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
josh shapiro
AIPAC: Defending the Indefensible
A lobby that asks for its community to have a voice is making a claim every American can make. A lobby that vows to end any candidacy which crosses its red line on Israel is not asking for a voice—it is enforcing obedience and silence.
Jun 02, 2026
As the American Israel Public Affairs Committee confronts a changing political landscape, one in which support for Israel has become a liability, powerful voices are coming to the defense of AIPAC and its hold on American democracy.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is one such voice. He addressed the issue in an interview with Politico. Questioned whether the pro-Israel lobby had become a dividing line in the Democratic Party, Shapiro lamented what he described as the "weaponization" of criticism directed at AIPAC, saying it was being "used cynically by some to try and silence certain voices." Pressed on whether he meant critics were erasing the distinction between opposition to AIPAC and opposition to Jewish donors, he said yes. Shapiro is recasting the lobby's scorched-earth tactics against politicians who do not toe the line on Israel as an attack on Jews and their right to political participation. That framing makes criticism of AIPAC appear suspect before the substance of the criticism is addressed.
He is not alone. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), confronted at a town hall over $4.5 million she had taken from "pro-Israel lobbies," objected that the figure lumped ordinary Jewish donors in with the lobby. This was problematic, she said, "Not just as an elected official," but "as a Jew." In The Washington Post, the columnist Matthew Schmitz gathered statements like these into a thesis: that criticism of Israel has curdled into hostility toward Jews themselves, and that the Democratic Party is turning on a community that has been part of its coalition for a century.
Although a problematic charge, it is deserving of a serious answer. The charge conflates criticizing a political lobby with attacking the Jewish people. This conflation is convenient for the defenders of AIPAC. To see why, start with what AIPAC does.
The existence of antisemitism does not make AIPAC immune from criticism, any more than the existence of anti-Muslim bigotry would make Saudi lobbying immune from scrutiny.
AIPAC does not have to single-handedly decide an election to shape its outcome. Its power lies in changing the conditions under which the election is fought. The organization describes itself as working to "help elect Democrats and Republicans" who support the US-Israel relationship and to "defeat detractors" of that relationship. Its formal PAC gives directly to candidates, while its affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, can raise and spend unlimited sums through independent expenditures. In the 2024 cycle, AIPAC and United Democracy Project spent $95.1 million, more than double their 2022 spending. United Democracy Project spent almost $9.9 million to defeat Jamaal Bowman and nearly $4.8 million to install George Latimer in his place, a level of outside money The New York Times called unprecedented for a single House race. It spent more than $5.2 million against Cori Bush and another $3.3 million for Wesley Bell, who beat her.
By 2026 the same machinery had crossed party lines, and this time it left no doubt about what it was for. In May, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, a seven-term incumbent, lost his primary after pro-Israel groups spent roughly $9 million to defeat him, part of more than $32 million that made it the most expensive House primary in American history, surpassing the record set against Bowman two years before. AIPAC did not hide its hand. It congratulated the winner for "defeating anti-Israel incumbent Thomas Massie" and declared that "being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics." An organization whose stated mission is to silence dissent over Israel policy took a victory lap after defeating a dissenter. This is not representation but political enforcement.
That is the record the conflation obscures, because it points to a distinction Shapiro and Slotkin would rather we not draw. There is a difference between a lobby that advances an industry or community's interests and a lobby whose signature work is to destroy the people who dissent from it. The first is ordinary democracy; every group does it, and every group should be free to. The second is something else. A lobby that asks for its community to have a voice is making a claim every American can make. A lobby that vows to end any candidacy which crosses its red line on Israel is not asking for a voice—it is enforcing obedience and silence. AIPAC is the second kind, and no amount of talk about Jewish participation changes what its money does.
Here Slotkin's objection deserves a fair hearing, and then a harder look. She is right about one thing, and it matters: The $4.5 million figure she was confronted with came from a group that counts individual Jewish donors as lobby money. That is a crude metric, and her instinct to reject it is correct. Treating every Jewish donor as AIPAC is exactly the conflation worth refusing. However, she used the softness of that one number to wave away the entire subject, and the subject does not depend on that number. United Democracy Project's independent expenditures are not estimates pulled from a donor tally. They are filed with the Federal Election Commission. Nearly $10 million to defeat a single congressman is not a Jewish donor being smeared. It is a documented political operation, and in a democracy, it is fair game.
Slotkin then offered her own analogy, and it is more revealing than she intended. Plenty of groups do the same thing, she said—"a Pakistani-American group, or whatever group." Exactly so. And if a Pakistani-American group spent $95 million in a single cycle to end the careers of politicians who crossed it, that spending would be criticized too, loudly and by name—and no one would call the criticism anti-Pakistani bigotry. That is the tell. The objection to AIPAC was never that Jews organize, donate, or advocate; Americans of every background do, and should. The objection is to what this particular organization spends its money to accomplish. AIPAC is not being challenged because it is Jewish. It is being challenged because it uses organized money to enforce a narrow pro-Israel line in American politics. Strip away the identity framing and you are left with a plain question about political power—which is the question its defenders are working so hard to avoid.
The conflation cuts both ways, and the second cut is the dangerous one. Slotkin is right that lumping every Jewish donor into "the pro-Israel lobby" is crude and potentially ugly; Jewish donors are not AIPAC by definition. But the reverse move is just as serious, and it is the one AIPAC defenders rely on: treating any criticism of AIPAC's political spending as though it were an attack on Jewish identity itself. The first error mistakes ordinary Jews for the lobby. The second dresses the lobby up as ordinary Jews. That second move gives AIPAC an exemption no other lobby receives—it lets a bare-knuckle political operation spend like a political operation and then, the moment it is criticized, takes cover as a vulnerable civic organization.
The pro-AIPAC defense generally leans on ugly examples—candidates who have made reckless comments, activists who slide from criticism of Israel into something darker, a political culture where antisemitism plainly exists. None of that should be denied, and a thesis about an entire party should not be built on a handful of fringe figures either. But none of it answers the central question. The existence of antisemitism does not make AIPAC immune from criticism, any more than the existence of anti-Muslim bigotry would make Saudi lobbying immune from scrutiny.
Bigotry is real. So is political power. A serious argument must be able to recognize both at once. AIPAC is not merely participating in democracy; it is using concentrated money to discipline the boundaries of acceptable speech on Israel, while its defenders try to collapse that political critique into ethnic or religious hostility.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'AIPAC Lost!' Democratic Socialist Chris Rabb Wins US House Primary in Pennsylvania
"This victory would not have been possible without the work of thousands of working class people across Philadelphia organizing for a better world."
May 20, 2026
"Standing against genocide is good policy and good politics!" proclaimed the grassroots group Track AIPAC after Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb won the Democratic US House primary in the state's 3rd Congressional District in Philadelphia.
Rabb, a democratic socialist, was outspoken in his criticism of Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and his support of Palestinian rights during the campaign—aligning himself with a growing majority of Democratic voters while the pro-Israel lobby worked to secure a victory for one of his opponents, Dr. Ala Stanford.
314 Action Fund, a super political action committee (PAC) that supported Stanford, covertly received $500,000 from the powerful but increasingly toxic pro-Israel lobbying group, despite the fact that Stanford claimed she did not take money from AIPAC.
Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, a vehement supporter of Israel who butted heads with Rabb over US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the state, also reportedly worked behind the scenes to defeat the progressive.
With 92% of votes in early Wednesday morning, Rabb had secured 44.3% of the vote compared to 24.1% for Stanford and 29.5% for a third candidate, Sharif Street.
Chants of "AIPAC lost!" rang out at Rabb's victory party in Philadelphia.
“AIPAC LOST” chants at the Chris Rabb victory party pic.twitter.com/zfZJafLxVo
— James🔻 (@GoodVibePolitik) May 20, 2026
In a victory speech to supporters, Rabb said his campaign—which also centered on his calls for Medicare for All; a Civilian Climate Corps to work toward decarbonizing the US economy; and universal basic guarantees for housing, childcare, and other essentials—had been dismissed by the Democratic establishment
"They told me this wasn't possible. That's what they said," said Rabb. "I don't know who 'they' are, but I know who we are. I'm looking at 'We the People.' And I'm not talking about 'We the People' 250 years ago. That was a much smaller 'we.'"
Rabb was outspoken in his criticism of the Democratic establishment during his campaign, and said in a one interview that a key question facing the party is whether it is "prepared to listen to the base that demands this progressivism because what many people are calling progressive are pretty much standard things in other nations where universal healthcare is the thing, where there's no notion of healthcare insurance, it's just healthcare."
This is how the guy who just won in the bluest Congressional district in the country talked about the Democratic Party and its messaging. pic.twitter.com/DsaVMi76eB
— Jacobin (@jacobin) May 20, 2026
Rabb secured endorsements from influential progressive leaders including US Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Summer Lee (D-Penn.) as the election drew near.
Should he win the general election in the deep-blue district in November, journalist Prem Thakker noted, he'll be one of at least four democratic socialists in the US Congress, including Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Others whose primaries are coming up include former Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri and Darializa Avila Chevalier and state Rep. Claire Valdez in New York.
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News credited progressive organizations, including pro-Palestine super PAC American Priorities and the Justice Democrats, with giving crucial support to Rabb's campaign.
"And Rabb himself ran an exceptional race, building on years of relationships he built among progressives and activists in the city," said Grim. "And also AIPAC royally screwed up, got caught trying to spend money through 314 Action to prop up a flawed candidate, and then never recovered when she flopped."
Khanna said that along with Tuesday night's loss in Kentucky of Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has joined Democrats in pushing for the release of files related to sex offender and President Donald Trump associate Jeffrey Epstein and for a stop to Trump's military assault on Iran, the primaries sent a clear message to candidates.
"If you take a stand against war, AIPAC, and the Epstein class, you have no place in the Trump coalition," said Khanna. "But the future of the Democratic Party that is done with the establishment is yours to shape."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Josh Shapiro Trying to Derail Progressive Rabb in Favor of AIPAC Candidate for Pennsylvania House Race
One human rights lawyer said the centrist Pennsylvania governor was trying to stop Rabb because he's "anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor."
May 11, 2026
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is working behind the scenes to derail progressive state representative Chris Rabb in his bid for a seat representing the state's 3rd Congressional District in the US House—reportedly putting his thumb on the scale to drag pediatric surgeon Dr. Ala Stanford, the Israel lobby’s preferred candidate, over the finish line.
Axios reported this weekend that the Democratic governor, who has sought to punish boycotts and other activism against Israel, was seeking to quietly influence the race to defeat Rabb, who has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights on the campaign trail and a critic of Shapiro’s centrist stances.
Rabb has called for an arms embargo against Israel amid the genocide in Gaza and endorsed the right of return for Palestinian refugees. But he's also pressured Shapiro to end what he says is "state collaboration" with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
While still considered an underdog in the three-way primary, which takes place on May 19, Rabb has gained steam in recent weeks with key endorsements from progressive leaders, most notably Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has raised funds and plans to visit Philadelphia to campaign with him on Friday, days before voters head to the polls.
Shapiro has not publicly weighed in on the race and has not endorsed a candidate. But according to Axios, he and his team "privately told allies that he disapproves of Rabb and has taken steps to block his path, according to three people familiar with the discussions."
The report continued:
Shapiro has privately advised Philadelphia's building trades unions to avoid inadvertently helping Rabb, the lone progressive in the race, by attacking one of his center-left opponents, two of our sources told us.
The sources said Shapiro suggested that the building trades, which are backing another candidate, Sharif Street, avoid running negative ads against a third contender, Ala Stanford.
Street and Stanford are seen as traditional Democrats who share similar voters.
Stanford led the race with 28% of the vote, ahead of Rabb’s 23%, in a poll conducted in April by the 314 Action Fund, a super PAC backing Stanford.
However, that very PAC has proven a liability for Stanford in the stretch run of the campaign. Last month, Drop Site News reported that 314 Action Fund had acted as a shell organization for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and had covertly received $500,000 from the lobbying group, which Democratic voters have come to overwhelmingly view as toxic.
The revelation has proven a public relations disaster for Stanford, who had said she “did not accept money from AIPAC” back in March. When confronted by voters about her views on the conflict, she has struggled to answer their questions and has faced heavy criticism for her statements that accusing Israel of "genocide," an opinion held by many leading human rights organizations and UN experts, is "hurtful" to Jewish people in the same way that using a racial slur is hurtful to Black people.
In a statement posted to social media on Tuesday, AIPAC commented on the accusations that it was backing Stanford for the first time, saying it "isn't funding any group's efforts in PA-03."
Erik Polyak, a spokesperson for the 314 Action Fund, said: "Chris Rabb has spent his entire campaign attacking Dr. Ala Stanford and lying about her support in this race. Instead of running on his record, he resorted to a smear campaign and political shapeshifting to take down his opponents and deepen divisions in our communities."
Amid other embarrassments, including her failure to explain her plan to "abolish" ICE and her rollout of what was described as a "comedically amateurish" policy platform on social media, Stanford dropped out of an April 29 debate just hours before it was set to take place, citing unspecified “misogynistic attacks and lies from both of my opponents.”
There have not been any public opinion polls on the race since Stanford's crash. But PoliticsPA.com now gives Street a 61% chance of winning, Rabb a 33% chance, and Stanford a distant 5% chance, citing prediction markets.
Axios suggested that Shapiro's primary goal is to prevent the votes from splitting between the two centrists, thereby allowing Rabb to win. But the piece suggests that Stanford is Shapiro's preferred horse.
Stanford has the backing of PA-03’s outgoing occupant, Rep. Dwight Evans (D), who is described as a close ally of Shapiro. Street is also described as having a “strained relationship” with Shapiro, who backed his rival in a 2022 struggle for leadership of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
Shapiro's push to blunt Rabb's momentum casts Philadelphia as yet another battleground in the broader war over the Democratic Party's identity, especially surrounding support for Israel, but also with other issues like immigration and healthcare, where leadership is out of step with voters' demands.
" Josh Shapiro is trying to derail the congressional run of Democratic PA State Rep Chris Rabb because Rabb is anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor," said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid.
Will Bunch, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, said the governor's effort to defeat Rabb was “one more reminder that Josh Shapiro is who we thought he was.”
Update (May 12, 2026): This story has been updated to include responses from AIPAC and the 314 Action Fund.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Week Is Here; Our Governors Are Still Siding with Polluters
Frontline communities are exposing blue state governors that sell themselves as climate leaders while favoring polluters.
Sep 23, 2025
I grew up in New Mexico, where oil rigs appear in every direction and wildfire smoke fills the summer air. For years, I’ve sat through state climate hearings and planning sessions, believing our leaders might finally act with courage. Instead, what I’ve seen is a machine built to protect industry and silence communities.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham sells New Mexico as a climate leader, but her record tells another story. This year alone, her administration advanced industry schemes like the Strategic Water Supply Act, moving forward with rules to recycle toxic fracking waste.
This comes in addition to leaving basic protections like a drilling setback law off the table and welcoming Wall Street giant Blackstone to place a bid to take over PNM, our largest utility in New Mexico—handing over our energy future to corporate profiteers.
This isn’t climate leadership. It’s industry power dressed up as progress—at the expense of our health, water, and future.
So here is our challenge to Governors Lujan Grisham, Shapiro, and Newsom: If you truly oppose Trump’s fossil fuel agenda, prove it.
Pennsylvania and California tell a similar story.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro brands himself as a pragmatic moderate. In reality, he green-lit new gas plants, advanced fossil fuel-powered data centers, and supported liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals—projects that lock in fossil fuel expansion while exposing Pennsylvanians to deadly risks.
Worse, his administration is backing legislation like HB 502 and SB 939 that strip municipalities of the power to reject harmful facilities, in direct violation of Pennsylvania’s constitutional right to clean air and water. Families already sick from fracking are being sacrificed so Shapiro can keep industry happy and court national credibility. That isn’t pragmatism. It’s siding with polluters over people.
Gov. Gavin Newsom positions himself as a global climate champion. But in California, frontline communities experience a different reality. Basic health protections like the oil drilling setback law remain under attack, while projects like the Sable Pipeline continue to threaten communities and ecosystems.
Newsom touts his “climate leadership” on the world stage, yet at home he delays, waters down, or sidesteps measures that would phase out fossil fuels. Recently, Democratic lawmakers—backed by Newsom—passed a “climate” package that extends California’s cap-and-trade system for another 15 years while also permitting new drilling. It’s yet another regulatory giveaway to Big Oil. California is sold as a model of climate action, but the truth is clear: Fossil fuel power still dictates the terms.
The pattern is undeniable: governors who pose as climate leaders while protecting fossil fuel interests. Their playbook is the same—adopt the language; sign onto climate alliances; and then push carbon capture, cap-and-trade systems, produced water, hydrogen, and LNG as “solutions.” These are not solutions. They are lifelines for oil and gas, designed to extend extraction.
This is not accidental. It is a deliberate political strategy—a blue-state echo of US President Donald Trump’s fossil fuel agenda. Yet the result is the same: communities poisoned, democracy sidelined, industry shielded. The message to frontline communities is clear: Our lives are expendable if they threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies.
That’s why this Climate Week in New York City, frontline communities from New Mexico, California, and Pennsylvania are coming together to expose the truth. Behind the speeches and pledges, our governors are siding with polluters. They cannot continue to market themselves as climate champions while advancing the fossil fuel agenda at home.
We know what real climate leadership looks like. A just transition—led by communities and workers, not corporations—can phase out fossil fuels, create union jobs, and protect public health. It means rejecting false solutions. It means putting water, air, and people before industry. It means confronting the political power of fossil fuels head-on.
As the 2026 gubernatorial races approach, young people like me are paying attention. We don’t just want new leaders. We demand leadership that stands up to polluters and delivers a future worth living in.
So here is our challenge to Governors Lujan Grisham, Shapiro, and Newsom: If you truly oppose Trump’s fossil fuel agenda, prove it. Stop greenwashing. Stop silencing frontline communities. Stop pushing industry scams dressed up as climate policy.
Because climate action without justice isn’t action—it is betrayal. And frontline communities are not backing down until we win the future we deserve.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gov. Shapiro and Family Evacuated From Governor's Mansion After Arson Attack
"Thank God no one was injured and the fire was extinguished," Shapiro said.
Apr 13, 2025
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family were evacuated early Sunday morning after an apparent arson attack on the official governor's residence.
"Last night at about 2:00 am, my family and I woke up to bangs on the door from the Pennsylvania State Police after an arsonist set fire to the Governor’s Residence in Harrisburg," Shapiro said in a statement posted on social media.
The Harrisburg Bureau of Fire responded to the fire, which "caused a significant amount of damage to a portion of the residence" before it was "successfully extinguished," the Pennsylvania State Police said in a statement. The fire was in a different part of the house from where the governor and his family were staying.
"While the investigation is ongoing, the State Police is prepared to say at this time that this was an act of arson," their statement read.
Shapiro was considered a leading contender to serve as former Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in the 2024 election. He has been floated as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in the 2028 election.
Shapiro and his family celebrated Passover the night before the fire.
In his message, Shapiro expressed gratitude for the first responders.
"Thank God no one was injured and the fire was extinguished," he said.
Police offered up to $10,000 for any information that leads to an arrest and conviction.
"No additional information will be released at this time. However, this is a fast-moving investigation, and details will be provided as appropriate," the police concluded.
The attack comes as there is growing concern over political violence in the U.S., as The New York Times explained:
Recent high-profile incidents of violence directed at political figures have helped feed fear and unease among Americans, polls have shown. Before the presidential election last year, for instance, about 4 in 10 voters said they were extremely or very concerned about violent attempts to challenge the outcome. The assassination attempt against President Trump last summer took place in Butler, Pennsylvania, a little over 200 miles west of Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania's Lieutenant Governor Austin Davis, a Democrat, was one of several state leaders who spoke out against politically motivated violence in their response to the fire.
"I won't speculate on motivations," he wrote on social media, "but I will say that targeting elected officials and their family members with violence is never acceptable. These sorts of acts deter good people from pursuing public service at a time when we desperately need more Americans to participate in our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Hellscape': Microsoft Deal Would Reopen Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant to Power AI
"This is another chapter in a nightmare that won't end," a campaigner said.
Sep 20, 2024
The corporation that owns the shuttered nuclear plant on Three Mile Island on Friday announced a deal with Microsoft to reopen the facility to provide power to the tech company for data centers using artificial intelligence.
Three Mile Island is well-known as the site of largest nuclear disaster in U.S. history—a reactor there, Unit 2, partially melted down in 1979. However, the site's other reactor, Unit 1, continued to operate safely until 2019, when it was closed for economic reasons.
With the help of tax breaks from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), plant owner Constellation Energy plans to spend $1.6 billion to restart Unit 1, with all of the power going to Microsoft for the first 20 years. Microsoft and other tech firms use inordinate amounts of energy to power data centers used for AI and have advocated for nuclear as a zero-emissions power source.
Though it doesn't emit carbon, nuclear power's downsides make it the subject of fierce opposition from many environmental and public safety groups.
Friday's deal, combining nuclear power and AI, which also poses great safety risks, was too much for The Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch, who quipped that "the hellscape of modern life" had been captured in one headline.
Local campaigners vowed to push against the reopening and keep the area free of nuclear activity.
"We will challenge this proposal at every venue that is available for us," Eric Epstein, a former chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, a campaign group, told the Inquirer.
"This is another chapter in a nightmare that won't end," he added.
Siri, define the hellscape of modern life in one headline https://t.co/miQMSWROmp
— Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) September 20, 2024
Three Mile Island would be the first decommissioned U.S. nuclear plant to reopen, and the first to provide all of its power to one corporation, according to The New York Times. Microsoft and Constellation didn't disclose the financial details of the deal.
About 19% of electricity in the U.S. comes from nuclear power, and a drive for "clean energy," as well as the IRA credits, have spurred growth in the sector. Microsoft co-founder and former CEO Bill Gates is a vocal proponent and has started his own nuclear company, TerraPower, which is building a plant in Wyoming.
The Three Mile Island project, expected to get the plant back online in 2028, still needs regulatory approval at multiple levels. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, has already come out in support of the plan.
A study commissioned by the Pennsylvania Building & Construction Trades Council, which represents more than 115 local unions, found that reopening the plant would create 3,400 direct and indirect jobs, including 600 at the plant itself, which is in the middle of the Susquehanna River, just south of Harrisburg, the state capital. The plant's reopening is seen by some community leaders as the revival of an "economic anchor in a region beset with financial hardship," according to The Washington Post.
Pennsylvania has five active nuclear plants, including two owned by Constellation, whose stock price shot up on Friday morning after the Three Mile Island announcement was made. The company and other industry backers celebrated the symbolic victory of restarting the plant.
"If anything says nuclear power is here to stay and expand, it's Three Mile Island reopening!" Amir Adnani, CEO of Uranium Energy Corp, wrote on social media.
Epstein, the campaigner, said the focus should be finishing the cleanup from the 1979 disaster. About 99% of the Unit 2's fuel has been removed to Idaho, but the last 1% has proven difficult to deal with.
"First things first, remove the waste from the island, and clean up [Unit 2]," Epstein said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Heartening and Progressive Choice of Tim Walz
The most progressive of the candidates under serious consideration was the one Kamala Harris has decided to put on the ticket. It was her choice and she made a good one.
Aug 07, 2024
The few weeks of speculation are over. Kamala Harris has selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her VP running mate.
All six of the leading candidates had strengths and weaknesses that have been endlessly discussed. Whoever Harris selected, some of her supporters were bound to be disappointed. I believe that nothing is more important in U.S. politics at this moment than defeating both Trump and Trumpism. And so I have been prepared to write in support of whoever was the nominee. All the same, I honestly think that Walz is the best choice, and I am both relieved and heartened that it is he that Harris has chosen.
Walz is a Minnesota progressive (think Walter Mondale with a touch of Paul Wellstone) who can help carry Minnesota and Wisconsin (states in his media market) and Michigan, and he is the kind of plain-spoken, no-bullshit guy that will play well throughout the “heartland”—and will be able to call bullshit, figuratively and literally, on J.D. Vance and his “hillbilly elegies.”
While Josh Shapiro, like Harris, has had a “typical” career trajectory from law school to politics, Walz served for 24 years in the Army National Guard and is the highest-ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in the U.S. Congress—where he served for 12 years as a major supporter of veteran’s affairs. He is a former high school teacher and football coach who received his college degree—a B.S.—from Chadron State College in Nebraska (where, you ask? Exactly the point). He is a hunter and gun owner. In other words, he is the farthest thing from a “coastal liberal” that it is possible to be.
Walz is very strong on social and economic issues, which is why he has been the favored choice of Bernie Sanders and other progressives. He has been described as a “Minnesota social democrat,” and this is accurate. But so too was Walter Monday and Hubert Humphrey before him—neither a Bernie Sanders-type. Walz might well be the person in this race whose profile is closest to—Joe Biden. And he promises to do for Harris’s campaign what Biden did for Barack Obama’s in 2008.
Walz is very strong on social and economic issues, which is why he has been the favored choice of Bernie Sanders and other progressives.
Shapiro is a very successful Democratic governor who promised to carry Pennsylvania and its 19 electoral votes (it is worth noting that Minnesota and Wisconsin each have 10 electoral votes, and Michigan another 15). He is a more “centrist” politician than Walz, and he was supported by many donor-types because of his more neoliberal views on economics (especially school choice), and also by many pro-Zionist groups because of his positions on the Israel/Gaza war and on campus protest. And he is probably more closely associated with the Biden administration’s feckless handling of the Middle East crisis than any other candidate. But these policy positions also threatened to alienate many of the base democratic constituencies—young people, Arab-Americans, many of the BLM-linked civil rights groups—whose mobilization will be crucial in November. (And the notion that progressive opposition to Shapiro because of his positions on the Gaza war and campus protest is antisemitic is bullshit, though it draws on tropes that right-wing Zionists have been deploying ever since October 7.).
Shapiro’s profile as a Democratic rising star is indeed rather close to Harris’s—and indeed in the end it might have been his ambition and his strong personality that caused Harris to look elsewhere for a partner. The notion that Harris is a “leftist” who needs to be balanced by Shapiro’s centrism is risible, and it is worth reminding those making this claim that when she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019-2020, she was very much in the middle of a race whose two most dynamic candidates, for some time, were Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. At that time, she was being attacked from the left for not being radical enough (I published a piece on this back in February 2019 entitled “Kamala Harris Is Not a Red-Baiter, She’s Just Not a Socialist, Like Most Americans.”) The Trump campaign will lie about her “leftism.” But the proper antidote to such lies is simply the effective promulgation of the truth.
In short, Walz “balances” Harris on the ticket better than Shapiro ever could.
And if Shapiro and Fetterman–who hate each other, another interesting dynamic that might have played a role in Harris’s choice of Walz–are the Pennsylvania power-houses they each claim to be, then they should be able to deliver their state to the Democrats anyway (I assume that at some point the support of “Scranton Joe” might also play a role).
Harris has made a fantastic choice, even if it will disappoint some of the neocons who have realigned with the Democratic Party.
In yesterday’s The Bulwark, Bill Kristol—full disclosure, a friend with whom I have collaborated—argued strenuously that Shapiro is the only strong VP candidate, and that Harris’s failure to name him would be the “first unforced error of her campaign,” potentially stalling her momentum and also making her look weak “after the campaign against him from the left.” Kristol was not wrong to note Shapiro’s strengths. But, as I indicate above, these strengths are exaggerated, and come with serious weaknesses; indeed Kristol admits that “Harris could still win without Shapiro.”
Harris has made a fantastic choice, even if it will disappoint some of the neocons who have realigned with the Democratic Party.
Kristol exaggerates the extent to which there has been a “campaign against” Shapiro as opposed to an honest debate about who would be best. For as he himself notes, most Harris supporters have said that they would support whoever Harris picks. The differences between the VP candidates were not great, and all were and are firmly in the general orbit of Harris—who is of course the person who matters most.
The Democratic Party is a big tent party that has become even bigger since Trump forced many former Republicans out of the GOP. “Never Trump” Republicans are now an important part of the “common front” against the MAGA movement, as the Harris campaign has clearly acknowledged with its launching of “Republicans for Harris.” And centrist Democrats—of which there are a great many—are a core constituency of the party. But the progressive wing of the Democratic party is equally central; it has been pivotal for the Biden administration’s economic agenda and for its legislative success; and the successful mobilization of its supporters is essential to a Harris victory in November. Harris has demonstrated her savvy, and her leadership skills, by refusing to play against her own party’s left, and by choosing a running mate—Walz—who is, in all honesty, capable of appealing to the party’s diverse constituencies, while being as mainstream and middle America as they come.
But the main reason why Harris’s choice of Walz is the right choice is much simpler: because it was Harris’s choice to make, and she has made it.
In a matter of weeks, she has gone from being the running mate of a depressed and failing Biden campaign to being the dynamic leader of her own presidential campaign. She has been able to bridge divides within her party, to mobilize the entire range of Democratic constituencies behind her candidacy, and to generate an unprecedented amount of fundraising and volunteer enthusiasm.
For whatever combination of personal and political reasons, she has chosen Tim Walz.
It is now incumbent on everyone who believes that a Trump victory would be a disaster for social justice and democracy to support the Harris-Walz ticket and to do the work necessary to bring it a resounding victory in November.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Excellent Choice': Progressives Applaud Harris for Picking Walz as Running Mate
"Walz has proven that he has the necessary skills and authentic populism to go on offense—calling out the extremist and weird Trump-Vance agenda."
Aug 06, 2024
Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has reportedly selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate for the November election, a victory for progressives who pushed for Walz over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was believed to be the other leading contender.
Harris is expected to formally announce her choice ahead of an evening rally in Philadelphia. CNN was first to report Harris' decision, followed by other outlets including The Associated Press and The Hill.
Progressives are energized by Walz's searing critiques of the Trump-era Republican Party and his record as Minnesota's governor, which includes his unequivocal championing of a universal free school meals program as well as paid family and medical leave.
"In Minnesota, we're cutting poverty and strengthening families with our Child Tax Credit," Walz wrote in a social media post last week, calling out Republican nominee Donald Trump's running mate. "You'd think JD Vance would be eager to do the same nationally. Except he skipped a vote to pass the federal Child Tax Credit expansion yesterday. Give me a break with that pro-family talk."
Take it from me: These guys don’t know anything about family values.
Family values means protecting IVF, feeding children, and expanding the Child Tax Credit to give families a fair shot. It means helping your neighbors and investing in kids.pic.twitter.com/QrXHxLuJVh
— Tim Walz (@Tim_Walz) August 2, 2024
Progressive organizer Aaron Regunberg was among those celebrating Harris' pick.
"It’s the right choice to appeal to the voters we need, to maintain this amazing unity and energy, to win this existential election, and then to do what Walz did in MN—enact the popular Democratic agenda that will improve people's lives and build a better world," he wrote on social media.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee applauded Harris' decision as a "great choice," describing Walz as "an effortless populist" who "represents the exact direction the Democratic Party needs."
"With Walz, Harris defied the corporate consulting class and indicated she will double down on the popular, pro-consumer, pro-worker agenda of the Biden-Harris administration," the group added. "Walz has proven that he has the necessary skills and authentic populism to go on offense—calling out the extremist and weird Trump-Vance agenda. As governor, he passed a popular economic and voting rights agenda that will appeal to working families in the Midwest and nationwide."
In addition to welcoming the addition of Walz to the Democratic ticket, progressive organizers expressed relief that Harris passed over Shapiro, whose support for school vouchers and attacks on pro-Palestine demonstrators drew renewed attention and alarm as he emerged as a top contender for the running mate position.
RootsAction said it is "heartened that Vice President Harris did not choose Gov. Shapiro as her running mate."
"To further party unity in this crucial battle to defeat MAGA extremism in November, we encourage both members of the Harris/Walz ticket to meet with leaders of the 'Uncommitted' Democratic campaigns as they visit Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and other key states," the group added, referring to the movement that urged Democratic primary voters to protest U.S. support for Israel's war on Gaza at ballot boxes in key states earlier this year.
Elianne Farhat, a senior adviser to Uncommitted and the executive director of Take Action Minnesota, said in a statement Tuesday that Walz "has demonstrated a remarkable ability to evolve as a public leader, uniting Democrats' diverse coalition to achieve significant milestones for Minnesota families of all backgrounds."
"While his past positions as a congressman may have conflicted with anti-war voters, we hope he can evolve on this issue as he has on others, such as shifting from an A to F rating from the [National Rifle Association]," said Farhat. "As Harris' vice presidential pick, it's crucial he continues this evolution by supporting an arms embargo on Israel's war and occupation against Palestinians in an effort to unite our party to defeat authoritarianism in the fall."
Stevie O'Hanlon, communications director for the youth-led Sunrise Movement, said Walz is an "excellent choice" that signals the Democratic nominee is "taking seriously what is needed to rebuild the 2020 Biden-Harris coalition and energize young people, people of color, and union voters ahead of November."
"As governor, Tim Walz has made huge strides to address the climate crisis," said O'Hanlon. "He has done this by pitching climate action as a way to make people's everyday lives better, create good-paying green jobs, and invest in making communities stronger. That is a winning message, and one the Democratic ticket should put at the forefront of their agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Poll Sends Clear Message to Harris: Pro-Worker Policies Are 'Also Good Politics'
"The simple fact is: Whether you're running for the White House or a city council seat, if you stand with working people, they will stand with you," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Aug 05, 2024
A poll commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders shows that an overwhelming majority of voters in key battleground states support policy goals central to the progressive agenda, bolstering the case for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris to aggressively push for higher taxes on the rich and large corporations, a federal minimum wage increase, and an expansion of Medicare and Social Security.
"Good policy for working-class voters is also good politics," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to the survey's findings, which include replies from 1,158 likely U.S. voters in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
"It should come as no surprise that expanding Social Security, raising the minimum wage, and capping rent increases are very popular," the senator added. "The political class would do well to listen to the clear directive of American voters, and deliver. The simple fact is: Whether you're running for the White House or a city council seat, if you stand with working people, they will stand with you."
Conducted by Data for Progress, the poll shows that Harris and Republican nominee Donald Trump are locked in a dead heat in the six battleground states with three months to go before the November 5 election. A slim majority of voters across the states examined feel that neither Democrats nor Republicans "have clear solutions for the biggest issues facing the country," suggesting there's a significant opportunity for either candidate to win over voters with a concrete policy agenda that centers the material needs of the working class.
The survey makes clear that progressive policy objectives have widespread appeal across the political spectrum. For example, the poll shows that 71% of voters in the battleground states—including 89% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and third-party voters, and 55% of Republicans—want the wealthy to pay more in taxes, a sentiment that aligns with progressive goals and contrasts with those of Trump and the GOP.
The poll also indicates broad support for raising taxes on big, profitable corporations; expanding Social Security by "making the wealthy pay the same rate as the working class"; hiking the long-stagnant federal minimum wage; and expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing benefits.
Support for more ambitious progressive agenda items, such as Medicare for All, is less solid among Republicans and Independents, according to the new survey, but still has strong backing among the Democratic base—68% of which supports transitioning to a single-payer healthcare system.
A Progressive Agenda is a Winning Agenda:
84% want Medicare to cover dental, vision & hearing
77% want to expand Social Security
75% want a cap on rent increases
71% want to restore $300/month Child Tax Credit
70% want a $17/hour Minimum Wage
64% want to cancel Medical Debt
— Warren Gunnels (@GunnelsWarren) August 5, 2024
The new survey comes as Harris, who formally secured the Democratic nomination last week, is weighing her running mate pick ahead of a Tuesday rally in Philadelphia.
Progressives have openly warned Harris against selecting Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro—citing, among other concerns, his attacks on pro-Palestine demonstrators and support for school vouchers—and rallied behind Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
Sanders himself, as Common Dreams reported over the weekend, praised Walz during an interview on Saturday, saying Minnesota's governor "understands the needs of working families" and would be well-positioned to "speak up and take on powerful corporate interests."
Calls for Harris to embrace a progressive agenda and choose a running mate prepared to fight for that program come amid concerns about the vice president's corporate ties and the Democratic Party's broader and longer-term failures to deliver for the working class, which is facing an increasingly dire housing crisis, slowing wage and job growth, and fears of a looming recession—all as billionaire wealth ascends to record heights.
"Progressives should insist that working people have a lot at stake in this election regardless of their skin color, nationality or ethnic heritage and that our shared class interest ought to be the basis for our political appeals," Dustin Guastella, research associate at the Center for Working-Class Politics, and The Nation president Bhaskar Sunkara wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian last week.
"The fact that this narrative—one the official Harris campaign seems at least slightly sympathetic to—was so quickly and enthusiastically overshadowed by an emphasis on identity politics says a lot about the Democratic Party's contemporary base," the pair wrote, pointing to the "White Women for Kamala" and "White Dudes for Harris" fundraising calls recently held in support of the Democratic nominee.
"The Democratic Party needs working-class voters more than ever, but unfortunately the party increasingly represents well-heeled white-collar professionals primarily concentrated in and around big cities," Guastella and Sunkara wrote. "It's these voters who crave appeals to identity over appeals to shared class grievances."
As Sanders said over the weekend, "The time is long overdue for Washington to stop worrying about the billionaires and their campaign contributors and start worrying about the needs of working families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives and Working-Class Advocates Push Tim Walz for VP
"I want somebody who's really strongly pro-labor and understands labor, because this is a big part of the working-class agenda and making sure that we win working-class votes," Rep. Pramila Jayapal said in supporting Walz.
Aug 02, 2024
A number of progressives and left-leaning political figures this week suggested that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris should choose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate.
Walz was the subject of a flurry of media attention over the last week, including glowing coverage in The Washington Post and The New York Times on Friday, as the Democrats ran an accelerated search for their vice presidential candidate.
While there hasn't been an organized progressive effort to push for Walz, he's regarded as the most friendly to left and working-class causes of the politicians known to be in the running, all of whom are white men. Progressives have expressed concerns over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who's seen by many as the most likely choice.
"I want somebody who's really strongly pro-labor and understands labor, because this is a big part of the working-class agenda and making sure that we win working-class votes," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in explaining why she favored Walz, The Hill reported Friday.
Take it from me: These guys don’t know anything about family values.
Family values means protecting IVF, feeding children, and expanding the Child Tax Credit to give families a fair shot. It means helping your neighbors and investing in kids.pic.twitter.com/QrXHxLuJVh
— Tim Walz (@Tim_Walz) August 2, 2024
Walz's appeal, buoyed by the sense that he's a straight-talking everyman, goes well beyond progressive circles. Born and raised in Nebraska, he served in the National Guard and worked as a high school teacher and coach. He served six terms as a Democrat in U.S. Congress, representing a rural area of Minnesota that borders Iowa. In 2016, he won reelection in a district that 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump won handily.
In 2018, Walz successfully ran for governor, and was reelected in 2022—this time with Democrats in the majority in both houses of the state Legislature. (The state party is called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.) They quickly turned the state into what NBC News called "a laboratory in pushing progressive policy."
Under Walz's leadership, Minnesota became the fourth state in the country to provide free school lunches for all students. The state also set up a paid family and medical leave program and a tax credit for low-income Minnesotans. Walz also signed into law the strictest rules in the country on "forever chemicals" that endanger public health.
Walz and his Democratic allies banned spending on state and municipal elections by firms that were 5% or more foreign-owned—nearly every S&P 500 firm—and thereby reduced the pernicious effects of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling on the state's elections. They also established trans rights, secured fundamental abortion rights, and made it possible for undocumented people to get driver's licenses.
David M. Perry, a Minnesota-based journalist and historian, said in an MSNBC opinion piece this week that he was initially skeptical of Walz, figuring him to be a conservative Democrat who wouldn't push an ambitious agenda, but had changed his mind—"entirely Walz-pilled," as he put it. He applauded Walz for the many state-level legislative accomplishments, and cited only "questionable decisions" during the 2020 George Floyd uprisings in the governor's negative column.
Shawn Fain, president of the United Automobile Workers union, on Thursday told The Detroit News that he supported either Walz or Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee, citing their strong pro-labor records. Some groups have called for Fain himself to be the vice presidential nominee.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), a progressive member of "the Squad," also voiced for support for Walz and Beshear in a social media post on Friday. Gun rights activist David Hogg has likewise been promoting Walz on social media.
The Wall Street Journal wrote about Walz's "folksy demeanor" on Thursday, while the Post on Friday asked, in a highly complimentary profile, if the Minnesota governor could go "from teaching history to being part of it."
Ezra Klein, a left-leaning podcast host at the Times, released a full-length interview with Walz on Friday titled "Is Tim Walz the Midwestern dad Democrats need?"
Klein's first question focused on a word Walz had used that helped catapult him to relative fame in the last week: "weird," which the governor had used to describe Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).
The "weird" criticism of the Republican leaders went viral and was quickly picked up by Harris herself. Whether she will pick up the inventor of the attack onto her ticket remains to be seen. She secured the necessary votes to become the nominee on Friday and she's expected to announce her choice of running mate as early as Saturday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy