Fewer people are now in favor of the Green New Deal and the disappointment of The Washington Post was palpable.
It turned out that once more people knew more about the socialist fantasy to save the planet (and give away a bunch of other stuff), attitudes shifted against it. To the Post this was proof the “GOP campaign” to “sour the plan in the minds of Republican voters” was working.
“New polling from Yale and George Mason universities suggests that support for that climate plan from prominent freshman congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) dropped steeply among Republicans over the past four months since she and other lawmakers formally introduced it in February,” the Post wrote on May 10.
It couldn’t possibly be that by knowing more about a Green New Deal than a “description of its aspirations” had persuaded people against it.
The Post insisted on May 10, it was the Republicans and Fox News messaging against it.
The “PowerPost” analysis by reporter Dino Grandoni also covered up for the embarrassing summary document released by Ocasio-Cortez’ office with the Green New Deal resolution. Grandoni claimed a “tsunami of dissent came even though Ocasio-Cortez’ resolution does not mention” banning hamburgers, air travel or ice cream.
“Instead, an erroneous summary of the Green New Deal published by her office, but then retracted, mentioned eventually wanting to get rid of ‘farting cows and airplanes,’” he wrote.
Yes, her office did retract a FAQ sheet claiming it was “incomplete” and “published by accident,” but even The New York Times recognized this was backpedaling over the major “flub.” The rollout was so bad, an adviser to Ocasio-Cortez falsely suggested the document was misinformation from political opponents before the document was scrubbed from her website.
There’s was no reason to think the FAQ didn’t include accurate sentiments or goals of her staff regarding the Green New Deal.
[ads:im:1]
Would it have been retracted if no one had objected (or noticed) the document containing socialist promises of guaranteed jobs, education, “access to nature,” “healthy food,” health care, housing, “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work” and more?
Other doozies on that list included:
-
a $4.6 trillion “minimum” infrastructure repairs and upgrade
-
retrofitting “every building in the US” for energy efficiency
-
creating “sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system”
-
building “high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”
-
“Provide job training and education to all”
-
“Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local”
Fox wasn’t the only media critical of the plan. Bloomberg opinion columnist Noah Smith called it “unaffordable” even before including “all of the promises listed in the FAQ.”
[ads:im:2]
Grandoni admitted the original polling from George Mason “did not include any mention of the possible costs,” but he didn’t suggest that might have produced an inflated sense of support for a Green New Deal.
As for those costs, he said cost estimates from “conservative” groups were up to $100 trillion, but undermined the estimates saying “supporters of the plan” called them “misleading.”
The Post’s skewed analysis was in line with other liberal media which either ignored the kooky resolution or tried to portray it as popular.
