Message Discipline @MessageDisc

@JerusalemDemsas Jerusalem, I enjoyed your podcast with Andrew Sullivan - it seemed like you had a pretty good sense for the failures of mainstream Dems. So why on earth would you take the mainstream's side on another hit piece news cycle. This is approaching definition of insanity territory.

Megan - I don't understand your view here. For the uniparty, there's no difference between Janet Mills and Susan Collins - they will both be loyal soldiers. People are supporting Platner because he's not just another democrat. You just retweeted a comment about Max Miller. You understand there are a lot of people in DC with skeletons in their closet. But there's a NYT hit piece on one of them because he's a threat to the establishment. Are you supporting the uniparty here? Why? I see this as an extremely clarifying moment in our politics, regardless of what we think about Platner as a person.

@Tyler_A_Harper @grahamformaine Agree completely on character - we all need to be holding ourselves and our side to a higher standard. But it's not character to snipe at your opponent's lack of it, and the critics of Platner have proven they don't actually give a single F about character.

Cool - obviously I hadn't listened to the podcast yet. I was just responding to how you framed it in the post I just get annoyed when stories like this are given oxygen just because the uniparty wants them to - they do not have our best interests in mind! Keep up the good work

@HunterBiden @ATTRM_69 It's increasingly clear that 1) there is a group of people dictating to our elected leaders and 2) your experience is an example of how they gain leverage over our leadership class. Any evidence you can provide on who they are and how they operate would be immensely valuable.

Tucker has been making comments along these lines for a while now - he had a long conversation with Charlie Kirk about it last year, including this part: But how did we wind up on the side of the money lenders? I mean, at no other time in history has that been considered a virtuous business at all. I know a million people in that business, finance we call it, but I don't understand why they became immune from criticism. And that's, I mean there are places where, you know, loaning, I borrowed a lot of money in my life and I'm grateful for it and all that. But I don't think it's virtuous. And I don't think we should say that it's virtuous. I don't think the people who should do it, who do it should be above criticism. I don't know why is the right participating in basically a coverup of a crime against people. tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-ch…

@ggreenwald Did you get the sense that the participants really believed what they were saying, or were they more actors that agreed to defend Trump no matter what? From the clips I've seen, it seems more like the latter - they don't seem like the Trump supporters I've known

@JakeAuch This was a humiliation ritual. @RepAuchincloss just proved he would do whatever he's told, and now this incident will stay with him the rest of his career.

I love the framing of filling a vacuum. It serves as one of the best explanations for the common question - what does Tucker really think? But it means that even people who strongly dislike Tucker should be taking him seriously and trying to craft messages that appeal to his audience, because that audience is large, and even if Tucker's views are artificial, the audience actually believes it. So now it's clear that there's a big part of the conservative movement that responds to an anti-war, anti-AI, anti-corporatist message (trust me, Tucker hits on that a LOT). That's why I'm so optimistic about a left/right anti-establishment coalition and wish someone would take the lead on building that movement.

I'd love for @ggreenwald to chime in, but I have to imagine Jubilee is involved with the claims. And I have trouble believing this is really how Glenn would choose to frame the discussion when talking with a room full of Trump supporters. I've only seen Jubilee clips here and there, but I saw @cenkuygur do one a while back, and thought it was a disappointing missed opportunity. I worry this will be similar, when it had the potential to be awesome.

Agree 1000%. How can we help create that infrastructure? From my view, one huge thing missing is a brand and message. You list a bunch of great people and there are plenty more to add, but what do we call that movement? Throwing out a suggestion: American Anti-war Majority 1) No regime change wars 2) Money out of politics 3) Economic policy focused on ordinary people * *Obviously, there will be tons of debate on what this means, and that debate is healthy. And if we can all agree that we're part of the same movement, it's easier to have reasonable disagreements and still work together.

@davidsirota @grahamformaine Talk about a good job staying on point - they couldn't even find a bit to take out of context to make him look bad

Brie, I don't understand why you give that kind of criticism so much mental energy. You named your show Bad Faith - you should be able to spot it when it comes for you. Anyone who criticizes you the message you're saying in this clip is 100% bad faith. Move on. But also, they're trying to prevent a left/right antiwar coalition. If they're so afraid of that coalition, I think that says something about the strategy you should actually be using.

I don't get it. If moderates had a bill like this and @AbdulElSayed was the deciding vote against, you'd have a case against him. But the uniparty has offered absolutely nothing on healthcare for 15 years, and you have the gall to criticize medicare for all supporters? I'm not big on M4A - in concept I like your plan more than his. But your class has failed for 40 years, so you don't get to set the terms of debate against people wanting more significant change

We definitely need a way to talk about reducing the impact of money in politics - I commend you for bringing that up since it hasn't always been a libertarian position. I'm not convinced repealing Citizens United is the best policy, but it's an easy message to sell and we have to have a solid alternative message if we're trying to promote a different policy. And I may have been sympathetic about libertarian arguments around money being free speech a couple decades ago, but there's nothing defensible about individual firms spending >$100m on midterm elections. That has to end.

All they care about is campaign donations. Establishment Ds and Rs play a great game of being opposed because its good business for both sides. The whole scheme falls apart if people get in who are actually opposed to the system. Platner is a threat, and they're proving that by how strongly they oppose him.

@lutherlowe @saikatc @Scott_Wiener The head of public policy at Y Combinator is now the judge of who is a true progressive? I don't have an opinion on the bill, but your hostile description of @saikatc brings to mind the expression that if he's taking flag he must be over the target.