You’re making my point. I’ve responded to all of those things you said I haven’t responded to. He didn’t walk back M4A. His campaign isn’t courting the tea party. You’re just spouting obvious lies.
And you again defined progressive by the candidates which is exactly what I criticized you for doing.
The anti-Pete crap is infuriating. Feel free to take issue with the truth. Don’t make up lies to argue against. The uproar about Pete’s college plan is nuts. His plan is free college for 80% of families who make under $100K a year and tuition reduction. You wouldn’t know that from the outrage.
Criticize it as a half measure. That’s fine. But criticize the actual plan.
The crazy thing is you admit that Pete is running in a wide lane between Warren and Biden which is in the form middle of every large demographic in the party yet you think he’s somehow bad.
I'm eagerly awaiting your posts asking ChrisL to criticize Warren's actual plans.
Ph,
how is this not courting the tea party?
Ph, is this an appropriate, party unifying, progressive ad to be running in a must win election for democrats on Thanksgiving, no less?
Ph, would you say that Pete's M4A
rhetorical evolution constitutes a flip-flop?
Where is the lie? If you’re going to call me a liar, then at least tell me what I’m lying about.
Pete is running as a liberal. I criticize his policies because I think most liberal policy constitutes half measures whether we're talking about education reform (e.g., Common Core/Race to the Top), healthcare reform (e.g., ACA), immigration reform (e.g., DACA/DAPA), economic reform (e.g., post-Great Recession economic policy and TPP), environmental policy (e.g., carbon neutrality by 2050), and foreign policy (e.g., inconsistent commitment to anti-interventionist/imperialist interventionism). There are obviously worse alternatives to these policies and some of them look like progressive movement in historical context, but it's disingenuous to equate this package of policies as progressive. Progressive policies include M4A (or single-payer healthcare), the Family Bill of Rights (e.g., subsidized childcare, longer paid parental leave), expansion of HCV vouchers and public/affordable housing development, strict financial regulations on banks and other financial actors, imposing wealth taxes on the wealthy, imposing vacancy taxes on irresponsible landlords, anti-interventionist foreign policy, free or significantly discounted tuition for higher education, an expansion of Head Start and other educational programs that benefit poor children, ending mass incarceration by expanding decarceration alternatives and disincentivizing the private prison industry, facilitating rather than hindering prisoner social re-entry, etc. These are real policies. If your dude supports them, then your dude is progressive. If your dude doesn't support them, then they might not be progressive.
It's also possible that some candidates hold progressive views while other aspects of their platforms are decidedly not progressive. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Tulsi Gabbard, and Cory Booker all strike me as progressive-lite candidates insofar as their rhetoric and platforms sometimes head left of liberal, but not in a consistent or coherent fashion.
Why are you criticizing me for defining progressive by the candidates? You're splitting hairs in a way that doesn't make any sense. If a candidate runs as a social liberal and fiscal conservative, we label them moderate. If a candidate runs as a social liberal and a fiscal liberal, we label them liberal. If a candidate runs to the left of liberals, socially and economically, then we label them progressive. You're acting like I'm the first person to do this, but turn on the television, read the newspaper, or read a book about politics. This is literally the majority of people talk about politics.
