Democrats have spent the last several decade legitimizing GOP positions, often running on ill advised Republican-Lite platforms. Look at the HILARIOUS campaign of Amy McGrath, where she ran on a platform of McConnell not being sufficiently loyal to Trump.
Democrats appoint Republicans to office all the time, so no matter who you vote for, you get Republicans. Remember Obama over representing GOP on the super committee and on Simpson Bowles, in addition to passing a watered down, profits first version of the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation that Mitt Romney passed as governor of MA? Good stuff.
Or Bill Clinton passing all the business give-aways that GHWB couldn't get passed, like NAFTA (hello supply chain issues!), Gramm-Leach-Blighly (hello deregulated Wall Street and a return to the boom and bust economy of pre- Glass Steagall).
And of course you have Pelosi and Clyburn campaigning on behalf of Cuellar, who fights against everything the Dem establishment pretends to care about (this charming man is anti-abortion, pro-gun - and they were stumping for him in the weeks of the SCOTUS leak and the Uvalde shooting) against someone who actually supports those policies - Jessica Cisneros.
Of course they don't care. They make a fortune off their insider trading, no-show lucrative sinecures, and $400k/hour giving lectures to the grateful finance ghouls gutting the working and middle classes for fun and profit.
I agree totally. Thanks for posting this. Charles Booker was running against Amy McGrath. A black state lawmaker running on a progressive had a wonderful campaign slogan: From the hood to the hollow. He was drawing crowds, black and white over the state. But Schumer threw support and funds behind McGarth, a lackluster candidate. He said he knew she couldn’t beat McConnell but it was good for fundraising. At least Booker would have had a chance.
The support for Cuellar was equally bad if not worse. How can Pelosi dare to say that the Democrats believe in supporting a woman’s right to choose, if she and that Clyburn did everything in their power to make sure anti choice Cuellar. If he does win in the general election and there’s a pro choice bill in the House which fails to pass by one vote, it will all be in Pelosi and Clyburn. Neither she nor Schumer should have leadership positions.
This is the key claim in the decision. The most obvious but uncomfortable truth: “Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.’”
I think the Jill Stein/Clinton ambivalence thing by the left in 2016 is completely inexcusable on its face. Unacceptable and reckless behavior, even if we can’t know exactly how much of a difference it made.
Also, to somehow suggest that Obama should not have supported the most qualified candidate and potential first woman President is unthinkable and would have been indefensible. No one in the field of Ds was anywhere close to HC in qualifications. As for “appeal” compared to Biden or others, still not enough to have made a different decision.
And thank you for the reminder on the RBG decision. No excuse.
i proudly voted for Stein, granted I live in NY. Just like Nader did not fuck Gore, Stein did not fuck Clinton. They did it to themselves. Qualified? Are qualifications supporting coup in Honduras? The campaign dependence on analytics led them to focus on states where they had no chance instead of focusing on the bread and butter states in the rust belt. the clinton campaign shot themselves in the foot. the blame game is all about not acknowledging their mistakes.
1) more Sanders voters voted for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton voter voted for Obama, proving, yet again, that Clinton supporters are the worst.
2) the reason Trump was elected in the first place is because of Bill Clinton working hand in hand with Republicans, passing the policies they were unable to pass when GHWB was president. So, yeah, no more Clinton's, please.
3) it's weird how the shitlibs always demand the people with better policy give up EVERYTHING they believe in to support people that will never, ever even consider compromising, ever.
4) HRC ran the dumbest campaign ever. Is it a shock to you that not even bothering to campaign in the battleground states resulted in the battleground states not voting for HRC?
Does it surprise you that campaigning instead for rich white suburban Republicans while ignoring the plight of the Democratic base resulted in the base not tripping over themselves to give their votes to someone who didn't even bother to ask for them?
5) other than being married to a former president, what exactly qualified HRC for office again? Her utter insincerity? Her support for destroying our manufacturing base? Her obvious contempt for the working and middle classes? Her support for Iraq, Afghanistan, blowing Libya and bringing back open air slave markets? Her slavish devotion to the free market? Sucking up to the Saudis?
6) she was outsmarted by Trump, who is venal idiot unable to make money in the Manhattan real estate market, requiring bank bailouts to stay afloat.
Too bad Clinton and the Democratic Establishment (you know, the geniuses who just pulled out all the stops to get Cuellar, an anti-choice, pro-fossil fuel, pro-gun schmuck over Jessica Cisneros, who actually supports the policies the Dem Establishment pretends to support) decided to "clear the field" in the primary. They knew she was unelectable, and they knew Clinton would get her ass kicked in any kind of honest, open primary.
A few things that bear mention:
Democrats have spent the last several decade legitimizing GOP positions, often running on ill advised Republican-Lite platforms. Look at the HILARIOUS campaign of Amy McGrath, where she ran on a platform of McConnell not being sufficiently loyal to Trump.
Democrats appoint Republicans to office all the time, so no matter who you vote for, you get Republicans. Remember Obama over representing GOP on the super committee and on Simpson Bowles, in addition to passing a watered down, profits first version of the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation that Mitt Romney passed as governor of MA? Good stuff.
Or Bill Clinton passing all the business give-aways that GHWB couldn't get passed, like NAFTA (hello supply chain issues!), Gramm-Leach-Blighly (hello deregulated Wall Street and a return to the boom and bust economy of pre- Glass Steagall).
And of course you have Pelosi and Clyburn campaigning on behalf of Cuellar, who fights against everything the Dem establishment pretends to care about (this charming man is anti-abortion, pro-gun - and they were stumping for him in the weeks of the SCOTUS leak and the Uvalde shooting) against someone who actually supports those policies - Jessica Cisneros.
Of course they don't care. They make a fortune off their insider trading, no-show lucrative sinecures, and $400k/hour giving lectures to the grateful finance ghouls gutting the working and middle classes for fun and profit.
I agree totally. Thanks for posting this. Charles Booker was running against Amy McGrath. A black state lawmaker running on a progressive had a wonderful campaign slogan: From the hood to the hollow. He was drawing crowds, black and white over the state. But Schumer threw support and funds behind McGarth, a lackluster candidate. He said he knew she couldn’t beat McConnell but it was good for fundraising. At least Booker would have had a chance.
The support for Cuellar was equally bad if not worse. How can Pelosi dare to say that the Democrats believe in supporting a woman’s right to choose, if she and that Clyburn did everything in their power to make sure anti choice Cuellar. If he does win in the general election and there’s a pro choice bill in the House which fails to pass by one vote, it will all be in Pelosi and Clyburn. Neither she nor Schumer should have leadership positions.
This is the key claim in the decision. The most obvious but uncomfortable truth: “Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.’”
🙄
I think the Jill Stein/Clinton ambivalence thing by the left in 2016 is completely inexcusable on its face. Unacceptable and reckless behavior, even if we can’t know exactly how much of a difference it made.
Also, to somehow suggest that Obama should not have supported the most qualified candidate and potential first woman President is unthinkable and would have been indefensible. No one in the field of Ds was anywhere close to HC in qualifications. As for “appeal” compared to Biden or others, still not enough to have made a different decision.
And thank you for the reminder on the RBG decision. No excuse.
i proudly voted for Stein, granted I live in NY. Just like Nader did not fuck Gore, Stein did not fuck Clinton. They did it to themselves. Qualified? Are qualifications supporting coup in Honduras? The campaign dependence on analytics led them to focus on states where they had no chance instead of focusing on the bread and butter states in the rust belt. the clinton campaign shot themselves in the foot. the blame game is all about not acknowledging their mistakes.
1) more Sanders voters voted for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton voter voted for Obama, proving, yet again, that Clinton supporters are the worst.
2) the reason Trump was elected in the first place is because of Bill Clinton working hand in hand with Republicans, passing the policies they were unable to pass when GHWB was president. So, yeah, no more Clinton's, please.
3) it's weird how the shitlibs always demand the people with better policy give up EVERYTHING they believe in to support people that will never, ever even consider compromising, ever.
4) HRC ran the dumbest campaign ever. Is it a shock to you that not even bothering to campaign in the battleground states resulted in the battleground states not voting for HRC?
Does it surprise you that campaigning instead for rich white suburban Republicans while ignoring the plight of the Democratic base resulted in the base not tripping over themselves to give their votes to someone who didn't even bother to ask for them?
5) other than being married to a former president, what exactly qualified HRC for office again? Her utter insincerity? Her support for destroying our manufacturing base? Her obvious contempt for the working and middle classes? Her support for Iraq, Afghanistan, blowing Libya and bringing back open air slave markets? Her slavish devotion to the free market? Sucking up to the Saudis?
6) she was outsmarted by Trump, who is venal idiot unable to make money in the Manhattan real estate market, requiring bank bailouts to stay afloat.
Too bad Clinton and the Democratic Establishment (you know, the geniuses who just pulled out all the stops to get Cuellar, an anti-choice, pro-fossil fuel, pro-gun schmuck over Jessica Cisneros, who actually supports the policies the Dem Establishment pretends to support) decided to "clear the field" in the primary. They knew she was unelectable, and they knew Clinton would get her ass kicked in any kind of honest, open primary.