For the past three years, the Democratic party has entertained one of the youngest politicians to be elected to Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Running her campaign on the idea that she was nothing more than an average American and waitress who understood the common citizen, AOC quickly gained ground among the Democratic voters and the rest was a blur of outlandish statements and Twitter rants. Now that she has had some time to settle in, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson decided to give a little recap of what the future of the Democratic Party looks like.
In the video, which can be watched below, Carlson played just a few of AOC’s greatest moments including her saying the following:
- “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. Like this is the war. This is our World War 2.”
- “There is scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead I think young people to have a legitimate question, you know, is it okay to still have children?”
- “I don’t know if he is familiar with a menstruating person’s body, in fact, I do know that he’s not familiar with a woman, with a female, or menstruating person’s body.”
- “As the youngest woman in Congress and as a woman of color, it’s so hard to be taken seriously. People already tried to diminish me, diminish my voice as young and frivolous and unintelligent.”
Completely forgetting that World War 2 already happened, Carlson was so shocked by her display that he brought in Chadwick Moore of Spectator USA to try and get an understanding of AOC. Moore admitted, “Well, Sandy Cortez is the quintessential liberal today in America, right? If you took on two scientists, put them in a lab, and said make us the quintessential liberal, the essence of liberal, they would put some ingredients together and pop Sandy Cortez out of the oven.
And anything that perfect, of course, would be a parody of itself, which she is. She’s stupid. She’s completely narcissistic. She has very little to offer except for makeup tutorials, completely self-involved.”
Not stopping there, Moore added, “But on a bigger note, she very much marks this shift from the old progressives, you know, the kind of union guys, the labor of progressives, the economic Marxists, into this wacky, academic, very self-centered, privileged, cultural Marxist, the Maoist Marxist. And that’s really what she represents.
She might talk about the working people, but the only people she knows are people who are working off their student loan debts or people who are working in the welfare system. Those are her people, and of course, are extremely rich donors.”
Completely agreeing with Moore, Carlson concluded, “Well, that’s exactly it. I mean, so here she is, talking about working women of color standing there in a $30,000 dress at the Met. So she is just the perfect distillation of neoliberalism. Talk about yourself, help yourself to the spoils, help nobody else.”