I AGREE WITH THOSE who have slammed Hakeem Jeffries statement that "The American people don't want us to get even. They want us to get things done on their behalf because life is way too expensive, " as if getting even with those who have stolen everything isn't part of the redistribution of wealth that the Democrats will try to do or they will have wasted the opportunities that Obama wasted and which Clinton wasted to do that. If either of them had pushed a really populist ECONOMIC LEVELING agenda instead of the typical "centrist Democratic" bullshit they did, we probably would never have had Bush II or Trump I and II.
Either Democrats take back what was stolen and give it to the American People or the billionaires and millionaires will keep it. It's as plain as that and the Democratic "leadership" will have, once again, given The People every reason to view them as cynically as the worst gen Zer bros do.
Jeffries has proven to be too much a lawyer, too much of an old line "Democratic Leadership Council" kind of Democrat to be the leader we need at this time. His cluelessness in this election, along with that of Chuck Shumer's in trying to push guaranteed losers AND REFUSING TO GIVE FUNDING OR EVEN MAKING APPEARANCES FOR MANY OF THE NEW STYLE OF DEMOCRATS EVEN AFTER THEY GOT THE NOMINATION disqualifies them for the Speakership or the leadership of the majority in the Senate. Schumer, especially, will prove a disaster for getting done what needs to be done. And I think Jeffries position as the leader of Democrats in the House is one of the very few miscalculations that Nancy Pelosi ever made. He ain't no Nancy Pelosi, he isn't a Tip O'Neill among the most over-rated of Democratic Speakers, Hakeem Jeffries is far more like the inept, ineffective, useless Tom Foley.
His statement that he is opposed to Medicaid for All alone disqualifies him as a Democratic Speaker of the House. PERIOD.
Schumer's choice of candidates in a number of elections were the kind of Democrats who wouldn't have challenged him on anything, whether in the majority or minority, his choice to back Haley Stevens in Michigan, a clear nutcase and a rather annoying one, at that, the elderly Janet Mills in Maine should decidedly impeach his political judgement and seal the case that he has no useful role to play as Democratic Leader in the Senate. And that's hardly his worst crime against democracy. As the IHIP podcast said last night, Angie Nixon in Florida came so close to winning THAT CHUCK SCHUMER'S WITHOLDING OF SUPPORT FOR HER PROBABLY IS WHAT COST HER AND US THAT SEAT FOR SIX YEARS. I don't know though I'm sure that her anti-zionism played into that as it did in his non-support for many of the progressive candidates who were the choice of their states.
He, Chuck Schumer made that a legitimate issue to consider because he, himself, said that support for Israel was his job. “I have many jobs as leader … and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs.” Clearly, if he sees that as his job, he is never going to support candidates who oppose his kind of Israel right or wrong stand or even those who favor reducing the money the US gives to Israel. HE HAS, BY HIS WORDS AND BY HIS ACTIONS AND INACTION, MADE THAT A LEGITIMATE ISSUE GOING FORWARD. Zionism inevitably raises the issue of dual loyalty because it will always devolve into that kind of stand, it provides Jew-haters with that issue and confirms the suspicion. That is a point that anti-zionist Jews have made since the ideology started among Jews in the 19th century - after it was adopted from the pseudo-christian dispensationalist bullshit that plagues us so much today.
And he is not the only one. I have not researched what Jennifer and Josh Welch said about Senator Booker and Jeffries in this podcast but if that is accurate, none of them has anything positive to contribute in leadership of the Democratic Party.
This is an issue we either face now or we will see the electoral gains pissed away by ineffective, unfocused leadership. And, as I will not stop pointing out, most of that bad and ineffective leadership has been from lawyers. I think one of the reasons Nancy Pelosi was so effective was that she, atypically of Democratic leadership, was not trained in the duplicitous, cowardly, self-serving, kissing up habits of the lawyers. You know that I'll have more to say about that soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment