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.
Having an active imagination is great. But all the third parties did not pack up their bags and go to a hotel in Moscow.
They are all still in America. Still working on the ground. Including the Greens.
Keep a close eye on that Green party, my guess is that you will see and hear nothing for 3.5 years and then they magically start bleating again in the next presidential election.
In fact, I would put money on it but the betting offices are no fools and do not take that particular bet.
Just because Democrats stop talking about them does not mean they stop existing
Existing and being relevant are two very different things. They don’t try to win local elections or midterms. As far as a party goes… they’re like a surprise party with one person, no decorations, no cake, and no presents. And then they get pissy when you call that out and leave.
Harris had a 5 point lead until she opened her mouth.
Oh, she had a lead, okay. When did Jill have the lead? I’ll wait.
The greens aren’t still working on the ground; they’ve already accomplished their goal of getting Trump elected.
Nobody has put in more work to get Trump elected than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
I am still amazed they managed to pull off this massive of a loss against the easiest possible opponent.
If policies or respect actually mattered in politics, I would agree with you. But, Trump has a few things going for him:
*Not that much of it is based in reality, but freedom of speech diehards appreciate that.
How exactly is Trump the “easiest possible opponent”?
Harris had 5 point lead before opening her mouth.
Harris dropped out in the 2020 primary because she polled less than 1%. She only got to run because the the DNC convinced themselves they could run an even worse candidate against Trump until three months before the election.
How does your response answer my question?
So you think the polls were accurate?
Harris’ popularity in 2020 was certainly accurate.
They invented this thing called a primary so that does not happen. Democrats did not have one.
I do believe if the elections were two weeks after Harris became candidate she would have had a better chance of winning.
Hahahaha… Assuming any of this is good faith, you must be very young.
The Green Party is not a real party, and if you think they’re going to do shit until the next presidential election (assuming we have one), then you’re in for a massive disappointment.
They’ve been doing this for at least 30 years now. If they were a real party, they wouldn’t vanish for 4 years.