Obviously, Senate Democrats have had a rough couple of months, but the Democratic vision Schumer is trying to carry through is transformative. Dems also passed ARPA & BIF. Compare that to tax cuts & a failed bid to take away people's healthcare w/ a visionless Frankenstein plan.
After the failed ACA repeal, McConnell should have carried egg on his face for a lot longer. He brought signature legislation to the floor w/out knowing how his own caucus would vote. Meanwhile, Schumer is weak for using the Senate floor to shine a light on voting rights.
Why wasn't Schumer considered "strong" or "ingenious" for getting his whole caucus to vote to convict Trump *twice*? Or for holding his caucus together on both ACA repeal & taxes? And why wasn't McConnell considered weak & humiliated the moment John McCain turned down his thumb?
McConnell is not a master of Senate procedure. Constant obstruction requires no skill, nor does hobbling the courts. He's either failed to pass legislation or moved through visionless bills. All while bolstered by the support of an increasingly homogeneous authoritarian caucus.
Here is the most recent example of this. Why should we believe Schumer had no idea what Manchin & Sinema would do? And why are we giving McConnell strategic credit? He wasn't in a game of chicken with Democrats that required negotiation. He just . . . . did nothing.
Schumer maybe believed at some point that he could corner Manchin & Sinema. Or, at least, that it was worth trying. I see no reason to believe he thought this week's actions would be a success. He likely knew the effort would fail & decided it was still instrumentally valuable
Meanwhile, there is no evidence that McConnell had some cunning insight into Manchin & Sinema. He literally just did nothing & watched it all unfold. There's no tangled web here. Just a deeply immoral person who sat back & was rewarded by two people's pompous fecklessness.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a dynamic in press coverage wherein Republican politicians' racism, authoritarianism, obstructionism, & lack of policy vision are treated as normal phenomena, but, conversely, Republican voters are viewed as exotic creatures straight out of a David Attenborough film.
The Republicans' abjectly anti-democratic behavior is accepted as a baseline, rather than abnormal & worthy of intense inquiry, but Republican voters' *loyalty* to this abnormal behavior is worthy of extreme curiosity. So we get a lot of "Trump voters still love Trump" stories.
Meanwhile, Democratic politicians are messy for attempting to participate in democracy. Democratic voters, in contrast, are treated as bores. The press largely ignores them. What's interesting, after all, in being committed to a party that's actually trying to be democratic?
The obvious answer is that vaccination is proven to reduce illness & death. Vaccination also likely mitigates immune responses that trigger Long COVID. Another under-recognized variable is that transmission between vaxx'd people is likely different than between unvaxx'd people
To be clear, here: I'm making a general point about the prevention of community harm induced by vaccination & corresponding immunity. Vaccinated individuals absolutely can spread Omicron & infect other vaccinated people. Everyone should follow guidelines closely.
When we're thinking about the power of vaccination, we need to think on the community level. Data from the Delta period indicate that the probability of breakthroughs goes UP if community vaccination is low. Every vaccinated person attenuates the spread.
I'm not trying to slam any specific person here. But there's been a real problem w/ how preliminary data is disseminated on this website, particularly in how it is framed. It's really important to get this right when we're talking about immune responses.
"Natural Immunity" is a big talking point among anti-vaxxers & I can guarantee you there are a slew of unvaxx'd people who got Omicron who now think they're well-protected. We need to do a better job gate-keeping. alternet.org/2021/09/anti-v…
There are absolutely huge barriers to accessing services for poor &/or rural Americans. So much needs to be improved, from cutting red tape to providing better info. But I think it's somewhat infantilizing to claim vulnerable people don't know how to make appointments at Rite Aid
Am I saying we shouldn't do more to improve access to services? Absolutely not. We should focus on the *real* issues that vulnerable people face. They are not incapable of navigating the world. They've done so for years. If we pretend they can't, it's both distracting & insulting
I am also not saying that technology isn't a barrier. It is a big one! We should talk about how to improve it. My point is that, on this website, people talk about vulnerable people as if they are incapable of doing *anything* to manage their own lives, when that is not the case.
I do not know why some on the left continue to deny that there is climate change legislation in Congress right now. If you tell people it doesn't exist, they won't know to fight for it. This doesn't seem like behavior that reflects a true concern about climate change.
Here is the cold, hard political reality. There is massive support within the Dem party for BBB. 2 Senators, particularly Joe Manchin, are standing in the way. Dems, especially those in the House, need a win before the midterms. It is very possible that BBB will be chopped up.
Yes. I do not understand how anyone who cares about climate change would actively attempt to elide the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the issue. It's great to say how Democrats could do better, but it's a matter of empirical fact the parties are not the same.
If we lose the House & the Senate this year, we will lose our chance to do anything about climate for several years. Losing the Senate will also further disadvantage us in the courts. If you care about climate, you should advocate for Build Back Better & voting for Democrats.
You can elect Dems & petition them to be more progressive on the issues you care about or you can cry on Lisa Murkowski's voicemail & beg her not to take your healthcare away
I'm sorry, but those are your options. And if you actually care about an issue, you need to realize this