Democrat's Response (Connolly) To The NLRB Hacking Is Pathetic

[gab13by13]

Connolly beat out AOC earlier this year for the chair of the House Oversight committee.

This is why Democrats lose elections. At this stage of our democracy we need fighters, not people who write stern letters.

Connolly needed to call a press conference today and demand that DOGE be shut down until they are thoroughly investigated. Demand that Musk and his cyber-punks appear before the oversight committee and testify under oath. Waiting for a response to a stern letter is pathetic, at least show some fire. Do not insult my intelligence and ask me to believe that this didn't happen at the other government agencies that DOGE hacked into. Putin most likely has front door access to our government.

I saw no mention of Russia in Connolly's letters to the IG's, I just do not understand Democrats, seeing as the people are ready to fight are turning out for Bernie and AOC by the tens of thousands, are turning out at other town halls in droves.

Where is the chair of the Senate oversight committee? Where are the chairs of the intelligence committees?

Also, it is now past time to raise hell about the use by our government of StarLink seeing as there is a good probability that Russia has access to it from his puppet Musk.

Maybe when Holy Week is over Democrats will pursue this with more vigor? Sadly, I expect this bombshell to be a dud, just like SignalGate. How long before the IG's reports come out, if they decide to investigate, meanwhile DOGE marches on.

[NewHendoLib]

1. Today's Dems are, with few exceptions, a long way from FDR

[SocialDemocrat61]

14. FDR supported segregation

illegally imprisoned Japanese-American citizens, ignored the Holocaust and created the military industrial complex. So yeah they are.

[PatrickforB]

21. Those were different times. FDR had the spine to face down Wall Street and the wealthy to create the

New Deal. Sure, we could call up all the stuff that we know now is wrong - and what the current administration seems to want to bring back. But to dismiss the guy who saved the US during the Depression and guided us through WWII seems a bit 'cancelly' to me.

And, if you REALLY look deeply into history, you seem to be blaming FDR for the 1930s antics of the then GOP and the Dixiecrats. The internment camps were wrong - we know that now in hindsight. But back in the day, Japan had a massive army and navy and its empire stretched in December 1941 to the point where they conceivably could have attacked our west coast.

And the military was segregated when FDR got there - don't discount the sheer power of the racists, bigots, American Nazis and so on.

So please don't be so dismissive of FDR. And look at Eleanor, one of the truly great Americans who ever lived, and who would not have had nearly her impact had he not been elected by a divided country.

[SocialDemocrat61]

24. Yes they were very different times

with very different challenges. And FDR was a great president for that time. But wasn’t perfect and it he has many, many stains on his legacy. He doesn’t deserve to be canonized. And it’s unfair to compare present day democrats to him. Too many have an idolized view of FDR and the new deal which is just not reality.

[PatrickforB]

34. See my post below. We are all groaning under the weight of the raw greed and lust for temporal power on the part

of these billionaires and their systematic gathering of more and more and more wealth into their own hands while we all increasingly go short.

I mean, these days I see more people also 'cancelling' Winston Churchill, who was definitely an imperialist, but who also led Great Britain through the second world war.

Great people are usually flawed, and definitely children of their times, but they rise up when destiny calls and bring us further up the great spiral of human consciousness.

My point is the institutionalist Democrats don't seem to have much in the way of charisma or leadership. Just Bernie and AOC, Crockett and some of the younger ones, while all the while Schumer and Pelosi are so hidebound in institutionalism that they resort to 'strongly worded letters' instead of real action. And the Connolly deal? I haven't given a dime to any Democrat since then except AOC.

[SocialDemocrat61]

41. Yes I saw it

And agree with it for the most part. Just one correction. AOC was the Vice ranking member of that committee last term. The usual practice was for the Vice ranking member to move up when the ranking member leaves. But due to the intervention of Nancy Pelosi, Connelly was leap frogged over AOC to ranking member.

[dflprincess]

27. One of the people who pushed FDR for internment was the governor of California

Earl Warren.

Yeah, that Earl Warren. Who lived long enough to change his tune on civil rights. FDR died too soon, hopefully he would also have changed his attitude.

And don't we wish we had the Warren Court now?

[SocialDemocrat61]

31. He was also head of the Warren commission

But that’s the point, everyone has good and bad things on their records.

[Blue Full Moon]

29. Reagan democrats

[AStern]

48. Yet some insist they keeping moving to the right

[AltairIV]

2. move on, please

Schumer and Jefferies both need to step down from their leadership positions, and Connolly should have never gotten that position. All three are an embarrassment and completely useless.

[PatrickforB]

33. I'll go with that. The institutionalists are allowing billionaires courtesy of the 2025 plan, drafted at the behest of

Charlie Koch, to make our country into a theocratic plutocracy (read fascist dictatorship).

I just saw a Gallup survey and their results show that in their latest survey, the top problem recognized by 27% of Americans (40% of Democrats and 17% of Republicans) is our government and poor leadership. Think about that.

The second top problem? Taxes. 59% of Americans think their taxes are too high as it is. This is because of the systemic 'trickle down' economic effect, beginning with Reagan, of transferring more and more of the cost burden of running the government. Individual taxpayers like you and I pay in around 80% of the governments tax revenue, and corporations went from paying in around 35% back in the 1970s to 9% now. Yet it is corporations getting most of the benefits while all of us get squeezed. The Democrat institutionalists did not address this at all, never have, because they are all rich too.

Even 48% of Republicans think corporations pay in too little, while among indies and Dems, these numbers are 70% and 95%, respectively. See what we did NOT do is run on these things. Nope. We ran on 'saving democracy' but our middle class has been squeezed by Wall Street since the first corporate and billionaire tax cuts back in the 80s. It is SO expensive even to live, the middle class has been nickel and dimed almost to extinction.

People 'broke for Trump' because they were angry at the Wall Street squeeze, though the publicly traded 'news' outlets (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX) were always very, very careful to drive culture war wedges instead of EVER reporting on the unbalanced greed and lust for temporal power of the super rich and the corporations they control.

There is less and less and less, but our taxes have not gone down. Now our kids are crippled with massive student debt, and we have healthcare debt, and it costs an arm and a leg even to try and live middle class.

That is THE problem, and putting Connolly in that position because it was 'his turn' was total institutionalist bullshit. AOC should have been on that committee and she is the future of the Democratic Party - she and Crockett and other young Dems. But they are held back because of institutionalists like Pelosi and Schumer.

Now, we are in incredible danger as this republic is being clamped under the iron boot of Wall Street and the billionaires. Biden should have a) been beating his chest about greed-flation all along, and b) not ran at all in 2024.

[yardwork]

39. I agree with this. We need fighters in leadership now.

[Galraedia]

80. Chuck Schumer especially and Jefferies for the shear fact that he allowed Pelosi to undermine him with Connolly

It's a dumb idea to go into 2026 expecting Americans to be motivated to come out and vote to make those two majority leaders.

[Celerity]

87. this did my (and so many other Democrats I know in real life) head in at multiple levels:

[Buns_of_Fire]

3. He's still working under the old rules.

The new rules require new strategies.

[yardwork]

40. Bingo.

That's it.

[Bettie]

4. He seems to be a good congressman

but, he's still operating under the old "we must have comity, be polite to one another, work across the aisle"....except the other side of the aisle is filled with rabid, biting weasels who can not be reasoned with.

In other words, the rabid, biting weasels won't read his letter (or will laugh when they do), they don't care because they love what is happening.

[yardwork]

42. This war has to be fought on social media.

It has to be fought on podcasts. It has to be fought in minutes on the evening news. It has to be so loud and in their face that even Fox News acknowledges it.

The Democrats are failing badly at this war. We need new generals.

[Scrivener7]

53. This exactly!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

59. Ooooh!

When's your podcast?

[SocialDemocrat61]

46. There was a time

when members of congress would spend weeks, sometimes longer, in Washington when congress was in session. It wasn’t like today where they fly home every weekend. Because they were there for long periods at a time, they socialized with each other and worked together, even on issues they disagreed about. Thanks to Newt Gingrich and others, that is in the past. Unfortunately, too many don’t realize that.

[Autumn]

5. He's busy kicking back and relaxing in his new position he never should have been given.

This is why we lose.

[gab13by13]

6. Nancy Pelosi backed Connolly.

[Autumn]

8. Yes. She did. EOM

[tritsofme]

7. He wasn't "given" anything. He was elected by his Democratic colleagues.

[Autumn]

9. Yeah, we know how the system works. eom

[tritsofme]

10. You convince your colleagues you are the best person for the job. That's how the process works. AOC didn't do that.

[SocialDemocrat61]

16. That's not how it works

[tritsofme]

18. That is exactly how it works. If you are unable to win the support of your Democratic colleagues

You don’t get the position.

It’s actually incredibly simple.

Is the suggestion that she ought to have been installed, despite an overwhelming defeat?

[SocialDemocrat61]

20. That's very naive

Those votes are totally political and based on what leadership has decided, usually based on things like seniority or favoritism and other political considerations. They are not based on merit.

[tritsofme]

22. It was a secret ballot vote, she lost 131 to 84.

What’s naive is smelling a conspiracy or something untoward every time things don’t go the way one prefers.

She lost only because she failed to convince her colleagues she was the best person for the job.

[SocialDemocrat61]

26. Again that's not how these things work

They are political appointments and in this case it’s well known that Pelosi campaigned against AOC getting the position.

[tritsofme]

30. You are incorrect, it was not an appointment. There was a secret ballot vote, and she lost.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna184427

[SocialDemocrat61]

32. Once again not how these things work.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/aoc-and-nancy-pelosi

[tritsofme]

44. Oh my goodness what a scandal! Nancy Pelosi, who has joined the backbenches, had the audacity to have an opinion

on a matter, and made calls to win over her colleagues?! Quelle horreur!

If only AOC had been so effective, she would be carrying that gavel today. Sounds like she could learn some lessons from the great speaker emerita.

Not sure why there is this need for excuses, she waged a good fight but ultimately just lost.

[SocialDemocrat61]

47. Not a need for excuses

But for reality about how these things really work.

[tritsofme]

50. Right...by convincing your colleagues you are the best person for the job.

Which she failed to do.

[SocialDemocrat61]

52. Not what happened

Pelosi put her thumb on the scale.

[tritsofme]

55. Pelosi is allowed to have an opinion and be an advocate.

She didn’t stick a gun to anyone’s head, and ultimately it is a secret ballot.

That Connolly’s supporters were more effective is a failing of AOC’s and nothing else, I’m sure she learned from the experience.

[SocialDemocrat61]

57. Pelosi is most influential member of the caucus

Last edited Wed Apr 16, 2025, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/aoc-loses-bid-for-top-oversight-committee-seat-after-nancy-pelosi-schemed-against-her/

[tritsofme]

58. Again, she is entitled to have an opinion and be an advocate for that opinion.

That’s not a scandal, that’s politics.

Connolly’s supporters, like Pelosi, were more effective at making the case that he was the best person for the job. AOC failed to make that case, and she lost.

[SocialDemocrat61]

60. Exactly it's politics: using leverage to influence votes

[tritsofme]

62. So Pelosi should be silenced because people respect her opinion too much?

This is just silliness. I’m just not seeing how Pelosi having an opinion is controversial.

I’m sure if AOC had been able to win Pelosi’s endorsement, she would have been happy to accept it.

Pelosi got where she is by winning these types of votes, not whining about them, AOC should be taking notes.

[SocialDemocrat61]

64. No but it's not some free vote either

Question: Would you vote for AOC if she ran for office in your state?

[tritsofme]

68. It is essentially a free vote, that's a big reason it is done by secret ballot.

That’s why Connolly and AOC, along with their allies, were so busy lobbying directly to members. She convinced 84 members, which is honestly more than I expected.

As to your question, I very much doubt I would support her in a Democratic primary, but of course would support her in a general election.

[SocialDemocrat61]

70. If really think it's a free vote

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[tritsofme]

72. If you really think leadership has so much power in this day and age, I would make a similar offer.

To me it just sounds like a convenient foil for folks with sour grapes that their person lost.

[SocialDemocrat61]

73. They do

That’s just the reality of how things work in congress.

So what’s your problem with AOC? Why wouldn’t you vote for her in a primary? Why are you continuing to argue this with several other members?

[Nixie]

131. Speaking of reality and how things work....

If AOC is not evil for primarying Democrats she thinks don’t measure up to her ideals and standards, then neither is Pelosi for doing the same. They are both using their political leverage, it’s just that Pelosi has more at this point. Reality.

[SocialDemocrat61]

133. Never said either is evil

Just pointing out what really happened and not trying to pretend it didn't happen.
And you're right that it's all political and Pelosi has way more leverage right now.

[Nixie]

134. It's obvious what happened by the vote. You can't ascribe

shadiness to one and not the other if one gets free rein to blast Democrats of her choosing and the other is held to a different standard. I worded it that way on purpose because AOC shouldn’t the only one who can “critique.”

It’s politics.

I would suggest AOC spend her time learning from Pelosi. It couldn’t hurt and would help her in the long run.

[SocialDemocrat61]

135. Never ascribed shadiness either

Just pointed out that's they way things work in Congress. Been like that for over 200 years.

And again you're right, there is a lot that younger members like AOC and Crockett can learn from older more experienced member like Pelosi.

[lapucelle]

77. Your link is to a story in the right-wing New York Post

================================

[SocialDemocrat61]

81. I just saw AOL

not that it was a reprint from FAUX. Thanks for the heads up. Just changed it to a daily beast article.

[lapucelle]

94. It's so weird that the Daily Beast writer uses words like "schemed" and "plotted" regarding Nancy Pelosi.

And then there's this from Axios:

The Ocasio-Cortez ally noted that another Pelosi-backed candidate, Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), lost the steering vote to lead the Agriculture Committee on Monday, telling Axios: "Does it help or does it hurt to have Nancy Pelosi making calls for you?"

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/aoc-gerry-connolly-steering-oversight-committee

That blows this theory out of the water.

[SocialDemocrat61]

96. Only if you ignore what happened

https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/pelosi-working-to-undermine-aocs-bid-for-top-oversight-committee-role-report-says-nancy-pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-house-oversight-committee-james-comer-gerry-connolly-jamie-raskin

[lapucelle]

97. Nancy Pelosi was not working to "undermine" anyone.

"Scheming"..."plotting..."undermining"... the diction is downright weird and highly gendered.

It's surprising that none of them thought to use the phrase "cat fight".

===============

One of the candidates that Speaker Emeritus Pelosi endorsed won, and another lost, so at the very least we've established that it was a "free vote" and that is the way things work.

[SocialDemocrat61]

98. Question

If AOC ran for office where you live, would you vote for her?

[lapucelle]

99. If she were the Democratic candidate, of course. N/T

[SocialDemocrat61]

100. Great

[Hieronymus Phact]

37. get real

Money talks. Leadership positions usually go to the biggest fundraisers, who then share the wealth, and generate loyal networks of recipients. That's how they get the votes. Schumer, McConnell, Pelosi, Gephardt, O'neill, all prodigious fundraisers. If AOC raised and distributed the type of money they did, then she can command more votes for her leadership bid. It's that simple.

[SocialDemocrat61]

45. Good point

[Cirsium]

23. Pretty funny

The party leadership gets what it wants.

Do you think the party leadership should not get the team it wants?

"Elected by his Democratic colleagues" is just window dressing.

[tritsofme]

25. It was a secret ballot vote that AOC lost by a wide margin.

There was no proverbial gun pointed at anyone’s head.

She failed to win the support of her colleagues.

[Cirsium]

51. That doesn't matter

What difference does a secret ballot make? That makes it worse. AOC may well have gotten more votes if it were not a secret vote.

Are you saying you don't think that the leadership does have, or should have power over who gets which posts?

I strongly suspect that you are very happy that AOC was not picked. Why not be honest about that?

[SocialDemocrat61]

54. Unfortunately

There are a number of AOC critics in this forum.

[tritsofme]

56. Leadership makes recommendations through the steering committee

Usually our caucus has the benefit of them being good ones!

But it is rank-and-file members who ultimately decide, and it is with them that AOC failed to make her case.

I don’t, in any way, follow the logic that a public vote would be less favorable to leadership than a secret one…but ok.

I’m not sure what you are accusing me of being dishonest about? I did support Connolly in that contest, probably posted about it here, not a secret! lol

[Cirsium]

65. "Recommendations"

OK, leadership makes "recommendations." Right.

I don't dispute the fact that the membership voted for Connolly. I dispute that AOC "failed to make her case." That is not how Congress works. People fall in line behind the leadership - or should - and the vote results are known long before the balloting.

I also think that you would oppose AOC getting the post regardless of the process, so falling back on "that's how the membership voted" is it the whole story.

[tritsofme]

67. Nowhere have I hidden that I didn't support her for that position.

Not sure why you think that is some sort of “gotcha” moment?

However if the Democratic caucus voted to elect her as ranking member, I certainly still wouldn’t be whining about it today.

This was a secret ballot vote, there were no repercussions to voting against leadership, 84 members decided to do so.

AOC only lost for one reason, her colleagues didn’t want to support her.

[HereForTheParty]

75. This indicates a more systemic issue in the party

Yes, he got more votes. But he wasn't the right person for the job. He got those votes because a "seniority and that's the way we've always done it" attitude prevailed. Pelosi is entitled to her opinion, and it carried weight, but she came to Congress 37 years ago.

“Again, I think my colleagues were measuring their votes by who’s got experience, who’s seasoned, who can be trusted, who’s capable and who’s got a record of productivity. I think that prevailed,” he said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gerry-connolly-beats-aoc-key-vote-oversight-ranking-member-rcna184427

[Cirsium]

83. whatever

You have to admit the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest clip was funny.

[Autumn]

61. With a little help. Or a lot. nt

[tritsofme]

63. Correct, she lost the vote 131-84, she failed to convince enough of her colleagues to support her.

[Autumn]

66. Yeah we know how it went.

[Cirsium]

69. What is your point?

Is this like grave dancing or something? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Rubio was approved to the cabinet by a 99-0 vote. Does that mean we can't disagree with that appointment?

You keep saying "she failed to convince enough of her colleagues to support her." It is just as valid to say that the leadership was successful in strong-arming enough of her colleagues to vote against her.

And, yes, I think you are being less than forthcoming. You saw a chance to dump on AOC and are taking advantage of it, while disguising it as something else. Why not tell us what your problem with AOC is? That would be more straightforward.

[SocialDemocrat61]

71. They obviously have a problem with AOC

for some reason. Which is probably why he refuses to let this go.

[tritsofme]

74. I am just making sure to reject the false narrative that there was something illegitimate or untoward about her loss.

And to reject the vilification of Nancy Pelosi for daring to have an opinion that contradicts some folks here.

[stillcool]

78. it is not easy to combat this shit

it's like throwing darts at a wall. Someone once told me that a miracle is the slightest change in perception. I think you may have provided the opening for one. Maybe not to who you were responding to, but to someone else passing by.

[Cirsium]

82. Good grief

We don't like the choice. That is our prerogative. Get over it ffs. That is not a "false narrative." It is also our prerogative to disagree with the former speaker. That is not "a vilification of Nancy Pelosi."

"False narrative" and "vilification" is just a sneaky way to trash out the arguments of those with whom you disagree. Again I say that you are not being 100% straightforward, and I think you are projecting, since it is now obvious that your entire point with all of this is to trash out AOC and those who support her. Vilifying AOC and her supporter with a false narrative might be a way to describe that. Pot, say hello to the kettle.

[SocialDemocrat61]

95. It should be noted that

Pelosi didn’t just “have an opinion”, she actively worked behind the scenes against AOC. Just as she worked behind the scenes to dump Biden.
https://newrepublic.com/article/189500/pelosi-aoc-oversight-committee-democrats

[lapucelle]

121. Imagine posting a video of some Youtube rando calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"

and insisting its a "reliable news source".

[tritsofme]

122. No kidding, these attacks on Pelosi are disgusting. Time is valuable, no point in wasting it on that buffoonery.

[Nixie]

132. Yes, they prefer the war on Democrats to be one-sided.

And they call that “reality.”

[Celerity]

86. He said as the reason why he was entitled to be the ranking member of the Oversight Committee was that he had

never before had another Committee leader (Ranking Member or Chair) position and that it was his turn now to be the ranking member on that Committee.

Link to tweet

Tyler Austin Harper
@Tyler_A_Harper
Most revealing quote here: “I’ve never had my chance to be a ranking member or chairman of a full committee. This is it.” Says so much about how Dems think. Everything boils down to whose turn it is. It was Hillary’s turn. Then Biden. Then Harris. As if you’re entitled to rule.

Ken Klippenstein
@kenklippenstein
Gerry Connolly the 74 year old congressman suffering from esophageal cancer who Democrats just picked for a leadership position defends their decision, declaring in a hoarse voice cracking throughout: "We need the best general we can put on the battleground...and that's what the Democratic caucus overwhelmingly decided to do."

[MorbidButterflyTat]

89. Seriously,

this is taken out of context!

"Says so much about how Dems think. Everything boils down to whose turn it is. It was Hillary’s turn. Then Biden. Then Harris. As if you’re entitled to rule."

Tyler Austin Harper made that entitlement comment, not Mr. Connelly. That was entirely disingenuous, attributing that comment to him.

"....declaring in a hoarse voice cracking throughout: '" Disgusting, and cruel. Is that how Democrats are supposed to think?

[Celerity]

91. disagree nt

[MorbidButterflyTat]

93. Disagree with reality and truth.

It's right there.

[LymphocyteLover]

106. he's actually fighting cancer... this negativity about Dems is not helpful

AOC doesn't need to be in leadership to be effective. Leadership involves a lot of nitty gritty bureaucracy that would waste AOC's talents

[Autumn]

107. A 74 year old man fighting cancer doesn't need to be in leadership, he shpuld be fighting that fight.

[LuvLoogie]

11. Dems have the driest powder on the ship.

A nice patina on those podiums, too.

[Orrex]

12. Careful, or you'll be scolded for demanding better from our elected Democrats

They’ve already sent strongly worded letters; what more can you ask of these tireless defenders of the constitution?

[jalan48]

13. He'll announce the formation of a subcommittee that will report back to him in six months.

[mac56]

15. See...

[SocialDemocrat61]

17. Last term AOC was the Vice ranking member of that committee

Connelly was just a member. When the Ranking member leaves usually the Vice ranking member will move up. But thanks to Pelosi, Connelly was given the job over AOC. In other words, a white man was promoted over a woman of color who was next in line.

[lapucelle]

101. Your assertions are not accurate.

To begin with, Vice Chairs/Vice Ranking Members of Democratic committees are limited to a one year terms and the position is only available to members who have served on the committee for fewer than five terms. Vice Chairs/Vice Ranking Members are not "next in line" for the Chair/Ranking Member role.

Rules Governing House Committee and Subcommittee Assignment Procedures

Committee Vice Chair Designation

Within the Democratic Caucus, the Democrats on the committee are responsible for electing vice chairs when in the majority and vice ranking members when in the minority. As with most other elected positions with the caucus, when there is more than one candidate for the position, the vote is held by secret ballot unless waived.

To be eligible to serve in this role, a Member must have been on the committee for less than five terms and may only hold the position for one term. These restrictions reflect the caucus's intent that the positions serve as "an opportunity for a junior Member to gain insight and experience into the workings of the committee."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46786

============================

As for Connolly's position as "just a member" of the Oversight Committee, he was the Vice-Ranking Chair of the full committee under Elijah Cummings and has served as Chair or Ranking Member of two different Oversight subcommittees. He also has the strongest legislative record of anyone on the committee, having passed the most standalone Oversight bills through both the committee and the full House.

=======================================================

Representative Connolly was not "given the job" of Ranking Member. He was elected by the full Democratic Caucus in a secret ballot. Representative Ocasio-Cortez was not "passed over". She ran for the position and lost.

============================

In December 2024, Speaker Emeritus Pelosi endorsed two people for two committee Ranking Member positions. One of her endorsed candidates won and one of her endorsed candidates lost. I've never heard AOC blame Nancy Pelosi for her loss.

=============================

There comes a point where misinformation becomes disinformation. It has no place on DU.

[SocialDemocrat61]

102. It's not misinformation

A white man was promoted over a woman of color. Shameful.

[lapucelle]

103. What are you even talking about at this point?

- You're wrong about a Vice Chair/Vice Ranking Member being "next in line" to lead a Democratic House committee

- You're wrong on the facts concerning Representative Connolly's position and role across four Congressional sessions on the Oversight committee

- You're wrong about Speaker Emeritus Pelosi's supposed omnipotence in manipulating secret ballot votes to install favorites in leadership roles

- You're wrong in characterizing winning a secret ballot election as being "given a promotion" based on race and gender.

The simple fact of the matter is that that the Democratic Caucus overwhelmingly elected the candidate with more experience and a superior legislative record for actually getting bills passed.

And it's probably a good thing because it freed up the loser to "run around the country" (as Sanders likes to put it) on a publicity tour while the winner stays in Washington actually doing the work involved in leading the Oversight Committee, which (apparently unbeknownst to the person who wrote the OP) includes writing the detailed Oversight letters to government agencies and officials that become part of the official Congressional record.

-------------------------------------------

What's shameful is learning the actual facts (as opposed to falling for a divisive narrative in which women in government "plot" and "scheme" against each other) and nonetheless digging in and insistently repeating misinformation to the point that it becomes disinformation.

[SocialDemocrat61]

104. No

Several media outlets reported exactly what happened.
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-loses-oversight-gerry-connolly-2002263
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/12/aoc-pelosi-oversight-committee-connolly-raskin
https://www.commondreams.org/news/aoc-and-nancy-pelosi
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/12/pelosi-aoc-democrats-house-oversight-trump.html
All credible sources vs someone referring to AOC as loser

[lapucelle]

105. Every one of your links confirms that Connolly overwhelmingly won the the secret ballot vote

to assume the role of Democratic Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee. He obviously has the confidence of his colleagues in the whole Democratic Caucus and, in fact, had superior qualifications, having served as Vice Chair of the whole committee, Chair and Ranking Member of two of its subcommittees, and having a proven record of advancing and passing the Oversight legislation that he wrote and sponsored through both the committee and the Congress.

None of your links supports your diminution of the work that Congressman Connolly has done on the Oversight Committee since he entered Congress in 2009. "Just a member", indeed.

None of your links supports the absurd claim that a Vice Chair/Vice Ranking Member of a Democratic Committee (who is limited to a one year term) is automatically "next in line" to serve as Chair/Ranking Member of that Committee.

And of course none of your links supports the ridiculous and insulting assertion that the Democratic Caucus is guilty of passing over a more worthy and qualified woman of color for a "promotion" in favor of advancing a less qualified and less experienced white man.

Finally, Axios confirms that Speaker Emeritus Pelosi's preferred candidate for a different committee Ranking Member position lost his election, demolishing the weirdly gendered and gossipy "the deviously omnipotent Nancy Pelosi plotted and schemed against another women" narrative from the links you posted earlier.

Your narrative is wrong on the facts and disrespectful to the Democratic Caucus in general, and Nancy Pelosi, AOC, and Gerry Connolly in particular.

---------------------------------------

You're probably right about this no longer being a matter of simple misinformation. At this point it has morphed into a disinformation storyline that some folks (who appear to have little understanding of what the work of a Committee Chair/Ranking Member actually is) insist on resurrecting from time to time.

Imagine posting an indignant "SUBPOENA DOGE NOW!" OP not knowing that in February Ranking Member Connolly strategized with colleagues and came within one vote of a most unlikely scenario of a minority party subpoenaing Musk himself over the objections of the majority committee Chair.

The OP's ire is better spent on the two Democratic members (one of whom missed the strategy session to go to a Progressive Caucus meeting and has been a friend of Musk for decades) who *inexplicably* missed the vote.

House Democrats try, and fail, to subpoena Musk - Live Updates - POLITICO

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/dems-try-to-subpoena-musk-00202777

Republicans Lose Their Minds After Democrats Try to Subpoena Elon Musk

https://newrepublic.com/post/191182/house-oversight-republicans-block-democrats-subpoena-elon-musk

----------------------------------------------------------

And finally, who benefits from divisive disinformation concerning members of our Congressional Caucus?

Cui bono?

Not Democrats.

[SocialDemocrat61]

108. Why did you refer to AOC as loser?

Last edited Fri Apr 18, 2025, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Why do you deride her rallies with Sen. Sanders as a publicity tour?
Why should anyone not believe all the credible news sources about what happened?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/12/14/nancy-pelosi-aoc-lock-horns-over-race-for-committee-chair/
https://newrepublic.com/article/189500/pelosi-aoc-oversight-committee-democrats
Are they all in on a conspiracy?

[lapucelle]

109. Some asshole on Youtube referring to Nancy Pelosi as a "garbage person"

is not a credible "news source".

Why are you linking to anti-Democratic Party videos calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"?

Why are you posting links to right-wing newspapers and dodgy, conspiracy-driven, secondary source opinionists claiming that Democratic women "scheme" and "plot" against each other?

I get it. People post crap like that when it's all they have to support baseless claims contrary to fact and and gendered gossip about women in government. It's bias confirmation at its most abject.

It's frankly disgusting and has no place on DU.

[SocialDemocrat61]

110. So support for AOC is anti-democratic party?

Why do you think supporting AOC is anti-democratic party?
And again, why do you refer to AOC as loser?
She's one of the most popular Democrats in the country.

Is former Obama staffer just another a**hole on youtube too?

[lapucelle]

112. A Youtube video made by an asshole calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"

is definitely anti-Democratic Party.

As for the podbros, how sad that they think so little of the Democratic Caucus in general and of AOC in particular that they breathlessly spread gendered gossip claiming that everyone is powerless in the face of the "devious plotting and scheming" of Nancy Pelosi, all the while ignoring the inconvenient FACT that she supported two candidates for Ranking Member of two different committees, one of whom won and one of whom lost.

[SocialDemocrat61]

113. So every news organization is in on conspiracy?

And why did you call AOC loser?
Why do you call her and Sen. Sanders rallies a publicity tour?

[lapucelle]

114. What are you talking about? An asshole on Youtube calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"

is not a news source.

As for the rest, I'm happy to explain for those who do not understand how things work.

When elections are held, there are winners and losers. AOC was not the winner of the election for Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee. Someone else was the winner. AOC was the loser. Hope that helps!

------------------------------------------

Now, let's get back to more important matters.

Why did you post a video of some asshole calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"?

Why did you claim that an asshole on Youtube calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person" is a "reliable news source"?


---------------------------

Bonus question:

If "garbage person" Nancy Pelosi were the Democratic candidate running in your district, would you vote for her?

[SocialDemocrat61]

115. Why do you call AOC and Sen. Sanders' rallies a publicity tour?

Is former Obama staffer just another a**hole on youtube too?

[lapucelle]

116. I'm surprised that anyone in this day and age doesn't know what a publicity tour is.

Let AI help!

A publicity tour is a trip undertaken to generate public attention and interest in a person, product, issue, or event.

So to recap, a loser is someone who did not win a contest (i.e. a game, an election, a battle of wits).

A publicity tour is a trip undertaken to generate public interest in something (i.e. an event, a person, an issue).

---------------------------------------------

Now back to more important matters, including the definition of what is and is not a "reliable news source" as opposed to "something, anything that confirms someone's misinformed biases".

Why did you post a video of some asshole on Youtube calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"?

Why did you claim that an asshole on Youtube calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person" is a "reliable news source"?

What did you mean when you posted a video calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"?

Did you mean that she is a "garbage person"?

Can you define "garbage person" for anyone concerned about the potential of slandering Democratic public figures on a Democratic chat board?

If "garbage person" Nancy Pelosi were the Democratic candidate running in your district, would you vote for her?

[SocialDemocrat61]

117. Do you think of AOC as a loser?

Is Chris Hayes an a**hole? Is MSNBC part of the disinformation conspiracy?

[lapucelle]

118. Sorry, but stalling tactics are not going to work. Class has been dismissed for the day.

There is set of questions to answer and quite a bit of homework to be done.

After the answers to the questions have been submitted, I recommend beginning the homework with this reading.

Rules Governing House Committee and Subcommittee Assignment Procedures

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46786

---------------------------------------------------------

For anyone who has a preference for pictures rather than text, it looks like this:

But it is strongly advised the text is actually read! It can save students from embarrassing errors like mistaking just another random white guy who makes his marginal living bashing Democratic women as "garbage people" on Youtube for a "reliable news source".

[SocialDemocrat61]

119. Yes or no. Do you think of AOC as a loser?

[lapucelle]

120. Have you submitted your answers yet?

Here are the questions again for anyone who didn't take notes.

Why did you post a video of some asshole on Youtube calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"?

Why did you claim that an asshole on Youtube calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person" is a "reliable news source"?

What did you mean when you posted a video calling Nancy Pelosi a "garbage person"?

Did you mean that she is a "garbage person"?

Can you define "garbage person" for anyone concerned about the potential slandering of Democratic public figures on a Democratic chat board?


If "garbage person" Nancy Pelosi were the Democratic candidate running in your district, would you vote for her?

-------------------------------------------------

Don't forget to do the reading. It's good policy to know what one is talking about before one starts talking.

------------------------------------------------

BTW, the giant pictures do ring a bell. I seem to remember a grammatically challenged *medical professional* from a "group of doctor's[sic]" who liked to post giant, meaningless pictures on *social media*. I wonder what happened to him.

[SocialDemocrat61]

123. Do you think AOC is a loser?

[lapucelle]

124. Your list keeps getting longer: Incessantly referring to a Democratic congresswoman as a "loser" (check).

- Unflattering and somewhat weird giant picture of a Democratic congresswoman. (check)

- Youtube video bashing a Democratic congresswoman as a "garbage person". (check)

- Links to gossipy right wing clickbait about "plotting" "scheming" Democratic women in government. (check)

===========================

Have you submitted your responses yet? Or should I ask

Have you submitted your response's[sic] yet? The assignment was due yesterday

-----------------------------------

Makeup Assignment (for those who haven't submitted the homework)

In a fully developed essay, explain the difference between a "reliable news source" and a youtube rando monetizing misogyny under the guise of "progressive commentary". As a comprehension check, include examples of genuinely reliable news sources

In your essay, include a discussion of the history of the misogynistic tactic of using the ostensible defense of one woman to defame other woman and an analysis of why the tactic ultimately fails in establishing plausible denialability of misogynistic intent.

[SocialDemocrat61]

137. Do you think AOC is a loser?

[lapucelle]

138. Have you tried pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del?

[SocialDemocrat61]

139. Do you think AOC is a loser?

[Paladin]

19. Our daily dose of Democratic leadership's impotence and ineptitude.

I got sick of this half-assed sort of response from our leadership some time ago. Make no mistake: trump is spoon-feeding us the seeds of his own destruction, every hour of every day, yet we continue to avoid making the most of it. What the fuck are we waiting on, at this point? Are we really going to allow trump the time and energy to become a more-skilled politician, and thus more difficult to defeat? Get busy, Democratic leaders---or get the hell out of the way.

[Gaugamela]

28. AOC is doing far more for the country on the Fighting Oligarchy tour with Bernie

than she ever could on that neutered, toothless House committee.

[James48]

35. The answer to your question is:

Where is the Senate Intel Committee chair?

That would be Republican Tom Cotton. (R-Arkansas), Putin buddy. At least lately.

House Intel Committee chair?

That would be Republican Rick Crawford (R- Arkansas). More focused on Latin America and China. Not keen to rock the Russian boat.

Who would have thought that both Senate and House would be chaired by two politicians while in the same state, and have similar views on Russia.

You can’t get a hearing, because the GOP holds all the power to call witnesses and hold hearings. They won’t let it happen.

[kansasobama]

38. They need to have a shadow government

However, our Dems cannot keep awake

[MorbidButterflyTat]

85. That is so ugly.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

92. No recs except mine

For the most reasonable post on this thread.

Dems are: asleep, pathetic, useless embarrassments, have zero energy, are entitled, dinosaurs, kicking back and relaxing, impotent and inept.

According to DU Democrats.

WTAF.

[gab13by13]

128. Not what I posted in my thread.

I posted that Connolly's response was pathetic. I posted that we need more than stern letters to fight Magats.

Do you disagree with the main point of my OP? Do you think that anything will come of the request for IG investigations?

[kansasobama]

36. These Dems have zero energy

Connolly has health issues and he limits hi.self. Have you seen Durbin? He is always tired, no energy, he may even end up railing against Dems if it is time for him to go to bed

[LaMouffette]

43. Rachel Maddow's coverage of this has been haunting me since last night. Musk's theft of data makes Rump's squirreling

away of 100 or so boxes of top-secret bathroom look like someone's failing to return an overdue library book.

It's all over, as far as America's national secrets. The Russians have EVERYTHING or are very close to it, courtesy of Musk, DOGE, Putin, and, of course, Rump, who allowed this all to happen.

Oh, and Republicans in Congress, who had TWO chances to impeach and convict Rump and refused to do so, hoping Rump would just fade away and they would get to keep his MAGA voters.

[New Breed Leader]

49. Their response to the plundering of the SSA is also pathetic

Where is the outrage??? Where are the judges???

[stillcool]

84. Judges? Plundering?

Future Events Appearing Real? The Government is gone, thanks to the American people. Not the Democratic Party. The American people. Red States Reign. But go ahead and blame a Democrat for what 300 million people are doing.

[gab13by13]

76. Give me 200 AOC's in the House

And Democrats will maintain power for a long time.

Someone did a poll in New York, AOC v Schumer for Senate. It seems the unwashed Democrats from NY prefer AOC by a big margin.

Wish every House member was doing half of what she and Bernie are doing.

[Celerity]

90. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Leads Chuck Schumer in Hypothetical 2028 Matchup by 19 Points

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2025/4/4/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-leads-chuck-schumer-in-hypothetical-2028-matchup-by-19-points

Following Senator Chuck Schumer’s decision to vote in favor of a Republican spending bill, some Democrats have begun to question his leadership of the Democratic Senate caucus. Recent Data for Progress polling has found that Democratic voters nationwide want him to fight harder against President Donald Trump and the Republican agenda. Meanwhile, reporting indicates that fellow Democrats have encouraged Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to consider a primary challenge to Schumer in 2028.

From March 26-31, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 767 likely Democratic primary voters in New York using SMS and web panel respondents. The polling finds that Schumer is in a weak position to win a contested primary — he has the lowest favorability of all New York Democrats tested and loses a hypothetical 2028 matchup to Ocasio-Cortez by 19 points. The most popular Democratic figures tested in the poll include Sen. Bernie Sanders (+69), former Vice President Kamala Harris (+63), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (+60), and Ocasio-Cortez (+59). Schumer has the highest disapproval of all Democratic leaders tested.



New York Democratic primary voters consider “threats to democracy” to be the most important issue to their vote, followed by “programs like Social Security and Medicare” and then “economy, jobs, and inflation.” A staggering 84% of these voters also say that Democrats in Washington are not doing enough to stand up to Trump and the MAGA movement.



In a hypothetical matchup for the 2028 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in New York, Ocasio-Cortez leads Schumer by a 19-point margin, 55% to 36%. Ocasio-Cortez leads with primary voters across racial and ethnic subgroups, with a 16-point lead among Black voters, a 15-point lead among white voters, and a 28-point lead among Latino voters. Among voters under 45, she holds a 50-point lead, and she carries voters 45 and over by 8 points. Ocasio-Cortez also leads with voters across gender and educational status, while Schumer only leads among self-identified moderates.



snip

[lapucelle]

125. Chuck Schumer voted AGAINST the Republican spending bill.

Where is this misinformation coming from?

Every Senate Democrat (with the exception of Senator Jeanne Shaheen of NH) and every member of the House Democratic Caucus (with the exception of Thomas Massie of KY) voted AGAINST the Republican spending bill.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00133.htm#position
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1968/related-bills

[lapucelle]

126. It's doubtful that Chuck Schumer will run for another term. My money is on Dan Goldman

to be the next Democratic senator from NY.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

79. And here I thought dinosaurs were extinct. (n/t)

[lapucelle]

88. What's wrong with a with a formal letter calling for the IG to report to Congress

and provide answers to a set of detailed questions?

https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-04-15.gec-to-dol-and-nlrb-ig-re-doge.pdf

========================

For a demand that DOGE appear before the committee and testify under oath to be effectuated requires a subpoena. Despite being in the minority, in February, in a move strategized by Connolly, Democrats on the Oversight Committee came very close to winning a vote to subpoena Musk.

House Democrats try, and fail, to subpoena Musk

Notably missing the vote was Rep. Ro Khanna, who is close to Musk.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee moved to subpoena tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk at a hearing Wednesday — and one Democrat was conspicuously missing from the vote, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who represents Silicon Valley and has a longtime relationship with the billionaire.

Khanna said he missed the vote and said he was unaware it was happening — but three Democrats familiar with the run-up to the vote who were granted anonymity to describe what ensued said Democrats were given a heads-up about the maneuver to try to catch Republicans by surprise. Because of that prior notice and the congressman’s ties to Musk, the three Democrats accused Khanna of making an intentional decision to miss the vote.

In the end, the motion to subpoena Musk was shut down by Republicans on the committee on a 20-19 vote — with eight lawmakers missing the vote, including Khanna and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), who missed for an unrelated reason, one Democrat familiar with the planning said. The rest of the members who missed were Republicans.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/05/congress/dems-try-to-subpoena-musk-00202777

[gab13by13]

127. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the IG's to investigate

But you see that NLRBGate is already out of the news cycle, and that is on all Congressional Democrats for not coming out with a unified message to shut down DOGE UNTIL it is investigated.

By the time the IG's come back with a report, if they do investigations, we may very well be speaking Russian.

DOGE giving usernames and passwords to Russians and the response is do an investigation? This is exactly why Democrats lose.

Democrats could nail Krasnov/Musk to the wall on this.

Investigations need to be done in every government department that DOGE hacked into.

We are a colony of Russia.

SignalGate and NLRBGate are the most serious cyber threats to our national security in my life time of 77 years.

[lapucelle]

130. It would have been out of the news cycle by now

whether or not Ranking Member Connolly stood in front of a bank of microphones making over-the-top demands that he had no means to effectuate.

In the meantime, the letter of inquiry and any responses to the detailed questions it outlined (or any refusal to answer those questions) are part of the Congressional record and can serve as the basis for an investigation IF Democrats take control of the House in 2026.

One of the imperatives of winning back control involves Democratic Party unity. Ranking Member Connolly is especially skilled at doing the wonky, detailed, technical work and specialized writing of a committee leader. Representative Ocasio-Cortez is especially skilled at rallying Democrats (and Independents) across the country with personal appearances.

Although partisans may have been disappointed with the results of the Caucus vote for Ranking Member, the outcome is that both representatives are doing exactly what needs to be done and what they are especially talented at. It was a good outcome.

[onenote]

111. Connolly is not "chair" of the Oversight Committee.

He is the ranking minority member. He does not have the power to demand a hearing be held or to demand anyone appear before the committee.
Same goes for the "chair of the Senate oversight committee" and the "chairs of the intelligence committees". Republicans outnumber Democrats on each of those committees. Republicans are the chairs of those committees. They, not the Ranking member or the Democrats on the Committee are the ones that control the agenda.

Here are the chairs of the committees you've mentioned:
House Oversight Comm: Repub James Comer. Repubs on the Committee outnumber Democrats 26-21
House Intelligence Comm: Repub Rick Crawford. Democrat Jim Himes is the Ranking Minority member. Repubs outnumber Dems 14-11.
Senate Oversight Comm.: Repub Rand Paul. Democrat Gary Peters is the Ranking Minority member.
Senate Intelligence Comm: Repub Tom Cotton. Democrat Mark Warner is the Ranking Minority member.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just woefully unaware of how the Congress operates and the difference between being the chair of a committee and the ranking member, the difference between being in the majority and not being in the majority. Otherwise, I'd have to assume that you are intentionally trying mislead people with your posts.

[gab13by13]

129. I assumed (wrongly)

that the ranking member could be called the minority chair. I have seen that term used by others.

I resent being accused of misleading people, from now on I will call Connolly the Democratic head of the Oversight committee which is what I wanted to convey.

No member of DU believes that Democrats control the House, that notion is absurd. If Democrats had control of the House then I would have demanded that Connolly immediately subpoena Musk and his cyber-punks to testify before his committee. Connolly doesn't have subpoena power but he can demand that Magats use their subpoena power.

Sorry if I used improper titles, it won't happen again. I still see no harm in calling him the Democratic chair or the minority chair, whatever.

It is just sad to behold SignalGate and NLRBgate are over, done, and I do not subscribe to the notion that because Democrats are in the minority in Congress that their hands are tied. I just hope that what Lisa Murkowski said only applies to Magats.

Even Rachel only talked about NLRBGate for 1 segment of 1 show. I blame her too.

[CousinIT]

136. This is why D. Hogg is doing what he is doing

And I can't totally disagree with his reasoning;

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20246093