Did I say there were not?
I’m a little less willing than you are to dance to Frank Luntz’s tune.
Yes. A cost/benefit analysis will be done. No doubt the Dem leaders want to encourage youthful enthusiasm, and certainly don’t want to seem to be in the position of criticizing a member of a minority group. But at some point the costs of standing by while offensive remarks continue to be made, do outweigh the benefits.
Already the right has made extensive use of this. Why help them further?
[ul]
[li]Person A makes remarks that attack Group X’s patriotism and basic decency.[/li]
[li]Persons B, C, and D object to those remarks.[/li][/ul]
…so it’s persons B, C, and D who are “creating divisions”…?
That seems to be the argument you’re making, here.
What are you claiming here, that when Frank Luntz says these congresswomen should be allowed to say anything they want, he is actually using some kind of reverse psychology, because he thinks it’s bad for his side if they say when they want and he really wants us to defy him and muzzle them? That’s quite a reach. How is it better for Luntz if they don’t say controversial things?
Luntz is many terrible things, and among his traits is that he’s a master of psychological warfare. The best response to an asshole like him is to ignore him, not to take anything he says as relevant in any way. When you give his words weight, you allow him to use you.
Don’t dance to his tune. He’s better at his game than you are.
If she hadn’t said the crap about Obama, I would defend her on this. I take this to mean “I actually had no idea my tweets could be seen as referencing anti-Semitic tropes, but I’m sorry they were inadvertently hurtful to people.”
Was Slacker giving Luntz’s words weight, though? I thought he was saying ‘this right-winger thinks the outspokenness of Omar (etc.) is working to the advantage of the right.’
Either Luntz was being sincere in hoping Omar et al would go on speaking out, or Luntz was being insincere (and actually hopes Omar et all will go silent).
I’m not seeing the “dance to his tune” element in this. We’re just speculating over whether a particular pundit was being sincere or disingenuous. “Dance to his tune” would be more like saying “we can’t do X because Luntz says Y”—it would be more along the lines of changing our own conduct because of something Luntz said.
Seems that way to me, anyway.
Slackerinc said Luntz’s statement "speaks volumes " so he clearly has come to some conclusion as to what it meant.
Right–I mean, technically it’s LHOD who is more dancing to his tune. Unless it’s reverse psychology, which I find to be a dubious claim.
…you are on record as having expressed this opinion about Muslim immigration to America:
Bolding mine.
Is your decision to “work to defeat Ilhan Omar in her next election” in part coloured by the fact that you would have preferred that she was not allowed into the country at all?
I once heard Luntz explain why the term “Orwellian”, when applied to political commentary and propaganda, meant the commentary was incisive and honest. I don’t find it at all dubious that he’s engaging in some convoluted fuckery.
Because you know what would help his cause? Moderates deliberately undermining young progressive Democrats in a fashion that will alienate new Democratic voters.
What Luntz likely wants is “Let’s you and her fight.” He needs moderates to do their damnedest to quiet new voices.
Omar is criticizing the old guard, sure–but she’s doing it on policy. It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize her back on policy. When old guard moderates and old guard conservatives tell young progressives to shut up, that they’re not real Democrats, that the old guard is going to work to deny them power, you know Luntz loves that shit.
Luntz’s specialty is messaging derived from focus groups of swing voters. He wants to rhetorically sand the edges off conservative ideology and make it less threatening to suburban moderates, while making Democrats seem scary. Therefore, I have no doubt that he is sincere in wanting Omar to let 'er rip, although he’s quite insincere in the justification he offers.
Again, he’s an incredibly dishonest Macchiavellian motherfucker. He gets his power from getting your attention. If you hear him talking and decide to start more intraparty warfare, you think that’s gonna make him sadface?
What I see is you jigging along while insisting you’re not jigging. It doesn’t look to me like you’ll be persuaded, but I hope other folks know better than to pay Luntz any mind.
Progressives are the ultimate glass house-residing stone throwers. They constantly spit out hyperbolic tirades against “corrupt” “corporatist” “warmonger” Democrats like Hillary Clinton, but if we criticize their beloved Bernie (or whomever), suddenly it’s “Why would you say such negative things about someone who is inspiring so many people? Don’t you realize you’re alienating the young voters and progressives you need to win?” :smack:
Are you aware that criticizing someone on policy is different from criticizing someone for lack of team loyalty? Like, does the fact that I keep describing that difference ever register with you?
I’m including critiques on policy. They can’t take it, even though it’s far milder than the ad hominem calumnies you are characterizing as “policy”.
Okay, dude.
Really? You think?
Sigh.
It’s an apology failure. It’s an “I’m sorry that you were offended but what I said was not offensive.” She is stating very clearly that she feels the problem was not what she said, it was absolutely not a badly worded tweets or even unwittingly anti Semitic, and she is sorry that some people felt it was. The problem is their offense; I was not offensive.
I know better than to apologize to my wife by saying that I’m sorry she feels that way. Any spouse knows that is no apology, it is clinging to a belief of I’ve no fault here.