Tucker Carlson starts presidential campaign by appealing to moderate Republicans

[Badger]

Our heritage is under attack.

What do you mean "our", kemo-sabe?

[Badger]

Tammy Duckworth is the last person who Tucker Carlson should be attacking. While in the past, I've agreed with some of what he has said, and think that his economic positions are much more populist (and thus, more in line with the majority of Americans) than most other Republicans, I think he's crossed a line here.

This. While that puffy confused golden retriever looking MF ER kept his military service to yammering about anti-war protesters, Duckworth lost both her legs piloting a Huey helicopter. You want to tell me who fits our American Heritage more?

[Badger]

Our heritage is under attack.

What do you mean "our", kemo-sabe?

“Our” is now a racist term? I suppose it could sound “exclusionary.” I mean American values. The ones you and I share. America is not based around an identity but rather an ideal. And if you don’t share that ideal, then you simply don’t belong here.

What I mean by "our" is that you are speaking for a very select and Mero sliver of the population distract by the increasing Browning of our population. The rest of us, that is most of us, are fine with this, as it reflects our nation being a proud Melting Pot of cultures, and a stronger better Nation because of it.

There's nothing racist about your use of the term "our". Rather, it was merely at best presumptuous, and more to the point, wholly inaccurate beyond your circle of white nationalist--or let's call a spade a spade, racist and xenophobic-- cohorts.

[Badger]

"Our heritage" is such a wonderfully vague term that it could be used to refer to anything from racial makeup (lolz) to some sort of incorporeal idea of America's historic promise. This leads to the above bickering as to what the phrase even means.

Also, Sanchez, please don't deport me just because I'm a communitarian.

Very much agree with your assessment here. I would simply add the caveat that, given Sanchez's extremely well documented views on the subject, or should I rather say his well-documented extreme views, there is little doubt as to which definition of Heritage he was primarily using.

[Badger]

Did anyone see the full clip? Duckworth was asked in an interview whether or not statues of George Washington should be taken down, and her answer was "We should have a conversation about that." Aside from the fact that this is my most-hated political platitude, how f**king hard is it for Democrats to say "Hey, there's a difference between a person who became critical of slavery later in life and freed his slaves upon his death, and a person who actively fought for the preservation of slavery"?? And maybe there's also a distinction to be made based on the fact that George Washington had, you know, a few notable accomplishments in his life outside of fighting for slavery-- something the Confederates can't say for themselves?

I used to like Duckworth; I thought she was a decent Democrat and a good VP choice for Biden. But this is an unforced error that is clearly the result of influence from the internet activist left. Either Duckworth actually believes that #cancelling Washington is worth discussing, or she is too scared of reprisal from dumb millennial Twitter twits to actually speak her mind. Either way, this whole thing is disheartening and it has made me lose even more faith in the Democratic Party's ability to restrain its worst elements.

You're actually right, and frankly I think Duckworth failing to make such a response as Biden recently did, should eliminate her from the VP contention as simply being not ready for primetime. That, and despite her compelling personal story, she's always been a rather underwhelming campaigner, IMHO

[Badger]

So "having a conversation" on something is now inherently bad? What happened to the whining about safe spaces and shutting down free speech and censoring people?

Saying "we need to have a conversation on x" is the lowest of all political platitudes. It allows the person saying it to avoid making any commitment on policy whatsoever while still playing lip service to the issue being discussed. If you are a politician being interviewed on TV or speaking in a debate, then guess what? This is the conversation! It's already happening! If Duckworth actually supports removing statues of the founding fathers, she should just come out and say it instead of resorting to this spineless waffling. As it is, the only thing we know about her position is that she thinks it's "worth discussing," which means absolutely nothing.

I'd like to have the conversation. I crave the opportunity to face these iconoclasts in a fair debate where they are open about their moronic opinions. But they continue to hide behind these meaningless platitudes, which makes a productive discussion impossible. And for the record, this is hardly the first time I have complained about this particular platitude on this site.

Point of order. The lowest political latitude is actually " people are talking about this". Admittedly That's more journalistic platitude than a political one oh, and the need to have a conversation vs is only slightly above it.