Kos posted this defense of Chuck Schumer making a deal with McConnell.
We’ve argued around the block in that diary. Let’s stipulate that all of the commenters I’ve seen are true blue Democrats, nobody is arguing in bad faith — some of the best and brightest around here are on the TOTALLY WRONG SIDE of the issue, according to ME</snark>.
But the quality of the discussion is appalling — we’re just whacking the same old stuff back and forth, back and forth, and some people on my side of the argument repeat factually wrong info.
So I have a meta-request — for DK7 or DK8, perhaps: could we rate comments not just as ‘recommend’ but on two or more dimensions, like the ‘political coordinates’ that some Kossacks used to post for themselves? Something like ‘Heart in the right place, but factually challenged’.
Or ‘Pragmatic and informative, but still the wrong lesson to take home’?
For what it’s worth, the confusion reigning among the creme de la creme of activists — YOU — makes the case of some commenters that the Great American Public is too dumb to care about this, especially the good folk who are our base but not the elite DK stormtroopers — thereby losing us elections if they see ‘partisan bickering’ and ‘gridlock’ (same goes for the mythical ‘independents’).
But does it mean we should just give up? Or give up on democracy altogether?? I didn’t think so.
For one thing, these same commenters assume that evil right wingers, fueled by rage and Koch money, always walk in lockstep and pay attention. It’s partly true, but surely not so 100% black and white, they have infighting, too (see eg this 2017 article from The Hill, by a former De Mint staffer about how McConnell’s Senate is ‘lazy’).
Full disclosure, I’m on the side that Schumer’s deal was weak, it sucked, he got pretty much nothing (any vulnerable Senators could have gone home anyway to campaign. It was never about winning the votes, even Markos’ diary said so. Downside of gridlock is minimal, many commenters observe how the public doesn’t care). Having said that, I recognize that it’s debatable and that it’s on us to spread the word, build up pressure, educate the Public that denying consent is the right thing to do here, for the good of the country — politicians will eventually come around, unless they’re primaried.
Poll
28
votes
Show Results
Should Dem Senators withhold unanimous consent for Trump's judicial nominees?
28
votes
Vote Now!
Should Dem Senators withhold unanimous consent for Trump's judicial nominees?
Only after we retake the Senate.
Sometimes, if a nominee is especially bad - every case judged on the merits. Also, we want a multi-dimensional comment rating. Pretty please.
Hint: the previous answer is the correct choice. Oops, I said too much.
Never! Ni shagu nazad! (Russian for Not One Step Backwards). Burn it all down!
Comments are closed on this story.