Why aren't the "progressives" who are going after Harris, Booker, Patrick, and Pelosi

[lapucelle]

going after Pence and Kasich instead?

If 2016 taught us anything, it's that the media likes to co-opt a troubling narrative about Democrats, spin it into a standard script, and then present it as deep and meaningful analysis over, and over, and over again until it feels like obvious truth.

Why aren't people who are ostensibly on our side writing this script about the truly dangerous Pence and and the faux-populist Kasich?

Cui bono?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/us/politics/2020-campaign-president-trump-cotton-sasse-pence.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/john-kasich-donald-trump-gop-2020

[HeartachesNhangovers]

1. I think it's because people like attention, and

they aren't going to get as much going after trump / pence / kasich, since everybody else is already doing it.

[lapucelle]

3. Everybody else is doing it?

Where is that happening?

[HeartachesNhangovers]

10. You think that "progressives" (whatever the OP

means by that) are spending more time and more virtual ink attacking Ms Harris and other Dems than they are attacking trump, Pence, Kasich and other Republicans?

If so, you must be looking at a much different version of DU and of the media than I am. I'll stick to my point that if you are a "progressive" and want to get attention, you're going to get a lot more by questioning the bona-fides of Dems than you are in joining the chorus of trump/pence/etc-haters.

[lapucelle]

21. No need for anyone to get testy about it.

So I guess your answer to the question posed is "people seeking attention" are those who benefit.

Good to know.

[Skidmore]

2. I don't consider these people

to be progressives, only purposely destructive of the left. Not distinguishable from the RW trolls, especially when they use the RW arguments to target groups and leaders on the left.

[lapucelle]

24. Hence the quotation marks. For some, it's a label of cultural cool.

Here's the only photo on the "about me" page of one of the "attention seekers" who recently sparked a debate concerning the liberal bona fides of Senator Kamala Harris based on a BLM principle.

Is it purposeful destruction of the left, hipster irony, or abject entitlement?

[Nitram]

28. You are right on the money, Lapucelle.

There has always been a "more progressive than thou" (or more hip than thou) element to the Democratic Party. During the Vietnam War it was those who flirted with the notion of armed revolution and "guerrilla chic." Now it is those who have no patience for realism or political reality - and don't really care if we win elections was long as we are pure liberals, whatever that is.

[lunasun]

30. Ha perfect picture for someone attacking Harris, Booker and Patrick doncha think????

Pro bros know their place man! Why can't others?

[calimary]

29. They ARE RW trolls. And Russian bots and other assorted nogoodniks, more likely than not.

[beachbum bob]

4. same dark energy used to give trump the whitehouse.....

[LonePirate]

5. Other than party, what's the main identifying difference between them?

Quite the mystery we have here.

[GaryCnf]

11. Do you know what is also a mystery?

Why the folks spreading this bogus meme are ignoring the fact that the same people who criticize Senator Harris, Senator Booker, and former Governor Patrick for their centrist positions are also criticizing white males who espouse centrist positions?

Oh, that's right, the meme isn't that leftists disagree with centrists and we should be having a discussion about whether we should be moving toward the center or the left. It's that the left (which has stood firmly behind choice in particular and gender equality in general for a century, whose black members - do I need to list them for you - were at the heart of the civil rights movement , and some of whose white members literally gave their lives in the backwoods of Mississippi) is controlled by misogynists and racists and we should be booting them from the Party.

[pnwmom]

23. It's false to say that Harris, Booker, and Patrick are centrists.

Based on their voting records, both Senators Harris and Booker score higher on progressive issues than Bernie Sanders, for instance. Yet no one is accusing him of being centrist.


http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[GaryCnf]

25. It, however, is not false in the least

To say that Senator Harris and Senator Booker have taken centrist stands on issues which are important to many Democrats.

By contrast it is a vile falsehood to suggest that white male politicians in the national spotlight have not also been criticized for taking centrist stands on such issues and, by implication, that criticism of Senator Booker or Senator Harris for taking those positions is gender or race based.

[pnwmom]

31. "a vile falsehood"

yeah, right

[lapucelle]

32. Some have been known to spread the vile falsehood

that some issues are not mere distractions from the really important stuff.

[GaryCnf]

39. Maybe you should explain

What is the real important stuff and what are distractions. Because if you think that the questions surrounding Senator Harris and criminal justice issues are just distractions, I can assure you they are not in my community.

[lapucelle]

43. As my grandma used to say, "That dog won't hunt, dear."

"Concerns" about the troubling Senator Harris have been addressed in other threads, and the word "distraction" is a reference to the dismissive marginalization of a very different issue. (Even if it were relevant, I have a policy against entertaining the "explain please" prompt.)

But your remark about "the questions surrounding Senator Harris and criminal justice issues" being a topic of discussion in your community piqued my interest, so I searched and searched. (It's not that I don't trust your assurances. It's just that I was wondering where that community might be.)

Here's what I found:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/kamala-harris-went-to-prison-so-others-wont-have-to/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/kamala-harris-went-to-prison-so-others-wont-have-to/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-sen-kamala-harris-optimistic-1500400758-htmlstory.html#nt=outfit

http://www.theroot.com/kamala-harris-takes-on-bail-reform-in-her-1st-bill-as-s-1797091490

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/342506-kamala-harris-slams-sessions-on-criminal-justice

http://www.essence.com/culture/kamala-harris-women-incarceration-rates-criminal-justice-reform

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article74792387.html

[GaryCnf]

48. Did you try here?

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Why-does-Kamala-Harris-defend-the-death-penalty-6481227.php

Or maybe from your last article

In addition to staying out of debate over the lethal-force bill supported by Reynoso, Harris did not take a position on landmark racial- and identity-profiling legislation, steered clear of a bill limiting law enforcement’s ability to confiscate property from people not convicted of crimes, and did not support statewide standards regulating body-worn cameras by police officers, siding with law enforcement in contending there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to the issue.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article74792387.html#storylink=cpy

That's okay though, you tried and, just to let you know, I sincerely appreciate it it when someone does an internet search and then comes to ****esplain to me what I, my children, my parents when they were alive, my grandparents when they were alive and every person who lived in my neighborhood growing up care about.

Oh, while your at it, here's my opinion on Senator Harris from 3 days ago. Sorry if it doesn't fit your straw man.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9411446

[lapucelle]

50. There's an awful lot of spin and dissembling going on there.

Senator Harris "stayed out of debates", advocated that all police wear body cameras, but that regulations regarding them be set at a local level, is personally against and never sought the death penalty in any case she prosecuted, and advocated for a bill that would allow authorities to file a petition to freeze suspected criminal profits in excess of $100,000 in order to avoid potential despoliation if four other specific conditions were strictly met.

She sounds just like Jeff Sessions!

[GaryCnf]

52. Not my article

But we're probably beating a dead horse here so I am willing to drop this. If you followed my last link you know that I am not one of the anyone but Harris people and like her outside of that one single area and going back and forth on a candidate we both like seems counterproductive. You take care.

[lapucelle]

55. I wasn't talking about the article.

[GaryCnf]

37. No it's exactly right

And here's why

There is no doubt that Senator Harris, like Secretary Clinton and every other woman in a position of political prominence - and to be honest even not in such a position - is the victim of misogyny and that it is more pronounced the more prominent they become. Likewise, there is no doubt that every person of color in the same situations is the victim of racism. To deny either is to deny the reality of the American experience.

But that's not what you suggest. You suggest that the left is exhibiting a particular form of both when they criticized Senator Harris, that the left is somehow especially misogynistic and racist. That is bull.

[pnwmom]

38. Where did I suggest that? Which post?

[GaryCnf]

40. Great news

So Senator Harris's supporters are not suggesting that the left is criticizing her solely because she is a person of color and female? I stand corrected.

[pnwmom]

41. Look back at my posts and tell me which one you are referring to. You can't because there isn't one.

You said I had said a "vile falsehood" after I posted this:

It's false to say that Harris, Booker, and Patrick are centrists.

Based on their voting records, both Senators Harris and Booker score higher on progressive issues than Bernie Sanders, for instance. Yet no one is accusing him of being centrist.

Your response was over-the-top and made no sense.

[lapucelle]

44. Actually, most are asking what entitles this guy to claim that he speaks for the left?

(NB "This guy" refers to the grinning hipster in the front of the canoe, rather than the other guy in the picture.)

[GaryCnf]

47. Now that's funny

But a bit of a distraction from the ****esplaining I'm getting here.

[lapucelle]

49. Standard first response from the "Explain, Please Poster's Handbook".

How very predictable.

"Oh noes! She's distracting from my demand that she explain what distraction means! She's distracting on a meta level!"

[LakeArenal]

6. Just cuz someone says they are progressives.. doesn't mean they are.

That's where our critical thinking should tell us fakes are at work.

Reminds me of Steve Miller's fake outrage the other day... "How dare you, why, I am so appalled"
Yeah, right.

It's so way too early to call anyone for candidacy anyway.

[pnwmom]

34. No, it's important to examine their actual voting records.

This site compares Senate voting records and shows that Harris, Booker, and Pelosi are all strong progressives.

www.progressivepunch.com

[H2O Man]

7. I would speculate that

it is because the first group are in our party, and hence represent a choice of what type of party leadership Democrats want in the future. We are approaching 2018, which will lead to 2020.

The second two are republicans. I question if there is actually any lack of "progressive" dislike or negative comments about them. I'm confident, for example, that not a single "progressive" has anything but negative feelings for Pence. Hence, he will be more of an issue after the primary season.

[lapucelle]

13. That's not how it worked in 2016.

It set up the "lesser of two evils" canard for Stein and gave "uninspired" young voters implicit permission to stay home. Why are WE compiling a hit list of our own rising stars?

[H2O Man]

15. I'm not.

And I haven't seen you doing so, either.

However, it's not necessarily bad if people express their opinions in a pre-primary season. Or a primary season. The rising stars are human beings, after all, with many good points, but still some imperfections. A rational debate about this can be a good thing -- in fact, it might help get more people to the polls. And that, of course, requires leadership.

[lapucelle]

27. Good point. Let me pull out my quotation marks again..."WE".

The problem is that the media locks into superficial and facile narratives that work against us if we don't push back.

[H2O Man]

36. I agree.

I think that the media does exactly that. I also have concerns that too many people are basing their stances on emotion, which is easily manipulated. And the media plays a role in that .....as does various internet discussion sites. We need more rational discussions.

[Progressive dog]

8. Succesful Democrats are an obstacle to their

takeover of the Democratic party.

[nycbos]

9. Because that would actually require some effort.

It would require thought and strategy.

It is much easier to whine about the "establishment" and scream about how you are being repressed.

[BainsBane]

14. Because they are too busy praising Rand Paul

For the same bill he co-cponsored with the evil Kamala Harris.

[George II]

16. Pence and Kasich are white men.

[AgadorSparticus]

17. I am tired of these so called democrats carrying water for republicans

It is as old and tiring as Kellyanne's schtick.

[David__77]

18. Why aren't the Democrats going after Tulsi Gabbard going after Republicans?

I think that question, too, is valid.

[lapucelle]

35. I'm not hearing a whole lot of chatter about Tulsi Gabbard here

or anywhere else, for that matter.

[CousinIT]

19. Good question. I'm getting mighty sick of these people. n/t

[WinstonSmith4740]

20. Because they're "Progessive" in name only.

Look, I know all the "herding crickets' analogies when it comes to getting Democrats on the same page. We do this to ourselves, partly because the Democratic Party knows we know how to think for ourselves, and celebrates that ability. "Purity" was never a demand. And while it is over on the other side of the aisle, they have proven time and time again how hypocritical they are. The same people that worked themselves into a frenzy over Clinton's affair lined up to vote for a philandering, lying, twice divorced-three times married, serial sexual assaulter, who boasted he could kill someone and not lose support. That's what? At least 3 of the Big 10. After last year, we know these things are being planted by the opposition. Why do we keep rising to the bait? No candidate will be perfect. They will have taken money from people we don't like, and vote in ways we don't like. The only person we will agree with 100% of the time is our own selves.

If we intend to save our Democracy, we better get our act together.

[hrmjustin]

22. Because they enjoy destroying Democrats more than Republicans.

[NurseJackie]

26. I know why. Only, it's probably best if I don't say... for obvious reasons.

[lapucelle]

33. While some people carry a pocket edition of the Constitution,

others carry a pocket edition of the Terms of Service.

[guillaumeb]

42. No amount of progressive outrage is going to convince GOP voters.

And up to this point at least, GOP voters do not seem at all concerned with what has been revealed and/or hinted at regarding Trump.

But if you are asking why progressives are not attacking Pence and Ryan and McConnell and others my response would be that many progressives have painted the GOP as a party of racists and puppets for the far right billionaires. And the GOP electorate has responded with a yawn.

[lapucelle]

45. "No amount of progressive outrage is going to convince GOP voters"; however

why is "our side" already teeing up the "flawed candidate / establishment politician / troubling conerns / lesser of two evils" narrative for a media that's quite happy to recycle story lines?

Krugman cautioned us about this very thing last time around, and we let it happen anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

[guillaumeb]

46. In my view, the modern GOP is a very parliamentary type party.

But there are small cracks in the shell.

If we say that the Democratic Party is a big tent party, we must all understand that implicit in that concept is that we are not all in lockstep on every issue. Witness the various arguments about freedom of women to make health care decisions. And the arguments about gun control, and many other issues, including racial and economic issues, that also divide us.

I have no answer to this, but the fact that the debate continues shows it is an important one to have.

Do you agree?

[lapucelle]

51. I agree that we should remain a big tent party,

but I also think that there are core values that define what our party stands for.

Funny how the two issues that always come up as bargaining chips are "the freedom of women to make health care decisions" (!) and gun control. I wonder why that is.

[guillaumeb]

53. My view, one that I have read here is that the abortion issue can be mainly seen as men wishing to

control womens' bodies.

The fascination and fixation with guns is one I do not understand.

[Gman]

54. They're like the affluenza kid

They don't care about the consequences.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Since Booker, Harris and Pelosi all support ending federal cannabis prohibition, maybe their critics

are secretly working for the Pharma or Private Prison Lobbies?