Mediaboss Marketing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams was mocked online after comparing herself and progressive Democrats to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his people fighting off a Russian invasion.

Abrams made the comparison while speaking with "Daily Show" host Trevor Noah on her second gubernatorial campaign.

"We are a stronger nation when we allow people to participate," Abrams said in the clip that has been picking up steam online.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR: GOP SENATORS DEMAND BIDEN SANCTION ALLEGED PUTIN CRONIES PLOTTING ZELENSKYY ASSASSINATION

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams issued a mea culpa for appearing maskless at a Georgia elementary school, posing in photos where everyone but her was following local COVID protocols.

"And if we ever doubted that: The war that Putin is waging against Ukraine, President Zelenskyy said it, and Im going to paraphrase him, probably poorly," the Georgia Democrat continued. "He said this isnt a war on Ukraine, this is a war on democracy in Ukraine."

RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE: LIVE UPDATES

Abrams continued, saying it is "wrong" when "we allow democracy to be overtaken by those who want to choose who can be heard, and those choices are not based on anything other than animus or inconvenience."

The Georgia governor candidate was dogpiled online for the comments, with the Heritage Foundations John Cooper blasting Abrams on her signature issue with receipts.

"Should be noted that Ukraine also requires voter ID," Cooper wrote, linking out to Ukrainian legislation.

Other users torched Abrams over the comment, with GOP deputy national press secretary Will OGrady pointing out that the remarks were made on Comedy Central, and Republican communicator Matt Whitlock called the comparison "quite stupid."

Abrams lost to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in the 2018 gubernatorial election for Georgia and became famous in blue circles as she and other Democrats claimed the election was stolen from her.

Trevor Noah arrives at the 62nd annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles on Jan. 26, 2020. (Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP, File)

The Georgia Democrat told Axios Monday that she "will acknowledge the victor" in the upcoming gubernatorial election.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I will always acknowledge the legal outcome of an election. I have never failed to do that," Abrams said. She also said that she doesn't want the American people to be in a place "where we cannot legitimately question" and criticize systems in an effort to make them better.

Abrams campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digitals request for comment.

Fox News Digitals Hanna Panreck contributed reporting.

Read more from the original source:
Stacey Abrams mocked after comparing herself, progressives to Zelenskyy and Ukraine - Fox News

A newUCLA studyestimates that over 17 million students in nearly 900 different school districts have been impacted by battles over critical race theory (CRT) between September 2020 and August 2021. That is nearly 35 percent of all K-12 students. Similarly, states and districts nationwide have beengripped by conflictsover policies and reading assignments dealing with LGBTQ issues. And it has all been happening as Americans have fought, often bitterly, over masking in schools in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In many cases, progressives have been losing these fights.

Headlines such as Republicans Are Once Again Heating Up the Culture Wars and How did Republicans turn critical race theory into a winning electoral issue? showcase the development of culture war into a powerful weapon for Republicans. Fourteen states, including South Dakota, Florida, and Texas, have already passed restrictions, typically vague, on teaching divisive concepts in public schools.Seventeen other statesare currently considering similar legislation. Meanwhile,bans on booksdelving into racial and LGBTQ+ issues have reached a fever pitch. And, of course, there was Glenn YoungkinGlenn YoungkinReynolds response hammers Biden for 'weakness on world stage' Vodka, pensions, sister cities: Governors move to punish Russia Progressives keep losing in education they need school choice MOREs gubernatorial victory in Virginia, where hisfirst major actwas to end the use of inherently divisive concepts, including Critical Race Theory in public schools.

For progressives, this is likelyfrustrating, even frightening. As Kentucky state Rep. Attica Scott (D) said about divisive conceptslegislation in Kentucky, "Im worried that it is an attempt to erase our history. Our history of struggle, of civil rights of rising up and resisting and creating policy that takes care of people."

How can progressives protect themselves from this onslaught? Rather than relying on winning political warfare with conservatives, which basically guarantees endless battles over what public schools will teach, they should embrace school choice. They should do so both because it would be a much more stable way to access progressive education no need for endless political combat to get it or keep it and because it is simply the right way to deliver education for a free and equal society. No one should have to defeat their neighbors to have their basic values respected in the raising of their children.

A reflexive objection for progressives might be that in recent decades school choice has typically beenassociated with Republicans. Perhaps this is because conservatives have more often felt marginalized by public schools. Or maybe they simply have believed more in freedom in education.

Whatever the reason, there is no compelling reason progressives should not support choice. Indeed, there was a time, not that long ago, when prominent progressives embraced school choice as a way to empower the politically dispossessed, especially minorities. Yale law professor James Forman Jr. has, in fact, proclaimed that when it has come to school choice progressives got there first.

There is much truth to that. In 1968, Harvard Graduate School of Education DeanTed Sizer released aProposal for a Poor Childrens Bill of Rightssupporting choice for the poor who had too little political power to make public schools work for them. Civil rights leader Cesar Chavezsupported alternativesto public schools, understanding that all families and children have diverse needs and desires. Polly Williams, an African American Democratic state representative, wasa major force behind the nations first voucher program,created in Milwaukee in 1990.

All families desire an education consistent, or at least not starkly at odds, with their core values and identities. But as theUCLA studyrightly understands, Students own rights to learn about these issues will now be dependent on the local systems they are inand in some places, on who wins school board elections. In other words, whether students get what they need will be decided by who wields political power.

It should not be this way. For their own sake, progressives should start demanding school choice. But even more important, they should do it for the sake of free and open society.

Neal McCluskey directs the Cato Institutes Center for Educational Freedom, where Solomon Chen is a research associate.

Read the rest here:
Progressives keep losing in education they need school choice | TheHill - The Hill

I may be wasting my words, but I still feel compelled to point out a very simple, perhaps inconvenient, fact: we need oil and natural gas to survive as a civilization.

My visionary, progressive friends fret, and correctly so, over the global warming impact of this simple truth. Yes, we must develop alternative energy sources, and until they are more widely available, we must conserve and continue to improve emission damage from fossil fuels.

Until the arrival of our surely utopian, progressive future where we power our industries, hospitals, schools, food production, defense and social fabric without fossil fuels, lets revert to the energy-independence course that President Joe Biden started to reverse on the day he was sworn in by canceling permits for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Get it flowing.

Dont miss the best in editorials, opinion columns and commentary from NJ.com writers. Add your email here:

Canadian and domestic energy is no different from that produced overseas; it has the same environmental impact. It just comes unencumbered by kings and princes, dictators and lunatics, murderers and thieves, and flows unimpeded by the insanities of the broader world.

To my progressive friends: Put down the latte and look at the actual world we share. Tell me, where is my logic flawed?

Lastly, and most disturbing to the enlightened walking among us, Democrats will never restore expansion of our energy industry, at least not those Democrats currently in command of the once-great party many of us remember.

Lou Manfredo, Deptford Township

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

View original post here:
Progressives must face that we still need fossil fuels | Letter - NJ.com

The milquetoast politics of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress are backfiring big time on their party and threatening its hold on power before the midterm elections.

Last year, after President Biden signed his Covid relief bill into law, the White House worked with congressional leaders to develop a strategy for the rest of his agenda. The plan was simple. Democrats would work on two bills an infrastructure package and a social policy package that they would pass together. Progressive Democrats, who needed moderates to pass their bill, would support the infrastructure plan. And moderate Democrats, who needed progressives in turn, would back the social policy plan.

Both bills were moving through Congress until, during the summer, several members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus threatened to derail the social policy package unless the House took an immediate vote on the infrastructure bill, which had been negotiated and passed by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.

Some have suggested that we hold off on considering the Senate infrastructure bill for months until the reconciliation process is completed, read a letter from Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and like-minded Democrats in the House. We disagree. With the livelihoods of hardworking American families at stake, we simply cant afford months of unnecessary delay sand risk squandering this once-in-a-century bipartisan infrastructure package.

Ironically, it was this letter and similar statements from Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona that brought the Democratic Partys momentum to a sudden halt. Democrats would spend the next three months negotiating the two-track process and struggling to meet the shifting demands of moderates and conservatives over the substance of the social policy bill.

The immediate effect of this split within the Democratic Party was to undermine Biden, whose popularity was already on the decline. He took one hit from the Afghanistan withdrawal, another from the ongoing pandemic and still another from the chaos and division in Washington.

If there was one goal in mind among the moderates and conservatives who froze the Democratic Partys agenda in place, it was to pass their priorities in law while distancing themselves from their progressive colleagues. What happened, instead, is that they weakened Democrats across the board, as candidates struggled to overcome a sense of failure that had settled over the party. Terry McAuliffe, a moderate former governor of Virginia, couldnt clear that hurdle. In November, he lost his bid for a (nonconsecutive) second term to Glenn Youngkin, a conservative Republican.

In the wake of that defeat, moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress demanded that the House pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill so that the party would have something to tout on the campaign trail. Having made concession after concession in an effort to secure votes for the presidents social policy package, progressives now agreed to end the two-track process and hold a vote on the infrastructure bill.

The House voted, and the bill passed. Moderates had their win. But rather than go on the offensive, infrastructure spending in hand, they sat quiet. There would be no publicity blitz, no attempt to capture the nations attention with a campaign to sell the accomplishments of moderation, no attempt to elevate members who might shine in the spotlight and certainly no serious attempt to push back on the right-wing cultural politics that helped Republicans notch a win in Virginia.

Nor have moderate and conservative Democrats tried to devise an agenda of their own. Instead, theyve used their remaining political capital to kill the most popular items on the Democratic Party wish list, from tax hikes on the richest Americans and an increase in the minimum wage to a plan for price controls on prescription drugs. They couldnt even be bothered to save the revamped child tax credit, one of the most effective antipoverty measures since at least the Great Society. Its expiration in December pushed millions of children back under the poverty line.

Now, having immobilized the presidents agenda and plunged their party into disarray, the same Democrats are casting around for someone to blame. Not surprisingly, theyve settled on their progressive colleagues. Axioss Mike Allen, summarizing the view from top Democrats, writes that the push to defund the police, rename schools and tear down statues has created a significant obstacle to Democrats keeping control of the House, the Senate and the partys overall image.

Groups aligned with moderate and conservative Democrats, like the centrist advocacy organization Third Way, insist that Squad politics are the central problem for the Democratic Party. And despite inconclusive evidence that it actually had much of an impact on the 2020 election, some Democrats continue to slam the activist slogan defund the police for the partys current woes.

Perhaps this isnt a bad-faith attempt to pass the buck for failure. You could be forgiven, however, for thinking that it looks like one.

Specifically, it looks as if moderate and conservative Democrats are doing everything they can to obscure the fact that, under their leadership and following their agenda, the Democratic Party has run aground and cant get back on course. They sense a blowout in November and would rather play the blame game than do anything concrete to regain the ground theyve helped lose. Their refusal to either pass popular economic legislation or fight the cultural battles of the moment have left them with only one option: find a scapegoat.

In which case, those moderate and conservative Democrats (and their allies) would do well to look in a mirror. No one forced them to derail the presidents agenda, to bog the party down in petty infighting or to take a hands-off and defensive approach to the Republican Party. They sowed their seeds; now its time for them to reap the results.

See the article here:
Opinion | The Democrats Have Bigger Problems Than the Squad - The New York Times

I havent had much truck with the Democratic Party since 1965 or 66, when I was expelled from my college chapter of the Young Democrats because I said out loud that I was rooting for the Viet Cong to win the war the US government was waging against them. The only Democratic presidential candidate Ive ever voted for was George McGovern, the antiwar senator who got the nomination in 1972. (Admittedly, I might have made some different choices if Id ever lived in a state that wasnt safe for the Democrat.) And I never donated money to Democratic candidates.

Until, that is, 2018 and then again in 2020, when I decided the insurgent candidates now known as The Squad were worth supporting. Now as punishment for my sins, I suppose I get calls, texts, and emails almost every day from candidates all over the country, running for a variety of offices but mostly the House, who describe themselves as progressives. I dutifully check out their campaign websites, and some turn out to sound like just mainstream Democrats, in whom I dont have much interest (even if Id rather see them in office than a Republican). But Ive been heartened to discover dozens of aspirants to the House who mostly live up to their progressive branding: they speak out strongly in favor of a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, voting rights, immigration reform, racial justice, reproductive rights, criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and so on. Many are a stronger on slogans than on specifics, but by the standards of American politics in the 2020s, they sound remarkably right-on.

Except for one glaring problem: many of the candidates platforms I looked at made no mention of a complex of issues that used to be and to me still should be central to what it means to be a progressive: U.S. foreign and military policy. And even among those who in some way addressed such issues, some offered only pieties about eliminating waste and preferring diplomacy to war. Distressingly few and far between were references to specific issues like the obscene $768 billion Congress just gave the military for 2022, the continuing drone wars around the world, the 800+ offshore U.S. military bases, the ongoing unraveling of the never-complete international arms-control regime and the wasteful and dangerous (Obama-initiated) effort to modernize our enormous nuclear stockpile, the evident lust on the part of so much of the DC establishment for a new cold war or two (if not hot ones!) with Russia and China, or the backing our government gives to repressive regimes worldwide as long as they are on our side, including billions in foreign military assistance and arms sales to documented violators of human rights, starting with Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Concerned that the sites I was looking at were somehow unrepresentative on this score, I decided to undertake a systematic survey of all the non-incumbent progressive House candidates I could identify. Thats not to say the records of incumbents who call themselves progressives dont also deserve scrutiny, but they are better known, and I was particularly curious about the possibility of an expanded Congressional left, so I concentrated on non-incumbents some challenging incumbent corporate Democrats, others seeking the Democratic nomination to run for open seats or against incumbent Republicans.

Besides the candidates who had contacted me, and a few more I came across on my own, I got most of my survey subjects by looking at the endorsements of three progressive advocacy groups: the Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, and Brand New Congress. A few more came from the endorsements of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Our Revolution.

In all, I ended up with a sample of 39 House candidates. They are definitely an appealing lot: nearly all are women and/or people of color; most are young and photogenic; they all have impressive records as activists, non-profit officials, or in some cases state or local officeholders; and their platforms check all the boxes that dominate todays progressive discourse. Unfortunately, though, my expanded research confirmed my initial impression: more than 3/5 of these progressive candidates 24 out of the 39 make no mention whatsoever on their campaign sites of issues of war and peace.

And it seems that none of the many advocacy groups that endorse progressive candidates condition their support on candidates taking a position on these issues. Consider, for example, Justice Democrats. Ive supported them in the past, they played a major role in promoting the campaigns of the current Squad, and their own organizational platform includes a pretty good call for a Progressive Foreign Policy. Yet of the six new House candidates theyre supporting this year, only one Rana Abdelhamid, a child of working-class Egyptian immigrants who is taking on establishment incumbent Carolyn Maloney in NY-12 (parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens) addresses military and foreign-policy matters, and even she devotes only a couple of sentences to them.

The next stop in my research was the Working Families Party (WFP), and the results there were even more depressing from anti-militarist perspective: Of the 10 House candidates theyve endorsed, again only one Nida Allam, the daughter of Indian and Pakistani immigrants who is running in NC-06 (Durham, Chapel Hill, and surrounding rural areas) addresses issues of foreign and military policy. Allams position, like Abdelhamids, is not as detailed as Id like, but at least it includes pledges to support reducing the military budget, to seek repeal of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and to seek an end to aid and weapons sales to regimes committing human rights abuses.

Brand New Congress, a group Id previously been only dimly aware of, turned out to have the most candidates with the clarity and courage to speak out against U.S. foreign and military policy among its list of endorsees: of the 16 hopefuls its endorsing for the House, fully half have some kind of statement about military spending and imperial bullying on their websites.

Of these eight, Stephanie Gallardo, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Adam Smith in WA-09, a district that runs from Seattle to Tacoma, has the most forceful statement: she calls for an end to imperialist wars and exorbitant spending on militarization, including specifically nuclear arms reduction and disarmament and a drastically reduced Pentagon budget. The daughter of refugees from Pinochets coup in Chile, she defines herself as a Democratic Socialist right under her name on her home page. (Her site is also notable for the strongest candidate statement on Palestine and Israel that Ive ever seen from an American politician. It begins The United States must end all aid to the state of Israel and take a clear stand in support of Palestinian liberation and goes on to endorse the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.)

Others on the BNC list also take strong positions on military issues:

* Angelica Dueas makes a brief but bold call for reducing our military budget by 50% and promises to push for negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons, ban weapons in space, and regulate the use of autonomous robots and drones. Dueas is mounting a second challenge to longtime incumbent Democrat Tony Crdenas in CA-29 (part of southern Californias San Fernando Valley) after winning 43.4 percent of the vote in 2020.

* Imani Oakley, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Donald Payne Jr. in NJ-10, including Newark, declares we live in a state of perpetual war and international conflict fueled by racism, hawkish politicians, and greedy multinational corporations. She goes on to promise that in Congress she will seek to dramatically reduce military and weapons spending, advocate for the end of the forever wars in the Middle East, defend the humanity, dignity, and safety of the Palestinian people, [and] fight to end all forms of state violence on the international stage by eliminating taxpayer-funded support for foreign countries including the Israeli, Chinese, and Myanma[r] governments that commit genocide and other violent human rights violations.

* Brittany Ramos DeBarros bases her outspoken opposition to militarism on her experience in Afghanistan, where she saw combat while serving as a captain in the U.S. Army. On her campaign site she writes We need to completely reclaim and reframe the conversation on national security. The war profiteers have made billions while the establishment politicians in their pockets abdicate their duty to our troops, sending them to kill and die in counterproductive, unjust wars with no clear objective or end point in sight.

Now a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Ramos DeBarros is running against a conservative, pro-cop Democratic for the chance to take on the incumbent Trump-loving Republican in NY-11. The district known for, among other things, Staten Islands large population of police and prison guards went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 and even more so in 2020, but redistricting seems to have improved Democratic prospects.

(Probably because Ramos DeBarros lives in New York City, and because she putting forward such progressive politics in such a conservative district, and perhaps because she seems to have an exuberant personality, she has attracted more media attention than the other candidates discussed here. The Nation profiled her and the right-wing New York Post recently ran an expos, with a video she posted to her Instagram page in 2019 with the hashtag #dropbootiesnotbombs, showing her stripping off her uniform and gyrating in her red lingerie to Edwin Starrs hit song War (What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!) at an anti-war burlesque show at a Brooklyn bar.

* Melanie DArrigo, who is running for a vacant seat in NY-03, on the north shore of Long Island not only declares that Its time to stop never ending wars, protect our military families and stop increasing our already overly bloated military budget, but also has a website section dedicated specifically to Denuclearization, including a call for non-proliferation agreements to reduce nuclear stockpiles and restricting first use of nuclear weapons.

* Shervin Aazami (CA-32, another part of the San Fernando Valley) presents detailed critique of the hawkish record and close ties to weapons manufacturers of the incumbent Democrat hes challenging, Rep. Brad Sherman, and explicitly denounces imperialism and militarism and multinational defense corporations seeking to maximize profit. Under the heading Defund our military-industrial complex and endless wars, explains that Due to the profligate greed of the defense industry aided and abetted by hawkish bipartisan neoconservatism, the United States continues to fund endless, morally vacuous, brutal, and destructive foreign wars.

* Rebecca Parson, challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer in WA-06, on the Olympic Peninsula, says We need to stop invading other countries for resource extraction, the enrichment of the military-industrial complex, and market expansion for American corporations. Among the specifics she proposes: ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, ending the Presidential Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) going back to the Cold War. And closing Guantanamo Bay and abolishing torture.

* Erica Smith, who hopes to unseat incumbent Democratic Rep. Deborah Ross in NC-02, (central North Carolina) is considerably less outspoken on foreign and military policy, but her website does say We need to end the endless wars and reign in the authority that allows every President, regardless of party, to engage in acts of war without congressional approval.

So those eight BNC endorsees have pretty strong positions on the issues Im concerned with here, as well progressive domestic causes. Unfortunately, the other eight on the groups list avoid foreign policy and military issues altogether. Among them, perhaps surprisingly, are two prominent candidates with well-known ties to Sen. Bernie Sanders, Amy Vilela (NV-01, Las Vegas) and Nina Turner (OH-11, the Cleveland area): Turner, who is notably outspoken on most issues, was once president of the Sanders-affiliated group Our Revolution and then a national co-chair of his 2020 presidential campaign, while Vilela co-chaired his 2020 presidential campaign in Nevada and recently won the endorsement of Rep. Cori Bush. (I dont know whether or not this is part of the explanation, but Vilelas About page does note that her husband is a Major in the U.S. Air Force.)

As for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (BoldProgressives.org), their list includes six non-incumbents seeking House seats, of whom three address militarism and related issues: two mentioned above Erica Smith (NC-02) and Brittany Ramos DeBarros (NY-11), plus Attica Scott (KY-03), whose Issues page includes: It is painfully clear that the United States cannot continue to engage in ongoing violent conflict and war. We are asking mostly young people to go to war in order to line the pockets of defense contractors.

Our Revolution, to my surprise, has so far endorsed only three hopefuls for the House, all in Texas and all silent on military or foreign-policy matters.

Finally, four candidates who evidently havent been endorsed by any of the advocacy groups perhaps because theyre distinct longshots made my list of progressive candidates with platforms that address international and military as well as domestic issues:

* Shahid Buttar, who two years ago took 22.4 percent of the vote against Nancy Pelosi in CA-12 (San Francisco), is taking a second run at the soon-to-be-82-year-old House Speaker this year (shahidforchange.us). An immigrant of Pakistani descent from the United Kingdom, Buttar is a longtime activist in various left causes, including grassroots opposition to the war in Iraq. Given that background, its not surprising that hes running on a strongly progressive platform or that it includes a section labeled Foreign Policy and Military, but I was disappointed that that section wasnt stronger: while one of the several Specific actions it calls for is Ending U.S. military support for foreign regimes that abuse human rights, from Saudi Arabia and Israel to the Philippines, it makes no mention of cutting the Pentagon budget, closing bases, or nuclear disarmament.

* Muad Hrezi, the son of Libyan asylum-seekers, is challenging John B. Larson, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, in CT-01, which includes Hartford and surroundings. Under the heading A Just Foreign Policy, he observes that The forever wars weve engaged in over the last two decadesin Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewherehave destabilized entire regions and come at a tremendous human, economic, social, and political cost. He calls for cutting the Pentagon budget by $1.2 trillion over ten years and for conditioning aid to countries based on their respect for human rights, whether its Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Nicaragua. That budget cut comes out to only a relatively modest 15 percent or so, and Hrezi doesnt explain why we should be giving any aid to the Saudis and the Israelis, but both proposals would be improvements over current policies.

* Alexandra Hunt is challenging incumbent Democrat Dwight Evans in PA-03 which encompasses much of Philadelphia. When she first contacted me to solicit a contribution and I checked her Issues page, I was impressed with her position on domestic issues but found the usual problem, so I emailed her to say I might donate a little but not nearly as much as I would if you came out four-square for slashing the military budget, ending the forever wars, and in general giving up on our imperial madness. She promptly wrote back You are one step ahead of me, but not far! I am rolling out my foreign policy platform in the very near future. It breaks down how I would cut the Pentagon budget, end endless wars, and stop American imperialism. I discuss Central America, the Middle East, China, nuclear weapons, and diplomacy on my platform.

Less than a week later, the new section appeared on her site, and I was bowled over: its a long (1,220 words!), well-informed, and thorough-going critique of U.S. foreign and security policies. The section on the Pentagon budget details a list of cuts she pledges to fight for (including closing 60 percent of foreign bases), which she says will reduce the budget by 48 percent still not enough, but like Ms. Dueas 50-percent proposal, a good start.

(Hunts revised platform also added a good statement on the Middle East: Since its founding, Israel has waged a colonial war on the Palestinian people with the aim of replacing them with Jewish settlers. The United States funding of military aid to Israel enables these crimes that deny Palestinians their basic freedom and human rights. Alexandra will fight to end U.S. militarized aid to Israel and advocate for Palestinian human rights.)

Unfortunately, I doubt Hunt has much of a chance: shes a white woman challenging a Black man in a majority Black district, and a political novice up against an incumbent who was first elected to office in 1980. On top of all that, much of the media coverage of her campaign that Ive seen focuses not on her stands on issues, but on the fact that she worked as a stripper during her college years.

* Mckayla Wilkes (MD-05) is challenging incumbent Rep. Steny Hoyer, the 82-year-old House Majority Leader (second in command after Nancy Pelosi) and, like Pelosi, a champion of corporate-friendly moderation. Her lively Issues page checks the usual progressive boxes but puts an unusually radical spin on them. Her Green New Deal page, to cite just one example, includes Guaranteeing a just transition to workers in extractive sectors (such as oil, gas, shale, and industrial agriculture) by nationalizing dominant actors and building a a 100 percent renewable energy sector that is democratically controlled. Elsewhere she calls for democratizing the stock market by establishing a social wealth fund a federally-run investment fund that would pay out a set percentage of its value every year in the form of an equal dividend to every American adult.

As to military and foreign policy, Wilkes platform is nowhere near as comprehensive and detailed as Hunts, but its not bad. Under the rubric, End the Forever Wars, she writes:

The United States aggressive military adventurism has been a complete failure. The federal government has poured trillions of dollars into wars which only serve to starve domestic social programs and cause human misery abroad. Instead of an arrogant and shortsighted foreign policy, we need an anti-imperialist foreign policy based on peace and cooperation. Thats why Mckayla supports ending U.S. support for the illegal Saudi military campaign in Yemen; pulling American troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; passing a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that severely curtails the presidents ability to start military engagements without congressional approval; and redirecting at least $200 billion in defense funding toward foreign aid and domestic social programs.

Senate Candidates

Several of the progressive advocacy groups also endorse some Senatorial candidates. Among the non-incumbents, to judge by their online platforms, theres only one Morgan Harper (OH) Id classify as mostly a real progressive, but she makes no mention of military or international issues (morganharper.org). Neither does Lucas Kunce (MO), whose platform focuses on breaking up monopolies and abolishing corporate PACs, or Malcolm Kenyatta (PA), whose platform is more extensive but consists mostly of centrist Democratic talking points. (One example: he calls for a moratorium on new fracking, not an outright ban on this destructive technology.) As for Mandela Barnes (WI) and Charles Booker (KY), neithers website includes an Issues page at all. No doubt all of these candidates would make better Senators than their Republican adversaries, but none seems likely to stand up to the war machine.

Conclusions

Im sure all these progressive candidates honor the memory of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. They are too young to have heard his celebrated Beyond Vietnam speech at the Riverside Church in New York City in 1967, but is it too much to expect of them all of them to take to heart, and to their constituents, his observation that A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death?

Candidate Statements

Below is a list of all 39 candidates in my survey all non-incumbents running for the House on progressive (to varying degrees) platforms. Ive divided them into two groups, the 15 whose platforms include at least some opposition to military spending and aggressive foreign policies and the 24 on whose websites I found no mention of these issues.

Shervin Aazami (CA-32)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Brad ShermanWebsite: shervin4congress.comEndorsed by: Brand New CongressPrimary date: June 7

Rana Abdelhamid (NY-12)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Carolyn MaloneyWebsite: ranaforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Justice DemocratsPrimary date: June 28

Nida Allam (NC-06)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Kathy ManningWebsite: nidaallam.comMajor organizational endorsements: Working Families PartyPrimary date: May 17

Shahid Buttar (CA-12)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Nancy PelosiWebsite: shahidforchange.usMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: June 7

Melanie DArrigo (NY-03)Seeking Democratic nomination for a vacant seatWebsite: darrigo2022.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, IndivisiblePrimary date: June 28

Angelica Dueas (CA-29)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Tony CrdenasWebsite: angelica4congress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: June 7

Stephanie Gallardo (WA-09)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Adam SmithWebsite: electgallardo.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, RootsActionPrimary date: August 2

Muad Hrezi (CT-01, around Hartford)Challenging incumbent John B. Larson, chair of the House Democratic CaucusWebsite: hrezi.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: August 9

Alexandra Hunt (PA-03)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Dwight EvansWebsite: alexandramhunt.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: May 17

Imani Oakley (NJ-10)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Donald Payne Jr.Website: oakleyforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: June 7

Rebecca Parson (WA-06)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Derek KilmerWebsite: rebeccaparson.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: August 2

Brittany Ramos DeBarros (NY-11)Seeking Democratic nomination to oppose incumbent Republican Rep. Nicole MalliotakisWebsite: brittanyforthepeople.orgMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, Progressive Change Campaign CommitteePrimary date: June 28

Attica Scott (KY-03)Seeking Democratic nomination for a vacant seatWebsite: atticaforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Progressive Change Campaign CommitteePrimary date: May 17

Erica Smith (NC-02)Challenging incumbent Democrat Rep. Deborah RossWebsite: ericaforus.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New Congress, Progressive Change Campaign CommitteePrimary date: May 17

Mckayla Wilkes (MD-05)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Steny HoyerWebsite: mckaylawilkes.comMajor organizational endorsements: RootsActionPrimary date: June 28

Amane Badhasso (MN-04 in and around St. Paul)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Betty McCollumWebsite: amaneforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: August 9

Greg Casar (TX-35 Austin)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Lloyd DoggettWebsite: casarforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Working Families Party, Our RevolutionPrimary date: March 1

Jessica Cisneros (TX-28)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Henry CuellarWebsite: jessicacisnerosforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Working Families Party, brand New Congress, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Our Revolution, IndivisiblePrimary date: March 1

Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20, in southeast Florida)Technically an incumbent seeking reelection, after winning a special election to succeed the late Alcee Hastings on January 11, 2022. But she got only 23.76 percent of the vote, edging out the runner-up in a crowded field by just five votes, or 0.01 percent, and at least seven other candidates have already entered the race against her for the August primary.Website: sheilafordistrict20.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: August 23

Kina Collins (IL-07)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Danny K. DavisWebsite: kinacollins.comMajor organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, IndivisiblePrimary date: June 28

Jasmine Crockett (TX-30, Dallas and southern suburbs)Seeking nomination to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, competing with BNC endorsee Jessica Mason and othersWebsite: jasmineforus.comMajor organizational endorsements: Our RevolutionPrimary date: March 1

Jerry Dickinson (PA-18 Pittsburgh and surroundings)Seeking nomination to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Michael Doyle (competing with Summer Lee and others)Website: jerrydickinson.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: May 17

Maxwell Alejandro Frost (FL-10)Seeking Democratic nomination for seat vacated by Democratic Rep. Val DemingsWebsite: frostforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: August 23

Odessa Kelly (TN-05)Seeking to replace retiring Blue Dog Democratic Rep. Jim CooperWebsite: odessaforcongresss.comMajor organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, IndivisiblePrimary date: August 4

Daniel Lee (CA-37, in Los Angeles County)Seeking to replace Democratic Rep. Karen Bass, who is running for Mayor of LAWebsite: danielwaynelee.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: June 7

Summer Lee (PA-18 Pittsburgh and surroundings)Seeking to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Michael Doyle, competing with BNC-endorsed Jerry DickinsonWebsite: summerforpa.comMajor organizational endorsements: Justice Democrats, Working Families PartyPrimary date: May 17

Derek Marshall (CA-08, north and east of Los Angeles)Seeking nomination to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. Jay ObernolteWebsite: derekmarshallca.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: June 7

Jessica Mason (TX-30 Dallas and southern suburbs)Seeking nomination to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, competing with Our Revolution endorsee Jasmine Crockett and othersWebsite: jessicamasonforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: March 1

Jamie McLeod-Skinner (OR-05 Oregons central coast, Salem, and southern suburbs of Portland)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Kurt SchraderWebsite: jamiefororegon.comMajor organizational endorsements: Working Families PartyPrimary date: May 17

Bryan Osorio (CA-21, in Californias Central Valley)Seeking Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. David ValadaoWebsite: osorioforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Our Revolution:Kern CountyPrimary date: June 7

Delia Ramirez (IL-03, south and west of Chicago)Seeking Democratic nomination in a new district (Rep. Marie Newman, who represented the old IL-03, is running in IL-06 in 2022)Website: deliaforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Working Families PartyPrimary date: June 28

Sol Sandoval (CO-03, western Colorado)Seeking Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. Lauren BoebertWebsite: sandovalforcolorado.comMajor organizational endorsements: Working Families PartyPrimary date: June 28

Ashmi Sheth (NY-10, encompassing the west side of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Jerrold NadlerWebsite: ashmiforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: June 28

Nina Turner (OH-11, the Cleveland area)Running against incumbent Democratic Rep. Shontel Brown, who upset her in a special election in November, 2021Website: ninaturner.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: May 3

Amy Vilela (NV-01 Las Vegas)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Dina TitusWebsite: amyvilela.orgMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: June 14

Neal Walia (CO-01 Denver)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Diana DeGetteWebsite: nealwaliaforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Working Families PartyPrimary date: June 28

Marsha Williams (IL-17 northwest Illinois)Challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Cheri BustosWebsite: marshawilliamsforcongress.comMajor organizational endorsements: Brand New CongressPrimary date: June 28

Tom Winter (MT-01 western Montana)Seeking Democratic nomination for a new seatWebsite: winterformontana.comMajor organizational endorsements: Progressive Change Campaign CommitteePrimary date: June 7

Claudia Zapata (TX-21 parts of Austin and San Antonio and areas to the west)Seeking the Democratic nomination to oppose Republican incumbent Rep. Chip RoyWebsite: conclaudia.comMajor organizational endorsements: NAPrimary date: May 24

Excerpt from:
Opinion | Why Don't More Progressive Candidates Speak Out Against the War Machine? - Common Dreams