@MarieForRI Agreed, and I think this highlights the importance of a (relatively) open primary system. Under a first-past-the-post duopoly, it’s critical for the “sane middle” to lend their votes to pragmatic adults depending on the party/situation.
Please give me a minute here to share my thoughts.
1) Reagan Republicans and Kennedy Democrats represent the working class under one big tent. Facts, Full stop.
2) DSA represents the underclass. By using "coalition of the fringes" political strategy, they are taking seats across the nation.
The problem with fringe coalition politics is that generally none of the fringes have anything in common, for example:
Pro-Palestine activists clash with the LGB;
Secular atheists, who want to remove God from government, have zero common ground with Islamists who want more God in government;
Staid feminists (TERFs) have conflict with transgender activists;
etc, etc, ETC.
Yet, they all band together to vote in DSA candidates who dog-whistle to them, under the stolen label of "D" as seen in the video below (pls watch, it's confessional.)
3) What goes wrong in "coalition of the fringes" is that eventually, they start to turn on one another. You don’t have to believe me -- the historical record shows that all movements comprised of fringe coalitions fail-- No, not just modern ones I’ve mentioned, but throughout time, always, it ends in violence. It’s just a fact of socialism.
Let’s go back to my point number one. Kennedy Democrats and Reagan Republicans do not need a coalition of the fringe: We Need To Defeat it, cooperatively.
How? It can only be done through a political strategy called "One Big Tent." That’s where the middle 60% on the bell curve agree to get in the same boat and row in the same direction against the tide.
THAT is the space where America can continue to progress and go forward safely, sanely, comfortably, and successfully…. Under "One Big Tent," people who don’t agree with each other on every issue, but do agree with each other on most issues, and absolutely agree with each other on outcomes, form a voting bloc of cohesion to advance a sane agenda.
As a GenX'er, I grew up in a world where normal Democrats and normal Republicans somehow were able to get things done across the aisle without infighting. Mark my words: we need to return to it.
Today, more than ever, we need more of One Big Tent and less Fringe Coalition. If this doesn’t happen, what few lifeboats we have will soon be capsized… the nation will drown.
Cynical? Perhaps. Do some research. You’ll probably agree…. It’s more realism than cynicism.
DO you agree, disagree? Keep it civil, I’d love your thoughts. As always, I am listening.
.
A funny thing about Bondi’s insults to members of Congress who had serious questions:
Staff literally gave her flash cards with individualized insults, but she couldn’t memorize them, so you can see her shuffle through them to find the flash-cards-insult that matches the member.
The @RIHouseofReps, @RISenate, and @GovDanMcKee must do more to hold obstructionist municipalities like Johnston accountable for non-compliance with the state’s affordable housing statutes. What is the point of having the law if it is not enforced? We are in a housing CRISIS, and the state and our leaders need to act like it.
As the labor champion in this race, it means the world to receive the endorsement of the four largest public sector unions.
I’ll be a DNC Chair that fights alongside unions as a strategic partner. Together, we’ll unite, fight, and win for workers everywhere.
Solidarity forever.
.@benwikler announced DNC Chair endorsements from Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear, and several more governors: Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, and Maine Governor Janet Mills
Also a rare split here between @SenJackReed and @SenWhitehouse
Reed voted no on advancing Ratcliffe's nomination (as did, unsurprisingly, Warren and Markey)
But Whitehouse voted yes (along with a bipartisan majority)
Sen. Murkowski a NO on Hegseth, the first R to announce opposition. Hegseth can’t lose more than three.
“I believe that character is the defining trait required of the Secretary of Defense, and must be prioritized without compromise. The leader of the Department of Defense must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and character we expect of all servicemembers, and Mr. Hegseth’s nomination to the role poses significant concerns that I cannot overlook.”
Since Mr. Hegseth’s nomination last November, I have met with him and carefully reviewed his writings, various reports, and other pertinent materials. I closely followed his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and gathered substantial feedback from organizations, veterans, and Alaskans. After thorough evaluation, I must conclude that I cannot in good conscience support his nomination for Secretary of Defense. I did not make this decision lightly; I take my constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent with the utmost seriousness.
I commend Pete Hegseth’s service to our nation, including leading troops in combat and advocating for our veterans. However, these accomplishments do not alleviate my significant concerns regarding his nomination. Managing the Department of Defense requires vast experience and expertise as the department is one of the most complex and powerful organizations in the world, and Mr. Hegseth’s prior roles in his career do not demonstrate to me that he is prepared for such immense responsibility. His leadership of two veteran organizations was marked with accusations of financial mismanagement and problems with the workplace culture he fostered.
Although he has recently revised his statements on women in combat since being nominated, I remain concerned about the message that confirming Mr. Hegseth sends to women currently serving and those aspiring to join. Women have served our nation with distinction, overcoming immense obstacles to excel in combat and leadership roles, and they deserve to know that their leader honors and values their commitment to our nation.
While the allegations of sexual assault and excessive drinking do nothing to quiet my concerns, the past behaviors Mr. Hegseth has admitted to, including infidelity on multiple occasions, demonstrate a lack of judgment that is unbecoming of someone who would lead our armed forces. These behaviors starkly contrast the values and discipline expected of servicemembers. Men and women in uniform are held accountable for such actions, and they deserve leaders who uphold these same standards.
Above all, I believe that character is the defining trait required of the Secretary of Defense, and must be prioritized without compromise. The leader of the Department of Defense must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and character we expect of all servicemembers, and Mr. Hegseth’s nomination to the role poses significant concerns that I cannot overlook. Given the global security environment we’re operating in, it is critical that we confirm a Secretary of Defense, however, I regret that I am unable to support Mr. Hegseth.