i am not talking about the “libs here” per your point i mostly agree.
i am talking about the media. of course palin had moments of sounding dumb. of course AOC does too. difference is media at large made it their mission to point them out and help create those moments for palin, while they ignore or barely touch Cortez
for instance, why hasnt anyone cornered AOC on various supreme court case questions yet?
when she is unsure of herself or stumbles why no stern over the glasses admonisment a la Charlie gibson?
Someone who was running to sit one step away from a President who was known to have heart problems should be subjected to closer scrutiny than a first term Congressperson from New York City doncha think?
The only reason Ocasio-Cortez is getting all this publicity is because the CEC decided she looked like a punching dummy only to learn she would punch back.
She should get as much coverage as stupid Congresspeople like Louis Gohmert – who gets a lot of play on progressive sites for his idiocy – but never gets called out by the mainstream media. Another reasonable comparison would be the coverage of Palin as Governor of Alaska.
The Vice President is an entirely different ballgame.
Because she’s not running to be VP of the US right now?
And “stern over the glasses admonishment?” Oh please, Palin was no victim as the right-wing tried to paint her during that time. She was a virtually unknown politician from Alaska on the R ticket to be VP, whose rise to fame included being a small town mayor and a short-term governor.
AOC is a House representative. Not running for national office right now. So it shouldn’t need to be explained why the two haven’t faced the same media rounds. The difference shouldn’t need to be explained.
If I remember right they took a plea deal to a not very significant charge because the prosecution was pretty incompetent. They bungled the evidence pretty badly, in fact I think they lost basically all the physical evidence.
Anyway, the people who claim she laughed about getting him off almost certainly never listened to the interview.
You are right about lobbying and I don’t agree. Issue specific bans are slippery slope to be avoided. I would like to see reductions of the influence of money in politics that apply across the board and thus avoid the issue of bias.
But I don’t see a 2A issue here at all. I know the NRA position is that any law that limits access to guns is an unconstitutional infringement, but my view is based on what Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller decision.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . Nothing in our opinion today should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Putting aside the lobbying ban, I believe what Ocasio-Cortez is calling for as gun policy is consistent with Scalia’s guidance.
You would have a stronger case saying she is opposing the First Amendment than the Second, but that hinges on the notion that “money contributions = speech” where I believe the Supreme Court decision was flawed.
