Mediaboss Marketing

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

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., walks to her office in the basement of the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday. Her positions on the filibuster and other issues have drawn threats of a primary challenge in Arizona. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images hide caption

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., walks to her office in the basement of the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday. Her positions on the filibuster and other issues have drawn threats of a primary challenge in Arizona.

When Arizona Democrat Kyrsten Sinema last week reiterated her opposition to changing Senate filibuster rules, helping to doom her party's efforts to pass voting rights legislation, it only added to the frustrations of progressives in her home state.

Arizona progressives had spent months trying to convince Sinema that voting rights are important enough to alter the Senate's legislative filibuster.

The rule requires a 60-vote majority to move most legislation forward through the chamber. Republicans have used it for the length of President Biden's time in office to block voting bills that Democrats including Sinema argue are needed to combat voting restrictions passed at the state level by Republicans.

"We really are in a situation where our freedom to vote is at stake," said Emily Kirkland, executive director of Progress Arizona.

Unable to change Sinema's mind on their own, Kirkland and dozens of other Democratic women in Arizona sent a letter to an organization they hoped would have more influence: EMILY's List, a decades-old national campaign group focused on electing female Democrats who support abortion rights.

Historically, abortion advocates like EMILY's List have resisted calls to change or eliminate the filibuster. It's been used in the past to defend women's access to health care, a point frequently noted by Sinema in her defense of the Senate rule.

Kirkland said the stakes are too high for groups like EMILY's List to stay on the sidelines.

"We're in a moment where, given the threats to our democracy, we can't afford for people and organizations to be staying in their lane and focused only on one issue," she said.

On Tuesday, EMILY's List heeded the call.

In a statement, President Laphonza Butler said if Sinema "can not support a path forward for the passage of this legislation, we believe she undermines the foundations of our democracy, her own path to victory and also the mission of Emily's List.

"Right now, Sen. Sinema's decision to reject the voices of allies, partners and constituents who believe the importance of voting rights outweighs that of an arcane process means she will find herself standing alone in the next election," Butler added.

Amid mounting calls in Arizona for a primary challenger to Sinema in 2024, when she's next up for reelection, the statement marked a turning point from speculation to concrete action, not just locally, but by an organization that's steadfastly supported Sinema over the years and holds broad, national influence.

"EMILY's List is a very powerful, trusted messenger to Democrats, and to pro-choice women," said Tony Cani, a political strategist who served as deputy director of the Biden campaign in Arizona.

And it's no hollow threat. From 2015 to 2020, while Sinema was running for the Senate, no one contributed more to her campaign than EMILY's List over $400,000, according to OpenSecrets.

On Thursday, after the bid to change Senate rules officially failed, Butler made clear that EMILY's List won't endorse Sinema in the future.

EMILY's List seemed to set a tone for other organizations as well. On Tuesday, the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America issued its own statement that, without mentioning Sinema by name, made its target clear: "We will not endorse or support any senator who refuses to find a path forward on this critical legislation," the organization said of the two voting rights bills stuck in the Senate.

And organizers with Stand Up America and Living United for Change in Arizona, also known as LUCHA, released a statement vowing to challenge Sinema in 2024 if she won't change her mind.

In her own statement ahead of Wednesday night's vote when she and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin joined all 50 Senate Republicans in blocking a proposed change to the filibuster Sinema brushed aside the criticism, as she had a week earlier, chalking it up to honest disagreements over policy and strategy.

Sinema later issued a statement touting her vote for voting rights legislation, but also explained why she blocked the only path forward at the time to actually pass the bills.

"I also maintained my long standing opposition to separate actions that would deepen our divisions and risk repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty and further eroding confidence in our government," she said.

Arizona Democratic Sens. Sinema and Mark Kelly, along with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, center, listen during a roundtable about infrastructure and supply chain problems at Mesa Community College in Mesa, Ariz. on Nov. 19, 2021. Sinema helped craft the bipartisan infrastructure law, and has made her mark in the Senate working across the aisle. Jonathan J. Cooper/AP hide caption

Arizona Democratic Sens. Sinema and Mark Kelly, along with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, center, listen during a roundtable about infrastructure and supply chain problems at Mesa Community College in Mesa, Ariz. on Nov. 19, 2021. Sinema helped craft the bipartisan infrastructure law, and has made her mark in the Senate working across the aisle.

Arizona strategist Cani said Sinema may believe she's doing the right thing by preserving the filibuster. But if the senator is making a political calculation, Cani said she's mistaken.

"I think that what she's missing here is that her brand is somebody who gets things done," Cani said. "And the problem right now is ... she's becoming someone who is a symbol for the type of obstruction that exists in Washington, D.C., in the Senate that is preventing reasonable laws from getting passed that the American people want."

For some Arizona progressives, Sinema's speech a week ago in defense of the filibuster had already confirmed she's a part of the problem, not the solution.

"I think she is showing the American public and Arizonans very clearly who she is standing with," said Alejandra Gomez, co-executive director of LUCHA. "And she is not standing with voters."

Sinema did help craft the bipartisan infrastructure law, and has made her mark in the Senate working across the aisle.

Arizona is a tightly contested state where centrist candidates have found success in general elections. But to win reelection in 2024, she'll first have to survive a primary.

Read the rest here:
Many Arizona Democrats are none to happy with Kyrsten ...

By Ronald J. Rosenberg

While the states election districts were recently redrawn gerrymandered by a progressive-Democratic majority in the State Legislature for the purpose of favoring their party, gerrymandering is not a particularly new political weapon. Those on both sides of the aisle have used their power to redraw district lines, depending on who holds the majority. The practice goes back to the 1800s, but this years redrawing by is unprecedented, and comes at a time when the self-proclaimed progressives larger political agenda ranges from defunding police to bail reform to demonizing the successful entrepreneur, i.e., capitalism.As U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi pursues his gubernatorial primary quest, his former 3rd Congressional District is now unrecognizable. The progressive gerrymander has recreated his congressional borders into what they now humorously call the Long Island Sound District. It now stretches from Smithtown in Suffolk County, along the lightly populated North Shore, into the densely populated Bronx, and ends in Democratic Westchester County. While several Long Island Democrats have announced their intentions to run for Suozzis vacated seat, they will face a growing number of New York City-based progressives who see their population density and massive Democratic enrollment in the city and its environs as bulletproof at the ballot box. The numbers speak for themselves. The Village of Northport, part of the new 3rd C.D., has some 8,000 residents. The City of New Rochelle, in Westchester, which is also part of the new district, has some 80,000.Now consider who is lining up to run in the 3rd District so far: Bronx State Senator Alessandra Biaggi, who defeated moderate Democrat Jeff Klein a number of years ago. In a December tweet, Democratic Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had nothing but praise for Biaggi.Also in the running is Melanie DArrigo, a self-described progressive who has been endorsed by former New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, a city pol who once co-chaired the City Councils Progressive Caucus.

Ronald J. Rosenberg has been an attorney for 42 years, concentrating in commercial litigation and transactions, and real estate, municipal, zoning and land use law. He founded the Garden City law firm Rosenberg Calica & Birney in 1999.

Read the rest here:
Long Islanders have been mugged by progressives - liherald.com