

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

White House senior adviser Jared Kushner stands among Saudi officials as President Donald Trump talks with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Jeffries to my mind is trying to stake out a position to the right of the progressive wing of his party by abandoning policy goals like Medicare for All. If so, this is a failure of leadership we can no longer tolerate. If there's a better explanation, let's hear it.
These days, there is not much that can really shock or surprise me. Political developments that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago happen on a regular basis. However, I was truly appalled to read a story in the New York Times on Sunday, August 23, by Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni (two of the best in the business) which reports that:
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the House Minority Leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting. The rare engagement was held in a private space in New York City, offered up by a mutual friend of the two men, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting and a third who was briefed on it. They and others were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting about which they were not authorized to speak publicly. Through aides, neither man would comment on the session, which was described by one person with knowledge of it as a broad conversation on a range of topics.
Kushner’s incentive to meet with Jeffries is self-evident. The consensus among most pollsters and political commentators is that the Democrats will capture a majority in the House of Representatives. Historical trends, the fact that president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterms, and Trump abysmal public opinion numbers almost guarantee a Democratic majority. So, from Kushner’s perspective, it makes a lot of sense for him to start negotiating the best deal that he can get from the man he assumes will be the new Democratic speaker.
What is the rationale for Jeffries to negotiate with Kushner? It is truly hard to fathom the logic on his part. Certainly, there is a time for talks with the Trump Administration. The time is clearly after the Democrats have won a majority in the House. You always want to be negotiating from a position of strength, not when you are trying to win an election.
Given President Trump’s record on negotiating to reach a compromise which is poor to non-existent, what faith does Jeffries have in any promises that Kushner might make?
It is interesting that the revelations of the Jeffries/Kushner talks come one week after Democratic leader publicly backed away from Medicare for All on NBC’s Meet the Press. Is this just a coincidence? Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but I would argue that it is part of a pattern. Jeffries to my mind is trying to stake out a position to the right of the progressive wing of his party by abandoning policy goals like Medicare for All.
One of the guiding principles of the late Democratic Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, was that “all politics is local.” Democratic Leader Jeffries should remember this adage. The Democrats who will join the next Congress in January of 2029 are likely to support a leader who is committed to fighting against the Trump Administration and delivering on things like Medicare for All which is widely supported by the American people. Right now, it looks like Jeffries will not meet this bill.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
These days, there is not much that can really shock or surprise me. Political developments that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago happen on a regular basis. However, I was truly appalled to read a story in the New York Times on Sunday, August 23, by Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni (two of the best in the business) which reports that:
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the House Minority Leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting. The rare engagement was held in a private space in New York City, offered up by a mutual friend of the two men, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting and a third who was briefed on it. They and others were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting about which they were not authorized to speak publicly. Through aides, neither man would comment on the session, which was described by one person with knowledge of it as a broad conversation on a range of topics.
Kushner’s incentive to meet with Jeffries is self-evident. The consensus among most pollsters and political commentators is that the Democrats will capture a majority in the House of Representatives. Historical trends, the fact that president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterms, and Trump abysmal public opinion numbers almost guarantee a Democratic majority. So, from Kushner’s perspective, it makes a lot of sense for him to start negotiating the best deal that he can get from the man he assumes will be the new Democratic speaker.
What is the rationale for Jeffries to negotiate with Kushner? It is truly hard to fathom the logic on his part. Certainly, there is a time for talks with the Trump Administration. The time is clearly after the Democrats have won a majority in the House. You always want to be negotiating from a position of strength, not when you are trying to win an election.
Given President Trump’s record on negotiating to reach a compromise which is poor to non-existent, what faith does Jeffries have in any promises that Kushner might make?
It is interesting that the revelations of the Jeffries/Kushner talks come one week after Democratic leader publicly backed away from Medicare for All on NBC’s Meet the Press. Is this just a coincidence? Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but I would argue that it is part of a pattern. Jeffries to my mind is trying to stake out a position to the right of the progressive wing of his party by abandoning policy goals like Medicare for All.
One of the guiding principles of the late Democratic Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, was that “all politics is local.” Democratic Leader Jeffries should remember this adage. The Democrats who will join the next Congress in January of 2029 are likely to support a leader who is committed to fighting against the Trump Administration and delivering on things like Medicare for All which is widely supported by the American people. Right now, it looks like Jeffries will not meet this bill.
These days, there is not much that can really shock or surprise me. Political developments that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago happen on a regular basis. However, I was truly appalled to read a story in the New York Times on Sunday, August 23, by Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni (two of the best in the business) which reports that:
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the House Minority Leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting. The rare engagement was held in a private space in New York City, offered up by a mutual friend of the two men, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting and a third who was briefed on it. They and others were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting about which they were not authorized to speak publicly. Through aides, neither man would comment on the session, which was described by one person with knowledge of it as a broad conversation on a range of topics.
Kushner’s incentive to meet with Jeffries is self-evident. The consensus among most pollsters and political commentators is that the Democrats will capture a majority in the House of Representatives. Historical trends, the fact that president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterms, and Trump abysmal public opinion numbers almost guarantee a Democratic majority. So, from Kushner’s perspective, it makes a lot of sense for him to start negotiating the best deal that he can get from the man he assumes will be the new Democratic speaker.
What is the rationale for Jeffries to negotiate with Kushner? It is truly hard to fathom the logic on his part. Certainly, there is a time for talks with the Trump Administration. The time is clearly after the Democrats have won a majority in the House. You always want to be negotiating from a position of strength, not when you are trying to win an election.
Given President Trump’s record on negotiating to reach a compromise which is poor to non-existent, what faith does Jeffries have in any promises that Kushner might make?
It is interesting that the revelations of the Jeffries/Kushner talks come one week after Democratic leader publicly backed away from Medicare for All on NBC’s Meet the Press. Is this just a coincidence? Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but I would argue that it is part of a pattern. Jeffries to my mind is trying to stake out a position to the right of the progressive wing of his party by abandoning policy goals like Medicare for All.
One of the guiding principles of the late Democratic Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, was that “all politics is local.” Democratic Leader Jeffries should remember this adage. The Democrats who will join the next Congress in January of 2029 are likely to support a leader who is committed to fighting against the Trump Administration and delivering on things like Medicare for All which is widely supported by the American people. Right now, it looks like Jeffries will not meet this bill.