US Politics: Birthing Again

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

For me, it's more about optics. I think that Warren has terrible instincts (or employs people with terrible instincts) and don't think that this is a good look. I never acted like she was gatecrashing, but hoping up on a platform for Native American Democrats after being made to look like an idiot on that issue recently looks bad.

I said it in my original post, I like Warren a lot, I think she is the second best progressive in the Senate, but it feels like she makes a lot of unforced errors that gives our opposition more fuel for the fire.

So she was supposed to turn down an invitation to speak to them? Then you could jump on her for ignoring them. For fuck's sake this is stupider than Pelosi's ice cream.

You like her, you just assume the worst of her. Cool.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Week said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690806434/warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-for-dna-test

(Full disclosure: I voted for Warren)

Hey, I like Warren too. But it's not just the Cherokee that were offended, clearly. Also, I was addressing Dante's speculation directly [about making amends] not trying to discredit any work she's done recently.  

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

So she was supposed to turn down an invitation to speak to them? Then you could jump on her for ignoring them. For fuck's sake this is stupider than Pelosi's ice cream.

You like her, you just assume the worst of her. Cool.

But she's not like Hillary Clinton.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I think she is the second best progressive in the Senate, but it feels like she makes a lot of unforced errors that gives our opposition more fuel for the fire.

I really don't think Elizabeth Warren's unforced errors (or at least this one) are going to have any effect on whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris or anybody else but Elizabeth Warren get elected.  I agree it's not the greatest optics, but like what's been said above, so would turning down the invitation.

[Week]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

Hey, I like Warren too. It's not just the Cherokee that were offended, clearly. Also, I was addressing Dante's speculation directly [about making amends] not trying to discredit any work she's done recently.  

Yup, don't disagree with you. I was just adding context about previous apologies. Is it sufficient? Not for me to say.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

For fuck's sake this is stupider than Pelosi's ice cream.

WHATABOOT BIDEN'S CORVETTE

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

So she was supposed to turn down an invitation to speak to them? Then you could jump on her for ignoring them. For fuck's sake this is stupider than Pelosi's ice cream.

I think if she turns them down on the grounds that she feels that we need to lift up native voices rather than having old white ladies who have been haunted by a scandal of claiming native heritage speak. This does not get any negative play and it furthers the narrative that she wants to learn from her mistake and be an ally to Native Americans.

I stand by Pelosi's ice cream thing being dumb, showing off your opulence in a time where Americans were worried about losing their jobs and homes is a is all downside from an optics perspective.

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I really don't think Elizabeth Warren's unforced errors (or at least this one) are going to have any effect on whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris or anybody else but Elizabeth Warren get elected.  I agree it's not the greatest optics, but like what's been said above, so would turning down the invitation.

I don't think it means anything in terms of Biden's election, but when it is used to discredit her that is something that concerns everyone who is counting on her in the fight ahead. Like I said, there are ways to turn down the invitation in a way that doesn't look bad. I need to see if I can find her remarks because I'm sure they are good, but that is not what is going to be on Fox News tonight.

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

But she's not like Hillary Clinton.

I'm unfamiliar with the author of this piece, but scrolling through some of her headlines after reading this, I really can't tell at times what's real and what's satire. 

12 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

WHATABOOT BIDEN'S CORVETTE

Why does no one seem to care about Trump's all gold penthouse and the multiple (likely corrupt) properties he owns?

Oh wait, the "party of Jesus" actually doesn't give a shit about anything in the Bible while the party that actually reflects a lot of what Jesus spoke about hates God. Fuck our politics are strange.....

[DMC]

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

when it is used to discredit her that is something that concerns everyone who is counting on her in the fight ahead.

Meh, she's in a pretty safe seat and it's not like accepting their invitation is going to sap her influence in the Senate.  She's never going to be president, or even on a national ticket.

[GrimTuesday]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Meh, she's in a pretty safe seat and it's not like accepting their invitation is going to sap her influence in the Senate.  She's never going to be president, or even on a national ticket.

I know, but the whole Native American thing sucks up so much oxygen that it can be hard to cut through when someone is going to be one of the leaders of a movement. I'm not worried about electoral prospects, more so that any time you bring her up you're going to get a bunch of folks screaming about this scandal and the ideas fall by the wayside because optics are more important than ideas in terms of what gets media play.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why does no one seem to care about Trump's all gold penthouse and the multiple (likely corrupt) properties he owns?

Oh wait, the "party of Jesus" actually doesn't give a shit about anything in the Bible while the party that actually reflects a lot of what Jesus spoke about hates God. Fuck our politics are strange.....

I was going for humor there [Biden and his corvette] If they'd led that bit with where it ended up [about American manufacturing] it probably wouldn't have clunked so hard.

---

This is kind of interesting: 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/democratic-national-committee-climate_n_5f3c2907c5b6d8a9173f0268?ri18n=true

It doesn't say anything about fracking or a return to regulatory norms, though, both of which Biden at least has previously spoken against/for. The Sludge Report is saying it's mostly due to Perez's stacking of OG lobbyists in the DNC.

Wonder how AOC feels about that, and if it'll bleed through in her speech tonight [probably not] 

[maarsen]

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

I know, but the whole Native American thing sucks up so much oxygen that it can be hard to cut through when someone is going to be one of the leaders of a movement. I'm not worried about electoral prospects, more so that any time you bring her up you're going to get a bunch of folks screaming about this scandal and the ideas fall by the wayside because optics are more important than ideas in terms of what gets media play.

The Native Americans get into the news much more with Warren than with just about anyone else. They did not invite her so that they would get less media attention but more media attention. They have issues that they want addressed and this is how you start.

[The Anti-Targ]

23 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

For me, it's more about optics. I think that Warren has terrible instincts (or employs people with terrible instincts) and don't think that this is a good look. I never acted like she was gatecrashing, but hoping up on a platform for Native American Democrats after being made to look like an idiot on that issue recently looks bad.

I said it in my original post, I like Warren a lot, I think she is the second best progressive in the Senate, but it feels like she makes a lot of unforced errors that gives our opposition more fuel for the fire.

It's only a bad look if progressives go to an effort to make it so. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't on the right wing side so that segment of the commentariat is irrelevant. But some progressives do seem to like to keep taking other progressives they have it in for down a peg or two whenever possible.

"I think Biden is a neo-lib corporate shill, but you should vote for him anyway because he's not Trump." Is not a great campaign slogan. That is no doubt the internal monologue many progressives are having, but it is not necessary to externalise that into public rhetoric.

In 2016 "lesser of two evils" was only really a phrase heard in as an argument in support of voting for Clinton. I don't think anyone seriously considering voting for Trump framed it in those terms when deciding that Trump would get their vote. It was all Trump is says he's gonna drain the swamp, and Clinton is a liar and rape apologist. At least lesser of two evils isn't being used, yet, this time around, though it is no doubt true in the eyes of many (most) Warren and Sanders supporters.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I know, but the whole Native American thing sucks up so much oxygen that it can be hard to cut through when someone is going to be one of the leaders of a movement.

I suppose it's fair to say it looks bad as one of the leaders of the progressive movement, sure.  However, the scandal is 8 years old.  The people that still always scream about it are just going to scream about it anytime she gets brought up anyway.  That's their schtick.

[DanteGabriel]

7 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I think if she turns them down on the grounds that she feels that we need to lift up native voices rather than having old white ladies who have been haunted by a scandal of claiming native heritage speak. This does not get any negative play and it furthers the narrative that she wants to learn from her mistake and be an ally to Native Americans.

This is some convoluted logic. She's supposed to tell the Native American caucus that they made a mistake inviting her to speak, and that they themselves centered a white woman? Or is it a test? Like they invited her so she could show how aware she is, by turning them down?

Maybe in this case the caucus wanted to actually talk to an influential United States Senator. There don't have to be optics within optics. Sometimes a group just invites a politician to speak.

And of course if she turned it down with the exact explanation you demand, it would leak and get played as "Elizabeth Warren rejects invitation from Native American caucus." The nuance about not wanting to center herself would get lost. It's silly to think otherwise.

Come on -- you first thought she was going there uninvited, didn't you?

[Rippounet]

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I never said anything about French. May @Rippounet beat you to death with a million croissants.

That’s a lot of croissants. I will only consider such a waste if you get me some of Pelosi's ice cream.

[TrackerNeil]

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

This is some convoluted logic. She's supposed to tell the Native American caucus that they made a mistake inviting her to speak, and that they themselves centered a white woman? Or is it a test? Like they invited her so she could show how aware she is, by turning them down?

Maybe in this case the caucus wanted to actually talk to an influential United States Senator. There don't have to be optics within optics. Sometimes a group just invites a politician to speak.

And of course if she turned it down with the exact explanation you demand, it would leak and get played as "Elizabeth Warren rejects invitation from Native American caucus." The nuance about not wanting to center herself would get lost. It's silly to think otherwise.

Come on -- you first thought she was going there uninvited, didn't you?

This reminds me of the Cooper-Cooper situation, when Christian Cooper (the guy who got harassed) called for people to lay off Amy Cooper (the harasser), who was being "called out" or cancelled or whatever, and was roundly ignored. Everyone was so busy advocating for the person of color that they stopped listening to the person of color.

[Mudguard]

10 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I know, but the whole Native American thing sucks up so much oxygen that it can be hard to cut through when someone is going to be one of the leaders of a movement. I'm not worried about electoral prospects, more so that any time you bring her up you're going to get a bunch of folks screaming about this scandal and the ideas fall by the wayside because optics are more important than ideas in terms of what gets media play.

With all the major issues going on right now, like the pandemic and massive unemployment, this is a story that very few people will care about.  I can't imagine that any of the major news sources are going to cover it from your angle.  Maybe some conservative news sites will try to make some hay out of this in desperation to deflect from their massive failings, but who cares about that.

[Week]

Instead of whining about perceived optics of the Democratic party through shit-colored glasses...

We can talk about --

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1295873159657291780

Or the optics of this:

 

Or if you just want some kink on -- then look at this from a document produced in our federal government because people wouldn't vote for a eminently capable woman that had been slandered and subjected to hatchet jobs (which the left happily picked up) for 30 years).

 

[JGP]

That second one. Whew.

To the first, what's the over/under on Laura Loomer joining the RNC programming.