By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the fatal shooting by a federal immigration agent in Minnesota, Rep. Tom Suozzi expressed regret for voting to fund the Department of Homeland Security, particularly the funding for ICE. Suozzi acknowledged the anger from constituents and took responsibility, admitting he should have viewed the vote as a referendum on ICE’s actions. The New York Democrat now sides with his party, urging President Trump to withdraw ICE from Minneapolis and end Operation Metro Surge, citing the lack of accountability and the tragic outcome of the shooting.
Read the original article here
Democratic Lawmaker Says ‘I Failed’ After Voting To Fund ICE
The phrase “I failed” from a Democratic lawmaker after voting to fund ICE resonates with a potent mix of disappointment, anger, and a distinct lack of forgiveness. It’s hard to ignore the sentiment: this isn’t just a political misstep, but a deep moral failing in the eyes of many. The immediate reaction is often a resounding rejection of the apology, a call for resignation, and a promise of being “primaried” out of office. It’s as if the act of voting to fund an agency that has been repeatedly accused of human rights abuses and, in some cases, contributing to the deaths of innocent people, is beyond the pale of mere political maneuvering.
The core of the outrage seems to stem from the timing and context. The lawmaker’s regret comes after tragic events, after the loss of life. This suggests that the initial vote wasn’t a mistake of judgment, but a conscious decision. The fact that the apology followed such incidents amplifies the perception of insincerity, as if the lawmaker is only sorry for getting caught, not for the underlying actions themselves. The voters feel like they’ve been betrayed, the trust has been broken.
The accusations are harsh, painting the lawmaker as a traitor, a supporter of oppressive forces, and someone who prioritized their own political survival over the well-being of the American people. This goes beyond simple partisan bickering; it’s a profound accusation of moral corruption. It highlights the belief that there is no middle ground: you’re either with the people or with the forces that they see as causing harm.
The demand for action, not just words, is a recurring theme. The public wants more than just an apology; they want tangible steps to correct the situation, to dismantle the structures that they believe are responsible for the perceived injustice. This can be seen in the calls for the lawmaker to actively work to dismantle the very system they helped fund.
The sentiment that the lawmaker is only sorry for the political blowback and not for the act itself is also common. It highlights the cynicism that often permeates politics, the belief that politicians are primarily motivated by self-interest and that their words are often empty gestures designed to appease voters. This reinforces the feeling of betrayal.
Furthermore, the idea of being primaried is presented as a just consequence. It’s not just about removing the individual, but also about sending a message to other lawmakers: supporting actions that are perceived as morally reprehensible will have significant political costs. It’s a way for voters to take back control, to hold their representatives accountable.
The focus on the long-term impact of the vote versus short-term political gains is a significant aspect. The argument is that the consequences of funding ICE will far outweigh any perceived benefits, particularly in terms of damage to reputation, ethical standing, and the erosion of public trust.
The anger is palpable, fueled by a sense of powerlessness and frustration. The call to “vote these clowns out” underscores the feeling that the current system is broken and that the only way to effect real change is to replace those who are perceived as being complicit in the perceived wrongdoings.
The debate goes beyond politics; it touches on fundamental values. The lawmaker’s actions are seen as a moral collapse, a betrayal of the very principles that the Democratic party claims to stand for. This isn’t just about policy; it’s about holding politicians to a higher standard of ethics and morality.
The conclusion is clear: the apology is not accepted. It’s too late. The damage is done. The only acceptable outcomes are resignation and/or being removed by the voters. The demand is for action and an end to what is seen as complicity in a system of oppression. The underlying theme remains: the voters will not forget, and they will not forgive.