Post New

Other than Al Green, the democrats did little to express their outrage or protest during Trump's insufferable lie-peppered blathering. Why? Would it have only played into Trump's narrative?

Other than Al Green, the democrats did little to express their outrage or protest during Trump's insufferable lie-peppered blathering. Why? Would it have only played into Trump's narrative?

Yes.

Also, the Democrats have been positioning themselves as the "institutional" party - the idea that the regular and orderly functioning of government provides important services and stability to society that is critical to maintain against those who would tear down the "guardrails." Part of that is respecting the outcome of elections. And if you win an election, it means you have legitimacy to exercise the powers of that office. For Trump, that means (among many many things) the right to deliver an annual speech to Congress that will be accorded at least the minimal amount of civility due to the office.

Other than Al Green, the democrats did little to express their outrage or protest during Trump's insufferable lie-peppered blathering. Why? Would it have only played into Trump's narrative?

Trump was nasty enough. He was probably hoping for more outrage from the Dems, something he could use against them. The silent treatment they gave him was probably the right call. I don't know.

"For Trump, that means (among many many things) the right to deliver an annual speech to Congress that will be accorded at least the minimal amount of civility due to the office."

As you are well aware, MAGA doesn't believe in any of that. Everybody recalls MTG and Boebert
acting like spoiled brat 10 year olds at Bidens SOTU. So yeah, I'd really like to see both
sides act like mature adults, but that ship has sailed. I've only seen "highlights" of
the lie-fest from last night, no way I'm watching Trumpian-idiots carry on, but hopefully
Dems learned from the use of force that Johnson called for. He had Sgt-At-Arms remove heckler.
Dems should have had Green and Boebert dragged out, instead of letting them tantrum to their
hearts delight.

Al Green now gets to join Joe Wilson, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Lauren Bobert in that footnote in history.

When I heard how long his speech was it reminded me of another long speech delivered on another March 4th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_Will...
It is funny how the mind works.

For Trump, that means (among many many things) the right to deliver an annual speech to Congress that will be accorded at least the minimal amount of civility due to the office.

Does that mean shouting “You lie!” as one Republican did to Obama is OK, or does that cross the line? And say, what did other Republicans do to sanction him about that behavior? Inquiring minds, and all.

Does that mean shouting “You lie!” as one Republican did to Obama is OK, or does that cross the line? And say, what did other Republicans do to sanction him about that behavior? Inquiring minds, and all.

No, it does not. But that's the point. The Democrats spent a lot of political capital distinguishing themselves from the GOP as defending the "guardrails" of democracy - the 'rules' of government that haven't been formally codified.

Generally, if you want voters to choose you because you're different than the other party on a given point, then you can't do the same things as the other party on that point. If you do the same things, then it undermines your argument to voters that the opposing party's failure to comply with those norms represents an atrocious breach.

That same dynamic explains some of the Democrats' reticence to use the debt limit as leverage to force changes in, say, how DOGE is taking a wrecking ball to the civil service. The Democrats spent a lot of time characterizing anything other than a "clean" debt limit raise as metaphorically holding the country's fiscal health hostage, an illegitimate tactic in order to let the minority dictate policy to the majority. The GOP tried anyway a few times, which the Democrats can point to as justification for pursuing that tactic themselves. But if you do that, it undercuts a bit of your argument that the GOP was doing something really wrong when they were doing it, and you end up tacitly supporting their then-claim that doing so was legitimate politics and not something egregiously wrong.

"For Trump, that means (among many many things) the right to deliver an annual speech to Congress that will be accorded at least the minimal amount of civility due to the office."


Your hypocrisy is showing. Again.

And, get real, Trump is most uncivil bastard to ever besmirch the Whitehouse.

And, get real, Trump is most uncivil bastard to ever besmirch the Whitehouse.

One name comes to mind that encapsulates his incivility- John McCain.

Your hypocrisy is showing. Again.

How so? If the Democrats want to continue to make the argument that eruptions from the audience are grossly inappropriate and a sign that the opposition party is doing something inconsistent with important norms, that gets much harder to do if members of your own party are doing it. So that's why you didn't seem more Democrats doing it with Trump.

They could just choose to do it themselves. If they limit themselves to the types of outbursts that some Republicans have engaged in the past, they'll have some defense against the criticism they'll receive from the GOP. But they won't have as much credibility when they then claim that those types of standards are really important to maintain and that voters should choose Democrats because Democrats will uphold those standards.

One name comes to mind that encapsulates his incivility- John McCain.

I'm not sure you mean 'encapsulates'? Maybe exposes Trump's incivility by contrast?

McCain is the kind of Republican I could have been satisfied to see as POTUS. A good man, a real patriot. And, of course, Trump ridiculed him.

I simply meant that the Republicans criticize the Dems for doing, not what they do, but something less than the Republicans do. I'm not saying the Dems should follow the example of the Republicans.

It's hypocrisy.

I'm not sure you mean 'encapsulates'? Maybe exposes Trump's incivility by contrast?

Not the OP, but I took it to mean that the way Trump treated a true Patriot like McCain was all you needed to have seen to understand Trump's level of incivility.

McCain is the kind of Republican I could have been satisfied to see as POTUS.

Not an option. John Kasich seemed to be one of the few adults in the room in 2016, and though she is more conservative than I prefer, I have no doubt Liz Cheyney would approach the job of POTUS from the POV of what is best for the country, not herself.

IP

I like Jen Rubin's post at BluSky.

arguing about what sort of reaction Ds had to speech is stupid, irrelevant and counterproductive. the message is clear: Ds are only ones against Mr. Crazy Pants. Now get out and organize, demand town halls (even if Rs don't show), keep on Rs case (espec Collins, Tillis in Sen)

Generally, if you want voters to choose you because you're different than the other party on a given point, then you can't do the same things as the other party on that point. If you do the same things, then it undermines your argument to voters that the opposing party's failure to comply with those norms represents an atrocious breach.

I'm beginning to question whether that is a successful tactic. Clearly, a lot of voters don't care about the old norms. They care more about seeing their policies enacted.

The old adage about not wrestling with pigs because you both get dirty and the pigs like it isn't working. When your job is to wrestle pigs, you sometimes have to get into the mud with the pigs.

When your job is to stand up for your policies and fight to get them enacted, you have to actually fight.

One reason the British lost the revolutionary war was that they mostly fought by lining up and firing at the enemy. But their enemy (that's us revolutionaries) was willing to use guerilla tactics to hide and attack by stealth. It may be time for Democrats to stop using the old tactics and work for their policies in a new and different way.

--Peter

When I heard how long his speech was it reminded me of another long speech delivered on another March 4th

Would that we see history repeat itself:

On March 26, Harrison developed a cold. According to the prevailing medical misconception of that time, it was believed that his illness was directly caused by the bad weather at his inauguration; however, Harrison's illness did not arise until more than three weeks after the event.[6] Despite doctors' attempts at treating him, Harrison died on April 4 from pneumonia that developed from the cold. The first president to die in office, his presidency was, and remains, the shortest in American history.

It may be time for Democrats to stop using the old tactics and work for their policies in a new and different way.

Oooo. Problem.
Your policies are
-Open borders
-More taxes, for little appreciable gain
-More spending
-Criminals with more rights than citizens

…and many more things that the electorate Just. Doesn’t. Want.

When your job is to stand up for your policies and fight to get them enacted, you have to actually fight.

I hear you, but you can't do that and also claim that one of your important policies is that fighting is bad. Metaphorically speaking, of course. If you want to claim that a given tactic should have no place in politics (like heckling a President during a SOTU), you can't also do that thing. The fact that the other side is also doing it doesn't matter, because the voters understand that the tactic can't be that bad or you wouldn't also be doing it.

If you want to advocate that Presidents from your party should get maximally creative in pushing the bounds of executive power to "stand up for" the policies they support, pushing the boundaries of the office well past the point where the courts find them unlawful, then it's going to be harder to convince voters that it's terrible if the opposing party does it also. Not impossible....and if the other party does it too you have defenses against criticisms. But if you are pushing the envelope in the name of "fighting" for your policies, then it makes it hard to advocate against envelope-pushing.

I have ZERO problem with the Dem behavior.

Like I said real-time, I long warned Sheeple of tribalism and 3rd world traits.

This is a start of that.

Of course the Google Jockey and others will have a link, explain it away like its no big deal.

But this will evolve.

Physical altercations during the speech WILL one day be normal.

And I think Dems last night, for making my desired reality just a tiny step closer.

Physical altercations during the speech WILL one day be normal.

The democrats have a history of whomping people on the floor of Congress with canes already, so...

but you can't do that and also claim that one of your important policies is that fighting is bad.

I agree. I say it's time to abandon the policy of saying that fighting is bad.

When norms are abandoned as the GOP has abandoned them, Democrats may have to abandon those norms as well. If they really want those norms back, they can codify some of the old norms into law when - if - they get back into power.

It may not yet be time to take that step. But there needs to be conversations about when to take the step.

--Peter

“the Democrats have been positioning themselves as the "institutional" party - the idea that the regular and orderly functioning of government provides important services and stability to society that is critical to maintain against those who would tear down the "guardrails."

If that’s the strategy then the democrats are fuqued. “Not Trump” worked so well last November, why not try again? The possum party has nothing to say about the neo-liberal double down that’s going on with president Musk and his sycophant, mostly because neo-liberalism has been the democratic strategy since Clinton.

Frankly the democrats have nothing to offer. The Clintonite third way moderates want to continue to pursue this “not Trump” strategy in the mistaken belief that elections can be won by persuading some imagined middle to swing democratic again. This can’t work without a plan to address the problems facing America and “not Trump” isn’t a plan.

Progressives have a plan, and the oligarchs taking over the state in an undemocratic bureaucratic putsch are ripe for targeting as the cause of what ails us: from the grotesque concentration of wealth, to the eviceration of the commonwealth and the values of human decency and social obligation upon which that wealth was based. Unfortunately for the Clintonite wing of the party, the extermination of the progressives is the only politics worth fighting at the moment.

The Democratic Party divided against itself has no alternative to offer to Trumpism.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.