Rahm Emanuel: Democrats have become the party of permissiveness. That's ballot box poison.

[reACTIONary]

https://wapo.st/4hgzAFR

“The Honeymooners.” “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet.” “Leave It to Beaver.” In campaign ads and rhetorical flourishes, Democrats are prone to conjuring fuzzy images of married couples sitting at their kitchen table struggling to cover their monthly bills. “Kitchen table” issues remain, at least in my party’s mind, shorthand for middle-class economic struggles.

In real life, however, tight family budgets aren’t the only challenges folks discuss in the kitchen. Democrats too often refuse to address anything beyond what they’re comfortable discussing — and our obvious discomfort talking about those other worries makes voters very uncomfortable.

Here’s the reality: The shrinking number of families who still make time to eat together chew the fat on a broad range of topics — who the kids are befriending, how all teenagers’ are preoccupied with social media, whether it’s safe to walk past various homeless encampments, who’s moving in and out of the neighborhood, and what’s being taught at the local schools.

[Think. Again.]

1. K&R

[doc03]

2. So instead of talking about the economy we should be spreading fear

about whom is moving next door, whether it is safe to walk by a homeless camp and what they are teaching in school.
All the analyses I have heard it was the economy and inflation. He thinks we should be spreading even more fear of the "other".
He is full of s--t

[reACTIONary]

6. Not instead....

.... in addition to the economy, we do have to address people's other concerns. For instance, having to explain, deflect, and tip-toe around "defund the police" was not helpful, and it is still being used against us.

[justaprogressive]

3. Why would anyone still be listening

to this guy?

[reACTIONary]

7. Because we just lost all three elective institutions and....

.... haven't been doing too well with the Supreme Court?

[NoMoreRepugs]

4. Everything that is "bad" has to be laid at the feet of Republicans and Trumpism, it has to be simple,

sorry but most Americans are too dumb to understand anything other than that IMO. Angry old man rant over.

[choie]

5. Democrats are the party of permissiveness?

The republicans support and bow down to a convicted felon, corrupt, unethical, amoral racist. And WE'RE the party of permissiveness? That is just the biggest bunch of bullshit. And as one DUer responded (I'm paraphrasing) why the FUCK are we listening to this compromised, third way asshole?

[reACTIONary]

8. With such a flawed opponent we should have ....

... won by a landslide. The felon's win was not convincing, he just barely scraped by, but given your characterization, he shouldn't have come close.

Assuming you want to win elections, what would be your suggestions?

[choie]

9. For just a start: To never listen to the likes of Rahm Emmanuel again.

Nor Bill Clinton, nor Terry Mcauliffe, nor Bob Shrum.

[Elessar Zappa]

11. No thanks, I'd like for the Democrats to win again.

[reACTIONary]

12. OK - Who should we be listening to?

[Silent Type]

10. We ate Emanuel long ago. Probably a mistake, but who knows?

[surrealAmerican]

13. "Permissiveness" is a synonym for "freedom".

Do we need to against freedom to "win"?
If we "win" in that way, it's exactly the same as losing.

[reACTIONary]

14. Not exactly....

.... Permissiveness, as used pejoratively, includes toleration of criminal violations, that is, being soft on crime. Obviously criminal conduct is not what we mean when we speak of freedom.

But you are right in that some folks think that civil rights amount to permissiveness.

[Elessar Zappa]

15. Which Democrat tolerate criminal violations?

[reACTIONary]

17. Democrats are regularly accused of being.....

.... "soft on crime". And it's largely our own fault.

The slogan "defund the police" came from our quarter. Many democrats, rather than just call it bullshit, excuseed it through attenuating justifications that it really meant this or that or the other thing. To which those who originated the slogan maintained that, no, it actually, really means defund the police.

I'm not sure if you have encountered it, but right here on DU we have folks who insist dogmatically that ACAB. I bet you know what that stands for, but if you don't there is a wiki article you can refer to. That certainly isn't a helpful stance in electoral politics, and it is one that taints our candidates.

Bill Clinton, who, in this very thread has been denigrated, responded to concerns about rising crime by promising to hire 100,000 police officers. And after years of progressives sneering at law enforcement, he rebuffed Sister Souljah for celebrating race-based violence. And here we are sneering at him, one of only two Democratic presidents since FDR to be reelected, because he wasn't soft on crime.

Being soft on crime is an example of the permissiveness that we are yoked with, and criminal behavior has nothing to do with freedom.

[Aristus]

16. Yeah.

I didn't vote for a convicted felon for President. A felon who ran so that he could stay out of prison. Yeah. We're the permissive ones...

[reACTIONary]

18. Unfortunately, that is, indeed, the impression...

.... of much of the electorate. It is easy for the opposition to cast us as "soft on crime" and that is not without reason.

[NewHendoLib]

19. Good grief.