I always thought Noem was “Over her ski’s” when she took over DHS. Not too bright in the book smarts, possible in the street smarts, as she did have the Republican Party’s backing. I knew she would flame out, and the lady did not disappoint. Mullin is just plain wrong. He wants to hide what he is doing. Still going to hurt innocent people, especially children while he advances his wife’s job seeking opportunity.
Khanna, great idea! Attack other Democrats during a time when the Republicans are a virtual criminal syndicate. I’ve never seen anyone with worse, political instincts than you. You think this makes you look strong? It makes you look ridiculously weak. Go fight the real enemy or just sit down and keep your mouth shut.
Ro Khanna's plan? Step 1: Remove the 12 apostate senators and reduce the number of Democrats in the Senate to 35. Step 2: Lose Sunbelt states like Arizona in 2028 (having already removed both Democratic senators). Step 3: So much winning we're tried of winning. What a joke.
I've written my share of letters to both Arizona senators criticizing their vote on the Laken Riley act. I'm particularly riled by Senator Gallego. Despite his sharp criticisms of the administration's current immigration policies, he doubles down on his position that we need such laws (and ICE) to go after the "bad people". What he fails to acknowledge is 1) police forces at multiple levels, even in "sanctuary cities" are, in fact, arresting criminals, that's their job; and 2) the purpose of Laken Riley was not to provide practical measures to arrest more criminals, it was to contribute to the administration's hateful and misleading rhetoric that criminalizes all immigrants without proper documentation, and that demonizes an even wider class of Americans based on race and national origin.
That said, I don't believe in litmus tests or gotcha politics, especially in our era of social media when we all say so much, so quickly, so publicly. We have to look at the whole picture. One vote, like that on Laken Riley, may tell us some things about senators' opportunism, their willingness to pander for votes, their fear of criticism from the GOP, and their inability to understand or foresee this administration's politics of immigration. If those things are a pattern, they should disqualify a candidate, not for one vote, but for what it points to. If it was just a bad decision, who among us (and what candidate?) doesn't make lousy decisions or change their mind sometimes?
Senator Gallego, for example, has proposed a comprehensive immigration policy that deserves serious consideration. Nor do I think it's helpful in the 2026 cycle to be emphasizing Laken Riley when we are desperately trying to put Senator Ossoff over the top in an important and hotly contested Georgia race. He has advanced sharp criticisms of Trump's policies and embraced many policies that appeal to Democrats across a wide political spectrum, including progressives.
Frankly, I am far more worried about Democrats nominating someone like Ro Khanna who is an advocate of, as the interview suggests, "technocratic capitalism". The actions of Palantir are not isolated. We've seen many other cases (the controversies over Flock cameras for example) of how data collection and surveillance are central to the administration's arrests, detentions, and deportations. The 2028 election will have to address the broader issue of what to do about the enormous concentration of wealth and private power in a technological sector that affects every American and threatens our liberties, jobs, and economic well-being: the uses of AI and the control of knowledge, the collection of private data, surveillance or algorithmic pricing, the manipulation of social media... The list is long, and, in my view, this represents the greatest long-term threat to democracy and a free society. I wouldn't bet on Ro Khanna.
It takes zero guts to have a consistently progressive voting record (which AFAIK Khanna has) when 67 percent of the voters in your district went for Harris (as Wikipedia tells me was the case in California district 17).
Khanna's Laken Riley purity test eliminates all congressional Democrats who have proven ability to win in a purple state or district. And he probably can find some other purity test violation for red and purple state governors.
I do admit to a purity test of my own. Nominate someone with proven ability to win a tough election against a Republican. Democrats are lucky to have lots like that to pick from for 2028.
P.S. To qualify just a bit, Sen. Andy Kim did vote against the Laken Riley Act, and he did win at least one very difficult general election House race. While I like Kim, of course he shouldn't be nominated just because of that.
I’ve been a Democrat since 1976. 50 frickin years. The reason I’m still a Democrat is because despite the flaws of the Democrat Party, the Democrats were supposed to represent the concerns of the average American and improve people’s lives, at least more so than Republicans, and more often than not, that has been true. That does not mean I have not supported and voted for certain (relatively) principled Republicans over the years and that I agree with every position taken by Democrats as a whole. I supported John McCain, and I even attended fundraisers at his home before the billionaires took over the funding of campaigns. This litmus test nonsense needs to stop. So purple state Democrats voted for a bill allowing deportation of unauthorized immigrants who have been charged with crimes and not yet convicted. Well the immigrants are here without authorization to begin with. Yes, I believe we need immigration, legal immigration. And if an unauthorized immigrant has been in the US for a long period of time, especially with citizen children or a citizen spouse, I believe the law should allow them to remain and in some manner become a legal permanent resident. But this is not a hill to die on. I’m sure I have a disagreement with one position or another with every single potential Democrat Presidential candidate. So what. WTFU. We need a broad tent to win and GOVERN. We need some kind of universal healthcare, job security, higher minimum wages, and housing affordability laws. We are going to need a broad umbrella and compromise to get them. No one is running for President of California or Silicon Valley. Snap out of it.
One would have to do some deep research to learn the last time that a sitting member of the House of Representatives was elected president. The House hasn't been a good place from which to run.
Ok, into the minefield: On a personal level I’m closer to open borders than a lot of my Bulwark fam. I don’t imagine I could legislate that into being if a majority of voters don’t want it.
Could we look at the history of marriage equality? DOMA passed with Dem votes, including one Senator Joe Biden. People kept working to affirm their humanity & rights. Our society shifted. A SCOTUS helped (now a different show there of course). 26 years after DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act passed. Biden was then in the position to sign it into law.
Arc of the moral universe, maybe? I’m cautious who I’d cast out along the way to the future I believe in
Democrats please please please quit bickering with each other. Keep your food fight private. Pull together and try and win. The old guard should just sit back and let the new bloods take the party into the future. Mr. Ro Khanna should know in a democracy one does not have to agree 100% of the time with others, The Laken Riley Act is deplorable but the only one I would be concerned with on your list is John Fetterman.
Plenty of comments about how this is a litmus test or purity test and how that is bad for moderates and thus the Democratic party. Voting for the Laken Riley Act should be disqualifying because what it says about candidate's values, how they view building political power, and who's human rights they value.
In 2025 many Democrats thought the best course of action was to let Trump do whatever he wanted with the hopes that we would crash and burn and Dems could rule the ashes. That mindset included voting for the Laken Riley Act. They were fine empowering ICE and unleashing the mass deportation machine because they thought it might help them build political power later. It was a callous and heartless error. Families ripped apart and people murdered.
Democrats should have been dedicated to fighting Trump from day 1 instead of the sad policies of appeasement and capitulation. The vote is disqualifying because if Dems aren't willing to stand up to Trump on mass deportation what will they stand for? Will they fight oligarchs? Will they hold Trump cronies accountable? Or will we get empty platitudes and no action?
Yet again any legitimate criticism of horrible decisions is derided as a purity test.
I agree with your argument... in theory. But once again, practical and political realism raises its hoary head. When Senators like Ossoff and Kelly have proven to be effective as winning candidates in their purple states, they can continue to work for the improvement of bad laws they voted for that realism required of them initially. Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but I want our leaders who can see beyond the imperfect present to a means for improving the future.
Yes, keep a record of their actions, and their vote for the Lincoln Riley Act is Strike One. But we need them to have several more times at bat if we are going to defeat the real forces that are causing so much suffering for our immigrant communities.
(Fetterman, as we all know, has long ago struck out.)
I’m not sure arguing for the rights of criminals, no matter how low-level they may be, is a great position to take. The majority of the country believes we need immigration enforcement, but the majority of the country also believes the hardline approach the Trump admin has taken is too severe.
Democrats need to be supportive of immigration enforcement (albeit a significantly more humane version of it) and focus their policies on overhauling the legal processes that make immigrating legally such a steep hill to climb. Thats our angle here.
I can agree that shoplifting is generally not that big of a deal, but also if you’re immigrating to the United States, I kinda want you to respect our laws. I’d be willing to bet the cohort we need to capture to get meaningful change agrees.
That’s all to say, it’s time for democrats to stop focusing so damn heavily on responding to what Donald Trump is doing. On an acute basis, sure, but we still have to present a bigger picture idea of what we actually support, not just what we’re against. There’s no question where republicans stand on immigration. The same cannot be said of democrats.
Crypto has no underlying value (other than to North Korea, who hacks exchanges for over $1B a year), but depends entirely on the price future buyers pay—the definition of a Ponzi scheme. It performed badly during the Iran war inflation spike, is the preferred currency of ransomware hackers, human traffickers and other criminals and if you care one cent about climate change, BitPonzi is the great Satan:
At a time when Crypto & AI are rapaciously consuming power and water, bankrupting families with soaring power bills and jeopardizing rivers and drinking water in drought conditions, the last thing we need is a crypto Ro for President.
The Laken Riley bill was evil, Biden-Harris handling of immigration horrible, keeping swing state Senate seats essential. Was there really a path for holding onto those seats in 2024 voting against it? Had those Senators voted against it, would it have mattered given the ICE lawlessness we’ve seen?
Trump clearly highlighted it every chance he could.
He should emphasize that cases like the Reyes case show that the GOP isn’t truly “pro-family”
I always thought Noem was “Over her ski’s” when she took over DHS. Not too bright in the book smarts, possible in the street smarts, as she did have the Republican Party’s backing. I knew she would flame out, and the lady did not disappoint. Mullin is just plain wrong. He wants to hide what he is doing. Still going to hurt innocent people, especially children while he advances his wife’s job seeking opportunity.
Khanna, great idea! Attack other Democrats during a time when the Republicans are a virtual criminal syndicate. I’ve never seen anyone with worse, political instincts than you. You think this makes you look strong? It makes you look ridiculously weak. Go fight the real enemy or just sit down and keep your mouth shut.
Ro Khanna's plan? Step 1: Remove the 12 apostate senators and reduce the number of Democrats in the Senate to 35. Step 2: Lose Sunbelt states like Arizona in 2028 (having already removed both Democratic senators). Step 3: So much winning we're tried of winning. What a joke.
I've written my share of letters to both Arizona senators criticizing their vote on the Laken Riley act. I'm particularly riled by Senator Gallego. Despite his sharp criticisms of the administration's current immigration policies, he doubles down on his position that we need such laws (and ICE) to go after the "bad people". What he fails to acknowledge is 1) police forces at multiple levels, even in "sanctuary cities" are, in fact, arresting criminals, that's their job; and 2) the purpose of Laken Riley was not to provide practical measures to arrest more criminals, it was to contribute to the administration's hateful and misleading rhetoric that criminalizes all immigrants without proper documentation, and that demonizes an even wider class of Americans based on race and national origin.
That said, I don't believe in litmus tests or gotcha politics, especially in our era of social media when we all say so much, so quickly, so publicly. We have to look at the whole picture. One vote, like that on Laken Riley, may tell us some things about senators' opportunism, their willingness to pander for votes, their fear of criticism from the GOP, and their inability to understand or foresee this administration's politics of immigration. If those things are a pattern, they should disqualify a candidate, not for one vote, but for what it points to. If it was just a bad decision, who among us (and what candidate?) doesn't make lousy decisions or change their mind sometimes?
Senator Gallego, for example, has proposed a comprehensive immigration policy that deserves serious consideration. Nor do I think it's helpful in the 2026 cycle to be emphasizing Laken Riley when we are desperately trying to put Senator Ossoff over the top in an important and hotly contested Georgia race. He has advanced sharp criticisms of Trump's policies and embraced many policies that appeal to Democrats across a wide political spectrum, including progressives.
Frankly, I am far more worried about Democrats nominating someone like Ro Khanna who is an advocate of, as the interview suggests, "technocratic capitalism". The actions of Palantir are not isolated. We've seen many other cases (the controversies over Flock cameras for example) of how data collection and surveillance are central to the administration's arrests, detentions, and deportations. The 2028 election will have to address the broader issue of what to do about the enormous concentration of wealth and private power in a technological sector that affects every American and threatens our liberties, jobs, and economic well-being: the uses of AI and the control of knowledge, the collection of private data, surveillance or algorithmic pricing, the manipulation of social media... The list is long, and, in my view, this represents the greatest long-term threat to democracy and a free society. I wouldn't bet on Ro Khanna.
Guts?
It takes zero guts to have a consistently progressive voting record (which AFAIK Khanna has) when 67 percent of the voters in your district went for Harris (as Wikipedia tells me was the case in California district 17).
Khanna's Laken Riley purity test eliminates all congressional Democrats who have proven ability to win in a purple state or district. And he probably can find some other purity test violation for red and purple state governors.
I do admit to a purity test of my own. Nominate someone with proven ability to win a tough election against a Republican. Democrats are lucky to have lots like that to pick from for 2028.
P.S. To qualify just a bit, Sen. Andy Kim did vote against the Laken Riley Act, and he did win at least one very difficult general election House race. While I like Kim, of course he shouldn't be nominated just because of that.
I’ve been a Democrat since 1976. 50 frickin years. The reason I’m still a Democrat is because despite the flaws of the Democrat Party, the Democrats were supposed to represent the concerns of the average American and improve people’s lives, at least more so than Republicans, and more often than not, that has been true. That does not mean I have not supported and voted for certain (relatively) principled Republicans over the years and that I agree with every position taken by Democrats as a whole. I supported John McCain, and I even attended fundraisers at his home before the billionaires took over the funding of campaigns. This litmus test nonsense needs to stop. So purple state Democrats voted for a bill allowing deportation of unauthorized immigrants who have been charged with crimes and not yet convicted. Well the immigrants are here without authorization to begin with. Yes, I believe we need immigration, legal immigration. And if an unauthorized immigrant has been in the US for a long period of time, especially with citizen children or a citizen spouse, I believe the law should allow them to remain and in some manner become a legal permanent resident. But this is not a hill to die on. I’m sure I have a disagreement with one position or another with every single potential Democrat Presidential candidate. So what. WTFU. We need a broad tent to win and GOVERN. We need some kind of universal healthcare, job security, higher minimum wages, and housing affordability laws. We are going to need a broad umbrella and compromise to get them. No one is running for President of California or Silicon Valley. Snap out of it.
One would have to do some deep research to learn the last time that a sitting member of the House of Representatives was elected president. The House hasn't been a good place from which to run.
Ok, into the minefield: On a personal level I’m closer to open borders than a lot of my Bulwark fam. I don’t imagine I could legislate that into being if a majority of voters don’t want it.
Could we look at the history of marriage equality? DOMA passed with Dem votes, including one Senator Joe Biden. People kept working to affirm their humanity & rights. Our society shifted. A SCOTUS helped (now a different show there of course). 26 years after DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act passed. Biden was then in the position to sign it into law.
Arc of the moral universe, maybe? I’m cautious who I’d cast out along the way to the future I believe in
PS - plenty to amend in Riley Act once you achieve the congressional majorities to accomplish it. Progress can occur incrementally. Often does
Setting a red line for on a vote without context; is just stirring shit up and self serving.
Not disqualifying. One vote vs. a plethora of bad votes like Fetterman is a different thing.
Unity is key for 2028 and campaigns/candidates will debate the issues as we get closer.
Unity is also important for 2026 and comment’s like Ro’s anathema to that.
Excellent reporting as always. Thank you!
'Just like the Iraq war vote'. No hem's no haw's. Way too few saw what the outcome would be and even fewer had the courage to vote against it.
Democrats please please please quit bickering with each other. Keep your food fight private. Pull together and try and win. The old guard should just sit back and let the new bloods take the party into the future. Mr. Ro Khanna should know in a democracy one does not have to agree 100% of the time with others, The Laken Riley Act is deplorable but the only one I would be concerned with on your list is John Fetterman.
Plenty of comments about how this is a litmus test or purity test and how that is bad for moderates and thus the Democratic party. Voting for the Laken Riley Act should be disqualifying because what it says about candidate's values, how they view building political power, and who's human rights they value.
In 2025 many Democrats thought the best course of action was to let Trump do whatever he wanted with the hopes that we would crash and burn and Dems could rule the ashes. That mindset included voting for the Laken Riley Act. They were fine empowering ICE and unleashing the mass deportation machine because they thought it might help them build political power later. It was a callous and heartless error. Families ripped apart and people murdered.
Democrats should have been dedicated to fighting Trump from day 1 instead of the sad policies of appeasement and capitulation. The vote is disqualifying because if Dems aren't willing to stand up to Trump on mass deportation what will they stand for? Will they fight oligarchs? Will they hold Trump cronies accountable? Or will we get empty platitudes and no action?
Yet again any legitimate criticism of horrible decisions is derided as a purity test.
I agree with your argument... in theory. But once again, practical and political realism raises its hoary head. When Senators like Ossoff and Kelly have proven to be effective as winning candidates in their purple states, they can continue to work for the improvement of bad laws they voted for that realism required of them initially. Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but I want our leaders who can see beyond the imperfect present to a means for improving the future.
Yes, keep a record of their actions, and their vote for the Lincoln Riley Act is Strike One. But we need them to have several more times at bat if we are going to defeat the real forces that are causing so much suffering for our immigrant communities.
(Fetterman, as we all know, has long ago struck out.)
I’m not sure arguing for the rights of criminals, no matter how low-level they may be, is a great position to take. The majority of the country believes we need immigration enforcement, but the majority of the country also believes the hardline approach the Trump admin has taken is too severe.
Democrats need to be supportive of immigration enforcement (albeit a significantly more humane version of it) and focus their policies on overhauling the legal processes that make immigrating legally such a steep hill to climb. Thats our angle here.
I can agree that shoplifting is generally not that big of a deal, but also if you’re immigrating to the United States, I kinda want you to respect our laws. I’d be willing to bet the cohort we need to capture to get meaningful change agrees.
That’s all to say, it’s time for democrats to stop focusing so damn heavily on responding to what Donald Trump is doing. On an acute basis, sure, but we still have to present a bigger picture idea of what we actually support, not just what we’re against. There’s no question where republicans stand on immigration. The same cannot be said of democrats.
Tough talk from someone on the payroll of the crypto Ponzi companies. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/politics/congressman-ro-khanna-says-democrats-are-changing-their-tune-on-bitcoin
Crypto has no underlying value (other than to North Korea, who hacks exchanges for over $1B a year), but depends entirely on the price future buyers pay—the definition of a Ponzi scheme. It performed badly during the Iran war inflation spike, is the preferred currency of ransomware hackers, human traffickers and other criminals and if you care one cent about climate change, BitPonzi is the great Satan:
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
At a time when Crypto & AI are rapaciously consuming power and water, bankrupting families with soaring power bills and jeopardizing rivers and drinking water in drought conditions, the last thing we need is a crypto Ro for President.
The Laken Riley bill was evil, Biden-Harris handling of immigration horrible, keeping swing state Senate seats essential. Was there really a path for holding onto those seats in 2024 voting against it? Had those Senators voted against it, would it have mattered given the ICE lawlessness we’ve seen?
Trump clearly highlighted it every chance he could.