Thanks Bob! I’m fed up. The last straw was today when his spokesman criticized Chris Van Hollen for calling out NY pols for refusing to endorse Mamdani. Chris Van Hollen is a thousand times the man Hakeem Jefferies is.
The new leadership is being crushed by the old line establishment. They have the money and the power and they aren’t giving it up. This is a no-holds barred fight for the soul of the party.
It’s long past time for Vichy Democrats like Jeffries to be purged from the party. He is a SQID (Status Quo Institutionalist Democrat) more interested in serving the corporate donors and not making any waves… He and Schumer are useless, and a substantial party of the reason why the Nazis now run the country.
Mamdani is a refreshing departure from Democrats funded by wealthy donors. He listened to the voters in New York City and called for common-sense solutions that address their pain points. There is nothing "radical" or "too far left" about children not coming to school hungry, relief from outrageous rents caused by corporate greed, or free public transit. These initiatives are not "free stuff" being handed out to people perceived as "too lazy" to work.
If these Democrats oppose endorsing Mamdani for mayor, they need to be honest and tell us who they DO want to be the next mayor. Andrew Cuomo? I hope not, but I fear that he is their preferred candidate. Another billionaire-funded candidate who will be loyal to DJT. These are exactly the types of Democrats who will bring New Yorkers nothing but harm.
Are these Democrats opposing Mamdani because he is Muslim instead of Christian?
Exactly right. And because he supports Palestinian self-determination. AIPAC is the creature of Benjamin Netanyahu and it will brook no criticism of Israel.
Mamdani's activist background and paper trail in Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is direct threat to corporate-captured Duopoly parties that brook no 3rd party competition.
Candidate's religion (unless Cultic) not an issue, unless any candidate tries running on whatever faith they follow aside from Good Government.
Andrew Cuomo has regrettably so tarnished his truly activist Dad's decades of service to working class that newer generations and political novices or those who don't research a candidate's paper trail and track record do not help alleviate our biggest problem in our Pay2Play system: Voter disengagement, voter laziness, too easily led voters....
You're so right Mitch the electorate are nothing but couch potatoes. They don't check out anything about whom they're voting for and then bitch and complain when they found they made the wrong choice. I hope there's more fore thought this time.
Thanks for exposing this Mark. I knew he was taking AIPAC money to keep his mouth shut but I didn't realise how much! As they say "it's all about the Benjamins." I'm referring to both Netanyahu and Benjamin Franklin's face on the$100 bill. Zoran Mamdani, Jasmine Crockett and AOC are the future when it comes to Democratic Party politics. Don't be beholden to anybody!
On his better days, he has talked a good game. He no longer has many days like that.
This is what happens when you don't choose to restrict yourself to small individual donors. Assuming someone at some point doesn't change the system to no private money.
That's the problem in a nutshell. They work for the donor not the electorate. Why? Because the donor pays better I assume. If they can't get rid of big money then there should at least be a law where they have to state PUBLICLY who paid them how much and why!
Donors pay vastly more than do taxpayers, or than the incumbent gets paid to be in office. My last recollection is that House Representatives get paid about $174K per year. They spend far more than that running. Even the ones who only take small and non-corporate money get vastly more in donations than they themselves could afford to spend.
And big donors are very easily identifiable to candidates, and they make clear what they want. They buy electeds, and they get what they bought. Someone who donates $10 or $20 or $50 or $100 is unknown to the candidate.
You probably know this, but big donors often enough write bills that electeds introduce in the big donors' interests. This country is run by the big donors, at least with respect to the electeds who accept those big donations, which are the cost of owning the electeds.
It's become a big issue here too in the UK. Dark money is showing up in the millions. It never used to be like that! It really pisses me off because even though I voted to elect that person because they said they were going to do AB&C they end up doing XY&Z for the donor instead. As it is with AIPAC, they'll even fund opposing parties! There the chance that a bill is going to be introduced to the house about this issue as it's now being discovered that we're getting people who are foreigners donating. They may have a business registered here and so are able to bypass the law by using the business registered in this country but the owner isn't a domicile of this country. Of course the posh Lords don't like this so I don't know far it'll get. Some investigative journalists are "following the money" to get real evidence and connecting the dots as to why that particular industry got what it wanted. I'm also noticing that we are being pressured by the tech bros who have VERY deep pockets and can buy access to our data. Once they input their algorithm to start collecting you're not able to take it out, even if you don't like it. Our NHS was sold something from Palantir to collect data for hospitals. The staff using it says it's rubbish! Yet even if we get them to take it out and refund the millions it cost, we are not allowed to get rid of it's collection input. Maybe I've read too much Orwell but it scares the bejesus out of me.
If his minders read any Orwell, they failed to get the joke, and understand that what Orwell portrayed was dystopian, and not Orwell's idea of a recommended good idea.
I agree. He is the one that sent those black ladies to Msnbc to say "we are not election deniers"....while I was screaming into the wind to get them to audit the 2024 election. He & Pelosi & Schumer went along with Obama's interference to oust Biden under false right wing lies/propaganda. Obama knew he didn't have dementia & Clooney said he didn't even notice it "until Obama pointed it out". Pelosi admitted Obama was jealous of Biden's gains. Obama is NOT the head of the DNC, the Dem party, or anything else so I urge you Obama fans to STOP letting him lie about what he did & STOP listening to him. He is the one that made the Dem party divisive, while both Biden & Clinton united the party. #Facts
I couldn’t agree more with this commentary by Mark. Jeffries wants to continue playing nice when the time for that ended on November 9, 2024. But the reasons he wants to play nice are selfish ones, not with genuine goals of debate/compromise/finding common goals. He is tiptoeing around #47 just enough to play the game. Where there should be complete and total outrage over constitutional violations there are none. Everyday we should hear him call out lies, lawlessness, failure to support constituents, democratic values and process. He is game playing to keep his position…follow the money and the subsequent power.
It is most definitely time for a changing of the guard. We need leaders with fire in the belly, not those who prize donors over the people they were elected to serve. FFS, even Kathy Hochul is supporting Mamdani for mayor. If Jeffries can’t bring himself to step up then he should at least have the decency to get out of the way.
Personally, I find your criticism of the Minority Leader excessively harsh.
I cannot pretend to follow all of the daily intricacies of House politics, but I believe it is highly counterproductive for Democrats generally to focus our limited energies on infighting, when so much work needs doing — and urgently — to craft effective political and policy responses that will gather more support for the Democratic Party and its Independent allies — not less.
There are times when intraparty cohesion must take precedence over jockeying for future power. Now, I believe, is such a time.
I’d feel better about that, W. R. if the House leadership stopped threatening and undermining progressive members and candidates. They are the source of the conflict.
Well, I agree that infighting is counterproductive from any direction within the Democratic party.
Probably Democratic leadership needs to be more open to the groundswell movements. But I think convincing them of that will be more productive than threatening to tear them down.
Somehow Ds need to build a better culture of working together, I think, to defeat the real enemies of the Republic, who are a clear and present danger to us all.
We are in a weak position because our voters stayed home in 2024. We need to persuade them we can govern for them and their interests, effectively, together.
I agree completely on those counts. I don’t think the division benefits us, and I do believe that there has to be a way to get around it. I’m just not seeing it at the moment. The attempts to take down Mamdani and others, as well as Gaza, will keep millions at home. The party leadership needs to understand that.
If they can’t bring themselves to endorse them, then at least let them run and allow the marketplace of ideas to help choose the candidate for each district. Suppression, which I know is going on for a fact because establishment Democrats I know openly admit it, is a recipe for disaster. And Jefferies, again admittedly according to members with whom I have spoken, along with Schumer, are leading that effort. This is simply unacceptable and destructive.
I agree that openness to what may be newly effective makes sense. But tearing apart weakened leaders out of frustration that they must also feel just strikes me as misguided and politically suicidal.
I would agree with you if I felt like we had effective party leadership. But I don’t think we do. We went along with Biden running again despite his age. We went along with the candidate switching even. But those things were an outcome of existing party leadership and they weren’t enough to convince enough voters to choose it again. So at this time, it doesn’t make sense to keep throwing the same noodle hoping it sticks this time. It’s the wrong people for the wrong time and that they are unwilling to fight or step down is not a reason to steadfastly allow them to undermine the NYC mayoral race and progressive ideas that are broadly popular. It’s time to reckon with donor ideals mismatching voter needs. We can’t keep offering “we’re not Trump” as our only selling point and that’s what these guys are doing. It’s maddening.
I agree that the focus on issues needs sharpening and that the goals of opposing destruction of the Republic need to include real progress for real people.
But the choice is not between fighting and quitting. The job is gathering more support.
When Democrats attack a floundering leadership that faces no perfect or wholly satisfying options, we are not helping.
Who could do better? If you have someone, promote them. But attacking your own people, who are in a tough spot with little leverage because voters stayed home, it just won’t work, I fear.
Thanks Bob! I’m fed up. The last straw was today when his spokesman criticized Chris Van Hollen for calling out NY pols for refusing to endorse Mamdani. Chris Van Hollen is a thousand times the man Hakeem Jefferies is.
Agreed. Chris is a good man and senator with a real heart in the right place.
I think he should be replaced by AOC or Jasmine Crockett
I’d love for either of those two.
Agree! They're both fierce, do not suffer fools, and represent the people!
And are supremely articulate ❤️🔥
I couldn't agree more. Jeffries is the wrong man for this moment.
Many agree !
How do we change this before the next election?
How do progressive Dems feel about him?
So many Sr. Dems have overstayed their time ! Dick Durbin for one!Slow walking so many incidents that could have changed outcomes!
Schumer another !
Where is the leadership we need ?
The new leadership is being crushed by the old line establishment. They have the money and the power and they aren’t giving it up. This is a no-holds barred fight for the soul of the party.
It’s long past time for Vichy Democrats like Jeffries to be purged from the party. He is a SQID (Status Quo Institutionalist Democrat) more interested in serving the corporate donors and not making any waves… He and Schumer are useless, and a substantial party of the reason why the Nazis now run the country.
Mamdani is a refreshing departure from Democrats funded by wealthy donors. He listened to the voters in New York City and called for common-sense solutions that address their pain points. There is nothing "radical" or "too far left" about children not coming to school hungry, relief from outrageous rents caused by corporate greed, or free public transit. These initiatives are not "free stuff" being handed out to people perceived as "too lazy" to work.
If these Democrats oppose endorsing Mamdani for mayor, they need to be honest and tell us who they DO want to be the next mayor. Andrew Cuomo? I hope not, but I fear that he is their preferred candidate. Another billionaire-funded candidate who will be loyal to DJT. These are exactly the types of Democrats who will bring New Yorkers nothing but harm.
Are these Democrats opposing Mamdani because he is Muslim instead of Christian?
Exactly right. And because he supports Palestinian self-determination. AIPAC is the creature of Benjamin Netanyahu and it will brook no criticism of Israel.
yes, thank you for noting that.
All Democrats must refuse to accept one more nickel from AIPAC. They must have the courage to tell AIPAC to get lost.
Mamdani's activist background and paper trail in Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is direct threat to corporate-captured Duopoly parties that brook no 3rd party competition.
Candidate's religion (unless Cultic) not an issue, unless any candidate tries running on whatever faith they follow aside from Good Government.
Andrew Cuomo has regrettably so tarnished his truly activist Dad's decades of service to working class that newer generations and political novices or those who don't research a candidate's paper trail and track record do not help alleviate our biggest problem in our Pay2Play system: Voter disengagement, voter laziness, too easily led voters....
Tio Mitchito
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of A-Tone-ment Seekers)
Media Discussion List\Looksee
You're so right Mitch the electorate are nothing but couch potatoes. They don't check out anything about whom they're voting for and then bitch and complain when they found they made the wrong choice. I hope there's more fore thought this time.
Spot on Mark!
Bullseye!!! 👌💯🎯
Thanks for exposing this Mark. I knew he was taking AIPAC money to keep his mouth shut but I didn't realise how much! As they say "it's all about the Benjamins." I'm referring to both Netanyahu and Benjamin Franklin's face on the$100 bill. Zoran Mamdani, Jasmine Crockett and AOC are the future when it comes to Democratic Party politics. Don't be beholden to anybody!
On his better days, he has talked a good game. He no longer has many days like that.
This is what happens when you don't choose to restrict yourself to small individual donors. Assuming someone at some point doesn't change the system to no private money.
That's the problem in a nutshell. They work for the donor not the electorate. Why? Because the donor pays better I assume. If they can't get rid of big money then there should at least be a law where they have to state PUBLICLY who paid them how much and why!
Donors pay vastly more than do taxpayers, or than the incumbent gets paid to be in office. My last recollection is that House Representatives get paid about $174K per year. They spend far more than that running. Even the ones who only take small and non-corporate money get vastly more in donations than they themselves could afford to spend.
And big donors are very easily identifiable to candidates, and they make clear what they want. They buy electeds, and they get what they bought. Someone who donates $10 or $20 or $50 or $100 is unknown to the candidate.
You probably know this, but big donors often enough write bills that electeds introduce in the big donors' interests. This country is run by the big donors, at least with respect to the electeds who accept those big donations, which are the cost of owning the electeds.
It's become a big issue here too in the UK. Dark money is showing up in the millions. It never used to be like that! It really pisses me off because even though I voted to elect that person because they said they were going to do AB&C they end up doing XY&Z for the donor instead. As it is with AIPAC, they'll even fund opposing parties! There the chance that a bill is going to be introduced to the house about this issue as it's now being discovered that we're getting people who are foreigners donating. They may have a business registered here and so are able to bypass the law by using the business registered in this country but the owner isn't a domicile of this country. Of course the posh Lords don't like this so I don't know far it'll get. Some investigative journalists are "following the money" to get real evidence and connecting the dots as to why that particular industry got what it wanted. I'm also noticing that we are being pressured by the tech bros who have VERY deep pockets and can buy access to our data. Once they input their algorithm to start collecting you're not able to take it out, even if you don't like it. Our NHS was sold something from Palantir to collect data for hospitals. The staff using it says it's rubbish! Yet even if we get them to take it out and refund the millions it cost, we are not allowed to get rid of it's collection input. Maybe I've read too much Orwell but it scares the bejesus out of me.
I'm unfamiliar with the concept of "too much Orwell."
Just a thought….but do you think trump ever read any of his books? I know his minders did because of Project 2025
I don't think Donnie reads anything.
If his minders read any Orwell, they failed to get the joke, and understand that what Orwell portrayed was dystopian, and not Orwell's idea of a recommended good idea.
I agree. He is the one that sent those black ladies to Msnbc to say "we are not election deniers"....while I was screaming into the wind to get them to audit the 2024 election. He & Pelosi & Schumer went along with Obama's interference to oust Biden under false right wing lies/propaganda. Obama knew he didn't have dementia & Clooney said he didn't even notice it "until Obama pointed it out". Pelosi admitted Obama was jealous of Biden's gains. Obama is NOT the head of the DNC, the Dem party, or anything else so I urge you Obama fans to STOP letting him lie about what he did & STOP listening to him. He is the one that made the Dem party divisive, while both Biden & Clinton united the party. #Facts
I was pleased to read your comments as I feared I was alone in my opinion of this Jeffrey
He does take lots of money from all kinds of places so is compromised.
I couldn’t agree more with this commentary by Mark. Jeffries wants to continue playing nice when the time for that ended on November 9, 2024. But the reasons he wants to play nice are selfish ones, not with genuine goals of debate/compromise/finding common goals. He is tiptoeing around #47 just enough to play the game. Where there should be complete and total outrage over constitutional violations there are none. Everyday we should hear him call out lies, lawlessness, failure to support constituents, democratic values and process. He is game playing to keep his position…follow the money and the subsequent power.
It is most definitely time for a changing of the guard. We need leaders with fire in the belly, not those who prize donors over the people they were elected to serve. FFS, even Kathy Hochul is supporting Mamdani for mayor. If Jeffries can’t bring himself to step up then he should at least have the decency to get out of the way.
Personally, I find your criticism of the Minority Leader excessively harsh.
I cannot pretend to follow all of the daily intricacies of House politics, but I believe it is highly counterproductive for Democrats generally to focus our limited energies on infighting, when so much work needs doing — and urgently — to craft effective political and policy responses that will gather more support for the Democratic Party and its Independent allies — not less.
There are times when intraparty cohesion must take precedence over jockeying for future power. Now, I believe, is such a time.
I’d feel better about that, W. R. if the House leadership stopped threatening and undermining progressive members and candidates. They are the source of the conflict.
Well, I agree that infighting is counterproductive from any direction within the Democratic party.
Probably Democratic leadership needs to be more open to the groundswell movements. But I think convincing them of that will be more productive than threatening to tear them down.
Somehow Ds need to build a better culture of working together, I think, to defeat the real enemies of the Republic, who are a clear and present danger to us all.
We are in a weak position because our voters stayed home in 2024. We need to persuade them we can govern for them and their interests, effectively, together.
I agree completely on those counts. I don’t think the division benefits us, and I do believe that there has to be a way to get around it. I’m just not seeing it at the moment. The attempts to take down Mamdani and others, as well as Gaza, will keep millions at home. The party leadership needs to understand that.
If they can’t bring themselves to endorse them, then at least let them run and allow the marketplace of ideas to help choose the candidate for each district. Suppression, which I know is going on for a fact because establishment Democrats I know openly admit it, is a recipe for disaster. And Jefferies, again admittedly according to members with whom I have spoken, along with Schumer, are leading that effort. This is simply unacceptable and destructive.
I agree that openness to what may be newly effective makes sense. But tearing apart weakened leaders out of frustration that they must also feel just strikes me as misguided and politically suicidal.
He is weakened of his own doing. If he wanted to be a fighter, he would be.
I know it was harsh, but I frankly got fed up yesterday afternoon
when Jefferies’ spokesman ridiculed Senator Van Hollen for urging the New York delegation to support Mamdani.
I would agree with you if I felt like we had effective party leadership. But I don’t think we do. We went along with Biden running again despite his age. We went along with the candidate switching even. But those things were an outcome of existing party leadership and they weren’t enough to convince enough voters to choose it again. So at this time, it doesn’t make sense to keep throwing the same noodle hoping it sticks this time. It’s the wrong people for the wrong time and that they are unwilling to fight or step down is not a reason to steadfastly allow them to undermine the NYC mayoral race and progressive ideas that are broadly popular. It’s time to reckon with donor ideals mismatching voter needs. We can’t keep offering “we’re not Trump” as our only selling point and that’s what these guys are doing. It’s maddening.
I agree that the focus on issues needs sharpening and that the goals of opposing destruction of the Republic need to include real progress for real people.
But the choice is not between fighting and quitting. The job is gathering more support.
When Democrats attack a floundering leadership that faces no perfect or wholly satisfying options, we are not helping.
Who could do better? If you have someone, promote them. But attacking your own people, who are in a tough spot with little leverage because voters stayed home, it just won’t work, I fear.
No doubt.
It’s still all about the money.