Schumer and Jeffries not interested in cutting ICE Funding.....

[Bread and Circuses]

The top Democrats in the House and Senate declined to say whether they would slash funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement after an agent in Minneapolis killed 37-year-old Renee Good.

( same mush words )

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/democrats-ice-shooting-minnesota-funding-b2896967.html

[dem4decades]

1. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I won't get fooled again.

[SocialDemocrat61]

9. Except neither is the new boss

since Republicans still hold the majority in both houses of congress so the old boss is still the boss.

[bigtree]

47. you were just lied to, but whatever

...decisions like that aren't the fiat of either leader, both of them in the minority and unable to schedule those priorities in either body of Congress, and both make those determinations in consultation with their respective caucuses, mindful to avoid influencing debates with their own opinions and getting out ahead of the party, especially on important and key issues.

Jeffries today:

(excerpt)

...we haven't ruled anything in or
anything out in terms of the proper way
to bring about accountability. But what
I can say, and we'll have a conversation
amongst some caucus members on this
tomorrow. I don't want to get out ahead
of it, and then we'll reconvene early
next week.

But what's clear to me is
Christine Gnome is deeply unqualified,
deeply unserious, and deeply dangerous.
She's a complete and total disgrace. She
should never have been confirmed by the
Senate in terms of holding this
position. She lied to the American
people as she's been doing repeatedly,
but in this instance, slandered a
37year-old American citizen whose life was
taken without justification by an ICE agent
who showed depraved indifference to
human life.

That agent should be criminally investigated
to the full extent of the law. And simultaneously
in Congress, we need to decisively respond
and we will. And that'll be led, of
course, by Robert Garcia, who leads our
efforts on the oversight committee,
Benny Thompson, who leads our efforts on
the Homeland Security Committee, and
Jamie Rasin, who leads our efforts on
judiciary.

...critics like the Independent authors might want to give it a fucking minute.

We'll all hold our breath for critics who effectively lost the last election for Democrats with the same kind of 'old boss' rhetoric and apathy directed at our own elected leaders, hold it until we're blue waiting for them to bother to acknowledge it when our party does respond legislatively.

[orangecrush]

54. Tell it to this woman

This is what a spine looks like.

?si=XYWwXYL29OzbWCyM

[mr715]

118. I'd love to see her appointed Speaker

Rep. Jeffries can remain Majority Leader.

Especially since Rep. Crockett will lose her seat. As a consolation prize, give her the gavel.

[orangecrush]

125. Good idea

[betsuni]

74. Thank you.

[kimbutgar]

2. If this is true we need new Democratic leaders in congress !

[anciano]

4. Agree 👍

[regnaD kciN]

6. They're expecting outrage at Trump to do so anyway...

...and, if that (likely) happens, they will be there, preening in the spotlight, presenting themselves as "the grown-ups" who will make sure sensible centrism prevails over those progressives who anti-Trumpers voted for to retake power.

[Bread and Circuses]

16. 100% Truth.

Wish you weren’t right

[mikewv]

5. I am just not that excited about either

I would support new leadership in both the house and senate.

[RockRaven]

7. Stuff like this is good fodder for the "controlled opposition" and bothsiderism crowds.

It'd be great if we had leadership who didn't generate that fodder.

[hatrack]

11. Precisely - what is this "leadership" mentioned in the preceding article?

[hatrack]

13. Futher edits with details on the "leadership" discussed here . . .

EDIT

But both Jeffries and Schumer declined to say whether they would use their authority to rein in ICE. Democrats hope to take back the majority in at least the House of Representatives in November.

Jeffries later clarified that he was focused mostly on extending subsidies for the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace. Schumer avoided questions on his way out of the press studio.

EDIT

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should push for reducing funding.

“This Congress, this Republican Congress, while they cut a trillion dollars to Americans’ health care, and they exploded the ice budget to $170 billion making it one of the largest paramilitary forces in the United States with zero accountability as they shoot U.S. citizens in the head, absolutely,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Independent.

EDIT

Linked above.

[Intractable]

17. We can always count on AOC to show leadership regardless of where she actually is in the pack.

I want her to replace Schumer.

[W_HAMILTON]

10. What bullshit framing. And neither Schumer nor Jeffries have the power to do so, in the minority.

And of the big reasons why they are in the minority is over bullshit framing like this.

Renee Nicole Good would be alive today if Democrats were in power.

[Intractable]

14. It should be the official position of the Democratic party, and enunciated as such by Jeffries and Schumer,

that the ICE budget should be cut.

[SocialDemocrat61]

25. Yes it should be but it's not yet

until the party adopts it as their official position, Schumer and Jeffries can’t really advocate for it. They don’t set policy, their job is to implement policies.

[Scrivener7]

26. That is absolutely ridiculous.

[SocialDemocrat61]

29. It is absolutely reality

Schumer and Jeffries don’t set policy. That is not their job. If there is a democratic president, they set the policy. When there isn’t one it’s a little more complicated. The will of the house and senate caucuses have to be taken into consideration as well as the DNC which includes Governors and other local elected officials.

[Scrivener7]

31. Absolutely ridiculous.

[SocialDemocrat61]

32. Absolutely reality

[Scrivener7]

34. Maybe in the world of people who need to insist that Democrats are useless wimps

with no role to play in anything.

Which is a fundamentally anti-Democratic position.

But it's not reality anywhere else.

[SocialDemocrat61]

36. It is the reality of how things work in congress

[Attilatheblond]

123. It is not always being a wimp to not show your cards at the begining of the hand

Winning takes a bit more than just courage (or bravado). It takes skill, and tactics. On the Hill, it also takes counting votes.

[Scrivener7]

126. Telling people that, when Democrats are in power,

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2026, 04:43 PM - Edit history (2)

they won't be shot by a rogue federal militia when they drop their 6-year-old at school is not a matter bravado, skill or tactics.

It has nothing to do with "showing your cards." Even suggesting it has anything to do with "showing your cards" means you think there is some scenario where it benefits you NOT to tell people they won't be shot by a rogue militia when Democrats regain power. You must see there is NO benefit in holding back that information. It's the lowest level of common sense.

[Gore1FL]

80. I thought they were elected to represent their constituents.

Especially as party leadership, it’s weird that they cannot have opinions without party approval.

Is that a party policy that I am unaware of?

[SocialDemocrat61]

88. Apparently so

When someone is in a leadership position, they can’t always speak out on issues without consulting their caucus. Remember they are not elected to those roles by the public, they serve at the pleasure of the caucus.

[Scrivener7]

95. No. It's weird made-up nonsense.

[mr715]

103. Leadership should, perhaps maybe, I don't know - lead?

It isn't a hard proposition. There is plenty of moral clarity here. And I suspect the Democratic caucus isn't divided on this by much.


Then again, we did vote to denounce socialism on the heels of Mamdani's rise.

[betsuni]

82. Nancy Pelosi was bashed for supposedly personally holding up impeachment and oh how horrible

she was setting policy according to her personal beliefs when she was actually correctly waiting for support to build and sure of enough votes. Being Democratic leadership, naturally she was never given the benefit of the doubt and accused of all sorts of terrible things.

Now Jeffries and Schumer are expected to personally decide policy?

"Leadership" has been redefined to mean celebrity-activist-personalities who shun consensus and compromise and the Democratic Party, because moral purity means they're always right and know The Will of the People who will rise and follow them. Or something.

These redefined terms are really piling up in The Democrat Basher's Dictionary.

[Gore1FL]

93. Trump is the disease.

It's not unreasonable to look for an effective cure and to discard the cures that do not meet the challenge. It's OK to be critical of the treatments that do not. It doesn't make the disease any less the problem; it simply identifies what cures are effective.

Two things can be true at the same time: 1> Trump is the problem. 2> Our leadership has been ineffective at solving the problem.

That's not bashing. That's observation.

[mr715]

110. I disagree with this assessment.

I hope I am not a Democrat basher or perceived as such because I am a Democrat and have been my whole life.

But I am very tired of being punched in the dick.

[orangecrush]

38. ICE should be disbanded

[Scrivener7]

18. The question that was asked was specifically whether they'd rein in ICE when they regain the majority.

Somehow, they were unable to say, "Yes, we will."

[Celerity]

20. Your framing is the one one in error. Did you even bother to read the first 2 paragraphs of the article?

You said:

What bullshit framing. And neither Schumer nor Jeffries have the power to do so, in the minority.

Wrong.

The article did not ask about NOW, it asked about what they would do should the Dems win back the majority in the midterms:

The top Democrats in the House and Senate declined to say whether they would slash funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement after an agent in Minneapolis killed 37-year-old Renee Good.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, both of New York, held a press conference on Thursday. The Independent asked about whether Democrats would rein in ICE spending should they win back the majority in November.

[orangecrush]

57. The posse always shows up

To rationalize appeasment.

Patience for that is growing thin as the body count rises.

[W_HAMILTON]

75. You mean the ones that defend bullshit attacks on Democrats on a Democratic-supporting website?

If not part of the Democratic-supporting posse, what are you?

[betsuni]

90. Meaning the reality based community who don't gullibly fall for conspiracy theories and disinformation.

Democrats supporting the Democratic Party on a forum for supporters of Democrats.

[W_HAMILTON]

72. The OP's title -- different from the article's -- implies otherwise.

Renee Nicole Good would be alive today if Democrats were in power, PERIOD.

[LuvLoogie]

24. 46 Democrats voted for the Laiken Riley act

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2026, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Including 12 Democratic Senators.

The Laiken Riley Act eliminated due process for immigrant suspects.

They voted to appoint Rubio, now overseeing a criminal land grab in Latin America after this regime leveraged a racist campaign against Venezuelans.

Women are getting shot in their vehicles and lied about.

[leftstreet]

42. +1

[W_HAMILTON]

77. And none of that would have prevented what happened, but you know what would have?

Those that claim to be on the left supporting and voting for Democrats instead on shitting on them and enabling stay-at-home and third-party voters.

Renee Nicole Good would be alive today if Democrats were in power.

[LuvLoogie]

94. The 12 votes would be enough to have filibustered the bill

The bill adds fuel and cover for the current policy and abuse by this administration.

This is a racist criminal regime. Supporting racist bills/policies for political expediency is why we are here.

It is incumbent on the party to do better than throw immigrants and LGBTQ under the bus of GOP bigot law.

[W_HAMILTON]

99. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. VOTERS VOTED IN FASCISTS. FASCISTS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT SENATE VOTES.

Trump would have stolen funding from other sources like his administration has already done and Renee Nicole Good would still be dead.

Renee Nicole Good would be alive today if people voted for Democrats and prevented Trump and his MAGA Republicans from seizing power.

We warned them.

They didn't listen.

PS - Which of your criticisms of Democrats was more important than this innocent woman's life?

[LuvLoogie]

131. You tell the targets of this racist regime that "IT DOESN"T FUCKING MATTER"

when their representatives throw them under the bus. Voting to suspend due process/habeas corpus undermines trust in the party. It's a contradiction. A lazy acquiescence to bigotry and gaslighting when taking a stand with your legislative vote, at least, against that should matter. It may be hard to make the argument that we shouldn't suspend due process because you're the wrong color or country of origin, but you would think that party leadership should rally a unanimous position in this regard.

This squishiness does not help us electorally. Women are getting assaulted, abducted, and gunned down in the streets -- some for taking a stand against the abuse, and others for just going about their day being brown. "IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER" how our representatives vote?! Seriously?

It absolutely does if they want to inspire support for their responsibility of representing the interests of their constituents, and not as expendable pawns because the press is being mean and biased against support of marginalized people.

[crimycarny]

27. I agree it's due to bullshit framing, but the framing being done by Schumer and Jeffries

The Democrats are so bad at messaging. The question was if the Democrats were able to get back in power, would they push to reduce funding of ICE. The answer to that is "YES!", if for nothing else than messaging purposes.

The GOP makes the most ridiculous statements, like trying to paint a picture of Renee Nichol Good as a "domestic terrorist", and they say it over and over and over until it becomes the narrative.

The Democrats need to stop being so milquetoast in their messaging. "We're the adults in the room", doesn't work in politics as it is today.

[Jack Valentino]

48. "End up like a dog that's been beat too much

'til you spend half your life just covering up..."
~Bruce Springsteen


The Democratic leadership needs to stop acting like over-beaten dogs,
or we will have to get some new dogs who aren't afraid to bark AND bite!

[crimycarny]

56. Perfect!

That is the perfect way to describe what I feel the Democratic leadership is acting like now.

[Scrivener7]

63. I think the writing is already on that wall. We need new dogs. And we have a really good bench,

so I can't see a reason not to go for it.

[orangecrush]

37. They have the power to say they oppose funding ICE

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2026, 10:04 PM - Edit history (1)

But they didnt.

[W_HAMILTON]

68. Did they fucking say they support it either? Hell no they didn't.

[orangecrush]

69. No they didn't say anything

[W_HAMILTON]

76. And yet people like you assume that means the worst.

ICE could be fully funded and if Democrats were in power, Renee Nicole Good would still be alive.

Unnecessary bullshit purity tests meant to paint good Democrats in the worst light possible are why Democrats are not in power and why Trump's fascist hitmen were even in a position to kill an innocent person like her.

[betsuni]

83. The law of automatically assuming the worst evil intentions, mocking realty of minorities and not enough votes.

Punching down and promoting cynicism because nothing is better than something in Pseudo Revolution World where the only-I-can-fix-it pure savior leader is awaited.

[Autumn]

97. It's too bad. Words have power.

[orangecrush]

98. ...

"The fact that not one single spine-having, duty-bound adult in American government exists to slam the brakes on this sh**show carnival is proof enough that this country deserves every ounce of contempt, ridicule, and global hatred it’s about to choke on for the next hundred years."
~Oliver Kornetzke

[Bread and Circuses]

51. Please see my expanded thoughts

Hi, I’ve been thinking about this as you. I know Dems are the minority , but they can keep fighting and pointing out the obscene Homeland Security funding . Perhaps get a few R’s to join them. I see that some Rs voted in extend ACA today.

Thanks for your comment

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220922571

[W_HAMILTON]

78. Did you see the other comments today made by Jeffries and Schumer? They have done that.

[Scrivener7]

15. Jesus H. Christ. "Asked about whether Democrats would rein in ICE spending

should they win back the majority in November" the correct answer from them should have been an unqualified YES. Why in the hell wasn't that their answer??

And for those who insist their role is to be useless wimps until they regain power, the question that was asked referred to WHEN THEY RETURN TO THE MAJORITY. And STILL, they didn't say YES.

[Bread and Circuses]

19. That would have been the SMART response

[Scrivener7]

22. I just don't get it. Just friggin' say, "Yes." How hard is that? WHY in God's name wouldn't they?

[mr715]

121. It is also the easy response. nt

[BeyondGeography]

108. They think that by being soft, they can't be accused of being soft

Also known as the peculiar form of political genius that drives your party’s approval rating 55 points underwater.

[Scrivener7]

111. It's crazy. And what people here are doing is insisting on weakness from our leaders.

And saying those who don't do the same are bad Democrats.

And they're doing it while our country falls down around our ears.

Sheer lunacy.

[Raven123]

21. My guess is they are trying to avoid the "Defund the police" label.

Yes, they will have to use the appropriations process, but don’t let the media frame the argument.

[usonian]

46. When you have no ongoing platform and no spokespersons pounding the table every day ...

The opposition gets to define you.

We have very few bullies to pound that table. Principally Bernie Sanders, who isn't even a Democrat, and AOC. I omit others like Newsom and Pritzker et. al. but acknowledge their strong positions.

I won't discuss the mostly silent ones.

It's NOT "taking sides" to put forward those policies that all Democrats agree on, 365 days a year.

We need wartime consiglieri.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/13244015

Shy wallflowers let the opposition define us.

I want fighters.

[crimycarny]

106. Exactly

Couldn't have said it any better.

[crimycarny]

58. Same geniuses (Jeffries and Schumer) who wouldn't endorse Mandami out of the same political cowardness

Combined with a complete inability to see what voters are hungry for. Same sort of tentativeness versus boldness.

Jeffries eventually endorsed Mandami, but only after he saw how popular he was; Schumer never did.

These two have shown zero clue about the politics and messaging needed in today's political environment; they need to go.

[Raven123]

91. I agree with your last statement

Nevertheless, since they can’t lead effectively, I am less concerned with their saying nothing to the media environment of the the article. They might just dig a deeper hole. I am heartened by some of the strong voices - Gallego, Murphy for example.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/inside-democrats-new-push-to-handcuff-ice/ar-AA1TQ5rl

[crimycarny]

101. They are going to have to figure out a way to combat the media environment because that will only get worse.

The question is, how do they do that? I have no idea. Hopefully, someone else does since the Dems are fighting the media on all fronts, including social media. With so much media owned by right-wingers, it's an almost impossible task. Need a brilliant strategist, hopefully there is one out there.

Anyway, not disagreeing with your take on why Jeffries and Schumer were so non-committal, but somehow the Dems are going to have to figure out how to message in today's media world with all news being propaganda at this point. Because that will continue and get even worse going forward.

[purr-rat beauty]

23. Then their names...

....best be acquainted with all future ICE atrocities.

No quarter

[edhopper]

28. Declined to say

Is not the same as saying they won't.

[Scrivener7]

33. Declined to say is bad enough.

[edhopper]

35. It is bad

I agree. Still not statement they won't.

[betsuni]

30. They didn't say they weren't interested in cutting ICE funding. There's no official position yet.

They are there to represent Congressional Democrats, their personal opinion is not the party position.

Prediction: Democrats will agree to cut funding and there will be exactly the same bashing as now because it won't be enough, mocking about strongly worded letters, spinelessness, why didn't they stop this, they shoulda or shouldn't have done this or that, the usual insults

[SocialDemocrat61]

43. Exactly

They also can’t speak for a majority caucus that doesn’t exist yet. If democrats win back even one house of congress this year, they will have to all be consulted. A lot will depend on the results of the midterms. If there are a lot of new members who won very close races in purple states/districts, they may not be willing to support a major cut in ICE funding.

[betsuni]

65. And making promises they can't get enough votes for results in accusations that Democrats broke their promises or lied.

[SocialDemocrat61]

70. No idea

but it is disappointing

[JI7]

39. Why do they need to make comments on this ?

So the right wing can tie their comments to bs videos like Somali daycare scams and the stupids end up voting Republican because Democrats want to stop deportation of criminals and other shit the right wing will spew.

[Scrivener7]

50. Because ICE just murdered a woman in cold blood on an American street while she was doing the school run

for her six year old.

[JI7]

73. The reality is those disgusted by this already oppose Republicans

But there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people who either don't care or are happy with it.

Don't count on winning any election based on outrage over the fucked up things being done.

We will only win based on things like their economic situation will get better with Democrats and worse with republicans.

[crimycarny]

59. Messaging

They need to control the message for once. Look at the overwhelming victory of Mandami. Jeffries didn't endorse him until late October, when it was clear Mandami was super popular. Schumer never endorsed him. Another moment of "we're afraid how the GOP will label Mandami"....complete miscalculation.

We need leaders who understand what the voters are hungry for. And they need to stop worrying about what the GOP is going to do; they need to STAND FOR SOMETHING. Who wants to vote for a party that says "Vote for us! We'll fight for you!" when they are too afraid of the other side.

[SocialDemocrat61]

71. Overwhelming?

He only got 51-52% of the vote. Virginia and New Jersey were much larger victories.

[crimycarny]

81. Considering a 3 way race

Yes. Along with the fact that he was an unapologetic Democratic socialist, the part Jeffries and Schumer were nervous about. His inauguration was huge.

Yes, a milquetoast Dem would have lost to Cuomo.

[SocialDemocrat61]

87. What's a milquetoast Dem?

Or maybe rather who? And is there polling data that confirms they would have lost to Cuomo?
And if Jeffries was so nervous about Mamdani, why did he endorse him?

[betsuni]

89. A milquetoast Dem is like a ConservaDem but with half the calories.

Another meaningless insult. Cornel West's favorite insult -- he HATES Democrats.

[crimycarny]

104. Schumer is one

He's competing with Susan Collins for being "concerned". That might just be because he's stuck in a past generation of politics that no longer works. And at his age, it's hard to change. He was a great politician back when politics weren't so corrupt.

Dems need fight and energy, not caution and timidity. They also need to stop with the circular firing squad (Senator Al Franken, Rep. Al Green censure, stabbing Joe Biden in the back). At a minimum, circle the wagons.

If a miracle happens and the Democrats get a supermajority (I know, I know, very unlikely), I hope one of the first things they tackle is overturning Citizens United. That alone is one of the worst things to happen to politics.

[SocialDemocrat61]

120. And the polling data

that proves he or someone like him would have lost to Cuomo?

[crimycarny]

122. ??

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Who would have lost to someone like Cuomo? And what polling data?

Not being sarcastic, I'm just not sure who/what you are referring to.

[SocialDemocrat61]

127. You claimed

Yes, a milquetoast Dem would have lost to Cuomo.

I assume you have polling data to back that up. Don’t you?

[crimycarny]

128. Polling data? Didn't Mandami win the primary?

Maybe you are right, maybe a run-of-the-mill Democrat would have won. We'll never know since Mandami won the primary, so there was no other candidate to have polling data on how they would have fared against Cuomo.

This post isn't as much about Mandami as it is about the need to get some fresh blood in the field, Someone who can excite people and get them to the voting booths. This obviously needs to be based on the state they are running in. Would Mandami have won if he were running in Texas, for example? Doubtful. But since he didn't run in Texas, I have no "polling data" to back that opinion up.

Again, just my opinion, of which I think we all can have, correct?

[SocialDemocrat61]

129. Ok

That’s fair.

[Autumn]

109. I believe there was a vote to condemn socialism after Mayor Mamdani won and

it was passed in a very bipartisan vote with no problems or hesitation.

[mr715]

113. Lets be real

there was more than just messaging to the Mamdani non-endorsement. There was a lot of AIPAC fingers in that soup.

[Scrivener7]

40. Sadly, the posse has arrived. This thread will now be derailed by sea lioning, straw-manning

and possibly weird fantasies of personal persecution. And it appears, in this one, we get some completely made-up nonsense too.

[Sympthsical]

55. The apologies for fecklessness are starting to be just plain suspicious

It seems no matter what is going on, no matter how ripe the moment, no matter how vital and appropriate the cause, some people will always gallop in to insist that our party stake out the weakest possible position (while declaring this weakness is the True Democratic Policy that only the very loyal are smart enough to glom onto).

At some point the question has to be asked - where does this sabotaging come from? Is it instinct born of spinelessness or is it insidiously full of intent?

Because saying, "No no, it's fine. We should do nothing, say nothing," is completely insane to me. And I imagine it would sound insane to 95% of the average Democratic voters.

Whose interests are really at play here?

[Scrivener7]

60. Exactly. For a long time the argument was, "We're not in power!1!"

That's the excuse for why we absolutely must not ask for our party to fulfill it's most crucial role while we are in the minority, namely to be our voice of opposition.

But here, we're seeing the future argument. Even when we get to power, they will insist that our leaders must never speak out without having a committee approve their words.

And yes, it is clear that this is consistently a demand that we take the weakest possible position in the face of unprecedented damage to our country.

I suspect most of those who are demanding that we act like dim cheerleaders in the face of our destruction have been manipulated by a few bad actors. Many are perfectly rational on other topics. But the bad actors are, indeed, suspicious and are really not that hard to pick out.

[mr715]

115. Not having power provides us the cover to take bold, popular, moral positions.

I have long stated that our minority status allows us to be, as were the Republicans, completely uninvested in the management of government. Because, as we all know, we are not at the table. Trump et al. will not allow it, so why take this weakass triangulated stance?

We can compare the leadership in the minority of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to what we have now.

[Sympthsical]

119. 100% And it's so undermining to enthusiasm

The question is more urgent than ever - "If not now, when?!"

And we're just getting these constant signals that when is never coming. It's a common enough feeling (I'm gay and have put up with this "not now" shit my whole life). But to really seal in that feeling in people that "When will be never" can be devastating to our electoral chances. Enthusiasm is a thing, whether people want to acknowledge that or not.

So this posture that exists solely to perpetually sap enthusiasm from current and potential future Democratic voters seems so illogical.

We hear it from this quarter all the time. "If people had voted the right way . . ." Great. That's hindsight. What will we do to help encourage them to vote for us tomorrow? "What if we completely sapped their will by signalling we will provide only the limpest of opposition?"

Brilliant! A tactic only a professional consultant could love.

[crimycarny]

116. Yes--and to discuss frustration with tactics and messaging is not "bashing" Dems

I appreciate some of the comments voicing frustration with the tactics of the Democratic Leadership (or lack thereof) because I don't see these as Dem Bashing as much as I see it as Dem "messaging" bashing.

A lot of people are frustrated with the current messaging, and there is nothing wrong with discussing this IMO. The Democratic Party needs to change tactics, not policy. Better chance of getting those policies passed if they get a handle on the messaging.

[Sympthsical]

117. Agree. And advocating for new leadership is not bashing either.

We've reached a fun house mirror inversion of logic when wanting to keep and protect weak leadership is considered the best form of support for the party and advocating that the party become the strongest version of itself is somehow disloyalty.

I don't know where this originates. It almost feels like privilege, like it comes from a place disconnected from the visceral urgency of this current moment in history. It feels like people are playing 1995 politics in a 2025 world.

[Scrivener7]

130. I don't know. I'm pretty privileged, and my stomach hurts all the time these days.

But there does seem to be a need to believe the status quo is fine, despite all - and I do mean ALL - evidence to the contrary.

I think there's an error in the thinking of some people, especially people my age, that things are always on a long upward trajectory despite downturns in the progress. Perhaps they feel this way and they feel this is one of those downward blips, and things will turn out OK just because that's what things do. (Clearly that's not the case, but people my age were raised on that idea.)

I don't know. There is a set of beliefs in there that I can't understand. It just makes no sense to me.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

41. WTAF?

"Schumer and Jeffries not interested in cutting ICE Funding..."

Actual "article": "The top Democrats in the House and Senate declined to say whether they would slash funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement..."

Since when is "not interested," the same as "declined to say"??

Now you've got people all riled up, "If this is true....!!!"

Let's get out the knives for Dems again!

What is the point or purpose of posting this disingenuous crap? Especially when tensions are so high and people are hurting?

[JustAnotherGen]

45. Agree and

They need to play it cool right now. I'd be thrilled if every magapub lost their health insurance - but I don't want that for good loyal Americans.

Let them decline until that 3 year extension gets passed in the Senate.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. Let's get the ACA Subsidies

Extended for 3 years in the Senate then address this topic again.

[Jack Valentino]

49. ICE is OVER-FUNDED, for christ sake, courtesy of the "Big UGLY Bill"---

Hundreds of billions of dollars? Please.

It should be a prime target for Democratic funding cuts, when we have the power to make it stick---
and we absolutely SHOULD be messaging that as a reason to vote for Democrats NOW!

[bigtree]

52. the caucus meets tomorrow

...Rep. Jeffries identified the three committees and their ranking members who would be presenting legislative responses.

He also said what should be obvious to anyone who knows how the leadership in both bodies works, by the consensus of their caucus, that they would meet tomorrow. And, as Jeffries said today, he doesn't want to get ahead of them. meeting tommorrow and again a couple days later.

You won't get that from Independent clickbaiters and gaslighters.

[bigtree]

61. that's complete bullshit

...but congrats following the Independent instead of your own party's leader on this.

You were led right where they wanted you on this, attacking your own party with their spophistry.

Both leaders, as Democratic leaders have for decades, make major legislative decisions both by consensus of the Democratic caucus and through what they can achieve in respective committees.

No matter what you intimate here, crafting a legislative response is a collective process, and good responsible leaders don't make those negotiations in the press. Whatever leadership he exerts is going to be one on one with the Democrats who chose him to represent them; and when there is a consensus, when he has actual votes he can carry around, he'll promote those priorities of the party, not just his own personal opinion.

Too many people are looking for king-like behavior in a democratic system of government, spurred on, I'm thinking by watching the opposition break rules and run their mouths like they're in a schoolyard fight, instead of governing.

Independent is just fine with egging people on to engage in stupid politics that does little but engage in tit for tat with a foolish bully in the WH. Fortunately, we have a party that works together, like the unanimous vote on health care subsidies Jeffries just achieved after months and months of pushing for it against much of the same noise about his leadership.

People need to come correct when they come at our party leaders, and claiming they're 'leading from behind' is just false and misleading; not to mention just pure bullshit in this case.

Leader Jeffries today:

(excerpt)

...we haven't ruled anything in or
anything out in terms of the proper way
to bring about accountability. But what
I can say, and we'll have a conversation
amongst some caucus members on this
tomorrow. I don't want to get out ahead
of it, and then we'll reconvene early
next week.

But what's clear to me is
Christine Gnome is deeply unqualified,
deeply unserious, and deeply dangerous.
She's a complete and total disgrace. She
should never have been confirmed by the
Senate in terms of holding this
position. She lied to the American
people as she's been doing repeatedly,
but in this instance, slandered a
37year-old American citizen whose life was
taken without justification by an ICE agent
who showed depraved indifference to
human life.

That agent should be criminally investigated
to the full extent of the law. And simultaneously
in Congress, we need to decisively respond
and we will. And that'll be led, of
course, by Robert Garcia, who leads our
efforts on the oversight committee,
Benny Thompson, who leads our efforts on
the Homeland Security Committee, and
Jamie Rasin, who leads our efforts on
judiciary.

“Our focus right now in terms of the appropriations bills are getting the three bills that are going to be on the floor today over the finish line, and then we’ll turn to the homeland security bill,” Jeffries said, referring to a separate package of funding bills that the House passed earlier Thursday. “We’ll figure out the accountability mechanisms at the appropriate time.”
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/politics/ice-minneapolis-shooting-funding-democrats-shutdown

The caucus fucking meets tomorrow. Our responsible leader in the House will wait until he speaks with the entire Dem coalition before spouting off to the press about how the PARTY is going to address DHS abuses.

[Jack Valentino]

62. Calm down, son. I'm not "coming" at anybody here---

I just am not too impressed at this point.



because I EXPECT the House Democratic Leader to attempt to LEAD
the opinion of the caucus, rather waiting for them to tell him what to think!

[bigtree]

64. he is leading, but he sets his own priorities

...not the Independent.

Health care subsidies was the order of business today, and NOTHING was lost by keeping the focus on that issue today until the successful passage which saw ALL Democrats in the House united and 17 republicans crossing over.

As Jeffries remarked, 'Democrats in the minority are assuming the role of the majority because republicans refuse to govern.'

As he said, the caucus will take that up tomorrow. Ffs, it's bad enough having media hacks misrepresent our leaders.

...and less of the 'son' if you please.

[Cha]

85. Hakeem Jeffries is Leading... Sorry

you don't see it.

Grateful that many here.. do get it.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

67. You want me to go against I.C.E? Shiiiiiit.

RIP Isiah Whitlock, Jr., 1954-2025

[lostincalifornia]

79. No wonder I don't spend much time here. Putting words in the mouth of what the Democratic leaders didn't say.

If I want to hear constant disparaging innuendos about Democrats in Congress there is enough of that on the airwaves. This is bullshit for a site that is supposed to be a Democratic site.

[DFW]

84. You're right about the BS, but

Much of it is due to planted “information,” or people too lazy to ponder what they read, and react first, find out later. Just pay them no attention, and concentrate on posts of substance. You’ll find enough sane, thought-out posts to make your visit worthwhile. I hope so, anyway.

(Yes, those “other” posts are annoying, but hell, just read the comments on any major article by the Boston Globe—half of them are fine, but plenty of them are beyond annoying).

[Cha]

86. On threads like these I

look for those who are explaining the Reality of what our leaders are doing. They're Great and I like Rec their Posts.

It is a shame, though, that it has to be this way.

[JCMach1]

92. They need to step aside then

Full stop

[mr715]

107. Simple, right?

Leaders need to lead. They must be bold. They must be fearless.

There are leaders in our caucus, and then there are vestiges of another time. Do we have bold leadership in the actual positions of leadership, or do we have people held there by simple inertia.

[Autumn]

112. A very wise man said. "There comes a time when silence is betrayal."

Yesterday was that time.

[Autumn]

96. Yeah. I see.

[kentuck]

100. They are afraid they will be called "anti-immigration reform".

It's all politics. But, is it?

[mr715]

102. "They are afraid"

I don't want leaders that are afraid.

I want leaders that protect those that are afraid.

Jeffries and Schumer are wealthy, famous, and connected.

Renee Nicole Good was not.

I am sick of being led by people that are more afraid than they are angry.

[mr715]

105. Mayor Mamdani reaffirmed NYC's sanctuary city status

It is only the largest city in the country, the world's financial, cultural, and diplomatic capital.

There is a rather famous statue in NYC's harbor that has for generations served as a beacon to immigrants from around the world that our doors are open to anyone.

Here is the text of Lazarus' poem for those that need a reminder of what the greatest city in the world represents.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”


I am troubled that even in Liberty's shadow, Schumer and Jeffries -- NYer's BOTH, seem to have not yet internalized this most essential element of the New York spirit.

"Mother of Exiles ... [g]lows world-wide welcome"

"Send [...] the homeless, tempest tost to me"

[Dawson Leery]

114. I am for full defundind AND abolishing ICE.

[flvegan]

124. Some Dem leadership is too busy confirming Trump's judges it seems.

Not bashing them, they're just doing what they've been told to do.