Democrats in Array
The hardy perennial “Democrat’s circular firing squad is in disarray” story line is looking a bit withered. During the whole dramatic absurd Trumpcare drama (so far Trumpcare is a zombie which can’t be killed) ALL 48 Democratic senators remained united. In 2016 the new Clinton adopted a neo-neo-liberal platform which was actually liberal.
However, some people refuse to let it go. I am one of those people.
update Charlie Pierce is another one, and he can write. Click this link for the post I wish I had written
I want to whine about this informative and well written article by Ryan Cooper
“Why leftists don’t trust Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick”. Cooper wrote in the third person discussing leftists without presenting himself as one. He left me tempted to title this post “”Leftist Democratism” as an infantile disorder”. His key point is that leftists value style over substance “Second, and perhaps more importantly, they need to make a symbolic rhetorical break with the despised donor class. ” Cooper’s point is that the (un-named and unquoted leftists who clearly include someone named Cooper) care more about style than policy proposals.
I find this frustrating, but admit that it makes political sense. The 2016 election was, among other things, a triumph of style over substance. Trump won some votes of people who wanted to move left from Obama. His proposal to slash the taxes on the rich was less important to them than his fake populist tone. I find myself on the left wing of the Democratic party and agree that anti-banker rhetoric is a key part of Democrats’ best strategy.
On the other hand, factional purism and focusing on small differences within the party is not. Cooper explains suspicion of Harris because she did not prosecute OneWest (treasury secretary Mnuchin’s firm with a business plan based on maximizing foreclosures and subsidies from the FDIC). Here the point is that one should only prosecute if one has a reasonable chance of winning and being a jerk is not a crime. Corry Booker is suspected for having said (years ago) that Obama’s criticism of Wall Street was too harsh (yes outrageously extreme moderation — but just a youthful discretion).
I suspect that a lot of “the left” is suspicious of anyone who is not named Bernard Sanders. I also think that they are focused on uniting against the common enemy
the Judean People’s Front the party establishment.
There is, certainly, a good bit of mutual pointless hostility. I hope there is not much to the effort to keep the circular firing squad tradition alive.
Wow. Leaving out the epithets and the erroneous irrelevance (your father’s name for Sessions), your statement translates to:
What is the combination of those two factually challenged statements even supposed to mean? Is there a sane way to interpret what you wrote?
That language is not permissible so I am trashing your comment.
That type of language is not permissible so I am trashing your comment.
(Dan here….I agreed as did Robert)
I refused the neo-neo-liberal of the [wife of Kagan/Kristol faction because Clinton would have delivered Syria to al Qaeda as last week Trump defunded their con artists in Syria.
The war mongering and cheerleading for regime change to save civilians* by making their country Libya was disagreeable to me in the main.
I see no reason to expect the democrats to [have] change.
Their softness for LGBT does not excuse pushing forward the Salafi agenda.
*I restrained myself from verbally assaulting a young man Clinton activist at the last democrat cook out [where I bought the burgers] last June.
GOT THIS SPAM FROM NANCY PELOSI A WEEK OR SO AGO — WHICH I RE-SPAMMED (spell checker says “spammed” is spelt with two “m”s — wonder how I knew that?) TO HER DISTRICT (SF pols and papers).
As we first introduce A Better Deal to the American people – with more to come – we are setting out three ambitious new economic initiatives:
* Good-paying, full-time jobs for 10 million more Americans in the next five years.
* Aggressive action to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
* Cracking down on the monopolies and mergers driving up Americans’ cost of living.
— 70 million of our 150 million workforce are earning less than $15/hr — teenager’s wages. the same 45% has lost 33% of its income share over two generations. Wanna try again, Nancy — to start a stampede towards Democratic Party doors?
— The laws on the books could already stop Gilead from demanding $500 billion to wipe out all forms of Hepatitis in America (Epclusa) — which no one raises a finger to enforce (Obama doesn’t care).
— The latter is the real deal if you believe an excellent article by David Dayen …
What Do Democrats Stand For? The Party Finally Has the Right Answer By David Dayen, July 24, 2017
… which article predictably puts the exploited cart before the de-unionized horse — predictably from our academic liberals who never seem to get whether the chicken of the egg came first.
I never understand why not.
Union busting is not centrally a commercial act — leaving enforcement naturally in the civil, as in regulatory, domain.
Union busting is centrally a civil rights violation — of the most ruinous, society sickening kind — naturally punishable by the most stringent criminal sanctions.
GET THAT INTO YOUR REALIZATION AMERICA — INTO YOUR EVERYDAY CULTURE — AND YOU WONT HAVE TO WONDER WHAT YOU NUMBER ONE ISSUE SHOULD BE.
Republicans will have no place to hide (in case that’s all too many academic libs deeply care about).
“I suspect that a lot of “the left” is suspicious of anyone who is not named Bernard Sanders. ”
I suspect that the left wants to win elections unlike the establishment who are more concerned about candidates who don’t upset the donor class.
Your defense of Harris and Booker are pretty weak and inaccurate in my opinion. And why no discussion of Patrick? At what point do you feel it’s okay to fairly criticize a candidate b/c of their policy history? Joe Lieberman who killed the public option?
Many “purist” leftists didn’t want Hillary b/c we thought she was a weak candidate, so weak that she could possibly lose to the horribly weak Trump. Is there a Monty Python skit that dramatized that?
“corncob centrists” should do themselves and the Democrats a favor and pause and take a moment before launching yet another tired attack on “purist” leftists referencing Monty Python. Please read the entirety of this piece:
“I’m sorry to be the guy who explains the joke, but: Basically, the tweet refers to a situation in which someone is just getting massively owned (that is, losing an argument or an insult war) on the internet, most likely on Twitter, but refuses to recognize this fact, and instead of apologizing or just going offline for awhile, steamrolls ahead, insisting the entire time that they are not, in fact, owned. (See also: “I’m not mad.”)
To corncob oneself, were we to rely on this etymology, is to basically be a self-embarrassing fool. “Centrist corncob,” taken this way, fits into the common left-wing view that centrist Democrats are always trying to twist themselves into positions that (an often purely hypothetical) Middle America will find acceptable. In doing so, they are corncobbing themselves.”
Sorry to see your post besieged by the likes of kimel, ilsm, Chris H(oops, he is still PerterK on this blog) unlike EV where he had to change his name in order to continue to show how exactly correct your point is.
Mike K is reacting to a comment I trashed.
I think the assertion that wanting to win elections makes the left “unlike the establishment” is crazy. Of course the establishment wants to win elections.
I didn’t contest the left’s criticism of a possible Patrick candidacy, because I agree with it. That gives you some information on “At what point do you feel it’s okay to fairly criticize a candidate b/c of their … history? ” . The point is passed well before one takes a job at Bain capital.
Saying something dumb once (Booker) or deciding not to prosecute a complicated case (Harris) are not enough to dismiss a candidate (criticism is always OK as part of the discussion). I don’t support Harris or Booker for nominee. I plan to vote for Elisabeth Warren (assuming she runs).
Agree about Patrick and the rest.
But here is the real problem. To be caught up in the 2020 POTUS candidate at this point is absurd. As Pierce’s article shows, the important thing right now are the state races, and this type of discussion is self defeating.
EMichael from your keyboard (or touch screen) to God’s ears.
2018 comes before 2020.
Also give Heller hell
But really Governors & state legislatures are key too & I have no idea what is going on.
It’s easier to refight the 2016 primary. Must resist temptation. Must resist.
My apologies for my comment in this thread.
Wrong state, but I have friends in Vegas who are working for dems.
Meanwhile, the 2016 primary refight is never, ever going to go away. It is “The Big Muddy”, and is the clearest example of how your post is correct.