Majority Leader Chuck

Schumer said last week that he would like to “get a debt ceiling done in this work period” but insisted that it would require Republican support, effectively ruling out a go-it-alone approach that would allow Democrats to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Speaking to reporters on the same day, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he didn’t think Congress would take up the issue until “sometime next year”.

At that point and in the lame-duck session, Democrats- not Mitch McConnell's GOP- controlled the Senate, in which an extension of the debt limit could be approved by reconciliation, and the House of Representatives. Yet

Schumer said the Senate will take a final vote on legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages when the chamber returns after the Thanksgiving recess. Earlier this month, 12 Republicans joined all Democrats to clear a major procedural hurdle that put the historic measure on track to passage.

“Passing the Respect for Marriage Act is no longer a matter of if but only of when,” he said in recent remarks. A version of the bill passed the House earlier this year, with support from dozens of Republicans.

Schumer believed the Respect for Marriage Act would have passed in the following Congress, anyway. By contrast, the earlier the debt limit is effectively addressed, the less likely Republicans (who have taken control of the House, as was expected) will be able to hold it hostage, threatening the global economy, to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The Republican Party is responsible for this problem. Taking anyone or anything hostage is an impotent gesture unless the threat is credible, and Republicans may be willing to take the economy down if Democrats don’t meet their demands for policy which would slice and dice Americans who need Social Security and Medicare. As Kasparian probably understands, Republicans may go on and on about critical race theory, trans athletes, or the other sexy issue of the moment, but they keep their eye on the prize, consolidation of wealth for the donor class.

The Republican Party is responsible for this problem. Taking anyone or anything hostage is an impotent gesture unless the threat is credible, and Republicans may be willing to take the economy down if Democrats don’t meet their demands for policy which would slice and dice Americans who need Social Security and Medicare.

But, hey, priorities are priorities. Democrats, who would like to protect the country from the mischief Republicans are planning, nonetheless focus on cultural issues of race and sex to keep their own base of voters engaged .  And there are fewer greater priorities for them than making sure that the sanctity of a same-sex marriage is respected. 

Now, if the Supreme Court takes up those unions, rules that states may prohibit them, and conservative states such as Mississippi re-institute a ban, the marriage of a couple which decides to move from Massachusetts to Mississippi would still be recognized. And if next year the economy tanks or earned benefits plummet, we can still celebrate Amy Klobuchar’s tweet, triumphantly.

Share |

No Free Pass

I hate to defend Donald Trump- even on a technical point- but I have to do so. On the floor of the Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (as seen at 3:58 of the video below) stated

With respect t the Asian-American communities all all communities, we must condemn rhetoric that is racist. In this case, we must and condemn any rhetoric that blames the Chinese people for the coronavirus. President Trump did that- repeatedly.

It is incendiary rhetoric, indulged in by then-President Trump to whip up rancor and division. However, if it is racist, we need to stop referring to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), the Spanish Flu, German measles, and fourteen other diseases named for a place or a body of water.

That might not be a bad idea, given that use of the term by the most boisterous, bellicose, and  belligerent of Presidents in American history was intended to be disputatious, disruptive, and divisive, and may have turned deadly.

Nonetheless- and despite Trump's pervasive impact on the climate of fear and hate- avoidance of the term "China virus" and the more incendiary "Chinese virus" must not deflect attention from the role of that huge Asian nation in SARS-CoV-2.   As Mr. Schumer probably would not concede except under penalty of  death, the coronavirus did initiate in one particular country. 

We don't know whether the virus originated in a wet market or a laboratory. However, we do know in what country and city it originated, which country tried to cover up its outbreak, and which country is still attempting to conceal its origin. That nation is China, or in respect of the island nation adjacent to it, Mainland China.

Share |

Where "Patsy" Is Not "Cline"

The editors of The New York Times deserve credit.  On Saturday, The Times called for the resignation of New York governor Andrew Cuomo, whom it acknowledged it had endorsed for re-election, including for re-nomination.  Its twelve paragraph editorial not only emphasized the charges of sexual harassment against the governor but said nothing about his nursing home scandal.

The Times thereby avoided egregious disingenuousness. As policy, the decision to send Covid-19 patients from the hospital to nursing homes, then hiding statistics about the deaths of nursing home residents, was atrocious. As scandal, it didn't amount to much.

Without the sex charges leveled against the governor, the nursing home disaster would be an occasional topic for the Times and even less often a topic for The Washington Post and other great newspapers.  There would have been relative silence except for a few calls from New York state legislators for Cuomo to step down because they have their own, generally justified, beefs with the governor.

Neither Majority Leader and New York senator Chuck Schumer nor New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand would have proposed he resign, nor would there have been speculation that President Biden would do so, and The New York Times itself would have been reticent. After an initial uproar, social media would have gone on to other things and the unnecessary deaths of many elderly New Yorkers would have been forgotten.

So make no mistake: pressure is mounting on Governor Cuomo to quit because of terrible behavior toward women and for (virtually) no other reason. As marketing professor Scott Galloway remarked in a discussion (in a video no longer available; I've substituted another) on Bill Maher's Real Time

But at the same time, they trigger me because women and people of color lost one of the most powerful advocates when Kristen Gillibrand decided to disappear Al Franken so she could have a seven minute run for President. And we're in the midst of a pile on and here's the reality: voters get to decide in 18 months. The majority of- of- 48% of white people, 63% of non whites believe he should not resign. We as Democrats need to be the party of women but we also need to be the party of due process. We need to slow down, let those women be heard and let due process occur here and not just pile on.

Twenty-three years ago, during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, Democrats understood that sex improprieties were insufficient cause for dismissal short of an election.  That has radically changed as many, boasting enlightened thought, rush to judgement because they fear the opprobrium of mainstream media and the outrage of a portion of their base.

If Democrats continue to succumb to pressure and demand ouster of their own elected officials, they will not earn respect from Republicans. They will receive passing praise from the media, which will do Democrats no good. And that portion of their base demanding the man's scalp will move on to the next outrage. On a positive note, they could begin wearing bright blue jerseys reading "patsy."

Share |

Consequences, Even For Trump

Well, he certainly got religion, seemingly. The New York Times reports

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said on Tuesday that the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 had been “provoked by the president and other powerful people,” stating publicly for the first time that he holds President Trump at least partly responsible for the assault.

“The mob was fed lies,” Mr. McConnell said, referring to attempts by Mr. Trump to overturn the election based on bogus claims of voter fraud. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.”

Mr. McConnell made the remarks on his last full day as majority leader, speaking on the eve of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration and as the Senate was bracing to receive a single article of impeachment from the House charging Mr. Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”

The Kentucky Republican has indicated privately that he believes that Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses, but he has said he has yet to decide whether to vote to convict the president, and many senators in his party are awaiting a sign from Mr. McConnell before making their own judgments. 

Awaiting a sign, no doubt, to determine what principles they have. It's critical for McConnell to signal flexibility on the impending Senate trial because he is currently negotiating with Chuck Schumer the details on control of the Senate.

New: McConnell wants Senate power-sharing deal to protect legislative filibuster.

In an email obtained by @NRO, McConnell wrote to GOP colleagues: "I believe the time is ripe to address this issue head on before the passions of one particular issue or another arise."

— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) January 19, 2021 

However, Senator McConnell probably is genuinely considering voting for conviction of Donald Trump.  The Times notes that at Trump's trial after he was first impeached

Mr. McConnell acted at the White House’s behest to set trial rules that would favor acquittal. Now, he has told allies he hopes never to speak to Mr. Trump again and is doing nothing to persuade senators to back him, instead calling the impeachment vote a matter of conscience.

McConnell hopes never to speak to President VL because the former is no Joe Biden, who has put a heartbeat from the presidency the politician who once called him, in Jill Biden's reckoning, a racist.  By contrast, McConnell is not inclined to reward an individual who successfully cut his legs out from under him.

It took the Senate Majority Leader six weeks to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden. Within five weeks later he had indicated that he might vote to convict Trump, stated that the Capitol riot was "provoked by the President and other important people," and has promoted a leak that he doesn't want to talk to Trump again.

Something happened in the interim. That something was the run-off election in Georgia for dual Senate seats. Instead of conceding his own race, the President argued vociferously that he had won and aggressively spread the myth that he would return to office. Not only did the GOP lose both races, but barely so. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will become Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell because of Donald Trump. 

Believing Joe Biden might not become President, Republican voters were less motivated because they thought Trump might return to office, making the idea of a Democratic-controlled Senate more palatable. Independent-minded voters found it unnecessary to ensure Republican control of the Senate as a check on the liberal Democrat in the White House.

Mitch McConnell has not undergone the "epiphany" Joe Biden expects from Republicans.  Rather, McConnell knows the GOP lost its majority in the United States Senate because of Donald J. Trump.  This does not endear the latter to the former, who will pay at least a small price for his single-minded devotion to self.  It should be a reminder to Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden that they will be facing off against a ruthless rival, not a partner.

 

Share |