Please stop stepping on the rake Democratic Party.

[Caliman73]

So we have had two situations at this point where members of the Democratic party have taken pot shots at each other. We need to stop stepping on the same rake over and over. It is like these politicians don't understand the media at all. I am talking about the Maxime Waters "civility" issue AND politicians speaking dismissively about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I suppose that it could be that the comments are not being reported on accurately. That is always a possibility but you have Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer criticizing Waters ( Schumer calling what she said, "unAmerican" ) for trying to rally people to be active, to be motivated, and to up in the face of Republicans who are doing horrific things to children. They could have simply stated that it isn't the way that they would go about the issue (simple difference of style), then pivot back to the actual horrible things that Republicans are doing. Instead, they choose to go after their own member who wasn't calling for people to "harass" or commit violence, but to let their voices be heard.

It is obvious that the media sees the differences of opinion between the younger and more fiery candidates that have been out their trying to unseat established Democratic politicians (that is how politics is supposed to work). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won in the 14th District unseating Crowely who is very senior in the ranks. Again, you have Nancy Pelosi stepping on the rake when asked if Ocasio-Cortez represents "something bigger" (or some such crap) IT'S A GOTCHA QUESTION NANCY, and they gotcha. Instead Nancy dismisses the win causing controversy. As I said in another post on the topic, she could have simply said that Democrats have always been a party of new ideas and different opinions and that we welcome that diversity and look forward to working with Ocasio-Cortez to represent the people of her district and the US. She could have turned it and said that we need everyone to come together to fight the real threat to the American way, Trump and the Republicans who separate children from their family, cozy up to dictators, and start trade wars with allies.

Tammy Duckworth, same deal... WHY?

"Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the future of the Democratic Party?"

"Alexandria is a smart, talented, and passionate person who ran a great campaign. We look forward to her energy and talents when she beats her Republican opponent in the fall. We all look forward to the energy and diversity that candidates like Alexandria bring which makes the Democratic party the party that truly represents the diversity of the American People. We look forward to her ideas on helping us stop Trump's and Republicans' regressive agenda which is destroying our standing in the world and doing a lot of damage domestically."

The media likes a dust up. They like the intrigue and infighting. We have an enemy. One that is doing real damage to the country. Contrary to opinion on DU, it isn't Bernie, or politicians he supports (though he has been getting on my nerves lately). The enemy is Trump, and the Republican party which bends to his whims and has continued on THEIR agenda of destroying the commons and upending the global alliances that have kept rogue actors like Russia and North Korea, contained for the last 60 years.

Democratic politicians need to stop making unforced errors.

[NewJeffCT]

1. I forgot who said it

but, it went something like "Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Democrats could pick up 30-35 seats and win back the House, which would be fantastic, but it's possible they could have picked up a Contract with America (52 seats) or Tea Party (60 seats) like swing if they all worked together and focused on what was important.

The Tea Party swing was 60 seats and all they had to go on was hate of Obama and Obamacare.

[Caliman73]

5. That is how the Republicans roll.

Republicans are a reactionary party. They do not govern for the people. Their philosophy is that the market is the solution for the countries issues and that government gets in the way. They have worked to have government protect business interests to allow them to make money.

All the Republicans have is antagonism toward "others". They really do not have any ideas that are practical or work in the real world so they rely on cultural, racial, and economic tensions to push their agenda. They have been successful at getting their followers to attribute the blame for problems on people who are vulnerable and being exploited rather than on those who are exploiting other people for their own gain.

Unfortunately, Democrats tend to help in certain ways by fighting with each other, trying to be "civil" (which to Republicans means not calling them out at all on their horrible practices), and by not standing up loudly and boldly with our agenda of what we want to do.

[Loki Liesmith]

2. Don't be mean to my favorite politician

Or I’ll cry.

[Raster]

3. You know Chuck... Fuck off!

Maxine Waters has lived through racism, civil rights, lynchings, the KKK, all of the brutally unpleasant things YOU HAVE NOT. It's one thing to call for civility when you've spent a lifetime in the trenches... it's quite another when you can go home to your lovely estate in upstate New York and enjoy the security your money brings.

Autocratic despots HAVE NEVER responded well to "civility." Autocratic despots will take your civility and use it against you every fucking time.

Dear Chuck, please don't be our Neville Chamberlain.

[Caliman73]

10. See...we don't need to go there.

You think that Chuck Schumer has not experienced discrimination? Also, I think that Aunty Maxime is doing pretty well for herself too. I am thinking she doesn't live in South Central LA.

Antisemitism is as rampant as racism in this country. I am sure he has seen his share of adversity.

I do agree that these pleas for civility are ridiculous and that Schumer is falling into the trap. We need to respectfully remind him of that. Call his office and tell him that he needs to stop playing on the Republican's turf. What Waters was asking for is civil protest.

We can disagree, and do so strongly without telling each other to fuck off.

[Raster]

14. This is a message board, you know, where we express our opinions...

...your opinion is noted.

[redstatebluegirl]

17. Not crazy about calling a Congresswoman "Aunty Maxime".

[Caliman73]

18. It is a term of affection...

Joy Reid and many other supporters call her Aunty or actually Auntie.


https://www.google.com/search?q=auntie+maxine+shirt&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicoOCNjIHcAhUBYawKHSM-BXoQsAQI5QE&biw=1536&bih=735&dpr=1.25#imgrc=m44RTL-1TZF55M:

[redstatebluegirl]

24. I suppose, but I would rather everyone called her Congresswoman Waters including Joy.

[Caliman73]

26. Understand...

You also know that Joe Biden is often referred to as "Uncle Joe" correct?

People have terms of affection for people but I understand your concern, especially given the disrespect that has been shown to Congresswoman Waters by both the Republicans and even some in our own party.

Congresswoman Waters is a fighter and she will not yield. I have seen it floated that the Republicans are especially scared right now because she is in line to become the chairperson of the House Finance Committee, which has the ability to request financial documentation from the President as part of their oversight powers. You know that she is going to go hard at Trump if the Democrats are able to get the House back, and so do they.

[redstatebluegirl]

28. She is great! She will destroy him

If we win this fall!

[shanny]

27. Nope. Schumer needs to fuck right off.

He's ALREADY signaled that the Ds in the Senate will not fight like hell to prevent tRump's upcoming odious choice for SC. In fact, he had NOTHING TO SAY about 3 D Senators saying they will give the nominee a chance. He had fuck all to say when the same three voted for Gorsuch. Because of course if we are just nice enough to them they will be nice to us.

And YES I am shouting.

BTW, there [bIS a way to majorly gum up the works if our team had the intestinal fortitude: the Senate require a "quorum" to pass ANYTHING. A quorum is a majority, or 51 votes. With McCain out, Rs have 50. If EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT, including Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly, refuse to take the floor, the Senate passes NOTHING. It can't even rename a post office.

But of course they won't do it. That would be rude.

“Political correctness” is when you have to treat people you don’t consider fully human with respect, “civility” is when you have to treat people who don’t consider you to be fully human with respect.
--found on twitter

[disillusioned73]

33. Dang..

[brooklynite]

4. If we're not supposed to have disputes over policies, leadership etc.....

...then it means we're all supposed to agree. What's the correct position to take?

[Caliman73]

7. We can have disputes without demeaning each other.

Why does it have to be one way or the other?

Where in my post did I say anything about "having to agree"?

As for the correct position to take... that is simple we are all ultimately Democrats. We support the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate. We do not tear down Democratic candidates.

We have seen attacks on Kamala Harris and Corey Booker because they are "too corporate". We have seen people telling Nancy Pelosi she has to go. All of that is just the way things go, but if Harris or Booker ever become the Democratic Nominee for President, we need to get behind them. If Pelosi is Speaker, we need to have her back while reminding her of what we as Democrats expect (I.E. not going easy on Trump).

Like I said, on this issue, I think Pelosi made a mistake and should have been better prepared to answer the question. However, should we take back the House, she should be the Speaker because she was a damn good Speaker.

We can have disputes and want new or different leadership. What we need not do is play into the media's preferred narrative of infighting and disarray.

[brooklynite]

9. "Where in my post did I say anything about "having to agree"?

However, should we take back the House, she should be the Speaker because she was a damn good Speaker.

So if I disagree with you, we're having a dispute. I'm not aware of any comments on this point that are "demeaning"

[Caliman73]

11. You are correct. I may have misinterpreted your response. Apologies.

Your title and initial statement are:

If we're not supposed to have disputes over policies, leadership etc.....

...then it means we're all supposed to agree..

I assumed you were setting up that statement as an "either/or" when there are not only two choices. The implication appeared to be that we either have disputes or we agree on everything. Then you asked "What is the correct position to take?"

So what were you trying to communicate with your response?

Also,

I am not saying that you personally brooklynite, are being demeaning. The whole point of my thread is that we can have disagreements like Pelosi & Schumer with Waters and Pelosi and Duckworth with Ocasio-Cortez, without falling into the trap of going after each other and making statements that are dismissive.

Do you think that what Maxime Waters said was "unAmerican" ? Do you think that Ocasion-Cortez should be dismissed as "only in the Bronx" or "only one district".

[beachbum bob]

6. Russian bots and those eager to divide democrats.

The writing is on the wall

[Caliman73]

13. It is more likely the media is just looking for conflict to increase ratings.

The point is that we need to stop giving it to them.

Doesn't mean that we don't have differences, just that we are more careful about not playing into their hands.

[padah513]

21. Yes exactly

[Iliyah]

29. I'll say the NY Times is doing their best in dividing the Democratic Party.

The closer we get to the mid-terms, more articles and opinions will come forth basically saying "Democrats are disarray".

It's frustrating when some leaders of my party (Democratic Party) and I don't agree. Sometimes I get a compromise, sometimes not. But alas, even though the other party works in single minded stance, I have to wonder when they go home if they feel anything.
that's not a political party working for the betterment of the country and her people, it's a effed up cult.


That said. The Democratic Party is diversed. I like that. We do have opinions and I believe we will win in 2018.

[philly_bob]

8. DU: Please stop indulging in antiprogressive hate threads

and racially-divisive threads

[Caliman73]

12. Show me one and I will gladly stop indulging in it.

What does your response have to do with anything stated in the OP?

[ehrnst]

15. What is "anti-progressive" or "racially-divisive" about the OP? (nt)

[TimeToGo]

16. ?

[philly_bob]

19. Nothing in OP was anti-progressive or divisive.

The point of the OP, as I understand it, was the fear that the Democrats would blunder away their anti-Trump lead, by factionalism and -- well, stupidity.

I was pointing out two things here on DU that I fear could have the same effect.

If you haven't seen any anti-progressive threads on DU, just search for Sarandon or Nader

[Caliman73]

20. Correct!

We have a tremendous opportunity in 2018 and 2020 with the most incompetent and corrupt administration in modern times and following GW Bush and Cheney, that is saying something.

That is not enough however. Most of us on this site saw Trump for what he was early on. We saw the racism, the misogyny, the corruption, and the incompetence. Instead we had a protracted fight about Hillary, Bernie, and the DNC.

We need to not repeat that mistake. That doesn't mean that we can't have differences in the way we do things, in style, in policy, and other areas. We should not be using energy to bash each other, but to bash the Republicans.

[TimeToGo]

23. I misunderstood -- I was thinking you meant OP

[chesterslick]

22. May I sugest another possibility....

You are mistaking "unforced errors" with fear.

[Caliman73]

25. Please expound...

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the politicians are afraid of each other? Of something else?

[chesterslick]

32. Sure....

Last edited Thu Jul 5, 2018, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Current party leadership rose to power during a period of stability; Reaganism represented the well planned and funded reaction to New Deal achievements.

This is the current leadership’s reality, fund raise in order to stay competitive, moderate conservative economic excesses and lead on social issues.

If however, society is undergoing a fundamental shift (think 1932 or 1982), the skills developed under this prior reality become less relevant (and yes, may appear as “unforced errors”).

For example, if money in politics is in fact a core problem of our time, are our House and Senate leaders, whose unquestioned ability to fund raise lead both to power, really in a position to move the party forward?

If the course of the river has truly changed, the current leadership is no more relevant than any other “back-bencher.”

[MadDAsHell]

30. Maxine Waters publicly criticized President Barack Obama on multiple occasions.

Has she walked back those comments and admitted they were a mistake?

[Caliman73]

31. Did she criticize President Obama or his policies?

From my understanding, she criticized the lack of focus on racial equality and racial justice on the part of the administration. She didn't say he was "unAmerican" or dismiss the President as a fluke. She said that she was disappointed that he, as the first Black President, did not vocally do more for people of color.

As I said, it isn't that there are disagreements, it is that Democratic politicians are playing into the narrative that we are divided and fighting among ourselves.