"Everybody in Democratic leadership will combine to curb the ugliest instincts of a Senator el-Sayed. We'll vote funds to protect Jewish institutions from the antisemitic violence that el-Sayed made excuses for. We'll assign him to healthcare committees and keep him far, far away from Homeland Security. We desperately need this seat to hold the Trump administration accountable, but we're not going to lie to you and pretend the guy is anything other than what he is. That would be disrespectful and dishonest. Trump is the main issue here. You have our promise that this nomination is a one-time aberration - and that the rest of us will continue to uphold Jewish safety at home and the US-Israel alliance overseas."
He starts out very strongly with
Everybody in Democratic leadershp will combine to curb the ugliest instincts of a Senator-el-Sayed. We'll vote funds to protect Jewish institutions from the antisemitic violence that el-Sayed made excuses for. We'll assign him to healthcare committees and keep him far, far away from Homeland Security. We desperately need this seat to hold the Trump administration accountable.
The goal must be to hold the Trump administration accountable- "accountability," at least in the abstract, always is popular. No one ever says "I'm not accountable" or even "we shouldn't hold X person or instituion accountable".
The idea of keeping el-Sayed off the Senate Homeland Security committee is excellent, and one can only hope a lack of imagination is the only reason no Democrat has recommended it. And assigning him specifically to health care committes would be a stroke of genius because el-Sayed is- at least rhetorically- supportive of Medicare for All. Great!
Nonetheless, "we're not going to lie to you and pretend the guy is anything other than what he is" is unnecessarily contentious. :While Donald Trump is in fact "the main issue here", describing el-Sayed's primary victory as "a one-time aberration" would send voter flocking to his opponent- and would do nothing to improve the Democratic brand, long-term or short-term.
So to clean Frum's idea up a little, we would have
Everybody in Democratic leadership will combine to curb the ugliest instincts of anyone, including our own members. We'll vote funds to protect Jewish institutions from antisemitic violence encouraged by either Republicans or Democrats. We'll assign Senator el-Sayed to healthcare committees and keep him far, far away from Homeland Security. We desperately need this seat to hold the Administration accountable because corrupt President Trump, king of the deep state, is the main issue here and across the country.
The current cliche is "two things can be true at once", which was shortened from the more precise "two contradictory things can be true at once". Ideally, the Democratic Party would have been wise to work hard in the twelve of the thirteen Senate races which the Cook Political Report has deemed "leans Democratic", "toss up", or "leans Republican", which would exclude the contest in Michigan. But prominent Democrats, led by President Obama- who disliked Israel but never had the backbone to challenge Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu- decided that boosting an anti-Semitic candidate would be a swell idea.
Maybe it's only simple math. With a victory by el-Sayed, Democrats probably would end up with 50, 51, or 52 Senators (53 in a tsunami). Fifty is insufficient. Fifty-one theoretically is sufficient, but the concessions then offered John Fetterman to match those he'd be offered by Republicans might be excruciating. Sadly, 52 thus may be necessary. Not stumping for the candidate in Michigan would be a big gamble.
That may be why Barack Obama and other Democrats- Haley Stevens an obvious exception- don't want to be the last to grab a seat on the anti-Semite train. If it's more than that, the Party's problems are going to prove much greater than one disreputable candidate in one Midwestern state.
No comments:
Post a Comment