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.
Comments
"Russiagate" Tells me all I need to know about her
A Judas Goat
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
If true, I agree...
But I am asking for corroboration. I have learned not to go on a crusade based on one article by an author I never heard of.
now i've forgotten if 'making friends w/ the opposition in VZ
is in here, but would her own words to jeremy scahill be corroboration enough? (if the transcript is correct, anyway...)
"“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.”
“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.”
So when I had these conversations — I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place. In a sense, there are some tough spots that you’re in where when you have boots on the ground, and you have those soldiers that are there, pulling out immediately sometimes isn’t the most stabilizing course of action. So I think there, maybe. But I don’t think that these drone strikes were just.”
and just below that entry was: ‘Happy Fourth of July! The Story of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Reveals the Power of Good News About “Democratic Renewal”, jon schwarz
That's definitive on Russia
The Clintonite/DNC party line.
Thanks for corroboration.
Or just naivete.
She ran on a domestic platform, as Bernie had before her. People made insinuations when her foreign-policy plank on her website was removed just after her win, but a longer statement was quickly put in its place. Is it the "get us out of all foreign interventions" and "Russia's a bogus distraction" platform we'd like? No, but it is to the left of what the rest of the Democratic Party is saying. She seems to be in the Tulsi Gabbard wing of the party, with a little more on the economic front to place her squarely in the Social Democrat camp that Bernie occupies.
Yes she's a telegenic surprise, and that's what the media love. Especially as she can speak policy without a teleprompter, and that's a rarity now. But the impulse to extol or vilify her before anyone actually knows what she thinks, before she has a chance to weigh in on any legislation or policy from a real office, is a reflection on us, not her.
The aspersions about her background are the worst. She grew up in the North Bronx, a solidly middle-class kid, definitely not rich like the Westchester County folks a few miles further to the north. All you who envision the Bronx as an unrelieved South Bronx of gutted projects need to visit New York before you weigh in. And when someone decries that gentrifiers voted for her, well, that's a big duhhhh, that's a significant part of who lives in New York now. It's a reflection of their interest in a responsive younger go-getter over an absent older machine Democrat.
Is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez a radical? Only to the right-wingers, Republican and Democrat alike, who thought Social Democrat Bernie Sanders was a radical.
If you really don't like her, then work for her opponent in the general race. Because Republicans are so much better? Otherwise, let the constituents of her district choose whom they will.
I said before this is not about her "atmospherics"
Its about her foreign policy.
Maybe the Bronx/Westchester thing riles people up. To me, it was merely an attempt to say that the picture she paints of herself is a little airbrushed - not so blatantly as Jeff Beals, but a little self-effacing in certain areas.
Having read the many excellent comments, including yours, I am coming to the position that she just blindsided the machine, that she used its deliberate creation of low turnout into a jiu jitsu move against them. I don't think she was some kind of Cointelpro mole.
But, I do think that she is not at all radical, given her support of Obama, Russiagate, and (if documented here) regime change in VZ. She just packages herself and her demographics very well, due to her obvious intelligence and sophistication - which she sure didn't get tending bar in ?Queens?. So, I don't think I'm going to pay much attention to her. At this point, I really don't care about "rising stars" in the completely corrupt duopoly.
Who, besides Fox News, said she's radical?
She's a Social Democrat, like Bernie. We need to stop looking for a radical savior, especially in the Democratic Party. It gets in the way of changing anything.
As for the swipe at NYC bartenders, I'd guess you haven't met many. She's also a Boston University grad, which is not for intellectual lightweights.
The pigs will still red-bait her nonetheless.
And the Democrats will just let her lose to her Repig opponent. Hell, Tom Perez might even endorse the Repig in the general. After all, that's what Debbie Wasserman Shill did.
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.
She did, people here did and many others.
She labeled herself as a socialist, it was front page news here that she was a socialist, the Intercept headlined she was a socialist. Also the same for antiwar, she was immediately labeled as an antiwar candidate because of a few words in her "peace" plank.
Being a socialist and antiwar is radical at this point.
As for Boston U., all colleges have lightweights and heavyweights, just because she went to school there says nothing, except she had some big money to do it.
@Big Al
A) Socialism is not radical. Even in the US after Bernie's run in 2016 it's not radical. Most millennials express favor for it.
B) Most people professing to be socialists aren't actual socialists; they're Social Democrats. Again, not radical, any more than most of Europe is radical.
C) So antiwar folks reading AOC's peace plank thought she is antiwar. IMO, the jury is still out on that one. But sorry, not radical. More than a fringe of Americans are against wars.
D) " . . . she had some big money . . . ." And there's that allegation, again. She's really from Westchester County, isn't she? Just swimming in bucks as she feigns to be one of us. Here's a news flash, Al: there are things called scholarships and loans and work-study. Look, if you just hate her guts for whatever reason, say so, be honest, and leave the fact-free smears in your special treasure box at home.
[edited for spelling]
Can we stay focused on policy?
People (not just singling you out, but I had to reply to one post) here are getting distracted/insulted by incidentals:
bartending
Boston University
Westchester County
While its important that her bio is more true than it is puffery, in the end what counts is her policies. I ask everyone to please focus on the larger question, and avoid picking one aspect of AOC and voting her (or her critics in this thread) up or down.
This message sponsored by The Herding Cats Club of Massachusetts.
FTR, you brought . . .
the Westchester smear and the bartending reference into this discussion. You, too, uncritically underscored an argument that this race for a Queens/Bronx congressional seat was really an agon between Hillary and Obama for control of a party. The BU reference was a rebuttal. And yes, biographical details are relevant when underlying motives are being fabricated from the ether.
As for policy, we don't know diddly yet. Seems to me she's better than many Dems, and nowhere near what I'd like to see as climate change will kill anyone the bombs and bullets miss.
Since my rebuttals seem only to be stoking the fire, though, I'll leave y'all to whatever this is going to become.
FTR: I agree that I *quoted* bartending and Westchester
and that I made an easy-to-misinterpret remark about bartending. (I meant that AOC learned about government by working for Teddy Kennedy a whole lot more than by bartending.)
I do not recall *introducing* the Hillary/Obama topic. In fact, I made a post thanking others for informing me about that. I don't recall *introducing* BU, but I may have quoted it in.
As an MA resident, I am quite aware that BU is a very toney, non-radical place these days - ever since John Silber ran Chomsky and Zinn out of town on a rail. So, BU references might as well be Harvard references AFAIAC.
I respect your position, although I disagree with it. The loyalty to the party formerly known as Democratic is a political fact. The people who are still loyal are as entitled to their position as any other non-violent political group.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of this board are pretty fed up with the Democratic wing of the duopoly party. It takes not only fortitude, but also great self-control to defend a minority position without getting snippy about it. Thanks for that.
I understand why you are departing from this particular discussion, although I wish you would stay so that we avoid the echo chamber effect.
Being a true socialist is radical in this day and age,
being a fake democratic party socialist isn't. But she and others used the term SOCIALIST in the headlines and other intro's, many still are.
As for antiwar, her original plank clearly stated she was against unjust wars. Like I said, that's not antiwar. Real antiwar is radical.
In my opinion.
Relative to "hating her guts".. You've got to be fucking kidding me man. If you don't know this is about the democratic party/duopoly political system at this point, I don't know what else to say.
Real antiwar is why “antiwar.com” was on the Washington Post’s
Bezos-CIA-Ukrainian psyop “PropOrNot” hit list of supposed Russian stooge sites.
Real antiwar is why one never sees figures like David Swanson or CodePink on mainstream media or Democrat-organized discussion panels.
Real antiwar is why Ron Paul got booed during a GOP presidential primary debate for quoting Jesus and the Golden Rule as his idea of a better principle for U.S. foreign policy.
Real antiwar is as welcome, or, to be more precise, unwelcome, around “serious” folks as architects’ and engineers’ 9/11 Truth.
There is such a thing as righteous anger.
Many of us have it.
Leaving it in our "special treasure boxes" doesn't serve the change we desperately need.
Respectfully disagree.
Voting for Democrats gets in the way of changing anything.
I take your point that AOC is not "my" candidate. But unless every single district in every single state has an AOC who can somehow mount a simultaneous, and successful, surprise attack on establishment candidates/incumbents, nothing will change. As others have more eloquently pointed out here, the few AOCs who do manage to win will quickly be absorbed by or coopted into the machine, and rendered impotent.
And we ain't got time for incremental change anymore.
bing!
I look at her as
one of ToP's "more and better" Dimocrats.
She may not be the Dim we want, but she sure as hell beats the Dim she replaces!
She turns the House a deeper shade of blue.
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.
bing! bing! bing!
This crucifixion of OSA by
The Left AND The Right literally started 5 minutes after she was declared the winner.
I saw a post in my FB timeline from a Socialist saying "she's fake. from Westchester, not the Bronx, a fake DSA... " yada yada. Five minutes after elected.
Fun(ny) Fact: She won the District, next door (NY-15), too. As a Write-In.
So...
"Fake progressive" or not, she's WAY to The Left of Crowley.
And that should be enough. But nope.
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.
Having one’s politics doubted = torture equal to “crucifixion”?
Something to remember, come Passiontide and Easter.
In times of disorder, the Romans were wont to line the roads with wooden poles, to which were nailed — op-ed pieces.
And they shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him! Write negative things about him in the Jerusalem Post!”
(Note: just riffing on choice of words here — Wink’s comment holds up content-wise.)
We’re caught in the Twilight Zone of
The Never Ending Election Season. We’re still fighting the last one because it was run by and for incompetent liars and cheats who got caught. We’re winding down to the November mid-term election that the Dims are sure they’ll walk away with. All that as half the political clowns in the country are already auditioning for the starring role as President of the Unorganized & Totally Oligarchic Disjointed States of America in 2020. This constant gaslighting and non-stop propaganda flinging is basically all we have to look ‘forward’ to for the next 2+ years.
Regardless, after President Hopey-Changey Transformational Transparency I fully expect most of the opportunists out running around begging to be our ‘representatives’ are what we used to call ‘ringers’ way back when:
From Dictionary.com:
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Ha! The Empty Suit was the greatest president
of our lifetime.
Barack Obama Was the Greatest President of Our Lifetime
I was so tempted to post this on ToP today, but then thought "why bother?" They saw him doing those things while he was in office and told anyone who criticized him for to STFU.
When You Say You Miss President Obama ....
Oh well. Looks like people have woken up because they are now criticizing Trump for doing those things.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
More like the Obama line.
The end of the article lays it out:
Hillbots are far more brazen about their establishment ties & policies.
Obamabots are more sneaky - far better at pretending to be something they are not and telling lefties what they want to hear.
AOC's campaign sounds like a classic Obama operation - take an attractive, young, of color candidate, parrot progressive messaging on the domestic side, ride the fence on foreign policy, toss in some well strategized media, and stir.
For me, AOC's win says far more about the power struggle in the Dem party between Clinton and Obama than it does about the struggle between lefties and centrists. NYC is Hill's political base. AOC's win (more importantly Crowley's loss) in the boroughs is a major blow to her and a big win for Obama.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Excellent analysis of the Obama/Hillary brawl in the DP
You said it all. Can't add much, except to praise what you wrote.
More on Crowley and Hillary...
From 2016 (pre-election):
With AOC's win, Obama took a major scalp (and settled a very old score).
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Bingo!
NYC & Chicago style politics in a nutshell.
Still, I'm glad Crowley lost.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Except of course she
is a Berniecrat.
To whom most are no fans of O'bummer.
She might be an O'bummer stealth candidate, except there are no O'bummer Dims. Or any visible at least. And I question why O'bummer would give a damn about national politics except to salvage what's left of his Legacy. He's on the $200 K/speech circuit, and I doubt that he cares very much about Inside the Beltway crap unless Moochelle my belle has sights on the oval office. Which I also doubt. ymmv.
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.
Doubt all you like.
But if you think Obama is just riding off into the sunset and has no interest in playing Dem kingmaker, I've got a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Obama is very much still dictating the direction
of the DP. His new PAC is who is sending people to hassle members of the Trump administration. And don't forget that he was who got Perez installed as head of the DNC over Ellison who wasn't as neoliberal as the party wanted. If you need evidence of his involvement I'll try to find it. Both he and the Hill-Creature are both very involved. In fact there are indications that she is going to run again. She is doing a lot of fundraising behind the scenes.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Indications she is going to run again.
Please, shoot me now.
I'm starting to think Michelle might run
Barack would get to campaign again and all the centrists can jump on board. I think there's going to be heck of a lot more centrists this time, especially among former Republicans. If the general election came down to Michelle vs Trump vs Jill Stein, I would vote for Michelle. For me it would be a much easier choice than Hillary vs Trump. I think Michelle is a lot more real than Hillary. I like Michelle's life story a lot more than Trump's story of non-stop selfishness since birth.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Michelle might be running ?
Well, she said once on a campaign rally at BCC Highschool in Bethesda, MD, that it is stupid for a mom to cook every day for her children, three times yes, all the 7 days, no.
I never forgot this little remark and thought she has her little bag of arrogance to carry with her around. What are working moms supposed to do, let their kids eat McDonalds all the time? Too, expensive, Michelle, and to call mothers who cook for their families stupid is something I don't forget.
Despite all her biography of her parents being clearly in the working lower middle class. She is a nice lady, a lovely mother and her little daughter Sasha was so cute, I named my dog after her. But really, we working moms don't have the money and don't have the help to afford not to cook for our kids, even if we have the least time to do so. Never been a single mom with kids and no money? Yes. So, I doubt she would not be ... the same thing all over again ...
And btw the discussion here about AOC ... I just saw one interview with her posted here probably on the EB, don't remember', and all I thought, lady, you are not a Barbara Jordan. I don't want to be unfair, nobody can be responsible for ones age and ethnicity. So, I don't like this comment of mine, but also can't help saying it. But she didn't convince me as something that would not end up ... the same thing all over again.
Is this my guts speaking or my sub-conscious conscience, as janis b called it? I don't know. It's really hard not to be torn apart. In the end I tell myself, heh, you are getting old and you need to be fair with the next generation coming to power. It's just not easy to be fair. Sigh.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Well you sound like a good mom Mimi
I'm sure your kids appreciated that.
Beware the bullshit factories.
NYC is not HRC's base.
Just because HRC carpetbagged her way in doesn't mean she captured everyone's hearts. Wall Street loves Hillary. The Dem machine loves her. Many New Yorkers would voice something different. Why, if NYC were a lock for Hillary, would there have been so much hanky-panky with the voter rolls in 2016?
I have to say I'm finding the suspicion that Ocasio-Cortez was inserted into the race to lead the left back to the fold to be a tad paranoid. And the thought she's a plant for the Obamas' power base is something you have to tilt your head just a certain way to envision. Maybe, just maybe, AOC actually did want to run and win in a race that the Dem machine arrogantly thought it didn't have to work for.
Now that AOC won the primary and presumably will win the general, it's clear the party wants to enwrap her in its straitjacket embrace. We will see how she deals with that.
And everybody, Ocasio-Cortez is New Yorkers' candidate, not yours. You don't have to buy what she's selling, but until she runs for something bigger, it's New Yorkers' choice. If you oppose her positions, find someone two years from now to challenge her -- among the Dems or from another party. She's only one candidate, not the fulcrum of world salvation.
It's not?
Clearly we have different definitions of what constitutes a political base.
But after Crowley's loss, I guarantee Wall Street and the Dem establishment love Hillary quite a bit less.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
we have different definitions
Yup, we do.
Wall Street is based in NY, but money knows no geography.
The Dem machine is big in NY, but most New Yorkers don't like it, even when they agree on a candidate, and this time they clearly didn't agree.
It's not Obama's town, either.
Finally, this race was not about Hillary. It was about the aspirations of individual voters in Queens and the Bronx. Please give some benefit of the doubt to the proposition that New Yorkers are capable of thinking for themselves.
That's cute.
All your trite platitudes don't change the fact that there's a very real internal power struggle going on within the Democratic Party establishment between the Clinton and Obama factions - a struggle that has been going on since the 2008 primaries.
To write off that struggle as 'paranoid' and pretend that it's all about 'individual voters' is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.
Not yet, but he's working on it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
To write off voters . . .
. . . as mere brainless pawns in some power struggle between two has-been politicians is insulting.
For people who profess to be done with the Democratic Party, some of y'all really do obsess over the byzantine cravings of relevance therein.
What do you call the 97% who didn't bother to vote?
When a 3% turnout wins a primary, that makes the 97% who didn't bother to vote worse than brainless. Those 97% were manipulated by the low-turnout tactics of the machine.
I think both of you have a point. NHK is right that the electorate is vastly and skillfully manipulated. I think you are right that the people who voted in this particular primary were expressing their political views at a local level.
"Don't bother to vote"
See? It's here too. I'll reiterate again that to protest by not voting engenders the above reaction.
What if 97% of the voters HAD voted and voted for "Bernie Sanders" or "Karl Marx" or "Batman" or "None of the above" or "Yo' Momma!"? Even if the ballots were spoiled, imagine the furor if 97% of the ballots were rejected as spoiled! THAT's a protest!
Staying home marks you as being a jaded Millenial too busy playing games on his smartphone.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
We have every right to be jaded.
How else are we supposed to feel? We have nowhere to go. No avenues for real employment. No hope for retirement. A near-dead planet. A bourgeoisie that is balls out hostile to anything and anyone that isn't part of their clique.
Many in my generation went off to fight several wars all based on lies. Many also went into mountains of debt to get degrees for jobs that no longer exist. We tried time and time again to make our voices heard and our votes count. Nobody listened. Nobody cared.
Give us something to work toward and we'll show up. No more of this luke-warm fake center-left, swerve far-right gradualist (read: MLK's White Moderate) shit the current crop of pig shit do-less-than-nothing Gentricrats have shoved up this country's ass since the days of Saint Ronnie.
Ocasio-Cortez will be the puppet with a giant hand up her ass parroting left-sounding ideals while giving massive handjobs to the far-right cappie pigs behind closed doors. It worked for Obama, didn't it? Hell, he even managed to let the far-right cappie pigs control the narrative and policy even while the pundits managed to paint him as a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Communist Fascist Socialist Radical Leftist Nazi SJW and the plebs totally ate it up....even when he was nothing more than Ronald Reagan in black face. Yeah, I said it. Ocasio-Cortez is just more of the same in this respect. Don't believe me? Just wait until it gets closer to the general election. Happens every single time.
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.
@arendt The
The low turn out criticism is not valid because all politicians in NY are elected by the same low turn out.
It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Carl Sagan
And therefore all the races are manipulated.
It is not irrelevant. It is how the game is played, at least in NY. AOC demonstrated that it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe some other folks will wake up because of this. That's certainly relevant.
Like it or not.....
That's because, like it or not, the Democratic Party still enjoys fully half the power of determining who makes the rules in our society. Their byzantine machinations are therefore still relevant to us, unfortunately.
Not when said voters earn that write-off, as New York City's voters have done repeatedly. Remember "Massachusetts, the only State with three Senators!" ??
The New York State Legislature in Albany could fix that easily, by requiring that all political candidates for offices not shared with other States (i.e., President and Vice President) be timely high-school graduates from an accredited high school situate in the State of New York. Slam the door to carpetbaggers, and New York City voters will have to come to terms with the consequences of their votes. (And New York will be represented by New Yorkers, as it should be.)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I think that's Unconstitutional
The Constitution sets the requirements for Senator.
"Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: (1) they must be at least 30 years old, (2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past nine years, and (3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election." I think the Supremes have set bounds on States' residency requirements too, but I'm no lawyer. It reads to me like it's one day. States set restrictions on whether you are a resident or a visitor, but, as I said, I Think SCOTUS has overturned excessive restrictions. That's what happened to California's free college for residents of (I think) at least a year. They said anything over two weeks was excessive and California dropped free tuition because they didn't want to pay for anyone from the other 49 states that had money for two weeks at Motel 6.
BTW, I didn't know about that second requirement, the nine years part.
EDIT:
Remember, when the Constitution was written, Senators were elected by state legislatures not the people.
EDIT2: A good link - https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitutio...
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
free college in California
And this, if I recall correctly, was when Ronnie Ray Gun was Governor (1967 - 1975). Just in time to screw me (HS class of 1976) out of the shot entirely.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
bing! Exactly.
Would Hillary win again
in New York? Maybe, but Her certainly does Not own New York.
And, I, too, don't buy the O'bummer candidate nonsense.
One, what O'bummer wing of the party?
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.
This is a tell right here.
"I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place."
She has no clue. That's the same bullshit the dem party supporters used to justify Obama's wars against Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. and obviously Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Like blaming it on Bush and Obama was just trying to make it right.
Amen.
mega lulz!
correct. i've been busy on the NATO summit in brussels today and tomorrow (surely someone is writing about it here, no?) i've been building both a light-hearted twitter storify, and a sober look at it's Evil
irrelevance in the never ending Cold War against the thesoviet unionputin's roosia, but now that Colombia is an 'offishul partner' (it ain't NATO no longer, eh?), having ports in both the east and west southern oceans, *and* that the US has signed a military agreement w/ ecuador (think assange in the embassy being transported to...gitmo?), VZ under attack from the neighboring nations CIA special ops w/ amerika leading behind) this tickled my innards.not that boss Tweet is at all coherent on ukraine 'ed nato (mean funding by 2% of yer gdp because: roosian invasion, again rather haphazardly and 'in the moment', but that summit is whole 'nother 'opinions' sick comedy show.
but as bernie had said that he'd run as a Dem 'or else chuck todd wouldn't have had him on' (or close): yes, miz oasio has been everywhere, and the tankies on twitter are laughing that after her actual bio was challenged, 'her bio has now become a palmiset' (and yes, i'd had to look it up)
but for those who hope the bern runs in 2020 (?) as an indie or DSA: Occupy the FEC to change the rules on third party candidates being allowed in televised debates!
THIS is the kind of direct action we need.
Occupy the FEC.
Surely, can't we all coalesce around this, and start working our asses off NOW in preparation for 2020?
it would be a fine idea,
although i wouldn't know how to implement such a call. their Rules© are arcane, and i've read different versions, but the only link i'd found mentioning such a thing was simply 'adding A third party'. if i remember to look again, i'll bring the link.
well, i didn't find the page i'd found earlier, as it *seemed*
to be about the bern...but for me, widening the field to include more parties, indies, etc. is the thing, as this does>>>. it's a page from real clear politics 2017 for you to peruse rather than highlight much, but indeed there are a lot of organizations engaged in lawsuits, of course, some judicial decisions are not being upheld, and suggestions for the stupid questions asked in polling to get a candidate to the magical 15% threshold to be able to 'debate'.
the counter-arguments are also noteworthy like 'pay for your own debates' says the PDC. if you can figure out the monetary stuff in there, good on you. maybe i was bored by then, but i did laugh at the suggestion of open primaries held online. the russians would hack them!!!(j/k), but in this country, scary biscuits if one thinks hackable diebolds, but maybe it would need to look like that, i dunno. in switzerland, a direct democracy, they vote on absolutely everything, and iirc, my friend there said it's all online. but then there are so many internet providers there that the rates are cheap as hell. also their system includes one-year-presidents switching from among elected cabinet officials, or so i remember it. i do think our system sucks that way, that one person becomes 'the leader of the free world', as do lifetime terms for scotus 'justices'.
it' not at all clear to me that voting matters as much as relentless long term activism, but the every-two-years charade is...that it does. now if the 'activism' is a cul-de-sac to the D party where the best movements go to die...
in CO this year, we indies were all sent bith R and D ballots, we could vote on one. i did actually vote...for one D county commissioner, nuttin' else; who cared? not i. sometimes voting against some tea party R is tempting, but no mas!
a side note: a local D activist called me the other day, and i was in such a mood that i practically yelled at him: 'fuck the democrats!' yeah, i shouldn't have done that, but i did finally explain my long-time history a D campaign operative. 'nice talking with you, wendy', said peter...before saying goodbye.
Lol!
Thanks for that last anecdote. I don't seem to get phone calls, but I've returned a few DNC surveys with similar messages. Not sure why I'm still on their list!
Thanks for the research and link, too. I'll give it a look, but am persuaded by your argument that long-term activism is likely more useful. Plus, if there's a lot of math in this link I, too, will glaze over ...
i'd meant to add that obomba's war crimes can't be condemned
but neither can caged children and deportation numbers under His Rule, see here and here.
on the other hand, david correia (albuqueque professor/activist, where the police state killings activism first began) writes: 'abolish ICE, but don't stop there'.
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, defeated Joseph Crowley, the chairperson of the both the House’s Democratic Caucus, and the Queen’s County Democratic Party, in the democratic primary for New York’s 14th congressional district, on a platform that included a demand to abolish ICE. The call has gone mainstream since. U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kristen Gillibrand, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, among others, have joined Ocasio-Cortez in demanding an end to ICE."
(who'd all said that the border should be secure, but immigration deportations should focus on crime and 'reflect our values' and (whatever that means...)
Police don’t keep us safe, that we know. But who or what will? This is the question every politician — liberal or conservative —and many activists, refuse to ask for fear of being dismissed as naïve or, worse, “soft” on crime. But what’s softer than supporting police, an institution with no record of keeping working people safe?
Calls to abolish ICE, to be meaningful, must include calls to abolish local police too. The police is an institution organized around the use of violence for punishment and coercion overwhelmingly arrayed against poor communities of color. Abolition, not reform, is the solution to this problem. No more money for cops or reform. The money and energy wasted on police reform and police agencies would be better spent supporting community efforts at alternatives. Fewer cops and more emergency and transitional housing. Fewer cops and more support for institutions that serve (not arrest) people suffering mental health crises or drug addiction. Abolition ICE, yes, but don’t stop there."
Without *some* checks, children will end up being trafficked
Report: Obama administration handed child migrants over to human traffickers
And this is New York magazine — hardly given to promoting right-wing talking points.
the shadowy us intelligence agencies
aren't going to restrict their dirty dealings to drugs, arms and regime change. More opportunity in trading humans in shackles, prisons and wars. Security measures, ya know.
hadn't see that, thanks. but not a few have wondered...if
these current marches and protests (and good on them, anyway) are anti-trump when O did much the same...is the message kinda: vote for dems? zeese and flowers had said that in the O days, it was mainly the immigrant community who'd protested rather than in these times. i'm a bit agnostic, but i hope they're not correct. not ice, but 'something that reflects our values™ while keeping the border...safe from criminals', they all say now; oy.
and yeah, some of it does look worse given the msm headlines, maddow crying, and the fact that this administration's full of open racists and racialists.
I just don't care.
She is not going
to vote to continue the war(s), nor start a "new" one.
It's a moot Dim talking point.
Congress no longer sends the military off to war.
The prez sends them.
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.
Only because Congress-critters vote to minimize their own role
with open-ended hokum like the AUMF.
Congress could take an active oversight role, investigating and even opposing what the military is doing, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did under Sen. William Fulbright (D-Arkansas) during the Vietnam War.
If Congress doesn’t, it’s because its members of both parties don’t choose to.
I guess nowadays they’re all so busy soliciting campaign donations and otherwise feathering their own nest, they can’t be bothered.
The excuse that Congress doesn't approve wars
is bullshit. It approves everything in numerous ways, particularly in providing the funding.
I doubt that her
District gives much
of a damn either. They didn't elect her to stop wars, any more than we did in my District.
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.
Oh is that right Wink? Nobody in New Fucking York
cares about wars and imperialism? Is that what the dem party strategists have concluded? Ya, because the dem party is one of the primary criminal enterprises that plan, approve, facilitate and administer U.S. imperialism. So they know what the people want don't they. Shit.
I get your priorities are about democratic party "victory" and not about the fucking issues that matter. You've made it clear you don't give a shit about war and that you think there's absolutely nothing your new favorite progressive hero democratic politicians can do about it.
Hey Al...
a little piece of advice from an old friend, calm down.
It just wasn't the
number one issue
up here. Or number two, or number 3. Dylan Ratigan barely mentioned it.
Nor I suspect was it the #1, #2 or #3 issue in AOC's NY-14 either.
Money issues topped the list up here, and "we" have a U.S. Army base (lest I remind, sending Troops™ to the M.E. and Afghanistan two, 3 times a year) literally in our back yard.
And I'm guessing it's going to be a non-issue until China or Putin drops a bomb on our asses, becuz nobody, really, pays any attention to the war(s). Nary a peep from protesters anywhere. And as sad and pathetic as that is I worry more about getting my bills paid on $2,000 /mo., and electing "more and better" Dims like AOC, replacing the dead wood we got in Washington today. I cheer AOC becuz the one "we" voted for up here - A corporate Dim - got more votes than the other 4 "more Librul" Dims combined. Including Ratigan, who finished a distant 2nd. So now I gotta go out and campaign for a corporate Dim (who would Not have won reelection to her County seat) to beat an intolerable KochBros corporate Repub who couldn't find her own district with Google Maps and a gps device. The war(s)? They happen over there somewhere, far far away. And like a lot of Americans, I just can't be bothered. Just the way the War Machine likes us, I suspect. Unencumbered. I got asked that at our Monthly MeetUp last night. The lady almost whispered it. (I forgot my damn hearing aid). what?? what about the war? what?? Oh!! What about the war! Sorry, can't hear. Well... I don't know, what do you think? {shrug} Pretty much what I think too. moving on...
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.
Thanks to those who educated me about how...
there is an Obama vs Clinton backstory to AOC/Crowley. Whatever the details are, whoever's side she is/is not on, its important to me that that issue places AOC's candidacy smack in the middle of politics as usual in the Democratic Party.
This thread has been a great learning experience about AOC and NYC politics. I came in with naive opinions, and have been supplied with a lot of facts.
Thank you all; and keep discussing/debating!
Dang it. That was supposed to reply to the OP.
Sorry Wendy.
I knew as soon as I read her "peace" plank,
to me it was obvious. She included the catch words for the dem party supporters, like "peace", but overall it was clear she didn't even fucking write it and it included the typical dem party caveats about terrorism and "unjust" wars (there are no just wars). It was a boilerplate bullshit that was put it to appease because they learned from Bernie not paying enough attention to "foreign policy", i.e., imperialism.
Her words since then bear that out.
Actually I knew as soon as I heard her name next to the big "D".
But I better not say more, the purity police will pounce. Reminds me of this, first time I experienced that "force" was here:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/27/1604500/-Purity-Police-Here-...
Re: There are no "just wars"
Response to invasion? response to another country declaring war?
You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?
Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
+1
This.
Now, Big Al's point that profiteers and egotistical criminals often manipulate nations into wars is still quite valid. But all of those in our world doing this aren't necessarily Americans. The uber-filthy rich and uber-powerful of other nations do this, too.
It's just like the old adage about "keeping the Sabbath": all must so that all may. Giving up warfare is exactly the same: until all do so, honestly, none can; and war will remain an irremovable part of Statecraft as it is now.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Whose "Sabbath"?
Humans round the globe can't even agree on what day the "Sabbath" is, let alone how to "remember" it and "keep it holy". Is it Friday (Muslims), Saturday (Jews/7th Day Adventists), or Sunday (most Christian denominations), or some other day (various minority sects), or any/every day(non-Abrahamic religions)?
It's actually a lot easier to agree on what "war" is - but not on what to do about it.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
In my religion
every day is the Sabbath.
"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
Pardon my confusion, but.....
Please pardon my confusion, but in this case, when does your religion allow you to work?
(The concept of "Sabbath" I was invoking in my original Comment wasn't the religious one, but more of the "day of rest" concept.)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
That's not a bug
it's a feature.
"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 Sabbath
Actually, I was only talking about "the Sabbath" in the sense of a day of rest from servile work. In other words, "all must that all may" in the sense that once anybody starts working 7 days a week, pretty soon we all end up working 7 days a week, will or nill us. (Which should sound familiar to many of us even now!) As part of my point, I ask you to consider how hard Anglo-American labor unions had to struggle to get ordinary workers a day off from work to attend to their own needs as well as one for their God. (The modern concept of the "weekend".)
I want humankind to take a permanent Sabbatical from war. In order for any to be able to do this, every nation on Earth must join the Sabbatical simultaneously and honestly. One nation still waging war is to this "Sabbath" what the one working 7 days a week is to the other kind.
My apologies for any confusion.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Never mind that the REAL Hawaiian “just war” would have been
the one Grover Cleveland wasn’t willing to fight, even though his State Department recommended it: namely, using force against the bogus “Republic of Hawaii” sugar-planter putschists and restoring independence and sovereignty to Hawaii in perpetuity, and Queen Liliuokalani to her throne.
The “just” timeline is the one where Hawaii never becomes part of the U.S. at all, where plantation owners don’t get to bring in a huge labor force from afar, and the Hawaiian people are not marginalized and reduced to a minority in their own land.
Annexing Hawaii against the will of her people blows “just” and “justice” out of the water for all time. After that, it’s just amoral power grabs, military-base building, and population replacement by competing empires.
Just Hawai'ian war
No joke there, lotlizard!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I agree
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Smedley Butler
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
World War II wasn't any different. I know people like to point to WWII as their justification that some war is warranted, but it wasn't. The evidence is clear on why WWII occurred and it wasn't for our freedom or for defending our land.
So what would you have done?
Evacuated everyone in Hawaii? Sent a note of apology to the Emperor when his ambassador delivered the declaration of war? Told Hitler we were sorry and won't do it again when Germany joined Japan? Yes, our hands weren't clean, but Imperial Japan were Imperialists and committed atrocities in China and the Philippines. Yes, the US was wrong to intern US citizens of Japanese descent (interning or expelling enemy nationals is common) but it hardly compares with beheading contests in Nanjing and the Philippine Death March, nor all the ordinary Chinese massacred by the Imperial army.
What specifically would you have done? Nothing?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Yes, of course
your question is the ultimate one. There are no good wars, but once it's on, it's on.
I read the first volume of Churchill's memoirs of WWII recently, and right at the beginning he nails the fact that WWII was the most horrific catastrophe in human history and the most preventable. And he names the cause: U.S. loans. He doesn't elaborate, he leaves that for future generations to work out, or for classified documents to emerge after the perps were dead, and then he spends four volumes describing the catastrophe.
But yes, once you've built a war machine sufficient to be a threat to the world, even in the midst of a worldwide depression, somehow coming up with the money to build battleships, high-tech tanks, mines, magnetic mines, anti-magnetic mines, submarines, guided missiles, attack weapons of every kind, and an arsenal of throw-away-able soldiers, you have made every other nation incapable of being pacifist. It's either fight or die.
Realizing that our military industrial complex is a private multinational industry that arms everyone is the first step to putting war out of business.
I say this as a pacifist, we will never end war until we stop funding it and underwriting all risks for a set of companies that commits treason against the United States.
Corrected
"I say this as a pacifist, we will never end war until
we stopeveryone stops funding it"Like meaningful inspected arms control treaties. And not "let's reduce overkill from 1000 times to 100 times". More like "let's ban nuclear weapons worldwide, NOBODY is to have them."
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Author is fairly on the mark
Steppling is pretty spot on...for instance, read this one: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/20/trump-putin-and-nikolas-cruz-wal...
The target would seem to be DSA
The Democratic Socialists have been growing ever since Bernie was robbed. They are still miniscule (less than 100,000 party members); but they represent a turning away from the corporate Dems.
It would seem that AOC is there to sheepdog the socialist vote, to compromise it before it goes anywhere. Classic disruption, aided by bottomless pots of money and complete control of the media.
Not sure that I can refute anything
But it seems to me a big part of Epplings argument, once you scratch at the veneer, is that she is too smart and pretty.
Now she may turn out to be just another corporate Dem. But even I am not so cynical to believe that she must be a mainstream power broker when she hasn't had a chance to do anything except run for office.
For me, Russiagate and overthrowing Maduro...
are much more substantive charges than she is "too pretty".
That's why I keep asking for corroboration about those foreign policy positions. I don't want this thread to be about her physiogomy.
I recall that her "platform" had a widely quoted section about being for peace, and for less war. I don't see how to square that with Russiagate and regime change Venezuela.
affirmative facts
spelling corrected and punctuation adjusted for format change
And, as I've pointed out before, Mere silence won't "meet the need". Affirmative facts -- as you termed them above, "corroboration" -- are required here.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Typical Counterpunch,
presenting personal impressions and half **sed opinions as if they were some kind of startling insight. Consider the source.
If AOC is an elitist plant, the planters don't seem to have been supporting her with very much funding. I do think that, once she had won, the warmongers showed up next day in force to herd her into their corral.
It is up to 1. her future constituents, and 2. the DSA and other peaceniks to keep her on the path of righteousness. I suggest the tell, the sign that any candidate has gone over to the dark side, is when they stop holding town halls or other events where real live voters can question them.
Mary Bennett
Its keeps getting harder to...
Avoid the possibility of being played.
I already wrote about the CIA Dems - especially Jeff Beals - who downplay their security connections. Those 100 candidates speak to the massive resources available for fake Dems, and to the level of obfuscation.
While what you say is probably true: she was coopted the minute she won; who is to say that there was not a parallel effort to the barely sheep-dipped CIA Dems. That effort would create a "legend" of an earnest, hard working leftie with impeccable IP connections.
I recognize how parAnoid that sounds. It's just that, with the immense financial, media, and intraparty resource imbalance, there is plenty of money for stealth candidates.
Bottom line: I still don't buy her "street cred". Worked for Teddy, but she winds up bartending. Sounds like a movie script. And she is definitely on board w zRussiagate, and a big defender of Obama. All not good things.
cum grano salis
One grano salis, coming right up!
Or holding them, but playing funny little games as to just who would be permitted to attend.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Pages