Goodness! She-s pro-abortion and “America” magazine headlines her touting her Catholic faith?
Hey, maybe she’ll come to see the light. I’m really hopeful that the Court is going to straighten everything out on Roe V. Wade; the solution is going to be something different than any past models.
A big part of the solution: Awareness.
America Magazine really has the hots for AOC.
Traditionalists have been at odds with “America” and the Jesuits for some time. I tried to say this during the Kavanaugh hearings but people were dead set with his confirmation.
Yes, they seem to.
But in the article, one of their biggest complaints about market systems is the “devaluation of labor”. But they think the government taking more and more of the fruits of one’s labor will somehow increase its value?
JW55 . . .
Her proposals are really in left field on taxation, and probably unrealistic at this point even in today’s rapidly shifting political and social mindset.
That is a good point JW55. I agree with you here to be sure.
But even then, there are concerns with somebody who defeats the powerful Democrat (then) minority WHIP who had won 16 consecutive terms (if I am not mistaking–I did not re-look that last part up).
To borrow a religious analogy from Karl Keating . . . .
Kooks with extreme positions, make less-kooky extreme positions APPEAR more palatible and more mainstream.
AOC makes someone like Pelosi look more normal, and by those means can dramatically effect policy.
I thought that the reason Trump was elected was because of Obama. Obama was far to the left politically and to balance that required someone as far from that as possible, not a moderate or someone from the established Republican Party. Hence Trump became a major consideration who was so outspoken and very different from, had very different, but had conservative ideas. He proved to be the candidate to resound with conservatives wanting change. I think the liberal side is playing basically the same game of seeking someone- first off younger and secondly more outlandish to balance Trump’s changes. I think this is along the lines of Keating’s quote you implied. Radical begats radical and makes the old radical, now looks normal.
I think Hawaii U.S. Rep Tulsi Gabbard (only 38) may provide more a serious threat and has thrown her hat in the Presidential bid for 2020. She had worked for Bernie Sanders She is young, a Hindu and a veteran but may offer the Democrats the radical left candidate they seek that has more solid selling points. She may pull along a groups of other radicals in lesser offices. I think we will see many far leftists jockeying for positions in the void of the Democratic party as the old guard doesn’t suit the younger set. Millennials want some one their age to identify with, not there grandmother or grandfather(i.e. Pelosi, Sanders, Warren, Biden, etc)
JW55 . . .
I thought that the reason Trump was elected was because of Obama.
I think that was part of it.
. . . Trump became a major consideration who was so outspoken and very different from, had very different, but had conservative ideas. He proved to be the candidate to resound with conservatives wanting change.
I never thought of Trump as “conservative” before the election. That being said, Trump has been a pleasant surprise in the conservativism he DOES hold.
And I think just by virtue of him and the left constantly fighting he has become more conservative.
I have ALWAYS thought of Trump as “fighter” though.
And on some points, this has been a great blessing.
I think the liberal side is playing basically the same game of seeking someone- first off younger and secondly more outlandish to balance Trump’s changes. I think this is along the lines of Keating’s quote you implied. Radical begats radical and makes the old radical, now looks normal.
Yes. I think you have good insight in this.
I think Hawaii U.S. Rep Tulsi Gabbard (only 38) may provide more a serious threat and has thrown her hat in the Presidential bid for 2020.
I agree. Also Kamela Harris.
I think we will see many far leftists jockeying for positions in the void of the Democratic party as the old guard doesn’t suit the younger set.
I think you are correct here too. I was perplexed as to WHY the Democrats never mounted a serious challenge to Nancy Pelosi’s leadership though. I still think that will be coming.
Thanks for the fine insights JW55.
I think we will see her position challenged, if we do see younger viable contenders come to the forefront. I think that has been a cautious step to avoid at this point amazingly. I think the Democratic party is much in the same boat the Republicans had, that they believed they could keep recycling the same old existing party in crowd members. If they don’t move over, which would be the best thing for the Republicans, there will chaos and in-house fighting amongst the Demos.
You are right on the first part but wrong on the second.
Trump’s policies have always been deemed ‘centrist’ not orthodox conservative or far right. The voters wanted the pendulum to swing back to center, not far right.
Below are a few of many articles that show him a centrist.
No. He was not the most “conservative” of the Republican candidates but he was definitely the most radically different of the other Republicans. He shook up the party. He threw the rules out and was the most feared of the Republican candidates, By the established beltway Republicans, Jeb Bush was supposed to be handed the nomination basically unchallenged. In their eyes, in my opinion.
I seem to recall him throwing subtle hints that he would third party a campaign if not nominated by the Republicans. Not entirely far fetched considering he had serious thoughts about the Reform Party back in 2000, where Pat Buchanan eventually beat him out.
Please cite a source.
I believe he did elude to that. I would think if he had, Hillary would have been president. Third party runs are usually protests to push change and forcing one of the two major parties to integrate their ideas. The Republican party was forced in 2016 to accept a candidate the established party standard didn’t want to accept.
I think the 2 party system is largely one of tradition rather than preference among the populous. There are other parties of course, but few to none have been able establish a continuing support base beyond one charismatic candidate.
Exactly. Good examples are Ron Paul, George Wallace, Ross Perot et al.
But in a new Politico report, some of Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow Democrats similarly expressed a distaste for her bucking tradition and speaking straight when asked pointed questions, regardless of whose feathers are rustled. Senior House Democrats, the report described, are working out a plan as to how to convince Ocasio-Cortez to fall more in lockstep with the establishment to present a unified front:
The effort, described by nearly 20 lawmakers and aides, is part carrot, part stick: Some lawmakers with ties to Ocasio-Cortez are hoping to coax her into using her star power to unite Democrats and turn her fire on Republicans. Others simultaneously warn Ocasio-Cortez is destined for a lonely, ineffectual career in Congress if she continues to treat her own party as the enemy.
You have only been here half a year. I am sure you will find more. Do you like beer?
There was probably more than one. (I get your sentiment though).
She’s an elected official. If she can’t get basic civics right then we’ve got major issues.
Oh how I would like to present those “others” with a long, scolding lecture about true representation.
Absolutely, if one rejects the power and money of lobbyists, one is going to be very lonely, because most of what is milling around there, writing legislation, making policy, etc. etc. are the lobbyists! Of course they (lobbyists and purchased politicians) would threaten such “ineffectiveness”, because the standard politician is so caught up in figuring out where the money is coming from for their next election that they do not have the time and energy to actually write, or even read, legislation!
(note: could not find a grumpy-enough looking emoji)
Only if she quits mid-way through her first term.