WWTBAM Bored

Let's check her qualifications, shall we?

Black? Check!
Female? Check!

Well, there you go.

President of a PAC that has raised over $240 millions? Check

Regent of the University of California for 12 years? Check

Long time labor organizer? Check

She has at least more qualifications for the Senate than say Tommy Tuberville as an example.

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:08 pm

President of a PAC that has raised over $240 millions? Check

Regent of the University of California for 12 years? Check

Long time labor organizer? Check

She has at least more qualifications for the Senate than say Tommy Tuberville as an example.

Tuberville was elected. So that makes him more qualified to represent his constituents in any capacity.

Regent? Likely got appointed because of the same qualifications she’s being nominated for Senate. Patterns.

I know you’ll now call me names but when the “qualifications“ are pre-announced it covers any legitimate qualifications someone may have earned. She should decline based on that. Then run for the position to ensure the people want her.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:06 pm

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:08 pm

President of a PAC that has raised over $240 millions? Check

Regent of the University of California for 12 years? Check

Long time labor organizer? Check

She has at least more qualifications for the Senate than say Tommy Tuberville as an example.

Tuberville was elected. So that makes him more qualified to represent his constituents in any capacity.

Regent? Likely got appointed because of the same qualifications she’s being nominated for Senate. Patterns.

I know you’ll now call me names but when the “qualifications“ are pre-announced it covers any legitimate qualifications someone may have earned. She should decline based on that. Then run for the position to ensure the people want her.

She's also a recent resident of DC, which makes her sudden move back to California dubious, but you raise truly terrible points.

By definition anyone appointed will not be qualified according to you, so if Donald Trump was named, you would also be unhappy.

So what was the point of your original post?

Anyway Barbara Lee is running for Senate, so if Californians do want a black woman, they will get their chance to vote on it

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:06 pm

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:08 pm

President of a PAC that has raised over $240 millions? Check

Regent of the University of California for 12 years? Check

Long time labor organizer? Check

She has at least more qualifications for the Senate than say Tommy Tuberville as an example.

Tuberville was elected. So that makes him more qualified to represent his constituents in any capacity.

Regent? Likely got appointed because of the same qualifications she’s being nominated for Senate. Patterns.

I know you’ll now call me names but when the “qualifications“ are pre-announced it covers any legitimate qualifications someone may have earned. She should decline based on that. Then run for the position to ensure the people want her.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Newsom sounded out Butler (and possibly some other candidates) to find out their willingness to serve while Feinstein was still alive. I'm not sure when he announced his appointment would be a black woman, but it probably came about after he talked to Butler.

From what I understand, even though Feinstein's term ends next year, there will be a special election in November (following a primary in the spring) for the remaining two months of Feinstein's term. I doubt any of the major declared candidates for the six-year term beginning in 2025 would want to run in the primary for the special election and risk the embarrassment of losing. So Butler will probably not face serious Democratic opposition for those remaining two months.

We had a similar situation in Georgia when John Lewis died in 2020. I was in the Sixth District then and couldn't vote in this election, but they held a special election in September, followed by a runoff in early December for the last month of Lewis's term. Nikema Williams (who is now my representative following redistricting) declined to run in the special election but won the general election easily. Kwanza Hall, a former Atlanta city councilman, won the special election and served for exactly one month.

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:27 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:06 pm

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:08 pm

President of a PAC that has raised over $240 millions? Check

Regent of the University of California for 12 years? Check

Long time labor organizer? Check

She has at least more qualifications for the Senate than say Tommy Tuberville as an example.

Tuberville was elected. So that makes him more qualified to represent his constituents in any capacity.

Regent? Likely got appointed because of the same qualifications she’s being nominated for Senate. Patterns.

I know you’ll now call me names but when the “qualifications“ are pre-announced it covers any legitimate qualifications someone may have earned. She should decline based on that. Then run for the position to ensure the people want her.

She's also a recent resident of DC, which makes her sudden move back to California dubious, but you raise truly terrible points.

By definition anyone appointed will not be qualified according to you, so if Donald Trump was named, you would also be unhappy.

So what was the point of your original post?

Anyway Barbara Lee is running for Senate, so if Californians do want a black woman, they will get their chance to vote on it

The point of my post is similar to this:

Newsom, Biden blasted in LA Times column for patronizing appointments of Black women to key positions

An LA Times columnist blasted Democrats who pledge to appoint Black women to score political points with the public, scorning this maneuver as a "manipulative" electoral "quid pro quo" that makes these women look "unqualified to earn their place."

Key point made by the writer (referenced in the linked article)

The liberal columnist argued that Butler's credentials as a former union leader and president of EMILY's List was impressive enough to earn her a place in a higher office, and Democratic men should stop making these pledges.

But can Democratic men now stop pledging to pick Black women as though they’re a charity in need of matching contributions? Black women have never needed an electoral quid pro quo — a ‘vote for me and I’ll appoint one’ sort of thing,"

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 5:02 pm

Let's check her qualifications, shall we?

Black? Check!
Female? Check!

Well, there you go.

You forgot "Gay/lesbian"? Check!

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 03, 2023 9:10 am

An LA Times columnist blasted Democrats who pledge to appoint Black women to score political points with the public, scorning this maneuver as a "manipulative" electoral "quid pro quo" that makes these women look "unqualified to earn their place."

Is that anything like Donald Trump (A) vowing in 2016 to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and (B) promising to appoint a female justice to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020?

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 10:43 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:06 pm

kroxquo wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:08 pm

President of a PAC that has raised over $240 millions? Check

Regent of the University of California for 12 years? Check

Long time labor organizer? Check

She has at least more qualifications for the Senate than say Tommy Tuberville as an example.

Tuberville was elected. So that makes him more qualified to represent his constituents in any capacity.

Regent? Likely got appointed because of the same qualifications she’s being nominated for Senate. Patterns.

I know you’ll now call me names but when the “qualifications“ are pre-announced it covers any legitimate qualifications someone may have earned. She should decline based on that. Then run for the position to ensure the people want her.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Newsom sounded out Butler (and possibly some other candidates) to find out their willingness to serve while Feinstein was still alive. I'm not sure when he announced his appointment would be a black woman, but it probably came about after he talked to Butler.

From what I understand, even though Feinstein's term ends next year, there will be a special election in November (following a primary in the spring) for the remaining two months of Feinstein's term. I doubt any of the major declared candidates for the six-year term beginning in 2025 would want to run in the primary for the special election and risk the embarrassment of losing. So Butler will probably not face serious Democratic opposition for those remaining two months.

We had a similar situation in Georgia when John Lewis died in 2020. I was in the Sixth District then and couldn't vote in this election, but they held a special election in September, followed by a runoff in early December for the last month of Lewis's term. Nikema Williams (who is now my representative following redistricting) declined to run in the special election but won the general election easily. Kwanza Hall, a former Atlanta city councilman, won the special election and served for exactly one month.

Governor Newsom announced during the effort to recall him that he would appoint a Black woman to fill a vacancy if one occurred.

Senator Butler said that she had not previously been contacted by the Governor or his office about the opening. However, they worked together extensively earlier in their careers.

Rep. Lee already has announced she will run for the two-month term. I expect Rep. Schiff and Rep. Porter to quickly follow suit. They have two strong incentives to do so. First, it's a separate election so they can raise money again from donors who otherwise would be maxxed out. Second, if they win the special and the regular election, they'll have seniority over senators who first take office on January 3, 2025. --Bob

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 03, 2023 9:10 am

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:27 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:06 pm

Tuberville was elected. So that makes him more qualified to represent his constituents in any capacity.

Regent? Likely got appointed because of the same qualifications she’s being nominated for Senate. Patterns.

I know you’ll now call me names but when the “qualifications“ are pre-announced it covers any legitimate qualifications someone may have earned. She should decline based on that. Then run for the position to ensure the people want her.

She's also a recent resident of DC, which makes her sudden move back to California dubious, but you raise truly terrible points.

By definition anyone appointed will not be qualified according to you, so if Donald Trump was named, you would also be unhappy.

So what was the point of your original post?

Anyway Barbara Lee is running for Senate, so if Californians do want a black woman, they will get their chance to vote on it

The point of my post is similar to this:

Newsom, Biden blasted in LA Times column for patronizing appointments of Black women to key positions

An LA Times columnist blasted Democrats who pledge to appoint Black women to score political points with the public, scorning this maneuver as a "manipulative" electoral "quid pro quo" that makes these women look "unqualified to earn their place."

Key point made by the writer (referenced in the linked article)

The liberal columnist argued that Butler's credentials as a former union leader and president of EMILY's List was impressive enough to earn her a place in a higher office, and Democratic men should stop making these pledges.

But can Democratic men now stop pledging to pick Black women as though they’re a charity in need of matching contributions? Black women have never needed an electoral quid pro quo — a ‘vote for me and I’ll appoint one’ sort of thing,"

As I suspected, the Fox story distorted the thrust of Granderson's opinion piece. His point is that politicians should focus more on supporting the efforts of Black women to win elections rather than appointing them. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 03, 2023 4:51 pm

Second, if they win the special and the regular election, they'll have seniority over senators who first take office on January 3, 2025. --Bob

In 2018, Mary Gay Scanlon won a special election to complete the term of a Congressman who quit because of a Harvey issue, as well as the general election for a full term. The special election wasn't a gimme. That year the state Supreme Court decided that our congressional districts were unconstitutional, and ordered new districts for the general election. The special election was held in the old seventh district, the most gerrymandered in the country. (It looks like Goofy kicking Donald Duck.) Scanlon, who's now my Congresswoman, still has that seniority boost.

BTW, on the anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act, President Biden gave Scanlon a shout-out and speculated that she could be his distant cousin. He wasn't far off the mark: Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA is Mary Gay Scanlon, U.S. Congress' 10th cousin's husband!

Butler is not running for the full term, which was always Newsom's intention, to not clutter up the race with an incumbent, even for a short term.