Democrats’ new leader suggests John Kerry just ’emboldened extremists.’
No kidding it’s strong language. I happen to agree with it, but then I’m not a Democrat. Think the party picked the right guy for Minority Leader?
The Democrats need a period of infighting to sort themselves out before facing and trying to control President Trump. This is a normal and healthy part of the political process.
He’s a Democratic senator from New York and so has a very large Jewish constituency that he has to keep happy. This is as big as a Republican Senator from Iowa complaining if Trump tweeted a plan to curb ethanol subsidies.
The difference between Kerry/Obama and Scheumer sides is that one group is staunch alley of Israel supporting them both financially and rhetorically beyond that of any other country, and the other doesn’t thinks that this isn’t enough and that when Isreal says jump the US’s only response should be to ask how high.
It’s not an either/or issue. I happen to think Kerry is right about Israel, and Schumer is overstating his case in support of them. Which is understandable, given Schumer’s constituency. I also think Schumer is an excellent choice for minority leader and will work with the GOP in the rare instances that it’s reasonable to do so, but will hold Trump’s feet to the fire when necessary. I’m not panicked at all by this – once again it’s just the GOP trying to stir up shit when there’s nothing to see.
What does the OP mean by “the infighting continues”? Did I miss a bunch of infighting?
Well it wouldn’t be the Democratic Party without infighting. Reminds of the quip of I am not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.
Small potatoes. Schumer represents more Jews than Bibi does, he’s going to be very reluctant to call Israel out on anything. When you talk about other issues, he’ll be right there with other Democrats in opposing what the new Nazi party proposes.
You haven’t seen any infighting since the election? Democrats blaming each other for the defeat? Hillary and her inner circle were deaf to the workers at state level? It was all Huma’s fault? These were just the tip of the iceberg. It surprises me that someone who follows the news should ask such a question. Yes, clearly you’ve missed a lot. I’ll give you just one cite from the myriad available on a cursory search.
The Democratic Party descends into ‘civil war’ after Clinton’s loss
If the Business Insider says so, well, what can one say? Still, I’ll wait for the Heritage Foundation to weigh in, if anybody has their finger on the very pulse of the Democratic Party, it would be them. Or aldiboronti, who’s ever available…
I don’t think that article supports your contention as much as you think it does.
I don’t believe there will be that much infighting in the coming months. The centrist/Clinton wing of the party is all but dead imo. It will be more of a lurch to the left than a fight. The big unknown is just how much of a lurch to the left the party takes.
Wait a minute, let me get this straight. Are you people honestly saying there has been no infighting in the Democratic Party since the election? Seriously?
Wow. Just wow.
I, for one, am deeply concerned by infighting among Democrats.
I believe that Snowboarder Bo summed up the consensus opinion:
That doesn’t say no infighting. It says that there’s not as much as you seem to think.
There hasn’t been any infighting to speak of, despite your apparently feverish yearning for such.
The loss of the Electoral College was unexpected. Since the reasons for this are human and subjective, there’s been a lot of discussion of what might have happened, and various theories have been bandied about. Humanly, too, some have hoped that they were not at fault and that others, perhaps, were.
It’s a shame that this disappoints you–but it’s pretty normal behavior in the wake of an unforeseen event.
They still have plenty of horcruxes.
It’s all or nothing, Buddy!
I actually think Obama and Kerry made a mistake on Israel. For one, while I agree with them that Netanyahu has been spectacularly recalcitrant, the reality is the UN Resolution and the following Kerry speech will do nothing to change behavior because Trump who will be President in a few weeks immediately told Israel to ignore it and that he would allow nothing but full support of Israel when he takes office.
Israel has little reason to care about the raging of an administration in its twilight.
Additionally, and probably even more importantly (because the UN resolution is basically purely symbolic with little to no real impact) Republicans are united on Israel (basically in lock-step support of it) but Democrats have always been divided, with a strong pro-Israel wing and then another wing that is more nuanced (i.e. more sympathetic to Palestinian interests but still more or less neutral on the conflict as a whole.) By shifting the national foreign policy discourse to an issue that divides Democrats and unites Republicans (as opposed to focusing on say, Trump’s ties to Russia, which divide Republicans and unite Democrats) I think Obama has really hurt his own party for no obvious or apparent gains. Other than I guess some “attaboys” from liberal academic types who largely have a negative view of Israel. (Again, I don’t think Israel is above reproach or blameless, I’m just saying that even most Democrats who aren’t 100% pro-Israel, guys like Bill Clinton, usually take the view that Israel is the “more aggrieved” party and the more reasonable party, but that Israel has to dial certain behaviors/actions back if it wants to ever find peace. I think Obama’s actions primarily cater to the hardcore pro-Palestinian minority that is found on university campuses and throughout the leftist parts of Europe.)
It was certainly awkward for them when Schumer, soon-to-be the most powerful Democrat, came out and basically contradicted them.
ETA: I really liked your post. It’s a very astute observation.
This assumes that the Israel issue will remain politically live; in fact it’s already been replaced by the Russia issue in the headlines. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Obama announced the Russia sanctions the next day. I am sure he is perfectly aware that it’s better political terrain for the Democrats than Israel.
Kerry’s speech doesn’t have any immediate implications but it will be an important reference point for the next Democratic administration on this issue. They probably thought it was worth taking a very small political hit to make their argument about Israeli settlements forcefully.
I also disagree that their position reflects the left-wing fringe; it’s pretty much the view of the centre-left Democratic foreign policy establishment. For example Tom Friedman wrote a strong column supporting Kerry.