I like Booker, too, what I know of him. He comes across as being genuinely sincere, and I don’t mind his calls for unity and affirming what is best in us rather than trying to locate and run on those issues that divide us. I like his success with Republicans on bipartisan bills–whoever the next president is will have to show some willingness on that front (and, I hope, be more successful with winning hearts and minds than Obama was). That said, though, his rhetorical coziness with tech companies (see the pull-quote on Silicon Valley in the NPR interview below) and Wall Street, even as he talks about tougher regulation, reminds me more than a little of Howard Schultz’s inability or refusal to identify systemic features of our society that create/perpetuate inequalities of all kinds. I don’t know how far Booker will go in enforcing/reinforcing banking regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 recession, or whether he’s interested in revisiting taxation policy on hedge funds. Finally, Booker is a city boy–nothing wrong with that, but I’ve become more and more persuaded that Big Agriculture needs to become Not-So-Big Agriculture for the long-term economic, social, and environmental health of rural areas and, eventually, all of us; and I’m not so sure Booker sees all of this as anything more than another pocketbook issue for farmers. But that last bit is going to be true of many if not most of the currently-announced candidates, not just Booker.
True. But he also appeals to independent and unaffiliated voters. Aren’t we interested in drawing in voters who aren’t deeply wedded to either party? In my state unaffiliated voters out register both Democrats and Republicans by a large margin.
I am not supporting any candidate at this point in time. Actually, I am quite annoyed that we are plunged into campaigns a year and a half out from the next election instead of focusing on what Trump and his merry band of GOP government wreckers are doing right now. But I am happy there are a lot of candidates out there hammering away on issues that matter to me. Hopefully they will not play into Republican hands by tearing each other apart.
Reparations talk is driving me crazy. Hard to believe Dems are wading into this on their own, and that an army of Russian troll accounts wasn’t needed.
Booker, like Obama, loves doing policy. So shut up already, Cory! Obama cultivated this “I’ve got this,” and “no drama Obama” vibe that was code for policy-wonk stuff. Buttigieg, in contrast, doesn’t really dwell on policy, pretending it is a natural part of running a small Midwest city. This is ridiculous. Running a city has nothing to do with monetary policy, developing cyberwarfare countermeasures, or many other things that might burden a president. Of course, if Booker wants to lose, just keep talking policy intricacies and throw in some Latin phrases. Accuse Warren of using post hoc ergo propter hoc logic. Or tell Trump: Quam bene vivas refert non quam diu. That should show 'em, but if it doesn’t, toss out something like “comprehensive immigration policy reform” and then explain how that might work.
in 1848 (during the revolutions of that year) the Austrian Emperor was deposed. The Tsar sent in an army to restore him. The Austrian chancellor was asked if that wouldn’t indebt Austria to Russia. “We will astound the world with our ingratitude,” was his response. So, would any of the candidates who have been senators or governors be in thrall to former supporters when in the White House? Do you think Booker would undermine ACA? Would he not be open to improving healthcare?
(One note: At least for 2020, I am not in favor of Medicare for All, if you mean mandatory single payer. For one thing, I don’t think it’s really popular–support for it dives when you tell people that their employer-provided insurance would go away. I think a better idea–politically at least–is to let people buy in to Medicare, let private insurance companies compete if they can (I don’t think they will be able to, but willing to be wrong).
