Tag: aipac
Bowman's Defeat By Moderate Democrat Exposed Flaws In 'The Squad'

Bowman's Defeat By Moderate Democrat Exposed Flaws In 'The Squad'

Jamaal Bowman's loss was the Democrats' gain. A member of the left-fringe Squad, his primary defeat removes at least one irritant to the Democrats' quest to take control of the House. And if his replacement with a moderate marks the beginning of the end for the Squad, well, bravo for the victor, Westchester County executive George Latimer.

New York's 16th Congressional District includes some New York suburbs plus a slice of the Bronx. Squad founder Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the old socialist Bernie Sanders thought it a good idea to hold a rally for Bowman in the South Bronx.

Never mind that the South Bronx wasn't part of Bowman's district. Ritchie Torres represents that area. Perhaps Bowman figured his working-class audience would relate to his obscenity-filled rants. Torres thought otherwise.

"There is nothing in Jamaal Bowman's unhinged tirade," Torres posted on X, "that remotely resembles the decency of the people I know and represent in the South Bronx."

Bowman insisted that as a Black, he has an "ethnic benefit." Well, Torres is half-Black, half-Latino, and former New York Rep. Mondaire Jones is Black. Both Torres and Jones endorsed Latimer, a 70-year-old white guy who happens to have experience in governing.

Bowman seems to have forgotten that a congressman is supposed to do a thing called constituent service, that is, providing help to the people in the district. The people rarely saw him.

"He doesn't really study government," Latimer said at a recent event for seniors. "He doesn't really understand it. He's out there on a soap box, talking what he feels."

AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, spent a lot of money trying to get Bowman defeated. Headlines say they're the reason he lost. But it took more than AIPAC to produce an incumbent's 17-point loss.

No doubt their barrage of ads played a part, but Bowman's views on Israel were worse than incendiary; they were ignorant. It's one thing to criticize Israel's conduct in the Gaza war. It's another to question the claim that Hamas committed sexual violence in its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, as Bowman did.

Bowman clearly has some screws loose. He gave voice to a looney conspiracy theory related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on New York City. The Daily Beast unearthed Bowman's blog post passing on the paranoid belief that the collapse of Building 7, a skyscraper in the World Trade Center complex, was a controlled demolition.

As a congressman, he famously set off a fire alarm in a House office building, juvenile-delinquent style. This was done, it is believed, to delay a scheduled vote on a government funding bill. Of course, the building had to be evacuated.

Bowman first lied about setting off the alarm. Then when security cameras caught him in the act, he lied about not knowing what it was. You'd think that a former middle school principal would know what a fire alarm looked like.

Bowman had joined AOC in voting against Joe Biden's infrastructure bill — a tantrum over one of their priorities being left out. To this day, unions have not forgiven either of them for that.

Perhaps the biggest problem for Bowman is that his challenger is a man of substance. As a county executive, Latimer makes budgets, manages essential services, including public safety, and sees that the laws are enforced.

AOC, Bernie, and Bowman apparently chose the South Bronx for its symbolic value. And it all fits. Their posturing was for the cameras, not the 16th district's constituents who happened to live elsewhere.

The Squad suffers a serious lack of quality control, and Bowman isn't its only flawed product. May moderate Democrats continue to replace them.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman's Performative Politics May Lose His Seat

Rep. Jamaal Bowman's Performative Politics May Lose His Seat

If polls are to be believed, as well as vibes by those in the district, New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman will lose Tuesday in a Democratic primary race framed around the war in Gaza, following AIPAC’s unprecedented spending in the race. Yet, if Bowman loses, it will be for reasons that go far beyond money or even the passions around the war in Gaza.

A HuffPost story from Sunday chronicles Bowman’s shift from a nuanced supporter of Israel’s right to exist (while criticizing right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s destructive policies), to calling alleged sexual assaults by Hamas on Oct. 7 “propaganda” and embracing some of the most strident anti-Israel rhetoric.

While Bowman’s district is solidly Democratic, he is now embroiled in a competitive primary, which requires a deft hand and sharp political instincts—both things that Bowman seems to lack.

New York’s 16th Congressional District comprises the northern Bronx and southern Westchester County, including the cities of Mount Vernon and Yonkers. It’s hard to get more ethnically and racially diverse than the 16th: 40 percent white, 29 percent Latino, 19 percent Black, and six percent Asian. Nearly 30 percent of the district’s population is foreign born. The per capita annual income of the district, nearly $63,000, is around 1.5 times that of the United States as a whole, and likely related, its education attainment (47.5 percent has at least a bachelor’s degree) is 1.3 times the national number. And Westchester County has a significant Jewish population.

What that all means is that entrenching oneself in this district requires judicious constituent service, being present and responsive to the vastly divergent interests of not just those larger communities but also the myriad subgroups within them. As we should all know by now, there is nothing monolithic about the white, Black, Latino, or Asian communities.

Even before Hamas’ October 7 attack, Bowman was failing the art of politics. His biggest misstep—one that’s been highlighted in plenty of ads—was his vote against President Joe Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill. His reason was sound as well. You might remember how progressives wanted to tie the infrastructure bill to Biden’s broader Build Back Better Act, a bill to massively invest in housing, education, and health care, among other programs. Biden and the Democratic leadership in Congress caved to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and ended up splitting the bills. Build Back Better failed to pass, though a substantially reduced version of it, the Inflation Reduction Act, did pass—and Bowman voted for it.

However, despite fighting for Biden’s broader agenda, Bowman’s vote against the infrastructure law has given his primary opponent, Westchester County Executive George Latimer, a clear line of attack. And it seems to be landing with voters in the area. From the aforementioned HuffPost story:

“The things that [Bowman and other leftists] are voting against because they’re not getting everything they want, to me, sounds very much like children who are packing up their toys and going home,” said Jim Metzger, an architect and photographer from Hastings-on-Hudson who supported Bowman in 2022.

If an elected official wants the freedom to cast statement votes, they need to rely on a strong base of supporters ready to have their back for casting those statement votes. And that brings us to some of the people Bowman has allied himself with …

Our political system has degenerated into an ungovernable mess where people think screaming and threatening is an effective way to influence policy and politics. Daily Kos has always promoted a programmatic politics in which we build public support before demanding our elected officials take on contentious issues. It does no good to force elected allies to cast futile votes that will hurt their chances of being reelected—and our chances of building political power to create lasting change.

Unfortunately for Bowman, he doesn’t seem to have that base of support in his district. Instead, he’s tried to court a far-left that appears to have little interest in engaging electorally. As one progressive activist told The Hill:

It’s disconcerting how many activists have pushed for Bowman to stand up for Palestinians, but as of yet, as of now, it doesn’t seem all the noise has turned into financial support and that’s why Bowman may lose.

No one is asking Bowman’s supporters to go toe-to-toe with the right-wing pro-Israel AIPAC, which has dumped a shocking $14.5 million into ousting Bowman. But if every pro-Palestinian activist in the country donated to Bowman, he’d have significantly more than the $4.3 million he raised, which is less than Latimer’s own $5.8 million. (Can’t entirely blame that on AIPAC.)

Worse, the far-left that Bowman has courted is now attacking some of the most progressive members of Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has tirelessly defended Bowman, and Sen. Bernie Sanders held a weekend rally for Bowman in the Bronx. The pro-Palestinian group Within Our Lifetimes attended, but not to sign up to walk precincts, make phone calls, raise money, or otherwise help get out the vote for him. Rather, they protested the event, attempting to disrupt it because no one can ever be pure enough for them.

“AOC, your hands are red. Over 40,000 dead,” they chanted. Her crime? Seemingly, it’s that she supports Biden, whom many in this movement call “Genocide Joe.” On the issue of Gaza, specifically, few are as supportive of their efforts as AOC, and she’s ardently fighting for Bowman, who has adopted much of the same language as the protestors, even accusing Israel of genocide. And yet somehow, this group decided it is these representatives who need to be protested.

Can people possibly be more absurd?

This is the same crowd that would happily enable Donald Trump’s election, even though that would be orders of magnitude more catastrophic for the residents of Gaza. It’s the reason Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is rooting for Trump to win in November.

Yet Bowman is cut from the same cloth. Responding to Latimer’s promise to deliver “real progressive results, not rhetoric,” Bowman retorted in a debate that “rhetoric creates movements in grassroots organizing that leads to American revolutions! That is what we need in this moment. We need rhetoric and results. We have both.”

As someone who lived through a revolution, I can tell you there’s nothing romantic about them. People die. Societies are turned inside out. Families are shattered. And the results are seldom what people expect.

Indeed, in American politics, “revolution” is the pining for change unsupported by popular opinion. It’s the (seemingly) easy way forward.

But let’s be charitable to Bowman and assume that he means it as some sort of benign awakening where the magic of his words and that of his allies spur a political realignment. …

Sorry, can’t do it.

Here are some commonsense guidelines for political change that these activists don’t seem to understand:

1) If you have public support, do politics.

2) If you don’t have public support, do advocacy to build public support.

It’s simple, pragmatic, practical, and realistic.

These pro-Palestinian activists don’t have public support, so the votes just won’t be there for them (AIPAC or no AIPAC), and wishing for a revolution to give them what they haven’t earned is naive extremism.

So given that lack of public support, they could’ve focused on advocacy work to influence public opinion while strongly supporting their elected allies. Instead, they turned on those allies while being obnoxious and turning off anyone else potentially open to their message.

That’s the difference between practical politics and performative politics. The right does it too, like mandating the Ten Commandments in classrooms and feigning piety to those commandments while supporting Trump.

The performative left doesn’t have the power of its counterparts on the right, they are in no way equivalent, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t doing MAGA’s bidding. Many would rather sink Biden’s campaign and hand Trump the victory than acknowledge that politics is messy and that progress takes hard work, money, and time.

New York’s 16th Congressional District seems set to remind Democrats that they value pragmatic results over performative rhetoric. Too bad that lesson will be lost thanks to AIPAC’s flood of cash. But elected incumbents don’t often lose, and it takes more than money to oust them.

If Bowman is defeated on Tuesday, he will have failed by losing touch with his district and by allying with people little interested in doing the hard work to have his back (preferring instead to damage him). The power of incumbency may save him yet. Odds are that it won’t.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Donald Trump’s AIPAC Hypocrisy

Donald Trump’s AIPAC Hypocrisy

Full disclosure: true to my public promise, I did not watch Donald Trump’s AIPAC speech live in the arena, but instead from the comfort and relative quiet of the Capital Hilton bar. Even if watching Trump speak like a politician (teleprompter and all—sad!) was unusual, the underlying theme of his speech wasn’t. And to be clear, Trump’s theme had nothing to do with the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

I believe in AIPAC’s mission; the organization and its employees are doing vitally important work. The premise of their annual conference, however, is pretty simple: pack an arena full of 18,000 people who agree on some basic positions — support of Israel and the bolstering of the U.S.-Israel relationship — and they’ll react positively when speakers say those things. This is far from an unusual phenomenon: any advocacy organization aims to energize its base at its convention; just watch what happens when marriage equality is mentioned at the Democratic Convention or gun rights are mentioned the Republican one.

However, in AIPAC’s case, these conditions set a spectacularly low bar for Trump. Even more importantly, they allowed him to keep his speech true to the running theme of his campaign: Donald J. Trump will say whatever his audience wants to hear in order to be rewarded with applause.

Before Monday, Trump had been flexible on the Iran deal. He had, of course, co-starred in Sen. Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin’s anti-Iran odyssey on Capitol Hill (alongside Duck Dynasty’s Phil Roberts), but the focus of his message was always to lambast the stupidity of America’s diplomats rather than promise that he would actually abdicate the deal. Yet in his speech to AIPAC, Trump reversed course, promising to “dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” (Doing so would leave Iran with no constraints on its nuclear program and only isolated U.S. sanctions, but that’s apparently beside the point to any and all of the GOP’s would-be commanders-in-chief.)

Trump’s previous character, the “sort of a neutral guy,” in any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, was also long gone. Trump’s new position is that “The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable,” and that there is “no daylight between America and our most reliable ally.” These are full-throated (and in my mind, important) sentiments for sure, but they weren’t backed up by any semblance of policy; Trump offered no details as to how he would actually approach what he’s previously called “the toughest negotiation of all time.”

What Trump left out of his speech was noteworthy, too. His main foreign policy shtick for some time now has been that there is little advantage to U.S. bases abroad, and that the allies we help defend—particularly well-off allies—should pay tribute for protection. In fact, Trump said the same about Israel in a press conference on Monday afternoon (yes, you’re reading that timeline correctly), arguing that Israel “can pay big league” for its own defense. Yet this issue was entirely absent from his speech just hours later: Trump made no mention of demanding that Israel pay, “big league” or otherwise, for its defense.

These are all issues that can be discussed and debated. We can have conversations about how the Iran deal could be strengthened, or what diplomacy between Israelis and Palestinians should look like, or what the United States can do — in terms of military hardware and beyond — to help Israel stay safe. That’s all fine. What’s not fine is Donald Trump rattling off these stances like stock language with no forethought or credibility. All that shows is that Donald can read—and he’s the best reader, believe me!

As far as I’m concerned, Trump never should have been given a prime speaking slot at AIPAC. It is absolutely vital for AIPAC to learn about his views and policies, but they needn’t have hosted a rally for him; no other candidate who spoke mentioned their poll numbers. Moreover, his willingness to whip the alt-right into a frenzy and play footsie with anti-Semites, white supremacists, and the Klan are all disqualifying in my mind.

But, fundamentally, hearing his speech told us nothing new about Trump—we don’t know if his past positions (keep the deal, be neutral, and ask Israel to pony-up) or new ones (break the deal, be pro-Israel, and fund defense without question) will be the course he charts in office.

All we learned from Trump at AIPAC is that he’ll say whatever you want to hear in exchange for a pat on the head and some applause. But we knew that already, too.

Elie Jacobs is a NYC-based public affairs and public relations consultant as well as a Partner with the Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.

Photos: Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) afternoon general session in Washington March 21, 2016.      REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Sanders Gave An Even-Handed AIPAC Speech That Everyone Ignored

Sanders Gave An Even-Handed AIPAC Speech That Everyone Ignored

Yesterday, all five presidential candidates from both parties gave speeches to AIPAC, the leading Israeli lobbying group in the U.S. But only four of them gave their speeches in Washington, D.C. The fifth, Bernie Sanders, gave his speech to an audience in Utah, where it barely received any coverage at all.

In what was an even-handed criticism of both the Israeli and Palestinian governments, Sanders — who, remember, is the first Jewish presidential candidate to win a state primary — pushed a common sense resolution to the conflict that acknowledged grievances on either side, by addressing both Israeli security concerns and socioeconomic improvement for Palestinians. “Peace has to mean security for every Israeli from violence and terrorism,” he said. “But peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving self-determination, civil rights, and economic well-being for the Palestinian people.”

Speaking at a high school in Salt Lake City, Sanders laid out his foreign policy vision for the region should he win the presidency. On top of addressing the ongoing conflict and breakdown in negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, he also addressed ISIS and the need for Arab involvement in that fight.

Sanders framed his speech as needed criticism from a “long term” friend of Israel. “Our disagreements will come and go, and we must weather them constructively,” he said. “But it is important among friends to be honest and truthful about differences that we may have.”

Sanders has often occupied that role. As a young man, he lived on a kibbutz in Israel during the 1960s, which he pointed out in his speech. But he’s not given Israel the political carte blanche that most senators have.

During the 2014 war in Gaza, he was one of 21 senators who did not co-sponsor a Senate resolution expressing support for Israel during the war. Then, in February 2015, he was the first senator to publicly announce he was skipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to both houses of Congress.

Sanders saw it as an attempt to undermine President Barack Obama, who wasn’t notified of Netanyahu’s plan to speak in front of Congress until it appeared in the news. He was followed by 55 other Democratic congressmen, who did the same.

Sanders had offered to address AIPAC’s audience via video conference, but conference organizers said all presidential candidates had to be physically present, despite a video call from Netanyahu. The Vermont senator said he couldn’t attend because he was campaigning in the western states, where today’s primaries are due to take place.

But it’s possible that the lobbying group was unhappy with Sanders’s criticisms of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli actions during the 2014 summer war in Gaza, and his general disconnect from Israel as an American political issue. A June 2015 article by The Jewish Daily Forward interviewed an AIPAC official, who said, “Sanders does not sign any AIPAC-backed letters.”

Sanders has been critical of Israel’s use of disproportionate force during its wars in Gaza and the high civilian death tolls that usually result. “I – along with many supporters of Israel – spoke out strongly against the Israeli counter attacks that killed nearly 1,500 civilians and wounded thousands more. I condemned the bombing of hospitals, schools and refugee camps,” he said during his speech. None of the other presidential candidates who address AIPAC offered a similar criticism of Israel.

His speech was a far cry from the one given by his rival Hillary Clinton, who pointed to her decades of working with Israeli governments as proof that she was an unshakeable ally of Israel and had the years of real experience, rather than idealism, that Sanders lacked. Clinton promised to support Israel’s “qualitative military edge” over its regional neighbors, invite Israeli leaders to the White House, and oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that has promoted a South African-style boycott of Israeli goods until it stops its occupation of Palestinian land.

Photo: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders holds a town hall event at the Navajo Nation casino in Flagstaff, Arizona March 17, 2016. REUTERS/Nancy Wiechec

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World