|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 9, 2019 1:17:53 GMT
Because I'm a nut like that I follow Newt Gingrich on Facebook. Here is his post for today. I thought it might be interesting to discuss. Note: these are his opinions, not mine.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – and the old guard Democrats at large – are in a very difficult position.
The radical young voters the Democrats have been courting for years have finally elected like-minded radical young representatives – and Pelosi and her leadership team has no control over them.
A big reason why, as I mentioned on Hannity this week, is that there is a wide generational gap between Democratic House leadership and freshmen Democrats, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and others.
The median year of birth for the 59 Democrats who assumed office this year is 1973. Sixteen of these members were born on or after 1980. Nancy Pelosi was born in 1940. The average age of Democratic leadership as a whole is 71. To the new Democrats, the members of leadership are like the grandparents. I don’t mean this in a positive way that could foster an opportunity for maternal or paternal mentorships. To the new Democrats, Pelosi’s team represents an outdated, backward way of thinking about government. How many 30-somethings do you know who share the same point of view as their 80-year-old grandparents?
The result is, these new Democrats are throwing a party – and the grandparents aren’t invited. Pelosi and members of Democratic leadership are simply trapped in a cycle of responding to headlines. This is how you end up with the so-called Green New Deal, which is a work of complete legislative fantasy that would utterly bankrupt the country. It’s also how the House got to a second forced public condemnation of the new Democrats’ flagrant anti-Semitism. Pelosi simply can’t control the young, radical, progressive wing, which is ardently socialist, anti-Israel, and contemptuous of America and its history.
This gap will continue to create massive cross-pressure in the party. For the Democrats who represent moderate districts – perhaps districts that voted for President Trump – the radical left-wing of the party is terrifying. Meanwhile, those who represent radical districts are going to continue having their party and continue to ignore the old guard.
This is not at aberration. The new class of Democrats despise Pelosi and the grandparents. The old guard has failed to create the radically progressive, socialist America that the new guard wants. This phenomenon has some similarities with conservative voters who widely rejected establishment Republicans and the liberal voters who rejected Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary.
Already, because of Pelosi’s inability to control her caucus, the Democrats can’t do anything positive. It’s making them desperate. The most they can do is focus their efforts on their shared vendetta against President Trump and everyone in his orbit.
The 81 subpoenas that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler levied against Trump allies – many of whom are private citizens who never intended or wanted to become public figures – is a perfect example of this desperation. Democrats are slowly realizing – with dawning horror – that Robert Mueller is not likely to provide them anything close to a smoking gun in their crusade against the President, so they are resorting to punishing his political campaign, family members, and longtime private sector employees in a vindictive public display. They are seeking to hurt anyone and everyone who has helped President Trump in any way. At best, it’s a gross political circus. At worst, it’s callous abuse of power.
These divides in the Democratic Party are only going to become more pronounced as Pelosi’s grip slips further. The new Democrats’ private party will become increasingly raucous until it has lost all touch with normal Americans. Moderate Democrats will have to continue answering for their colleague’s radicalism. Pelosi and the grandparents will not be invited along, but they will still be left cleaning up the mess.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Mar 9, 2019 1:19:34 GMT
Might be the first time ever that I have agreed with Newt.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Mar 9, 2019 2:07:22 GMT
I could agree with most of this.
|
|
quiltz
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,840
Location: CANADA
Jun 29, 2014 16:13:28 GMT
|
Post by quiltz on Mar 9, 2019 2:20:13 GMT
The Canadian Federal election is this October.
J. Trudeau is 47 A. Sheer is 40 J. Singh is 40
Much different than in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 9, 2019 2:21:20 GMT
I had stated on another thread that I actually thought that house leadership would reign the young ones in and do the majority of the work. I think this might be a possibility, though. And even if it isn't, just painting such a picture by Republicans could possibly sway independents.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 9, 2019 2:34:33 GMT
I had stated on another thread that I actually thought that house leadership would reign the young ones in and do the majority of the work. I think this might be a possibility, though. And even if it isn't, just painting such a picture by Republicans could possibly sway independents. One could hope they will be able to reign in the young ones, otherwise we will not do so well.... Someone really need to the blunt and tell them continue and we will LOSE. It is called compromise for a reason! There is a David Korn from Mother Jones saying that we should NOT count on the Mueller report which might only be given to Barr and not the public. Impeachment will not be good. Go after the taxes etc that is in writing/documented and so much easier to prove.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Mar 9, 2019 2:44:48 GMT
Pelosi's strength is that she has in the past been able to keep her people on task and get things done. I fear that what is happening in the Democratic party is what happened to the Republicans with the Tea Party. The party will become so fractured, it can't effectively legislate and support a candidate to victory in 2020. I hope I am wrong and some commonalities can be drawn upon.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Mar 9, 2019 2:54:49 GMT
You want to know my reaction? Nice try, Newt. Why is someone on the left side of the Democratic party automatically a radical? Make no mistake, the only intention of that kind of modifier is to demonize. Did he miss that it was grandpa Bernie that probably should get credit for mobilizing the progressive wing of the Democratic party. I'm pretty sure they are still inviting Elizabeth Warren to the party. Nancy Pelosi scares the poop out of the Republicans because she can and does control her caucus in a way that Boehner and Ryan could not on the Republican side. I love the complaint about Nadler's 81 subpoena's including "many of whom are private citizens who never intended or wanted to become public figures". OMG, the court system is full of private citizens who get called as witnesses. FFS, Newt, really what does this mean???! The blue wave of newly elected Democrats happened in November because it is who normal Americans relate to and they do want to be represented by them. Nice try, Newt, but I'm not buying your assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 9, 2019 3:09:35 GMT
You want to know my reaction? Nice try, Newt. Why is someone on the left side of the Democratic party automatically a radical? Make no mistake, the only intention of that kind of modifier is to demonize. Did he miss that it was grandpa Bernie that probably should get credit for mobilizing the progressive wing of the Democratic party. I'm pretty sure they are still inviting Elizabeth Warren to the party. Nancy Pelosi scares the poop out of the Republicans because she can and does control her caucus in a way that Boehner and Ryan could not on the Republican side. I love the complaint about Nadler's 81 subpoena's including "many of whom are private citizens who never intended or wanted to become public figures". OMG, the court system is full of private citizens who get called as witnesses. FFS, Newt, really what does this mean???! The blue wave of newly elected Democrats happened in November because it is who normal Americans relate to and want to be represented them. Nice try, Newt, but I'm not buying your assessment. I agree with bc2ca. I'm not as old as Nancy Pelosi, but I'm old enough to remember your turn as speaker, Newt, and I'm not buying anything you're selling. Painting the newer Democrats as radicals is a lame attempt to deflect from the true, far-right radicalism that has infected the Republican party via Trump and his allies. Gingrich is a GOP operative staying right on message.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 9, 2019 3:24:31 GMT
You want to know my reaction? Nice try, Newt. Why is someone on the left side of the Democratic party automatically a radical? Make no mistake, the only intention of that kind of modifier is to demonize. Did he miss that it was grandpa Bernie that probably should get credit for mobilizing the progressive wing of the Democratic party. I'm pretty sure they are still inviting Elizabeth Warren to the party. Nancy Pelosi scares the poop out of the Republicans because she can and does control her caucus in a way that Boehner and Ryan could not on the Republican side. I love the complaint about Nadler's 81 subpoena's including "many of whom are private citizens who never intended or wanted to become public figures". OMG, the court system is full of private citizens who get called as witnesses. FFS, Newt, really what does this mean???! The blue wave of newly elected Democrats happened in November because it is who normal Americans relate to and want to be represented them. Nice try, Newt, but I'm not buying your assessment. I agree with bc2ca. I'm not as old as Nancy Pelosi, but I'm old enough to remember your turn as speaker, Newt, and I'm not buying anything you're selling. Painting the newer Democrats as radicals is a lame attempt to deflect from the true, far-right radicalism that has infected the Republican party via Trump and his allies. Gingrich is a GOP operative staying right on message. I too agree with bc2ca. I think it’s a huge part of their misinformation campaign to further divide democrats.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 9, 2019 7:20:03 GMT
Yeah, me too. bc2ca hit it right in the nose. Newt Gingrich is salivating at the thought of the Democratic party splintering apart, but it’s all in his sweaty, fervent imagination. Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler, feeling desperate? I think not.
|
|
trollie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Jul 2, 2014 22:14:02 GMT
|
Post by trollie on Mar 9, 2019 12:29:13 GMT
If wanting everyone to have healthcare, a chance at a better education and a cleaner environment is radical, then I guess I'm a radical. : : All of his points apply to the Republicans too. These new, young congress people were elected because that IS what people want. Look out Newt. You say the old Dems weren't invited to the party, well neither were you.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Mar 9, 2019 13:35:38 GMT
I don’t know Newt. Nancy got her entire caucus to vote in favor of the highly contested anti-Semitism (et al) resolution the other day, unlike that sorry group of Republicans. With, of course, Steve King voting “present”.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,011
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Mar 9, 2019 13:42:26 GMT
In his fever swamp, mouth breathing dreams.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Mar 9, 2019 15:05:56 GMT
I heard this comment on NPR this week, and I agree with it.
It is HARDER to bring together a party that is made up of very diverse people, like the Democratic party. The Republican party is fairly homogenous by comparison.
So, it's a more difficult task to consider the perspectives of a more diverse group of people. But we're trying, and it's worth it.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 9, 2019 15:10:25 GMT
I heard this comment on NPR this week, and I agree with it. It is HARDER to bring together a party that is made up of very diverse people, like the Democratic party. The Republican party is fairly homogenous by comparison. So, it's a more difficult task to consider the perspectives of a more diverse group of people. But we're trying, and it's worth it. 100% agree with this. And I think Nancy Pelosi does a pretty good job of it. I read Newt's post and I walked away thinking part of it was making the argument that Republicans should keep election old white guys. Because it's too difficult to deal with those radical youngsters. In the third party thread I stated my opinion that I think a third party in the case of Republicans is going to be possible. I'm not sure the younger generation is going to sign on to their platform. It may just be a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Mar 9, 2019 18:13:05 GMT
I heard this comment on NPR this week, and I agree with it. It is HARDER to bring together a party that is made up of very diverse people, like the Democratic party. The Republican party is fairly homogenous by comparison. So, it's a more difficult task to consider the perspectives of a more diverse group of people. But we're trying, and it's worth it. I'll respectfully disagree that the Republican party is any more homogenous than the Democratic party. The only thing they got done while in power was a horrific tax bill. They could not get it together on fully repealing and/or replacing healthcare, there is a clear difference of opinion on the need for a border wall (with border state Representatives being the least interested) and no consensus on immigration reform. Paraphrasing Ryan, it's easy to be in opposition and say no to everything the other side wants to do and really hard when you are in power and realize you don't have everyone on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Mar 9, 2019 19:27:27 GMT
I heard this comment on NPR this week, and I agree with it. It is HARDER to bring together a party that is made up of very diverse people, like the Democratic party. The Republican party is fairly homogenous by comparison. So, it's a more difficult task to consider the perspectives of a more diverse group of people. But we're trying, and it's worth it. I'll respectfully disagree that the Republican party is any more homogenous than the Democratic party. Could you say more about this? Statistically, the demographics of the senate and house members reflect something different from your claim.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Mar 9, 2019 19:55:34 GMT
I'll respectfully disagree that the Republican party is any more homogenous than the Democratic party. Could you say more about this? Statistically, the demographics of the senate and house members reflect something different from your claim. Please share your statistics. As an example, the Republican party was unified in their desire to oppose the ACA, but could not get an agreement amongst themselves on repealing/replacing it. Just as the Democrats have a progressive wing and a centrist wing, the Republicans have their Conservatives (subdivided into Tea Party, Christian right, Neoconservative, Paleoconservatives), Libertarians and Moderates. They may be relatively homogenous in that older, white men dominate the party but they are not homogenous in policy/philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Mar 9, 2019 20:03:02 GMT
Could you say more about this? Statistically, the demographics of the senate and house members reflect something different from your claim. Please share your statistics. As an example, the Republican party was unified in their desire to oppose the ACA, but could not get an agreement amongst themselves on repealing/replacing it. Just as the Democrats have a progressive wing and a centrist wing, the Republicans have their Conservatives (subdivided into Tea Party, Christian right, Neoconservative, Paleoconservatives), Libertarians and Moderates. They may be relatively homogenous in that older, white men dominate the party but they are not homogenous in policy/philosophy. I get where you’re coming from. I was thinking of demographics, and not necessarily policy. Yes, I think both parties have a range of policy positions along the spectrum, so we agree there. Thank you for your clarification! Stats: www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/ (Pew Research Center) www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/Related article (citing Pew): www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-voter-groups-20180320-story.html
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Mar 9, 2019 20:23:44 GMT
Please share your statistics. As an example, the Republican party was unified in their desire to oppose the ACA, but could not get an agreement amongst themselves on repealing/replacing it. Just as the Democrats have a progressive wing and a centrist wing, the Republicans have their Conservatives (subdivided into Tea Party, Christian right, Neoconservative, Paleoconservatives), Libertarians and Moderates. They may be relatively homogenous in that older, white men dominate the party but they are not homogenous in policy/philosophy. I get where you’re coming from. I was thinking of demographics, and not necessarily policy. Yes, I think both parties have a range of policy positions along the spectrum, so we agree there. Thank you for your clarification! Stats: www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/ (Pew Research Center) www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/Related article (citing Pew): www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-voter-groups-20180320-story.htmlHa, when you (general you) talk about diversity in politics, I automatically think policy and philosophy, not demographics. When Newt argues the policy divide/diversity in the Democratic party is split along demographic lines, he is trying to make it true.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 9, 2019 20:53:34 GMT
Pelosi's strength is that she has in the past been able to keep her people on task and get things done. I fear that what is happening in the Democratic party is what happened to the Republicans with the Tea Party. The party will become so fractured, it can't effectively legislate and support a candidate to victory in 2020. I hope I am wrong and some commonalities can be drawn upon. Well the Republicans were so fractured they couldn’t pass the legislation they wanted for 2 years. This is what happens when you allow your fringe to control your party. You argue almost yourselves so much you get nothing done.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 9, 2019 21:10:00 GMT
Pelosi's strength is that she has in the past been able to keep her people on task and get things done. I fear that what is happening in the Democratic party is what happened to the Republicans with the Tea Party. The party will become so fractured, it can't effectively legislate and support a candidate to victory in 2020. I hope I am wrong and some commonalities can be drawn upon. Well the Republicans were so fractured they couldn’t pass the legislation they wanted for 2 years. This is what happens when you allow your fringe to control your party. You argue almost yourselves so much you get nothing done. Yes, and this is why the DNC chose Hillary and not Bernie as its candidate. And why they backed the centrist congressional candidate and not the far left one here in my district. Unlike the Republicans, and despite what Newt says, Democrats are not about to allow their party to be taken over by its fringe element.
|
|
|
Post by imkat on Mar 10, 2019 3:52:54 GMT
Pelosi's strength is that she has in the past been able to keep her people on task and get things done. I fear that what is happening in the Democratic party is what happened to the Republicans with the Tea Party. The party will become so fractured, it can't effectively legislate and support a candidate to victory in 2020. I hope I am wrong and some commonalities can be drawn upon. Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. John Boehner all over again.
|
|