I tend to think it's hubris now that they're in power, frankly. Wouldn't be the first time for this particular group of assholes, even.
It is the default pattern, what's new is the extremes they'll go to to keep the gravy train going now Trump's upended traditional GOP politics, like dog whistling.
Three guesses on the only Dem to vote "Aye" on Sessions.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
Three guesses on the only Dem to vote "Aye" on Sessions.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
But what do you do about it? If you primary him and get someone more progressive, you risk losing the seat, which is already in trouble.
Three guesses on the only Dem to vote "Aye" on Sessions.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
But what do you do about it? If you primary him and get someone more progressive, you risk losing the seat, which is already in trouble.
If "more progressive" means "stand up for things that the Dem party cares about" then is pretty much a red seat no matter what. Not being able to say "the Dems stood in full opposition against Sessions", specially after McConnell kicked Warren out of the hearing, is going to depress turnout on all states.
Three guesses on the only Dem to vote "Aye" on Sessions.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
But what do you do about it? If you primary him and get someone more progressive, you risk losing the seat, which is already in trouble.
Depends whether he's worth keeping around, if he's a Liebermann yeah he's unfortunately a lesser evil to take into account - if he's not they lose nothing by primary him for the left or having another Republican take his seat.
Warren "impugned" Sessions? Pfft. The man had already impugned himseld by being such a racist fuckmuppet.
This was very clearly McConnell being a douche canoe because he could. The most vocal of the opposition will be targeted like this, they're hoping to silence the rest by making an example of them. It'll backfire, because this is just going to rile them up.
Three guesses on the only Dem to vote "Aye" on Sessions.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
But what do you do about it? If you primary him and get someone more progressive, you risk losing the seat, which is already in trouble.
If "more progressive" means "stand up for things that the Dem party cares about" then is pretty much a red seat no matter what. Not being able to say "the Dems stood in full opposition against Sessions", specially after McConnell kicked Warren out of the hearing, is going to depress turnout on all states.
I agree this was a bad move on his part, but I understand how tough it is to be a Democrat in a red state. I grew up in Louisiana, and even when we had Democrats in power, they had to be very careful.
Getting a majority in either house has to be the focus now. That gives Dems control of committees and the ability to control what is debated.
Mitch McConnell was able to deny a Supreme Court nominee simply because of a slight Republican majority.
WASHINGTON — Republican senators voted on Tuesday to formally silence a Democratic colleague for impugning a peer, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, by condemning his nomination for attorney general while reading a letter from Coretta Scott King.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, had been holding forth on the Senate floor on the eve of Mr. Sessions’s expected confirmation vote, reciting a 1986 letter from Mrs. King that criticized Mr. Sessions’s record on civil rights.
Across the room, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, had stepped forward with an objection, setting off an extraordinary confrontation in the Capitol and silencing a colleague, procedurally, in the throes of a contentious debate over President Trump’s cabinet nominee.
“The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair,” Mr. McConnell began, alluding to Mrs. King’s letter, which accused Mr. Sessions of using “the awesome power of his office to chill the pre-exercise of the vote by black citizens.”
Mr. McConnell called the Senate to order under what is known as Rule XIX, which prohibits debating senators from ascribing “to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.”
Three guesses on the only Dem to vote "Aye" on Sessions.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
But what do you do about it? If you primary him and get someone more progressive, you risk losing the seat, which is already in trouble.
If "more progressive" means "stand up for things that the Dem party cares about" then is pretty much a red seat no matter what. Not being able to say "the Dems stood in full opposition against Sessions", specially after McConnell kicked Warren out of the hearing, is going to depress turnout on all states.
I agree this was a bad move on his part, but I understand how tough it is to be a Democrat in a red state. I grew up in Louisiana, and even when we had Democrats in power, they had to be very careful.
Getting a majority in either house has to be the focus now. That gives Dems control of committees and the ability to control what is debated.
Mitch McConnell was able to deny a Supreme Court nominee simply because of a slight Republican majority.
Moves like this are incredibly counter productive in getting said majority because they depress turnout and that's how Republicans win elections. See: Trump.
Corretta Scott Kings letter was able to be read on the senate floor by other people after he threw out Warren.
So it wasn't about impugning sessions. It wasn't about stopping facts about his career being voiced through a recounting of the words of Corretta Scott King.
It was just an opportunity to shut up Warren specifically and silence one of the most passionate voices the Democrats have.
It was just a childish personal attack, because Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit.
Corretta Scott Kings letter was able to be read on the senate floor by other people after he threw out Warren.
So it wasn't about impugning sessions. It wasn't about stopping facts about his career being voiced through a recounting of the words of Corretta Scott King.
It was just an opportunity to shut up Warren specifically and silence one of the most passionate voices the Democrats have.
It was just a childish personal attack, because Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit.
The initial charge was over a different letter. McConnell either got confused or was being a dick when he switched the target to the King letter.
Rule 19 wasn’t formalized, however, until 1902, when "John McLaurin, South Carolina's junior senator, raced into the Senate chamber and pronounced that state's senior senator, Ben Tillman, guilty of ‘a willful, malicious, and deliberate lie,’ " according to the Senate historian’s office. "Standing nearby, Tillman spun around and punched McLaurin squarely in the jaw.
Corretta Scott Kings letter was able to be read on the senate floor by other people after he threw out Warren.
So it wasn't about impugning sessions. It wasn't about stopping facts about his career being voiced through a recounting of the words of Corretta Scott King.
It was just an opportunity to shut up Warren specifically and silence one of the most passionate voices the Democrats have.
It was just a childish personal attack, because Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit.
I think part of it was also a desire to not be the guy who specifically shut down CSK's letter over and over. I know the GOP has basically given up the non-white vote and I don't think McConnell in particular gives a shit what anyone has to say about him because it's not like he's going to lose his seat before he dies (and turtles live an awful long time) but every report about an R senator being a racist, mysoginist dickbag is one more piece of fuel for the fire of the Resist movement and one or more aides have to have come running in to tell him, "Every news outlet in America is blowing the fuck up right now because of what you just did."
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It was just an opportunity to shut up Warren specifically and silence one of the most passionate voices the Democrats have.
This was my read on it too -- I don't think others managed to read the letter because she's a woman and they were men so much as she is the high profile Dem that both moderate and Left Dems broadly know and like. The cabinet is getting appointed one way or another, but the photo op Warren was about to go for in the midst of the appointment sessions was obviously not a series of animated gifs Mitch McConnell wants to see plastered all over the Internet.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I'm saying that the 11M is very likely a subset of the 30M.
That video didn't generate 11M new progressives, it just found people that are already engaged and generally agree with Warren anyway.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I'm saying that the 11M is very likely a subset of the 30M.
That video didn't generate 11M new progressives, it just found people that are already engaged and generally agree with Warren anyway.
And what about that is meaningless even if true? (which is, again, not established either)
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I'm saying that the 11M is very likely a subset of the 30M.
That video didn't generate 11M new progressives, it just found people that are already engaged and generally agree with Warren anyway.
Nothing like this will ever generate more progressives. But it keeps people angry and angry people continue to protest, hound Congress at constituent events, call, email, and eventually vote.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I'm saying that the 11M is very likely a subset of the 30M.
That video didn't generate 11M new progressives, it just found people that are already engaged and generally agree with Warren anyway.
And what about that is meaningless even if true? (which is, again, not established either)
Because the 2018 elections are almost 2 years away. Or like 700 GOP fuckups if you want to count that way.
It wasn't even the worst/dumbest thing that has happened this week.
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I'm saying that the 11M is very likely a subset of the 30M.
That video didn't generate 11M new progressives, it just found people that are already engaged and generally agree with Warren anyway.
Nothing like this will ever generate more progressives. But it keeps people angry and angry people continue to protest, hound Congress at constituent events, call, email, and eventually vote.
Yes I don't quite understand? The conclusion that what Mitch McConnell did backfired isn't failed by "well, no new progressives were likely created." It backfired because it amplified Coretta Scott King's letter, shined a big big media spotlight on Warren (who is a fairly well supported leader of the opposition), and it augmented a general sense of anger at sexism and sexist treatment becoming the norm in this new administration on the left (hello, Women's Marchers! It's not over yet!).
Right now there is really nothing Democrats can procedurally do to stop any of these Cabinet appointments and the value of good old fashioned persuasion is worth less than a penny. There is a great assumption that there are hordes of convertible masses just waiting for the right outstretched arms, the right outrage, the right indignity, the right investment of patient explanation, to transform their worldview (and their vote) in one fell swoop. This is an overstated assumption. Perhaps many many indignities, and many many outrages, and many many outreaches, will transform a few people. But let us not overvalue incidents like these on their own or draw conclusions from their concrete effects (or lack thereof) alone.
On the other hand, do continue to lambast McCain, Graham, Rubio, and all the other invertebrates who talk a big game but refuse to cast a single vote of protest against their own. No matter how it may shock your consciences, if you don't vote against it, it doesn't fucking count. If this is a double standard, i do not mind applying it; we are already in asymmetric times.
I mean, I get what you guys are saying about it keeping people angry between the previous outrage (DeVos) and the next (the President's chief of staff shilling for his daughter's merch because Nordstrom's hurt his feelings), but in the grand scheme of "getting a good outcome at the next electoral opportunity" (2018 elections), it won't mean anything because no one will remember that it happened.
It also hugely backfired and upped Warren's popularity even more
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I'm saying that the 11M is very likely a subset of the 30M.
That video didn't generate 11M new progressives, it just found people that are already engaged and generally agree with Warren anyway.
And what about that is meaningless even if true? (which is, again, not established either)
Because the 2018 elections are almost 2 years away. Or like 700 GOP fuckups if you want to count that way.
It wasn't even the worst/dumbest thing that has happened this week.
And if we wanna win those elections, getting and keeping progressives engaged is one of the biggest steps in doing that.
So, again, not meaningless at all, even by your own narrow view of what happened.
+18
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
I mean, I get what you guys are saying about it keeping people angry between the previous outrage (DeVos) and the next (the President's chief of staff shilling for his daughter's merch because Nordstrom's hurt his feelings), but in the grand scheme of "getting a good outcome at the next electoral opportunity" (2018 elections), it won't mean anything because no one will remember that it happened.
I dunno, it could have sticking power.
I mean, McConnell did just accidentally suggest an amazing title for Warren's biography. And he did just inadvertently single her out as the 'Democrat we fear most' by rebuking her and only her.
Three guesses on the only Dem to vote "Aye" on Sessions.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
But what do you do about it? If you primary him and get someone more progressive, you risk losing the seat, which is already in trouble.
If "more progressive" means "stand up for things that the Dem party cares about" then is pretty much a red seat no matter what. Not being able to say "the Dems stood in full opposition against Sessions", specially after McConnell kicked Warren out of the hearing, is going to depress turnout on all states.
I don't think I agree with this. I think you can use it as a rallying point. I mean, it's not like (let's say) Donnelly voted for Pompeo and then got call after call after call after call and has now voted no on Sessions, DeVos, Tillerson, and plans to vote no on Price as well. Or wait, that _is_ what happened.
Of course, being part of the Dem party, maybe we should all just self-flagellate and cry "woe is me" into the night sky.
+5
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
is there any actual reason to think that "not being able to say the dems universally opposed sessions" will actually affect turn out everywhere?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that that's going to come up in any race in 2 years.
I mean, I get what you guys are saying about it keeping people angry between the previous outrage (DeVos) and the next (the President's chief of staff shilling for his daughter's merch because Nordstrom's hurt his feelings), but in the grand scheme of "getting a good outcome at the next electoral opportunity" (2018 elections), it won't mean anything because no one will remember that it happened.
I dunno, it could have sticking power.
I mean, McConnell did just accidentally suggest an amazing title for Warren's biography. And he did just inadvertently single her out as the 'Democrat we fear most' by rebuking her and only her.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham says the silencing of Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the Senate floor Tuesday was "long overdue."
The South Carolina senator appeared on the Mike Gallagher Show Wednesday, where he said Warren reading the letter from Coretta Scott King -- in which she expressed opposition to Jeff Sessions' nomination to the federal bench in 1986 -- was defamatory to Sessions, now an Alabama senator. The Massachusetts Democrat was ruled to be in violation of Senate rules for impugning another senator.
"The bottom line is, it was long overdue with her," he said. "I mean, she is clearly running for the nomination in 2020."
"The Democratic Party is being pushed really hard by the most extreme voices in their community, and they just don't know how to handle it," he added. "If they empower her, then I think the Democratic Party is gonna lose way with the vast majority of the American people."
All in, all the time, damn the consequences. Apparently the GOP learned from Trump that being unrepentant and unapologizing works. That lesson goes both ways.
Posts
It is the default pattern, what's new is the extremes they'll go to to keep the gravy train going now Trump's upended traditional GOP politics, like dog whistling.
Is Manchin of course. Why he's still a Dem again? Honestly, this is one of the most radical Trump appointments, one that will disproportionately hurt the Dem voting base, and you still say "Aye"? The hell.
But what do you do about it? If you primary him and get someone more progressive, you risk losing the seat, which is already in trouble.
If "more progressive" means "stand up for things that the Dem party cares about" then is pretty much a red seat no matter what. Not being able to say "the Dems stood in full opposition against Sessions", specially after McConnell kicked Warren out of the hearing, is going to depress turnout on all states.
Depends whether he's worth keeping around, if he's a Liebermann yeah he's unfortunately a lesser evil to take into account - if he's not they lose nothing by primary him for the left or having another Republican take his seat.
This was very clearly McConnell being a douche canoe because he could. The most vocal of the opposition will be targeted like this, they're hoping to silence the rest by making an example of them. It'll backfire, because this is just going to rile them up.
I agree this was a bad move on his part, but I understand how tough it is to be a Democrat in a red state. I grew up in Louisiana, and even when we had Democrats in power, they had to be very careful.
Getting a majority in either house has to be the focus now. That gives Dems control of committees and the ability to control what is debated.
Mitch McConnell was able to deny a Supreme Court nominee simply because of a slight Republican majority.
Moves like this are incredibly counter productive in getting said majority because they depress turnout and that's how Republicans win elections. See: Trump.
One has to wonder if Sessions may or may not had some private conversations with Manchin.
So it wasn't about impugning sessions. It wasn't about stopping facts about his career being voiced through a recounting of the words of Corretta Scott King.
It was just an opportunity to shut up Warren specifically and silence one of the most passionate voices the Democrats have.
It was just a childish personal attack, because Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit.
The initial charge was over a different letter. McConnell either got confused or was being a dick when he switched the target to the King letter.
Yeah, local trolls here in Massachusetts are trying to bring up the pocahontas thing again which is a sign they're getting desperate.
Rule 19 was implemented after a fistfight in the Senate in 1902
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/08/did-elizabeth-warren-break-rules-plus-5-other-ques/
I think part of it was also a desire to not be the guy who specifically shut down CSK's letter over and over. I know the GOP has basically given up the non-white vote and I don't think McConnell in particular gives a shit what anyone has to say about him because it's not like he's going to lose his seat before he dies (and turtles live an awful long time) but every report about an R senator being a racist, mysoginist dickbag is one more piece of fuel for the fire of the Resist movement and one or more aides have to have come running in to tell him, "Every news outlet in America is blowing the fuck up right now because of what you just did."
it's okay
we apparently no longer have a functioning enforcement body
so go nuts, y'all
This was my read on it too -- I don't think others managed to read the letter because she's a woman and they were men so much as she is the high profile Dem that both moderate and Left Dems broadly know and like. The cabinet is getting appointed one way or another, but the photo op Warren was about to go for in the midst of the appointment sessions was obviously not a series of animated gifs Mitch McConnell wants to see plastered all over the Internet.
Amongst people who already liked her, I suspect. While we are all affronted by this, it seems to be getting high fives and approval amongst some portion of the Republican-Trump base who saw uppity Warren get shut down while the president's nominees continue rolling into position unabated.
By now over 11,000,000 people have watched at least part of the video that Warren made right after she was silenced
It feels fair to say at this point that the Republicans hurt themselves
30M people voted in the Democratic primaries last year, for reference.
11M views on a video that's already out of the news cycle is meaningless for 2018, much less 2020.
Sessions is in, the hurt is symbolic.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your first statement
I'm saying that the 11M is very likely a subset of the 30M.
That video didn't generate 11M new progressives, it just found people that are already engaged and generally agree with Warren anyway.
And what about that is meaningless even if true? (which is, again, not established either)
Nothing like this will ever generate more progressives. But it keeps people angry and angry people continue to protest, hound Congress at constituent events, call, email, and eventually vote.
Because the 2018 elections are almost 2 years away. Or like 700 GOP fuckups if you want to count that way.
It wasn't even the worst/dumbest thing that has happened this week.
Yes I don't quite understand? The conclusion that what Mitch McConnell did backfired isn't failed by "well, no new progressives were likely created." It backfired because it amplified Coretta Scott King's letter, shined a big big media spotlight on Warren (who is a fairly well supported leader of the opposition), and it augmented a general sense of anger at sexism and sexist treatment becoming the norm in this new administration on the left (hello, Women's Marchers! It's not over yet!).
Right now there is really nothing Democrats can procedurally do to stop any of these Cabinet appointments and the value of good old fashioned persuasion is worth less than a penny. There is a great assumption that there are hordes of convertible masses just waiting for the right outstretched arms, the right outrage, the right indignity, the right investment of patient explanation, to transform their worldview (and their vote) in one fell swoop. This is an overstated assumption. Perhaps many many indignities, and many many outrages, and many many outreaches, will transform a few people. But let us not overvalue incidents like these on their own or draw conclusions from their concrete effects (or lack thereof) alone.
On the other hand, do continue to lambast McCain, Graham, Rubio, and all the other invertebrates who talk a big game but refuse to cast a single vote of protest against their own. No matter how it may shock your consciences, if you don't vote against it, it doesn't fucking count. If this is a double standard, i do not mind applying it; we are already in asymmetric times.
NNID: Hakkekage
And if we wanna win those elections, getting and keeping progressives engaged is one of the biggest steps in doing that.
So, again, not meaningless at all, even by your own narrow view of what happened.
I dunno, it could have sticking power.
I mean, McConnell did just accidentally suggest an amazing title for Warren's biography. And he did just inadvertently single her out as the 'Democrat we fear most' by rebuking her and only her.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
I don't think I agree with this. I think you can use it as a rallying point. I mean, it's not like (let's say) Donnelly voted for Pompeo and then got call after call after call after call and has now voted no on Sessions, DeVos, Tillerson, and plans to vote no on Price as well. Or wait, that _is_ what happened.
Of course, being part of the Dem party, maybe we should all just self-flagellate and cry "woe is me" into the night sky.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that that's going to come up in any race in 2 years.
at least the rest of them seem to have learned that lesson, shame they couldn't learn it before voting for the rest of Trump's garbage fire cabinet
This immediately brought her back into the spotlight.
They are saying it pretty openly:
All in, all the time, damn the consequences. Apparently the GOP learned from Trump that being unrepentant and unapologizing works. That lesson goes both ways.