“I am very concerned about U.S. interventionism in Venezuela, and I oppose it, especially when we talk about a figure like U.S. Special Envoy Elliott Abrams here. I think it’s – he’s pled guilty to several crimes related to Iran-Contra… I am generally opposed to U.S. interventionism as a principle, but particularly under this administration and under his leadership, I think it’s a profound mistake," Ocasio-Cortez added, before moving to another questioner.
Can she be better? Yes. Is she doing boomer-tier denunciations of Venezuela? No.
Ocasio Cortez, sometimes referred to as AOC, was asked in an interview with the National Review if she sees President Maduro as legitimate, for which she replied, "I defer to caucus leadership on how we navigate this."
the National Review
When some conservative rag asks you "bUt WhAt AbOuT vUvUzElA???," why would you give them anything?
I don't think this was a sit-down interview so much as it was a reporter asking for a comment and getting an offhand response.
If it was a sit-down interview, I can see an argument for doing a limited amount of chud media. You might break off a few people, or at least present them with information that challenges the right-wing narrative/softens their opposition to you. I think this was essentially what Bernie was thinking when he did that Fox News town hall. But you want to direct the conversation -- you don't want to just field a parade of trap questions.
The larger point is that when people do some good things and have a good statement on record about an issue, we shouldn't interpret non-statements ("I defer on this one") as damning. There's no reason to portray something like this in the worst possible light.
AOC on Venezuela:
Can she be better? Yes. Is she doing boomer-tier denunciations of Venezuela? No.
Yeah but she walked it back
Here’s the quote I was referencing
Thankfully she hasn’t renounced Maduro, and has so far been silent on Cuba
When some conservative rag asks you "bUt WhAt AbOuT vUvUzElA???," why would you give them anything?
Why would you do an interview with National Review at all, even?
I don't think this was a sit-down interview so much as it was a reporter asking for a comment and getting an offhand response.
If it was a sit-down interview, I can see an argument for doing a limited amount of chud media. You might break off a few people, or at least present them with information that challenges the right-wing narrative/softens their opposition to you. I think this was essentially what Bernie was thinking when he did that Fox News town hall. But you want to direct the conversation -- you don't want to just field a parade of trap questions.
The larger point is that when people do some good things and have a good statement on record about an issue, we shouldn't interpret non-statements ("I defer on this one") as damning. There's no reason to portray something like this in the worst possible light.