General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOver the years here and elsewhere I have made the most extreme statements
in the form of predictions of the horrific things the Republicans would do and let Trump do and almost every time 2 things happened: 1. I was criticized for being over the top and 2. eventually proven right.
I shouldn’t say it was me doing this I should say there were MANY of us doing this and many of us were being shouted down.
Same thing happened to myself and others in 2016 when we pleaded with a certain group on the left to stop bashing Hillary and stop making it so others would not want to vote at all because of the way they talked about her.
The funny thing is I bring this up often everywhere I am just to see if someone will come along and say “you know you’re right, I was one of those people and I was wrong and I apologize.” I think that might’ve happened one time in the eight years I’ve been driving people crazy with this comment, maybe one time.
I see now someone is criticizing Hakeem Jeffries on this site and it’s real simple folks, there are two sides, one side is going to kill you if they have power and the other side is not, now does that make it a little simpler about how and who to support?
I will stop bringing it up, and thank you for the hearts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Walleye
(44,800 posts)And I have never thought of these dire predictions as over the top. It can and will happen here.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Here and elsewhere.
And the part of that that I deserve criticism for is yes Trump is a complete moron and Hitler was not but other than that…
Are you a member of the Blue Sky platform? If not please check it out.
Walleye
(44,800 posts)
summer_in_TX
(4,168 posts)And I always thought you were right, that we should never have bashed Hillary.
The damage probably was done long before because the right wing media had targeted her with lots of negative stories since the Clinton presidency. They planted negative impressions in people’s brains, and that includes Democrats. Not sure I was totally free of those, but I certainly recognized how important it was for her to win and would never have done anything to lessen her chances.
And yes, you were certainly right about Trump. I too recognized Trump as a megalomaniac from the beginning. Like Hitler, like Mussolini.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)
tblue37
(68,436 posts)Each "rule" includes a detailed explanation in the article of how it operated in coverage of Clinton.
1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and mainstream media outlets
2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proveJn completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.
3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there’s hard evidence otherwise.
4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America’s royal family
5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit
Snip
summer_in_TX
(4,168 posts)And I was (and am) a true-blue Democrat through and through.
Dave says
(5,425 posts)… that Hillary Clinton would be (would have been) one of the best Presidents we ever had. It’s a major tragedy for America that she lost in 2016.
LisaM
(29,634 posts)And yet even on this site, the apologies about how she has been treated, even by fellow Democrats and would-be Democrats, are few and far between.
HAB911
(10,440 posts)Silent Type
(12,412 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)That the piece of shit’s approval rating is at an all-time high, if that’s true I guess I was right again, America is gone forever.
Walleye
(44,800 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Without exaggeration, they don’t have any choice.
Walleye
(44,800 posts)
calimary
(90,017 posts)I’m STILL heartsick that Hillary did not prevail. She would have been a smart, compassionate, practical and outstanding president who cared about ALL the people, not just the rich and well-connected.
Wiz Imp
(9,995 posts)It's much higher than it should be, but he is still below 50% and the lowest ever for any President this early in their Presidency (with the possible exception of Trump in 2017). In addition, the most recent polls have been more negative.
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)He never reached 50% his last term according to Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx
I bet he does better this time cuz for now, to the uninformed & misinformed, it looks like he's really shaking things up. I don't know how long the honeymoon will last. The Project 2025 plan was supposedly only going to take six months. Lauren Boebert's already chortling how great America's going to be in six months.
rubbersole
(11,223 posts)For exaggerating his support. Fake polls!
Wiz Imp
(9,995 posts)But that poll was a massive outlier. For almost every question, the responses were way out of line with practically all other polling. Interestingly, YouGov just did another poll, this one sponsored by the Economist, and Trump's approval was FAR worse than the previous CBS one (and it was taken just 4 days later).
Baron2024
(1,492 posts)Trump's approval rating is high for Trump, but lower than any other President at this stage of their Presidency since Eisenhower. Also, Trump's disapproval rating is greater than his approval rating, which puts him underwater. Most of Trump's approval comes from hardcore Republicans. Don't let the Right Wing Media fool you-- Trump is only doing well amongst hardliners.
Baron2024
(1,492 posts)Wiz Imp
(9,995 posts)
robbob
(3,750 posts)but what does that tell you about the state of the country, and its citizens? It’s seems a large number of Americans have shifted to the hard right…🙁
Joinfortmill
(21,162 posts)
FakeNoose
(41,631 posts)Seriously, that's the kind of crap that Chump cares about. He wants all the "likes" and "thumbs-up" so that's what they make sure he gets. Meanwhile the country is being torn down and Chump doesn't have a clue what's going on.
DFW
(60,182 posts)For those who joined DU afterward, since their name was taken from a deceased member who probably would have objected to his DU name being wrongly used, just call them Just Plain Ridiculous. If they, and all groups like them, had shown half as much initiative in trying to prevent Trump’s election as they spent venting their open hate for Hillary, maybe the outcome would have been different, and we wouldn’t be here.
Silent Type
(12,412 posts)Sure Comey, email, lies, hurt. But we still would have won without internal criticism of Obama and Clinton right up to November.
Unfortunately, it no longer matters.
betsuni
(29,077 posts)Described as being on the Left, champion of the historically oppressed, shining a light on inequality, speaking truth to power, etc., their latest article is "Democrats Are Lying to You."
As usual for these geniuses, the Democratic Party is the viciously hated mortal enemy.
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)but haven’t seen all of the posts and comments.
To offer another thought re why so many are frustrated with Dems, including Jeffries - even though we DO support them - I think of it as a situation where the father is physically abusive to a child and the loving mom doesn’t do everything in her power to stop it.
As someone else said, somehow when the GOP is in the minority they manage to shut all progress down. We desperately want them to employ more aggressive tactics and language because this obviously isn’t politics as usual.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Not know what Mr. Jefferies is or isn’t doing etc., and yes I wish our side or the patriotic side would realize we are in an actual war like some of us have been saying for eight years.
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)having closely watched the rise of the now quaint “alt-right” and being called alarmist for years. Now some are publicly saying “you were right,” which I appreciate. But my/our pleas fell on deaf ears for a decade.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)As if it is an actual war of violence on the American people, we will not survive.
And this EXTREME reaction must start today.
Easterncedar
(6,267 posts)Grrrrr
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)Wiz Imp
(9,995 posts)Name one example?
People have really poor memories and have given Republicans way too much credit for how much they have been able to obstruct things while in the minority.
betsuni
(29,077 posts)Wiz Imp
(9,995 posts)to support a similar claim was the blocking of Merrick Garland's appointment to the supreme Court. Of course, they were only able to do that because they were in the MAJORITY at the time, not the minority. I still haven't gotten a legitimate answer....
Cirsium
(3,942 posts)Merrick Garland nomination for the Supreme Court came immediately to mind, but there is more.
The GOP’s unprecedented anti-Obama obstructionism was a remarkable success.
The Democrats had just drubbed them at the polls, seizing the White House and a 79-seat advantage in the House. The House had then capped President Barack Obama’s first week in office by passing his $800 billion Recovery Act, a landmark emergency stimulus bill that doubled as a massive down payment on Obama’s agenda. Even though the economy was in free fall, not one House Republican had voted for the effort to revive it, prompting a wave of punditry about a failed party refusing to help clean up its own mess and dooming itself to irrelevance.
But at the House GOP retreat the next day at a posh resort in the Virginia mountains, there was no woe-is-us vibe. The leadership even replayed the video of the stimulus vote—not to bemoan Obama’s overwhelming victory, but to hail the unanimous partisan resistance. The conference responded with a standing ovation.
The Republicans were pumped because they saw a path out of the political wilderness. They were convinced that even if Obama kept winning policy battles, they could win the broader messaging war simply by remaining unified and fighting him on everything. Their conference chairman, a then-obscure Indiana conservative named Mike Pence, underscored the point with a clip from Patton, showing the general rallying his troops for war against their Nazi enemy: “We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time! We’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!”
President Barack Obama attacked Republicans as “obstructionists” Wednesday, telling a gathering of Democratic lawmakers that the party of no has resisted his policy proposals because they are trying to score political points during a hotly contested election season.
For two years, Obama said in response to a question from Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), who remarked that Washington “looks broken to the American people,” the Republican Party has packed “20 years of obstruction” into one by trying to filibuster nearly every piece of legislation that has come up for a vote." Obama noted that Republicans have tried to filibuster more legislation in 2008 than in the “entire 1950s and ’60s combined.”
Unified obstruction has been the sole Republican strategy since President Obama took office. According to David Frum, speech writer for former President George W. Bush, there was going to be “[n]o negotiations, no compromise, nothing” with the Democrats. All that mattered, former Ohio Senator George Voinovich stated, was that “if Obama was for it, we had to be against it.” A couple years after Obama took office, Mike Lofgren, former Republican Congressional staffer, described the GOP’s envisioned end-game of grinding the government to a halt.
...
Armed with this game plan, the GOP wasted no time to spurn Obama’s first bi-partisan effort, the 2009 emergency economic stimulus bill, by ordering Republicans to unanimously vote it down. It would be the first of many. David Axelrod, Obama’s political aide, would later comment that “our feeling was, we were dealing with a potential disaster of epic proportions that demanded cooperation. If anything was a signal of what the next two years would be like, it was that.”
...
Despite these hampering actions, Republicans took it one step further in 2016 by blocking the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice. The failure to consider Judge Merrick Garland should have come to no surprise considering the Republican-controlled Senate in 2015 only managed to confirm 11 federal judges, the lowest since 1969; a single appeals court judge, the lowest since 1953; and “judicial emergencies” had risen 160%, to 31. Indeed, in a report released earlier this year regarding the GOP’s failure to appoint Obama’s nominees, Senator Elizabeth Warren articulated that “[t]he idea that Senate Republicans are willing to leave our highest court short-handed for nearly a year seems shocking. But the fact is that, for more than seven years, they have waged an unrelenting campaign to keep key positions throughout government empty.” Warren’s report highlighted a Congressional Research Service report that found judicial confirmation times had doubled under the Obama administration and a report from the Alliance for Justice that concluded, “In sum, Republicans have a sustained record of using Senate procedure to block even uncontroversial nominees throughout the Obama presidency.”
The Republicans’ concerted efforts were not only directed at the judicial branch. They also worked to stall or halt nominations for agency appointments, which left more than a 100 vital, senior positions empty in agencies critical to properly run the government. Warren commented that “there were more cloture attempts on non-judicial nominees during President Obama’s first six years in office than in the 28 years proceeding the Obama administration.” Agencies and positions affected by these impediments have included, in part, the EPA, CFPB, FHFA, USAID, NLRB, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Labor, and Attorney General.
https://www2.law.temple.edu/lppp/898-2/
Throughout Barack Obama’s presidency, Republicans in Congress have deployed a strategy that has worked remarkably well for them: oppose, obstruct, and sabotage the Obama administration at every turn.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, then the Senate minority leader, said in 2010.
A few months later, McConnell acknowledged that Republicans had decided to deny President Obama any bipartisan support, not because they necessarily opposed each and every initiative, but to hurt Obama politically. “We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” he said. “Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.”
This strategy led Republicans to adopt largely unprecedented tactics of obstructionism and sabotage. But no matter how far they went, there was one line they always avoided crossing: undermining US foreign policy.
https://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8177815/republicans-foreign-policy-sabotage
This week President Obama is launching a media blitz in support of Richard Cordray, his nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Senate Banking Committee has confirmed Cordray, but the full Senate is likely to block his nomination this week, since Republicans have vowed to torpedo the CFPB director unless the Obama administration institutes changes that would cripple the agency. And without a director in place, the CFPB cannot assume many of its important new powers.
Since the beginning of the Obama administration, Republicans have escalated the use of the filibuster to historic levels and have blocked nearly 20 percent of Obama nominees. Half of the oversight positions mandated by financial reform legislation are vacant or occupied by temporary caretakers. So are two crucial seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. One in seven federal district and circuit court judgeships are currently or soon to be vacant. The list goes on and on.
https://www.npr.org/2011/12/06/143193361/the-nation-obama-and-gop-obstructionism
"Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner's move was unprecedented." A month before Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s popular jobs bill, that’s how the New York Times described Speaker John Boehner's refusal to grant the President's request for a September 7 address to joint session of Congress to present the American Jobs Act. As it turns out, "unprecedented" is apt description for almost every boulder in the stone wall of Republican obstructionism Barack Obama has faced from the moment he took the oath of office. From the GOP's record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama's legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its admitted hostage-taking of the U.S. debt ceiling, the Republican Party has broken new ground in its perpetual quest to ensure that Barack Obama will be a one-term president.
Even before Barack Obama took the oath office, Republicans leaders, conservative think-tanks and right-wing pundits were calling for total obstruction of the new president's agenda. Bill Kristol, who helped block Bill Clinton's health care reform attempt in 1993, called for history to repeat on the Obama stimulus - and everything else. Pointing with pride to the Clinton economic program which received exactly zero GOP votes in either House, Kristol in January 2009 advised:
"That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues."
https://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers
Joinfortmill
(21,162 posts)to someone's statement or opinion, need to do a little research for themselves. Just saying, folks. Be kind.
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)Wiz Imp
(9,995 posts)Every example you give relates to the Republicans use of the filibuster to block legislation. Democrats have used the filibuster just as frequently to block Republican legislation when they've been in the minority including this session. The Republicans used the filibuster more against Obama than had ever been used in the past, then the Democrats did the exact same thing in Trump's first term.
Somehow, even with all this supposed "unprecedented" obstruction that the Republicans have been able to use to block all progress under Democrats, there were dozens of significant pieces of legislation passed under both Obama and Biden. On the other hand, there was exactly one significant piece of legislation which was passed under Trump - the tax cuts which couldn't be filibustered. One and one only.
The track record actually shows that the Democrats have been far more successful in blocking things while in the minority than the Republicans have been.
You gave yourself away with Garland who I already pointed out was blocked BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS HAD THE MAJORITY!
Still looking for an example of Republicans blocking progress on everything while in the minority that the Democrats haven't also done just as often and more successfully.
Cirsium
(3,942 posts)Of course the Democratic administrations are better than the Republican administrations. No one here said otherwise. That's a pretty low bar. We hold the Democrats to a higher standard. The "two sides" are not equivalent, and your arguments here are yet another variation on the "both sides" crap we get from corporate media.
Yes, the Democrats try to build an apartment complex, and after obstruction and compromise we wind up with an outhouse. But, hey, "it's better than we would have gotten from a Republican admin!"
Meanwhile, Republicans set 100 apartment complexes on fire, and we put out half of the fires. Hooray! "Hey! Would you rather that all of them burned down? Is that what you want? Why are you criticizing our Democrats??"
Yes, we win more battles. That is because the Republicans cause more emergencies. But we are losing the war.
There is an important asymmetry between the two major political parties. The filibuster disproportionally disadvantages those with ambitious legislative agendas. It rewards the destroyers. It is easier to burn things down than it is to build things.
The standard case against filibuster reform has some force — Democrats paid a price during the Trump administration for their Obama-era decision to abolish the filibuster for lower-court judgeships — but it misses an important asymmetry between the two major political parties. Above and beyond its downsides for whichever party controls the Senate at a given time, the filibuster disproportionally disadvantages those with ambitious legislative agendas. And any way one measures it, the contemporary Democratic Party is more legislatively ambitious than the contemporary Republican Party.
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Congresses controlled by Democrats held more committee meetings, considered more bills and passed more bills than Congresses controlled by Republicans. Democratic presidents, moreover, generated significantly more policy proposals than their Republican counterparts.
...
The “structural bias” of the filibuster against Democrats becomes even clearer, and more disconcerting, in comparative perspective. A supermajority requirement for the passage of ordinary legislation is not the norm either in U.S. state legislatures or in other countries’ national legislatures. And even without the filibuster, the U.S. lawmaking system already contains more veto points — more distinct phases when a bill’s progress can be halted — than that of any other advanced democracy. Different actors in four institutions (the House, Senate, executive branch, and Supreme Court) can effectively kill legislation. Yet whereas most of these other veto points are hard-wired into the Constitution, the filibuster can be changed by a simple Senate majority at any time.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/583180-how-a-biased-filibuster-hurts-democrats-more-than-republicans/
I suspect that what we are seeing on these threads is advocacy for moderate or even conservative political positions, and attacks on progressives, disguised as party loyalty.
Party leadership does respond to pressure, all of the time. The only question is pressure from whom and pressure to move in which direction. Some on these threads argue against those rank and file Democrats bringing pressure to bear on the leadership, implying that they are being disloyal or counterproductive.
Should we just leave it to the wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists to pressure the Democratic party leadership?
You're the one who's confused. You have only served to prove my original point big time. There is so much wrong in what you say, your claims and assumptions that To spend any more time responding to this insanity would be a colossal waste of time. No big deal. I'll just go back to ignoring you.
Cirsium
(3,942 posts)I was not trying to persuade you. I posted for the benefit of others. Just so you know, I will continue to respond to your posts, for the benefit of others, whether or not you ignore me. The topic is far too important to indulge in petty Internet games.
OneGrassRoot
(23,953 posts)You are articulating what many of us feel yet can't convey as clearly as you're doing.
Thank you.
Cirsium
(3,942 posts)I appreciate that.
There is a tidal wave of dissatisfaction with the status quo, not just in the US, but around the world. That should not be surprising as the destruction of the environment reaches crisis proportions, control over the global economy is rapidly becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and so many are experiencing a steadily declining quality of life.
Too many Democrats are on the wrong side of history. They are defending the status quo.
betsuni
(29,077 posts)Some people seem to forget this or not want to admit it in their praise of Republicans.
Cirsium
(3,942 posts)No one here is praising Republicans.
druidity33
(6,915 posts)
yellow dahlia
(5,872 posts)"what would McConnell do?"
To steal a phrase from Molly Jong Fast - The Dems need to stop bringing a stuffed animal to a knife fight.
DENVERPOPS
(13,003 posts)They are walking down the Jungle Path, swatting at mosquitoes, and oblivious to the herd of charging elephants.....(pun intended)
herding cats
(20,049 posts)As always, i agree. Lot of good that's done us though, right?
brer cat
(27,587 posts)Stick to your beliefs no matter what others say.
Woodycall
(603 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2025, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)
I even dropped out for a few years for that reason. I wish those same mods would go back and read the (my) old posts that they took down. I wonder if they would accuse me of being too "radical" now?
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)
B.See
(8,494 posts)ALL of it. Like I keep saying, I'm SO damned tired of getting proved correct.
MiHale
(13,032 posts)Most times you said in in much better words…like this post. Thank you.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts) Cirsium
(3,942 posts)You were a lone voice in the wilderness for a long time.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts) sop
(18,615 posts)It was a well-received posting with many recs; a lot of folks thought most DUers were being too pessimistic, it really wouldn't be that bad.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts) yellow dahlia
(5,872 posts)type of OP's.
Last week, one of the "sky is falling" naysayers posted an apology. Here it is -
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19986615
I, for one, wish I had been wrong. I now describe our state as a Chicken Little moment.
moniss
(9,056 posts)understand that we are in extreme circumstances and so need to think about possible extreme outcomes/measures many don't want to and just hold out for taking things as they come rather than contemplating how to react to further bad extremes happening. In a way it's sort of like how the media will report that disaster is occurring while doing so with a "next we'll have the weather" sort of demeanor. When your hair is being lit on fire you need to stop being matter-of-fact about it and give it the emphasis it needs.
mcar
(46,056 posts)
But, someone on the other side tweeted something once I don't agree with so I'm only going to slam them.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts) mcar
(46,056 posts)
Thanks for fighting the good fight.
DV1
(142 posts)if something is trying to kill you, what would the logical response be?
Joinfortmill
(21,162 posts)We might not agree with every statement or action Dems take, but every time we denounce them, we empower Trump. Let's all try to keep that in mind.
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Lulu KC
(8,893 posts)
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Lulu KC
(8,893 posts)One of the worst I've ever seen. EVER.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)so if you could give me a bit of it I would appreciate it.
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #59)
Name removed Message auto-removed
GP6971
(38,013 posts)Stinky The Clown
(68,952 posts)You must be great fun at parties
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)please ?????
Maru Kitteh
(31,759 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #79)
Name removed Message auto-removed
GP6971
(38,013 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)I dont know what it keeps saying, but if there is ANYTHING that is REMOTELY personal about me as in anything other than ranting, i need to know!!!
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)have to hold their nose to do so.
This person did NOT vote for Kamala because of Gaza and because the Dems have not given him or her Universal healthcare yet.
Yep...this person and it's ilk is how we got here. 
Lulu KC
(8,893 posts)GP6971
(38,013 posts)Lunabell
(7,309 posts)sheshe2
(97,622 posts)The troll must be off his meds. 
Trust_Reality
(2,291 posts)yellow dahlia
(5,872 posts)I have said they are not meeting the moment.
First, let me say: constructive criticism of a person or entity does not mean you are on the other side - that is a spurious premise.
On January 26th, Jeffries posted on Xitter: "Presidents come and Presidents go. Through it all. God is still on the throne." I rolled my eyes, but held my criticism, despite being offended by the comment for many reasons.
I was frustrated for days, as it seemed Schumer and Jeffries were not responding to the moment - they are our representatives and our leaders...and that is what we elected them to do. They often set the "tone" for their caucuses.
I suspected they were holding back with a mindset that The Grifter would crash and burn, and then that would give them a win at the midterms (and 2028). Eventually there was reporting that confirmed my suspicion. I think I commented on an article to that effect on this forum, but can't find it right now.
I just found this piece from Mara Gay at the NYT. I had not read it until now, but interestingly it frames some of my other observations.
"With no obvious party standard-bearer, the job of leading Washington Democrats in the second Trump era has fallen largely to Mr. Schumer and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leaders of the Senate and the House. It’s been a rocky start."
"Mr. Schumer and Mr. Jeffries are seasoned dealmakers. But in the minority and facing a president bent on laying waste to the very meaning of the U.S. Congress, both men have struggled to shed the familiar rhythms of business as usual."
Update: I forgot to mention how good Maxwell Frost is as a messenger. Greg Casar is another effective NKOTB. And Jim Hines is an established and consistent voice.
"At times, Mr. Jeffries has sounded like someone who has given up. “What leverage do we have?” he told reporters at his weekly news conference on Friday. “They control the House, the Senate and the presidency. It’s their government.”
"More exasperating still has been hearing him [Jeffries] talk about working with Republicans as though it were 2012."
I did not think the old Democratic paradigm of "going along to get along" is what was called for at this moment.
"What Mr. Schumer and Mr. Jeffries can do is convey the enormous danger of this moment, immediately and continually, and speak up about how the gutting of a particular government program and the trampling of constitutional power will affect people’s lives. They can defend with a ferocious resolve the values that millions of Americans still fiercely believe in: civil rights and the rule of law, science and respect for the earth, freedom of religion, the dignity of all human beings."
This is the message I think Democrats should be delivering right now. I have been emailing and calling reps in Congress (both Dem and Repug) for the past three weeks and offering similar thoughts.
I do not think Jeffries and Schumer have been the best representatives at the recent rallies on The Hill objecting to the actions of the administration take over and DOGE. This morning I saw a clip of Jeffries chanting - "We're not going back". That message does not match the moment. At the protest in front of the Treasury several days ago, Schumer chanted "We will win"....over and over. He did not represent the moment well, in many ways.
MSNBC is usually on in the background. The take over is being televised. I am begging our leaders to do all they can do.
As we entered the post election phase, EarlG loosened some of the DU "rules". If ever I step over the line in my criticism or observations, I hope he corrects me.
My default mode is to compliment not criticize. I have taken a sabbatical from my obsession with politeness. There is no room for error right now. We need to get this right.
Fortunately some have stepped up to the moment in a variety of ways - Chris Murphy, Jamie Raskin, Chris Van Hollen, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, Dan Goldman, Brian Sass, Jasmine Crockett, Jared Moskowitz, AOC, Eric Swallwell, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray. I may have missed a few.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)most of this.
Easterncedar
(6,267 posts)I am not keen on the religious invocation either, but the succeeding words are not so indicative of resignation. FWIW. I am grateful for your post, and don’t want you going through the roof!
PRESIDENTS COME AND PRESIDENTS GO, THROUGH IT ALL GOD IS ON THE THRONE.
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION ARE AMERICAN VALUES.
NEVER SURRENDER.
WE WILL EXPOSE THIS RECKLESS SCHEME, AND FIGHT IT WITH EVERY FIBER IN OUR BODY
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts) Easterncedar
(6,267 posts)HereForTheParty
(915 posts)us or our leaders.
Duncan Grant
(8,920 posts)I’d like to see a course correction. An appeal to preserve the status quo taste like a meal of ashes, imho.
I need less fund-raising text messages and more marching orders. I’d like to show 70+ million red hats that 70+ million blue hearts aren’t going to enable their corruption. If that bothers congressional staff and their eco-system, tough sh*t.
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)
Post removed
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)I was saying pretty much what you were. Almost everyone told me I was catastrophizing. Yeah, he was contained somewhat in his first reign of terror, but he got away with a lot. This time, he will do what he wanted to do the first time.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)I don’t think he cares much what happens to Gay or Trans people, I know he hates people of color and wants to see them harmed or killed but mostly he just cares about the money and unfortunately MAGA ie the other assholes care about destroying the country and everybody’s rights.
usonian
(25,313 posts)Leads to an armageddon with Musk and the end of both and their zombie armies.
Dueling egos. Wherever e goes, I go too.
Until Götterdämmerung.
