This is absolutely "wag the dog" and it's with a pack of wolves. No one with half a brain believes otherwise. And any craven Democratic politician who sides with those fucks should definitely be run the fuck out of the party.
Our Constitution and institutions haven't failed. The people we've elected to represent us have. Their failure, their cowardice, their complicity is epic. Their failure is catastrophic. Trump keeps pushing the line and never, ever faces significant pushback. War is the ultimate (and we seem to think the Epstein files are somehow more significant) catastrophe. Trump started by killing people in Caribbean. Nobody in a position to stop him did so. Then invaded Venezuela. Nobody in a position to stop him did so. Now he has unilaterally launched an enormously dangerous war in the Middle East. I am confident that nobody in a position to stop him will act. I believe Occam's razor explains Trump's decision - it's the ultimate way to cement his legacy - although those beneath him re manipulating his narcissism to get him there. I cannot fathom how those in a position to stop him can be such craven, selfish, cowards. It sickens me and now - we are all less safe. Far less safe.
I am somewhat more cynical. Reportedly our “allies” in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Quatar have been strongly urging this behind the scenes. And enriching Trump’s family to ensure it gets done. And the newly warlike Israel, with its corrupt leader, had been beating this drum for ten years.
Our armed forces are now as much mercenaries as the Hession troops of the Revolutionary War. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman paid Trump, and now war is just another export product of the U. S.
As for anyone stopping him, his administration is populated by toadying yes-men like Vance and Bondi, or even worse, Rubio, who has harbored a desire to decapitate Iran’s government (and Cuba’s) all while striking a pose as a moralizing statesman. And there’s certainly no Dems with the power to stop him.
Im just as cynical…I can grift and legacy both fit the Occam’s Razor theory. I may be more cynical than you in that a couple of dems have made some noise, but power or not, ALL elected dems should be making a fuck ton more noise -
I just finished leaving messages for my Senators and Rep - all Dems.
Congresswoman Val Hoyle posted about process. Senator Jeff Merkley posted about process but at least included "No war with Iran" at the end.
Only Senator Ron Wyden posted what they all need to be saying: "Donald Trump is unilaterally dragging us into another costly and deadly war in the Middle East that the American people don't want. Trump and Hegseth are putting American lives on the line to make themselves feel powerful, while our military families pay the real price."
I can't hold leadership responsible for the poor judgement of Hoyle and Merkley, but I absolutely believe the the cowardice of Congressional leaders is a contributing factor. Jeffries and Schumer have got to go.
Why is nobody commenting on the implications of a President announcing a war on his own media channel and nowhere else? More than just a side note, it’s a critical part of the talking points — Trump clearly views himself as the president of MAGA, not the US. And, by the way, only those in MAGA who do exactly as commanded.
Since Roosevelt, all Presidents have spoken to the whole country at moments like these — not always for better, but far better than relying on the equivalent of state-controlled media to explain what we’re doing and why.
Even Democrats who think aggressive action in Iran is warranted, and that an air war will get to a white flag, should be all over this. Critically: as you pointed out this morning, you do NOT make it about ideological democracy, which fails to motivate too many. Instead, you use it as another example of a President who, in every way in every issue — pocketbook, especially included — only sees a duty to 35% of the nation.
I think Dan is absolutely correct on this, and he accurately calls out that way too many Democrats are fine with a war in Iran, just as long as they get to vote on it first.
So far every Democrat I have seen online has made a process argument about congressional approval rather than making a case against war. People with some influence like Dan or the Pod Save guys need to be more forceful in condemning war. So far I don't think they have met this bar.
With 80% of Americans not wanting war with Iran we as voters need to primary a lot or incumbents who are perfectly fine with more wars.
I have seen strong condemning statements from Murphy, Schatz, Wyden, Kim, Van Hollen, Gallego, and half a dozen others in the Senate. And at least a dozen House members.
That said, I don’t see the value in demanding that every Democrat deliver the exact same line. A broad coalition party should be able to voice overlapping but distinct objections — constitutional process, strategic folly, regional instability, civilian harm. That’s not disunity; it’s seriousness.
As I have commented before, a minority party that is working hard to gain majorities can’t be diverted to purifying its ranks by challenging incumbents except in really extreme circumstances. If we go down that road we’ll end ip with a very pure minority caucus.
I see you point and I agree that some Democrats, including the ones you have mentioned, have been forceful and actually had things to say.
However a year into Trump 2.0 the Democratic establishment stills seems unwilling to fight, cannot craft a coherent message, and is too comfortable with more foreign wars that are massively unpopular. I don't trust these people.
We deserve better leaders and a better Democratic party. We shouldn't trust the same people who failed to hold Trump accountable and let him return to power in 2024. We can condemn war and elect better people, in fact the challenge ahead of us demand that our leaders can multitask. I'm not asking for ideological purity, I'm asking for a competent Democratic party.
You raise several points I agree with, and a few I see differently. I may be extending this discussion beyond what you’re interested in — if so, feel free to ignore.
I share the frustration. But I think the argument that “Democrats aren’t fighting” is overstated.
There are over 250 Democratic members across both chambers. We cannot reasonably expect all of them to operate as national message leaders. No large organization works that way. There is always a tier of leadership and a larger body of rank-and-file members whose job is to vote, serve their districts, and occasionally step forward on issues that fit their strengths.
In reality, a significant minority — 15–20% at least — have been outspoken and forceful about Trump’s policies and conduct over the past year. Senior and prominent Democrats have consistently framed the same umbrella critique: that Trump governs for elites over working people, sidesteps Congress and often tests legal limits, ignores promises on costs and prices, and entangles public power with private business interests.
They don’t always use the same language, but the through-line has been fairly consistent.
As a caucus, they have largely voted together. Yes, there have been occasional defections — political necessity, district realities, personal convictions — but that is inevitable in a party that spans deep-blue urban districts to competitive suburban and rural seats.
I’m also not entirely sure what people mean by “fight.” In a system where vote count determines outcomes, there are limits to what rhetorical escalation accomplishes when the numbers aren’t there. During the shutdown fight, for example, many criticized compromise as weakness. But the underlying reality was that Republicans were not going to vote for those healthcare subsidies. Democrats made it an electoral issue, forced a public contrast, and preserved leverage for the midterms. That may not feel like combat, but it is politics.
My larger concern is strategic: Democrats have a real opportunity in the midterms. That opportunity could be squandered if we divert energy, money, and attention into primarying incumbents who vote with the party 95% of the time because they aren’t sufficiently strident in tone. Internal purification fights rarely expand a coalition.
We absolutely should demand competence and improvement. But competence includes understanding institutional constraints, protecting vulnerable seats, and building toward majorities — not just escalating rhetoric.
Frustration is understandable. Fragmentation is optional.
A number of pro-democracy media outlets such as The Bulwark and Adam Mockler have started to repost missives from Trump and his allies that warned that a vote for Harris was a vote for war against Iran. At the very least, the Democrats and their allies should be calling out the utter hypocrisy of the "American First" leadership.
I unfortunately have very little hope or faith for the Dem caucus to stay aligned on this. There are guys like Josh Goettheimer who are fully behind action against countries like Iran. There are still far more others worried about the effects of angering AIPAC and other members of the donor class than doing the "right" thing here. And I honestly think goons like Stephen Miller know this and will try to exploit it (it's a great two for one special for him--potentially wipe out an adversary he probably doesn't like while also potentially fracturing Democrats in the run up to what could be an absolute midterm bloodbath for Trump's party). And seeing the excuse be Iranian interference in our elections is just icing on the cake. This feels like a dark development that's only going to get darker.
Miller stated during the 2024 campaign: “To anyone still gullible enough to fall for scummy media hoaxes: Trump said warmongering neocons love sending your kids to die for wars they would never fight themselves. Liz Cheney is Kamala’s top advisor. Liz wants to invade the whole Middle East. Kamala = WWIII. Trump = Peace.”
And in another post Miller stated: "If young men don’t want to be drafted to fight in Kamala’s and Cheney’s 3rd World War they better get out and vote for Trump."
“Many [Democrats] still carry a post-9/11 mentality, perpetually worried about being cast as weak or unpatriotic by Republicans and the right-wing media machine.”
Amen. Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook and oppose *everything* Trump and Republicans do.
Once again the feckless and clueless Dems, not even a majority, but enough to muddle the message, can’t get out of their own way in crafting a policy and message in opposition to Trump. There are zero legitimate National Security concerns here Trump’s incompetence, stupidity, and. Compromised standing make that crystal clear. There are many effective counter arguments that can be deployed:1) if the goal is regime change, what is the plan to accomplish that?, 2) In June, Trump said Iran’s nuclear capabilities were obliterated. Yet here we are again employing the same justification. Were you lying then or are you lying now? , 3) with respect to Venezuela, you said you didn’t need Congressional approval because it was a limited operation, not a war. With Iran you have effectively declared War. So what is your reason to bypass Congress now? Those are three counter arguments off the top of my head. All legitimate and can’t be construed as not patriotic.
As I said elsewhere, I have heard or read strong statements condemning the war from over a dozen Democratic Congresspersons and nearly that many Senators.
I have heard the “no authorization” messages too.
But I don’t object to a mix of messages: strategic stupidity, unlawful war, civilian harm, regional instability. That denotes serious thought.
I argue this war was bought and paid for with Saudi bribery, making our armed forces modern-day Hessian mercenaries.
Every Friday night. IQ45's ability to do something monumentally stupid is directly proportional to the number of times he is mentioned in the Epstein files.
Dan on a recent pod you said the dumbest people are running our govt. — and they truly are. History tells us even with smart people in charge we’ve made major mistakes in war. With these morons in charge this situation is bound to be disastrous. Will the idiots be the downfall of the Trump regime or of our country?
Has anyone noticed the complete absence of Hegseth in any of the pictures? Rubio seems to be in charge of this.
Being from FL, I know Rubio to be a man driven only by ambition. He has no substance. He will say or do anything to promote himself. He is as empty a vessel as Vance. And he is about half as smart as he thinks he is.
Once real idiots have the power to wage war we are in dangerous times. This won’t end well.
Dan, the other day I was talking with my Wife about a relative’s rural home, and, how its back property line was shared with a vast, public school yard. I asked, “How American is that?” I had walked over and played baseball at family gatherings, and, created many fond memories. My Wife, who has had a dissimilar life than me (and is not into baseball), looked at me waiting for an appropriate qualification on what I meant. Was I saying that only if you play baseball are you a part of our Country’s culture? I took a moment, and responded, “There is more than one definition of American.” That pleased her and we moved on. But, I cannot. I think the message, “There is more than one definition of American”, really hits the mark. It is a concise manner of communicating inclusivity with tolerance of differences. I would welcome your thoughts, and, those of others here in The Message Box community. 🇺🇸
We assansinated the head of the Iranian government and Church. Put yourself in an Iranian pair of shoes. If someone assinated Trump i would be all over responding to them in kind. I can't imagine anything else that would make me support Trump 100%. Now it is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And it lets Putin continue to fight a war in Europe and it is just a matter of time till China takes back Taiwan.
Dan, I agree the Dems' reaction and response should be simple: don't offer a solution to the war or to the future of Iran. The response should be: 1. We had a plan for and with Iran, a multi-national agreement that kept Iran under world scurtiny. Trump tore it down and took us to war. 2. He campaigned there would be no wars under a Trump administration; declares he is history's ultimate peacemaker; accepted the FIFA peace prize, first recipient ever, took the Nobel medal from a legitimate winner, and here we are, under his administration, in which he is offereing up other people's sons and daughter in a war that he intentionally created without Congressional approval. Dems cannot offer solutions we have no current power to deliver, and we most certainly can't put forth a "Give us our power back and we'll fix this" appeal. So we mock him, ridicule him, and handcuff him (again) to his own past words, promises and actions. The whole party campaigns against this man united, and without the behind the doors personal differences within the party showing up in sound bites from individual Congressprsons or Senators. It may be a midyear, but evey single party member should be running against Trump whether or not they are currently running at all.
I cannot begin to fathom the depth of credulity and weakness required for any non-Republican/non-MAGA to support this war at this time.
Dan, please keep up an unrelenting drum beat with this messaging. It’s going to be needed.
Trump has a good reason on his mind for starting the war right now. It starts with an 'E" and ends with an 'N."
This is absolutely "wag the dog" and it's with a pack of wolves. No one with half a brain believes otherwise. And any craven Democratic politician who sides with those fucks should definitely be run the fuck out of the party.
Our Constitution and institutions haven't failed. The people we've elected to represent us have. Their failure, their cowardice, their complicity is epic. Their failure is catastrophic. Trump keeps pushing the line and never, ever faces significant pushback. War is the ultimate (and we seem to think the Epstein files are somehow more significant) catastrophe. Trump started by killing people in Caribbean. Nobody in a position to stop him did so. Then invaded Venezuela. Nobody in a position to stop him did so. Now he has unilaterally launched an enormously dangerous war in the Middle East. I am confident that nobody in a position to stop him will act. I believe Occam's razor explains Trump's decision - it's the ultimate way to cement his legacy - although those beneath him re manipulating his narcissism to get him there. I cannot fathom how those in a position to stop him can be such craven, selfish, cowards. It sickens me and now - we are all less safe. Far less safe.
I am somewhat more cynical. Reportedly our “allies” in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Quatar have been strongly urging this behind the scenes. And enriching Trump’s family to ensure it gets done. And the newly warlike Israel, with its corrupt leader, had been beating this drum for ten years.
Our armed forces are now as much mercenaries as the Hession troops of the Revolutionary War. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman paid Trump, and now war is just another export product of the U. S.
As for anyone stopping him, his administration is populated by toadying yes-men like Vance and Bondi, or even worse, Rubio, who has harbored a desire to decapitate Iran’s government (and Cuba’s) all while striking a pose as a moralizing statesman. And there’s certainly no Dems with the power to stop him.
Im just as cynical…I can grift and legacy both fit the Occam’s Razor theory. I may be more cynical than you in that a couple of dems have made some noise, but power or not, ALL elected dems should be making a fuck ton more noise -
I just finished leaving messages for my Senators and Rep - all Dems.
Congresswoman Val Hoyle posted about process. Senator Jeff Merkley posted about process but at least included "No war with Iran" at the end.
Only Senator Ron Wyden posted what they all need to be saying: "Donald Trump is unilaterally dragging us into another costly and deadly war in the Middle East that the American people don't want. Trump and Hegseth are putting American lives on the line to make themselves feel powerful, while our military families pay the real price."
I can't hold leadership responsible for the poor judgement of Hoyle and Merkley, but I absolutely believe the the cowardice of Congressional leaders is a contributing factor. Jeffries and Schumer have got to go.
Why is nobody commenting on the implications of a President announcing a war on his own media channel and nowhere else? More than just a side note, it’s a critical part of the talking points — Trump clearly views himself as the president of MAGA, not the US. And, by the way, only those in MAGA who do exactly as commanded.
Since Roosevelt, all Presidents have spoken to the whole country at moments like these — not always for better, but far better than relying on the equivalent of state-controlled media to explain what we’re doing and why.
Even Democrats who think aggressive action in Iran is warranted, and that an air war will get to a white flag, should be all over this. Critically: as you pointed out this morning, you do NOT make it about ideological democracy, which fails to motivate too many. Instead, you use it as another example of a President who, in every way in every issue — pocketbook, especially included — only sees a duty to 35% of the nation.
I think Dan is absolutely correct on this, and he accurately calls out that way too many Democrats are fine with a war in Iran, just as long as they get to vote on it first.
So far every Democrat I have seen online has made a process argument about congressional approval rather than making a case against war. People with some influence like Dan or the Pod Save guys need to be more forceful in condemning war. So far I don't think they have met this bar.
With 80% of Americans not wanting war with Iran we as voters need to primary a lot or incumbents who are perfectly fine with more wars.
I have seen strong condemning statements from Murphy, Schatz, Wyden, Kim, Van Hollen, Gallego, and half a dozen others in the Senate. And at least a dozen House members.
That said, I don’t see the value in demanding that every Democrat deliver the exact same line. A broad coalition party should be able to voice overlapping but distinct objections — constitutional process, strategic folly, regional instability, civilian harm. That’s not disunity; it’s seriousness.
As I have commented before, a minority party that is working hard to gain majorities can’t be diverted to purifying its ranks by challenging incumbents except in really extreme circumstances. If we go down that road we’ll end ip with a very pure minority caucus.
I see you point and I agree that some Democrats, including the ones you have mentioned, have been forceful and actually had things to say.
However a year into Trump 2.0 the Democratic establishment stills seems unwilling to fight, cannot craft a coherent message, and is too comfortable with more foreign wars that are massively unpopular. I don't trust these people.
We deserve better leaders and a better Democratic party. We shouldn't trust the same people who failed to hold Trump accountable and let him return to power in 2024. We can condemn war and elect better people, in fact the challenge ahead of us demand that our leaders can multitask. I'm not asking for ideological purity, I'm asking for a competent Democratic party.
You raise several points I agree with, and a few I see differently. I may be extending this discussion beyond what you’re interested in — if so, feel free to ignore.
I share the frustration. But I think the argument that “Democrats aren’t fighting” is overstated.
There are over 250 Democratic members across both chambers. We cannot reasonably expect all of them to operate as national message leaders. No large organization works that way. There is always a tier of leadership and a larger body of rank-and-file members whose job is to vote, serve their districts, and occasionally step forward on issues that fit their strengths.
In reality, a significant minority — 15–20% at least — have been outspoken and forceful about Trump’s policies and conduct over the past year. Senior and prominent Democrats have consistently framed the same umbrella critique: that Trump governs for elites over working people, sidesteps Congress and often tests legal limits, ignores promises on costs and prices, and entangles public power with private business interests.
They don’t always use the same language, but the through-line has been fairly consistent.
As a caucus, they have largely voted together. Yes, there have been occasional defections — political necessity, district realities, personal convictions — but that is inevitable in a party that spans deep-blue urban districts to competitive suburban and rural seats.
I’m also not entirely sure what people mean by “fight.” In a system where vote count determines outcomes, there are limits to what rhetorical escalation accomplishes when the numbers aren’t there. During the shutdown fight, for example, many criticized compromise as weakness. But the underlying reality was that Republicans were not going to vote for those healthcare subsidies. Democrats made it an electoral issue, forced a public contrast, and preserved leverage for the midterms. That may not feel like combat, but it is politics.
My larger concern is strategic: Democrats have a real opportunity in the midterms. That opportunity could be squandered if we divert energy, money, and attention into primarying incumbents who vote with the party 95% of the time because they aren’t sufficiently strident in tone. Internal purification fights rarely expand a coalition.
We absolutely should demand competence and improvement. But competence includes understanding institutional constraints, protecting vulnerable seats, and building toward majorities — not just escalating rhetoric.
Frustration is understandable. Fragmentation is optional.
A number of pro-democracy media outlets such as The Bulwark and Adam Mockler have started to repost missives from Trump and his allies that warned that a vote for Harris was a vote for war against Iran. At the very least, the Democrats and their allies should be calling out the utter hypocrisy of the "American First" leadership.
I unfortunately have very little hope or faith for the Dem caucus to stay aligned on this. There are guys like Josh Goettheimer who are fully behind action against countries like Iran. There are still far more others worried about the effects of angering AIPAC and other members of the donor class than doing the "right" thing here. And I honestly think goons like Stephen Miller know this and will try to exploit it (it's a great two for one special for him--potentially wipe out an adversary he probably doesn't like while also potentially fracturing Democrats in the run up to what could be an absolute midterm bloodbath for Trump's party). And seeing the excuse be Iranian interference in our elections is just icing on the cake. This feels like a dark development that's only going to get darker.
Miller stated during the 2024 campaign: “To anyone still gullible enough to fall for scummy media hoaxes: Trump said warmongering neocons love sending your kids to die for wars they would never fight themselves. Liz Cheney is Kamala’s top advisor. Liz wants to invade the whole Middle East. Kamala = WWIII. Trump = Peace.”
And in another post Miller stated: "If young men don’t want to be drafted to fight in Kamala’s and Cheney’s 3rd World War they better get out and vote for Trump."
What the republicans accuse the democrats of doing is exactly what they will do. The democrats should call them out on it, but, alas they don’t.
“Many [Democrats] still carry a post-9/11 mentality, perpetually worried about being cast as weak or unpatriotic by Republicans and the right-wing media machine.”
Amen. Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook and oppose *everything* Trump and Republicans do.
Once again the feckless and clueless Dems, not even a majority, but enough to muddle the message, can’t get out of their own way in crafting a policy and message in opposition to Trump. There are zero legitimate National Security concerns here Trump’s incompetence, stupidity, and. Compromised standing make that crystal clear. There are many effective counter arguments that can be deployed:1) if the goal is regime change, what is the plan to accomplish that?, 2) In June, Trump said Iran’s nuclear capabilities were obliterated. Yet here we are again employing the same justification. Were you lying then or are you lying now? , 3) with respect to Venezuela, you said you didn’t need Congressional approval because it was a limited operation, not a war. With Iran you have effectively declared War. So what is your reason to bypass Congress now? Those are three counter arguments off the top of my head. All legitimate and can’t be construed as not patriotic.
As I said elsewhere, I have heard or read strong statements condemning the war from over a dozen Democratic Congresspersons and nearly that many Senators.
I have heard the “no authorization” messages too.
But I don’t object to a mix of messages: strategic stupidity, unlawful war, civilian harm, regional instability. That denotes serious thought.
I argue this war was bought and paid for with Saudi bribery, making our armed forces modern-day Hessian mercenaries.
Every Friday night. IQ45's ability to do something monumentally stupid is directly proportional to the number of times he is mentioned in the Epstein files.
Dan on a recent pod you said the dumbest people are running our govt. — and they truly are. History tells us even with smart people in charge we’ve made major mistakes in war. With these morons in charge this situation is bound to be disastrous. Will the idiots be the downfall of the Trump regime or of our country?
Has anyone noticed the complete absence of Hegseth in any of the pictures? Rubio seems to be in charge of this.
Being from FL, I know Rubio to be a man driven only by ambition. He has no substance. He will say or do anything to promote himself. He is as empty a vessel as Vance. And he is about half as smart as he thinks he is.
Once real idiots have the power to wage war we are in dangerous times. This won’t end well.
Dan, the other day I was talking with my Wife about a relative’s rural home, and, how its back property line was shared with a vast, public school yard. I asked, “How American is that?” I had walked over and played baseball at family gatherings, and, created many fond memories. My Wife, who has had a dissimilar life than me (and is not into baseball), looked at me waiting for an appropriate qualification on what I meant. Was I saying that only if you play baseball are you a part of our Country’s culture? I took a moment, and responded, “There is more than one definition of American.” That pleased her and we moved on. But, I cannot. I think the message, “There is more than one definition of American”, really hits the mark. It is a concise manner of communicating inclusivity with tolerance of differences. I would welcome your thoughts, and, those of others here in The Message Box community. 🇺🇸
We assansinated the head of the Iranian government and Church. Put yourself in an Iranian pair of shoes. If someone assinated Trump i would be all over responding to them in kind. I can't imagine anything else that would make me support Trump 100%. Now it is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And it lets Putin continue to fight a war in Europe and it is just a matter of time till China takes back Taiwan.
Dan, I agree the Dems' reaction and response should be simple: don't offer a solution to the war or to the future of Iran. The response should be: 1. We had a plan for and with Iran, a multi-national agreement that kept Iran under world scurtiny. Trump tore it down and took us to war. 2. He campaigned there would be no wars under a Trump administration; declares he is history's ultimate peacemaker; accepted the FIFA peace prize, first recipient ever, took the Nobel medal from a legitimate winner, and here we are, under his administration, in which he is offereing up other people's sons and daughter in a war that he intentionally created without Congressional approval. Dems cannot offer solutions we have no current power to deliver, and we most certainly can't put forth a "Give us our power back and we'll fix this" appeal. So we mock him, ridicule him, and handcuff him (again) to his own past words, promises and actions. The whole party campaigns against this man united, and without the behind the doors personal differences within the party showing up in sound bites from individual Congressprsons or Senators. It may be a midyear, but evey single party member should be running against Trump whether or not they are currently running at all.
There must be a “3” as well: We have no confidence in Donald Trump’s ability to conduct this or any other war.
Excellent point, and adds greater clarity to the message. Simple, but significant.
Thanks!