HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » "The establishment" didn'...

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 02:49 PM

"The establishment" didn't deny AOC a prized committee seat. PROGRESSIVES did.

https://www.reclaimthefight.com/2020/12/progressives-deny-aoc-energycommerce-seat.html?m=1#.X9425_NL3JU.twitter

Excellent read. Explains how the actual process happens when selecting committee members.

It is far more intricate than people realize & this lays out the process.

It is more of an education into what actually goes on behind the headlines, and WHO voted as they did in this particular case.
.


BOTH Democrats AND Progressives did what the process asked of them

52 replies, 2556 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply "The establishment" didn't deny AOC a prized committee seat. PROGRESSIVES did. (Original post)
Budi Dec 2020 OP
Autumn Dec 2020 #1
TexasTowelie Dec 2020 #16
Autumn Dec 2020 #23
TexasTowelie Dec 2020 #24
Autumn Dec 2020 #25
TexasTowelie Dec 2020 #27
Budi Dec 2020 #28
Autumn Dec 2020 #34
Budi Dec 2020 #35
Budi Dec 2020 #36
George II Dec 2020 #29
Autumn Dec 2020 #30
George II Dec 2020 #31
Autumn Dec 2020 #32
Budi Dec 2020 #37
George II Dec 2020 #52
KPN Dec 2020 #49
George II Dec 2020 #51
TexasTowelie Dec 2020 #44
Autumn Dec 2020 #45
TexasTowelie Dec 2020 #46
Autumn Dec 2020 #47
TexasTowelie Dec 2020 #48
George II Dec 2020 #50
ehrnst Dec 2020 #43
comradebillyboy Dec 2020 #2
Budi Dec 2020 #3
Bradshaw3 Dec 2020 #33
KPN Dec 2020 #38
George II Dec 2020 #4
empedocles Dec 2020 #5
brush Dec 2020 #6
luv2fly Dec 2020 #18
brush Dec 2020 #20
luv2fly Dec 2020 #22
brush Dec 2020 #26
ehrnst Dec 2020 #7
redstateblues Dec 2020 #11
ehrnst Dec 2020 #13
NurseJackie Dec 2020 #8
Budi Dec 2020 #9
Autumn Dec 2020 #12
unblock Dec 2020 #10
ehrnst Dec 2020 #14
unblock Dec 2020 #17
ehrnst Dec 2020 #42
KPN Dec 2020 #39
unblock Dec 2020 #41
llashram Dec 2020 #15
msongs Dec 2020 #19
GeorgeGist Dec 2020 #21
KPN Dec 2020 #40

Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 02:53 PM

1. Spandan Chakrabarti. There's a blast from the part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:37 PM

16. So when you can't refute the message being presented

then vilify the messenger instead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 04:14 PM

23. Nope simply pointing out Spandans Blog. Don't like it? Ignore me.

I opened it to read, saw it was him and didn't bother. When I saw it was a copy and paste of the blog operated by an often banned troll I saw no reason to refute his... stuff... since I didn't read it I can't very well refute it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 04:29 PM

24. Yes, I know

that it is difficult to refute facts so I can understand why you didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 04:43 PM

25. The only facts I saw was the blog belongs to an often banned troll. I have no desire to refute that

But do carry on, maybe you can refute the fact that Spandan Chakrabarti is an often banned troll? The only thing I read was his name and he has gone from The PeopleSpew to reclaimthefight or was it reclaimtheright? Oh well no matter, I don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:00 PM

27. I don't know anything about Spandan Chakrabarti or his posts on DU

so I can't refute what you claim. Why don't you provide me a list of all his aliases here on DU since you are so confident that it was him? I don't recall any of his aliases that were banned and I have been here over nine years.

And yes, I do believe that you do care since you were the first post in this thread and immediately went into belittling him. That says a lot about how much you care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:28 PM

28. Spandan Chakrabarti is endorsed and honored by Rep. Ro Khanna.

Recipient of Special Congressional Recognition for patient advocacy by Rep. Ro Khanna.

Post #9.

I'll believe Rep. Ro Khanna. On this one.

Isn't Rep. Ro Khanna a self described progressive democrat?
Checking...Well yes he is.

Huh. Guess there goes that whole loosly woven troll accusation.🙄

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:53 PM

34. It's not a "loosly" woven troll accusation. The fact is he has been often banned from DU under

several names. Now I'm going to trash the thread as I have no interest in his writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:12 PM

35. Well, Bye.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:14 PM

36. Another loosely woven accusation with no back up.

Well, Bye

Rep Ro Khanna disagrees with your assessment of Spandan Chakrabarti
See Post #9

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:29 PM

29. The facts presented are the memberships of both the Steering Committee and the....

....Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well at the final vote the other day.

Both the Committee and Caucus have 26 overlapping members. Only 13 members of the Committee voted against Kathleen Rice. That means 13 members (at least, maybe more) of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted for Kathleen Rice.

Simple facts and simple math. Not a laughing matter. It has nothing to do with Spandan Chakrabarti, he wasn't involved in the vote or a member of either group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:36 PM

30. Still not interested in reading or discussing his opinion on AOC. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:43 PM

31. This discussion isn't about Spandan Chakrabarti, it's about the vote by the Steering Committee....

....and more detail about who on the Steering Committee voted for Kathleen Rice.

Chakrabarti is incidental to the discussion, and I prefer concentrating on the substance of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:47 PM

32. I chose not to read his opinion therefore I do not discuss his opinion on AOC. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:15 PM

37. Rofl.. Ro Khanna honored him. He disagrees with your assessment.



Enjoy the holidays 🎄

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 11:34 PM

52. The facts that he presented weren't his opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 10:38 PM

49. Discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 11:32 PM

51. Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 07:42 PM

44. Yet you were the first to post a reply on this thread

and you followed up with more posts on this thread. That indicates that you were very interested in the discussion about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

So when did you change your mind and became disinterested?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 07:52 PM

45. Since you keep showing up in My Posts I explained in another post when I became disinterested,

don't want to keep you in suspense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 08:05 PM

46. Oh, you just wanted to make a hit and run to vilify the messenger rather than discuss the message.

There wasn't any suspense involved and it's a shame that I occupied so much of your time on a subject that you were interested in, then became disinterested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 08:09 PM

47. Eight posts, now nine in a thread are not a hit and run. I don't have to vilify a banned troll.

Spandan Chakrabarti did that on his own, when he was banned and every time he signed back up. That's why he's no longer a member. No one is forcing you to respond to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 08:48 PM

48. Yet that was what you did.

I don't have to vilify a banned troll.


Yet that was what you did.

Then after you declared that you were trashing the thread because you aren't able to discuss the facts presented, here you go again. No one is forcing you to respond to me either.

Perhaps if you had read the article you would be able to discuss the facts and opinions presented, but you chose to go after the messenger instead and you've doubled down on that tactic. Why don't you try discussing the article in the OP? It is a discussion board after all.

BTW, do you vilify other former members that have been banned from here like when other members posted the opinions of the POSUC dude or do you do it only when it is convenient? Rhetorical question--no need to respond.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 10:59 PM

50. At the time you posted that it was only one post...........



(don't know why it's so -worthy, but whatever.......)

No one needs to vilify or even comment about a banned "troll" (is he really), but the discussion should be about the facts in the OP. Shooting the messenger is counter productive, talking about the facts of the message is germane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 07:12 PM

43. ....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 02:57 PM

2. Excellent article. At least half the progressives

on the steering committee must have voted against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comradebillyboy (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:00 PM

3. That is exactly right.

The facts are the truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 05:51 PM

33. Says someone who claims Democrats are not Democrats

There is no "Progressive party." Your quote: BOTH Democrats AND Progressives did what the process asked of them."

Care to correct or are you going to deflect from you inaccurate characterization?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradshaw3 (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:41 PM

38. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comradebillyboy (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:00 PM

4. Yes. There are 26 on the Steering Committee that are members of the Congressional Progressive....

...Caucus.

So at least 13 of those 26 voted for Kathleen Rice, maybe more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:00 PM

5. The educational process continues all around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:03 PM

6. That's pretty telling when your own peeps are voting against you.

She's got some fence mending to do, not to mention the primarying of incumbent Dems. We don't need 5th columnists within the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:45 PM

18. Fifth columnist?

So you think AOC works for the enemy? And who would that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luv2fly (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 04:00 PM

20. Who has she worked to primary, or threatened to primary?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/18/ocasio-cortez-hakeem-jeffries-2020-primary-1067107

"Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is eyeing a new member of House Democratic leadership as a 2020 primary target: Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

Ocasio-Cortez, who ousted House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley earlier this year in a shocking primary victory, put colleagues on notice for future primaries just days after the November election, telling a livestream audience that she and an allied group, Justice Democrats, would keep working together to boost anti-incumbent challengers ó though she didnít name names. But a person who has discussed the project with Ocasio-Cortez and her team said the congresswoman-elect has recruited an African-American woman to challenge Jeffries..."

Hard to defend going against your own colleagues. That nust've factored into her being denied the committee seat. Hope she learns from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 04:13 PM

22. If she feels she can do a better job she is free to run

Thats how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luv2fly (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 04:44 PM

26. This is about her primarying Dems in other distrists, not hers.

Surely you know what this is about, working against the party. Her being denying the committee seat shows what her colleagues think about that. To be successful as a legislator one must learn to work with other party members.

An interesting side note: Rice, a third-term rep, got two bills passed in her first tern, three in her second term and five in her third term. That's results.

AOC has had no bills passed in her first term. So results as well as working with and not against other Dems factored into who got that committee assignment. That's how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:03 PM

7. +1000. This really makes the case:

 

Here's what I found: at least 26 House Progressives serve on the 59-member Steering Committee. They are: Reps. Barbara Lee, Dan Kildee, Darren Soto, David Cicilline, Deb Haaland, Debbie Dingell, Donald Norcross, Frank Pallone, Frederica Wilson, Grace Meng, Hakeem Jeffries, James McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Jan Schakowsky, John Yarmuth, Judy Chu, Katherine Clark, Linda Sanchez, Matt Cartwright, Maxine Waters, Peter Welch, Rosa DeLauro, Sheila Jackson Lee, Steve Cohen, Ted Lieu, and Veronica Escobar.

Put another way, House progressives control almost half of the Steering Committee Seats.

Now recall that Ocasio-Cortez got just 13 votes to Rice's 46. Let's assume all 13 of AOC's votes came from members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. That means that at least 13 other (rounding out the 26 progressive members of the Steering Committee) Progressive Caucus members rejected her. In AOC's best-case scenario, half of the progressives on the panel backed her rival.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:18 PM

11. That's what happens when you primary your own incumbents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:23 PM

13. Yes, being part of a team rests on being someone that people want to work with.

 

One should take a lesson when those one considers allies don't want to work with one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:04 PM

8. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing and putting things into perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:13 PM

9. Author Spandan Chakrabarti' Impressive Creds

Spandan Chakrabarti
Founder & CFO at People with Empathy
People with Empathy
Sunnyvale, California


About
Recipient of Special Congressional Recognition for patient advocacy by Rep. Ro Khanna.
Allow me to bridge the gap between management, strategic advancement, communications, and design for you with a multidisciplinary approach to problem-solving. Over a decade of experience developing and delivering on advanced communications, strategic partnerships, and strategic planning


MORE:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/spandanisin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:19 PM

12. He does like to flog his blog.

My curiosity has been satisfied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:13 PM

10. Alrighty then. Aoc lost to someone with more seniority and a larger political bloc.

What a stinging rebuke.



If only she did things differently. Then she would have still lost but the hit pieces would have been slightly different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:25 PM

14. I'm seeing far more "AOC got shafted" pieces than "hit" pieces.

 

And talk about the "secret ballot" being used nefariously to "deny" her the seat by "establishment types," even though it's clear from the vote count that it was indeed progressives voting against her that decided the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:39 PM

17. Well then it seems everyone is making way too much of this.

It seems the normal and expected thing happened.

Yawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:59 PM

42. Yawn right back at ya.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:47 PM

39. Yup. Pretty sure AOC doesn't feel rebuked, stingingly or not. She's focused on

expanding support for progressive policy among the public as well as the progressive effort and support within the Democratic Party. A lot of folks here take offense to that and her unwillingness to settle for something she and many others see as less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:58 PM

41. Yeah, they insist she should be more flexible and accommodating

while they refuse to be flexible and accommodate her views.

As is the party doesn't have room for any idealists.

Amazing how republicans can have extremists and nutcases even and the pragmatists in the party never pay a price for it. But somehow aoc is ruining the Democratic Party for everyone because she's making headlines....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:36 PM

15. this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 03:56 PM

19. 403 forbidden nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Budi (Original post)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 04:01 PM

21. So Progressives are not Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 20, 2020, 06:48 PM

40. Depends on how you define progressive apparently.

Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2020, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Not to say Iím disagreeing with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread