Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

The Ricochet Podcast
3 Whisky Happy Hour
Beyond the Polls
GLoP Culture
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Federalist Radio Hour
Not Dead Yet
Heritage Explains
Chicks on The Right
3 Martini Lunch
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
The Learning Curve
The American Idea
Madison’s Notes
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
Hillsdale Dialogues
Mom Wars
What the Hell Is Going On
Parsing Immigration Policy
Freedom to Learn
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Back of the Book
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
Gray Matters
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Glenn Show
The Libertarian
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert DoarRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
At the start of the month, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning socialism on a 220-192 vote:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) condemns and denounces socialism in all its forms, including the Democratic Socialists of America, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States….
One headline featured the fact that 8 Democrats voted for it. But I want to focus on the fact that 2 Democrats voted “present” — one of whom is Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. Neither for nor against.
I have quoted just one paragraph of the resolution. Three of the other four paragraphs reaffirm the rationale for citizen-only voting and the SAVE Act as the means of securing that. The fourth paragraph reaffirms fidelity to the Constitution.
Democrats have been in full-throated condemnation of the SAVE Act, so it is interesting to see any Democrat co-sign a resolution supporting it. Even more interesting is that any Democrat voted to condemn the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) given the current insistence by many Democratic leaders as having a place within the Democratic Party “tent.”
But Goodlander voting “present”? Goodlander is a “made” Democrat. Grok summary:
She was both a Biden official and married to one of the administration’s most senior figures. •Husband: Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s National Security Advisor (2021–2025). They married in 2015. They met during the Obama years (she worked for Sen. Joe Lieberman; he advised then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton). The Clintons attended their wedding. •Her own Biden roles: •Counselor to Attorney General Merrick Garland at the Justice Department (2021–2022). She had previously clerked for Garland on the D.C. Circuit. •Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ Antitrust Division (2022–2024). •Senior White House advisor who led Biden’s “Unity Agenda.” •Additional in-laws in the administration: Sullivan’s brother Tom Sullivan (State Department deputy chief of staff for policy) and sister-in-law Rose Baumann Sullivan (HHS). She also clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer.
What does her failure to vote against condemnation of DSA mean? Goodlander has voted against the SAVE Act, so her neutral stance on the resolution is likely in spite of her opposition to the SAVE Act. That highlights the anti-DSA aspect of the resolution.
Three of the eight Democrats who voted for the Resolution also voted for the SAVE Act. Those three reaffirmed their position on the SAVE Act. Five Democrats who voted against joined in a Resolution condemning the DSA and arguably softening their stance on the SAVE Act.
Goodlander voted “present.”
The ideology behind the fashionable DSA makes “present” a dangerous approach. Lack of support is necessary but insufficient. Active opposition is required. When the battle commences, there will be no neutrality
Promoted by an EditorThis post was promoted to the Main Feed by an editor.
Discussion (31)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Curious. Are any of those worried about their reelection chances but not worried about supporting the Save Act since Republicans likely won’t bring it up before the election and they could change their minds after the election?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Choosing "present" is a gutless choice and as far as I'm concerned, unprincipled. We are entitled to know if they are interested in the public's concerns or not, and if they are, then help us!
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I gotta confess, I mighta had a hard time voting for that resolution. My stumbling block is the phrasing "in all its forms".
The word "socialism" is simply way too malleable, and can be defined in very benign ways, like how many (foolish) people argue that "socialism" just means stuff like publicly-funded fire departments and whatnot.
Obviously, I do not agree that such a benign definition is correct, but I cannot deny that it is a possible "form" of "socialism".
Of course, this is precisely the sort of reasoning that guarantees I shall never be elected to any legislature...
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The battle commenced thousand of years ago, even before socialism was codified, the ideas were out there. The Roman Empire had a corn dole.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
If I was in Congress would skip all show votes on non-legislative items put forward by the other party.
You're seeing five of 31 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.