AOC: Real criticism vs eyeballs and "gotcha"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has had the wingnuts hammering her (probably many of the single male wingnuts have been drooling in lust under the guise of hammering her) ever since she won her election. Actually, to a degree, ever since she knocked off Joe Crowley in her primary.

But, not just them.

Green Party and Green-leaner folks have been skeptical of her version of a Green New Deal. This person here has been not once, but twice. (He's also tagged Sunrise Movement on Twitter as well as mentioning them by name without tagging, asking what the hell it was actually doing for the first four years after joining Twitter in 2013, and gotten no response.)

I sent a second direct statement to them after starting work on this piece. We'll see what, if any, response I get. Don't believe me? Twitter link and screengrab. Account started in 2013. Wikipedia information? Organization started in 2017.

Reality, per Wikipedia? It's a youth front of Sierra Club that sat around and did nothing, it seems, for four years. And, people who have been long-term readers know what I think of Sierra in particular and Gang Green environmental groups in general.

Other criticisms of AOC — are they real on the substance? Are they more "eyeballs" issues, as in bad optics, and legitimately bad optics, but less of substance? Or are they "gotcha"?

Probably a mix of all of the above.

Let's dive in.

No, first, contra the various gotchas, let's give her a straight-up kudo. A number of scholars and academics, like this one in the New York Times, cite very favorably her questioning in the Michael Cohen hearing.

NOW, let's dive in.

One, like her now living in a non-working class DC neighborhood? And, not being quite as poor as some might think, with $20-$50K in savings, as well as any amount of officially designated retirement savings being listed in official finance filings?

— Half eyeballs, half gotcha.

The NY Post claims she doesn't live at her alleged district home address. If true, per the story, that she had also originally planned to run in District 15, not 14, this explains why she won that district's primary as a write-in for the Reform Party. It also partially explains why she rejected that.

— Two-thirds eyeballs, one-third gotcha. The "eyeballs" ties in with my deconstructing her myth of being working class. Still a small amount of "gotcha." It IS the New York Post, after all.

At the same time, that Post piece is loaded with potshots. AOC could not have started an editorial office eight months ago after defeating Crowley in the primary because she was NOT a Congresscritter and would not be for 7.5 more months.

— Total gotcha on that. It IS the New York Post, after all.

Some of this may be spitballing and sour grapes by wingers. Some of it "is," not "may be." And, lord knows the Daily Mail just likes to engage in celebrity monkey-wrenching for clickbait. Nonetheless, per Ike's somewhat hypocritical comments about Tricky Dick, she surely knows that she needs to be cleaner than a hound's tooth. And, I'm not a winger. I'm not saying her legend is totally untrue. I am saying it's thinner than she has spun it, and that missteps unravel yet more threads.

On her new digs, no, she doesn't have to slum it. But, she maybe could have found a place with better optics? Ditto on shopping at Whole Paycheck in the middle of the Amazon dust-up.

In other words, I wouldn't make too big a deal out of it. BUT, I wouldn't dismiss it, either?

And, some issues, like her pre-election retreat on BDS, or throwing fellow freshman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, halfway under the bus on Israel-Palestine issues? NOT appearance issues, but political choices.

— Half REAL, half eyeballs. Yes, it's tough as a freshman to resist the hordes. But, she's caved twice, and counting, on Israel-Palestine issues.

Her Green New Deal, and all its issues, vs. my links above? And, my questions about the Sunrise Movement? It's complicated because all three POVs are at work. Tentatively?

— Forty percent REAL, 30 percent optics, 30 percent gotcha.

OTOH, eating a hamburger with her chief of staff (and AOC never claims it's a veggie burger) means that maybe her talking about cow farts isn't perfect. On a hypocrisy scale? On a 1-10? Rates a 2, maybe a 3. No more. First, wingnuts (and others), she just said we need to stop eating beef "breakfast, lunch and dinner." She never mentioned going vegetarian. So, even my 3 might be too high.

— Half eyeballs, half gotcha

Sorry, but gonna update that one per Part 3 of my Green New Deal vs Green New Deal. Hypocrisy rates a 4, maybe a 5, rather than a 3. And the scorecard?

— One third real, one third eyeballs, one third gotcha.

That said, that's the chief of staff for whom AOC is possibly deliberately "underpaying" to skirt financial disclosure rules. And, said chief of staff is now under FEC investigation for allegedly skirting PAC donation rules, and this connected to both AOC and to Justice Democrats.

— As of the time of writing, I'll offer 55 percent REAL, 30 percent eyeballs, 15 percent gotcha.

Not paying off a tax default she owes the state of New York over her failed children's books publishing company? (No harm in the failure itself, and, seriously, a nice try.)

— 100 percent real. The debt is under $2,000 and she's had plenty of time to pay, whether up front or on a payment plan. Things like this are guaranteed to put you in the running for the Just.Another.Politician.™ label.

AOC hosting a "fun run" the Saturday after Earth Day and saying the $30 fee was to fight for the Green New Deal but it was actually a campaign contribution?

— 20 percent real, 30 percent eyeballs, 50 percent gotcha. Anybody paying thirty bucks for a fun run should know in a case like this what it's going toward. And, the "fight the Green New Deal," as that's her signature push, ditto on people knowing it. AND, it was there in fine print. So, this above all a New York Post gotcha. (And, contra some on Twitter, it's gotcha above all else. You know who you are.

On the third hand (Idries Shah time) I don't expect a freshman Congresscritter, whether her fame is more thrust upon her or more self-invented, to know about every environmental issue in the nation, and certainly not those in other states. I am sure she knows basic issues about fracking, not just in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, but also air, ground and water pollution, although her focus is on GHGs and "keep it in the ground." However, she certainly knows nothing about PFOS/PFOA contamination that in New Mexico, is forcing a dairy farmer to eradicate his entire herd. None of this is to make light of anybody's environmental health problems. It IS, though, to suggest "proper Congressional channels." Said Clovis farmer is talking to one of his state's two Senators. (That said, the issue of PFOS/PFOA contamination at other Air Force bases has been known as a growing problem for several years.)

And, is it impossible for urban Congresscritters to be concerned about environmental issues? I think not.

So, defend her, liberal websites. As much as you can. (And, if you justified similar restaurant behavior against wingnuts, own your hypocrisy.) At the same time, let's sort out what's what.

And, it could be said that, due to missteps coming out of the gate, she's kind of earned these critical eyeballs. And, will surely earn more.

Per her Wiki page, I'm waiting for her likely ungrounded claim to have Sephardi Jewish ancestry to be deconstructed. And, this isn't just on her. In New Mexico, many Hispanos claim to have Sephardi ancestry and its more likely that they're descended from Protestant Adventist converts of the late 19th century. And, as for a breast cancer mutation proving Sephardi Marranos in New Mexico? Uh, no, Jews haven't so often married within their religion as the story claims, among other things. Also, Smithsonian doesn't tell you that those families denied being Jewish, as NIH reports.  And the British Medical Journal notes the mutation arose more than once. There's just too much "looseness" to satisfy me here still. Beyond that, if the mutation goes back to before the start of the Common Era, it could have arisen in Herod's Idumeans or something. And, yeah, I'm going to go there — at times, it comes off like Oklahomans claiming to be one-eighth Cherokee. That's you, up in Massachusetts.

Seriously ... given that an estimated 3.5 million direct descendants of Marranos exist today? Scattered all over Latin America and beyond? I highly doubt her claims. And, I find it "interesting" that she made them between the election and starting office. She may sincerely believe what she said her family found. I'm skeptical.

— Until I hear more, I don't see a REAL here, but, allowing for the possibility of more turning up, I'll call this 90 percent eyeballs, 10 percent gotcha, to slightly tell on myself.