116th Congress
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
If Ocasio-Cortez wants to be a lightning rod, fine. But she's going to turn into the left's version of Louie Gohmert if she doesn't install a Pragmatic Button on the good ship AOC. I think there's a lot to be seriously considered in the Green New Deal that deals with energy, but I agree that with this particular piece, it lists all the other wish list items that really have little to do with the energy sector. There's the old Johnny Cash song "One Piece at a Time." Probably deserves being heeded to here.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Sweeeeet. A Johnny Cash reference. Well done Fitty! I stated it in here during Obama's first year that I wish he would implement the Pickens Plan, which would have provided jobs, used our own resources (oil, coal, natural gas, wind, and solar) and could have been a great segway from "the Oil Companies rule this country" to the oil companies still make good profits but we are 11 years closer to be self-sustaining in jobs, cleaner-renewable energy, and IMO a way brighter future for everyone. I doubt the oil companies would let it happen then or now but I think we wouldn't be quite so close to the socio-economic abyss if he had and I'll bet the national debt wouldn't be $21T or whatever mind boggling number it is right now either.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think the most politically palatable moment for it would have been soon after 9/11/01. Of course, then the climate and energy debate was largely captured by industry-funded denialism. So we decided to spend trillions of dollars on wars instead. Now that the denialism is untenable, we’re just left with inertia and fatalism.
I guess I understand the objection to including health care, etc, in a resolution that’s ostensibly about climate change, but I also suggest that it’s a matter of perspective. I think it’s meant to be a New Deal, with the “Green” part being the centerpiece. If you don’t like the policy, fine. But a resolution to state some aspirational goals and jumpstart some public conversation is not a bad thing. Republicans certainly worked it effectively before the ‘94 elections. I think the social policy side and the language about inclusivity and equity is going to keep this thing cordoned off in a partisan way, and that’s too bad. But Republicans have been whistling past the graveyard on a lot of this stuff, and OMG CARAVANS is only going to take them so far.
I guess I understand the objection to including health care, etc, in a resolution that’s ostensibly about climate change, but I also suggest that it’s a matter of perspective. I think it’s meant to be a New Deal, with the “Green” part being the centerpiece. If you don’t like the policy, fine. But a resolution to state some aspirational goals and jumpstart some public conversation is not a bad thing. Republicans certainly worked it effectively before the ‘94 elections. I think the social policy side and the language about inclusivity and equity is going to keep this thing cordoned off in a partisan way, and that’s too bad. But Republicans have been whistling past the graveyard on a lot of this stuff, and OMG CARAVANS is only going to take them so far.
57Brave
Well-known member
listening to the MTP interview she speaks to your point.
Saying in effect, that has been tried for 40 years and we are still talking about it.
Ala FDR with policies advocated by Teddy Roosevelt 30 years earlier.
Ala LBJ Civil Rights advocating what Truman started 15-20 years earlier
It is the fight within the (D) as we speak.
Her point is " you've had your chance"
which, I wholeheartedly agree.
Drawing an equivalency, false as it may be, to Louie Gohmert is ... I cant think of a polite way to put it
Thse proposals put in context are no more revolutionary than the GI Bill circa 1946.
And there we find an equivalency match because the criticisms match.
..........................
Pertaining to Health Care. Listening to her speak, agree with her proposals or not, she draws a straight line from green to HC.
Listen to what she and the co-sponsors say, not what analysts say they say
Last edited:
sturg33
I
Yes you missed that point
sturg33
I
It means people who aren't willing to work.
Know how I know that? Because she separately called out unable from unwilling.
This is going to sell well. 5 Dem candidates already endorsed... The commercials and stump speeches write themselves.
"While people protest cow farts instead of working, your paycheck will go to them!"
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
It really doesn't matter if she speaks in complete sentences and can actually carry an argument. You're correct in that Gohmert was perhaps the wrong comparison given his proclivity for the inane. Perhaps Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I respect both Ocasio-Cortez and Amash and they are both bright people with very different views of how the world should work. My problem with them--and admittedly this is my problem--is that the legislative process is goulash and they are purists. We need purists, but if we're ever going to make progress in either direction, it will have to be accomplished incrementally by people willing to stir the ingredients into the likely less-than-totally-appetizing entree. Who wants goulash!?! Yum!
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I tend not to be impressed by purists in politics. I prefer pragmatic pros. Which is why I can admire both McConnell and Pelosi for their tactical skills. They both have an agenda and are dogged and skillful in pursuing it, regardless of the obstacles. The purists are often dogged too, but not as effective in getting anything done.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
57Brave
Well-known member
Please recognize the role of a 1st term Congressperson as opposed to a Speaker or Majority leader.
Isn't it the role of the first termer to be the ideologue ?
To 50's point I have been claiming a similarity to Amash since November and even put forward it wouldn't be a surprise to see a co sponsorship down the road
Make no mistake in thinking anything of this degree of public scrutiny isn't happening with out a behind the scenes nod from the Speaker
.................
Let me add. An ideologue is incapable of compromise. If you listen to her she is open to and expects compromise while being realistic what is and isn't legislatively possible
Which to my ears is the definition of pragmatism
................
As much as I love my brother Bedell and glad to see him back -- I do find it odd him lecturing on ideologue vs pragmatist
Isn't it the role of the first termer to be the ideologue ?
To 50's point I have been claiming a similarity to Amash since November and even put forward it wouldn't be a surprise to see a co sponsorship down the road
Make no mistake in thinking anything of this degree of public scrutiny isn't happening with out a behind the scenes nod from the Speaker
.................
Let me add. An ideologue is incapable of compromise. If you listen to her she is open to and expects compromise while being realistic what is and isn't legislatively possible
Which to my ears is the definition of pragmatism
................
As much as I love my brother Bedell and glad to see him back -- I do find it odd him lecturing on ideologue vs pragmatist
Last edited:
FDR didn't follow a two-term limit that didn't exist? Blasphemous!
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
No lecture. Just an observation/assertion.
Thanks btw! Doubt I'll ever be able to be as active as before, but we shall see.
I get why the lefties on this board don't care about this. It is benefitting their side but what the WikiLeaks e-mails started to show definitively is that the DNC/Media are the same entities. That is the real collusion and its been much more effective than any other outside entity.
The fact that the media is actually trying to lie that the initial rollout had a provision for people unwilling to work is legitimately scary.