Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday singled out AIPAC as a ‘special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda,’ starting a new debate about the pro-Israel organization’s involvement in the party
The debate has been simmering since AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC spent unprecedented sums to unseat two progressive Democrats in their respective primaries over the summer – largely, but not exclusively, bankrolled by donations from Republican megadonors in an election year that was far and away the most expensive in history.
As internal Democratic debate over the party’s ills and its future reached fever pitch in recent days, AIPAC was once again catapulted to the center of the matter.
“Weird to have a whole discourse about ‘special interest groups’ that completely leaves out corporate and industry lobbies – by far the most influential ‘groups’ in the Democratic Party,” Jeremy Slevin, a senior adviser to AIPAC foe Sen. Bernie Sanders, wrote on Sunday.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the most nationally prominent AIPAC critic despite, ironically, being attacked from the left as an apologist for the group earlier this summer, singled out the pro-Israel organization while echoing Slevin’s point. “If people want to talk about members of Congress being overly influenced by a special interest group pushing a wildly unpopular agenda that pushes voters away from Democrats then they should be discussing AIPAC,” she tweeted in response.
The fact that there is such a group absolutely is alarming. If the DNC had just some SCOTUS picks or a senate supermajority they could end Citizens United, add new maximum political donations, and we could all put this nightmare behind us, but that’s never going to happen.
Biden had a trifecta, they could have pushed legislation to reorganize SCOTUS. This is yet another issue on the flaming pile of things Democrats could have done but did not because it’s better to be able to campaign on it.
Dems had 48 to Republican 50 under Biden’s first two years, only got to pick a majority leader who calls votes because of 2 independents caucusing and the Vice President Tiebreaker.
After 2 years it became 48:3:49 and they no longer held the House, either.
Dismissing SCOTUS judges would require supermajority, while expanding the court was highly controversial.
Re-organizing the court is a normal bill. And yes the Republicans are going to make sure anything they don’t like is highly controversial. If that’s why you aren’t doing something then you’re just keeping their seat warm for them.
Controversial as in even getting 48 Democrats on board would be difficult, but even if they did then they still couldn’t pass a normal bill without Republican help as I outlined they were outnumbered for all 4 years.
The independents are more progressive than them, not less. And keeping the filibuster is a self inflicted injury.
I have no sympathy for the boy who does nothing more than cry wolf while he loses his sheep.
Sinema voted alongside Trump’s policy stance more than 50% of the time. Angus King Jr 37%. Now Joe Manchin is also an Independent.
But on average you might be right, because Bernie Sanders weighs the average down with 16.7%.
Using Trump as a measure for conservative, the average Democrat is quite a bit more progressive than an Independent.