Mitch McConnell to Bring AOC's 'Green New Deal' to a Vote (Sinister Laugh)
In an attempt to get Dems to show their true colors, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Once Again Channels Partisan Politics
2/14/19, 6:44 pm EST
By John Corry, photo from Vanity Fair
Does cocaine make people angry? (Definitely not.)
Back in 2016, Mitch McConnell defiled the constitution by refusing to vote on then-supreme court nominee Merrick Garland. Garland was nominated for the supreme court by then-President Barack Obama following the surprise death of Anthony Scalia, a staunch conservative on the bench for almost thirty years. While Obama (and others) argued Garland to be a fair centrist–and despite the fact that the constitution says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court,” (Article II, Section 2, clause 2)–McConnell refused to put Garland up for a vote. He provided no reasons outside of ‘the American people should have a say’ as if they didn’t already vote Obama into office with the full knowledge that that gives him the ability to nominate a supreme court justice in the case of an opening, and that congress then votes on it.
Since then, Donald Trump of all people has become president, and it’s not like he was McConnell’s first choice). Kathy Griffin and many ‘respectable’ others called for the doxing and in some cases beating of a group of 16-year-olds for wearing red hats, and a pretty bartender with a latino last name got elected to congress because… well, she had no platforms outside of trite Bernie Sanders talking points and no record, so you tell me what happened there (hint: it’s because she’s an almost exact mirror image of the populist aspects of Donald Trump). I want to give her some credit–I really do–but it’s been getting difficult.
Last week, Rep. Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey’s (D-MA) released their ‘Green New Deal’. The proposal calls for a switch to 100% renewable energy and the abolition of all air travel by at least 2030. It also calls for free healthcare and food for those ‘unable or unwilling’ to work, and a nationwide high-speed rail to replace the lack of air travel with no word on how to pay for any of it. The proposal was quickly mocked, and subsequently altered and walked back; the FAQ section on AOC’s website which laid down some of those aforementioned details was taken down, and several members of her staff have claimed that parts of the deal were not actually there.
Which isn’t to say it’s a complete blunder–at least perspective-wise–but it’s pretty close. Climate scientists have been warning for years that immediate, radical attention is needed to avoid a catastrophic man-made climate change, and this deal certainly takes that warning seriously. Of course, what it doesn’t take seriously is the fact that politics isn’t science (human factor), and you can’t just assume that because the science says something, that it’s going to make the politics any easier (and by politics, I’m also meaning to say: what you do about any particular situation or with any particular goal in mind (like curbing climate change)). AOC’s plan is ambitious in its scope, and respectable in its goals, but it has absolutely no idea how to actually accomplish anything, and sounds far too close to populist cherry-goading for comfort to anyone in any way attuned to such manipulations (be they conscious on the part of the perpetrator or otherwise). If the reactions to it have anything to prove, it’s that she’s actually hurt the goal–the goal of doing anything, legislatively, regarding climate change–because now: anyone who doesn’t inherently agree with the dire state of the conversation regarding climate change is going to come back to this ridiculous (one sided) proposal and say ‘well, just look at what they did there! Is that what you have in mind? Because that’s completely BONKERS!’
Which it is.
And all of that isn’t even to mention that a third of this proposal doesn’t even have anything to do with the climate. Paying people to not work would be controversial in any context, but to bring it up in a deal about climate change says to the centrist that, at best, you have other interests in mind which you find more important than the question of climate change–otherwise you wouldn’t have put in there–and, at worst, that you’re lying about the ‘dire state of the conversation regarding climate change’, because these other topics are of equal value to the literal apocalypse (how, exactly, I think depends on the person; I personally trust the science community on this one (and ‘every one’), but if you’re throwing ‘racial equity’ in the mix here–as the writers of the Green New Deal are–it tells me that you’re lying about how important you think the climate change issue is because otherwise: you’d have waited to give it its own proposal)).
Stuffing in all these ideas–resolution, bill or whatever else one may call it, so long as it’s legitimate–into this one proposal throws off the conversation regarding any one of them specifically, and puts any person not completely about everything in it, immediately to the side. The reality is that liberals and conservatives need to work together, and the publication of this proposal does nothing but complicate that sentiment.
Something needs to be done about the warming planet, being absurd and pissing off naysayers for sake of partisan glee is not the way to do it (jerk).
Just go ask Donald Trump–
Following its online publication, a number of high ranking Democrats put their UMPH behind it. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker (that one’s particularly great), and Kamala Harris, all 2020 presidential nominees, have all endorsed the deal, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other Democrats have been notably standoffish. Trump’s approval ratings have been rising recently, and some have accused the Green New Deal to be to blame (and by some, I mean me :3). That would obviously be because, again, as respectable as its ambitions may be, the Green New Deal is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS (one sided) (again: I want something to happen on climate change; you’re hurting the goal here, guys– GET WITH IT!). Whatever the reason, some know that fact…
A difficult fact, but a fact nonetheless…
And some are taking advantage of it.
From his shell across the sea, stretching his neck for the first time today, ol’ Cocaine Mitch finally put down the straw to say something for once: that Republicans may actually force a vote on this ‘Green New Deal’. This vote would force Democrats to take a side: they’re either with the radicals who don’t know how reality works and who only care about running the world as they see fit while trying to argue that they’re simultaneously somehow against authoritarianism (as much a problem as racism may be right now in America, there is a debate on what the problem really is (inherent? human? transcendent? another article?), and not to mention how to fix it (if you think you know everything– well I guess we should all just bow down to you now (dick))), or they’re willing to sacrifice their stature by going ‘against’ them /> there is unfortunately no in-between in a vote on this: only one more reason why it’s so tough for any ‘liberal’ not turing into an extremist because Donald Trump is the ruler of the world now.
But it’s because Dems have no idea what to do about it (right?). I mean how could they? Nobody thought AOC would come out with something this (logistically) bad, and they certainly weren’t hoping that they’d have to vote on it. Radicalism is truly running rampant amongst liberals right now, primarily as a reaction to that perceived existential threat represented by Donald Trump (that threat being real or not is irrelevant because Dems are reacting this way regardless /> and it’s just as bad for the country wither way as well (though arguably worse, if Trump is as bad as we originally thought he was)), but also because we’ve never decided what we’re about: are we a partisan force against the STRONG, positivity-rooted conservatism we see today (meaning: are we trying to fight against the assertion that we should recognize where we come from, and what was good about it, regardless of race or any other outside factor deterring from critical thought), or are we people who work with it, outside of our misunderstandings or our biases, throughout all of us (meaning: NO ONE PERSON CAN KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW)?
Blame it on Trump and McConnell (I certainly would), but the fact is that the Democrats have played right into their hands–
Cocaine is a helluva drug.