ETA: To get a sense of what is at stake, a discussion of a means used to push refugees on Guatemala, which is not exactly best able to handle them, being a place people flee from already. Meanwhile, a mother from there testifies about her daughter dying, after poor treatment in a camp. Clearly, the problem is AOC and "the squad."
The Mets lost to the Marlins, a highlight six toss-overs to keep a pitcher close at first base with the at bat ending with Granderson hitting a two run homer, followed by another one. Somewhat different first games back. The first game was Thursday with the Rangers giving the Astros a run for their money again. So, you know, the expected as well a bit of baseball magic. I like to snark about the Mets on Twitter, in part since on some level baseball doesn't matter. Sports do matter, but they still aren't life or death (most of the time). It feeling good was shown by the women's soccer team (now just known as "the team" as compared to "men's soccer") winning the World cup.
[The Mets then won the next two games, the second one via two runs in the eighth -- scoring in that inning an ongoing theme in winning games -- the second basically by DeGrom pitching well (NS did too) while the Mets offense actually showed up some. My general sentiment here is BFD. Will they do a 2018 and suddenly have a good run? And, then the team won't really do anything different since you know this year was just a quirk.]
Okay. Yes, the opening quote. After Pelosi publicly asked Democrats to stop sniping at each other in public, the House Dems Twitter feed (without deigning to suggest they even knew who he was) reached back a few weeks to find a tweet to call out AOC's chief of staff. Talking Points Memo summarizes things, an appropriate citation since the head of that blog last night also tweeted about the dust-up. People, including myself, can be too concerned with Twitter, but let's say the tweet got a lot of attention. The basic sentiment of many was "what the fuck are you doing?" Of course, some had to take the other side, and call out AOC and others. Some with stupid .gifs or pictures.
There is now always a feeling that we have to fear anyone making strong comments that come off as divisive are really "trolls" or don't reflect any real sentiment as a whole. "It's only Twitter." This can be taken too far. First, Twitter is a thing and like Facebook and other social media has real effects and reflects real sentiments, if all having some means to exaggerate and all that bad stuff. The same can be said about cable news, traditional media and most anything of this caliber. Second, the divisions expressed here were made elsewhere. Pelosi and others have shown their feelings in other contexts and even a resolution that was at least partially a subtweet against one of the four new POC* House members referenced by some as "the squad." This isn't just their supporter's imagination. #Gaslighting Noting the importance of perspective.
Josh Marshall (TPM) as noted tweeted, noting Pelosi and the House Dems were wrong ... well, let me get the exact language. Marshall started his blog during the Bush v. Gore fight (11/12/00 in fact) and his voice here is worth singling out since he's an important expression of a long term political commentator. My concern reflects this as compared to you know a random Twitter person. Anyway, later on he spoke of the "courage" (his scare quotes) of a Democrat in a safe distict though also retweeted the Fallon's comment. But, like comments sympathetic to Biden if concerned about him being the candidate, his tweets aired out his sentiments.
First tweet:
A reply (again, one really can spend too much time with these**) argued he was being a "technocrat" and not seeing how AOC is being a "visionary." He replied: "don’t lecture me about politics and causes." As the person noted, "get off my lawn" is implied. See also, Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) worried about speaking of "stolen elections" and when people call him out, he gives his bona fides as a voting rights warrior. Sure is and great. But, you can be wrong about something. And, Pelosi has been too.
I know who the true enemy is here. I saw 1776 (movie reference), but the tweet (without providing the context, as the COS tweeted in a reply he supported the choice of the person he criticized running and considers her a friend ... using her first name, therefore, was not some grave act of disrespect on his part) reflects a problem in knowing how to battle them. it was particularly asinine when the original tweet was an in the moment raw reply to the emergency funding border bill dispute. In the news yesterday was Pence and company visiting the concentration camps and even after the Democrats supported the funding bill (with no real teeth), calling out Democrats for not providing means to support them. AOC and the others taking a hardline here comes off rather well in the fact of that shit.
Over at another blog, the second of two somewhat related discussions (with lots of comments) on basically what "republican government" means (including the true meaning of "one person, one vote") in part discuss strategy. Movements as well as legislative caucuses need to keep this in mind. AOC and others provide a valuable function. We can debate how far she should go (including challenging long term incumbents in safe seats, shades of Republican conservative efforts), but overall, her fire is both helpful and not just a chaotic force. As the lead tweet notes, something like this would have been helpful with Garland (not sure about the Dreamers -- seems there was some voices there). This is not just from me or "Twitter liberals" but also from aides to leadership, including Harry Reid.
I think an impeachment inquiry is warranted and not only is just but pragmatically helpful. Looking it up on Wikipedia, the formal process for Nixon started in October 1973 with the end game starting in May (still active when he resigned in August 1974). Before then, there were Watergate hearings. Now, we have scattered hearings with no overall umbrella with various ongoing lawsuits to get documents or people to testify. Pelosi seems not to want that personally and this influences the state of the caucus as a whole of which only a fraction publicly are on board. Think her comments on it have been bad either way.
Overall, glad my representative is pushing and screw the haters.
---
* It is notable that the four vocal women representatives at times singled out (though "Justice Democrats" make up a wider number) are POC and people find it offensive that they personally seem to be targeted. Others say it is outrageous to suggest Pelosi et. al. are somehow racist, but our party generally seems to understand the complexities of racism, including disparate impact. Taking care to avoid feelings of disrespect isn't too hard and is something taken into consideration back to the days of dueling.
** A few weeks ago, though I still read and favor some tweets, I started a policy of not tweeting on weekends. I admit to a Twitter addiction in part since I enjoy giving my .02 and it is a means to vent. Plus, it's fun and informative. You engage with some great people. Monica Lewinsky, e.g., "liking" a tweet ... come on.
The agitating that the freshmen are doing about the camps, in order to keep the issue in the news and try to force action on it, is something Dems failed to do on behalf of DREAMers in 2017 or on behalf of Garland in 2016. This is what advocacy looks like.
-- Brian Fallon (profile: "Executive Director, We Demand Justice. Former aide to Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer")Last nite, on a day to honor a young pitcher/leader who recently died, the Angels had a hit parade and combined no-hitter (one walk), on the first home game after the death and the day before his birthday. His mom threw an excellent first pitch (know where he got his talent from!). The Seattle Mariners provided the thankless opponent role (the Angels used an "opener" and then someone whose recent outings were far from no-hit stuff for the next seven), down to a lackluster run out of the box to help make up for a possible hiccup on fielding the final out.
The Mets lost to the Marlins, a highlight six toss-overs to keep a pitcher close at first base with the at bat ending with Granderson hitting a two run homer, followed by another one. Somewhat different first games back. The first game was Thursday with the Rangers giving the Astros a run for their money again. So, you know, the expected as well a bit of baseball magic. I like to snark about the Mets on Twitter, in part since on some level baseball doesn't matter. Sports do matter, but they still aren't life or death (most of the time). It feeling good was shown by the women's soccer team (now just known as "the team" as compared to "men's soccer") winning the World cup.
[The Mets then won the next two games, the second one via two runs in the eighth -- scoring in that inning an ongoing theme in winning games -- the second basically by DeGrom pitching well (NS did too) while the Mets offense actually showed up some. My general sentiment here is BFD. Will they do a 2018 and suddenly have a good run? And, then the team won't really do anything different since you know this year was just a quirk.]
Okay. Yes, the opening quote. After Pelosi publicly asked Democrats to stop sniping at each other in public, the House Dems Twitter feed (without deigning to suggest they even knew who he was) reached back a few weeks to find a tweet to call out AOC's chief of staff. Talking Points Memo summarizes things, an appropriate citation since the head of that blog last night also tweeted about the dust-up. People, including myself, can be too concerned with Twitter, but let's say the tweet got a lot of attention. The basic sentiment of many was "what the fuck are you doing?" Of course, some had to take the other side, and call out AOC and others. Some with stupid .gifs or pictures.
There is now always a feeling that we have to fear anyone making strong comments that come off as divisive are really "trolls" or don't reflect any real sentiment as a whole. "It's only Twitter." This can be taken too far. First, Twitter is a thing and like Facebook and other social media has real effects and reflects real sentiments, if all having some means to exaggerate and all that bad stuff. The same can be said about cable news, traditional media and most anything of this caliber. Second, the divisions expressed here were made elsewhere. Pelosi and others have shown their feelings in other contexts and even a resolution that was at least partially a subtweet against one of the four new POC* House members referenced by some as "the squad." This isn't just their supporter's imagination. #Gaslighting Noting the importance of perspective.
Josh Marshall (TPM) as noted tweeted, noting Pelosi and the House Dems were wrong ... well, let me get the exact language. Marshall started his blog during the Bush v. Gore fight (11/12/00 in fact) and his voice here is worth singling out since he's an important expression of a long term political commentator. My concern reflects this as compared to you know a random Twitter person. Anyway, later on he spoke of the "courage" (his scare quotes) of a Democrat in a safe distict though also retweeted the Fallon's comment. But, like comments sympathetic to Biden if concerned about him being the candidate, his tweets aired out his sentiments.
First tweet:
Democrats are talking about some dumb shit tonight. Pelosi has done herself/her caucus no favors with her dismissive comments. It’s also mind boggling that AOC and crew can try to upend their caucus at every turn and then be shocked they’re “singled out”.Second:
This "both sides" business is a bit much and not evenly handled, showing his sentiments some. It is "Pelosi" (the leader of the caucus with decades of practice at this) on one side and "AOC and crew" on the other. They are "at every turn" (#hyperbole) trying to upend their caucus. Uh huh. Like the "problem solving caucus" voting against the leadership position or even against Pelosi herself? AOC et. al. voted for Pelosi. They didn't try to find someone to challenge her as speaker. Likewise, the dismissive "achievement ribbons" comment. This all pissed me off as unbalanced this even beyond her being my representative and liking she is (rather skillfully though I remember she just got there, so is still a bit raw) strongly speaking out. The times warrant it.2/ The four of them have every right to be rebels/insurgents. They’re elected reps. But who expects to be insurgents and also think you’re going to get achievement ribbons from the people you’re surging agst? Regardless they all need to figure out how to put this shit to bed.
I know who the true enemy is here. I saw 1776 (movie reference), but the tweet (without providing the context, as the COS tweeted in a reply he supported the choice of the person he criticized running and considers her a friend ... using her first name, therefore, was not some grave act of disrespect on his part) reflects a problem in knowing how to battle them. it was particularly asinine when the original tweet was an in the moment raw reply to the emergency funding border bill dispute. In the news yesterday was Pence and company visiting the concentration camps and even after the Democrats supported the funding bill (with no real teeth), calling out Democrats for not providing means to support them. AOC and the others taking a hardline here comes off rather well in the fact of that shit.
Over at another blog, the second of two somewhat related discussions (with lots of comments) on basically what "republican government" means (including the true meaning of "one person, one vote") in part discuss strategy. Movements as well as legislative caucuses need to keep this in mind. AOC and others provide a valuable function. We can debate how far she should go (including challenging long term incumbents in safe seats, shades of Republican conservative efforts), but overall, her fire is both helpful and not just a chaotic force. As the lead tweet notes, something like this would have been helpful with Garland (not sure about the Dreamers -- seems there was some voices there). This is not just from me or "Twitter liberals" but also from aides to leadership, including Harry Reid.
I think an impeachment inquiry is warranted and not only is just but pragmatically helpful. Looking it up on Wikipedia, the formal process for Nixon started in October 1973 with the end game starting in May (still active when he resigned in August 1974). Before then, there were Watergate hearings. Now, we have scattered hearings with no overall umbrella with various ongoing lawsuits to get documents or people to testify. Pelosi seems not to want that personally and this influences the state of the caucus as a whole of which only a fraction publicly are on board. Think her comments on it have been bad either way.
Overall, glad my representative is pushing and screw the haters.
---
* It is notable that the four vocal women representatives at times singled out (though "Justice Democrats" make up a wider number) are POC and people find it offensive that they personally seem to be targeted. Others say it is outrageous to suggest Pelosi et. al. are somehow racist, but our party generally seems to understand the complexities of racism, including disparate impact. Taking care to avoid feelings of disrespect isn't too hard and is something taken into consideration back to the days of dueling.
** A few weeks ago, though I still read and favor some tweets, I started a policy of not tweeting on weekends. I admit to a Twitter addiction in part since I enjoy giving my .02 and it is a means to vent. Plus, it's fun and informative. You engage with some great people. Monica Lewinsky, e.g., "liking" a tweet ... come on.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!