Home | About | Donate

Refusing to 'Celebrate' Trump, Rep. Barbara Lee Joins Growing Inauguration Boycott


Refusing to 'Celebrate' Trump, Rep. Barbara Lee Joins Growing Inauguration Boycott

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Adding her name to the growing list of lawmakers who are boycotting Donald Trump's inauguration, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday issued a strongly-worded statement outlining her decision not to "celebrate" the crowning of the president-elect.


Considering the role that Vladimir Putin apparently played in electing Trump and the role that James Comey played why not boycott? A foreign government certainly should not have been involved in an American election and the FBI should have not played any role during the last month of the election unless the circumstances warranted that the FBI needed to play a role which the circumstances in this instances did not. It was not a normal election and it is not a normal presidency.


Lee was among the small minority of superdelegates who did not throw her vote to Clinton until after Sanders signaled he was throwing in the towel. Had she endorsed Sanders early or at all, this macabre wake for our democracy might not be happening.

Putin picked neither the losing candidate nor the losing strategy the Democratic Party leadership foisted on voters in the general election. If Putin interfered, and that's still a very big if, why should anyone be surprised after the sabre-rattling from the US State Department, led by Clinton. The US has a very long history of interference in elections in sovereign nations, coups of democratically elected leaders of foreign nations, etc. This is merely tit for tat on the international chessboard. Had the Democratic Party bothered to take the pulse of the nation, they wouldn't have gone to such extremes to cause Sanders loss while neutering Putin.


An Inauguration Boycott? What will this accomplish, besides reinforcing the fact that today's Democrats are bad losers?

The time to hold protests and boycotts will be when Trump is in office and has done something worthy of these efforts.

I didn't vote for him, but I sincerely wish Trump success in fulfilling his campaign promises to make deals, not wars, and to improve the lives of the millions of Americans who live in despair.

If Trump betrays his supporters, as I'm afraid he will, I hope that progressive Democrats like me will find ways to cooperate with them, and work together for our common good. Divisive actions like the Inauguration Boycott seem to be designed to make finding common ground for those of us in the 99% even harder.


This woman is more deserving of the Medal of Freedom than VP Biden ever was, on his best day. She makes me proud to be a fallen-away Catholic, which see is, too. At some point you simply have to quit buying into the official bullshit; and really, it's all really bullshit.


When Barbara Lee voted against the AUMF Bernie and everyone else was on the other side. She doesn't need to justify herself. Clinton was not foisted on anyone, she got more votes. She then ran a terrible general election campaign where issues took a back seat to personalities. She lost. That is not a tragedy.
Trump won. That is a tragedy.


Trump has already done and said things which justify the entire country turning its back. This is not a pick up basketball game. Sore loser doesn't apply.


We are beyond the election. Clinton lost. She can't pass the buck on that. Now we have a much more serious issue. Trump will be president, with all craterous flaws and corruption. What now?


She just keeps being my kinda gal.


By the tone of your post, I have my doubts that you are truly a progressive Democrat. What in the world does this statement mean and how do you square it with Trump's extreme anti-environmental, anti-labor, anti-working class cabinet nominees and proclaimed administration goals? "I sincerely wish Trump success in fulfilling his campaign promises to make deals, not wars, and to improve the lives of the millions of Americans who live in despair". Do you really wish Trump success in going back to the 19th century when coal was king, robber barons got their way with the environment and labor, and pollution was no consideration? There is overwhelming evidence that this is the direction Trump is leading the United States.


Why aren't there more Democrats from Congress boycotting Trump's coronation? This is a no-brainer to most true progressives.


I highly doubt that Lee's earlier support of Sanders would have made any difference given how determined Clinton, the DNC, and the media were in derailing Sanders before the primaries even began.

Your logic regarding the influence of Putin and Russia on the election is faulty like most posters on this site who seem to want to provide any justification for Trump's close association with Russia. It is clear that Trump has a strong financial interest in warming up relations with Russia and the public needs to know all his previous business dealings, tax filings, and so on that might shed light on this.


The point is she didn't lose by much. No landslide. If nothing else people should realize that unlike Reagan, Trump is not very popular. He has a relatively small base of support. America did not just overnight decide that democracy has failed so maybe is it time to try something else like fascism. Many of Trumps supporters simply wanted to "blow everything up." My guess is their understanding of how government works in Washington is very limited and for the most part their views are based more on ignorance than knowledge. Trump's approval ratings are now in the 30s and dropping. In contrast Obama's rating are in the 50s. Somehow this minority of disgruntled people got Trump elected while the majority who are fairly satisfied about the state of things under Obama lost out.


I don't disagree with you and I find the result every bit as frustrating. It should not have come down to essentially distracting media events, as bad as they were. Had she run more emphatically on the program given to her, had she run as a champion of the working class (not, please god, of the White Working Class) she would have addded electoral votes to her popular vote margin. She not only would not, it is clear that ideologically she could not. That is the crippling DLC problem. The conondrum, she deserved to lose. Trump did not deserve to win. The Bernie people may be wrong about their primary conspiracies, but he would have run a better, more meaningful campaign. Water under a bridge.


People called themselves progressive here while repeatedly advocating the election of Trump. Sometimes justifying him as a peace candidate or even more laughably as a pro worker candidate. Some have vanished since the election.


I don't think even Bernie could have run a policy-based campaign against Trump. Bernie would have been hit with being too old. The antisemitic stuff would have gone through the roof. Whatever problem Benrie's wife had at the college she worked for would have been given a lot of attention. Bernie would have been labeled a communist and his statements about Cuba and Nicaragua would have been front and center. I doubt if Bernie would have run a better campaign and probably he would not have been able spend as much on ads and a ground game. Clinton won all three debates. I am not sure Bernie would have done as well. Possibly one big advantage Bernie would have had over Clinton is that he is a man. A lot of voters may not have been willing to vote for a woman for president.


I'm not sure how you managed to conflate Trump's clear conflict of interests with Russia (and dozens of other countries) with the yet to be proved interference of Putin in the last election. from anything I wrote.

The Obama administration purposely put Putin in the crosshairs during the Ukraine/Crimea showdown, and has been itching for confrontation since then. Regardless of Trump's serious conflicts of interest, Putin had reason to not see Clinton elected. Had the GOP selected a different candidate, Putin still would have had good reason to interfere in the general election, if in fact he did.

The US may be able to push around less powerful leaders, but to poke the Russian Bear is beyond dumb, unless US foreign policy is to actually start a war with Russia. The US has been the aggressor since at least 2012 in our relations with Russia. Failing to recognize the tit for tat between these two nations is what will lead us into 'limited' nuclear war.

That said, Trump's foreign and domestic conflicts of interests are very serious and are likely unconstitutional. That's one major reason why I referred to his inauguration as a wake for democracy.


You just described the Democratic party. And the term "progressive Democrat" is an oxymoron.


I totally agree with you. Another thing it will accomplish will be further dividing us. Obama and Clinton (president and sec of state) did horrid things and people from Bernie to Barbara Lee mostly kept their mouths shut.

Trump is Trump and, like it or not, he is President. Extending a hand of friendship and offering to negotiate and make a deal might provide some leverage (see Tulsi Gabbard), acting like children will only enrage the bull, no matter how childish he, too, may be.


Oh he will make deals all right, the question is: whom will the deals benefit, the oligarchs or the masses? And anyone who is not living in a cave should know the answer to that (rhetorical) question and you do too. The betrayal of your sincere wish is inevitable.