Democratic (Party) Direction

Erik Loomis:

I know the Jacobin and Chapo crew is extremely suspicious of Gillibrand for the crime of winning an election in a conservative district on centrist principles. Evidently, the only acceptable politicians are those lucky enough to live an area when a platform of full communism leads to electoral guarantee. Me, I like a politician who learns, who says yes to my demands, and who is smarter and savvier than everyone else. From the beginning of the Trump administration, Gillibrand has learned that her best path to the nomination was to resist all Trump appointees, stand up to the bully, and outflank her potential rivals for the nomination on the left. She was the first potential candidate to support a federal job guarantee, which obviously warms my heart to no end, and now she is the first to call for the abolition of the fascist agency of ICE and start over on immigration from the ground up. This is outstanding. Moreover, with job guarantee, it started with Sean McElwee literally giving her a phone call and her agreeing with the position. Now, McElwee has also been the leading person on the #AbolishICE movement. He deserves an incredible amount of credit in shaping the progressive agenda; moreover, he’s the kind of leftist who understands the need for a big tent and to move beyond ideological hatreds. I can say this because I know him personally. Instead of getting caught up in personal beefs, he seeks to move the agenda forward. Anyway, #AbolishICE is a bit more controversial than the job guarantee. Because if Democrats have been reticent to take openly leftist economic positions in the last few decades, they’ve been really scared to take on the security state.

tbf, if you're not at least a little suspicious of people running for the highest office in the land, you're a dullard at best. (Not mentioned there is the fact that she endorsed Crowley like everyone else.)

She's in New York, that's the price. Just keep your powder dry.

Loomis is a bad speller, not a sucker.

my pals kristian & marge are in this v v good episode of this good podcast https://soundcloud.com/seasonofthebitch/episode-41-abolish-ice

Ha, and the other guest is co-chair of the local DSA chapter

(also I can say as a Chapo listener that I can't recall them ever even mentioning Gillibrand, though I understand what he means)

loomis is a smart dude but i think he's either overcrediting mcelwee or if not then mcelwee's impact is a clear example of the differences between a semiprominent white guy pushing a position and a movement of brown people pushing it

<3 Mags, and not only cause her punking Ted Cruz was one of the few small sources of joy this year

loomis is a smart dude but i think he's either overcrediting mcelwee or if not then mcelwee's impact is a clear example of the differences between a semiprominent white guy pushing a position and a movement of brown people pushing it

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, June 29, 2018 1:18 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

probably also a clear example of someone spending too much time on Twitter. (Loomis is one of the few people I've unfollowed solely because he just tweets too fucking much and floods my feed).

Sean is a good ‘unfollow and you’ll still get 30% of his tweets RTd into your feed’

lol that's completely otm

I cautiously like gillibrand, but politicians who (rightfully) harness progressive energies to better position themselves politically are the same ones who might sell them out when the going gets tough. her past work defending phillip morris also gives me pause. still, I'm glad she's doing what she's doing

Sean is a good ‘unfollow and you’ll still get 30% of his tweets RTd into your feed’

― flopson, Friday, June 29, 2018 1:24 PM (thirty-three seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha yeah that has been my unfortunate experience too with Greenwald.

loomis is a smart dude but i think he's either overcrediting mcelwee or if not then mcelwee's impact is a clear example of the differences between a semiprominent white guy pushing a position and a movement of brown people pushing it

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, June 29, 2018 1:18 PM (eight minutes ago

well, it is a matter of platform and reach. I don't think he was suggesting that mcewee invented the ideas

greenwald prob best to full block

still haven't brought myself to unfollow greenwald. he was too important to me 10 years ago

didn't Kamala Harris essentially call for getting rid of ICE on MSNBC a few days ago? I guess you could split hairs between "abolish" and "start over from the ground up" but I'm pretty sure her position now is the latter.

They've both made pretty much the same statement. I still take issue with the "rip it up and start again" sentiment/wording for...one obvious reason

still haven't brought myself to unfollow greenwald. he was too important to me 10 years ago

― k3vin k., Friday, June 29, 2018 10:29 AM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i like his posts about his dog shelter staffed by previously homeless dog owners in rio, they warm my heart

yeah I have noticed that phrasing (from gillibrand, as it turns out) and it's obvious that it's hedging...not sure what to think of it though

still haven't brought myself to unfollow greenwald. he was too important to me 10 years ago

― k3vin k., Friday, June 29, 2018 10:29 AM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i like his posts about his dog shelter staffed by previously homeless dog owners in rio, they warm my heart

― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, June 29, 2018 1:32 PM (six seconds ago)

yeah when he posts about animals or his husband it's cute

I cautiously like gillibrand, but politicians who (rightfully) harness progressive energies to better position themselves politically are the same ones who might sell them out when the going gets tough. her past work defending phillip morris also gives me pause. still, I'm glad she's doing what she's doing

― k3vin k., Friday, 29 June 2018 17:26 (six minutes ago) Permalink

Politicians who at least *can* be pushed left are not the worst thing. I remember hearing a white house tape of LBJ telling MLK something to the effect of "make me do it, force me to get the civil rights act past."

Taking the positions I want is not enough, they need to feel it deep down inside their bones. Only I am the arbiter of that btw. https://t.co/MqCBoDAZMo

— randotweets (@goodpostguy6465) June 29, 2018

still haven't brought myself to unfollow greenwald. he was too important to me 10 years ago

― k3vin k., Friday, June 29, 2018

Same, but I get second thoughts when he posts photos of him and his boyfriend in cargo shorts, thong sandals, and their dirty dogs.

Of course then there are people like Cuomo who will stab you in the back repeatedly

p sure the answer to this is, typically, no

have there been any exit interviews with people from the bronx about why they voted for ocasio-cortez

— David Grossman (@davidgross_man) June 29, 2018

I don't think he was suggesting that mcewee invented the ideas

― k3vin k., Friday, June 29, 2018 5:27 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, but mcelwee sure is taking a lot of twitter victory laps lately that are annoying the immigrant rights movement

Politicians who at least *can* be pushed left are not the worst thing. I remember hearing a white house tape of LBJ telling MLK something to the effect of "make me do it, force me to get the civil rights act past."

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, June 29, 2018 5:35 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah tbh imo this is the only reason to invest in electoral work--getting people elected that you know you can push to honor your agenda

insisting on ideological purity from our reps is counter-productive and naive, the important thing is that they vote for the correct positions when it matters. that's it. LBJ is a perfect example of this. politicians' inherent opportunism is a tool to be exploited.

hell yeah

i like to say "my favorite kinds of politicans are craven because they're predictable"

LBJ voted against every single civil rights bill - actually actively blocked them in the Senate - until he saw the political benefits of passing a bill shift, and then he did it. and that broke the dam, and led directly to stuff like the Voting Rights Act.

Presumably the “start again” version of ICE is like have desk agents pursue deportations of undocumented people who have committed violent crimes and not have a uniformed police force round people up trying to meet quotas. Which yknow I’m willing to put #OpenBorders right next to #AbolishICE but I’m also willing to do things one (big) thing at a time

Harris and Gillibrand are both in this mold, to varying degrees (I think Gillibrand started out a bit farther right/more centrist than Harris? But Harris is, after all, a prosecutor so there's some less than ideal positions in her past)

xp

Ppl who decry incrementalism neglect the viability of large and high-impact increments. $15 an hour is not a basic income or even a living wage for a household in my city but it it’s a ratchet, and it’s here now.

insisting on ideological purity from our reps is counter-productive and naive, the important thing is that they vote for the correct positions when it matters. that's it. LBJ is a perfect example of this. politicians' inherent opportunism is a tool to be exploited.

― Οὖτις, Friday, June 29, 2018 12:43 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Agree, but at the same time the latest election cycles have demonstrated the power of PROJECTING ideological purity in shifting the debate/overton window.

I mean at some point no one wants to vote for Senator Blank Slate, and Senator Blank Slate isn't mobilizing or energizing people or getting people behind policies.

true

I know the cliche is “politicians don’t honor their promises” but isn’t the opposite true? Politicians tend to enact the major campaign policies they ran on? For both good and bad.

That’s why the “but do they really *mean* it?” stuff that was used to hand waive away progressive planks in the presidential and party platform a couple years ago was kind of baffling.

Clinton's platform was mealy-mouthed and unclear on many progressive issues, especially economic ones. She loved using language like "high quality, affordable healthcare for all" --no one actually knows what policy that is.

Medicare for All -- I know what that is.

xps. the majority of governments i've lived under have reneged on major manifesto pledges

infowars is shook

tag yourself, I’m “weakening police while gangs run rampant” pic.twitter.com/mEH5j7GG7a

— Alex Press (@alexnpress) June 29, 2018

that was the worst picture they could find of her, she's so damned photogenic

just recently the Liberal party in Canada reneged on some of their biggest promises within less than a year of winning a majority

Disarming all citizens, yup sounds good

xp

I'm in favor of never-ending government handouts for all

I feel like the constant use of "Venezuela" as a go-to is a bit of a loser for them.

For a lot of the infowars audience you might as well be saying "Tuvalu"

I'm amazed the word "socialism" didn't appear on that attack ad anywhere. One of the many elements of cognitive dissonance in the current GOP discourse is how closely it adheres it 1950s style red scare rhetoric - despite the cold war being long over and, for that matter, with a president overtly cozying up to the former and future evil empire itself. The right wields the word "socialist" like the Soviets just launched Sputnik.