Split Laphonsa Butler chosen to replace Feinstein

[Toni]

I am thrilled that she's so young, actually. We DO need to be bringing forward accomplished people of her generation so that the old fogies can turn over the reins to people with the knowledge, skills, and commitment can assume those roles.

We certainly agree on this part.
I care less about her race and gender than the fact that she's replacing someone 112 years her senior.
The Democrats were becoming the party of geezers. C'mon. Pelosi, Feinstein, and Biden? Couldn't they find anybody with a triple digits SSI number?
Tom

Mitch McConnell, Grassley, Trump,

 

[Derec]

Derek, you’re not stupid. Diane Feinstein was 90 and in frail health while holding an extremely demanding and stressful job. Newsom would have had to be a complete fool not to have had contingencies in mind in case she was unable to fulfill her term. I am quite certain that he already had his choices, ranked and vetted, waiting in the wings.

Of course.

I think he was unwise to baldly state he was choosing a black female who was not already running in 2024–but he certainly already had his choices ready and waiting.

It is also unwise to restrict himself like that whether or not he announces it publicly.

That aside, I have no doubt the objections to a black woman as Feinstein’s replacement would have been just as loud if he had not announced his intention.

I very much doubt that. In any case, what's wrong with considering from among 100% of Californians and not among 2.5%?

I fully understand how upsetting it is to hear it stated baldly that someone who looks like you will 100% NOT be even considered for ( insert position). Stings, huh?

It is as wrong as the opposite exclusion would be. Why do left wing identitarians think their identity politics is pure and righteous?

 

[Derec]

People don't make decisions based on one thing, generally. Even if this was a factor, he would choose someone making it to the national spotlight, that people like, whose staff and campaign he can work with, who is ideologically compatible, who can add productive value day-to-day.

Of course multiple things go into it. But at the end of the day, Biden restricted himself to black women (Susan Rice, Val Demmings, even Karen Bass and Stacy Abrams were under consideration) due to pressure over the violent 2020 insurrection. Without it, I very much doubt it would have been Kamala Harris who would have gotten the nod.

 

[Derec]

Wait, Newsom selected VP Harris to be Senator?

No. Part of Laphonza Butler's bio (posted by Toni) was that she was part of Kamala Harris' ill-fated 2020 presidential campaign. I commented about how badly run that campaign was and that it certainly is no feather in LB's cap.
I surely did not expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition over that comment, but it unleashed a fury of "you no say Kamala's campaign was weak!" responses.

 

[Derec]

You pay more attention to politics than the average American. Pelosi has decent "national name recognition", while Harris was just a junior Senator of California.

While it is true that I (and people on here in general) pay more attention to US politics, I do not know all the 100 Senators either. Kamala Harris was better known than your average junior Senator (hell, Bernie Sanders is a junior senator!) before she announced her run due to her being from the most populous state and also for being attorney general thereof. And early on she got a lot of attention and donations.
Dem donors buzzing about Kamala Harris
This was in 2017. Obscure she was definitely not.

You misspelled Stacy Abrams broke the code on elections being all about base turnout, rather than the "independent vote". Black women already vote in absurd majority for Democrats. Getting more black women to vote is a voting windfall for a Democrat candidate.

Ah, the cult of Stacy Abrams. How did her breaking the code work out for her two runs for Georgia governor? Note that in Georgia black women are ~16% of the population, compared with 2.5% in California.

Also, focusing on the base to the exclusion of us independents makes both parties more extremist, which is a bad outcome for the country.

 

[Toni]

Derek, you’re not stupid. Diane Feinstein was 90 and in frail health while holding an extremely demanding and stressful job. Newsom would have had to be a complete fool not to have had contingencies in mind in case she was unable to fulfill her term. I am quite certain that he already had his choices, ranked and vetted, waiting in the wings.

Of course.

I think he was unwise to baldly state he was choosing a black female who was not already running in 2024–but he certainly already had his choices ready and waiting.

It is also unwise to restrict himself like that whether or not he announces it publicly.

That aside, I have no doubt the objections to a black woman as Feinstein’s replacement would have been just as loud if he had not announced his intention.

I very much doubt that. In any case, what's wrong with considering from among 100% of Californians and not among 2.5%?

I fully understand how upsetting it is to hear it stated baldly that someone who looks like you will 100% NOT be even considered for ( insert position). Stings, huh?

It is as wrong as the opposite exclusion would be. Why do left wing identitarians think their identity politics is pure and righteous?

Here’s the thing: I’m 100% certain Newsom had selected Barker as his likely nominee prior to announcing that he was selecting a black woman who was not currently a candidate for Feinstein’s seat. I really really wish he had not stated his intention to nominate a black woman because it does appear exclusionary and as though he did not consider any candidates who are not female and black. I hope that is not the case.

I am certain that we need to get to the point of picturing a senator or a mayor or a teacher or a doctor or a judge or a nurse or a police officer without the default image being a white person. Or male or female. And to the point where gender, race, religion, orientation are not factors in who we choose for what position.

Your point seems to be the only way to get there is to quit using or mentioning those criteria. Which would be more valid if people quit focusing on color, gender, orientation, religion when discussing office/job holders. Are we in a post racist society? I don’t think so. Not by a long shot. I do think there is tremendous value in young people and children being able to look at someone with admiration and an ambition to be like that person for their qualities and accomplishments and not for their skin color, gender, orientation, etc.

Maybe a necessary step IS to focus on gender, race, orientation, in order to get us to the point of simply deciding that doesn’t matter as long as they do a great job at ( whatever).

I honestly don’t know. I don’t think we’re there yet, but I’d love to be wrong.

 

[Derec]

She does sound brilliant and accomplished. I am thrilled that she's so young, actually. We DO need to be bringing forward accomplished people of her generation so that the old fogies can turn over the reins to people with the knowledge, skills, and commitment can assume those roles.

We agree on the critique of gerontocracy at least.
What makes her so "brilliant" in your view? She has a political science degree (one of the easier ones) from a ho-hum university in Mississippi. Her professional background is as an organizer, which doesn't that that much brains.

 

[Gospel]

No. Part of Laphonza Butler's bio (posted by Toni) was that she was part of Kamala Harris' ill-fated 2020 presidential campaign. I commented about how badly run that campaign was and that it certainly is no feather in LB's cap.
I surely did not expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition over that comment, but it unleashed a fury of "you no say Kamala's campaign was weak!" responses.

Some clients are simply beyond assistance, Derec. Even Trump's attorneys would agree.

 

[TomC]

Maybe a necessary step IS to focus on gender, race, orientation, in order to get us to the point of simply deciding that doesn’t matter as long as they do a great job at ( whatever).

In what possible way might focus on race, gender, and orientation get us to the point of deciding that doesn't matter?

From hard core Trumpistas to Wokesters like BLM, ideological extremists seem determined to keep the focus on such characteristics. Stoking the fire of division and identity politics.

How about y'all stop doing that?
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

People don't make decisions based on one thing, generally. Even if this was a factor, he would choose someone making it to the national spotlight, that people like, whose staff and campaign he can work with, who is ideologically compatible, who can add productive value day-to-day.

Of course multiple things go into it. But at the end of the day, Biden restricted himself to black women (Susan Rice, Val Demmings, even Karen Bass and Stacy Abrams were under consideration) due to pressure over the violent 2020 insurrection. Without it, I very much doubt it would have been Kamala Harris who would have gotten the nod.

Perhaps without pressure that single factor would not be one of many factors. Who knows. Of course, Kamala wasn't going to be President, though. I mean, basic dickheads can't even accept a Black woman as a Ghostbuster and that's fiction.

 

[Toni]

Maybe a necessary step IS to focus on gender, race, orientation, in order to get us to the point of simply deciding that doesn’t matter as long as they do a great job at ( whatever).

In what possible way might focus on race, gender, and orientation get us to the point of deciding that doesn't matter?

From hard core Trumpistas to Wokesters like BLM, ideological extremists seem determined to keep the focus on such characteristics. Stoking the fire of division and identity politics.

How about y'all stop doing that?
Tom

By making it commonplace to recognize that people of all races, genders, orientations, religious and cultural backgrounds have the ability and indeed the qualifications of doing X job.

I honestly do realize that it’s very difficult to be a white make and to hear of this person or that being nominated for or winning this position or that with emphasis on their gender/race/orientation/cultural or religious background mentioned. It’s pretty disheartening to have that mentioned as your dominant characteristic ( she wrote having been the first or only female in a number of very low stakes positions).

Here’s the thing: for CENTURIES such was never mentioned because we all knew that the engineer/doctor/lawyer/senator, etc. was male and white and at least straight presenting. It’s only been recently when there was any such issue because virtually all holders of positions of authority and accomplishment were white men who at least presented as straight.

We are not much different in age so surely you are aware that when we were in school, the very common assumption was that boys were good in math and science; girls were good at.., English. Lord knows I got enough grief from certain male persons, including more than one ( extremely bad) teacher for being good in math and science. I am grateful to my parents and most of my teachers for recognizing and encouraging my interests. I’m especially grateful that virtually none of them added ‘for a girl’ to any words of encouragement.

So yes, the world is changing. But we still live in a world where most people hear surgeon and think white make and hear car jacket and think black male.

 

[laughing dog]

She does sound brilliant and accomplished. I am thrilled that she's so young, actually. We DO need to be bringing forward accomplished people of her generation so that the old fogies can turn over the reins to people with the knowledge, skills, and commitment can assume those roles.

We agree on the critique of gerontocracy at least.
What makes her so "brilliant" in your view? She has a political science degree (one of the easier ones) from a ho-hum university in Mississippi. Her professional background is as an organizer, which doesn't that that much brains.

And you know that being a successful union organizer doesn’t take much brains because……?

 

[Toni]

Maybe a necessary step IS to focus on gender, race, orientation, in order to get us to the point of simply deciding that doesn’t matter as long as they do a great job at ( whatever).

In what possible way might focus on race, gender, and orientation get us to the point of deciding that doesn't matter?

From hard core Trumpistas to Wokesters like BLM, ideological extremists seem determined to keep the focus on such characteristics. Stoking the fire of division and identity politics.

How about y'all stop doing that?
Tom

By putting well qualified people in those positions and including people of all different t backgrounds.

 

[Politesse]

Maybe a necessary step IS to focus on gender, race, orientation, in order to get us to the point of simply deciding that doesn’t matter as long as they do a great job at ( whatever).

In what possible way might focus on race, gender, and orientation get us to the point of deciding that doesn't matter?

From hard core Trumpistas to Wokesters like BLM, ideological extremists seem determined to keep the focus on such characteristics. Stoking the fire of division and identity politics.

How about y'all stop doing that?
Tom

If the alternative is an all-white, all-male government, I disagree that such an arrangement would tamp the fires of racial and gender division.

 

[laughing dog]

Can someone point to either a period in US history of a country where identity politics was not alive and well?

FFS, identity politics helped forge the US Constitution

 

[TomC]

If the alternative is an all-white, all-male government, I disagree that such an arrangement would tamp the fires of racial and gender division.

I don't think that is the alternative, much less the only one.
It's the ideological extremists who think it is.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Can someone point to either a period in US history of a country where identity politics was not alive and well?

FFS, identity politics helped forge the US Constitution

Oh, never. Politicians have always been defined relative to their positions on slavery and the "Indian Problem", since well before the Constitution or indeed nationhood.

 

[Toni]

If the alternative is an all-white, all-male government, I disagree that such an arrangement would tamp the fires of racial and gender division.

I don't think that is the alternative, much less the only one.
It's the ideological extremists who think it is.
Tom

Really? Because a couple hundred years of US history ( and at least 1000 years of world history) seems to contradict your position. Non-white, non-males only began to be allowed in positions of power once it became explicitly illegal to keep them out AND when there was a concerted effort to include non-white persons and non-male persons.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She does sound brilliant and accomplished. I am thrilled that she's so young, actually. We DO need to be bringing forward accomplished people of her generation so that the old fogies can turn over the reins to people with the knowledge, skills, and commitment can assume those roles.

We agree on the critique of gerontocracy at least.
What makes her so "brilliant" in your view? She has a political science degree (one of the easier ones) from a ho-hum university in Mississippi. Her professional background is as an organizer, which doesn't that that much brains.

You keep nitpicking. Hypercritical selectivity.

She made honor roll every year of school from 1st to 12th. Did you? Did MTG? Did George Santos? Did George W Bush? Did Hair Furor?

She graduated HS salutatorian. Did you? Did MTG? Did George Santos? Did George W Bush? Did Twitler?

She went to an historical Black college because she got a scholarship and in-state made it more viable economically. Did economics put a ceiling on school choice for you? For MTG? For George Santos? For GWB? For President Cuckoo Bananas?

I bet if she went to Harvard you'd be screaming Affirmative Action. It appears she couldn't make any choice at all except to be invisible or you would offer unwarranted criticism.

Next she graduated with a degree in politics and government. Did you? Did MTG? George Santos? President Mushroom Dick?

Then she worked up in ranks to President of SEIU in CA. Not a mere "organizer." Later working on campaigns. Director level jobs... Then, President of Emily's List, not a mere organizer. Yet you are there downplaying it all.

Were you ever in a professional leadership role heading up tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people? Was George Santos? Was MTG?

Your standards haven't been applied and the others are being created along the way out of nothing.

It's no wonder people like Newsom think the answer is to promise to select a Black woman. If people don't admit what's really going on and try to change themselves, then other people will try to go around them.

 

[Politesse]

She does sound brilliant and accomplished. I am thrilled that she's so young, actually. We DO need to be bringing forward accomplished people of her generation so that the old fogies can turn over the reins to people with the knowledge, skills, and commitment can assume those roles.

We agree on the critique of gerontocracy at least.
What makes her so "brilliant" in your view? She has a political science degree (one of the easier ones) from a ho-hum university in Mississippi. Her professional background is as an organizer, which doesn't that that much brains.

You keep nitpicking. Hypercritical selectivity.

She made honor roll every year of school from 1st to 12th. Did you? Did MTG? Did George Santos? Did George W Bush? Did Hair Furor?

She graduated HS salutatorian. Did you? Did MTG? Did George Santos? Did George W Bush? Did Twitler?

She went to an historical Black college because she got a scholarship and in-state made it more viable economically. Did economics put a ceiling on school choice for you? For MTG? For George Santos? For GWB? For President Cuckoo Bananas?

I bet if she went to Harvard you'd be screaming Affirmative Action. It appears she couldn't make any choice at all except to be invisible or you would offer unwarranted criticism.

Next she graduated with a degree in politics and government. Did you? Did MTG? George Santos? President Mushroom Dick?

Then she worked up in ranks to President of SEIU in CA. Not a mere "organizer." Later working on campaigns. Director level jobs... Then, President of Emily's List, not a mere organizer. Yet you are there downplaying it all.

Were you ever in a professional leadership role heading up tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people? Was George Santos? Was MTG?

Your standards haven't been applied and the others are being created along the way out of nothing.

It's no wonder people like Newsom think the answer is to promise to select a Black woman. If people don't admit what's really going on and try to change themselves, then other people will try to go around them.

It would actually be pretty difficult for a straight white male from a rich family to match those credentials, when you put it that way. How do you really know how someone would bear up under challenges they've never had to face?