dagblog - Comments for "Democrats need Marie Gluesenkamp Perez"

I thought the crime czar move

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 28 Sep 2023 07:12:29 +0000

In reply to Before doing something weird

I thought the crime czar move was a good example.

Before doing something weird

artappraiser — Thu, 28 Sep 2023 05:05:17 +0000

In reply to Democrats need Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

Before doing something weird and panicky like dumping the VP or challenging an incumbent president, Democrats should try something normal like being 5-10% less progressive across a broad swathe of issues. https://t.co/mq0bwfYRLm
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) September 27, 2023

Yeah, Saudi sentenced to

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:31:27 +0000

In reply to Where they might need some of

Yeah, Saudi sentenced to death just for what he *writr*.

But Joe Biden...

Where they might need some of

artappraiser — Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:18:28 +0000

In reply to Takedown of bland LGBTQ

Where they might need some of that posturing:

Police in Nigeria say they have arrested about 200 gay men at an event in southern Delta state. Sixty-seven of them will now be charged after investigations. One of them said they had been locked up for days without water and access to their phones. https://t.co/562VumxYjO pic.twitter.com/M7Yrqbc2fP
— BBC News Africa (@BBCAfrica) August 29, 2023

But no,ruins the narrative, must focus on the USA being the imperialist oppressor....

Takedown of bland LGBTQ

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 30 Aug 2023 07:10:13 +0000

In reply to Democrats need Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

Takedown of bland LGBTQ posturing?

(with some appreciated takedowns of persistent myths)

‘I Have Something to Tell You’ by @Chasten provides a blueprint for an LGBTQ politics whose only challenge to American empire and capitalism is that our most oppressive institutions should be queer-affirming.

by @NairYasmin https://t.co/97fkaroE35
— Current Affairs (@curaffairs) August 28, 2023

Yglesias on the tendency of a

artappraiser — Mon, 21 Aug 2023 19:57:08 +0000

In reply to Democrats need Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

Yglesias on the tendency of a chunk of the progressive left to see some issues as outside the realm of debate and compromise. It's this inflexible stridency that gives them the air of religious fanatics. (Repubs, of course, have their own fanaticism, i.e. Trump as messiah.) https://t.co/ehQvZgqHFQ
— Carl (@HistoryBoomer) August 21, 2023

The big divide in contemporary progressive politics — is there some set of identity-linked issues that are so significant as to be beyond the scope of compromise and normal politics, or is it in some sense all just on the table as usual? https://t.co/WGayODpCLq
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 21, 2023

excerpt:

artappraiser — Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:36:49 +0000

In reply to Democrats need Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

excerpt:

[...] I also think she — and her colleagues Jared Golden and Mary Peltola, among the younger cohort of House Blue Dogs — are important for Democrats’ long-term prospects in the Senate. To an extent, you can take or leave these R+4 House seats, but with the current Senate map, Democrats have to win in Republican-leaning states to get a majority. The current Democratic majority relies on deeply endangered legacy incumbents Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, and Joe Manchin. Those guys won’t be around forever. And because the average state is a lot whiter, more rural, and less educated than the country as a whole, the party needs to develop new models of what it looks like to be a Democrat in a state that is whiter, more rural, and less educated than the national average.

I don’t think there’s a magic formula

for winning in red-leaning states and districts.

But I do feel pretty confident that it’s not just vibes and persona. Vibes count. Persona counts. But you also need to clearly differentiate yourself policy-wise from a normal Democrat. So I don’t think it’s surprising that Gluesenkamp Perez has taken some votes that have made liberals angry, nor do I think it’s problematic that liberals have expressed that anger. Her efforts to differentiate herself work better if people notice.

That said, Slate’s recent article titled “With Democrats Like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Who Needs Republicans?” really bothered me for three significant reasons:

The headline suggests that left-wing people should be indifferent as to whether she is defeated by a Republican, which is wrong.

The body of the article is, I think, wrong on the merits about student loan issues.

The subhead of the article is “a Washington congresswoman campaigned on pro-choice and anti-corporate policies. First year on the job, she’s nothing like her backers expected.” This implies, falsely, that she has betrayed her former pro-choice and populist stances.

I think it’s beneficial for both sides of these arguments to debate on the merits. Gluesenkamp Perez voted to block the D.C. criminal code rewrite, for example, which I think is no-brainer politics for her. But it’s genuinely true that she broke with anti-incarceration activists on this topic, and they ought to say so and explain why they think she’s wrong. But telling people she’s not pro-choice when she is because you’re mad about student loans generates confusion.

The case against Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

Here, per Alexander Sammon, is the case against Marie Glusenkamp Perez: [....]