Its Almost Comical: Y’all might be aware that next year is the Midterm election, when 1/3 of all the Senate and the entire House of Representatives is up for election. These are critical elections because it would give us, the Progressive Left, a chance to finally relieve some pressure by throwing the Republicans out of Congress; doing so would rebuild a key barrier to Trump’s agenda, and protect countless millions of Americans. The Midterms also give us an opportunity to throw the Democratic corporatists out of office and replace them with people who will actually fight for pro-working class, pro-civil rights champions. The Midterms are, in short, the one real chance we have to prevent Donald Trump from further ruining our country for our people.
According to Nancy Pelosi, though, its no big deal. Or at least, it sure seems like that’s what she thinks.
On-Message and Off Her Rocker: That bit where she goes on about “Better pay, better jobs and a better future”? That’s directly pulling from the Democrats’ new campaign slogan, and yes, it does sound like they ripped off of a Papa John’s commercial. And there is something to be said for staying on message, but in this case, there’s two teeny tiny problems.
- The message sucks
- Pelosi misses the forest for the trees
Beyond the fact that the slogan is garbage, she’s so focused on repeating it that she doesn’t realize it sounds as though she just said that the Midterms themselves are unimportant. I think she was claiming that its unimportant whether she runs for Speaker should the Democrats win, but she never makes that clear, so here I am having to try and rationalize the nonsense she actually said like a chump.
In trying to stay on-message and get the new slogan out into the public consciousness, she misses the opportunity to make a compelling argument as to why the Democrats should be voted back into control of the House in the first place. She fails to make the point that Democrats could protect and expand peoples’ health care, that they could start curtailing the fascist abuses of ICE, that we could set us back on track to a prosperous green energy future, and counteract the anti-democratic voter suppression efforts of the Republicans.
All of that is on the table, if the Democrats (and Progressives in particular) win back the House. But you wouldn’t know it from that interview.
No Sympathy: To be fair- Chris Wallace, the Fox interviewer in the clip above, isn’t there to give Pelosi a chance to explain herself. As elements of his propaganda network are literally on the Trump payroll, his job is to interrupt anyone to the left of Rand Paul and make them seem flustered and foolish. But Pelosi has been around the block enough to know that’s what’s on the menu and be prepared for it, so she should get no sympathy for getting taken to the cleaners for eleven minutes. Her job is to go out there and present a coherent argument as to why the people should trust the Democrats with power again, and she failed.
And Wallace has a point- none of the new slogan’s goals are new. The talking points are stale and have been used for decades. The Democrats had a chance to come out of the gate with something like, “We want Medicare for All, strong new Student Debt Forgiveness laws, strong voter re-enfranchisement policies and we support a 100% green energy grid by 2050.” That would have at least raised some eyebrows. That would have been bold.
This shit? This is a bowl of oatmeal, left uncovered in the fridge from last week. If the Democrats want to retake the House in 2018, they’re going to need a much more full-throated defense of their platform- and one that actually resonates with the people.
Third Time’s the Charm?: Guys, really quickly, the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare still isn’t dead yet. The version of it that we defeated on Friday is toast, but they’re not giving up on their push to repeal it by any means necessary. We’ll have a Vigil about it tomorrow, just keep calling your Senators in the meantime. Let them know that we do not support any repeal of the ACA, regardless who writes an amendment about it.