An Oklahoma caller to C-SPAN who identified himself as a lifelong Democrat and 2024 voter for former Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday that he is disgusted with his party and plans to leave it.
According to the RealClearPolling average, the Democratic Party’s favorability has fallen to just 34.7 percent — reflecting growing frustration among rank-and-file voters.
Speaking on Washington Journal, the caller singled out Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for criticism, saying both should step aside and allow new leadership to take over.
“I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I’m 78 — and my folks were too — but this party has changed so damn much,” the caller said.
“It makes me sick. I’m going to move out of it. It’s terrible. Schumer, he needs to be in a home. Take Pelosi with him,” the caller added, per the Daily Caller.
The caller said he had voted for Harris out of party loyalty rather than genuine support.
Earlier in the week, a Pennsylvania Democrat who phoned into Washington Journal voiced similar frustration, saying she would no longer vote for Democratic candidates. She cited dissatisfaction with the party’s handling of the ongoing government shutdown, which began on Oct. 1 after Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) rallied nearly all Senate Democrats to block a bipartisan funding bill.
“I have a problem with my party, and I’m not going to change my party,” she said. “I just won’t vote for a Democrat.”
In an August segment of Washington Journal, three Democratic callers sharply criticized their own party when asked whether they were satisfied with its direction.
Their complaints ranged from perceived weakness in leadership to an excessive focus on attacking former President Donald Trump and a broader shift toward the far left.
“I’m registered Democrat, but I hate my party. I haven’t voted for a Democrat really in the elections in quite a while. And yes, I voted Republican many times because I like the policies better. Democrats have had terrible policies,” one caller said.
“And now we have the rise of the so-called progressives. They’re really regressives. People like the Squad and [Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez and now [Zohran] Mamdani, who might become the mayor of New York City — he’s a proven socialist and Marxist as well as an antisemite,” the caller added.
Mamdani is currently leading in the polls and looks set to defeat former New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Additionally, an August analysis by The New York Times found that between 2020 and 2024, the Democratic Party lost roughly 2.1 million registered voters nationwide, while the Republican Party gained about 2.4 million over the same period.
Meanwhile, Teamsters President Sean O’Brien on Thursday called for an immediate end to the government shutdown, warning that the standoff is hurting the U.S. aviation industry and working families across the country.
Standing outside the West Wing of the White House, O’Brien was joined by Vice President JD Vance and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in urging Congress — particularly Senate Democrats — to “end the shutdown” and pass a clean continuing resolution to reopen the government.
O’Brien, who leads the 1.4 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters, has recently cast himself as an independent force in national politics, breaking from both parties when he believes workers are being used as leverage.
“We took a position three weeks ago,” O’Brien said. “Pass a clean CR, get to the table, negotiate a deal. Do not put working people in the middle of a problem. They should not be in there.”
He said the shutdown’s impact goes far beyond politics, noting that thousands of working families are already feeling the strain of missed paychecks and halted operations.
“And we have got to think about the families that are going to be affected,” O’Brien said. “Think about when you have to tell your son or daughter they can’t play sports because you’re not getting paid. Think about when you can’t pay your mortgage. Think about when you can’t pay your tuition.”
In a dramatic hearing that has sent shockwaves through Washington, Representative Jim Jordan presented explosive evidence that could potentially dismantle the credibility of key Democratic figures, particularly Adam Schiff. The session, focused on FBI oversight, quickly escalated into a powerful confrontation as Jordan and former aide Cash Patel revealed a web of corruption, political manipulation, and cover-ups within the intelligence community. This article delves into the details of the hearing, the evidence presented, and the implications for those involved.
The hearing commenced with Jordan outlining the significant findings brought to light by Director Patel. He emphasized the shocking revelation that Adam Schiff, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee and now a U.S. senator, had allegedly leaked classified information. This accusation stemmed from a whistleblower with 23 years of experience in the intelligence community, who claimed they were pressured to leak false information aimed at undermining then-President Donald Trump.
“Why would the head of the intelligence committee, who is supposed to protect our nation’s secrets, encourage the leaking of classified information?” Jordan asked, setting the stage for a deep dive into the alleged misconduct.
The whistleblower’s testimony was pivotal, stating that the leaked information was intended to be used to indict Trump. This assertion raised serious questions about the integrity of Schiff’s actions and the motivations behind them. Jordan underscored the gravity of the situation, suggesting that instead of safeguarding national secrets, Schiff had used his position to further a political agenda.
The hearing took a more intense turn as Jordan shifted focus to former FBI Director James Comey. He referenced the Inspector General’s report, which confirmed that Comey had violated FBI policy by disclosing classified information. “Comey’s motive was the same as Schiff’s: to sabotage Trump’s presidency,” Jordan asserted.
Jordan accused Comey of being part of a broader conspiracy to undermine Trump’s administration. He recounted Comey’s admissions about his objectives, which were not only to investigate but also to influence the political landscape during Trump’s first term. The evidence presented suggested a coordinated effort among top intelligence officials, including John Brennan and Jim Clapper, to rewrite assessments regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In a particularly striking email exchange, Admiral Rogers, the head of the NSA, expressed concerns about the integrity of the intelligence assessments being pushed by his colleagues. His apprehensions were dismissed in a reply from Clapper, who insisted on maintaining a unified front, stating, “It is essential that we be on the same page and are supportive.” This exchange highlighted the pressure to conform to a narrative that was politically motivated rather than factually accurate.
The heart of Jordan’s argument lay in the assertion that the intelligence community had manipulated information to create a false narrative about Russian interference in the election. He pointed to a meeting that took place in December 2016, where officials decided to alter the assessment that initially indicated Russia did not impact the election vote count. Instead, they crafted a new narrative claiming that Russia had indeed influenced the election, which was subsequently published in January 2017.
This alteration of facts, Jordan argued, was part of a calculated strategy to undermine Trump from the very beginning of his presidency. He emphasized that the discredited Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, was central to this effort. Despite being aware of its dubious origins, intelligence officials used the dossier to brief Trump and leaked its contents to the media, igniting the Russia investigation.
Cash Patel, who served as a key aide during the Trump administration, received significant praise during the hearing for his role in exposing these corrupt practices. He had spearheaded a strike force that investigated potential crimes related to the misuse of intelligence. His efforts led to the removal of 21,000 violent criminals from the streets, the rescue of 4,000 children, and the arrest of 1,300 predators.
Patel’s testimony also revealed shocking details about the FBI’s handling of informants during the January 6 Capitol riots. He disclosed that 26 informants were present inside the Capitol that day, yet none faced charges, contrasting sharply with the treatment of regular citizens involved in the protests. This discrepancy raised serious questions about the FBI’s priorities and the political motivations behind their actions.
The hearing did not spare FBI Director Christopher Wray from scrutiny. Patel presented evidence that Wray had withheld critical information from Congress regarding the FBI’s surveillance of various groups, including Catholics. He accused Wray of misleading lawmakers and downplaying significant issues within the agency.
Throughout the hearing, it became increasingly clear that Jordan and Patel were committed to exposing what they described as a corrupt system within the intelligence community. They argued that Schiff, Comey, and Wray had weaponized their positions for political gain, undermining the integrity of the institutions they were meant to protect.
As the hearing concluded, the implications of the evidence presented were profound. Jordan and Patel’s assertions raised critical questions about accountability within the intelligence community and the need for reforms to prevent such abuses of power in the future. The fallout from these revelations could have lasting effects on the reputations and careers of those implicated.
The hearing marked a significant moment in the ongoing battle between congressional Republicans and Democrats over the narrative surrounding the Trump administration and the investigations that followed. It underscored the deep divisions in American politics and the lengths to which individuals and parties might go to protect their interests.
In the wake of the hearing, the question remains: Should Adam Schiff, James Comey, and Christopher Wray be held accountable for their actions? The evidence presented by Jim Jordan and Cash Patel suggests a troubling pattern of behavior that warrants further investigation. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the call for transparency and accountability within the intelligence community has never been more urgent.
This hearing not only highlighted the need for reform but also served as a rallying cry for those advocating for integrity in government. The American public deserves to know the truth, and as Jordan and Patel fight to expose it, the stakes have never been higher. The fallout from these revelations will undoubtedly shape the future of American politics and the trust citizens place in their government institutions.
No comments: