• Baggie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    The fuck good is low hanging fruit if their rhetoric doesn’t have any teeth?

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Yesterday my colleague Kate Riga noted a trap Senate Democrats keep falling into: in an effort to court Republican defectors they temper their criticism of the various Trump nominees. But since there are and will be no defectors they lose on both sides of the equation, gaining no defectors and making their critiques tepid and forgettable. This is unquestionably true. But we can go a step further still. Far from courting potential defectors, they should be attacking them.

    If trying to court Republican defectors is a futile effort, who should the Democrats be trying to court? This article seems deliberately vague on that point. The article implies that the Democrats should make less tepid, less forgettable critiques of Trump nominees, that they should attack them, even, but for what reason? Seemingly, it’s to court people other than Republican defectors, but who would that be? Relatively moderate, neoliberal technocrats? Do any still exist?

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    The low-hanging fruit was declining to shit the bed in the election and not letting the fascists win. They failed to do that. Twice.

    I have absolutely zero faith in the Democratic Party to accomplish anything meaningful and long term at this point. The party - and specifically its leadership - are demonstrably feckless and, frankly, worse than useless at this point. I’d joke that they should be barred from politics, but Trump is probably actually gonna do that, and probably try to get the DoJ to gin up some charges for all his political opponents, so it’s actually not something I even want to joke about.