Ocasio-Cortez Wants to ‘Destroy American Conservatism’ by ‘Destroying’ Reagan
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Progressive Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) think they must “destroy American conservatism” by “destroying” the legacy of former President Ronald Reagan in order to win back the White House in 2020, presidential historian and Ronald Reagan biographer Craig Shirley said Monday night on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”
The Democratic socialist Ocasio-Cortez is one of the Left’s fastest rising stars. She went after Reagan during an event at the South By Southwest event in Austin, Texas, over the weekend.
The congresswoman somehow decided to claim that Reagan’s policies “pitted” white, working-class Americans against African-Americans and Hispanics.
“So you think about this image of welfare queens and what [Reagan] was really trying to talk about was … this, like, really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were ‘sucks’ on our country,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“It gives people a logical reason, a ‘logical’ reason to say, ‘Oh yeah, no, toss out the whole social safety net,'” Ocasio-Cortez added.
Shirley and Ocasio-Cortez got into a Twitter spat as the historian defended Reagan and his policies on Monday.
“There is no evidence that @AOC ever picked up a book on President Reagan, so she would not know he received over 43 percent of the Hispanic vote in 1980,” Shirley tweeted on Monday.
“There is no evidence that @AOC ever picked up a book on President Ronald Reagan, so she would not know the @washingtonpost and the @NYT wrote lengthy articles exposing the massive corruption of the Welfare Queen of Chicago, Linda Taylor, to whom Reagan was referring.”
“There is no evidence that @AOC ever picked up a book on President Ronald Reagan. So she would not know that Reagan’s economic policies did more for African-Americans and Hispanics than any other president in U.S. history,” Shirley added, along with several other tweets.
The congresswoman replied to Shirley on Twitter.
“Ok great, now talk about Reagan and: Iran-Contra + The gutting of our mental health system + The explosion of homelessness under his watch + The crack epidemic … Maybe instead of insinuating I’ve never read a book, be open to the idea that we’ve read different ones,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
Shirley told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that Democrats understand “that for them to win, they need to destroy American conservatism.”
“And that means destroying Ronald Reagan’s legacy. So she knows what she’s doing,” Shirley said of Ocasio-Cortez.
Shirley accused the Democratic socialist of uttering “a panoply of so many just wrong-headed things” about Reagan and conservatism.
“The real point is to knock off conservative heroes, right?” Ingraham said. “And it’s part of the tradition, the DNA of conservatism, correct? So when you want to remake a country, remake a history, rip down statues,” then you “look at everything in today’s context.”
Democrats want “a total transformation of our country,” including “the remaking of our history,” Ingraham warned.
And Ocasio-Cortez spoke “with such gratuitous meanness about one of the most beloved presidents of the past 50 years.”
“There is a concerted, across-the-board effort in the Democrat Party to demonize the entire American experience and the American tradition by degrading anyone and anything that doesn’t pass their own radical muster,” Ingraham added.
By Kathryn Blackhurst | March 12, 2019
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
208 visitors
“So you think about this image of welfare queens and what [Reagan] was really trying to talk about was … this, like, really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were ‘sucks’ on our country,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
I didn't know "sucks" was a verb. Ms Cortez is a product of Boston University
Apparently it has always been a verb, but recently became a noun also.
Is that supposed to be a defense of Cortez misuse of the word in the sentence above?
Apparently, Vic, if it's in the dictionary, it's not a misuse of the word, now is it?
"Cortez" is a misuse of the word "Sane" !
"She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics"
Thank God she majored in "Economics" and "Foreign Affairs"....or she'd really sound like a dumbshit !
It is a verb. She's using it as a noun. Which it's not.
Yup, she was looking for the word "sucking"
Politicians seem a lot smarter when they stick to a script written by a team of speech writers.
Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Quote by Reagan..."if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."
I notice you didn't provide any links.
I have one:
"The late president was a fierce defender of civil rights, both as a Democrat and Republican. He didn’t judge people based on their faiths, backgrounds or skin color. As Reagan wrote in his 1990 autobiography, “An American Life”: “My parents constantly drummed into me the importance of judging people as individuals. There was no more grievous sin at our household than a racial slur or other evidence of religious or racial intolerance.”
When it came to Reagan ’s personal convictions, actions always spoke louder than words.
For instance, Eureka College’s football team, which included two black players, had a stopover in Dixon, Ill. After being told by a hotel manager that “[n]o hotel in Dixon is going to take colored boys,” Reagan told the coach to “put me and them in a cab and send us to my house.” When his mother opened the door, she told them to “‘come on in,’ her eyes brightening with a warmth felt by all three of us. She was absolutely colorblind when it came to racial matters; these fellows were just two of my friends.”
What about Reagan ’s mild indifference to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and opposing anti-discrimination legislation in California? They were both based on his understandable frustration with massive state intervention. He always supported greater freedom of choice for all individuals, and hiring policies based on merit rather than affirmative action.
Here you go Vic.
And another.
I would type that into a search engine and see just how many hits it produces, Vic.
Here's the first one.
but there are just too many to post here........that verify the statement and his gutting of the Civil Rights Commission.
Iv'e already read both. Reagan didn't have a racist bone in his body. Anyone who tries to pretend he did should apologize
So what? Reagan was saying people have the right to sell their houses to whomever they want? Sorry that dosen't make it. You can stop the manufactured outrage. The haters are on the left.
According to him he wasn't racist, it was all about state rights.....LOL, yeah sure.
And anyone that try's to ignore his factual history should apologize.
She'a so dumb it's painful. She can't even make a coherent argument over a single appearance.
She attacks FDR and Reagan as terrible racists says our country is garbage and then we have to get back to when we were "good and equitable."
She's like a high, dopey 18 year old just blathering without a filter.
The actor James Woods might have explained the AOC phenomenon best :
"So, you may have missed this, but the way it works in America is YOU work for US. The last time somebody told Americans to sit down and shut up was 1776. If you ever learn to read, look it up. You are not only a idiot, you’re an arrogant idiot, and there is nothing more dangerous"
The implication of the seeded article is that Cortez ignorance of Reagan leads her to criticize Reagan erroneously.
Are we to believe that Cortez is the first person to characterize the Regan presidency in the terms she does? There aren't enough hours in this day to fill this forum with opinions of Reagan that align with hers.
There is revisionist history going on. The theory is that progressives feel the need to destroy Conservatism to win. Thus the rewrite of the Reagan legacy, Reagan being the gold star for Conservatives.
The rewriting began after his death. Now decades later, a light of some inconvenient truths will not diminish his legacy so much as prove that he was as flawed as most of us.
I mean, after all, he was just another actor, right? Who really cares about the opinions of actors?
Can you tell when a really good actor is telling the truth or acting a part?
To be honest with you, I don't know what you are talking about. Democrats and liberals have always largely been critical of Reagan. Some of us liked his personality and his optimism , and many criticized his policies and goals to diminish the role of government.
21 Reasons Why Ronald Reagan Was a Terrible President
June 07, 20181. Reagan Supplied Weapons to America's Enemies
He armed Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war despite the fact that it was widely known Iraq was using chemical weapons against civilian populations in violation of international law.
2. Reagan Ignored the Atrocities Committed by Saddam Hussein
Even after the whole world condemned Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons to kill over 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Iraq, the Reagan administration continued to provide weapons and tactical information to Iraq . Iraq used this information to target its enemies with chemical weapons. Reagan even vetoed a UN resolution condemning Iraq.
3. Reagan Illegally Supplied Arms to Both Sides of the Iran-Iraq War
While he was supplying Iraq with weapons, Reagan also armed Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in direct violation of a U.S. law that he had signed.
4. Reagan Caved in to the Demands of Terrorists
After several Americans were taken hostage by terrorists in Lebanon, Reagan provided weapons to Iran in exchange for their release . Despite this concession, ultimately more hostages were taken.
5. Reagan Caved in to the Demands of Terrorists Again
After Reagan sent Marines to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission, a terrorist’s truck bomb killed 241 U.S. Marines. Reagan responded by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists wanted, pulling all the troops out of Beirut.
6. Reagan Was Weak in the War on Terrorism
After the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Reagan promised to track down and punish the terrorists who committed that horrible act. He never followed up on that promise.
7. Reagan Didn't Obey His Own Laws
He illegally supplied weapons to Nicaraguan rebels in violation of a law that he himself had signed.
8. Reagan Supported the Violent Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Government
He illegally supported the Nicaraguan Contras, whom he called “Freedom Fighters,” despite the fact that they killed civilians and wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government to restore the dictatorship that previously existed in Nicaragua.
9. Reagan Started an Unnecessary War to Divert Attention From His Failure in Beirut
Just days after the bombing that killed 241 Marines in Beirut, Reagan launched an attack on the island of Grenada to remove Cuban soldiers there. This successfully took attention away from the devastating loss of those Marines in Beirut.
10. Reagan Failed to Defend US From Saddam Hussein
When an Iraqi fighter jet fired a missile into a U.S. Navy ship in 1987, killing 37 men, Reagan did nothing in response to the attack. Iraq is still the only non-allied country to attack a U.S. warship without retaliation.
11. Reagan Helped Create Al Qaeda
The Reagan administration armed and supported the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan. Many members of the Mujahideen, like Osama bin Laden , used their experience in Afghanistan to help them form the terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
12. Reagan Supported the Racist Apartheid Government in South Africa
When the white minority in South Africa (just 10% of the population) brutally repressed the black majority, even denying them the right to vote, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 to apply pressure to South Africa to end Apartheid. But President Reagan opposed any sanctions on South Africa and vetoed that bill. Congress was forced to override his veto.
13. Reagan Supported the Most Brutal Dictators in the World as Long as He Didn't Consider Them “Communists”
14. Reagan’s Administration Had More Documented Corruption Than Any President in U.S. History
At least 138 Reagan administration officials, including several cabinet members, were investigated for, indicted for, or convicted of crimes. This is the largest number of any U.S. President. Many of them were pardoned by Reagan or President Bush before they could even stand trial.
15. Reagan Frequently Repeated Bald-Faced Lies Even After They Were Publicly Revealed to Be Untrue
16. Reagan Set Records for Budget Deficits
After criticizing President Carter for having a $50 billion deficit, Reagan’s own deficits exceeded $200 billion. He tripled the national debt in only eight years. Although Republicans blamed Congress for the deficits, all eight of the budgets Congress passed had less spending and smaller deficits than the budgets proposed by Reagan.
17. Reagan's Economic Policies Put Millions of Americans out of Work
When he took office in 1981, unemployment was at 7.5% and dropping. A few months after his economic policies took effect, unemployment began to rise again. Millions of people continued to lose their jobs for the next two years until unemployment exceeded 10%. It stayed above 10% for nearly a year, peaking at 10.8%. Three years after he was elected, unemployment was still higher than when he was sworn in.
18. Reagan’s Policies Allowed Hundreds of Thousands of Family Farms to Go out of Business or Declare Bankruptcy
By some accounts, nearly one third of all farms were at risk of being foreclosed during the 1980s. Reagan vetoed a farm credit bill that would have given farmers some relief. His popularity among farmers dropped so low that at one point when discussing the exportation of grain to other countries, Reagan joked that he would like to “keep the grain and export the farmers."
19. Reagan’s Financial Policies Caused the Savings and Loan Industry to Collapse
The financial deregulation and changes to the tax code that President Reagan enacted ultimately caused nearly 750 different financial institutions to fail. This cost taxpayers about $150 billion.
20. Reagan Robbed the Social Security Trust Fund to Pay for His Budget Shortfalls
After Reagan cut taxes for the rich, the tax revenue to fund the government was so small that the budget deficit grew to four times what it had been under Jimmy Carter. So Reagan “borrowed” hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund to pay the country’s bills. That money has never been paid back.
21. Reagan Largely Ignored the AIDS Epidemic while Tens of Thousands of People Were Dying of the Disease
Many conservatives in the 1980s believed that AIDS was God’s punishment for being gay. Ronald Reagan did not publicly talk about AIDS until the 6 th year of his presidency. In 1986, when AIDS fatalities were doubling every year, Reagan proposed cuts in funding for AIDS research.
The question is what rewriting and by whom. I have Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" on my bookshelf.....It is a distorted view of American history written by a POS with a grievance. Sadly I sometimes see others use Zinn's perspective in places like this.
We are going to attack Cortez because she takes issue with the Reagan presidency? Seriously?
I understand that conservatives revere him, but everyone doesnt.
What nonsense!
Well speaking of revisionist history.
A the Hispanic vote in 1980 was only 2% of the electorate
B Jimmy Carter got 56% of that vote.
C Reagan only got 37% according to separate Roper and Pew reports (35%).
So the answer is that no one would know that Reagan got 43% because it did not happen.
( I will concede that many millennials may not know what a book is, other than a source for their Kindles, LOL)
Every author has an agenda Vic.
And everyone has an opinion.
lol.
We get it, progressives hated him (Obama admired him), but don't lie about him. Most historians rate him in the top ten best Presidents:
To be honest with you, I don't think Reagan was one of our worst presidents. But the premise of this article is that Ocasio-Cortez criticisms of Reagan are wildly ignorant and way out of the mainstream and essentially unprecedented. Now, that premise is what is nonsense.
And I am certain that you then agree that they rated Obama and Clinton correctly also at 12 & 15?
I guess the demographics of the country really changed since then. Who get's the credit?
B Jimmy Carter got 56% of that vote.
Any thoughts on why?
So the answer is that no one would know that Reagan got 43% because it did not happen.
I guess you would have to take that up with Reagan biographer Craig Shirley and find out where he got his numbers. Is it a big deal that it was 37% instead of 43%. Tell us exactly what it means?
I'll be right behind you agreeing that Lincoln was #1 (on just about everyone's list) and Ike & Reagan are in the top 10
The premise of the article was that Cortez was calling FDR and Reagan racist. Maybe FDR was. How did he feel about the KKK? What about Japanese internment? Don't know. I am concerned with people throwing that term around. Progressives toss it out all the time
Vic, this article barely has a point, and no supporting evidence for it's claims. It serves as clickbait for the AOC haters.
Yes it is. What you and the article have implied is totally nonsense and laughable. Just more make believe from the hate gallery
Which is what? The obvious claim by AOC that FDR & Reagan were "racists"? Not only is she factually wrong in the case of Reagan, her motives are also quite obvious. This from a white woman who describes herself as "brown"
You call people racists without evidence and a response follows. This time from the Reagan biographer.
Btw Republicans LOVE AOC!
If Spelling counts...… Not really !
I spelled Ronald Reagan's name correctly seven times on this seed, but by all means let's concentrate on the one typo.
Why not ?
It was right in front of me. Should I have put it on "Ignore" …. for YOUR sake ?
That is the implication, and it is correct.
I don't believe the article suggests she is alone in her ignorance.
I suspect AOC would support a candidate who promised to raise taxes 11 times, pass sweeping employee protection laws, and offer amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Revisionist history about Reagan is rampant from both flavors of dipshit extremists, and pretty much anybody else too stupid to look past what is said and concentrate on what is actually done.
The Looney Left attempt to demonize him as the father of trickle down economics, ignoring the fact that his actions were quite Keynesian and Obama is the actual king of trickle down.
The Round the Bend Right pretend that he is the shining example of how their hyper conservative extremism is somehow good for America...forgetting the fact that Reagan was more liberal than both Clinton and Obama.
It must be break time for progressives, or as writers call it "the pregnant pause".
I'll be back in a few.
Didn't know you are a progressive. Humm
So, neo-liberals are trying to save globalism by destroying AOC? The problem is globalism, itself, and the failures of globalism are becoming difficult to ignore.
People have grown tired of providing enormous amounts of publicly funded welfare for multinational financial institutions, free traders, currency manipulators, and global free-riders. The United States is on the hook for over $20 trillion of public funds spent on a promise of prosperity that never came. Neo-liberal globalists have paid for tax cuts, bailouts, wage subsidies, and one-sided trade policy using the government credit card with no intention of every paying the credit card bill.
Since Ronald Reagan was President, China's economy has rapidly grown to a size that challenges the United States. How did that happen? China began building factories, putting people to work, and producing what the world wanted to buy. Neo-liberal globalists have held back the United States by preventing our own factories and workers being able to compete with shipping containers. Ronald Reagan ushered in the era of American decline where the United States became dependent upon foreign adversaries to supply what the country needs. Reagan promised to sell America to the cheapest foreign bidder and Bill Clinton made good on Reagan's promise by handing the government over to private sector neo-liberal globalists that used regulations to prevent Americans being able to compete.
Foreign investors know how globalism works; neo-liberal prostitutes are selling them every bit of America they can buy. Illegal immigrants know how globalism works; they disregard laws and steal jobs while being subsidized with public funds. Global banks know how globalism works; they game the system to generate private profits and threaten economic collapse when they want the government to cover their losses.
Neo-liberals are desperate to hide their failures by disparaging AOC. But this time is different. AOC is an activist and not a politician. AOC is not alone, there are other activists taking the place of politicians. The American people have grown tired of the neo-liberal broken promises; to hell with the global world order, it's the American public's turn.
Nerm, I ask this question because I've know you since NV. Do you really understand what globalism really is?
Yes, I do. Do you?
Globalism is premised upon the neo-liberal ideals of spreading opportunity to all people of earth by allowing unfettered free movement of goods and people. Neo-liberal globalism has promised to alleviate poverty by providing access to the world's capital for economic development, promised to foster social improvement (education, health care, food & water security, adequate housing, etc.), promised to share the benefit of science and technology to all people, and promised to promote democratic forms of government. Globalism is supposed to allow all people of the earth to share in the peace and prosperity provided by global interdependence and partnership unfettered by national interests or national sovereignty.
But the United States has not accomplished that ideal within its own borders. The idealistic promises of globalism can't even be accomplished in a single major metropolitan area in the United States.
In reality neo-liberal globalism has provided the means to exploit the environment and people around the world which has fostered even greater disparities within countries and between countries. Neo-liberal globalism in practice has actually made its idealistic promises much more difficult to achieve.
No, it's a naturally occuring progression of the earth and the people in it.
Blame those damn Phoenicians! Those trading bastards!
Globalism isn't new by any means. Yoe see it everywhere. When was the last time a television was manufactured in America?
How long did it take you to get comfortable with invisible rays heating your leftovers?
We went from wooden ships to flying tubes to get from one place to another....in hours instead of months.
Everything you buy still made in America?
Where are those Phoenician traders now? Where is mighty Carthage? The Phoenicians were an unknown people until they were discovered in the writings of people who built things.
But the promise of global peace and prosperity was never part of global trade in the past. Global trade throughout history has been about exploiting the environment and people.
But global trade didn't provide that technology. Traders don't build things.
Right wing blaming AOC again?
Hell, the demise of conservatism was heralded by Ronald Wilson Reagan and his push for Supply Side Economics. SSE ruined everything conservatism had to live for. The hell with 'the principals', just concentrate the wealth and everything else will fall in place. Well, it did 'fall in place', except it really didn't.
Ya, right and Jussie Smollett was attacked/Sar