Jasmine Crockett has no idea how journalism works
That's a question we've been asking quite frequently on 'Rising' — because it's clear the Democratic Party's base is really unhappy with leadership, and it's also clear that President Trump and the Republicans feel like they face very little meaningful opposition right now, and can just do whatever they want.
Well, I don't know if the subject of this Radar is going to be the leader of the Democratic Party, but she's certainly an up-and-coming person of notability. But is she really ready for primetime? I'm talking, of course, about Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, a fiery progressive who has attracted significant media attention in the last six months — and is also the subject of a new profile in 'The Atlantic' magazine. 'The Atlantic's' Elaine Godfrey interviewed the congresswoman, and several of her colleagues.
What's drawn the profile to my attention was the conversation about it on social media. It seems that Crockett apparently doesn't quite understand how journalism works? Because in the profile, there's the following passage:
'Crockett said that people are free to disagree with her communication style, but that she 'was elected to speak up for the people that I represent.' As for her colleagues, four days before this story was published, Crockett called me to express frustration that I had reached out to so many House members without telling her first. She was, she told me, 'shutting down the profile and revoking all permissions.''
That's funny, because you can't do that. Sorry. This is like one of the most basic rules of dealing with journalists, but once you've spoken to them on the record, you don't own the story, they do. You can't stop them from covering you because you don't like that they reached out to other people.
As NBC's Sahil Kapur put it, 'That is not how any of this works.'
But don't try to tell Jasmine Crockett that she doesn't understand how any of this works. She is bursting with self-confidence, according to this profile. In fact, she seems pretty unhappy that she was passed over for a top leadership position: chair of the House Oversight Committee. The profile recounts her personal feelings of betrayal that her own caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, backed a different person.
You see, Crockett believes she is the most qualified person for the job because, and I quote, 'There's one clear person in the race that has the largest social-media following.' Generating attention, positive and also negative, is something she's quite good at, obviously. Is it really the case that being provocative, spicy, contrarian, unfiltered, attention-seeking and, let's be honest, fairly bombastic and occasionally offensive, the best set of attributes for Democratic leadership?
Who knows, maybe it is. Certainly the Democratic base wants leaders to fight the Republicans, if only in virtue-signaling sort of ways that have nothing to do with actual power and policy. At least Crockett is willing to do this, responding to a veiled insult from GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene during a hearing of the House Oversight Committee:
'I'm just curious, just to better understand your ruling — if someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's 'bleach blonde bad built butch body,' that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?'
Vote for Democrats, they want to turn Congress into 'Real Housewives,' or some MTV reality show? I guess that's the pitch.
But in an era in which excessive clout chasing has infected both our parties, and in which the leaders of both political factions have more interest in making memes and manufacturing media moments than they do in legislation, perhaps Jasmine Crockett is the leader the Democrats deserve. Just as Trump is the id of the right, she is the id of the left.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
10 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump wields influence over GOP and keeps potential successors vying for his favor
WASHINGTON (AP) — Although President Donald Trump has not directly said he thinks JD Vance should be the heir to his 'Make America Great Again' base of support, he acknowledged this week that his vice president is probably the favorite to succeed him "at this point." But even as he promoted Vance, Trump also made sure to mention Secretary of State Marco Rubio, telling reporters at the White House on Tuesday that his administration's top diplomat is 'somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form' on a future political ticket. The remarks reflect the massive influence the Republican president currently has over his party. They also serve to promote two of Trump's top advisers without telegraphing the president's singular preference for a successor. Not definitively anointing Vance, or any other Republican, keeps those hoping to succeed Trump vying for his favor, both inside his administration and in the wider Republican field of possible contenders. Speaking with reporters following an executive order signing at the White House, Trump was asked if Vance were the 'heir apparent to MAGA.' 'I think most likely, in all fairness, he's the vice president," Trump said. "I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form. ... It's too early obviously, to talk about it, but certainly he's doing a great job and he would be, probably favorite at this point.' When Trump selected the then-39-year-old Vance over other more established Republicans — including Rubio — as his running mate last year, many theorized that Trump was planning for the future of his political movement, angling for a vice president who could carry MAGA forward. Vance has embraced the role at every turn, doing the president's bidding on everything from his relationship with Ukraine to the fight over records related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal. Trump, meanwhile, has not hesitated to give Vance high-visibility assignments. As the White House promotes mid-decade redistricting efforts in Texas — and acknowledges it would like the notion to expand to other states — Vance is expected Thursday to discuss redrawing district lines with Gov. Mike Braun during a trip to Indiana. While there, Vance will also headline a fundraiser for the Republican National Committee, which he serves as treasurer. In June he traveled to Los Angeles trip to tour a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center amid clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and looting following immigration raids across Southern California. And earlier this year, Vance was in swing congressional districts in his role as lead cheerleader for Trump's signature tax cut and spending law, an assortment of conservative priorities that Republicans dubbed the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' He also lobbied senators on Capitol Hill, working to swing GOP holdouts to support the legislation, and in July cast a tie-breaking vote to get the measure passed in the Senate. He's also taken on a robust role related to foreign policy, holding meetings of his own with world leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a trip to New Delhi, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Rubio, who has described Vance as among his closest friends in politics, said on Fox News Channel on Sunday that he felt Vance "would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that.' Other Republicans mentioned as possible 2028 contenders are already making the rounds of early-voting states. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin speaks at a GOP fundraiser in South Carolina this weekend, and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders headlines an event in that state later this month. Both have taken pains to stay in the president's good graces. Not every Republican contender has gone that route. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who lost the 2016 nomination to Trump, has been visiting early-voting states, too, but he voted against the president's signature legislative measure. And Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp — who has long harbored ambitions to run for president but has a complicated history with Trump — recently said he was sitting out of a Senate race in his state, a decision telegraphed by some as an indication Kemp might be eyeing the 2028 White House race.
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mayor Eric Adams once again denied public funds for NYC re-election bid while Mamdani, Sliwa granted millions
4 Mayor Eric Adams was once again denied matching funds in his re-election bid. Lev Radin/Shutterstock Mayor Eric Adams' re-election bid was denied matching funds once again — this time losing out on $3 million as the city's campaign finance watchdog accused his camp of obstruction. The City Campaign Finance Board hinted the mayor, who is running as an independent in the November election, may never see a dime as it believes his first campaign for City Hall in 2021 may have violated the law. 'The board determined Mayor Adams campaign has failed to demonstrate eligibility for public funds payments at this time, on two grounds. One, failure to provide requested information and two, reason to believe the campaign has violated the law with respect to the failure to provide requested information,' said Board Chair Frank Schaffer. 4 James Keivom 'The board finds the campaign has provided incomplete and misleading information to the CFB, and has impeded the CFB staff's ability to complete its investigation,' Schaffer said of the regulatory body's ongoing probe into alleged misconduct during Adams' 2021 campaign. The board has repeatedly refused to allow Adams' re-election bid to cash in on the city's generous 8-to-1 matching funds program, starting in December, when it first cut the mayor off from the program. It has cited both Adams' since-dismissed federal indictment on bribery and corruption charges, and his team's refusal to answer a number of outstanding demands for documentation about fundraising. The campaign has maintained that it is up to date with the board's requests. It expected the spigot of taxpayer cash to be turned on after securing a win in court last month, when a judge ruled Adams could not be denied funds based on the past criminal case. 4 Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani brought in an additional $1.6 million, bringing his general election total to over $2.5 million. REUTERS 'We are reviewing all legal options, including formal action to compel the release of public matching funds,' said campaign spokesperson Todd Shapiro. 'We will not allow a vague and bureaucratic process to undermine the democratic right of our supporters to participate in this election.' The denial delivers another blow to Adams, who is struggling to recover from poor approval numbers and the political fallout from his case dismissal. His re-elect bid pulled in a massive $1.5 million haul after socialist Zohran Mamdani's upset win in the June Democratic primary, bringing Adams' total fundraising to over $6 million in private donations. Hizzoner is within $2 million of the $8 million fundraising threshold, and the CFB estimates he has about $4.27 million left to spend as of July. At the same time, the board approved $1.68 million in matching funds for Mamdani and signed off on $1.91 million for GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa. 4 GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa brought in $1.9 million. Stephen Yang Mamdani maxed out his fundraising in the primary, bringing in over $7 million. The latest campaign boost brings his cash on hand to over $5 million, while Sliwa has over $2 million to spend with the new matching funds. Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after his embarrassing defeat to Mamdani in the Dem primary, did not fundraise during the last period, according to his campaign. As of July 15, he had $1.17 million to spend of his cash from the primary race. Independent Jim Walden was also granted $237,000 in taxpayer money for the general election, bringing his account balance to around $1.6 million.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump sanction pause allowed Putin to prolong Ukraine war: Senate Democrats
Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) published a report on Wednesday condemning President Trump for delaying sanctions on Russia amid the ongoing war with Ukraine. Trump promised while on the campaign trail to resolve the dispute between the two nations quickly, but peace talks thus far have not been fruitful. 'Six months later, our allies and adversaries are waiting to see whether President Trump will follow through on belated and continued threats to act against Russia's ongoing aggression,' Warren and Shaheen wrote. 'They are waiting to see whether his Administration's actions will be sustained and targeted in a way that focuses costs on Russia and its enablers.' 'While the next steps may be uncertain, the Trump Administration's pattern of inaction over the past six months is clear,' the duo continued in their report. 'The American people should understand the extent of the President's reluctance to use his broad authorities to help end Russia's war.' The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment. The president last month threatened to increase sanctions on Russia and buyers of Russian oil and gas if a ceasefire was not reached in the more than three-year-long conflict. Warren and Shaheen slammed Trump for backing out of basic sanctions and export control actions upon his return to the Oval Office, accusing him of signaling a 'lack of commitment' after urging Group of Seven leaders to reduce Russia's sanctions and declining a G7 proposal that planned to crack down on Russian oil exports. According to data analyzed by minority staffers, the Trump administration 'did not execute a single Russia rollout' in the first six months of his second term, dropping to zero from a minimum of 16 'sets of action' in prior six-month periods. 'Before taking office, senior Trump Administration officials had forcefully argued that the Biden Administration should have enacted stronger restrictions on Russian oil exports, a major Kremlin revenue source,' the analysis reads. 'More than half a year into the President's term, however, the new Administration has failed to ramp up sanctions against Russian oil targets — even as experts point out that there is now greater scope for sanctions to drive down Russian oil revenue without significant adverse impacts on global or U.S. energy prices.' 'The Trump Administration has left the European Union and the United Kingdom to forge ahead with more forward-leaning actions against Russian oil,' it adds. Russian leaders have balked at the idea of harsher sanctions from Trump and have continued to launch strikes against Ukraine. 'Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences,' Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, wrote in a post on the social platform X after Trump threatened 'severe' tariffs. 'Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care,' Medvedev, who also previously served as president and prime minister of Russia, added. Republican lawmakers have considered imposing economic restrictions on the Kremlin but have left the decision to the president, who in recent months has said his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin could help resolve the conflict. 'I think he's going to be very careful about what he does,' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said when asked by The Hill if Trump can be trusted to impose costs on Putin. 'But I think he is clearly disappointed in Putin, and I think he is now coming around to recognizing that many of us were right.' Putin has largely refused to entertain a ceasefire unless portions of Ukraine are turned over to Russia, a measure which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected. Instead of direct economic assaults on Russia, Trump on Wednesday said he would increase tariff prices on India, a major trading partner for Moscow, by 25 percent. Special envoy Steve Witkoff also met with Putin on Wednesday, two days before sanctions are set to go into effect. Warren and Shaheen pressed the Trump administration to do more. 'The Administration should be marshaling a united front, making clear to Russia that our global coalition will only unlock access to our major economies and financial centers once we, including the European Union and its member states, see that Russia has committed credibly to a just peace that preserves Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its ability to defend itself,' they wrote. 'But aside from breaking with our G7 partners in refusing to identify Russia as an aggressor, the Trump Administration has reportedly offered broad sanctions relief, among other concessions, without directly involving partners that have also imposed unprecedented sanctions and export controls,' the duo continued. The Democrats added, 'This only benefits the Kremlin, which is eager to divide the United States and Europe.'
