I'm thinkin': we don't need a goody two shoes as President.

[Honeycombe8]

I'm thinkin' we need someone in the W.H. who understands how the other side will try to manipulate him/her, and isn't all about "when they go low, I am so good and honorable, that I will stay way up here in the clouds, going high."

I'm not talking about juvenile name calling and such. I'm talking about street smarts. Understanding that the other side is playing by different rules. And use the power of the Presidency accordingly, to counter the "we have our own rules" set. The ones getting millions from Russia, the ones changing the rules of the Senate, once they're in power. The ones who refuse to do their job and confirm a S. Ct. Justice appointed by a Democratic President. The ones who have a secret ringer in the S.Ct., so that one who isn't planning on retiring suddenly retires, for a THIRD S.Ct. Justice appt (then the retiring Justice's relative, who has connections with the other side, goes on to be very very successful).

One who uses the powerful bully pulpit for all its worth. Who uses all the power of the W.H. to help the Democrats in the Senate and the House.

I'm not suggesting criminal acts or being slimy like Trump. But tough & rough & street smart, and willing and able to understand all the power the Presidency holds, and not be afraid to use it.

Do we have someone like that? S/he doesn't have to be loud. Sometimes the hardest people to deal with smile while softly saying, "No deal."

[applegrove]

1. Buttigeig is creative in terms of policy. But he would do it in a constitutional

way. Creativity in policy is what we need to fight 'no norms' Trump.

[delisen]

2. An important post. A super-savvy president may be what we need.

[Honeycombe8]

12. Thanks.

[xxqqqzme]

3. "... as a law professor, she

sparred with then Senator Joe Biden about the 2005 bankruptcy bill he backed, which Warren argued favored special interests. “At a time when the biggest financial institutions in this country were trying to put the squeeze on millions of hardworking families,” Warren said recently. “Joe Biden was on the side of the credit card companies.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democrat-candidates-771735/

[BannonsLiver]

6. Did he ever give a reason for being on their side?

At first blush it seems like that might have to do with the fact there are thousands of people employed in the banking and credit card industry in Delaware But wasn’t sure what the rationale was.

[Honeycombe8]

20. I'm sure that's the major reason.

But a reason is an explanation, not an excuse, to pass something that is so harmful to ordinary citizens. There's a reason for everything that is logical to the person doing something, whether it's going to war in Iraq or passing a huge unpaid-for tax cut bill that benefits mainly the ultra-wealthy.

[BannonsLiver]

23. Yeah here's the thing

Senators protect their home state’s interests. So in that sense he did what they all do. Sometimes we might not like it. I don’t need purity in my candidate anyway, whoever that may be.

[Honeycombe8]

24. "Protecting" is not the same as originating something harmful to others.

It is an unusual thing to do. It's not like sticking in an amendment that expands drilling in your state, or not letting people in YOUR state file for BR because of medical bills. It is unusual to push a national bill that harms the core demographic of your own party, so that the companies incorporated in your tiny state, and who give you big donations, make more money.

It was a terrible thing to do. I can't think of another instance where any Democratic Senator has done something similar. And he got away with it.

[at140]

26. So if credit card banks are milking the public,

the president should give higher priority to those leeches and their employees and ignore the vast millions of hard working ordinary consumers using credit cards?

I feel the greedy corporations should NOT be the higher priority of political leaders.

[pangaia]

4. Somebody like Nadler, Hirono, MAXINE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[marylandblue]

5. I think Buttigieg fits that description for several reasons.

One is that he is willing to pick fights against strong opponents. Such as his fight with the religious right.

Two, he is a gay man named Buttigieg. It's worse than being a boy named Sue.

Three, he is an intelligence officer. He must know a thing or two about dirty tricks and manipulation.

[JI7]

9. not after the comment on vaccines

[marylandblue]

17. Oh brother. He didn't even say it himself and the campaign walked it back in less than a day.

It doesn't even rise to the level of a gaffe.

[Celerity]

25. +1

[Politicub]

8. We need to get the house and the senate along with the presidency

The president can only do so much. Trump's garbage, while destructive, is done by decree, executive order or regulatory changes. All of that can be swept away in the first few days of a democratic presidency.

Lasting change will require new laws, including ones that will make the GOP howl (they howl about everything already) like expanding the federal judiciary.

Trump's lasting damage has been to embolden domestic terrorists and to create the new hateful class. Investigating and containing it will require a strong hand.

[Honeycombe8]

11. Not everything was by decree and such.

We have the S.Ct. Justices unethically selected and arranged...for life. That can't be changed. Trump had unknown connections with Kennedy. When Kennedy retired, it came out that Trump had a connection with Kennedy's son-in-law or son...who would stand to gain. Kennedy's retirement was a total surprise to us, but not to them.

The unfair and unwise tax code was passed with coordination between Trump and Congress w/o Democratic participation.

No attempts at any bipartisanship.

And on and on.

I don't want to see another honorable Democrat take the office and then attempt to be bipartisan with people who have no souls and who are crooks. If it were a different group, the old establishment Republicans, it would be different. But I have seen that if you bend over to work with them, well...you get the idea.

Relying on this group's word or promises is foolish at this stage, after we have seen what they are. The democracy is up to us (and any Republican who hasn't carried the water for Trump, whose numbers are few).

But I CERTAINLY agree we need to keep the House and at least gain Senate seats. I don't know if there's a decent chance to get Senate majority, but that's a goal.

[Politicub]

14. Those are more reasons why we need the congress and the presidency

Whoever the candidate is, I pray they have coattails for the senate.

[Honeycombe8]

15. "Coattails for the Senate"?

Just clarifying..does that mean whoever is elected has enough pull that people will also vote for our party for the Senate?

[Politicub]

16. Yes. n/t

[mtnsnake]

10. I agree. The tougher the better.

[brush]

13. You don't get any more savvy and smart than Harris in the way she demolished Barr...

in that Senate hearing so effectively that he was spooked into not showing up the next day at the House hearing.

She proved right on national TV that he was lying. Give her credit.

[leftofcool]

18. Goody two shoes?

I want a President who is honest, who has dignity, who has heart.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Me, too.

I didn't say one who is dishonest, does not have dignity, and has no heart.

I said tough, sees manipulation when it's being tried against them, suspects motives of those who have given reason to suspect motives, doesn't bend over trying to work with people who have shown repeatedly that they don't bend over trying to work with us, plays by all the rules without recognizing that they're playing with people who don't play by the rules. A tough, street-smart candidate.

[mtnsnake]

21. Exactly. Taking the high road with Trump will be the path to electoral college defeat again in 2020.

[Honeycombe8]

22. No high road.

High road, to me, is always behaving like a gentleman/gentlelady, while dealing with a mob boss.

I've always been in favor of going high in the past, but this time is different. Acting like a juvenile wouldn't be good, but not hitting a moving target when you can, or mildly & logically just pointing out that Trump "is not a good fella" or "hasn't had your interests at heart" ain't gonna cut it for me.

A good leader is strong enough to call it like it is, to tell the people what's at stake. "His policies have been so bad for America" isn't gonna cut it. A good leader will sound the warning bell, "Hey, folks...this man is dangerous to the country, to hardworking Americans, to our democracy. Never again will we cage children in dog kennels, where toddlers will be left to sleep on concrete floors, where records about who their parents are won't be kept. That's not America, and that's never going to happen again in OUR country." Things like that.

The fog horn has to be sounded loudly for Americans to get it. To understand what's happened in the country, and what COULD happen, if he's re-elected.

[customerserviceguy]

27. Are there any of our candidates

that you suspect of being "goody two shoes"? If not, then why bring the subject up, but if there are any that stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, do tell, I would be most curious to know who to beware of in your opinion.

[Tipperary]

28. My question too.

[Honeycombe8]

29. Thank you for your contribution to the thread.

It added so much. I'm sure great minds will sit around pondering the words of wisdom you have graced us with, and grapple with those hard questions you posed.

[customerserviceguy]

30. Instead of being snarky

why not just answer my question?

My opinion is that any of the declared candidates will take it to Trump in the general, and will not be a doormat for the orange menace.

[Honeycombe8]

31. Who was being snarky?

I didn't cause you trouble over it.

You're welcome.

[Tipperary]

32. It seemed the poster was just asking you a question.

Why the reluctance to answer it?