We're Lucky They Stopped Using Kamala Harris And Liz Cheney!
When I think about who could make a compelling rebuttal to Trump’s speech— Chris Murphy, AOC, Ralphael Warnock, Jamie Raskin, Summer Lee, Robert Garcia— conservative Senate freshman, Elissa Slotkin, who has demonstrated a predilection for voting to confirm Trump’s nominees, does not come to mind. And, in fact, when I think about who should be choosing someone for that task, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the 2 highest ranking Democrats in their respective chambers, would not come to mind either. But the two of them picked “F”-rated Slotkin and, as anyone could’ve guessed, she made a terrible muck of it— pure and predictable GOP-lite.
Adam Schiff, who knew Slotkin when they were both serving in the House and were both members of the New Dems and both ultra-Zionists. They were both elected to the Senate in Nov, 2024 and she has built a solid “F” rating and by the numbers is the worst Democrat in the Senate courtesy of Progressive Punch. Schiff has put together a more balanced record (“B”) and has been voting better than 19 of his Democratic colleagues, not good enough, but far from Slotkin’s confusing record that leaves observers wondering about the difference between the two parties.
There’s an unrelated metric where Schiff kicks her ass as well— the ability and willingness to effectively take on Trump. He’s good at it. She’s absolutely horrible. Yesterday, on This Week, he said that he was disappointed in the disjointed Democratic response— he politely called it lacking in coordination— to the Trump speech. He said he thinks “the lack of coordinated response in the State of the Union was a mistake, and frankly it took the focus off of where it should have been, which is on the fact that the president spoke for an hour and 40 minutes and had nothing to say about what he would do to bring down costs for American families that were watching that lengthy address, sitting at the kitchen table, hoping that he would offer something to help them afford a new home or pay their rent, afford health care or child care... They’re destroying the economy, and they’re making it harder and harder for Americans to afford things. That’s where we need to keep the focus. That’s why we lost the last election because we weren’t razor-focused on… the high cost of living and what they’re doing now is just making it so much worse in the administration, and that’s what we needed to emphasize.”
Like many of corporate Dems, Schiff was unhappy about some of the activists who walked out while Trump was lying and was especially unhappy about Al Green’s interruption. Other corporate Democrats who ran to the TV shows yesterday to denounce Green included Tom Suozzi (New Dem-NY), who voted with the Republicans to censure Green.
Ro Khanna, who wants to run for president in 2028 in an economic left-of-center lane, made a mistake on Fox News, telling their audience that the Democratic response was “not a good look and “a distraction” from Democratic economic messaging. “You can vigorously disagree as I do but still respect some of the institutions of our country and some of our traditions.”
Bottom line: Trump’s spectacle was lauded by his sycophants and decried by those with a conscience— two Democrats stood at the forefront of the opposition: Representative Al Green and Senator Elissa Slotkin. Their responses, however, could not have been more divergent, reflecting the chasm within the Democratic Party between genuine resistance and tepid compliance. Green, embodying the spirit of true dissent, disrupted Trump's address with a bold interjection. Rising amidst the orchestrated pageantry, Green brandished his cane and declared, "You don't have a mandate to cut Medicaid," directly challenging Señor T’s audacity to undermine essential programs that make up the social safety net. This act of defiance led to his forcible removal from the chamber, a testament to his unwavering commitment to the marginalized and his readiness to confront tyranny head-on. Green later affirmed his stance, stating, “What I did was from my heart. People are suffering.”
In stark contrast, Slotkin delivered the official party rebuttal—a speech so measured it bordered on complacency. Positioning herself as a centrist, Slotkin reminisced about bipartisan values and her tenure under both Bush and Obama, seemingly nostalgic for a bygone era of political decorum. While she criticized Trump's economic policies and his alliance with figures like Elon Musk, Slotkin's response lacked the fervor and urgency demanded by the current political crisis. Her appeal to shared American values felt disconnected from the immediate need to confront the regime’s blatant overreach.
The juxtaposition of Green's impassioned protest and Slotkin's tempered critique underscores a Democratic Party at a crossroads. On one path lies the route of active resistance, embodied by Green's willingness to disrupt the status quo and demand accountability. On the other, a path of cautious moderation, where leaders like Slotkin offer critiques that, while valid, fail to ignite the necessary fervor to challenge an administration bent on dismantling democratic norms.
In these times of escalating authoritarianism, the choice between audacious defiance and polite dissent may well determine the future of the opposition— and, by extension, the republic itself.
San Francisco Chronicle senior political correspondent, Joe Garofoli, came down clearly as far from Slotkin as he could: Forget the Resistance. Democrats Are Part Of The Compliance. He reminded his readers of the disastrous Kamala embrace of Liz Cheney during the 2024 campaign. Worth noting, before Cheney embraced Kamala, she has already endorsing Slotkin. “In the wake of her loss— and as Trump attacks everything from trans residents to First Amendment rights to the entire federal workforce— Democrats appear to be doubling down on their willingness to meekly agree with and court Republicans. From Gov. Gavin Newsom’s bro-y backslapping, trans-dissing podcast interview with MAGA star Charlie Kirk Thursday to Slotkin’s Reagan-loving response to Trump’s address to Congress to congressional Democrats scolding their own colleagues for confronting Trump, Democratic leaders have found their voice by losing it. Instead, they’re largely agreeing with the GOP. I haven’t seen this much head-nodding affirmation since my last therapy session.”
Earlier this month, frustrated Democrats demonstrated outside House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries’ Oakland appearance, urging him to “grow a spine,” “do your job” and “stop the coup.”
Instead, the opposite is happening.
The latest example came Thursday from Newsom, who is eyeing a run for president in 2028. Newsom was among the Democrats who said, in the wake of Trump’s presidential win, that candidates should make appearances on Joe Rogan’s podcast and similar shows that appeal to younger people and conservatives. Newsom pitched his new show, “This is Gavin Newsom,”— which debuted Thursday— as an effort in that vein.
But the point of that tactic was for Democrats to appear on those platforms to share their values, not to uncritically elevate the GOP’s.
But on the first episode, the guest was MAGA star Charlie Kirk, leader of the Turning Point, which has galvanized young conservatives in part by ripping Democratic “wokeness,” and the party’s support of transgender issues. Kirk has been particularly vicious, once saying trans folks were a “throbbing middle finger to God” and “an abomination.”
Hey, welcome to the show!
When the topic invariably turned to trans issues, Newsom said he thought the practice of trans athletes competing on female sports teams is “deeply unfair.” He did not say outright whether he supports a ban.
… Was Newsom being “authentic,” a trait he often says he values in political leaders, and expressing his true views on trans athletes? Or was he being a spineless pander bear to Kirk and conservatives in pursuit of his own career?
Newsom hinted at this turn to the right when I interviewed him last month in Washington, shortly after Trump signed an executive order banning trans female athletes from competing in women’s sports. Newsom was mindful not to risk offending Trump at a time he was trying to secure federal wildfire aid. He dodged the opportunity to rip Trump’s stance and instead paraphrased the comments Utah Gov. Spencer Cox used when vetoing a transgender-related youth sports bill two years ago. Cox said that of the 75,000 students playing sports in Utah, only four were transgender and only one was playing girls sports. “Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few,” he lamented.
When I pressed him, Newsom declined to further discuss the issue saying, “I’m here to talk about the price of eggs. I’m here to talk about issues related to disaster recovery. I’m here to talk about things that I think folks want us to be talking about.”
Aside from ditching the LGBTQ community, Newsom also failed to use one of his superpowers: his ability to fearlessly engage conservative leaders.
He’s one of few national Democrats (along with Pete Buttigieg) who is willing and able to defend Democratic values in conservative media. Even Sean Hannity, whose lips move in perfect synchronicity with Trump’s, gave Newsom props when he appeared on his show in 2023: “You’re arguing. You’re fighting. You’re battling. You’re articulate. We could sit here for three hours, probably have a beer or two in the middle of this. And you can keep going. Here’s the problem. Your president can’t have this conversation. He’s not capable of it.”
As painful as it is to write this, Hannity was right. About Biden. But after Newsom’s nod-along with Kirk, I’m beginning to wonder if Hannity was wrong about Newsom. Maybe Newsom is only confrontational with tired conservatives like Hannity.
Newsom’s promise in this new podcast (as opposed to his super bro-y Politickin’ podcast) is that he would go mano y mano with conservative leaders, and to use a phrase the governor dropped several (too many) times during the show, “stress-test” their ideas.
But there was little stress-testing going on Thursday. When Kirk mused that woke students “Go to Cal to go study North African lesbian poetry,” Newsom didn’t push back. Newsom said he “admired” the way Kirk had built up the conservative youth movement and agreed that the Trump campaign’s anti-trans ad with the tagline “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” is “a great ad.” It was the centerpiece of $215 million pro-Trump forces spent on anti-transgender ads.
One of Newsom’s allies and a longtime LGBTQ community leader, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), ripped the governor for “standing with” Kirk.
“The governor has had many courageous moments over the decades supporting LGBTQ people, including helping turbo-charge the marriage equality movement, protecting LGBTQ kids against forced outing and criminalization and protecting trans people from criminalization in other states,” Wiener said in a statement. …”This is not one of those moments. Charlie Kirk is a vile bigot and standing with him on this issue is profoundly disturbing.”
Wiener pointed out that Republicans are “painting trans young people who play sports as a threat to women’s sports, which they are not. Of the 510,000 NCAA athletes, fewer than 10 are trans. Fewer than 10.”
Newsom tried to raise that statistic on the podcast, but not in the clear, pointed way he typically has confronted conservative media figures. Even Kirk thought Newsom was being too obsequious.
“Governor Newsom was being overly effusive in his praise of me,” Kirk said on his own show later.
Alas, Newsom is not the only member of the Democrats’ Voiceless Chorus.
… “Whomever is advising the Democrats right now is criminally bad at their job. The notion that they can meme their way out of fascism is truly incredible,” Roxane Gay, a professor of media, culture and feminist studies at Rutgers University posted on Bluesky.
Then there’s Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), the freshman senator who delivered the Democratic response to Trump’s speech this week from Wyandotte, Michigan, a working-class town near Detroit that both Trump and Slotkin won in November… Democrats bizarrely believe that the way to differentiate themselves from Republicans is to sound just like them.
The Dems need to stop relying on decorum and tradition when everything now from the republicans is not that. Stop with the “reaching across the aisle” as though that is even possible when the republicans vote in lock step. Are you really that stupid and in denial of reality, Schumer and Jeffries? We are in different, uncharted, horrible times and are facing real fascism so rise up and speak out, Dems. Yikes! Show some backbone and real leadership. Remember FDR’s speeches? Listen to them again. Keep it up, Chris Murphy!