AOC and Ilhan Omar want to block Biden's former chief of staff

[brooklynite]

Source: Axios

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are boosting a petition against Joe Biden nominating his former chief of staff to a new role in his administration, calling Bruce Reed a "deficit hawk” and criticizing his past support for Social Security and Medicare cuts.

Why it matters: Progressives are mounting their pressure campaign after the president-elect did not include any of their favored candidates in his first slate of Cabinet nominees, and they are serious about installing some of their allies, blocking anyone who doesn't pass their smell test — and making noise if they are not heard.

Driving the news: Some progressives have privately said the order of Biden's announcements was important to send an early signal the incoming administration took them seriously. So far, they’re suspicious of some of the people being named or rumored for jobs — but happy with John Kerry, Janet Yellen, Alejandro Mayorkas and Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Omar (D-Minn.) and fellow Squad member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are the first sitting members of Congress to sign the petition, which objects to Reed potentially serving as head of the Office of Management and Budget. It was launched by Justice Democrats.

Read more: https://www.axios.com/aoc-ilhan-omar-block-biden-former-chief-of-staff-8e0101c5-0094-415f-af80-5583a8ff8e6f.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Fuck that.

[Op-ed Daily]

324. If We Don't Move Further Left

We'll end up with Trump 2.0 in 2024.

Just because Trump lost doesn't mean they aren't still drinking that Kool-aid.

Establishment Dems aren't going to do very well anymore, nor should they, in my opinion. The country is tired of kicking the can down the road and Trump is a prime example of what happens when the establishment doesn't listen to the will of the country.

[myohmy2]

332. +1

...

[treestar]

337. Based on what?

[FarPoint]

2. Our progressive wing is becoming irrelevant.

They need to learn how to find balance...

[trueblue2007]

35. I agree with you.

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2020, 07:48 PM - Edit history (1)

[AmericanCanuck]

56. They are trying to project far far more power than they actually have.

None of them could ever win a statewide office - especially with the label of socialist.

[George II]

71. Even without that label they'd have a difficult time winning a statewide office or....

....a less than true-blue district.

[Gothmog]

172. I have trouble understanding why anyone would care what they want?

I doubt that Joe will care

[betsuni]

182. Somehow they're still under the impression that the majority of Americans

are just waiting for more left-wing candidates to come along and THEN they'll vote. The imaginary base.

[Gothmog]

258. That assumption is false

[onetexan]

267. +1 -K&R

[peoli]

191. Without progressives you'd have Trump's second term right now

[denvine]

198. Absolutely!

[zebrapa]

215. 973

And without the 97% of Democrats the justice democrats don't represent, trump would have won in a massive landslide.

[peoli]

220. Progressives make the democratic party stronger, not weaker

Can't wait till the '97%' is it?... figure that out

[brush]

250. We lost several House seats because repugs ran negative ads calling Dems radical socialists...

who want to defund the police. Many even mentioned AOC and Sanders' name so give us a break.

[peoli]

256. No. We lost those house seats because the candidates were not strong enough

to overcome some name calling. When this party figures out how to respond to being called a socialist, then the Republicans have nothing.

[brush]

259. Don't be naive. Candidates in deep blue districts can survive that but the one in red or purple...

can survive being associated with nationally prominent Democrats who call themselves democratic socialists. If you don't know by now that the word "socialism" is and has been toxic to millions of voters for decades.

[RealityChik]

330. I agree! Not a single progressive lost a seat...

Only milktoast, Blue dogs, centrists lost their seats!!!! If they had polished their response to the "socialist" ID, and didn't let the repubs frame "defund the police" as "dems want to take away your police", they all could have won. When your message is mud, expect to get slung!

Corporate dems have no message that defines them. Progressives are willing to and have shown that it's possible to get corporate money out of politics. The DNC just wanna raise money, keep power and not have to actually make change happen!

My opinion only, of course. I'm for making MY [boomer] generation get out of the way and let the next generation step up to the plate and lead. They are at the point where they can do it much better than we can. The old Dem guard needs to let go for the good of the country. Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein et al...RETIRE ALREADY!!!!!

[OnDoutside]

334. Do you know what progressives from the AOC wing won in R+ districts ? I'd be interested to know.

[betsuni]

335. LOL Bingo.

It's "milquetoast" not "milktoast."
Centrists.
Corporate dems.
Dems have no message.
Corporate money out of politics (status quo).
DNC bad corrupt will do anything to stop progress.
Next generation, experience bad.
Democratic old guard is the real roadblock to progress.
Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, etc. bad.
"Obama got us Trump because he didn't act to punish the banksters. ... Obama did nothing. That's what drove the middle class to Trump. ... Obama had the power to be like FDR. Technically, Obama was Bush III,. Or Bush Lite."



You didn't say "establishment" or "elitist" or "neoliberal" tho.

[Sloumeau]

219. I think it is funny when people say stuff like, "Without us you wouldn't have won".

Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2020, 10:41 AM - Edit history (2)

Yes, it is completely true, without the Progressive vote, we would not have won. You know what else is true?

Without the Moderates who voted for Biden, we wouldn't have won.
Without the women who voted for Biden, we wouldn't have won.
Without the men who voted for Biden, we wouldn't have won.
Without the Black Americans who voted for Biden, we wouldn't have won.
Without the White Americans who voted for Biden, we wouldn't have won.

Without the urban vote, we wouldn't have won.
Without the suburban vote, we wouldn't have won.
Without the exurban vote, we wouldn't have won.
Without the young vote, we wouldn't have won.
Without the middle age vote, we wouldn't have won.
Without the senior vote, we wouldn't have won.

Everyone contributed. Every person's vote is equal. You remove any one of those groups and we lose. Progressives are not more special than any of the other groups listed.

In the past, every Democratic President picked who he wanted on his team, and every Democratic President from FDR on has moved the ball forward. Progressives are no less and no more important than any of the other groups that I listed there. Yet, there is one thing to keep in mind.

IF AOC had her way, we would have nominated Bernie Sanders, and Bernie Sanders would have lost. How do I know this? I know this because the only places Socialists or Democratic Socialists have ever won in the history of the United States have been in Super Blue places like Vermont and the Bronx. So, I am not overly worried if a Democratic Socialist like AOC doesn't get her picks. Whether or not we win in Georgia has about 1000 times more impact on what Joe Biden gets done than how Progressive his picks are anyway. The thing that best determines how Progressive the U.S. gets is how often we win elections.

I'd take a 240 seat majority of Seth Molson's in Congress over a 200 seat minority of AOC's in Congress any day of the year, and I am not a fan of Seth Molson. He's too Conservative for me. AOC is way better than him. However, if you are in the minority, how Progressive you are doesn't matter much at all. You get to be all Progressive and sit back and watch the Republicans ignore you while they ruin the country.

By the way, most of the "Socialistic" legislation in this country was passed with Congresses that had a whole lot of Moderate Democrats and very few Progressives like AOC or Bernie...we just happened to have a whole lot Moderate Democrats at the time.

[Sapient Donkey]

234. Are there any specific examples of what you consider to be unacceptable derogatory remarks?

[Sloumeau]

237. If you believe that people have posted derogatory remarks about Democrats,

please feel free to point out exactly what you think they are.

[peoli]

257. When necessary, I flag their posts with an alert which is then sent to a jury

[AmericanCanuck]

277. Posts that criticize and instill reality

are not derogatory remarks.

Perhaps fans of said persons should take them off the pedestal and look at reality. What have those people actually accomplished in their jobs?

Tweeting positions that fans want to hear, most of the time trying to "own" a majority of the Democrats is not an accomplishment.

[Chakaconcarne]

285. They've helped rally a huge number of young votes

that's worth something, I would think...

You have to show your voters you represent them to keep them engaged and voting....and tweeting does that for the young vote. If they have constituents calling them and say/they do nothing... what do you think happens to those constituents? They are what help keep the democratic party as a wide umbrella and they are very necessary for winning elections.

...and yeah, the remarks are kind of derogatory....

Attacking AOC and Omar is not helpful at all.... and when I say "attack", I mean anything that places doubt on their value or contribution to the party... It's a seed (which is all it takes) and totally unnecessary and premature especially since we just nailed our win a few days ago...

[AmericanCanuck]

289. There is absolutely no evidence that they have made younger voters vote Democratic.

Please show me a poll, a survey or any scientific study which states that younger voters were motivated only because of AOC/Omar et al.

Barring such evidence, it shall remain a myth prevalent in the supporters of said politicians.

Incendiary tweets attacking the president elect's choices and mainstream Democrats are not inspirational to anyone.

[machoneman]

312. Sorry, their contribution to the party lost seats. Because R-Scums used them as cannon fodder....

..by labeling them, and by an easy extension, all Democrats as Socialist or worse, Communists.

It's a fact McCarthy has crowed about.

[PatSeg]

232. Well said

We are a diverse party and it took ALL of us to win, not SOME of us. We can differ, but we also need to work together whenever we can. We still have two important senate races in Georgia, so it might be a good idea for some to keep a lower profile until then.

[AmericanCanuck]

279. +1000

[treestar]

339. Yes, it's the only group that makes demands

and threatens to withdraw support.

What's wrong with a "deficit hawk?" He would not have the final decision and it is not bad to consider those problems.

[sheshe2]

222. Sorry, No. Lol!

The Black vote won this election. The black vote. Not progressives, it was the BLACK VOTE> BLACK WOMEN!!!

Even as votes are still tallied, there’s little dispute that Black voters were a driving national force pushing the former vice president to the winner’s column. By overwhelmingly backing Biden and showing up in strong numbers, Black voters not only helped deliver familiar battleground states to the Democrat, but they also created a new one in the longtime GOP bastion of Georgia — potentially remaking presidential politics for years to come.

Activists pointed to the results as a repudiation of the racist rhetoric of President Donald Trump and an endorsement of Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris, the first Black woman on a major party presidential ticket, as his running mate. But they also credited their years of work organizing voters and signaled they intended to seek a return on their investment.

“We saw this early — we believed in us,” said Maurice Mitchell, a Movement for Black Lives strategist and national director of the Working Families Party — a progressive multiracial grassroots effort. “We believed in the power of Black voters and Black organizers in our movement.”

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-virus-outbreak-georgia-7a843bbce00713cfde6c3fdbc2e31eb7

It was the BLACK VOTE!!

[peoli]

225. Sorry, no! Lol! I don't hear anyone complaining about progressives not voting for Biden

Or voting for a third party candidate like they did when it was Hillary Clinton! Clearly they showed up huge and delivered!

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

276. Yes, 2020 would have been a repeat of 2016, or close to it.

Deliberately alienating your allies is never wise, in politics, or in any other area of life. In politics, it is a prime ingredient in the recipe for loss and disaster.

Howie Hawkins got over 1,000,000 fewer votes than Jill Stein got in 2016. Just a little more than 81,000 votes in four states would have flipped the election to Trump. And then there's Libertarian Jo Jorgensen, who helped tip the election to Biden:

In this historic 2020 presidential election, there is a strong case for former Vice President Joe Biden to attribute his victory to Jo Jorgensen, a professor of psychology at Clemson University and the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party. Her vote total substantially exceeded Biden and President Trump's margin in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/525321-does-joe-biden-owe-his-win-to-jo-jorgensen

Numbers don't lie. I suggest those Democrats railing against the left save their hatred for the GOP, rather than their clearly much needed progressive Democrat allies.

Unity of the left. We need to keep the entire flock together, and add to their numbers, and be sure to reasonably accommodate the needs of every lamb in the flock.

If we do not do this, we risk massive losses in 2022, and Trump, or another fascist just like him, being elected POTUS in 2024.

[treestar]

338. So why do they demand things

Without moderates, you'd have Trump's second term now.

[machoneman]

311. Also, what did they do to help us win if not retain House seats? What they did do...

..was give the R-Scums a platform to get reluctant voters to vote for Senate/House Republiscums. That platform was calling out their too-far-for-most-voters ideas as being Socialist, even Communist.

In the end, the AOC crowd hurt our side, no doubt about it. Now they want their share of the seats at the table? I say no way.

[RealityChik]

331. I respectfully disagree...

The progressive candidates won EVERY SINGLE ONE of their seats. ALL the losses were centrist dems. To me, that says it all! With a record like that, progressives must be doing SOMETHING right.

[treestar]

340. But those had flipped R seats in 2018

The progressives come from very blue districts. One of them would just have lost bigger in the districts that flip.

[madaboutharry]

3. Maybe they should have asked for a meeting

in which they could have expressed their concerns to President-Elect Biden.

Oh, but wait...that would have robbed them of all the attention they get from grandstanding.

This kind of bullshit is a real turn off.

[Drum]

4. 👆

[Escurumbele]

34. Why is it bullshit? Some of the best times this country has ever had was when progressive

ideas were implemented.

Why would you agree with cuts to Social Security & Medicare. How many people would be affected?

Theodore Roosevelt by many accounts, Democrats and Republicans may have been the best president this country has ever had, in competition with FDR, of course, and both presidents were progressives.

How do you know they did not ask for a meeting to present their concerns and never heard back? Is there any proof they did not try that first?

[tirebiter]

91. Some Americans may get hundreds of dollars more in Social Security benefits under Biden's proposal

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/some-americans-may-get-hundreds-of-dollars-more-in-social-security-benefits-under-bidens-proposed-change-11605888741?siteid=yhoof2

President-elect Joe Biden has plans to expand Social Security — and in some cases, the benefit retirees receive.

In the campaign proposal of what he’d do for older Americans as president, Biden said he would improve Social Security, take the program off the path of insolvency, provide a higher benefit for the oldest beneficiaries and eliminate penalties for teachers and public-sector workers who may face eligibility issues.

Biden also said he would implement a minimum benefit for Americans who worked for 30 years — at least 125% of the poverty level. “No one who has worked for decades and paid into Social Security should have to spend their retirement in poverty,” his campaign site said.

Whether this proposal would be passed, or how soon, is yet to be seen. Biden may have a hard time with passing legislation if the Republicans keep control of the Senate. Still, there’s a chance both Democrats and Republicans will agree on this particular provision, said Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “I would think there’s at least a possibility,” he said...
Keep up with the program kids

[betsuni]

102. Thank you. Keep up with the program, indeed.

[PatSeg]

236. Yes

If Joe has his way, he will be the most progressive president of my lifetime. He just goes about it differently than some.

[electric_blue68]

316. Specifically on Soc Sec...

the cap on Soc Sec taxes needs to be raised in two steps which would immediately inject more money as well.
Course we have to get those Georgia seats.

[LeftInTX]

118. It's BS because it is irrelevant

They are just making noise.

It would be relevant if progressive ideas could be implemented. How can that happen with Miitch McConnell running the country and the majority of states with red governments? We barely held on to the House...Guess who is going to be doing redistricting in 2021??

[Demsrule86]

301. Biden won't cut social security...and house members have no say in who is chosen for

the cabinet...The Senate does...and I hope we get the two senate seats in Georgia. I would prefer that some consider Georgia before criticizing Biden for no - IMHO -reason.

[BainsBane]

61. Exactly

The point is never to exert influence because that isn’t accomplished through Tweets or press releases.

[iluvtennis]

85. + 1. As my grandma used to say "a family doesn't air their dirty laundry". Work it out in private.

[NurseJackie]

123. It would be the sensible, reasonable, rational and mature thing to do.

[mysteryowl]

308. My opinion is to disagree with you.

[NurseJackie]

309. Okay.

[Rebl2]

183. Absolutely!

[PatSeg]

239. Especially when we have two senate races coming up

in Georgia. We don't need all this kind of noise right now. Republicans will continue to use it against us and our candidates. They need to tone it down and as you say, work it out in private.

[iluvtennis]

293. + agree - two senate seats on the line. the rethugs will weaponize our division against us. nt

[redstatebluegirl]

112. So true!

[Chemisse]

115. My sentiments exactly. n/t

[PatSeg]

235. Ah yes, that would be a dignified way to go

Maybe behaving like congressional representatives instead of media stars would be helpful. A little more respect for the office they hold might be nice.

[yardwork]

321. I agree. What is this petition?

Are they interested in governing or in getting their names in the media?

[Yonnie3]

5. They can vote against their confirmation n/t

[sweetloukillbot]

13. Do they even have a say in confirmation? Isn't that the Senate? nt

[Yonnie3]

21. They would have to be elected to the Senate first.

A goal perhaps?

[NurseJackie]

94. Outside of very safe and very blue districts...it's unlikely that they could win a statewide election.

[Yonnie3]

97. Indeed

They would need a different tack to achieve victory in a statewide race.

Sort of my implied point.

[llashram]

108. this

[DanieRains]

126. No This This - Their Progressive Message Is Up Against 1.15 Billion A Year In Think Tank Spending

Think tanks trying to discount anyone who wants to help anyone that is not crazy rich. Their 6,000 employees are trying to get people to think The Green New Deal, and HEALTHCARE FOR ALL are too expensive when people are dying like flies.

You want to win elections?

Engage younger PROGRESSIVE Americans who don't buy the right wing bs and are looking at a burning planet, 50 trillion in debt, and no jobs because computers and robots took them all.

Same Old Washington = Planetary Death

Joe has a big job to do, and he needs everyone engaged. Not just the normal good old boys Trump's idiots thought they were voting against.

If billionaires don't start paying taxes we are all screwed.

Take that to the bank.

[llashram]

138. I don't agree. Period

President-elect Biden and vice-President Harris have this. The 'squads' input can be applied after things settle down, but very sparingly. America is not ever going to accept anything with socialist ideology associated with the noise. What the hell was the goddamn repthugs harping on this whole election season? One of the big ones, socialism. And if the 'squad' starts voting with republicans because they can't have their way then we will know where they stand.

[sheshe2]

148. + 1000.

[Demsrule86]

302. Try looking at the states we need to win in... what you suggest won't work. We need a 50

state strategy and a big tent.

[treestar]

341. So do that at state level

And see if they manage to win. If they don't, then that will constitute evidence or proof that it is not true that hearing progressives will turn all the voters further to the left.

[Rebl2]

192. Yes only

Senate votes on confirmation. They need to pipe down and privately speak with Biden about concerns.

[mcar]

27. No, they can't

Making this even more foolery.

[Yonnie3]

37. Indeed

I do think their ideas are important and worthy of consideration.

[AmericanCanuck]

59. No. People much higher in the food chain are in charge

and those people know what they are doing.

[Yonnie3]

63. Did I say otherwise? n/t

[NurseJackie]

114. Well yes... actually you kinda did.

Did I say otherwise? n/t

Well yes... actually you kinda did. As you indicated in another post, you like to make "implied points," right? And the implication of the quote (just below) is very clear.

I do think their ideas are important and worthy of consideration.

The thing is that the folks in the Senate are higher up the food-chain and can make up their own minds on weighty matters such as this without having to use superficial litmus tests or other unnecessarily divisive purity tests.

If she/they truly wanted their ideas to be "considered" then they'd reach out to Biden or his team privately and directly rather than using the press and Twitter to air their "concerns" or grievances. This is the Biden administration, not the Sanders administration. The people have spoken (twice already) and there was nothing ambiguous about it.

[DanieRains]

140. And If Progressives Don't Think Their Voices Are Being Heard We Will Lose 40 Seats In 2022

We need The Squad keeping the ship moving forward.

[sheshe2]

154. No.

What we need is Democrats to keep the ship moving forward. All Democrats. What is with the title "Progressive Democrat"? We are all Democrats and I am sick to death that some think a title gives them the greater voice.

We can't be put in a box. We are diverse. Stop marginalizing this party.

[peoli]

194. We are farther left. We have a voice. We use it.

Who's marginalizing this party? The minority progressives are marginalizing the majority?

[sheshe2]

214. Progressive. That is the Democratic party.

You seem angry. Please explain how you are farther left than the Democratic party which you are part of. You want to split us when the Democratic party has always been progressive.

Please explain your exact concerns and how you will embrace those that are not your so called progressives.

[peoli]

221. What about Moderates? Is that the Democratic Party?

You seem upset. Please explain how Moderates are also Progressives?

[Demsrule86]

305. Work to make your ideas acceptable to the areas we must win in to hold the Senate or

the House. The Green New deal as written won't get through the house nor will MFA.

[AmericanCanuck]

178. The squad is not helping the Democrats

in many places the squad is causing serious damage to the Democratic candidates' prospects.

The squad is only looking out for itself and its remaining in the limelight with tweets and press releases to friendly "journalists" instead of actually trying to network and build a consensus which has been the tradition of the Democratic party.

Twitter followers and a fan club never translates into policy or election wins. Only hard work, fierce negotiations and compromises move the agenda forward.

"Do it my way or else" is politically not very mature.

[Historic NY]

213. Every day they give the other side ammo

they'd best confine themselves to their own bailiwick

[AmericanCanuck]

216. +1000

[Demsrule86]

303. Perhaps after they add newly elected members from red or purple states?

[treestar]

342. They are heard all right

that does not mean everyone has to immediately start doing exactly what they want.

[treestar]

343. What they will make us lose if they don't think they are heard?

They are the only ones that threaten this.

Get in the boat and help pull! That's how a political party works. It does not do for people to threaten to get out and let the boat sink.
These people have no idea how to compromise; they are rigidly insisting they are the only ones who are right so often, and that no other part of the party matters. They are no more important than anyone else.

[Yonnie3]

144. I do think their ideas are important and worthy of consideration.

What you think I kinda implied is not correct, nor my intent.

I disagree with the way they are presenting these ideas. I also think that many of their ideas lack a dose of reality and are presented in the wrong forum.

I thought my comment saying that they need a goal of a Senate seat was rather clear in that they lack standing to make such statements. They've got to do the work and win that election to make such.

[AmericanCanuck]

180. They can have a meeting with Joe Biden's transition team instead of going to the media.

Unless the goal is only to win the news cycle and not really advance anything.

If one needs a driver's license, one doesn't tweet "I am a wonderful driver and I better get a driver's license." The correct path is to walk in the DMV, fill out an application, take a test and get a license.

[Yonnie3]

185. I agree.

Winning the news cycle is a short term thing that accomplishes nothing. It may even backfire.

Perhaps I'm foolish, but I've not given up hoping they will figure it out. If they truly want to achieve anything they need to change their methods.

[AmericanCanuck]

199. I hope they don't get addicted to being in the headlines

because it ultimately means nothing.

They need to keep their eye on the ball, form an agenda, network, get cosponsors, introduce legislation and shepherd it through congress.

The media attention is giving them an incorrect message - so while they have their fans cheering them on and bouncing with joy, they are being increasingly seen as non-team players and extremists -- which bodes ill for any ambitions beyond their safe districts.

[George II]

113. Bazinga!

[Yonnie3]

146. .

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Faced with running the government, you turn to experience

Obama did it. But to the extent it's the same ol', i see they have a point.

[Yavin4]

8. I am with the Squad on this. Deficit Hawks are really bad news.

Clinton put us into surplus, and what did that get the Democrats?

A Republican congress, Clinton's impeachment, and George W. Bush. There are 0 political points to be gained by pushing for balanced budgets. ZERO.

Esp. since the Republicans have no problem blowing them up once they get into power.

[Arazi]

10. Agreed. We need new thinking on deficits and that roller coaster ride

Of balanced budget (Dems) then wild deficits (Rs).

"Same old same old" needs shaking up

[mpcamb]

14. Right. Tax the hello outta the rich instead. Fat money made fat profits on covid misery.

Make Wall Street and CEOs pay it back.

[ancianita]

16. Agree. Biden's got a deep bench and doesn't need a deficit hawk. Maybe he'll let them have a meetup

[llashram]

125. not yet I hope

and no social democrats should be showing divisiveness at this time. We don't need this.

[ancianita]

136. I hear you. But even if we don't need this right now, we can handle this. It shouldn't rattle us.

Media will always be hyping what the squad says, and equating what Republicans say to what Democrats actually do. I wouldn't let it bother me and don't think the party is so fragile that it can't handle internal dissent. We're not going to lose the next four years over this one, or the next one or the next one.

If anything, the squad are reassuring young voters in the party that they're looking out for them. Sure, Biden's going to wipe out college debt, etc, etc. But they're making sure their voice is right there in the transition. I think it's no more than that.

[llashram]

141. I do hope you are right

[ancianita]

155. Welp, I'm left of social democrats, old and have been paying attention for a long time.

I myself have issues with this guy and am sure that Biden can either ensure he won't be trouble for us, and thereby get a congressional nod from Repubs; or if he won't get the nod, Biden can show Repubs that he can still put in someone that progressives want as an 'acting.' We're not governing to appease Republicans, worry what media thinks, either. There are 15 more appointments he'll make that we can talk about, and if we can do that, so can the progressive wing, imo.

The party's job -- and Biden's obvious goal -- is inclusiveness just as much as worrying about any progressives' so-called divisiveness.

[llashram]

159. petition? Not a wise move.

Politics in our Party especially is all-inclusive. Since we are that type of Party, and I have been around the block a few times myself and I pay attention also, I feel yeah they can add to the conversation, NOT STEER IT. Petition and straight to the media? Nah they as JUNIOR members just have to wait. No socialist is ever going to get a damn thing important in this country's politics. I know who Eugene Debs was.

[ancianita]

167. Haha okay.

Petitions are just a list of voices. Pretty old school and harmless. Hardly steering. As for a what socialists get, they don't need to get to be important in politics; they care about doing what's important, and having a deficit hawk is not in the party's interests, imo. From wikipedia...

Reed oversaw the administration's criminal justice policy, and worked closely with Joe Biden to pass "tough-on-crime" legislation including the 1994 Crime Bill.[3][4] Reed also helped to write the 1996 welfare reform law known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. He is credited with coining the welfare reform catchphrase, "end welfare as we know it.

In 2006, Reed published his book The Plan: Big Ideas for America, co-written by Rahm Emmanuel. A Foreign Affairs review of the book notes "the most important big idea in the book is that Democrats should stop defending the New Deal and instead concentrate on recasting it for a more mobile society"

In the spring of 2010, Reed took a leave of absence from the DLC to become Executive Director of President National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Commission), the commission tasked with finding a path to a balanced budget during the Great Recession. As Executive Director, Reed allowed senior staff members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission to be paid by Blackstone founder Peter G. Peterson.[8] The Simpson-Bowles Commission notably proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare

He's got three, no, four issues, in my opinion: being co-author with Joe on that now-controversial crime bill; "ending welfare as we know it," which has helped Black people; ending our FDR Democratic New Deal values, which I say are the social democratic heart of Democratic Party values, and being on a commission that proposed cuts to SS and medicare.

This guy's called an operative; I might even call him an opportunist or even a DINO, but I won't.
I'll just say Joe can do better.

[BainsBane]

189. That might have to do

with their own hyping on Twitter. But how dare the media draw attention to people who constantly draw attention to themselves.

This has nothing to do with making a progressive voice heard regarding the transition. If one actually wants to exert influence, they pick up the phone and have a private conversation. Tweeting and talking to the press is about something else altogether.

[ancianita]

228. What

is that something else?

[BainsBane]

230. self-promotion nt.

[not fooled]

22. What happens to Dem surpluses?

GOPee tax cuts for the rich.


No deficit hawks. Read Stephanie Kelton and other enlightened economists.

[Yavin4]

30. The surpluses were mocked and ridiculed when Gore campaigned on putting them in a SS lock box.

And then Bush blew them all away with his refund checks for everyone in 2001.

[sandensea]

50. And his wars

Which Turd Blossom moved off budget so they wouldn't be seen in the headline deficit figures.

The figures (up to '09) have never been revised to reflect this, incredibly (i.e. you have to add $170 billion to the published deficit figures in Bush's 2nd term).

[burrowowl]

31. Agree!

[Escurumbele]

73. Bush spent the surplus Clinton left behind in two years on his invasion of Iraq

The "Economic Cycle" easily explained:

1. Democrats in power, healthy economy, jobs, etc.
2. Republicans in power, deficits, no jobs (I won't even mention all the other crap they bring)
3. Democrats in power, they fix the mess republicans left behind, economy goes up, jobs are added.
4. People are so stupid that they elect a republican. The economy hits bottom, deficits, no jobs.
5. Democrats fix it again, etc. etc.
6. The cycle repeats.

Anyone ever wonder why is it that only republicans talk about the economic cycle, and they do so when they are in power? That is because they want to use it as an excuse that they screwed up, again, and again.

I just wish voters were not so stupid and were able to understand that republicans are not with the people, with the country, they are there for themselves.

[eilen]

260. If there were actual surpluses, maybe I would be concerned

There are no surpluses. There is a big yawning hole that is just going to get deeper for a while, at least until a new tax bill is passed. They need someone that will help craft a policy that will be passed by the Senate. We don't know who is going to lead the Senate but the smart money will be on the Republicans because... Georgia.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. Me too.

We need to strengthen these programs.

[Yavin4]

307. Austerity got us Bush II

Trimming the size of the stimulus got us Trump. Austerity in the UK got them Brexit and Boris Johnson.

Austerity is bad economic and political policy and leads to anti-democratic, dangerous outcomes.

[BainsBane]

57. He is Biden's tech adviser

What does that have to do with deficits or social security?

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-bruce-reed-big-tech-facebok-google-section-230-2020-11

[George II]

89. With so many issues it's going to be impossible to find any that are 100% pure enough....

...on all of them.

Bruce Reed is perfect on Big Tech, "bad" on Social Security (which isn't true anyway).

Those three have less than six years' experience combined yet they know more than a man with 36 years experience in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President.

[BainsBane]

90. If his job doesn't involve social security or deficits

I don't give a fuck what his position on those issues is. I think this purity test thing is idiotic, particularly when those proclaiming the standard wouldn't pass themselves.

Moreover, I don't believe they really care about exercising influence over the cabinet. If they did, they'd be talking to Biden, not twitter or the press.

[sheshe2]

98. It is just stirring the pot.

We sure as hell don't need that right now.

TF! The man hasn't even taken the oath of office yet and yet...

[BainsBane]

101. Stirring the pot

Is the entire purpose of this. It's clearly not exerting influence over the cabinet.

[sheshe2]

105. Correct.

[llashram]

142. this

[NurseJackie]

100. You're correct. If they were serious they'd be having private communication with Biden...

... this is just another stunt to grab headlines. It's terribly divisive, in my opinion. It only creates distrust and suspicion (or it amplifies the existing distrust and suspicion).

I think this purity test thing is idiotic, particularly when those proclaiming the standard wouldn't pass themselves.

That's a very interesting and valid observation. I believe you're correct about that, particularly the latter.

Purity tests are, indeed a waste of time and what I'm seeing from some corners amount to blatant attempts to cripple, kneecap or sabotage Biden's administration before he's even taken the oath of office. All of this really serves no good purpose at all.

[llashram]

129. yep publicity stunt

a lot of noise and at this time saying not a damn thing important. Just spinning their wheels,

[NurseJackie]

169. Those spinning wheels are flinging mud on the party...

... and on Biden and Harris and Pelosi our the rest of party leadership.

[ancianita]

170. Well that's it, then.

And yes, good question. What would a tech adviser care about his old work and ideas. He'd just stick to the official title and do tech.

But I have to ask how he's become such a formidable force against Big Tech from his English major years and now. Nothing in his work history -- from helping Hillary run against Obama, to being Executive Director of President National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Commission), to connecting to some austerity chair on the Council of Foreign Relations -- shows anything tech world or even techy about his advising.

I don't get him or his job, unless it's to be a back channel to the world of austerity economics networks.

[BainsBane]

181. You're correct

You don't get it.

Tech matters, something about the tech companies allowing election interference. But then that was only Hillary Clinton's election against Trump. But evidently for you any support for Hillary disqualifies him from serving in a Democratic administration. In fact, why don't we strike everyone from government who backed the losing side in a primary? That is what you are suggesting. How would you feel if that were applied to your own losing candidates? Clamping down on tech companies also means those that profit off of spreading COVID hoaxes. Why should that matter? How can that possibly be a real job. That's only about human life. And, of course, as the article points to, there is data privacy; companies currently sell us for profit. Reed has advocated for clamping down on that.

What qualifies him is what he's been doing for Biden for months now. If Biden knows about anything, it's choosing people with experience. But yeah, get some chair warmer who says stuff to make professional complainers feel good. The less they've done in life the better, since that seems to be the singular requirement.

Regarding your attack on Reed's English degree. I'm sorry you find literacy and classical education so repulsive. Those of us who work in the humanities think it elevates society. There was a time, before the job training approach to education, that liberal arts degrees were sought after because they teach people to write, think, and be contributing members to civil society. But for you an English degree is a source of derision. The GOP agrees.

And what about the rest of the deficit hawks Biden has already appointed? Or do they not matter because AOC didn't tell you to deride them.

[LizBeth]

208. This was a well written and informative post. Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it.

May possibly have to do with your academic background, you think, lol. Thanks.

[ancianita]

247. You're putting a lot out there

about why I bring up his work past. About what I think of Hillary, what I think disqualifies him ( he didn't work for her against Trump, but Obama), and then go off about all you imagine I'm suggesting or professionally complaining about. Your post is personal, not explaining his value at all.

Where does one read that he's been working for Biden for months? or that he's concerned about the your list of Big Tech flaws as a tech advisor? Any links would be better than your own derisions. The most laughable comment is that I think an English degree is a source of derision. I have two English degrees, have made your same claims about their worth, and see your sideswipe that the GOP agrees with me as ignorant derision.

I've not brought up that the squad are concerned about his being a deficit hawk (didn't know that the other appointees were) only echoed what I'd assumed others here were correct about, but which got me looking into his work history.

I support AOC as a Democrat even if I don't agree with her style, and I support progressives in the party no matter how outspoken. I don't join derision choruses. You asked a question and I asked one back. To me what really mattered is that someone would explain this person and his job. Obviously that person isn't you.

[LizBeth]

205. You had to really pretzel to fashion any kind of argument there. Here is the thing. Two days in a

row AOC throws out inaccurate accusations to perspective candidates. Now, one I didn't particularly like or want, but it was the accusations that is the issue. If AOC is going to attack a Democrat at least get it fuckin right. Is all I am saying. She is losing creds. She had been gaining creds prior to the win, now she is all over the place in fumbles.

[eilen]

261. I think AOC is a sharp congresswoman but she is intemperate with her speech.

I feel like she has some maturing to do. She may be in a safe district but there are a lot of congress people who are not and her participation in a group that primaries fellow Democrats makes me less concerned about pointing out her deficiencies as I see them.

[LizBeth]

294. It is really too bad. I am hoping she gains wisdom thru experience, but she keeps slipping backward.

What Tlaib said a couple night ago was not good at all. Lack of control or concern what comes out of their mouth and that is harmful.

[mountain grammy]

92. I agree.. and thank you

[Demsrule86]

304. And unless we get the Senate we get nothing. So let's postpone this discussion.

[yardwork]

322. But why a petition? Why not private conversations?

What's this petition? Seems like attention grabbing to me.

[lunasun]

325. I agree with you - thinking dem deficit hawks bring unity is a set up . Building up $$GOP gets

to have later and the Dems are left with less street cred since they did less for voters than hoped

To mix up or be confused by the critics in the GOP who use the trigger word “dem spending” with a true desire bY GOP to seek a reduction is delusional imo

A tightrope walk on what dem voters the Dem party wants to listen to ..
From the Squad all the way to those Dems advocating for less in government spending or for smaller range of increases in programs or/and also some who do not want big increases in taxes as a way to contribute to covering cost AKA wealthier big Dem donors

As we see even on a Dem board like this there are different kinds of Democrats
but I hope Dem party considers all of us not just say fuck those people because this election was about beating trump u lose enough voters due to shutting out their concerns say hello to the GOP again and they win another treasure chest from 2020dem deficient hawk in 2024 too!!

[maxrandb]

9. Frickin Democrats are like a married couple

that spend their wedding night fighting about the songs the band played at the reception and end up sleeping on separate couches.

It's no wonder Retrumplicans kick our asses locally.

On D-Day, Democrats would have argued about the color of the landing boats.

[yardwork]

323. Exactly!

[True Dough]

11. Bernie was making noise four days ago, saying that Biden best not shut progressives out of Cabinet

“It seems to me pretty clear that progressive views need to be expressed within a Biden administration,” Sanders told The Associated Press. “It would be, for example, enormously insulting if Biden put together a ‘team of rivals’ — and there’s some discussion that that’s what he intends to do — which might include Republicans and conservative Democrats — but which ignored the progressive community. I think that would be very, very unfortunate.”


Such a tough balancing act, this is.

[Escurumbele]

81. Bernie is right. Progressives will feel betrayed, and rightly so.

I understand Bernie understood that the primary goal was to get rid of the dangerous buffoon, and he did all he could to bring the people who voted for him to vote for Biden/Harris to accomplish that goal, to ignore them would be disastrous, I feel that 2024 a republican will easily win if Biden doesn't comply.

Plus, we need to get rid of the old ideologies, we need to move ahead in our thinking, progressives bring that to the table.

We need universal health, better and free education, a better tax system, etc. If none of that is done in these four years, you can bet a republican will win the next election.

[58Sunliner]

87. Amen. Anyone who thinks they have a lock on the Dem party due to a "mandate" is delusional.

[AmericanCanuck]

218. IKR?

They completely forget that Bernie was soundly defeated except in some non-diverse states in the North. Bernie's agenda did not resonate with the Democratic party.

[58Sunliner]

226. LOL. Bernie won CA. IKR? Not the north, very diverse.

But I digress, and tell you the same thing I posted down stream. It was his emphasis on economic and social justice, along with comprehensive health care. We should strive to be progressive, not redundant. It is a matter of losing votes by shutting people down, and having people sit out the elections. Parts of Bernie's agenda are very relevant to many Democrats, especially the younger ones.

[AmericanCanuck]

227. Bernie won because the non-socialist vote was divided

If you add up the numbers, Bernie didn't win California.

Also, the delegates were apportioned with a formula -- so Bernie got far smaller delegate advantage in California than Biden go in Mississippi.

[58Sunliner]

229. "non-socialist vote was divided"-good night.

And Bernie won the Democratic primary, not the socialist.

[llashram]

143. who cares if they feel betrayed

I don't

[peoli]

197. You will in 4 years

[llashram]

264. nope

pretty firm in my understanding of what a democratic-socialist represents. They are not all-inclusive. I found out about them some years back during my studies at B.U. It's America and they are but a small, small faction residing in our 'big tent'.

[AmericanCanuck]

203. Why should they feel betrayed?

They were not on Biden's team nor did they actively campaign for Biden.

Biden has no special obligation to them. If they want something done, they should hold a meeting with Biden's admin and do a fierce advocacy of their positions to get at least some of what they want.

This carping the media is sounding too much like an ultimatum.

My way or highway doesn't work in government, social groups or relationships - it is a loser strategy.

[llashram]

265. exactly

[treestar]

345. +1

None of the other parts of the coalition do this my way or the highway thing.

[betsuni]

266. BETRAYED.

[NurseJackie]

271. I know, right! 😂😆😂 Ridiculous!

[lunasun]

326. ++ See my post 325 on this - same thoughts about GOP IN 2024+ 2020 was about trump removal

And let’s face it as I thoughtbut couldn’t say here, not so many it turns out who do vote really wanted him removed they voted for trump!
Yes Biden won but I am fearful of those Dems in power now that ignore or flip off blocks of voters post 2020 election especially if there are strong 3 rd party contenders 2024

I wrote the post 325 b4 before seeing your post here

[NurseJackie]

270. Oh, Bernie! That ship sailed long ago when Biden was chosen as our party's nominee.

I really don't understand why so many people feel entitled to try and transform the Biden administration into a Bernie-light administration. It's just NOT going to happen.

Everyone knows what Joe Biden is about and that's who the Democrats chose. He went on to defeat an incumbent president (historically that's a difficult hurdle) and on a national level, the voters chose again. Our leader will be Joe Biden... none of the also-rans are entitled to anything. That's not how it works.

All I'm saying is that it's time for everyone to set aside the disappointment, bitterness, resentment and distrust. Chill. Move on. Get over it.

Just: Let it go and TRUST IN JOE!

[betsuni]

272. +1

[brush]

12. They'll get little support for that. They are becoming increasling annoying and irrelevant...

with these tactics. Can we please get underway with the new admin before democratic socialists begin their divisiveness?

[ripcord]

77. I remember voting for Biden to run the country

But I can't remember ever casting a vote for AOC or Omar.

[llashram]

145. this

[Lonestarblue]

15. His support for SS and Medicare cuts raises lots of questions.

Why would you want such a person to head the Office of Management and Budget? There are ways to fix SS without cuts. I think the Squad has a point here, but I hope the speak with Biden first about their concerns before running to the media.

[ancianita]

17. +1

[not fooled]

23. +++++++++++++++++++++

Especially since Biden campaigned on strengthening Social Security and Medicare. I have the mailers to prove it.

[tirebiter]

317. Yesterday's papers

Give yesterday’s news. Our platform is to increase money for SS and Medicare. The GOP is starving both.

[beachbumbob]

18. They need to butt out

[BlueNProud]

19. Hmmm..Fascism or Bruce Reed. I know which I'll take.

These women do not have veto power over Biden s cabinet

[oldsoftie]

20. And here we go already. Petulance.

[mcar]

24. Shouldn't they be protesting Republicans?

Or working to GOTV in GA?

Why am I even bothering.

[Gore1FL]

41. It's possible to do more than one right thing at once. nt

[mcar]

48. Link to where they are doing those things?

Thanks.

[Gore1FL]

64. No. I'll try to make my point less easy to miss next time. nt

[mcar]

121. Bless your heart

[Gore1FL]

162. Yours too! I hope you enjoyed the article! nt

[Gore1FL]

68. But I did run accross this. You get it for free!

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-raises-280000-overnight-georgia-senate-runoffs-grassroots-organizing-1547032

[EllieBC]

254. It seems like they never do those things.

Probably too hard. It’s easier to sit in a deep blue district and fire shots at other people in your party than take on the actual enemy.

[melman]

58. They've done both of those things

and have been attacked by the usuals for doing so.

[NurseJackie]

107. Lulz! Nobody is attacking them.

[mcar]

130. Who has attacked them for that?

[George II]

147. To quote, "the usuals", whoever they are.....

[mcar]

150. I wonder what that means

Aren't we all Democrats here?

[George II]

151. Presumably.

[mcar]

163. I'm finding it hard to believe that,

after the last 4 years of horror, anyone who considers themselves a Democrat would sign on to this idiocy.

[AmericanCanuck]

204. Criticism is not an attack.

[treestar]

344. Yes. Why do they not understand

how the Senate works? How the government works? How you cannot just make demands of others to make your dreams happen? I suppose they think D candidates in GA are not progressive enough?

They don't seem to get that it does not work for them to make demands and threaten to go away if they don't get what they want. There only change of getting some of what they want is to work with the party.

[Autumn]

25. His past support for Social Security and Medicare cuts should be a factor for any Democrat

to be against an appointment in this administration.

[ananda]

32. This is definitely concerning to me.

Hopefully, this won't happen.

[lapucelle]

274. All concern is duly noted.

[wackadoo wabbit]

62. Yes! This, exactly /nt

[George II]

110. When did Bruce Reed support cuts to Social Security and Medicare? Unless I missed it - never.

[Autumn]

116. You must have missed it then. Try reading the link in the OP or try Google. nt

[George II]

132. Two points:

1. The Bowles-Simpson Commission didn't recommend cuts to Social Security or Medicare
2. Bruce Reed wasn't a voting member of the Bowles-Simpson Commission

[Autumn]

152. He served as executive director for the Simpson-Bowles Commission which did recommend cuts.

No one said he was a voting member of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. In 2010 they did put out a proposal, call it what you want.

https://www.epi.org/blog/flaws-bowles-simpson/

5) It would undermine retirement security by cutting Social Security

The Bowles-Simpson proposal wouldn’t only cut Social Security benefits, it would do so in a way that harms the middle class. According to the Social Security Actuary, medium-income retirees would see their benefits drop by 4 percent for those who retire in 2030 to nearly 20 percent for those who retire in 2080. This is largely a function of two separate cuts, both of which fall on the low- and middle-class: raising the retirement age and using an alternate method to calculate cost of living adjustments, the so-called “chained CPI.”

Proposed cuts to Social Security need to be put in the context of broader retirement security. Social Security represents one of three sources of retirement security, the other two being defined benefit pensions and household savings (IRAs, 401(k)s, real estate, etc.). But private savings do a poor job of providing actual security—just ask a near-retiree how their nest egg fared after the financial collapse—and it’s unclear how much savings the average household can accrue in the first place when median wages continue to stagnate. Further, defined benefit pensions are becoming less and less common as more and more companies choose to drop them in favor of defined contribution plans (401(k)s or similar plans) which, again, provide little actual security against economic volatility. Social Security is the last reliable source of true retirement security for the middle class, and that means it’s more important than ever to protect it against cuts like these.

[AmericanCanuck]

209. bwahahahahahahahahahaha Economic Policy Institute

founded by and operated for supporters of Bernie Sanders.

[Autumn]

284. bwahahahahahahahahahaha. I wish Bernie were all powerful as he is in your mind.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions.


https://www.epi.org/about/board/

https://www.epi.org/about/staff/

[AmericanCanuck]

290. All of its founders endorsed Sen. Sanders.

So "it was founded by supporters of Bernie Sanders" is true.

QED

[Autumn]

292. No it was not founded by Bernie supporters. It was founded in 1986. Well before Bernie was supported

by anyone on that board. bwahahahahahahahahahaha. What one can infer is that very smart people are advocates for social and economic justice

They do certainly all seem to be Democrats but I see where your confusion comes. Ellison was endorsed in 2016 by both Senator Bernie Sanders and incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. And again in 2019.

[AmericanCanuck]

295. I never stated that it was founded after they endorsed Bernie Sanders

I only stated that the group was founded by Bernie Supporters. That statement is true.

Or would you prefer "It was founded by people who became Bernie supporters?" - the meaning is the same.

[Autumn]

296. Your post stated bwahahahahahahahahahaha Economic Policy Institute

"founded by and operated for supporters of Bernie Sanders." They were not Sanders supporters when it was founded. Neither was it founded for Sanders supporters. Just a lot of smart people recognizing what the people in this country need.

[AmericanCanuck]

299. Alas, probably not enough since he lost twice

Sad

[Autumn]

300. Yes go with that if you need to. Sad indeed.

[Midnight Writer]

119. Right, and Biden plans to expand both programs. I'm not worried about Bruce Reed at this point.

[George II]

134. The idea that Reed was in favor of cuts to Social Security and Medicare is a misnomer.

[lapucelle]

153. It's a Justice Democrats/David Sirota/Intercept fiction.

The Intercept said last January that there was "reams of evidence" and then presented scare-mongering speculation based on dubious and de-contextualized inferences.

Kind of like a Rudy Guiliani legal argument.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/526896-sirota-biden-appointment-of-bruce-reed-to-budget-office-would-signal-potential

[betsuni]

160. Ah, that's where the ridiculous idea that Biden would cut SS and Medicare came from.

He depends on people forgetting that Republicans controlled the House for six of their eight years of both Clinton's and Obama's presidencies so we'll think Republican policies were actually Democratic ideas. Then we'll be mad at Democrats and not vote!

Thanks for the link.

[AmericanCanuck]

210. Yep

Cenk Uygur even had an epic rant about it.

One has to hand it to them - they can rant about stuff that no one except the true devotees would ever believe.

Cenk is the Hannity of the left.

[joshcryer]

217. I'll take C-CPI for a raise in the minimum to 125% poverty.

Which is what Obama proposed.

It's a solution until we have the votes for UBI.

Which going by the current past election we don't.

[R B Garr]

26. LOL, Biden just passed 80,000,000 voter tally. When these

two can get more than 100,000 outside their districts, then they can dictate.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

33. Right.

He won, now it's hands-off and autopilot! That's now how politics works.

[R B Garr]

40. It means Biden has a mandate, Bernie lost twice,

so voters want Biden’s vision.

[58Sunliner]

82. What voters want is a large umbrella. I like Biden a lot but several factors played into his win.

Biden has a mandate partly based on fear of DT. If you think we will win future elections with that attitude of mandate, you might think again. That IMO, is a very divisive stance.

[R B Garr]

88. Actually, Biden overcame the divisive stances of

this kind of targeting of people. Let’s face it, this is about building a “brand” for these young politicians, and Bernie lost. Biden won in spite of the obstacles from this continued divisiveness. Bernie’s brand lost and it’s time to accept it. The down ballot races show this as well.

[58Sunliner]

122. I think focusing on the "brand" is simplistic and dismissive.

Many Democrats who did not support Bernie as a candidate, still have similar ideals about economic and social equity. I thought Bernie would have been a disaster as president and had no chance to win. But I did think he made some good points regarding the entrenched leadership that in my view, kept reaching across the aisle and kept getting a knife in their back in return. There has to be a substantive change in how we function as a party to move forward. I hope DT was the breaking point. Or we can expect a lot more noise not just from "Bernie", but from core Democrats tired of seeing our agenda watered down. No one should be told to just sit down, and shut up. That isn't going to fly. I don't think Biden will take that attitude because he respects people, but others here on this board seem to think they have a mandate to say just that. It's divisive.

[R B Garr]

156. Actually, the simplicity was Bernie's repetitive

one-size-fits all messaging that voters saw through and rejected. No sense running elections on losing messages. Thank goodness Biden had the right vision at the right time and voters rewarded him.

Like I said, when the squad can come up with 79,900,000 MILLION votes more than the 100,000 they get in their districts, they can dictate to other politicians.

[58Sunliner]

224. They don't have to come up with 79,900,000, it only has to be a contraction.

One big enough to cause failure. And that isn't limited to turning off Bernie voters. That type of monolithic thinking-mandate-take it or leave it, is going to have people sitting out. And if you actually think their influence is limited to the 100,000 votes in their districts, you should probably do a little research. Good night.

[AmericanCanuck]

243. ummmmm

that sounds too much like "my way or a pox on your house" from a 15% contingent.

aka "Tail wagging the dog"

[R B Garr]

249. The election results starting from 5 years ago completely

contradict what you are pushing. I certainly don’t have to buy into the Justice Democrats losing messaging.

This just sounds like sour grapes. Bernie lost so his groups who supported him are working overtime to stay relevant. I was wondering how this would manifest itself and figured it would happen. Sorry, but I don’t see much credibility in losing messaging. Biden has the vision voters overwhelmingly wanted. Time to accept that and move on. Votes get you credibility, and Biden got 80,000,000.

[Demsrule86]

306. We will win future elections with moderate candidate. He won with more votes than anyone

since Roosevelt.

[Bayard]

29. This is not the time

We've already moved heaven and earth to get to this point. Get behind the wagon, and PUSH!

[sheshe2]

75. ...

[llashram]

149. exactly

[betsuni]

36. I wonder why they're happy with John Kerry.

Like Hillary Clinton, he voted for the Iraq War Resolution, was Secretary of State and ran for president. I thought that would put him in the centrist-establishment-corrupt-warmonger category according to Justice Democrats' standards. He's lucky!

[mcar]

133. I think I know why

[Lock him up.]

166. I think people can change, evolve surrounded in different contexts.

John Kerry is now leading the fight against climate change, which is one of the most important issue facing life on earth. If that's not a progressive issue, I wonder what would qualify as one. He won't win that fight alone. He has to convince a lot of countries to jump on the train, and for that, we need someone with a lot of charisma and a reputation that is well known around the world as being trustworthy.

[Gore1FL]

38. Good for them!

We elected Democrats for a reason.

[FBaggins]

51. We elected Biden to run the country... not AOC

Why would you spin her position as what "Democrats" want... but not that of the Democrat who just received more votes than anyone in history?

[Gore1FL]

66. "We" are supposed to be for Social Security, among other things.

He received a lot of votes from the left.

So I repeat, Good for AOC. We elected a Democrat.

[FBaggins]

78. Does "Gore1FL" imply support for Gore?

Reed was Gore's head speechwriter. He's been a Democrat active in national politics since a few years before AOC started breathing.

[Gore1FL]

164. It implies Gore won the 2000 election, specifically in Florida.

Bush supporter and former Democratic operative Pat Caddell, was also a Democrat before AOC, too. That doesn't make his views in line with what our party espouses.

[Chemisse]

128. I agree with the concerns but not the methods.

I think AOC is a little too concerned about getting attention and relevance.

[Warpy]

39. A deficit hawk moght be just what we need

only this time he'll go after Dumdum's ruinous, deficit exploding tax cuts instead of widows and orphans who have nothing left to grab.

It's always been obvious where the deficit is really from. We have to hope thee guys are finally catching on.

[WinstonSmith4740]

43. Gee.

I'm thinking it would be nice if the dems could take a couple beats before they form the circular firing squad. We're going to get enough bullshit from McConnell, et al, without getting this from our side of the aisle. Take care of your constituents...let Joe run the country.

And I think Mick's about 12 years old here.

[BainsBane]

60. Not when The circular firing squad

Is the entire point of it. This is what I found on Reed: https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-bruce-reed-big-tech-facebok-google-section-230-2020-11

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

44. Is a new Tea Party emerging on the left? nt

[BainsBane]

45. If they want to pick a cabinet

Get elected to the presidency. Otherwise it has nothing to do them.

[Piratedog]

46. They don't give a rat's ass--they're looking for exposure.

We need to stop giving them more clout than they deserve. They are 2 of 435.

When they win on a national scale, then they may get to dictate something but not yet.

[Botany]

47. Good God in Butter

And I want a flying pony that farts glitter too.

Let Joe and Kamala pick who they want. They are in charge and have earned my trust.

[whistler162]

49. Here are two example from the Simpson Bowles Plan Summary

"Make Social Security sustainable. Lower the benefits for higher income earners. Increase the normal retirement age to 69 by 2075. All workers must pay Social Security taxes on the first 90% of income up to $190,000 by 2020. (It was $168,000 when the report was written). Workers who have paid into the system for at least 25 years are guaranteed a minimum payout of 125% of the poverty level. Cover newly hired state and local workers after 2020."

"Reduce federal health care spending. Focus Medicare payments to physicians on quality of care instead of quantity. Freeze physician payments through 2013. Institute a 1% cut in 2014. Increase funding to reduce Medicare fraud. Reduce excess Medicare payments. Coordinate Medicaid and Medicare benefits. Reduce medical malpractice costs. The Affordable Care Act incorporated many of the suggestions."

https://www.thebalance.com/simpson-bowles-plan-summary-history-would-it-work-3306323

both look reasonable to me.

[questionseverything]

95. Retirement age needs lowered not raised

Maybe 69 is ok for desk sitters but for physical work 62 is old

Your first paragraph turns ss into a welfare program,which the right has tried to do forever since welfare is easier to villainize ,welfare queens and all

[AmericanCanuck]

52. Who the hell cares what they think?

[RandiFan1290]

263. You do

Most of your comments are about them

[Autumn]

287. All.

[BainsBane]

53. The man is Biden's tech adviser

Which has f all to do with social security. But Why should reality have anything to do it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-bruce-reed-big-tech-facebok-google-section-230-2020-11

[Celerity]

207. Meet Bruce Reed, Obama's point man on cutting deficit

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24602191.html

WASHINGTON — It's going to require sacrifice, it might not be pretty, and people across the political spectrum will have to come together to get it done, warns Bruce Reed, the executive director of the presidential commission that's finding ways to stem the red ink of the nation's deficit. Reed has worked for President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, and now is running President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Born in Boise and raised in Coeur d'Alene, his mother, Mary Lou Reed, is a former Democratic state senator.

Reed and the once-wonky question of how to reduce the deficit have taken center stage in the weeks following the election, as the 18-member commission prepares to release its final proposal and vote on it at the end of the month. It'll take 14 votes to send a plan to Congress to vote on — a prospect that's unlikely even though promises to reduce government and the deficit dominated the 2010 campaign season.

The deficit isn't going anywhere, though, Reed said, and he's pleased so many people are talking about the proposal by the co-chairmen of the commission: Democrat Erskine Bowles, the president of the University of North Carolina system, and former Republican Senate leader Alan Simpson of Wyoming.

"We're delighted with the attention that the issue is getting," he said. "It's about time for a serious debate about this issue. Whether we like it or not, bringing down the deficit is going to be the top issue in the next few years. We don't have choice in the matter. We can't go on borrowing like this forever."

snip


Biden’s Mr. Austerity: Bruce Reed

https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/bidens-mr-austerity-bruce-reed/

Virtually all of the Biden campaign’s senior staff has been named to White House jobs, save one. That would be Bruce Reed, the longtime head of the center-right Democratic Leadership Council, a former chief of staff to the vice president from 2011 to 2013, and a notable budget hawk. Maybe Team Biden is having second thoughts about Reed? Let’s hope so.

In 2010, Reed served as executive director of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, one of Barack Obama’s worst blunders. The commission was created in order to put the federal budget on an automatic pilot to deficit reduction, long before the economy was in post-collapse recovery.

The premature pivot to austerity was a major factor in the Democrats’ record-breaking loss of 63 House seats in the November 2010 midterm election. As executive director of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, Reed was not only an austerity advocate himself. He brought on unpaid staffers from leading austerity organizations funded by Pete Peterson.

When Reed was named to a senior job in the Biden campaign last January, the Peterson-funded Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group bent on cutting Social Security, cheered. “We can’t think of a better person for the job,” CRFB said in a statement.

snip

Pete Peterson’s Long History of Deficit Scaremongering

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/pete-petersons-long-history-deficit-scaremongering/

Fix the Debt financier Peter G. Peterson knows a thing or two about debt: he’s an expert at creating it. Peterson founded the private equity firm Blackstone Group in 1985 with Stephen Schwarzman (who compared raising taxes to “when Hitler invaded Poland”). Private equity firms don’t contribute much to the economy; they don’t make cars or milk the cows. Too frequently, they buy firms to loot them. After a leveraged buyout, they can leave companies so loaded up with debt they are forced to immediately slash their workforce or employees’ retirement security.

Scoop: Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman says Trump lost

https://www.axios.com/blackstone-ceo-stephen-schwarzman-trump-biden-61c711ba-1127-4c03-a815-2162317e5066.html

It's over. That's what Blackstone chairman, CEO and co-founder Steve Schwarzman — one of President Trump's most loyal allies — and other top Republicans are signaling to the defeated president, 16 days after Joe Biden clinched the win.

Joe Biden Must Keep Anti-Social Security Bruce Reed Far Away From His Administration

https://socialsecurityworks.org/2020/11/19/joe-biden-must-keep-anti-social-security-bruce-reed-far-away-from-his-administration/

(Washington, DC) — The following is a statement from Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works, on reports that Bruce Reed is a front-runner to head the Office of Management and Budget in a Joe Biden Administration:

“Joe Biden ran for President on a promise to protect and expand Social Security. Seniors listened, and delivered his margin of victory in key states like Arizona and Michigan.

Appointing Bruce Reed to head the Office of Management and Budget would betray that promise. Reed was executive director of the Bowles-Simpson commission, which proposed massive cuts to Social Security, including raising the retirement age. He has a decades-long obsession with austerity, at a time when we need massive government spending to bring us out of the worst national crisis since the Great Depression. Biden must keep his promises to seniors by keeping Reed far away from the White House.”

snip

[BainsBane]

211. I have no idea if Reed is going to be appointed to anything

but his current position is as tech adviser, which has nothing to do with austerity or social security.

You've, for some reason, posted multiple articles that don't mention Reed. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

I have to wonder if you're so concerned about deficit hawks, why didn't you or AOC speak out about Yellen's appointment to Secretary of the Treasury, a position that directly relates to it? In fact, how about all the other deficit hawks he's already appointed? https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2635478

[Celerity]

233. Reed has been known as a budget hawk for ages, I just showed you that, he is not simply some

'tech supervisor' as you first tried to posit.

Now, you said

I have to wonder if you're so concerned about deficit hawks, why didn't you or AOC speak out about Yellen's appointment to Secretary of the Treasury,

Number one, I am not AOC, I agree with her on some things, disagree with her on others, so your trying to link me to her at the hip is simply wrong. Unlike some from both ends of the spectrum, I am not some tribal warrior when it comes to the internecine ideological wars within the party. I fully embrace the concept of the big tent, and absolutely see the utility and necessity for running candidate tailored to the district they are seeking election in.

Number two, I personally am extremely satisfied with Yellen, aa are most of the further left people (Warren had high praise for her, for instance).

‘An outstanding choice.’ Elizabeth Warren praises choice of Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/23/nation/an-outstanding-choice-elizabeth-warren-praises-choice-janet-yellen-treasury-secretary/

Back to Reed

Reed was the point man for budget cutting under Obama and worked with the Simpson-Bowles Commission (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) that most definitely did advocate for Social Security cuts (despite some disingenuous attempts I have seen that claim otherwise) as well as other cuts i other social safety net programmes.


NYT: Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Higher Taxes

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/us/politics/11fiscal.html


Paul Krugman - A Public Service Reminder: Simpson-Bowles Is Terrible

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/a-public-service-reminder-simpson-bowles-is-terrible/




Lastly, the articles I posted were put together to show you Reed is a big favourite of the Pete Peterson-built austerity empire, and then the next one explained Peterson, and then his (Peterson) ties to Stephen Schwarzman, Trumps biggest money bag man). Peterson and Schwarzman built Blackstone Group, one of the worst of the worst corporate raiders, and both were/are (Peterson is dead now) cutthroat Rethug austerity ghouls. I was showing linkage to the type of RW groups (and their backgrounds) who are praising Reed. I also included (directly about Reed) 2 non-AOC, non Berniecrat sources, including SocialSecurityWorks (tireless advocates for protecting Social Security) and The American Prospect (started by Robert Reich and Robert Kuttner in 1990) , that warn about Reed and the threat he poses to SS and overall spending, spending that is extraordinarily needed to help claw out way of of the Trumpian hole at a multiplicity of levels.

[BainsBane]

238. I don't disagree with you on Simpson-Bowles

or cuts to social security. My point is what does that have to do with being Biden's tech adviser (not supervisor). You've given excellent reasons for not appointing him to a financial role, not to prevent him from clamping down on tech companies.

I don't agree with disqualifying people from jobs because one might not like how they think on an unrelated matter. In MN, we can't even disqualify felons from jobs simply for being felons. The matter has to be related to the job in question. But you hold up Reed's views and associations on one matter as a reason to exclude him from all government employment.

[Celerity]

240. they (and others) are objecting to Reed potentially serving as head of the Office of Management

and Budget.

[BainsBane]

241. Fair enough

The article I found on Reed's Tech background said something very different.

[Celerity]

244. I think we were (I shall take the blame) talking past each other

I assumed that you knew I was talking bout Reed as OMB head, and thus I was confused why you kept bringing up his role as a tech advisor in the campaign. But at least it let me lay out a case why I myself (not based off AOC) would prefer someone else at OMB.

cheers

[BainsBane]

246. My fault

for not reading the whole post. I see it now at the end of the OP.

This was the third entry when I searched for Bruce Reed. https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-bruce-reed-big-tech-facebok-google-section-230-2020-11

[Celerity]

248. I have little to no issues with him in a big tech crackdown role at all

[left-of-center2012]

54. Doubtful Biden's going to give in to AOC

[ashredux]

55. Chill...CHILL....GOOD GRIEF...are you Idiots? Give it a rest ladies

[Evolve Dammit]

65. "past support for Social Security and Medicare cuts" Is that good? Let's hear it out.

[BainsBane]

70. The question is whether it is relevant

Considering his current position is tech advisor. The answer is no.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-bruce-reed-big-tech-facebok-google-section-230-2020-11

Of course if they'd prefer someone easier on big tech but who hasn't committed Social Security thought crimes, there is always that.

[Evolve Dammit]

83. Hopefully it will come up in hearing(s). I'd like to know the context & beliefs of higher officers.

[BainsBane]

99. The only hearings McConnell will allow

is for Republicans. He's already made that clear. You won't be hearing any hearings for Democrat's at all. They will all be acting cabinet officials, unless the Dems gain control of the Senate.

I could interrogate everyone I know about their views on issues, and very few would pass my test. People prove themselves hypocrites on a daily basis. But how I feel about that has little to nothing to do with their qualifications for a job.
If you want an effective government, you need people who know what they are doing on the job to which they are appointed. That one doesn't agree with them on unrelated issues is completely irrelevant.

If anyone wanted to truly influence a cabinet choice, they would have a conversation with Biden. When they turn to twitter or the press, their agenda is something very different.

[Evolve Dammit]

106. I'm simply suggesting that views on cornerstones of Democratic values be brought to light.

[BainsBane]

109. As someone else in this thread pointed out

Most of Biden's recent picks have been deficit hawks, but somehow that didn't garner outrage. Why should this one?

[LizBeth]

79. Why would it matter? His position has nothing to do with it.

[zentrum]

67. They're right. Deficit hawks

……..hurt ordinary people. SS and Medicare need to be expanded, not cut. The under-rich need their taxes raised.

The progressives are the new young voters who are the future of the party. Need to not cut them off.

[LizBeth]

80. His position has nothing to do with SS and Medicare. Why would it matter?

[questionseverything]

104. I agree but most in this thread seem to think they can tell the young....we already got your vote

Now sit down and shut up

And we really need the young votes in Georgia


Du is more conservative in general than the overall Democratic Party so I try not to take things from here personally

[zentrum]

310. Yup.

[betsuni]

318. Nobody takes the youth vote for granted.

DU in general is not more conservative than the overall Democratic Party.

[questionseverything]

319. Quoting number 52....who the hell cares what they think

🤔

[betsuni]

320. Don't know what that means.

Democrats aren't going to cut social safety nets. Period. Anyone who says they will are wrong.

[George II]

69. So let's see, in the last few days certain members of Congress have attacked Biden's choices of....

Bruce Reed for head of the Office of Management and Budget
Rahm Emmanuel for some as yet unmentioned position
Antony Blinken for Secretary of State

I can't believe they're revisiting that half-baked claim that someone supported Social Security and Medicare cuts. That was used by some candidates AND trump's surrogates against Biden, and it was absolutely false.

As far as "blocking anyone who doesn't pass their smell test", they should be reminded that they're in the House, they don't pass judgement on Cabinet appointments, the Senate does. They're not in a position to block any of them.

[betsuni]

86. I'd like to know why they think they're the only ones with progressive ideas

and why they seem to think that without constant threats of blocking or protesting, Democrats will turn into Republicans. Why do they think the Biden administration would ever cut Social Security and Medicare? This is not a Democratic Party position, Republicans aren't going to control the House. It's weird.

[58Sunliner]

72. This may be irrelevant if Reed is not being asked for that role.

I would like AOC et all to discuss this another way. I don't know if they are being shut out. But the progressives are an important part of our party.

[ripcord]

74. Nothing brings our party closer together than the smell test.

[Native]

76. One of the things I love about our party is that they don't all walk in lockstep.

This is nothing Biden can't handle. In the scheme of things, this is like a gnat on an elephant.

[beastie boy]

84. Kerry is a deficit hawk. So is Yellen. So is Mayorkas (Chair of the US Chamber of Commerce no less).

Thomas-Greenfield has no apparent record of being a deficit dove either. They are all cool with the "progressives". Something tells me the aforementioned "progressives" only mind some deficit hawks, but not others.It looks more like attempting to flex their political muscle rather than make a stand for their values. This is totally fine, it's politics. What is not fine is trying to conceal their true intentions behind the facade of ideological posturing, especially when those intentions are pretty obvious.

On a side but important note: kudos to Axios for calling a spade a spade: they are the first publication that I am aware of that is calling the left wing of the Democratic Party, "left wing Democrats". At long last.

[BainsBane]

193. This point is being assiduously ignored

Apparently animosity is reserved for those AOC tells people to oppose.

[OneBro]

93. They are doing their jobs.

AOC and Omar are doing their jobs by pushing back on policies and appointments they think will hurt their constituents. Compare that to republicans who, for the most part, fall lock-step in line with party leadership at a moment's notice.

It shouldn't shock anyone that progressives would be unhappy with a "'deficit hawk” who has shown support for cutting Social Security and Medicare. Few people in Congress have been more consistently dedicated to looking out for the struggling class than AOC. The only thing shocking about this is that people apparently thought AOC and the squad were going to sit on the sidelines now that a moderate Democrat is back in the White House.

[SophieJean]

111. Thank you.

Finally, some common sense.

[NurseJackie]

120. His job will have nothing to do with any of those things.

He is Biden's tech adviser. What does that have to do with deficits or social security?

The only thing shocking about this is that people apparently thought AOC and the squad were going to sit on the sidelines now that a moderate Democrat is back in the White House.

What good purpose does it do for them to create distrust and suspicion? Why would they want to alienate Biden? Why would they want to isolate themselves?

There's a lot to be said about unity, working together, respecting our new President, trusting his judgement (and the wishes of the voters). This is still an all-hands-on-deck moment.

[ancianita]

174. What does Reed's work history even qualify him to be a "tech advisor." I've found nothing.

His whole history has nothing to do with tech, nevermind Big Tech, and so I wonder.

Trusting Joe is fine. But knowing why he trusts this guy as a tech advisor is also reasonable and in no way distrusting.

This thread's been more about judging AOC progressives for speaking than about why they are, and whether he is who his title claims he is.

[NurseJackie]

201. Let it go, and trust in Joe. He knows what he's doing.

People need to stop creating division and distrust. It weakens us. This only helps the gop.

[ancianita]

252. Fine. It's not that hard. I was just hoping to find out some background on the guy

but seems ignored or lost in preferred criticisms of a popular young Democrat.

[Celerity]

242. many (not just AOC) are objecting to Reed potentially serving as head of the Office of Management

and Budget.

here is some background (documented with with hyperlinks) on Reed, who is a well-known budget hawk for ages

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2635664

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2635708

[ancianita]

251. Thank you for the links.

I've never heard of him before tonight.

[OneBro]

206. I don't think a petition will cause disrupt, suspicion or isolation.

They aren't declaring war, they are raising a stink. Posturing. Making noise in a noisy chamber where the few have to yell just a bit louder than the many.

I agree that this is an "all-hands-on-deck" moment, but unlike republicans, Democrats are notorious for NOT getting in line just for the sake of party "unity." I just assume AOC is trying to figure out what is best for her constituents and the American people, while Biden is trying to figure out what is best for the American people. What's not a good idea is to start gnashing our teeth whenever the media tries to make it look like Democrats are at war within whenever we clash.

The squad is still learning, figuring out when to push and when to pull. January will be their first year in office, and this is their first time watching an administration form. Biden is seasoned and knows this, so I seriously doubt that there is much hand-wringing at the Biden/Harris camp over this.

[AmericanCanuck]

184. No they are not. Absolutely positively not.

Their job is to work within the system and not run to the media with a wish list and trying to demand (what looks like extortion) an incoming POTUS.

They should not be applying purity tests to every one of Biden's amazing choices and carping about not getting their way. Their candidate lost. TWICE. Elections have consequences and they have no role in what ensues because they were never a part of the Biden team.

[questionseverything]

186. Wasn't this joe's 4th or 5th run?

yowser:

And why would it matter?

[AmericanCanuck]

195. Non sequitur

He won.

[kstewart33]

96. They need more than a few US Senators on their side.

Good luck with that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

103. Good for them. We need substantive change, not neoliberal normalcy. Nt

[mysteryowl]

137. Yes, we need to respect all the voices within the democratic party.

All of this complaining on this thread speaks volumes. Why so quick to slam down some within our party?

With all this negativity about progressives, it seems this thread is in violation of DU rules.

[NurseJackie]

298. No. Just because an opinion is held, does not mean that it's a valid one or helpful one.

Yes, we need to respect all the voices within the democratic party.

No. Just because an opinion is held, does not mean that it's a valid one or helpful one. The argument you're making is a fallacy. It's the equivalent of "I'm entitled to my opinion." And while everyone is "entitled to an opinion" that does not mean that everyone's opinion is valid or the correct one.

Why so quick to slam down some within our party?

Nobody is doing that. People can be respected, but the "voices" or the unhelpful and divisive messages deserve no such automatic respect. There's no need to take things so personally.

All of this complaining on this thread speaks volumes.

I find it to be reassuring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion

I'm entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is a logical fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion. The statement exemplifies a red herring or thought-terminating cliché. The logical fallacy is sometimes presented as "Let's agree to disagree". Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. Where an objection to a belief is made, the assertion of the right to an opinion side-steps the usual steps of discourse of either asserting a justification of that belief, or an argument against the validity of the objection. Such an assertion, however, can also be an assertion of one's own freedom or of a refusal to participate in the system of logic at hand.[1][2][3]

[Mike Nelson]

117. Great news!

... this lets Republicans know Biden/Harris are not Socialists-Communists! We're not going to turn into Cuba, after all! Gets us closer to those Georgia senate seats!

[still_one]

127. You know I was thinking the same thing Mike. Excellent observation

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2020, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

[AmericanCanuck]

280. +1

[still_one]

124. This petition was launched by the "justice democrats", which was founded by Cenk Uygur and Saikat

Chakrabarti

I think that alone speaks volumes for itself

[JGladstone]

131. It's agitation or stagnation

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/opinion/biden-fdr-left-new-deal.html

--Jamelle Bouie

Intro

If Biden Wants to Be Like F.D.R., He Needs the Left

Radical agitation helped bring Social Security and much of the New Deal into being.

[BainsBane]

196. LOL

This ain't it. It was a people's uprising--in the streets--not political elites complaining about one another. https://socialistworker.org/2008/11/14/who-made-the-new-deal

The left supported FDR because of the war against Fascism. It was a temporary truce. The left was the Communist Party, not Democrats. We no longer have a viable Communist Party in this country.

[JGladstone]

202. You're soliciting in the wrong pew on that :)

n/t

[pecosbob]

135. Supply-siders please STFU

You had your place in the sun...no more trickle-down bullshit.

[BainsBane]

200. Then it's treasury secretary you should worry about

Not a tech advisor that has nothing to do with economic policy.

[DeminPennswoods]

139. DLC, "end welfare as we know it"

No thanks to this DINO.

The fact is, OMB is more a technical job than anything. Yes, they do the annual budget, but that's simply the priorities of the administration. It rarely resembles the appropriation and authorization bills passed by the House. TBH, it should be run by a career technocrat and not a political appointee.

[Hulk]

157. What...ever....

They can be against someone. They can kick and scream, and make a fuss. Good food for fox/Putin propaganda network and the reich wingers. They LOVE to see infighting in the Democratic Party.....nothing like the ill-named "frei-dumb caucus" for the GOPutin party. We can have differences of opinion. Barney did NOT win the nomination. They can work with the party to get more progressives into the administration. They can biotch and moan...but that only serves to feed the cult and our adversaries.

I admire AOC to the top! I'm not a big fan of Ilhan Omar. Her personality and tact turn me off....but that's just me. But if they want to perpetuate this "the Squad" talking point, then they seems to be on the right road. Hope they work this out without it causing damage from within....we know it is going to cause propaganda from without.

[DeminPennswoods]

161. Bruce Reed is particularly odious

Remember the DLC, the bane of most Democrats? Reed was CEO of that.

Remember Simpson-Bowles? Reed led that effort to balance a budget during a recession and to cut SS and Medicare. It was paid for by investment banker and rich guy Pete Peterson who was merely looking out for his own and other rich persons interests.

The 1994 Crime Bill that Biden helped pass and now has disavowed? Reed helped Biden pass that.

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act? Reed wrote it.

These turned out to awful policies that set income equality and equality in general in American back years. No Democrat should want to see this jabroni anywhere near the gears of government.

[ancianita]

175. I'll grant that people change. I'd just like to know how and why he's changed into a tech advisor.

[DeminPennswoods]

269. I don't know many people in their 6th decade

of life like Reed who are up to speed on the latest technology. Maybe he's an exception, but I doubt it.

[Hulk]

297. I had no idea...

Thanks for the information.

[hamsterjill]

158. I am growing weary of their antics.

Can we please wait until the Inauguration before we air all of the infighting?

These two need to learn to have some decorum and stop trying to stir up shit right now. There will be time for that but that time is not right now.

[ms liberty]

165. Quite the uptick in pieces promoting division between democrats lately

[lunasun]

327. THANK YOU ❤️❤️❤️❤️

[Progressive dog]

168. They have no say in who is appointed

by Biden and should not have a say. They have to understand that Joe Biden ran against their favorite candidate in the primary and he was crushed by a big majority of Democrats. Votes matter.

[Cha]

171. Joe Biden has Earned Being Able to

choose his OWN CABINET.

[robleb]

173. Everyone has an opinion...

And if they were Senators, maybe someone might care what the hell they think about administration appointments - but as it is they are just a noisy bunch and who cares!

[BasicallyComplicated]

176. Good For them.

I don't want "Deficit Hawks" to say what we can't do. It's the first set to compromising BIG ideas into little ones that no one believes in. That tuns into do-nothing legislation that is forgotten. If you think that the progressive wing needs to sit down and shut up you need to remember that we have an election every two years that we need numbers to come out. We need to stop ignoring a good portion of our "left" coalition to do so. Last Sorry we aren't a collection of JUST centrist.

[Cha]

177. Joe Biden is NOT a "Centrist" & he has Earned

Choosing his OWN CABINET!

[PatSeg]

245. Exactly

Its bad enough that Trump held up his transition and McConnell is bound to cause trouble with Biden's nominees, he doesn't need this from members of his own party. With so many republicans out there, why make Democrats the adversary? Especially our President-elect. Sometimes it feels like some members of congress spend more time fighting other Democrats than they do republicans.

Hey there Cha!

[Cha]

255. Excellent points, Pat! Biden has a Broad

Coalition that BEAT BACK the FASCISTS!

We the Dem Party are so Grateful We were able to do that in a semi Fascist state that had Big FASCIST PLANS in 2021..

It's a Miracle.. they can't believe they lost. . I don't see anyone else doing that.

Aloha & Mahalo!

[PatSeg]

286. Yes, I think Biden has a broader vision

of what needs to be done and how to do it. Some younger, less experienced members of congress are perhaps a bit naïve and see the world from the perspective of those who are still quite new to the game. I understand the passion and the energy, but having been around awhile, I know things aren't always as simple as they may seem.

Meanwhile, just because someone on Joe's staff or in his cabinet have suggested something in the past, does not mean that will influence Joe's decisions today. He has made it quite clear he will not cut Medicare or Social Security and in the end, it will be Joe who makes the decisions.

Have a nice holiday Cha!

[George II]

187. The "left" is not a coalition on it's own, it's part of the DEMOCRATIC coalition....

Left
Left Leaning
Center
Right Leaning

ALL Democrats.

[lapucelle]

273. The Justice Democrat's petition is a publicity stunt being flogged by David Sirota and The Intercept

(Krystal Ball to shortly follow.)

Tactics like these ineffective and not a method that serious people in government who seek concessions, coalition, and consensus generally employ. It's what the student council does in high school.

We are all well aware that we have elections every two years. In my neck of the woods, Democrats who work hard to elect or re-elect Democrats in purple districts or to keep flipped districts flipped saw Max Rose lose his seat, retiring Peter King's seat go to a Republican, and we held our breath while the mail in ballots for Tom Suozzi were being counted. We saw the Republican ads tying each of these Democrats to socialism and the "defund the police" narrative. It was the very loud voices that echoed in the attack ads.

When politicians who have the power and standing to schedule meetings in which they could hammer out differences and seek concessions instead immediately default to publicity-seeking tactics, my question is "who benefits?".

Cui bono?

[tenderfoot]

179. Good.

eom

[JohnnyRingo]

188. This is just a shot across the bow by the left wing of the party

letting themselves be noticed in case we forgot.

[NurseJackie]

268. They're doing themselves NO favors. Stunts like this only serve to create distrust and resentment.

In the end, the most extreme individuals will find that they've created enemies of party members who'd otherwise be their natural allies. They will have alienated themselves even further. Rather than having any meaningful influence or respect among the party leaders and other stalwart Democrats, they could find themselves relying exclusively on sniping from the hills, online petitions and other forms of sternly-worded-letters.

All I'm trying to say is that it's just so unnecessary. Rather than going for the "headline," our representatives should use normal and reasonable means of communicating such "concerns" by speaking directly with Biden or with his transition team. It really serves no good purpose to try to publicly denigrate him, or kneecap him before he's even taken the oath of office. Such tactics don't help those on the fringe of our party... instead, it only weakens the party as a whole, and therefore, it serves to benefit the GOP. Why would anyone want to do or say anything that benefits the GOP? That's a perfectly reasonable question that deserves a response.

[JohnnyRingo]

288. You are correct and I agree

Republicans used them extensively throughout the election as a worse case scenario if Biden were elected, and they'll use them freely over the months and years ahead as the go to democrat monster hiding under the bed.

Still, I believe them and even Sanders, are representatives of democratic ideals, and deserve a voice. Their timing could be better.

I myself, like most Americans, am more moderate than them BTW.

[TomDaisy]

190. I have so much fear and anger against the GOP Senate and Mitch MicConnell...

I just want to focus all my energy on fighting the Senate GOP!

[Historic NY]

212. Back benchers

[CaptainTruth]

231. So be an adult & talk to Biden. Is that so hard?

[NurseJackie]

262. As a mature, rational and reasonable adult... that's what I would do.

Surely.

[lapucelle]

275. Justice Democrats, David Sirota, and The Intercept helped enable Trump's election in 2016.

Now they are flogging a petition written to tie Joe Biden's hands and create questions about his commitment to Social Security. Shouldn't they be busy fighting Republicans rather than bullying Democrats?

After all, these are the very same warriors who sowed doubts about Democrats in 2016 and helped create the messes that President-elect Biden will have to clean up

They need to take responsibility and apologize.

As for their petition, I've read it. It's divisive, misleading fear-mongering that is deliberately disrespectful. It takes for granted that Joe Biden will break his promises and predicates that premise on a dubious series of cobbled together decontextualized statements from the distant and even more distant past made by a policy specialist who Biden knows and respects. I trust Joe Biden to weigh advice from all sides and to keep his promises. From the "Petition to the Principal" number from David Sirota's high school musical:

Joe Biden must not repeat Obama’s mistake. We need our government to spend money now―to ensure vaccines are distributed, to keep people in their homes, to prevent small businesses from closing permanently, and to make sure Americans can stay home until the vaccine arrives!

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris ran on strong promises to protect and expand Social Security. Add your name now to demand that the Biden administration does not include Bruce Reed in their appointments.

When the default position is to immediately make demands based on facile and misleading narratives, then seriousness of purpose is dubious at best. Trying to trick people into thinking that a Reed appointment signals a willingness to cut Social Security and break campaign promises is manipulative and dishonest. That's what Justice Democrats, David Sirota and The Intercept does best...unless of course you consider a sneaky way to add more email address to their revenue generating fundraising list.



https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/justice-democrats/C00630665/independent-expenditures/2020

*******************************************************************************************************

Dark Money Boosted Justice Democrats’ Super PAC In Q2

Justice Democrats also received $100,000 from a group mentioned briefly above — Way To Win. Way To Win is a 501(c)(4) dark money venture co-founded by Leah Hunt-Hendrix, granddaughter of Texas oil tycoon H.L. Hunt, and niece of Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt — as well as Democracy Alliance (according to the NY Times).

According to their most recent tax filings, in 2018 Way To Win pulled in over $7,000,000. Some of that year’s haul can be traced to five-figure grants from Groundswell Fund, Tides Center, and the Goldman Sachs Foundation — but the vast majority, some $6,500,000 — is anonymous and dark.

https://medium.com/@RobletoFire/dark-money-boosted-justice-democrats-super-pac-in-q2-aad6c00b52cf

[UCmeNdc]

278. Without a doubt the Democratic Party does need the progressive voters to vote for the Dem candidate

That fact alone means the Democratic party should consult the progressive wing of the party.

I do believe social security is a major issue the democratic party can win on plus divide the GOP from its rural followers.

Expand and secure social security. That is a winning issue for all democratic candidates.

[MineralMan]

281. Way to go, you two...

[orangecrush]

282. On a roll?

[lunasun]

328. +1 😻

[orangecrush]

329. ...

[Chakaconcarne]

283. I'm betting they're just doing this to send a message to the base that they're working for them....

and potentially to keep people engaged because everyone is pretty exhausted......

None of us here know what's really behind this at this point, yet we're attacking our own?

We need to look out for people stirring the pot, trying to get us attacking one another and becoming disorganized...You know it's coming and it will come hard and fast.

For this alone, I will say criticisms of AOC and Omar here are most definitely bordering on breaking DU guidelines....even if you disagree, is it really necessary?? We just won the damn presidency for Christ's sake.

We don't need this shit.

[lapucelle]

291. I'm betting that Justice Democrats are doing it to bolster their email list

for their superpac's fundraising endeavors.

Carey Committee: A Carey committee is a hybrid political action committee that is not affiliated with a candidate and has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC, contributing funds to a candidate's committee, and as a super PAC, which makes independent expenditures. To do so, Carey committees must have a separate bank account for each purpose. The committee can collect unlimited contributions from almost any source for its independent expenditure account, but may not use those funds for its traditional PAC contributions.

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/justice-democrats/C00630665/independent-expenditures/2020

[George II]

315. Even a casual review of Justice Democrats' FEC filings reveals that they and those who are or were..

....associated with them have some questionable financial skeletons in their closets.

[NurseJackie]

313. "... and people in Hell want ice water!"

AOC and Ilhan Omar want to block Biden's former chief of staff

"... and people in Hell want ice water!"

[Demsrule86]

314. Really. Fuck that,

[Hotler]

336. I agree. nt