Latest news with #Trump-hatred
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats are letting the far-left take them out of the running for 2028
In the 2024 presidential election, President Trump swept all seven swing states, won the popular vote, defied the polls and shocked Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats with his decisive victory. In the days that followed, I heard from several high-level Democratic operatives who shared essentially the same message: We are done being bullied into unpopular, losing positions by the far-left wing of our party, they said. We will get back to our roots of looking after the working class, the poor and the disenfranchised, they said. Except they didn't. Exactly the opposite. Seven months after Trump redefined how to win a presidential campaign, Democrats have been backed deeper into a corner by the far-left activists they still fear, whose creed contains only three fundamental dogmata: Trump-hatred, perpetual self-victimhood, and identity politics as the center and source of all decisions. All three of those doctrines were strongly rejected by the majority of voters in 2024, including an increasing number of Black and Hispanic men, non-white voters in general, the disenfranchised, younger people and independent voters. The reason was obvious to everyone paying attention: Trump-hatred, forever victimhood, and identity politics are not policies. They are angry rants — and tired ones at that. Left-of-center HBO host Bill Maher has made this point time and again. Those who switched to Trump in 2024 did so for one reason: He was addressing the 'bread and butter' issues that were upending voters' lives and threatening their futures. There are a great many voters who have come to believe that the Democratic Party is not only leaderless, but completely lacking when it comes to real solutions to the problems affecting their lives and futures. Whether or not the Democrats or mainstream media admit it, these are people who took the time to listen to Trump in 2024, with a growing percentage believing his policies would address their needs. The question for the Democrats now, come the midterms and looking to 2028, is: Will more from those communities once loyal to Democrats also educate themselves and move away from a party that has taken them for granted for decades? Current trends and Trump's piling up of 'bread and butter' victories indicate that this is a real possibility. When voices from these communities and others disenchanted with Democrats turn their weary eyes to the new leadership of that party of today, what do they see? Sadly for them, only the doubling down of 'hate Trump,' identity politics and 'forever victimhood.' Two of those pushing these hardest are Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). Both seem laser-focused on winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. But as both preach this tripartite Democratic gospel, there is a very easy test by which potential voters can judge them: What have they actually done to improve the lives and safety of the constituents in their districts? You know, as in the people they were elected to serve. Hating on Trump and creating as much self-serving publicity as possible are neither policies nor strategies. Rather, they are actions that could be viewed as narcissistic behavior. Famed sportscaster and longshot 2028 Democratic candidate Stephen A. Smith recently addressed this issue on his podcast, He criticized both Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett, whom he believes will turn off a majority of voters. 'I think if you are a Democrat, if you are a leftist who rails against the system … if you believe that higher taxes is the way to go, that a focus shouldn't be on securing the borders, if you believe those kind of things, and that's where you stand ideologically, AOC is your candidate,' he said. 'Most people in the country are centrists, they're moderates. Whether they're Republican moderates or Democratic moderates or just flat-out centrists who are independents — that's most of the American population … she gives the impression, when you talk about universal healthcare and you talk about other things, if you equate it to taxing Americans 70 percent of their income she wouldn't be against it. That ain't going to win you elections.' Smith also singled out Crockett for seemingly having just one position on anything: Being against any policy or opinion Trump champions. Bingo. Like him or not, Smith has his finger on the pulse of tens of millions of disenchanted voters — working-class, poor and disenfranchised, wondering more and more why the current leadership of the Democratic Party has abandoned them and their needs in favor of more self-serving rants against Trump. The Democrats ignore these millions of voices — who know the difference between useless bumper-sticker slogans and actual policy — at their own peril. Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Democrats are letting the far-left take them out of the running for 2028
In the 2024 presidential election, President Trump swept all seven swing states, won the popular vote, defied the polls and shocked Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats with his decisive victory. In the days that followed, I heard from several high-level Democratic operatives who shared essentially the same message: We are done being bullied into unpopular, losing positions by the far-left wing of our party, they said. We will get back to our roots of looking after the working class, the poor and the disenfranchised, they said. Except they didn't. Exactly the opposite. Seven months after Trump redefined how to win a presidential campaign, Democrats have been backed deeper into a corner by the far-left activists they still fear, whose creed contains only three fundamental dogmata: Trump-hatred, perpetual self-victimhood, and identity politics as the center and source of all decisions. All three of those doctrines were strongly rejected by the majority of voters in 2024, including an increasing number of Black and Hispanic men, non-white voters in general, the disenfranchised, younger people and independent voters. The reason was obvious to everyone paying attention: Trump-hatred, forever victimhood, and identity politics are not policies. They are angry rants — and tired ones at that. Left-of-center HBO host Bill Maher has made this point time and again. Those who switched to Trump in 2024 did so for one reason: He was addressing the 'bread and butter' issues that were upending voters' lives and threatening their futures. There are a great many voters who have come to believe that the Democratic Party is not only leaderless, but completely lacking when it comes to real solutions to the problems affecting their lives and futures. Whether or not the Democrats or mainstream media admit it, these are people who took the time to listen to Trump in 2024, with a growing percentage believing his policies would address their needs. The question for the Democrats now, come the midterms and looking to 2028, is: Will more from those communities once loyal to Democrats also educate themselves and move away from a party that has taken them for granted for decades? Current trends and Trump's piling up of 'bread and butter' victories indicate that this is a real possibility. When voices from these communities and others disenchanted with Democrats turn their weary eyes to the new leadership of that party of today, what do they see? Sadly for them, only the doubling down of 'hate Trump,' identity politics and 'forever victimhood.' Two of those pushing these hardest are Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). Both seem laser-focused on winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. But as both preach this tripartite Democratic gospel, there is a very easy test by which potential voters can judge them: What have they actually done to improve the lives and safety of the constituents in their districts? You know, as in the people they were elected to serve. Hating on Trump and creating as much self-serving publicity as possible are neither policies nor strategies. Rather, they are actions that could be viewed as narcissistic behavior. Famed sportscaster and longshot 2028 Democratic candidate Stephen A. Smith recently addressed this issue on his podcast, He criticized both Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett, whom he believes will turn off a majority of voters. 'I think if you are a Democrat, if you are a leftist who rails against the system … if you believe that higher taxes is the way to go, that a focus shouldn't be on securing the borders, if you believe those kind of things, and that's where you stand ideologically, AOC is your candidate,' he said. 'Most people in the country are centrists, they're moderates. Whether they're Republican moderates or Democratic moderates or just flat-out centrists who are independents — that's most of the American population … she gives the impression, when you talk about universal healthcare and you talk about other things, if you equate it to taxing Americans 70 percent of their income she wouldn't be against it. That ain't going to win you elections.' Smith also singled out Crockett for seemingly having just one position on anything: Being against any policy or opinion Trump champions. Bingo. Like him or not, Smith has his finger on the pulse of tens of millions of disenchanted voters — working-class, poor and disenfranchised, wondering more and more why the current leadership of the Democratic Party has abandoned them and their needs in favor of more self-serving rants against Trump. The Democrats ignore these millions of voices — who know the difference between useless bumper-sticker slogans and actual policy — at their own peril. Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: U.S. chief justice could easily refute the partisan criticism contained in Hammer's latest commentary
To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been part of many rulings I wasn't happy about — the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and giving President Trump unbridled immunity, to name two ("The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court's free fall," March 21). That said, I believe he takes his job seriously and truly cares about the court and the country. That's what made this commentary decrying his laudable, necessary rebuke to Trump and the rabid right for jump-starting the impeach-every-Judge-we-disagree-with bandwagon, so maddening and misguided. Now that Congress is gutless and ruled by fear of a demagogue, and Democrats are floundering trying to deal with nonstop assaults on reality, decency and the law, only the judicial branch has stood up to the unconstitutional, cruel, random actions of Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are applying the law and they, not the executive, are the arbiters of legality. Roberts was completely right to call Trump and his flunkies on their lynch-mob mentality. This article could've been pasted together from extremist posts on X and is unworthy of the L.A. Times. This paper has hosted the views and well-written insights of many conservative voices I don't see eye-to-eye with, but appreciate. Hammer isn't one of them. Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles ... To the editor: Hammer's rant failed to present a conservative balance to progressive rhetoric. His bias was underscored by his parade of adjectives: 'wildly-out-of-line criticism,' 'mercifully,' 'clumsy,' 'ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,' 'outburst' and more. The only cognitive take-away is that Hammer just does not like Roberts. Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills .. To the editor: I submit that The Times, whatever its aims, is not standing up for balance when it publishes Hammer; it's just sacrificing credibility. Truly conservative voices would be welcome, but views like Hammer's are hardly conservative or even logical. He stands with Trump in the president's megalomania: forget about the rule of law and due process in summarily expelling non-citizens; regard anyone who disagrees with the president to be at fault and deserving of pursuit; court decisions that hamper the president are based on 'paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.' Roberts showed some spine in reminding the president that a call for impeachment is not an appropriate response to an adverse court ruling. Hammer calls federal Judge James Boasberg a 'rogue' and considers impeachment fitting. What public service is The Times performing in giving such views a platform? Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: Once again, Hammer is using ridiculous, arcane references to make his point. His rationale to impeach Boasberg and why Roberts is "dead wrong" for suggesting that the remedy for rulings you don't like is by appeal, misses the point. Boasberg argued that Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans — a country we are not at war with — was simply a means to avoid due process and likely unconstitutional. Roberts is right. If Hammer disagrees with him, he can appeal; his "remedial legal lesson" is on the line. Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: U.S. chief justice could easily refute the partisan criticism contained in Hammer's latest commentary
To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been part of many rulings I wasn't happy about — the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and giving President Trump unbridled immunity, to name two ('The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court's free fall,' March 21). That said, I believe he takes his job seriously and truly cares about the court and the country. That's what made this commentary decrying his laudable, necessary rebuke to Trump and the rabid right for jump-starting the impeach-every-Judge-we-disagree-with bandwagon, so maddening and misguided. Now that Congress is gutless and ruled by fear of a demagogue, and Democrats are floundering trying to deal with nonstop assaults on reality, decency and the law, only the judicial branch has stood up to the unconstitutional, cruel, random actions of Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are applying the law and they, not the executive, are the arbiters of legality. Roberts was completely right to call Trump and his flunkies on their lynch-mob mentality. This article could've been pasted together from extremist posts on X and is unworthy of the L.A. Times. This paper has hosted the views and well-written insights of many conservative voices I don't see eye-to-eye with, but appreciate. Hammer isn't one of them. Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles ... To the editor: Hammer's rant failed to present a conservative balance to progressive rhetoric. His bias was underscored by his parade of adjectives: 'wildly-out-of-line criticism,' 'mercifully,' 'clumsy,' 'ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,' 'outburst' and more. The only cognitive take-away is that Hammer just does not like Roberts. Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills .. To the editor: I submit that The Times, whatever its aims, is not standing up for balance when it publishes Hammer; it's just sacrificing credibility. Truly conservative voices would be welcome, but views like Hammer's are hardly conservative or even logical. He stands with Trump in the president's megalomania: forget about the rule of law and due process in summarily expelling non-citizens; regard anyone who disagrees with the president to be at fault and deserving of pursuit; court decisions that hamper the president are based on 'paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.' Roberts showed some spine in reminding the president that a call for impeachment is not an appropriate response to an adverse court ruling. Hammer calls federal Judge James Boasberg a 'rogue' and considers impeachment fitting. What public service is The Times performing in giving such views a platform? Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: Once again, Hammer is using ridiculous, arcane references to make his point. His rationale to impeach Boasberg and why Roberts is 'dead wrong' for suggesting that the remedy for rulings you don't like is by appeal, misses the point. Boasberg argued that Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans — a country we are not at war with — was simply a means to avoid due process and likely unconstitutional. Roberts is right. If Hammer disagrees with him, he can appeal; his 'remedial legal lesson' is on the line. Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks
