Sellout by the Democrats in Congress
When I was living in Michigan, I found Jack Lessenberry to be an excellent pundit with regards to Republicans, Democrats, and state policies. For the most part the state was run by Republicans for two or three decades until Michigan governor Gretchen Esther Whitmer. And then it was a battle of the legislatures. The state is still manufacturing oriented with Ford, GM, and Chrysler manufacturing and the Tier companies supplying components.
The issue today? Democrats buying into the Charlie Kirk story. This is outside of his murder which should not be tolerated regardless of who the person is or like or dislike. However, there was not need for Dems to join Repubs in honoring Charles Kirk. There was a need to hold his murder despicable. Such is unacceptable regardless of the person.
~~~~~~~
The Disgraceful Sellout of the Democrats in Congress
William Butler Yeats wrote, as you probably know, that “the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about politics in America today, since he died in 1939.
But he could have been, and for me, it was utterly sickening to see almost half the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives vote Friday in favor of a resolution honoring the nasty, hate-spewing demagogue Charlie Kirk. Twenty-two others ran and hid; 58 had the guts to vote no.
Condemn his assassination? Absolutely. Everyone could and should sign on for that. But the text described Kirk as someone who was “seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic,” and that he stood “as a model for young Americans.”
Oh, barf. He was a model for bigotry, sexism, and race and gender hatred.
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who has never been afraid to speak truth to power, was one of 58 Democrats who had the courage to reject the trap the Republicans had set for them and vote no. She said, according to the Associated Press, “Today’s resolution underscores the majority’s recklessness by choosing to author this condemnation and honoring on a purely partisan basis.”
“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was.”
This Republican resolution was designed as a political ‘gotcha’ — trying to force every member of Congress to lift up the views of Charlie Kirk rather than simply condemning his assassination,” Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal told the AP.
“I cannot do that.”
Nevertheless, with the exception of Rashida Tlaib and Shri Thanedar, every member of Michigan’s congressional delegation voted for the resolution.
Perhaps most contemptible was Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell, who is in her 70s, has at utterly safe seat, little chance of higher office. and not only voted for it, she attended a vigil honoring Kirk at the Capitol earlier this week. The Associated Press said she supported the resolution “because his horrific killing, and this volatile time require all of us to reject violence, hate, and anger without hesitation.”
Evidently meaning without brains, either.
This was a guy who said wives should submit to their husbands; gays should be stoned to death, President Biden should be executed for his crimes against America, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake, and Blacks were inferior to whites, among other garbage.
Democrats know what Kirk said and who he was, but 95 of them were too cowardly not to go along. They evidently think that will help them get back in power. All this does is show they are entirely unworthy to have any power, or be trusted with it.
Pssst. If the choice is between a real fascist and people too cowardly to stand up to fascists and their lies, who do you suppose is going to win?
As of now, the only Democratic national “leaders” worthy of the name are Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg. A presidential ticket with those two on it might not win (though I think by 2028 it very well might) but it is one we could be completely proud of and enthusiastic about supporting.
Yes, indeed…what I’ve been saying about Democrats for years!
It is the reason I am an independent and give to Democrat candidates that I like, not to the party at any level. I doubt I will ever vote for a Republican again, but I am perfectly fine with leaving a slot blank if I can not find a reason to vote for any candidate.
Terry:
Three million people did not vote in 2024 that probably did vote in 2020. That is how many fewer people voted and nore-than-likely resulted in Trump coming to office again.
The linked article and the comment thread to it are worth thinking about. Lessenberry twice responds to comments….he’s paying attention to the comments. But one commentator brings up the charge of “stoning gays” and rightfully says that that would be maximally disqualifying of being accorded any respect for holding such an opinion so he wants to know when Kirk said this. No reply from Lessenberry or anyone else on the thread. So I poke around and keep getting directed to the same interaction that Kirk had with a caller. The caller cites Leviticus 19 as calling for tolerance and Kirk points out that Leviticus 18 calls for harshness. I checked the Bible and they both are correct. At least in this interchange of scriptural views as documented on-line, Kirk didn’t come anywhere near advocating that Leviticus 18 ought to be the basis for current policy concerning gay sex. Maybe he did at some other time, I can’t say, but so far Lessenberry is not hustling to support his claim about this.
Eric:
Why should Jack hustle? And you always want to play this gotcha game. Here:
Charlie Kirk discussed stoning gay people on his podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, in June 2024. During an episode aired around June 11, 2024, he responded to children’s YouTuber Ms. Rachel’s use of the Bible verse “love thy neighbor” (from Leviticus 19) to defend Pride Month and LGBTQ+ acceptance. Kirk countered by referencing Leviticus 20:13 (though he misattributed it to Leviticus 18), which describes male same-sex relations as an “abomination” and prescribes death as the punishment. He paraphrased the verse inaccurately as stating that “thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death” and described the preceding chapter as affirming “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” He framed the reference as a rebuttal to selective Bible interpretation, calling homosexuality an “error” and praising the biblical prescription as divinely ordained in the context of sexual morality.
The full quote from Kirk: “Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters. By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser reference, part of the same part of scripture, in Leviticus 18, is that ‘thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.’ Just saying.”
(Note: The actual biblical text in Leviticus 20:13 uses “put to death” rather than specifying “stoning,” though stoning was a common method of execution under ancient Jewish law for such offenses. Kirk’s phrasing and endorsement of the passage as “perfect law” drew widespread criticism for promoting homophobic violence, even if he did not explicitly call for modern implementation.)
This clip went viral shortly after airing, with outlets like Meidas Touch and Patriot Takes highlighting it as Kirk praising or endorsing the stoning of gay people. The remarks resurfaced in September 2025 following Kirk’s death, prompting fact-checks clarifying that while he cited and praised the biblical passage, he did not personally advocate for stoning in a contemporary legal sense—though critics argue the endorsement was inflammatory and harmful.
Just saying . . . Kirk knew the damn game he was playing.
“Kirk explains on his show, “there’s a lawmaker and a designer, and being Christians, we believe those laws were made to be followed for our flourishing and our prosperity…. Outside of the religious component of this, there are laws of economics,” as Media Matters reports.
He goes on to explain that we don’t get to “determine your own reality,” and for that reason he both opposes transgender equality and connects it to inflation. “So there’s a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue,” he said. “You say, ‘Charlie, come on. They couldn’t be further apart.’ No, they’re exactly the same.'”
I could give a rats ass what Charlie does or did. He is not any saint the Repubs are promoting.
No person should be murdered in cold blood regardless what they say. That is a given. Charlie did say the words whether he meant it or not. I like the inflation one the best.
John:
Go away . . .
I already answered this with the numbers and why. It rests with the population who are now paying for their mistake as Tr_mp favors the small percentage of the wealthy at the expense of you, I, and millions of others.
What proof do you have that non-voters who had voted for Biden in 2020 would have voted Democratic in 2024? None. Trump’s COVID policies were enough to make many want to throw the bum out.
Your supposition is pure speculation. Past performance simply does not guarantee future results.
Worse, it blames non-voters, not the corrupt and senescent Democratic leadership, for failing to motivate non-voters to come out and vote for them, despite the expenditure of a $1.5 Billion of corporate-funded largesse.
Time to stop providing excuses for Democrats lameness…