Hakeem Jeffries & Chuck Schumer Are Being Called To Step Down If They Can’t Step Up

Donkey of the day for Friday, November 6th is going to the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Now, this past November 3rd, I saw something that I never saw in my lifetime on an election night. We are underselling it when we say it was a historic election night. OK, some people say an historic night for Democrats. That's part of it. But what I saw was America taking its power back from an administration that was hell bent on being a fascist regime. OK, a complete and total rebuke of 10 years of MAGA. OK, Trump has done such a terrible job in this country that Texas, South Carolina, Georgia and Kansas went blue. OK, and as a result, Democrats won back control of Congress. But there's a conversation happening inside the Democratic Party that deserves just as much attention as the election results. And that's whether Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries should continue leading the party. Let the record show. That your friendly neighborhood bad guy, Charlemagne the God, has been telling you for well over a year that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries should step down. So it warms my cold heart to see so many people calling for the same thing now, okay? I saw Peggy Flanagan asking them to step down. I saw Annie Andrews of South Carolina. I saw Dr. Abdul Syed saying the same thing. I was reading a letter. To the editor in the Portland Press Herald from Timothy Stevens of Norway, Maine. The headline was Schumer and Jeffries simply do not get it. And Timothy raises a question, you know, worth asking a question I've been asking. What kind of leadership does the Democratic Party actually need? Fantastic question. And I am here to provide some answers because I like to tell you the why of things. OK, why do I have a problem with the Democratic establishment? I have actually have four. OK, the first one. I need to know that when the interests of working class Americans conflict with the interests of corporate America and powerful foreign policy lobbying organizations, the people leading this party, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, are prepared to put working Americans first. And I don't think Schumer and Jeffries have answered that question convincingly enough. OK, look at the economy. All right. Democrats spent this election talking about affordability. We all know rent is too high, healthcare is too expensive, groceries cost too much, people are working every day and still struggling. So what are we prepared to do about it? Okay, now I know Trump is in office for two more years, even though I don't think he's gonna make it, but that's a combo for next week. So I'm not really expecting them to be able to do too much, but Hakeem and Chuck, are we going to confront corporate price gouging where it's happening? Are we going to make corporations pay their fair share in taxes? Are we going to challenge monopolies? Are we going to strengthen workers' bargaining power and make health care more affordable? Are we going to keep telling Americans we understand their pain while protecting the relationships that help finance political campaigns? Okay? Second problem. Let's talk about Israel. OK, in July, one hundred and three House Democrats voted for an amendment to cut military aid to Israel. Hakeem Jeffries voted against it. Now, Hakeem said the amendment was too broad and could interfere with humanitarian assistance and other programs. That's his explanation. And people should hear it. But here's the question. What specific conditions would. You support placing on American military assistance to Israel, Hakeem, because you can't keep saying American policy needs to change without explaining what you're actually prepared to change. And I have questions about Chuck Schumer's position, too. What should happen when the policies of the Israeli government conflict with American interests or international humanitarian law? What standards should apply to our allies? What consequences should follow when those standards are violated? Those aren't unreasonable questions. Their questions leadership should be able to answer. Third problem, Hakeem and Chuck never seem like they really want to win. Everything seems like establishment self-preservation. And this brings me to the Washington Generals. What the hell are you talking about, Uncle Charlotte or Washington Generals? Yes, the Washington Generals. Y'all know the Washington Generals, the team that plays the Harlem Globetrotters. OK, the Generals, they wear uniforms. They got coaches. They run plays. They show up to compete. But everybody understands it's just entertainment. OK, the Globetrotters are the attraction and the Generals, they're there to play the opposition. And that's the comparison I make when I look at establishment Democrats. Like Hakeem and Chuck going up against Republicans, plenty of speeches, plenty of outrage, plenty of fundraising emails telling everybody how important the next fight is, but they're not really trying to win. They are controlled opposition. But when progressive Democrats challenge establishment leadership, oh, now they want to fight. Okay, the fight looks very different. Okay, now we're talking about primary endorsements and campaign spending and control of party committees and who gets to decide which ideas are considered politically acceptable. And I want to know why that internal fight sometimes seems more intense than the fight over corporate power. In health care costs and the influence of money in Washington, because the criticism isn't simply that Democratic leaders lose the Republicans, it's that they appear comfortable fighting Republicans within the existing political system, while progressives are challenging whether that system itself needs to change. Those are two very different fights, people. OK, progressives, from what I see, they actually trying to win. Now, there are legitimate disagreements about what policies can pass and how to win elections and how to govern a diverse coalition. I get all that. But if party leadership can gather resources to defend its own political positions, voters have every right to ask how that same determination translates into confronting powerful economic interests. OK, the Washington Generals comparison. It's not about whether Democrats, you know, like Hakeem and Chuck, know how to compete. It's about whether they're willing to change the game. They're playing and actually try to win. Fourth and final problem, okay? After the midterms, Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats aren't focused on retribution or revenge. Let's listen. So, Mr. Speaker-elect, let me ask you, how do you keep your caucus focused on the things that got them elected, on the cost of gas, the cost of diesel, the cost of groceries, the cost of rent, the cost of health care, instead of retribution? You know, Donald Trump said, I am your retribution. He spent two years on a campaign of retribution, and he got wiped out. His party got wiped out. How do you now say, hey, let's not look behind us? You found it? We'll let the oversight committees do what they do, but we're going to focus on bringing costs down for working Americans. The American people don't want us to get even. They want us to get things done on their behalf, because life is way too expensive. We ran on affordability. We won on affordability. And now it's our job to govern on affordability. Oh, I can't—we want you to do both. Okay. Nobody is asking you to seek revenge. We're asking about accountability. You keep saying affordability and accountability. Okay. But asking you to seek accountability is different than asking you to seek revenge. Those are two completely different things. Okay. The next person who interviews Hakeem Jeffries, ask him, why does he keep saying affordability and accountability? Ask him, what does accountability look like? Because that's what we the people want. We know what revenge is. Revenge is going after somebody because they did something to you. Accountability is investigating whether somebody broke the law, abused their power, or violated the public trust. Revenge is personal. Accountability is about the rule of law. Oh, okay. So when Democrats talk about investigating alleged corruption in the Trump administration, I don't want that conversation confused with political retaliation. If there are legitimate allegations involving... Trump's business interests and government contracts and, you know, conflicts of interest are abuses of power. Congress has a responsibility to examine that evidence. OK, and if those investigations uncover criminal wrongdoing, so be it. OK, the evidence should be referred to the appropriate authorities. That standard applies to Democrats, too. OK, now, Chuck and Hakeem have both expressed support for investigations, so that's important. But the real test comes when Democrats have the power to conduct meaningful oversight. Will they issue subpoenas when necessary? Will they hold public hearings? Will they follow the evidence even when politically inconvenient? Will they make their findings available to the American people? They should because nobody should be above accountability and nobody should be targeted simply because of their political affiliation. Once again, accountability isn't revenge. It's what happens when the rule of law matters more than the person being investigated. And that's the standard, okay, the bare minimum. Democratic leadership should be expected to uphold. And if you can't do that, bye. Okay, and I'll give Hakeem credit. He helped House Democrats pass legislation extending Affordable Care Act tax credits. And Democratic leadership has promised to focus on lowering costs. Those actions matter, but I don't know if Hakeem or Chuck are built for the next test. The next test is what happens. When the legislation becomes more ambitious, when your powerful donors object, okay, when corporate lobbyists start calling and when, you know, you got to make difficult decisions about American foreign policy, especially Israel. OK, that's when the American people get to see what leadership really stands for, because winning elections is one responsibility governing in the public interest is another. Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer should have to demonstrate that their commitment to working Americans is stronger than their commitment to preserving political relationships and financial support. So far, establishment self-preservation is winning. And whether Chuck or Hakeem meets that standard is a question. Their colleagues and the American people. deserve to debate. I personally say they don't. And I've been saying this for over a year. Okay. The point of winning political power isn't simply to keep it. The point is to use it to make people's lives better. Let me say this real clear. Okay. So you can have it and listen to it on repeat. Hakeem. Chuck. The real test of leadership isn't how much money you can raise or how many elections you can win. It's what you're willing to do when the interests of the American people conflict with the interests of the people financing your political career. Are you willing to challenge corporate America on wages? Are you willing to challenge, you know, the health care system? You know, are you are you willing to challenge corporate America on housing and taxes? Are you willing to challenge Israel's government when its actions conflict with American interests and human rights? Are you willing to hold Trump and other powerful people accountable regardless of their political connections? Because if your commitment to the American people only goes as far as your donors will allow, then voters have every right to be on your ass and even ask you to step down. Donkey of the Day is sponsored by renowned personal injury attorney Michael the Bull Lamensoff. Don't be a donkey when you need a fighter on your side. If you're ever injured, go to MichaelTheBull.com. That's MichaelTheBull.com. And when you mess with the bull, you get the horns. wake your ass up. Y'all finished or y'all done?