SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
chuck schumer
Blame NY 'Progressive' Consultants and DC 'Moderate' Insiders If Susan Collins Wins
Because of Morris Katz and Chuck Schumer's failures, we're left with a broken Maine Democratic Party now scrambling to find a replacement for Graham Platner in less than two weeks.
Jul 10, 2026
The Maine Senate race may be the most consequential in the country. If Susan "Kavanaugh promised me he wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade" Collins is reelected to the Senate, it may guarantee a small Republican Senate majority that will approve young extremist right-wing Supreme Court Justices to replace Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and control the law for the next 30-40 years.
But young "progressive" Democratic consultants like Morris Katz and old "moderate" Democratic politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) may have collectively f**cked up the process.
Graham Platner was recruited to run with minimal vetting by Katz, a 20-something political consultant from Tribeca who produces brilliant campaign ads. Chuck Schumer used his political muscle to ensure that 78-year old Maine Gov. Janet Mills would be the other contender in the Democratic primary. After Platner took a commanding lead in the polls, Mills dropped out, virtually assuring that Platner would be the then-likely nominee.
Katz is a 26-year old (or maybe 28-year-old since he previously lied about his age)) who grew up in a Tribeca to family of writers and film producers. Katz produced a series of brilliant ads for Mandami that help propel him to the NY mayoralty. Katz had previously produced ads for Democrat John Fetterman's (Pa.) successful Senate campaign depicting Fetterman as a populist working class hero, although once in the Senate Fetterman turned Republican-lite.
But Chuck Schumer is even worse. His anointing of Janet Mills as the party-approved candidate was as disastrous as Katz's anointing of Platner as the working class progressive hero.
Last autumn Katz formed a Brooklyn-based political consulting firm, The Fight Agency. Based on Mandami's success, Katz seemed to have decided that he himself was the singularly best person in the entire country to "cast" progressives to successfully win office.
Katz focused much of his efforts on recruiting a progressive working class candidate who he believed could defeat Susan Collins in Maine. He was tipped off to Platner by some labor organizers and traveled to Maine to meet him. “Within a few minutes of talking to him, I was, like, ‘This guy owes it to the country to run for Senate'" Katz recalled of his first meeting with Platner.
Platner fit Katz's script for a rough working class guy with progressive politics, and he virtually immediately cast Platner as his leading man. Katz and his partners didn't bother to vet Platner, a process that takes several weeks and costs over $20,000. In three days, New York-based Northside Research was paid $6,250 to produce a brief, risk-assessment memo in lieu of a detailed research book—or the start of one—that can be hundreds of pages long. According to The Wall Street Journal, "The expedited research didn’t discover issues that would later hurt his campaign, including the full trove of Platner’s Reddit posts or sexually explicit texts Platner sent to other women while married."
Less than two weeks later, Platner released a brilliant populist launch video produced by Katz that went viral and catapulted Platner into prominence. He drew adoring crowds, and his polling showed him overwhelming Gov. Janet Mills in the primaries.
But while concerning revelations about Platner's personal life kept dripping out, Platner's consultants brushed them off arguing they were irrelevant compared with Platner's charisma and his populist politics. As Slate reported: "Each time a new and disturbing Platner story landed—the Reddit posts, the tattoo, the alleged physical abuse, the sexting, the rape allegation—Platner’s team responded with an almost Trumpian playbook. They disparaged the media, played it off as a targeted attack by a vengeful political establishment, and insinuated that each scandal only made Platner more authentically Maine."
I'm generally in agreement with the populist anti-oligarchy themes of Platner's campaign and those of his progressive consultants (and even sent him a contribution). But they were immature and deluded to not vet Platner and to cavalierly dismiss the charges against him. The unvetted revelations about Platner's abusive treatment of women eventually doomed Platner's campaign.
Adam Jentleson, the late Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's former chief of staff, characterizes Katz's view of the ideal progressive candidate as "a highly selective image of populism that is tailored to an Upper West Sider’s political sensibilities.”
Katz grew up in Tribeca. His father is a successful screenwriter, his mother is a successful children's book author, and his godfather was the late actor Philip Seymour Hoffman. After dropping out of college, he worked as a production assistant and wrote screenplays, before entering politics.
That's a good background for learning progressive politics but not necessarily one to designate yourself as the leading casting director for progressive candidates with a working class background. This failure was demonstrated by his casting of the unvetted Platner and of John Fetterman who turned into a corporate Democrat.
But Chuck Schumer is even worse. His anointing of Janet Mills as the party-approved candidate was as disastrous as Katz's anointing of Platner as the working class progressive hero.
Because of both of their failures, we're left with a broken Maine Democratic Party now scrambling to find a replacement for Platner in less than two weeks. Let's hope it doesn't lead to Collins being returned to the Senate and helping confirm right-wing Supreme Court justices who could shape the law for decades to come.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Should Embrace a Deal That Brings Trump's Iran War to an End
Too many congressional Democrats are demonstrating their own hypocrisy in claiming that they oppose the war while actively undermining efforts to end it.
Jun 24, 2026
Many of the criticisms being leveled against the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran—namely, that it is not that great a deal—are accurate and worthy of attention. But under the disastrous set of circumstances resulting from the US-Israeli war on Iran, it is probably the best deal that can be realistically hoped for, given that Iran clearly has the upper hand. Unfortunately, that has not stopped some Washington politicians, including many prominent Democrats, from attempting to undermine it.
Iran has suffered enormously in terms of damage to its military and civilian infrastructure and the killing of many in its clerical, political, and military leadership, among many other thousands of deaths. In response, the regime has demonstrated an effective new form of asymmetrical warfare, in which relatively cheap drones can continue to inflict an enormous amount of damage on US assets in the region, as well as on the military and civilian infrastructure of US allies, even when more than 90 percent of such projectiles are successfully intercepted via more costly technologies.
The United States cannot win this war against Iran.
The deal outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding is decidedly of greater benefit to Iran than the terms agreed upon in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—an agreement primarily negotiated by the Obama Administration and signed by six other nations with the support of the United Nations and the European Union. That deal was unilaterally broken off by President Donald Trump during his first term.
Trump’s new Memorandum of Understanding with Iran calls for Iran’s enriched uranium to be blended down inside the country rather than removed to another location. In addition, as much as $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets will be released, although Trump has repeatedly criticized the JCPOA for unfreezing billions in Iranian assets. And, unlike the JCPOA, this deal lifts sanctions prior to Iran’s implementing the nuclear provisions.
The Trump Administration emphasizes that its agreement forces Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and commits Iran to not developing a nuclear weapon. However, both of these were already the case prior to Trump’s launch of the war four months ago on February 28.
For Republicans who attacked President Barack Obama for the JCPOA to now defend Trump’s Memorandum of Understanding is beyond hypocrisy. But many Congressional Democrats are demonstrating their own hypocrisy in claiming that they oppose the war while actively undermining efforts to end it.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, referred to the agreement as “the art of surrender.” Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, deemed it “despicable.” Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, said it was a deal in which Iran gets all the benefits. Former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice dubbed it a “jaw-dropping, horrific surrender.” Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, said it was “a thorough capitulation.” Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, similarly claimed it was “basically a surrender document.” And Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, also called the agreement as an “unconditional surrender” by the United States, insisting it would be “dead on arrival in the Senate”—even though, since it is not a formal treaty, it does not require ratification or any other action on Capitol Hill.
Under international law, countries that engage in aggressive war are generally held liable for the damages inflicted upon the country they attack. The costs to Iranian society of the US-Israeli bombing has been estimated to be nearly $300 billion. The Memorandum of Understanding does not call for reparations, but it does make reference to a reconstruction fund in that amount, apparently led by Arab Gulf states; payments will likely be in the form of loans with a decent return on investment for those Gulf states. It is not US tax dollars that are being spent. It is not money that Trump is giving to Iran.
This has not stopped some Democratic leaders in Congress from claiming this is somehow a taxpayer-funded cash grant to the Iranian regime. Schumer insists the agreement would force the United States to “send Iran $300 billion when economic needs are severe here at home.” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, falsely claimed these funds could be used to “end homelessness, fund cancer research for forty years, and give every child free pre-K for over seven years. Instead, Trump is sending it to Iran.” Blumenthal even claimed that Iran would be able to spend the money on supporting Hezbollah and other extremist Iranian allies, and rebuild its nuclear program. However, the investments would more likely actually be directed towards specific civilian infrastructure development projects under the supervision of the donor countries and private investors.
Misrepresenting arms control agreements is a time-honored tactic used by militarists. During the Cold War, these agreements frequently prompted rightwing claims that arms control locked in Soviet nuclear superiority. Trump himself insisted that the JCPOA, rather than make it physically impossible for Iran to develop a weapon, would have enabled them to do the opposite and destroy Israel and attack the United States.
By falsely claiming that the United States would pay Iran $300 billion, Schumer (who also opposed the JCPOA) and other Democrats are essentially trying to mobilize popular opposition to the ending of the conflict.
The big question: What is the alternative?
A return to a war on Iran that brings retaliatory attacks on a half-dozen Middle Eastern nations? The continued devastating Israeli bombardment of Lebanon? The indefinite closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its disastrous global economic impact, particularly on families worldwide living under the poverty line?
Some Democrats recognize this reality. “There is no good way out of a bad war,” noted Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland. “When you're in a hole, stop digging.” Similarly, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, observed, “It’s a disaster, but it’s probably a necessary disaster.”
But the Democratic politicians who are joining rightwing Republicans in claims of “surrender” are assisting in the creation of a climate that might indeed lead the hawkish Trump Administration to break off the current agreement and return to war.
In many respects, this is nothing new. Democrats played an important role in working to undermine Obama’s efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran, in discouraging President Joe Biden from returning to the deal, and in promoting a war in Iran that Trump finally brought to fruition in recent months.
Those of us interested in peace and security, however, should not encourage these actions. It is easy to criticize the agreement as a means of underscoring the tragedy of this reckless and illegal war, and to further discredit Trump as we approach the midterm elections. We must resist the understandable temptation to forward the memes, cartoons, and late-night jokes critical of the deal on our personal listservs and social media.
Doing so simply reinforces the efforts by Republican hawks, rightwing Zionists, and others who seek perpetual war. The unfortunate reality is that the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding is probably the best hope at this point to end—or at least suspend—this tragic conflict.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Schumer Is Far Out of Touch': 80% of New York Democrats Oppose US Weapons Transfers to Israel
“If current party leadership is unwilling to represent their own voters and the majority of Americans, then it is time for new leadership."
Jun 08, 2026
A poll released Monday shows that around 80% of Democratic voters in New York oppose US weapons transfers to Israel, putting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—a stalwart supporter of Israel—way out of step with his voter base.
The survey, conducted by Data for Progress and published by the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, found that 82% of New York Democrats—and 60% of the state's voters overall—believe the US "should restrict taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel until it stops attacking civilians in Gaza." The poll also found that 76% of Democratic voters in the state would favor the US Senate voting to halt the transfer of US bombs to Israel, which has repeatedly used American weaponry to commit grave war crimes.
The poll was conducted roughly a month after Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) broke with the overwhelming majority of their Democratic colleagues in voting against two resolutions aimed at blocking Trump administration sales of 1,000-pound bombs and bulldozers to the Israeli government.
The resolutions were spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who polled more favorably than Schumer among New York voters overall—as did New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible primary challenger to Schumer in 2028.
"New York State voters, especially Democrats, aren’t being represented by their senators," the IMEU Policy Project wrote on social media, adding that "Schumer is far out of touch with New York voters on funding Israel."
A majority of New York voters (51%), and 70% of Democrats, believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, according to the new poll, a position that Schumer has rejected—putting him in conflict with both his own constituents and leading Holocaust scholars and human rights organizations.
“When Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand voted against blocking the bombs and bulldozers Israel is using to destroy Palestinian and Lebanese homes, they were not just voting against the vast majority of their own Senate caucus and Democratic voters, but they were voting against the majority of New Yorkers they’re elected to represent,” Margaret DeReus, the IMEU Policy Project's executive director, said in a statement. “If current party leadership is unwilling to represent their own voters and the majority of Americans, then it is time for new leadership."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular