not so much because she endorsed Bernie, but more because she has repeatedly painted a target on her own back and made herself a distraction. While I admire her spirit, she doesn't seem to be a very astute politician.

against sanctions on Turkey and Armenian Genocide. She said there was not enough " academic consensus" to support Armenia genocide in Turkey.

She seems like an ideologue, which may be why she likes Bernie.

Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2020, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

For what she did to Caspar Weinberger* over the death squads in Central America, she deserves a seat in the House as long she wants one, to my mind. I know the 'squad' group is not too politically reliable, but all are high quality people, and will learn the moves. They do us good where they are.




*senior moment, the man was Elliot Abrams

She has definitely done some good things but she has made herself controversial in a way that has been unnecessary and detracts from her effectiveness. I will be paying attention.

As a constituent, you are closer to the matter than I. It would not surprise me if constituent service, and spending for her district, did not rank very high on her list of 'things to do today'. Her vote on the Armenian matter I will not even try and excuse, save to express my disgust that was not officially denounced for the genocidal crime it was decades ago. There is no doubt the thing occurred, and was widely known to have occurred --- contemporary accounts abound. She should not have turned a blind eye to it, but she is far from the first in our government to do so.

Caspar Weinberger died in 2006. At this time Omar was preparing to run for the Minnesota House.

A senior moment. They happen to the best of us.

I watched it, and it was a thing of beauty. There is no equal to an educated Moslem woman expressing contemptuous scorn for a vile and foolish man.

Jewish community leaders (in Minneapolis) previously expressed optimism after Omar criticized the BDS movement during an Aug. 6 Democratic candidates forum at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park — about a week before Omar defeated four other candidates in the party’s primary. Omar said she supported a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict and that the BDS movement wasn’t helpful in trying to achieve that goal. Pressed by moderator Mary Lahammer to specify “exactly where you stand on that,” Omar replied that the BDS movement was “counteractive” because it stopped both sides from coming together for “a conversation about how that’s going to be possible.”

https://www.startribune.com/u-s-rep-elect-ilhan-omar-statements-on-israel-return-to-spotlight/500437501/

After the elections with the help, no doubt, of the influence and the financial support of the local Jewish community she did an SNL Emily Litella "never mind."

I am also surprised, after perfectly describing Sanders' aim at destroying the "Democratic Establishment,"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287687060

that you embrace the "squad" with a similar goal. AOC's first action was to topple Speaker Pelosi even though it was Pelosi who brought about the flipping of the house by... moderates.

Yes, I know, too logical. Have been told this before.

Madame Speaker is, you will note, un-toppled.

Several young stars from neglected demographics bring potential benefit to the Party's future. I believe it good to have people of such backgrounds in Congress. It may be an old style view, but there are so many on the other side particularly who have no capacity to imagine people unlike themselves, and their presence may serve to humanize their fellows for such persons. This potential is not to be sneezed at. They are as individuals people of impressive quality, and first-rate humans are not to be discarded lightly, they are not that common.

I do not see from your comments above (forgive me if it is in the link) any indication Rep. Omar no longer does, or never did, back a two state solution. If she has changed her mind regarding the boycott, it does not trouble me much. I do not agree with the boycott, but by now the Israeli government is every bit the obstacle as Hamas and the old PLO. "One land between the river and the sea' is a fair summation of both sides at present, though only one states so openly, and the side that does not state so openly has the power to enforce the doctrine, whereas the other is impotent to secure that dream. I do include assessment of capabilities in evaluating threats.

For the record, if you are not aware of this, for some years here I was a leading light of 'Team Israel' in the old Israel/Palestine forum (which old lags may recall came to be known as 'The Sand Trap' because so many people got expelled out of it) and I was one of the first pair of moderators charged with enforcing the new special rules for that forum near the start of 2002, along with an excellent fellow, Mr. Jack Rabbit (as he signed himself), who was a leading light of 'Team Palestine'. I have no intention of wrangling the matter here, with anyone, but state this only to make clear that there are long reasons why today I would not move a pixel to defend the last decade of Likud governance in Israel, though I do continue in the conviction Israel properly is and should remain a Jewish state. But its government under Netanyahu has done tremendous harm to the country's standing, and the place is sufficiently a democracy that one can only conclude the voters there are getting the government they desire. I would not consider a politician's support for boycotting Israel sufficient reason to vote against him or her. It might be the icing on a cake of more substantial objections concerning domestic policy or other questions of foreign policy, but it is far from sufficient in itself. When all is said and done, there is not much an individual Representative can do to bring about such a great change in national policy as a serious boycott of Israel would require.

Ayanna Pressley, who seemed to have revoked her membership a year ago, confirmed by her endorsement of Elizabeth Warren.

All three of the others face serious opposition in this year's primaries, and I suspect they're all vulnerable.

Should have never believed their own press releases... Sadly they have created the circumstances of their own political demise.

If it was just the progressive candidate, Jose Velazquez challenging her, then she would likely be toast. But there are 3 other candidates in that race, all of them to the right of where that district is. If AOC and Velazquez are leading every one of the other candidates as the primary approaches, I think that Velazquez can defeat her due to stronger roots in the district.

Omar and Tlaib are likely toast. They each has a solid democratic progressive opposing them, I don't expect either to clear that challenge. If they lose, they brought that on themselves.

There's room for someone to push through.

I doubt the voting level increases. That is troublesome, because a more right candidate like Carruso-Cabrera that has name recognition could win, if the progressive vote is split between Velazquez and AOC.

but there are rumblings of neglect. It seems she's everywhere but there in her district. I don't know if she finally opened her own office or hired someone to answer the phones but she has an allowance of several million to do so. So there's no excuse.

underfunded Velazquez can defeat her if progressives show up to vote. She will get the vote of far leftists, but I believe that true progressives greatly swamp those types, even in NYC districts.

Just sent him some money

I plan on sending some on payday.

except Rep. Ayanna Pressley should be defeated in the primaries. There are better Democrats out there.

A clean sweep isn't likely, and resources and rancor are better expended elsewhere. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has promise of an excellent career, and Rep. Omar impresses me very favorably. It does the Congress good to have in it people of such backgrounds. They bring great potential benefit, and do little real harm. I am far from agreement with all they do, but then, I am not very fond of Mr. Biden myself. He is just the best man available for the job he seeks.

I love Ayanna. Not my Rep here yet she is bold and beautiful. So brave when she came out with her condition, alopecia.

Iran, Hezbollah, etc. all becuase they did not do the bow and scrape to the hardliner zionist/pro-illegal settlement Israel lobby and that racist POS RWNJ Netanyahu. AIPAC fully supports stances and actions that are absolutely in violation of international law and against human rights. It is NOT anti-semitic in the slightest to call them out on that.



Rep. Betty McCollum Calls Israel Lobby A ‘Hate Group’ Over Facebook Ad

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/02/14/rep-betty-mccollum-calls-israel-lobby-a-hate-group-over-facebook-ad/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=social

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Rep. Betty McCollum is calling the pro-Israel lobby a “hate group” after it reportedly paid for a Facebook ad linked to a petition that said she and other Democrats in Congress were somehow a “more sinister” a threat to Israel than the Islamic State.

McCollum, who represents Minnesota’s Fourth District, released a statement Wednesday saying that the ad and petition from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was a form of hate speech, thereby making AIPAC a hate group.

“This not empty political rhetoric,” she said, adding that “attacks like this may be commonplace in the Trump era, but they should never be normalized.”

According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the ad in question showed McCollum’s image, as well as those of Reps. Ilhan Omar, also of Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan, saying, “The radicals in the Democratic Party are pushing their anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli policies down the throats of the American people.”

The ad went live late last month and reportedly linked to a petition that said: “It’s critical that we protect our Israeli allies especially as they face threats from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and – maybe more sinister – right here in the U.S. Congress.”

snip


fuck that shit, AIPAC likes to dish it out hard, but then whinges when someone punches back against their bully hate tactics and outrageous smears



MCCOLLUM STATEMENT: HATE SPEECH MAKES AIPAC A HATE GROUP

https://mccollum.house.gov/media/press-releases/mccollum-statement-hate-speech-makes-aipac-hate-group



As a Member of Congress and the vice-chair of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe defending human rights and freedom are foundational to our national security and our democracy. But the struggle to advance human rights and promote human dignity inevitably results in confronting entrenched forces determined to dehumanize, debase, and demonize individuals or entire populations to maintain dominance and an unjust status quo. Hate is used as a weapon to incite and silence dissent. Unfortunately, this is my recent experience with AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The decision by AIPAC to use my image in paid Facebook ads weaponizing anti-Semitism to incite followers by attacking me, my colleagues, and my work promoting human rights for Palestinian children detained in Israeli military prisons is hate speech. But it doesn’t end there. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an AIPAC petition linked to their ads designed to mobilize supporters stated, “It’s critical that we protect our Israeli allies especially as they face threats from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and – maybe more sinister – right here in the U.S. Congress.”

This is not a call to action, it is incitement.

Elected representatives in Congress “more sinister” than ISIS? Last year, I met with AIPAC representatives from Minnesota in my office. Do forces “more sinister” than ISIS sit down and meet with AIPAC’s advocates? AIPAC wants its followers to believe that my bill, H.R. 2407, to protect Palestinian children from being interrogated, abused, and even tortured in Israeli military prisons is a threat more sinister than ISIS. This is not empty political rhetoric. It is hate speech.

AIPAC’s language is intended to demonize, not elevate a policy debate. Vile attacks such as this may be commonplace in the Trump era, but they should never be normalized. Hate speech is intentionally destructive and dehumanizing, which is why it is used as a weapon by groups with a stake in profiting from oppression. I will not back down from my commitment to peace, justice, equality, and human rights for Palestinians and Israelis.

I want Jews, Muslims, Christians, and all people to be safe, secure, and able to find hope and opportunity – in the U.S., in Israel, and in Palestine. AIPAC claims to be a bipartisan organization, but its use of hate speech actually makes it a hate group. By weaponizing anti-Semitism and hate to silence debate, AIPAC is taunting Democrats and mocking our core values. I hope Democrats understand what is at stake and take a stand because working to advance peace, human rights, and justice is not sinister – it is righteous.

snip

Used sparingly, it can make vivid a point that must be got across quickly. When resorted to habitually, people come to forget they are using a rhetorical device, and come to take the exaggerations for effect as statements of fact. Sometimes they then come to feel these 'facts' require even further hyperbolic exaggeration, and soon enough we arrive at a point where, for example, elective abortion is described as racist genocide.

It would seem that AIPAC, on the showing of what you have posted up, has crossed that line at the run and gone deep into the shadowlands. Supporters of Israel have made a bad mistake in this country by accepting the support they do from the most retrograde evangelical elements of the United States, whose actual views regarding Jews and the establishment of Israel do not bear close examination. These people are not really friends of Israel, and certainly not of Jews. By pinning their cause to these elements, people like AIPAC are turning the question of support for Israel into a partisan issue, where before it was a broadly accepted consensus. As support for Israel becomes increasingly identified with radical religious fundamentalists here, who are hostile to just about every other political and cultural bloc, the broad acceptance of the idea the United States should support Israel will fray to tatters, and AIPAC will not like the result.

and run as an Independent?

Well, I don't wonder that much.