by liberal japonicus
Well, folks might want to talk about this cave in. Have at it.
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
by liberal japonicus
Well, folks might want to talk about this cave in. Have at it.
Hey, look at the bright side. At least the Senators who were investigated for their possible involvement in J6 can sue the DOJ for up to $500K.
Silver linings, everyone.
I’ve had two criticisms of Dem pols for many, many years: 1. the lack of fight and 2. the mushy, wishy-washy “respectable” way of speaking that fails to communicate anything.
I think the Dems have improved on both fronts but there is a ways to go. For example, Kaine said why he voted to end the shutdown. He said something about how there didn’t seem to be any other way forward mumble mumble blah blah.
What he meant and what he should have said is this: “The Republicans don’t care about anything except power for power’s sake and they are willing, indeed committed to, harming millions of Americans just so they can feel powerful. They are willing to spin out the shut down until federal workers go bankrupt, children are malnourished and millions lose their health insurance. Democrats aren’t ruthlessly willing to sacrifice our neighbors for power. We decided to cut a deal to save as many people as possible. This shameful episode shows that Republicans genuinely do not care about people and only care about power.”
But because of the mumble mumble blah blah we have headlines saying that the shutdown was for nothing.
Se what I mean? Mumbling curated professional word choices just doesn’t work. Never has, never will. Dear God, you’d think professional politicians would know how to communicate. Now even the people the Dems were trying to protect will believe that the Dems screwed them for nothing. Honestly, Democrats. What was the point of your government shutdown? | Opinion
wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this – it’s clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:
“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began.
“I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.
Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I’ve been saying for well over an election cycle – there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: “When we fight, we win.” And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.
And when I say “organize,” I don’t mean “fundraise.” The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can – get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn’t build community. Direct messaging doesn’t build community. Email lists don’t build community. Shared struggle builds community.
Also, I don’t know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She’s really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.
I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder…
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?
Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don’t stand up and announce that they’ve neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about “caving in” and “betrayal” from Democratic activists — which we are hearing.
So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.
Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don’t know, and certainly don’t expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain’t rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.
Hmmmm
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?”
wjca has a point. I saw a headline just today that said the Dems had mousetrapped the Rs. And they are mouse-trapped. Either there will be a vote on the ACA and they will have to put themselves on record or there won’t be and they will be the bad guys that way too.
It is clear that certain Senators were chosen to fall on their swords.
It is entirely possible that Dems in the Senate thought, “Those sociopaths in the R party aren’t going to be the first to blink, no matter what and we believe in public service and are aware of the suffering, so we have to blink. So let’s strategize how to do it to lessen the blow back to us and save some people and put the Rs on the spot with the ACA.”
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
Jon Stewart on top form. Sigh.
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I agree. I would say immediately after a) the House concurs to the Senate bill and b) Trump signs it.
Until then, the Republicans have, or might think they have, a chance to perhaps wriggle out of the trap. But once that happens? They’re toast.
No doubt they will be endlessly inventive trying to recover. But their only real escape would be to restore the subsidies. Which their fanatics wouldn’t countenance. And Trump would veto if it somehow got thru Congress.
wj – I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.
And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don’t see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama’s name on it.
So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?
And I really don’t believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I’d say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don’t think that was engineered by Schumer.
And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.
Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.
I haven’t read a lot about this, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
The only silver lining I can see is that Trump will feel emboldened by this and the whole shit show could really explode in their faces. I suppose that the second is that Schumer might get voted out and they get someone who has a spine.
I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.
Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there’s lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.
Republicans demand tougher abortion restrictions to extend Obamacare funds
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move – making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don’t know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people’s health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let’s hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people’s healthcare access seriously. It’s simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism.
I think it is damning because if a bunch of other senators in vulnerable seats are going to these 8, they are admitting that public opinion wants them to fight and they can’t acknowledge it.
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrapyXZfsA
Shane Goldmacher..there’s one no vote that I found especially interesting.
Michael Babaro.: Who?
Goldmacher: John Ossoff. He is the most vulnerable senator up for election next year. So, he will face the voters and he’s running in Georgia and really focused on his general election, right? No one’s running against him in the primary right now. And what the no vote here says is that he doesn’t want to risk backlash from inside his own party in this campaign. Whether that’s from a potential primary challenger who could get recruited from one of these angry groups or whether it’s the small donors who are fueling his campaign deciding, you know what, maybe we’re not so into John Ossoff. He doesn’t want to risk backlash.
Babaro; That’s fascinating because as you’re suggesting, John Ossoff could reasonably be most focused on a Republican opponent in a general election saying you should have voted to reopen the government. That’s what matters in this race. And instead, what you’re saying is he’s more worried about upsetting Democrats in a potential primary. And that’s what animated his vote on the shutdown. And in the end, he votes to keep the government shut down because he wants to look like he’s on the side of the Democratic base. That’s what we think happened here.
Goldmacher:Yeah. And I have not talked to Senator Ossoff here, but what you can see is that there are two choices. Choice one is vote to reopen the government and say, “I’m going to buck my party and I’m going to reopen the government even if people in my left attack me for it.” Right? That’s a selling point in a lot of places, right? And so here’s a Democrat saying, you know, that’s not the right calculus here to the extent he’s making a politically motivated choice. The right calculus is to make sure that your own party likes you and supports you and sees you as a fighter because you want that energy behind you in a coming midterm election.
If they were voting to give their colleagues cover, it means that their colleagues don’t see what is happening as a 4 alarm fire.
I, for one, look forward to Trump and his MAGA co-conspirators being hoist by their own petard*.
Just hope it happens.
(*and yes, I really love that phrase)
There might be multiple petards to hoist them. Epstein emails are less than helpful. Remember when Epstein was the GOP’s hobby horse?
The Epstein Files have never been a GOP hobby horse (and we have always been at war with Eastasia).
Someone needs to update their Two Minutes of Hate.
Well, technically the Epstein Files were (and are) a MAGA hobbyhorse rather than a GOP one. Or maybe the conspiracy theory enthusiasts among the MAGAts.
I am grateful and relieved that Ossof is more concerned about pleasing the Dem base than sucking up to Republicans the way Manchin did. The Manchin calculus–betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes–never worked. One of my pet peeves has been Dems who make that mistake. I’m fine with Ossof deciding to dance with those who brung him. I don’t see this as meaning Ossof fails to see the fire. He’s in GA. He sees the fire.
The Manchin calculus–betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes–never worked.
I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
Would it have been nice if he’d been on board on a few (let alone a lot) more things? Sure. But a) he was on board with some things that, however imperfect, would not have passed at all, and b) he was one more vote to keep control of the Senate at times (e.g. 2021-2024) when the Democrats “majority” was the VP’s tie breaking vote. No Manchin, no control.
Jamelle Bouie in today’s NYT on the whole thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/opinion/shutdown-democrats-senate-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k8.DRXA.pz0WPK3A3HUY&smid=url-share
wjca,,, I meant that it doesn’t work to get “moderate” Dems re-elected. Sellouts aren’t respected by anyone and eventually get replaced by a Republican.
wonkie, I’m not clear why you think getting moderates elected doesn’t work. Do you mean that, when in office, it doesn’t make it easier to get stuff done with bipartisan support? Or do you mean that running moderates doesn’t improve the chances of winning a general election? Or something else?
Currently, there isn’t a whole lot of bipartisanship on offer, so that wouldn’t be a reason (in my opinion) to favor running a more moderate candidate than you’d prefer. On the other hand, in a purple to somewhat reddish district, a more moderate candidate seems like it provides better odds of winning the seat. Certainly, I can’t see an argument that a less moderate candidate would be more likely to win in such a district.
wj – I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan – sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.
Now all the stories are about how Biden can’t get his signature legislation passed.
It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.
I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.
Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.
It’s not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There’s the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.
Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?
If you want something different, but still creepy:
https://archive.ph/8Px6C#selection-2091.157-2091.192
Just show some of these “conversations” with someone who is impressed with ChatGPT.
I didn’t say moderates can’t get elected. I think our problem is the word “moderate” which is so ambiguous in meaning when it comes to politics.
To me, a moderate is a person who is thoughtful, fact oriented, works to solve problems, believes in public service and is not overly ideological or obsessed by any particular issue–temperamentally moderate and open to intellectually honest discussion.
Manchin didn’t seem to have much in the way of convictions at all beyond self-promotion and voted R at critical times when his vote could have made a difference in terms of good government–apparently because he saw some advantage to himself.
Another example is Gusenkamp Perez in WA. I sent money to her campaign and wrote GOTV letters for her. She won in a rural red district so I expected support for the timber industry and didn’t expect a lot of anti-trump rhetoric. However she voted FOR the Republican voter suppression bill (that failed). Why on earth? Did she do it because Republicans were spreading lies about people voting illegally and she didn’t want to contradict the lies? Evidently she felt a need to vote R on an R issue even though her vote was in support of an immoral effort based on lies.
THAT kind of “trying for the middle” is the kind that doesn’t work. All she did was piss off her voters and I doubt if she picked up a single R vote. The only reason she won before is because the Rs chose such an obvious wacko to run. They are focusing now on a guy who presents as more normal who will be called a moderate even though he will vote just like the rest do, which is corporate fascist/hater.
Sucking up by supporting a truly evil R initiative won’t help her win.
Here is an antidote to the weak rhetorical sauce being offered up by Shaheen and her turtling pals. Rep. Adelita Grijalva speaks at her swearing in today, and dances all over the GOP’s buttons with every one of her minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhEeqOu8Ts
Granddaughter of a Bracero – check.
Speaks Spanish with no translation – check.
Smacks the Speaker over his partisan delays – check.
Chides congress for abandoning its oversight role – check.
Brings Epstein survivors to her swearing in – check.
Signs discharge petition as her first official act – check.
This is how it should be done.
Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?
That’s a terrific speech, nous. Thanks for posting it.