Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Republicans do not trust women.

We will not go back.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

I did not have this on my fuck 2025 bingo card.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Dear legacy media: you are not here to influence outcomes and policies you find desirable.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

“In this country American means white. everybody else has to hyphenate.”

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Finding joy where we can, and muddling through where we can’t.

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

No one could have predicted…

You are here: Home / Archives for Democratic Cowardice

Second Guessing

by | 279 Comments

This post is in: , ,

For the last 24 hours I keep asking myself if I am being too hard on Schumer and the Dems who voted for the CR. Maybe they are right and Trump would do worse if the government were shut down. And then I realize it doesn’t matter.

Any way you slice or dice this it was a disaster by Schumer. The way he set the House up, went to the cameras and said NO NO NO on Wednesday night, and then woke up the next morning and uno reversed himself in the mirror, infuriated the overwelming majority of the Democratic Senate caucus, fucked the House Dems, and enraged the masses, it doesn’t fucking matter if he was right. He needs to fucking go.

Second GuessingPost + Comments (279)

Are We Allowed to Criticize House Leadership Yet?

by | 197 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Via Axios:

House Democratic leadership is privately confronting members who disrupted President Trump’s speech to Congress, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Many progressives defied House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ (D-N.Y.) request to avoid making themselves the story.

Jeffries, in a dear colleague letter ahead of the speech, urged a “strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence in the chamber.”

Trump’s speech was instead rocked by constant heckling. Democrats held up signs and other props, and Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was ejected.

In meetings and discussions with leadership this week, Democrats who heckled, walked out in protest or were otherwise disruptive were given a talking to about their tactics, sources said.

What we’re hearing: Leadership is “very unhappy” with those who went beyond traditional protest tactics like outfit coordination and refusal to clap, a senior House Democrat told Axios.

Roughly a dozen Democratic disruptors — including Reps. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) — were called into a “come to Jesus meeting” on Thursday morning, the senior Dem told Axios.

The top three House Democratic leaders were present: Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.).

Yes, but: A source familiar with the matter stressed that these lawmakers are “not getting yelled at.”

“It’s a consultative process. We understand the pressure they are under.”

“They are not being talked to like they are children. We are helping them understand why their strategy is a bad idea,” the source said.

A spokesperson for Jeffries declined to address the private meeting. Spokespeople for Clark and Aguilar did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

And don’t tell me it’s Axios and all made up. If it was not true, there would be pushback.

At some point, Democrats need to learn that the reason so many people don’t rally to them is because they just look and act like weak twats. And that’s not even going into the ten motherfuckers in the Democratic caucus who voted to censure Al Green.

I am so over these spineless cowards. They’re going to be grumbling about decorum as they get frogmarched to the firing line. Leadership might allow them to coordinate lapel pins for their execution, so that will show the Republicans.

Are We Allowed to Criticize House Leadership Yet?Post + Comments (197)

Last New York Update For a While

by | 153 Comments

This post is in: ,

Welp, here it is:

Gov. Kathy Hochul will not remove embattled New York City Mayor Eric Adams from office, saying his fate should be left to the voters to decide at the ballot box.

[…]

Instead of removal, the governor said she will unveil new state and city bills that would increase oversight of the mayor’s office.

That includes creating a new state deputy inspector general with broad authority to watch over the city’s dealings, as well as giving other city officials more authority to sue the Trump administration over government actions without the approval of the mayor’s office. Hochul said she also wants to increase funding for the deputy state comptroller with oversight of New York City’s finances.

Those measures, if approved by the state Legislature and City Council, would apply through the end of this year and be “subject to renewal,” Hochul said.

What a stupid way to do this. This is a non-answer to the real problem: Trump is holding Adams hostage. It’s doing nothing in the guise of doing something, and any reasonable person sees right through it.

BTW, everyone who listens to Lawrence O’Donnell needs to realize that he told a bald-faced lie on his program a couple of nights ago.

According to Lawrence O’Donnell, Hochul can’t just remove Adams by fiat. Says she could kick off an as-yet-undefined court procedure that would involve witnesses with her as prosecutor, judge, & jury, requiring her presence for the duration, likely involving endless appeals. Not as easy as suggested

— Andrew Werth (@andrewwerth.com) February 20, 2025 at 1:07 PM

That is absolutely false. I know he said it because some people repeated it in the comments — I just assumed they misheard him. As I posted yesterday, and will post again today, this is the entirety of the removal clause in the City Charter:

The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.

I’m just some blogger who has access to Google, but I didn’t lie to you, and I brought receipts when I made a claim about Hochul’s powers. Keep that in mind next time O’Donnell makes some claim that sounds like he read the law.

So, yes, I’m disgusted with a Democrat, and frankly, with most Democrats to date. Am I just some outlier? Nope — here’s the latest Q Poll [pdf]. It shows that 97% of Democrats polled disapprove of Elon Musks role in government, and overall it’s 54/42 disapproval. But look at this:

Last New York Update For a While

49% of Dems disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling their job. Perhaps that’s based on unrealistic expectations, but I also think it’s a reflection of the lack of fight in party leaders and the lack of a response commensurate to the coup that’s taking place. It looks like our party, our team, our guys, our “I will fight for you” warriors got rolled, and they even admit it:

Last New York Update For a While 1

Don’t get me wrong, good for him for admitting that mistake, now do Rubio.

And, yes, I will mention Democrats who do well (I re-tweet them all the time on BlueSky), and yes, it’s mostly Republicans’ fault, but we need a functioning opposition party to fix this mess, and if we ever get some power, the cleanup is going to require swift, decisive use of that power.

Last New York Update For a WhilePost + Comments (153)

This Is a Pretty Stupid Headline

by | 176 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

This Is Pretty Lazy Analysis

This is pretty stupid, and you can see why in the first few paragraphs:

After being badgered to death by moderate Senate Democrats, the Biden administration has agreed to put stricter limits on who will be eligible for a relief check as part of its big COVID recovery bill.

Centrists such as Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia have spent weeks urging the administration to “target” the new round of $1,400 economic impact payments more narrowly to lower-income families in order avoid spending money on households that might not be facing financial difficulties at the moment. On Wednesday, Democrats said they would phase down the checks more quickly for higher earners than originally planned. As a result, approximately 11.8 million fewer adults and 4.6 million fewer children will benefit from a payment, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Singles who earn up to $75,000 will still receive the full check amount. But the payment will ramp down to zero for those who earn more than $80,000, well below the previous cutoff of $100,000. Married couples who file jointly will still receive their entire check if they make up to $150,000. But payments will fall to zilch for those earning more than $160,000, down from the previous threshold of $200,000.

Maybe it’s just me, but NOT BEING ABLE TO PASS ANY BILL OTHERWISE seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Now Manchin and Sinema and whoever else’s reasons for opposing the bill as is, might be pretty bad, but I would argue the overall reason team Biden is acquiescing to these dipshits is pretty fucking solid.

This Is a Pretty Stupid HeadlinePost + Comments (176)

Yes, Let’s Rally The Base

by | 330 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Yesterday Nancy Pelosi had to balance out her strong showing on Colbert by once again attacking the “left wing” of the Democratic Party.

There’s a whole thread there. It’s the usual – don’t go for Medicaid for All or anything else that might fire up the base. Remember those folks in the Midwest diners!

There are so many things wrong with that.

I would like to hear Pelosi’s basis for this. I would like to see polling data. I would like to see a strategy for getting the votes.

That she presents none of this – just her concern that the Democrats not be too lefty for the San Francisco liberal she claims to be – makes me suspicious that she is simply enunciating the deep lack of confidence that many older Democrats feel, partly justifiably. But they need to ask whether times have changed.

Her comments occasioned lively discussions on Twitter. One of the things I observed is that people worry about other people being turned off by things like M4A, even though they themselves back social justice measures. This is where I would like to see polling data. Do those imagined people exist outside of media scolds? For example,

A confounding variable, even if there were data, would be the presence of unconscious racism or sexism. Polling can fail to uncover this. And some of the “lefty” things that Pelosi and others are worried about have to do with racism and sexism, which we are not to speak of because they make people uncomfortable.

That’s a difficult conundrum. Many voters are women and people of color. Pelosi, in that Twitter thread is quoted as saying “What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan. What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.”

Which workers? Ideally, all of them. But the pitch for workers that Trump has made has been to white male workers in extractive industries. The workers in San Francisco are more likely to be women of color who work in health care. Their interests are different. Workers’ rights and wages should be part of the campaign, but the specifics will touch on that unconscious racism and sexism and thus be too lefty.

Pelosi is also doubtful about a Green New Deal because it would eliminate fossil fuels. It may be the timeline that she is objecting to, or it may be displacing those Trumpian laborers; it’s not clear. But yes, we have to eliminate fossil fuels, and the faster, the better.

I keep thinking about that San Francisco-y song, “The Times, They Are A-Changing.” Yes, let’s fire up the base to get them to vote in the general election and maybe drag along those young voters who feel they and their future are being ignored. Let’s present a vision of the future that people can sign on to. Trump has trashed the government. We’ve got an opportunity to build something better than what we had before.

 

Yes, Let’s Rally The BasePost + Comments (330)

I Must Part Ways With Nancy Pelosi

by | 122 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

If the report is true that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is insisting on ousting Trump in the 2020 election and then prosecuting him, and it looks like it is, I must give up my defense of Pelosi’s strategy.

I’ve thought that she was waiting for support to build to some unspecified level that she, an adept counter of votes, had in mind. There were indications of what we’ve learned tonight, but politicians say many things in many ways.

Pelosi seems to be ignoring the damage that Trump is doing as President. The difficulties in investigating him and his administration that would be lessened in impeachment proceedings. The public education that would take place during impeachment hearings and the support that would build. The strong desire among many Democrats to see a rebuke of the administration’s lawlessness.

I am horrendously disappointed that she is taking a path that is consistent with many criticisms of “establishment” Democrats – that they are unwilling to wield the power they possess to do their lawful jobs.

I’m willing to look at evidence that I’m wrong. But I’m not seeing it.

 

I Must Part Ways With Nancy PelosiPost + Comments (122)

2020 Election Thread: The DNC’s Random Draw

by | 78 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

When it gets Chuck Todd excited, you know it’s not good for the Democrats:

A new rule adopted by the Democratic National Committee and NBC News will evenly divide top-tier candidates across two nights in the first Democratic presidential primary debates in June, a move to maintain viewer interest in both events by making sure well-known contenders are on stage both nights.

Democrats getting at least 2 percent support in the polling average will be randomly and evenly split between the two nights, which will each feature 10 candidates, according to the formula obtained by POLITICO. Candidates below that threshold will also be evenly and randomly divided between the two debate lineups…

Eight candidates have a polling average at or above 2 percent right now: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. With the newly announced rule, four would be guaranteed to appear on the first night, and four would be guaranteed to appear on the second night.

Biden and Sanders, currently occupying first and second place in most polls, will still have a close to 50-50 chance of appearing on the same night — about the same odds they would have under a purely random draw that does not break the field into two groups.

According to a POLITICO analysis, 19 candidates have qualified for the first debates on June 26-27 in Miami: Biden, Booker, Steve Bullock, Buttigieg, Julián Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harris, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Tim Ryan, Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Warren, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.

Thirteen of those candidates — Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Gabbard, Harris, Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Williamson and Yang — have crossed both thresholds, virtually guaranteeing them a spot in one of the two nights…

So both Wednesday and Thursday will feature four potential candidates, plus five or six randomly chosen no-hopers, wannabes, and publicity hounds. No wonder Chuckles is fondling his facial hair in glee at the prospect. (And Murphy the Trickster God forbid that Biden, Buttigieg, O’Rourke and Sanders all draw the Wednesday spot.) Were I in charge, no candidate who couldn’t poll at least 2% would be permitted in the auditorium, much less on the stage.

Of course, this rigamarole was put into place mostly to placate one noisy group of (theoretically) Democratic voters, so of course they are pleased with the due attention paid to their complaints. Suuuure they are:

I know going from “angry young rebel” to “aging old crank” is common enough to be a trope, but there are few examples as stark as that of Matt Taibbi. Unless you include Taibbi’s inspiration here, but as far as I can tell, that dude was an aging old crank by the time he was old enough to decamp from Brooklyn to Chicago (before fleeing to Vermont).

2020 Election Thread: The DNC’s Random DrawPost + Comments (78)