Ocasio-Cortez rips Democratic leadership over hesitancy on Green New Deal

[brooklynite]

Source: Raw Story

Incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., took aim at the Democratic Party on Monday over the newly-announced climate crisis committee — a body she and other progressives say lacks the teeth needed to avert planetary disaster.

In a Twitter thread, Ocasio-Cortez said that her proposal for a select committee on a Green New Deal — a key demand of the youth-led Sunrise Movement — contained "3 simple elements: 1. No fossil fuel money on climate cmte 2. Offer solutions for impacted communities 3. Draft sample #GreenNewDeal."

Yet all three, she said, were deemed "too controversial."

Given the rejection of those elements, as well as the expected lack of subpoena power by the new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, announced by presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week, Ocasio-Cortez said it will "will be in an even weaker position than the select climate committee of 10 years ago," referring to the House committee in existence from 2007 to 2011.

Read more: https://www.salon.com/2019/01/02/ocasio-cortez-rips-democratic-leadership-over-hesitancy-on-green-new-deal/

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Ahh, another of my predictions comes true.

[NastyRiffraff]

2. That was an easy one

Not to knock you, Eliot, but that one was too easy.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Does this NEW GROUP have enough votes to do to the D party what the

baggers did to Ryan?

That was my prediction, that they would do EXACTLY that and for reasons I cant go into.

[HopeAgain]

53. So she is equivalent to a Tea Party Repub?

I can't say what I am thinking without getting removed. Stagnation in the party isn't by accident I guess.

[JackRiddler]

57. Yep.

[theaocp]

4. F Earth

It's just, "too controversial."

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. I have an idea, why dont you create a new thread where you outline

what Pelosi and the party are actually doing and what AOC and her bunch say should be done.

And then we can all decide from there.

[theaocp]

8. Begin in the OP and and go from there,

based on what makes sense. Cheers.

[Magoo48]

24. Sadly, what the Party thinks is "too controversial" is not nearly radical enough in light of

the magnitude and urgency of our environmental problems. AOC obviously understands that weak-kneed, status quo approaches to climate change must be expanded exponentially to be effective.

[Eliot Rosewater]

25. Uh huh...She is an expert already on how government works I guess.

[melman]

92. What happened to unconditional support?

That was the mantra but it seems to be a somewhat flexible one.

[beachbum bob]

35. civics 101, zero chance of any democratic legislation ever going into law

meaningless symbolic gestures in the house

[JackRiddler]

39. God forbid anyone should strike a position!

No, the thing to do when you have the power in the House is not to demonstrate the bold actions you will take when you come to full power. No! It is to show you have no vision, so you can lose the next election. Good work.

[beachbum bob]

68. having symbolic votes is fine, wasting public money's on worthless positions is not, we do not

have to GOP lite in wasting monies

[JackRiddler]

79. It's real, not "symbolic" and your point makes no sense

No money is "wasted" in the drafting of legislation. Congressional staff are already on the payroll. Drafting legislation that may pass in the future determines the debate and agenda and is a lot more than symbolic. It is how to win in the future. Instead you seem to be advocating no agenda or a "GOP lite" agenda, the strategy that already lost so dramatically in 2016 and since the hopeful days of 2008.

[Locrian]

81. stunning

People are concerned that AOC is not following "the way things are done" ? ffs
We (well the US) elected trump.
That alone is enough to show that "the way things are done" is complete bullshit.

All this genuflecting to "the way things are done" is simply buying into the frame (straight-jacket) of doing nothing significant in order to not affect "profits"

[JackRiddler]

82. Yes

[Locrian]

84. meanwhile - back in reality

The Story of Sustainability in 2018: “We Have About 12 Years Left”

https://hbr.org/2018/12/the-story-of-sustainability-in-2018-we-have-about-12-years-left

[George II]

7. The only person calling them "too controversial" is Cortez....

As a sitting Congress person, she could take care of #2 and #3 herself. Will she?

It's easy to complain, a bit more difficult to actually address them, i.e, "offer solutions for impacted communities" and "draft sample GreenNewDeal."

[violetpastille]

12. It's all clickbait.

"Rips Democratic Leadership"

You read the whole article and it's no more enlightening than an US Magazine cover.

I agree with your point. Please show us what you got AOC. We need a climate warrior. But it's going to be hard, lonely work.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Not one day on the job and already knows more about HOW to make shit happen.

What people might learn is there are TWO parties and over THREE HUNDRED million of us and like it or not wall street and corporations control most of the wealth.

You cant just ignore them all.

[JackRiddler]

40. How much shit has been done so far?

Right, everything has gotten worse the entire time. Good work! Realism! Civics! Give us a condescending lecture, professor!

[kstewart33]

63. Geez Louise, you're crabby.

Instead of insulting people, explain your point about Ms O-C.

[JackRiddler]

71. Gaslighting

Shameful. Ignore.

[Eliot Rosewater]

86. I cant keep up with the number of times this poster has personally attacked me.

Not you, the one you are responding to, which I REFUSE to do, I have a rule.

[kstewart33]

87. Eliot, yours is a wise rule.

Count me in. And thanks.

[melman]

91. They're not personally attacking you

[violetpastille]

9. I read the article.

NBD. Democratic leadership not "ripped".
Gah, everything has to be "ripped' or "destroyed" nobody gets to disagree they can only "attack".

Should the climate committee not accept money from oil and gas? Knee jerk reaction yes. Or take their money and tell them they don't get to vote with their dollars.

Offer solutions for impacted communities. What does that mean? I know what it means on the face of it. With no more information I'll say, "sure!"

Draft sample #GreenNewDeal. Do it anyway. Even Thomas Paine zine style. What's the plan?

[chillfactor]

10. I am sorry....I know she is a Democrat....

but she is beginning to sound like Mark Meadows. Is she trying to set up her own Freedom Caucus?

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. The little bit I have read if accurate does outline some issues any reasonable person

could have with the committee and therefore the issue isnt the issue but the process.

What is the most productive way to promote cohesion within the party and resolve interests that might not be ours?

Probably not this way.

[theaocp]

14. "I know she is a Democrat, but..."

The latest amendment to the ToS.

[emulatorloo]

21. Constructive criticism of Democrats is part of the TOS

[HopeAgain]

54. Can't bash Democrats on here I thought...

Or is that only centrist Democrats

[guruoo]

15. Will cat now haz their tongue?

[katmondoo]

16. She is beginning to get on my nerves

and I am a staunch Democrat

[kstewart33]

17. Geez, she is on her way to political oblivion.

At least in the Congress.

Perhaps it's time for Ms. O-C to:

Read President Lincoln's views on the importance of compromise in getting things done in Congress.

Remember that only 12.9% of the registered Dems in her district voted in the 2018 midterm election.

[brush]

31. I would guess even fewer voted in the primary.

[JackRiddler]

43. This is extreme Lincoln abuse.

Seriously?!

How about you look at what Lincoln actually DID?

If he'd focused on the importance of compromise only he would have never even been a Republican, or captured the anti-slavery moment, or won the election, or waged the Civil War to total victory and held fast against those on his own side who would have "compromised" (like McClellan) and achieved the abolition of slavery.

I don't know, maybe you're thinking of Calvin Coolidge or somebody like that, but certainly not Lincoln!

I mean, it's okay! You can say nice things about Coolidge, I won't mind. Just don't abuse historical figures as if they stand for their polar opposites.

(Who's next, MLK? Remember how he played by Robert's Rules of Order and reached compromises with the segragationists?)

[kstewart33]

50. Are you familiar with the men who he appointed to his cabinet?

And his advisors?

Do you throw snark at everyone you disagree with?

[JackRiddler]

55. Are you familiar with the Civil War?

This isn't snark. It's a moderate response to your absurd abuse of a parallel to a historical figure. I mean, I could ask, do you always resort to historical distortions on behalf of weak arguments? Probably not, though, right?

Again, you could always just say what you think, rather than inventing authorities who probably would not agree with your position (and whose opinion we cannot possibly know).

Thanks!

[kstewart33]

61. Jack, we simply disagree.

No need to launch personal insults.

[JackRiddler]

72. No personal insults were made and your post is a lie.

shameful - standard sophistry - ignored

[ancianita]

18. A good idea's a good idea; shouldn't matter who says it. She's gotta sell a ways and means to them

[msongs]

19. how is this news? nt

[QC]

20. She's a meanie!!!

[Voltaire2]

22. She's not wrong on this.

A committee without subpoena power is toothless.

[NickB79]

23. Agreed.

We are literally at the point of no return. Another decade of business as usual and we doom billions to a living hell by the end of this century. Children alive today will watch global civilization crumble.

The Climate Committee should be THE most important committee in DC.

[George II]

27. It's more powerful than the committee from the last Congress.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. But weaker than the one from the last Democratic Congress

Meanwhile the crisis has only grown more grave.

[JackRiddler]

44. Yeah, don't you remember how the committee from the last Congress...

um, achieved something on the most pressing issue of life-or-death in all history? They achieved something, didn't they? Ummmm....

[hatrack]

48. Tick-tock, tick-tock . . .

But how dare you be so . . . . rude?!?!?!?!?

[Raine]

66. Exactly

I'm sick of the state of the environment not being given top priority!

[Soph0571]

28. Why is everyone on this thread trying to rip her down?

She is young, enthusiastic and no doubt Washington will grind her down - and we will all find upsetting when this happens.

I thought DU was about building up democratic winners, not knocking them down? There is a new generation out there, one which we may not always understand, however our older generations never understood us either. Tis the way. Rather than knocking her, how can we support her growth?!?!

[juxtaposed]

30. b/c it's planned that way. It just does not appear out of thin air.

[calguy]

32. Sometimes the best way to support someone

Is to let them know when they should stay in their own lane. At least until they have enough experience under their belts to drive without training wheels.

[Soph0571]

33. Hell no - If when in my 20's I has listened to that....

.... I would not today be one of the leading knowledge libraries and one of the most sought after recruits in my field. My father told me when I was 27 and managing a very large team and a £35 million budget, and staff where giving me a hard time - just remember that 95% of the people do not understand what you are saying 95% of the time and dumb it down so they get you. I think think this is where she is. I did not dumb it down and I hope she does not.

[NickB79]

36. Stay in your lane?!?

Her generation is literally going to get to watch human civilization tear itself apart as the climate collapses if we don't get our shit together, and fast.

[JackRiddler]

41. Incredibly revealing.

Shut up, you people! You think this is a democracy and you get to express an opinion, or something? That's not how civics works. Wait another 30 years, burn a few hundred billion more oil barrels, then we can talk about this hasty shit.

[juxtaposed]

29. Oh god I love her! Keep it up.

[lapucelle]

34. "No fossil fuel money on the climate committee."

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

[George II]

42. Yeahbut...

[JackRiddler]

46. This page is a lot more revealing.

A spectacular 62% of her funding (1.5 million worth) came from small donations, including my own contribution. I'd like to see the list of those who matched that. I'm very pleased with her work so far. (What do you think you are proving? Will you next point out that she uses a cell phone or drives in a car from an evil corporation, or some other such revealing insight?)

[lapucelle]

49. You can only see a list of those donors if the candidate voluntarily discloses the information.

This candidate didn't.

[JackRiddler]

56. Which ones and please document your statement.

Thank you.

Also, you could clarify what you think you are implying. Are you saying that actually wanting to do something about the ongoing ecological catastrophe and mass extinction event (along with 45 other Congress members who signed on to the climate committee appeal) must be the product of some secret donor's agenda? What revelation are you trying to tell us? Please don't be evasive, speak your mind clearly. Thanks.

[lapucelle]

62. Please clarify your questions and document why you think they may or may not

be material to the issues being discussed. In addition, please enumerate those issues and give relevant examples of why they may or may not be significant. You may begin with an analysis of the importance of transparency in donor disclosure in the funding of political campaigns.

Thanks in advance.

[melman]

73. Total dodge

[JackRiddler]

74. Dodge indeed

You started here by making some vague insinuations concerning AOC. You are asked to clarify what you mean, nothing more. Also to define your term, "these donors." Which donors?

[lapucelle]

85. Please document your assertion after you've finished the other tasks.

[ProgLibDem]

45. Do we have to wait until millions and millions of people perish before doing something?

AOC might be, ah, unrefined for now, but she has the right ideas.

We need to end all gov subsidies to the fossil fuel industries, and subsidize and
give tax breaks to clean fuel power industries and electric transportation industries.

We are the problem solvers so lets do it.

[JackRiddler]

47. Obviously that's what some here seem to think.

You want to be realistic!

AOC is doing GREAT work and the Democratic Party needs another 50 like her, maybe they'll actually start winning, maybe actually start changing things!

[GulfCoast66]

51. So doing something means shaping the committee like she wants?

The chair of the new committee is an experienced congresswoman who is passionate about the issues. And more importantly, knows how Congress works.

I am beginning to wonder if this is not so much about the name and organizational basis of the committee which is pretty arcane at the end of the day.

But about who is leading it.

It not like the Senate is going to go along with anything the house passes anyway. And with all the other immediate goals the house has, like passing popular bills to watch the republicans kill them, and investigating the Administration, this Disagreement is small potatoes. We will still focus and pass bills supporting climate change legislation.

I would not be opposed to naming it what was desired and giving other powers as long as we had the same chair. I do not thing that would end the complaining.

[still_one]

58. Do you know where the power comes from to generate and run the electric transportation industires?

63% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels, 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 17% from renewable energy sources.

Because of what happened in 2016, with the help of enough self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting, we are in the situation we are into today. Effectively, those actions did more to set back the the United States in the environmental policies that President Obama set in motion, who the Democratic nominee who would have continued those polcies, than this "symbolic" action which will do nothing.


Those who believe in the all or nothing principle quite often end up with nothing

[JCanete]

64. It is unreasonable to broad brush everybody on the left. Cortez's complaint has nothing to do with

the very small percentage of lefties who decided to vote 3rd party or not turn out. Nor does that history resemble her. We don't get there if we don't fight for things. And nobody should be expecting Cortez to shut up now that she has a seat at the table. That would be the most disrespectful thing she could do to her constituents who voted her into office.

Also, nothing is symbolic about defining where your own goalpost and that of your opponent's is.

[still_one]

67. I did not "broad brush" those on the left. I said there were just enough self-identified

progressives who contributed to what happened in 2016, and 80% of the writers at Salon were right up to their neck, encouraging people NOT to vote for the Democratic nominee.

The time they should have been outraged was in 2016. It was only the SC, healthcare, the environment, etc. that was at stake.

47% of the populous didn't even bother to vote.

In those critical swing states, every Democrat running for Senate lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican by less than 1%, and not coincidently in those states Jill Stein received 1% of the vote.

I also NEVER said that Representative Cortez should be quiet. She is doing what she feels the people in her district voted her to do, as I assume the other Representatives are doing in their respective districts.

The Democratic platform made their position very clear on the environment:

COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, BUILD A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY, AND SECURE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

Some believe that having anyone who has taken political contributions from the fossil fuel industry should not be part of the discussion, and that is their right, but when 63% of the energy currently used is from fossil fuels, 20% from nuclear, and the rest renewable, and putting that restriction on Democrats, especially from states whose industry depends on that, ironically may have the opposite intended effect.

I have no doubt that their are some who would also like to exclude those in other conversations who have taken political contributions from gun industry, and other special interest groups.

Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was extremely effective.

[hatrack]

75. COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, BUILD A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY, AND SECURE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

By creating a committee that will be unable to originate legislation, and which will apparently lack the power to issue subpoenas or compel witnesses to testify (though I'm still waiting for confirmation on subpoena power one way or the other).

IOW, a talking shop, that will hold hearings and publish papers, recommendations and planning documents that will go on a shelf in the Congressional Records Office.

So, yeah, nice platform bullet point. So what?

[still_one]

78. Your points are good, but the bottom line elections have consequences, and while the Democrats in

Congress agree on most issues, there are differences especially in the means of attaining those goals.

This was just exemplified in the latest rules which included Pay as you go. Those rules are approved by the members of the House, and fact is that Democrats in Congress are not a monolith.

In spite of the some inferring that the Democratic party is to the left, or others inferring that the Democratic party is moderate, the reality is that it is a diversified party

[JCanete]

94. its not a question of what has been taken in the past. Its a new day. What we decide our politicians

should take in the future matters...and yes, not taking the money comes with consequences, but if the upsides don't overcome the deficits of doing so, we're fucked anyway.

[ProgLibDem]

90. I don't know anybody on the 'left' who voted for trump...

We lost 2016 because of Russia, gerrymandering, and voter suppression.

[still_one]

95. I don't believe anyone on the left voted for trump. They either voted third party,

the Democratic nominee, or didn’t vote

[ProgLibDem]

88. Wow. Not sure why or how you brought up 2016...

Or the meaning of your post.

Also, where on Earth did "Those who believe in the all or nothing principle quite often end up with nothing" come from?

[Sgent]

59. As long as those people

aren't on US soil we probably will.

Consensus in a democracy is hard, and in ours is harder than most. We never achieved consensus on slavery (for instance) until half the country took their ball and went home.

[HopeAgain]

70. Careful, you sound like a Tea Partier

Demanding change and all that.

[ProgLibDem]

89. Had me going there for a second!

[still_one]

52. So Salon can't bash Hillary anymore, let's go after Pelosi, and while they are at it see if they can

get trump elected to a second term, like they did from r his first term

[shanny]

60. Good.

[Raine]

65. Good for AOC

I love her passion for standing up for what's right, she's a breath of fresh air! thumbsup:

[WhoWoodaKnew]

69. She is a lightning rod for every news media. We all need to remember that and...

for some reason every move she makes is "dramatic" in the press. Everybody just calm down and consider what she says and if she's right.

[Blue_Tires]

76. Well, her #1 was always going to be a nonstarter

but of course nobody ever wants to discuss the one true solution so I'll just drop it.

And I really hope that ranting on twitter instead of trying to handle things behind closed doors isn't a permanent thing in Washington now.

[beachbum bob]

77. she is making herself less relevant and needs to mature a bit

her actions would be an instant re-election loss here in Illinois

[AlexSFCA]

80. She was elected to challenge status quo

And is not afraid to do so. We know that centrist strategy has failed. She doesn’t want to play politics and says things as she sees them; that’s refreshing, IMO. We will benefit from new energy.

[ucrdem]

83. Shouldn't element #3 be #1? Also, why isn't a "sample" already drafted?

Those "3 simple elements" show a strange set of priorities:

1 - bash Democrats.
2 - maybe write some legislation.
3 - draft a sample of some other legislation.

Let's just say it needs a little more work.

[jmowreader]

93. I don't agree with number 1

Some of the fossil fuel companies are doing good work in renewables. ExxonMobil is working on algae-sourced fuels. One of the big petroleum-focused universities has invented a process to turn carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide as fast as it’s formed...which sounds terrible until you know carbon monoxide is flammable and can be piped back into the engine.

The petroleum companies would also prefer to use their crude oil to make petrochemicals because gasoline and diesel are nearly profit-free.

If the fossil fuel companies are willing to spend money on alternative fuels, and to provide their expertise in these fuels to the panel, let’s bring them to the party.

[Kaleva]

96. I can't find the part where AOC supposedly rips Dem leadership.