Ryan Grim profiles New Jersey Democratic congressman Josh Gottheimer, who seems to see himself as a Democratic ‘centrist’ (which really means ‘right winger’) enforcer to keep the new young progressives in line, especially when it comes to their criticisms of Israel and Saudi Arabia and the big banks from whose lobbies he has received plenty of money. He is also disgustingly condescending towards the new crop of women progressives. He is closely associated with the ‘Problem Solvers Caucus’ and the dark-money group ‘No Labels’, all of whom are deep-pocketed neoliberal groups seeking to maintain the status quo by pretending to be above politics and only interested in pragmatic solutions.
His boldest bid for internal power, however, came amid the push for a congressional War Powers Resolution to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. As progressives in the House neared a historic achievement, Gottheimer organized behind the scenes to take the resolution down, in part by attempting to make it a referendum on support for Israel — and very nearly succeeded.
The bill’s supporters out-organized him, and in April, Congress sent a War Powers Resolution to Trump’s desk. He vetoed their resolution, rejecting Congress’s demand that the president stop backing the Saudi-led war. Last week’s effort to override the veto failed in the Senate on a 53-to-45 vote.
Trump’s rejection of the resolution — which was led in the House by Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and in the Senate by Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Mike Lee, R-Utah — was expected. But for advocates who worked on it, Gottheimer’s intervention was unwelcome but not surprising. “He was counterproductive in a totally unnecessary way at a time when there was actually party unity on something really progressive and historic — and that unity had been fought for a long time,” said Elizabeth Beavers, who was associate policy director at Indivisible during the Yemen fight. “This is a thing that he’s doing consistently, helping to organize against progress.”
The progressive wing of the Democratic party, represented by people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, and others have to fight on multiple fronts, the Republicans who want outright giveaways to the wealthy, the neoliberal Democratic party establishment who like to do so covertly, and the mainstream media that always touts the virtues of ‘moderation’ and ‘centrism’ which is just code for the preferences of the political-business–military axis.
Oh, that’s right. It’s primary season and he wants to be president so he’s a Democrat again.
Yeah, Tabby, because having a D next to your name means far, far more than having principles…
Tabby Lavalamp:
Is that supposed to be criticism of Sanders? Does he need to join the club and do whatever establishment Democrats like Schumer want? What if VT voters like that he’s independent? Should we push the “Democrat” brand name on them anyway?
Maybe you’re saying the Democratic party shouldn’t be perpetuating the two-party system … is that it?
Do you want left-wing voters to be split for the presidential election?
I’m Canadian so I don’t have a horse in this race. But you’re mistaken if you don’t think there are Democratic voters who are also annoyed by this. Even if he pulls off a miracle and wins both the primary and the election (and seriously, friggin’ Biden is the front runner right now) he’s not going to get a lot done without the full support of the Democratic Party that is already working to shut down competitive primaries.
What’s “this”? I’m probably more aware of annoyed Democrats than you are … but what specifically are you talking about?
Democrats have painted themselves into a really fucked up corner. Don’t blame Sanders for that; blame the conservatives running the Democratic party.
He’s proposing a lot of things that have widespread support among the general population. If there’s resistance and “he’s not going to get a lot done,” you do understand that it’s not those voters, but instead the inner party establishment, which would be putting up that resistance, right? That’s the annoying bit, isn’t it?
Are you suggesting Sanders should be more like Joe fucking Biden, in order to “get a lot done”? That does seem to be the implication, even though it makes no sense.
“This” is a man who only joins the Democratic Party when he wants to run for president. I remember last time when Sander fans were apoplectic that the Democratic Party showed more support for a long-time Democrat over a long-time independent.
I’m saying Sanders isn’t going to win the primary and, as good as a lot of his proposals are, he’s not going to get anything done without a congress that supports him. I’m sure he has a lot of fans that are realistic over his chances and what he’d be able to accomplish, but I suspect there are a lot who will face a lot of disappointment. And even if he gets anything progressive passed, it’ll run smack dab into the judiciary that McConnell successfully stacked.
@consciousness razor
Me, I like that he was independent. I don’t want the Democratic brand name forced on anyone. So why is Sanders pushing the Democratic brand name? No one forced him to leave behind his independent registration for the democratic party when he ran for the nomination 4 years ago, and no one is forcing him to leave behind his independent registration now.
What worries me is the inherent dishonesty of registering as an independent right up until the moment you want the power of the democratic party apparatus behind you. He’s run -- successfully! -- as an independent for Senator. He’s rejected the democratic party in hugely high-profile ways for decades. But when he wants more power, he slinks over to the democrats for their endorsement, nomination, and especially their money.
If you’re a democrat because you actually believe in the democratic party, there are problems with that. But if you’re a democrat only for a few months every four years because you want power and money more than you want to stick to your principles, there are also problems with that!
Vote for Sanders, don’t vote for Sanders, but the fact that he’s only a democrat when he wants money and power is of great concern to me.
You seem unreasonably confident about that. Biden has a lead right now, but Sanders is a clear second. The rest of the field is way behind, according to all of the nationwide polls. A lot can change between now and next February, when the primaries begin. But if anybody should listen to your counsel of despair, it should be the people supporting Harris, O’Rourke, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, Gillibrand, Yang, etc.
Why make it sound like this is a coherent reason to be annoyed by Sanders? You’re getting it all backward, if you think he ought to be the target of your criticisms, instead of the conservative Dems.
And the whole thing about his party label is just asinine. I don’t give a fuck about how Vermonters choose their Senators, and neither do most people in the non-Vermont parts of the country. It doesn’t annoy me in the slightest that he runs as an independent in their Senate races. Why would it?
You can say this about anybody (except it’s not actually McConnell by himself). You can say this about Biden, for fuck’s sake. Do you have a point, or is this just another silly excuse to complain about Sanders?
The presidential race is nationwide, and there’s nothing at all “dishonest” about using two different strategies in two different situations. Your phony concerns about money and power are noted.
Nobody is forcing you to support the two-party system. I know you understand why victim-blaming is problematic. Is Sanders responsible for the system we’re stuck with in the current political climate? No, he’s not.
Crip Dike… @ # 8: … he’s only a democrat when he wants money and power …
As if Sanders seeks the presidency only to become another palace-building tyrant, not to overthrow one. Do you expect him to follow the paths of Mobutu and Pol Pot and the Ceaușescus and Ríos_Montt and Stalin and Mao?
If you disagree with particulars of Sanders’s agenda, pls specify. If you disbelieve him, disprove his claims.
But for him to effect actual reforms, he needs Congress (see above). No doubt he’d prefer an explicitly socialist majority, but he knows better than to somehow try to create a new party that might win a majority in national, state, & municipal chambers ~16 months from now.
His agenda in fact demands a takeover of the Democratic Party®. He seems to have better footing to do so than that of any of the “reform-it-from-inside” candidates with which the party has failed since approximately Lyndon Johnson (though perhaps not footing comparable to the “career-build from inside” Biden). Just what legitimacy do you think the extant Dem leadership has that needs protection from cunning Bernievik rascals, anyhow?
Oops, apologies for name misspelling @ my # 10!
#4
But the nebulous ‘they’ aren’t in this thread complaining about Sanders’ registration as a D, you are. What is wrong with him doing that in your estimation?
#7
Which is all well and good for a Senate race, but is literally a campaign death sentence in a presidential. Where is the dishonesty?
The dishonesty is where the Democratic party establishment is not obsessed with money and power, but Sanders is. Obviously. That’s just what you expect from a non-corporate, democratic socialist candidate. Obviously.
If Sanders were really honest, shouldn’t he be actively marginalizing himself? Very Concerned Liberals™ are annoyed that he’s just not marginalized enough by the Dems, the only major left-wing party in this country. They’ve got other things to do, like electing Biden (D) and being as conservative as possible while blaming conservatives for their conservatism.
So, you know, Sanders should pick up some of the slack and probably just drop out of the race now, before things get ugly. That would be for the best.
WTF?
No, of course not. Please don’t put words in my mouth (or keyboard). The dishonesty is asserting your ideals are incompatible with the Democratic party when registering as an independent and running for Senate and then asserting your ideals are compatible with the Democratic party when running for president. Please remember, I said:
Moving on:
No. He should make a decision that’s consistent and be able to articulate it. I actually had no problem with his first switch from Independent to Dem in 2015 or 2016 or whenever it actually took place. Times change, people grow, new arguments win out, etc. etc. But when he immediately changed his registration back to independent after he lost the primary and now wants to change it again, it’s no longer about having one position then deciding that the country has changed or the Democratic party has changed or he himself has changed and thus he feels the need to adopt a new one. It’s about flipping back and forth to whatever is politically convenient in the moment. I distrust that.
I don’t believe that it makes him worse than literally any other person who is running for the Democratic nomination. But when adding up the pros and cons of a Bernie run, this is one thing that is decidedly a con for me.
I dislike the democratic party enough that I DO NOT REGISTER AS A DEMOCRAT. The last time I registered as a Dem was more than 20 years ago. I am currently registered as the only party besides democrats with which I’ve ever registered and it ain’t the republicans. . Don’t you dare put me down as a supporter of the Democratic national party or their establishment
@Pierce:
I haven’t made any claims about his agenda. I’ve made a claim that he is repeatedly switching his registration between independent and democrat … and guess what? That turns out to be TRUFAX. I’ve also reported my feeling (note: not a claim) of concern that he’s willing to repeatedly switch his registration like this. However much you want to say I like Bernie before considering repeated party switching in this particular context, I would like Bernie more than that if he didn’t switch parties and less than that if he did. And he did. So I like him a bit less than I would otherwise.
No, but when arguments are made that he’s been consistent in his politics for X years I have to wonder just how much he’d be willing to give up were he to be elected. He regularly gives up his opposition to the Dem party every 4 years. If he was president he would constantly be pushing one agenda or another (as he should). But since something is always in play when you’re the president, would we see the consistent-but-marginalized Bernie of the Senate that we saw when there was no particular pressure to sacrifice his chance to enact an agenda, or would we see the flip-flopping that characterizes Bernie’s choice of party as he moves in-and-out of having a chance to enact some significant agenda, always joining the Dems when there’s a chance he might gain?
Personally I think he would be more independent and left-wing than most other dems we might elect, but I don’t buy the argument that he’s a sure bet, that there’s no risk, that his willingness to shuttle back and forth to the party registration of convenience says absolutely nothing about his willingness to compromise with the powerful status quo.
I think it does say something. It doesn’t say he’s likely to be a tyrant, but I have some concerns about the fact that it obviously doesn’t mean nothing, and yet I don’t know exactly what it does say.
As a further comment on whether I support (or don’t) Bernie, I will say this:
Living in Canada makes it impossible to go door-to-door or phone bank for Sanders or any other primary candidate. My registration makes it impossible to vote in the Democratic primary. Thus Sanders’ positions were irrelevant to me and my life (and, hey, I was also hospitalized during a bit of the 2016 primary campaign and pretty damn ill the rest). Also, too, I don’t live in Vermont. So I’ve never boned up on Sanders’ positions. I simply never had the option of voting for him or even campaigning for him, so what’s the point?
I also, having lived in a reasonable country, think that a 21-month long election to a 48-month term is completely fucking ridiculous. I’m pissed at ALL the candidates for publicly campaigning right now. You’re in the Senate? Go do your job as a Senator. We are DESPERATE for people to do a good job in the senate. Same exact thing for housemembers. Same exact thing for governors. Same general idea for mayors (though I don’t honestly know how desperate the situation is in South Bend).
Now, there are aspects of campaigning that the candidates can’t change: the primary schedule is spread over months and one does need to do some reasonable about of campaigning before the last minute. I figure that from the beginning of the 2019 December congressional recess will give enough time to adequately campaign for the Iowa caucuses, especially since there’s no reason you can’t have people fundraising and building infrastructure before then. But if you’re going on television in May of 2019 I expect you to tell me about what you’re doing with the actual job you have RIGHT NOW and not the things you might do if you get a different job in January of 2021.
Seriously, the USA is just completely fucked and with a current constitutional crisis RIGHT THE FUCK NOW, anyone who serves in congress loses points from me if they’re talking to the national media about their presidential candidacy. There are other priorities right now, and if they don’t get that then they lose points.
Of course, to the benefit of Sanders there are plenty other sitting congress members talking about their own presidential candidacies.
In any case, you don’t get to deflect a specific criticism about his credibility with demanding I agree or disagree with his policy proposals. The credibility hit one takes for being a loyal democratic party member exists no matter how many policies of a candidate I agree with. Likewise, the credibility hit one takes for being a party registration flip-flopper exists no matter how many policies of a candidate I agree with.
It is what it is. Bernie has done one thing wrong. What’s driving you so nuts you can’t accept that I simply don’t like that thing? What’s the imperative driving you to change the subject to specific policies?
Bernie flip flops on his relationship with the Democratic party. That’s not a policy proposal. That’s just a fact.
#14
Did his policies change? No. What then is untrustworthy or worrying about registering as D for presidential elections when this is literally the only way he could possibly have a shot at winning?
Sure, if by “regularly” and “every 4 years” you mean “twice, now and 4 years ago.”
First, I’ve already explained what is worrying to me. If you’re not actually reading for comprehension, I can’t answer any of your questions because when you’re asking about my concerns the ONLY authority is ME. So read me carefully and you have your answer. Don’t read me carefully and … you expect me to answer again, knowing you already don’t read what I say? How does that make sense?
Second, am I not allowed to mistrust a person who exhibits behavior that worries me now that the great and wise Holms has spoken? Get over yourself. Just because you trust him (or don’t) doesn’t mean I have to agree with you.
Well, yes. He had a policy against running as a democrat and he abandoned it. Then, instead of changing his mind due to good arguments, he made it clear that this was a matter of convenience by switching back to independent and now running as a democrat again.
Or you could say that this doesn’t meet the definition of a “policy” because even though the word obviously includes personal policies such as this, what you were silently implying was “policy which might be enacted by a federal government after his installation as president”. But you still have to acknowledge that there was a flipflop going on. What does it matter that you call it a policy or a principle or whatever other name you feel is appropriate? When he wanted the fundraising apparatus to benefit his candidacy, he reregistered as a democrat. As soon as he didn’t want their money, he was back to registering as an independent. I don’t care whether or not you call it a policy.
Now, I agree that what the federal government does impacts me and whether some random old guy from Vermont is registered independent or democrat does not, so maybe you think that I have no right to care about this, or that even if I have a right to care about it, it is unreasonable to do so. I am not swayed in any way by this because what I said is that I trust him less as a result of his choices. If you had statistically significant data that showed that people who exhibit this pattern do, in fact, stick to their historical government-policy priorities once ensconced in the presidency, I’d listen to that. But you don’t have it, do you?
So all you’ve got is … what? That you don’t read my comments but demand that I provide you information in my comments? That’s a compelling intellectual position you’ve got there.
I don’t see anything worrying. I’d like to believe you’re being honest and fair-minded, but I strongly doubt it, unfortunately.
I didn’t know you’re (also) Canadian…. No offense intended, but that’s also kinda weird. Do you think that plays a part in the way you’re arguing here? Are we talking about some kind of hypothetical discomfort, that you think you would feel, if this were relevant to one of your voting decisions? WTF is that about?
You put a lot weight on “registration.” What does that matter? What do you think this supposed incompatibility is about? The party itself doesn’t recognize an incompatibility, because it allows such people into its ranks. I can at least credit them for offering some degree of support to people who disagree with their more conservative wing, don’t always follow the standard formula, etc. (Of course, they knew he was a favorite for the VT Senate seat and were willing to use that to their advantage, so there may not be much benevolence behind that decision. Still, it works for me.)
A couple of things to note:
1) He was replacing another Independent Vermont Senator. This is apparently a feature of Vermont politics. Maybe they happen to like their “independent” politicians in Vermont. Nothing wrong with that, and there’s no need for that to be true of the country as a whole.
2) He was backed by Democrats in this race, locally and nationally.
There is no reason to be concerned here, unless you simply fail to comprehend the situation we’re talking about.
Like Holms said, this “flip-flopping” that you’re speculating about is non-substantive. You can point to different registrations. That’s not different policy.
So…. No, we won’t see him decide to change the party with which he is registered in the middle of his tenure as president. I suppose he could, but it would be fucking silly. And it would not amount to a change of policy (see below), so even if he did such a thing, you (or a voter) would have no reason whatsoever to be concerned about a totally inconsequential act like that.
Word games. You’re not as good at them as you think are. A policy in this context is a substantive proposal about what the state ought to do, a political action or program. But you know that….
Please fucking spare me. It’s just too much. You should learn to filter out your extraneous bullshit, at least when even you are able to recognize it. But if/when you do that, don’t pretend like it is still just as relevant/important as when you were bullshitting. This is somehow more pathetic than grasping at straws, since it’s only an imaginary straw. It’s literally nothing, magically transformed into concerns and lack of trust about “money and power” and even agendas, because of fucking word games, Crip Dyke. Why do you think you can do that magic trick?
But I don’t care. Be concerned. That’s up to you, the authority on yourself and your concerns. I can say (about myself) that if this were the most concerning thing to me, it would be the least concerned I’ve been about a US politician in my entire fucking life.
And that’s for you to decide.
I’m still entitled to vote in USA federal elections, even living overseas. It’s a benefit of citizenship that doesn’t depend on my country of residence. I could vote in the primary if I were registered with a party that was holding a primary. But that’s irrelevant to me, so all I have to worry about deciding is who I’m voting for in the general (though in theory I could go back to the states temporarily to volunteer in a campaign, it’s illegal for Canadians to participate in US elections and thus just setting up a phone bank here in BC, even if I intended to staff it entirely with US citizens, would be legally difficult and a high risk of accidentally breaking a law which would cause me no end of trouble).
But since i do have a moral duty to vote in the general, I do have a valid interest that’s, well, I wouldn’t call it hypothetical, but it is merely potential until after the nominations are established and the campaigning for an election in which I can vote begins. I don’t *completely* ignore candidates before the general starts. But I don’t go out of my way to read anything about them because so much can change between now & Nov. 2020.
Numbering added by me for clarity.
1) So, you think I’m lying about being concerned? Why would you think that?
2) The only way I wouldn’t be being “fair-minded” is if I was being concerned about this behavior in Sanders when I would not be concerned about the same behavior in others. What evidence do you have that I would not be concerned by the same behavior in others?
You’re really working here to make me out as doing something bad. I don’t like one fucking thing about Sanders. Is that wrong? Am I legally required to like literally everything about him? What the fuck would make you care about my feelings so much you’d accuse me of dishonesty and unfairness for simply expressing my opinion that a certain behavior doesn’t reflect well on the man?
Seriously, the extent to which you’re reacting to me reporting that I have an actual and honest opinion about Sanders is … well, it truly boggles my mind.
Well. You described a behaviour, and then said you did not trust it. Very amaze, wow. I asked you if there was anything beyond that, and you blew up. Did you stub your toe when you got out of bed or something? Here’s how pissy you are being:
Of course you are allowed, please point to where I indicated otherwise if you think I did so. And of course you don’t have to agree with me, again, please point to where I indicated otherwise if you think I did so.
Or admit that you are just being pissy.
My apologies, I was not aware that registering as an independent implicitly means committing to never running as a major party! There I was thinking that he ran as an independent senator as the major parties were not a good fit, turns out that that years gone decision is now a liability in the eyes of some.
Now, I know you’re extremely sensitive to being asked questions and you are liable to see imperatives where there are none, but I am curious. Having long ago made the decision to run as an independent for the senate, what should he do in the present now that he has presidential aspirations?:
a) run as an independent for a guaranteed loss. So honest!
b) stow those aspirations and not run. He made his bed as an independent all those years ago, and to change purely to have a shot at the presidency is dishonest, literal necessity be damned. So principled!
c) register D and run.
Crip Dyke @ # 14: I have to wonder just how much he’d be willing to give up were he to be elected.
We don’t get to get politicians who never have to compromise. You continue to assert an implied premise that Sanders seeks power for his own aggrandizement and profit, rather than for the agenda he has explicitly pursued for all his adult life: citation desperately needed.
I don’t buy the argument that he’s a sure bet, that there’s no risk…
Who makes that argument? Nobody here that I can see.
To me (registered as a Dem for decades), Sanders’s alternation between Independent and Democrat look less like a “flip-flop” (why borrow Republican rhetoric?) and more like a rescue from a party leadership I’ve come to loathe, especially since January of ’07.
Let’s gauge your honesty, CD. Do you think this quote of yours below is consistent with the facts I mentioned in #17?
I’ll help you out: it’s not consistent. He did have the Democratic party apparatus behind him at the time, and there was no “slinking” after that. But sure, it’s huge fucking surprise that a Presidential race requires a fuckton more support than a Senatorial race in Vermont, the 49th-ranked US state in terms of population. It’s totally credible that you might sincerely believe something like that, if you were totally clueless….
Wouldn’t an honest person concede that their expressed concerns were not based on accurate and known information, but instead on a load of horseshit and innuendo? You believed his campaign to be an independent Senator wasn’t widely supported by the state- and national-level Democratic party. Didn’t you? Doesn’t an honest person say that their concerns had been based on (at best) some kind of misunderstanding, if not a healthy amount of motivated reasoning?
@CR:
It doesn’t have to be consistent with the facts you mentioned in #17 in order to demonstrate honesty since I said that in #7 -- TEN FUCKING COMMENTS BEFORE the information you provided in #17.
Unlike you, apparently, I live in linear time and only learn facts in the comment 17s of this universe after the comment 7s of this universe have already been written.
But feel free to accuse me of dishonesty for saying I hadn’t had sex at age 7 when I had had sex at age 17. It would make as much sense.
Six Magic Numbers (LOTTO, followed by Portuguese Golden Visa). Portugal is so much calmer and more rational these days
#22
Compare the mild questions put to you in this thread, and your apoplexy in response. Better still, compare your responses to those of Tabby Lavalamp, who had the same questions put to him/her, but remained level, or perhaps more simply quit the thread. Your responses stand out for their defensiveness.
Despite strongly disagreeing with CD’s stance, I viewed it as an honest position. It’s too easy to take our own environments and accompanying sets of knowledge (and assumptions) and assume bad faith in others. Often times it’s just a product of the perspectives we are exposed to. Better to discuss in good faith, especially with those who haven’t demonstrated hostility or malice (unless I missed something?).