In world comparative perspective, at least, it is. & yet Katie Porter seems to want to convince me that it isn't—& so I am not going to vote for her in Tuesday's California Senate Democratic primary..
While the individual is important so is the party. I couldn't imagine giving the GOP one more vote in Congress no matter how much the Dem pissed me off.
I think that the choice between Schiff and Porter is the choice between good and better. (Ignore their ads; look at their records.) But we've long passed the stage where any Republican can be a good choice, no matter their personal virtues or policy preferences.
Brad, you say "Members of a legislature legislate: they try to find some compromise that will win the approval of a significant and durable majority." The Republican's can't agree among themselves what they want in legislation and refuse to negotiate. Even when they get what they claim to want they won't vote for it. There are many important issues where majorities of Americans agree but legislators won't act. Is that often because big money interests override democracy? Research says yes!
Seems mistaken to react to an ad that way. Your initial statement seems somewhat more to the point particularly in view of the current reality of California politics. Though where you live this is possibly less apparent. (I don't live anywhere near the state but my perspective tends to be influenced by L.A.)
Probably the one slander that was pretty accurate, was calling the Congressman from Glendale, "Shifty" Schiff. Porter can be shrill at times but her record on taking on the titans of finance and skewering them is pretty solid. Schiff is just another vanilla liberal who will not make much of a difference (but then maybe no politicians make a difference in our dysfunctional government other than our recent President). Barbara Lee at least had the courage to vote against W's war and has solid bonfires but likely will finish out of the money on Tuesday.
Steve Garvey is just a pretty face who was an average baseball player, hardly a qualification that would inspire anyone other than the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. I'm more worried about the race here in MD now that Larry Hogan announced he will run. This turned what should be a walk in the park for the Dems into something that could be quite close. All these candidates need to be viciously attacked as Trumpistas who will just make the Federal judiciary even more conservative.
Had I kept my California citizenship, it would be a tough vote on Tuesday but definitely not for the first baseman.
The "fighting for you" rhetoric is long past its sell by date, but is the standard rhetoric for candidates wanting to emphasize they'll eschew reliance on big money contributors and plan to do what they can with small amounts following the example set by Bernie Sanders. I'm surprised you don't see that, and that you're comfortable shrinking the the democratic senatorial contingent.
Your broad-brush analysis is essentially what is wrong with US politics, too. And although MORE of this enemy analysis is extant on the Right -- it is essentially the entire position of the Republican party --, there is plenty on the Left, too: that urban development is a morality play between "developers" and "homeowners;" that climate change policy is "big oil" against "activist environmentalists," that immigration is only compassion vs cruelty.
Garvey? (Generously, maybe you're a psycho Padres fan and excused on that basis.) Barbara Lee, Adam Schiff, and definitely Katie Porter all have content which is so much more attractive and have all demonstrated a willingness to work for the things they believe in. Personally, I still don't know who I'll vote for but I'm not deciding on the basis of their TV ads if for no other reason than I rarely watch broadcast TV. :) Of course, they're all politicians driven by the same (non-altruistic) things which motivate all politicians such as getting elected. Responding to a political ad so negatively is no deeper than falling head over heels for a candidate based on an ad. I hope that the insights you've gained over the last 30+ years of looking at the longue durée have actually stuck and you're not turning (back?) into Irving Kristol. Or is that where your reflections have brought you? Or maybe you're hoping for a CEA position if he ends becoming president?
"Relatively good shape" is a bar too low. Cameroon, for instance, shouldn't be the bar and I know you agree. Maybe I'm being puerile and haven't witnessed the times when governance was such that today's governance looks relatively good.
I had decided to support none of the above in primary donations on the D side because I didn't prefer any of the three, all of whom I considered acceptable or better. I can't vote, since I live elsewhere.
I'm surprised at Brad's reasoning, but of course he's free to decide in any way he wants of course. I doubt Katie Porter personally writes her own tv ads, and rather, she probably delegates the messaging to her advisory team (who use polling and focus groups).
It's all about how to message to win vs. Adam Schiff, and what her focus groups say works best. It seems wrong to consider her campaign ad statements as her actual real mission statement, rather than something massaged for best appeal to D voters in CA.
While the individual is important so is the party. I couldn't imagine giving the GOP one more vote in Congress no matter how much the Dem pissed me off.
I think that the choice between Schiff and Porter is the choice between good and better. (Ignore their ads; look at their records.) But we've long passed the stage where any Republican can be a good choice, no matter their personal virtues or policy preferences.
Brad, you say "Members of a legislature legislate: they try to find some compromise that will win the approval of a significant and durable majority." The Republican's can't agree among themselves what they want in legislation and refuse to negotiate. Even when they get what they claim to want they won't vote for it. There are many important issues where majorities of Americans agree but legislators won't act. Is that often because big money interests override democracy? Research says yes!
Porter is making herself sound like Kyrsten Sinema après la lettre. Not good, Bob.
Seems mistaken to react to an ad that way. Your initial statement seems somewhat more to the point particularly in view of the current reality of California politics. Though where you live this is possibly less apparent. (I don't live anywhere near the state but my perspective tends to be influenced by L.A.)
Probably the one slander that was pretty accurate, was calling the Congressman from Glendale, "Shifty" Schiff. Porter can be shrill at times but her record on taking on the titans of finance and skewering them is pretty solid. Schiff is just another vanilla liberal who will not make much of a difference (but then maybe no politicians make a difference in our dysfunctional government other than our recent President). Barbara Lee at least had the courage to vote against W's war and has solid bonfires but likely will finish out of the money on Tuesday.
Steve Garvey is just a pretty face who was an average baseball player, hardly a qualification that would inspire anyone other than the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. I'm more worried about the race here in MD now that Larry Hogan announced he will run. This turned what should be a walk in the park for the Dems into something that could be quite close. All these candidates need to be viciously attacked as Trumpistas who will just make the Federal judiciary even more conservative.
Had I kept my California citizenship, it would be a tough vote on Tuesday but definitely not for the first baseman.
The "fighting for you" rhetoric is long past its sell by date, but is the standard rhetoric for candidates wanting to emphasize they'll eschew reliance on big money contributors and plan to do what they can with small amounts following the example set by Bernie Sanders. I'm surprised you don't see that, and that you're comfortable shrinking the the democratic senatorial contingent.
Your broad-brush analysis is essentially what is wrong with US politics, too. And although MORE of this enemy analysis is extant on the Right -- it is essentially the entire position of the Republican party --, there is plenty on the Left, too: that urban development is a morality play between "developers" and "homeowners;" that climate change policy is "big oil" against "activist environmentalists," that immigration is only compassion vs cruelty.
Garvey? (Generously, maybe you're a psycho Padres fan and excused on that basis.) Barbara Lee, Adam Schiff, and definitely Katie Porter all have content which is so much more attractive and have all demonstrated a willingness to work for the things they believe in. Personally, I still don't know who I'll vote for but I'm not deciding on the basis of their TV ads if for no other reason than I rarely watch broadcast TV. :) Of course, they're all politicians driven by the same (non-altruistic) things which motivate all politicians such as getting elected. Responding to a political ad so negatively is no deeper than falling head over heels for a candidate based on an ad. I hope that the insights you've gained over the last 30+ years of looking at the longue durée have actually stuck and you're not turning (back?) into Irving Kristol. Or is that where your reflections have brought you? Or maybe you're hoping for a CEA position if he ends becoming president?
"Relatively good shape" is a bar too low. Cameroon, for instance, shouldn't be the bar and I know you agree. Maybe I'm being puerile and haven't witnessed the times when governance was such that today's governance looks relatively good.
I had decided to support none of the above in primary donations on the D side because I didn't prefer any of the three, all of whom I considered acceptable or better. I can't vote, since I live elsewhere.
I'm surprised at Brad's reasoning, but of course he's free to decide in any way he wants of course. I doubt Katie Porter personally writes her own tv ads, and rather, she probably delegates the messaging to her advisory team (who use polling and focus groups).
It's all about how to message to win vs. Adam Schiff, and what her focus groups say works best. It seems wrong to consider her campaign ad statements as her actual real mission statement, rather than something massaged for best appeal to D voters in CA.