Tom Perez is not looking good

[Sucha NastyWoman]

I just saw him on MTP Daily. Just like the other several times I have seen him interviewed, the interviewer tries to hold his feet to the fire and discuss the specifics of what he will do to change the party. His answers are non answers, nervously delivered. He stutters and stammers and never gives any real solutions. Chuck Todd asked him why he hasn't done more for someone (dont remember his name think he is in Oklahoma or Alabama) who is in an election next week, and all Tom could come up with was that he met with him.

Chuck Todd seems genuinely frustrated, and I am beginning to wonder if Perez represents any new direction for our party????

[hlthe2b]

1. I thought you were going to say didn't look "healthy"... something I've thought from time to time.

I didn't see the clip, but surely hope we get our act together.

[chillfactor]

2. I have never been impressed with Perez....

I never would have voted for him.

[brush]

132. I would never go by Chuck Toad's word on anything concerning the Democratic Party. He's a repug.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

179. Perez looks like a fish out of water in every interview & speech I've seen him do...

always talks in platitudes... he needs to address specific progressive issues that will excite the base!!

[NurseJackie]

188. Who would you prefer to see in that position?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

191. Someone like Elizabeth Warren, though of course I don't want her to leave the Senate

I don't know all the players enough to know who (that is not currently a Senator) will fight back like she does, and is as smart as she is. But someone like that, male or female, regardless of race of heritage. Someone that would never have the attitude that we need to moderate in order to gain voters we are never going to get anyway.

[NurseJackie]

194. That's really not the job of the chair to behave like a candidate or an elected official, is it?

It's a job that requires a thoughtful demeanor. Calm and measured. Now I totally get that "some people" like bluster and gesticulation... or they like shouting, grimacing, flaring nostrils, steam from the ears, red face and stern looks. I suppose that's fine for people who are "excited" by such superficial qualities like that... and if that's your thing, more power to ya. But, what works for candidates or elected officials in New England, doesn't always play well in Peoria. It's short-sighted and unrealistic to demand a chair who excites YOU with their "fire-in-the-belly" while neglecting the finer points that the job actually requires.

Perez is well qualified. Stop over-thinking it. Stop negging him. All this constant negativity serves no good purpose. Perez is our party's chair and denigrating him, nitpicking, and fault-finding and ridicule is not going to change anything. He's not going to be replaced just because you wish it were so. Yeah, we get that you hate him. Move on.

[NastyRiffraff]

195. Wish I could rec an individual post

I'd like to with this one. Thanks Jackie

[brer cat]

197. Well said, NurseJackie.

[George II]

198. On top of Perez being thoughtful, calm and measured, he did a GREAT job on Smirconish this morning!

[Sucha NastyWoman]

200. You really read into my words that I hate him?

could you point out my words that led you to that conclusion? I can't think of a single person in the Democratic Party, or even known to me to be a Democrat, that I feel hatred for

Closest I can come to that is that I, like you, am very angry at Susan Sarandon. But I really doubt she considers herself a Democrat.

If the party chair, who gets a lot of media time, and is often a spokesman for the parties values can't push back when the right twists things out of all reality why should they even be on tv?

[NurseJackie]

201. Suit yourself... complain, neg, nitpick. Go ahead. You'll change nothing...

... except maybe how others perceive you. But overall, it actually ACCOMPLISHES nothing, nothing will change because you (and others) choose to gripe and whine and bellyache about it here.

I can assure you that Perez is not reading this forum. He's going to continue to do the job he was elected to do. The constant hypercritical negging and hand-wringing from people only contributes to, and reinforces, the divisions that make our party weaker. Why do that?

Perez is doing a fine job. Count your blessings. (Maybe you'd prefer Debbie Wasserman Schultz?)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

202. I didn't get that at all... indeed, your post made a lotta sense.

[Me.]

3. Doug Jones Alabama

It was depressing watching Perez, don't know how we're going to win anything. He puts up such a weak and inept front. Which is sad and worrying.

[LonePirate]

13. Jones is trailing an unknown with a familiar name - Robert Kennedy. Still, no Dem will win in AL.

Yes, it would be worthwhile for the party to invest some money in Alabama simply to get the word out and start building some infrastructure. However, there is no way a Democrat will win the general election for the seat and any limited funds are probably better spent in a purple state instead of deep red Alabama.

[LAS14]

17. Maybe they wouldn't win this time. But they won't win ever if...

... we don't spend time and money establishing a presence.

[Ninsianna]

24. Yet we're constatntly attacked for spending money

or accepting any, since it's more pure to cede ground to Republicans and their donors when Citizens United allows them to gather up whatever money they want.

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

[Me.]

18. I Get That

My issue with the interview was he didn't really give answers, not specifically. He's the head of the DNC who knows he's going to be giving interviews and he knows the playing field. We all know what the questions will be and he should have answers, good strong answers, even for the guy with the confederate flag one. And yes Chuck was doing his gotcha, Perez should've pushed back. I know it's easy to say but he did ask for the job.

[LonePirate]

29. The problem is he can't tell the truth about lack of DNC help and Todd knows why.

Perhaps Perez simply was not comfortable with lying to Todd. He was in a no win situation there.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

44. I dont know why either

Tell me, if you do.

[LonePirate]

53. Perez cannot tell Todd the reason the DNC is not helping is because it is a waste of money.

Last edited Thu Aug 10, 2017, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Todd knows the race cannot be won by a Dem and he also knows that's the reason the DNC won't invest in the race. However, Perez cannot publicly state his party has no chance thus he can only dance around the lack of funding question. It's a cheap shot from Todd because he knows Perez's answer (for the most part) and he knows why Perez must answer it that way.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

66. This explains a lot

Seems to be a lot of sense in what you say.

That would explain why Perez seemed so nervous. Only Republicans are really good at lying with a straight face.

[brush]

182. Chuck Toad is a repug so why post that Toad is frustrated at Perez's answer?

WTF cares if Toad is frustrated? He's trying to set up Perez.

What's the purpose of this OP?

[R B Garr]

103. Exactly, they were totally cheap shots by Todd. Perez couldn't answer anything Todd asked, so he

actually did a good job in pivoting back to ways he could get some points across without acknowledging Todd's slime.

[fallout87]

176. We're

Going to have to start winning in places we aren't expected to. Thats how we take back the house and senate. Winning only in blue areas doesn't help us.

[LonePirate]

184. Those places would be states like AZ, GA and NC, not places like AL, NE and TN.

[Me.]

50. You Have A Point

However, answers/solutions are going to have to be formulated because they aren't going to end.

[Agschmid]

4. So I met with him last weekend, he's a great guy.

He's not what we need to win, it was frustratingly clear that he wasn't listening or taking action to what my and others comments were.

[ciaobaby]

5. confused - how does his reaction - or non reaction - result in you calling him a "great guy"?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

9. I think Agschmid is quoting or paraphrasing what Perez said about

the candidate, Doug Jones. Read it again that way and their reply makes sense.

[ciaobaby]

35. got - thanks.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

8. I never made my mind up about whether Perez or Keith Ellison should have been elected

but now I think I know, unfortunately

[emulatorloo]

30. Ellison is more polished in front of the cameras because he's had that experience

I like both of those guys and glad they did the co-chair thing but Perez needs serious coaching on the TV thing. Hopefully they'll put Keith out there more

[Doc Coco]

56. Ellison is the Vice Chair...

Not the co-chair. I recommend that Perez resign so Ellison can take over.

[emulatorloo]

61. Thanks for the correction

From every thing I've read the two men are the same page. Perez is good at organizing behind the scenes which is a great skill for the job. Ellison great at fundraising

They Probably ought to get a media coach for Perez.

[aidbo]

79. Not co-chair or vice chair. Deputy chair.

The position was created for him.

I don't think Ellison would automatically take over if Tom were to resign.

[Doc Coco]

133. Checked..

You are correct.

[emulatorloo]

137. What ever the title I'm glad he's there.

[brooklynite]

151. I've met with Ellison...he's not an eloquent off the cuff speaker either.

[YoungDemCA]

6. Perhaps that's because the whole point of Perez being DNC chair was to keep someone else out.

Out of that position, that is.

I'm not convinced that Perez actually wants the job.

[Me.]

10. If You're Talking Ellison

THat's just nonsense

[YoungDemCA]

14. I heard nothing about Perez running for DNC chair until some rich donor accused KE of anti-Semitism

A donor whose views on Israel are identical to those of famous liberal Democrat Benjamin Netanyahu.

That was blatant demagoguery, based on Keith Ellison being a black Muslim. If you hadn't noticed, President Obama was similarly smeared by the racist Right for years, being "the most anti-Israel President in history", "apologizing for America" and being a "Kenyan Muslim" or a being a Trojan Horse for ISIS or whatever. It's so transparent. Fuck that shit.

[Me.]

19. Again, Sheer Nonsense

And you're basically accusing the DEm Party of racism because they didn't just anoint Rep. Ellison into the position and had an election instead.

[AngryAmish]

43. Shoe. Fitting.

[Me.]

47. And Just How Is That

[AngryAmish]

49. If you don't think white people feel privileged

And have not repressed black and brown people in our nation for hundreds of years then YOU have a screw loose.

Our party was founded by Andrew f'n Jackson.

We have a lot to learning to do.

[Me.]

57. What?

What post were you reading? Ellison losing the election was not about his race or perhaps you've forgotten a Latino man was elected instead. And as I remember it, a strong and severe backlash followed the despicable claim made by a donor.

[George II]

166. And what is Mr. Perez' ethnicity?

[fallout87]

177. Perez

Is white?

[Lazy Daisy]

58. I don't think it had anything to do with race

I'm pretty sure it's a Bernie thing. Keith Ellison is a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders and we couldn't have a Bernie supporter at the head of the DNC.

[Me.]

64. That's Exactly It

But I was doing what I said Perez did, avoiding the putting forward the exact answer 'cause I figured it would add a heap of trouble to this thread. Bravo to you.

[emulatorloo]

32. Sheer nonsense. You don't seem like the CT type.

Perez and Ellison decided to be co-chairs. They're both on the left. You smear one of them you smear both of them as far as I'm concerned

[Doc Coco]

60. "Liberal Democrat"?

Likud is as right-wing as the Republican Party.. Are you sure your compass is properly aligned?

[George II]

165. Here are the candidates and when they announced:

Howard Dean announced on November 10
Keith Ellison announced November 14
Raymond Buckley declared his candidacy on November 29
Sally Boynton Brown announced her candidacy on December 16
Thomas Perez announced his candidacy on December 14
Pete Buttigieg announced his candidacy on January 5, 2017
Jehmu Greene announced her candidacy on January 12, 2017

So why is it that only Perez' ulterior motive was to keep "someone else out", and who is that "someone"?

[Alpeduez21]

7. Chuck Todd is an ass.

Todd also asked Perez if he wanted the truck driving guy with a confederate flag in the corner of the window on his pick up truck to be in the Democratic party. Perez said the Democrats are working to preserve pensions, healthcare, etc. I haven't heard Todd ask any Republicans if they want the Black Lives Matter member with a gay pride sticker in the party.

I am so sick of this obsession with the white male voter. WE DON"T NEED THEM.

True Keith Ellerson would have been better but I like Perez. He did speak to having an every zip code strategy. That is what we need. I like hearing that. What does it mean? How will it be enacted? I don't know but it is not how the Democratic Party has been talking for the last ten years.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

11. I live in a zip code

and I have seen nada, as usual

[sheshe2]

122. I live in a zip code as well.

Your point?

[George II]

123. I live in a zip code AND an area code!

[sheshe2]

126. Hell yes....

Forgot all about my area code.

No clue what the poster means by that. The comment is confusing.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

158. Are you always like this?

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2017, 07:51 AM - Edit history (3)

I feel like you have declared war on me.

Is it my low post count? I've actually been around since 2001, but I used to go by a different username. I just got so pissed off when Trump called Hillary a nasty woman that it inspired me to change my name.

The fact that I live in Texas? So did/do a few of my heros like Molly Ivins, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jim Hightower, Anne and Cecile Richards, and Barbara Jordan. Whats left of Democrats in Texas are not moderate Dems - they jumped sides years ago.

Surely it cant be because I expressed ONE opinion that you don't agree with. I feel like you have an impression of me that is not at all who I am.

As for my comment about zip codes, I was replying to Alpeduez21's statement above that (referring to Perez )" He did speak to having an every zip code strategy"

[R B Garr]

12. THANKS, that's what I thought -- the whole line of questioning was nonsense.

Perez was supposed to articulate why he wants a guy with a confederate flag in the party?? Really? And you have a great analogy -- they don't ask Republicans or even Bernie to engage in these kinds of ridiculous fabrications.

This is all a leftover of tripping up Democrats just to show how "out of touch" they are. Enough already, it has gotten way out of hand.

[sheshe2]

16. See my post below!

[YoungDemCA]

22. "I am so sick of this obsession with the white male voter. WE DON"T NEED THEM." Hmm...

What happens when Republicans win 70 percent of white men, and 60 percent of white women? (Yes, that absolutely could very well happen.)

For reference:

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

According to this, Trump won 62% of white men and 52% of white women. White men were 34% of the electorate while white women were 37% of the electorate.

So let's say the next Republican presidential nominee wins 70% of white men and 60%of white women, and white men are 31% of the electorate while white women are 35% in that election.

70% of 31 = 21.7
60% of 35 = 21.
21.7% + 21% = 42.7%. That's the share of the total vote in this hypothetical presidential election that is from whites who are voting for the Republican nominee.

But wait, there's more! If you notice, Trump won 8% of black voters, 28% of Latino voters, 27% of Asian voters, and 36% of the "other race" voters. Since the electorate was 71% white last year, that means that non-white voters were 29% of the electorate. Trump won 21% of non-white voters. Let's say the next Republican wins, I dunno, 18% of non-white voters, and the electorate is 33% non-white.

18% of 33 = 5.94%. That's the share of the total vote in this hypothetical presidential election that is from non-whites who are voting for the Republican nominee.

42.7% + 5.94% = 48.64%. That already exceeds Trump's 47% (approx.) in the election. That may not be an outright majority, but that can certainly be an Electoral College victory - which is the only thing that matters in determining who wins the presidential election.

[emulatorloo]

34. The majority of White Male voters have not voted Democratic for a long long time.

Def need to get our voters out to overwhelm them.

[kcr]

167. Hmm. What happens when the Dem base stays home

because Dems don't appear to give a shit about them and ignore them? Here's a clue. Dems don't need to play GOP light. It never works. It never has.

[AngryAmish]

46. Exactly. I am sick of the whites who think they can dominate our party.

Their time is over.

[Bradshaw3]

91. If you kick white people out of the Democratic Party then

the Democratic Party is over. Simple math.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

160. Not to mention that those of us who are still in the party couldn't be pried out with a crowbar

Where would I go?

[Wiseman32218]

134. Does that include

Hillary, Bill, Shumer, Pelosi, Al Gore, Kamila Harris and others? That blanket statement does not help. We need all the help we can get!

I apologize if I read too much into your comment.

[Judi Lynn]

51. Can't stand to hear his name, or see his grimy face, with or without his beard.

Heard that question, also, and wondered what kind of deviant wants to steer any conversation in that direction?

The Democratic party didn't leave racists when civil rights legislation was written. The racists left the Democratic Party and all became Republicans. Everyone knew that from the first. Why should the Democratic Party twist itself, against its one-time principles, and try to beg support from social perverts?

After his stupid questions, engineered to make someone struggle to find any positive answer at all, he flashes his big rabbit chompers to rest on his bottom lips, and gapes at his guest. He's too ugly to watch. Can only listen, but still his unbearable creepiness plays out in my inner eye, anyway.

Someone went insane in giving him Tim Russert's old job. In fact, Tim Russert got more and more irritating in his latter days, and didn't deserve his job, either.

Chuck Todd didn't extend even the most basic courtesy to Tom Perez. He was determined to try to trap him and make him look like a liar if he didn't publicly state Democrats don't need racists. Hateful, slimy, spiteful guy, Todd. Hope he steps into an open manhole.

[Break time]

80. I am so sick of this obsession with the white male voter. WE DON"T NEED THEM.

Boy does that make me feel welcome.... The Dem. party needs every fucking voter it can get ...Your attitude is why we have repugs in control of the majority of the country and a babbling fool for a pres.

[Bradshaw3]

97. We need white people black people, brown people, etc.

The Democratic Party is and should be a big tent. You start eliminating groups based on race and that is a sure way to elect more repubs.

[Break time]

102. Yes n/t

[Alpeduez21]

124. Sorry/not sorry you're offended b/c I don't want the party to cater to racists.

[Break time]

127. I agree

With that sentiment 100% But that can be a 2 way street when you define one particular section.. A very large portion of us "white" folks aren't racist

[sheshe2]

15. You ask of one that you and the media will not ask of all.

I would like to know the specifics of single payer/ Medicare and for all that BS is going around the Country selling. Not once have I heard how this will happen, especially with the Government under GOP control. No specifics.

Should all have there "feet held to the fire"? Or just a few need to offer specifics?

You just described our DNC Chair as being weak, stuttering and stammering. I will tell you a little story. When Obama first hit the National stage and interviewed or debated and would hold my breath that first few times he spoke...I thought he paused to much and maybe stammered a bit...after a bit of time I figured it out, he was actually THINKING about what he said next. That old term...Think before you speak.

PS...from the beginning I was for Obama and he proved this Country right.

[BannonsLiver]

28. Well said

I'm more interested in Perez' ability to organize and fund raise. That's what matters most. We have plenty of people who can go on tv.

[sheshe2]

33. Thank you BL.

It is never just about what you say and how you say it. You will be measured by what you actually do.

Again, thanks.

[emulatorloo]

41. Exactly. People have forgotten that the DNC is primarily a fundraising and organizational group

It isn't the Democratic Party, it is the Democratic National Committee. DNC certainly isn't a group that has anything to do with setting policy. Nor is it some all powerful cabal as some folk seem to think it is.

[R B Garr]

100. Exactly, she! Perez and Democrats are held to different standards -- they have to

deal with reality and explain how things work. Perez handled that silly gotcha question very well by pivoting back to reality -- talking about workers, not whether or not that worker has a gun rack and a confederate flag. Gawd, the ignorant questions....

[sheshe2]

108. I did not see it and do not want to.

Another day another...Dems are weak thread. We are not weak. I want us going after our base, not racist gun rack owners and confederate flag wavers. We do not want racists here and frankly, they do not want us.

They want jobs? Then go to California. Crops are dying without workers. I guess those aren't good enough for them. trump kicked out the ones that were willing to do that job because he said they were all rapist.

Gah!

[R B Garr]

115. I know what you mean. Enough with demonizing Democrats for sport.

Ruminating over why racist bigots don't vote for Democrats is a fool's errand.

Nothing good has come of the endless smears on Democrats, which is all I can say.....

[ucrdem]

140. you haven't been wrong yet sheshe!

and Chuck Todd is a pimple on the ass of civilization.



p.s:

[sheshe2]

145. ucrdem...

so good to see you. ha, thanks my dear. been quiet lately. the drama here is...

I like to think of chuck as a pustules boil on the butt of humanity...but that is just my take. teehee

huge thanks.

[procon]

20. He did seem ill prepared.

His answers were vague, he didn't seem to have a clear, concise message to push the Democratic brand on a national news show. If that's his job, we've been robbed.

[earthshine]

21. Perez was Obama's choice. By any definition, that's a continuation not a "new direction."

Why did you have such expectations?

[emulatorloo]

27. Yes Satan Obama and his evil horned minions from the pits of HELL!

It's cool to me that he and Ellison and Perez are co-chairs.

[earthshine]

77. What are you implying? That Obama was Satan?

Who said those words? Oh, it's your post.

[emulatorloo]

85. I was just having fun. The real question is what you were implying.

Sounded like a smear of Perez and Obama to me.

[earthshine]

86. Perez will do as the Obama-oriented establishment wants.

He was Obama's pick.

[emulatorloo]

87. Ah yes evil establishment Obama and Perez

You do understand the DNC doesn't set Democratic policy right?

[earthshine]

89. Satan? Evil? Your words, not mine. nt

[emulatorloo]

92. My parodic words for your nonsense smears.

[earthshine]

95. I do not find you sincere. Just accusatory.

I will not respond to you further.

[emulatorloo]

99. I'm totally sincere when I say yr "establishment" smear nonsense is a bunch of horseshit

The term lost all meaning last year when we heard a women's health organization that's constantly under attack by Republicans is "Establishment".

Or when we heard that a predatory racist capitalist who stiffs workers is "Anti-Establishment" and "Anti-Status Quo".

You smear a solid liberal like Perez as "Establishment" expect to get pushback from your fellow DU'ers.

[earthshine]

119. Perez is a centrist.

You ascribe motives to me and with anger. It's your blood pressure, not mine.

I don't care what Republicans say, but I guess you do.

The Democratic party establishment is a quasi-entity. It is the basis of the party. Without it, there is no structure for the party. It must exist given the present nature of government and elections.

That establishment can also be an obstacle to change, as like most bureaucracies, it is self-sustaining and seeks to maintain it's current form.

Your views are reactionary and without nuance, and given their black-and-white nature, are quite uninteresting. It is you who are smearing.

[JHan]

125. He's a centrist?

Don't change the meaning... centrist is code for "establishment" . Perez' record is solidly progressive.

The bullshit smears are getting more transparent, at least acquaint yourself of his record instead of parroting nonsense talking points.

[emulatorloo]

135. You said in a couple sentences something that took me multiple paragraphs to say

[JHan]

147. You've been remarkably patient,

I've zero patience for arguments based on a false premise .

So tiresome.

(I'm a she btw )

[emulatorloo]

162. Oops! Sorry about the "he" thing!

You're right, it is a big waste of time to engage. Best to call out the nonsense and move on.

[emulatorloo]

131. "I don't care what Republicans say, but I guess you do"

There's nothing in anything I wrote that suggests I give a flying fuck about anything a asshole Republican says.

I have no clue how you came up with that nonsense but not at all surprised how off base you are.

I'm not angry, just very tired of simplistic smears of Democrats as "establishment". It has degenerated into "Everyone is establishment except me and people I like"

It is knee jerk behavior, it is simplistic binary thinking, it is demonation, and lacks any kind of analysis. It basically has become childish name calling. It does NOTHING to move forward change that progressives care about. At best is about feeling smug and edgy.

That you label Perez a 'centrist' tells me you have no business in passing judgement on politicians.

As Jhan pointed out to you, Perez' record is solidly progressive. I think he's probably correct and you don't know anything about Perez. You just did the knee jerk thing and went straight to name calling.

I'm a left liberal who ideology is influenced by Marx and Gramci's work on hegemony. I don't need a lecture from you on the "party establishment" or how politics work.

I certainly don't care that need you to project your failings on me.

I think we're pretty much done here. I sincerely wish you have a pleasant evening.

[earthshine]

136. I too have studied Gramci. So what?

Hegemony is to poly sci what relativity is to physics. So what?

Please reread your post and see that you wrote that republicans ruined the word "establishment" for you.

Talk about knee-jerk reactions. That about sums up your posts.

Maybe, you are not so far to left as you think. And maybe, it makes you angry that other people of thought clearly are to your left.

[emulatorloo]

138. I wrote that Republican's ruined the word establishment for me? Um no

I wrote no such thing.



You're even terrible at putting words into other people's mouths.

It sure wasn't a Republican who claimed that Planned Parenthood, a women's health organization under constant RW attack, is "establishment."

I read on DU during primary 2016 that Trump was the "anti-establishment candidate" and the "anti-Status quo candidate." The folks posting that were not Republican.

We've already established you're not qualified to categorize people's ideology with your uninformed statement that Perez is a "centrist."

You keep writing this shit that has no basis in fact.

I'm not angry about anything, but def not going any further down this rabbit hole w you.

Again have a great night.

[earthshine]

143. Misread you on that.

You wrote The term lost all meaning last year when we heard a women's health organization that's constantly under attack by Republicans is "Establishment".

Planned Parenthood? A woman's health org is not "establishment," per se.

But this statement is quite a non sequitur in the context of our conversation.

>> We've already established you're not qualified to categorize people's ideology with your uninformed statement that Perez is a "centrist."

We have established? Really? I have not gained any respect for your opinions.

You have not proven to be any authority on this subject. Like me, you are just a person with an opinion.

Further, your anger prevents you from being willing to agree to disagree. Seems to really bother you that I think Perez is a centrist. Maybe you shouldn't take things so personally.

> I read on DU during primary 2016 that Trump was the "anti-establishment candidate" and the "anti-Status quo candidate."
> The folks posting that were not Republican.

That has nothing to do with me. I knew from the start if he got elected he would become the biggest "swamp monster" ever. He never had real political ideology, and so his policies are just handed to him by his donors.

Do you see how Gramsci fits here? The "establishment" is the very means by which hegemony takes place. It dictates values, norms, and principles that the proletariat internalizes.

So memes like "single-payer is impossible" or "Trump is the anti-establishment candidate" are handed down to us through the media. And a lot of people just suck them up.

Whereas I am a loyal Democrat, I am not blindly loyal Democrat. I like to question authority.

You should ask yourself why this pisses you off so much.

[mcar]

164. The "Obama oriented establishment?"

The one that saved us from a depression, got millions of citizens insured, advanced equal rights and restored dignity to the White House and our reputation abroad?

Sounds good to me.

[Weekend Warrior]

67. You couldn't be more wrong about Obama.

He fought for a new direction every day. Just as Clinton did. Nothing about either of them was status quo. Obama changed the way campaigns are organized and Clinton ran on one of the most progressive platforms in history. They always attempted to be leaders of change.

[earthshine]

75. Oh, says you!

They were both the consummate centrists. Hill offered us 1% change.

All I said was since Perez is Obama's pick, he's going in Obama's direction.

Sounds to me, in your words, you imply Obama was directionless.

[Weekend Warrior]

76. You couldn't have gotten this from a single thing I wrote.

"Sounds to me, in your words, you imply Obama was directionless."

" Perez was Obama's choice. By any definition, that's a continuation not a "new direction.""

So anyone Obama endorses then becomes nothing more of a continuation of him. That is a deeply flawed thought.

[earthshine]

78. You wrote "a different direction every day."

Obama is a centrist. That is his direction.

This is what it means in his own words ...

[Weekend Warrior]

82. Correct. He fought to change the country.

That requires a different direction. But you understood that.

He made a great point about how far off the cliff the arepublican party has gone. Excellent messaging.

[earthshine]

84. But you didn't write that. Instead, you implied that I offered untruth.

[Weekend Warrior]

90. I did state that.

And I didn't imply untruth. I said you couldn't be more wrong. Those two things are not comparable as you have done. <- That is not an implication of untruth either.

[earthshine]

94. You may be splitting hairs with untruth vs. wrong.

That video of Obama talking about being like a 1980s republican is very disconcerting to me.

[Weekend Warrior]

105. It was a very good video making a great point.

It's not splitting hairs. They are completely different.

[emulatorloo]

106. You are apparently incapable of understanding how good Obama was at throwing shade at

obstructionist Republicans. Things aren't simple binaries.

[R B Garr]

96. Did you even watch the Perez interview and see the questions asked??

In that context, the "direction" Todd was ruminating about were guys with gun racks on their trucks with confederate flags. That was the context. Not much direction to take that for anyone. That's why Perez was asked that kind of asinine question. I'm sure you would also think it asinine if someone who wasn't a "centrist" was asked that.

[uponit7771]

139. I don't mind continuing in the direction Obama set America on

[Funtatlaguy]

23. Would love to see Barbara Boxer as DNC chair

Don't know if she'd want to after retiring from Senate.

[CK_John]

25. When is Perez going to let people know that automation is going to put then out of work.

That it is more important getting Universal Basic Income than listing to Trump.

That everyone over 18 should be on Medicare.

The middle class already knows this, even if they don't understand why and that is why mass use of Opioids.

[emulatorloo]

26. Curious, has Chuck Todd ever held a Republican's feet to the fire or only Democratic feet?

Perez is a solid liberal/progressive. Sounds like he's hVing a little trouble converting himself into a talking head. Still new hope he gets better.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

36. I've been disappointed in Chuck Todd sometimes

Sometimes I'm sure hes on the other side, other times I think he goes after the Republicans pretty well too.

I'm glad to hear Perez is a liberal, but it seems important that he be able to explain, this many months in, what will change. I did give him a pass the first few times I heard him faltering, but I thought maybe he just needed more time. Question is how much time do we have? If we don't make some serious changes, I fear what will happen in 2018. (If Putin's Puppet hasn't brought on catastrophy, that is.)

[emulatorloo]

48. Perez needs a media coach maybe. That's not really his forte, organizing is what he does well

which is a great skill for the job. Co-chair Keith Ellison is good at TV cause he's had so much experience at it and is comfortable with it, maybe they should let him do the interviews until Perez becomes more media savvy?

[Me.]

63. That Would Be Part Of It

But also the DNC needs to get clear on answers about who we're supporting and why and vice versa as well as developing a strategy about man with confederate flag questions. Otherwise, he's going to keep being pushed up against a wall 'cause those gotchas are never going to end until he ends them.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. Keep it up, GOP maintains power and america ends. We dont deserve to survive

if gop survives.

Attack dem party, gop wins, every fucking time

[Sucha NastyWoman]

38. Wow!

A critique of a few bad performances by the DNC chair means an attack on the entire party? Sounds like Tea Party thinking to me - Never criticize Trump - no matter what!

[sheshe2]

68. I hope you are not equating Dems to the Tea Party in their thinking.

A critique of a few bad performances by the DNC chair means an attack on the entire party? Sounds like Tea Party thinking to me - Never criticize Trump - no matter what!

[Sucha NastyWoman]

69. I think they are both capable of making that mistake

[sheshe2]

74. So. You equate the teaparty to the Democrats.

sheshe2 (42,674 posts)
68. I hope you are not equating Dems to the Tea Party in their thinking.

A critique of a few bad performances by the DNC chair means an attack on the entire party? Sounds like Tea Party thinking to me - Never criticize Trump - no matter what!

Sucha NastyWoman
69. I think they are both capable of making that mistake

[Sucha NastyWoman]

118. I'm not backing down here

They both need food and water to live, they both drive cars, they both make the mistake of not recognizing their mistakes.

Do I see them as moral equivalents. No way in hell. My mother and brother are Trumpers, and I can barely speak to them.

[sheshe2]

120. ????

[Alpeduez21]

40. Exactly

I am tired of Democratic sanctimony letting perfection get in the way of good enough.

[NurseJackie]

42. Correct. These kinds of "internal" attacks are not new... especially from those who (presumably)...

.... align themselves with our party. Still, it cannot be denied that attacks and smears like this do nothing to strengthen the Democratic Party. The division and suspicion only weakens us... which benefits the GOP. Intentional? Short-sighted? It's hard to tell what the motivation is... but it's EASY to see what the results are.

[Eliot Rosewater]

45. We wont survive, and we dont deserve to. Either 70% of this country votes for any

dem next year or we are too dumb to survive.

[still_one]

104. but, but, you are going to hear the refrain, "they have to give us something to vote for", and I say

bullshit.

The Supreme Court wasn't a reason?
Women's rights were not a reason?
Civil Rights were not a reason?
Healthcare was not a reason?
Workers rights were not a reason?
Social Security and Medicare were not a reason?
The environment wasn't a reason?

The LIES that the Steins, Sarandons, and some of those self-identifed progressives willfully pushed, "that there was no difference between the two parties", and that Hillary was "worse than trump", along with the false equivalency that the media was only too willing to propagate, were all part of the 24/7 propaganda that polluted the airwaves.

There was no mystery that trump was a racist, bigot, and sexist. That was his campaign.

The 2000 election should have been enough of a warning that there were some on the left who never wanted to work within the Democratic party, and those same "usual suspects" were out in full force in 2016 undermining the Democratic party every chance they got.

Sarandon was recently interviewed by one of the late night talk hosts, and she was spewing about how trump would bring about "their so-called revolution".

What their "revolution" accomplished was that every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, because some believed the LIES that there was no difference between the republicans and the Democrats.

Noam Chomsky said it best, progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

We will see what happens in 2018, and anyone who says there is "no difference between the Democrats and republicans", can go to hell

[R B Garr]

130. Great post! Poisoning the well against Democrats with 3rd party lies was disastrous

in 2000, and even worse now. Sarandon is a performer, which makes you wonder about the rest of it, so to speak.....

[Eliot Rosewater]

152. Fuck them because we are all going to die now or wish we had.

Even if we somehow miraculously survive, all civil rights are gone.

Everything you know is gone.

[still_one]

155. You are right Eliot. It wasn't just losing the WH, we lost the Senate. Most of those Democrats

running in those critical swing states were progressive Democrats. We were bombarded from all sides. The FBI interference, the news media's double standards and false equivalences, along with at least 10% of those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary.

In Wisconsin Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received about 1% of that vote. That same pattern occurred in the other critical swing states.

I don't know what is going to happen in 2018, but because of what happened in 2016, it is going to be an uphill battle for 2018, and we will be damn lucky if we get control back of one of the houses.

While the ACA has its problems, it helped millions of people, and because of 1 vote it got a reprieve, but if we don't recapture one of the houses in 2016, I think millions will lose their health insurance. It is just a matter of time before Roe V Wade is going to be overturned unless we can get back the Senate, and that is a more formidable challenge than the House.

The SC is one vote away from making abortion illegal. There were rumors of Justice Kennedy retiring last year, and hopefully either there is no merit in that, or Justice Kennedy is holding off until 2018. I don't know if we can hold the line until 2020, and for those who are hanging their hopes on impeachment, the VP and speaker of the house are quite committed to undo all the progress that has been made in the last 70 years, so unless we can win back one of the houses, we won't be able to hold the line

[Bladewire]

39. Nobody shows their cards this early in the game

It would be political suicide to telegraph our plans on national TV at this stage in the game. The focus needs to be on Trump and failing GOP congress, not what our parties strategy is to win

[Sucha NastyWoman]

59. That is a possibility that I considered

and I hope you are right. But he seemed awfully nervous and ill- prepared.

I think some people here think I just posted this thread to start trouble, that I'm a troll with a low post count. Fact is I have been here since 2001 (almost at the beginning of DU). I just got inspired to change my name in relation to Trumps infamous comment to Hillary.

I didn't realize that my old name would completely disappear. I was WhatchWhatISay, but I only had a few thousand posts in all those years. I normally read and learn a lot more than I post.

[Bladewire]

72. He's not a nervous guy (video)

I don't like or dislike Perez at this point what he does strategically in the future matters to me.

[Weekend Warrior]

52. I think this is a questionable analysis of the interview.

Doug Jones is one of seven Democrats running in the primary.

https://www.google.com/amp/whnt.com/2017/08/03/meet-the-democrats-vying-for-alabamas-open-u-s-senate-seat/amp/

Perez has talked to him and clearly knows his history. Are we now fully behind the DNC picking a single person to support in primaries? Is the DNC to raise funds for just that individual as Todd insinuates?

Perez looks much better than is being portrayed in the op. Please watch the video. I think you will gain respect for Perez.

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily

[emulatorloo]

54. Way off topic, has anybody ever seen or know who the current RNC chair is?

Reience Preibus had the media skills of a clammy washcloth. How's the current one?

On Edit: oh it's Ronna Romney McDaniel

[rogue emissary]

156. Your post is a perfect example of why media appearances for a party chair are meaningless.

Priebus doesn't project any of the qualities that Donny ran on and the Republican base desires. Yet, Repubs still gained under his leadership.

[jodymarie aimee]

55. met him

he was our keynote speaker at WI State Convention. Didn't impress me at all. Also know Tammy Baldwin, who doesn't impress me, either. When we worked so hard for the recall, she told me she couldn't get involved. 'Jody, I am national now, I don't pay so much attention to WI politics..." Holy fricking frack...Lost me forever....In WI we need firebrands to knock off fuckface Walker and his thugs.

[sheshe2]

71. You are telling me Tammy Baldwin said she does not represent you now...

because she is to important? Really?

https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/about

[6000eliot]

62. Chuck Todd being frustrated is both extremely easy and a good thing.

[sheshe2]

141. Chuckie has always been a Toadie.

[Quixote1818]

65. A wet noodle is more exciting than Perez. Terrible choice for chair. nt

[Cicada]

70. Oh no! We need a charismatic Hispanic leader.

The Castro brothers seem sort of bland. Eric Garcetti's grandparents are from Mexico, he's fluent in Spanish (though with a bad accent), he's Jewish, he's Italian, he's articulate as hell, but he doesn't come across as Very Hispanic. We need to boost the low Hispanic turnout.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

73. Then Anna Navarro would get my vote

Nothing bland there

Oh, nevermind, just read her bio

Never knew she was a Republican strategist, all I have seen is her going after Trump

[sheshe2]

83. Vote for her over a Democrat?

[Cicada]

110. Leon Panetta was a Republican who broke from Nixon

[Squinch]

81. Tom Perez is terrible, RT is where we should be getting our news and analysis,

we don't REALLY know if Russia messed with the election...

DU is completely overrun and insane today.

Next I expect a thread on how we should support Trump(R)'s use of nuclear weapons. Though there was one a couple of days ago that skirted close to saying that.

[sheshe2]

88. Love ya Squinch!

Seriuosly.

[Squinch]

93. Mutual, my dear!

Isn't this weird, though? Some names I like are saying some crazy things!

[sheshe2]

101. This place is nuts.

I am unable to explain why.

[FSogol]

98. +1 Exactly. Transparency day on DU. n/t

[sheshe2]

142. Ain't that the truth. NT

[alcibiades_mystery]

107. Seriously...it's either a concerted attack or mass hallucination

Mainstream Democrats are terrible losers, and RT is the same as Disney and MSNBC!

Fucking wackadoodle territory.

[Squinch]

109. I'd say a concerted attack but at least one of the crazies is someone who has always

seemed sane and sensible before lately.

Something in the water, maybe?

[emulatorloo]

113. Maybe their account got hacked

Just trying to say something comforting. The place is more unhinged than usual.

[emulatorloo]

111. ...

Thank you so much, I really needed a laugh. DU is working my last nerve today

[Squinch]

112. Is this DU Opposites Day and I just didn't get the memo?

Let's stick together... I'm askaired around here today!

[emulatorloo]

114. Probably should hide in the lounge, but there was a thread about Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges

in the lounge yesterday. And it didn't involve kitty pics at all. So not safe!

[Squinch]

116. Incoming!!!!!

To the lounge no less!

[emulatorloo]

117. Time to start drinking heavily

[JHan]

129. lol.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

121. Chuck Todd is a piece of shit but I find Perez to be useless. nt

[SummerSnow]

128. When Perez gives interviews I never hear him give

any solutions or specifics either. All I hear him say is, I'm confident, were organized, were mobilized, I'm meeting with, etc

[still_one]

144. I didn't see the interview, but if he messed up, he messed up. The implication of the OP implies

that "the Democratic party does not represent any new direction", is puzzling. What "new direction is that"?

That it Is a woman's right to choose?
To protect Social Security and Medicare?
To protect the environment?
To protect workers' rights, civil rights, women's rights?

Because frankly that is what the Democratic party has stood for decades. Read the Democratic Party platform.

As for the question, why hasn't "Tom Perez done more for someone in Oklahoma or Alabama" who is in an election next week? They are referring to the Alabama special election. to replace Jeff Sessions.

There are 9 republicans and 7 Democrats competing in the primary on August 15, 2017. No candidate in either party has polled above 50%, which means there will be a runoff, between the top two candidates, but let's not kid each other, given the strong republican leaning of the state, it is an extremely low probably that a Democrat will win the runoff. This was similar to the situation that occurred in Georgia, where there was a runoff with Jon Ossoff in Tom Price's district, which was a House seat not a Senate seat. The interesting part of that election was that there were progressives who were not happy with Ossoff's centrism, ignoring the fact that this was Georgia, and that republicans have controlled that district since 1979, when Grinrich was their representative.

Once the Alabama primary decides who will be the candidates, that is when the party will get behind the Democratic candidate in full force. Not a surprise that Todd would ask this question, but I would hope he would ask a different question to the RNC chair, and that question would involve Trump's endorsement of Luther Strange who has stated he supports the right of the Senate filibuster, which the other republican candidates have accused Mitch McConnell of misleading trump to endorse Strange, without knowing Strange's position on preserving the filibuster? I would be very surprised if that question came up by Todd though. Todd is not a very good interviewer. He doesn't listen, nor does he push back on falsehoods. Recall that Chuck Todd was the one who said: "It’s Not Media’s Job To Correct GOP’s Obamacare Falsehoods "

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chuck-todd-it-s-not-media-s-job-to-correct-gop-s-obamacare-falsehoods-video

At best he is lazy, and at worst he lets his personal bias interfere in his job.

[sheshe2]

146. KaaaaaaaaaaaaBOOOOOOOM!

That was spectacular. I bow to your awesomeness. Seriously...Woah!

[still_one]

148. Thanks sheshe. I suspect this thread is just a "camouflaged" way to "refight the primaries"

[sheshe2]

149. Yup.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

161. I don't think that I implied that the values of our party need to change

But I think our strategy for winning elections needs to change. We cant afford to be close. I am not who you think I am.

[brooklynite]

150. You realize that the DNC Chair doesn't "represent a direction"?

The Chair is a management and organization position that has nothing to do with making policy choices.

[still_one]

154. As I understand it, it is to promote the Democratic platform, coordinate with state Democratic

leaders, and fund raising.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

153. dishwater

[SunSeeker]

157. I know what he needs to do: get a show on RT!

[FSogol]

159. And start attacking Democrats.

[SunSeeker]

163. LOL. Well that's certainly the "new direction" some would like to see!

[Demsrule86]

168. More dem bashing.

[NurseJackie]

186. It certainly is. And it serves no good purpose.

I wish there was a rule or something that prohibited Dem bashing.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

189. I imagine that there are many people on alt-right websites that wish

no one could criticize Trump or Jeff Sessions, too.

Are you telling me that in all the time you have been on DU, you have never criticized any Dems? Do we really just want this site
to be one where everyone agrees and if you don't, you had best keep your mouth shut?

Nurse Jackie, I am not your enemy. I bet we are in agreement on 95% of issues. I just saw something that bothered me, and I had felt that way when I saw him before. I was curious if I was the only one who felt this way. Maybe I was looking for someone to tell me that I had misjudged Tom. A couple of people here actually had that affect on me, because their arguments seemed well thought out, and not just reactionary.

[NurseJackie]

190. Yeah. Uh-huh. Sure. Right.

(I'm smarter than you think I am.)

[Sucha NastyWoman]

192. I don't pretend to know how smart you are or aren't. Haven't seen anything to make me think you're

not smart.

But I do feel like you have pre-judged me without knowing much about me.

We need to talk to each other when we disagree on something, not name call, and assume we know things about the other person. Ask why they think what they do.

Why don't you answer some of the questions I asked you or repsond to something you might disagree about instead of just implying that I'm some sort of DINO.

[NurseJackie]

193. I've seen all I need to see.

...not name call...

I have not called you any names. Stop it.

[George II]

169. Did you see Perez on Smirconish this morning (Saturday)? You may want to reassess....

...your "not looking good" comment, thank you!

[NurseJackie]

170. You're correct, of course. BUT... Don't get your hopes up.

There will be no public reassessment forthcoming... for obvious reasons. Reasons that you and I (and many others) have already figured out and which do not need to be spelled-out here.

[George II]

171. ......"my work is done here."

[Sucha NastyWoman]

173. You should get your hopes up nurse Jackie

Try being more optimistic that even though someone may not agree with you 100%, not everyone is a troll

[NurseJackie]

174. What are you talking about?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

172. Yes as a matter fact I did

And he did a much better job of defending Obama and our the ACA. He spoke of what Democrats could do to get closer to universal health care. He attributed the reason for Republicans out fundraising us as their donors being wealthy people who just want is a tax cut, vs our donors giving smaller amounts and being working people who represents the majority of this country.

I wish he would have had the confidence and good answers during his performance the other day with Chuck Todd, but I find it hopeful to see that he did have that today.

Only problem is who watches smerconish on CNN? It was a fluke that I was tuned in.

[George II]

175. He was blindsided by Chuck Todd the other day. And MANY people watch Smirconish.....

...to the degree that it's repeated late Saturday afternoon and usually again on Sunday morning.

Unfortunately when Tom Perez wasn't "looking good" the other night it had to be reported here on DU in a New York minute.

[Sunlei]

178. OPs sure get a lot of views really fast when the headline is negative for DNC.

are you tweeting this post?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

181. Maybe we're tired of losing?! We have a winning message for cripes sake!!!

Is it really that hard to express it?!?! Time to ditch the timid platitudes and address the progressive issues that the majority of middle-class Americans care about!!

[Sunlei]

183. yup like 'insurance for all' so everyone can get healthcare. and a higher FEDmin then $7.25 an hour.

no picking apart every DNC 'Leader' or even worse drive them out DURING the election.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

187. Sorry but I don't go on twitter

[Sunlei]

203. with search noticed the headline got picked up and used on another messageboard.

even a link to DU so that's where all the hits are from.

To attack DNC, drive any wedges possible is a topic on many RW medias these days.

[Fla Dem]

180. I like Tom Perez, but they need someone with fire in his/her belly, who can go toe to toe

with commentators. He's seems like Mr. Milquetoast. If he's a good organizer, then fine, let him work pulling the strings behind the scene, but put someone with some pizzazz, energy out in front of the camera and on the speaking platform. They need to keep the base energized.

[NurseJackie]

185. Oh brother! Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. Always negative.

He's seems like Mr. Milquetoast.

Please stop denigrating our party leaders. It serves no good purpose.

[Fla Dem]

196. I'm not denigrating anyone! Simply voicing my opinion.

I wanted Tom Perez for the leadership of the DNC. He's a good man. But what I've seen of him on news show, has been a little underwhelming. Am I not allowed to say that? That I want a front man that can sell our positions with energy and conviction? Maybe as he gets more comfortable in the position he'll do better.

[NurseJackie]

199. Splitting of hairs and word-play doesn't help your case.

196. I'm not denigrating anyone! Simply voicing my opinion.

I'm afraid I'll have to point out to you that those two things aren't mutually exclusive. You're doing both at the same time.

But what I've seen of him on news show, has been a little underwhelming. Am I not allowed to say that?

Say whatever you want. But, come on! Honestly now, did you truly believe there wouldn't be any pushback?

That I want a front man that can sell our positions...

Scroll up. See post 194. There's my answer.

Maybe as he gets more comfortable in the position he'll do better.

Oh brother! GMAFB! What nonsense! Stop it, please! He's doing fine. We're very fortunate to have him. This ain't his first time at the rodeo.

Or would you prefer Debbie Wasserman Schultz instead?

[Fla Dem]

204. Thank you for your wisdom and advice. You certainly set me straight.

Last edited Sun Aug 13, 2017, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Thanks for the wave too. Although after the chewing out, seems a little, hmm can't find the right word. Anyway, back at you.