Oghier
1649
If the controversy is about phrasing and quickness of responses, I think it’s relatively unimportant. Or, I think it should be as long as there are no real concerns about their actual stances.
I also think that, in the broader population of the Democratic Party, people are less consumed by the handful of freshmen representatives who dominate media coverage. And finally, our candidates are not responsible for reacting to every stupid, racist tweet President Shithole flings from the toilet. That’s him driving media coverage.
Well, it’s not. The controversy is about the fact that some leaders of the Democratic Party (e.g. Schumer) have joined in attacking Omar; and some (e.g. Pelosi) have sought to criticize Trump while carefully not mentioning Omar at all. It’s interesting to examine the instincts of each campaign to see which candidates err on that side vs. issue full-throated defenses of Omar. It’s interesting to me, anyway, though perhaps not to you. I imagine they would all be better than Trump, but some might not be better than Schumer, and fuck that, really; at least when it comes to deciding on a primary choice.
Oghier
1651
Shorter version: if Trump tweets that AOC is a diseased animal who should be deported back the Mexico she came from, I don’t need to hear what Kamala, Pete, Bernie or any of the others think about that. I’m confident they, too, think he’s a racist asshole. No hashtags needed ;)
Response by Harris.
And here’s the other weirdness of holding candidates to account for how well they dance the Purity Macarena: candidates are traveling, holding events, and generally jet-setting across the country.
If you follow any politicians on social media, you experience the info lag almost daily: You’ll see any one of them post something as new news – and you realize that it’s 12-36 hours old into the news cycle – which is dog years since the 2016 election.
Worth noting in that regard: Congresswoman Omar’s own (and first) strongly worded, excellent response just went up on her own twitter account about 15 minutes ago.
It strikes me as particularly pejorative to use ‘purity macarena’ as a way to describe voters attempting to push politicians to better positions. But heck, let’s try it your way, and never criticize any position they take, or fail to take. They could do the right thing anyway. Me, I’m skeptical, but you may be on to something.
Oghier
1654
OK, I see that. But there is genuine room for debate on the issue of how to criticize Israel. That is a case where language is very important, and Omar stepped into a real controversy. I can understand Democratic politicians treading carefully there.
But this has nothing to do with that issue. This is Trump saying “Omar and those people are the enemy who did 9/11.” I don’t need to hear detailed responses from any Democrat on this. And again, I don’t think the next year should be mostly about “Exactly how angry are you at Trump’s latest racist tweet, Mr/ Ms Candidate?”
Well, maybe Gabbard. She’s the one Democratic candidate who I do suspect may harbor some Trumpian, anti-Islamic, pro-Putin positions. Though, I gather she responded strongly here. Still don’t trust her.
Yes, that is who I meant.
Rep. Omar did not specifically mention Trump in her tweet. So spineless! Now we have to GUESS.
I disagree. Reactionary forces want to portray Omar as a crazy person, and Democrats who dance around it are helping them to do that. It is a way of measuring whether these candidates have the courage of their espoused convictions.
Oghier
1658
Crazy person? I think it’s more about the line between criticisms of Israel and anti-semitism.
I’m sure there are some on the right saying she’s an Isis plant or whatever, but I don’t think our candidates should be expected to specifically rebut every chunk of crazy Fox News spits up. I would rather they spend their time on policy issues like healthcare, student loan debt, climate change, etc.
Our primaries need to be about policy and electability, not a contest to see who is most strident in calling out Trump’s bullshit.
Nervana is not a fan of Omar, considers her more an Islamist not just a Muslim.
Man if this was 2015, and I was still a Republican, I would have loved to see that Scott and Brendan James were active members of the Democratic circular fire squad. Nothing would have warmed my heart more to see mainstream Democrats forced to be politically correct to the more outrageous members of the caucus, or face being shot at by the self-appointed progressive purity police.
But since this is 2019, and Trump is President, I find it very sad.
I’m reminded that Hillary won bi-partisan support when she was elected and spent the first two years in the Senate, learning, and listening. As the saying goes, God gave us two ears and one mouth we should use them in the proper proportion. It seems to me that both AOC and Omar would be well served by this advice.
In case you’re wondering how this is looking to those of us in MN-5, I still haven’t run into anyone locally who has changed their mind on Omar, and the local Jewish leaders I know continue to be on her side.
George has always been pompous, it pretty much goes with the wearing a bow tie, either pompous or weird.
But he is 100% right, none of the things in his column, abolishing the electoral college, making DC a state, getting rid of Citizen’s United, etc. have any business being on a serious candidate top 10 priority list. A president has 3-5 important things he/she can do, so it is depressing for me to see the populist pandering.
Alstein
1664
The pandering might be necessary to win the primary. Everyone wants blood right now , they just want it from different parts.
ShivaX
1665
Eh maybe. Most people just want a functioning adult.
Of course primaries don’t really reflect everyone. It’s usually the base who can sort through the arcane bullshit that typically surrounds primary as well as have the time to do it.
Timex
1666
Hopefully the Democrats don’t do what the GOP did, and have all the normal candidates split the vote, while the worst possible option with the most insane zealots as supporters form a small plurality that ends up winning.
Menzo
1667
How do you prevent that from happening in a field with more than 15 candidates? If 14 of them can garner 0-12% support each, but one has 13%, he or she is going to win.
The Democrats don’t have the same kind of winner-take-all or winner-take-most rules that the Republican Party uses in its primaries. A situation like the 2016 Republican primary would have ended in nobody having a majority if it were run with Democratic Party rules
