Tucker Carlson starts presidential campaign by appealing to moderate Republicans

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

Duckworth's answer might have been the worst possible but since when does that mean that chickenhawk trust fund babies have the right to question her patriotism?
It's pretty telling that some right-wingers here instead of condemning what Carlson said (and did with that racist chyron) their first instinct was to indirectly defend him by blaming the victim.

Tiresome.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

Either you're a hack using a false dilemma as a cheap rhetorical trick, or you're a prime example of Dunning-Kruger, unable to contemplate that someone might have a reason for saying something that you don't understand. Either way, I doubt you were ever actually going to support any Democratic candidate.

As for why we should have a conversation about Washington, maybe because it would bring up some things we don't talk about in the history books. Like his genocidal campaign against the Iroquois during the Revolution (because they had sided with the British and were opposed to expansion of the Colonies/United States).

Command of the expedition then settled upon Maj. Gen. John Sullivan, a truculent onetime New Hampshire lawyer whom Washington instructed in a detailed May 31, 1779, letter to move “against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents.” The immediate object of the campaign, Washington said, was “the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible.” Sullivan was told to carry out his mission “in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.” The “total ruin” of the Indian settlements, Washington wrote, would guarantee America’s future security by inspiring the Indians with terror through “the severity of the chastisement they receive.”

On September 15 Sullivan destroyed one last Iroquois settlement near present-day Geneseo, N.Y., and—considering his mission accomplished—turned for home. His army left a path of devastation that deserved the term “scorched earth.” Although it hadn’t carried the war to Niagara, as Washington had hoped, the Sullivan-Clinton Campaign had fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of its orders. “The army had brought a whirlwind of destruction,” according to historian Joseph R. Fischer. “Their torches had reduced 40 Iroquois towns and villages to ashes and destroyed 160,000 bushels of corn.” Sullivan reported to Washington and Congress there was “not a single village left in the country of the five nations.” By burning the Iroquois’ homes, crops and food stores, his army ensured the deaths of thousands by freezing and starvation during what would be the coldest winter on record at the time.

I don't think we should damn Washington's memory because of the above. But we absolutely should be aware that he ordered it. (And somehow, all those statues of him don't seem to have managed to keep it in the history curriculum.)

Overlooking your personal attacks towards me (none of which are accurate by the way; I've said before on this site that I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), you are at the very least engaging on the subject of who Washington was and how we should view him. You must see that your well-researched post on the historicity of Washington's mythos is different from a noncommittal remark like "We need to have a conversation about this." Duckworth dodged the question because she was afraid of reprisal from the activist left. If she actually wanted Washington's statues taken down because of his actions taken against the Iroquois, or because he held slaves, or for any other reason, she should have come out and said it. If she didn't want his statues taken down, she should have said that. Now, the former opinion is extremely stupid, but at least stating it openly would be honest and forthright. As it is, she has avoided taking any position on the issue whatsoever-- which was her intent.

Altogether, you're seriously misplacing your anger and at the same time willfully misunderstanding what I said.

And for the record, the statues of Lee and the Confederates were erected because they were racists. The statues of Washington and Jefferson were erected despite the fact that they were racists. There is an enormous difference between the two, and the people who do not understand that are far, far more ignorant than the conservatives they condemn.

[John Dule]

My reply to you was intended to mirror how you are commenting on Senator Baldwin. You are presenting only two possible reasons, and demanding that it be one or the other - a false dilemma.  It is, for example, entirely possible that Sen. Baldwin knew whatever she said would get turned into an inaccurate soundbite and simply played defense. (That tendency towards politics by soundbite is a whole massive problem in itself.) You're inventing motivations, and then using your inventions as a basis for criticism.

And you're doing it again, when you flat-out state her intent as absolute fact. You seem to understand that this is wrong when its applied to you, and yet apparently see no problem in doing to Senator Baldwin, even as you take my doubt about your future choices as a personal attack.

Don't judge people from soundbites. Judge them for what they do, what they accomplish, and the picture they paint of themselves over time. Donald Trump, for example, has demonstrated a pattern of acting in Russia's interests, and vice-versa. Mr. Carlson has practiced support for racism and white nationalism for some time. (For the record, my skepticism for anyone who identifies as a Libertarian comes from years of watching them, and a party-wide pattern of departure from their ideals rather than adherence to them, although I am generally sympathetic to some libertarian points of view.)

I do agree with you about the difference between the statues of Founding Fathers and the Confederates.

I'm not going to comment on your explanation for that ad hominem other than to say that I don't find it plausible that this was your actual thought process at the time. Also, you may have your Tammys mixed up here.

As for the alternative hypothesis you gave to explain Duckworth's motivation for giving that answer, I don't see how that is any different from the argument I presented. I said that Duckworth was either making that comment out of genuine conviction or due to political considerations. You said that she may have been motivated to avoid creating a soundbite, which falls into the category of political considerations. How exactly would this soundbite have been "taken out of context," anyway? If someone asks you "Do you think statues of George Washington should be taken down," and you say "No," who exactly are you trying to appease? If you think Duckworth was really just trying to avoid being taken out of context or turned into a soundbite, please tell me how that might have happened if she'd given a straightforward answer.

In any case, I'm not "judging" Duckworth for this. It was a missed opportunity and I'm disappointed that she didn't take the chance to give a subtle F-you to the activist left. But I still much prefer her to Kamala Harris as a VP for Biden, and I would vote for that ticket. I hate Trump. So this is not distracting me from the bigger picture, if that's what you're worried about.