Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Let the Blue Dogs Out?
Right now, Congresswoman Jane Harman is facing a serious primary challenge from a genuine progressive, Marcy Winograd, in Southern California's 36th congressional district.
Last Saturday afternoon, I sat on stage with both candidates and other panelists at a forum during the California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles. The room was filled with several hundred progressive delegates.
Harman has been refusing to debate her opponent, but she couldn't stay away from the forum that afternoon. The entire convention would be voting the next day on whether to withhold endorsement of her for re-election.
The incumbent is a member of the center-right caucus of House Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition. In sharp contrast, she chose not to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus. When I asked why, Harman dodged the question.
Winograd promptly brought their differences into focus. She called for the government "to invest in housing, education, healthcare, transportation -- not to perpetuate a war economy that is draining us, robbing us of money that we desperately need." And she added: "I challenge my opponent to stop voting for this war machine."
While belonging to the largest caucus on Capitol Hill (with a membership now above 80), some members of the Progressive Caucus often say that they need more colleagues who'll be willing to vote against war and in favor of a truly progressive legislative agenda.
But if Progressive Caucus members want to move the House of Representatives in a progressive direction, you'd never know it when there's a chance to replace a Blue Dog with a progressive.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Harman -- who once proclaimed "I am proud to be introduced as the best Republican in the Democratic Party" -- has been straining lately to present herself as progressive while she tries to fend off the Winograd challenge.
With that goal, Harman has trumpeted endorsements from several well-known members of the Progressive Caucus. In particular, she has synced up her campaign spin with two of them from California -- Henry Waxman and Lynn Woolsey.
Rep. Waxman came through with a January fundraising letter that declared: "In Marcy Winograd's foreign policy, Israel would cease to exist." The powerful congressman went on to trash the co-founder of LA Jews for Peace as an enemy of Israel: "In Marcy Winograd's vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights."
In the same month, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Woolsey, startled longtime progressive admirers when her name headlined the invitation to a fundraiser for Harman's campaign.
Within days, an open letter to Woolsey -- initially signed by Progressive Democrats of America leaders Tim Carpenter, Mimi Kennedy, Donna Smith and me -- gained more than 3,000 signatures from PDA activists across the country. We asked Woolsey to cancel her scheduled high-profile appearance at the Harman fundraiser.
"Given your longstanding and exemplary leadership on a wide range of peace and justice issues, it would be counterproductive to aid Rep. Harman's re-election efforts," we wrote. "Her pro-war record is well known, having voted most recently to spend billions to continue the occupation of Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan. Her October 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was in stark contrast to the ‘no' votes by most House Democrats."
Our letter added: "Harman has an equally appalling record on civil liberties, having lobbied the New York Times to suppress the story about Bush's wiretaps on the eve of the 2004 election, then going on television to defend the illegal wiretaps. In addition, she voted for the bankruptcy bill, then more recently voted against mortgage relief in bankruptcy court, despite the fact that several thousand of her constituents are facing foreclosure. On the health care front, she recently voted against fast-tracking affordable generic medications for patients with breast cancer, brain tumors, Parkinson's and rare diseases."
And we noted that primary challenges to incumbent Blue Dog Democrats are essential for replacing pro-war Congress members with genuine progressives: "The reason that we have Rep. Donna Edwards in the House today as a stalwart advocate for peace and justice is precisely because of her successful primary campaign that unseated a non-progressive Democratic incumbent. Surely such victories are in the interests of all progressives."
Meanwhile, the entire executive board of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus -- the largest caucus in the state party -- also wrote a public letter to Woolsey asking her not to go through with the Harman fundraiser.
When Woolsey went ahead with the Harman event, there was scant significance to the modest amount of funds raised. (Money is not a problem for Harman, one of the richest members of Congress.) What Woolsey's appearance conferred on Harman's campaign was the imprimatur of a political embrace from a longtime peace advocate who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
As the winter went on, progressives in California hoped that such maneuvers would not be repeated. But the care and feeding of a Blue Dog is apt to be habitual.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
On Friday, April 16 -- just before the opening of the state Democratic Party convention that would decide whether to endorse Congresswoman Harman for re-election -- the delegates received robo-calls from a heavyweight member of Congress. "I'm Henry Waxman, and my congressional district is right next to that of Jane Harman, who I'm proud to support for re-election," the message began. It concluded: "We need to keep effective leaders like Jane in Congress."
On Sunday morning, I was one of more than 1,000 delegates to enter the convention hall and find a four-page glossy flyer that had been placed on every chair. Most of the first page was a picture of Harman and Woolsey, standing together in front of the Capitol.
The photo caption was a quote from Congresswoman Woolsey: "Jane has proven herself to be a leader on Capitol Hill, and I join other Congressional progressives like John Conyers, Jim McGovern and Henry Waxman in endorsing her candidacy." The second page was devoted to a letter from Woolsey extolling Harman.
When delegates voted later that morning, Harman won endorsement, 599-417.
Harman had to go to extraordinary lengths to win a party endorsement that is usually automatic for incumbent Democrats in Congress. She was able to do so largely because one-third of state convention delegates are appointed by elected Democrats -- incumbents who are very rarely willing to support any primary challenge to an incumbent.
It's one thing to support a Blue Dog Democrat in a general election against a Republican. It's quite another thing for members of the Progressive Caucus to defend a Blue Dog Democrat against a primary challenge from a genuine progressive Democrat.
In the case of the Harman-Winograd race, the best grassroots response from progressives around the country will be to strongly support the Winograd campaign between now and Election Day, June 8.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Soon after visiting Afghanistan last summer, I went to Capitol Hill and met with a few House members and staff. All of them were "anti-war" and involved with the Progressive Caucus. Yet the extent of insularity and the lack of urgency were stunning. Official Washington was numb.
What's propelling the Winograd campaign -- with its passion, commitment, fearlessness and antipathy toward the corporate warfare state -- is exactly what Congress and the country need.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
63 Comments so far
Show Allthe party leaders ought ot stay out of this affair and endorse the winner of the primary. let the candidates compete and the voters vote, and may the party power structure stay neutral and not endorse the incumbent, who already has the institutional advantages of office. what's so great and endearing about an anti-worker and pro-war democrat anyway?
As soon as Obama won in Nov. 2008 Rahm dusted of Rove's playbook and started veal penning Congressional Democrats to 86 any that would not go pro-corporate, anti-worker.
Since Rahm's goons will make sure Winograd doesn't win the primary, she needs to run as an independent in the November election. Solomon and his ilk need to started support progressive independents rather than Democrats who will be veal penned, if they haven't already.
let's all resolve to send at least ten dollars to this lady today. her name is marcy winograd. what is her address for receiving campaign funds?
@Johnny U
Great idea about sending any contribution to support Marcy, a non-corporate funded Progressive candidate running in the CA Primary Race-->
Here's a link to contribute to the Winograd for Congress campaign: https://winogradforcongress.com/contribute/
To quote Marcy:
"We are at a crossroads. This is a struggle for the heart & soul of the Democratic Party. Are we for jobs or are we for wars? Are we for homes or are we for big banks? Are we for our street or are we for Wall Street?"
The heart and soul of the Democartic Party has been MIA at least since Clinton zealously promoted NAFTA carte blanche without even pretending to be concerned about environmental and safety impacts in 1993.
The sole remaining mission of the Democratic Party is to get more corporate contributions than the Republicans.
Is that change that YOU can believe in?
Those partners in crime sure stick together.
The progressive caucas has always been a laugh.
I hope nobody votes for either of these Damnocrats.
This race is an excellent example of why many as myself
believe, there ain't no voting ourselves out of the
fascist state we voted ourselves into. It's many election
cycles tooooo late. Sorry, It's over.
Seems to me that the Waxman House seat needs a little shaking up. Anyone who blindly follows along behind AIPAC needs to be challanged, not withstanding the fact that he/she might have an otherwise sterling progressive voting record.
Actually, I'm pretty much fed up with the democratic party and intend to always vote third party unless there is a good reason not to, I.e. a kucinich, or a sanders, or a grayson is running.
The Progressive Caucus of the Democratic party is a joke. The Democrats allow is to exist to provide a progressive window dressing to the party. As we've seen with the health care vote, when it comes time that the "progressive" Democrats can make a difference, they fold. Winograd reminds me of Obama's campaign theme: put your hope in me because the other side is so bad.
I share your well-placed cynicism about the Dem party and the Progressive Caucus. However, those of us who know Marcy Winograd well know that she is no ordinary politician. She will stand for her beliefs; you can believe what she says; she is incorruptible.
If Winograd is a third party candidate I might agree with your statements, Joycie.
After Rahm dusted off Rove's playbook Winograd and other Democrats are now required to go Rahm's pro-corporate, anti-worker way or hit the highway.
Easy thar, a1! :)
Joycie, Marcy may be incorruptible, but if she's a Democrat, the party will have her by the short hairs. Every Democratic Congressperson is required to contribute to the DCCC which uses the funds to elect Blue Dogs and stamp out Progressive challenges.
I don't what Obama did to the Progressives to force them to vote for that beyond odious health insurance bill, but he sure did something. He only pretends to be powerless when it suits him. Like George before him we know who his real base is and it ain't us.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
If you "play it safe", you're a loser, but that's all politicians of the two big parties -- actually the two wings of the Statist Party -- know. "Get elected; get re-elected; and to hell with the constituents" is the only rule they obey.
A plague o'both their houses!
Johnny U. is absolutely correct. Why should incumbent office holders endorse anyone in a primary election? That is the height of arrogance. Let the people decide.
This post is not about California, but is about New York state -- where my Representative is Charlie Rangel, who is steeped in so many scandals it's nearly impossible to keep track. A couple of weeks ago, I learned that at least one person is stepping up to the plate to challenge Rangel in the primary -- Adam Clayton Powell IV. He has already announced his candidacy. I have also read that a couple of other people might also jump into the fray. In the beginning, I feared that no one would challenge Rangel.
A few months ago, according to Eric Alterman, who must also live in this same district, Obama sent out an e-mail to his list -- urging everyone to vote for Rangel. Incumbents seem to garner the support -- whether they deserve it, or not.
I've never been a fan of Harman, but I wouldn't be able to vote for her anyway. I'm glad that she is being seriously challenged in the primary.
I also agree with johnny u -- "the party leaders ought ot stay out of this affair and endorse the winner of the primary. let the candidates compete and the voters vote, and may the party power structure stay neutral and not endorse the incumbent, who already has the institutional advantages of office."
The party leaders never let the voters settle it in the primary; first there is the "money" primary, then the party leaders get behind the incumbent or the winner, almost always the same person and shove him/her down our reluctant throats. Look what happened to Ned Lamont in CT. The party leaders treated him like he was radioactive, then when he won anyway, they either publicly lined up behind Lieberman or quietly walked away from Lamont. HRC said CT voters picked Lamont and the party should support him, then she didn't do shit to make that happen.
Millionaires like Harman are always welcome by the party elite because they self-finance. If the Dem elites are playing the Israel card at this early stage of the game, it means they have no intention whatsoever of allowing this seat to slip away. It doesn't matter that Harman votes against the progressive caucus almost every time. The Dems have strict discipline when it comes to purging/fighting progressive threats and no discipline at all vs. the Repubs, rightwing judicial nominees, the national security apparatus, etc. The party elite exist to ensure the steady flow of corporate campaign dollars into party coffers. This means maintaining the political status quo at all costs.
You cannot talk about Israel except in praise. If you do, you're out, period. Waxman is this week's enforcer; it'll be someone else next time. If all else fails, there will be 'technical" problems with touch screen voting machines and absentee ballots. Winograd will need a miracle. Of course, who really knows? The Israel card plays better in Waxman's heavily Jewish district than in Harman's middle classs white and Latino district.
Waxman sez: "In Marcy Winograd's vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights."
***
Sooooo ... "Jews" would be at the mercy of the U.S.?
Gee, Henry Waxman, a Jew, calls Winograd, a Jew who co founded LA Jews for Peace, an enemy of Israel.
The kettle calling the teapot black, when it is the kettle that is pitch black and the teapot a bright shining light of inspiration. Sorry Waxer, but you have no business in America so take Harman and any other pro-murder Jewish legistlators out of my Country.
Writing as a former constituent of Representative Jane Harman, I am not surprised to see the Democratic Party establishment go to these lengths to keep her around.
There are several reasons for this; Harman is a known quantity with seniority (seniority is very important in terms of committee assignments), is fairly wealthy (her husband is the Harman of Harman-Karden Sound Systems), and the party bosses still wrongly believe that the California 36th Congressional district is a swing district (the slow motion death of the Southern California defense industry has put paid to that notion) in off-year election that looks like it will be tough for the party in power in the White House. What those party bosses have gotten quite spectacularly wrong is the nature of the district.
During the 90's when I lived in the northern end (Venice Beach) of the 36th, there was still a substantial amount of WASP's who worked for the now-shuttered defense plants in the inland portion of the South Bay. Those conservative WASP's (who were the core of Harman's support) have fled So. Cal. en mass when their employers left the region. The district is now quite different demographically and politically, as formerly reliable South Bay cities that were consistently Republican (Torrance, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, El Segundo) are no longer so. In fact, the only reliable area for the GOP is the southern end of the district, the WASP old money enclaves in the Palos Verdes peninsula.
Thus, when Marcy Winograd ran a last minute haphazard campaign for three months in 2008 and generated a 38% vote total, the electoral handwriting was clearly on the wall. The lawn sign war (a clear indication of which campaign has energy and momentum) in the district is currently going Winograd's way.
There is still much that can happen between now and the primary though.
With the war industry cutbacks in the 36th district , it sounds like yout no longer need a rep. who carries water for the military industrial media complex.
Anyone who voted/ votes for war and blood money MUST be defeated...sooner is better than later !
RE: “In the case of the Harman-Winograd race, the best grassroots response from progressives around the country will be to strongly support the Winograd campaign between now and Election Day, June 8.” – Norman Soloman
Fight the Big Bank Candidate – Support our TV Campaign
From: Marcy Winograd for Congress
Sent: Fri 4/16/10 4:21 PM
Dear Friend,
I’m Marcy Winograd and I hope you’ll help me put my “People Speak” commercial on the air.
On June 8th, less than two months from now, Jane Harman and I will go head to head to represent California’s 36th congressional district. Harman’s relentless pursuit of corporate contributions will enable her to barrage voters with her Blue Dog message.
We need to broadcast our own message: Your Street, not Wall Street.
Please watch my latest commercial and donate so that we can get it on the air. Lets take the next step toward winning this election.
LINK - https://winogradforcongress.com/commercial/
Marcy Winograd for Congress - https://winogradforcongress.com/
To Contribute - https://winogradforcongress.com/contribute/
“In the case of the Harman-Winograd race, the best grassroots response from progressives around the country will be to strongly support the Winograd campaign between now and Election Day, June 8.” – Norman Soloman
The Left United Front direly needs a kind of Grateful Dead flying squad that moves from promising district to promising district around the country bringing funds and resources and campaign workers to elect genuine leftist candidates.
Just saying "support" or advertising where people have no direct vote in the election is a waste of time.
The stealthier the squad in its appearances also, the better.
Win over the old, the young, and all the anti-Capitalist classes.
Study and present the economic truth.
Win over even the goddamned teabaggers goddamnit.
No Naders or Faux Democrat Progressives or Liberals need apply for sponsorship.
Geezus even the Coach of the Bulls--Phil Jackson, was it--was a deadhead, and he wore expensive Italian suits.
It's very instructive that one of the most progressive members of Congress, Woolsey, is willing to step up and publicly support one of the most rightwing Democratic members, Harman, even over the objections of polite groups like Solomon's PDA. Waxman sounds like Joe Lieberman on the subject of Israel First, trashing Winograd as if she's some Jew-baiting southern redneck.
What this shows is the lengths to which standing members will circle their wagons around ANY fellow member, against their own principles and apparent positions on issues. Issues be damned, if it means challenging senior incumbents with power in strategic committees! This also shows how both parties care only for the integrity of their own power blocs. Progressive values are easily cast aside the moment it looks like legislative clout might be threatened.
You'd think Solomon would learn something from this besides how to write more strongly worded letters or get more petition signatures. Maybe expecting any real change in how the Democratic Party operates is as futile as expecting Obama to be a peace president.
Exactly right, Ephraim.
It occurs to me that this depraved duopoly has an ethos that parodies Benjamin Franklin's quote: "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
And the poor desperate PDA's letters are thus flung down and danced upon by even these "better" Democrats.
The letter(s) may as well have been written by Oliver Twist; they are at best pathetic elaborations of, "Please, may we have another?"
Ephraim said "What this shows is the lengths to which standing members will circle their wagons around ANY fellow member, against their own principles and apparent positions on issues."
I have to disagree with you on this. If it were true, then Cynthia McKenney would still be in Congress. And possibly a few more. It's not incumbancy, it's who you have failed to give unquestioned support to. And I'll give your a hint, it's not failure to support the American people.
Ephraim is right actually. You should have seen what the white conservative Florida Democrats did to Willie Logan in 1998 when they stirred up the hornet's nest and angered the African American community. The GA Democrats must have learned that lesson by pitting a centrist black Democrat against Mckinney in 2002. What happened in GA and FL is similar to what is happening in Harmon's district. The Washington DC Democrats are afraid of anyone new unless it's a well known crook who won't rock the boat.
Heh-heh.
Those self-hating, leftist, anti-Zionist Jews just come up and bite the Right Wing on the ass all the time, don't they?
And that includes both Right Wings, Democrat and Republican.
Waxman and the other "Israel first" zionists in Congress must be voted out. The US Congress is supposed to do what is best for Americans, not Israelis. There are far too many zionists making bad decisions for Americans in the name of protecting some mythical "special relationship" with Israel. Get these people out of our government!
The context for this article is Norman Solomon's long history supporting progressive causes. His book War Made Easy is a good example.
As far as critiques of Solomon because he works with the Democratic Party, I think it best to assume that election tactics can vary by true progressives without warrenting excommunication from the community of true progressive citizens.
I support PDA *and* the Green Party *and* progressive independents, and will call into Marci's district for her as I did for Cindy Sheehan's independent campaign.
Given that Marci is running in a primary, I think it is especially important to help her, for it is smart to run in primaries, given the two-party nature of the "single-seat-district-winner-take-all" system.
I urge all of the progressives who read CD to oppose warmonger Harmon and support progressive Winograd.
"As far as critiques of Solomon because he works with the Democratic Party, I think it best to assume that election tactics can vary by true progressives without warrenting excommunication from the community of true progressive citizens."
Bravo! Well stated. Progressives don't need a purity test.
It's not a matter of a "purity test" as I see it. It's more like what can we do with the time,talent and resources that we have. A lot of us have concluded that the Democratic Party is hopeless and involvement in it is a waste of that time, talent and resources.
Any such conclusion begs the following question:
For those who have given up taking over the Democratic Party, given that we have a two-party system (single-seat-districts-with-winner-take-all-elections), what is a viable alternative for fixing our government, while leaving the corporate Democrats in charge of the (slightly) less conservative and militaristic of the two parties?
Absolutely spot on. Amen!
In the short-term, I think incremental gains such as what Solomon advocates against Harmon and for Winograd is a good thing. Real persons will be helped by such gains.
However, for any timeframe beyond the next election, you are exactly right. We need to change our system to become a modern multi-party democracy. New Zealand did this in the 1990s. They shifted from a district-based, two-party system to a German-type, good, MMP multi-party system.
See: http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/history-mmp.html
We need to do the same, via an amended or new constitution via a group of democracy amendments or a convention.
A priority for a convention or a set of amendments should be rewriting Article 5 along the lines of the Montana amending article, which is Article 14.
I'd support such a movement. Indeed, I've been working on it a bit.
For key criteria for success, see the following books:
Steven Hill's 10 Steps to Repair Democracy
Dan Lazare's Frozen Republic
Sanford Levinson's Our Undemocratic Constitution
Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Union
Plus Larry Lessig has a site called
http://www.callaconvention.org
Also:
http://www.movetoamend.org (David Cobb is involved with this and I trust him.)
I'd still like to see a viable Labor Party! The Greens just don't have the solid Americann values to be more than a fringe effort. I pray!
A Labor Party based in Progressive, yet American Values could make a good go as both the Goverment and Fatcats have made it clear to most sheeple that the Class War is ON!
>^^<
Solid American values? You had better explain that one. When someone says American values now-a-days most people think of warmongering, global greed, religious intolerance and a host of other unseemly character traits.
Yeah, and then there's all those True Believers embracing TINA. I think it's the corporate aspect that really separates 'progressive' from the herd - and taking over the D-party is just wishful thinking - like voting for O... Can't win either way - we're just royally screwed because it was too late 30 years ago...
How is "Can't win either way" helpful?
After all not only is the future of our nation at stake, but the fate of civilization on Earth, for the US is the biggest single cumulative polluter over the last century, and is accelerating growth-based-pollution as we type.
My belief is that in the case of the election in question, we'd be better off supporting Marci in the primary, and if she loses, supporting Marci as a Green in the general, if only to unseat Harmon, for she is a Republican anyway (a Democrat in Name Only), as she once bragged.
I don't think the cynicism of conceding power to the corporate, miltarist regime constitutes a strategy for success. Such cynicism is just the psychological defense of weakness to power, and is self-fulfilling besides. Nor is either/or thinking (TINA versus a change 30-years too late) helpful. Both/and thinking is about taking over the Democratic Party with progressives, whose policies the majority of Americans support, *and* boosting the Green Party, *and* supporting progressive independents, and kicking ass against the Harmon's of the Democratic Party.
You are too smart, and too needed to give up.
Even if Marci lost, I'd love to see Harmon, an imposter progressive (like the President himself) who uses lying to stay in office, go down in the general election.
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
BawHaahahahahahahahaha >^^<
hhahahahahaha!!!
This is just another example of how completely broken our political system and government has become.
The progressive causcus would be wise to consdier relieving Woolsey of her leadership position. Her actions suggest she is more interested in Democratic Party leadership than progressive issues. She caves too easily which makes progressives cave too easily. The she goes to events like the one for Harman which is about supporting incumbents - the status quo. We need more progressives and less Blue Dogs in Congress if we want there to be any chance of meaningful progressive policy ideas to come to fruition.
I agree. And if that doesn't happen, it would be very good if Rep. Woolsey couldn't go anywhere without being asked why she betrayed a progressive candidate and supported a corporate, militarist Democrat like Harmon.
A sample question for Ms. Woolsey:
"Representative Woolsey, you supported corporate, militarist, warmonger Jane Harmon for her seat. She is a Blue Dog, not a progressive. She supported war crimes. Marci Winograd is a genuine, true progressive. Have you no beliefs? Why should genuine progressives ever support you again? Why shouldn't we progressives consider you a traitor to our progressive causes and the Progressive Caucus you lead? Please explain yourself Ms. Woolsey?"
Why don't non-Jewish candidates run for office - or is it that they DO and just can't win against AIPAC? I live in a mostly Scandinavian state, and both senators and 'my' rep are all Jews who won't vote against war-funding or funding Israeli war crimes, but won't support any truly 'progressive' measure... And this carries down throughout local politics as well - what's the deal? Are we really living in Israeli-occupied territory, as so many have claimed?
And what's this 'dual citizenship' baloney? My mother had to GIVE UP her native citizenship to even get American citizenship... Or are 'Jews' a special case?
I suggest leaving ethnic and religious identity out of evaluations of our politicians. There should be no ethnic or religious test for public office, period.
Maybe it is time for just that. It certinally seems many of our so called Representatives have forgetten they are Americans! Certinally no one of Dual-Citizenship may be allowed in Congress.
Creeping globalism will be the death of American as it has been death of Amercan values.
Just vote No! No incumbants! No Demicrats! No Rebublicrats! NO means No!