Quick Takes (v76): Old Guard v. Newcomers

Why are people like me so sick and tired of 'politics as usual,' you ask? There are so many reasons, including the one illustrated below.

Connecticut Democrats are being asked, by a millionaire septuagenarian, to vote him through the party primary and let him fight it out in the general election for a 15th term in Congress. 

Why? Because he's been around long enough to be a committee chairman if the Dems manage to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November, and actually win the House in the midterms.

Calls for generational change in Connecticut
Connecticut Democrat John B. Larson has been in the House of Representatives for 14 terms. He would like at least two more years, but the race to replace him has become the latest test of the left’s desire for generational change.

Larson faces three challengers today — former Hartford mayor Luke Bronin, Hartford school board member Ruth Fortune and state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest — but Bronin is seen as the candidate with the best chance to upset Larson, who turned 78 last month.

Larson is staking his reelection campaign on his seniority, arguing that it would be foolish for voters to throw away the power that comes with age in the nation’s seniority-driven political system. “If you’re coming to Congress for the first time, you start at the bottom and work your way up,” Larson said this month. “But if you have the opportunity to send someone who’s going to be a chairman, that means your voice in your district is amplified.”

Just imagine how different things could be if people didn't just assume that because they've 'been there, done that' for a long time, they're the better choice to represent their constituents.

Just imagine how different things could be if bright newcomers with ideas that are supported by thousands in their district and millions in their party weren't forced to 'wait their turn' to get the opportunity to make a difference. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a perfect example of this; she lost a vote to become the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee to an eight-term gentleman from Virginia, Rep. Gerry Connolly, "who has got experience, who is seasoned, who can be trusted, who has a record of productivity," he said after the vote.

Would AOC have been the perfect choice for ranking member? Maybe not. Would giving her the chance have been a mistake? I doubt it. But how long will she or others have to wait to get the experience, become seasoned and trusted, before they get a chance to prove themselves? 

Just imagine how different things could be if everyone who was chosen to serve placed their constituents first, rather than party leadership (or worse, the head of another coequal branch of government), and fought for the things that their district needs, whether it's health insurance, clean water, a chip factory, replacement of aging infrastructure, or brand new infrastructure like rural hospitals and elder care facilities, a modernized airport, data center or yes, even an ICE detention facility, if that's what the people want.

Everyone young or new is not automatically better; everyone old is not automatically worse - this is not about age. Rather, it's about how things change outside the halls and walls of where our elected officials spend their time - on our dime - and how hard it is to get those changes recognized inside those halls and walls. 

There has to be a better way; term limits are a start, of course, but it runs deeper than that, doesn't it? Chime in!

Sunday School 8/2/26

With all of the focus on the Democratic Socialists competing in Democratic primaries across the country, I thought I'd spend time with the OG DS, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who chatted with Kristen Welker in NBC's Meet the Press classroom yesterday. While some of Welker's questions were long, almost all of Sanders' answers were, so be prepared.  

Welker started by referencing a new poll showing that "one third of Democratic-leaning voters now identify as Democratic Socialists (DS)," and noted that, "quite frankly," DS candidates have been winning their primaries. And she asked Sanders if he was confident they could win in purple states. I'm going to try and break up his 470-odd word response into sections so you can catch your breath reading it.

Well, I am, but I’m mostly confident that the American people know that our country today is moving in a very, very bad direction at a time when we have more income and wealth inequality than we’ve ever had in the history of America. What’s going on now makes the Gilded Age of Rockefeller look like an egalitarian utopia. What’s going on now is that millions of our people, right now, in the richest country on Earth, they’re struggling to put food on the table, pay for health care, pay for their rent, pay for their mortgage.

You got half of all the workers who have nothing in savings as they face retirement. Or you’re facing seeing kids unable to afford to go to college in the richest country in the history of the world. So people all over America are looking around, they’re saying, “Hey, wait a minute. The very richest people are becoming richer. Elon Musk himself, one man, owns more wealth by far than the bottom half of American households. What in God’s name is going on?”

And people look at the Republican leadership and Donald Trump, and they say, “You know, this guy’s worried about a Reflecting Pool. I can’t afford my retirement. He’s starting a war in Iran, costing us huge amounts of money, killing innocent people. 18 American servicemen are dead. What are they doing?”

And then you look at the Democratic Party leadership, which also gets their money, like the Republicans, from very wealthy people, and people are saying, “Is the Democratic leadership representing ordinary Americans?” And I think people look at the Republicans, they say, “No, they’re out of touch,” look at the Democratic leadership, say, “No, they’re out of touch.

We need a government, a radical idea, that works for all people and not just for wealthy campaign contributors.” And that’s why, from New York City with (Zoran) Mamdani, and in Colorado, and in California, and in Montana, and I think you’re going to see it in Michigan, people are saying, “Enough is enough. You know, let’s get a government that represents all of us.”

And I’ve got to tell you something, Kristen, that part of the exasperation that the American people are feeling, it’s not just an economy which is rigged. They’re looking at a corrupt — underlying corrupt campaign finance system. And what you’re seeing in Michigan right now is AIPAC, other billionaire-funded super PACs, putting tens and tens of millions of dollars against Abdul El-Sayed. In Minnesota against Peggy Flanagan, same thing.

So we’ve got billionaires buying elections, government working for the billionaires, and ordinary people saying, “We want change.” And that is why progressives, democratic socialists, are doing so well all over this country. They’ve got an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families. They’re prepared to stand up to the oligarchs.

Since Sanders mentioned Michigan, she wondered how confident he was that his endorsed candidate, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, could "pull out a victory" in Tuesday's primary against the establishment candidate, Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

Look, he has taken on –I’ve never - you know, I’m not a political scientist. I cannot recall where a major candidate was outspent so much by super PACs. I mean, they’re spending tens and tens of millions of dollars against him. The polling recently looks good, but polls don’t win elections, people do. So I would hope that, in Michigan and later next week in Minnesota, people understand the importance of this election. What’s it about?

It’s not just whether Abdul can win or not, beat Haley Stevens. The question is whether or not we live in a democratic society where a candidate fighting for working people can take on tens and tens of millions of dollars of AIPAC money, special interest money. And I hope very much that Abdul is - and I’ll tell you why, and a kind of selfish reason. Everybody in America understands that our current health care system is totally broken. We’re spending unbelievable amounts of money, twice as much per capita as the people of any other country. 85 million uninsured, underinsured. Prices way high.

Dr. El-Sayed is somebody I need in the Senate as he fights for Medicare for All. He’s a doctor. He has seen the broken health care system. We need him to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country has health care as a human right, as is the case in every other major country on Earth.

Welker noted that Sen. Gary Peters, whose seat is up for grabs, has backed Stevens to replace him, saying

You have to have a candidate who understands that winning a general election doesn’t mean just turning out Democrats. You also have to appeal to a broader cross-section of your state, and Michigan is a true purple state.

To Sanders, she posted this question: "What do you think Dr. El-Sayed will have to do in order to turn out moderates and independents to win a general election if he does win on Tuesday?" In a nutshell, Sanders explained El-Sayed can win because working-class Republicans are in the same boat as all working-class people, and they know the system is broken.

You are struggling to figure out how you’re going to retire with dignity. You understand that the current campaign finance system is broken. You understand that workers need decent wages, and El-Sayed is fighting for a livable minimum wage. And by the way, if you’re a Republican, you know maybe we should be investing our money into Michigan, into Vermont, into America rather than giving the extremist government of Netanyahu and Israel tens of billions of dollars to continue their atrocities against the Palestinian people - I think if you’re a working-class - ok - if you’re a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you’re going to listen to what El-Sayed says. You’re gonna - and I think many of them will end up voting for him. Independents as well, of course.

Welker asked if El-Sayed should "speak with the same clarity" as Sanders has on the issue of Israel as a Jewish State. El-Sayed has said he "often struggles with the question of whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.”  Here's the non-answer:

Look, I think right now the immediate issue of the moment is whether or not we continue to put tens of billions of dollars into the extremist Netanyahu government, which has killed 75,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, wounded 150,000, destroyed their infrastructure. And what the American people are saying overwhelmingly, Democrats, many independents - the majority of independents, and many Republicans, especially younger Republicans, “We’ve got better things to do with our money than to continue to fund the military of Israel.”

They talked a bit about the Maine primary, where Troy Jackson was chosen to replace Graham Platner after widely-reported scandals. Sanders knows Jackson; he'd endorse him if he was asked, and said "I look forward to working with him in the US Senate." And, on comments from Sen. John Fetterman (Kinda D- PA) about Sanders supporting Platner, Sanders suggested that Fetterman "was reflecting the views of about 19% of the Democrats" in PA and is "way out of touch with the people of America."  And, when she asked if he had any regrets about endorsing Platner, he turned to his standard lines:

I’ll tell you, you know, I think right now we’re looking at a campaign in Michigan, we’re looking at a campaign in Minnesota. The people of this country right now are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment policies. They want change and I and other progressives are going to do everything that we can to bring about those changes.

Finally, they talked about who could carry the progressive banner into the next presidential race, which will be the first without him since 2016.

Kristen there are — one of the untold secrets in Washington is in the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, you have many, many really strong progressives. Many of them are young. Many of them are women. Many of them are people of color. And we have elected many of them. And I think as a result of this election cycle, you’re going to see a lot more coming to Washington. I think as a nation, and by the way, with all due respect, the media spends too much time worrying about who’s going to be a president in two and a half years.

Right now, we have enormous problems facing this country. We’re looking at heat waves all over the world. You’ve got climate change. We’re looking at the big tech oligarchs pushing AI and robotics down our throat. Congress is doing very little to protect working people in that. We’re looking at massive levels of income and wealth inequality, a corrupt campaign finance system. My suggestion is, as a country, as a Congress, as media, let’s focus on the important issues facing working people. Two and a half years from now is a long time to a presidential election. I’m sure it will unfold itself.

I had hoped there'd be more questions about the Democratic Socialists of America platform, and to what extent the DS candidates support the platform. We'll have to wait to see if any of them win in November before anyone starts asking about that. 

For his part, Sanders was Sanders - his answers, in my opinion, were entirely predictable. What do you think?

Sunday School 7/26/26: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit this week, I dropped by the Meet the Press (NBC) classroom to listen in on some talk about the upcoming midterms. 

For the first part of the conversation, host Kristen Welker was joined by NBC's Chief Data Analyst, Steve Kornacki. Here's how Welker set the stage:

Today marks 100 days until the midterm elections. At stake: control of Congress. Will the war in Iran -- and its impact on the economy -- hurt Republicans’ chances of holding onto power? Or can Democrats flip the House and Senate? Even as a fight rages within the party over its future. 

Kornacki dove right into the numbers, putting the landscape in perspective, he said. 

• Trump's approval is at 41% on average across all polls, a little lower than before the 2018 midterms in his first term. 
• In a recent Fox News poll on specific issues, "majority disapprove everywhere. His best mark is 42 on immigration." On Iran, the economy, and inflation, the numbers were apparently much worse.
• In 2022, under Biden, the Dems lost "only a few seats" in the House, and picked up one in the Senate. That's what the Rs are hoping will happen this year, and they "think that their one chance is the image of the Democratic Party."
• A majority of Democrats, in the same Fox poll, "have a favorable view of socialism" but that ends at the party door - socialism is "deeply unpopular" with Independents.
• The Dems need to gain four Senate seats to get control, and they can't lose any seats, either. Their best hopes are in Maine and North Carolina, but where are the other two? Can they come from states that Trump won by double digits - Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
• Iran hangs over the whole mess; in a Politico poll, "65% say the war shouldn't continue, or should continue only if it doesn't make costs worse. And 56% of MAGA share that opinion, compared to several weeks ago when it was 41%.

Later in the lesson, the panel gathered to continue discussing the midterms. Today's crew: New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Welker asked Pager what he was hearing from his sources about Iran and the mood at the White House. He said for a while folks were optimistic that "the war would be winding down or at least not on the front of voters' minds when they went to the polls, or even after Labor Day." And now? It seems there are some concerns that fluctuating prices and continuing attacks in the war could be "a huge issue for voters."  On the other hand,

...when you talk to Republicans, they point out a few things that make them somewhat optimistic that things could go a little bit better. One, the huge cash advantage that the Republicans have in the committees. Two, the redistricting efforts that have given Republicans a fighting chance in some areas that they didn’t think they would compete in. And lastly, they think they have a message of attack, particularly around the Democratic Socialist candidates that have won, trying to paint them as representatives of the entire Democratic Party. But most voters care about the economy. And that is going to be — continue to be a huge issue for the party as they try to stave off what appears to be a losing hand heading into November.

Welker turned to Chen, asking about Labor Day as a key date, especially when it comes to getting gas prices down. She said, "The economy is always the single biggest issue" for voters considering which party to support, but noted there's some complexity to the picture for the Rs. She pointed to the redistricting efforts in red states making perhaps 10 to 15 seats more competitive, and the progressive Dems who are far to the left of most Americans.

So those are advantages, no question about it. But the challenge Republicans face is what I consider to be an expectations gap. There’s an expectation about the end of the war. There’s an expectation about prices coming down. And the reality hasn’t always met those expectations. So not only are you seeing challenges with independent voters. The bigger issue for Republicans is energy. It’s the energy of the Republican electorate. Are those most loyal Republican voters going to turn out and vote when Donald Trump is not on the ballot? That’s the big question.

And, talking about "the progressive branch of the Democratic Party," Welker noted the energy level there, and how there's a divide playing out in primaries. She talked about Michigan, where there's a primary next month with a progressive battling a moderate for a Senate seat. She asked Elrod to talk about what's at stake. 

In a nutshell? If the Dems want to take back the Senate, they have to hold Michigan, and "we have a much better shot of holding onto Michigan" if the moderate candidate wins. She also thinks that, in terms of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates more generally, it's a challenge for the Ds because some of the primary winners "may not be as appealing to the electorate in the general election.

But so far, we are seeing this relatively isolated to places like New York City, you know, urban areas, and of course that little blue dot in Colorado in Denver with Diana DeGette’s loss. If El-Sayed is successful in Michigan, that will sort of blow that argument. It’ll flop that argument significantly. Because this is a state that is in the Rust Belt. It is a state that is critical to anybody winning in 2028 for the presidential - for the presidency. So if this happens there, then I think Democrats are going to have a bigger challenge.

And on the other side of the aisle, how much of a challenge does the erosion of the MAGA base on Iran pose?  Pager turned back the clock a bit to answer this one, noting that JD Vance endorsed Trump in part because "Trump would not bring the nation to war." And Vance has been "concerned and frankly opposed" to the war (from the beginning, at least according to many reports - ed.)

So obviously that is a huge concern for the base. And that was what Vance was trying to channel in some of his opposition. The other thing as Lanhee said, we have seen the Republican Party struggle when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, particularly with turnout when it relates to the base... some of these voters that are huge Donald Trump supporters, but are not as reliably showing up for the midterm elections. And so without Donald Trump on the ballot, plus this ongoing protracted overseas conflict, that is a problem for Republicans.

Chen noted the concept of "the MAGA base is a little bit misunderstood" - it's not really a 'base' for the Rs.

... what it really is, is it’s Donald Trump’s coalition. It’s a unique coalition that no other politician has been able to replicate in recent American history. When Donald Trump is not on the ballot, as we talked about earlier, it changes the dynamic, the dynamic significantly. The question of course is: does the president want to get more involved? And what does that mean for individual candidates?

She pointed to Susan Collins, running for her *sixth* term (after pledging to only serve two), as an example of the quandary facing some GOP candidates. In Maine, she'll need the so-called MAGA base, but she can't turn off the moderates who wield a lot of power in the bluish-purple state.

... she’s got to be able to turn out that base of Republican voters while still not turning off moderates who might have a different opinion of the president. Her challenge is going to be very different than you might see in other races. So, the question of how far the president gets involved - this is his base. If he wants to turn on his base, if he wants to devote time and energy to getting those people out to vote, it’s going to change the outcome of the election.

Does that make everything clearer, as we enter the push to the midterms? Iran, affordability, DSA, Trump... right now, these are the likely suspects; we'll see if that changes over the coming weeks. 

Thoughts on the midterms? Want to see me tackle something specific? (And yes, I'll be sharing some info on the DSA in an upcoming post.) Drop a comment.

Sunday School 7/26/26

For your Sunday School lesson this week, I spent time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, which was in a New York State of mind.

First up for host Dana Bash was House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Bash noted the Dems are launching something called '100 Days Out Weekend of Action,' a sprint to the midterms, by hosting over 400 events across the country. At the same time, they have to figure out how to regain the majority either through the center or through the "activist left." Noting the latter group wants to "defund the police, abolish ICE, aid to Israel, open borders," she asked Jeffries if he was planning on moving on any of those issues if they win in November. 

Rather than answer her question, he said the Ds would focus on what unites them, and that's "a focus on fighting for an affordable America" because "life in this country is far too expensive," and that's something the whole party agrees on.

Too many people are working hard, they're playing by the rules, but they can't thrive and they can barely survive, not enough food on the table, not enough gas in the tank, unable to actually regularly and consistently afford to pay the rent or pay the mortgage. We want to drive down the cost of groceries, drive down and lower the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of housing, and also make sure that health care is affordable for every single American. 

Bash tried again, asking whether the party's policy proposals will "be in line with" what some recent progressive winners want, or if they'll move towards "the moderate area" if they win the swing states.  Again, rather than answering the question, he chose bumper stickers: push back against the "one big ugly bill" and its Medicaid cuts, extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, stop the "reckless and costly war of choice," and stop Trump's tariffs.

After two non-answers, Bash took a more direct approach, noting Jeffries has reportedly "clashed" with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who's campaigning for progressives, even those challenging incumbents, "including members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)." She asked if Sanders and others are making it harder for the Ds to win, and if that's what led to the clash. 

Jeffries said it wasn't a clash so much as a "candid conversation" with Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), chair of the CBC PAC, and it was about a single North Carolina primary. He added that he thinks Sanders and House and Senate Dems "understand the stakes" - taking control of Congress,

so we can end this MAGA extremism that has been unleashed on the American people that is actively hurting hardworking American taxpayers, and actually commit to making life more affordable for the American people.

She gave him one last chance to explain how he'll handle the progressives; according to him, "not a single person" among the incoming members has raised any of the issues Bash mentioned, other than how Dems are pushing back against the administration's immigration policies, including ICE.

The last question was about New Jersey's non-citizen voting disclosure; Bash, noting that Dems say this "doesn't happen," wondered if the discovery causes a problem for the Dems.

I think that I continue to have confidence in state and local authorities in making sure that there's going to be a free and fair election in November, and, if modest or minor challenges emerge, such as the one that was disclosed voluntarily by the authorities in New Jersey, that it is immediately corrected. And that's what I expect will continue to happen. 

And then? Back to the bumper stickers: Trump and the Rs and voter suppression, their failure to lower prices, the war, skyrocketing gas prices, and Medicaid cuts, before saying this:

They have nothing to run on. We're going to run on fighting for an affordable America.

The next New Yorker in the classroom was Border Czar Tom Homan; he's a North Country native who maintains a home in Sackets Harbor, where protestors have made their views on ICE known.

Bash led with asking if he knows "specifically" what's going on with the ICE officers who were involved in the shootings in Texas and Maine, and whether they'd been reassigned or placed on leave. Homan said he hadn't been involved in the investigations and didn't know the officers' status, but said that the policy is that they'd be put on leave during the investigation. Bash seemed surprised that, "as border czar involved in this," he didn't know for sure what had happened to the agents. He made it clear that ICE reports to Markwayne Mullin, and said

I've said from day one I won't comment on an investigation, but I can tell you I haven't specifically tracked these cases, but I can tell you, per policy, they're usually put on administrative leave pending the investigation, pending sworn statements, internal affairs interviews and the entire investigation. They usually will not be put back on duty until the investigation is over and either have been cleared or, if they've got problems, then they may not go back at all.

That last comment opened the door for Bash to bring up the domestic violence allegations against the officer in Maine (which the officer has denied). According to court documents, one of his ex-wives said that "she experienced severe domestic violence in her marriage and that he always displayed violent behavior, and even that, if anything ever happened to her, he'd be the one to look at." She wondered whether someone "with those issues" should be an ICE agent. 

No, if those of those are facts, he -- I don't think he should ever have cleared vetting. When they hire somebody, they put them through a vetting process and look at all that stuff. So, I know, based on that information -- that's part of the ongoing investigation... -- did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available? Did they not know? So, there's a separate administrative investigation on what happened here.... But the vetting process, I -- if that was factual, he would have an almost impossible time to pass vetting.

Homan said all ICE employees (some 30,000 of them) go through vetting and "this is a kind of a rare instance." And this is just one aspect of the ongoing review.

So, the training is under review. I know this specific case, as far as the vetting, is under review by the internal affairs section. So we will see where it lies. But, certainly, if this person had that type of history, it would have been a vetting issue, and it should have been brought to the attention of those who makes those decisions.

That led to Bash questioning the training, as she did the vetting, pointing to the race to "find as many undocumented immigrants as possible to deport." Homan disagreed with that premise, noting that every law enforcement agency reassesses training protocols and makes changes as needed; he even did that when he was the ICE director. And, he pointed to what Todd Lyons, ICE director last year, told Congress - that while training has changed, the amount of training did not.

They just stopped the duplication. Now it's being reviewed and... look, can we add additional training?  I think Markwayne Mullin made the decision, well, let's do a temporary pause and make sure we -- the officers have what they need to be safe and do the most safe, secure arrests possible. And that review was done pretty quickly.  

Yeah, that 'pause' is a thing, right? Here's Bash:

...during what ended up being a very brief pause, like a day, the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, said that vehicle stops would be paused, and then the president very quickly overturned that directive. But while the pause was in place, you did say it was done for the safety of the officers and whether something could have been done... my question for you is, how is it possible that all of that got accomplished in just the one day that the pause existed?

Homan pointed to some immediate changes, including at least one officer with a body camera to record all stops, and a journeyman agent assigned to them, as well. 

... (Acting ICE director) David Venturella sent an instruction out that he wants at least one body camera on those vehicle stops, so we have everything on video. So, whether the officer did something right or did something wrong, whether the alien did something right or wrong, it's on video. And I'm a big supporter of video cameras. I'm a big supporter, because I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took whatever action they took.

Frankly, everyone wants that - the public has wanted that for months. 

Moving on to the panel discussion, we've got three more New Yorkers in the game: Congressmen Tom Suozzi (D), who represents part of the North Shore of Long Island and Mike Lawler (R), who represents folks in Rockland and Putnam Counties, and Syracuse native Maya Willey, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. GOP analyst Alyssa Farah Griffin, a native Californian, was also in the mix.

Bash, herself a native New Yorker, opened with a clip from Trump's hour-long rally/WHCA dinner speech.

What do we do here? Is this supposed to be fun? I hate some people. I shouldn't say this. I'm president. I'm not supposed to hate. I'm supposed to love everybody. Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you will ever meet.

Ilhan Omar, one of my favorites. She ought to get the hell out of our country. She shouldn't be here. She shouldn't be in our country. You can't call J.B. Pritzker a fat pig, please.

Briefly, here's what the panel thought:

• Fara Griffin: Listen, he bombed, but the most offensive thing about it was that it wasn't funny...   and President Trump, by the way, can be funny... That did not show up...  I asked myself at the end of what felt like 90 minutes we will never get back of our lives, what was the point of that? It didn't unify him with the press, it didn't ingratiate him more, and he didn't really seem to have any goal. We're talking about Czech crystal, and then we're insulting, kind of going through the greatest hits... I'm not sure why he was there, to be honest. 

• Suozzi: It was just mean. I thought it was just mean-spirited. It wasn't funny. It's supposed to be an entertaining, fun night, and it was just, I thought, mean-spirited.

• Lawler: ... I think it was important for the president to go... from that standpoint, it was a positive... I think he could have been a lot funnier... Frankly, some of the stuff that is said on CNN about the president in real time is a lot harsher than anything he threw on Friday night... I definitely think the president could have brought a little more levity to it than he did

• Willey: Unfunny, mean, all of the above...  one of the points of (the dinner) is to celebrate the First Amendment and free speech... we saw not only a refusal to allow any political satire, in the form of having a comedian there. We also saw a president attacking journalists because they won awards on topics that he didn't like...

Shifting gears to the midterms and a CBS/YouGov poll showing that 78% said the administration is not focusing enough on lowering prices, Lawler was up first; he touted his own record of focusing "almost exclusively" on affordability, including pushing the SALT limit increase and the bipartisan housing bill (enacted by 'executive indifference'), and noted

...it was a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House that worked together to get it done. It was bipartisan. There were a number of Democrat initiatives in there as well. But this will actually increase supply, lower prices, create greater access to capital. These are the things the American people want us to focus on, and that's what I have been focused on.

Suozzi, on the other hand, reminded Lawler that they were both at the Inauguration last January, when we were all promised prices would come down fast. And he pointed to "five specific points directly related to this administration that are raising prices."  (I count four, but who's counting?)

Everybody knows the tariffs increase people's prices, make your food more expensive every day, make your business more expensive. Everybody knows that the war is causing an increase of gas prices at the gas pump. Everybody knows this is the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America, which causes upward pressure on interest rates, make it impossible to buy a house, to lease a car, to pay for your credit card. Everybody knows that they have cut health care premium tax credits. You and I worked together to try and save the premium tax credits...

Farah Griffin said the Rs are looking to the White House to "please get this president on message" about bringing down prices, but there's "not a great story to tell right now."

With the Iran war going -- continuing to go on, gas prices are not coming down the way that we hoped they would. The ongoing tariff regime, which we seem to announce more tariffs day in and day out, Mexico, Canada, what is next? And this is -- this is where you have got to have sound advisers around him. I imagine Susie Wiles is in his ear saying, 'you have got to get on message ahead of these midterms,' because to -- if you're the president, investigations come, accountability comes if you lose the House and potentially the Senate.

She also said they missed the boat and he should have held a big event for the housing bill, saying

... he completely missed the opportunity there. It's remarkable the inability to see what the American people voted for him to do and then deliver on it.

Willey gets the last word, noting that the messaging is not enough, and furthermore, 

... the truth is, these are self-inflicted wounds. These are not natural occurrences in high prices. These are the creation of decisions this administration has made, the Iran war being a really big and obvious one lost on no one.

And that's a wrap. Did you learn anything? Did the New Yorkers represent the state well? Drop a comment!

Breaking Fake News Update (v6)

Fake News Broke (Again) on August 11, 2025! 

This fake news broke as FOTUS's efforts to gain more control over the House of His Personal Representatives struggled in Texas as pesky Democrats left the Lone-Star-reviewed state and headed north to blue states to avoid having to participate in the mid-cycle redistricting shenanigans. This one pretty much wrote itself.

The Dems eventually returned to Austin, where they had to get permission (and a police escort) to leave the legislative chamber, for God's sake, and voted against the power grab. Needless to say, the MAGA Republicans had their way, the maps were approved, and Gov. Gregg Abbott signed the bill. 

We will continue to share fake news as it breaks.