Do we really want to reward the anti-Semitic wing of the Democrats? If the Party is going to have any credibility going forward, it will have to purge itself of the progressive bigots.
AOC has sold her soul to the Democratic Party for what she thought would be career advancement, but when you're dealing with Nancy Pelosi and you're a woman of color in Congress you'd best speak the words the party would have you say. AOC has done that fronting for an ailing Biden, supporting inhumane wars and playing the game for perhaps the worst presidential candidate in history Kamala Harris (second only to Trump that is). There are no progressives left in the Democratic Party because progressives speak out against genocide in no uncertain terms. The two parties are one when it comes to warmongering and defying workers rights, and neither has any answer for a health care system on the verge of collapse. https://barryjkaufmando.substack.com/p/ding-dong-the-democrats-are-dead
There’s a lot of trust here that AOC would stay on script and only attack Republicans and not, say, use Sunrise tactics against popular BLM policies. To pundit’s fallacy as someone waiting for one of the two parties to come back to sanity, further elevating AOC has a lot of downside risk to go along with the upside risk outlined in this post.
Waxman's ascension is a great foil for the Connolly-AOC fight in another key way that I wish Matt had mentioned (though I am sure he recalls it). In Nov. 2008, as Obama was preparing to take office, Waxman beat out John Dingell for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell had the gavel due to seniority, but Waxman sought it based on merit -- and won. What's more, he succeeded thanks to behind-the-scenes help from Pelosi and her colleagues. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/politics/21dingell.html
It was a fortuitous outcome because Waxman was both more media savvy and more of a health care wonk than Dingell. His position at the helm of that key committee made him an important and effective shepherd of the Affordable Care Act through the House.
I hate to say it, but I think Pelosi is still smarting from AOC joining a Sunrise sit-in in her office back in late 2018 and various other tense moments in AOC's first year in office.
Pelosi, a master legislative tactician with a truly historic record, has many virtues. Nurturing younger talent is not usually one of them. Her looming behind Jeffries is the latest evidence of that. But it's also apparent in the longevity of the elderly triumvirate atop the House Democratic Caucus for so many years -- Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn. A lot of ambitious Democrats like Xavier Becerra left the House for lack of opportunity to ascend, and of course, back in 2018, party leadership's young bench talent was Joe Crowley, then 56.
California Democrats' House delegation is about 80% people with no distinguishing qualities to speak of. Could you pick Julia Brownley or Juan Vargas out of a lineup? One of the most interesting California members, Katie Porter, ran for Senate and lost after being bumped from Financial Services (though she played some role in her own disappointment on that front). The Bay Area machine that produced Pelosi, Newsom, and Harris exercises disproportionate power over state politics and is really good at picking deeply boring people whenever an opening arises, even on the occasions when those people are from southern California (eg, Alex Padilla, and frankly, imo, Adam Schiff). I could go on.
The Dems didnt lose because of AOC, they lost because of charlatans like Bowman, and academics like Warren (imo). AOC and Bernie still have credibility as anti-establishment, like Trump does. Major error sidelining her, I am a proud moderate, but I trust AOC.
As a former Henry Waxman staffer, I take great offense to the crazy false "some good, some bad" equivalency, Matt.
Henry did more for public health and the environment than any legislator of that generation. Tobacco control, Food Safety, Ryan White CARE Act, the ACA, SCHIP, Orphan Drug Act, generic drugs (Hatch-Waxman), nutrition labels on food, 1990 Clean Air Act, infant food safety, medicaid expansion under RONALD REAGAN and on and on and on. And of course the oversight of the Bush Administration.
This idea that AOC was a model citizen on Gaza is wrong. Yes, she got pushback from Palestinian nationalist twitter. That space largely is sympathetic to terrorist organizations and want to destroy the sovereign nation state of Israel, so the fact that AOC got pushback from them is a REALLY low bar. Not to mention that AOC quickly capitulated to her Twitter critics after that Twitter exchange over her not using the “g word”, and started to use it regularly to describe the situation.
Agree w/Matt 100%, and Kyle M. beat me to the reason: much more than most members, she does her homework. I'm semi-retired now but early in her career I was part of a group of advocates who met with her on a fairly obscure financial services issue. I was stunned at how she'd actually read and absorbed the materials folks had sent her, asked probing questions, and ended up in a good place. Not exactly where I would've, but exactly where she should've, given her district and broader politics. Perfect example of politics by inclusion, expanding her scope to include slightly more moderate perspectives--she called it a "good fallback position--while advancing a more leftist vision.
As a person experiencing oldness, I don’t love the “really old people suck” vibe going on, but I too groaned when I saw that Connolly got this over AOC. I mean, his most recent claim to fame is announcing he has esophageal cancer. Which, isn’t that really bad? I mean obviously I hope he recovers fully but not only is he the generation that should be passing the baton but presumably he’s not going to be 100% physically. I don’t get it.
Having done oversight on the Hill before the big thing is while it is very partisan an undertaking it is very much not that ideological. Its perfect for someone like AOC as many members are not comfortable with that level of partisanship, but you're not really driving policy and big ideological commitments.
Great post by Matt. This was a bad and totally unnecessary own goal by the Democrats. It makes me wonder if they know how to play this game at all.
If this was Nancy Pelosi's doing, then shame on her. If so, I suspect it's a continuation of her animus and resistance to AOC starting immediately after AOC won her first election in 2018 (and granted AOC's early antics gave Nancy some basis for this). Back in 2018 and 2019 I was a volunteer on Katie Hill's first campaign and was in contact with her and her staff afterwards (she's the CA-25 representative whose promising career unfortunately went up in flames after some awkward photo leaks). I distinctly recall how Pelosi clearly identified Hill as a potential future star and showered her with all kinds of promotions and perks even before her first day in office, and I suspected that Pelosi was trying her best to set Hill up as a counterweight to AOC.
On Waxman, who was my representative for a long time. I recall once running into him in a Santa Monica bookstore two days before the election, as he was quietly perusing the bookshelves. Ah, the joys of a totally safe district. No campaigning for him!
But Matt gives him short shrift; despite his close-mindedness on transit (he didn't want a subway in his district); he was one of the great legislators of the late twentieth century and more. As Wikipedia notes:
"Waxman was an influential liberal member of Congress, and was instrumental in passing laws including the Infant Formula Act of 1980, the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, the Clean Air Act of 1990, the Ryan White CARE Act of 1990, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the State Children's Health Insurance Program of 1997, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010."
He also got the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed in the House, only for it to die in the Senate. Had it become law, we might be in a far different situation about carbon emissions than now.
"It’s a fallacy of Squad-dom to think that going viral on social media is sufficient to win elections — you need to pick smart fights and say smart things."
When... has... Trump... said... a smart thing... ever?
You know how some kids add "in bed" to the end of sentences for lolz? Well, every single time Matt or any other pundit says "you need to do xyz/avoid doing xyz to win elections," I'm going to add "if you're a Democrat."
There was that old acronym IOKIYAR: it’s ok if you’re a Republican. I haven’t seen it online in a while, but it used to be a common saying on political blogs
I can understand the aversion to putting the words “smart” and “Trump” in close proximity but Matt has made the argument that Trump has won in part because of moderating on, or avoiding, issues that hurt other Republicans. In other words, picking smart fights.
Do we really want to reward the anti-Semitic wing of the Democrats? If the Party is going to have any credibility going forward, it will have to purge itself of the progressive bigots.
AOC has sold her soul to the Democratic Party for what she thought would be career advancement, but when you're dealing with Nancy Pelosi and you're a woman of color in Congress you'd best speak the words the party would have you say. AOC has done that fronting for an ailing Biden, supporting inhumane wars and playing the game for perhaps the worst presidential candidate in history Kamala Harris (second only to Trump that is). There are no progressives left in the Democratic Party because progressives speak out against genocide in no uncertain terms. The two parties are one when it comes to warmongering and defying workers rights, and neither has any answer for a health care system on the verge of collapse. https://barryjkaufmando.substack.com/p/ding-dong-the-democrats-are-dead
There’s a lot of trust here that AOC would stay on script and only attack Republicans and not, say, use Sunrise tactics against popular BLM policies. To pundit’s fallacy as someone waiting for one of the two parties to come back to sanity, further elevating AOC has a lot of downside risk to go along with the upside risk outlined in this post.
Waxman's ascension is a great foil for the Connolly-AOC fight in another key way that I wish Matt had mentioned (though I am sure he recalls it). In Nov. 2008, as Obama was preparing to take office, Waxman beat out John Dingell for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell had the gavel due to seniority, but Waxman sought it based on merit -- and won. What's more, he succeeded thanks to behind-the-scenes help from Pelosi and her colleagues. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/politics/21dingell.html
It was a fortuitous outcome because Waxman was both more media savvy and more of a health care wonk than Dingell. His position at the helm of that key committee made him an important and effective shepherd of the Affordable Care Act through the House.
I hate to say it, but I think Pelosi is still smarting from AOC joining a Sunrise sit-in in her office back in late 2018 and various other tense moments in AOC's first year in office.
Pelosi, a master legislative tactician with a truly historic record, has many virtues. Nurturing younger talent is not usually one of them. Her looming behind Jeffries is the latest evidence of that. But it's also apparent in the longevity of the elderly triumvirate atop the House Democratic Caucus for so many years -- Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn. A lot of ambitious Democrats like Xavier Becerra left the House for lack of opportunity to ascend, and of course, back in 2018, party leadership's young bench talent was Joe Crowley, then 56.
California Democrats' House delegation is about 80% people with no distinguishing qualities to speak of. Could you pick Julia Brownley or Juan Vargas out of a lineup? One of the most interesting California members, Katie Porter, ran for Senate and lost after being bumped from Financial Services (though she played some role in her own disappointment on that front). The Bay Area machine that produced Pelosi, Newsom, and Harris exercises disproportionate power over state politics and is really good at picking deeply boring people whenever an opening arises, even on the occasions when those people are from southern California (eg, Alex Padilla, and frankly, imo, Adam Schiff). I could go on.
The Dems didnt lose because of AOC, they lost because of charlatans like Bowman, and academics like Warren (imo). AOC and Bernie still have credibility as anti-establishment, like Trump does. Major error sidelining her, I am a proud moderate, but I trust AOC.
As a former Henry Waxman staffer, I take great offense to the crazy false "some good, some bad" equivalency, Matt.
Henry did more for public health and the environment than any legislator of that generation. Tobacco control, Food Safety, Ryan White CARE Act, the ACA, SCHIP, Orphan Drug Act, generic drugs (Hatch-Waxman), nutrition labels on food, 1990 Clean Air Act, infant food safety, medicaid expansion under RONALD REAGAN and on and on and on. And of course the oversight of the Bush Administration.
Please give credit where credit is due. :)
This idea that AOC was a model citizen on Gaza is wrong. Yes, she got pushback from Palestinian nationalist twitter. That space largely is sympathetic to terrorist organizations and want to destroy the sovereign nation state of Israel, so the fact that AOC got pushback from them is a REALLY low bar. Not to mention that AOC quickly capitulated to her Twitter critics after that Twitter exchange over her not using the “g word”, and started to use it regularly to describe the situation.
Agree w/Matt 100%, and Kyle M. beat me to the reason: much more than most members, she does her homework. I'm semi-retired now but early in her career I was part of a group of advocates who met with her on a fairly obscure financial services issue. I was stunned at how she'd actually read and absorbed the materials folks had sent her, asked probing questions, and ended up in a good place. Not exactly where I would've, but exactly where she should've, given her district and broader politics. Perfect example of politics by inclusion, expanding her scope to include slightly more moderate perspectives--she called it a "good fallback position--while advancing a more leftist vision.
I can't be the only one who thought that if there are 10 pitches, it would take 6 of them to strike out.
As a person experiencing oldness, I don’t love the “really old people suck” vibe going on, but I too groaned when I saw that Connolly got this over AOC. I mean, his most recent claim to fame is announcing he has esophageal cancer. Which, isn’t that really bad? I mean obviously I hope he recovers fully but not only is he the generation that should be passing the baton but presumably he’s not going to be 100% physically. I don’t get it.
She’s a radical antisemite who should be nowhere near any levers of power. That’s all.
on the topic of recognizing talent in people who you politically (strongly) disagree with, who is someone like aoc deep on the gop side?
Don't think there is one. The Dems didn't have an AOC either, until they did.
If you're thinking more expansively, then it's just going to be a non-leadership GOP rep whose name you know.
matt's take here must be very familiar to anyone who is seriously invested in a professional sports team.
Having done oversight on the Hill before the big thing is while it is very partisan an undertaking it is very much not that ideological. Its perfect for someone like AOC as many members are not comfortable with that level of partisanship, but you're not really driving policy and big ideological commitments.
Great post by Matt. This was a bad and totally unnecessary own goal by the Democrats. It makes me wonder if they know how to play this game at all.
If this was Nancy Pelosi's doing, then shame on her. If so, I suspect it's a continuation of her animus and resistance to AOC starting immediately after AOC won her first election in 2018 (and granted AOC's early antics gave Nancy some basis for this). Back in 2018 and 2019 I was a volunteer on Katie Hill's first campaign and was in contact with her and her staff afterwards (she's the CA-25 representative whose promising career unfortunately went up in flames after some awkward photo leaks). I distinctly recall how Pelosi clearly identified Hill as a potential future star and showered her with all kinds of promotions and perks even before her first day in office, and I suspected that Pelosi was trying her best to set Hill up as a counterweight to AOC.
On Waxman, who was my representative for a long time. I recall once running into him in a Santa Monica bookstore two days before the election, as he was quietly perusing the bookshelves. Ah, the joys of a totally safe district. No campaigning for him!
But Matt gives him short shrift; despite his close-mindedness on transit (he didn't want a subway in his district); he was one of the great legislators of the late twentieth century and more. As Wikipedia notes:
"Waxman was an influential liberal member of Congress, and was instrumental in passing laws including the Infant Formula Act of 1980, the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, the Clean Air Act of 1990, the Ryan White CARE Act of 1990, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the State Children's Health Insurance Program of 1997, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010."
He also got the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed in the House, only for it to die in the Senate. Had it become law, we might be in a far different situation about carbon emissions than now.
+100 on Waxman, the unsung hero of Congress. It's a terrible shame about the Waxman-Markey bill.
"It’s a fallacy of Squad-dom to think that going viral on social media is sufficient to win elections — you need to pick smart fights and say smart things."
When... has... Trump... said... a smart thing... ever?
You know how some kids add "in bed" to the end of sentences for lolz? Well, every single time Matt or any other pundit says "you need to do xyz/avoid doing xyz to win elections," I'm going to add "if you're a Democrat."
There was that old acronym IOKIYAR: it’s ok if you’re a Republican. I haven’t seen it online in a while, but it used to be a common saying on political blogs
Dude, yes!
I can understand the aversion to putting the words “smart” and “Trump” in close proximity but Matt has made the argument that Trump has won in part because of moderating on, or avoiding, issues that hurt other Republicans. In other words, picking smart fights.