September 13, 2025

Saturday, September 13, 2025. Annette’s Roundup for Democracy.

Matthew Dowd Speaks Out After MSNBC Fired Him for Charlie Kirk Comments: Network ‘Reacted’ to ‘The Right Wing Media Mob’

Political analyst Matthew Dowd has spoken out after he was fired from MSNBC due to his comments relating to Charlie Kirk. In a Substack post, Dowd wrote that his words were “misconstrued” and that the news network “reacted” to “the Right Wing media mob.”

Dowd was on-air immediately following the shooting at Utah Valley University and, when asked by anchor Katy Tur about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens,” Dowd responded with the following about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.”

Dowd explained on Substack that at the time he was asked about Kirk on-air, “the only thing known at the time was shots were fired and there was no reporting yet that Kirk was the target or had been shot at.” About 90 minutes after Kirk was shot and rushed to the hospital, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the right-wing advocate and Turning Point USA leader was dead. A suspect was arrested Friday morning.

“I said in the moment that we needed to get the facts because we have no idea what this could be and that it could easily be someone firing a gun in the air to celebrate the event. Remember Kirk is a diehard advocate of the 2nd amendment,” Dowd wrote.

Dowd wrote that with his remarks, he meant to convey that “we are in a toxic time in America, unlike every other democracy in the world, where we have a combination of divisiveness and near unlimited access to guns.”

“The Right Wing media mob ginned up, went after me on a plethora of platforms, and MSNBC reacted to that mob,” Dowd continued. “Even though most at MSNBC knew my words were being misconstrued, the timing of my words forgotten (remember I said this before anyone knew Kirk was a target), and that I apologized for any miscommunication on my part, I was terminated by the end of the day.”

Following Dowd’s firing, Comcast’s top executives, including CEO Brian Roberts, sent out a memo to all Comcast and NBCUniversal employees calling out Dowd’s “unacceptable and insensitive comment about this horrific event.” Per the memo: “That coverage was at odds with fostering civil dialogue and being willing to listen to the points of view of those who have differing opinions. We should be able to disagree, robustly and passionately, but, ultimately, with respect. We need to do better.”

On Substack, Dowd wrote that he is still “getting over the shell shock of the past few days” and is focused on what he will do next, which will include writing on Substack and speaking out on other platforms “to advocate for finding ways to unite our country around a common-sense vision of ideals and values.”

“Even though I am down and a bit disheartened in this moment, I still have hope and faith in a majority of Americans who want and hunger for the same things I do. We can do this,” Dowd concluded.(Variety)

Read Matthew Dowd’s own account of his firing at MSNBC here.

---

Jonathan Alter - How Democrats Can Shut Down the Government With Voters on Their Side.

Clinton-Era Lessons for Democrats Confronting Trump.

Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer and Leader Hakeem Jeffries

In March, Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer shrank from confrontation under the threat of a government shutdown. Now voters’ growing disenchantment with President Trump and the unpopularity of the megabill he pushed through gives Democrats a chance to fight and win as another funding deadline looms.

By demanding action on popular policies, Democrats could execute a delicate maneuver where they avoid blame for a shutdown while benefiting from the negotiations to end it.

There are risks to denying Republicans the 60 Senate votes necessary to approve the big appropriations bill, but the risks of avoiding that clash are greater. Backing off to avoid a shutdown would depress the Democratic base and signal capitulation to an increasingly authoritarian regime.

One instructive precedent comes from the 1995-96 shutdowns, which are now mostly remembered as the time when President Bill Clinton began his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

A year earlier, hard-charging right-wing Republicans took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Their wide margins gave them far more running room than the G.O.P. has now. A battered Mr. Clinton later pleaded with reporters that he was still “relevant,” which sounds a lot like today’s congressional Democrats.

Yet when the shutdown ended in early 1996, Mr. Clinton had won big. How? Mr. Clinton, who had struggled to communicate a message, boiled down his dozens of wordy policy positions to what his aides called “M.M.E.E.” — Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment. Intense focus on those four popular Democratic positions powered Mr. Clinton’s shutdown comeback and his re-election that fall.

The Clinton analogy is imperfect; Mr. Clinton had the megaphone of the presidency while Democrats today control no branch of government. The politics of a shutdown favor them nonetheless.

Democrats have a big edge on what’s seen as the No. 1 problem in America: affordability. According to a new CBS News poll, a paltry 36 percent of Americans approve of the way Mr. Trump is handling inflation, a blaring sign of the president’s vulnerability on the main issue that brought him back to the White House.

In a world of short attention spans, Democrats should go to the ramparts on just three instead of four issues, with a tightly focused popular solution for each.

Today’s version of M.M.E.E. should be H.T.T. — health, tariffs and troops in the streets. The first two are directly related to affordability, with health-care premiums and drug costs surging and tariffs causing steep price increases, not to mention resentment from parents who don’t want the president telling them, as he did in April, that it’s OK if they can now afford only two dolls for Christmas.

On health, Democrats should demand an extension of the popular tax credits that make Obamacare more affordable for millions of Americans, which are scheduled to expire next year. They should insist on restoring funding for popular National Institutes of Health grants, particularly for cancer research. And in the glare of a shutdown it would be tough for Republicans to resist a Democratic push to reverse at least some of the unpopular Medicaid cuts. Finally, Democrats should insist on a provision guaranteeing the availability of vaccines, a position supported by 78 percent of adults in a recent NBC News poll, including overwhelming majorities of independents and Republicans.

On tariffs, Democrats should demand that almost all tariffs be approved by Congress, a view that might soon also have the backing of the Supreme Court. This would peel off some Republican senators who like neither tariffs nor Mr. Trump trampling on the legislative branch’s longstanding authority over trade.

On troops in the streets of major cities, Democrats should demand the restoration of Mr. Trump’s $500 million cuts in aid to local law enforcement and fund thousands of new officers while they’re at it. They could effectively argue that it’s better to spend money preventing crime than having troops pick up cigarette butts on the National Mall (as Military Times reports). And Democrats could fight to cut funding for military deployment in cities, in line with the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. This, too, would be popular; a majority of voters oppose bringing the National Guard into cities. Blunting one of Mr. Trump’s authoritarian power moves would lend constitutional gravitas to what is otherwise a familiar tussle over appropriation levels.

All of this could be pursued while establishing that the president cannot rescind appropriations without congressional approval, including a filibuster-proof Senate vote.

But that should not deter Democrats from at least trying to do their duty. They should heed the advice that the retired Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. offered to Franklin D. Roosevelt when he took office in 1933, amid a crisis of democracy: “Form your battalion and fight!” (Jonathan Alter, Op-ed, New York Times)

Have you decided that Trump’s Government should be shut down, rather than have him control the budget? Call your Senators, and add Chuck Schumer to that list, even if you don’t live in New York. (202) 224-3121.

They need your anger and encouragement.

---

Dems step up for Mamdani, in New York City mayoral.

Mamdani Gets Backing From National Democrats as Trump Enters Fray.

Democrats have been slow to embrace Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist who won New York City’s mayoral primary. Many, especially in New York, still are.

The candidate Zohran Mamdani, top Jamie Raskin, bottom Rahm Emanuel.

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, received the backing of significant party figures this week as Democrats grow increasingly concerned about President Trump’s efforts to meddle in the race.

Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Representative Pat Ryan of New York offered Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman and democratic socialist, their formal endorsement. Rahm Emanuel, the former mayor of Chicago, and Representative Ritchie Torres, two moderate Democrats with close ties to the Jewish leaders who are skeptical of Mr. Mamdani, praised his potential to effectively lead the city.

Top Democrats have treaded cautiously for months after Mr. Mamdani’s decisive primary victory in June over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, waiting weeks to even meet with their party’s nominee. The New York Democrats who have so far declined to endorse his bid are notable in their absence from his camp: Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader; Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader; Senator Kirsten Gillibrand; and Gov. Kathy Hochul.

Now, publicly and privately, Democrats across the ideological spectrum are arguing that it is important for their leaders to forcefully reject Mr. Trump’s apparent interest in tipping the race toward Mr. Cuomo, who is running as an independent.

“In these times, the Democratic Party needs to stick together with the maximum solidarity and focus,” Mr. Raskin, who has taken a leading role in the party’s efforts to oppose Mr. Trump, said in an interview. “Even though I’m not a New Yorker and have never been a New Yorker, I feel that Democrats must stand together to defend not only our party but our constitution and our country.”

Mr. Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, praised Mr. Mamdani as a “significant and inspiring leader.”

“Mamdani’s politics have a Rooseveltian quality to them,” he said, comparing the 33-year-old politician to Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democratic president who built a lasting political coalition by enacting transformative liberal legislation. “He really wants to rebuild an F.D.R. coalition that is fundamentally committed to the success of the working and middle classes in his city.”

Mr. Mamdani, who ran a campaign focused tightly on cost-of-living issues, quickly racked up endorsements from the left wing of his party. Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts backed his bid, as did Representatives Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jerrold Nadler of New York.

Liberals who are frequently pressured to quickly coalesce behind more moderate nominees have made little secret of their irritation with the party’s establishment for refusing to endorse Mr. Mamdani.

“I think that it is the responsibility of our party to come together after our primary elections and support our nominees,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said on Monday. “I have long held that position, regardless of our disagreements, that’s what our primary elections are for.”

But Mr. Trump’s extraordinary efforts to shape the race may be shifting the calculus. As the race moves into the fall stretch, there’s frustration among some Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Mr. Raskin, that the New York federal delegation has not fully backed Mr. Mamdani.

Advisers to Mr. Trump have attempted to create a one-on-one contest between Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Mamdani by incentivizing Mayor Eric Adams and the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, to end their campaigns by offering them positions in his administration. In recent months, Mr. Trump has railed against Mr. Mamdani and discussed with associates how to help set up a rematch with Mr. Cuomo.

Mr. Ryan, the New York Democrat who endorsed Mr. Mamdani on Wednesday, said he was largely motivated by his dislike of Mr. Cuomo, whom he described as “a corrupt person.”

“In this one, it was very, very crystal clear who’s for the people and who is for themselves,” said Mr. Ryan, who represents what has historically been a swing district north of the city. “And if anybody had any doubt about that, Donald Trump’s maneuvering validated that Cuomo would sell his soul to the devil easily.”

An aide to Mr. Cuomo responded on Thursday, noting that Mr. Ryan does not vote in the city.

“His insincere, inauthentic internet swagger reeks of fear of him getting a socialist primary challenge for his Hudson Valley seat,” said Rich Azzopardi, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo.

Some moderate Democrats worry that Mr. Mamdani could hurt their party in the midterm elections next year both by encouraging more left-wing candidates and by giving Republicans fodder to paint the entire party as aligned with socialism.

Representatives Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi, who represent competitive districts on Long Island, have aggressively distanced themselves from Mr. Mamdani.

“I believe the future of our party is that we need to lead from the middle because that’s where the majority of Americans are,” said Ms. Gillen, who says the party’s leadership should not back Mr. Mamdani’s bid. “I’m certainly not endorsing him.”

Still, the refusal of Democratic leaders to back Mr. Mamdani is baffling to some of his liberal supporters, who say the state assemblyman is inspiring Democrats across the country at a moment when their party’s approval rating is at record lows.

Polling conducted this week by The New York Times and Siena University showed Mr. Mamdani with a commanding lead in the race, buoyed by particularly strong support among young voters. That group, long a core part of the Democratic coalition, swung significantly to Mr. Trump in the 2024 election.

“I don’t understand why it’s even a question. Of course, they should endorse him,” said Representative Ro Khanna, a liberal Democrat from California.

For his part, Mr. Mamdani has been on a charm offensive of private meetings and phone calls since capturing the nomination.

At a recent breakfast meeting with Mr. Emanuel, the moderate former congressman from Illinois, mayor of Chicago and ambassador, Mr. Mamdani asked for advice about prioritizing his policy goals, governing a major city and staffing his administration.

“This guy is thinking about how to hit the ground running and he showed the full capacity to do that from his questions,” said Mr. Emanuel. “I don’t think he’s going to spend four years just throwing rhetorical bombs.”

Mr. Emanuel, who is broadly disliked by his party’s liberal wing, said he opened the breakfast with a joke about how Mr. Mamdani has divided Democrats. One of his former campaign aides just went to work as Mr. Cuomo’s campaign manager.

“I said to him: ‘Well, who’s going to hate this more, my rabbi or A.O.C.,” he recounted, saying Mr. Mamdani responded with a hearty laugh.

The day after capturing the nomination, Mr. Mamdani had a lengthy conversation with former President Barack Obama, who offered advice on navigating the new political and governing moment Mr. Mamdani found himself facing, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

Mr. Torres, a Democrat from the Bronx who represents a large modern Orthodox Jewish community, also met with Mr. Mamdani shortly after the primary. While he hasn’t formally endorsed his bid, Mr. Torres has repeatedly praised Mr. Mamdani and defended him from Republican attacks.

“He is as impressive as any person I’ve ever met in politics,” said Mr. Torres, who is one of the party’s strongest supporters of Israel. “He’s impressively knowledgeable and substantive on public policy. Even when you disagree with him there’s no denying the force of his intellect.”

Party leaders and most of the New York delegation have not been as welcoming. After weeks of discussion, Mr. Schumer met with Mr. Mamdani at his New York City office on Monday but declined to endorse his bid.

“We know each other well, and we’re going to keep talking,” he told reporters.

Mr. Jeffries hinted that he was moving toward a decision when asked by reporters on Capitol Hill on Wednesday whether he planned to back his party’s nominee in his home city. The two men, who met twice in Brooklyn over the summer, do not currently have any additional meetings scheduled.

“I certainly will have more to say about the New York City mayor’s race in short order,” he told reporters.

Mr. Jeffries previously said he had concerns about Mr. Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the term “globalize the intifada” — a position Mr. Mamdani has softened.

Ms. Hochul said in an interview on Bloomberg TV on Wednesday that she is having “conversations about all kinds of issues” with Mr. Mamdani, adding that she is a “staunch capitalist.”

“I need to know that people can have a certain philosophy, but you got to govern in reality,” she said. “And the reality is that this is the financial center of the world.”

Republicans have gleefully seized on Mr. Mamdani as a foil. The National Republican Campaign Committee has given Mr. Mamdani a starring role in dozens of videos, news releases and social media posts attacking Democratic candidates.

“We will do whatever we have to defend people against a communist mayor out of state,” said Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida in an interview on Fox News in July. “We’re not going to let him come and spew his leftism in the free state of Florida.”

Those attacks don’t particularly concern Mr. Raskin, who sees Democratic solidarity as more important.

“When moderates beat progressives, we want the progressives to support the moderates in the general election. And when progressives beat moderates in the primary, we want the moderates to support the progressives in the general election,” he said. “I’m a true blue Democrat. I support Democrats across the political spectrum.” (New York Times)

---

News that made me smile.

One house was noted as “vacation home.”

One more thing.

Maybe someday soon there will be a time for celebration.

Not sure when, but —-

For the first time ever, a non-Champagne wins prestigious sparkling wine prize

For the first time ever, a non-Champagne has won a prestigious international award for best sparkling wine. Ari Shapiro talks with head winemaker of England's Nyetimber, Cherie Spriggs, about the win.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

Champagne is not just a drink. It is deep in the fabric of our culture.

(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)

FRANK SINATRA: (Singing) I get no kick from champagne.

THE NOTORIOUS B I G: (Singing) Now we sip champagne when we thirsty.

TAYLOR SWIFT: ...(Singing) Landing, champagne problems.

SHAPIRO: So what happens when the king of bubbles gets dethroned? This week, for the first time, a British bottle won Champion Sparkling Wine at the International Wine Challenge. This is the first time a non-champagne has taken the competition's top prize. Cherie Spriggs is head winemaker at Nyetimber. Her 2016 Blanc to Blanc Magnum is the new reigning champion. Welcome and congratulations.

CHERIE SPRIGGS: Oh, thank you so much. It's an honor.

SHAPIRO: This seems to have taken the wine world by surprise. Did it surprise you?

SPRIGGS: You know, we have been believing in the possibility of what we can do here in England and particularly at Nyetimber for, well, my entire time that I've worked at the company, which is about 18 years now.

SHAPIRO: Wow.

SPRIGGS: So in a way, it was a wonderful validation of what we've been working towards for quite some time.

SHAPIRO: You beat out more than a thousand others. What makes this bottle so special?

SPRIGGS: You know, we've got some pretty exciting potential when we grow grapes here in England for sparkling wine. We have this beautiful delicacy of flavor, and we have this wonderful, crisp acidity that keeps the wine fresh and vibrant. And I think the judges have keyed into the balance point that we achieve between these beautiful fruit flavors but still a crisp freshness in the wine as well.

SHAPIRO: You grow all the grapes in the south of England, and I have never thought of the U.K. as a top wine-producing country. Have I been missing out on something, or are you the anomaly? I mean, help orient us.

SPRIGGS: To be fair, it's a reasonably short history. Our first vines at Nyetimber - and we are the pioneers of the English sparkling wine industry - were planted in 1988. And the first wine was made in '92 and released in 1996. So our history isn't terribly long, but we have this beautiful ridge of soils going through the south. We have the English Channel, and then those same soils flow on through all the way through to Champagne. So we share a lot in common with Champagne, who have held the benchmark of quality for decades.

SHAPIRO: You personally also won Sparkling Winemaker of the Year for the...

SPRIGGS: Yes.

SHAPIRO: ...Second time. You are still the only woman ever to have won that award.

SPRIGGS: Yes.

SHAPIRO: Why do you think there is still such a massive gender imbalance at the top tiers of winemaking?

SPRIGGS: You know, in the old world - so the European wine areas that have been making wine for decades - there has been a very, very heavy male bias towards winemakers. Now, in my set of colleagues in the more newer-world areas, there are certainly many more females now making beautiful, stunning wines. So I think that's more question of time, and we'll see more and more balance come into those awards as the years go on.

SHAPIRO: Does winning these awards open up new possibilities for you as a winemaker?

SPRIGGS: When I think about winemaking, we only do it - we only harvest the grapes once per year. And if you become a head winemaker at the time you're about 30 and you retire when you're 65, you get about 35 chances at it. And for me, I look at something like this as more just validation to keep going in the direction that I have been so far because personally, I feel like as a winemaker, you don't want to change tracks too many times because you're really only doing this about 35 times in your life, and that's not that many when you think of it that way.

SHAPIRO: That's Cherie Spriggs, head winemaker at Nyetimber in England, which just made history by winning the Champion Sparkling Wine trophy at the International Wine Challenge. Thank you and congratulations again.

SPRIGGS: Thank you. (NPR)

---

Get some rest, dear readers. See you on Tuesday!

---