The war now raging within the Democratic Party
Recently, we have seen a nasty back and forth between the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and a few of her far left freshman members. This stew has been simmering since the dems took over the House as two of its new members made some anti-Semitic comments. The Speaker was put in the awkward position of either punishing them or ignoring the matter. Pelosi couldn't bring herself to do either. Her hand was eventually forced by Ilhan Omar when Omar made some controversial comments about Israel. That led Pelosi to try and finally resolve the crisis with a very broad, general resolution condemning hatred towards minorities. The resolution passed 407-23 in the US House of Representatives, after a week of bitter division within the Democratic party. The episode, which followed controversial comments about Israel by Ilhan Omar may be a prelude to more inflammatory statements via the unrestrained rhetoric of the new members.
Ilhan Omar
Ms Omar has come under fire for suggesting that supporters of Israel had “an allegiance to a foreign country”. Prior to that she issued anti-Semitic tweet that suggested supporters of Israel were motivated by money. Ms Omar later deleted the tweet and apologized. In addition she made anti-Semitic comments about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Then we have the beliefs of Rep. Rashida Tlaib. She gave us all a history lesson on the state of Israel. Her interpretation of history was that Jews were given a safe haven in British Mandate Palestine after the Holocaust. What she forgot is that when the United Nations made the decision in 1947 to split the land into Jewish and Arab states, Palestinian Arabs opposed the plan, never welcomed Jews and still refuse to recognize the state of Israel.
Rashida Tlaib
Then we have the new rep from MA, who replaces a good man in Mike Capuano (somehow?). She deals in identity politics: “Guess what, we know what it feels like to be dehumanized,” she said. “We know what it feels like to be brown and black in this country. And I’ll tell you right now, we’re not going to stand by and sit idly by and allow brown and dark-skinned children to be ripped away from their parents to be dehumanized.”....Ayanna Pressley
Ayanna Pressley
Finally is the leader of the radical four. The woman who has gained fame on social media and has both the liberal & Conservative media outlets quoting her. Her controversial statements are too numerous to list here. She helped bring tensions to the current level during the recent House vote on the border appropriations bill.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64700431/AP19191164723269.0.jpg)
Alexandria Octavia-Cortez
The breaking point in all of this came when Pelosi was cornered into accepting a Senate appropriations bill for border security. All four of the freshman radicals voted against the bill (the ONLY FOUR democrats to vote against the original version of the bill) and then the four finally got their comeuppance when Pelosi in an off-handed dismissal of all four stated "All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world," "But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got." (New York Times)
Speaker Pelosi
So, here is Pelosi, six months in facing a revolt from four far left freshmen democrats challenging her judgement, not wanting to give in on anything that might help the President. Moderate elements of the party must be proud of the Speaker, but more battles are on the horizon as the House will soon have to consider Defense Legislation which Congress has approved essentially every year since World War II.The President has promised a veto if it is not properly funded. One of the internal investigations of the FBI is about to be completed soon and that could spell more chaos for the fractured House democrats.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
All the worst to them!
Poor Nancy. Ya think with her experience, she woulda known that if you give nutty Newbies a little power, like putting them on committees, it will go to their head every single time.
The "Taliban 4" have Nancy nursing a chronic Migraine now.
Which members are members of the taliban? You do have proof of this, right?
Definition of metaphor
So where is the analogy part?
Well, lets see we have two Muslim Representatives making anti-Semitic remarks, is there an analogy in there, somewhere? Or did I actually say what you were hoping I would say? You see there is nothing anti-Muslim in what I said, do you know why? There are lots of anti-Semites in that part of the world. I think these two ARE anti-Semites.
How about you?
Yep !
The Taliban 4 = AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley !
"The word Taliban means "students" in Pashto. The Taliban are a group of fundamentalist. "
And would these "fundamentalists" sound like Omar and Tlaib?
(It's called the "elephant in the room")
A Little bit.
Ok, can you show us proof that they are members of the taliban?
Pretty simple request. Yes or no?
One does not need to be a pledged member of Islamist terrorist groups to show support. Tlaib and Omar have clearly done so. AOC and Pressley have publicly supported their friends. You can find this information for yourself on Twitter, NYT, WaPo, Fox, etc., so don't ask me for "proof".
Indeed, though I've never heard any of those Democrats say in regards to Islamic terrorism "there were fine people, on both sides". It seems if you can label someone "The Taliban 4" based on an interpretation of a comment or tweet then no one should have a problem with calling the President "Number One Nazi" or perhaps "Grand Dragon One" or even "The Moscow Mule".
Figures you'd miss it !
I'll put it up AGAIN …...sheeeeesh
:
"The word Taliban means "students" in Pashto. The Taliban are a group of fundamentalist . "
So trump and his cabinet are the neo-nazi 9?
Taliban 4 = America and it's citizens Suck ! Make "Illegal" Great !
neo-nazi 9 = America and it's citizens are GREAT ! Make "Illegal" follow the law !
The vast majority of antisemitism in the USA is right wing. The vast majority of Jews vote Democrat. The last two synagog shooting were done by neo-nazi right wing fascists.
But you want to complain that there is a member of congress is antisemitic? LMFAO!!!! Maybe you should clean up your own house before you throw stones at others.
Have a super day.
To the contrary, antisemitism is rampant within the democratic party and on college campus's.
The vast majority of Jews vote Democrat.
No matter what!!!
But you want to complain that there is a member of congress is antisemitic?
YES WE DO - WE WANT DEMOCRATS TO DENOUNCE THEIR OWN!!!
Have a super day.
And you as well
They act as if Omar has said terrorists are "very fine people". What she's done is be critical of some of the decisions the nation of Israel have made and has supported a two state solution. She's never called for the destruction of Israel as so many on the right seem to be claiming, as if she was some Iranian spy. Some of her comments included references or inferences to long established anti-Semitic rhetoric so she should rightly be called out for it, but claiming that makes her part of the Taliban is pure hyperbole.
Since loser Kapersnack, and his FOLLOWERS, are ONLY about "Race/Color" :
We see it in the business world all the time. The only way to challenge the entrenched dominance of businesses who pursue incremental change to maintain that status quo dominance is by disruptive challenges.
Elon Musk has utilized that outrageous, disruptive approach to establish a niche for Tesla. But in the end, Musk is still only manufacturing an automobile. And the dominant auto manufacturers are being forced to compete on Musk's terms by promising to build a better Tesla.
It get's one fired !
And that's the FACTS !
Yes, the status quo does provide a sense of security. But that isn't a viable means to plan, prepare, and compete with disruptive challenges.
The dominant auto manufacturers aren't going to fire Elon Musk. The auto manufacturers can use their dominance to try to stifle competition but success depends upon Musk giving up. The alternative is to compete on Musk's terms. Either approach gives Elon Musk an advantage.
The Taliban 4 will capitulate. There is more in that Party that need Nancy than don't.
The 'taliban 4', as you call them, are activists and not politicians. They are disrupting the status quo, they aren't playing by the rules of the game. The status quo needs Pelosi to stifle the disruptive activist challenge but, as you point out, that depends upon the activists giving up.
Pelosi cannot fire them. If Pelosi turns the 'taliban 4' into martyrs then the status quo loses; the activists actually have more to gain than to lose in a direct disruptive confrontation. Pelosi is going to be forced to compete on the activist's terms.
The rule of this game is …. they are REQUIRED to protect this country ..... THE United States of America.
They are not !
But that does not require protecting the status quo. The activist challenge is questioning whether or not the status quo is actually fulfilling the requirement to protect the country.
The Status Quo is to protect our borders for one.
Recognize this ?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Even the Lowly folks take an oath like that, to just be here legally.
The Taliban 4 didn't vote to help Our Own folks on the border. Since "Protecting this country"....is the status quo, they are Bucking in the wrong country.
How does the status quo politics of either political party fulfill that oath of office?
The military has not prevented an invasion of our marketplace by foreign manufacturers, manipulation of our stock markets by foreign investors, or multi-national businesses exerting foreign influence on our government. How is the free flow of shipping containers across our borders any different than the free flow of migrants? Foreign business concerns enjoy more freedom in the United States than does domestic business. Status quo politics is very easily persuaded by money but appears to provide far more favoritism toward foreign money than domestic.
We can't even protect our own airports without violating the Constitution. The status quo politics of both parties deliberately attempt to evade the Constitution without any mental reservation.
The Taliban 4 are loudly doing such, yet doubling down on top of it.
[DELETED]
John, you can do better than that
This article is extremely meaningless.
To you of course it would be. You didn't come up with it....
UPDATE:
"Ocasio-Cortez said to The Washington Post on Wednesday that the "persistent singling out" by the Speaker may be more than "outright disrespectful."
"When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”
How appropriate - THE RACE CARD IS NOW BEING PLAYED AGAINST PELOSI!
She is being called a racist, don't you know!
Candice Owens just weighed in:
It's an ironic turn of events when Independents and Republicans feel sorry for Speaker Pelosi. She had multiple opportunities to rein in her freshman gang of 4 but she didn't do it. Now, her gavel is at stake.
I guess the moral of the story is that as far as the "woked Left is concerned it's either 'my way or the highway!
Everyone knew who and what Donald Trump was before the 2016 election and yet everyone seems so surprised. What is happening inside the Democratic Party began well before the 2016 election, too, and should be no surprise. President Obama may have kept campaign promises but did not fulfill expectations. Fracturing of the Democratic Party began after the TEA Party movement took over the Republican Party in 2010. The only unifying appeal among Democrats was to defeat the TEA Party.
Democratic leadership have been using patronizing patriarchal politics for the sole purpose of winning elections to obtain a House majority and try to regain a Senate majority and control of the White House. The old guard Democrats haven't been putting forward a coherent policy agenda since the 2010 defeat by the TEA Party. The only unifying appeal among Democrats today is to defeat Trump. No one seems to know what to do if Democrats succeed in defeating Trump.
Old guard Democrats have created a power vacuum within the party and now factions within the party are trying to take advantage of that power vacuum. Without a coherent policy agenda to unify the party, the various factions are trying to fill that void.
Elsewhere I have characterized the Democrats' political maneuvering as a return to the beginnings of the party and a revival of plantation politics. The Democratic Party was founded to preserve the divisive institution of slavery; Democrats gained political power through division. Today's Democrats are attempting to use race relations to divide the country with the promise of preserving institutionalized patronage that can only exacerbate the divisions. Today's Democrats are using the same patronizing patriarchal arguments as did the slave owners who founded the Democratic Party.
At some point Democrats may succeed in once again obtaining control of the House, Senate, and White House. Then what? Without a coherent Democratic policy agenda no one should be surprised that the outcome would be similar to what happened during President Obama's first term. Democrats are utilizing a political divisions to win elections but are not doing anything to plan for winning.
The Democratic infighting is a power struggle to plan for winning. The old guard Democrats may be working to obtain power but the old guard is doing nothing to retain power should they succeed. Just embossing the fine leather upholstery of the Speaker's chair with a Democratic butt isn't enough.