While we are at it, abolishing the seniority system would go a long way towards breaking up calcified thinking. It should be the best and the brightest in leadership positions rather than rewarding those who have endured. And of course term limits would clear out a lot deadwood; elective office should be a temporary public service and not a career move.
For better or worse, placing term or age limits on people on Congress would be clearly unconstitutional- there are minimum ages for Congress and President in the Constitution but no upper limit or service length (at least for Congress). So new limits would require an amendment.
Not only that, but we already have term limits-- we call them primary and general elections! And if the people are too stupid or too lazy to vote for a change if they think someone's been there too long, then put simply, they're getting the government they deserve!
Notice how the "term limits" crowd almost invariably ignores the impact of the Citizens United decision (2010) and the issue of $$$ in electoral politics? Deal with that and we'll almost certainly have more competitive primaries and general elections for congressional offices.
By far the majority of citizens do not ignore the impact of the Citizens United decision. If the public got to vote on this decision, CU would lose in a landslide. The rich backers of the GOP created the lawsuit that led to the Citizens United decision and it was infuriating when the SC said that "businesses had free speech". THAT ruling needs to be struck down. Some Dem MOC have spoken against CU and there are at least 30 who have responded to the calls to not take AIPAC money: NONE of the GOP have done so. Unsurprisingly, news journalists fail to talk about the GOP who support AIPAC and Netanyahu. As for term limits as the person you responded to explained. Americans FAIL repeatedly to accept the responsibilities that come with our rights and then complain about every politician that does anything they don't like. Funny, immigrants who have become citizens almost never fail to vote.
Could you provide some evidence for “by far the majority of citizens” even being aware of Citizens United? Or of economic power in general? I’m very much aware, and I’m sure you are too, of how the Court got to that decision. Which was 5–4, as I keep reminding myself, and more than six years before Trump was elected the first time. But we were headed in that direction at least since Reagan, when those clever (?!?!) Republicans figured out how to harness the racist white working- and middle-class vote in their favor. It’s taken those voters some four decades to realize they were duped. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the lot of them.
I appreciate your response! Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are citizens across the spectrum of our politics who ALL agree that Citizens United is a serious problem and even know that the rich have all the power and money. However, they have no clue that the GOP were behind CU. The reason for this lies with the news media/journalists.
The move to the right started with Reagan. He essentially copied Hitler's step of taking control of the German newspapers to spread his hate and lies about Jews and Romanis. Reagan ended our Fairness Doctrine. As a result, our journalists increasingly slipped into the pockets of the GOP, facts and evidence disappeared replaced by opinions and beliefs. The GOP was aided by social media where a "test case" showed us how far misinformation could go. Could citizens be convinced that vaccines were bad?
The journalists did not report successes of Dem admins. Anything Obama or Biden did in their time in office was questioned with the GOP lies against whatever issue being mentioned. They did not report that the GOP since Reagan was cutting or ignoring regulations which is "unregulated capitalism". These policies had been in place since FDR et al to keep big business from using policies that hurt regular people and that caused the Great Depression.
Fox News was the obvious outlier with its lies and hate. The rest of the news media was more subtle and unfortunately NOT A SINGLE NEWSCASTER SPOKE OUT. Pelley was the first to indicate that there had been growing pressure on what was acceptable to print or talk about in news programming & print. The journalists repeatedly claimed that both parties were the same and that the GOP was better for the economy. Both parts of this were lies. The GOP only enriched the rich & their corporations, with the tax cuts, tax loopholes only for the rich & corp, cutting or restricting public programs, programs for the needy and HC. Cronkite, Brinkley, Woodward, Bernstein, et al told the facts. They would NOT have let up until the truth was given to the public.
It was also Reagan who started putting judges recommended by the Federalist Society on the bench. GW and T have also put very conservative. Several have been bought as we can clearly see.
All five members of the Citizens United majority were appointed by Republicans. Anyone who can’t figure that out isn’t trying very hard. And no, the move to the right didn’t start with Reagan. Take a harder look at Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” a white backlash to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965: most if not all of the white Southern Democrats poured into the Republican Party. Remember how Reagan gave a campaign speech on “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, MS, in the summer of 1980?
Whose theory is it that Reagan copied Hitler? He didn’t have to. Hitler and his associates did get some of their racial ideas from the Jim Crow (U.S.) South.
Anyone who is focused strictly on AIPAC money is an anti-Semite. AIPAC is a small part of a huge problem which focusing on a single group doesn't help address.
Well hello again Marilyn. The topic was CITIZEN'S UNITED and getting ALL PAC money out of politics. NONE OF US WANT THIS TO CONTINUE - no matter who is behind any PAC. It will be the only way to ensure that citizens who vote, NOT billionaires, will have control of the US.
Thank you for highlighting that the older you are and the more seniority you have, the more likely you are to have a million dollars or more in your pocket from the dark-money PACs that Citizens United has allowed into American politics. It's moot to imagine primaries have much of a role, when old incumbents spend millions--which the younger candidates can't counter--to defeat energetic young newcomers. Today I read a profile of the weak and feckless Chuck Schumer that touted his "money-raising ability" (from AIPAC? Crypto? AI?) as a reason he should be allowed to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. It also touted the "numbers;" he claimed personal success for the Democrats winning in primaries because "the numbers looked good." Chuck, it's not about the immoral millions you raise or the numbers that show Democrats (whom you did your best to crash and burn) winning despite you. Where are your morals? Where is your passion to help Americans live better lives? What have you done to topple pedophiles, safeguard our Treasury, fight corruption, and save our democracy? Screw your corrupt millions and your sterile numbers.
Thank you, Kandarohe. I'd love to see a list of every member of congress, sorted by date of swearing in. Name, Date of Swearing in, Net worth on date of entering Congress and net worth as of the current date. Net worth defined as including all assets.
The only way to constitutionally enact term limits would be by amendment. But maybe that's something people from both parties recognize - given 84-year-old Mitch McConnell's lengthy absence from the senate and 92-year-old Chuck Grassley banging about his vacuum cleaner on social media.
WE HAVE TERM LIMITS. We can end a politician's term EVERY 2/4/6 YEARS. All we have to do is VOTE - something too many Americans choose to ignore and even those who vote fail to learn the facts about new candidates - nor check where the actual record of the current MOC, etc - before voting.
Exactly. Talk of term limits is putting our head in the guillotine with the GOP dropping the blade. I saw how ALEC began writing all our legislation in Ohio once we had a constant churn of clueless new people who knew they wouldn't be around to answer for the consequences.
With the extreme gerrymandering that's taken place over the years - especially in red states, we don't actually have the term limiting effect of elections anymore. Here in NC, republicans have given themselves a nearly permanent majority in both houses of the state legislature, and over the last two election cycles, they've done the same with congressional districts. IOW, people here don't have a real choice about who to vote for. It's hard to 'end a politician's term' when the vote has been rigged in advance to keep him or her in office.
Grassley is pushing 100 and is 3rd in line for the presidency, should Trump kick the bucket and something happen to Vance and Li'l Mikey. The voters of Iowa keep sending him back. Gayle, voters in Iowa and elsewhere need help enforcing reasonable age limits. Term limits.
You know who would be the first to "recognize" this? Powerful lobbying groups that know it would give them control of Congress — even without the big money of Citizens United. Look: I researched this as an investigative journalists and saw their impact on ohio. Term limits are part of the reason Ohio went red. Lobbyists own the term limited Ohio legislature.
First, my point was that the only legal way to enact term limits would be through a constitutional amendment. Second, lobbying groups already control congress thanks to the dark money flooding the system following the Citizens United decision. Third, extreme gerrymandering has made it virtually impossible to remove an elected office holder. Here in NC the gerrymandering at the state and federal levels is so bad we have saying for it: "We're not red, we're rigged."
We have to VOTE THEM OUT! Primaries can do this if voters turn out. We like to think of the US as a shining beacon of Democracy but have a pretty poor record for voter turnout out. Perhaps the only good thing Trump has done is cause enough voters to wake up to the fact that IT CAN HAPPEN HERE. Voters better take advantage of voting while they still can in order to make sure they, and young people, can keep voting.
Good luck with that if you live, as I do, in a state with extreme partisan gerrymandering. It doesn't matter who wins a Dem primary, e.g., if the district is rigged red.
Yes, term limits have not always worked out well, as those being termed out sometimes start campaigning for a different office, ignoring the one they’re in. And being in office longer does build up experience and knowledge.
They can't. They also can't build relationships to pass legislation. That's why ALEC can hand them a bill and they just vote to pass it if they're told to do so — in Ohio in one case accidentally without changing the name of the previous state they handed it to.
How did the incumbents learn? OTJ, just like any new member does. It's also nonsensical to suggest that all the oldsters would disappear overnight and not be available to share their collective knowledge and experience.
Term limits have never really been tried. They're something candidates talk about on the trail when they want to get into office, but then ignore the minute they do. EX: Susan Collins in Maine. Our Article I offices were NEVER intended to be lifetime jobs, but that's what they've turned into, especially with the extreme gerrymandering being done across the country. I'm also not convinced that clinging to office builds experience and knowledge; often, it builds one term of experience and knowledge that then gets repeated until the officeholder retires or dies.
They exist in CA, to mixed reviews, the negatives being, the loss of expertise and experience, and jockeying to run in a new office as one is termed out. I lived in CA during the implementation, and I observed that the negatives outweighed the positive s.
Yes, they do solve some problems, but create others.
The people with the expertise and experience don't go up in a puff of smoke just because they get replaced. Their experience and knowledge is still available to those who ask for it.
Term limits have never worked out well and weren't intended to. In the 90s, rightwing think tanks pushed and passed them in numerous states as a way to seize control. It succeeded
Term limits was the original intention of the founding generation, with the idea of citizen legislators who served for a time then went back to their regular lives. Congressional offices were never meant to be lifelong jobs.
If it was their "original intention" they would've included it in the Constitution. I don't know how many times I have to share this history, but the early legislators — in fact ALL in power— were wealthy land-owning white men who could afford the luxury of taking a short time off from their "work" because they had a wife and probably hired overseers at home to run the estate/plantation and ride herd on the staff/slaves. It is completely unclear that these were "not meant" to be lifelong jobs, but it was clear they were only available to the wealthy and privileged who could afford to do things at their pleasure.
That isn't the world we live in now, and term limits in THIS world would have one of two impacts: many who are not rich simply couldn't afford to do a short term of "public service" that would be fraught with increased pressure, decreased support and no guarantee of anything at the end of it except a life needing to be rebuilt. OR those people would look it as an opportunity to connect with the big money interests and powerful benefactors controlling the legislature and pander to them in hopes of landing a lucrative gig afterwards. In fact, this happens now in term limit states like mine. You could ban that but then first option would be the ruling one: no more AOCs or Sherrod Browns, many more Darrell Issas and Rick Scotts to name two of the wealthiest and most odiously criminal members of Congress.
Thank you! Getting older need not be a negative though I understand the longing by younger voters to see themselves mirrored in Congress. But older often means more experienced & a wiser perspectives. As a people, I think we are afraid of getting old and therefore prejudiced against leaders in their ‘70’s & ‘80’s. But as a species, we ARE living longer & healthier, even if older politicians & leaders move more slowly & with greater effort. The changes in the human brain that occur around 82 can be seen as containing positives as well as diminishment. We need to be less judgmental about a stage of life that has, like all previous stages, has positives and negatives…
If younger voters "long" for this so intensely, why won't they vote?
Also I'm increasingly feeling like this attack on older office holders is just frustration lashing out in random directions (appeals for term limits is even worse because they are objectively terrible and anti-democratic) without thinking about the real impacts or who is doing the work. And it becomes really hypocritical when commenters carve out an exception for Bernie Sanders as if he were uniquely special and effective. He's not — we have many more effective and accomplished officer holders over 70.
Listen to yourself. It's institutional, not personal. It's there for newbies (who aren't necessarily young or inexperienced) to access. That old bugaboo has kept near-corpses in Congress for eons. Time to retire Schumer and other deadwood. And age isn't necessarily the issue at all.
Exactly. Charles De Gauule famously said, "Cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable people". Deadwood really need to go or be moved. I am 65. Eager to see an energized, youthful Democratic party.
Wrong. You don't even have any idea who Jeffries is or what he's done. All I see is people whining because he's not making fiery enough statements for their taste.
Agreed, donna. I prefer to avoid the spectre of ageism, especially in this era of hate against women, minorities, immigrants — let’s not add “old people” to the list! I have often said that candidates for office must pass two tests: 1) cognitive competence; and 2) Constitutional knowledge. Most candidates would fail one or both.
Same here. If the candidate is energetic, actively thinking, and able to change with the times, I don't have a problem with them being past 70. Bernie comes to mind. But when a candidate -- of any age -- shows me they're not up to meeting the moment, they need to go. If they are taking special interest money, voting with the Republicans, signing letters of support for ICE, guilty of corruption or abuse, etc., they need to go -- and I don't care if they are just 30 years old. It's about what they are doing or not doing. And there are plenty of Dems in Congress who unfortunately fall into the "need to go" category.
Bernie comes to mind as someone set in his ways, lacking in energy, making his same old man speech over and over, and someone who will be 89 at the end of his term and is the second oldest member of the Senate. He is #1 on my list of people who should resign if we're all going to go ageist.
I've long said that I wish there were a way to require candidates to pass a fourth grade civic test before they can run for anything, even dog catcher. Or better still, a citizenship test. I'll bet my friend Bella, who became a citizen last September, could help out.
It isn't something a newbie can grasp if everyone with a history is gone. We saw it all destroyed in Ohio. And the next person who talks about "deadwood" and mentions Schumer without mentioning Bernie Sanders is a massive hypocrite.
Please. It's not as if everyone would be out at the same time, or after a single or even two terms.
And Schumer is deadwood. I gather you see a lot of antisemitism in the criticism of Schumer, Anastasia, even though Bernie too is Jewish. We can criticize Bernie but not Schumer? Is it all about AIPAC? Because Bernie does not take their money and Schumer does?
The fact that they are not out at the same time made it worse. No one can rely on who their colleagues will be or who they have to approach to rebuild support for a bill; the churn becomes too great. My state rep told me about her obstacle course, spending years trying to get GOP buy-in on a diabetes care bill and just when she had it, a few crucial people were term limited.
No, I don't see any anti-Semitism in criticism of Schumer, but I do see selective ageism. I do see anti-Semitism in YOU, singling out AIPAC money but not attacking the entire system of PAC donations, which needs to be addressed. Until then, I just don't care. (I won't go into the celenbritizing of fundraising: it's also a mess). Schumer is a more reliable vote for progressive legislation than showboating Bernie Sanders. (The gap between them isn't that great but this selective ageism is on my last nerve.)
How true. It can extend to "But we've always taken back-handers!" and other currupt practices that become part of the institutional lore. Of, "Everyone knows it's okay to hit on the intern/secretary. They all do it, have been forever."
Giving the graybeards emeritus leadership status would preserve the institutional knowledge while handing policy and decision-making to a new generation.
That is completely wrong. If that were the case, then only people who could afford to take a break from their lives would be able to serve, and the number of ultra-wealthy in Congress would skyrocket. The average person can't afford temporary public service. While some like to refer back to the founding fathers, recall they were all wealthy land owners who had wives at home to oversee their staff of servants and/or slaves. It's not like that anymore.
Term limits would destroy Congress and turn control over to lobbyists and billionaires. We saw this happen in Ohio, Term limits are a Trojan Horse, a "sound-good" policy with horrific real-life impacts, taking away expertise and institutional memory, zeroing out politicians just as they're learning the ropes. It would be a constant churn of new people who had less and less connection to each other. Term limits don't just clear out "dead wood." They clear out your heroes too.
And Jefferies did no favors to the party yesterday on Meet the Press. Really divisive. We have to unify and do what needs to be done. As they say, "put on your bid boy/girl pants" and get a grip!!
I missed Kristin Welker's interview with Rep. Jeffries so I watched it on YouTube. While I personally don't dislike him, his demeanor and repetition of the same old tired lines reinforced my concerns that he may not be the right person to be Speaker if/when Dems win the House in the midterms. We need someone who can respond more forcefully and get fired up.
As to who should be Speaker, I don't have a good replacement and I realize that is a cop out. However, with the party's abundance of riches surely someone else could rise to meet the challenge we face.
And Rahm Emmanuel's comment that progressives and democratic socialists do not belong in the Dem Party just goes to show how out of touch he really is. He sounds more like the MAGAts who are trying to resurrect Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare of the late 1940s and mid-1950s and who are trying to label Dems as communists all because there are a small number of candidates who identify as DSP such as Abdul El-Sayed. Anyone who wants to rid our country of the MAGAt madness should get our support.
It is important to realize that, unlike MAGAts who are ruled by a sociopathic narcissist who demands total and complete surrender to his every whim, Dems must take a different approach. Welcome all those who are willing to join together to send the anti-democratic forces running our country into the ground packing.
Bottom line: DIVERSITY = STRENGTH
Correction: Abdul El-Sayed is a progressive Democrat. He was misidentified as a Democratic Socialist in my original post. Mea culpa.
You're right, Dems are not taking a different approach. Rahm Emmanuel is stratospherically out of touch; he's got to go and we have to stop giving him a soapbox. Certainly stop listening to him. And I don't know what you mean by DSP, but El Sayed is not a socialist. He is not DSA. He is a plain-vanilla Democrat. It doesn't help to tar him with divisive brushes.
Mea culpa for my misidentifying El Sayed as a member of wrong party because he most definitely is a progressive Dem who should be the next Senator from his state. I wore the egg on my face for a while to atone for committing that error.
Rahm is gone. For some reason the media is trying to push him back in as a potential presidential candidate. I will say flatly he is the only Democrat mentioned for president I simply could not vote for (I'm from Chicago and know too much about his awfulness; he's like Cuomo without the sexual assault)
I saw nothing wrong with what Jeffries said. He is looking at issues from the point. of view of "what can we get done." I worry t hat the people demanding big, sweeping, flashy statements are the same people who will get disgusted and turn their backs on Democrats when they don't get everything they want after a month.
Who wants the 80+ yr old: pilot?…roofer?…surgeon?…lifeguard?…’fill in the blank’?? Term limits are long over due for those who don’t have the common sense to step down.
Exactly, Kathleen. At 81, i am aware that my diminishing faculties preclude some activities I previously enjoyed. So I find new adventures and leave governing to others.
At 78, I'm still capable of standing to protest rallys, though also realize that I no longer have the vitatlity to keep up with a 45 hour work week and keep up with the fast changes in technology that was my previous occupation. I suspect that if a lot of our aging legislators would honestly evaluate themselves, they would come to the same conclusion and yield to those more able.
Katherine, I like your approach. I tell myself, as I age, that I am letting go of some things (by necessity) but replacing them with other good things. Yet it's foolish of me to think I can run marathons now, or work 80 hours a week.
A bank closed Trump accounts for ‘Anti-Money Laundering Reasons.’ So now Trump & Co gives Trump & Co… a bank? Just another measure of the president's staggering corruption that preliminary approval of an application for a charter by Trump’s crypto firm is just another story.
Trump money laundering, extortion, fraud, weaponization of government against critics…? The Trump brand. Trump & Co corruption & criminality is epic. The projection of Trump & Co propaganda & criminality onto critics never stops.
Chase closed ~350 Trump accounts for money-laundering. And yes, Trump gave Trump a bank. And guess what also--Blanche recently helped his one and only client (Trump, not the US) by eliminating the U.S.'s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and shredding its records. The purpose of that entity? To monitor and track money-laundering in the U.S. (a $300 billion a year activity).
Agree 100%. I'm 76 and disagree with some of the things on the Progressive agenda, but will have no hesitation in choosing a Progressive Democrat over a MAGA Maggot. The Republicans who once were respectable opponents, went over to the MAGA Dark Side in 2016 because they were terrorized by the fear of everything Liberal. Let's not make a similar mistake.
I wouldn't vote for them (if I lived in their state and had another Democratic choice) But I would vote for them if the only other choice was a MAGA Maggot. I don't sit out elections because I don't get my first choice on the ballot. There are no perfect candidates; only ones who con us into thinking they're perfect.
Yes, but better to work to replace all the Schumers in Congress with better candidates, but then vote for the Democrat opposing the Republican. Except in the case of Fetterman. Don't vote for him, whatever he labels himself. He's a MAGA Republican.
If you don't see how much better they are, you really need to look into it more. By the way, Schumer's voting record is more progressive than Berne Sanders'. I hate that WE are so easily taken in by image.
This was a positive bit of writing today, Ms. Rubin. It paints a far different (and more reasonable) picture of the Democratic Party today than we get from legacy media's 'doom, gloom, dispair and agony' readings of the party. It's also a clear contrast to what the current iteration of the Republican Party is doing to try to remain in control. At best, they are marking time with nothing positive to show constituents through the last election cycle. It is time for change, and it would appear that Democrats show that it is possible and happening.
Obviously, we are a Nation in desperate need of new ideas. But sometimes age and experience can provide much-needed leadership - think the likes of Nancy Pelosi. But, all other things being equal, we are not being served well by the current Gerontocracy in Democratic circles and the Kakistocracy and Kleptocracy on the right. So, I am starting to come down on the side of age and term limits. We need lawmakers who have significant skin in the game - and a president who isn't ready for the memory care unit at Shady Pines.
In some eras and times, age and experience are helpful. In this era, they're largely impediments. Bernie is showing the value of age and experience. The other septuagenarians and octogenarians are showing the severe limitations.
Bernie is showing nothing. He has passed no legislation and parrots the same tired remarks over and over. He should resign immediately so the brilliant and much more progressive (and effective) Becca Balint could run for his seat. Claiming Bernie as an exception shows that this isn't really about age — there's a lot of hypocrisy.
Agree with the article. Listened to a good discussion this morning between Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe and Tim Miller of The Bulwark....both former Republicans. This discussion had a lot of "meat on the bones" and I wish that more Democratic leaders could listen and get their insight and not just bicker among themselves. We must unite for sure. Yes, there are a lot of different ages and ideas in the party...we are not Republicans who whisper in the cloakroom and then vote in lockstep. Yes, the old must embrace the young. I am old and believe my mind is still pretty sharp but listening to the ideas of the younger generation and sharing what I know can really keep and make us stronger. I live in red State Ohio and we are working diligently to elect Sherrod Brown and Brian Poindexter, who would replace Max Miller in my district.
Has Morning Joe returned from its visit to the Dark Side? I used to watch them every morning, but haven’t watched in quite some time as they lost their fire for democracy, imo.
Bear in mind that Joe Scarborough was a former Republican Congressman- and not just ANY former Republican congressman. Joe was one of Newt Gingrich’s bomb throwers back in the day. And that nasty Gingrich henchman pops up and rears his ugly head from time to time. Also keep in mind that MSNBC is the same network that platforms former Republican Party Chair Michael Steele, and Nicole Wallace (former GW Bush media affairs manager) and frequently brings in Steve Schmidt (former Republican hack) for regular commentary. It is corporate media and is always going to present the corporate-friendly point of view.
Yes, I understand your views, Graham. I, too, have a long memory of those voices in the Republican Party but who have made the decision to give up the GOP after not being able to stomach the complete capitulation of the Republican Party to Donald Trump. The person who, I believe, states the most eloquent opinions of the Republican Party and the Supreme Court is former Judge J. Michael Luttig who appreared at the Jan6 hearings and is a frequent guest on MSNOW.
Graham, your point is well taken. Generally speaking, I do enjoy the other reporters you mention; they seem adequately informed and one might even say —gasp— woke. But I suppose old habits are hard to break.
It would help if the idiots in the “Third Way” group would shut up and go away, if James Carville stopped running his mouth, and if Neera Tanden at the Center for American Progress stopped attacking the Democratic left wing and retweeting Laura Loomer Islamaphobic posts
Don't know if you saw this, but Robert Reich described Third Way as a front for "...a Star Wars cantina of billionaire megadonors, Fortune 500 CEOs, corporate dark money bundlers, and giant corporations."
Thank you for that link! I was wondering about the billionaire funders. I found Amgen, Baxter Healthcare, CVS Caremark, Dupont among many on the donor list. No wonder corporate Dems are fighting so hard against their own voters on universal health care. That they are also lying about the cost of it also does not surprise me.
The Third Way has nothing to do with Democrats; no Democrats are part of it, which is why they keep clinging to Bill Clinton like a life raft. They're stuck in 25 years ago. The Blue Dogs are almost all gone, although Fetterman is morphing into one. And you can do what I do and delete any email that has Carville's name on it.
Since the first Trump administration I have written to you weekly, in the first letters I ended each one with the simple endorsement of:
You are my Senator and I trust in you, I believe in you, and I eagerly look forward to seeing how you will make me ever more proud of you. Your constituents have your back.
Thank You in Advance for Your Support
As the weeks continued the endings became a shorten versions of this same concept, you have my support, as I expected to have yours. From letter 265 I would end each letter with “This is Why We Vote” with the addition of “Defeat American Fascism” and then with a “Fund Ukraine”. Now at letter 480, the endings, since letter 452, has been backing your efforts with “We the People Do Not Consent.” All of these letters and all of these closings add up to ten years of support, encouragement and belief that your hard work has had meaning and are appreciated.
I now have an another ask for we are now, please consider not running to regain the post of Majority Leader should the Senate change hands after the November elections. I am not sure that you have ever even seen one of my letters or that any of its sentiments were ever conveyed to you, but whoever is reading this one now, I am asking for you to pass it on to the Senator.
No one can escape the boundaries of the life span. Those who will live out the consequences of decisions and actions of today must be empowered to take the leadership of their future for tomorrow.
You are my Senator and I trust in you, I believe in you, and I eagerly look forward to seeing how you will make me ever more proud of you.
I voted for Seth Moulton in the MA primary (mailed in early) . I approve of everything Markey says and does but he is TOO OLD, which is 3 years older than me. If he wants to mentor Moulton fine by me. But out of the way please, thank you for your service.
I voted for Markey because he presents as a true Progressive, and I did so with the understanding that he is sufficiently moral to retire if his age becomes problematic—to be replaced (presumably by the governor) by anyone except Moulton who appears to embody the worst of Democratic corporate lapdogs, backtrackers, and backward thinkers. We’ll see if it works out. In general, I’m into age caps but both Markey and Warren are doing a terrific job for us right now. And it’s a big tent.
Warren and Markey are the #1 and #2 progressives in the Senate. With all the whining here about Democrats who aren't fierce enough why would anyone want #160 in the House Seth Moulton to replace Markey? (Hakeem Jeffries is #80, and the top 100 Democrats are all so progressive there's only a hair's breadth of difference.)
I voted for Markey because he presents as a true Progressive, and I did so with the understanding that he is sufficiently moral to retire if his age becomes problematic—to be replaced (presumably by the governor) by anyone except Moulton who appears to embody the worst of Democratic corporate lapdogs, backtrackers, and backward thinkers. We’ll see if it works out. In general, I’m into age caps but both Markey and Warren are doing a terrific job for us right now. And it’s a big tent.
It is a big tent, which is why I'm voting for Moulton. As Manz wrote, I too agree more closely with Markey. But Moulton's pragmatism is also good for the party. I just cannot vote for an 80 year old for a SIX year term of office. And I am 80.
Moulton's not "pragmatic"; he's just moderate and "centrist" compared to more 2/3rds of the Democratic caucus. He hasn't accomplished much and his ego bothers me — another bland white guy who thinks he should be president. He, Swalwell and Tim Ryan will always be on my shitlist for their premature presidential runs while having accomplished zero in Congress. (Swalwell had the biggest record of accomplishment, alas).
Seth Moulton is one of a handful of Democrats who actually CAN be called "centrist" or "moderate" and there aren't that many. But his voting record ranks him very very low among House Democrats. He'd be a quite a trade-down and I hope you're not one of the hypocrites going "Bernie is an exception." MARKEY is an exception, the #2 ranked progressive in the Senate (after Warren) and a strong, dynamic advocate for progressive issues. Moulton is ranked 160th in the House, has done little in the House. The only thing he's about is his own ambition and likely wanting to be president (he already ran in 2019 with no accomplishments to speak of).
If the old guard doesn’t heed these warnings, they will be responsible for holding back the big tent they wax so eloquently about. These people are tied to power, money and corporations.
While we are at it, abolishing the seniority system would go a long way towards breaking up calcified thinking. It should be the best and the brightest in leadership positions rather than rewarding those who have endured. And of course term limits would clear out a lot deadwood; elective office should be a temporary public service and not a career move.
For better or worse, placing term or age limits on people on Congress would be clearly unconstitutional- there are minimum ages for Congress and President in the Constitution but no upper limit or service length (at least for Congress). So new limits would require an amendment.
Not only that, but we already have term limits-- we call them primary and general elections! And if the people are too stupid or too lazy to vote for a change if they think someone's been there too long, then put simply, they're getting the government they deserve!
Notice how the "term limits" crowd almost invariably ignores the impact of the Citizens United decision (2010) and the issue of $$$ in electoral politics? Deal with that and we'll almost certainly have more competitive primaries and general elections for congressional offices.
By far the majority of citizens do not ignore the impact of the Citizens United decision. If the public got to vote on this decision, CU would lose in a landslide. The rich backers of the GOP created the lawsuit that led to the Citizens United decision and it was infuriating when the SC said that "businesses had free speech". THAT ruling needs to be struck down. Some Dem MOC have spoken against CU and there are at least 30 who have responded to the calls to not take AIPAC money: NONE of the GOP have done so. Unsurprisingly, news journalists fail to talk about the GOP who support AIPAC and Netanyahu. As for term limits as the person you responded to explained. Americans FAIL repeatedly to accept the responsibilities that come with our rights and then complain about every politician that does anything they don't like. Funny, immigrants who have become citizens almost never fail to vote.
Could you provide some evidence for “by far the majority of citizens” even being aware of Citizens United? Or of economic power in general? I’m very much aware, and I’m sure you are too, of how the Court got to that decision. Which was 5–4, as I keep reminding myself, and more than six years before Trump was elected the first time. But we were headed in that direction at least since Reagan, when those clever (?!?!) Republicans figured out how to harness the racist white working- and middle-class vote in their favor. It’s taken those voters some four decades to realize they were duped. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the lot of them.
I appreciate your response! Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are citizens across the spectrum of our politics who ALL agree that Citizens United is a serious problem and even know that the rich have all the power and money. However, they have no clue that the GOP were behind CU. The reason for this lies with the news media/journalists.
The move to the right started with Reagan. He essentially copied Hitler's step of taking control of the German newspapers to spread his hate and lies about Jews and Romanis. Reagan ended our Fairness Doctrine. As a result, our journalists increasingly slipped into the pockets of the GOP, facts and evidence disappeared replaced by opinions and beliefs. The GOP was aided by social media where a "test case" showed us how far misinformation could go. Could citizens be convinced that vaccines were bad?
The journalists did not report successes of Dem admins. Anything Obama or Biden did in their time in office was questioned with the GOP lies against whatever issue being mentioned. They did not report that the GOP since Reagan was cutting or ignoring regulations which is "unregulated capitalism". These policies had been in place since FDR et al to keep big business from using policies that hurt regular people and that caused the Great Depression.
Fox News was the obvious outlier with its lies and hate. The rest of the news media was more subtle and unfortunately NOT A SINGLE NEWSCASTER SPOKE OUT. Pelley was the first to indicate that there had been growing pressure on what was acceptable to print or talk about in news programming & print. The journalists repeatedly claimed that both parties were the same and that the GOP was better for the economy. Both parts of this were lies. The GOP only enriched the rich & their corporations, with the tax cuts, tax loopholes only for the rich & corp, cutting or restricting public programs, programs for the needy and HC. Cronkite, Brinkley, Woodward, Bernstein, et al told the facts. They would NOT have let up until the truth was given to the public.
It was also Reagan who started putting judges recommended by the Federalist Society on the bench. GW and T have also put very conservative. Several have been bought as we can clearly see.
All five members of the Citizens United majority were appointed by Republicans. Anyone who can’t figure that out isn’t trying very hard. And no, the move to the right didn’t start with Reagan. Take a harder look at Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” a white backlash to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965: most if not all of the white Southern Democrats poured into the Republican Party. Remember how Reagan gave a campaign speech on “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, MS, in the summer of 1980?
Whose theory is it that Reagan copied Hitler? He didn’t have to. Hitler and his associates did get some of their racial ideas from the Jim Crow (U.S.) South.
Anyone who is focused strictly on AIPAC money is an anti-Semite. AIPAC is a small part of a huge problem which focusing on a single group doesn't help address.
Who's "focused strictly on AIPAC money"?
Dozens of candidates and hundreds of commenters. Start with El-Sayed. Many others.
How about taking Pakistan Action Committee money? Are you okay with that? How about CAIR? PAC and CAIR funded campaigns. Do you give them a pass?
Of course, they do. Because only AIPAC counts to anti-Semites.
Neither PAC nor CAIR fund political candidates. A simple google.
AIPAC is a powerhouse.
Yes, they do. CAIR does it through members. Check out PAKPAC. What makes you think the aforementioned are not powerhouses?
Well hello again Marilyn. The topic was CITIZEN'S UNITED and getting ALL PAC money out of politics. NONE OF US WANT THIS TO CONTINUE - no matter who is behind any PAC. It will be the only way to ensure that citizens who vote, NOT billionaires, will have control of the US.
Thank you for highlighting that the older you are and the more seniority you have, the more likely you are to have a million dollars or more in your pocket from the dark-money PACs that Citizens United has allowed into American politics. It's moot to imagine primaries have much of a role, when old incumbents spend millions--which the younger candidates can't counter--to defeat energetic young newcomers. Today I read a profile of the weak and feckless Chuck Schumer that touted his "money-raising ability" (from AIPAC? Crypto? AI?) as a reason he should be allowed to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. It also touted the "numbers;" he claimed personal success for the Democrats winning in primaries because "the numbers looked good." Chuck, it's not about the immoral millions you raise or the numbers that show Democrats (whom you did your best to crash and burn) winning despite you. Where are your morals? Where is your passion to help Americans live better lives? What have you done to topple pedophiles, safeguard our Treasury, fight corruption, and save our democracy? Screw your corrupt millions and your sterile numbers.
How do you feel about candidates taking money from CAIR and PAKPAC?
Thank you, Kandarohe. I'd love to see a list of every member of congress, sorted by date of swearing in. Name, Date of Swearing in, Net worth on date of entering Congress and net worth as of the current date. Net worth defined as including all assets.
That would be wonderful. With patience, it should be fairly easy (if time-consuming) to compile. It would be eye-opening.
In fact, with Citizens United in place, term limits would basically let billionaires hijack and control congress even more than now.
The only way to constitutionally enact term limits would be by amendment. But maybe that's something people from both parties recognize - given 84-year-old Mitch McConnell's lengthy absence from the senate and 92-year-old Chuck Grassley banging about his vacuum cleaner on social media.
WE HAVE TERM LIMITS. We can end a politician's term EVERY 2/4/6 YEARS. All we have to do is VOTE - something too many Americans choose to ignore and even those who vote fail to learn the facts about new candidates - nor check where the actual record of the current MOC, etc - before voting.
You hit it Gayle.
Exactly. Talk of term limits is putting our head in the guillotine with the GOP dropping the blade. I saw how ALEC began writing all our legislation in Ohio once we had a constant churn of clueless new people who knew they wouldn't be around to answer for the consequences.
With the extreme gerrymandering that's taken place over the years - especially in red states, we don't actually have the term limiting effect of elections anymore. Here in NC, republicans have given themselves a nearly permanent majority in both houses of the state legislature, and over the last two election cycles, they've done the same with congressional districts. IOW, people here don't have a real choice about who to vote for. It's hard to 'end a politician's term' when the vote has been rigged in advance to keep him or her in office.
Grassley is pushing 100 and is 3rd in line for the presidency, should Trump kick the bucket and something happen to Vance and Li'l Mikey. The voters of Iowa keep sending him back. Gayle, voters in Iowa and elsewhere need help enforcing reasonable age limits. Term limits.
No term limits unless you want permanent rule by oligarchs. And what about Bernie Sanders? He'll be 89 at the end of his term. He should resign NOW.
You know who would be the first to "recognize" this? Powerful lobbying groups that know it would give them control of Congress — even without the big money of Citizens United. Look: I researched this as an investigative journalists and saw their impact on ohio. Term limits are part of the reason Ohio went red. Lobbyists own the term limited Ohio legislature.
First, my point was that the only legal way to enact term limits would be through a constitutional amendment. Second, lobbying groups already control congress thanks to the dark money flooding the system following the Citizens United decision. Third, extreme gerrymandering has made it virtually impossible to remove an elected office holder. Here in NC the gerrymandering at the state and federal levels is so bad we have saying for it: "We're not red, we're rigged."
Gerrymandering and term limits are twins; they work together t o corrupt legislatures.
Duh. But gerrymandering overrules term limits, by definition.
We have to VOTE THEM OUT! Primaries can do this if voters turn out. We like to think of the US as a shining beacon of Democracy but have a pretty poor record for voter turnout out. Perhaps the only good thing Trump has done is cause enough voters to wake up to the fact that IT CAN HAPPEN HERE. Voters better take advantage of voting while they still can in order to make sure they, and young people, can keep voting.
Good luck with that if you live, as I do, in a state with extreme partisan gerrymandering. It doesn't matter who wins a Dem primary, e.g., if the district is rigged red.
Yes, term limits have not always worked out well, as those being termed out sometimes start campaigning for a different office, ignoring the one they’re in. And being in office longer does build up experience and knowledge.
New people know how to learn just like the uncle fuds in office now did.
Yes, they do, Tim. That's how the incumbents learned. But more importantly, new people bring in fresh ideas and aren't wedded the existing system.
You got it.
Except if they’re termed out the next election how can they learn that much?
They can't. They also can't build relationships to pass legislation. That's why ALEC can hand them a bill and they just vote to pass it if they're told to do so — in Ohio in one case accidentally without changing the name of the previous state they handed it to.
How did the incumbents learn? OTJ, just like any new member does. It's also nonsensical to suggest that all the oldsters would disappear overnight and not be available to share their collective knowledge and experience.
To me it comes down to artificial time constraints and how long it takes one to learn their job.
Term limits have never really been tried. They're something candidates talk about on the trail when they want to get into office, but then ignore the minute they do. EX: Susan Collins in Maine. Our Article I offices were NEVER intended to be lifetime jobs, but that's what they've turned into, especially with the extreme gerrymandering being done across the country. I'm also not convinced that clinging to office builds experience and knowledge; often, it builds one term of experience and knowledge that then gets repeated until the officeholder retires or dies.
They exist in CA, to mixed reviews, the negatives being, the loss of expertise and experience, and jockeying to run in a new office as one is termed out. I lived in CA during the implementation, and I observed that the negatives outweighed the positive s.
Yes, they do solve some problems, but create others.
The people with the expertise and experience don't go up in a puff of smoke just because they get replaced. Their experience and knowledge is still available to those who ask for it.
Term limits have never worked out well and weren't intended to. In the 90s, rightwing think tanks pushed and passed them in numerous states as a way to seize control. It succeeded
Term limits was the original intention of the founding generation, with the idea of citizen legislators who served for a time then went back to their regular lives. Congressional offices were never meant to be lifelong jobs.
If it was their "original intention" they would've included it in the Constitution. I don't know how many times I have to share this history, but the early legislators — in fact ALL in power— were wealthy land-owning white men who could afford the luxury of taking a short time off from their "work" because they had a wife and probably hired overseers at home to run the estate/plantation and ride herd on the staff/slaves. It is completely unclear that these were "not meant" to be lifelong jobs, but it was clear they were only available to the wealthy and privileged who could afford to do things at their pleasure.
That isn't the world we live in now, and term limits in THIS world would have one of two impacts: many who are not rich simply couldn't afford to do a short term of "public service" that would be fraught with increased pressure, decreased support and no guarantee of anything at the end of it except a life needing to be rebuilt. OR those people would look it as an opportunity to connect with the big money interests and powerful benefactors controlling the legislature and pander to them in hopes of landing a lucrative gig afterwards. In fact, this happens now in term limit states like mine. You could ban that but then first option would be the ruling one: no more AOCs or Sherrod Browns, many more Darrell Issas and Rick Scotts to name two of the wealthiest and most odiously criminal members of Congress.
Oh, gee, the condescending history lesson. I was wondering how long that would take. You're just being pedantic at this point, and we're done.
Thank you! Getting older need not be a negative though I understand the longing by younger voters to see themselves mirrored in Congress. But older often means more experienced & a wiser perspectives. As a people, I think we are afraid of getting old and therefore prejudiced against leaders in their ‘70’s & ‘80’s. But as a species, we ARE living longer & healthier, even if older politicians & leaders move more slowly & with greater effort. The changes in the human brain that occur around 82 can be seen as containing positives as well as diminishment. We need to be less judgmental about a stage of life that has, like all previous stages, has positives and negatives…
If younger voters "long" for this so intensely, why won't they vote?
Also I'm increasingly feeling like this attack on older office holders is just frustration lashing out in random directions (appeals for term limits is even worse because they are objectively terrible and anti-democratic) without thinking about the real impacts or who is doing the work. And it becomes really hypocritical when commenters carve out an exception for Bernie Sanders as if he were uniquely special and effective. He's not — we have many more effective and accomplished officer holders over 70.
And risk losing all institutional knowledge.
Listen to yourself. It's institutional, not personal. It's there for newbies (who aren't necessarily young or inexperienced) to access. That old bugaboo has kept near-corpses in Congress for eons. Time to retire Schumer and other deadwood. And age isn't necessarily the issue at all.
Exactly. Charles De Gauule famously said, "Cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable people". Deadwood really need to go or be moved. I am 65. Eager to see an energized, youthful Democratic party.
A great quote. Thanks.
Yes, Schumer needs to go, period. Jeffries should follow him.
Wrong. You don't even have any idea who Jeffries is or what he's done. All I see is people whining because he's not making fiery enough statements for their taste.
Agreed, donna. I prefer to avoid the spectre of ageism, especially in this era of hate against women, minorities, immigrants — let’s not add “old people” to the list! I have often said that candidates for office must pass two tests: 1) cognitive competence; and 2) Constitutional knowledge. Most candidates would fail one or both.
We know of one high-kevel elected official who fails on both counts--and others too, like good character.
And I have a personal interest in objecting to ageism. :)
Same here. If the candidate is energetic, actively thinking, and able to change with the times, I don't have a problem with them being past 70. Bernie comes to mind. But when a candidate -- of any age -- shows me they're not up to meeting the moment, they need to go. If they are taking special interest money, voting with the Republicans, signing letters of support for ICE, guilty of corruption or abuse, etc., they need to go -- and I don't care if they are just 30 years old. It's about what they are doing or not doing. And there are plenty of Dems in Congress who unfortunately fall into the "need to go" category.
Bernie comes to mind as someone set in his ways, lacking in energy, making his same old man speech over and over, and someone who will be 89 at the end of his term and is the second oldest member of the Senate. He is #1 on my list of people who should resign if we're all going to go ageist.
We're talking about moribund, sclerotic people who can't change. It's not the same as age.
Perfect definition of Bernie Sanders. A guy who has parroted the same slogans for years but never come up with any realistic plans to support them.
I've long said that I wish there were a way to require candidates to pass a fourth grade civic test before they can run for anything, even dog catcher. Or better still, a citizenship test. I'll bet my friend Bella, who became a citizen last September, could help out.
It isn't something a newbie can grasp if everyone with a history is gone. We saw it all destroyed in Ohio. And the next person who talks about "deadwood" and mentions Schumer without mentioning Bernie Sanders is a massive hypocrite.
Please. It's not as if everyone would be out at the same time, or after a single or even two terms.
And Schumer is deadwood. I gather you see a lot of antisemitism in the criticism of Schumer, Anastasia, even though Bernie too is Jewish. We can criticize Bernie but not Schumer? Is it all about AIPAC? Because Bernie does not take their money and Schumer does?
The fact that they are not out at the same time made it worse. No one can rely on who their colleagues will be or who they have to approach to rebuild support for a bill; the churn becomes too great. My state rep told me about her obstacle course, spending years trying to get GOP buy-in on a diabetes care bill and just when she had it, a few crucial people were term limited.
No, I don't see any anti-Semitism in criticism of Schumer, but I do see selective ageism. I do see anti-Semitism in YOU, singling out AIPAC money but not attacking the entire system of PAC donations, which needs to be addressed. Until then, I just don't care. (I won't go into the celenbritizing of fundraising: it's also a mess). Schumer is a more reliable vote for progressive legislation than showboating Bernie Sanders. (The gap between them isn't that great but this selective ageism is on my last nerve.)
Institutional knowledge is an impediment to progress in the 21st century where all bets are off and nothing is the same as it was.
How true. It can extend to "But we've always taken back-handers!" and other currupt practices that become part of the institutional lore. Of, "Everyone knows it's okay to hit on the intern/secretary. They all do it, have been forever."
Giving the graybeards emeritus leadership status would preserve the institutional knowledge while handing policy and decision-making to a new generation.
So long as they didn't keep their salaries and perks. Some perks are life-long for members of Congress. Why?
Good question.
And I think we both know the answer. Congress legislates its own benefits.
Yes, and by definition rules made by congress can be changed by congress.
Great! Kick them upstairs, honor them, but don't let them get their hands on policy decisions.
Here in lies the problem: "elective office should be a temporary public service and not a career move."
That is completely wrong. If that were the case, then only people who could afford to take a break from their lives would be able to serve, and the number of ultra-wealthy in Congress would skyrocket. The average person can't afford temporary public service. While some like to refer back to the founding fathers, recall they were all wealthy land owners who had wives at home to oversee their staff of servants and/or slaves. It's not like that anymore.
Term limits would destroy Congress and turn control over to lobbyists and billionaires. We saw this happen in Ohio, Term limits are a Trojan Horse, a "sound-good" policy with horrific real-life impacts, taking away expertise and institutional memory, zeroing out politicians just as they're learning the ropes. It would be a constant churn of new people who had less and less connection to each other. Term limits don't just clear out "dead wood." They clear out your heroes too.
Thank you for another intelligent and honest article.
And Jefferies did no favors to the party yesterday on Meet the Press. Really divisive. We have to unify and do what needs to be done. As they say, "put on your bid boy/girl pants" and get a grip!!
I missed Kristin Welker's interview with Rep. Jeffries so I watched it on YouTube. While I personally don't dislike him, his demeanor and repetition of the same old tired lines reinforced my concerns that he may not be the right person to be Speaker if/when Dems win the House in the midterms. We need someone who can respond more forcefully and get fired up.
As to who should be Speaker, I don't have a good replacement and I realize that is a cop out. However, with the party's abundance of riches surely someone else could rise to meet the challenge we face.
And Rahm Emmanuel's comment that progressives and democratic socialists do not belong in the Dem Party just goes to show how out of touch he really is. He sounds more like the MAGAts who are trying to resurrect Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare of the late 1940s and mid-1950s and who are trying to label Dems as communists all because there are a small number of candidates who identify as DSP such as Abdul El-Sayed. Anyone who wants to rid our country of the MAGAt madness should get our support.
It is important to realize that, unlike MAGAts who are ruled by a sociopathic narcissist who demands total and complete surrender to his every whim, Dems must take a different approach. Welcome all those who are willing to join together to send the anti-democratic forces running our country into the ground packing.
Bottom line: DIVERSITY = STRENGTH
Correction: Abdul El-Sayed is a progressive Democrat. He was misidentified as a Democratic Socialist in my original post. Mea culpa.
You're right, Dems are not taking a different approach. Rahm Emmanuel is stratospherically out of touch; he's got to go and we have to stop giving him a soapbox. Certainly stop listening to him. And I don't know what you mean by DSP, but El Sayed is not a socialist. He is not DSA. He is a plain-vanilla Democrat. It doesn't help to tar him with divisive brushes.
Mea culpa for my misidentifying El Sayed as a member of wrong party because he most definitely is a progressive Dem who should be the next Senator from his state. I wore the egg on my face for a while to atone for committing that error.
Rahm is gone. For some reason the media is trying to push him back in as a potential presidential candidate. I will say flatly he is the only Democrat mentioned for president I simply could not vote for (I'm from Chicago and know too much about his awfulness; he's like Cuomo without the sexual assault)
I saw nothing wrong with what Jeffries said. He is looking at issues from the point. of view of "what can we get done." I worry t hat the people demanding big, sweeping, flashy statements are the same people who will get disgusted and turn their backs on Democrats when they don't get everything they want after a month.
Jeffries need to go too. Maybe not old enough in age but he can not think new.
Jeffries operates by what 1990s-vintage consultants tell him to do or say. It's all wrong in 2026 but they haven't a clue.
Who wants the 80+ yr old: pilot?…roofer?…surgeon?…lifeguard?…’fill in the blank’?? Term limits are long over due for those who don’t have the common sense to step down.
Exactly, Kathleen. At 81, i am aware that my diminishing faculties preclude some activities I previously enjoyed. So I find new adventures and leave governing to others.
At 78, I'm still capable of standing to protest rallys, though also realize that I no longer have the vitatlity to keep up with a 45 hour work week and keep up with the fast changes in technology that was my previous occupation. I suspect that if a lot of our aging legislators would honestly evaluate themselves, they would come to the same conclusion and yield to those more able.
Katherine, I like your approach. I tell myself, as I age, that I am letting go of some things (by necessity) but replacing them with other good things. Yet it's foolish of me to think I can run marathons now, or work 80 hours a week.
A bank closed Trump accounts for ‘Anti-Money Laundering Reasons.’ So now Trump & Co gives Trump & Co… a bank? Just another measure of the president's staggering corruption that preliminary approval of an application for a charter by Trump’s crypto firm is just another story.
Trump money laundering, extortion, fraud, weaponization of government against critics…? The Trump brand. Trump & Co corruption & criminality is epic. The projection of Trump & Co propaganda & criminality onto critics never stops.
Please bring on a Blue Tsunami.
Chase closed ~350 Trump accounts for money-laundering. And yes, Trump gave Trump a bank. And guess what also--Blanche recently helped his one and only client (Trump, not the US) by eliminating the U.S.'s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and shredding its records. The purpose of that entity? To monitor and track money-laundering in the U.S. (a $300 billion a year activity).
Agree 100%. I'm 76 and disagree with some of the things on the Progressive agenda, but will have no hesitation in choosing a Progressive Democrat over a MAGA Maggot. The Republicans who once were respectable opponents, went over to the MAGA Dark Side in 2016 because they were terrorized by the fear of everything Liberal. Let's not make a similar mistake.
Bravo, Bob! And don't vote for those MAGA Democrats like Schumer and Jeffries either. They're no better IMHO.
I wouldn't vote for them (if I lived in their state and had another Democratic choice) But I would vote for them if the only other choice was a MAGA Maggot. I don't sit out elections because I don't get my first choice on the ballot. There are no perfect candidates; only ones who con us into thinking they're perfect.
Yes, but better to work to replace all the Schumers in Congress with better candidates, but then vote for the Democrat opposing the Republican. Except in the case of Fetterman. Don't vote for him, whatever he labels himself. He's a MAGA Republican.
I live in Virginia so I have no say in those elections. I'm working for Beth Macy who is opposing Ben Cline. https://bethmacyforcongress.com/
If you don't see how much better they are, you really need to look into it more. By the way, Schumer's voting record is more progressive than Berne Sanders'. I hate that WE are so easily taken in by image.
Part of wisdom is acknowledging one’s limitations and fostering the growth of those who follow…
He roller-coaster, he got early warning
He got muddy water, he one mojo filter
He say, "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking, 'cause he's so hard to see
.
Come together
Right now
Over me
??? Apropos of what?
This was a positive bit of writing today, Ms. Rubin. It paints a far different (and more reasonable) picture of the Democratic Party today than we get from legacy media's 'doom, gloom, dispair and agony' readings of the party. It's also a clear contrast to what the current iteration of the Republican Party is doing to try to remain in control. At best, they are marking time with nothing positive to show constituents through the last election cycle. It is time for change, and it would appear that Democrats show that it is possible and happening.
Obviously, we are a Nation in desperate need of new ideas. But sometimes age and experience can provide much-needed leadership - think the likes of Nancy Pelosi. But, all other things being equal, we are not being served well by the current Gerontocracy in Democratic circles and the Kakistocracy and Kleptocracy on the right. So, I am starting to come down on the side of age and term limits. We need lawmakers who have significant skin in the game - and a president who isn't ready for the memory care unit at Shady Pines.
Yes, chronological age isn't always the best test of fitness to serve. Strength and competence diminish in people at varying tempos.
In some eras and times, age and experience are helpful. In this era, they're largely impediments. Bernie is showing the value of age and experience. The other septuagenarians and octogenarians are showing the severe limitations.
Bernie is showing nothing. He has passed no legislation and parrots the same tired remarks over and over. He should resign immediately so the brilliant and much more progressive (and effective) Becca Balint could run for his seat. Claiming Bernie as an exception shows that this isn't really about age — there's a lot of hypocrisy.
Agree with the article. Listened to a good discussion this morning between Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe and Tim Miller of The Bulwark....both former Republicans. This discussion had a lot of "meat on the bones" and I wish that more Democratic leaders could listen and get their insight and not just bicker among themselves. We must unite for sure. Yes, there are a lot of different ages and ideas in the party...we are not Republicans who whisper in the cloakroom and then vote in lockstep. Yes, the old must embrace the young. I am old and believe my mind is still pretty sharp but listening to the ideas of the younger generation and sharing what I know can really keep and make us stronger. I live in red State Ohio and we are working diligently to elect Sherrod Brown and Brian Poindexter, who would replace Max Miller in my district.
Has Morning Joe returned from its visit to the Dark Side? I used to watch them every morning, but haven’t watched in quite some time as they lost their fire for democracy, imo.
Bear in mind that Joe Scarborough was a former Republican Congressman- and not just ANY former Republican congressman. Joe was one of Newt Gingrich’s bomb throwers back in the day. And that nasty Gingrich henchman pops up and rears his ugly head from time to time. Also keep in mind that MSNBC is the same network that platforms former Republican Party Chair Michael Steele, and Nicole Wallace (former GW Bush media affairs manager) and frequently brings in Steve Schmidt (former Republican hack) for regular commentary. It is corporate media and is always going to present the corporate-friendly point of view.
Not always. Be careful with these generalizations please, they do not serve us well.
Yes, I understand your views, Graham. I, too, have a long memory of those voices in the Republican Party but who have made the decision to give up the GOP after not being able to stomach the complete capitulation of the Republican Party to Donald Trump. The person who, I believe, states the most eloquent opinions of the Republican Party and the Supreme Court is former Judge J. Michael Luttig who appreared at the Jan6 hearings and is a frequent guest on MSNOW.
Graham, your point is well taken. Generally speaking, I do enjoy the other reporters you mention; they seem adequately informed and one might even say —gasp— woke. But I suppose old habits are hard to break.
It would help if the idiots in the “Third Way” group would shut up and go away, if James Carville stopped running his mouth, and if Neera Tanden at the Center for American Progress stopped attacking the Democratic left wing and retweeting Laura Loomer Islamaphobic posts
Don't know if you saw this, but Robert Reich described Third Way as a front for "...a Star Wars cantina of billionaire megadonors, Fortune 500 CEOs, corporate dark money bundlers, and giant corporations."
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-moronic-bullshit-of-the-third
Thank you for that link! I was wondering about the billionaire funders. I found Amgen, Baxter Healthcare, CVS Caremark, Dupont among many on the donor list. No wonder corporate Dems are fighting so hard against their own voters on universal health care. That they are also lying about the cost of it also does not surprise me.
Oh YEAH!!!! I saw that and 100% Reich is on point there.
A perfect description of Third Way!
The Third Way has nothing to do with Democrats; no Democrats are part of it, which is why they keep clinging to Bill Clinton like a life raft. They're stuck in 25 years ago. The Blue Dogs are almost all gone, although Fetterman is morphing into one. And you can do what I do and delete any email that has Carville's name on it.
I so passionately agree, Graham! They're so damaging to Democratic ideals and to our country, one has to suspect them of being Republican operations.
Dear Senator Schumer,
Since the first Trump administration I have written to you weekly, in the first letters I ended each one with the simple endorsement of:
You are my Senator and I trust in you, I believe in you, and I eagerly look forward to seeing how you will make me ever more proud of you. Your constituents have your back.
Thank You in Advance for Your Support
As the weeks continued the endings became a shorten versions of this same concept, you have my support, as I expected to have yours. From letter 265 I would end each letter with “This is Why We Vote” with the addition of “Defeat American Fascism” and then with a “Fund Ukraine”. Now at letter 480, the endings, since letter 452, has been backing your efforts with “We the People Do Not Consent.” All of these letters and all of these closings add up to ten years of support, encouragement and belief that your hard work has had meaning and are appreciated.
I now have an another ask for we are now, please consider not running to regain the post of Majority Leader should the Senate change hands after the November elections. I am not sure that you have ever even seen one of my letters or that any of its sentiments were ever conveyed to you, but whoever is reading this one now, I am asking for you to pass it on to the Senator.
No one can escape the boundaries of the life span. Those who will live out the consequences of decisions and actions of today must be empowered to take the leadership of their future for tomorrow.
You are my Senator and I trust in you, I believe in you, and I eagerly look forward to seeing how you will make me ever more proud of you.
Your constituents have your back.
Thank You in Advance for Your Support,
United we stand, divided we fall!
I voted for Seth Moulton in the MA primary (mailed in early) . I approve of everything Markey says and does but he is TOO OLD, which is 3 years older than me. If he wants to mentor Moulton fine by me. But out of the way please, thank you for your service.
I voted for Markey because he presents as a true Progressive, and I did so with the understanding that he is sufficiently moral to retire if his age becomes problematic—to be replaced (presumably by the governor) by anyone except Moulton who appears to embody the worst of Democratic corporate lapdogs, backtrackers, and backward thinkers. We’ll see if it works out. In general, I’m into age caps but both Markey and Warren are doing a terrific job for us right now. And it’s a big tent.
Warren and Markey are the #1 and #2 progressives in the Senate. With all the whining here about Democrats who aren't fierce enough why would anyone want #160 in the House Seth Moulton to replace Markey? (Hakeem Jeffries is #80, and the top 100 Democrats are all so progressive there's only a hair's breadth of difference.)
Simple answer. Age.
I voted for Markey because he presents as a true Progressive, and I did so with the understanding that he is sufficiently moral to retire if his age becomes problematic—to be replaced (presumably by the governor) by anyone except Moulton who appears to embody the worst of Democratic corporate lapdogs, backtrackers, and backward thinkers. We’ll see if it works out. In general, I’m into age caps but both Markey and Warren are doing a terrific job for us right now. And it’s a big tent.
It is a big tent, which is why I'm voting for Moulton. As Manz wrote, I too agree more closely with Markey. But Moulton's pragmatism is also good for the party. I just cannot vote for an 80 year old for a SIX year term of office. And I am 80.
Moulton's not "pragmatic"; he's just moderate and "centrist" compared to more 2/3rds of the Democratic caucus. He hasn't accomplished much and his ego bothers me — another bland white guy who thinks he should be president. He, Swalwell and Tim Ryan will always be on my shitlist for their premature presidential runs while having accomplished zero in Congress. (Swalwell had the biggest record of accomplishment, alas).
Seth Moulton is one of a handful of Democrats who actually CAN be called "centrist" or "moderate" and there aren't that many. But his voting record ranks him very very low among House Democrats. He'd be a quite a trade-down and I hope you're not one of the hypocrites going "Bernie is an exception." MARKEY is an exception, the #2 ranked progressive in the Senate (after Warren) and a strong, dynamic advocate for progressive issues. Moulton is ranked 160th in the House, has done little in the House. The only thing he's about is his own ambition and likely wanting to be president (he already ran in 2019 with no accomplishments to speak of).
If the old guard doesn’t heed these warnings, they will be responsible for holding back the big tent they wax so eloquently about. These people are tied to power, money and corporations.