Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) tried to derail a flattering Atlantic profile by confronting reporter Elaine Godfrey. Her objection? Godfrey dared to contact fellow House members without her approval, as the New York Post reports.
Four days before the profile’s Sunday publication, Crockett called Godfrey to express her irritation and attempted to halt the story entirely. The Atlantic piece, which painted Crockett in a positive light with praise from House Democrats, went ahead despite her efforts. This move suggests a politician more concerned with controlling her image than embracing transparency.
Crockett’s frustration stemmed from Godfrey’s standard journalistic practice of reaching out to other lawmakers for comment. Apparently, Crockett expected to be the gatekeeper of her narrative, a stance that reeks of progressive overreach. Her office’s silence when the Post sought comment only deepens the impression of dodging accountability.
The Atlantic profile highlighted Crockett’s background as a University of Houston law school graduate and former public defender. Yet, her attempt to “shut down” the story reveals a thin skin unbefitting a public servant. One wonders if her legal training included a lesson on the First Amendment.
“[F]our days before this story was published, Crockett called me to express frustration,” Godfrey noted. She added that Crockett declared she was “shutting down the profile and revoking all permissions.” This tantrum over standard reporting practices suggests Crockett prioritizes control over open discourse.
Despite her objections, the profile included glowing remarks from Democratic Party colleagues. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) praised Crockett’s “legally trained mind,” as if that excuses her attempt to stifle journalism. Such compliments ring hollow when paired with Crockett’s heavy-handed tactics.
Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX) called Crockett’s communication style “aggressive,” noting, “People don’t necessarily agree with” it. Johnson quickly added, “I’m thrilled she’s doing it, because we need it all.” This backhanded praise reveals a party line that tolerates Crockett’s behavior while quietly wincing.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) dubbed Crockett “one of the strongest fighters we have.” He suggested Democrats should emulate her “skills.” Yet, if those skills include bullying reporters, perhaps Democrats should rethink their playbook.
Several House Democrats refused to speak on the record about Crockett. Senior Democrat staffers admitted some colleagues find her “undisciplined” but hesitate to criticize publicly. This reluctance hints at a party more concerned with unity optics than addressing internal chaos.
Godfrey observed Crockett’s casual speech and brusque demeanor during their talks. The congresswoman’s fixation on social-media engagement and self-presentation stood out starkly. Such priorities align more with influencer culture than serious legislating.
“During many of our conversations, Crockett wore acrylic nails painted with the word RESIST,” Godfrey wrote. This fashion statement screams performative activism, more suited to Instagram than Congress. It’s a visual cue of Crockett’s focus on optics over policy.
Godfrey also noted, “The lock screen on her phone is a headshot of herself.” This detail paints a picture of self-absorption that clashes with the humility expected of public servants. Crockett’s ego seems to demand center stage, even in private moments.
A senior Democrat staffer admitted, “She likes to talk.” The same staffer called her “a loose cannon” who “causes headaches for other members.” Such candor from within her party underscores Crockett’s divisive presence.
Despite these critiques, some Democrats see value in Crockett’s approach. Garcia’s call to take notes on her “skills” suggests a party desperate for bold voices, even if they disrupt. But boldness that alienates colleagues and stifles press freedom is a liability, not an asset.
Crockett’s attempt to block a friendly profile reveals a troubling instinct to control the narrative. Her colleagues’ mixed reactions and the Atlantic’s observations paint a picture of a politician more focused on image than substance. In an era craving authenticity, Crockett’s actions suggest she’s more about flash than fortitude.
