Ocasio-Cortez takes direct shot at Pelosi and Schumer

[JoeOtterbein]

Politico

The progressive star bluntly stated that “we need new leadership in the Democratic Party.”

By QUINT FORGEY

12/16/2020 08:30 AM EST

Updated: 12/16/2020 08:54 AM EST

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued in a new interview that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should no longer lead Democrats in Congress, and complained that the party had failed at grooming a “next generation” of younger lawmakers to succeed them.

“I do think that we need new leadership in the Democratic Party,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told The Intercept in an interview published Wednesday. Spokespeople for Pelosi and Schumer did not immediately return an email seeking comment on Ocasio-Cortez’s interview.

The remarks from the freshman congresswoman and superstar of the party’s left wing represented her most direct attack yet on Pelosi and Schumer, and come as Democrats are locked in a fierce debate over their broader message following a disappointing showing in 2020 congressional races across the country.

Schumer, who is 70 years old, was reelected as leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus last month, and Pelosi is positioned to be reelected as speaker in January — all but ensuring the House Democratic Caucus will continue to be governed by the same octogenarian triumvirate that has occupied the party’s top three leadership roles for the past 14 years: the 80-year-old Pelosi, 81-year-old House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and 80-year-old House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

snip

more at link

[samnsara]

1. she doesnt speak for me..never will.

[USALiberal]

18. I am sure she is fine with that! Nt

[Hortensis]

76. Well, if she can't get support from the Democratic mainstream, she can't win.

So she really may be fine with that, realizing she will never be willing to represent more than a minority, around 10-12% when the media noise and smoke are blown away, who feel as she does.

But if she can't win, she'll never be more than a gadfly in congress, voting for legislation other Democrats create while she seeks attention instead of achievement I-Sanders style.

It worked for nearly 30 years for Sanders, but I kind of doubt that's how she wants to spend her next three decades. We've been watching her dancing on the edge, trying to please Democrats on one side and anti-Democrats on the other, again Sanders-style, and displeasing and disappointing many in the process.

[Demsrule86]

113. There are worse things than being a lifer in the House...I don't see her winning statewide in

New York. The state of New York outside of New York City is not that liberal.

[William769]

191. Me either!

[Kingofalldems]

2. Every single day.......

[FarPoint]

3. After still living for 4 years of tRump...

I'm looking at a Team effort overall...I like Progressive's goals...but come on now...Biden needs us together to build a strong foundation...I need it too.

[Eyeball_Kid]

34. There must always be a balance between stability and change.

AOC's comments should never be perceived as a threat to the existing order, to re-establishing a modicum of political stability. Change IS stability. It always has been.

Think Hillary Clinton in 2016. She had all of the old established Dems backing her, but the party was, admittedly somewhat staid. Yes, she did win by 3 million votes, and that in itself speaks of the strength of the Democratic Party nationally. But back then, we came up short in local and state elections in a big way, and as seems the Dem tradition, did a mediocre to poor job with framing and messaging. The Dems couldn't seem to overcome the intense and pervasive right wing media networks, and the ascendant right wing/fascist movement. We should all be relieved that the Trumpian fascist movement has peaked and is now in a slow but inevitable decline.

To push for "stability" without respecting AOC's comments is, IMO, misguided. A younger Dem leadership means a more passionate leadership. Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer, Clybourne, et al have served the party well. But the Dems also have an embarrassment of riches in their younger ranks who deserve to be heard. Let's hear more from them.

[Bettie]

146. Glad someone else thinks that

progressives and younger people should be welcomed instead of shoved outside the "big tent".

[katmondoo]

4. This is not the time to change leadership. We have had to work hard just to maintain our Democracy.

[pawismom]

51. So true!

AOC reminds me more and more of Trump. Me,me,me. She truly believes that she is the one with all the questions and answers. No one ever thought about climate change, racial equality, women's rights etc. until she arrived. If she truly wants to be a leader then it might do her well to sit back and observe, study and learn what and why Pelosi and Shumer are where they are and how they operate. Just because the media gives you a ready outlet doesn't mean you have to use it. Timing is an art. We might of won the Presidency decidedly but we were lucky to hang on to the House and made no progress in the Senate. I don't think she and the squad did anything to help in this regard. They may have hurt; don't know. Right now we just have to give Biden, Harris, Shumer and Pelosi support and time just to straighten the ship. Like we have to do after every Republican administration. Republicans will suddenly become deficit hawks again and fight every nomination, policy and initiative Biden asks for. While we all want progressive action across the board we have to have the numbers. Watch Stacey Abrahms, she is getting it done. And by the way, other than being old what exactly is it about Pelosi that she has a problem with?

[secondwind]

5. I don't see Republican folks doing this to their own....

I like her very much, but certainly NOW is not the time to think about this.... SHEESH!!

[Autumn]

11. Republican folks like and support Mitch McConnell.

Big difference between Democrats and Republicans.

[onenote]

25. True. We don't like Mitch McConnell

But if you think Democrats don't like and support Pelosi and Schumer, you are very mistaken.

[Autumn]

38. I'm not mistaken at all since didn't say that. nt

[Vivienne235729]

193. I'm not convinced they actually like McConnell. Silence isn't always agreement. I think they are

AFRAID of him. And they know Republicans don't subscribe to doing the right thing. So they know their place and stay silent. Retribution is a bitch with MOBs.

[Autumn]

195. McConnell was elected to the Senate in 1984. Long before the fascists took over and they

became silent. His voters must like him, unless he been cheating all these years.

[MineralMan]

6. Give it a rest, AOC.

We don't need this right now. It's nonproductive in the extreme.

I have the same advice for Politico.

[bigtree]

36. you should realize neither Politico or Intercept provided any quotes supporting their premises

...and that AOC said reasonable things which you may or may not agree with.

But I can't find where she challenged the leadership the way Politico describes, not in any quote produced. Wonder why?

“If you create that vacuum, there are so many nefarious forces at play to fill that vacuum with something even worse,” she told Jeremy Scahill during an interview aired Wednesday on Intercepted this week.

Ocasio-Cortez argued that there are no viable alternatives for House or Senate leadership at the moment because the caucus’s current leaders spent a number of years concentrating power without any “real grooming of a next generation of leadership.”

“A lot of this is not just about these two personalities, but also about the structural shifts that these two personalities have led in their time in leadership,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “The structural shifts of power in the House, both in process and rule, to concentrate power in party leadership of both parties, frankly, but in Democratic Party leadership to such a degree that an individual member has far less power than they did 30, 40, 50 years ago.”

This dynamic is what pushes the “really talented members of Congress that do come along” to leave or run for statewide office instead. But Pelosi has also indicated that this upcoming term could be her last, “and the left isn’t really making a plan for that either,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “So I do think that it’s something that we really need to think about.”

If progressives do threaten to withhold their support from Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez said, their demand shouldn’t be merely for a floor vote on Medicare for All, which is sure to fail. Instead, she believes, progressives should fight some of the bigger structural obstacles in the way of Medicare for All, like pay-go, an austerity provision that makes it difficult for Democrats to pass more ambitious policies, or replacing conservative Democratic Rep. Richie Neal as head of the Ways and Means Committee. “We are currently negotiating to get and work towards real material concessions for the left that can move things into place, to help build power for the next two years,” she said.

The New York congresswoman shot down the possibility of running for the position any time soon. “The House is extraordinarily complex and I’m not ready,” she said. “It can’t be me. I know that I couldn’t do that job.”

https://theintercept.com/2020/12/16/aoc-nancy-pelosi-needs-to-go-but-theres-nobody-to-replace-her-yet/

[MineralMan]

37. My admonition to AOC stands.

So does my criticism of Politico.

[bigtree]

39. yeah?

...well, I'm whistling at the wind.

Same effect.

[MineralMan]

40. Opinions are like farts.

Everyone farts, but few will admit to having done so.

I grow weary of antagonistic remarks about the President-elect and other elected officials by politicians and publications. They are not useful in what needs to be accomplished in any way.

[bigtree]

43. where did she make an antagonistic remark?

...I provided all of the quotes produced by Politico or the Intercept.

It's a standard discussion about the future of the party, from this relatively new Rep's pov. Something not at all controversial or damning in any way.

I wonder how many others who've offered their view of the party in the future have attracted such mistaken scorn?

[George II]

84. Yep. As for your fart analogy, consider this: if three people are on an elevator and someone farts..

...only one person knows who did it. But if there are only two on the elevator and someone farts, both know who did it!

[MineralMan]

92. Very true.

Which points out that it's better to fart in a crowd.

[Thekaspervote]

91. +1000

[Cuthbert Allgood]

60. When do we need this?

Serious question. Every time a progressive wants changes in the party, it's never time. We have to win an election. We have to fix what the last Republican President did. We have to win midterms. We have to win the next election. We have to do blah blah blah.

There's never a time that's seen as OK.

In the meantime, our Dem leadership is getting older and older and, frankly, AOC is right in that replacements are not being groomed.

So, when is the right time?

[MineralMan]

62. It Seems to Me that the Replacements Are Self-Grooming

Sort of like cats do.

[ancianita]

122. Self grooming.

Your shrug is a tell that you know leadership isn't "sort of" built like that.

Before the start of each new session, we have voicings of new leadership. I doubt that she'll influence House Democrats in general or that she'll threaten our current leadership.

She's presided over the House and has had meetings with Pelosi, who speaks well of her and how they resolve any differences.

[CrispyQ]

136. +1 - You're right--it's never the time. -nt

[Bettie]

154. It is, apparently, NEVER the right time

Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, it's all about money because it is ALWAYS about the next election.

I still get 30-50 fundraising emails per day (down from the nearly 100 I was getting in Oct/Nov). They sure do want my money, but they have no interest in my opinion or the goals of people like me.

The goals they do have interest in are those that are acceptable/desired by the people who ru SuperPACs...the people who have a whole lot of money because the entire system is balanced on it ALWAYS being entirely about the next election.

I've come to the realization that there will never be a "right time" to even talk about progressive ideas.

[treestar]

163. Never

A political party rows together to get as much as they can. It's not a matter of ideological purity - that only means you are dragging down the boat, not rowing, but carping at the lead rowers, and slowing things down.

You have to jump in and do your part. Sitting out and criticizing means you get less of what you want. There are such things as Republicans.

Honestly, this would make sense if the most conservatives Democrats were the most right wing people in the country. It's ignoring reality that they are not - there are far more to the far right and they have disproportionate power. We have to fight them. This attitude acts like they don't exist.

[kstewart33]

96. Bingo, MM.

I gave AOC a pass in the first months of her term in Congress. But she's been there for almost two years and she's still at it - now attacking the two most powerful Dems in Congress. A few months ago, she was quoted as thinking about leaving Congress and working for change from the outside. I'm hopeful that she does just that.

[Dem4Life1102]

7. More Politico Dems in Disarray BS

They take one quote of hers and then spin a whole article around it. She never personally criticized Schumer or Pelosi and even voted for Pelosi for speaker 2 years ago which not all Democrats did.

[mopinko]

21. yup. she just came out saying there shouldnt be a forced vote on m4a.

i hate that shit.

[UpInArms]

22. This 👆🏼

I grow weary of the media (corporate owned) telling what Dems need to do and how they “squabble”.

Never do you hear the same rhetoric about pugnicans.

[Yavin4]

103. All she said was that the Democratic party needs new leadership

which it does.

[Dem4Life1102]

124. Exactly!

She never attacked Schumer or Pelosi as the article states. However she did say this that the article ignored:

Ocasio-Cortez argued that there are no viable alternatives for House or Senate leadership at the moment

[George II]

194. According to the OP not just new leadership but younger:

"....the party had failed at grooming a “next generation” of younger lawmakers to succeed them."

[bigtree]

8. it's an undeniable fact

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2020, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

...that the party needs to groom a “next generation” of younger lawmakers to succeed the old guard.

Criticism of Politico's/Intercept clickbait take, not withstanding.

[hlthe2b]

9. She has much to offer, a lot of natural "gifts." She also has a potentially self-defeating ego

Right now, it seems as though the latter may prevail.

[TexasTowelie]

10. It appears that AOC is feeling some pressure from the Left:

[Zoonart]

12. Oh... look who we're talking about.

[Cha]

13. PE Joe Biden is the Leader of the Dem

Party. I'd like to know what he thinks about Nancy Pelosi being Madame Speaker of the House..

[ancianita]

14. She offers challenging discussion. I think current Democratic leadership is equipped for that.

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2020, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

The party tent is big enough for her and leadership to have that discussion so that the leaders can 'bring the younger party leadership along,' and so they can embrace progressive legislation that keeps the youth vote for 2022 and 2024. Here are the DSA members who won elective office Nov 3 2020.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=746131396733&set=p.746131396733&type=3

That list is from the Democratic Left magazine.

[Demsrule86]

119. We are barely hanging onto the House and trying to win the Senate. We need unity not endless

division. If this continues the party will have to move right in order to win elections and that would be a shame.

[ancianita]

130. The time before the 117th is the time for discussing leadership. One opinion is not endless division

This is how leadership sees difference of opinion. If she's okay with the Speaker, she's okay with me.

This was a statement of unity, not "downplay."
Not a hint of division in the Democratic Party or threat to its leadership.


The young voters of America just voted in 35 Democrats like her from all around the country. They're part of the elected, the ones who WON, some for a third term right now.
So barely hanging on isn't as fragile as you might want to think.
Yet no one here is praising that reality of the party. Why is that.

The word "divisive" is one that describes us more than the party or its leadership, imo.
Those who use "divisive" are dividing from her; she's not dividing the party, imo.
No one in the party can really do that, imo.

[treestar]

164. Exactly!

When will AOC learn how dark blue her district is? And start fighting REPUBLICANS. Gawd, you'd think she doesn't realize they exist and have disproportionate power.

I am sick of them blaming the leadership that Congress is not left progressive in majority. It is not. And they won't get deep blue progressives reps from most House Districts and won't ever get Senators of that kind from most states. They refuse to accept the voters, or think they voters are just clay the leadership can make into progressives.

[CrispyQ]

128. I hadn't heard of this magazine.

Thank you! It's like a virtual holiday present.

[ancianita]

131. Happy holidays! We should be celebrating the 35 Democrats it lists who WON all across the USA!

[Bettie]

156. Content is not available right now

Darn it. Was interested to see it.

[liskddksil]

15. That's gonna trigger some folks lol nt

[uponit7771]

16. Looking at the intercept article they don't quote AOC saying those words, I'll wait

[Mike Niendorff]

17. She's spot-on.

When the time comes to pass the torch, what is the path?

Where is the development of young progressive voices?

Where is the investment in the next generation of progressive leadership?

She is SOOOO spot-on in this observation.

There should be an aggressive path for developing and cultivating the next generation of progressive leadership in the party. You can bet your ass Republicans aren't missing this opportunity within their ranks -- even if they end up kowtowing to radical fringe elements to do it. They get the stakes, and the long-term necessity

Or you can go the Democratic Party route and put up a brick wall to anyone that might ruffle the feathers of the center-right.

She's pointing out a legitimate problem, and damn it's refreshing to hear her do it.


MDN

[ancianita]

47. +1

[keithsw]

19. I agree with her,

But now is not the time to be talking like this. I think we need younger, more energetic people to Govern. I'm old, but I'm also tired of old white people being in charge of everything in this country. One reason I found the election of Obama so refreshing. ( and I'm also white )

[betsuni]

20. AOC seems to have no problem with Bernie Sanders, though. He's old.

[Cha]

24. PE Joe Biden got 81 Million Votes

and is the leader of the Dem Party.. we all know he's an elder statesman.

[betsuni]

26. I don't understand the obsession with leadership.

Liberals aren't authoritarians, why the idea that if just the right person were in charge, everything would be different. It's not a cult.

[JI7]

107. Especially if you are supporting someone like Sanders who has very little accomplishment

after being in office for decades.

[betsuni]

116. It's really weird.

[ancianita]

144. I won't give him, just his ideas, credit for getting 35 new democratic socialists into Congress.

That's a pretty good, if indirect, accomplishment that Biden, Schumer and Pelosi respect, along with all the progressive planks Bernie's team put into the Democratic Party platform.

After decades, he's served an important purpose, and I support him.

[betsuni]

147. What progressive planks did Bernie's team put in the platform?

[ancianita]

152. I don't believe you don't know, but I'll go along, since DU discussed this through the general.

In summary:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11003210
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512247607


Media discussed it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/heres-what-bernie-sanders-has-won-in-the-democratic-platform-so-far/

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/27/895800425/democrats-meet-virtually-to-approve-platform-that-builds-off-of-biden-sanders-ef

Finally the party tells you:
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

[betsuni]

155. Still don't know.

Higher minimum wage, ACA with public option, climate change, etc., are all usual Democratic issues in every platform for a long time. Obama ran on a public option and Green New Deal in 2008.

[ancianita]

159. Really. Can you link the public option and Green New Deal sites under Obama?

Let's see what I've missed.

So far what I do see is that you confuse what candidates run on for the party platform.
Candidates in the general run on the platform. Candidates in the primaries might, but don't have to.

What you still don't know is that the 2020 party platform teams and leadership had taken the public's and internal voters' change of temperature about progressive stands -- from the Bernie team -- and decided they were to be the platform; what had been called the Bernie fringe 4-6 years ago is called mainstream by the 81.3 million who voted for Biden.

Now you know.

Sounds almost a natural progression of political life, doesn't it.
As if it those four additions to the platform had always been there.

[betsuni]

161. Still don't know.

Both Clinton and Obama ran on public option in 2008 primaries, Green New Deal was a Thomas Friedman idea Obama ran on in the general along with a public option. ACA with a public option passed the House, failed in the Senate. The Fight for $15 minimum wage movement began in 2012 and became national.

None of Sanders' ideas are new.

[ancianita]

168. Well,

it does seem that way, doesn't it. Still waiting for the links.

[betsuni]

174. Obama ran on a public option and Green New Deal:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-12-09/obama-green-new-deal-dec-9/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/public-support-for-public-option

Just Google it. Also, Fight for Fifteen, which Sanders joined later:

http://www.npr.org/2020/02/26/808113169/gives-me-hope-how-low-paid-workers-rose-up-against-stagnant-wages

[sheshe2]

196. Oops.

Looks like betsuni offered you the links.

[betsuni]

198. It's a shame more people don't know Democratic policies.

Thanks for bringing up Medicare for All, that's been around a long time, as well as Democrats saying health care is a human right.

Two senators may vote 93% the same and yet one is called a centrist, moderate, corporatist establishment and the other hailed as a progressive who introduced new and radical policies and dragged the party left. It's fiction!

[ancianita]

210. Okay, coach.

Looks like to you, huh? But since you're now into passing out the loving attention here...

These are links for what he announced once in office. Not links that show he ran on that, and certainly no link that shows it in the party platform. I'm not saying it's not, but betsuni hasn't shown that link.

Either way, I'm cool, though the issue is really about confusing what people run on and what's in the party platform. I'm talking about how Bernie's team, before the convention, got 80% of what it wanted. betsuni said it had been there already. She still hasn't shown a link for that, as you can see.

[betsuni]

211. No, he ran on a public option, as did Clinton, and a Green New Deal.

Health care, environmentalism, higher wages, regulation of corporations and Wall Street and higher taxes on the 1% are usual Democratic policies. Medicare for All, the Fight for Fifteen, affordable education are usual Democratic polices, of course.

The 2016 party platform included Hillary's plan for an ACA with a public option and Medicare at 55 years old -- similar to 2008 and in the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency when that administration tried to reform health care. Sanders' plan was a remix of the former Medicare for All.

None of Bernie Sanders' policies were new or radical. Bernie Sanders did not lurch anybody to left with a few new words in the party platform.

[StarfishSaver]

203. Bernie got the public option enacted into law?

Otherwise, he doesn't get credit for running on something Obama ran on first but was not able to get through Congress.

[George II]

190. Were they others' ideas prior to Sanders? Many of his proposals have been on record from others....

....for a number of years, and before he re-articulated them in his own words.

For example, his keystone policy of "Medicare for All", using that very term in fact, was first introduced in the House back in February, 2003 by Representative John Conyers, with 25 original co-sponsors:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/676

H.R.676 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

Bernie Sanders, who was in the House at that time, didn't even co-sponsor it until more than 14 months later, in April 2004.

But now, according to him and others, it's his!

[Mike Niendorff]

27. "Old" not the issue.

Who is cultivated? Where do we look to pass the torch?

Those are the questions.

If you have no young progressives on the bench, then the flame dies.

It's that simple.

You have to think generationally, and your tent must include voices beyond the center-right.

A brick wall for progressive voices guarantees your party will fail as its leadership becomes less and less relevant.

Fix this or fail.


MDN

[betsuni]

29. There are plenty of young Democrats.

The Democratic Party is not center-right.

[still_one]

32. Exactly.

[Mike Niendorff]

35. Absolutely it is.

And that's been the problem.

It took a monster like Trump to get people off the benches to support a moderate like Biden. Go even slightly further left to Barack Obama and you have a landslide (although after 4 years of compromises and disappointment, that ebbed a lot in 2012).

Imagine what would happen if the party understood the message here.

Seriously.


MDN

[betsuni]

41. No.

The idea that the majority of Americans are just waiting for a True Progressive before they will vote for progress is incorrect. They do not vote for policy, as all studies show.

[Mike Niendorff]

46. "They do not vote for policy"

We just did.

Catch up.


MDN

[betsuni]

48. What policies did Republicans vote for?

[Mike Niendorff]

150. Republicans voted for a cult of personality.

They're fascists, that's what they do.

Progressives are not the same.

That's why we support progressives.

If it was just Tribe A vs Tribe B, what's the point?

Everybody gets this.

Literally, everybody.

Catch up.


MDN

[ismnotwasm]

175. "Progressives"

Toss out slogan politics with zero workable infrastructure behind them. When a work around happens as with the ACA or Obama’s green initiatives, “progressives” push harder, made rookie political mistakes and lose elections. Occasionally they win, but not often enough

Republicans do not think they are “voting for fascists’ they think they are voting for their version of second amendment rights, smaller government, less regulations and a freer market, and hypocritically, anti women’s health, and pro Christianity.



We have to counter THAT messaging, and we have to reach millions of people.

[melman]

50. All studies show that?

Like every study ever? Wow. That's a lot of studies.


Can you post a couple?

[betsuni]

55. You know my greatest hits.

I highly recommend the book containing a lot of data from many sources: "Identity Crisis, The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America" by John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck. Partisanship and identity, that's how most people vote.

[melman]

82. So one book is all studies

Okay.

[betsuni]

86. Political science.

You can Google for links about why Americans vote.

[LanternWaste]

185. It does not follow

Part XXXVI

[Demsrule86]

123. Nancy Pelosi is not center-right.

And Mitch McConnell would destroy an inexperienced Democrat majority leader. Now is not the time to experiment. We are likely to lose the house in 22 given our situation. Consider that if the Republicans have the house and the Senate, they could successfully steal the 24 presidential election in Congress and I have no doubt they would do so.

[betsuni]

132. I expect the worst case scenario in '22.

Why anyone thinks inexperience is an attractive thing in politics, of all things, I do not know.

[George II]

139. Old IS the issue. When one complains that the party had "failed at grooming the next generation of..

....younger lawmakers", that person is making "old" the issue:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued in a new interview that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should no longer lead Democrats in Congress, and complained that the party had failed at grooming a “next generation” of younger lawmakers to succeed them.

There are a number of Democrats in the House and Senate who are being "groomed" constantly to step in to succeed some of the current leaders.

I doubt that Speaker Pelosi or Minority Leader Schumer are going to put out daily press releases that "so and so is being groomed to replace such and such". It's happening, that's how organizations evolve - in the private sector and in government.

We've got Senators like Cory Booker, Maria Cantwell, Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuchar, Chris Murphy, etc. who do their jobs day to day like they should, learning how the Senate works and gaining valuable experience. Any one of those can someday (perhaps soon?) step in to be, hopefully Marjority, Leader in the Senate.

The same goes for the House. We've got a number of "younger lawmakers" in the House, too many to list, that are learning their jobs and how the House operates. If called upon, there are several right now who can step in to lead when necessary.

They're groomed and ready. If someone isn't aware of this then that person should certainly get more involved in the workings of the House and what's going on in the Democratic Caucus.

[Dem4Life1102]

169. What bothers me about both articles is

there are very few direct quotes in either. And none that have AOC directly say Pelosi or Schumer’s name. In all the direct quotes she is speaking in very broad and general terms. Knowing Politico’s track record, I have to take it all with a grain of salt.

[George II]

172. Yes, it's a Politico article. Cobble together a few 3rd hand rumors, imply (or even say outright)..

....that the nuggets in those rumors are facts, and run with it.

There was one yesterday that had "Top liberals" in the headline, with the writer proclaiming those discussed as HER "top liberals", even though many aren't in any leadership positions.

Sloppy journalism at best, sloppy writing minus "journalism" at worst.

[Autumn]

44. AOC seems to have no problem with Nancy either. I won't say the "She's old" part though.

AOC seems to have no problem with Bernie Sanders, though. He's old.

[betsuni]

49. The article is about old and new leadership.

[Autumn]

52. The headline is, the article seems to be a bit different. Bernie also isn't Senate leadership. nt

[betsuni]

58. He is the leader of his movement (Justice Democrats/Our Revolution).

At least the members of those organizations seem to think so.

[Autumn]

69. If you read the article you will find that it's about Democratic leadership.

[Autumn]

73. In the Senate. nt

[betsuni]

98. No. AOC: "I do think that we need new leadership in the Democratic Party."

[ancianita]

53. And Speaker Pelosi seems to have no problem with AOC, either.

[Autumn]

66. Agree, there seems to be no problems between them and a mutual respect. Unlike Manchin's

attitude towards her which is IMO very "republican like"


https://www.newsweek.com/manchin-says-ocasio-cortez-tweets-more-she-legislates-hes-missed-more-votes-1551566

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin suggested congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweets more than she legislates in Congress—but the New York progressive has missed fewer votes and has supported the same number of bills which passed.

Manchin, who is from West Virginia, is regarded by many as the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, took aim at the so-called progressive faction of his party in an interview with The New York Times. He touted his role as a centrist lawmaker who sees a "golden opportunity to bring the country back together and to work in the middle" as President-elect Joe Biden prepares to enter the White House. Last month, Manchin drew the ire of Ocasio-Cortez and others after he said of efforts to redirect police funding, "Defund, my butt."

Ocasio-Cortez, who commands a massive social media following compared with her congressional peers, posted a photo of herself glaring at the senator who is frequently ridiculed by more liberal members of Congress for his GOP-friendly stances. Manchin was blasted by a wide swath of Democrats for his "yes" vote on now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination in October 2018.

"I guess she put the dagger stare on me," Manchin said of Ocasio-Cortez's photograph. "I don't know the young lady—I really don't. I never met her. I'm understanding she's not that active with her bills or in committee. She's more active on Twitter than anything else."

If he's never met her and doesn't know her perhaps he should keep quiet about her and not trash her values.

[ancianita]

74. He's got insecurity issues,

which, IMO, are very Republican-like, as you say.

[Autumn]

80. That he does, very insecure as most small minded men are.

Like all republican men they don't seem to be capable of respecting the values of others and have control issues.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. Yeah. She's also not saying he should be the Senate Dem leadership.

Who are we grooming for the new leadership?

[betsuni]

67. Why would anyone assume new leaders aren't being groomed?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

90. Because someone in the party is indicating that they aren't?

[betsuni]

101. Doesn't make it true.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

141. Doesn't make it not true.

[betsuni]

142. See comment #139.

[ancianita]

153. Could you link it? I looked and can't find it. Seriously.

[betsuni]

157. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14720129

[George II]

85. He's a LOT older than Schumer and only one year younger than Pelosi.

[madaboutharry]

23. I went to college with someone exactly like AOC.

She knew more than anyone around. Always. Every day. And if you forgot for a moment that she knew more than you and everyone else, she would take the time no matter what the context to remind you that she knew more, that she knew better, and that everyone should listen to every. single. word. she. had. to. say.

The Democratic Party is a big tent. It sometimes seems like AOC needs to be reminded of that.

[Mike Niendorff]

30. That was probably me.

I don't have 10% the skills that AOC brings to the table.

If your big tent does not include the strongest, most effective progressive voice in the House today, then your tent is not as big as you claim it is.

Fix this or fail.


MDN

[madaboutharry]

33. You misinterpreted my post.

[Mike Niendorff]

42. You misinterpreted my response.

Please read it again.

It's one thing to be the voice crying out in the wilderness.

I get that, it's probably all I'll ever be to he honest. I've got angry irrelevance down to a science.

But when you find someone who can connect that to a broader experience, who can speak the truth of needed change without alienating or speaking past the people who are grasping for exactly that representation, but lacking the words to give it voice -- that IS SOMETHING.

Honor that. Cultivate that.

And for god's sake : LISTEN to that.


MDN

[CrispyQ]

118. The big tent has been telling the liberal wing of the party to sit down & be quiet for decades. -nt

[Bettie]

151. +1

Exactly.

[flibbitygiblets]

28. Yes. But not yet.

Baby with the bath water...

[still_one]

31. How old is Bernie Sanders again? At this specific time, is this really helpful? The fact is that

there were enough so-called progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, and helped usher in the last four years

It is about time that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez perhaps consider running for a state wide office, a national office, or even the Mayor of NY, just to see how much traction she really has outside of her district

[MineralMan]

45. I doubt that AOC could win a statewide election.

So, your comment is pertinent, even though she would tell you it was impertinent, I'm certain.

We have many younger legislators and other elected officials. They are rising stars, but are not quite ready for the oven yet. Another kneading and rising period is needed, it seems.

[still_one]

54. No doubt. It would be interesting to see how she would do if she ran for Mayor of NY

[ancianita]

72. I'd give her and the 35 other just-elected Democratic Socialists more time. They'll get there and

Biden and Pelosi and Sanders will encourage that.

[Yeehah]

56. How dare we have dissent within the Democratic Party?!

AOC stating her opinion is OUTRAGEOUS!

She should learn her place and respect her betters!

[Cha]

57. Just because some disagree

does NOT mean they think she shouldn't Voice her Opinion!

People Are Allowed to Disagree.

[jcgoldie]

59. I agree but AOC seems to catch a lot of hell around here for voicing her opinion

[Cha]

65. Some disagree and some don't..

it's a discussion board as you know.

[BainsBane]

71. I wonder why?

When people say disagreeable things, other people disagree with them.
It's not rocket science.

[jcgoldie]

75. Or maybe there are other reasons as well...

... like the ones we Democrats normally pride ourselves on not harboring.

[BainsBane]

83. She is shitting all over an effective Democratic Speaker of the House

Perhaps the most effective in history. There is nothing here to admire, unless of course one hates the Democratic Party.

Something is seriously wrong if you don't think people have a legitimate reason for disagreeing with her here. People are not jealous because they don't want the GOP to succeed in breaking down unity on Democratic legislation in the House. That is precisely the result of AOC's directive here. Unless, of course, you think we should obey AOC because of her appearance. Is that your view?

[jcgoldie]

88. Wtf?

Obey AOC because of her appearance? I have no idea where that bullshit came from but I do agree someone is getting “shit all over” here and it isn’t Nancy Pelosi. I also believe that diversity of opinions is a strength not a weakness and that our elected officials don’t always need to toe a party line. Unity is important during election season but this is not that. This is a bunch of people overreacting to everything “uppity” AOC does or says. It has nothing to do with her fucking appearance but it likely has something to do with her age and gender in some cases.

[BainsBane]

94. Diversity of opinions can be a positive

if they say anything worthwhile. This isn't one of those cases. I agree that many people overact to AOC, but this isn't such a situation. We see the RW shit against Pelosi at the beginning of every congress. It never amounts to anything but hot air. That's not to accuse AOC of being RW, but she says the exact same thing the pro-life, pro-Trump tax cuts people like Tim Ryan do. Remember when he was held up as the great "progressive" speaker of the House rival candidate?

You somehow feel entitled in trashing Pelosi and Schumer but insist that anyone who dares to disagree with AOC is harboring bad motives.

I'm still with her, and will be until the day I die. So you can put your accusations about sexism where they belong. And somehow you manage to overlook the fact that attacks on Pelosi due to her age are in fact sexist. So your argument isn't remotely intellectually consistent.

[jcgoldie]

97. Read the article

Do you see AOC mention anyone by name? Does she say ANYTHING about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer? You are accusing her of “shitting all over” someone because she made some nondirected comment about the Democratic party needing fresh leadership??

[BainsBane]

105. try the first sentence

"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued in a new interview that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should no longer lead Democrats in Congress, and complained that the party had failed at grooming."
The author directly attributes her comments as about Pelosi and Schumer, meaning she named them.

You may want a completely inexperienced Speaker. That has NEVER been the way that position has been treated. It has always been people with great knowledge of the caucus and someone who maintains good relationships with its members. People like AOC, Sanders (despite serving four decades in DC), and others who spend their days attacking Democrats can't develop those kind of relationships because they don't want to. The reason for an experienced speaker is that they know what the fuck they are doing. For people who want to ensure nothing gets done in congress, an inexperienced speaker is the way to go.

Of course, people could always consider supporting someone under 70 for president, but that somehow never enters into these calls for "grooming younger generations." The hypocrisy couldn't be clearer.

[jcgoldie]

108. Nowhere in the article does she name them

Do you honestly think politico left out the explosive quotes where she said Nancy Pelosi should be replaced as speaker of the house so that they could make room for some generic one about Democrats needing new leadership?

[BainsBane]

117. the interview is from the Intercept

https://theintercept.com/2020/12/16/aoc-nancy-pelosi-needs-to-go-but-theres-nobody-to-replace-her-yet/

According to you, the journalist would have had to flagrantly lie. Given AOC's track record, I see no reason to believe that's the case.

I just one to highlight something from your previous posts. You accused members her of being sexist because they disagreed with AOC's view that our current Speaker of the House, the only woman in history to hold that position, was too old. Your claims are strained at best.

[jcgoldie]

125. Bullshit

Putting an explosive headline on an article based on readers assumptions isnt lying its the way they get hits. If you want to explore bullshit from previous posts you can explain where the hell you got some nonsense about “obeying AOC” because of her appearance... someone in this conversation is preoccupied with her appearance and it isnt me.

[BainsBane]

129. You have since said you were talking about sexism

and since you admit to such blatant intellectual inconsistency, who am I to say otherwise? You were less clear in the other post, and so I thought you meant jealousy. I didn't think you meant sexism because it makes no sense in this context, but since you say that's what it was, so be it.

But then your intellectual consistency also extends to age in political candidates, doesn't it? It's rather hard to keep track of your contortions.

[jcgoldie]

133. Lol

Since you appear to have run out of things to say on the topic altogether I shall discontinue.

[BainsBane]

135. I imagine you're tired

from so many contortions. Rest up.

[BainsBane]

134. AND people were responding to that headline

and the article. You accused everyone who disagreed with those comments attributed to AOC of being sexist. Then you referred me to the article, which makes the same claim--both in Politico and in the original version in the Intercept. Now you claim the article is a lie.

So what exactly are you so pissed off at everyone about? You evidently believe that no one should ever disagree with AOC, and if they are, it's because they are sexist--regardless if AOC is attacking another woman over her age. But then we are supposed to dismiss the content of the article we are reading because . . . you believe AOC can do no wrong, even though you claimed if we didn't agree with those comments we were sexist. And now if we believe the news article, we are sexist.
You sure got your work out today.

[R B Garr]

149. Excellent, your assessment is 100% accurate. Any questioning

of AOC and you are labeled a jealous old biddy or a right winger.

[melman]

104. " Unless, of course, you think we should obey AOC because of her appearance"

Holy shit.

[BainsBane]

106. Try to follow

the line of discussion, Melman.

Meanwhile, your daily threads are always about AOC and rarely if ever about any other progressives.

[melman]

115. I'm not having any trouble following

Thanks very much. That was an absolutely unbelievable thing to see posted here.


First of all. that's not true.


Secondly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic Rep. and this is a Democratic board. I post her tweets because she says a lot of important things. Not because I think she's hot or whatever you're trying to imply.

[BainsBane]

127. there is a train of argument from the other poster

She accused people who disagree with AOC's comments here as "harboring" some unadmitted prejudice, as though there were no legitimate reason for disagreeing with her comments. It turned out that I was wrong to attribute that poster's comments to jealously. She actually meant sexism. The sexism, evidently, is not agreeing with a woman who characterizes another woman as too old to do her job. The argument lacks intellectual coherence, but if that poster admits to it, who am I to argue with them.

As for you, when AOC tweets--you post. Every day. And you never, or virtually never, post about anything else. If the day ends in Y, you are posting about AOC, as though nothing else on earth interests you.

[Gothmog]

158. Another great post BB

Thank you

[R B Garr]

183. Great post again, Bains. Interestingly, a lot of those AOC

threads just seem to discuss other DUers.

[AmericanCanuck]

204. [phone]

[Cary]

167. Serious questions, Melman

1. Have you ever tried to engage without conflict?

You know, like trying to find the common ground, acknowledging your own weaknesses, or other constructive tactics.

2. Do you see any benefit in engaging without conflict?

We had 74 million people vote for Orange Hitler. That scares the shit out of me. We have to be on our game, don't we?

[melman]

170. Hey

Remember when you accused me of respecting fascism?


Is that the kind of conflict-free posting you're talking about?

[Cary]

171. Nope

Can you answer my questions please?

[George II]

192. I see "IF" in your statement there, sir.

[Cary]

197. So did Melman

So you can see he evaded my question because he's ashamed of his answer.

[sheshe2]

201. My guess it is nope.

[Cary]

173. I didn't accuse you of respecting fascism

You extrapolated that.

[AmericanCanuck]

205. Distraction with a strawman

with a pinch of whataboutism

[Cary]

184. So your answer is no

You never try to engage without conflict and you see no benefit.

Got it.

[sheshe2]

199. +++

[Sympthsical]

179. Sexist as hell, too

Which is highly interesting.

[melman]

181. Yes it is

and yes it is.

[AmericanCanuck]

206. strawman

[George II]

121. The HISTORIC, first (and only) Female Democratic Speaker of the House. All I can say is...

When I graduated from college and landed my first full-time permanent job as an engineer, I didn't start bashing the Director of Engineering or Chief Engineer.

[BainsBane]

68. You are not allowed to disagree with AOC

You can only hate the Democratic party. Get with the program, Cha.

[Cha]

78. I love the Dem Party.. Maverick

that I am.

lol Bains

[AmericanCanuck]

207. Yes ... the fan club tries to bite when any criticism is encountered

[BainsBane]

63. Maybe they should run

another pro-life, pro-Trump tax cuts house member for speaker and call him "progressive." That was clever.

[LanternWaste]

186. I'm not surprised you allow only two implicit options to your argument.

It's a very popular logical fallacy.

[Yeehah]

188. I made my point

Deal with it in your own special way.

[BainsBane]

64. How dare we have an effective Speaker of the House

When so many have a vested interest in ensuring nothing gets done.

[AmericanCanuck]

70. More divisive shit by a small minority to become a twitter sensation

Democrats need to stay united .... and resolve differences in private .. not in public.

Doing this sort of stuff in public is wrong.

[ancianita]

77. We might recognize that we're not her intended audience, which is national young voters.

And so this sort of stuff is what they like, from what I hear from all the millennial younguns I know, which is a few hundred (social media).

I admit that she makes me nervous at times, but she's not wrong, and I also understand that I'm not her audience.

[AmericanCanuck]

87. Just because some group likes it is no reason to divide the party

She is supposed to act as a seasoned political leader and she should also look after the interests of the party and show due deference to its leaders.

[ancianita]

100. She's not intending to divide anything. You keep using "divide the party."That's your interpretation

She's got energy.
She's with the progressives and so is Biden and the platform he worked with Bernie's team on.

Look at her vote record. 95% for the hundreds of House bills passed.
https://ontheissues.org/NY/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez.htm

But deference? To whom. And what kind. Silence?
Did Pelosi or Schumer tell her not to speak unless spoken to?
Maybe they want her young national audience to hear from her.

Why this has to be interpreted as a "shot" at them means that they'd agree with you that they should beware of her.

Think they want her to shut up? I don't. I think they listen. That's good leadership that she'll emulate if/when she ever becomes a party leader down the road.

And if they have issues with her opinions, they'll let her know. That's leadership, too. Let's find out if they respond, and if that response supports her right to voice her stance -- before we presume to defend leaders who don't need it, didn't even ask for it, and are quite capable of defending against much worse than her voice on leadership.

Is that what you AOC critics want? To tell her when it's okay to voice her position on issues?
Know what that is? Unsupportive. I could say divisive, but I'll leave it at unsupportive.

[AmericanCanuck]

137. Intra-party differences should be aired out and addressed in private

Parties are like families and when a dispute goes public, it is divisive.

[ancianita]

140. I hear you and disagree. That's exactly what Republicans do. We're transparent.

And the public likes that. Now it's taking our side against the usual media doubt machine lingo.

We're nearing the 117th session next Jan, and this comes up. Nancy and Chuck know that.

It's not a family. That rule works for that informal institutions.
This institution is a formal institution in the 3rd biggest nation on the planet, which is now being led by a big tent party that doesn't break itself over every little "different" voice.

Didn't you listen to Nancy in the video I posted?

We live with difference.
We support it.
We are unified around it.
It's who Democrats are. Nancy said so.
And to quote another of our great leaders, we're transparent and we're New York tough.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Don't over react to this. Her comments don't shake the foundations of our democracy OR of our Party

They won't turn Americans against Biden's agenda. They won't cause any new "rupture's" in the Democratic coalition. There almost always is some churn regarding leadership positions. It's just a shot across the bow about how the Democratic Party has to open up leadership positions to younger members. The top three Democratic elected officials in the nation are all in their 70's or 80's. Most of Pelosi's leadership team is elderly also.

When it comes to advancing a Democratic legislative agenda, static like this is irrelevant. Democrats vote on issues and every Democrat in Congress knows that there is much work that we must unite on to accomplish.

[BainsBane]

89. Funny how age

Didn't enter into AOC or your choice in Democratic presidential nominee. But that would require intellectual consistency.

The woman you think too old to draw breath is effective precisely because she holds the Democratic house caucus together, and did so quite effectively under Trump. Now if one's goal is to ensure GOP legislation is passed or to see government accomplish nothing, undermining Pelosi is definitely the way to go.

[Tom Rinaldo]

145. Your comment is full of false assumptions

Age did factor into my considerations for the Democratic nomination, and not only do I not think Pelosi is "too old to draw breath", I think she is a very effective Democratic Speaker of the House and I have backed her consistently over the years (and have the Journal posts to prove it.)

I don't think that Biden or Schumer or Pelosi are too old to do their jobs (nor would Sanders or Warren) but collectively I think the leadership of the Democratic Party is too heavily weighted toward those over seventy while those below 50 are significantly under represented.

For the record I held back for months in deciding who to personally back for President in the primaries precisely because Bernie Sanders was in his mid to late 70's. I looked favorably on Kamala Harris partially due to her age but she was eliminated early. One reason why I initially settled on Warren was because she was younger than Sanders, until it became clear in my mind that she realistically could not win the nomination. I was open to Beto but he did not impress me enough, and yes, I thought Mayor Pete lacked sufficient experience.

Pelosi indicated previously that this would be her last term as Speaker, and I think that was a correct decision on her part. We do need some younger leaders and it is not too soon to be talking about that. I have every confidence that Nancy Pelosi's effectiveness will not be undermined by this type of discussion.

[BainsBane]

177. I think we do have younger leaders

the question is if they are better equipped to be Speaker, Majority Leader, or President. I don't have feelings one way or another about Schumer, but Pelosi has been exceptional at her job. Voters clearly concluded that Biden was the best candidate. I think committee assignments and lesser cabinet posts are good positions from which to groom future leadership, but I don't think youth is a qualification to serve as Speaker or other high-level positions. Nor is someone who is a new House member likely to merit a committee chairmanship. Younger means younger than the leading figures in the party, not young, as in 30ish. One thing is sure, AOC can never expect to hold a committee chair, given her relentless attacks on the party and its leadership. Plus, she is repeatedly saying she doesn't want to stay in office.

[George II]

81. I'm not going to click on the link. Did she offer any names for possible replacements?

[frazzled]

95. That she went to the Intercept speaks for itself

I wouldn't click either.

[George II]

111. From what I read on Twitter, she's not all that complementary toward Democrats.

[intheflow]

93. She's not wrong about how the party neglected grooming younger leaders.

I don't see this as an attack, however. Stating a problem is NOT the problem. And neither is the person stating the problem.

[ismnotwasm]

99. Goddamn I hate Politico

Clickbait motherfucker. I’ll read articles from here, but otherwise it’s on the order of “Truthout” or Chris Cizzilla to be avoided as trash.

Anyway. I did read it.

But Ocasio-Cortez also offered criticism of progressives, noting that “the left isn’t really making a plan”ahead of Pelosi’s potential retirement, and warning that “there are folks more conservative than even”Pelosi and Schumer” who are “willing to kind of fill that void” in leadership.

“The hesitancy that I have is that I want to make sure that if we’re pointing people in a direction, that we have a plan. And my concern — and this I acknowledge as a failing, as something that we need to sort out — is that there isn’t a plan,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “How do we fill that vacuum? Because if you create that vacuum, there are so many nefarious forces at play to fill that vacuum with something even worse”

Now I have to go find another source without the select comments and quotations. Fucking bullshit.


Ok even the fucking Intercept article is better than that Politico trash. Ocasio-Cortez is arguing that the Democratic structural dynamic has concentrated power, so that individuals, apparently, do not have enough. I wish she would have used specific examples for this, and also factored in what has happened in the last “30 or 40 years” that made her think this. Neither article is her best moment as far as interpreted interviews go.

[BainsBane]

109. The Intercept directly attributes her comments

as being about Pelosi and Schumer. To argue that she didn't name them means that the journalist out and out lied. Given AOC's track record, I see no reason to doubt the journalist.

[ismnotwasm]

120. The intercept is more honest, which is crazy to me

Politico really, really gets on my nerves. But the Intercept often has this high energy hysteria that makes it almost laughable. I’m not arguing that she didn’t name them, she absolutely did. I was looking for context, because sometimes Ocasio-Cortez is misquoted. That isn’t the case here. Ocasio-Cortez Is a very smart woman. I don’t know why she says shit like this, which is not politically wise, or factually correct.

[sheshe2]

202. Truth Out

That was Will Pitts mouthpiece. He was the one that called Obama a POSUCS.

[Yavin4]

102. Do people here think that Pelosi (81) and Schumer (70) should be leaders forever? n/t

[ismnotwasm]

112. They will be dead. No one is a leader forever.

Nancy has already indicated she will step down. Mentoring younger political persons has long been a thing. The Ocasio-Cortez brand of party politics wants more power. They keep getting voted in, they will get it

[Demsrule86]

110. Really, I honestly don't care AOC thinks.

[JI7]

114. Maybe she wants to run against Chuck Schumer for Senate in 2022

[Demsrule86]

126. I doubt she would win a primary. Running statewide is very different than running in a deep blue

district.

[JoeOtterbein]

148. Thanks for posting!

And welcome to DU!

[KG]

143. I LOL'd

[treestar]

160. How about taking a direct shot

at McCarthy and McConnell?

[budkin]

162. I agree... the dinosaurs need to go

It's kind of ridiculous.

[mcar]

165. I find it interesting that we have posters on DU

attacking a man for changing his registration from R to D, after he spent the election cycle slamming Republicans while at the same time applauding a Democrat for spending far more time attacking Democrats than she ever does Republicans.

[melman]

166. "far more time attacking Democrats than she ever does Republicans."

This is 100% verifiably not true.

[mcar]

176. I'd like to see the verification

[Celerity]

189. +1000

[George II]

178. I would place money on THIS guy being our next Speaker:

[Bongo Prophet]

187. Not taking that bet! Should we be surprised that it took 178 posts to see this?

It's been an open non-secret that Speaker Pelosi has been *mentoring Rep Jeffries for some years. Among others for various leadership roles. That could imply some of the premises "lack of a plan or process for new generation of leaders" is false.

Also, the quotes aren't as controversial as the media "split the dems" framing. So either 'side' gets to emphasize what they will, and jump into the mosh pit, true to their characters, into familiar patterns of arguments.

Moshing for Godot, a Tragi-comedy.

(*grooming is for dog shows and pedophiles)

[BannonsLiver]

180. Totally agree on Schumer. Do not agree on Pelosi.

I always appreciated Harry Reid’s toughness. Will leave it at that.

[ismnotwasm]

182. Well I like the say her name and they will come response here

Even me.

At least it’s not another thread about Trump, and a couple of sub threads are interesting.

[Happy Hoosier]

200. Oh great...

... she has such promise if she can learn to build coalitions instead of just taking potshots at allies.

[LudwigPastorius]

208. Wow.

This really makes it look like she wants Schumer’s Senate seat without having to face him in a primary.

It smacks of, “C’mon Chuck, retire already!”

[KitSileya]

209. What Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is saying, is since they're not grooming *me*,

They're too old and out of touch. Never mind that Rep. Pelosi is grooming several representatives for leadership roles in the party, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez cannot fathom that a 2-year representative doesn't get selected to train to lead the caucus she is constantly attacking. She needs to demonstrate her staying power first, and second, she needs to figure out that someone who publicly denigrates their peers isn't going to be able to lead said peers effectively. Rep. Pelosi knows this, because she's the most efficient Speaker the Democratic Party has had in generations.