Tag: republicans
John Thune

Republicans Praise Trump's Manic UN Speech And Vengeance Crusade

President Donald Trump has been inching the United States toward becoming an authoritarian state since he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office for a second time back in January.

But the inching turned into a full-on slide this week, as Trump took tangible steps toward weaponizing the Department of Justice to jail his perceived enemies and silence those with views that differ from his own.

There were fewer comments than usual this week, as Congress is in recess and thus lawmakers are not on Capitol Hill, and safe from reporters asking them to comment on Trump’s impeachable actions.

But the Republican lawmakers who did comment this week cheered Trump's actions.

Following reports that Trump's newly minted U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia will seek an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey—even though career prosecutors said they do not believe probable cause exists to charge him with a crime—multiple GOP lawmakers applauded.

"James Comey betrayed our nation. He meddled in the 2016 election, concealed the baseless Trump-Russia probe, abused FISA with the Steele dossier, leaked classified memos to spark the Mueller witch hunt, and lied to Congress. The DOJ should indict him. Justice must be served," Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) wrote in a post on X.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) went a step further, saying on Fox Business, "In my opinion he should be charged with treason."

And Rep. Derricek Van Orden had a more succinct response to the news of Comey's possible indictment.

"Prison," Van Orden wrote in a post on X.

Van Orden later said he was excited about the possibility of DOJ officials resigning in protest over a possible Comey indictment, saying that it would be "Outstanding."

"In SEAL training we call this 'self selection,'" Van Orden wrote.

Meanwhile, other Republicans continued to applaud Trump for trying to force ABC to pull comedian Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves.

“It is reasonable for the FCC commissioner to say what he basically said, which is when he said, 'You can do this the easy way or the hard way, either back off, Disney ... or you’re going to deal with the fact that you’re going to have licenses,'" Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) told right-wing hack Glenn Beck.

They also refused to say Trump should rule out a third term—which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.

“Trump 2028. I hope this never ends,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refused to condemn Graham for cheering on a blatantly unconstitutional action.

“Well, I didn't see—I know Lindsey said that before—and I think he generally expects a, you know, a pretty lighthearted response when he says it,” Thune said.

Less scary but embarrassing nonetheless were the Republicans who defended Trump's moronic speech to the United Nations on Tuesday, with others joining Trump's attacks against the organization over the failure of an escalator that Trump and first lady Melania Trump attempted to ride.

Thune called Trump's embarrassing speech that diminished the United States on the world stage, "Straight talk from the president."

"He puts out the unvarnished truth," Thune said of Trump's idiotic remarks.

"President Trump commanded respect at the UN, while Biden's wandering turned America into a global punchline," Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) wrote in a post on X, which is the absolute opposite of reality. "It's great to have leadership that doesn't apologize for American strength once again!"

Meanwhile, Steube called for an "investigation" into the escalator situation at the U.N., saying that it “could not be a coincidence" that the escalator stopped right when Trump was on it.

Never underestimate Republicans' ability to debase themselves in subservience to Dear Leader.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Learning From Kimmel's Fall: The Rich Don't Have To Control The Media

Learning From Kimmel's Fall: The Rich Don't Have To Control The Media

Like every other sane person, I was outraged at seeing Jimmy Kimmel getting fired because he was making fun of Donald Trump. (Spare me the crap about ridiculing the killing of Charlie Kirk. He unambiguously condemned the killing and expressed sympathy for Mr. Kirk’s family and friends, something Trump and most Republicans have been unable to do for the victims of right-wing violence.)

Kimmel’s sin, like that of his previously fired friend Stephan Colbert, was making fun of Donald Trump. Trump has directly said that he will order the head of the Federal Communications Commission, a formerly independent agency, to take away the broadcast licenses from stations that carry comedians making fun of him. Trump might be immensely obese, but he has very thin skin.

The threat of taking away licenses is a bit complicated because the networks don’t directly hold the broadcast licenses, individual stations that air network broadcasts do. If the FCC were following normal procedures, it would take considerable time and effort to strip these stations of their licenses.

And if the FCC was actually following the law in the process, it’s not clear it would be even able to do it. After all, having a comedian make fun of the president for a few hours a week would not ordinarily be sufficient to establish the case that the station wasn’t broadcasting in the public interest. But Donald Trump could probably declare another national emergency (people are making fun of him) and use it as the basis for overriding the normal procedures.

But ABC wasn’t prepared to go the full legal route. Nexstar, which owns 32 ABC affiliate stations, announced that it was no longer going to carry Kimmel’s show. Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns even more affiliates, also objected to Kimmel. Both media companies will need regulatory approval from Trump’s FCC for various expansion plans, as does ABC’s parent company, Disney. This made dumping Kimmel an easy call.

Losing late night comedians is not the only loss from this crackdown on freedom of the press. CBS was recently taken over by David Ellison, the right-wing son of centi-billionaire Larry Ellison, the right-winger who will now be controlling TikTok under the deal crafted by Donald Trump, in addition to CNN. We already have Mega MAGA whack job Elon Musk controlling Twitter (now “X”), and newly converted MAGA groupie Mark Zuckerberg controlling Facebook and Instagram. The prospects for independent media in the U.S. don’t look very good just now.

People should not completely despair, we do have progressive podcasts, such as Pod Save America and MeidasTouch that draw millions of viewers each week. Many others have large followings. By comparison, Kimmel’s audience on ABC was down to just 1.1 million a night. Viewership of the network new shows is also tumbling into the low single-digit millions. By comparison, Walter Cronkite used to get almost 30 million viewers every night in a country half as large as it is now. So, there is still some basis for hope.

But the fact that so many on the left apparently felt that media outlets owned and controlled by rich people could be trusted to give us unbiased information showed an incredible lack of foresight and has led to a disaster of major proportions. This did not have to happen.

It was, and hopefully still is, possible to build up an alternative media structure that does not rely on the goodwill of the rich. We could look to establish a system of individual tax credits, similar to what exists now with the charitable contribution tax deduction, for supporting journalism. The idea is that everyone would have a sum of money (e.g. $100) to support the journalistic outlet of their choice.

This sort of tax credit system could support a vast amount of alternative media. The arithmetic is straightforward. If 200 million people used a $100 credit, this could fund $20 billion a year of journalistic work. That could pay a huge number of people to research, write, and present news stories, and to make jokes about the president.

Not all of what would be supported by this money would be good and not all of it would be progressive. The MAGA folks would have their tax credits too and they could use them to give us even more Fox News. But the point is that there should be enough money on the table to support solid reporting that will ensure real news will be available to those who want it.

And hopefully, some of the people getting the credits will be a bit more creative than our current crop of liberal politicians and pundits and could actually make their presentations interesting. This could allow progressive views to reach a wider audience. And the best part is that no billionaire could shut it down because they were offended by something someone said.

It would have been great if this sort of structure had been put in place decades ago, but next to no one on the left felt that media mattered. It isn’t too late to push forward with this sort of system now, clearly not at the national level, but it certainly can be done at the state or local level. In fact, Katie Wilson, the leading candidate for mayor of Seattle, is a big proponent of this sort of system for the city.

Anyhow, we can’t change what we did or didn’t do in the past, but we can choose the best route for going forward. We need to take the media seriously and that means not trusting civic minded billionaires but rather democratizing the ownership of the media. The tax credit system is a possible plan, if there are better ones, let’s get them on the table.

Reprinted with permission from Deanbaker22.

Pete Hegseth

More And More MAGA Republicans Aiming To Abolish Women's Suffrage

The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1920 — 105 years ago — and generations that came along after that, from the Silent Generation to Millennials, grew up assuming that women's suffrage was settled law. Even many critics of feminism agreed that the 19th Amendment was a good idea.

But The Guardian's Arwa Mahdawi describes a growing trend: more and more MAGA Republicans and white fundamentalist Christian nationalists openly questioning the 19th Amendment.

"Should women in the U.S. have the right to vote?," Mahdawi writes. "You'd be forgiven for assuming this particular issue was sorted out quite a long time ago. But, because we live in hell, it seems the question is once again up for debate…. First up is Braeden Sorbo, a 24-year-old conservative influencer."

Sorbo told YouTuber Richard Harris (who hosts the "Truth & Liberty" show), "I know more young women today who say they wish they didn't ever get the right to vote than I’ve ever talked to in my life."

"In a normal world," Mahdawi warns, "Sorbo would be a fringe figure shouting into the ether who we could all happily ignore. But thanks in part to digital media, we don't have that luxury any more. Sorbo has 1.9 million followers on TikTok…. More importantly, however, Sorbo's views can no longer be dismissed as 'fringe'…. Last month, for example, the U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, shared a video on X in which several pastors say women should no longer be allowed to vote as individuals…. Predictably, Elon Musk also has some views on this matter."

Mahdawi adds, "While the tech billionaire — soon to be trillionaire? — has never explicitly argued women shouldn't vote, he has amplified tweets that undermine the idea of universal suffrage."

According to Mahdawi, "The idea that women shouldn’t vote is increasingly being co-signed and amplified by some of the most powerful people in America."

An anti-feminist YouTuber who openly says that women should not have the right to vote is Hannah Pearl Davis, whose YouTube channel has over two million subscribers.

Mahdawi's column and Sorbo's recent comments are drawing a lot of reactions on X, formerly Twitter.

Writer John Ashton posted, "The Handmaid’s Tale is the bible of MAGA."

Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson wrote, "This is so disgusting [and] especially horrifying because it’s the younger generation promoting this crap. I said we were moving towards the [Handmaid's Tale] last November. I hope I’m wrong."

X user Peter A. Patriot commented, "Republican women are admitting they don't think they should have the right to vote. It's sad."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Can Democrats Come Back? They Already Are

Can Democrats Come Back? They Already Are

During a summer when the popularity of Donald Trump fell to abysmal lows — and strong disapproval of his presidency achieved record highs — those dire warnings were mostly brushed aside. What received far more intense and sustained attention were the awful numbers registered by the Democratic Party, with analysts bemoaning its "historically" weak condition.

The occasion for all the funereal commentary was the release in late July of a Wall Street Journal poll that any honest Democrat had to find alarming. According to that survey, 63 percent of voters said they hold an unfavorable opinion of the party, while only 33 percent said their view of the party is favorable, the lowest rating ever for Democrats in a Journal survey. The party's net unfavorable was 19 points worse than the Republican Party, an unprecedented gap.

Such troubling findings can't be dismissed or waved away, even though the Journal poll was much worse than recent polls by other media outlets, which showed a mere 10-point ratings advantage for Republicans. Before we start putting up black crepe around the Democratic headquarters and drafting documents of surrender, however, there are some numbers that deserve our attention as well. For although the Democrats currently languish under a burden of public disfavor, those sour feelings may have almost no impact on their ability to defeat Republicans and achieve power again.

How can that possibly be? The real question in upcoming elections is not whether voters like the Democratic brand (or the GOP brand) but rather which party's candidate they will choose when marking their ballots. So far this year, despite the bad branding suffered by Democrats, the party is overperforming in dozens of special elections across the country and appears almost certain to win the two major statewide elections this November in New Jersey and Virginia. Polls in Virginia have showed Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger beating her Republican opponent by double digits, and her New Jersey counterpart Mikie Sherrill is ahead of the Republican by nearly as much in some polls.

Special elections are not necessarily predictive of a general election outcome, as we learned last year. Yet the results in many races this year have been startling, dating back to Wisconsin's state supreme court contest last April, when Elon Musk and right-wing organizations spent nearly $40 million to defeat liberal Democrat Susan Crawford. The Tesla zillionaire made news not only with his brazen attempt to buy the election but by declaring its outcome decisive "for the future of Western civilization."

All that money and publicity drove unusually high turnout for an off-year judicial election — which Crawford won by 10 points, a landslide humiliation for Musk and a repudiation for the Republican far right (including Trump).

The trend kicked off by Crawford's victory continued across the country over the ensuing months, including races and places considerably less hospitable to Democrats than the purplish Badger State. In Iowa, for instance, the Democrats have picked up not one but two state senate seats in specials this year — the first in January, when Democrat Mike Zimmer won in a district that Trump had carried by 20 points only two months earlier, and the second in June, when Democrat Catelin Drey won by 11 points in a district that Trump took by an equal margin last fall — a turnaround of 22 points in less than a year.

Such encouraging results for Democrats have been commonplace across the country in 2025. According to The Downballot, a website that compiles and analyzes election results across all nonpresidential races, Democratic candidates in 34 special elections this year have run about 16 points on average better than 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris in the same districts.

Does that mean Democrats will win next year's midterms? It is far too early to make any such happy prediction.

But even that grim Journal poll demands a deeper look before anyone descends into gloom. As pollster G. Elliot Morris, formerly of FiveThirtyEight, explains on his Substack, it is very possible for voters to say they disapprove of the Democratic Party — and then cast their votes for Democratic candidates. That same poll found Democrats ahead in the generic ballot for 2026, measuring which party voters plan to support in the midterm, by three percentage points.

"That's a six-point swing from their last poll in 2024," notes Morris, "and would be large enough for the Democrats to win somewhere around 230-235 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives." Depending on specific circumstances in the states, it might even mean a change in control of the U.S. Senate.

The negative atmosphere surrounding the Democratic Party and its public image arises from dissatisfaction and even anger among the voters in its own base, furious over the feckless leadership that led to the 2024 debacle and the hesitant response to Trump's first months in office. Their reaction is understandable and predictable after a national defeat — but their more recent victories are a signal of hope on the horizon.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024).

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World