While I appreciate your position - it's a little differently described than most commentators which is something I like about you - it misses the bigger picture. The same thing happens, for example, about the campus protests for Palestinians. This pushes too many Democrats to not vote for Harris. And all the while - that Trump would be worse - Trump wants to cleanse Gaza and turn it into a resort. Yes, it would be nice if Ukraine was at the table for peace talks, Black leaders at the table for civil rights, trans for trans rights, women for abortion rights. But hardline fringe positions faced by an incredibly small number of people gives fodder to the RW media ecosystem, who will lie about it anyway and brainwash their audience. I'm for equality across the spectrum. But we spent years and years progressively changing the country to allow mixed-race marriages, same gender marriages, integration, good working conditions. Why throw it away by supporting unsupportable positions? Trump is going to roll back 100 plus years - maybe 500 plus - of progress. Is it worth it to struggle to get to this point and dismantle it so quickly because we alienate too many people?
These are fair points—why die on this hill if it loses you elections that lose you the whole war?—and I get Yglesias’s point that conceding on girls sports teams could mean preventing Republicans in office from doing far worse to trans people.
The problem though is when we show weakness, failing to strike back at bullies, we lose anyway because voters who fear trans people will always pick the party that is more direct and forceful against that group, while our meek centrism on the issue just makes us look untrustworthy to all voters.
I’m not talking about policy (another issue entirely) but rather politics, because voters I believe react a lot more to strength and forceful defense of your principles than they do to how closely they agree with those politics. Where we win is to proclaim general principles like “live and let live” and make the opposition into the weirdos who check out kids genitals.
Yes, I think I have to keep stressing this point. This is different from trying to legalize interracial marriage in the Civil Right Act, which likely would’ve caused it to fail. Republicans are actively trying to erase trans people from existence. It’s arguably insane that we’re even talking about trans athletes when the GOP has already moved on to banning trans people from the military and potentially trying to force them out of positions of trust, like schoolteachers, etc.
Obama managed to win in 2008 despite Jeremiah Wright because he directly confronted the issue. Harris never did, as her advisers recommended she avoid trans matters entirely.
Also, politically speaking, Charlie Kirk is *never* going to vote for a Democrat. Just as the most pro-Israel Republican is never going to vote for a Democrat. Newsom and Kirk “agreeing” on trans issue or Fetterman and Stefanik agreeing on Israel doesn’t actually benefit Democrats. The best discussion is among parts of the actual liberal coalition. “We both voted for Biden in 2020, even HRC in 2016, but we disagree on this issue that is important to both of us -- trans kids playing sports/the Israel-Gaza War -- how can we move forward?” But I rarely see that, which is nuts. Instead, we’re more likely to just repudiate each other. That is what’s destructive.
I certainly said nothing about Kirk being on Newsom's show. It makes very little sense. I'm still trying to coalesce thoughts about what I'd do; who I'd invite. Maybe only besides closed doors anyway. The Wrong provide a united front and have since Newt.
Yep—a good faith discussion is well worth having—our coalition is broad so it is necessary— the part that pissed me off was elevating the bad faith of Kirk, which just sanitizes the whole “trans are all fake, they’re mentally ill, oh and forget that we once said the same about gay people, this is different” that leads to dark places. It’s the fighting style I have the bigger issue with, rather than the specifics of the policy. I can understand people who really do wonder who should be allowed to play on what teams, and think they deserve a good faith answer.
This is exactly it. Charlie Kirk is saying “But surely there’s ONE sphere of American life where trans people shouldn’t exist?” Once you agree with them, it’s on to the next one.
The best answer—well, the best answer is not to platform Charlie Kirk in the first place. The second-best answer is “So tell me Charlie—how long have you been an advocate for women’s sports? Tell me about the one captivating game that made you a fan? Who’s your fourth-favorite women’s basketball player? Did you see that game last night?”
Aside from essentially immolating yourself with Democratic base voters by platforming Charlie Kirk, a crime against god, man, and nature in and of itself.
It’s not even good politics. One of the few unifying beliefs left in an increasingly fractured Democratic Party is an empathy for other human beings. The idea that a society is only as strong as it values the contributions of everyone, not just the powerful. Even if there was a single trans person on earth out of seven billion, a liberal should believe they have a right to be treated with the same dignity and respect as other human beings on earth.
By telling these same voters “oh we’re just willing to sell out our stated values whenever politically expedient or convenient”, you’re leading to a base that no longer wants to vote for democrats. There is not a single person on earth who is currently saying to themselves “well I would be with the party if not for treating trans like human beings”. However, the overwhelming criticism you will find of the Democratic Party is they are all amoral craven sell outs if they are willing to sacrifice human rights for political ambition.
It’s the negative side effect of running the middle that this party hasn’t learned in 40 years of trying this.
"There is not a single person in earth who is currently saying to themselves 'well I would be with the party if not for treating trans like human beings'."
If true, encourages me to stop humoring the Poe's-law commentariat who seem to make reasonable noises about everything EXCEPT swallowing the "they ran on over-the-top trans rights policy" horseshit of last year.
"Aside from essentially immolating yourself with Democratic base voters by platforming Charlie Kirk"
Ultimately what it shows is poor decision making skills...We don't need people who make choices like that...That Newsome doesn't know what's WRONG with that is what's wrong with that
Boy this was stabbity to see from Newsom. But I'm glad he revealed this before the primaries before people could get locked in. So we know that the right choice will be not him.
Still -- continually! -- disappointed that none of the central media and political players bother to disambiguate Olympic basketball from rec league swimming from NCAA DivIII pole vault from high school cross country from 4th grade t-ball.
They're all different. The players get involved for different reasons and seek to achieve different things, which means that fairness must necessarily mean different things in different contexts. If adults join rec league swimming for mutual support in doing a fun thing that helps them meet fitness goals, the "fairness" means equal opportunity to meet fitness goals and get patted on the back for it by other people who also love the water.
The GOP narrative about fairness is **entirely** about winning, as if every 5th grade soccer team in the state is a complete failure except one.
To be perfectly honest, the message adults are currently sending to kids - that their efforts and hobbies are meaningless unless they are champions - is unfair both to the trans people they use that message to attack, but also the kids who are victimized by its premise.
There are people being unfair here, and it's not the 9th grader who tries out for shotput.
I fucking hate it every time someone on TV or in a major publication concedes the "fairness" ground. It's stupid and thoughtless and it's not even that hard to counter.
And these bigoted rules are even being applied to competitive chess. Chess! There's no physical component to chess, but they do it anyway. That's how you know it's a bad-faith objection.
Republican men: obsessing over the trans because… unresolved issues. They should get a towel to clean up their keyboard each time they post… and then get help. Also, Gavin Newsom being an a craven opportunist that thinks it will be president.
If Newsom wasn’t such garbage he might have had an interview with a trans activist to address the “trans girls in sports” issue. I think a lot of non-bigots see it as “trans girls have a natural advantage in sports, how is this fair” and to the extent anyone’s concern is in good faith it’s worth explaining why this isn’t an unfair advantage, and how teams determine an athlete is actually trans vs a trolling boy pretending to be (the scenario the Right keeps bringing up). Especially since Newsom is governor of the largest state and seems inclined towards opposing laws allowing trans girls to compete, it’d make more sense for him to interview someone on the “pro” side (and possibly make that side more popular, if only because that side is confined to his party) than to interview Kirk, who just wants to troll this as a wedge issue.
This isn’t just one of many reasons this guy isn’t going to be president.
Gavin Newsom is now “garbage”? The California governor who dueled with Trump over funding when his state was on fire, who signed bills to counteract Trump’s agenda with legal aid for immigrants, and so forth? Because he differs with purity ponies regarding the 5 or 6 transgender high-schoolers in this country who play sports? I really don’t get this. Let Repubs eat their own. Dems can scarcely afford to do that these days.
I call him garbage not because he differs on an issue (I have no or supporting pols I disagree with on many issues) but because his tactics here are exactly the weak soup that loses us voters. This is about a lot more than trans kids in girls sports (an issue which I think good faith people can disagree on, distinct from say denying bathroom access or prison assignments). It’s about elevating a bad faith Trumper troll, and thinking “if I give on this I’ll win over the middle” when this is really the Right starting with one small vulnerable group and whether Democrats should fight back with ferocity or meek apology.
Generally speaking, yes, choose our battles. But when the battle isnt a matter of how best to get universal healthcare, or who to let into NATO, or what tax rates to apply, but rather “Republicans want to abuse a vulnerable group and wish to take normal people’s good faith concerns as a wedge”—that’s where fighting back, on our ground, is necessary.
But you can choose HOW to fight a particular battle. You can calibrate whether the amount of time and attention expended on an extremely low-percentage targeted group is commensurate with its relative importance.
I think Newsom has taken a lot of of positions he deems popular.
If there are just a handful of high school students playing sports who are trans, then ... why is it even a big deal? Most of them probably aren't even that good. As I mention, this is just the first step towards marginalizing trans people entirely.
My bigger issue with Newsom is that he chose to have this debate with *Kirk* rather than Sarah McBride or any other actual trans legislator. That would've been insightful -- Dems having good-faith debates about the issue. But Kirk is not a good-faith actor.
I agree, Charlie Kirk is a worthless POS, and I have no idea why Newsom would have him on a podcast. I also wonder why the minuscule number of trans high-school athletes issue gets such outsize attention. For one thing, it’s scaremongering from Repubs to bait the Dems and force them to redirect attention from important issues that affect way more of the population than the less than one percent who are transgender. And as usual, Dems mindlessly take the bait.
What would it look like to not "mindlessly take the bait"? Let's not pretend "it" wouldn't be an issue if only RWNJs were bringing it up in their echo chambers.
“It” would look like they are focused on larger, more important issues that affect way more of the population than the less than one percent who are transgender.
Gavin Newsom has always had empty suit syndrome. While he has been on the right side of some issues, he never seems to be doing so because it's the right thing to do or out of principle, but rather because some focus group has informed him that it's a position that he should adopt for TV appearances.
He's a little too facile, a little too handsome, and not nearly enough real. It's not an accident that he used to be married to Kimberly Guilfoyle. He's a made for TV character and a political climber. He is most definitely NOT the future standard bearer for the Dems, but if he is, we are in for more of the same bothsiderism that got us to the sad state where we now find ourselves.
While Harris’s loss likely had more to do with the economy and post-pandemic anger, to the extent she was hurt on the trans issue I’d argue it was because her defense was weak and apologetic—she avoided the issue mostly (which is the popularist strategy@0–talk more about your more popular issues like Roe) and when she did have to talk about it she’d say “I did what the law required.” That’s called playing on ground set by your enemy.
Imagine if she’d set the ground herself—“you want to pick on vulnerable Americans, just because they’re different? How about we talk about why you freaks are so interested in policing other people’s genitals? I say let people live their lives, if you don’t like it, there are other countries you can move to where genitals inspections are normal! I say live and let live, asshole!”
I know it’d be very un-Kamala to speak that way, but she’d have turned that issue on its head and Dems everywhere would be asking why Republicans want to check out everyone’s junk. Memes would explode, late night comics would riff on it, trans Americans AND non-trans people who are sick of this crap would be emboldened and—this is key—even voters who DISAGREE with Harris on this issue would respect and admire her willingness to fight fierce like this.
Voters often reward strength even when they don’t agree with the politician on the issue—Trump’s supporters are a good example of this, yet Democrats keep believing that voters check off issues on a list like robots.
To that end, it's always easy for Americans to fall for demagogues that cater to their bigotry. And that's why stupid fanfiction is the major element of why we lost in 2024, because the messaging was good.
I distinctly remember a lot of people asking why Republicans are even worrying about what's in our pants. But you know what? I'm ready to go. Because I still remain unconvinced that anyone was really going to listen anyway. Let's put these words in AOC's mouth (or any other Internet favorite) and let them roll with it then.
I happen to think the ethnic cleansing desires hurt her way more than the anti-trans message despite what Newsom says, but on the other hand I am a nobody and he's a two-term governor of California, so on paper he would know more than I would I guess.
Yup...Harris DELIBERATLY steered away from the trans issue, but according to the RW propaganda machine and social media she never shut up about it...Also she wasn't doing any interviews or appearances in the middle of all the interviews and appearances that she was IN FACT actually doing...
you cannot win with fascists controlling the most powerful engines of the media...you just can't
Obama directly confronted the Jeremiah Wright issue. He didn’t ignore it, as that would’ve been fatal. I don’t recall Harris giving a version of Obama’s “race” speech regarding trans people or her past positions.
I often have to check myself when I criticize pols because I’m not in their position and clearly they have more need to “get it right” as their job is on the line. But I can observe, and make my calls at least from where I’m seeing it.
Oh there is PLENTY to criticize dem leadership for...See Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries...But then there is ALSO the RW controlled media...this is one of those 'two things can be true' situations...There's plenty of blame to go around
Did you see when Jasmine Crockett was asked if she had any words for Elon musk and those two words were LITERALLY
"Fuck Off"
...In front of the capitol to actual reporters...I could not WAIT for that to become the meme of the month, spread through social media far and wide. Powerful...succinct...and a BLESSED departure from the unholy STINK of fucking 'decorum'
but nothing...a couple of posts on it, but it didn't even make it to the end of that day's news cycle...
You can't criticize democrats for not having a 'message' with a message like THAT.. THS is 100% a 'messenger' problem, and the 'messenger' is clearly on team Trump...Crockett's statement was CLEARLY the type of thing the media LIVES for, so their lack of coverage over it is QUITE telling
I bring it up a lot but there’s the story of the interviews with 1968 George Wallace supporters who considered RFK their second choice, despite disagreement on key issues (segregation). When asked, these supporters said it was because they admired how RFK fought for what he believed in.
It’s also, I think, why so many Trump supporters stick with him even when he contradicts himself (or the things his supporters say are important)—when you like the candidate, you dint really care that much about each issue—you figure you’ll like what they do if they’re in office. So you’re better off taking the positions you think are correct, fighting like hell for them (and if they’re unpopular positions? Try to make them more popular! That’s your job if you’re in politics!), and don’t think “oh voters need me to check every box.”
precisely...Its EXACTLY the same reason why there was a good deal of overlap between Trump and Sanders supporter in the 2016 election...The two men couldn't BE any further apart ideologically so the only way to parse it was to find what they had in common...They both APPEARED to be fighters...One was (is) a real fighter and the other a performative fighter...Spewing hate and anger can SEEM like the same thing as angrily speaking truth to power, and both can appear as strength to minds too weak to tell (or care) about the difference
Yes, they were both “anti-establishment,” but because the Democratic establishment had come to include women and POC, this was seen as racist/sexist. Yet, younger women and POC do in fact view some key Dem figures as the “establishment,” regardless of their race and gender.
When some liberals started calling out Sanders supporters as bigots I knew we were well over our skis. And I’m not even a Sanders fan!
But I’ll admit even disagreeing with him on a lot of policy issues I did like his “old guy yelling across the counter at a deli because they screwed up his sandwich” persona. He gives the sense that he’d fight back against craziness, not tell you to calm down, don’t be hysterical, as too many pols do.
I became 'less' of a Sanders fan once Liz Warren rose up in the scene...I was just looking for someone with those ideas and that ethos and for a good spell, Sanders was IT...I will always have mad respect for him being the one lone voice in a sea of neoliberal wishy-wash...Warren holds most of his beliefs but she's...how you say?...I bit more articulate and lateral than he is...But like Sanders, she brings the anger that is SO welcome and refreshing to our tired progressive ears
See here's the thing...it's not that voters in general need the Democratic candidate to check every box, it's *Democrats* that demand that. And if you don't check those boxes? Whew boy it's your ass! Democrats demand that their candidate articulate the entire vision of the party, AND have a record that was 100% the "right" way (and what the "right" way is also depends on both currency and hindsight). There isn't a Democratic politician that exists...not even Bernie Sanders or AOC that has voted 100% the "Right" way. Yet Dems ask for all that.
Democrats are very iffy about their candidates in general no matter the merits and oh boy they will throw you under the bus quickly too.
And I'll say this. Making positions more popular would really be a lot easier with a media human centipede that actually spreads what you say around instead of nitpicking with bullshit. That's why "Green New Deal" became a shibboleth, Biden did an end-around and got a lot of it enacted and then Americans threw it in the trash because they voted for bigoted fanfiction.
I think Democrats suffer when their past positions appear to only make sense of bandwagon jumping. I think you can hold positions that are controversial in your past or that might put off base voters if they are at least internally consistent with an overall view of the world that is more complex than “I just wanted to win elections.”
Do Dem voters really demand that, though? The candidates and conventional wisdom seem to think so and they react accordingly but I wonder if a candidate broke with the CW over an issue or personal scandal previously seen as “career-ending”, maybe depending on how the candidate handled it (defiance instead of meek apology) it’d turn out the voters dint mind if they like the candidate generally.
We saw a bit of that with Clinton—back in ‘92 he broke with the base on a lot of issues (like the death penalty) but more importantly he admitted smoking pot, previously considered a career-killer (not to mention marital infidelity issues that crushed Gary Hart just one cycle previously). Now Clinton’s not a perfect example because on some of those issues he was not forthright and was apologetic when confronted (the marital issues) but it dies show that the voters can look past issues if they like the candidate.
Well that makes me think of Andrew Cuomo now and, well, honestly, the Al Franken dead-enders (there are a lot of Dems who hate Kirsten Gillibrand to the ends of the Earth to this day). Yet it's hard to reconcile that with Democratic candidates like Cal Cunningham getting waylaid for consensual sexting. I've said it before, but political science is on its ear.
I'm beginning to think that incompetence and cluelessness are a REQUIREMENT for being a democratic 'leader' and whoever enforces that requirement was simply asleep on the job the day that AOC, Crockett and Raskin ran for office
DAMMIT! I wasn't supposed to let those folks through...
The Repubs have baited the Democratic party into elevating the defense of the 0.5 percent of the US population that’s transgender, to the detriment of larger, more important issues. This is one of the reasons that many working-class Americans find Democrats to be elitist, out of touch, and focused on issues that are overall irrelevant to them. As usual, Dems take the bait and then trap themselves into having to unnecessarily spend precious time on the defense.
We just cannot find a way to stop letting them frame every single issue. How about go on the offensive all day, all the time? Instead of listening to effing James Carville how about watching a Bernie speech and learning something about punching them and not letting up. Shocking that an old guy can still do that and no one except 2 women of color can follow suit. And another old man, Al Green, thank you Mr Green!
Right. And the RE media ecosystem will turn it into a weapon. According to voters, they believed transgender operations for prisoners was the number two Democratic position!
Beautiful piece!
But excuse me,
"If you’ve seen The Transformers movies because you had nothing better to do,"
No, i only watched the cartoons after school in the '80s because I had nothing better to do.
Disappointed in CaveIn Newsom!
Buh bye Newsome. To align with Kirk if all people is vile.
Thanks for using redlining as an illustration, that's useful. I'll repeat it far and wide.
While I appreciate your position - it's a little differently described than most commentators which is something I like about you - it misses the bigger picture. The same thing happens, for example, about the campus protests for Palestinians. This pushes too many Democrats to not vote for Harris. And all the while - that Trump would be worse - Trump wants to cleanse Gaza and turn it into a resort. Yes, it would be nice if Ukraine was at the table for peace talks, Black leaders at the table for civil rights, trans for trans rights, women for abortion rights. But hardline fringe positions faced by an incredibly small number of people gives fodder to the RW media ecosystem, who will lie about it anyway and brainwash their audience. I'm for equality across the spectrum. But we spent years and years progressively changing the country to allow mixed-race marriages, same gender marriages, integration, good working conditions. Why throw it away by supporting unsupportable positions? Trump is going to roll back 100 plus years - maybe 500 plus - of progress. Is it worth it to struggle to get to this point and dismantle it so quickly because we alienate too many people?
These are fair points—why die on this hill if it loses you elections that lose you the whole war?—and I get Yglesias’s point that conceding on girls sports teams could mean preventing Republicans in office from doing far worse to trans people.
The problem though is when we show weakness, failing to strike back at bullies, we lose anyway because voters who fear trans people will always pick the party that is more direct and forceful against that group, while our meek centrism on the issue just makes us look untrustworthy to all voters.
I’m not talking about policy (another issue entirely) but rather politics, because voters I believe react a lot more to strength and forceful defense of your principles than they do to how closely they agree with those politics. Where we win is to proclaim general principles like “live and let live” and make the opposition into the weirdos who check out kids genitals.
Yes, I think I have to keep stressing this point. This is different from trying to legalize interracial marriage in the Civil Right Act, which likely would’ve caused it to fail. Republicans are actively trying to erase trans people from existence. It’s arguably insane that we’re even talking about trans athletes when the GOP has already moved on to banning trans people from the military and potentially trying to force them out of positions of trust, like schoolteachers, etc.
Obama managed to win in 2008 despite Jeremiah Wright because he directly confronted the issue. Harris never did, as her advisers recommended she avoid trans matters entirely.
Also, politically speaking, Charlie Kirk is *never* going to vote for a Democrat. Just as the most pro-Israel Republican is never going to vote for a Democrat. Newsom and Kirk “agreeing” on trans issue or Fetterman and Stefanik agreeing on Israel doesn’t actually benefit Democrats. The best discussion is among parts of the actual liberal coalition. “We both voted for Biden in 2020, even HRC in 2016, but we disagree on this issue that is important to both of us -- trans kids playing sports/the Israel-Gaza War -- how can we move forward?” But I rarely see that, which is nuts. Instead, we’re more likely to just repudiate each other. That is what’s destructive.
I certainly said nothing about Kirk being on Newsom's show. It makes very little sense. I'm still trying to coalesce thoughts about what I'd do; who I'd invite. Maybe only besides closed doors anyway. The Wrong provide a united front and have since Newt.
Yep—a good faith discussion is well worth having—our coalition is broad so it is necessary— the part that pissed me off was elevating the bad faith of Kirk, which just sanitizes the whole “trans are all fake, they’re mentally ill, oh and forget that we once said the same about gay people, this is different” that leads to dark places. It’s the fighting style I have the bigger issue with, rather than the specifics of the policy. I can understand people who really do wonder who should be allowed to play on what teams, and think they deserve a good faith answer.
This is exactly it. Charlie Kirk is saying “But surely there’s ONE sphere of American life where trans people shouldn’t exist?” Once you agree with them, it’s on to the next one.
The best answer—well, the best answer is not to platform Charlie Kirk in the first place. The second-best answer is “So tell me Charlie—how long have you been an advocate for women’s sports? Tell me about the one captivating game that made you a fan? Who’s your fourth-favorite women’s basketball player? Did you see that game last night?”
(Mumbled non-reply)
“Yeah, just like I thought.”
Aside from essentially immolating yourself with Democratic base voters by platforming Charlie Kirk, a crime against god, man, and nature in and of itself.
It’s not even good politics. One of the few unifying beliefs left in an increasingly fractured Democratic Party is an empathy for other human beings. The idea that a society is only as strong as it values the contributions of everyone, not just the powerful. Even if there was a single trans person on earth out of seven billion, a liberal should believe they have a right to be treated with the same dignity and respect as other human beings on earth.
By telling these same voters “oh we’re just willing to sell out our stated values whenever politically expedient or convenient”, you’re leading to a base that no longer wants to vote for democrats. There is not a single person on earth who is currently saying to themselves “well I would be with the party if not for treating trans like human beings”. However, the overwhelming criticism you will find of the Democratic Party is they are all amoral craven sell outs if they are willing to sacrifice human rights for political ambition.
It’s the negative side effect of running the middle that this party hasn’t learned in 40 years of trying this.
"There is not a single person in earth who is currently saying to themselves 'well I would be with the party if not for treating trans like human beings'."
If true, encourages me to stop humoring the Poe's-law commentariat who seem to make reasonable noises about everything EXCEPT swallowing the "they ran on over-the-top trans rights policy" horseshit of last year.
"One of the few unifying beliefs left in an increasingly fractured Democratic Party is an empathy for other human beings."
yep...Its our ONE non-negotiable aesthetic...If you don't have that, you're not fit to run...
"Aside from essentially immolating yourself with Democratic base voters by platforming Charlie Kirk"
Ultimately what it shows is poor decision making skills...We don't need people who make choices like that...That Newsome doesn't know what's WRONG with that is what's wrong with that
Boy this was stabbity to see from Newsom. But I'm glad he revealed this before the primaries before people could get locked in. So we know that the right choice will be not him.
" But I'm glad he revealed this before the primaries before people could get locked in"
NO KIDDING!...early diagnosis can help you sidestep a LOT of unnecessary grief...Wish we'd had that heads up with Sinema and Tricia Cotham
Newsom: Who cares about trade unionists? Sure, go ahead and take them.
this is DEFINITELY one of those times when the "slippery-slope" argument has some validity
Still -- continually! -- disappointed that none of the central media and political players bother to disambiguate Olympic basketball from rec league swimming from NCAA DivIII pole vault from high school cross country from 4th grade t-ball.
They're all different. The players get involved for different reasons and seek to achieve different things, which means that fairness must necessarily mean different things in different contexts. If adults join rec league swimming for mutual support in doing a fun thing that helps them meet fitness goals, the "fairness" means equal opportunity to meet fitness goals and get patted on the back for it by other people who also love the water.
The GOP narrative about fairness is **entirely** about winning, as if every 5th grade soccer team in the state is a complete failure except one.
To be perfectly honest, the message adults are currently sending to kids - that their efforts and hobbies are meaningless unless they are champions - is unfair both to the trans people they use that message to attack, but also the kids who are victimized by its premise.
There are people being unfair here, and it's not the 9th grader who tries out for shotput.
damn
this is the BEST way I've seen being said what I've been trying to say
I fucking hate it every time someone on TV or in a major publication concedes the "fairness" ground. It's stupid and thoughtless and it's not even that hard to counter.
And these bigoted rules are even being applied to competitive chess. Chess! There's no physical component to chess, but they do it anyway. That's how you know it's a bad-faith objection.
Republican men: obsessing over the trans because… unresolved issues. They should get a towel to clean up their keyboard each time they post… and then get help. Also, Gavin Newsom being an a craven opportunist that thinks it will be president.
If Newsom wasn’t such garbage he might have had an interview with a trans activist to address the “trans girls in sports” issue. I think a lot of non-bigots see it as “trans girls have a natural advantage in sports, how is this fair” and to the extent anyone’s concern is in good faith it’s worth explaining why this isn’t an unfair advantage, and how teams determine an athlete is actually trans vs a trolling boy pretending to be (the scenario the Right keeps bringing up). Especially since Newsom is governor of the largest state and seems inclined towards opposing laws allowing trans girls to compete, it’d make more sense for him to interview someone on the “pro” side (and possibly make that side more popular, if only because that side is confined to his party) than to interview Kirk, who just wants to troll this as a wedge issue.
This isn’t just one of many reasons this guy isn’t going to be president.
Gavin Newsom is now “garbage”? The California governor who dueled with Trump over funding when his state was on fire, who signed bills to counteract Trump’s agenda with legal aid for immigrants, and so forth? Because he differs with purity ponies regarding the 5 or 6 transgender high-schoolers in this country who play sports? I really don’t get this. Let Repubs eat their own. Dems can scarcely afford to do that these days.
I call him garbage not because he differs on an issue (I have no or supporting pols I disagree with on many issues) but because his tactics here are exactly the weak soup that loses us voters. This is about a lot more than trans kids in girls sports (an issue which I think good faith people can disagree on, distinct from say denying bathroom access or prison assignments). It’s about elevating a bad faith Trumper troll, and thinking “if I give on this I’ll win over the middle” when this is really the Right starting with one small vulnerable group and whether Democrats should fight back with ferocity or meek apology.
I really wish someone would remind the Dems of one of the first rules of childrearing: Choose Your Battles.
Generally speaking, yes, choose our battles. But when the battle isnt a matter of how best to get universal healthcare, or who to let into NATO, or what tax rates to apply, but rather “Republicans want to abuse a vulnerable group and wish to take normal people’s good faith concerns as a wedge”—that’s where fighting back, on our ground, is necessary.
You can't choose your battles against Republicans. It's like ignoring symptoms of a disease until it's too late for effective treatment.
But you can choose HOW to fight a particular battle. You can calibrate whether the amount of time and attention expended on an extremely low-percentage targeted group is commensurate with its relative importance.
I think Newsom has taken a lot of of positions he deems popular.
If there are just a handful of high school students playing sports who are trans, then ... why is it even a big deal? Most of them probably aren't even that good. As I mention, this is just the first step towards marginalizing trans people entirely.
My bigger issue with Newsom is that he chose to have this debate with *Kirk* rather than Sarah McBride or any other actual trans legislator. That would've been insightful -- Dems having good-faith debates about the issue. But Kirk is not a good-faith actor.
I agree, Charlie Kirk is a worthless POS, and I have no idea why Newsom would have him on a podcast. I also wonder why the minuscule number of trans high-school athletes issue gets such outsize attention. For one thing, it’s scaremongering from Repubs to bait the Dems and force them to redirect attention from important issues that affect way more of the population than the less than one percent who are transgender. And as usual, Dems mindlessly take the bait.
What would it look like to not "mindlessly take the bait"? Let's not pretend "it" wouldn't be an issue if only RWNJs were bringing it up in their echo chambers.
“It” would look like they are focused on larger, more important issues that affect way more of the population than the less than one percent who are transgender.
Sorry, I meant to ask for a hypothetical ‘mindful’ response to the bait, not just a rhetorical description of such a response
Gavin Newsom has always had empty suit syndrome. While he has been on the right side of some issues, he never seems to be doing so because it's the right thing to do or out of principle, but rather because some focus group has informed him that it's a position that he should adopt for TV appearances.
He's a little too facile, a little too handsome, and not nearly enough real. It's not an accident that he used to be married to Kimberly Guilfoyle. He's a made for TV character and a political climber. He is most definitely NOT the future standard bearer for the Dems, but if he is, we are in for more of the same bothsiderism that got us to the sad state where we now find ourselves.
"He's a little too facile, a little too handsome, and not nearly enough real"
you nailed it...It put me off from the start, but I ignored it because I figured I was being biased because he looked TOO much like a movie POTUS..
But now it all hangs together...I get it now
While Harris’s loss likely had more to do with the economy and post-pandemic anger, to the extent she was hurt on the trans issue I’d argue it was because her defense was weak and apologetic—she avoided the issue mostly (which is the popularist strategy@0–talk more about your more popular issues like Roe) and when she did have to talk about it she’d say “I did what the law required.” That’s called playing on ground set by your enemy.
Imagine if she’d set the ground herself—“you want to pick on vulnerable Americans, just because they’re different? How about we talk about why you freaks are so interested in policing other people’s genitals? I say let people live their lives, if you don’t like it, there are other countries you can move to where genitals inspections are normal! I say live and let live, asshole!”
I know it’d be very un-Kamala to speak that way, but she’d have turned that issue on its head and Dems everywhere would be asking why Republicans want to check out everyone’s junk. Memes would explode, late night comics would riff on it, trans Americans AND non-trans people who are sick of this crap would be emboldened and—this is key—even voters who DISAGREE with Harris on this issue would respect and admire her willingness to fight fierce like this.
Voters often reward strength even when they don’t agree with the politician on the issue—Trump’s supporters are a good example of this, yet Democrats keep believing that voters check off issues on a list like robots.
Right. Tim Walz: ‘Mind your own damned business’. It’s not that hard to say.
spot on
To that end, it's always easy for Americans to fall for demagogues that cater to their bigotry. And that's why stupid fanfiction is the major element of why we lost in 2024, because the messaging was good.
I distinctly remember a lot of people asking why Republicans are even worrying about what's in our pants. But you know what? I'm ready to go. Because I still remain unconvinced that anyone was really going to listen anyway. Let's put these words in AOC's mouth (or any other Internet favorite) and let them roll with it then.
I happen to think the ethnic cleansing desires hurt her way more than the anti-trans message despite what Newsom says, but on the other hand I am a nobody and he's a two-term governor of California, so on paper he would know more than I would I guess.
Yup...Harris DELIBERATLY steered away from the trans issue, but according to the RW propaganda machine and social media she never shut up about it...Also she wasn't doing any interviews or appearances in the middle of all the interviews and appearances that she was IN FACT actually doing...
you cannot win with fascists controlling the most powerful engines of the media...you just can't
Obama directly confronted the Jeremiah Wright issue. He didn’t ignore it, as that would’ve been fatal. I don’t recall Harris giving a version of Obama’s “race” speech regarding trans people or her past positions.
I often have to check myself when I criticize pols because I’m not in their position and clearly they have more need to “get it right” as their job is on the line. But I can observe, and make my calls at least from where I’m seeing it.
Oh there is PLENTY to criticize dem leadership for...See Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries...But then there is ALSO the RW controlled media...this is one of those 'two things can be true' situations...There's plenty of blame to go around
Did you see when Jasmine Crockett was asked if she had any words for Elon musk and those two words were LITERALLY
"Fuck Off"
...In front of the capitol to actual reporters...I could not WAIT for that to become the meme of the month, spread through social media far and wide. Powerful...succinct...and a BLESSED departure from the unholy STINK of fucking 'decorum'
but nothing...a couple of posts on it, but it didn't even make it to the end of that day's news cycle...
You can't criticize democrats for not having a 'message' with a message like THAT.. THS is 100% a 'messenger' problem, and the 'messenger' is clearly on team Trump...Crockett's statement was CLEARLY the type of thing the media LIVES for, so their lack of coverage over it is QUITE telling
100%
I bring it up a lot but there’s the story of the interviews with 1968 George Wallace supporters who considered RFK their second choice, despite disagreement on key issues (segregation). When asked, these supporters said it was because they admired how RFK fought for what he believed in.
It’s also, I think, why so many Trump supporters stick with him even when he contradicts himself (or the things his supporters say are important)—when you like the candidate, you dint really care that much about each issue—you figure you’ll like what they do if they’re in office. So you’re better off taking the positions you think are correct, fighting like hell for them (and if they’re unpopular positions? Try to make them more popular! That’s your job if you’re in politics!), and don’t think “oh voters need me to check every box.”
precisely...Its EXACTLY the same reason why there was a good deal of overlap between Trump and Sanders supporter in the 2016 election...The two men couldn't BE any further apart ideologically so the only way to parse it was to find what they had in common...They both APPEARED to be fighters...One was (is) a real fighter and the other a performative fighter...Spewing hate and anger can SEEM like the same thing as angrily speaking truth to power, and both can appear as strength to minds too weak to tell (or care) about the difference
Yes, they were both “anti-establishment,” but because the Democratic establishment had come to include women and POC, this was seen as racist/sexist. Yet, younger women and POC do in fact view some key Dem figures as the “establishment,” regardless of their race and gender.
When some liberals started calling out Sanders supporters as bigots I knew we were well over our skis. And I’m not even a Sanders fan!
But I’ll admit even disagreeing with him on a lot of policy issues I did like his “old guy yelling across the counter at a deli because they screwed up his sandwich” persona. He gives the sense that he’d fight back against craziness, not tell you to calm down, don’t be hysterical, as too many pols do.
I became 'less' of a Sanders fan once Liz Warren rose up in the scene...I was just looking for someone with those ideas and that ethos and for a good spell, Sanders was IT...I will always have mad respect for him being the one lone voice in a sea of neoliberal wishy-wash...Warren holds most of his beliefs but she's...how you say?...I bit more articulate and lateral than he is...But like Sanders, she brings the anger that is SO welcome and refreshing to our tired progressive ears
See here's the thing...it's not that voters in general need the Democratic candidate to check every box, it's *Democrats* that demand that. And if you don't check those boxes? Whew boy it's your ass! Democrats demand that their candidate articulate the entire vision of the party, AND have a record that was 100% the "right" way (and what the "right" way is also depends on both currency and hindsight). There isn't a Democratic politician that exists...not even Bernie Sanders or AOC that has voted 100% the "Right" way. Yet Dems ask for all that.
Democrats are very iffy about their candidates in general no matter the merits and oh boy they will throw you under the bus quickly too.
And I'll say this. Making positions more popular would really be a lot easier with a media human centipede that actually spreads what you say around instead of nitpicking with bullshit. That's why "Green New Deal" became a shibboleth, Biden did an end-around and got a lot of it enacted and then Americans threw it in the trash because they voted for bigoted fanfiction.
I think Democrats suffer when their past positions appear to only make sense of bandwagon jumping. I think you can hold positions that are controversial in your past or that might put off base voters if they are at least internally consistent with an overall view of the world that is more complex than “I just wanted to win elections.”
Do Dem voters really demand that, though? The candidates and conventional wisdom seem to think so and they react accordingly but I wonder if a candidate broke with the CW over an issue or personal scandal previously seen as “career-ending”, maybe depending on how the candidate handled it (defiance instead of meek apology) it’d turn out the voters dint mind if they like the candidate generally.
We saw a bit of that with Clinton—back in ‘92 he broke with the base on a lot of issues (like the death penalty) but more importantly he admitted smoking pot, previously considered a career-killer (not to mention marital infidelity issues that crushed Gary Hart just one cycle previously). Now Clinton’s not a perfect example because on some of those issues he was not forthright and was apologetic when confronted (the marital issues) but it dies show that the voters can look past issues if they like the candidate.
Well that makes me think of Andrew Cuomo now and, well, honestly, the Al Franken dead-enders (there are a lot of Dems who hate Kirsten Gillibrand to the ends of the Earth to this day). Yet it's hard to reconcile that with Democratic candidates like Cal Cunningham getting waylaid for consensual sexting. I've said it before, but political science is on its ear.
I'm beginning to think that incompetence and cluelessness are a REQUIREMENT for being a democratic 'leader' and whoever enforces that requirement was simply asleep on the job the day that AOC, Crockett and Raskin ran for office
DAMMIT! I wasn't supposed to let those folks through...
The Repubs have baited the Democratic party into elevating the defense of the 0.5 percent of the US population that’s transgender, to the detriment of larger, more important issues. This is one of the reasons that many working-class Americans find Democrats to be elitist, out of touch, and focused on issues that are overall irrelevant to them. As usual, Dems take the bait and then trap themselves into having to unnecessarily spend precious time on the defense.
We just cannot find a way to stop letting them frame every single issue. How about go on the offensive all day, all the time? Instead of listening to effing James Carville how about watching a Bernie speech and learning something about punching them and not letting up. Shocking that an old guy can still do that and no one except 2 women of color can follow suit. And another old man, Al Green, thank you Mr Green!
Right. And the RE media ecosystem will turn it into a weapon. According to voters, they believed transgender operations for prisoners was the number two Democratic position!