AOC: We must govern with integrity and accountability. Laquan McDonald's life mattered.

[melman]

Link to tweet

[Budi]

1. Sure Jan, but umm, you're not the boss.

🙄

[Me.]

7. And This From Someone Who Six Months Into Her First Term

wasn't sure she wanted to run for re-election and who now says she doesn't think she'll stay in politics. Nearly every day it's some other discontent or demand from that corner of the world and it's becoming tiresome..

[Budi]

14. Another day, another Dem target. Signals from the top.

It's veering off into regresivism.

[Spazito]

2. Wow...

just wow.

[cilla4progress]

3. I find the dismissal of AOC here

disappointing.

[George II]

4. As disappointing as her dismissal of the Democratic Party as expressed in Heather Cherone's tweet?

[Me.]

8. Did She Really Say The DEms Are Incompetent?

[George II]

15. There was an article going around pointing out that she expressed that sentiment without using....

....that exact word.

[Me.]

20. My, My, My

[melman]

5. I find it revealing

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. YEP.

[jalan48]

21. I realized when Bloomberg entered the primaries.

[liskddksil]

46. You mean the Mike Bloomberg that cost us a Senate seat in 2016 and 3 seats on the Supreme

Court as a result when he endorsed and ran ads for Republican Pat Toomey?

[jalan48]

50. Yeah, that guy.

[George II]

86. Didn't Michael Bloomberg speak at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, support Clinton....

....more than some of our other "allies", and spend hundreds of millions supporting Democrats?

[liskddksil]

100. Doesn't matter. When it mattered most he failed us nt

[George II]

31. How do you feel about her dismissal of the Democratic Party (as noted in Heather Cherone's tweet)?

[melman]

43. Thanks for reminding me

that you still have not answered this question

[George II]

54. Funny.

[LanternWaste]

71. Still avoiding the relevant response, eh?

I get it... avoiding a question with an irrelevant movement of the goalposts seems a most consistent pattern to embraced.

[melman]

73. I don't think you do get it

Because if you did you'd understand my response was the relevant one.

[George II]

76. And if you read responses to you you'd see that the question was irrelevant. It was answered....

...not by me but by Rick Wilson himself, like it or not.

Link to tweet

[melman]

78. It's already been established that that excuse is a lie

Because the terrorist attack he's referring to happened after his tweet.



But as you well know that is far from his only racist tweet anyway.

[George II]

80. At one time the best President of our lifetimes, Barack Obama, was against same sex marriage....

Do you consider him homophobic and are going to hold that against him for the rest of our/his lives?

Life changes, people change, most of us move on.

[melman]

79. What's the excuse for this one?

Link to tweet

[LanternWaste]

70. I find the corollary just as disappointing.

[BainsBane]

97. I wonder why?

[58Sunliner]

6. I hope she doesn't think it appropriate to air everything on twitter.

I've already had 4 years of that BS. Surely there must be another route to convey her concerns.

[liskddksil]

9. Umm freedom of speech is a thing and if you don't like it don't read it nt

[George II]

13. 58Sunliner didn't say she shouldn't, but mentioned it wasn't appropriate.

[58Sunliner]

22. For the record, I really like her. But I don't think using twitter to try to drive policy

is appropriate for a representative of the US gov't. It's also divisive.

[NurseJackie]

75. You are correct. Divisive indeed.

[ehrnst]

83. +1000.

[NurseJackie]

67. So is good judgement and pausing a moment to reflect and consider WWND?*

* What Would Nancy Do?

Nancy Pelosi knows how to work with people and how to persuade people in ways that avoids creating acrimony and distrust and suspicion. Nancy Pelosi was chosen to be Speaker for a reason. She has experience, she builds trust through cooperation and respect, and she's never felt the need to bully others or to be brash. I think ALL of our elected representatives would serve well both themselves and their constituents in taking a page from Nancy's book... learning from her experiences... emulating her. Or simply by asking themselves "what would Nancy do?"

[liskddksil]

72. House Dems under her leadership had a poor election cycle. Right

or wrong we got blamed for the lack of economic stimulus. That's a messaging failure. We need to do better.

[58Sunliner]

77. "we got blamed for the lack of economic stimulus"-by who?

[ehrnst]

82. Since when was Speaker Pelosi been responsible for doing the job of the DCCC chair?

[George II]

85. Wrong. What constitutes a "poor election cycle"....

...are you referring to 2018?

[liskddksil]

90. One where we are on track to lose more than 10 seats including

ones no one thought we had any business losing like Donna Shalala.

[George II]

94. Well then I guess it wasn't such a "poor election cycle" after all since we lost only 8 seats....

....and gained 3 for a net loss of only 5. None of the losses were in D+ districts, the three gains were in R+ districts. Twenty three have still not been decided.

Plus we picked up two Senate seats, lost one in a deep red state, and have the potential of picking up one or two more.

The pièce de résistance was regaining the Presidency.

That is far from a "poor election cycle".

[liskddksil]

99. I said on track, there are un-called races in CA we will likely lose when all is said and done nt

[George II]

103. Well I guess we'll have to see if and when it becomes a "poor election cycle". Right now it's not.

[ehrnst]

81. No one is suppressing anyone's speech, or trying to. And "freedom of speech" concerns

actual suppression of speech, not a person on the internet stating a hope that someone else will not take to twitter in a way that unhelpful to getting progressive work by Democrats done.

I certainly hope that "freedom of speech" in constructively critiquing Democratic reps extends critiquing all Democratic reps, and not simply the "establishment."

[NurseJackie]

87. The "freedom of speech" defense is a clear indication that someone has a weak argument and...

... they're unable to provide supporting "evidence" or other information that helps to reinforce or bolster whatever it is they're talking about. It's akin to the old "I'm Entitled to My Opinion" fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion

[ehrnst]

88. +1000...

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

[George II]

10. Democrats lost 8 House seats of more than 230, all red districts. Democrats gained 3 House seats...

...all red districts. That's a net loss of 5 red seats.

"Given the setbacks for Democrats in the congressional contests" is a bit of an exaggeration.

The way cabinet posts work is that the President nominates candidates and the Senate confirms (or rejects) them. The House of Representatives has nothing to do with the process.

[JI7]

11. Maybe Bernie Sanders should have raised the objection then

[Budi]

24. Thank you. Big dose of truth to that twist of a falshood ...

Oh well. Acceptance is the first step, they say.
I spose when the dream has been replaced with reality...its all understandable.


This is the present & the future:

Link to tweet

VP Kamala Harris, loved & admired across the globe.
She comes well equipped with a resume of super stellar creds that will carry her from VP to the 1st woman US President

[George II]

33. Yes. As a Senator he's directly involved in the process. Maybe he's sensibly waiting for Biden....

...to begin working on his appointments before weighing in?

[octoberlib]

23. I'm wondering how much the pandemic caused those setbacks in terms

of candidate's ground games. Biden didn't have one until late in the game and I imagine other Democrats ground games suffered as well. The GOP meanwhile was out there maskless , spewing their viruses everywhere but getting people registered and knocking on doors.


In 2018 , we won what, 40 seats? we can do better in '22 with, hopefully the pandemic under control.

[George II]

26. I know here our "ground game" was virtually zero, but both our candidates won anyway....

We didn't even have an official headquarters. People met at either one of the candidate's home or a local business. We still won easily.

What was disappointing is that although Biden won in town trump had too many votes for this town.

Considering the conditions this year, nobody's making any excuses for it being closer than expected.

[PTWB]

42. How did we do...

in the districts where the Democratic candidate accepted AOC's offer to campaign for them?

[George II]

44. Don't know. I didn't see who she made the offer to. Would be interesting, especially compared...

...to 2018.

[liskddksil]

12. Rahm Emanuel is completely out of touch with working Americans, as represented by his comments

regarding out-of-work retail workers this past Friday on ABC. This continues to be a big problem for us as a Party, as evidenced by our poor performance last week among working class voters. Biden should stay far away.

[JI7]

17. There wasn't poor performance among working class. non white working class

nearly all voted democratic.

Only white working class did not.

[liskddksil]

29. We lost ground with both white and non-white working class. Particularly in down-ballot races. nt

[George II]

36. I don't think so. And considering there are still several million votes to be counted....

....no one knows for sure.

But sadly it does provide fodder to criticize the Democratic Party.

[liskddksil]

41. Considering we lost numerous races we should have won and that Moscow Mitch will likely be in charge

come January, then lessons need to be learned. Why is it that I don't see anyone here criticizing Congresswoman Spanberger for her remarks, but when AOC dares to counter she gets slammed?

[George II]

47. What races did we lose that we should have won? In the House we lost only 8 seats...

...so far and won 3, net loss of only 5 and most (if not all) of those losses were expected.

In the Senate we have a net gain of one so far.

[liskddksil]

49. Maine, North Carolina, Iowa Senate races to start. Numerous

congressional seats in Florida, California. Tuesday was a decent result in that we defeated Trump. Beyond that there was a lot to be desired.

[George II]

53. A net gain in the Senate and small loss in the House - all in seats we unexpectedly picked up....

...in 2018, and flipping three red seats is nothing to criticize.

[Cha]

89. False Fodder.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

16. Imagining going after someone for objecting to RAHM EMANUEL.

[Budi]

25. Or Sec of State Hillary Clinton, or Speaker Pelosi, or Senator Claire McCaskill...

...and every Democratic leader ...the target du jour.

Signals straight from the top to her mic....

Wow is right. In an eyeroll sort of way. Ya know?

(pssst...you're no Kamala)

[George II]

27. Imagine someone going after Biden's choices for cabinet even before he's made them.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. I am definitely fine with holding allies' feet to the fire early.

[George II]

30. Even before there's a reason to do so? That certainly doesn't promote party unity.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

35. Names get floated and shot down all the time in these situations, and the party marches on.

[George II]

37. But names haven't been floated by the Biden camp yet.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

39. No, but you can be sure they are watching for reactions to all names.

[George II]

57. So in other words it's okay to start bashing prospects even they may or may not be chosen?

I think it would be more productive to put forward a preferred candidate rather than bash one who most likely won't be chosen in the first place.

But that's just me.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

58. I don't see telling the truth about Emanuel's response to the murder of Laquan McDonald as

"bashing." But that's just me.

[George II]

64. There was no mention of Emanuel's response. None whatsoever.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

66. It's true, AOC tweeting the words "Laquan McDonald's life mattered" while quote-tweeting an

excerpt from an article about how she objects to Emanuel playing a role in the party's future doesn't exactly spell out the former mayor's response to Laquan's murder. Good point. I wonder what she could possibly mean.

[Cha]

91. Joe Biden Won two Life Saving Elections

this year.. he is the President Elect with 75 Million people voting for him & Kamala.. they will decide who they want in their Cabinet.

Not anyone in a super blue district.

[BainsBane]

34. I don't like entitlement

If she wants to choose the cabinet, she needs to win the presidency.

[George II]

38. Or at least win a Senate seat so she can be directly involved in the process.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

40. Expressing an opinion is not entitlement, Christ.

[BainsBane]

45. Is there any indication that Biden is even considering Emanuel?

She didn't say "I disagree with the potential pick of Emanuel for x." The precise quote attributed to her--that she retweets without correction--"progressives will not accept" Emanuel. That is most certainly entitlement. She also presumes to speak for all "progressives."

[WhiskeyGrinder]

48. There are plenty of factions circulating names, hoping their faves will bubble up to someone who

has Biden's ear, and putting names out and about is a way to create buzz for different possibilities.

But I mean if you want to be mad, be mad.

[BainsBane]

52. Clearly you are comfortable

with someone with no electoral mandate at the federal level deciding the presidential cabinet. My view is that she does not have that right, though her quote makes clear that she feels entirely entitled to do so. It is that sort of attitude, of which AOC is far from being alone, that turns people off the "progressive" faction, not their policy proposals. AOC will not get far in politics if she keeps it up, though she could always stay in her House seat for life. It's unfortunate that she doesn't show the same concern for policy that she does for exerting power that she doesn't have. And cue her next tweet about how the party is being mean to her. There are about six of those a day. She chooses to marginalize herself, and it's unfortunate because in the process she squanders her talents.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

55. Nah, I'm just comfortable with a firebrand speaking her mind.

[BainsBane]

56. and that is where we differ

I don't think much of firebrands, or show horses, in general. I favor the work horse who gets stuff done. I see politics as about getting work done that benefits the people, not as entertainment or throwing meat to the base.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

59. Don't I know it.

[sheshe2]

74. + 1000

[Cha]

93. Yeah, that didn't work out so well..

Thank Goodness!

[Cha]

92. Exactly! Joe Biden won two Elections this year

the most important elections ever. 75 Million people Voted for his Agenda Not anyone's in a super blue district/

[aidbo]

19. AOC speaks for me!

[BainsBane]

32. Why even allow Biden to choose his own cabinet?

When AOL clearly thinks she is entitled to do so.

[demmiblue]

51. If Rahm had his way, we wouldn't have the ACA as we know it today.

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi!

(Go away, Rahm)

[mcar]

60. Well, I will not accept deceased actor Bela Lugosi

in Biden's cabinet.

[George II]

62. But I hear Vincent Price is in the running though.

[mcar]

69. I won't have it!

No scary movie actors in the cabinet. None. I have spoken.

[melman]

61. It's hard not to notice none of the objections here deal with the actual substance

Is she right about Emanuel or is she wrong? No one seems to want to say. It's all about "she doesn't have the power" and "she's being divisive" and all the rest of that. But none of the objectors seem willing to address the actual point


Very revealing and a reminder that it's easy to put BLM in your twitter bio or whatever, but when the rubber hits the road people show where they really stand.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

63. Well said.

[George II]

68. She didn't even mention Emanuel in her tweet, did she?

[BainsBane]

96. The tweet she is retweeting does

and she doesn't disagree with it.

[BainsBane]

95. because how one goes about things matters

politics is about building relationships. Making demands on Twitter is something that puts off most people. If she wanted to have an influence on the cabinet, she could call Biden and talk to him. But that isn't at all what she wants. Instead, she wants to elevate herself and throw fire. So if one actually wanted to keep Emanuel out of the cabinet, she's going about it in a counterproductive way. AOC does things in a way that squanders any influence she might be able to exert. Then 30 minutes later she gets on Twitter and whines that the Democrats aren't being nice to her. She hasn't got the first clue about how to build political relationships.

In my case, I happen to agree with AOC on most policy matters. It's her method of going about things that I dislike precisely because it accomplishes nothing. Now those who prefer politics as entertainment rather than actually getting work done that benefits the people love this sort of thing.

Now let's not pretend your concern is Emanuel. I've never seen you post about him before. You've decided he shouldn't be in the cabinet because AOC told you so. And I suspect that your fixation with her has little to do with her politics. Funny how you don't post repeatedly about Tlalib, Pressley, or Omar.

You're hardly in a position to criticize others about not engaging in substantive discussion. Posts are a matter of record here on DU.

[liskddksil]

101. Because they have no actual substantive argument. They are just AOC haters pure and simple nt

[George II]

102. "They"?

[Demsrule86]

65. Sorry, she is smart and talented but she is in a safe blue blue seat so her advice is not

particularly useful when we gained the court by electing moderates and some conservative Democrats.

[ehrnst]

84. There have certainly been setbacks for the Dem candidates that she and others endorsed in 2020

but I'm not hearing her discuss that as a factor in judging who is and is not suited to determine the future of the party.

Of the 217 Democratic incumbents who ran in the primaries we analyzed, 214 won or advanced to the general election. Granted, that includes 19 incumbents — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar, Katie Porter, Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez herself — who were supported by one or more of the six progressive endorsers we’re tracking. But in the 17 primaries where progressives (candidates endorsed by at least one of these six entities) went up against an incumbent, the progressive-backed candidate lost 14 times. (Newman, Bowman and Bush were the only exceptions.)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/progressive-groups-are-getting-more-selective-in-targeting-incumbents-is-it-working/

[Cha]

98. Oh good some fACTS! & Why are we having

this Divisiveness Now Before the Georgia Runoff Elections with Rev Warnock & Joh Ossoff?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet