US politics: Everything in moderation, including moderation

[Fragile Bird]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

I am correct!  His daughters are definitely the grandchildren of RFK.

I thought I knew quite a bit about US politics but I did not know he was married to a Kennedy. I just did a quick read of a couple of stories and holy crap, Cuomo really is a jerk in many different ways. She was well rid of him.

[Fez]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, she was asked a question and she answered it.  Now, of course, she could have obfuscated like a typical politician, but I give her credit for answering the question honestly, fully, and sticking by her convictions - even if I disagree with the "messaging" of defund the police. 

And that's a mistake. If you hold a conviction that most of the country disagrees with, don't talk about it. Act on it if you get a chance, but don't keep reminding people what you plan on doing. Just like Republicans smartly almost never talk about how they want to gut Medicare.

[DMC]

Just now, Fez said:

And that's a mistake. If you hold a conviction that most of the country disagrees with, don't talk about it.

....Except she got elected - after running and losing in primaries in 2016 and 2018 - by consistently "talking" about this very issue.  I mean, as a political scientist I'm naturally inclined to soak all the humanity out of politics, but you're making me look like an amateur.

[Mindwalker]

Holy crap, one of the reasons that politicians have been held in such contempt for a long time, so that right-wing populism and facism have such an easy time is that politicians lie. Progressives get elected, amongst other things, for being honest to their constituencies.

[Fez]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

....Except she got elected - after running and losing in primaries in 2016 and 2018 - by consistently "talking" about this very issue.  I mean, as a political scientist I'm naturally inclined to soak all the humanity out of politics, but you're making me look like an amateur.

And if she's a backbencher that's fine, say what you want. But when there's clips of national Democratic leaders singing your praises, you've got to be more circumspect.

6 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Holy crap, one of the reasons that politicians have been held in such contempt for a long time, so that right-wing populism and facism have such an easy time is that politicians lie. Progressives get elected, amongst other things, for being honest to their constituencies.

No, progressives being honest is how they lose; at least in state-wide and national elections. There's a reason why Democrats had to go third way in the '90s to come back from the wilderness, and why Obama lied about many of his positions in 2008 (like saying he was against gay marriage). Being moderate, or at least pretending to be, is the way to win.

Also, very few politicians are actually held in contempt. You can find tons of national polls about how approval of congress as a whole is very low, but people's approval of their own representative is quite high overall. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Between all the womanizing and sexual harassment, let's just thank the gods the two families produced three women and no men.

There’s still a Basic Instincts angle in play.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, L'oiseau français said:

I thought I knew quite a bit about US politics but I did not know he was married to a Kennedy. I just did a quick read of a couple of stories and holy crap, Cuomo really is a jerk in many different ways. She was well rid of him.

It’s kind of amazing he’s held on to power for so long. Everybody seems to hate him prior to recent events.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

And if she's a backbencher that's fine, say what you want. But when there's clips of national Democratic leaders singing your praises, you've got to be more circumspect.

Or, maybe, Dem leaders are singing her praises precisely because she brought attention to an issue none of them wanted to touch, and her efforts in doing so actually affected change.  Now you seem to be admonishing her for exactly that approach that put her in the position she is in.  Why you seem more focused on Bush giving more footage of her supporting defund the police - as if there's not plenty of footage of her doing so anyway - instead of the GOP and the media attack dogs being assholes by employing such tactics is beyond me.

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Being moderate, or at least pretending to be, is the way to win.

Again, not for her.  You are conflating what national Democrats should be strategically pushing with demanding purity from the entire Dem caucus.  That's not how the party should work - at all - and that type of litmus test is usually what "moderates" complain about the left doing.

[DMC]

So Conor Lamb has officially entered the PA Senate race.  I hope that doesn't fuck up Fetterman being the nominee, because he has the best chance of winning the general.

[Mindwalker]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s kind of amazing he’s held on to power for so long. Everybody seems to hate him prior to recent events.

He seems to have had a lot of enablers.

I personally only really discovered him last year, briefly impressed with his covid press conferences. But I remember our NY boarders explaining how corrupt he was and apparently everyone knew....

So I hear Meghan 'My Father' McCain is leaving that popular show. Who want to bet she ends up with Fox?

 

[Fez]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Or, maybe, Dem leaders are singing her praises precisely because she brought attention to an issue none of them wanted to touch, and her efforts in doing so actually affected change.  Now you seem to be admonishing her for exactly that approach that put her in the position she is in.  Why you seem more focused on Bush giving more footage of her supporting defund the police - as if there's not plenty of footage of her doing so anyway - instead of the GOP and the media attack dogs being assholes by employing such tactics is beyond me.

Again, not for her.  You are conflating what national Democrats should be strategically pushing with demanding purity from the entire Dem caucus.  That's not how the party should work - at all - and that type of litmus test is usually what "moderates" complain about the left doing.

As far the eviction issue goes, she brought attention for sure. I'm not sure how much change she'll actually effect though, since I fully expect the courts to strike down the new order pretty quickly. And congressional Democrats do not seem united on passing a new law.

And the reason I'm focused on Bush rather than the GOP is because the unfortunate reality is that there's not a level playing ground in politics. GOP attack dogs can be very effective, and Democrats need to be able to adjust to that.

Also, it's not a question of purity, it's a question of not fucking up the rest of the party's electoral chances. If you want to effect change, whatever it is, your party needs to be the one in power. It might not even be a good move for her personally either. She only won her primary last year by 2.9%. That was a major improvement from 2018 of course, but I wouldn't automatically assume that she'd beat a well-funded, well-postioned primary challenger. One who wasn't asleep at the wheel or had the family baggage of Lacy Clay.

[Fez]

In lighter news, Biden is going down a path Obama once tried...

Let's see if the media savages him too. I suspect not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The tan suit was among the most stupid “controversies” in US political history.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, it's not a question of purity, it's a question of not fucking up the rest of the party's electoral chances.

I think you're (dramatically) overreacting to her answering a question honestly in terms of its effect on electoral politics (again, it's not like Cori Bush advocating for defund the police is anything new).  And yes, the logical outcome of what you're arguing is definitely a question of purity.  If you're saying even the most avid supporter of defund the police in Congress can't express that opinion, that's the definition of demanding purity.

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

It might not even be a good move for her personally either.

So you think it'd be better for her to have shied away from the question or changed her position?  That's pretty horrible political advice for a person that got to where she is by appealing to her constituents in the exact same way she answered that question.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Again, not for her.  You are conflating what national Democrats should be strategically pushing with demanding purity from the entire Dem caucus.  That's not how the party should work - at all - and that type of litmus test is usually what "moderates" complain about the left doing.

I think the summary on the bottom of this CNN article says it well:

Quote

Bush said what she believed. And it will likely do nothing but help her standing in her strongly Democratic St. Louis seat. But for dozens of her colleagues -- the ones on which the House majority will rise or fall -- her comments present a major problem.

It's good for her personally, but the position is about as unpopular nationwide as positions held by US Congress members get so it serves as very useful campaign fodder for the other party.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

so it serves as very useful campaign fodder for the other party.

Again, the fodder of Cori Bush supporting defund the police was already amply provided.  That she also has to spend campaign funds on private security is only fodder for stupid people.

[Fury Resurrected]

Just because Cori Bush isn’t (according to you) what is best for the politicians *you* like does not mean that she is wrong for standing by her positions.

[Fez]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think you're (dramatically) overreacting to her answering a question honestly in terms of its effect on electoral politics (again, it's not like Cori Bush advocating for defund the police is anything new).  And yes, the logical outcome of what you're arguing is definitely a question of purity.  If you're saying even the most avid supporter of defund the police in Congress can't express that opinion, that's the definition of demanding purity.

So you think it'd be better for her to have shied away from the question or changed her position?  That's pretty horrible political advice for a person that got to where she is by appealing to her constituents in the exact same way she answered that question.

Purity only if you're getting lots of media and national party attention. No one cares what someone like Anthony Brown says. But I believe the price of being a rising star in the party means that you have to act in the party's best interest.

And my suggestion for Bush would've been to not talk about her personal security, or how much she spends on it. Because that's the new piece of information here. Ideally don't mention the defunding either, but you're right that for the most part that cake is already baked.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Purity only if you're getting lots of media and national party attention.

I'm not entirely averse to party leadership - or even the leaders of the progressive caucus - adopting more measured responses due to their exposure.  But again, Cori Bush is not Pramila Jayapal or even AOC.  And even if she was, I would hope fellow Democrats would defend her when she's being attacked for holding certain positions, even ones you might disagree with, simply because of (a) her gaining national exposure by doing a pretty cool thing no one else was willing to do and (b) she needs private security due to racists trying to kill her.

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

And my suggestion for Bush would've been to not talk about her personal security

I think it's pretty ridiculous to ask a politician to not defend herself when asked a direct question like that.  She'd look like an idiot.

[Fury Resurrected]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not entirely averse to party leadership - or even the leaders of the progressive caucus - adopting more measured responses due to their exposure.  But again, Cori Bush is not Pramila Jayapal or even AOC.  And even if she was, I would hope fellow Democrats would defend her when she's being attacked for holding certain positions, even ones you might disagree with, simply because of (a) her gaining national exposure by doing a pretty cool thing no one else was willing to do and (b) she needs private security due to racists trying to kill her.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to ask a politician to not defend herself when asked a direct question like that.  She'd look like an idiot.

Not to mention hiding it when called out makes it look worse. If you’re doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.