On September 16, 2025, the USA Senate by voice vote unanimously approved a resolution condemning the murder six days earlier of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. It was introduced by Republican senator Mike Lee of Utah, who
introduced the resolution shortly after Kirk’s death
last week, calling on his colleagues to condemn his assassination “in the
strongest possible terms” while also honoring his life and “commitment to the
constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate between all people in
the United States regardless of political affiliation.” The resolution passed
in a unanimous voice vote when it was brought to the Senate floor for
consideration.
“This is just a flag, planted on a hill,” Lee said of his
resolution. “What matters is where we carry it next.”
The Senator was not just (warning: cliches ahead) blowing smoke or whistling Dixie. There was an array of speakers at the memorial service turned political rally. held in Glendale, Arizona five days later. Among the Trump Administration notables was presidential advisor Stephen Miller, whose remarks- accurately described here as "fiery"- included
They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in
all of us because we stand for what is good, what is virtuous, what is noble.
And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment
hatred against us, what do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You are
wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred. You are nothing.
You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing.
We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We
are the ones who lift up humanity. You thought you could kill Charlie Kirk. You
have made him immortal. You have immortalized Charlie Kirk. And now millions
will carry on his legacy. And we will devote the rest of our lives to finishing
the causes for which Charlie gave his last measure of devotion. You cannot
defeat us. You cannot slow us. You cannot stop us. You cannot deter us.
We will carry Charlie and Erika in our heart every single
day and fight that much harder because of what you did to us. You have no idea
the dragon you have awakened. You have no idea how determined we will be to
save the civilization, to save the West, to save this republic, because our
children are strong and our grandchildren will be strong. And our children's
children's children will be strong.
And what will you leave behind? Nothing. Nothing. To our enemies, you have nothing to give. You have nothing to offer. You have nothing to share but bitterness. We have beauty. We have light. We have goodness. We have determination. We have vision. We have strength. We built the world that we inhabit now, generation by generation.
When you saw or read of the speech, you probably were not surprised to learn that Miller did not specify the "they" because, of course, he didn't.
The Utah senator didn't say who "they" str who killed Charlie Kirk. Neither does he say who "celebrated his murder" or "mocked him" or "his grieving widow."
There was a time when conservatives mocked liberals for blaming crime on "society." No longer, because now it is an undefined, collective "they." Individual responsibility- or at least a claim to individual responsibility- is out, and fostering hate and division is in. "We're under invasion from within," President Trump declared two weeks ago. No different from a foreign enemy but more difficult in may ways because they don't wear uniforms. At least when they're wearing a uniform you can take them out" (or when they're in a boat).
And a lesson to this story. Democrats in September unanimously joined Republicans in condemning the murder of an individual whose ideological stance- opposition to the LGBTYQIA community, abortion rights, gun safety legislation, black women- was anathema to Democrats. But for the sake of comity (or decency) they mourned the assassination of a right-wing Republican.
We have since seen the response of Mike Lee, members of the Trump Administration, and many other conservative Republicans to the Democratic effort to stand as one with Republicans over a matter of national concern, the murder of a conservative activist with millions of supporters. It is to blame "they" and "them." Democrats have been warned. They should take notice.
At a news conference presided over by House and Senate GOP leadership on Friday, October 10, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise remarked
...even during the time when the contrast of Chuck Schumer throwing a temper tantrum here at home just to pose the more radical elements of his base so that on the 18th, when they have the "Hate America" rally that everybody knows is coming and that everybody knows Chuck Schumer needs to deliver a shutdown of government to them, or appease them, well, what about you think about us, think about those families.....
If the GOP bill to fund the government is passed, over 21 million individuals will lose the enhanced tax credit they had received for purchasing health care in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Ad that to the approximately 15 million people who will lose health care because of the Trump Megabill enacted on Independence Day, and that's a lot of families which will suffer while taxes go down for the wealthy.
At the same news conference, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer declared "this is about one thing and one thing only: to score political points with the terrorist wing of their party, which is set to hold- as Leader (Steve) Scalise just commented on- a 'hate America' rally in D.C. next week."
Emmer: "This is about one thing and one thing alone -- to score political points with the terrorist wing of their party, which is set to hold a hate America rally in DC next week." pic.twitter.com/FKnIpFMSUY
slammed the No Kings protest
march scheduled to take place at the National Mall next week, describing the
planned protest as the “hate America rally” that would draw “the pro-Hamas
wing” and “the antifa people.” His characterizations, however, drew
condemnation from some Democrats who defended the protest movement, whose first
big demonstration was overwhelmingly peaceful.
“They’re all coming out,” Johnson said Friday in an
interview on Fox News. “Some of the House Democrats are selling t-shirts for
the event. And it’s being told to us that they won’t be able to reopen the
government until after that rally because they can’t face their rabid base.”
Cancun Ted Cruz claims "follow the money. You look at this No Kings rally- there's considerable evidence that George Soros is behind funding these rallies, which may well turn into riots." And presidential press secretary Karoline Leavitt weighed in for Donald with "The Democrat Party's main constituency is made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals."
The Democratic Party's main constituency? Black women would like a word. Johnson weirdly alleges "House Democrats" are selling t-shirts for the event,"
Or rather, they would have a thing or two to say about it if Democratic leadership understood what these prominent Republicans are saying. Leavitt, whether she realizes it or not, is taking a shot at black women, who are the core of the Democratic Party, or its "main constituency," as Trump's spokesperson put it.
Scalise says Senate Democratic Leader Schumer is "throwing a temper tantrum," a boldly dishonest remark from a very loyal supporter of Donald Trump, who never, ever throws a temper tantrum. Emmer says Democratic leadership aims "to score political points with the terrorist wing of the party," presumably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others who would like Americans to be experience universal health care.
The Speaker, again:
SPEAKER JOHNSON on the "No Kings" rally: “If you think about what’s going to happen here tomorrow, you’re going to bring together the Marxists, the socialists, the Antifa advocates, the anarchists, and the pro-Hamas wing of the far-left Democrat Party—that is the modern… pic.twitter.com/UYRVFSspvv
Asked about the Republican crusade against the upcoming No Kings rally, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries responded
.... Republicans are not serious about solving problems for the American people. They're creating problems. And so the efforts to mischaracterize the rallies that are gonna take place all over the country is part of the right-wing disinformation machine that is failing to persuade the American people as to what this shutdown is all about and as a result, Republicans are falling apart.
Republicans "mischaracterize," are "not serious;" are " creating problems" and "failing to persuade the American people." This is typical of Democratic "condemnation" of Republicans, who are aligning themselves with kings and against anti-fascist sentiment.
Yet, according to Republicans, Democrats are harboring Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals, and some are terrorists themselves. One of their two leaders is throwing a "temper tantrum" and others are "selling t-shirts to promote a hate America agenda.
Houston, we've had a problem here. These are not parallel messages. Democrats generally are saying "Republicans are saying bad things. Republicans generally are saying "Democrats are bad people, and that includes the people they elect."
These are not the 1980s with genial Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill tipping a few and hashing things out. They also are not the period of 2000-2015, with occasional hyperbolic flushes intermingling with a shared acceptance of common values, mores, and procedures.
It is now the Age of Trump, where the loudest voice prevails. That voice is not of the Democratic National Committee, Party leaders, or its elected officials.
Those individuals seem not to understand two things about their GOP colleagues. While some are intimidated by the President, many others actually agree with his extremist rhetoric and actions.
And also: they don't like you. Friends don't let friends label colleagues Antifa, illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, anarchists, socialists, Marxists.
From Trump on down, the Republicans who matter are out to destroy the Democratic Party and its officials. Democrats accuse them of not being "serious about solving problems" because Democrats still believe most of these Republicans are friends and responsible colleagues temporarily beholden to President Trump. If Democrats don't begin to retaliate in kind, Republicans no longer will be bringing a mere gun to a gunfight. It will be an AR-15.
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.
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?”
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.
The Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives- as with the Party- has a problem, though not what it appears.
The Republican-controlled House on Thursday voted to censure
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, for disrupting President Donald Trump’s address to
Congress on Tuesday.
The vote was 224-198, with 10 Democrats joining all
Republicans in approving the censure resolution. Green and freshman Rep.
Shomari Figures, D-Ala., voted present. As the vote proceeded, Green sat by
himself along the center aisle.....
The 10 Democrats who voted to censure Green are all
moderates: Reps. Ami Bera and Jim Costa, both of California; Ed Case of Hawaii;
Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi, both of New York; Jim Himes of Connecticut;
Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania; Marcy Kaptur of Ohio; Jared Moskowitz of
Florida; and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state.
The ten Democrats are only a symptom of a larger problem, which is not the censure resolution because
A censure is a formal way for the House to express
disapproval of a member’s conduct. A censured member does not lose any rights
or privileges as a House member.
The matter, however, might not be closed. The far-right
House Freedom Caucus, who had been racing to introduce their own resolution to
censure Green, said after the vote its members plan to roll out another
resolution seeking to remove Green from the House Financial Services Committee.
The group said on X it expects Johnson to bring the resolution to the floor
next week.
This may or may not play out as the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus wishes. However, even the possibility, let alone the actuality, of a group of Republicans taking this action should be a wake-up call to those ten Democrats. Al Green went quietly, choosing not to fight back against the Sergeant-at-Arms (as he would have been wise to do) amid GOP chants of nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, goodbye. (Civility!)
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Lauren Boebert,
R-Colo., repeatedly interrupted and interjected during President Joe Biden's
State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Greene was heard grumbling through the entire part of
Biden's speech about Covid policy before she shouted a remark about women's
sports when Biden mentioned new laws targeting transgender Americans and their
families.
Boebert and Greene tried to start a "build the
wall" chant — a reference to former President Donald Trump's calls to
construct a wall across the U.S. southern border — when Biden referred to
securing the border and reforming immigration law.
But the moment that stood out most was when Boebert shouted
"13 of them" — referring to the 13 U.S. service members who died in
an attack in Afghanistan during the U.S. withdrawal last year — when Biden
discussed battlefield conditions that may contribute to veterans' developing
cancers "that would put them in a flag-draped coffin."
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Lauren Boebert,
R-Colo., repeatedly interrupted and interjected during President Joe Biden's
State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Greene was heard grumbling through the entire part of
Biden's speech about Covid policy before she shouted a remark about women's
sports when Biden mentioned new laws targeting transgender Americans and their
families.
Boebert and Greene tried to start a "build the
wall" chant — a reference to former President Donald Trump's calls to
construct a wall across the U.S. southern border — when Biden referred to
securing the border and reforming immigration law.
Nonetheless, the moment that stood out most was when Boebert shouted
"13 of them" — referring to the 13 U.S. service members who died in
an attack in Afghanistan during the U.S. withdrawal last year — when Biden
discussed battlefield conditions that may contribute to veterans' developing
cancers "that would put them in a flag-draped coffin.
Lauren Boebert did not get tossed out. Neither did Marjorie Taylor Greene. The rules had changed but Democrats (including myself) did not know that they had. The rules now are: there are no rules.
Some Democrats still don't understand. Perhaps Al Green, contrary to House rules, understood when he boldly and bravely stood early in President Trump's State of the Union address.
Yet, it is unclear that even Green recognizes the zeitgeist. A black man of 77 years of age, he remembers too well the power of peaceful civil disobedience and was arrested outside the Sudanese embassy in the nation's capital in 2012 when he protested the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan. That was a very long time ago, before a political candidate and President would threaten with arrest or execution a variety of political enemies, in midst of being elected President twice. It was before the United States Supreme Court granted immunity for any action a President can deem "official." It was before a President with full self-awareness would call himself a "king," and hardly anyone would notice.
It's easy for me, sitting at home, to say, but if Green wanted to make an impact, he should have stood his ground- literally, not only figuratively. Let them drag him out of the chamber. Americans- Democrats, Independents, and a significant minority of Republicans- would be horrified by the video, which would be played nearly non-stop for the following 72 hours. And the Democrats now fretting about confronting the President or who would prefer a mere "strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence" would actually defend a colleague who chose to be more confrontational.
There is nothing more telling about the moment we're in than the immediate response by many House Democrats to the censure vote and the Republican counter-response. Green led some Democrats in singing "We Shall Overcome," a nice and inoffensive, albeit totally ineffective, gesture.
A screaming match between House Democrats and Republicans broke out. At one point, Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley yelled back, "Shame on you!" Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib also shouted at Republicans.
Republicans offer blind loyalty to a President who hired- for a role in diplomacy- a guy who has said "competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work." These individuals are supposed to respond to an appeal- "shame on you"- to conscience. Shortly after the confrontation, Republican US Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee announced he is "drafting privileged resolutions to remove each of them from their committees."
We Shall Overcome- not a rap song nor even the "Black National Anthem," but We Shall Overcome. Though recognizing the dreadful nature of domestic abuse, Steve M compares Democrats to abused partners because
their belief that docility and outreach are winning strategies comes from motivated reasoning. They want to believe these things work. They're afraid to reality-test their theory because they've been beaten down and the thought of standing up for themselves cares them, while they've survived thus far being meek and mild.
Worse, that's on top of a disturbing addiction to rules and norms, wherein Democrats are refusing to refer to "President Musk" or to "forced-birth" conservatives or to name the most corrupt President ever; defending the FBI, whose director in 2016 kept his mouth shut about the agency's investigation of Donald Trump; giving many votes to terrible Cabinet appointments such as dog-shooting Kristi Noem; acquiescing to having a colleague removed from the House chamber.
(My favorite is Kyle Rittenhouse, a white male conservative who traveled with a rifle to a BLM protest in Wisconsin and shot three individuals. The two who were unarmed were killed and when the murderer was acquitted, the decision was defended by Democrats because, of course, the "rule of law," the unchallenged jury system, and did I mention rules?)
This environment demands something more, and different. Protest here, protest there, only to make a point won't cut it. Sustained, even dramatic, opposition will be necessary.
That's a particularly fraught situation in the House of Representatives. The Democrats' "Leader" is only a minority leader in a chamber in which the majority party traditionally holds all power, with current members of said party dependent on the continued favor of Donald Trump.
Democrats cannot turn to their most popular figure- or perhaps it's the spouse of its most popular figure- because he has gone missing. A problem during the eight years of his lackluster presidency, it is an even greater problem currently. The GOP has Donald Trump while the Democratic Party has no individual to lead it.
Leadership is critical. So, too, is recognizing reality. We Shall Overcome pricked the conscience of a nation at one time, when the nation had a conscience to prick. Now, it is seen merely as a metaphor for liberal weakness. There now is a left and a right and a vanishing middle, a country in which Donald Trump twice has won the votes of Independents and in which propriety and respectability have left the building.
Steele and the tweeter are realistic. However, at the end of this video (more complete video below), Representative Sarah McBride, Democrat of Delaware claims "I think the American people want to see elected officials be serious and work together."
Steele replies "no, they don't," a truth which virtually no one (and "virtually" may be misleading) appearing in media ever acknowledges. Unsurprisingly, McBride, misunderstanding (probably intentionally) Steele's last point, responds
You're right, you're right. They're not doing that. They're not doing that. They've made it clear from immigration to economic policy and taxes to basic human rights. They have made it clear that they are more interested in driving forward an extreme partisan agenda rather than pursuing collaborative common sense solutions. I totally agree.
No, you don't. Of course, Republicans are more interested in an extreme partisan agenda than in collaborative solutions. But Steele was expressly disagreeing with the naive assumption of the Democratic Party and of the mainstream center and left media that "the American people want to see elected officials be serious and work together."
McBride is right that Republicans have made it clear on various issues that they're disinterested in cooperation. Although not yet a member of the US House of Representatives, the freshman from Delaware undoubtedly remembers when last May
Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border security bill
for a second time, part of an attempt by Chuck Schumer to flip the script on
immigration – a major political liability for Joe Biden and Democrats in this
year’s election.
The 43-50 vote was far short of the necessary 60 votes
needed to advance the legislation. Republicans, who have repeatedly demanded
Democrats act on the border, abandoned the compromise proposal at the behest of
Donald Trump who saw it was a political “gift” for Biden’s re-election chances.
And how did voters reward Democrats when the latter joined with Republicans in formulating a compromise immigration bill and then watching it go down because of Republican opposition? They failed to regain the House, which at the beginning of the year they appeared to have an excellent chance to do; lost the Senate; lost the White House; and regressed slightly in control of state legislatures.
Voters knew which party wanted to work with the other, and which party knew what it wanted and would ruthlessly pursue its aims. "Wrong and strong," Bill Clinton would have called it.
Democrats must put Republicans on the defensive by putting them into a no-win situation. They can start by forcing votes Republicans to vote on "heads I win, tails, you lose" propositions, such as this one. It will seem rude to most Democratic members of Congress. But as Michael Steele put it, "they don't want to work with you, they're not going to work with you." So be rude, confrontational, and determined to win.
It's over! Kamala Harris has been elected President and Donald J. Trump has been shoved into the dustbin of history. We know that because
At a rally Friday in Houston in front of 30,000 people — the
biggest crowd of her campaign — the vice president sought to unleash the energy
of her first days as a candidate for president.
There was a DJ who kept the crowd on their feet singing and
doing the wave for hours. A performance by music legend Willie Nelson. And
glowing wrist bracelets distributed to an energetic crowd that included people
who waited more than five hours to enter the stadium.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician,
I’m here as a mother,” she said. “A mother who cares deeply about the world my
children and all of our children live in. A world where we have the freedom to
control our bodies.”
(Well, yes, because when I think of Beyonce, it's not as a great pop star or beautiful woman, it's as a "mother.")
There is something happening here, of which this is only a part, which the media neither understands nor is exploring, a strategy targeting Donald Trump, and only Donald Trump.
The July rollout of the Harris-Walz campaign, which sparked immense enthusiasm and a sharp rise in favorable polls, would eventually hit a brick wall and require a reset. The vice president realized that there are many Independents (and a few Republicans) who believe both parties are committed only to winning elections and the special interests which back them. They believe politicians are addicted to bickering with, and getting an edge on, the opposition while accomplishing nothing.
And so in late August, Kamala Harris told CNN's Dana Bash that she "would" appoint a Republican to the Cabinet. Nominating Adam Kinzinger as Secretary of Veterans Affairs or someone else reasonably characterized as a Republican in Name Only would be reasonable. Nonetheless, the Vice President could have been less explicit, explaining that she would tap the best individual who would reflect the values of her Administration and her determination that government serve the American people effectively.
This is only a small item, in which "hope." unveiled at the Democratic National convention, has been replaced with an emphasis on bipartisanship..
On July 21, 2024 President Joe Biden announced that he will not be seeking re-election. On September 4, former US Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming publicly endorsed Kamala Harris for President, stating "because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump but I will be voting for Kamala Harris." On October 3, Cheney appeared with Harris at a rally in Ripon, Wisconsin, the birthplace of the Republican Party, and asserted "I have never voted for a Democrat but this year, I am proudly casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris." She noted Donald Trump "is petty, he is vindictive, and he is cruel, and Donald Trump is not fit to lead this good and great nation."
On October 21, Harris and Cheney began a tour of the battleground states of the northern tier, appearing together in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
It is not by coincidence or oversight that the very conservative Liz Cheney, daughter of the destructive vice President Dick Cheney (who also has endorsed Harris), warns the voting public of the evil of Donald Trump, the lawlessness of Donald Trump, and the danger posed by Donald Trump (all accurate). Cheney was co-chairperson of the January 6 commission and was vanquished in a House primary by a relatively unknown candidate endorsed by Donald Trump, who has recommended a military tribunal try Cheney for treason. The penalty for treason is death and the former congresswoman takes the threat seriously. Hanging focuses the mind.
Cheney is courageous, the evidence being that few other former or current Republican officeholders, have been as definitive or as public as she has in urging the defeat of Donald Trump by Kamala Harris. The current Speaker of the House is only one Republican, albeit a uniquely powerful one, who is enthusiastically supporting the former President. This comes even (especially) after Trump has attacked the "enemy within" and has been credibly described as a "fascist" by his former Chief of Staff, who reports that President Trump openly lamented that "my generals" weren't as deferential to him as he believes Adolf Hitler's generals were to the Fuehrer.
Amidst the former GOP officials who last month signed a letter supporting Harris and the Trump administration officials who promulgated a letter backing General Kelly's description of Trump, very few Republican officeholders have anything but favorable words for the ex-President. Now on board are Senators Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, Mike Lee, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, former governor Nikki Haley, and numerous other prominent Republicans who condemned Trump in the wake of the 1/6/21 insurrection or whom he condemned.
Not a word Liz Cheney- still a Republican- has said nothing about these individuals. Kamala Harris is stunningly quiet. Add to them the Harris-Walz campaign and the vast majority of Democratic insiders, who have turned mum about members of what many had legitimately termed a "cult."
This appears to have been a conscious choice by a presidential candidate who is not only concerned most about her own campaign, but exclusively on her own campaign. And this is very likely having ramifications for down-ballot Democrats.
It's difficult to determine how much impact there has been from the decision to vilify Donald Trump- as he should be- while pretending no other Republican has stymied the agenda of incumbent Democratic President Joe Biden or added to the toxic atmosphere in Washington or across the nation. But we can get a clue from the changing outlook for one Democrat, Senator Tammy Baldwin, in the swing state of Wisconsin.
When Joe Biden was still the more or less presumed nominee, pundits noted that Democrats would lose the Senate race in West Virginia, with their other most endangered seats in Maryland, Ohio, Montana, and Arizona. Though the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Wisconsin was not a shoo-in, the GOP was seen as unlikely to overcome the odds there.
The races in the latter states are now, as Dan Rather would put it, "hotter than a Times Square Rolex." On July 21, Baldwin led her GOP challenger, Eric Hovde,, 48.0% to 43.2%, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls.
On September 10, with Harris riding high, Baldwin enjoyed a 50.8 to 44.9 lead. However, on September 24, her lead had declined to 50.8 to 46.0 and on October 10, it was 49.4 to 46.0. In the latest numbers, of October 24, the lead had shrunk to 48.0% to 47.2%, less than a one percent advantage. On October 10, it was 49.4 to 46.0
It is only one state, maybe there was an issue. peculiar to Wisconsin involved, and there is always the margin of error factor. However- again a Ratherism, this race is "tight as the pages in a book." So, too, has the Democratic advantage in Senate races dwindled in Nevada and Ohio, and the Republican challenger to Democrat Jon Testa in Montana has winded.
Once Biden had his infamous, disastrous debate with Trump in early July, Donald Trump was at "first and goal from four yards out" (yes, Rather again). Fortunately, Trump has been driven back and the end zone, while still in his sight, is much further away.
It seems that all the while, the fortunes of Democratic senatorial candidates have been dwindling. Moreover, the Democratic Party's advantage in the generic preference for the House of Representatives "has slipped to just +0.5 points over the Republicans, down from a peak of 12.6 in early September.".
The slippage in the possibility that Democrats will fare well in Senate races and regain control in the House should not be surprising. Kamala Harris' campaign of joy relied not on defense of the Biden-Harris record nor ideological principle but primarily on the personal appeal of Kamala Harris as contrasted to the sour, dour, raging anger of Donald Trump. The emphasis in the latter half of the campaign has been on the peril of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump alone, as if he is not faithfully representing the extremist values and divisive strategy of the Republican Party.
Undecided voters, the Vice President hopes, have gotten the message. She can get along with Republicans, and they like her. No more will Washington be a cacophony of quarreling factions, accomplishing nothing.
Such voters, most of them Independents and presumably all independent-minded, are being called upon to pull the lever (or punch the card, or whatever) for Harris-Walz. Many of them (as Kamala Harris likely realizes) will decide to opt for her, then be faced with a decision on down-ballot candidates. Having- however reluctantly- gone for the less divisive presidential candidate, they will choose to balance out their vote by choosing Republican candidates (bipartisanship, you know).
Most of them believe both parties are generally rancid and that neither party deserves much of an advantage over the other. So they will have little reason not to split the difference, especially because the Democratic Party, as guided by the top of the presidential ticket (the top of the pecking order) now appears to stand for only one thing: Trump bad, Republicans good.
This tweeter is on the right track but makes one major error.
If I wanted a Republican in office or in power, I would have voted for them! Democrats are perpetual losers who continually insist Republicans are fascists that want to take away our rights, while also saying how proud they are to have them in their administration. https://t.co/ymSrbh3Jd9
Democrats do not continually insist Republicans are fascists. Democrats- several, anyway- insist Donald J. Trump is a fascist.
Consider the widely-acclaimed, and beloved among Democrats, acceptance speech in Chicago by Kamala Harris. The nominee invoked the name "Trump" (or "Donald Trump") sixteen times. She invoked the word "Republican" (actually, "Republicans") one time.
If we thought that Harris instead referred to "Congress" or the "House of Representatives" as shorthand for "Republican," we need to think again. She stated "as a part of his agenda, he and his allies would limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress."
There was no suggestion that it is Republicans aiming to "limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban." It is the generic "Congress."
A moment later, she would add "and when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law." There was not even a hint that there is no chance Congress would pass such a bill if it is not controlled by Democrats, nor even that Democrats are the ones who would like to make this a reality.
And not only abortion rights because soon thereafter Ms. Harris would remark
Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades. The border patrol endorsed it. But Donald Trump believes a border deal would hurt his campaign, so he ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal.
It wasn't Republicans, to hear Harris explain it. It was Trump's allies, with no mention that they were Republicans. It was all Donald Trump, with no accountability assigned to his party.
And then there was the 60 Minutes interview aired on Monday, October 7. Vice President Harris was asked about her economic plan, with that segment beginning at 2:50 of the first, complete, video below (abridged video at end). At 5:10, CBS correspondent Bill Simmons asks her "how are you going to get this through Congress?" After fifteen seconds of empty words by the guest, Simmons states/asks (at 5:29) "Congress has shown no inclination to move in your direction." Harris responds
I disagree with you. There are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts blew up our federal deficit. None of us- and certainly I- cannot afford to be myopic in terms of how I think about strengthening America's economy. Let me tell you something. I am a devout public servant. You know that. I am also a capitalist and I know the limitations of government.
("I have my principles but don't expect me to do anything with them.")
Congress passed President Trump's tax bill (promptly signed by the President) in November, 2017 with opposition from every Democrat, yet with a mere twelve Republicans. Every Republican member of the Senate voted for the bill. No Democrats did. Like size, the partisan breakdown of Congress matters.
Nonetheless, the Democratic nominee says "there are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts" harmed Americans. She might have stated "there are plenty of leaders in Congress, including a few Republicans..." or :"there are plenty of leaders in Congress, especially Democrats...."
But, no, of course she didn't. Inform Kamala Harris: like size, partisan breakdown of Congress matters.
She would know that, obviously, but doesn't want to be associated with the Democratic Party as she continues her courtship with Republicans. And that is why the tweet above is accurate only up to a point. Democrats, and especially Harris, are very good at calling out Donald Trump for what he is. However, the party's presidential nominee is negligent, even grossly averse to, criticizing Republicans. That may work for her while down-ballot Democrats pay the price for a self-centered candidate.
CNN's Alisyn Camerota asks Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg
In terms of messaging, I think President Biden by our county
mentioned the inflation and economy once last night but mentioned democracy and
democracy being in peril and possibly using it many, many times. So just in
terms of messaging, should he be saying more of what you just said?
No. Democrats lack a theme, a unifying message. That can't
be "I feel your pain about inflation but it's lower here than in most
other countries" because voters don't care what inflation is elsewhere Simlarly, "gas prices are high, yet are coming down"
would sound to a voter as if the President were downplaying the pain those prices are causing.. If Democrats cared to, they could have responded to the anxiety and cynicism of voters by blaming high gas prices on greedy oil companies. They chose not to do so, which should tell us a lot about the influence of money in politics.
Buttigieg himself could have told Camerota that none of
those problems would be solved if democracy is replaced by dictatorship. However, Democrats are loathe to be the least bid impolite to reporters and
broadcasters. Instead, the transportation secretary, proving he got the memo, stated
Well, again, we're doing both. The President decided to give
a speech about democracy, which is a very important topic and most of the time
when you see him speak, he'll be talking a lot about the economy because that's
an important topic. I mean, the idea that you have to pick one when we're in a
period when the American people strongly believe in the things that we're doing
. I don't think it makes any sense to say we have to do one at the exclusion of
the others.
We are passionate about an economic policy that is focused
on cutting costs for everyday families. We're also passionate about democracy,
which shouldn't be a partisan issue. It shouldn't require being a Democrat or a
Republican to say if you're running in an election, that you oughta be prepared
to abide by the results of an election.
Buttigieg:.. there should be nothing partisan about universal, swift condemnation and nothing else when it comes to an assassination attempt on a member of a family of a political figure in this country pic.twitter.com/orPxStwWgb
I don't know what a non-everyday family would be- perhaps a
someday, or weekday, family; off-point, though. Buttigieg argues that being "passionate
about democracy... shouldn't be a partisan issue" and "if you're
running in an election that you oughta be prepared to abide by the results of
an election."
They've told you, Pete. It is a partisan issue. Donald Trump
is planning to challenge the 2022 results in Philadelphia- and probably in other heavily Democratic cities. They won't
accept the results in 2024 if a Democrat wins the presidential election, just
as they still don't accept the 2020 results. CBS News has reported
The majority of GOP candidates running for the U.S. House of
Representatives are categorized as election deniers, as are the majority of
Republicans running for U.S. Senate and for governor in states across America.
Nearly half of those running to be secretaries of state — officials who would
help administer future elections — are also considered election deniers.
Buttigieg told Camerota also
Just like there should be nothing partisan about universal,
swift condemnation and nothing else when it comes to an assassination attempt
on a member of the family of a political figure in this country no matter what
party they come from.
There shouldn't be, but there is, and public officials and
campaign surrogates should live in the real world. Kari Lake, a Trump favorite very likely soon
to be a governor-elect of Arizona, recently quipped in fashionably bad taste "It is not impossible to protect our kids
at school. They act like it's Nancy Pelosi. Well, she's got protection when
she's in DC. Apparently, her house doesn't have a lot of protection."
Buttigieg did not utter the name "Kari Lake"
because, presumably, it would be rude. Nor did he note even that it is
Republicans who won't acknowledge an election defeat or Republicans who are
reluctant to denounce an attempted assassination.
This is not solely the failing of one man- it is how
Democrats roll. And you can barely blame Buttigieg who, understandably, would
like to be President one day. Joe Biden,
until as President he found out (after decades in politics) that the loyal
opposition- and not only Donald Trump- is cutthroat, was the most polite Democratic candidate for President, and was nominated. Barack Obama, he of the "one
America" fantasy, was nominated and elected, and still is cheered and
revered by Democrats and the media. In one speech in Wisconsin, he remarked
"remember that that was the craziest thing he was saying?” Now, it doesn’t
even make the Top 10 list of crazy" without invoking the name "Trump."
Of course, he didn't. It would have been rude, incongruent with his brand and that of his Party. Pete Buttigieg has learned from the personal success of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If his message hinders development of a clear and effective Democratic message, so be it. The house may be on fire, but we wouldn't want to alarm anyone.
Former Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms did as she should have on This Week without George Stephanopoulos, wisely sticking to the righteous script that "the President will continue to work
with mainstream Republicans" and that the danger is posed specifically by
"MAGA Republicans."
Mad props to Keisha Lance Bottoms. She nailed it. Does Martha believe the bs she's spewing? She does realize if Trump should ever be elected again, he would probably be all about jailing journalists, right? They never learn. https://t.co/UixZdZ9zSV
— ZuZu Bailey 🇺🇦 💗 🇺🇦 (@Justlove3332) September 4, 2022
Raddatz asked
Whatever you said, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue,
which tracks hate speech, said after the Biden speech, there was a surge online
in conversations that said Biden’s remarks singling out MAGA Republicans were
interpreted as a declaration of war against conservatives and all the Trump
voters.
Bottoms responded
Well, what I would say to that is that this is what this
MAGA agenda has been all about. It’s been about distorting the truth. It’s been
about misleading people. It’s been about putting out information that inflames
(ph) people.
And I just encourage people, go to The White House website,
WhiteHouse.gov, and read the speech for yourself.
I’ve read it multiple times and what I see in the speech, I
see words of encouragement. I see optimism. I see a commander-in-chief who was
calling out to all of us, no matter our political affiliation.
You don't have to be Bill Maher to notice that we have a
problem with the concept of "hate speech" in this country. Much speech is hateful, however that's
perceived, and there is no explicit definition of "hate speech" in
the USA.
Nonetheless, federal law identifies hate crimes as those
offenses committed against an individual because of actual or perceived
race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin,
sexual orientation, or gender identity. (Most state laws are less expansive.)
With all due respect to the Institute for Strategic
Dialogue, the concept of "hate speech" is so arbitrary as to be irrelevant- and hate crimes have nothing to do with MAGA. "Make America
Great Again" is political expression and condemning the political values
it represents is not "hate speech" in any meaningful sense.
Bottoms sidestepped the political time bomb of Raddatz's reference to "hate speech" and instead noted the "MAGA agenda" distorts
truth and misleads people. Steve M., who liked Biden's speech, nevertheless realizes it
would have been attacked unfairly no matter what he said,
but he might have sidestepped this attack if he'd specified that pro-Trump
politicians and activists are the biggest problem. This could have set up a
contrast between people who have power within the system (or who might acquire
that power) and ordinary citizens who are at risk of being victimized by
Trumpist abuses of power.
Raddatz then asked "has the president
essentially given up on those MAGA Republicans, some 70 million people?"
In invoking
"some 70 million people," the show host presumably was referring to
the 74 million+ individuals who voted
for Trump in 2020. No doubt a substantial number of these were (was?) the
Independents or mainstream Republicans Bottoms was talking about when she
replied to Raddatz
Well, what the president has done is said that he will
continue to work with mainstream Republicans, that he will work with Democrats,
that he will work with Independents, to get things done in our country.
However, Bottoms also reminded Raddatz
But this MAGA Republican agenda, this hate-fueled agenda,
this MAGA Republican agenda that we saw incite violence on our nation’s Capitol
has no place in a democracy. And if we are not intentional about calling it
out, which is what the president did, then our country -- everything that our
country is built upon is in danger.
Martha Raddatz doesn't seem to understand that silence in
the face of creeping- maybe galloping- authoritarianism will only fuel the
cultists and authoritarians. And if
Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis is elected in 2024, it won't be only Hillary
Clinton ("lock her up!") who will face the threat of arrest and
prosecution. Well-known journalists such as Raddatz will be targeted. And this
time, Donald Trump or a Trump wannabe will know how to get it done.
Editor-in-chief of online magazine The Federalist, Mollie
Hemingway (seen below) unsurprisingly calls President Joe Biden's speech
Thursday evening "easily the most disgraceful speech from a President in
recent decades."
“This speech is easily the most disgraceful speech from a President in recent decades.” pic.twitter.com/JaaDFvz4Jk
That is a mere subjective judgement, albeit an
extraordinarily bad one. She also claimed the President was "issuing a
call to arms against every single American who didn't vote for him." That
is a lie. This, however, is spot-on, valid even beyond Filipkowski's
perception:
Normally, on Fox, Newsmax and OAN every day I watch hosts and guests call Democrats marxists who hate America, steal elections, recruit kids for sex trafficking, and want to impose a communist dictatorship. Today, I’m watching them call Biden divisive.
Hemingway is accusing of divisiveness the President who stated
Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every
Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not
every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been
able to work with these mainstream Republicans.
She disregards "I've been able to work with
these mainstream Republicans" because "not even the majority of
Republicans" embraces the extreme ideology.
Also. "These are hard things, but I’m an
American president, not a president of red America or blue America, but of all
America." It was an awkward rephrasing of Obama's famous line from the 2004 Democratic
National Convention, which was 18 years ago, when it was a reasonable aspiration.
Obama, with the realism borne of growing up bi-racial, probably realized it was simply great rhetoric, designed to bring
the roof down and boost a run for the Presidential nomination four years hence.
By all indications, and by contrast, Biden really believes
there is no red America and blue America, but one America punctuated by a
minority of extremists wanting to defy the Constitution and overthrow the
government. That was his point of
identifying and isolating MAGA Republicans. They're not all Republicans, not
even most Republicans, but a rogue few (or at least our President believes so).
That is why Filipkowski's tweet captures the essence of the
speech from President 46. It's also why Biden's was a good and necessary
speech, yet fell short of being a great speech, an explanation awaiting a
later post.
Buried deep into her piece on Saturday in The Washington
Post, Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer write
Biden’s decision to dub Republicans as “ultra MAGA” — like
another new Biden quip, “This is not your father’s Republican Party — represents
a turnabout from his campaign persona. He ran as a unifier, promising that
under a Biden administration Republicans would have an “epiphany” and
bipartisanship would return to Washington.
Instead, partisan vitriol has continued to consume the nation’s
capital, a reality Biden seems to acknowledge with his “ultra MAGA” descriptor
— a wing of the Republican Party that he described as “petty,” “mean-spirited,”
“extreme” and “beyond the pale” at a fundraiser in Chicago Wednesday night.
Biden's recent remarks, Ashley & Scherer maintain, "represents a
turnabout from his campaign persona." (As I explained in my immediate
previous post, they really don't, but that's off-topic.) Moreover, they maintain, "partisan
vitriol has continued to consume the nation's capital...."
If indeed- as conventional wisdom has it- Biden's recent
comments are a turnabout from his promise to be a unifier, the reporter seems
at a loss to understand it. Her point appears to be: Joe Biden is no longer Joe
Biden, but instead has become what his enemies are.
That bothsiderism angle is, as the President himself would
put it, malarkey. In the same newspaper the following day, WAPO's Marianna Sotomayor noted promotion of the Great Replacement Theory by the
wildly popular right-wing talk show host Tucker Carlson, as well as by three
Republican US Representatives- Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Matt Gaetz of
Florida, and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
Nevertheless, Sotomayor properly emphasized the
advocacy of New York State's Elise Stefanik. In a Facebook ad posted by her
campaign last September, the third highest-ranking GOP House member contended
Radical Democrats are planning their most aggressive move
yet: a PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION. Their plan to grant amnesty to 11
MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a
permanent liberal majority in Washington.
At the time, Stefanik's hometown newspaper editorialized
Ms. Stefanik isn’t so brazen as to use the slogans
themselves; rather, she couches the hate in alarmist anti-immigrant rhetoric
that’s become standard fare for the party of Donald Trump. And she doesn’t
quite attack immigrants directly; instead, she alleges that Democrats are
looking to grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants in order to gain a
permanent liberal majority, or, as she calls it, a “permanent election
insurrection.
The White House, House Dems, & usual pedo grifters are so out of touch with the American people that rather than present ANY PLAN or urgency to address the nationwide baby formula crisis, they double down on sending pallets of formula to the southern border. Joe Biden has NO PLAN
Stefanik is much too slick to say "let immigrant babies die" or "keep the Latinos out." However, as Yale professor Philip Gorski has told Greg Sargent, "first, it was the entertainment wing of the GOP. Now it's the political wing as well." New York Times reporters Nicholas
Confesore and Karen Yourish recognize that versions of the ideas espoused in
the manifesto of Payton S. Gendron, the apparent perpetrator of the mass murder
in Buffalo
sanded down and shorn of explicitly anti-Black and
antisemitic themes, have become commonplace in the Republican Party — spoken
aloud at congressional hearings, echoed in Republican campaign advertisements
and embraced by a growing array of right-wing candidates and media personalities.
Republican leaders have been spouting rhetoric which itself
goes well beyond President Biden's adjectives of “petty,” “mean-spirited,”
“extreme” and “beyond the pale.” Nor is
the Republican invective relegated to an "ultra-MAGA" wing, whatever
that is. It is deep in the heart of leadership, including House Republican
Conference Chair Elise Stefanik. That is the partisan vitriol infecting the country and it has no parallel in the Democratic Party, even as some reporters pretend otherwise.
In late February, Florida senator Rick Scott, chairperson of
the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued an 11-point
"Plan to Rescue America." There are two items which, broadcast
widely, would undo much of the gain Republicans have made in the middle- and
lower-middle classes the past few decades
Section 5 included "All Americans should pay some
income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over
half of Americans pay no income tax."
They represent poor individuals and families, and those of
modest means, who have benefitted enormously by the earned income tax credit,
extremely popular across the electorate.
And included in section 6, "Government Reform and
Debt," "all federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth
keeping, Congress can pass it again." As this reporter explains
Here is the language from page 19: “All federal legislation
sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”
[There are a number of promised changes on that page all under the rubric of
“Government” but this one is quite a doozey!]
Now among the many federal laws on the books is a law called
the Social Security Act. This law was originally passed in 1935 to create Unemployment
Insurance, Aid to Dependent Children (cash welfare for widows and orphans ---
later extended to cover all poor single women with children renamed Aid to
Families with Dependent Children [AFDC]), and Old Age and Survivors Pensions
(what is commonly thought of today as “Social Security.”). Since then, the law
has been amended many times and expanded dramatically.... Included in the
current law is an entire section covering Medicare which is administered by the
Social Security Administration. (Medicare was passed as an amendment to the
Social Security Act in 1965.)
So --- if Scott actually understood his own proposal, the
entire Social Security Act --- including Medicare and the Social Security
Pensions almost all Americans over 70 are receiving monthly --- would either
disappear (that’s what “sunsetting” means, by the way) or have to be re-enacted
by Congress.
We must applaud Rick Scott for reminding us not only of the
GOP's harsh cultural agenda, but also of the economic plan for destroying the
middle classes. So with Scott handing Democrats a prime talking point and
obvious campaign issue, in a speech on May 8
“Let me tell you about this ultra MAGA agenda,” Biden said,
using former president Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan — “Make America Great
Again” — as a pejorative. “It’s extreme, as most MAGA things are.”
Then, in the subsequent days, Biden and his team continued
to hammer Republicans in aggressive terms, attacking them as “MAGA” and “ultra
MAGA.” Biden even dismissed his predecessor at one point as “the great MAGA
king"....
Biden’s attempt to appropriate the “MAGA” brand as a
political attack was hardly accidental. It arose from a six-month research
project to find the best way to target Republicans, helmed by Biden adviser
Anita Dunn and by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal
group.
The polling and focus group research by Hart Research and
the Global Strategy Group found that “MAGA” was already viewed negatively by
voters — more negatively than other phrases like “Trump Republicans.”
It's hard to believe any political party could be this
stupid. Conjured up by a GOP strategist,
it would be a brilliant tactic to move the Overton Window to the right. If the bad position is ultra-MAGA, surely
MAGA is in the sensible middle.
One Republican strategist noted "Biden and his
folks" are "taking the most iconic, successful political slogan of
all time and trying to turn it into something derogatory. I mean, who doesn’t
want to make America great again?” And leftist (in the best possible way) David
Dayen remarked "Excuse me, I have to pick up my head after it ejected from
its body and found the nearest wall to explode into."
Hopefully some Democrats are listening to the tweeter with a
mere 57 followers who understands
Rick Scott handed them their midterm message on a silver platter. Why aren't they talking about his threat to sunset SS and Medicare?
Rick Scott handed them their midterm message on a silver
platter. Why aren't they talking about his threat to sunset SS and Medicare?
But few are, and the reason may lie in the criticism of Scott's plan by The New Republic's Jason Linkins, who has written
.....the real value in Scott’s proposal is that it exposes that
when it comes to policy, the GOP hasn’t embraced some new “Trumpian” portfolio.
For all of Trump’s rhetorical and attitudinal contributions to the party, the
extent to which he diverged from Republican orthodoxy in office has always been
overrated and overstated. His campaign promises to bring middle-class populism
to Washington were left wrecked and abandoned within his first 100 days in
office. Hell, beyond allowing shadow president Leonard Leo to install three
Supreme Court justices, Trump’s main accomplishment in office was a tax cut for
the wealthy.
Trump innovated nothing, and while Scott’s plan is dressed
up like something new under the sun, at its core it is just the same old
reversion to the same old Republican mean. Scott has no real new ideas, and
some of the ones on which he’s placed a big bet aren’t as popular with the
public as the media often makes them out to be.
Joe Biden in 2019 referred to the Trump presidency as "aberrant moment in time" and boasted "if we defeat Donald Trump, you're going to see, as we say in southern Delaware, an altar call. You're going to see people all of a sudden see the Lord." (Note: "altar call" is used throughout the USA and maybe elsewhere.) Admittedly, Biden wasn't alone.
Now he is discouraged. However, he still believes the problem lies with a faction of the Republican Party. Thus, the President rails against the "ultra MAGA," as if the entire Republican Party isn't embarked on the crusade it began over forty years ago. The wing of the Democratic Party which Joe Biden ostensibly leads, which the mainstream media assures us is far more sensible than the progressive wing, is (or pretends to be) under the delusion that the nation is threatened only by the crazies of the GOP.
"Kick me" (or "us") reads the sign on the back of Rick Scott, at one time CEO of a company which perpetrated what was at then the largest Medicare fraud in history. The "epiphany among many of my Republican friends" which Biden predicted in 2019 would occur after the defeat of President Trump hasn't come, and time is running out. And Joe Biden believes they're still his friends.
