• No sooner do I speculate yesterday that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is likely unpopular with House Democrats that this pops up in the news:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has infuriated colleagues by aligning with a progressive outside group that’s threatening to primary entrenched Democrats. Now some of those lawmakers are turning the tables on her and are discussing recruiting a primary challenger to run against the social media sensation.
At least one House Democrat has been privately urging members of the New York delegation to recruit a local politician from the Bronx or Queens to challenge Ocasio-Cortez.
“What I have recommended to the New York delegation is that you find her a primary opponent and make her a one-term congressperson,” the Democratic lawmaker, who requested anonymity, told The Hill. “You’ve got numerous council people and state legislators who’ve been waiting 20 years for that seat. I’m sure they can find numerous people who want that seat in that district.”
The New York delegation has eyed Ocasio-Cortez with skepticism ever since last summer when the 29-year-old self-described democratic socialist shocked the political world and defeated then-Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) in what many thought would be a sleepy primary race. Crowley, a Queens powerbroker and affable House Democratic Caucus chairman, had been considered a possible future Speaker.
Meanwhile, guess who’s being celebrated at the Sundance Film Festival? Because of course she is:
She hasn’t been in office a whole month, and already there is a documentary film about her. That’s par for the course. There were three biographies of Anita Hill published before the first biography of Clarence Thomas appeared.
• I missed Howard Schultz on 60 Minutes Sunday night, but what makes a billionaire known for a flashy but substandard product who has never held public office before think he can just run for president and win? I hear he was really boring, and from what little I’ve seen I think the sleep aid industry should indeed be worried.
The other people worried are Democrats, who think a Schultz independent run would assure Trump’s re-election by splitting the vote. In fact, someone told this to Schultz rather directly yesterday:
Someone else who thinks this scenario is likely? This guy:
Sounds like a manhood challenge designed to make sure Schultz stays in. The left, which already dislikes “corporate coffee,” is calling for a massive boycott of Starbucks, even though Schultz left the company a while ago. Maybe that will shorten the lines down for people who like their kludgely coffee. Most coffee houses seem to be vaguely left wing, which is why I wish Black Rifle Coffee would start its own retail outlets, where you could open carry your 1L mug and .38 special.
• Schultz is of course a billionaire, and in case you haven’t heard, billionaires are not popular with Democrats right now. Which brings me to Marshall Steinbaum, a very lefty economist at the Roosevelt Institute in New York. I had never heard of him either until one day we ended up on a panel together at the Conference on World Affairs at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I thought it odd that a person who obviously prefers socialism uber alles turns out to hate Uber, and wishes it to be either banned or regulated out of existence.
This was too much even for the earnest lefties of Boulder. Another woman on the panel, who name I forget but was clearly a liberal, expressed her incredulity at someone wanting to ban Uber. She mentioned that Uber service in New York City was superior to the regulated monopoly yellow cab taxis (funny how competition produces better consumer service that way), especially at 4 pm when the shift change often makes it difficult to find a cab that will take you to an airport or any other destination distant from midtown. I’ve experienced that problem myself at shift change time before Uber was an option. Steinbaum replied that she should take other public transit in that case—the bus or the subway. To which the panelist replied that public transit was a poor option if you are laden with luggage, as are many people who need to get to airports. I was looking around the room at the crowd of mostly liberal Boulderites shaking their heads in disbelief, and it was clear that Steinbaum had totally lost an audience that ought to be generally sympathetic to him. This is one reason why socialists always have to resort to force to get their way sooner or later.
Steinbaum also doesn’t like billionaires or wealthy people generally. One of his recent Tweets:
The irony here is pretty thick: the think tank where he works, the Roosevelt Institute, exists as a luxury good of a wealthy society. No wealthy people, no job for Steinbaum.
Luckily I screen-capped that Tweet last week, because today Steinbaum’s Twitter account has gone dark:
If this account is to be believed, apparently Steinbaum’s romper room socialism is even too much for the Roosevelt Institute: