Hosts critique Democratic leaders' inaction

Keep. 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. Okay. In July, 103 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? Are 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 of Washington Generals? Yes, the Washington Generals. Y' all know the Washington Generals, the team that plays the Harlem Globetrotters? Okay, The Generals, they wear uniforms, they got coaches, they run plays, they show up to compete. What everybody understands is just entertainment, okay? The Globetrotters are the attraction, and the Generals dare 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 and healthcare 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. Okay? Progressives, from what I see, they actually trying to win.