Worth a read: the Dems (and Ocasio!) just more of the same

While this Counterpunch article, The Wisdom of Serpents, starts out asking questions about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC) biography, it winds up going through a lengthy laundry list of rotten things the Democratic Party has done since Obama was elected. The author quotes at length from the WSWS piece about CIA Dems, and generally points out how the Dems are nothing more than the party of the professional class - a party that agrees completely with, and funds without question, our militarized foreign policy.

A lot of the article wasn't news to me, since I have recently written about the professional class, and about CIA Dems. Nevertheless, the article might be a good thing to show friends who might be pried lose from the false belief that the Dems are anything but more of the same by throwing a bucket of cold facts in their face.

Before I also wind up ignoring AOC, here's what the author has to say about her:

this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not.

Can anyone support or refute the charges of foreign policy orthodoxy?

The article spoke about a lot more than AOC. She was just "the hook". The author cuts the chase: we don't debate our militarized, imperial foreign policy or the impact that militarization has at home (militarized police, massive surveillance). We are only allowed to debate Identity Politics bullshit.

people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness...

the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same...

The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in.

He then points out something that I also noticed about AOC. She was instantly embraced by the corporate media. Never villified for her surprising success, like Sanders was (Bernie Bros and the whole racist smearjob), like Cynthia McKinney was.

More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.”

Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?).

We already know the corporate media is proactively hostile to the left. What is sad is that we also have to be on guard when the corporate media promotes a fake leftist. This is nothing new. They sold Hillary Clinton to a lot of idiots as a "progressive". But, that illusion has fallen apart; so they had to go to someone who talks a little bit further to the left, who is younger (i.e., healthier), who ticks multiple Identity Politics boxes (Latina). If what the author says about her foreign policy stance is true, AOC is just another product manufactured by the media-industrial complex to continue the illusion of democracy in the USA.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

TheOtherMaven's picture

No one is ever good enough or pure enough to be supported (as long as they have any chance of making any kind of difference).

Powerless victims, oh that's different - behold the wringing of hands and the buckets of tears, and the demands for Action Now.

But ask these caterwaulers to get out and shake the bushes for anyone actually in politics, and they have 1001 excuses to sit on their hands and do nothing.

And so nothing changes. Ever.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

arendt's picture

@TheOtherMaven

And I am not a purist myself. However, the blessing of the corporate media always makes me suspicious.

I continue to ask for someone to support or refute the charge that she is already on the Russiagate, overthrow Maduro bandwagon. The Maduro part would be especially telling (and offensive), since she is Latina.

I haven't written her off yet, but I haven't embraced her either.

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@arendt

Here’s an interview she did a month before the election, when she was still a long shot. The article is from after her victory, so it seems maybe they sat on the interview until after she was a new superstar. It’s very long, covers a lot of ground. Near the end they finally discuss foreign policy, a little.

Interview with AOC

So when you kind of drill down — one, we need to figure out how to approach trade in a way that creates more stable economic outcomes for families across the world. But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that. We see that, for example, because of the domestic role that the Trump administration is playing in this protectionist ante up ,we see China — this has been happening before Trump — but now especially during this administration, they are now starting to fill that vacuum of power that the United States formerly held. So I think that from our vantage point, within the United States we have to address those two things. Of course we have continuing developments in the Middle East. We have what just happened in Palestine, and so on.

I think at the end of the day, a lot of this has to do with what’s going on with the global concentration of wealth. All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.

I also think that, for me, deciphering her “purity” is not the point at all. She could be pure as the driven snow, it wouldn’t matter. She did say, this is on a recorded interview on CNN, that she is a proud democrat, and she will support the next democratic nominee for president “without question” — obviously meaning, even if that nominee is Hillary Clinton, or another warmonger, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be all in for them.

She may be allowed to vote no against some issues that would be uncomfortable for her, but the party will still do what they want. She also said in that interview that one of her hopes to do in Congress is get together a group of progressive representatives... um, did anyone tell her about the progressive caucus they already have? The one that vowed to hold out for a public option in the ACA, which is why we now have that... oh, wait.

My feeling is, AOC’s “purity” or lack thereof is basically irrelevant. She’s a loyal democrat, by her own words. We should all know what that means.

up
0 users have voted.

@CS in AZ

She is loyal Democrat. That just about seals the deal, doesn't it?

As Big Al has said below, and as should be repeated a MILLION times:

--Like the author of the counterpunch essay states, "why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt?"

Can anyone on this thread naysaying this essay give a coherent answer to this question: Why would anyone want to give this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt?

up
0 users have voted.
WaterLily's picture

@SoylentGreenisPeople EXACTLY.

Reform is futile. And until we can collectively give up this ghost, we're collectively screwed.

up
0 users have voted.

@CS in AZ

Everything is a rich man's trick and this does sound like she took a trick right out of Obama's cheaters handbook.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Big Al's picture

@arendt does that mean you really haven't written off the democratic party? I've seen a lot of talk here that people need to "give her a chance" first. Like what does that mean, give her a chance to do what? A 28 year old is going to reform the democratic party?

Like the author of the counterpunch essay states, "why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt?"

I'd have to agree with that. The peculiar thing is why so many "demexiters" on this site continue to support the next new "progressive heroes" of the democratic party. They didn't seem to do that after 8 years of Obama, it was only until the Sanders allowed himself to get the shaft.

https://caucus99percent.com/content/huge-win-progressives

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@Big Al

Of course, the Democratic Party is worthless. Didn't vote for them in 2016, and will never again.

That said, the DP is one of the only places that the corporate media gives airtime to. So, if a voice should appear in the DP saying things I want said, I might listen and tell other to do so too. It was early in the thread when I said I hadn't made up my mind.

However, from what I read later in the thread, the socialism is just window dressing, just a costume she puts on, just virtue signaling. She's just another player. So, I probably won't be listening or telling others - because I'm sure she will be as lofty and aspirational as Obama, with even less results because she is one Congress-critter, not President.

I wouldn't want you to think I'd gone soft on the DP. Smile

up
0 users have voted.
WoodsDweller's picture

@arendt
I think it tells us more about the media than about AOC.
The media profit from eyeballs. Their function is propaganda, but they are expected to pay their own way.
AOC's campaign happened outside the media bubble. On election night the talking heads were gobsmacked -- they had never heard of her but she won without them. She won an election without paying big media for advertising and without being indebted to big media for promotion. That's bad for business.
The day big media is irrelevant is the day they are out of business.
They need AOC, she doesn't need them.
So she made the rounds and got her 3 days of fame. We'll see if she's still a media darling after six years in office.

up
0 users have voted.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone

arendt's picture

@WoodsDweller

The media was shocked at its failure to notice a big (in percentage) upset. They needed to show that they were doing some kind of job. Besides, the primary was over; and she is a shoo-in to win the general. So, give the photogenic, articulate woman her five minutes of fame and see how she behaves. If she started frothing at the socialist mouth, we never would have heard of her again. Instead, she immediately starts trimming her sails. (Of course, the media covers that as "tacking to the center for the general election".)

Bottom line: I withdraw my suspicions based on corporate media coverage. You have convinced me.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

@WoodsDweller  
and guess what? The media (and the establishment whose mouthpiece they are) still hate him and the feeling is mutual.

At least that’s consistent.

Now, what’s going to happen to AOC? Her value is that, with her policies and goals, she is supposedly against the establishment. Is she really against the establishment? Well, the establishment seems to think so to the extent that it worked against her — trying to ignore her and backing her opponent all the way.

If the media, speaking for the establishment, suddenly warms to her and embraces her — unlike the many heroic but ultimately tragic and quixotic reformer figures who have gone before — what might that be a sign of?

up
0 users have voted.
Mark from Queens's picture

@lotlizard
the inner Clinton Cabal began trembling with mortal fear that their #PiedPiperStrategy, revealed in the #PodestaEmails, was backfiring big-time.

The collusion of the Media and the DNC clowns are 110% responsible for Drumpf.

Had they honored their civic duty as the crucial Fourth Estate of Democracy and properly vetted the criminal business fraud, shady asshole, racist bigoted misogynist for who he really was - instead of elevating the barking clown snakeoil salesman/former reality TV star (oh how Americans just LOVE anyone whose appeared on teevee - "hey, they're Famous. Must be smart and successful, just like I'd like to be someday, when I just pull up them thar bootstraps after I set down this darn remote!"), he'd have been dead in his tracks right out of the gate.

But because the tv business model has been decimated by their own failure to prepare for the internet, they've been so hard up for cash for so long and felt a windfall in front of their faces. On top of which, they don't believe an emphasis on real investigative journalism can make money (which is arguable; I think it can). So they followed his every move, to the infamous extent of showing the Orange Buffoon's empty podium while Bernie Sanders had just upended another Dem Primary, with the craning neck of a morbid car wreck watcher. Remember Les Moograves of CBS? His moment of candor about Trump's effect on his networks bottom line was an insight to what the entire MSM was acting upon.

Only after the cowardly MSM was hounded by the Clinton Cabal and their sycophants to stop showing him uncritically was there a desperate full court press to upend him. But by then it was perceived as such and only served to strengthen his base of support. He then was also able to campaign with yet another aspect of Bernie Sanders campaign (e.g. economic populism, anti-Wall St rhetoric, etc), which was a distrust (Bernie's was more a very critical eye toward) of the media, a very real stance for both the anti-establishment Left and Right.

The media loved Trump and still do, no matter how much they seem to hammer him. It's all about advertising revenue, which comes from eyes on their "product," which hits a zenith when you titillate relentlessly. The long-term disastrous effects of this are the outrage burnout. After so much non-stop Drumpf outrage and suspense the money and fame-obsessed moron has turned over the keys of governing to the worst aspects of RW fascists who are pillaging as much as they can get their hands on before it's discovered how bad the damage is, under cover of a growing nationalism and police state.

up
0 users have voted.

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

lotlizard's picture

@Mark from Queens  
You’re right, now that you remind me, they did turn 180 degrees without missing a beat — from Pied Pipering the primary, to Access Hollywooding the general.

up
0 users have voted.
WoodsDweller's picture

@Mark from Queens
Trump has been manipulating big media his whole career. That damned Twitter account of his reaches millions.
Political parties exercise power three ways: control of money (mostly by being gatekeepers for the big donors), control of media access (through being gatekeepers to favored media celebrities seeking access), and control of the primary rules.
Trump managed to get the nomination by self-funding to some extent, and I'm sure many of the big donors would take his calls already, even if they wanted to wait until he looked like a winner before giving money. He also had non-traditional media access via his Twitter account and is a master at manipulating big media. They couldn't afford not to cover him for their own self-interest.
So he steamrolled through the primaries and the general with the party running to catch up.
This is what AOC did on a much smaller scale. She now has a very active Twitter account which will help insulate her from reliance on big media.
Imma gonna say something controversial. Are you ready?
FUCK THE TV DEBATES.
That's big media, that's old campaigning. It's also targeting older voters who still watch that 1950's technology from their youth, and who made their allegiance to one party or the other a generation ago. Almost no swing voters in the TV audience.
Don't bend over backwards to make it on the debates, that just gives power to the party. Build your campaign until big media begs you to appear on the debates.
Want to conform to the status quo? Campaign on big media. Want to win in this new environment? Let big media come to you.

up
0 users have voted.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone

@WoodsDweller @WoodsDweller

FUCK THE TV DEBATES.

Yes! Who can stand to watch them? Are they really debates? Ted Cruz? Jeb Bush? Yikes! I truly agree, and I felt strongly that Sanders could have won without the so-called debates. He could have won with his small grassroots donations, his big personal appearances, and his online messages. He didn't need the Democratic Party. It needed him.

The mainstream media are kaput. The only thing keeping them afloat are their defense stock earnings. But unlike those of us whose pensions are kept afloat by defense stocks, the mainstream media are truly earning them. They're creating the false narratives that fuel a socialism for the ruthless.

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@Linda Wood

Debating used to require training in logic, encyclopedic knowledge of the area being debated, and willingness to abide by the rules. It used to have one topic, instead of a smorgasbord of topics, selected by the moderator as a form of selective "gotcha".

I agree. Today's debate formats are a sad joke. An insult to logical thinking.

It all started with Gerald Ford's gaffe about Eastern Europe. At that point, under the rules I laid out above, it was clear that Ford was not too bright. But today, people can make outrageous claims and bullshit through the pathetic rebuttals allowed.

I haven't watched debates since Obama/Romney. Actually, both of them sorta played by the old rules, so it was interesting, in an academic way.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@arendt If you have to lead Presidential candidates away in handcuffs to prevent them from participating in the debate, your debate is a worthless pile of rotting tripe that doesn't deserve the name. Closer to bad pro wrestling booking than anything else.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

arendt's picture

@TheOtherMaven

As I said, AOC is "the hook", but the meat of the article is a lengthy description of why today's Democratic Party is worthless to the left. They are part of the bipartisan neoliberal/neocon ruling class.

Even if AOC is genuine, she is going to be the court jester. Tolerated for her leftish positions, but not taken seriously. If she is genuine, but already co-opted on foreign policy, she is just another worthless Dem.

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt

Anyone remember Dennis Kucinich?

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@SoylentGreenisPeople

Then they redistricted him so that he lost to that Ukranian fascist, Marci Kaptur.

There is no justice.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@arendt Much as you may hate Kaptur, I will always remember this, and find it sad that we no longer inhabit a system that permits it.

I always have at least a shred of respect for a politician who's willing to stand up for their constituents:

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

arendt's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Then some switch got thrown and she was pushing her Ukrainian background and saying the Nazis deserved some respect (can't remember exactly what the topic was, but she was trying to rehabilitate the Nazis in order to bolster the Ukranian neo-Nazis.

I think anyone who stays in Washington (and staying means collecting campaign funds) winds up coopted or sold out. The problem isn't term limits; its money.

BTW, the Ukranian connection to the CIA runs deep. The Gehlen organization's Eastern Eurpoean assets were largely Ukranian.

up
0 users have voted.
WaterLily's picture

@TheOtherMaven For any Democratic (let alone Republican) candidate, ever.

It appears to me that all of us here at C99 want the same outcome: an actual democracy, run by, and for, the people.

Personally, that means that I would enthusiastically shake the bushes for TRUE changemakers -- those willing to operate outside the duopoly's stranglehold -- if we only had a framework for this sort of activism.

As I said earlier, we ain't got time for within-the-duopoly incrementalism anymore. We need to change the rules of the game. Otherwise, we're never going to win.

up
0 users have voted.
WoodsDweller's picture

@WaterLily
This is what excites me about AOC. She changed the rules.
On one hand you have campaigns, on the other hand you have candidates.
Is AOC the model candidate for the whole country, or just her district? Is she what she seems to be, or another Obama-esque progressive impersonator? What are her actual positons, given that she has zero track record? Is the face she presented in the primary the real lady? Or is the face she presents during the general election where she is trying to appeal to mainstream Democratic voters? Or will she do the bidding of the donor class after all once she is sworn in?
Don't know, don't really care. At least Crowley is out. That's a plus.
The rule changing thing is the campaign itself. Crowley raised 10x what AOC did, spent 16x what AOC did, and spent 31x per vote what AOC did. AOC beat the polls by 50 percentage points by blowing the likely voter model out of the water, bringing in new voters and unreliable voters. She did it without big media.
A big media based campaign is an expensive campaign which requires big donations from big donors. In a system where you can only win by being corrupt, all the winners are corrupt. Them's the rules.
AOC broke the rules. Run a cheap campaign without big media, don't seek or accept big donations, bring voters into the system. If those are the new rules then uncorrupted politicians are possible (though certainly not guaranteed).

up
0 users have voted.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone

The Aspie Corner's picture

The only way this is going to change is if the system dies, though the Christofascist wingnuts will have full control even if it does. We might as well leave.

up
0 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

that for me the tell with AOC was the media blitz after her win. You're right to point that out as it was all over the MSM and that immediately aroused my suspicion. The fact that she's buying in to Russia-gate is another huge tell, IMHO. That Russia thing is a complete non-starter for me and as soon as I read that out of any article I pretty much stop reading it immediately. I would like to hope she's the real deal but she too will be co-opted and if she's all in on Russia-gate that will happen sooner than later.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

If your suspicions are correct--at this point, the jury is out--then you've made quite a catch and this person should be unmasked for what she is.

However, you've raised issues worthy of serious consideration and further exploration, especially in this day and age when a chronically and pathologically deceitful Democratic Party establishment will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo . . . while using every trick in the book to make it look that that is NOT in fact what they are doing.

As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

up
0 users have voted.
earthling1's picture

I'll only add add that our foreign policy is driving the refugee/immigrant/asylum seeking horror show at our sourthern border as well the EU. The EU is slowly waking up to this reality.
Climate change refugees will only make it worse.
As a Latina, AOC will have to address this mass movement of human suffering and confront the policies of the current regime in power.
Failure to do so will be another tell. Any support, veiled or otherwise, for military invasion of Venezuela paints a 666 on her head.

up
0 users have voted.

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

is why would the Dems try to usurp her opponent Joe Crowley? I get that she scores better in Identity Politics Bingo, but scuttling Crowley for AOC is like sacrificing a Bishop because you really want to utilize a Pawn.

up
0 users have voted.

@FutureNow

"face" of the party isn't getting them any real support with voters. Maybe the are trying out a new marketing strategy, and trying to find a new, more appealing "face" for the party that will fool the people they're no longer succeeding in fooling.

Maybe they were just careless with Crowley's election and they inadvertently let him lose. And now, that this new person has won, and being the opportunists they are, they will move in to coopt her to their agendas as soon as possible.

Either way, the last thing I'm going to vote for or support at this stage of the game is another "loyal Democrat."

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@SoylentGreenisPeople

Us outsiders are never going to know. Its OK with me to hold either position on that Q.

However, given how powerful Crowley was, I think the burden of proof is on those who say AOC was insider-greenlighted to beat Crowley. Besides having the wrong demographic for Identity Politics, what was their for the DNC not to like?

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@FutureNow

My guess is, he simply didn’t take any primary challenge seriously. He didn’t show up to debates, and there was no polling of the race. It was taken for granted that he would win, he was busy traveling the country raising money for other democrats and ignoring his back yard. This allowed a sneak attack to succeed, in a very low turnout primary that the party didn’t think was at any risk.

I find it very unlikely that Crowley either threw the seat to her on purpose, or that he was intentionally set up to lose. I think he was simply too high and mighty for his own good, and dropped the ball. Reminds me of Eric Cantor, who did the same thing.

Although ... it is interesting how quickly and completely she was elevated to the “new face of the Democratic Party” and is being hailed far and wide as a huge indicator of where the dem party is headed. Which is bullshit, of course.

But her win certainly did pretty much kill off the last vestiges of any movement outside the party. Which is unquestionably something the party wanted. Keeping progressive Dems from actually leaving the party is something they will be concerned about.

So who knows, maybe Crowley fell on his sword to take a lobbyist job and get rich, while making way for this fresh, young, highly attractive face and personality to grab a spotlight and bring these wandering Dems back inside the fold. It would not really surprise me.

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@CS in AZ

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@FutureNow
if they get all the way up the chessboard. Bishops can't. (Nor rooks either.)

Wait and watch attentively - we're only in the opening moves of this chess match.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Mark from Queens's picture

for her - despite a whole host of reservations.

First, after the Obama experience, and then solidified by the blatant, conniving and conspiratorial thievery by the DNC and their puppetmasters of the Clinton Cabal, I lost pretty much all of my faith in electoral politics.

What does that mean, does one continue to vote at all?

It's a conundrum. Because most of me thinks boycotting the elections entirely would be the best, clearest message. A staggeringly high number of people currently have very serious misgivings about both the MSM and politics. But at the same time, we're in an era (maybe just the beginning of) in which there's been a complete reversal in the fortunes of the philosophy of socialism, which has now amazingly (some might say, finally) become pretty much mainstream after a century of heavy-handed, brainwashing propaganda - along with a bloody murder spree on behalf of the FBI and CIA against it. And despite all that, the seeds that Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Michael Harrington and Bernie Sanders have planted are already starting to take root and blossom.

So when I got a text from a local Dad (a self-professed former Communist-turned-Socialist), whose wife had suggested we meet after seeing me frequently at the park at which we bring our kids to wearing provocative political shirts and carrying books, asking (and hoping) if I planned to vote for Ocasio, I re-considered. We both agreed that after the Bernie theft/cheating we didn't have faith in elections. But thought it might be good to register our disgust at the booth for one of the real insider Wall St Protectorates, even if it was futile. Alas, I had DemExit-ed and couldn't. But surprisingly I found myself riled up on Election Day by all the typical ugly shenanigans and transparent money and power manouevers I had witnessed (which I threw together quickly for an essay here).

Seemed to me that as with Bernie this was a done deal - there was no way the ugly, evil Dem machine, notorious in NY would let this happen. So it was quite an uplifting (and shocking even) surprise to see such a resounding win. Thing of it is, we all know that if elections are fair the candidate with the most volunteers and canvassers can ALWAYS crush big money. But we've seen what they can do when a lot more is at stake. So was this one that "they" let slip through? Perhaps. But maybe not. Maybe there's a message in there that we should instead be focusing on. The discussion changing nationally is a pretty big thing. That's what interests me at this point. Of course that is a whole other can of worms. As JimP had been essaying lately, the media's control of the narrative is the linchpin to what does and does not get talked about at the water coolers of America. But I'm also deeply cynical. And thought many of the same things you had concerns about, i.e. the deluge of offering for media appearances, the real purpose of such high-profile coverage (which is, as we know, to soften up the candidate to "play the game" of charade/horse race politicking while pressuring her to back off from what they say as radical rhetoric).

I have to admit, when we first got a knock on the door from Ocasio canvassers last year and began seeing lots of volunteers amassing at the corner of the park we live across from, I was both skeptical and intrigued. One of my initial concerns appeared in this piece, "well, who is she anyway? I've never heard of her." Then the purple campaign shirts (to which I asked a DSA member at the post-election meeting two days after that I attended, saying it struck me as too Hillary "red and blue" fairyland, and him just saying he thought he heard that she just liked the color. Whatever. My partner who has none or very little of my cynicism thought she appeared a little too "dolly" to her. On the other hand, I thought, at least there's some folks doing something, and attempting to unseat a Wall St crony capitalist with strong socialist rhetoric and lots of folks pounding my local streets to get that message out, sounded pretty good to me.

In conclusion I have many of the same skepticism of folks here. Is she being allowed/brought in to stem/appease the tide of real backlash against the Dem Party? Could be. Guess we'll find out.

But I gotta admit, it's great to be watching both the venal Neoliberals and the RW Faux News zombies shitting themselves over a 28yr old Socialist Latin woman from the Bronx who is talking about police brutality, Palestine, corporate greed, American business malpractice around the world and taxing the rich.

Right now, I guess I'll take it.

up
0 users have voted.

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

arendt's picture

@Mark from Queens

But you express the mixture of cynicism, idealism, hope, and despair that we all feel.

up
0 users have voted.
polkageist's picture

@Mark from Queens
I agree, Mark. It's ok to have suspicions about any politician just because they're a politician. But it seems to me that the wisest course is to support her and her avowed policies until we see she is not as advertised. If she is a socialist, then we have a foot in the door; if not, it's a simple case of fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Mark from Queens You know where I'm at, Mark. But I'm not gonna shit on what hope you have left.

As someone who made electing DFA Dems and securing a Democratic majority in Congress kind of her main aim in life for ten years, I'm afraid I'm a bit more wounded than most. It's sort of like being closer to an explosion. The Obama years blew up our hopes.

While people farther away from the blast are also injured and shell-shocked, those of us closer to the front lines took it in the teeth. I got seriously wounded. That wound won't allow me to believe in anything that doesn't bear signs of a real power shift. Bernie displayed more signs of that than Ocasio, probably because he thought he didn't have a chance of winning.

And, as people here have said, one of the most obvious tells is this: if you're getting lots of coverage from the corporate media, you're probably not part of a power shift. Especially if the coverage is positive.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

I look at her in the same way as Bernie-a popularizer of "democratic socialism"a and the domestic policies that go along with it. As for Russia-gate position, can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board. Eventually it will her votes that matter in telling her story.

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@MrWebster

can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board.

If swallowing all those lies that lead to wars and murders is necessary to be a Dem, then one might as well register as a Republican.

I am not swayed by the argument of being a team player for the Dems. The whole pitch of AOC is that she was not part of the system. To argue that she must go along to get along is to contradict the reason for voting for her in the first place.

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt for Speaker. A Rep should be able to vote on bills in 0% compliance with the leadership, but they MUST vote for the caucus elected candidate. If they voted 0% they probably would be primaried, but belonging to a Party bloc should have no other Requirement. As long as she votes for Pelosi and not Ryan (talk about Scylla and Charybdis!) she's a Dem.

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness @The Voice In the Wilderness I like your support for political independence, but it conflicts somewhat with the notion that political parties stand for anything. If anybody in the party can vote for anything, aren't you basically advocating for Joe Lieberman?

I believe in political independence, but if parties are to exist, they have to have a reason for existing, and if everybody votes however they damned well please, that means the party has no loyalty to any policy, no real platform, which means that party membership amounts to choosing which celebrities you like best. It's like fans of the Twilight series dividing themselves up into Team Jacob and Team Edward (cheering for different characters to get the girl).

The furor over the filibuster in Obama's first term put it in perspective for me. Any Democrat that didn't take the first opportunity to reform the filibuster as soon as they had a supermajority--which they did for a total of four months (not consecutive) during his first term--clearly isn't a Democrat. They weren't Democrats since, by not reforming the filibuster, they were ceding all power to the other party. You can't be a political party if you willingly cede all political power to the other party. It was obvious that the Democrats liked the other party having all the power because it got them off the hook with the voters.

It's been obvious since 2010 that they are no longer a political party in any traditional sense.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
I'll concede your point to that extent. And maybe they should vote 100% for the planks voted on at the (D)|(R)|(G) Convention which should be areas of common agreement. Or 90|95%. But if it's 100% of what the Majority/Minority leader wants, they might as well stay home.

EDIT:
Once upon a time there were great fights at conventions over party planks and their wording because the platform was supposed to be a common thing for everyone to run on. Then, it degenerated to just a pile of bullshit lies that the Presidential Candidate selected and ran on. No more fights because everyone knew the platform meant anything but a campaign gimmick.

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness I so agree with you about the platform. I find it damned annoying, and a tacit admission by those assholes that they will never do their putative jobs. They will do their real jobs, which is kissing the asses of the richest people in the room.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

lotlizard's picture

@MrWebster  
The German mainstream media and politicians take their cues from the U.S.

German media report on AOC. If AOC endorses something bogus like Russiagate, that just gives them further license to report it as fact themselves.

That lie reported as fact joins up with the “Assad bad, Russia helping Assad, Russia bad“ and the “Brexit was Russia’s doing” narratives, like drops of mercury running together.

That legitimizes the German and E.U. elites’ support for U.S. wars, like the one against Assad. Those wars create failed states and political vacuums and chaos, which in turn result in waves of refugees. That destabilizes Europe.

Like debris from Japan’s 2011 tsunami eventually hitting the Oregon coast, every failure to call out Russiagate and other lies in the U.S. eventually washes up on European shores as toxic narrative, delusional leadership, and self-destructive foreign policy.

(edited to add Brexit reference)

up
0 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@lotlizard

'suffocating russia! (besides herr hair wanting more moolah from the member nations and would-be member nations of course. i did it mainly by Storify, the images are just too hard to put into words... note the senate vote to 'support NATO unequivocally' and the extra bits afoot)

up
0 users have voted.
earthling1's picture

@wendy davis
Telling the EU to "Go shopping", for more weapons of war.

Christmas in July Sale! Going on now! Free Patriot missile with every purchase over $1 billion!

up
0 users have voted.

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

@lotlizard IIRC a few years ago radioactive debris from Fukishima were still washing up on the West Coast. Anybody know if it's still happening?

At least they finally got the core out: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/science/japan-fukushima-nuclear-meltd...

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@MrWebster "Can any Democrat win without taking the party line?"

Can any Democrat that takes the party line be worth our time? Some here seem to think "yes."

In this case, the "party line" involves a foreign policy that could easily get us into a nuclear war. Given that, taking the position of "well, this is the best we can get" is pretty amazing. If the best you can get is likely to lead you to an exchange of missiles with another major nuclear power, than the best thing you can do is to go out in the sun with your family and fly a kite.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal is hardly any better.

"Lesser Evil" has it's points. Until the two evils are so bad (2016) that the choice becomes Scylla and Charybdis.

But choosing between Heinrich Himmler and Rod Blagojevich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich) is a real choice. Choosing between Himmler and Goering isn't.

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

arendt's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

IMHO, Trump is way worse than Blago. Blago was an outsider who wanted to be an insider. Now he's an "insider" - Governor number 7 inside the Illinois prison system.

Trump was always an insider, and an icky one. He learned his politics from Roy Cohen of McCarthy committee infamy. He is up to his eyeballs with the mob, with many mobs. He is first class dirt, and he just doesn't care who gets hurt as long as it isn't him.

No, Trump is in a league with Goering (a dissipated, empire building, egomaniac who slipped into incompetence). He's not ideological enough to be Himmler. That would be Mike Pence.

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt No I was comparing Himmler and Goering to Clinton and Trump. Blago would be Obama. So, OK to vote for Obama against Romney/Ryan, even holding one's nose, but no percentage at all in Clinton v Trump.

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Wink's picture

of crap from Dims whining that "she's not progressive enough," "she's a stealth Establishment Dim," blah blah blah. Those "concerns" may be true, but Bronx voters had 18 months to vet her, so...

Screenshot 2018-07-11_19-29-24.png

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

@Wink
At least they had a primary choice. No choice here in my district, just the same corporoDem hand-selected by Rahm Emanuel. His Republican opponent is a clone. I'm leaving blank or writing in "None"

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Wink's picture

Rombo land.
@The Voice In the Wilderness
And Team O'bummer likely had a hand in ensuring there would be no challengers.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wink Russiagate isn't just any policy foible. It's really inappropriate to accuse people of being purists over that, for reasons I go into above. We're talking about a hot war between two major nuclear powers. What I can't understand is why so many people over 45 either support this Russiagate nonsense or are willing to hand-wave it away. It would be less surprising if it were a bunch of twenty-year-olds doing that.

We all lived through the Cold War. The fact that so many of us have so easily forgotten its lessons shocks me.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

lotlizard's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal  
like Glenn Greenwald or Jill Stein.

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/glenn-greenwald-warns-msnbc-a-deep-st...

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@lotlizard You're right, and it's sad that I have gotten so used to that shit being the standard fare of political discourse that I didn't even remember to bring it up. Sad

Arendt did, when discussing the neo McCarthyite aspects of the narrative.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Centaurea's picture

I just did a search to see if I could find anything more definitive from Ocasio-Cortez on Russia-gate. It didn't come up with much.

I did find the following, a post-election New Yorker magazine piece dated June 29, 2018, which cited an interview she did with Glenn Greenwald earlier in June, prior to her primary win. (At that point, Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, and other independent journalists were pretty much the only ones covering AOC.)

Although some Democrats continue to insist that it was the Russians or James Comey or Jill Stein who gifted Trump the White House, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t accept this narrative. “I do think the role of Russian interference was aggressive in the election,” she told Greenwald. “But that didn’t get Donald Trump to forty per cent. It didn’t get him to forty-five per cent in the polls.”

Links:

New Yorker article "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Message to the Democratic Party"

Video of Glenn Greenwald interview with AOC

up
0 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Centaurea @Centaurea Then it seems she's saying different things at different times. Either that, or Politico was lying about what she said, in which case she should call those fuckers out pronto.

I wouldn't be surprised if she were saying different things at different times. This isn't about a moral attack on AOC as an individual. If we insist on sending individuals into single combat with the machine controlling America, it can hardly be those individuals' fault if they buckle at one point or another. It's our fault for continuing to use such a ridiculous strategy.

But we're Americans, so instead of changing our strategy, or even analyzing it much, we tend to argue about the moral character of candidates and voters. Dash 1 Dash 1 Dash 1

Although, even though she doesn't think "aggressive Russian interference" got Trump the win, maintaining the idea that there was "aggressive Russian interference" is enough to create all the dangerous bellicose policies needed to get us into a hot war.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
is that some Russian businesses bought Facebook ads. That is illegal, but hardly justifies "interference" "attack" or "hacked the election". it's on the order of driving 70mph in a 50 mph zone or overstaying one's visa.

So far, not a shred of evidence that Putin or the Russian government involved. "businesses with ties to Putin" LOL! Is their a Russian business that doesn't have ties to Putin? How many US businesses have "ties to the Clinton's" let alone "ties to the Federal government"? Of course we are also told that undisclosed reports from undisclosed agents say that Putin and Trump colluded on this. Shades of Joe McCarthy! Have we become such a security state that we accept anything at all without even direct testimony? Like "we know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

WaterLily's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness Why purchasing Facebook ads is illegal? Perhaps I care so little about this Russiagate BS that I missed a detail, but as far as I know, Facebook has a global presence and businesses have always been able to purchase ads, no matter in what country they're located. In fact, that's how Facebook makes their damn money. So, my guess is that this whole idea that "Russia purchasing ads is illegal" is another psyop that seems to have succeeded. Because otherwise, the entire world would be pointing and laughing at the idea that 13 ads influenced the US election.

up
0 users have voted.

@WaterLily to contribute to campaigns with or without contact. IMHO that law violates their free speech rights. If corporations have free speech rights, why don't actual living non-citizens?

Interesting definition of "collusion" here: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collusion

It seems that it is defauding someone of their rights. The "right" of the Queen to her throne?

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

arendt's picture

between the folks who think the Democratic Party is worthless (DemExiters, walk away, Dimocrats)

and the folks who think either the left can defeat the DNC or the DP is simply too important to walk away from.

Its an interesting split, which I will think about. If I come up with anything constructive, I will let y'all know.

up
0 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@arendt

but more of a crack that zig-zags between the frame, depending on issues and one's inherently open perspective. I think we’re all somewhat malleable.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@janis b

...in regard to the question of what is supportable.

... [our collective perspective is] more of a crack that zig-zags between the frame.... I think we’re all somewhat malleable.

I see that in every commenter on this page. There's a different kind of internal scrupulousness going on now, where people are basing their votes not entirely on who the candidate is — but on who they are.

I am somewhat confident that there exists some universal knowledge (collective unconscious?) that seeks release. Hopefully we end up promoting what encourages all of our wellbeing.

I think that is the evolutionary path and I hope we walk it as a group; as a movement, because our futures are waiting at the other end, if we can manage to get there.

@arendt

From all I see, I believe AOC threw herself into the River of Politics with what she had developed as her core vision to sustain her. Supporters stood along the riverbanks tossing additional resources and lifelines to her. She was confident and adaptable and used everything she was given. But in the end, she had only herself. So, when she hit the rapids, she was flying by instinct, reacting and counter-reacting, dodging waves and pivoting toward openings that moved her toward her vision, intact. She seems unusually responsive and self-aware. Everything she did and said is now part of her narrative and she will have to weave it into her backstory. She's still in that river, but I don't believe she is running it for anyone but herself.

Thanks for this excellent symposium.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Big Al's picture

@arendt A lot of long term democrats come to this site and make up the majority. Most have a hard time seeing any other process other than the two party system, imo. Many have left from both "sides".
I've mentioned many times the difficulty in combining those opposed to the democratic party with those who are still at least amenable to it if not supportive, i.e., continuing to maintain a partisan outlook. This is after all, from the beginning a blog intended to be non-partisan.
It's a tough combination imo and puts to test the ideal of the 99% and the direction of this non-partisan blog.

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@Big Al

If I accept the DP as useful and legitimate, that itself is a political position. If I reject the DP, that is a political position.

I don't see how you can discuss politics without being partisan unless you take the Nate Silver approach: numbers, polling, statistics. But that's Moneyball, and that too is a political position.

We don't get many Republicans here, AFAICT. So, de facto, this is a leftish board. That means it probably agrees to oppose GOP actions. Although, when Trump is making the establishment GOP look stupid (without hurting us), we tend to cheer.

The problem comes when there are DP actions. Then, people split into the rejectionists and the go-along-to-get-along factions.

As I said, I am still thinking about this - because this is the first time that fact just smacked me in the face here. Sorry to be behind the curve; but I mostly tend to do history. And what is happening here is current events.

up
0 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@arendt

until we recognise the divide to be an artificial construct of the mind. I know that I am not as well read or informed as many here regarding current affairs in the context of history, but I am somewhat confident that there exists some universal knowledge (collective unconscious?) that seeks release. Hopefully we end up promoting what encourages all of our wellbeing.

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt Am an Independent or unaffiliated. I am running for our state house district committee man and have another progressive running with me as state committee woman for our voting district. The idea is to get into the group that makes the rules, by-laws and establishes platforms for the state dem party. The plan is to get a large enough voting bloc of new thinkers and ideas to shake up the establishment. Scramble it up from the inside. Not sure if it will work, but we have to try and DO something to enact change.

up
0 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@QMS @QMS

[video:https://youtu.be/UUSJjsVoDy4]

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt

The site is nonpartisan if people can offer their opinions here without interference from site management. The site itself takes no positions and does not play favorites.

Those who post here may be highly partisan.

up
0 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@irishking

JtC has to work very, very hard to keep this place from degenerating into flame wars and fights.

I made the comment I did because my sense of how to behave here is that one cannot become too partisan. That's because, in the heat of an argument, people will stop being logical and fall back on name calling, tribalism, and all the other ills of political debate.

But, I understand your point. It is simple. I don't think it is easy.

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt

the only limitation here is that one be respectful of others.
This place is worthless if people soft-pedal their ideas.

thx.

up
0 users have voted.

@Big Al
It doesn't matter what color a cat is as long as it catches mice.

With that said, the (D) party hasn't been catching mice for a long time.

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

arendt's picture

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interview-de...

I skimmed the whole thing. It is completely about organizing, about how to get out the vote, about how to beat the consultants/TV ads method of campaigning.

She told a story of how only one TV person (Univision) asked her to define herself. Her answer was that she is an organizer.

Bottom line for me: she's still opaque on policy. She can still get away with talking about organizing.

up
0 users have voted.
Wink's picture

She also helped
@snoopydawg @arendt
Bernie's campaign (as opposed to Hillary's).
Also enough for me.
Any rookie that can take on the Big Bad DNC /NYC Party Machine -
and win - is good enough in my book.
She just rocked their world - and not in a good way - solidly.
That she's a wishy washy O'bummer DIm....
meh.
Her fanny bluer than Joe Crowley's. By a long shot.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

are hardly the people I'd choose to criticize out of the lot. But it's well established by now that Bernie is compromised, and I'm not sure what "out of Ted Kennedy's office" means eight years after he's died. How long ago was she affiliated with him?

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

arendt's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

schooling in the art of politics.

I was complaining about the fact that the media leads with bartender and forgets that she interned for Teddy.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@arendt So...I must have misread you in my haste. Sorry. I didn't realize you were saying that Ocasio is having a hatchet job done on her.

There does seem to be some evidence that she buys into Russiagate. This is from Politico, and man, has it been a long time since I cited them!

She's (obviously) talking about Trump:

“I would support impeachment. I think that, you know, we have the grounds to do it. I think what, really, we need to focus on is making sure that we are advocating for the policies to win in November,” she told CNN. “But ultimately, I think that what we need to kind of focus on is insuring that we can, you know, when people break the law, potentially break the law, that we have to hold everyone accountable and that no person is above that law.”

As to the grounds on which she believes Trump should be impeach, Ocasio-Cortez said the president’s unwillingness to divest himself from his family’s business indicated “serious grounds in violations of the emoluments clause from day one.” Further grounds, she suggested, could emerge from the ongoing investigations into Trump’s campaign and potential links to Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

arendt's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

More like they are emphasizing the "someone I'd like to have a beer with" part of her story, rather than the elitist (BU, Teddy Kennedy) part of the story.

But I certainly didn't mean any disrespect to Teddy, who spent his last thirty years making up for his first forty years. Dog bless the man.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela.

DING DING DING! Thank you for playing.

You can't be a progressive and follow the precepts of Joe McCarthy.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Wink's picture

Screenshot 2018-07-12_13-22-50.png
Crowley Stays on WFP Line

Screenshot 2018-07-12_13-23-36.png

I wondered why this futhermucker conceded so nonchalantly. Even broke out the guitar for a serenade. Turns out he knew the Nov. election was likely in the bag, anyway, despite AOC's overwhelming Primary victory. So she won, no big deal, we'll beat her to a pulp in November!
Doesn't it remind you of Joe Lieberman's tomfuckery in Conn.?!
Wanna know why voters don't bother? This $h!t.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

WaterLily's picture

@Wink

up
0 users have voted.
Wink's picture

to make the point
@WaterLily
that AOC is this or is that, but certainly not pure enough,
and will be co-opted by the Dim Machine AFTER she gets elected.
It will be interesting to see if Crowley even bothers to campaign, or if it's already in the bag.
And if this changes AOC's campaign.
A BIG reason for liking AOC is she is (or was) out there helping other campaigns, knowing hers was in the bag, no way a Repub wins her district. That fact alone - helping other Berniecrats and progressives in other races - won me over. Not many other shoo-in candidates even bother. Now... in a 3-way... the Established Dims could possibly throw it to the Repub. And will, rather than have AOC win. Which, again, shows her progressive bonafides. For those skeptics and those on the fence.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

arendt's picture

@Wink

as a "socialist".

First of all, this WFP thing is news to me - and to everyone who doesn't walk deep into the weeds of NY politics. So, to criticize people for 'overreacting' when the fact you use to make that claim was basically off the radar to everyone - and certainly given zero media coverage from the primary day until now - borders on sophistry.

Secondly, the mere fact that she may have Crowley to beat again does not instantly "show her progressive bona fides". I'm still waiting for more policy statements from AOC. We've already established that she is onboard with Russiagate, a big fan of The Empty Suit, and probably in favor of regime change in Venezuela. IF, IF, Crowley decides to actively run against AOC, I want to see what policy positions the two of them use to differentiate themselves to Dem voters.

I could speculate that AOC might walk further to the "center". You could speculate that she will run as a "socialist". Both are speculation. I.e., a waste of breath.

But in the scenario where Crowley actively runs, it is hostage-taking for both Dems. That is, the talking point is: if you vote for the other Dem, you wind up electing a GOPer.

Three way races are always a disaster in American politics. The "first past the post" system guarantees that. Its always a replay of "a vote for X (a dem I don't like) is a vote for Y (a GOPer).

Now, let me waste some breath.

If Crowley chooses to campaign actively, I speculate that the Obama/Hillary brawl will be the determining factor in the race; not the purported socialism of AOC. That doesn't mean that the attempt won't be made to generate excitement about the little guy/girl against the machine in order to suck people back to the Dem ticket. For myself, I am done with the soap opera of trying to reform the Democratic Party. It is completely corrupt.

This week they are portraying that weasel, Tom Perez (the guy who, with massive insider support, kept Keith Ellison from being DNC chair by smearing him as a Moslem) as a progressive hero because he is OK with eliminating superdelegate votes from the first ballot. Another crumb tossed to the lefties remaining in the party, and a crumb that will either get shot down by the outraged superdelegates or, if passed, be worked around by some other shady, bureaucratic gamesmanship.

It is all soap opera, and I just don't care anymore.
None of them talk about the obscene military budget, the massive surveillance state, the out of control monopolies (Amazon, Google, Facebook), the accelerating Wall St. games (stock buybacks, ridiculous valuations). Until AOC goes after those issues directly, instead of with vague hints in that direction, AFAIAC she's just another Identity Politics creature trying to suck in the lefties.

Its perfectly OK for you to support her. Me? I've been screwed over too many times by photogenic outsiders that people use as Rohrshach blots. I withhold support until she does something besides organize. Obama was an organizer. How did that work out?

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@arendt

AOC is working to establish a national voice by climbing the scaffolding of the Democratic Party, just as Bernie did in 2016. She is an agent for herself on the inside and will say what she needs to say to get to that first plateau, using every advantage she has in her arsenal, including her youth and good looks.

Mario Savio she is not. Like many here, he spoke from the outside:

There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even tacitly take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.

I've grappled with learning to speak about partisan issues in a non-partisan community. In my view, you have to kick it up a level to the metaphysical. The languages of mathematics and physics may work, as well. These are devices that are common to philosophers, but they can strike to the heart of an issue when only piercing logic will do. In America, these days, the brainwashing is so complete that numbers and hard evidence have actually fallen out of favor — but the right metaphor can sometimes carry these past the brainstem. ymmv.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wink @Wink I am very disturbed to see the "purity pony" talking point resurrected here at caucus99percent.

This is the talking point that was leveled at critics--or used to beat them around the head and shoulders--who didn't like Barack Obama's positions on health care or drone assassinations.

Later, it was the talking point used to bash people who refused to support Hillary after she committed blatant election fraud in the Democratic primary.

It seems to be a universal go-to when someone levels a genuine criticism of either a policy position or a political act that is wrong.

Politician (advocates for crazy policy; commits some act of dreadful corruption; sells out some vital promise s/he made)

Critic: That politician believes in a crappy policy that might even be dangerous to us. That politician committed an act of extreme corruption. That politician promised he would bring the insurance companies to heel and give us a fair deal and instead he created a bailout for the insurance companies and a law that demands that we enter into contracts with the same corrupt people who have been screwing us over all this time.

Media/Politician's Supporters/People on the Internet: Those critics are naive. They are ideological purists. They want a pony. They are selfish, childish fools who are preventing us from making a real difference for good in the tough, gray world where all of us adults make hard choices and understand that this isn't a fairytale. What we once might have called morality or good sense has no place in this tough world of lesser evils.

Where this applies to Ocasio Cortez, in my opinion, is in her position on Russiagate. Anyone who spends time in the press supporting the notion that Donald Trump got into office because Russian dirty tricks put him there cannot be radically different from anything we currently have in the political structure. Endorsing Russiagate is reason for concern. There are many reasons why it is a concern. The most important one is that Russiagate is being used to prop up an irrationally bellicose policy toward a major nuclear power, with whom many powerful people in the U.S. apparently want to have a hot war. Another important reason is that there is still no solid evidence that Russia was responsible for inserting Trump into the Presidency. What there is evidence of--Trump's shady business dealings with Russia and a possible conflict of interest--is a sin so ubiquitous in D.C. that it's almost laughable to see people getting worked up about it.

We either abandon the "purity pony" talking point, or we don't.
We either abandon the "lesser of two evils" rationale, or we don't.
If we don't, our political analysis is ultimately no better than the discussions at DKos, and our only real superiority to them is in our better manners (no small thing, I guess).

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Wink's picture

if the shoe fits...
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
The purity nonsense didn't come from me.
It came from Socialists and Dims, Hillbots and O'bots that started in on the "she's fake!" b.s. literally five mins. after she was declared the winner. Posters in this thread piled on with the same crap. Nobody, it seems likes AOC as a candidate. Not this enough, not that enough, an O'bummer apologist, R-gate lover....
Purity nonsense.
I'm off to what passes for a progressive MeetUp up here... laters...
Screenshot 2018-07-12_17-29-35.png

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Pages