Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Democrats are reportedly desperate to rein in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s wild attacks on the Democrat establishment, such as her fury at being denied her new green deal, but at the same time they are terrified of upsetting her.
Exasperated Democrats try to rein in Ocasio-Cortez
The effort is part carrot, part stick. But it’s far from clear the anti-establishment political novice can be made to play ball.
By RACHAEL BADE and HEATHER CAYGLE 01/11/2019 05:03 AM EST
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already making enemies in the House Democratic Caucus — and some of its members are mounting an operation to bring the anti-establishment, democratic socialist with 2.2 million Twitter followers into the fold.
…
Incumbent Democrats are most annoyed by Ocasio-Cortez’s threat to back primary opponents against members of their ranks she deems too moderate. But their frustration goes beyond that: Democratic leaders are upset that she railed against their new set of House rules on Twitter the first week of the new Congress. Rank and file are peeved that there’s a grassroots movement to try to win her a top committee post they feel she doesn’t deserve.
…
It’s an open question whether Ocasio-Cortez can be checked. She’s barely been in Congress a week and is better known than almost any other House member other than Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis. A media throng follows her every move, and she can command a national audience practically at will.
…
Still, fellow Democrats are giving it their best, or planning to in the near future.
So far, most of them have kept their criticism of Ocasio-Cortez private, fearful she’ll sic her massive following on them by firing off a tweet. But a few are engaging with her in the hopes she’ll opt for a different M.O., especially when it comes to trying to take out Democrats in primaries.
…
Ocasio-Cortez is an enigma to most House Democrats. She’s very friendly in person, chatting up fellow lawmakers and security workers in the Capitol as she’s tailed by admirers and reporters.
Then they see the Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter, where she frequently snaps at critics and occasionally at fellow Democrats. When House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters that a new climate committee that Ocasio-Cortez championed would not have subpoena power, she retweeted the news and chastised Democratic leadership.
“Our goal is to treat Climate Change like the serious, existential threat it is by drafting an ambitious solution on the scale necessary — aka a Green New Deal — to get it done,” she said. “A weak committee misses the point & endangers people.”
…
Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrats-establisment-1093728
My prediction – Democrats who hoped to ride her popularity to victory will fail to control Ocasio-Cortez.
The 2020 Democrat Presidential challenger will be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because in the harsh glare of Ocasio-Cortez’s green left extremism, Democrat moderates will look like sellouts, and will fail to inspire their base.
Correction (EW): Thanks Scott and everyone else for pointing out I forgot the 35 year minimum constitutional age limit on being President. I guess those founding fathers knew what they were doing. Fixed a typo (h/t Marcus).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
America needs a cull:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” – Jefferson
Tyrants being the main cull target. He also saw that extreme patriots become tyrants.
Without fake news she would have no attention at all. So now are the democrats hostage to this socialist radical or do they agree in private.
See: the Khmer Rouge, and every other far-left movement.
Its never enough to be only slightly radical.
First, you kill the class enemies.
THEN you kill the only slightly radical.
THEN you kill those who helped you kill THEM.
THEN your children kill you.
Ok, the USA isn’t Cambodia after Kissinger, but still…
Actually, twitter is the great equalizer…..for stupidity in both Parties.
She’s definitely got ‘crazy eyes.’
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crazy%20eyes
The beauty of this situation is a popular, maverick Democrat is possibly about to thrust deluded green policies down too many throats not keen to swallow. And this across party lines too.
Let the sanctimonious winds reach hurricane levels so even the apathetic awake to the insanity and hubris of the ‘climate movement’.
This woman is a blessing in every way! We should only promote her work more.
Yes, but it’s hard to play along with young delusions with no basis in fact. The game loses its fun more quickly with the informed and turns to sadness and frustration. Better education for others is never fast enough in those times.
John Endicott January 14, 2019 at 12:43 pm
Hi again, John.
Goodness, where to begin.
“Mike, as we are talking about the powers of government (IE drafting people to fight for the government)”
Yes and no. Joel set the time frame from 195 years before 1971. That is 1776 when our means of government was still the Continental Congress.
And yes, John, the power and authority to declare independence, raise armies, assign ambassadors, secure treaties and trade, do in fact, demonstrate a nation. Never before has any group of people set off to create a nation based on the premise that the people themselves were masters of the government and could change it or modify it to suit their needs. Or if they chose to, this day, dispense with it.
The United States has had three different governments. All had to examine the moral justifications and obligations in drafting its citizens. Individual states during the revolution in some cases set the age as low as 14. Citizens would belong to the local Militias and the states would call for members to be deployed.
John, we are not defined by the government we use, but by who we are as a nation, people, and civilization. Our government is defined by who we are. (No need to change) Oh and I am agreeing with you and Joel.
michael
And yes, John, the power and authority to declare independence, raise armies, assign ambassadors, secure treaties and trade, do in fact, demonstrate a nation.
Not in the sense you mean. We had 13 “nations” capable of doing all the above. The colonies were already in existence (their own distinct borders demarcating one from the others) and had their own governments, governments that could raise armies (and did, to fight the British during the war), and do all those other things should they choose. They need not have formed a “greater nation” state after departing from British rule.
John, we are not defined by the government we use, but by who we are as a nation
And our nation is defined, in part, by the existence of it’s government (you don’t have a nation if that nation doesn’t have a government). If one or two of the colonies chose not to join the government formed by the Constitution (by not ratifying it, for whatever reasons) the nation would have been different than the one that was formed by all 13 colonies coming together.
Oh and I am agreeing with you and Joel.
I know, we’re just picking nits here.
Forget the carrot, beat her with the huge Stupid Stick she carries around with her.
How long before she’s referred to as OCD instead of AOC? I’m guessing many Dem’s are already using the term in private . . .