New York Times stealth-edits article claiming Ocasio-Cortez is fighting Jewish influence in Congress
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
For Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, there is no act of political cowardice or self-preservation so craven the New York Times will not defend.
© Provided by Washington Examiner
On Thursday, after days of criticizing a budget proposal to fund Israel's defensive "Iron Dome" anti-missile system, the New York congresswoman voted "present" on the standalone bill. Not a "nay" vote, which would've at least been consistent with her attempts to strip the "Iron Dome" funding from a larger spending bill, but a meek, worthless "present" vote.
Ocasio-Cortez marked the moment of the bill's passage with a public show of emotion on the floor of the House.
Later, after the proposed $1 billion in funding passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 420-9, the New York Times rushed to the representative's defense, propping her up as some sort of principled crusader against nefarious Jewish influences in Congress.
"Minutes before the vote closed," the paper reported. "Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tearfully huddled with her allies before switching her vote to 'present.' The tableau underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis."
This is one hell of a thing to allege in a supposedly straight news publication. People have literally shot up synagogues over such anti-Semitic conspiracy-theory allegations about "powerful" Jewish lobbies.
What's more, the New York Times is saying quite clearly that when it came time to fund Israel's "Iron Dome" — a defensive system responsible for saving the lives of Jew and Arab alike, which doesn't harm or kill anyone — distraught left-wing progressives were "caught between their principles" and "powerful" Jewish influences.
This is what is known as saying the quiet part aloud.
But then the New York Times quietly edited the report later to remove the not-at-all-subtle line regarding pro-Israel lobbyists and rabbis.
The passage now reads, "The tableau underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party."
There is no editor's note or update drawing attention to the revisions.
Further, the updated paragraph is only marginally better than what was originally published. It still editorializes Ocasio-Cortez's thoughts, words, and motivations. The New York Times has no better understanding of the congresswoman's actions than you or I do, especially given that Ocasio-Cortez's office declined the paper's request for comment. The New York Times is flying blind, but it rests anyway on providing the most flattering interpretation possible for the thinking behind Ocasio-Cortez's vote and state of mind. That is called "spin," not reporting.
How does this sort of thing go to print in the first place?
Former Times opinion editor Bari Weiss likely hit the nail on the head last year when she said Twitter is the New York Times's "ultimate editor." Anti-Israel operatives have a strong presence on social media and, as we've seen time and again, the various positions of left-wing activists tend to bleed over into mainstream reporting.
Ocasio-Cortez can't be faulted for her useless, contradictory vote or her opposition to a defensive mechanism that saves lives, according to these people. No, she is to be forgiven. After all, she is trying to navigate her principles against nefarious Jewish influences.
Tags:Beltway Confidential, Opinion, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Times
Tags
Who is online
49 visitors
AOC continues to prove she is an idiot, and the Times keeps proving it can't be trusted.
AOC and her band of merry idiots may be voting against Israel, but the Times did run a proper description of events and even an op/ed
So, it doesn't look like they are covering up anything.
As for the actual article describing this, here are the quotes:
The final vote was:
After some progressives forced Dems to take Israel Iron Dome funding out of CR, House overwhelmingly approves funding 420-9 No votes: Dems: Omar Carson Tlaib Newman Pressley Grijalva Garcia (IL) Bush Republicans: Massie GA Dem Reps Johnson and Ocasio-Cortez voted “present”
Cortez would abstain, as she is from NY.
i think AOC should have the gut to vote her convictions.
After spewing all that nonsense about it, to vote "present" isn't acceptable.
Her "tears" don't move me, seeing as they are not spontaneous.
The Times changed the article without explanation. Why? What was wrong with the original?
Especially after she attacked Gabbard for voting present.
What does that mean? Why would someone from New York abstain?
They didn't change it at all. The part you quoted was towards the bottom of the article. The part I quoted was how they lead.
And she will not vote her convictions as she wants to be re-elected and there are many Jews in her districts, which differs from the other two, who represent the same people that they are.
Sean, don't be coy.
Of course they did. The original article said "he still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis." The new version says "who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party. "
A glass of water with a "D" behind could win her district.
A recent article outlined how astute some of her constituents actually are, so no doubt she will win.
I would venture that a "present" vote on funding would have been met with the same reaction as a "no" vote by Jewish voters, seeing as they both accomplish the same result.
I don't know what you mean. If you are saying she refuses to vote her convictions in order to protect her political future than I agree with you.
My bad, I never saw that and it is kind of hard to prove. Can anyone provide that as the original copy?
Her current district was recently redistricted and represents more Latino vote. That being said, she still has to deal with Chuck Schumer who won't take her garbage and she knows that.
Not really. The vote was going to go through, and this way she saves face with both her pals and other NYers.
That is what I mean.
It's sad that she wouldn't give others the same grace you are giving her. Some might say her attempt to save face might be a bit hypocritical.
What was Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) excuse?
Good question. I was wondering that myself.
I have no idea. Ask him!!
Definitely agree.
Seems like the Times can't quite figure out its own objectives here.
But hey, wasn't AOC's performance OUTSTANDING again?
Someone should sign her up for a soap opera!
Jane,
There I would have to disagree with you. She does have a brain and she is very manipulative.
HA!
caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis."
Those nefarious "influential rabbis" forcing Democrats to protect civilians from terrorism.
The usual diatribe of veiled antisemitism.
Voting against Israel in the US Congress does not = anti-semitism, although the right tries hard to always paint it as such.
Has AOC ever said anything anti-semitic? If so, what?
77% of American Jews voted for Biden in 2920. Most do not support Israeli hardliners.
That is true, but they also support Israel.
So does the Democratic Party...
I have not said otherwise.
And now this FFS...........
Woman sure has a whole deck of victim cards.................
Look Jim, I don't like her or her buddies and for sure she is a drama queen. But she is not the party and their vote shows that.
Would you please post that "anti-semitic" rhetoric so I can assess it for myself.
I didn't say she was the party. Not sure what you're saying here. I was just pointing out the drama queen within................It had nothing to do with either party. Her as an individual.
Not lately.
That's for sure and because of her the democratic party is divided.
You wish it were so purely because she is one of your favorite targets. You should worry more about the MTGs in your party more than the AOCs.
Trump won a majority of orthodox and ultra Orthodox Jews as well as American Jews living in Israel voters. Secular Jews were overwhelmingly democrat voters.
Joe Biden Won 77% of American Jewish Votes!
I don't wish when it comes to facts. Here they are:
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatened to tank a bipartisan infrastructure bill that's crucial to President Biden's agenda if moderate Democrats manage to decouple it from a sweeping, $3.5 trillion tax and spending bill filled with left-wing priorities.
"Nothing would give me more pleasure than to tank a billionaire, dark money, fossil fuel, Exxon lobbyist drafted energy infrastructure bill if they come after our child care and climate priorities," she said.
I think that's what he said. He gave you the breakdown.
We all know how important "Liberalism" is to American Jewish culture.