155 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment deleted
19h
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Beth Kephart's avatar

I left several messages for him today. I am ashamed to say that at one point my voice was .... elevated .... in anger. But what the hell.

Expand full comment
Martha Joan's avatar

Mine was as well

Not loving my enemies today

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
1dEdited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

Gary do what you need to do but please do not bring this doomerism in here. This is a working community of proud patriots and we are going to keep fighting.

Expand full comment
Gary Hargreaves's avatar

I apologize Simon. Keep fighting 🇺🇸

Expand full comment
Barry's avatar

Question for Simon or group; when will these disastrous cuts in Medicaid take effect? I’m under the impression that these devious bastards are pushing the impact out to post election year. Does anyone know the facts? Thank you.

Expand full comment
Howard Park's avatar

Pending litigation, I would think they will take effect in the next fiscal year beginning in October or Jan 1, 2026. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Expand full comment
Aspenwood's avatar

I believe you're right. They want the enactment to be after the elections. It's our responsibility to be very loud about the impending cuts BEFORE the elections.

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

It doesn't really matter. This bill will be a devastating blow to the health care industry in America. Layoffs and cost cutting measures will begin immediately. Stocks will take big hits. States with responsible governors - including in battleground states and districts - will start treating this like the public health emergency that it is.

Expand full comment
Barry's avatar

Thank you.

Expand full comment
BeeBeeinNYC's avatar

And, with The Right so concerned about the birthrate, what have been deepening healthcare deserts (because doctors don't want to practice under such pressure) will fast become Healthcare Death Valleys. You won't be able to get an OB-GYN to deliver your baby. Right. Good luck AL, TN, etc.

Expand full comment
Susan Dieterlen's avatar

Would those stocks taking hits include Big Pharma stocks? Big Pharma would be quite an addition to the circle of defiance, particularly thinking of $ for the midterms.

Expand full comment
Diane Matza's avatar

As I understand it, the cuts won't take place until after the midterms. They think they are fooling people, and of course, they will fool some of them. But these polls show they are not fooling everybody, not by a long shot

Expand full comment
Howard Park's avatar

Sen. Josh Hawley has won a lot of praise for supposedly defending Medicaid, complaining about credit card interest rates, and being "anti-monopoly" in spirit. Don't be fooled again. When the going gets a little bit tough Josh is a loyal Trumpist and will cite scripture as he kisses Trump's ass. Josh is running in 2028 and wants to be thought of as a Trumpist with a heart. Watch what he does not what he says.

Expand full comment
Madam Geoffrin's avatar

Always. Talk is cheap. Murkowski too.

Expand full comment
Howard Park's avatar

And Collins.

Expand full comment
<PowerOfOne>'s avatar

And Tillis

Expand full comment
Virginia Shultz-Charette's avatar

Tillis is not running for reelection.

Expand full comment
Lisa Iannucci's avatar

Keep that image of him with the raised fist in your mind. That is the Hawley who is doing this.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

BUDGET CLAIMS FIRST CASUALTY: Thom Tillis

“As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home. It's not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election."

https://nitter.poast.org/igorbobic/status/1939375330277642587#m

NOTE: I hope and pray Senator Tillis shows spine by firmly voting against this horrible budget bill. Better to be remembered standing up for your principles!

Expand full comment
Barnard Thomas's avatar

From your mouth to God’s ear!

Expand full comment
Bison Doc's avatar

Interesting that so many Republican politicians suddenly develop a conscience when they decide to not seek reelection.

Expand full comment
LD's avatar

We've already seen 128 democrats vote with republicans to not impeach him. What will be on their minds this time? This is not business as usual! Are they ready, willing and able to fight and get republicans not to vote on this horrific bill is the question.

Expand full comment
LD's avatar

Aware and understood. Still, I worry.

Expand full comment
Adam's avatar
1dEdited

Yeah, me too. I just tagged that link onto your comment for anyone who was not aware of these shenanigans.

There is so much to keep up with (too GD much) in these trumpian themed reality TV days that would be quite fascinating to watch if they were happening somewhere else, to some other folks that only existed in a low-rent show for the slow!

Expand full comment
LD's avatar

To your point, it's smart to add the link to keep raising awareness. Agreed this is consuming but necessary and keeping our wits about us as we continue to forge ahead.

Expand full comment
Ltmuirssi@gmail.com's avatar

I am delighted to see that Jon Ossoff has been added to the list of candidates up for re-election in 2026 that we are supporting. Jon is a stellar Senator. When he and Rev. Senator Warnock won their races in 2020 to become Georgia’s two

U. S. Senators — against all odds, Democrats gained the slimmest majority, and we got things done. As a longtime Georgia voter, I know that Jon is a great Senator for our state. The rest of the country needs him, too, to regain our majority in the Senate to be a serious bulwark against Trump’s ruination of the country. I applaud and hope we exceed the $200,000 goal!

Expand full comment
Louise's avatar

Good to hear this. I live in Virginia. Just made my contribution to Jon Ossoff. Hope it helps! I don't know a lot about him and the assessment of his performance in Georgia. But what I do know is positive.

Expand full comment
Ltmuirssi@gmail.com's avatar

Louise, thank you! To see Senator Ossoff in action, please google his questioning of Russell Vought, head of OMB. PBS Weekend broadcast it on 6/25. Your contribution is a huge vote of confidence and sets a great example for others who are just learning about him.

Expand full comment
Janice Boomstein's avatar

Greetings from Dallas. Signed up for Beto's Powered by People voter registration training - the state and county democratic party is not even mentioning partisan voter reg.

Expand full comment
Lisa Iannucci's avatar

Beto continues to do good work in the Lone Star State. He truly cares and wants to make a difference. The training is excellent-- thank you for doing that, and please encourage friends and family to do likewise.

Expand full comment
Adam's avatar

Just left voices messages for Collins and Tillis. I'm a trained voice actor and used copy that i wrote myself. If I get a chance to share it in this forum, I will do so.

Now I have to find the DC# for Murkowski

Expand full comment
Heather M's avatar

Dems need a 24h watchman in the House of Rs and Senate to be on the lookout for midnight votes. 1 if by land 2 if by sea …

Expand full comment
Leslie's avatar

Thanks to your reminders about the FEC deadline I made some donations today, to our Hopium candidates but also to my Congressperson Val Hoyle and Governor Tina Kotek. I also called our senators to thank them for opposing the Big Brutal Bill.

Expand full comment
Mark Roberts's avatar

Should we be calling for everyone to come to DC and shut down Congress so the vote can't take place? Why is the "opposition" just accepting this loss? We need the 70% of Americans who oppose this vote to come to Washington!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
1d
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

Gary last post of this nature today. Thank you. Wildly inappropriate sentiment for this site.

Expand full comment
kitkatmia's avatar

this is a very good idea!!! surround the capitol. people power!!! might be a little late tho.

Expand full comment
Mark Roberts's avatar

Can we get people there? What would be the date? I'm suspecting people would go!

Expand full comment
Michael G Baer's avatar

If it passes the Senate it still needs to go back to the House

Expand full comment
Karmama's avatar

How about tomorrow, and not just tomorrow. G e n e r a l s t r i k e; I've no legal expertise and respectfully ask those who have it to advise. Certainly feels like the time has come.

Expand full comment
Mark Roberts's avatar

Why aren't we calling for this?

Expand full comment
Lisa Iannucci's avatar

BC it takes a LOT of organization and planning to be effective, including participation from key stakeholders like various unions, etc. It is something we build up to. Believe me, it is on the menu.

Expand full comment
Deborah Potter's avatar

No. Democrats will not abandon their duty in Congress, and will not step aside to the will of Republicans. Their voices will be heard, as is their responsibility to all of us.

Expand full comment
Madam Geoffrin's avatar

I am writing on a different topic than the Big Ugly Farce: reports of establishment Democrats not getting behind Zohran Mamdani, ostensibly because of the “Globalize the Intifada” phrase.

I am a moderate Democrat, who is of Jewish descent and supporter of Israel’s right to exist. I am appalled at the establishment’s treatment of this man.

I listened to his interview with Kristen Welker this morning. I understand his reluctance to expressly renounce the phrase, as it seems like a trap that would open the floodgates to further invasive questions. Similar to why Ted Kennedy refused to answer questions about Chappaquiddick.

Alienating this man and the voters he brought into the fold - former Trump voters - is Democratic malpractice on steroids. It will reverberate well beyond the 5 boroughs.

How is his nomination a threat to other Democrats? Did Bernie Sanders’ and AOC’s victories stop moderate Democrats from winning in moderate districts? NO!!!!

Isn’t it time for the Democrats to stop accepting the MSM phrasing of issues? Shouldn’t the question to Mamdani be if he renounces violence against ALL civilians???

I called all 3 of my representatives re: the above, including Mikie Sherrill who will not win without a strong showing from NJ’s progressive strongholds, like Essex County. Which BTW Ras Baraka won….

Expand full comment
Lisa Iannucci's avatar

Agree 100%. I have been sounding the alarm about voter registration and turnout in NJ for WEEKS. Our state party and many county parties are all but MIA and we desperately need outside help! The phrase is not the best, but should not be used as a reason to marginalize him.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

There is no denying that Zohran Mamdani has made very controversial statements that some people have good reason to find profoundly unnerving, including using the phrase you cite. In all fairness, that’s on Mamdani himself, not the MSM – at least in this particular instance.

Anyone who imagines "Globalize the Intifada!" to be innocent cheerleading for the Palestinian cause is historically ignorant and politically delusional.

Personally I would have liked to see both Cuomo and Mamdani lose in the primary. They were both flawed candidates, albeit in different ways. Imho, far and away the best candidate from Mayor of New York was Brad Lander.

Expand full comment
Marlisse B's avatar

Thank you. I agree about the phrase. Especially with recent targeting and murder of Jews.

Expand full comment
<PowerOfOne>'s avatar

Personally I'd stay away from using phrases that are legitimate emotional flash points for some and easily misunderstood or manipulated by others. "Globalize the Intifada" and "Defund the Police" are two examples. Yet I would also echo at least some of what Madam said above regarding the brewhaha over Mamdani. In avoiding flash point phrasing, it is a mistake to avoid the substance of the issue.

Mamdani is associated with Democratic Socialist of America. Both Bernie and AOC are associated with DSA. Bernie and AOC are strong intergenerational political talents and communicators who have done much good for the country and the Dems. Would Bernie have knocked off Trump in 2016? Who knows! I question whether Biden would have won in 2020 without Bernie's support! Per Madam's point, we must understand and not lose sight that Mamdani won over a lot of voters.

My main point is that we are long past the time when Dems need to fashion a strong rejoinder to the socialist slur that is a constant drum beat from Republicans. I'm not sure why Mamdani associated with DSA but what I have seen of his platform doesn't scream "end private property rights" or "nationalize the economy". As an example, cities all across the country offer bus services. Calling for the bus services to be free doesn't stir any concerns on my part about Mamdani trying to nationalize all means of production.

I also was hoping for Lander but would also point out that Lander seems to be a strong supporter of Mamdani! The over-riding point for me is that if Dems don't do a better job of framing their values and strategies then they will continue to be open to being "framed" by the GOP or MSM or right wing media. I'm thinking that Mr Stones and Madam and I might all agree on that point.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

I find much that I agree with here – and won’t dwell on the points where we might disagree. Just three points:

Mamdani won a decisive primary victory by talking about the bread-and-butter issues that matter to NYC voters. For this he deserves praise and support. More Democrats should have a clear focus on this.

Second, it’s well worth remembering that the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) withdrew their support for and denounced AOC!

Third, Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist despite calling himself that (I wish he wouldn’t). More accurately, Bernie is a Social Democrat, and actually quite middle-of-the-road in that regards relative to, say, Scandinavian policies. Moreover, I have never heard Bernie introduce any "socialist" legislation, ever.

Expand full comment
BeeBeeinNYC's avatar

I am going through my own Mamdani moment. I did not rank him nor Cuomo: There were other candidates who could deliver the policies I favored and had far more experience.

But, now that he's the Dem candidate, and I know who the other candidates might be, I will support his run with everything I have.

I too am unnerved by some of the language but I am comforted that Lander and Nadler stand in support of him, and that hopefully Lander will be an essential member of his admin if he wins. I am mindful that generational tectonic shift is something I have to work on myself.

Now, do I think this is a long-lasting romance between Nadler, Lander and Mamdani? Nope. I think issues will arise just as soon as a spark emerges.

Do I believe he's a shoo-in? For all the headlines, my understanding is that this primary had a very low turnout (something like 30%).

This will be a dirty campaign that will put many people off. With Adams and Cuomo in the mix, and with a little bit of time for everyone, including Mamdani, to put their feet in their mouths, Adams and Cuomo are there to siphon every single vote away from Mamdani - REGARDLESS of their platforms.

And again, it'll be the Jews that are the scapegoats, which is what I so fear. And, if Mamdani wins and fails to deliver - which I think is a probability - I am certain that for my remaining lifetime, NYC will never again put a "progressive" in Gracie mansion. That makes me very sad.

Expand full comment
Michael G Baer's avatar

Thats an whole lot of prognosticating BeeBee. It might not be catastrophic.

The campaign will be hard fought, I will grant you that. But you have to acknowledge that, particularly in these times of enormous flux, you just go put in the work and the result will emerge.

Thats why they play the game, regardless of the point spread or the pundits predictions.

Expand full comment
<PowerOfOne>'s avatar

I almost always learn something from your posts. Thanks

I had seen some time ago that the DSA did not recognize Bernie as a socialist. I too wish he would stop calling himself that. In fact, that takes me back to the "framing" of Dems as socialist.

If you follow Heather Cox Richardson, the charge of socialism goes way back to reconstruction days where southern whites didn't want blacks to have the vote because they were poor and would advocate for schools, paved roads etc. Thus the birth of the "framing" that taxes were "redistribution" from hard working whites to poor, low skilled blacks. This along with the idea that if you were poor it was because you didn't work hard enough.

Part of the challenge of negating the socialist slur is for Democrats to avow capitalism but a form of capitalism that values human capital (labor), recognizes human capital as the source of all financial capital, and invests in the fair treatment and flourishing of human capital.

If the GOP wants pure capitalism where the only goal is maximizing profit, then by default that means much of the value generated by human capital gets redistributed up. This is the story of the last 50 years. Government intervention is then required to balance that out and provide some measure of human flourishing. So redistribution down is necessitated to counteract redistribution up. Another option, it seems to me is stakeholder capitalism where business sees to the needs of labor, the community etc.

Either approach seems consistent with the idea of a capitalist system.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

Thank you for the kind words! And likewise, your posts always give me cause for reflection. Heather Cox Richardson’s "Letters From an American" has been part of my morning read for years. She is truly terrific!

Personally, I suppose I am an Elizabeth Warren capitalist – but for some reason this doesn’t have a snappy ring to it and may not fit on a bumper sticker:

"Yes to Well-Regulated Capitalism!"

Expand full comment
<PowerOfOne>'s avatar

Thanks ArcticStones. Doing "likes" are good in a community like this and getting a positive reply takes it up a notch or two. Then to hear that someone has noticed across a number of different posts is probably the ultimate... so thanks again.

I'm a fan of Lizzie Dubs, as the young folks seem to call Elizabeth Warren, as well. How about "Capitalism That Works for You".

I was speaking to a friend who lives up in MA and asked him when was the last time he had heard a Dem say that he/she was a capitalist. He didn't have an answer. My answer was Lizzie Dubs from the having a beer interview she did when she ran for president.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/elizabeth-warren-i-am-a-capitalist-but-markets-need-rules.html

That is literally the only time I have heard a Dem say they were any kind of capitalist let alone a proud capitalist. That was 2018... c'mon people! Simon's "With Dems Things Get Better" lays out a data case. We need to wrap a story around it that explains WHY and it starts with saying we are proud capitalists who develop human capital and assure that human capital is fully compensated for their contribution.

David Leonhardt's book is a great source of ideas along these lines. He compares what he calls "rough and tumble capitalism" (GOP) with "democratic capitalism" (not the party but the political system but really is or should be the party). He concludes that democratic capitalism has a demonstrably superior record.

Expand full comment
Irene's avatar

Thank you Bee Bee,

Your “locals knowledge” and pragmatic approach are invaluable to me. I’m one of those moderates who’ve moved to a wait and see position for now.

Expand full comment
Fisher's avatar

listening to ezra klein and chris hayes...lander ran a great campaign.. for president, not mayor; he was the classic dem with a list of things he would do; mamdani did retail politics and walked the streets; as joe trippi said, it wasn't so much the message as the tactics. mamdani promised lots of things he just will not be able to do, and boy will they let him know it if he gets elected. but i'm not going to take anything away from a guy who fights, even if i am offended at some of his remarks. we need fighters.

Expand full comment
Bea's avatar
4hEdited

I think people need to stop jumping on the manipulation of media bandwagons. I find it interesting that the media paraphrase but doesn't show the clips of what he said and everyone just goes with it. The Republicans don't like him because his platform embodies everything the general public want…so they've sent out their marching orders.

This is simple to clear up and we need to stop falling for the bait because that's what they want. They want us focused on this carrot so we tear ourselves apart. There is no confusion in what he meant. continuing to allow the media to use this as a vehicle to harm our party needs to stop. Dems need to get a spine and stand up to it. Call it out. Call out why the media are not using clips. Refute it. Explain what he actually said.

We need to lean in and support him….otherwise we are the ones just supporting more antisemitism.

https://substack.com/@qasimrashid/note/c-130537164?r=2abu9i&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

Expand full comment
kitkatmia's avatar

did resist bot on cell ph to all 3 repubs who do not represent me, as i do daily. josh @ tpm says house has been given orders to just agree to the bill with no changes. so hideous on july 4th. he even stole that from us. just a super bad week. we need some wins!!

Expand full comment
Liz Scheffler's avatar

First thank you for joining the Women's Summit and our post meeting discussion. Glad you explained what the DNC was doing . I will cease wanting to bang down their doors.

Expand full comment
David E.'s avatar

My understanding is that Senators can still introduce amendments to the bill even after it has advanced to debate. Is that right? Could someone more knowledgeable than I correct or confirm this?

What is to stop Democrats from introducing a thousand amendments to draw public attention to what is actually in the bill?

Expand full comment
Lisa Iannucci's avatar

they are doing that, from what I understand.

Expand full comment
Michael G Baer's avatar

Its called vote-a-rama and they damn well better do that. There is also nothing to stop us from calling our blue Senators with suggested amendments. We could all brainstorm it here if we chose to...

Expand full comment
Deborah Potter's avatar

Here is the process for reconciliation. "When the full House or Senate considers a reconciliation bill, amendments may be offered. But the Congressional Budget Act generally prohibits consideration of any amendment that would cost money — that is, raise spending or cut taxes without fully offsetting the cost.[5] An exception is that, in the Senate, an amendment to simply strike a provision is permissible even if doing so would cost money.

As with other major legislation, the House typically adopts a special “rule” establishing specific procedures for considering a reconciliation bill. That rule will typically allow only certain specified amendments to be offered. In the Senate, amendments must also comply with other rules that guide consideration of reconciliation (see Byrd Rule questions below), and with budget “points of order” (or parliamentary objections) established under either the Congressional Budget Act or a budget resolution."

https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

HARDBALL BUDGET BS FROM SENATE REPUBLICANS

Senate Republicans are refusing the Democrats’ request for a bipartisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian on using current policy baseline to pay for tax cuts.

“There is no need to have a parliamentarian meeting with respect to the current policy baseline because Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act gives [Lindsey] Graham — as Chairman of the Budget Committee — the authority to set the baseline.

“There is nothing to debate and we consider this matter settled.”

https://nitter.poast.org/AndrewDesiderio/status/1939343859319726226#m

Expand full comment