AOC is NOT the candidate of whom Mike Brock writes. She has become captured by the Dem Party. Lest you doubt me - just look at why she isn't endorsing the very man who "discovered" her, worked his ass off - against all odds - and helped her become a Congressperson. Saikat Chakrabarti has been unapologetic in seeking the removal of the folks who run the Dem (corporate) Party. AOC is now unwilling to endorse Saikat, despite him being a hugely decent man with great integrity and progressive ideas. Shame on her.
I'm quite positive on AOC running for president. I am attracted to morally-serious people almost more than I am alignment with my policy preference, to be honest with you. Most people evaluate politicians from a "policy menu" mentality. I evaluate politicians based on how committed they are to the basic moral project of self-government. And AOC seems pretty exemplary on that count.
(First, thank you for all your hard work and insight. We are lucky to have your contributions). I, too am attracted to morally-serious people - yourself included. However, I sense that AOC - like so many before her - has been worn down by the ferocious, unrelenting power of the Dem/Status Quo machine. Playing ball with Chuck Schumer/Hakeem Jeffries and his ilk leads us to precisely where we are now. We need clarity from those who seek to lead us - not collaboration/normalization of the pernicious conduct of - and deliberate obfuscation of reality by - the powerful. E.g. Do you hear AOC calling out Schumer/Jeffries out for continuing take money from AIPAC and vote against bills that would end military aid to Israel? Yes - this is policy - but it's also morality.
I think you're being a little too hard on her. I think she's a professional politician with a strong moral center, trying to navigate the game she is playing. I don't think she's been corrupted by the game, however. I think she is pragmatic and assesses a hierarchy of moral concern. That she does not spend all of her political capital on this one issue is not a sign she is compromised. It is a sign that she understands how much power she has and what power she doesn't.
I appreciate your take on AOC - and would truly like you to be correct. The counter, of course, is that if AOC can't bring herself to take issue publicly with the leaders of a corrupt party machine that has supported - and continues to support - destructive, inhumane foreign and domestic policies, then what does she stand for? If the answer is "working within the system" is preferable to calling out its leaders' gross failures, we respectfully disagree. In my mind, she can speak respectfully of Mssrs Shumer & Jeffries - as people - and simultaneously call them out for supporting reprehensible policies. The system is corrupt to its core - and being good at navigating it (or "playing the game" as you call it) is far more likely to help perpetuate the system - than bring it down in favor of something better. What do you think (says I with complete authenticity and goodwill)?
I never thought that AOC was the candidate that Mr. Brock is looking for. On the contrary, i think the candidate Mr. Brock is looking for would be wonderful to have. Much as having a unicorn would be wonderful to have. I wrote that I want AOC in 2028. Your opinion of her matters not to me. I certainly didn't solicit it from you or anyone else. Good day.
I recall in early 2020, when it appeared inevitable that Sanders would be the Democratic nominee for President (and, yes, I am well aware that Sanders did not run as the sort of candidate you propose here), one pundit, who supported much of his policy platform, remarked that the single best thing Sanders could do as President, beyond anything in said platform, would be to push Congress to pass legislation to remove the various regulatory powers that had been delegated by Congress to the executive with repeal of the delegation protected by the veto and, after INS v. Chadha, override of specific regulations also by protected by the same.
The candidate I want would campaign on having a congressional majority that would investigate everyone who ever worked for the Trump regime and sue his ass for every penny of the damages he inflicted on the White House and Washington DC and every penny of the money he made by influence of his office. AND damages.
This should be more than a single candidate's platform, even for President; it should be a party platform for all candidates at every level of government - the President, the Senate, the House, the Governor, the state Legislature...right down to the smallest local office. Candidates who promise to first and foremost present the truth - the facts, as best they can be established - to the people, and then represent the interests of not just their party, not just the people who voted for them, but all the people, not just those alive now, but those long dead and those yet to be born. And not just the people, but the planet and life at large. Only with that kind of commitment will civilization survive the century.
Mike - You might be interested in the work being done by Corbin Trent (ex Bernie who co-founded Brand New Congress/Justice Democrats. www.afightworthhaving.com Also his Substack: https://www.americasundoing.com/ (If you are in the Bay Area, we are doing a (non-fundraising) event for him next week - love to have you join) David Simpson. paxvobiscum50@gmail.com
I want AOC in 2028
AOC is NOT the candidate of whom Mike Brock writes. She has become captured by the Dem Party. Lest you doubt me - just look at why she isn't endorsing the very man who "discovered" her, worked his ass off - against all odds - and helped her become a Congressperson. Saikat Chakrabarti has been unapologetic in seeking the removal of the folks who run the Dem (corporate) Party. AOC is now unwilling to endorse Saikat, despite him being a hugely decent man with great integrity and progressive ideas. Shame on her.
I'm quite positive on AOC running for president. I am attracted to morally-serious people almost more than I am alignment with my policy preference, to be honest with you. Most people evaluate politicians from a "policy menu" mentality. I evaluate politicians based on how committed they are to the basic moral project of self-government. And AOC seems pretty exemplary on that count.
(First, thank you for all your hard work and insight. We are lucky to have your contributions). I, too am attracted to morally-serious people - yourself included. However, I sense that AOC - like so many before her - has been worn down by the ferocious, unrelenting power of the Dem/Status Quo machine. Playing ball with Chuck Schumer/Hakeem Jeffries and his ilk leads us to precisely where we are now. We need clarity from those who seek to lead us - not collaboration/normalization of the pernicious conduct of - and deliberate obfuscation of reality by - the powerful. E.g. Do you hear AOC calling out Schumer/Jeffries out for continuing take money from AIPAC and vote against bills that would end military aid to Israel? Yes - this is policy - but it's also morality.
I think you're being a little too hard on her. I think she's a professional politician with a strong moral center, trying to navigate the game she is playing. I don't think she's been corrupted by the game, however. I think she is pragmatic and assesses a hierarchy of moral concern. That she does not spend all of her political capital on this one issue is not a sign she is compromised. It is a sign that she understands how much power she has and what power she doesn't.
I appreciate your take on AOC - and would truly like you to be correct. The counter, of course, is that if AOC can't bring herself to take issue publicly with the leaders of a corrupt party machine that has supported - and continues to support - destructive, inhumane foreign and domestic policies, then what does she stand for? If the answer is "working within the system" is preferable to calling out its leaders' gross failures, we respectfully disagree. In my mind, she can speak respectfully of Mssrs Shumer & Jeffries - as people - and simultaneously call them out for supporting reprehensible policies. The system is corrupt to its core - and being good at navigating it (or "playing the game" as you call it) is far more likely to help perpetuate the system - than bring it down in favor of something better. What do you think (says I with complete authenticity and goodwill)?
I disagree she'd be the "exact opposite". The "exact opposite" of what I want is the president who wants to be king. And we ALREADY HAVE THAT!
I don't what you're talking about.
I never thought that AOC was the candidate that Mr. Brock is looking for. On the contrary, i think the candidate Mr. Brock is looking for would be wonderful to have. Much as having a unicorn would be wonderful to have. I wrote that I want AOC in 2028. Your opinion of her matters not to me. I certainly didn't solicit it from you or anyone else. Good day.
I recall in early 2020, when it appeared inevitable that Sanders would be the Democratic nominee for President (and, yes, I am well aware that Sanders did not run as the sort of candidate you propose here), one pundit, who supported much of his policy platform, remarked that the single best thing Sanders could do as President, beyond anything in said platform, would be to push Congress to pass legislation to remove the various regulatory powers that had been delegated by Congress to the executive with repeal of the delegation protected by the veto and, after INS v. Chadha, override of specific regulations also by protected by the same.
The candidate I want would campaign on having a congressional majority that would investigate everyone who ever worked for the Trump regime and sue his ass for every penny of the damages he inflicted on the White House and Washington DC and every penny of the money he made by influence of his office. AND damages.
This should be more than a single candidate's platform, even for President; it should be a party platform for all candidates at every level of government - the President, the Senate, the House, the Governor, the state Legislature...right down to the smallest local office. Candidates who promise to first and foremost present the truth - the facts, as best they can be established - to the people, and then represent the interests of not just their party, not just the people who voted for them, but all the people, not just those alive now, but those long dead and those yet to be born. And not just the people, but the planet and life at large. Only with that kind of commitment will civilization survive the century.
Mike - You might be interested in the work being done by Corbin Trent (ex Bernie who co-founded Brand New Congress/Justice Democrats. www.afightworthhaving.com Also his Substack: https://www.americasundoing.com/ (If you are in the Bay Area, we are doing a (non-fundraising) event for him next week - love to have you join) David Simpson. paxvobiscum50@gmail.com
You have strayed so far that you have allowed the revanchist South to win the uncivil war.
And all appears lost!