I like the big tent Democratic party, including AOC, Omar, and moderate Democrats in districts that match. I don’t see any conflict between admiring much of what the young progressives are saying as well as supporting moderate Democrats in moderate districts. We’ll need them all to win in future elections.
Yes. Omar is so consistently doing things that harm Democrats and help Republicans, that I can’t help wondering if there’s something going on here behind the scenes.
She’s also helping Putin’s project of dividing the West and creating division and chaos that would let him advance his territorial objectives.
***And all of this may be complete coincidence, of course. ***
Omar is almost certainly an anti-Semite* and may simply be intent on gaining a wider audience for her views, which a “whatabout Obama” defense of Trump certainly has succeeded in doing. It could all be personal ambition. Or it could be that she’s being manipulated by someone wanting to advance right-wing goals.
In any case, if she continues along this path, she should be primaried by the Democrats, without a doubt. (And the Minnesota Democratic higher-ups should revisit their vetting procedures.)
*I do NOT classify criticisms of Israel’s policies as anti-Semitic—not at all and not in the least degree. Anyone should be free to criticize such policies without being accused of being anti-Semitic.
However, I do classify the repetition of old tropes and smears–“about the Benjamins,” dual loyalty, etc.—as being likely hallmarks of anti-Semitic beliefs. Omar has repeatedly voiced such smears.
What counts as rocking the shit depends on what one wants to accomplish I guess. Getting celebrity status does not count as rocking shit to me. It don’t count as any shit to me. The issue I care about is most is pulling this country back from the rule by a far Right minority with real harms being done every day that have worldwide impact. I want the GOP out of control. Other differences of opinion are moot if that is not accomplished.
Is the most important thing to do with your limelight to highlight your thought that Trump is doing bad things but hey look at what Obama did that I didn’t like, he just did it with a pretty face?
The single best way to undermine that goal of pulling back from Trump and the far Right dominating governance is to fracture those who are wanting to accomplish that. And who needs Russian troll farms when you got elected Reps whose rhetoric is aimed as much at those with that same goal as those whose goal is to re-elect Trump and keep the Senate Red or Redder.
What did the Tea Party accomplish that you like? The government shut downs? Or that you perceive its failures as having laid the groundwork for a party that has no room or tolerance for moderation and compromise within it?
Or Putin’s party-line really …
When Trump and the GOP do that to write off their own crimes (Bill Clinton has sexual impropriety, Obama locked a few kids in cages, etc) that is the fallacy yes. Even though the examples they use aren’t the same (Obama rarely separated kids and only did it when they suspected trafficking, Trump does it as the default policy to terrorize immigrants for example).
What Omar is arguing is that the public only have the choice between a far right and a center right party. Thats not the same thing. She is lamenting the lack of options on a national scale when it comes to politics.
Granted, it may drive away high school educated whites to see a brown skinned muslim woman with a head scarf saying these things. I’m not denying that. But it also seems like no matter how racist the GOP get, they aren’t losing support. So I don’t know if you can claim that the democrats have to tread lightly, the GOP don’t tread lightly and they always get 60-65 million votes in presidential years.
Same-o, same-o. 
It’s astonishing to me how many lefties take exactly the wrong lesson from the rise of the Tea Party. :smack:
The GOP has lost the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections. But they are doing so well, we should copy their extremism? 
It’s the ‘repeatedly’ part that’s the real problem. She’s been in office two months and already has multiple retractions and public apologies on her record. She can be passionate, that’s fine. But repeatedly saying stupid shit that requires apologies and spends party leadership energy is the sort of thing that will get her primaried next time…if only to ease the burden on leadership.
Every time some other congressman or presidential candidate is asked “What about Omar’s statement X” she gets one step closer to being placed on the committee to clean the catbox.
Then she wasn’t “condemning Obama.” That phrase, by itself, means that she was specifically singling him out. That’s why you felt the need to add the disclaimer after it. If that implication was not inherently there, you wouldn’t feel the need to say it.
Her point, if you read the entire transcript, was saying that simply kicking Trump out of power doesn’t fix the problems, because past presidents also did wrong things, albeit with more polish.
Sure, Obama is included in that. But so are both Bushes, Clinton, etc. Making it all about Obama is what the OP is doing as a reason to go after her, rather than pay attention to the point.
That seems to be a huge problem these days. People don’t listen for the point of what people say, but for sound bites. I hate this. It happens with politicians, and it happens with people just talking online. I’ve had it done to me I don’t know how many times, where something I say sound ridiculous without the rest of the context, with no attempt to try and understand the meaning.
If people argued that she “implicitly criticized Obama among past presidents,” I would have no problem with that assertion. But claiming she “condemned Obama”? No. That’s a specific narrative that is false. It may literally be true, but people don’t speak on a literal level.
It was not the point of what she said to specifically criticize Barack Obama.
No. These aren’t the same thing. The tu quoque fallacy is specifically “you are wrong because your side does it, too.” Whataboutism is distraction: “why aren’t you concerned about this other bad thing?”
And neither apply to what she said. Her argument is simply that focusing on Trump himself rather than the policies behind him is a bad idea. Multiple people on this board have said this, and most of us agree. While getting Trump out of power is a good first step, it doesn’t fix the underlying problem.
And, FYI, I am literally going by the statements posted in this thread quoting what she said.
And I’m also someone who criticized her for her (at best) antisemitic adjacent comments. This is not about favoritism. I’m also someone who has said we need to work together, liberals and progressives. It’s the Progressives right now saying we need to stick together.
Heck, that is why I am on iiandyiiii’s side. For all the talk of the progressives creating divisions, it definitely seems to be you guys. You’re the one claiming a progressive is actually a closet Republican, despite their political positions being incompatible.
And the OP is the one pushing for primary challenge, talking about kicking people out.
That’s division. You guys are the ones buying into the Right’s attacks on the Left to try and divide us.
It’s not surprising that you left Hillary Clinton out of this list, given how completely it undercuts your argument that moderate candidates are who wins nationally. It is surprising that you thought I wouldn’t notice.
Absolutely. Omar is the right candidate for her district. Manchin is right senator for his state. You’ll find very few posts from me talking shit about conservative Democrats, and none crowing about how I’m gonna work for their defeat, because I care too much about progressive victory to engage in that sort of nonsense.
That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize positions, though, and have a robust internal debate. That’s absolutely what we should be doing until the primary season ends.
I want progressive causes enacted. For all my life I’ve listened to candidates saying that the way to do that is to be moderate and very slow and not to rock the boat. God, it’s refreshing to hear someone talking about another path to victory.
As for the lesson we should be learning from the Tea Party, it’s this: moderation isn’t the key to victory. Trump didn’t get elected by reaching across the aisle; he decided he didn’t need to do that. He won by taking adamant positions (incredibly awful positions, mind you, but adamant ones) and by hammering them home and by making the (bullshit) case that they were best for the country.
Progressives are now seeing that this is a path to victory. It scares the shit out of moderates and conservative Democrats. I’m okay with that.
Omar specifically? I’m not gonna die on that hill. But the general smug “Nyah Nyah I’m gonna work to defeat a Democrat” nonsense, I’m not down with that.
Candidates who are under FBI criminal investigations don’t tend to win nationally. It is surprising that you thought I wouldn’t notice.
We can debate all night the reasons why Clinton lost. But that’s a pretty lousy objection, given that the candidate who won in 2016 was under FBI investigation.
Not sure if anyone knew that at the time, so that’s a really lousy objection.
Trump is the most consistently unpopular president in the history of polling, and lost the popular vote by three million, but let’s copy his template. Brilliant strategy. :smack:
More important than that is learning from the conservative movement. Anyone else here remember Reagan’s 11th commandment?
“Though shalt not speak ill of another republican”
Yes, it seems silly. But it’s an inherently useful electoral tool. It says that party disagreements remain internal. Making them external gives voters a reason to not vote for your party and that’s…well…not a good thing.
Omar’s broken that rule when she could easily have avoided doing so yet still made her point. Rail against a military-industrial complex that wants war to continue. Complain about lobbyists. All of those are fine. Naming other democrats? It’s harmful and it means you’re not a team player. If that’s the case, why the hell should the team support you in the future?
Leftists I know talk openly about using the Democratic Party “as a vehicle” (one friend used this exact terminology on Facebook just a few minutes ago) because of its resources, being on the ballot in 50 states, etc. But they get incensed if the party shows any spine and actually pushes back against being so used. :smack:
In reverse order -
One can believe that someone is being an idiot who is causing harm without the working to see defeated part. She can win in her district and her district wants to nominate her? Fine. If they choose to nominate someone else after one term also fine. Better is that stop being an idiot.
Really claiming that progressives or “The Left” has a single voice and mind is silly stuff. Entertainingly enough 538 ran an on-point bit this morning broadly identifying six Democratic wings … four of them “progressive”. What you are talking about is what they label the “super progressives” who feel that those with other thoughts are not true progressives.
That small bloc knows feels they can gain more power by tearing down the rest of the party to make more room for them. And while there is room for their ideas and for the debate there should not be room for that destructive behavior in the service of their ideas.
The Tea Part set up Trump to be sure and Trump has won an election that has put a minority POV in power. He’s also left the part very unappealing to more. What “scares the shit out of” me is that some small in number but loud Ds will make this party so unappealing with self-destructive behaviors that people just stay home rather than vote for any one.
One of the core lessons being taken from the Tea Party and a declared plan for the Justice Democrats is to primary out incumbent Dems. Are they just being less smug about it?
What does that mean? Do they mean they plan to support progressive candidates in every district? Do they mean target and oppose EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE? Something in between?
Uh, wtf? LHoD is annoyed that a Democrat would announce they’re going to work to defeat another Democrat. The Justice Dems, including AOC, have announced that themselves. No, not every Democrat. 