On a Rainy Day

[bigtree]

27. well, you go on and tell me what I believe

...no need for me to respond further to your personalizations of me, at all.

YOUR posit was that Democrats should focus on Israel in the upcoming election, a mostly intractable alliance that no Democrats would acquiesce to the way ANY republican would.

I think that's a ludicrous propisition, like repeatedly hitting myself with a hammer.

Did you imagine your own views on this were inviolable and unassailable? I disagree.

I don't see any virtue at all in placing our election at risk over debating something that most Democrats essentially agree on, and pretending like it's a necessary exercise of political opposition to the Dem party that is immeasurably better than the opposition, and is more than likely to be unified in it's response to Israel, no matter if some may disagree with the course.

It's not like some other Dem leader is going to make a dime's worth of difference in the way Democrats have responded as a party so far. But ANY Dem leader is going to be far more favorable to what critics say they want than risking the election of republicans.

All of this 'speak my mind' stuff is good and fine for your personal edification, but it's fraught when it suggests things that divert from a campaign focused on American needs and concerns which don't involve Israel.

MY personal needs, as a voter, don't involve Israel. That should matter to someone in the party, and I'd guess they know this about Americans they expect to vote for the party.

I mean, neither Biden, Harris, or Schumer supports what Netenyahu has done and has strongly advocated against it. But the American public is evenly divided over Israel support, albeit that support slipping in the wake of their genocide and warring.

The value of a campaign focused on that can only benefit republicans who are completely in charge of the legislature and are thus responsible for the lack of legislative action to connfront Israel - not Democrats as some seem to suggest with their hyperfocus on Schumer's mainstream support for past funding of Israel.

That debate can only be divisive in an election, under terms that essentially leaves the republicans in charge blameless.

In my mind (note that I'm making it clear this is my view), instead of putting republicans in the hot seat, I think some people find it easier to get movement beating up on their own party, rather than elevate and support them, like abusive parents or guardians. How'd that work out in the last election, btw?

What's clear is that Schumer, in his position as leader, has, in the past, represented the collective will of Senate Democrats almost completely on Israel, notwithstanding those who disagree and have said they don't support his leadership today.

Check the past funding votes. That's an awful lot of people lopped off of the party over an issue where they mostly agree.

2024:

Overall, the vote showed that strong majorities of both parties still support Israel, but this many votes against Israel would have been unlikely prior to Oct. 7.

Seventeen of the 56 Democrats who signed onto a recent letter calling for the U.S. to suspend aid to Israel and condition any future aid ultimately ended up voting for the Israel package: Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Jahana Hayes (D-CT), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Nanette Barragan (D-CA), Alma Adams (D-NC), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Kevin Mullin (D-CA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-passes-israel-aid-bill-183939470.html

Seven Dem senators voted for arms sales recently, including Schumer. Seven Dems who I'd guess opponents beleve are expendable, even working to secure a majority to do more than just talk about Trump and vote no in republican bills?

I just don't understand the single issue focus on a mostly intractable alliance as some major campaign effort'issue, facing a republican party that is diametrically opposite to Democrats on that and most other issues.

It's like some folks can't stop themselves from putting obstacles in front of the party's success in the next election; much like the last one, supposing that a divisive internal debate is the beat-all to defeat republicans. It's ludicrous.

...still talking about your posit in the op that this should be a willing feature of Dem campaigns.