Squad member to deliver response to Biden SOTU

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

A member of the liberal “Squad” is delivering a formal response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address Tuesday.

In the speech, given on behalf of the left-wing group Working Families Party, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) is expected to hammer moderate Democrats who have stymied Biden’s social spending and climate change package.

Tlaib will praise Biden’s stimulus bill and make the case that liberals have pushed aggressively for his agenda, according to a summary of her remarks shared exclusively with POLITICO. She is also planning to argue that Republicans and a handful of intransigent Democrats have blocked progress on lowering the cost of housing, health care and prescription drugs.

The speech will put on display the deep rifts within the Democratic Party that have marked Biden’s presidency. Months ahead of the daunting midterm election, many Democrats are looking to put aside those differences in order to present a united front against Republicans. But the left sees an opportunity in this year’s primaries to elect a more liberal Democratic majority to Congress.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/squad-member-to-deliver-response-to-biden-sotu-00010877

---

Remember when there was ONE SOTU and ONE opposition response?

[JohnSJ]

1. Will this help or hurt us in the upcoming midterms?

[bottomofthehill]

21. Clearly it won't help

Democrats attacking the Presidents message immediately after he delivers it is usually termed ratfucking around here.

[JohnSJ]

29. Clearly if they start attacking the President, fellow Democratic members of Congress, it would be

very bad

[groundloop]

33. The article said nothing about attacking the President or his message

It said that she would be hammering "moderate" Democrats and GOPers who are standing in the way of President Biden's agenda.

"Tlaib will praise Biden’s stimulus bill and make the case that liberals have pushed aggressively for his agenda."

[FBaggins]

39. It was labeled as a "response" to the president - not a concurrence

Since when does the president's own party "respond" to the SOTU?

[JohnSJ]

48. Yes, a response is like a rebuttal, so I think your analysis is right on

[lapucelle]

119. Didn't Tlaib vote with the majority of House Republicans against Pres. Biden's infrastructure bill?

Voting against a bill that Biden counts as signature legislation doesn't quite jibe with "pushing aggressively for Biden's agenda".

[Voltaire2]

157. They voted against it because it was split from

the larger BBB bill and signaled the end of any effective leverage to pass the whole program. They were right. It was also a symbolic vote as the bill passed.

[lapucelle]

160. Yes, well I'm sure she has an explanation for having voted against Biden's signature legislation,

but the fact remains.

It's understandable that in her speech "on behalf of the [...] Working Families Party" she'll be trying to make the case that a claim of pushing aggressively for President Biden's agenda is not at odds with having voted against a major component of it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/squad-member-to-deliver-response-to-biden-sotu-00010877

[betsuni]

161. I don't understand the reasoning for not voting for it.

Manchin was very clear he wouldn't vote for anything not bipartisan. The combined bills wouldn't have gotten any Republican votes, so he wouldn't have voted for it either. That means nothing rather than something.

Not voting for the infrastructure bill seemed like an organized political gesture of some kind aimed at a certain national audience, not constituents.

[Demsrule86]

166. She is a Democrat representing a third party...serious slap in the face to Democrats. I won't watch.

I have no interest in anything she has to say.

[Kali]

34. ...

In the speech, given on behalf of the left-wing group Working Families Party, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) is expected to hammer moderate Democrats who have stymied Biden’s social spending and climate change package.

Tlaib will praise Biden’s stimulus bill and make the case that liberals have pushed aggressively for his agenda, according to a summary of her remarks shared exclusively with POLITICO. She is also planning to argue that Republicans and a handful of intransigent Democrats have blocked progress on lowering the cost of housing, health care and prescription drugs.

bold mine

[bottomofthehill]

37. They may have pushed it, but when push came to shove

They voted against it. All six members of the squad.

[Kali]

51. yeah, yeah, yeah

[TeamProg]

75. Hold on B.O.T.H.!

They voted against the stimulus b/c Build Back Better was detached from it. Remember??
And the Squad was RIGHT! Now BBB doesn't have enough support b/c Repukes do not want Joe to succeed.

[bottomofthehill]

80. So their plan was to with hold necessary legislation

In order to get what they wanted. Instead of passing a bill with unanimous votes, one they said they were supporting, knowing it would pass with Republican votes, they voted against the infrastructure needs of their district.

[TeamProg]

82. Well since the Squad faught to pass BOTH bills together but couldn't get the Sinema and Manchin

votes, Congress split the two - then, as predicted by the Squad the BBB and Americans got shafted.
The Squad, knew the "stimulus" didn't need their votes to pass, so yes, it was a protest vote and I'm glad they stuck to it.



and this: "" they voted against the infrastructure needs of their district."" No, that would be the BBB plan that the GQP + Sinema and Manchin vote down. So Dem Congress is likely to try to pass bits and pieces at a time.

[Demsrule86]

167. I don't care midterms are coming...this sucks.

[Cha]

141. Yeah, why would they

do that?

[Voltaire2]

158. A mere detail when there is intra-party

bashing to be had.

[Cha]

139. Yes they did & It's Not

Boring!

TY!

[BradAllison]

64. Where does it say they are going to attack the President?

Show your work.

[Demsrule86]

168. Even commenting when you are not the official Democratic person picked to give the response is a

slap in the face to the party. It is a fucking third party ....she a Democrat is representing.

[UT_democrat]

94. Get the corporate Dems to give a response.

They can explain things like "status quo" and Citizens United, and why the party is always "almost ready to help everyone that's not already wealthy."

Just one more election and then we can get things done, right?

[Demsrule86]

165. I am speechless...why would she do this?

[Wingus Dingus]

41. Probably neither. Few will pay attention.

It's just more "Dems in disarray" for Politico to chew on.

[cinematicdiversions]

60. Seriously what the fuck.

If you don't want dems in disaster headlines Maybe avoid doing things that make it seem like it's dem's in disaster

[brush]

69. This is dumb on so many levels. Labeling it as a response to the SOTU couldn't be more divisive.

What are they thinking, the best way to hand the republicans the House majority?

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Oy!

[agingdem]

13. Double oy!..this rebuttal thing is ridiculous...

like we don't take enough crap from the dark side!!!...

[Walleye]

3. Sure, why should liberals in Congress support our president? It's so much easier to criticize

[McKim]

10. They Are Supporting Biden's Agenda!

They are supporting Biden's agenda, it says so in this article.

[Walleye]

16. Well I don't understand why they're giving a rebuttal then

[bottomofthehill]

22. The squad supported the Presidents agenda by voting against it.

Big fucking help.

[Walleye]

24. Dammit! Can't we get our party to stay together for five minutes?

[bottomofthehill]

27. Proving Will Rogers correct

“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat”
.

[Walleye]

30. Absolutely, or as Nancy Pelosi says, "welcome to the Democratic Party"

[The Mouth]

71. It's more important to be Politically Correct

than to win elections.

Sheesh.

[Walleye]

83. I'm afraid we do have that faction who constantly try to validate GOP criticism of us

I cringe whenever a progressive refers to the Democratic Party as “they”

[jaxexpat]

43. It's not a rebuttal if you side with the initial speaker.

It's a typical strawman tactic to say something untrue and use the lie to attack the truth. The real question is why YOU insist a straw man is real. Lonely?

[Walleye]

44. Yeah that's gotta be it, lonesome as hell. Not at all worried about the effect on the midterms

[AZSkiffyGeek]

55. She's safe, why worry about swing districts...

[Walleye]

59. Midterms are actually national elections.other districts vote against our party

[AZSkiffyGeek]

61. I agree

Sorry I didn't make it crlearer...

[Walleye]

62. No,I'm dense I get it now. And you got it right

It’s a question of selfishness in politics, I think

[Cha]

143. Yeah, but why end up

in the Minority with Fascist Putin supporters running the House?!

[George II]

104. Did you forget this?

It's an article by a writer who makes a career out of bashing and complaining about Democrats.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

120. No they are NOT doing this

Link to tweet

[dpibel]

122. Objection. Nonresponsive.

The poster you are gainsaying said they are supporting Biden's agenda.

The tweet you've posted does not address that. It's just an attack on the WFP.

Also, if you look at the twit thread, you'll find that @What46HasDone offers the following as support for its "rather have a Democratic minority" claim:

Alex Seitz-Wald
@aseitzwald
· Feb 20
“A smaller but more progressive Democratic Caucus would be a more functional and healthy and coherent caucus,” said @MauriceWFP, who sees a "once-in-several-cycles and maybe even a once-in-a-generation opportunity" to get progressives elected this year.

(apologies for the copy/paste; not techie enough to get the link to display)

I do not believe that "smaller...Democratic Caucus" and "Democratic minority" are synonymous.

Really, the twit thread is pretty educational.

And, again, it's an attack on the WFP, not the squad.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

133. You are WRONG

Thise stunt is designed to undermine the Biden agenda, Here is last year's attacks on Biden and agenda of the Democratic Party

Link to tweet

How does this speech help the Biden agenda or the agenda of the Democratic Party as a whole?

I am on the Justice Democrat email list. I will be happy to discuss this organization with you

Link to tweet

[dpibel]

136. TBH, neither of us knows

You know you can't prove the contents of an upcoming speech by linking me to last year's speech.

For what it's worth, I see this as a Politico hit piece against Rashida Tlaib specifically and The Squad generally.

And the best the writer of that can do is cobble together a "Dems in Disarray" narrative. Really. The Politico piece doesn't support the inference, let alone the certainty, that this is going to be a big takedown of Joe Biden.

All I know about it is what's in the Politico article. You appear to know for certain much more. I don't know how you know that.

I'm quite willing to wait and see what Tlaib says before I freak out.

If she attacks Joe Biden, I promise you I'll be sad. If she says bad things about, for instance, Joe Manchin, I won't be sad at all. And I won't think of it as an attack on Biden's agenda.

In any case, I think the original intent has been accomplished here: a big fight over something that, ultimately, amounts to little or nothing.

As others in this thread have noted, it's not as if this speech is going to be on all the networks. It's going to be streamed, and the number of people who see it will be minuscule. It's conceivable that there will be some coverage of it in some corner of the Internet, and that coverage will get posted here and much discussed, despite the fact that the article will get maybe a thousand page views.

I agree with you a lot of the time. Sometimes not. I suspect we vote about exactly the same way. The differences are marginal. But, gosh, we do get excited about them, don't we?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

137. You can waste your time watching this hit job on the party

I still remember Tlaib booing Hillary Clinton. I have been following the Justice Democrats and its predecessor and affilaites for a while including the "brand new congress group" and other groups created by Cenk, Kyle Kulinksi, Waleed Shahid, and their ilk. I am on the Justice Democrat email list and I have even listened once or twice to the Justice Democrat podcast which is amusingly called "Just Us" democrats. The Justice Democrats emails are fun to laugh at and I love the hatred this group shows to the Democratic Party, establishment Democrats and best of all regular or corporate democrats. The posts attacking the DCCC for raising money to elect real Democrats are really amusing.

I have been following a number of posters on twitter who dislike the Justice Democrats who have issues with the concept of the Justice Democrat group wanting to take over the Democratic party and remake into their image.

Link to tweet

This poster is not the only person who has issues with the concept that the Justice Democrats want to take over the Democratic Party

Link to tweet

Again, the above posts are consistent with the hatred of the Democratic Party by the Justice Democrat group that I see on the almost daily emails that I get from the Justice Democrats.

If you want to learn more about the Justice Democrats just enter "Just Us Democrats" in the search function of twitter.

[Cha]

145. So they Don't Care About the People

who Will Suffer because of Fascists running the House?! Or Democracy?

Let's see.. what would that be called? Hmmm?

[Demsrule86]

169. We need to run progressives who are not Justice Democrats in deep blue districts...

There are primaries coming.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

4. No.

[Crepuscular]

6. ...

Typically, the opposition offers a response, is the squad implying they are the opposition to the Democratic party? The optics of this sucks!

[comradebillyboy]

25. "is the squad implying they are the opposition to the Democratic party?"

Yes, I believe that is the case.

[UT_democrat]

101. sigh

[DinahMoeHum]

7. What a stupid fuck.

Leave the rebuttal shit to the opposition party.

Yeesh.

[PatSeg]

8. That is not helpful at all

We don't need that kind of divisiveness before a midterm election. What do they think they are accomplishing?

[Rebl2]

14. Exactly!

[PatSeg]

32. And how do they expect the country

to support the President if they are openly in opposition at the State of the Union Address? Now is the time to be the focused, united party. Republicans will definitely use this against us. I appreciate the lofty ideals, but their political inexperience is so conspicuous and potentially destructive.

[ananda]

9. Yay! Love that word liberal.

People who are not afraid to be liberal are the best!!!

[gab13by13]

12. The word liberal has been misused,

Many Republicans have been liberal in their policies toward corporations and the rich.

[UT_democrat]

103. as has

"conservative" "socialism" "communism" etc.

Nothing means anything anymore.

[gab13by13]

11. I am a far left Democrat,

but doing this is, to put it nicely, is stupid. Crying over spilled milk isn't a good campaign platform.

[lark]

15. Stupid move that hurts the president and party.

Why in the world is she doing this, playing right to the repugs script?

[bottomofthehill]

18. Because

Look at me, look at me. Show horse vrs work horse.

[lark]

20. Sad snd very aggravating and producing nothing at all good.

Damn, I hope she gets talked out of it or she's purely showing her ass and wounding the party even more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Cha]

147. +Millions FOR DEMOCRACY!

We Need to WIN the Midterms in the SWING STATES!

[Demsrule86]

170. I wonder if these folks understand, they are likely destroying any chance for leadership roles in

the future?

[lark]

171. They think they are going to take over, they truly believe that.

They are 100% delusional.

[Demsrule86]

184. Yup, that about sums it up.

[PortTack]

52. You nailed it!

She’s pulled other ridiculous unprofessional stunts as well. The one that comes to mind, she and another squad member were standing behind speaker Pelosi giving a press conference while she and another squad member were whispering to each other and giggling like teenagers

[cinematicdiversions]

63. His entire squad seems nothing but show horses.

At this point the Democratic Party may want to cut their losses.

[Me.]

23. Why Do They Never Go After The Cons?

Just the Dems

[bottomofthehill]

26. Winner!

[dpibel]

86. Seriously?

You think these representatives have become such bogeymen to the Republicans because the attack Democrats?

You are aware, are you not, that FOX attacks The Squad with regularity?

Why would that happen if they were doing the right's dirty work?

[Me.]

92. Yes Seriously

The Op is a good example

[dpibel]

93. Not an actual argument

"Here is an example of what I deem an attack on our side. Therefore, they never attack the other side."

Logic does not, actually, work that way.

Just for the record, you are saying that, for example, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez does not attack right wingers? You are saying that with a straight face?

[Me.]

95. It Seems You Would Like An Argument

[dpibel]

102. So droll. Try this.

I was under the impression that exchanges of points of view (i.e., "arguments" ) were pretty much what discussion boards were about. Perhaps I'm wrong there.

Be that as it may:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday for his "deep ignorance" on abortions after the republican defended his state's controversial ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

Perhaps you think of Greg Abbott as a Dem. I think of him as a Con.

Or that other noted Dem:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) criticized Rep. Lauren Boebert on Wednesday after the Colorado Republican posted a photo of her children holding guns in front of a Christmas tree.

I'm just thinking your "Never Go After The Cons" was maybe a little hyperbolic.

You're welcome to hate on Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, and Pressley all you want. I just think you should hate accurately.

[Me.]

108. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda

[LetMyPeopleVote]

135. I am on the email list for this group

They only attack regular or corporate democrats and ignore TFG and the GOP

[Me.]

151. There Are None So Blind....

[Me.]

187. ...

[dpibel]

186. You mean like this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216421278

[50 Shades Of Blue]

17. JFC.

[oldsoftie]

19. Yeah, THIS will win more votes in November! Whose dumbass idea is this?

[JohnSJ]

35. Ronna McDaniel

[yorkster]

28. Has this happened before?

I have a vague memory of a squad response in addition to repub. response, but can't remember specifics...

[bottomofthehill]

38. Yes, last year

Congressman Bowman pulled the same crap.

[yorkster]

47. Thx.

As I recall, there was not much coverage...

[AZSkiffyGeek]

49. I think Bernie did the same thing during the Obama years as well

I may be misremembering though.

[onenote]

53. Bernie gave a separate response to Trump's 2019 SOTU, not to Obama's SOTU

The "official" Democratic response to Trump in 2019 was delivered by Stacy Abrams. But Bernie offered his own separate response. It was a dumb thing to do and what is planned by the Squad is even dumber.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

54. I stand corrected, thanks

But yeah, at least delivering a rebuttal to the opposition rather than your own party...

[justhanginon]

31. And which one do you think will get the press? Of course, it will be the

ones displaying "the party in disarray meme". More TV fodder to be used in upcoming campaigns by the republicans. I no longer have any use for the so called "squad". To me. they have become nothing more than attention seeking, pie in the sky sh*t stirrer uppers that continually damage our party, costing us votes and probably even elections. Even talking to Democratic friends most just do not like what they have become.

[PatSeg]

40. I keep forgiving them

and giving them the benefit of the doubt and then they pull stunts like this. Many of their goals and ideals are commendable, but their politics and tactics are self-defeating. We cannot afford this kind of discord with a 50-50 senate and slim majority in the house. If republicans win the senate and the house, a lot of the progress of the past year could disappear and it could be a long time before we get another chance.

[comradebillyboy]

45. ++++++

[Demsrule86]

172. I wonder if Fox will send her an invite to appear on Fox Morning or whatever.

The rightwing loves this sort of thing.

[dem4decades]

36. Great, give the Republicans more ammo to use against Biden. I'm sick of it.

[dpibel]

87. Read first, then write

Can you explain to me, please, how a speech supporting Biden's agenda (that's what the excerpt says) gives the Republicans more ammo to use against Biden?

That's some pandimensional chess.

[lapucelle]

124. The excerpt does not say that it will be a "speech supporting Biden's agenda".

I imagine that Tlaib will be trying to advance the claim that voting against the President's infrastructure bill was really an instance of "pushing aggressively for 'Biden's' agenda'" or something.

In the speech, given on behalf of the left-wing group Working Families Party, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) is expected to hammer moderate Democrats who have stymied Biden’s social spending and climate change package.

Tlaib will praise Biden’s stimulus bill and make the case that liberals have pushed aggressively for his agenda, according to a summary of her remarks shared exclusively with POLITICO. She is also planning to argue that Republicans and a handful of intransigent Democrats have blocked progress on lowering the cost of housing, health care and prescription drugs.

The speech will put on display the deep rifts within the Democratic Party that have marked Biden’s presidency.

It's hard to make the case that you support President Biden's agenda when you voted on the side of the majority of Republicans and against President Biden. House Democrats and 93 fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

[dpibel]

126. Help me out

I'm just not getting how you're thinking about this.

The part after your first boldface: "who have stymied Biden’s social spending and climate change package." IOW, she is complaining that Biden's agenda is being stymied. This is not criticizing Biden. It is criticizing the people who are torpedoing Biden's agenda.

The part before your second boldface: "Tlaib will praise Biden’s stimulus bill." Again, hard for me to comprehend how that constitutes ragging on Biden.

Your third bold is the writer's opinion and nothing more. It what the writer claims is the inference from Tlaib's remarks (which the writer has not seen--just a summary). I really don't believe you can blame Rashida Tlaib for Holly Otterbein's opinion.

Finally, as everyone knows, the vote you reference in your last paragraph was one that was taken when it was clear that the proposition would pass without the vote of Tlaib or other Squad members. The reason for the vote was clearly articulated, and it was right: Splitting the two parts of Biden's propose infrastructure bill doomed the progressive part of the bill.

Finally, you seem to be of the opinion that that is the sole and only vote that Tlaib has made and thus she is wholly against Biden.

As discussed in this thread, according to 538.com, Tlaib has voted with Biden 92 percent of the time; there have been about 50 votes that 538 used to tabulate its numbers. Which means Tlaib has voted with Biden 48 times and against him twice, one time being the vote discussed above.

To pretend that Tlaib is some sort of wild card who never supports the President is to ignore the facts.

[lapucelle]

128. I'm not sure why you are asking for help with this.

You exhorted someone to "read first" and then claimed that the excerpt said that Tlaib's speech would be a speech "supporting Biden's agenda". The except doesn't say that.



===============================================================================================

According to Politico, the speech will /is expected to
- Hammer moderate Democrats
- Praise the Stimulus Bill
- Make claims about having "pushed aggressively" for Biden's agenda
- Argue that Republicans and a handful of intransigent Democrats have blocked progress

No where does the article say that the speech will be a speech "supporting Biden's agenda".

[dpibel]

130. That's some mighty fine parsin'

It's a little hard for me to see how claiming (as you put it) to have "pushed aggressively" for Biden's agenda constitutes something other than supporting Biden's agenda.

I certainly cannot see how, as the poster who started this subthread claimed, anything in this summary of Tlaib's remarks "gives the Republicans more ammo to use against Biden."

One thing, though. The quoted material (and the balance of the opinion piece at Politico) does not say that the sum total of the speech will be support of Biden's agenda. It just indicates that there will be plenty of support for Biden and his proposals.

So to the extent the portion of my post that you highlighted could be read to claim that the speech will be exclusively a statement of support for Biden's agenda, you've got me dead to rights, and I congratulate you on that.

She will very likely say some words that are not specifically and exclusively in support of Biden's agenda.

[lapucelle]

131. It's a self-serving claim belied by the fact of having voted against signature legislation.

The distinction between a speech claiming to have "pushed aggressively" for an agenda (despite having voted against a major component that agenda) and a speech actively supporting an agenda is obvious.

Asserting that "claiming to have aggressively pushed for agenda" is the same thing as "affirmatively supporting an agenda" is nothing more than equivocation.

[Demsrule86]

173. It reports are true...she will criticize student loan responses by Biden...even though he has

forgiven some loans...these folks seem to think he can wave his magic wand and with an executive order forgive all student loans. Just doing this with a third party is damaging to Democrats...why doesn't she join and run under the People's party or some other third party? It is insulting to Democrats for her to do this period. This is a rebuttal to the President's speech by a third party who is using her as the spokesperson. I find that despicable.

[George II]

42. Generally the opposition party gives a response/rebuttal. This is highly unusual and ill-advised....

"...on behalf of the Working Families Party"? Will she formally tender her resignation from the Democratic Party during the course of the speech?

[comradebillyboy]

46. "Will she formally tender her resignation from the Democratic Party during the course of the speech?

We can only hope.

[George II]

50. A reminder of her voting record w/respect to President Biden's agenda....

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/house/

There are 224 Democrats on the list, here are the last seven, and the party leaning in their Districts.

Only two Democrats have voted w/Democrats less than Tlaiib.

# of 224

218 D+51.5 Jamaal Bowman D 93.90%
219 D+62.6 Ilhan Omar D 92.00%
220 D+72.0 Ayanna Pressley D 92.00%
221 D+47.4 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D 91.70%
222 D+58.8 Rashida Tlaib D 91.70%
223 D+62.2 Cori Bush D 89.60%
224 R+ 7.5 Jared Golden D 82.60%

[FBaggins]

65. Interesting to compare their "votes with the president" statistic to some others

Machin for instance.

[George II]

70. Here are the numbers for the Senators who are less than 100.0% and their overall # among 50 Senators

Sherrod Brown, Manchin, and Tester are the only two in R+ states, although Sinema and Kelly are in a D +0.3 state, Ossoff and Warnock are in a D +0.2 state.

The first 15 are at 100%

16 Richard Blumenthal D +20.1 97.60%
17 Robert P. Casey Jr. D+1.2 97.60%
18 Richard J. Durbin D+17.0 97.60%
19 Margaret Wood Hassan D +7.4 97.60%
20 Mark Kelly D +0.3 97.60%
21 Tim Kaine D +10.1 97.60%
22 Ben R. Luján D+10.8.0 97.60%
23 Jon Ossoff D +0.2 97.60%
24 Alex Padilla D +29.2 97.60%
25 Gary C. Peters D+2.8.0 97.60%
26 Charles E. Schumer D+23.1.0 97.60%
27 Debbie Stabenow D +2.8 97.60%
28 Sherrod Brown R +8 97.50%
29 Martin Heinrich D +10.8 97.50%
30 Kyrsten Sinema D +0.3 97.50%
31 Brian Schatz D +29.5 97.50%
32 Tina Smith D +7.1 97.50%
33 Maria Cantwell D +19.2 97.40%
34 Mazie K. Hirono D+29.5.0 97.30%
35 Cory A. Booker D+15.9.0 95.10%
36 Catherine Cortez Masto D +2.4 95.10%
37 Tammy Duckworth D +17 95.10%
38 Edward J. Markey D+33.5.0 95.10%
39 Jeff Merkley D +16.1 95.10%
40 Joe Manchin R +38.9 95.10%
41 Jacky Rosen D +2.4 95.10%
42 Ron Wyden D +16.1 95.10%
43 Raphael G. Warnock D+0.2.0 95.10%
44 Elizabeth Warren D +33.5 95.10%
45 Kirsten E. Gillibrand D+23.1.0 95.00%
46 Patty Murray D +19.2 95.00%
47 Chris Van Hollen D +33.2 95.00%
48 Tammy Baldwin D +0.6 92.70%
49 Jon Tester R +16.4 92.70%
50 Bernard Sanders D +35.4 92.50%

[Voltaire2]

159. Like Manchins votes against cloture that

doomed voting rights and BBB? Those votes? Votes that actually mattered? Or symbolic protest votes that did not affect any outcomes?

[dpibel]

115. Put another way

There were 50 votes in the House that 538 used to compile this chart.

Tlaib voted "wrong" on two.

Doesn't seem all that wildly renegade to me.

[George II]

116. Not true. If it was based on only 50 votes how could there be percentages of....

93.9 or 91.7 or 89.6 or any other odd percentage?

If only 50 votes were used a member would have voted against the Biden agenda/Democrats on 46.95 votes, 45.85 votes, or 44.8 votes.

If only 50 votes, all percentages would be in increments of 2%, i.e, 100%, 98%, 96%, 94%, etc.

[dpibel]

118. Count for yourself

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/votes/

I cannot argue with your math.

But the linked page is from 538, the "votes" button at the top of the page you linked to, and it lists 50 house votes. Maybe the percentages page includes a vote that didn't make it onto the "votes" page.

The point remains: Tlaib has broken ranks on a trivial few votes. We know what one of them was. It was the much-maligned Squad vote against splitting infrastructure and BBB. Not sure what the other one is.

That's pretty thin gruel for the kind of indictment that's going on in this thread.

[jaxexpat]

56. This has got to be one of the more out-of-touch threads I've read on this site.

Please, moderators, catch this squirrel before it eats up all the birdseed. Unlike tea leaves, Politico is not a tremendously reliable source for understanding the present, much less predicting the future. Especially as it creates misunderstanding and space between Democrats. It would behoove all to trust Politico less and the statements (as yet unspoken re: the SOTU) of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) more.

[dpibel]

88. Amazing, isn't it?

Toss out a bit of chum, and the fish go all crazy.

I'm at a loss to see how so many people have gotten from a speech praising Biden's agenda and critiquing those frustrating it to "she's gonna attack the president!!1!"

And all of this tsuris from, gods help us, Politico, and from a piece that pretends to be news but, if you look at it even casually, is actually an opinion piece hung on one bit of news.

[Gore1FL]

91. I see many of the usual sharks here for the frenzy... nt

[George II]

105. Is it any wonder that Politico got the "scoop", and if one goes further on Twitter she also got....

....an advance copy of the text. At least she says she did.

Advanced copy a week ahead of time? I wonder if she got it from Waleed Shahid.

[George II]

110. It was reported this morning in Business Insider, The Hill, the Washington Post, UPI, and several..

...other media outlets.

While I think Politico is basically an electronic rag, those others are reliable sources.

[questionseverything]

149. The " misunderstanding " is a feature not a bug

[Demsrule86]

174. Well, we shall see what she has to say... I won't watch but will look at a transcript. What do you

think she will say? Rah Rah Biden? I don't know.

[jaxexpat]

180. She has a voice, she may speak. She doesn't seem to be stupid, she may speak eloquently.

I think it's always a sort of fish-out-of-water task for thoughtful people to speak of contemporary issues. We shall see, eh?

[Demsrule86]

182. I think it is wrong.

[jaxexpat]

185. Been thinking about this......

I expect that her speech will be one wherein she says the things Joe can't say at the sotu podium, lest he come off undiplomatic or "partisan".

[Demsrule86]

188. It is third party she speaks for...sorry I do not agree and would never vote for her

in any primary...she isn't running in my state. But should she run for president in a primary, I wouldn't vote for her. I value party loyalty.

[demmiblue]

190. The OP won't be posting any more Politico pieces anytime soon.

[Mz Pip]

57. Just what we don't need

I’m sure the GOP will have no trouble trotting out her “No more policing…” tweet.

And we’ll be playing defense again.

Whoever thought of this is an idiot. I know we’re not supposed to criticize Democrats here but this really deserves some criticism.

[BradAllison]

66. Neither could Krysstynnnnn Cinema

[UT_democrat]

97. Zeb Towne is the country's only elected dog catcher.

In Vermont

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

129. She will probably be elected in my congressional district this fall.

Due to district realignment (de-gerrymandering), Debbie Dingell will no longer be my rep, it'll be Tlaib. It might be her primary opponent, Detroit's current city clerk. Oh, well, at least we're unlikely to vote in a Republican.

I feel like I'm losing representation.

[Tomconroy]

134. Sorry. That has to be tough.

[Rob H.]

68. Remember when Politico wasn't owned by a right-wing German news conglomerate? nt

[brooklynite]

73. Are you claiming the story is false, or do you just not like that it's being reported?

[Rob H.]

76. I'm saying it's pretty shameless to use a right-wing news source

just because they align with your views on The Squad. The 'Democrats in disarray' meme is old conservative propaganda and it's weird that it's being posted here, too.

[brooklynite]

77. What are "my views"?

I post items that are topical and newsworthy.

As for POLITICO, it's generally been rated as centrist or center left, and Admins have no policy prohibiting it.

[Autumn]

81. It's used a lot anytime the Squad says anything that involves the Dem party

[Demsrule86]

175. Party loyalty is a virtue. Primaries are coming.

[betsuni]

154. "Tlaib told POLITICO in a statement" "according to a summary of her remarks shared exclusively with

POLITICO." She gave them a statement and a summary of her remarks, so she has no problem with them as a source.

[dpibel]

89. I'll take the third option

This isn't a story, at least in the sense of a news story (it may be a story in the sense of having a fictional element).

It's an opinion piece based on a news hook.

And I can't speak to your intentions, and wouldn't want to. But the effect of posting this piece has been to inflame a pretty odd little battle.

You couldn't know that a bunch of posters would read an excerpt that says "Tlaib will praise Biden’s stimulus bill and make the case that liberals have pushed aggressively for his agenda, according to a summary of her remarks shared exclusively with POLITICO," and start shouting about attacking the president.

But you might know that an opinion piece that is classic "Dems in disarray" and that is based on a critique of a polarizing individual would create a bit of a kerfuffle posted here.

[doc03]

72. OMG why don't we just give up now. nt

[Joinfortmill]

74. They have a valid argument, but not certain this would be helpful.

[PatSeg]

98. And the SOTU address

is not the time or place for it.

[Beastly Boy]

78. Hammering moderate Democrats... that did wonders in 2016... for Trump.

And just look how much better the country, especially the self-identified progressives, are now!

Can't wait for history repeating itself!

[Demsrule86]

176. Moderate Democrats gave us the house.

[Beastly Boy]

179. I am looking forward to Ms. Tlaib giving due credit to moderate Democrats in her response

to Biden's speech. Not exactly holding my breath, though.

[Demsrule86]

183. I wouldn't if I were you...but some should consider...anybody can face a primary especially in safe

districts...where we would win no matter who was the Democratic candidate.

[George II]

79. I just noticed the byline: quelle surprise!

[Me.]

96. Ah Yes

There she is again.

[George II]

99. Like a bad, tarnished penny.

[Me.]

100. And Yet There Is Money Involved

I assume she gets paid

[mcar]

84. For God's sake, why?

[Autumn]

85. Not everyone in the party is a moderate. I like hearing from Democrats that I agree with.

[BradAllison]

107. Always put "moderate" in quotes.

FDR would be a "radical leftist" on this board now.

[Demsrule86]

177. Seriously? The SOTU is not the right time. It will likely hurt our midterm efforts...hmm kind

of reminds me of the 16 General.

[Autumn]

181. Yeah I'm fucking serious. Don't act like this is the first time that 2 different people

have given a response to the SOTU. It will not hurt our midterms but I'll tell you who will. The ones who will hurt our midterms are a couple of moderates who have been working to tank President Biden's agenda and a few others thay hve been giving cover to. The names Sinema and Manchin ring a bell?

[dpibel]

90. "Don't bash Democratic public figures"

I think I've read that somewhere.

[brooklynite]

125. Point to the "bashing"

[dpibel]

127. "Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) is expected to hammer"

That right there is negative editorializing.

"The speech will put on display the deep rifts within the Democratic Party..."

Also editorializing, also negative. Perhaps you've missed all the caviling on this site about "Dems in disarray" stories.

"many Democrats are looking to put aside those differences... But the left sees an opportunity..."

Also editorializing. Casting "the left," which, in the context clearly means Tlaib, as preventing party unity.

It's pretty clear.

But you knew that. You're a clever guy.

[brooklynite]

142. So criticizing the policy positions of, say, Manchin and Sinema is "bashing"?

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) is expected to hammer moderate Democrats who have stymied Biden’s social spending and climate change package

[dpibel]

144. I believe you know the difference between fact and opinion

But if it works for you to act as if you don't, go for it.

[brooklynite]

146. HAMMER (verb): "attack or criticize forcefully"

I don't start by seeing bias at the outset, so I don't interpret language in that vein. You're welcome to continue doing so.

[questionseverything]

150. Calling her response "opposition " is wrong

When the article clearly states she wants to call out others who have stopped Biden’s agenda

[brooklynite]

152. The word "opposition" doesn't appear in either the headline or the article...

...what DOES appear is:

Tlaib will praise Biden’s stimulus bill and make the case that liberals have pushed aggressively for his agenda, according to a summary of her remarks shared exclusively with POLITICO. She is also planning to argue that Republicans and a handful of intransigent Democrats have blocked progress on lowering the cost of housing, health care and prescription drugs.

FWIW - maybe you should bring her up to speed on how bad POLITICO is, since she apparently provided them with a copy of her remarks.

[questionseverything]

153. Opposition appears in the sentence you added that gives your prospective or opinion

[Demsrule86]

178. She should not call out anyone in a midterm year...it is not helpful.

[betsuni]

106. It will be a commercial for Justice Democrats, the revolution that's supposed to happen after they

replace Democrats in Congress. Can you chip in three grassroots dollars to help fight the Democratic establishment? In solidarity.

"She will end with a call to action to help elect progressives around the country this year. The Working Families Party and other liberal groups, such as Justice Democrats and Our Revolution, are supporting left-wing candidates in open primaries in House and Senate races, as well as those challenging incumbent Democrats."

[UT_democrat]

113. lol

I hate that Justice Democrats are fighting to change our clearly perfect Democratic Party!

[betsuni]

117. lol

A: Corporate Dems beholden to wealthy donors, do nothing for the working class blah blah blah centrist blah neoliberals blah status quo blah establishment.

B: That's not true and doesn't even make any sense.

A: WHY DO YOU THINK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS PERFECT?

[Cha]

138. The Democratic Party is on the Front

Lines Fighting Fascism!

Moderates Won Us Back the House in 2018 In Swing States & Kept It In 2020!

We Need to Win in this Year's Midterms Or Fascism is Back in the Majority in the House.

If anyone is Bashing Dem Public Leaders Fighting For Our Country.. they Are NOT helping.

[live love laugh]

111. What's with the use of RW language ("Squad") to refer to our reps?

Not a good look.

[betsuni]

112. They named themselves The Squad.

[live love laugh]

114. Damn I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

121. Luckily, no one will pay attention to this stunt

No one pay attention to last year's version of this stunt

Link to tweet

[Jose Garcia]

123. Perhaps she should run for reelection as a member of the Squad Party instead of

as a Democrat.

[SouthBayDem]

132. The Tea Party PAC had their own responses

to Obama's SOTU - Michele Bachmann in 2011, Herman Cain 2012, Rand Paul 2013, and Mike Lee in 2014. So there is precedent to what the Working Families Party of doing.

[lapucelle]

140. That was a secondary Republican (opposition) response to a Democratic president's SOTU.

Is the WFP's response an opposition party's response or simply a device for garnering publicity, stepping on the President's message, and underscoring division?

[betsuni]

148. Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution want to be the Tea Party of the left.

Goal is to take over the Democratic Party. They think the Tea Party was a populist anti-establishment grassroots movement (AOC: "Whether we like it or not, that movement was grassroots" ) and envy their success in taking over the Republican Party.

The Working Families Party deputy directer in 2016: "In 2010, we saw the Tea Party yank the entire political discourse way to the right. ... Our view is that there isn't anything analogous to that on the left, and there ought to be."

They also think an alliance between left-wing populism and right-wing populism is possible.

[SouthBayDem]

155. I would NEVER want to ally with people who believe...

that people of a certain religious faith should be banned from the US

that transgender people shouldn't have equal rights as cisgender peope

that the 2020 election was stolen because of some dubious Facebook videos said so

An alliance between left and right populism might have been possible 15, 20 years ago...but with how far right today's conservatism is, no.

[betsuni]

156. Those left-wing populist PACs believe the majority of Americans, including Republicans

and Independents, are secretly democratic socialists and will join the class revolution against the 1%. Ridiculous. White people began leaving the Democratic Party in the sixties, accelerated after Obama was elected and now the Republican Party is the white people's party and that's why they vote, has nothing to do with policy because it's a post-policy party, all culture wars.

[Doremus]

162. 161 replies to this OP. More than any post on the front page of this forum, including Russia/Ukraine

Interesting.

[Nixie]

163. Yes, the brand building threads seem to be like that.

Squad messaging vs realism is necessary, though.

[demmiblue]

189. Well, the OP won't be posting anymore of these, so there's that.

[Demsrule86]

164. I can't believe at this moment...she would do this for a THIRD PARTY... unless she somehow

ends up on a national ticket...she will never get a vote from me in any primary. And this is why we can't have nice things.