California Gov. Gavin Newsom will name Laphonza Butler, a Democratic strategist and adviser to Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign, to fill the vacant U.S.
Butler will be the only Black woman serving in the U.S. Senate, and the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California in the chamber.
The long-serving Democratic senator died last Thursday after a series of illnesses. Butler leads Emily’s List, a political organization that supports Democratic women candidates who favor abortion rights. She also is a former labor leader with SEIU 2015, a powerful force in California politics.
She seems like a good appointee, but honestly I’m just glad to have two functioning senators in my state now.
Depends which campaign, if she ran Kamala's presidential campaign then that isn't a glowing statement.
She works for a PAC, it would be nice if she would say that she will not use her position as "incumbent" to gain an unfair advantage by deciding to run when the term is up.
She should stay out of the race and let it be between the currently announced candidates. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Pelosi's pick, Adam Schiff as well as any others running currently.
In choosing Butler on Sunday, Newsom fulfilled his pledge to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat became open.
I am saying that it is morally wrong to choose a someone primarily based on their skin color and genitals.
I am further saying that if you are going to do it anyways, then you denigrate the person you are choosing by announcing it publicly.
Additionally, I will point out that, Asian, Hispanic, White, and mixed race peoples all significantly out number black people in California. It is bad enough to choose a Senator based on race and sex, but it is even worse to eliminate 97% of his state's population before even considering their qualifications for the job.
Is it not conceivable that there are a number of well qualified black women?
If a race and gender is underrepresented in the Senate, then why wouldn't it be a good thing to push a well qualified candidate that also represents underrepresented demographics?
The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn't be a black woman.
The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn’t be a black woman.
That is odd. I see this exactly the opposite. To me it looks like Newsom assumed that the best candidate wouldn't be a black woman so he had to eliminate 97% of the field before choosing.
The best candidate very well could have been Butler, but unfortunately we do not know that because Newsom discounted all of her skills and experience and chose race and sex as the most important qualifiers for the position.
Even if he planned to choose based off of race and sex, all he had to do to not undermine his future pick was keep his mouth closed about it.
You are just playing a racist game. The same one that got played with KBJ and Barrack Obama.
Reverse racism is a troupe started by an avowed white nationalists/Nazis. The very same people that started the anti-crt BS that ended up lumping all discussion of civil rights into a "actually, this is racist because it makes white people feel bad".
It is not racist to prioritize well qualified underrepresented minorities over overrepresented majorities. It's not racist to do that explicitly. The undertone of your comment is she must not be well qualified, yet all you want to do is talk about her race and not the qualifications I listed.
She is well qualified. So the only reason you are objecting is because she's black. That is racist.
If you are really concerned about racism, perhaps focus on Tommy tuberville's defense of white nationalists and fight to make the military whiter. Not the appointment of a well qualified black senator.
She seems like a good appointee, but honestly I’m just glad to have two functioning senators in my state now.
Yeah, let's get back to appointing judges ASAP.
2nd quote speaks to experience, but the first is irrelevant. Sexuality, gender, and race have nothing to do with competency.
Hard to tell, but she does meet the only two qualifications that Newsom thought were important enough to mention.
She led the largest unions in California and ran Kamala Harris' campaign. Those aren't nothing.
Depends which campaign, if she ran Kamala's presidential campaign then that isn't a glowing statement.
She works for a PAC, it would be nice if she would say that she will not use her position as "incumbent" to gain an unfair advantage by deciding to run when the term is up.
She should stay out of the race and let it be between the currently announced candidates. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Pelosi's pick, Adam Schiff as well as any others running currently.
They are definitely something, but they were not the main qualities that Newsom repeatedly stated that he was searching for.
Be explicit. What are you trying to say.
It should be very obvious what I am saying.
I am saying that it is morally wrong to choose a someone primarily based on their skin color and genitals.
I am further saying that if you are going to do it anyways, then you denigrate the person you are choosing by announcing it publicly.
Additionally, I will point out that, Asian, Hispanic, White, and mixed race peoples all significantly out number black people in California. It is bad enough to choose a Senator based on race and sex, but it is even worse to eliminate 97% of his state's population before even considering their qualifications for the job.
Is it not conceivable that there are a number of well qualified black women?
If a race and gender is underrepresented in the Senate, then why wouldn't it be a good thing to push a well qualified candidate that also represents underrepresented demographics?
The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn't be a black woman.
That is odd. I see this exactly the opposite. To me it looks like Newsom assumed that the best candidate wouldn't be a black woman so he had to eliminate 97% of the field before choosing.
The best candidate very well could have been Butler, but unfortunately we do not know that because Newsom discounted all of her skills and experience and chose race and sex as the most important qualifiers for the position.
Even if he planned to choose based off of race and sex, all he had to do to not undermine his future pick was keep his mouth closed about it.
You are just playing a racist game. The same one that got played with KBJ and Barrack Obama.
Reverse racism is a troupe started by an avowed white nationalists/Nazis. The very same people that started the anti-crt BS that ended up lumping all discussion of civil rights into a "actually, this is racist because it makes white people feel bad".
It is not racist to prioritize well qualified underrepresented minorities over overrepresented majorities. It's not racist to do that explicitly. The undertone of your comment is she must not be well qualified, yet all you want to do is talk about her race and not the qualifications I listed.
She is well qualified. So the only reason you are objecting is because she's black. That is racist.
If you are really concerned about racism, perhaps focus on Tommy tuberville's defense of white nationalists and fight to make the military whiter. Not the appointment of a well qualified black senator.
You're game is transparent fascist.
The first is fair qualification, but idk if running the Harris campaign is a good one.
deleted by creator