Another Democrat in Congress is retiring, but this time it resurfaces. A recent fight between establishment Democrats and progressives. Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly announced today that he will not seek reelection due to his cancer diagnosis. [00:00:17] When I announced my diagnosis six months ago, I promised transparency after grueling treatments. We've learned that the cancer, while initially beaten back, has now returned. I'll do everything possible to continue to represent you and thank you for your Grace. [00:00:33] He also added that he'll be stepping down from a prominent committee post. The sun is setting on my time in public service and this will be my last term in Congress. I will be stepping back as ranking member of the Oversight Committee soon. With no rancor and a full heart, I move into this final chapter [00:00:52] full of pride in what we've accomplished together over 30 years. My loving family and staff sustain me. My extended family. You all have been a joy to serve. Some may remember that Connolly and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [00:01:08] were both vying for the position of ranking member on oversight, but House Democrats narrowly voted last December to give that position to Connolly. That was befuddling to many progressives and even some Democrats who supported AOC for the position, as oversight is a critical committee [00:01:26] for keeping the administration in check. And given that Connolly had just been diagnosed with esophageal cancer the month prior, many wondered if he was up to the task. But let's look at what Connolly and his allies were saying when committee assignments were being deliberated. [00:01:43] Connolly's trademark vigor made colleagues comfortable that he could take on the Trump administration, despite his age and recent cancer diagnosis. Multiple lawmakers told Axios. Said Connolly, we're looking at capability. We're not looking at age is somebody capable, irrespective of how old they are [00:02:03] and if they bring energy and enthusiasm. And I think this one takes the cake, the cake. Representative Don Beyer of Virginia added Jerry is a young 74. Cancer notwithstanding. [00:02:18] Now, Jake, I know you've got more you want to get into after this. But on Connolly stepping down I mean, 100 days in, I don't remember much from Connolly's time as House oversight chair, which makes you wonder why did he need that position so bad to begin with? [00:02:35] Yeah. I don't remember much about Connolly's tenure as US congressman, period. And to be fair to Connolly, though, I don't remember much about, you know, about 200 Democrats in Congress that just sit in a cave somewhere. [00:02:52] Every once in a while, I'll hear about a new Democratic congressman. But really, like and I don't mean new as in they're their new. I mean, I knew I heard about it recently and they're like, oh yeah, that guy's from Philadelphia. He's been a congressman for 28 years. [00:03:10] But the reason why they never come out, whether it's, you know, whether we're going to find out if it's spring or not, right, is because they think, well, I got this comfortable position. I have status, power, fame, whatever I have. [00:03:26] Right. Well, not much fame since they never show themselves in public. And so I'm just going to sit here on my ass and do nothing. So tell me what amazing things Conley did in his career. Anyway, so the reason I bring that up is not because I'm trying to hate on Conley, okay? [00:03:41] I wish him well with his treatment. You know, he was a Democrat. So and you need those votes, etc.. But I'm tired of the establishment telling us how wonderful they are. 70, 80, 90 year old members are, how amazing they are. [00:03:57] What did you pass? Ass. What did you guys all collectively pass that you're all so wonderful and that we just can't live without you? Oh, we can't go to the new guard. No way. Because the old guard's been killing it, have they? Have they so and so to answer Jordan's question, why do they wanted to keep him [00:04:16] and have him in that position? And why did he easily win that vote? Because most of the Democratic Congress people are super old and they waited like 20 or 30 years to get these irrelevant positions that they were going to do nothing with. [00:04:33] So they're like, wait a minute, I'm not going to have these young whippersnappers just because they're effective and, and, and are aggressive and can actually fight back, do the job. Right. No, I'm going to do it because I've been waiting 20 years for this. And seniority is more important. Incumbency is the most important. [00:04:51] Protecting our status and privilege is the most important thing in the world. No it isn't. I don't care about your status and privilege at all. At all. So, yeah. Obviously AOC should have gotten that position in the first place. Gee, I wonder who's going to be a more charismatic speaker and effectively [00:05:09] fight back, AOC or Connolly, who you've literally never heard of before? Yeah, you know, AOC isn't even on that committee anymore. She's on energy and commerce. And while they have some role in evaluating and calling out [00:05:27] what the administration does, oversight is a very, very important committee. And Raskin chaired that committee in the last term. It just it was to me, it was always purely about keeping progressives at bay. And many people on the left, who are a bit more cynical on how you can [00:05:45] work within the system, have been pointing out like, look, you're playing the game. You tried to cheer on the Biden administration. You tried to help propel Kamala Harris to victory. You spoke at the DNC. You were very Flattering of their, of the administration and their [00:06:02] purported efforts for a cease fire. And this is how they treat you. And I think to many people, they'll look at that and say, why should we even work with them? Why should we even try to work within this system if this is how they're still going to treat us? I don't think that they're entirely wrong in that criticism. [00:06:19] It fuels cynicism about how Democrats will treat progressives. And I think it's going to take a lot of people trying to buck the system, trying to take it on head first rather than try to work within it. Yeah. I mean, my favorite part was the the quote about Connolly's trademark vigor. [00:06:38] That was a trademark lost on me, brother. Okay. Really? He has a trademark vigor. That's why he's been breathing fire against Republicans and insisting on passing the most popular parts of the Democratic proposal. Policy planks. All right, look. Last thing on old guard versus new guard. [00:06:55] Recently we talked about David Hogg starting a pack, and he's now the DNC vice chair. And, and so he wants to raise $20 million, run in blue seats against incumbents. I'm 100% in favor of that. I believe Jordan's 100% in favor of that. [00:07:12] But I did say on the show that, you know, that I get it and it makes sense. And and Jordan's right. The establishment has a terrible track record. The DNC has a terrible track record of being, and that's what I talked about, the DNC track record of being hypocritical on this issue. [00:07:29] The minute progressives do something. Hey, we found a rule. And when, establishment guys incumbents do something. Oh, golly gee, we just couldn't find a way to be fair. Right? But, I think that Ken Martin at the DNC is trying to pass a rule that makes sense, [00:07:44] which is the DNC officers should be neutral. And so 99 out of 100 times, they're not neutral in the establishment direction. In this case, it happens to be, you know, in the progressive direction. And so I get it. And Jordan will say, how convenient. [00:08:00] And that's what I said earlier. But I do like the rule, Jordan. I think the DNC officers should be neutral. And and if it's a potential moment for Marbury versus Madison type of moment where the Supreme Court ruled against [00:08:16] their political interests but gave themselves the power to be able to adjudicate cases coming from the executive branch. So in this case, if you call it the Hague rule, and, okay, David has to make a decision about at least taking himself off of the electoral part of the pack and staying as DNC vice chair, [00:08:35] or just going full bore into the pack. At least then we could apply that very, very clearly to every other DNC officer and make sure that they do not touch any PACs and rig any rules in favor of the establishment. [00:08:51] I mean, yeah, of course it's it's how convenient. I would like to see them do this in any other circumstance. Right. Until then, I'm just going to disregard it and just chalk it up to more business as usual. Because what Hogg is doing is saying, hey, let's get new people in there. [00:09:08] Let's get rid of the old guard who is just preserving the status quo. And let's get some people who actually want to go in and do work. And the DNC is saying, no, we can't do that. You gotta you gotta remain neutral. We can't interfere with the the poor sweet old guard, the establishment Democrats. [00:09:25] Like if they were doing this and the roles were reversed, I'd be shocked. But every single time that they put their thumb on the scales or issue some new rule or or tut tut somebody, it is to preserve the people [00:09:40] who are already entrenched in power. I'll remind people that after the Sanders campaign of 2016, they threatened to blacklist any vendors or consultants, any groups, any strategists who helped, any sort of progressive challenger [00:09:57] that was specific also specifically to try to thwart Justice Democrats influence. You had Josh Gottheimer, who worked with the Chamber of Commerce and business interests, to undermine the key parts of Biden's legislative agenda the Build Back Better plan. [00:10:12] He was working with businesses to kill that. He's teaming up with Hakeem Jeffries for a PAC team, Blue PAC. He did this a couple years ago. Ryan Grimm has written about it. Team blue PAC to protect Democratic incumbents against progressive challengers. [00:10:28] They're fine with all of that. So I want to see them do some sort of, you know, throwing their weight around when it comes to anybody else. Because all I have seen for years is them saying, no, it's fine. We got to protect the status quo. We got to protect the, the incumbent Democrats in every single ruling, [00:10:47] every single issuance of guidance or anything always comes at the expense of outside challengers. So I, I I refuse to give Ken Martin or the DNC any credit, because I haven't seen this applied in any sort of fair way, and maybe it will. [00:11:03] But until then, I'm. I'm withholding judgment. Okay. I have a proposal. See if we can get to a compromise. So because look, we agree on so much of this. We both agree that the pack is great. There's nothing wrong with the pack. Definitely run against incumbents. Right. [00:11:18] So number two, let me see if I can get an agreement on this. We both agree that the DNC pass has been terrible. They've been entirely biased. Anyone claiming that they weren't biased is being is out of their minds right now. But on the other hand, Ken Martin has a track record of being very progressive in Minnesota. [00:11:36] And, and helped to pass a lot of progressive legislation, actually got things done, etc.. So I think it's a little unfair to put the entire DNC history on Ken Martin. I also think Ken Martin has to understand that that DNC history exists. [00:11:52] Are we okay so far, Jordan? Is that fair so far? - Sure. - Okay. I think there's more to it than that, but I want to see if there's anything else. Okay. So now the compromise is, why don't we do both at the same time then? And I'll offer up 1 or 2 things. [00:12:08] Look, there's when you talk about the terrible things that DNC did in the past, there's a giant list, right? Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had money flowing from donors to the state parties to Hillary Clinton. And but not to Bernie Sanders. [00:12:23] That level of cheating was 10,000 times worse than what haggis proposing here. Would they have actually ousted her? No way. And they didn't, of course. And they didn't. They covered it up. They have. They condemned it since. No. Even though it was a massive case of cheating at the very highest levels, etc.. [00:12:42] Now and that's literally cheating. That was against the bylaws. It was against everything. Okay. So now there are two things, but that's gone. So there are two things that we could do. Okay. All right. I, I get the need for neutrality for the DNC officers, and I'm now [00:12:57] apparently calling it the hog rule. So I like that. And I think Ken Martin is right about that. Okay. Then does it also apply to Democratic leaders? Because if we're talking about leadership of the Democratic Party, so does Hakeem Jeffries have to stop his PAC, which is aimed at protecting incumbents and against primary challengers who are [00:13:19] very often progressives and populists? Do we? So this is not a deal. I mean, I don't know if you'd accept a deal, Jordan, but I'm curious what the DNC will accept the deal or are we going to have two different sets of rules, one for progressives and for one for the beloved establishment, [00:13:35] Hakeem Jeffries and the rest. Okay. If you don't like that one, how about this one? Jordan talked about the black list, right? So how about the black list? Did anyone ever even take away the black list? Did they ever bring those people back? Did they ever lift it? [00:13:51] Is does that garbage still exist? I mean, at least, like, a clarification on it. Right. And and did anyone get blacklisted for working on a campaign against Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush? Can we go back and blacklist them? Because I thought we had a blacklist against incumbents. [00:14:08] Look, what I'm looking for is consistency. And I'm okay with consistency applied to progressives, including David Hogg. But it's got to be applied to the other side as well. So if the Democratic Party now says no, I'm going to continue blacklisting progressive. [00:14:24] Anyone who helps progressive primary challenger. And I'm not and I'm not going to blacklist the the vendors that help the incumbents. I mean, help conservative Democrats, corporate Democrats run against incumbent progressives. And no, Hakeem Jeffries and Gottheimer. [00:14:41] And Gottheimer is not a leader, but Hakeem Jeffries and others, they can run any PAC they like. Only progressives like Hogg can. Then then. Okay, then you're not being consistent. So what do you think of the proposal that to to do them at the same time. Sure. [00:14:58] Yeah. But again it's all hypothetical. If if they were to do that. Of course. Yeah. They I guess be a step in the right direction. But the one thing for me is that makes me less optimistic that it would be ever applied in an equitable and fair and all inclusive way [00:15:17] is that the DNC is a machine, and they ultimately operate at the behest of their big donors, special interests, corporations. They rely on funding in part from those entities. And those people don't want progressives to win. Those donors don't want progressives to win, but they need that money. [00:15:35] So I don't think they're ever going to be in a position where they could operate in that way. You saw, you know, major corporate donors at the DNC convention. You see, groups like Democratic Majority for Israel, very present [00:15:54] and have a robust presence at the DNC, distributing booklets promoting Kamala Harris's support for Israel at the DNC. They're not dismissing or pushing those people out of the US, out of their circle. They're not getting them. They're not keeping them at arm's length or, admonishing them. [00:16:13] These people are spending especially democratic majority for Israel, are spending millions on races to unseat progressives. How many, many millions spent unseating Cori Bush like you like you talked about? They don't care. They're fine with that as long as it helps preserve [00:16:30] corporate Democrats and their power. So while Ken Martin may have good intentions, while he could have been a good and like you say, he was a good progressive in Minnesota, he is now part of a machine, and he's a figurehead for a machine [00:16:45] that is ultimately adversarial to progressive interests has been. There are good progressives that supported Bernie, that support Ken Martin and this rule. But the DNC has been that institution. I think they need to acknowledge that and they need to give an olive branch back. [00:17:04] Right. If they okay. I mean, I know they'll never, ever do this. Right, but okay. Damn Democratic majority for Israel, AIPAC and all the other Israeli lobbies. And if there's any other foreign lobbies that worked against incumbents [00:17:20] like Bowman and Bush, if they're banned and they're blacklisted like progressive organizations were, okay, now that's an olive branch. And now we could have a deal. Now we all know they're never, ever, ever going to do that because they love that kind of PAC money. [00:17:37] So you can't have it both ways. That's the thing we all agree on right. So I like the neutrality rule. But if they're going to do that let's I think the most reasonable, you know, compromise is then Hakeem Jeffries and any other Democratic leader [00:17:53] in the House also has to divorce themselves from their PACs. Because what you want unilateral disarmament on one side, but not the other. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. So let's have even rules that are neutrally applied. So I like the neutrality rule, but the neutrality rules should be [00:18:11] in the context of actually being neutral. That's my proposal. Okay. And my guess is they'll say there's nothing we can do about Hakeem Jeffries. There's nothing we could do about AIPAC or Democratic majority for Israel. There's nothing we could do about blacklists. [00:18:26] There's nothing we could do about anything. But to be fair, I haven't checked on what their latest thing is with the blacklists are and whether people got taken off the blacklist. So. But I'm. Look, my point is, I'm principled. Neutrality is the right rule. And we should apply it equally to both sides. [00:18:43] We see equality. Then it's a different question and a different ballgame. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.