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
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bipartisan Senate price transparency bill can fix US health care
In the aftermath of Republicans' divisive reconciliation bill, Congress has the opportunity to come together and pass bipartisan legislation to address one of the nation's biggest problems: The broken health care system. Approximately 100 million Americans have health care debt, and one-quarter of insured families avoid care each year due to unknown costs. The Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, recently introduced by Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), can reverse runaway health care costs that are placing a tremendous burden on American families by empowering them to compare and save. Since 2000, hospital prices have increased by 257 percent, which explains why the growth rate in health insurance premiums has outstripped workers' earnings by a ratio of almost 3 to 1 over this timeframe. The Marshall-Hickenlooper bill gives employers and patients the upfront price information they need to protect themselves from overcharges and choose affordable care. It requires the publication of actual prices, including discounted cash and negotiated insurance rates, not estimates, throughout the health care system. And it requires insurers to give patients an advanced explanation of benefits —a breakdown of costs, including their out-of-pocket responsibility — before care is delivered. I joined a letter signed by 40 leading health economists calling on senators to co-sponsor and quickly pass this crucial legislation. Economists understand actual prices are essential to functioning marketplaces that generate fair-market costs. Under the opaque status quo, consumers are essentially required to pay for care with the equivalent of a blank check, giving hospitals and health insurers tremendous market power to overcharge and profiteer. Hidden prices result in wide cost variations for the same care, a sign of market failure. Recent research I conducted for Rice University's Baker Center reveals that mean outpatient hospital prices in Houston vary by nearly 200 percent for the same insurer. A recent study in Health Affairs Scholar shows that colonoscopy rates can vary by seven times for those with the same health coverage. Price transparency corrects this information asymmetry between consumers and providers, putting downward and convergent pressure on prices. It fosters competition and returns excessive health industry profits to patients, businesses, unions, school districts and workers where they belong. Redirecting funds from the health care industrial complex back to the private economy can create an enormous economic stimulus. Employers and employees especially stand to benefit. The average employer-sponsored family health insurance plan now costs $24,000 per year, with workers bearing the majority of the cost through premium deductions and lower wages. One analysis found that about the same amount of employee compensation growth since 2000 has gone to premium costs as to paychecks. Transparency empowers employers to steer workers to high-value care, reducing premium costs and increasing take-home pay. The Marshall-Hickenlooper bill also gives employers access to their claims data and reveals the contractual relationships of their health plan administrators, allowing them to remedy overbilling and spread pricing. My research suggests that lowering annual premiums by just $1,373 per employee can boost the profitability of retail businesses by an average of 12.4 percent. You don't need to be an economist to understand that upfront prices are needed to avoid overcharges and shop for affordable care and coverage. But economists can speak to the significant impact of price transparency on business earnings, worker paychecks and economic dynamism. Actual prices, as required by the Marshall-Hickenlooper bill, can restore affordability, accountability and trust to American health care. That's something people of all political persuasions can support.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senators pick at USDA reorganization proposal
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Vaden took questions from the Senate Agriculture Committee on Wednesday after the agency's plan to slash its Washington offices and move staff to satellite locations across the country raised bipartisan eyebrows. Much of the panel's criticism focused on whether the administration had sufficiently notified Congress — friction that led to Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), the committee's chair, to call the hearing on relatively short notice. In a testy exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Vaden said that the department was opening up a period to consult with agency employees and other stakeholders. Several Republicans also took issue with the way the plan had been announced without their consultation. 'It is something that ultimately this Congress has something to say about, both from an authorization standpoint, and certainly from an appropriation standpoint,' said Sen. John Hoevan (R-N.D.). 'Is this a process where we're going to work together on an outcome, or is this an outcome that we're not just going to talk about, but as a fait accompli?' Hoeven and Vaden will meet later Wednesday, the senator said. At the hearing, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) also expressed disappointment with the agency's rollout of its plan, although she said she agreed with USDA's overall goal. The agency's plan, announced last week, would move most staff to five hubs — in North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Colorado and Utah — and wind down most of its federal buildings in Washington, D.C. Vaden defended the changes as an effort to bring the agency's employees — many of whom he claimed were working remotely anyway — closer to farmers and other constituencies of the agency. He claimed that the consolidations, in conjunction with voluntary buyouts given to thousands of agency employees, could save the federal government as much as $4 billion. At least 15,000 Agriculture Department employees accepted a deferred resignation in May as part of the Trump administration's push to aggressively reduce staff. 'We need more agencies to follow Secretary Rollins' and USDA's lead,' Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said later in the panel. The plan would also consolidate various regional offices that Vaden referred to as 'middle managers,' a move that several senators worried could lead to services being lost. The reductions include the regional offices of the National Forest Service, which manages wildfires and other elements of America's woodlands. Several senators, including Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), said they were worried about the proposal's move to eliminate regional offices of the agency's research arm, including the branch of the Agriculture Research Service in Stoneville, Miss. Vaden claimed that the location's staff would remain, an answer that seemed to satisfy the Mississippi senator.
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Senate Dems launching last-ditch bid to block Trump tariffs
Senate Democrats on Wednesday will mount a last-ditch effort to block President Trump's tariffs from taking full effect at the end of this week, Axios has learned. Why it matters: Democrats, who argue Trump's tariffs could add $2,400 to the average American household expenses, are making signs of economic angst a centerpiece of their 2026 midterm messaging. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) on Wednesday evening will ask lawmakers to unanimously pass a bill affirming that the tariffs can't be authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Axios has learned. That's the law the administration is citing as giving it the authority to impose the levies. Friday is the date when tariffs rise for dozens of countries, as threatened by Trump in letters earlier this month. Many are lower than the rates he first imposed in April, though some are higher. Driving the news: It will take just one lawmaker to block Shaheen's move, and Republicans will almost certainly do so. But it gives Democrats the opportunity to get Republicans on the record in support of the tariff hikes. Shaheen's move comes one day before a federal appellate court hears arguments on whether to overturn a lower-court ruling that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal. Zoom out: The unanimous consent request is part of broader anti-tariff push that Democrats will hold on the Senate floor on Wednesday evening, according to people familiar with the matter. Shaheen will lead a half dozen Democratic senators in highlighting the impact the duties will have on working families. "And now, on Friday, the Administration is planning to make the goods businesses and families need 10, or 30 or even 40 percent more expensive overnight," Shaheen will say, according to remarks shared with Axios.
