Democrats Just Blocked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Push For A Green New Deal Committee

[Odoreida]

Democrats Just Blocked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Push For A Green New Deal Committee
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kathy-castor-climate_us_5c1c0843e4b08aaf7a869cfd

Democratic leaders on Thursday tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to head a revived U.S. House panel on climate change, all but ending a dramatic monthlong effort to establish a select committee on a Green New Deal.

Castor’s appointment came as a surprise to proponents of a Green New Deal. The move also kicked off a controversy as the six-term congresswoman dismissed calls to bar members who accept money from fossil fuel companies from serving on the committee, arguing it would violate free speech rights.

Despite weeks of protests demanding House Democrats focus efforts next year on drafting a Green New Deal, the sort of sweeping economic policy that scientists say matches the scale of the climate crisis, Castor told E&E News the plan was “not going to be our sole focus.”

...

I don't quite know what to make of it, but here it is.

[WeekiWater]

1. Really a bad piece that highlights how Cortez is being used.

It is nothing but a positive that this(house panel on climate change) has been revived. Know those trying to make it a negative by name. They are not our friends of friends in the fight against human impacted climate change.

[DonViejo]

2. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has just been told, "you don't run the House of Representatives." eom

[MadDAsHell]

31. And "sit down, woman." Insulting. nt

[DonViejo]

34. They just elected a woman to chair the committee so, I highly doubt that was the message...

they were attempting to send.

[TeamPooka]

44. It was a 6 term congressperson appointed to head the committee. I think the message is "put in your

time, and work your way up"
seniority matters.

[DonViejo]

45. I don't disagree with you. eom

[TeamPooka]

46. just elaborating on your point for the poster. Happy Holidays!

[DonViejo]

48. What!?!? No "Merry Christmas"? ;-) I hope you and yours have some great holidays too! eom

[pnwmom]

171. No. She's not the only woman involved. Her fans just think she is.

[LBM20]

190. This card can not be played every time. A woman was appointed to head the committee. So, no.

[George II]

184. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

186. She could... and, no doubt, soon will once she gets the requisite experience.

[brooklynite]

3. No problem for me...

Perhaps Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters should establish their legislative bona-fides before demanding policy changes.

[Andy823]

6. Good point

nt

[quickesst]

7. Good advice

[JCanete]

17. yeah, that's what's at issue here. Its just a fight of egos...lets not look at the underlying issues

[ismnotwasm]

24. Whose ego, do you think?

[JCanete]

27. somebody else is making it about egos. I'm saying that's bs to focus on this article as

putting somebody in their place...nanna, nanna, go sit down and learn something...rather than on whether or not the policy choices were good for the nation.


Apparently the article itself is trying really hard to start shit and this committee was already mentioned by Pelosi as a result of the sit-in protest that AOC joined.

[ismnotwasm]

39. Agree

The title is misleading. I am across the country from AOC, so she won’t affect me much. To me, she is one of those very energetic types that occasionally gets ahead of herself. She’s already shown some political acumen and a desire to get things done.

[George II]

178. Pelosi was already planning this committee a week or so before the sit-in that Cortez organized.

[R B Garr]

19. Exactly, and it looked like the main goal was yet some more grandstanding

and finger-pointing about fossil fuels contributions, as if we haven't had enough of that unproductive posturing already. Committees should be about results, not posturing to mirror one person's accusations.

[happy feet]

41. This!

I'm a bit tired of hearing of someone who hasn't even had her first day of work yet. Jeez! Really|-8

[George II]

151. "The dickens you say!" Thanks sir.

[WeekiWater]

4. From early November

House Dems plan to bring back committee on climate change

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/415723-house-dems-plan-to-bring-back-committee-on-climate-change

This article is horribly written for a number of reasons. Extremely deceptive and clearly designed to cause division among Democrats at a time we are kicking ass.

[R B Garr]

14. Yes! Thank you,, this is what I remember about it. They just restablished a

previous committee.

[WeekiWater]

15. It's something that should be very positive and popular among progressives. NT

[R B Garr]

16. Yes, and the article states that Pelosi started it in 2011, so that's a huge

indication that Al Gore's climate change dictums from decades ago are here to stay no matter how much the GOP tried to shut it down.

[George II]

109. Yes, Pelosi plans to bring back the committee SHE created in 2007 that was disbanded by republicans.

And someone here called her an "environmental sellout"?

[WeekiWater]

140. Take a look at at least the first link I posted in this op.

What a difference a month and a shady opinion piece makes.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211576316

[stonecutter357]

5. comeupance !

[Autumn]

10. Comeuppance? A punishment or fate that someone deserves. What has she done that so bad?

Did she get a little too uppity?

[George II]

111. It's not that she did anything bad, it's that she hasn't done a thing yet - she's a freshman...

...who hasn't even spent one day in office.

Plus, I wish people here would read the entire article and see that the headline is essentially false.

[Autumn]

117. Yeah, so she should shut up, sit down and deserves punishment is what I'm seeing. nt

[George II]

118. Nobody said anything like that at all, I don't know where you got that...

...but these claims that "HER" committee is being blocked by Democrats is ludicrous. It's not her committee, it's not even her idea (see my post at the bottom about the "Green New Deal" ), and it is NOT being "blocked".

The committee that Pelosi created back in 2007 (and republicans disbanded when they took over) is going to be resurrected by Pelosi. Everyone knows that Pelosi decided this long before people started clamoring for it.

[Autumn]

121. Skipped that post did you?

Bye Bye for now George.

[George II]

122. Tata!

[sheshe2]

131. Woah.

Some one said she deserves punishment? Punishment? I think you need to walk this back a bit. You are OTT here.

[Mariana]

188. That is the definition of the word "comeuppance".

comeuppance (n) : a punishment or fate that someone deserves.

So yes, someone did say that.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211575709#post5

It is possible stonecutter357 does not understand what the word means.

[bigtree]

35. damn the environment

...AOC must get her 'comeupance!!'

Ugly.

[Autumn]

58. Did you see the explanation that young people want cookies?

Fucking cookies.

[bigtree]

74. it all confirms the tyranny of entrenched, corporate-sponsored legislators

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2018, 10:28 PM - Edit history (2)

...and the response here is that AOC needs to learn to work with these environmental sell-outs.

It's the young who will be dealing with the catastrophic effects of this political compromising on climate change issues.


I'm gonna leave these here:

How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington’s Wheels
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html

What does $80 million buy oil and gas interests? Voter profiles, door knocking and influence at local and statewide levels
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/16/oil-gas-industry-public-influence-campaigns/

Big Oil's Influence in Washington . NOW | PBS
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

Oil Industry Spends Millions to Boost California Democrats
https://www.kqed.org/news/11703797/oil-industry-spends-millions-to-boost-california-democrats

[George II]

123. "Corporate-sponsored legislators" and "environmental sell-outs"?

You didn't read the entire article, did you?

[bigtree]

141. I don't need an article to figure that out.

...on cue.

[George II]

149. But what you said is simply not true.

[bigtree]

154. you deal with the fact that I believe it it is

...

[George II]

155. Okay, fine....that proves the George Costanza corollary.

[bigtree]

159. cute

...they let the foxes in the henhouse.

Folks you're defending by picking at posters here.

Inspiring stuff.

Make another clever quip.

[wasupaloopa]

8. AOC needs to take her seat next month, learn what

it is like to be a Representative and speak up for what she believes in. She is one of hundreds.

[Ferrets are Cool]

65. So? Sit down and shut up?

Really? And if that isn't what you meant, please DO explain.

[wasupaloopa]

104. You know as well as I do that I did not say that.

You should apologize to me.

Representatives have a SEAT. We won 40 SEATS.

Get it?

[Ferrets are Cool]

125. For asking you a question?

Good luck with that.

[wasupaloopa]

127. Yes

Very childish maybe you can take lessons from trump

[yardwork]

187. Your posts in this thread are rude and disruptive.

The poster to whom you're replying responded with a reasonable observation. You made it personal.

[LBM20]

191. No, sit down and LEARN. And she needs to focus on HER district.

[Autumn]

192. A lot of Dem congress people represent me, and I'm not in their districts.

AOC, Barbra Lee, Nancy, Schiff a lot of others. I'm glad none of them only focus on their district.

[cvoogt]

9. I'm not ok with those who take money from fossil fuel companies

having any voice on a climate change oriented committe.

[melman]

23. +1

[pnwmom]

55. All corporations are prohibited from donating by law. So this is a straw man. n/t

[cvoogt]

60. PACs, individual executives and front groups abound, though.

So I don't think it's really a straw man. Fossil fuel companies still find ways of donating to individual representatives, if not directly.

[pnwmom]

66. By law, candidates can't control outside PAC donations, one way or another.

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2018, 12:43 AM - Edit history (2)

And individual executives are held to the same election limits that we are: $2500 per candidate. (UPDATE: the correct figure is now $2700.)

People don't understand when they hear that $100 K came from the aerospace industry, or whatever, that that amount came from ADDING TOGETHER all the individual donators in those companies. So it would include all the union workers at Boeing, all the office assistants at Lockheed, etc. in addition to engineers and management. And the vast majority of the donations would have been small donations. And they are ALL held to the same legal limit of $2700.

[cvoogt]

103. I'd love to understand some stats

I found this at Open Secrets but would love to see other stats, especially with some kind of breakdown. If those numbers are true, it appears Beto got close to the equivalent of 200 individual $2500 donations ($498k) from oil/gas companies. I seriously don't know how accurate those numbers are or how much I can trust the data at Open Secrets and I'd love to see other stats if someone has 'em.

[pnwmom]

106. I don't understand why you're using that "equivalent" --

200 individual donations at $2500 each from oil and gas companies. Since hundreds of thousands of people in Texas work for fossil fuel companies, it's extremely unlikely that only 200 of them gave to Beto.

According to that page, they're including all donations of $200 and up.

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.

As of 2014, there were between 300,000 and 400,000 employees of oil and gas companies in Texas. So an "equivalent" as valid as yours would be to say that the "average" oil company employee gave less than $1.50 to Beto.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/In-Texas-Oil-Boom-Job-Abound-Give-or-Take-5772992.php

[cvoogt]

107. Thx

That's a lot of Texans working in oil and gas, for sure. It's not surprising Beto's getting more oil/gas-related donations than other Dems. I really like Beto by the way .. I don't want this getting misconstrued as me picking on him. He just happened to be an easy example.

The link I cited includes donations from both PACs and individuals. What I can't tell is whether an individual's donation would be counted as "oil & gas money" just because that person works in that industry; it may also not be known who the donor works for but I think it is generally pretty easy to figure out if a given PAC is for/against fossil fuels.

[pnwmom]

112. Yes, an individual's donation gets included in the total.

When you give at least $200, you have to report your name, address, etc. -- AND your employer.

So every time my husband and I donate that amount or more, our donations get lumped in with the rest from the aerospace industry, because my husband's employer is Boeing. And all those individual donations get reported in the lump sum designated as from the "aerospace industry."

Something else people might not realize: there are many union workers in the oil and gas industries (just like in aerospace). Plenty of them have always voted for Democrats.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-refineries-labor-contract/u-s-union-seeks-raises-three-year-contract-for-refinery-workers-idUSKCN1M705T

[betsuni]

115. Thank you, pnwmom, for correcting the misinformation.

[cvoogt]

126. Thank you!

This is good info.

[George II]

145. I'm glad you gave that explanation. I've done it so many times it's getting boring....

....I too worked in the "aerospace industry", for a company who sold repair parts to the airlines.

Years ago I worked for the Bank of New York in their data center, so I was castigated here (really!) as a "bankster"!

I really wish people would try to understand the FEC reporting before they throw out all their invective.

[George II]

142. Okay, which members of the House or Senate "take money from fossil fuel companies"? Any?

Probably (no, definitely) none.

[Glamrock]

148. From open secrets. Org

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?cycle=2016&txt=E

[George II]

175. Well, then you must be ok with all the Democrats in the House and Senate since....

….it's illegal for ANY of our members of Congress to "take money from fossil fuel companies".

[cvoogt]

182. direct contributions, no

.. indirect via PACs and individuals, yes.

I also find it interesting that Castor was paraphrased/quoted with:

'She then suggested that barring members who have accepted donations from the oil, gas and coal industries from serving on the committee could be unconstitutional.

“I don’t think you can do that under the First Amendment, really,” she said.'

She could've just said it's illegal .. but that isn't what she said. HuffPo does not provide her full quote though, so it's unfair to really draw any conclusions from this paraphrasing.

[George II]

183. How about politicians who accept money (directly) from out of state or out of district donors?

Any problems with that? Isn't that "buying influence"?

[cvoogt]

195. I would think so

[George II]

196. Good, thanks, I appreciate the candor. I wish everyone who complained about some (not all)...

...politicians who get money from various sources not within his/her district or from PACs of any kind would be more even handed and condemn ALL who do that.

Unfortunately that's not the case.

[Hortensis]

185. Why? It's what they get in return that matters.

The vast majority of right-wing corporate contributions to Democrats are made to keep the doors open. Right or wrong (I want giving even a cup of coffee or a plastic pen to be illegal!), courtesy donations to the "other party" are so ubiquitous that no donation at all is a hostile signal.

When I hear groups call for ejecting all Democrats who accept energy (or other) industry money, I immediately distrust their motives. It's possible they're incredibly stupid and ignorant, but far more commonly they're hostiles trying to fool people into giving them power they can't earn honestly.

Because those who want to battle corruption of course focus on what the Republicans are doing to institutionalize corruption, and they of course do it by joining with the good people in and strengthening the immense power for change of the Democratic Party. Because that's the only way it can happen.

Vox: House Democrats’ big democracy reform package is good policy, and smart politics: Rarely does political reform get this kind of top billing.

House Democrats have decided on their priority legislation for the next Congress, and it’s all about improving the quality of American democracy. HR 1, the bill number typically reserved for the House majority party’s most important policy, marks the first time that political reform has been given this kind of top billing.

There’s a lot in the bill, including a number of ethics and disclosure and election security proposals that should be commonsense. But at heart, there are four big-ticket items that would be standalone news on their own: a small-donor matching system for campaign finance, mandatory independent redistricting commissions, automatic voter registration, and felon reenfranchisement. Collectively, this is the most transformative pro-democracy package in decades.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/12/10/18134994/house-democrats-democracy-reform-package

How could anyone sincere about reform not be talking about and urging support for this? Small-donor matching! Until we can get Citizens reversed. In 2016 only 4 members of the Democratic Progressive Caucus's 88 members were able to refuse big-donor donations because their districts were too poor to donate what was needed to get elected.

Btw, NEW representatives have not yet demonstrated that they will remain uncorrupted in an environment famous for tempting offers of advancement and fortune. For that, we need records of time in congress. Once in office, there are many who will be happy to help them remain (the usual pro in quid pro quo), while it usually takes at very least several years to identify and get mistakes out. Sometimes decades. And people like these elite positions in DC waayy too much.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Castor sounds weak on Climate Change.

[Autumn]

21. I haven't checked because I trust Nancy, but if she isn't that will be a problem.

There can be no business as usual with climate change.

[pnwmom]

56. No, she's just smart enough to know that corporate donations from any industry are illegal. n/t

[George II]

172. Really? Someone put this list together a day or two ago:

Voted NO on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030. (Mar 2016)

[revmclaren]

180. ...

Only! 2019 and beyond.

[Renew Deal]

12. I'm not convinced this is a big deal

Is AOC on this committee? That's really the point.

[R B Garr]

13. I thought this was about just continuing with the existing committee.

There was already some committee that had languished or something like that and they just reestablished it. That's what I recall, anyway, maybe this is overblown.

[Mariana]

197. That is exactly what it is about.

Seems like some people here don't read English too good.

[matt819]

18. All in good time.

She put down her markers. Everyone knows who she is and what she stands for. I hope I’m still alive when she runs for president.

[elocs]

20. We all have 2 ears and 1 tongue and should learn to use them proportionally.

AOC should learn to listen and learn, be assertive but show respect for experience, and in doing this she will grow wise and accomplish more of her goals which ultimately is the point.

[Vinca]

22. This should have been a peace offering to the younger generation.

I don't see why they blocked it. Short sighted.

[EffieBlack]

25. Why does the younger generation need or feel entitled to a "peace offering?"

[hatrack]

33. They're going to be experiencing climate breakdown longer than their parents . . .

And will deal with substantially greater physical and economic impacts.

[EffieBlack]

37. That may be true.

But why do the new Members of Congress need or feel entitled to a "peace offering" from the more senior Members?

[hatrack]

47. Because the generational shift is here, and it needs to be acknowledged in some way

Not that AOC (or any other 1st-term Members) should be elevated to chair Ways & Means, Budget or Judiciary.

Nor is there even a remote chance that they will be. But the changing of the guard is coming, if not this election cycle, then in 2020 and 2022.

Pelosi and Hoyer are not stupid, and House leadership is likely already planning for the inevitable. They just need to see how the incoming class shakes out in the next two years.

This could have been an effective nod in that direction, since whatever policy on climate and energy takes shape will be largely symbolic for at least two years anyway.

[EffieBlack]

49. That still doesn't answer my question

Never mind ...

[Autumn]

57. Wow. A generation burdened with debt, none of the prospects their parents had, they need two jobs

to keep a roof over their heads, low wages. And you fucking think they want cookies??

[EllieBC]

68. I had debt as well. Still do.

Yet I also understood that I wasn’t going to get my way instantly. I learned quickly how things actually work. You don’t need a bone thrown to you to do the right thing.

[Autumn]

69. Why should young people be loyal to a party and people who demean them?

Since you have college debt everyone should? Sounds familiar. Those young people? You and the Dem party will need them more than they will ever need you.

[Mosby]

84. you might have a point if young people voted.

If the estimated 24 million people under 30 who voted in the 2016 presidential election, a large majority supported Hillary Clinton. But Clinton received notably less support from young voters (18-29) than Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012, particularly in the crucial battleground states she lost to Donald Trump.

https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/24448/how-millennials-voted-in-the-2016-presidential-election

[Autumn]

158. Young-adult turnout surged by 188 percent in early voting in 2018 compared with 2014.

So it looks like they came out to vote for someone.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/youth-turnout-midterm-2018/575092/

In the lead-up to the midterms, there has been a swell of appeals to the country’s youngest voters. Survivors of the Parkland, Florida, shooting launched a nationwide voter-registration drive. Dozens of celebrities organized a live-streamed telethon aimed at directing young voters to the polls. In a rare political message, Taylor Swift, notably silent throughout the 2016 election, urged her 112 million Instagram followers to research their candidates and cast their vote.

It seems to be working.

Preliminary results from ABC exit polls suggest that voters ages 18 to 29 will make up 13 percent of the overall electorate in this year’s midterms, up from 11 percent in 2014. While early voting across every age group increased compared with the 2014 midterms, the surge is most pronounced among voters ages 18 to 29. More than 3.3 million voters from that group cast their votes early. That’s a 188 percent increase from 2014, according to data from TargetSmart, a political-data-analysis firm.

Read: Young people might actually turn out for the midterms

The spike in youth turnout in several key battleground states is particularly striking. In Texas, where young voters have rallied behind the Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke, early voting increased fivefold for voters ages 18 to 29, according to The Hill. It’s the same story in Nevada, where there’s another hotly contested Senate race: Five times as many young voters turned out early in 2018 as they did in 2014.

[hatrack]

70. Wow, have you considered a job doing outreach to younger voters?

I think the DNC may have just the place for you!!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

63. That's just such bullshit. I've been teaching high school for 20 years

and these kids are amazing and wonderful and I wish my generation (X) was a accepting and caring as the kids I see in front of me.

But, yeah, they need cookies. Fuck.

[Autumn]

53. Do you think the younger generation owes loyalty to Democrats?

Maybe the Dems should try to keep them engaged.

[EffieBlack]

88. How would you get that from my question!

There's a world of difference between keeping young people engaged and giving them a "peace offering."

[Autumn]

89. Those young people made a difference. Nancy should have given them something.

She knew how important that is to them.

[EffieBlack]

90. So, you think they're owed something before they even get sworn in? Ok

But even setting aside the fact that that goes both ways and they also owe a lot to Nancy Pelosi who made their victories possible (and who would have certainly been blamed if they'd lost), that's still not a "peace offering."

[Autumn]

91. Yeah I do. What does AOC and her supporters owe to Nancy? What did she do for AOC

and the young people?

[EffieBlack]

101. Seriously?

[Autumn]

105. Yes serious. How did she get AOC elected? What did she do for the

young people that AOC told them they needed to let Nancy know they had her back? I may have missed something. Did she campaign for AOC? You seem to be saying Nancy won her election for her.

Star Member EffieBlack (11,486 posts)

90. So, you think they're owed something before they even get sworn in? Ok
But even setting aside the fact that that goes both ways and they also owe a lot to Nancy Pelosi who made their victories possible (and who would have certainly been blamed if they'd lost), that's still not a "peace offering."

[sheshe2]

120. Well

Impressive, but Ms. Ocasio-Cortez Got Very Few Votes

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won in Congressional District 14 of New York with only about 16,000 votes.

Roger Kelly’s July 21 letter responding to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s July 18 op-ed (“Vote Joe Crowley, for Working Families”) about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is misguided. She won in Congressional District 14 of New York with only about 16,000 votes. The total population of District 14 is just under 700,000, which means that only a bit more than 2% of the district’s population voted for her.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/impressive-but-ms-ocasio-cortez-got-very-few-votes-1532444133

You ask here how she won. It was with 2% out of 700K/ That does not a mandate make.

Autumn

105. Yes serious. How did she get AOC elected? What did she do for the

young people that AOC told them they needed to let Nancy know they had her back? I may have missed something. Did she campaign for AOC?

BTW all most half the population in the district is Hispanic. Yet she only won by 2%

[George II]

193. About 75% of the district is in Queens, only 25% is in the Bronx.

That seems to get forgotten, and the people of Queens aren't happy about it. For the record, voter turnout in 2018 was about 2/3 the turnout in the previous election. In fact, when Joseph Crowley was last elected he got more votes by himself than the entire turnout this year (147,587 vs. 128,339, 15% more) Clearly people in the District are not happy.

[Autumn]

173. I'm still curious how Nancy made AOC's victory possible. Did she campaign for her?

Did she endorse her? What does she owe Nancy? I also don't see how it would have been Nancy's fault had anyone lost their race.

I have had some heath issues so I may have missed something.

[EffieBlack]

176. That's such a ridiculous question, it's not even worth wasting my time to answer it

For her sake, I hope AOC has a better grasp on how politics - including fundraising, national, state, and local infrastructure and
party apparati, and GOTV - work and the role that national party leadership and her soon-to-be fellow Members play in Congressional races than some of her fans seem to have.

I'm pretty sure she does and understands she didn't get where she is all by her awesome magical unicorn self (with the help of an intrepid band of equally awesome, visionary, and uncorrupted supporters), but if not, she's got some interesting lessons coming her way.

[Autumn]

179. Excuse me? Silly question? You made the statement that Nancy made their victories possible,

and she would be blamed if they had lost. I think it's a logical question since you made that claim.

So what did Nancy do to help AOC win her congressional race? What does AOC owe Nancy?

EffieBlack (11,487 posts)

90. So, you think they're owed something before they even get sworn in? Ok

But even setting aside the fact that that goes both ways and they also owe a lot to Nancy Pelosi who made their victories possible (and who would have certainly been blamed if they'd lost), that's still not a "peace offering."

[Vinca]

93. I think it would be a gesture of good will. We need to bridge the generational gap because

none of us ages backwards. The group of people least likely to vote is younger people. If we engage them in the issues they are particularly interested in they might become more involved. Republicans sure as hell won't involve themselves in green issues so rather than have younger people gravitate to a third party, why not offer them a reason to be Democrats?

[EffieBlack]

102. That's a one-way street?

[Vinca]

108. No. I don't know why you would think that. Green is good for everyone.

[calimary]

181. Didn't she already get a really nice perk?

A VERY strategically smart and prominent office location, for example. I read something about two doors down from the Speaker’s office, I think it was. Pretty heavyweight placement, seems to me. Because of the positioning and the access. A “seat assignment” like that is EXTREMELY prestigious. Especially for a freshman Congressmember. These things are all calculated.

I remember this junket the media company I worked for sent all us news and public affairs people and general managers, too, to Washington DC. We had a week of meetings with our Congresscritter and at least one Senator.

Back then there were rules called “ascertainment.” It was a technique for determining how to craft programming to address the needs of the community that station served. An obligation to be met for the privilege of holding a license to broadcast. Specifically to broadcast in the public interest. That was the mandate for FCC approval of a license to broadcast in the first place. So you’d meet with and maybe interview local officials, community leaders, and other distinguished types and seek their views. We had forms to fill out from these encounters, listing what these folks saw as the local issues, problems, and priorities. Then we’d file those completed forms in big binders to be kept for public inspection. Every few years, when our station was up for license renewal, all this data was evidence that we were making a serious effort to ascertain, recognize, and address the interests and needs of the community. Those efforts manifested in active news departments and public affairs programming and philanthropic event sponsorships like blood drives and Christmas toy drives, and other station activities in the community. Make the whole operation looked good.

This Washington junket was that same ascertainment interview routine, just transplanted directly to those reps’ offices in DC. I remember walking around the Capitol building and the House and Senate Office Buildings to meet with our California reps and noticing the office placement. Some Congressmembers had offices way down in the basement. Smaller, older, and cramped. Others were up on the main floor and larger, roomier, and newer, or recently updated. It really made an impression. You’d go in and glance around and automatically think - “wow, nice office!”

It’s kinda “geographic strategery”. A pecking order thing. Closer to leadership? Closer to power. More prominent location? Wow, he/she must be important... That kind of thing. It says things about the officeholder - not only to his/her constituents but to his/her peers. And staffers. Perks, real AND perceived.

What’s that old real estate cliche? “Location, Location, location.”

And what’s that old Rolling Stones lyric? “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find - you get what you need.”

[EffieBlack]

189. That's not really a "perk"

Offices are chosen in a lottery. The incoming freshman draw numbers alphabetically and then pick their offices according to their number with the lowest going first.

AOC got a fairly low number and was able to grab Barbara Comstock's old space, which was available since she was booted out of office.

The lottery is a fun, kind of silly event, with Members doing all kinds of things to bring good luck.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

32. I thought Kathy Castor looks pretty young. n

[Squinch]

79. Whaaa? A peace offering? Did I miss a war?

[pecosbob]

26. AOC rattles some people's cages

so she gets a lot of static here. The media does it's best to make appear as a bomb thrower instead of reformer, particularly The Hill and the NYT. If you want to change things you have to make noise. Those kids from Parkland are making noise. Congress is a giant tar pit that absorbs everything but the most outspoken and agile. If you like the status quo, then you put up roadblocks...it's that simple. She's not an independent; she's a Democratic member of Congress.

[Power 2 the People]

43. Beautifully said, Pecosbob

[Ciaphas Cain]

128. Thanks

Thanks from me as well

[oberliner]

28. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Committee Is Winning Even In Defeat

Democratic leaders all but killed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s push for a select committee on a Green New Deal on Thursday, essentially returning to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s original plan to appoint a party stalwart to chair a revived global warming panel.

Activists said Thursday they’d continue the fight. But the announcement seemed to signal an end to weeks of protests and political bird-dogging by activists who had quickly garnered support for a resolution establishing a Green New Deal select committee from more than 40 incoming or sitting House Democrats and nearly a half-dozen senators, including three likely presidential contenders.

In that, the congresswoman-elect from New York can claim victory.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal_us_5c1c40c0e4b0407e9078ed20

[RandySF]

29. The article jumps to conclusions before We even take the House

And it feeds into a far-left narrative that there’s only one solution to every issue at a time we will see dozens over the next two years.

[Gothmog]

30. Rep. Kathy Castor is a great choice for this committee

[dlk]

36. Perhaps AOC & Her Pals Should at Least Get Sworn In First

[Joe941]

38. This was very disrespectful to her. I'm disappointed.

[Cha]

129. RESPECT is a Two Way Street.

[Hekate]

40. Oh, you mean the freshman congresscritter who's been getting in everyone's face before even...

...finding out where the lunchroom is? The one who's so sure she knows how everything should be run that she has not bothered to find out why it is actually run the way it is? Or bothered to befriend any of the power-players who might help her achieve her lofty goals, given time?

I have refrained from criticizing her, since she is not my representative and she is new, but my silent-until-now observation has been that AOC is coming in for a tremendously steep learning curve.

[happy feet]

42. [phone]

[bigtree]

50. the 'steep learning curve' isn't as steep as you represent

...she's been saying all along that the fossil fuel industry controls legislators' votes on the environment.

This move just confirms her admonitions.

Folks making this into some rebuke of AOC only confirm for me that there is an entrenched corporatocracy in Congress, in our own party, which is determined to shape our environmental policies. How's that been working for us so far?

The answer isn't capitulation to those moneyed interests.

[Cha]

133. NRDC: Rep. Castor an Outstanding Leader for New House Climate Panel

WASHINGTON (Dec.20, 2018) – According to news reports today, the House Democratic leadership has asked longtime environmental leader Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to chair a new select committee on climate change in the next Congress.

John Bowman, Senior Director for Federal Affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, made this comment:

"Rep. Kathy Castor is an outstanding choice to help lead the House’s renewed focus on climate change. As a longtime environmental champion, few are better suited to help shine a bright light on the threats Americans face from the climate crisis and advance the solutions we urgently need.

“We look forward to working with her, and other congressional leaders, on measures that slow, stop and reverse dangerous climate change, and create economic prosperity for our future.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211575036

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

139. Democrats are not "weak on climate change;" they have however been in the minority. Now...

...we have a better chance.

Maybe someone should remind the incoming hotshot Congresscritters of that, and that that nearly 20 years ago we had another overthrown election -- of Al Gore, who has devoted his life to combatting global warming. And before that -- Jimmy Carter tried to save the environment. Democrats all, fighting the GOP. And their thanks has been to be smeared as "corporatists" by the leftwing of their own party.

And people wonder at my sometimes-jaundiced attitude.

[jberryhill]

51. Legislating is a group effort

[pnwmom]

54. What does it mean to "bar members who accept money from fossil fuel companies"?

Corporate donations to candidates are prohibited by law. '

And candidates can't control dark PACS.

[KPN]

59. So now we have Democrats making the argument

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2018, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

that money equals speech? Are you kidding me? Democrats? A committee chair no less.

Two, our Climate Change Committee hasmembers who accept donations from the oil industry? Somebody please tell me i’m not hearing this right.

This is the Democratic Party?

Have we no principles?

[Autumn]

61. Now now, you know all those donations come from the little people who work for those

giant oil companies. So do you think a politician will vote to curtail oil production and lose those little people donations?

[pnwmom]

72. The maximum anyone can give is $2500 and the vast number of donations

are much smaller than that.

And employees in the oil industry don't vote as a block any more than people in any other industry.

[Autumn]

75. DId I mention voting? Difference between donating and voting. Those little people can always

find another politician to donate to. Maybe a Republican who happens to be a little more oil friendly. Do you think politicians like to lose campaign donations?

[pnwmom]

77. Politicians represent all people in their state or districts. They can't bar

individual donations from people who are employees of particular industries.

And it's silly to act as if every person at Boeing, for example, has the same opinions on every issue. The person working on the line doesn't have the same views as the office assistant or the engineer. They're all individual people.

[Autumn]

80. Yeah preach it.

Never mind, that don't hold water no more. Politicians will toe the line on what will give them money for their campaign. What the young people are facing with climate change is not something that can be business as usual.

[pnwmom]

81. Misrepresenting the facts about donations is wrong, no matter who does it or why. n/t

[Autumn]

83. Nobody is misrepresenting the facts about donations. We all fucking know how those

donations work. And you can deflect it all you want. Nancy made a mistake here and it may piss off a lot of young people.

[pnwmom]

86. I've seen many people misrepresent the facts about donations.

They criticized Hillary for accepting donations from the banking industry. She didn't.

They criticized Beto for accepting donations from the oil industry. He didn't.

Both of them accepted individual donations from people who work at all different sorts of companies, including large corporations. All members of Congress do, and are bound by the same laws.

[George II]

152. A mechanic at a Shell service station is categorized as the "oil industry" or "fossil fuel industry"

[cvoogt]

62. That's what I'm thinking.

I don't like the wishy-washiness I've been hearing. Donations from oil/gas industry, whether directly from companies or through PACs / other means is not OK.

[pnwmom]

73. Candidates can't accept donations from corporations, period.

And, by the Citizens v. United decision, they can't control money that is spent by outside super pacs.

[pnwmom]

71. No, we have some ignorant people. No one in Congress accepts donations from the oil industry,

the banking industry, or any other industry.

Accepting any corporate donations is prohibited by law. PACS outside of the candidate's control -- so-called dark money -- CAN accept those donations, thanks to the SCOTUS decision of Citizens v. United.

But, again, candidates don't control that money. And acting in coordination with those PACS (as we believe the NRA did with the R's) is against the law.

What Congress members CAN accept are individual donations, up to $2500, from people who work at corporations, like my husband. His individual donation gets lumped in with everyone else's and then is reported as coming from the aerospace industry. But the industry didn't tell my husband who to vote for, so people get the wrong impression when they hear that the "industry" or his "corporation" gave money to such and such a candidate. The industry didn't. Its employees, with all their different opinions, did.

[Autumn]

76. Do you think people who work at oil companies will donate to a politicians campaign when

the politician might put them out of a job?

[pnwmom]

82. It depends on the person and their job. Many people at these companies

have other priorities. They might really be more concerned about keeping Medicare and Social Security, for instance.

Even if they work at a particular industry, they might be confident they can get an accounting job, or an office assistant job somewhere else. They don't all vote in lockstep.

[Autumn]

85. I know oil workers. Tell that bs to someone else.

[pnwmom]

87. You don't know all oil workers. nt

[lapucelle]

135. AOC accepted money from donors in the commercial banking, investment banking,

corporate law, real estate, defense, and energy industries. You make a very good point in saying most people have a limited understanding of how campaign donation tabulation works.

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/industries?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/sectors?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N

[pnwmom]

143. Thank you for providing that important context, lapucelle! n/t

[KPN]

92. Me too. The ones I know still have Trump/Pence stickers on their

their cars.

[Autumn]

94. Yep, and the last thing on their minds is concern about Medicare and SS.

[KPN]

96. Or the first thing in the case of objections to taxes.

[Autumn]

97. Yeah, and don't fuck with their oil field jobs.

[KPN]

95. Right.

I understand your point about individuals who work in the oil industry and have no big beef with that. But it’s naive to believe that PACs do not have any influence with legislators they helped elect vial its of money. I don’t buy that argument one iota.

[pnwmom]

98. But superPACS, which can accept unlimited amounts, direct their own funds.

They don't give money directly to candidates and the law prohibits them from coordinating with candidates.

AOC can't point to any Democratic candidates who are coordinating activities with dark money pacs -- but they should be prosecuted if they are.

[KPN]

160. PACs?

[pnwmom]

169. If PAC money is going directly to a candidate, the donors still have to comply

with campaign donation limits. In other words, a PAC run by a candidate can only take $2700 for the general election from an individual donor.

A super PAC donation is NOT going directly to any candidate, and the super PAC can't coordinate its election activities with any candidate. As a result of the Citizens v. United decision, a super PAC doesn't have to report its donations and is not bound by the individual donation limits for candidates.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/04/21/arent-there-limits-on-campaign-contributions-and-other-questions-youre-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

[Ferrets are Cool]

64. This is the important line in this piece...

"the six-term congresswoman dismissed calls to bar members who accept money from fossil fuel companies from serving on the committee, arguing it would violate free speech rights."

That says it ALL. Don't fuck with my campaign sources.

Some things never change even though we vote for them to change.

[Autumn]

99. Nancy and the Dems need to understand if they are planning business as usual that

is something they need to think real hard about.

[Cha]

110. Nancy and our BLUE WAVE Democratic Party

know exactly what they're doing.

[Autumn]

119. AOC and her supporters are part "your" of your BLUE WAVE Democratic Party. nt

[Cha]

124. Oh yes, My BLUE WAVE Democratic Party. I know

that and so are all the other Dems who Flipped red seats to BLUE.

[KPN]

165. Though I generally like it, I think your optimism

is misplaceded on this particular one. Rationalizing electoral success has led us to where we are today. This (the current political environment) is no longer business as usual.

[KPN]

163. I agree 1000%.

[FiveGoodMen]

100. And this is why I oppose this site's rule against criticism of Dems.

We need to weed out the bad ones in order for the party to be good.

[Cha]

130. Oh, and Who are the "bad" ones? The Democractic

Blue Wave was elected from all over the country.. many red seats were FLIPPED BLUE.

Just because they're not from deep Blue districts does NOT make them "bad".

[KPN]

162. Seems that way -- even at 68. I'm growing

weary of the BS. Time to s*** or get off the pot. Once and for all.

[dlk]

164. If a No Fossil Fuel Industry Donations Rule Were Put in Place, It Wouldn't Survive a Court Challenge

Congresspersons can still commit to personally not accepting donations from the fossil fuel industry. Until the law is changed, I think the outrage here might be misplaced.

[Cha]

67. NRDC: Rep. Castor an Outstanding Leader for New House Climate Panel

WASHINGTON (Dec.20, 2018) – According to news reports today, the House Democratic leadership has asked longtime environmental leader Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to chair a new select committee on climate change in the next Congress.

John Bowman, Senior Director for Federal Affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, made this comment:

"Rep. Kathy Castor is an outstanding choice to help lead the House’s renewed focus on climate change. As a longtime environmental champion, few are better suited to help shine a bright light on the threats Americans face from the climate crisis and advance the solutions we urgently need.

“We look forward to working with her, and other congressional leaders, on measures that slow, stop and reverse dangerous climate change, and create economic prosperity for our future.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211575036

Congratulations, Kathy Castor!

[PhrankT]

78. Actually it wasn't Her "Green New Deal", its been around for at least 11 years

https://www.google.com/amp/s/grist.org/article/whats-the-green-new-deal-the-surprising-origins-behind-a-progressive-rallying-cry/amp/

From Friedman to Obama.
A take on FDR's New Deal, & a British tax scholar named Richard Murphy.

Glad to see she is reviving President Obama's Green New Deal.

Interesting history of the Green New Deal.

[George II]

116. Yes indeed, and in 2009 Obama proposed the "Green New Deal".

[Mariana]

194. Actually, neither the headline nor the article

say that it was Her "Green New Deal" and neither contains the slightest suggestion that the idea or the name originated with her.

[George II]

113. A little background and history of the "Green New Deal".....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211577716

[betsuni]

114. Thank you, George, for helping to correct the constant misinformation.

[Celerity]

132. Removing the AOC-related hype, here are the main issues with what happened

1. The new committee will have no legislative power, so it cannot introduce any new bills. This is a serious kneecapping.

2. It may not even have any subpoena power (Steny Hoyer said it probably wouldn't, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/422132-house-climate-change-panel-unlikely-to-have-subpoena-power the new chair, Castor says she thinks it might, but Hoyer is the one in position to make that call) so cannot call in big oil/big energy before them. The previous version of the committee had subpoena power, as do all other House committees.

3. The new chair, Castor, has said that their will no blocks on members who have taken money from the energy sector (corporations can skirt the prohibition on direct contributions by simply setting up a PAC https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/ https://www.fec.gov/regulations/100-6/2018-annual-100#100-6 https://www.fec.gov/regulations/100-5/2018-annual-100#100-5 ) This sets up possible conflicts of interests within the committee itself. She also used the same 1st amendment justification that the energy sectore uses to defend its funding of denialist RW think tanks. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13012018/exxon-climate-change-investor-fraud-investigations-lawsuit-free-speech-new-york

4. There is no mandate to come up with a plan at all https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060110343 , so there may be no end product.There was a mandate in the initial plans for the new committee.

5. The new chair has said that a Green New Deal will not be the main subject of the committee. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060110295


So, it looks like the new committee will possibly (have to see if Stoyer prevails on the no subpoena power issue) be missing the power of Congressional subpoena (thus it cannot call the main culprits to any accountability before them, under oath), has zero legislative power, has no mandate to come up with any concrete action (thus no end product), will not primarily focus on the Green New Deal, and will possibly be stocked up with people with contribution ties (potentially very large ones) to the very industries causing a massive amount of global climate change.

That seems like it has been really neutered and made toothless.

[Cha]

134. Yeah, let's do remove the AOC Hype.

You're just putting a negative spin on this with all your "may be no.. " & "may nots".

I choose to support Kathy Castor and believe we are in good hands.

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

138. good hands with no legislative power, perhaps no subpoena power, no mandate for any concrete

plan, possible energy sector contribution-related members, and no emphasis on the original whole point, aka The Green New Deal.

Castor is more than likely wonderful on global climate change, but (especially if no subpoena power and the already blocked lacked of legislative power) it seems like it may well end up a paper tiger.

The AOC headlines are just to gather clicks for the news sites and blogs, and also to stir the pot. She may not even end up on the committee. I tend to ignore personalities when it come to the actual nuts and bolts of governmental structuring. Castor can but do only what she is given the power to do.

[R B Garr]

136. I'm glad Castor is not calling people corrupt just to support

one person’s unproven, hostile, counterproductive and irresponsible accusations.

[George II]

137. Committees don't introduce bills, members do. Committees hold hearings and vote to report bills....

....to the entire House.

In regard to some of your points:

Committees, if they feel the need, DO have subpoena power, Steny Hoyer notwithstanding.

There is NO "new chair", that is still to be determined, and Castor has been explicit about that. But if you're referring to Castor's comments, yes - she thinks it would be unconstitutional for a committee to block members who "accept" contributions from the big bad fossil fuel industry. As a point of interest, if a mechanic at a Shell or Exxon/Mobil station makes a contribution, that is categorized as being from the "fossil fuel industry".

What were the "initial plans" for the new committee - have those been laid out yet? I doubt it.

Unfortunately too many people are relying on speculation on "eenews". Why is that? Who is this "eenews"? Never heard of them before a day or two ago.

[hatrack]

147. Environment & Energy News - actually one of the better environmental news sites out there

Sample article below (from 11/16). Typically a few are available daily on ehn.org and other sites, but otherwise subscription, with multiple emphases. Greenwire, Energywire, Climatewire - all subsets under the same umbrella.



In a Democratic clash on Capitol Hill, progressives are pushing an ambitious plan to wean the U.S. off fossil fuels, boost renewables and build a "smart" grid. Meet the "Green New Deal."

The proposal, drawing inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era New Deal, is one that progressives — led by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a rising star on the left — want Democratic leaders to embrace.

The thinking is that a newly revived Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming in the House would produce a draft of the plan by Jan., 1, 2020, and finalized legislation no later than March 1, 2020.

The scope of the plan, laid out on Cortez's campaign website, is cast as a work in progress. House leaders would be able to review the results of investigations and studies, along with detailed findings and interim recommendations. And there's time for collaboration. Pushing the proposal is the youth-driven Sunrise Movement, a growing grassroots movement that's taken over the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California this week and Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey today.

EDIT

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060106501

[Celerity]

150. If the committee cannot report the bill (or will not) then a single member can try and introduce

it via a discharge petition, but this is not easy to do at all

In United States parliamentary procedure, a discharge petition is a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee by "discharging" the committee from further consideration of a bill or resolution.

It is very hard. Of the 73 discharge petitions submitted to the full House from 1995 through 2007, only one was successful in securing a definitive yea-or-nay vote for a bill. http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.aspx

563 discharge petitions were filed between 1931 and 2003, of which only 47 obtained the required majority of signatures. The House voted for discharge 26 times and passed 19 of the measures, but only two have become law. https://web.archive.org/web/20060228233412/http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/97-856.pdf

Committees, if they feel the need, DO have subpoena power, Steny Hoyer notwithstanding.

House climate change panel unlikely to have subpoena power

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/422132-house-climate-change-panel-unlikely-to-have-subpoena-power


Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the incoming majority leader, said Wednesday that it was his understanding that the committee wouldn’t have the legal authority to demand documents.


“My expectation [is] it will not have subpoena power. It will be a recommendatory committee to the Energy and Commerce Committee and the environmental committees,” Hoyer told reporters.

A Democratic leadership aide later confirmed the lack of subpoena power.

Hoyer said he doesn’t see a need for subpoena authority, given the intended structure and purpose of the climate panel.

snip


If is not a full standing committee and simply a recommendatory committee to the Energy and Commerce Committee and the environmental committees then it doesn't not necessarily have that subpoena power.

Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction.

Select and special committees are often investigative in nature, rather than legislative, though some select and special committees have the authority to draft and report legislation.

[George II]

153. True, but you're only confirming my point - committees don't introduce bills, members do.

[Celerity]

156. But the committee has to vote to report or a discharge petition

is then needed, and as a simple recommendatory committee it will not have that legislative reporting power.

[betsuni]

144. So you're saying that Democrats neutered this committee and made it toothless because they

are paid by big oil/energy to do their biding, using the same justification as right-wing think tanks.

[Celerity]

146. no, those are your words

I merely cited articles from different sites.

[Cha]

166. Yeah, what was up with all that nonsense?! and

innuendos?

[betsuni]

167. We'll be seeing this for the next two years!

[Cha]

168. I know.. lucky us. We've

seen this all before and it hasn't gotten any better.

[betsuni]

170. And it's fine that Republicans are the dark money corrupt ones with enormous funds and power.

Apparently. From Jane Mayer's "Dark Money":

The Koch's pour money into nonprofits and "From there the money had been disbursed to dozens of other nonprofits, some of which were little more than mailboxes, which had then spent the funds promoting the donors' political interests both directly in elections and indirectly in countless other ways. ... 'It's extraordinary. No one else has done anything like it,' said Rob Stein, the Democratic activist who tried to create a progressive counterweight called the Democracy Alliance. 'It takes an enormous amount of money, and many years, to do what the Kochs have done. They're deeply passionate. They're disciplined, and they're also ruthless.' ... By 2015, their antigovernment lead was followed by much of Congress. Addressing global warming was out of the question. Although economic inequality had reached record levels, raising taxes on the runaway rich and closing special loopholes that advanced only them were also nonstarters."

But the roadblock to progressive legislature are Democrats because they might have received a $200 donation from someone working on Wall Street or for Exxon.

[LovingA2andMI]

157. First, Is AOC even in Congress YET?

Second, can she get there yet before we care what is blocked on her behalf?

[dlk]

161. Pelosi Wants to To Bring Back The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

I don't see this as a bad thing but correct me if I'm wrong.

[George II]

198. She announced that days before the publicity stunt outside her office in November.

[sharedvalues]

177. Remember: Republicans want us to fight each other

The rightwing press amplifies divisions between AOC and other Democrats. Even though this is HuffPo, the rightwing press affects national debate.

Always keep that in mind.