By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Kennedy Center is facing a significant decline in ticket sales, exceeding even the negative impact of the global pandemic, according to a former staff member. This downturn is attributed to the new management’s actions and rhetoric, coupled with the potential loss of donors due to the organization’s alignment with right-wing cultural initiatives. Former President Michael Kaiser noted that this decline in ticket sales will likely result in a shortfall in future fundraising revenue, as ticket buyers are crucial for securing individual donations. The Center had a robust base of 40,000 individual donors during Kaiser’s tenure.
Read the original article here
Chuck Schumer Walks Out Rather Than Say if He’s Voting for Zohran, and honestly, the reaction is pretty understandable. The whole situation just reeks of political gamesmanship and a lack of transparency that people are rightfully frustrated by. It’s not a great look when the Senate Majority Leader dodges a simple question about whether he’ll support a fellow Democrat, especially when the stakes feel so high.
He’s gonna be so vile when AOC comes for his seat. And that’s a sentiment echoed by a lot of folks. The feeling is that Schumer is more concerned with maintaining the status quo, and possibly his own power, than with actually representing the needs of the people. The criticism is harsh, but the underlying issue is a perceived disconnect between the leadership and the voters, particularly those who identify as progressive.
Schumer is a coward. That’s a strong statement, but it highlights a common critique: that he’s unwilling to take a clear stance or risk upsetting powerful interests. The idea that he’d rather remain ambiguous than publicly support a candidate, even within his own party, speaks volumes to some people. The expectation is that he should be willing to stand up for what he believes in, even if it means facing criticism from the right.
This race continues to prove “vote Blue no matter who” was always just a cudgel against progressives and never a real mantra the DNC supported. The frustration is palpable. The perception that the Democratic Party establishment uses the “vote blue” rallying cry to get votes, but then doesn’t reciprocate support when it comes to progressive candidates, is a major point of contention. It fosters a feeling of betrayal among those who want to see real change.
Mamdani takes Gillibrand’s seat in 2030. The desire for new leadership is very clear. There’s a widespread feeling that Schumer, along with other long-standing figures, is out of touch and holding back the party’s progress. The call for younger, more dynamic leaders who represent a broader range of views is a common theme, especially as the political landscape shifts and voters demand more from their elected officials.
“My job is to keep the left pro-Israel.” That quote, even if it’s paraphrased or presented as a cynical interpretation, encapsulates a major concern. The idea that Schumer prioritizes the interests of a foreign country, or a specific political group, over the needs of his constituents, is a serious accusation. It plays into the narrative of establishment politicians being beholden to special interests.
Schumer needs to go. This is a recurring phrase and it’s a reflection of the deep-seated anger and disappointment many feel. The accusations of being a walking Israeli shill, a corporate bootlicker, and a flat tire of a human being all contribute to this pervasive sentiment. It really highlights how much the public is fed up with what they see as a lack of accountability and a focus on self-preservation, rather than serving the American people.
I’m backing AOC to take out Schumer, that weak, old, doddering fool. The hope that a progressive challenger can unseat him is a common thread. The frustration is also about the old guard. The desire for a more diverse and progressive leadership team is a key motivating factor. This perspective sees AOC as a champion of the people, fighting against the entrenched interests that Schumer supposedly represents.
If the establishment don’t like Progressives, it means Progressives are good for the 99%. This highlights a fundamental divide within the Democratic Party. The underlying argument is that if the establishment is against a candidate, it’s a sign that the candidate is actually fighting for the interests of ordinary people and challenging the status quo. This point of view frames the situation as a fight between the powerful elites and the working class.
Establishment Dems are equally a problem. There’s a strong undercurrent of disillusionment with the entire Democratic establishment, not just Schumer. The feeling is that the party, as a whole, has lost its way and is no longer representing the values and priorities of its base. It’s a sentiment that fuels the push for primary challenges and third-party options.
Once again, the Mainstream Democratic Leadership sh*ts on its Progressive wing and expects them to happily eat it. It’s a cutting statement that speaks to the perceived dynamic between the establishment and the progressive wing of the party. The expectation seems to be that progressives will always fall in line, regardless of whether their voices are heard or their values are represented.
To moral backbone. This is short but powerful. This highlights a fundamental perceived lack of principle and a willingness to compromise on core values. It’s a damning indictment, suggesting that Schumer’s actions are driven by self-interest rather than a genuine commitment to serving the public.
I’m fine with him walking out. So long as he doesn’t come back. The walkout itself becomes a symbol of the larger problem. It’s a signal of distrust and a deep desire for change, not just in leadership but also in the values and direction of the party. It really underlines the hope that he’ll be removed, replaced, or simply fade away.