The "compromise" is vote for our guy rather than yours (who did. you know, win) or we'll nominate someone worse? That isn't anything anyone recognizes as a "compromise."
For the last dozen years, someone or other has occasionally tried to make the case that just because Mitt Romney was the Republican most palatable to Democrats, the Democrats had some obligation to support him, even over the candidate of their own party, that it was just plain mean of them to campaign vigorously against him (binders of women! 47%! dog on top of car! out-of-touch venture capital guy!), and that, therefore, we have only ourselves to blame when the Republicans nominate someone worse.
It didn't make much sense then and doesn't make any more sense now. The only people responsible for the quality of the Republican candidates are Republicans.
It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would hold Democrats responsible for the quality of Republican candidates. Or vice versa, if the question ever came up in reverse.
Not to mention that semi-voluntary over-compliance is a feature, not a bug. Ban or require something vague enough, and make determined noises about it, and people can be counted on to do things that, if pressed, the people giving the orders might -- might -- back down on and feign shock that someone would take their entirely reasonable orders so seriously and literally.
That's how it's done.
A thoughtful piece that will, sadly, have next to no impact on anyone for whom this is not already obvious. One odd thing stuck out for me, though:
Back in 2009, I thought that Democrats were ready for leadership by a strongman. I wasn’t necessarily wrong about that, but I was wrong in that Republicans got there first.
So you weren't "necessarily wrong" about what didn't happen -- and what relatively few were anticipating -- but somehow wrong about what actually did happen? A similarly thoughtful piece about why you thought what you thought and why you got it wrong might be instructive.
When I took administrative law, Chevron was still working its way through the administrative process, so there was no Chevron Doctrine. There was, instead, a general sense floating around the courts that some kind of deference was due to administrative interpretations, but it was rather ad hoc, depending in large part on the respect in which the particular agency was held and in larger part on how persnickety the particular judge was. When Chevron came down, it wasn't originally regarded as a Big F*****g Deal; it was more of an attempt to articulate existing practice with a few nips and tucks here and there., changing how judges talked more than what they did. I expect rather modest effects from the overruling of Chevron.
The people who respond to this won't be moved by Democrats taking a "moderate" position on LGBTQ issues; they want their real thing. What they want we cannot and should not give them, if for no better reason than that it won't work. But sure, let's pretend that there is some subtle and civilized play here.
This is why I'm skeptical that nuanced distancing on LGBTQ issues would swing significant numbers of votes. Who, exactly, would vote for a Democrat supporting 85% of the agenda when they can vote for the real thing?
But is there a politically significant constituency that will be satisfied by this nuanced and civilized approach and switch votes or come out for Dems rather than stay home? The other side will still throw the red meat out there, and, barring a policy of curb-stomping rather than nuance (which those voters won't believe anyway), it will still work.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Deficits, Debt, and DOGE”
And they'll nominate someone worse anyway when they get the chance. What's the old saw about the bird in the hand?
"
The "compromise" is vote for our guy rather than yours (who did. you know, win) or we'll nominate someone worse? That isn't anything anyone recognizes as a "compromise."
"
For the last dozen years, someone or other has occasionally tried to make the case that just because Mitt Romney was the Republican most palatable to Democrats, the Democrats had some obligation to support him, even over the candidate of their own party, that it was just plain mean of them to campaign vigorously against him (binders of women! 47%! dog on top of car! out-of-touch venture capital guy!), and that, therefore, we have only ourselves to blame when the Republicans nominate someone worse.
It didn't make much sense then and doesn't make any more sense now. The only people responsible for the quality of the Republican candidates are Republicans.
"
It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would hold Democrats responsible for the quality of Republican candidates. Or vice versa, if the question ever came up in reverse.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
Vince McMahon escapes the figure four leg lock:
https://www.aol.com/news/feds-drop-criminal-probe-whether-120000591.html
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
WTF are you even talking about?
"
So are you disagreeing, and, if so, about what?
"
David is better than many, and I would be genuinely interested in what he has to say about this.
"
Not to mention that semi-voluntary over-compliance is a feature, not a bug. Ban or require something vague enough, and make determined noises about it, and people can be counted on to do things that, if pressed, the people giving the orders might -- might -- back down on and feign shock that someone would take their entirely reasonable orders so seriously and literally.
That's how it's done.
"
A thoughtful piece that will, sadly, have next to no impact on anyone for whom this is not already obvious. One odd thing stuck out for me, though:
Back in 2009, I thought that Democrats were ready for leadership by a strongman. I wasn’t necessarily wrong about that, but I was wrong in that Republicans got there first.
So you weren't "necessarily wrong" about what didn't happen -- and what relatively few were anticipating -- but somehow wrong about what actually did happen? A similarly thoughtful piece about why you thought what you thought and why you got it wrong might be instructive.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
From what I've seen of his taste in women, I doubt that.
"
Did we expect anything less from Kneepads Bondi?
"
I don't believe she's any relation to Andrea McArdle, of Annie fame.
"
Trump is busily defunding the police now.
"
Certain foreign leaders are laughing up their sleeves.
"
When I took administrative law, Chevron was still working its way through the administrative process, so there was no Chevron Doctrine. There was, instead, a general sense floating around the courts that some kind of deference was due to administrative interpretations, but it was rather ad hoc, depending in large part on the respect in which the particular agency was held and in larger part on how persnickety the particular judge was. When Chevron came down, it wasn't originally regarded as a Big F*****g Deal; it was more of an attempt to articulate existing practice with a few nips and tucks here and there., changing how judges talked more than what they did. I expect rather modest effects from the overruling of Chevron.
"
Both things can be true. And in Trump's case probably are.
"
Well, both Dons have a problem with windmills.
"
How can you have "forgotten" it since last week?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
The people who respond to this won't be moved by Democrats taking a "moderate" position on LGBTQ issues; they want their real thing. What they want we cannot and should not give them, if for no better reason than that it won't work. But sure, let's pretend that there is some subtle and civilized play here.
"
Made-up math makes everything easy.
"
You don't? I checked. He didn't.
"
This is why I'm skeptical that nuanced distancing on LGBTQ issues would swing significant numbers of votes. Who, exactly, would vote for a Democrat supporting 85% of the agenda when they can vote for the real thing?
"
That's certainly modest.
"
But is there a politically significant constituency that will be satisfied by this nuanced and civilized approach and switch votes or come out for Dems rather than stay home? The other side will still throw the red meat out there, and, barring a policy of curb-stomping rather than nuance (which those voters won't believe anyway), it will still work.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.