What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

top of the heap to third world status in one generation

GenghisKush

Well-known member
POLITICS / JUNE 26, 2024

Jamaal Bowman Didn’t Lose Because of AIPAC​

Their astonishing spending mattered less than how the congressman’s Jewish constituents weighed his words and actions.
ALEXIS GRENELL


bowman-flag-getty.jpg
Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) lost his bid for reelection to New York’s 16th Congressional District.(Michael M. Santiago / Getty)

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is absolutely slaphappy about Jamaal Bowman’s defeat on Tuesday, claiming as much credit as it can for spending an eye-popping $14.5 million to elect George Latimer to Congress. Given the group’s repeated failure to knock out members of the Squad, they’ve long been desperate for a win, but they overpaid for bragging rights. Way back in January, well before AIPAC even spent a dime, the Latimer campaign had internal polls showing him up 10 points over the incumbent: That’s a massive lead for a non-incumbent, which testifies to Bowman’s weaknesses. Latimer later won by 17 points. What really made the difference in the race were Jewish voters themselves: people who live in the district, some of whom voted for Bowman previously, some of whom did not—the majority of whom could not stomach his rhetoric around the war in Gaza, exacerbated by an indifference bordering on hostility to their fears and feedback. It’s easy to blame Bowman’s loss primarily on AIPAC, but that would be as misleading as it is for them to claim credit. The real story here is much more straightforward—and sad.

There are about 130,000 Jews in Westchester, representing 9 percent of the population, who typically account for 20 percent of the vote. This year they reached 24 percent, with more than 50 percent of the mail-in vote coming from likely Jewish constituents, thanks in large part to a GOTV operation called Westchester Unites. Westchester Unites identified a universe of 27,000 likely Jewish Democrats, focusing on those who had voted in one of the last four primaries, casual voters rather than prime voters. It then ran an aggressive organizing campaign to turn out a staggering 15,000 Jewish voters, among them approximately 2,000 Republicans and Independents whom it re-registered as Democrats—an underhanded and ultimately unnecessary move given Latimer’s margin of victory. However, as a 501(c)(3), Westchester Unites was expressly forbidden from pushing a candidate. It canvassed, phone banked, and sent mailers full of information about how to vote without any mention of a candidate, and organized throughout the 40 Jewish institutions in the district, across religious denominations. Its main message was “antisemitism is on the ballot,” betting that Jews would do their own research and find Bowman’s words and actions sufficiently motivating.

A non-exhaustive list: describing the war in Gaza as a “genocide,” a term that Bernie Sanders has explicitly resisted; disputing that the attack was unprovoked; using the settler colonialism framework that posits Jews as non-Indigenous interlopers in a land they have no claim to; praising well-known Jewish provocateur Norman Finkelstein, whose book The Holocaust Industry accuses Jews of exploiting the Holocaust and promotes conspiracy theories (he later apologized); generally promoting or aligning with groups and people who celebrated October 7 as “resistance”; characterizing Jewish settlement patterns in Westchester as segregated; using “Zionist” as a pejorative.

These are not people AIPAC “controls,” as Bowman described the group’s grip on Congress, although voters most certainly saw their Web ads, which featured truly ugly footage of Bowman denying that Hamas raped Israeli women on October 7 (he eventually apologized, sort of). Presumably, these voters were scared and offended by what they heard from Bowman, and voted accordingly.

This is where the institutional left needs to do some serious self-criticism. The explicitly anti-Zionist Jewish Voices for Peace and the Jewish Vote—the 501(c)(4) arm of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, which counts 500 members in NY16—are simply not representative of the majority of Jewish voters. And it’s not because that majority are “AIPAC voters” or “pro-genocide” as Representative Ilhan Omar slandered Jewish students at Columbia who were not part of the encampments. Polling repeatedly shows that most Jews in America support a two-state solution, an end to the war, the hostages returned home, and Netanyahu out of power—positions well-represented by the liberal Zionist organization J-Street.

Bowman lost J-Street’s endorsement and Jewish voters who’d previously supported him not only because he moved away from this position but also because he flirted with and then fully ingratiated himself to a section of the left that does not believe in Israel’s right to exist at all, often bleeding into an antisemitism that I’ve written about extensively. Bowman went deep down this spiral when he could’ve more easily faced his voters if he’d stuck to a substantive critique of US foreign policy. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), who campaigned with Bowman in the Bronx, describes himself as “pro-Israel and pro-Palestine,” and managed to unequivocally condemn Hamas while cosponsoring a resolution calling for a cease-fire as early as October. He is neither a favorite of AIPAC nor beloved by hardline pro-Palestine activists who demonstrated against him at a concert. Conditioning aid to Israel sounds completely reasonable when it isn’t wrapped in rhetoric about settler colonialism, and extended lectures from non-Jews and the minority of Jews who agree with them about weaponizing antisemitism.

By framing the race as a proxy battle with the “Zionist regime we call AIPAC,” Bowman ended up treating Jewish voters in the district as if they themselves were foreign to it, as opposed to people with legitimate concerns about his representation of their concerns. As one Jewish, J-Street-aligned former Bowman supporter put it in a recent HuffPost story: “He created alliances that shouldn’t be created. I shouldn’t be allying with an AIPAC candidate.” Things veered into hypocrisy when Bowman rallied outside of the district with Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—arguing that right-wing billionaires were trying to buy the district, when only 10 percent of his own contributions came from within.

Bowman is not an antisemite. The problem is that antisemitism is a conspiracy theory, and it turns out that Bowman is a little conspiracy-curious—which makes it easy to find himself spouting the kind of rhetoric that sounds warning bells for many Jews. AIPAC is a single-issue organization that lobbies Congress and spends obscene amounts of money to influence elections on the only issue it cares about: unconditional support for Israel’s current government (which for nearly 20 years has meant the corrupt, racist, expansionist Netanyahu regime). That means happily backing the January 6 insurrectionists, among others, so long as they toe the line on Israel. This has a corrosive effect on our democracy that’s unambiguously bad—but not uniquely evil. Contrary to Bowman’s claim that “they oppose the working class, multiracial, multieconomic, multicultural democracy that we are trying to build,” AIPAC really just cares about Israel. Building it up into an all-powerful front against all things good doesn’t help progressives, Palestinians, or the Jews who support them. Also considering how much AIPAC loses, turning it into an all-powerful boogeyman only redounds to its benefit. So, too, the attempt to retrofit Latimer into a racist running a Southern strategy, rather than talking more about his indefensible refusal to raise taxes on the rich. Latimer made plenty of cringeworthy comments about race, but he just wasn’t monster material. It mostly made Bowman seem disconnected from the reality on the ground. Local Black leaders endorsed Latimer in Mount Vernon and Yonkers, where he seems to won handily.

I’m not happy about any of this. I grew up in the non-Riverdale, Bronx portion of the district Bowman first won before it was redrawn, and he would’ve been my candidate (I’ve also defended him in The Nation). There are 50 Latimers already serving in Congress, and he will neither stand up to the Netanyahu government nor represent the 25 percent of the district that is Black better than Bowman. But it is Bowman’s mistake to think that he lost because AIPAC was able to “brainwash people into believing something that isn’t true,” as he said in his concession speech. The Jewish voters who could not support him are not mindless drones, and neither are the vast majority of non-Jewish voters who contributed to his 60-40 loss.

At some level he—and the movement that supported him—has to own that.
 

moose eater

Well-known member
POLITICS / JUNE 26, 2024

Jamaal Bowman Didn’t Lose Because of AIPAC​

Their astonishing spending mattered less than how the congressman’s Jewish constituents weighed his words and actions.
ALEXIS GRENELL


bowman-flag-getty.jpg
Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) lost his bid for reelection to New York’s 16th Congressional District.(Michael M. Santiago / Getty)

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is absolutely slaphappy about Jamaal Bowman’s defeat on Tuesday, claiming as much credit as it can for spending an eye-popping $14.5 million to elect George Latimer to Congress. Given the group’s repeated failure to knock out members of the Squad, they’ve long been desperate for a win, but they overpaid for bragging rights. Way back in January, well before AIPAC even spent a dime, the Latimer campaign had internal polls showing him up 10 points over the incumbent: That’s a massive lead for a non-incumbent, which testifies to Bowman’s weaknesses. Latimer later won by 17 points. What really made the difference in the race were Jewish voters themselves: people who live in the district, some of whom voted for Bowman previously, some of whom did not—the majority of whom could not stomach his rhetoric around the war in Gaza, exacerbated by an indifference bordering on hostility to their fears and feedback. It’s easy to blame Bowman’s loss primarily on AIPAC, but that would be as misleading as it is for them to claim credit. The real story here is much more straightforward—and sad.

There are about 130,000 Jews in Westchester, representing 9 percent of the population, who typically account for 20 percent of the vote. This year they reached 24 percent, with more than 50 percent of the mail-in vote coming from likely Jewish constituents, thanks in large part to a GOTV operation called Westchester Unites. Westchester Unites identified a universe of 27,000 likely Jewish Democrats, focusing on those who had voted in one of the last four primaries, casual voters rather than prime voters. It then ran an aggressive organizing campaign to turn out a staggering 15,000 Jewish voters, among them approximately 2,000 Republicans and Independents whom it re-registered as Democrats—an underhanded and ultimately unnecessary move given Latimer’s margin of victory. However, as a 501(c)(3), Westchester Unites was expressly forbidden from pushing a candidate. It canvassed, phone banked, and sent mailers full of information about how to vote without any mention of a candidate, and organized throughout the 40 Jewish institutions in the district, across religious denominations. Its main message was “antisemitism is on the ballot,” betting that Jews would do their own research and find Bowman’s words and actions sufficiently motivating.

A non-exhaustive list: describing the war in Gaza as a “genocide,” a term that Bernie Sanders has explicitly resisted; disputing that the attack was unprovoked; using the settler colonialism framework that posits Jews as non-Indigenous interlopers in a land they have no claim to; praising well-known Jewish provocateur Norman Finkelstein, whose book The Holocaust Industry accuses Jews of exploiting the Holocaust and promotes conspiracy theories (he later apologized); generally promoting or aligning with groups and people who celebrated October 7 as “resistance”; characterizing Jewish settlement patterns in Westchester as segregated; using “Zionist” as a pejorative.

These are not people AIPAC “controls,” as Bowman described the group’s grip on Congress, although voters most certainly saw their Web ads, which featured truly ugly footage of Bowman denying that Hamas raped Israeli women on October 7 (he eventually apologized, sort of). Presumably, these voters were scared and offended by what they heard from Bowman, and voted accordingly.

This is where the institutional left needs to do some serious self-criticism. The explicitly anti-Zionist Jewish Voices for Peace and the Jewish Vote—the 501(c)(4) arm of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, which counts 500 members in NY16—are simply not representative of the majority of Jewish voters. And it’s not because that majority are “AIPAC voters” or “pro-genocide” as Representative Ilhan Omar slandered Jewish students at Columbia who were not part of the encampments. Polling repeatedly shows that most Jews in America support a two-state solution, an end to the war, the hostages returned home, and Netanyahu out of power—positions well-represented by the liberal Zionist organization J-Street.

Bowman lost J-Street’s endorsement and Jewish voters who’d previously supported him not only because he moved away from this position but also because he flirted with and then fully ingratiated himself to a section of the left that does not believe in Israel’s right to exist at all, often bleeding into an antisemitism that I’ve written about extensively. Bowman went deep down this spiral when he could’ve more easily faced his voters if he’d stuck to a substantive critique of US foreign policy. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), who campaigned with Bowman in the Bronx, describes himself as “pro-Israel and pro-Palestine,” and managed to unequivocally condemn Hamas while cosponsoring a resolution calling for a cease-fire as early as October. He is neither a favorite of AIPAC nor beloved by hardline pro-Palestine activists who demonstrated against him at a concert. Conditioning aid to Israel sounds completely reasonable when it isn’t wrapped in rhetoric about settler colonialism, and extended lectures from non-Jews and the minority of Jews who agree with them about weaponizing antisemitism.

By framing the race as a proxy battle with the “Zionist regime we call AIPAC,” Bowman ended up treating Jewish voters in the district as if they themselves were foreign to it, as opposed to people with legitimate concerns about his representation of their concerns. As one Jewish, J-Street-aligned former Bowman supporter put it in a recent HuffPost story: “He created alliances that shouldn’t be created. I shouldn’t be allying with an AIPAC candidate.” Things veered into hypocrisy when Bowman rallied outside of the district with Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—arguing that right-wing billionaires were trying to buy the district, when only 10 percent of his own contributions came from within.

Bowman is not an antisemite. The problem is that antisemitism is a conspiracy theory, and it turns out that Bowman is a little conspiracy-curious—which makes it easy to find himself spouting the kind of rhetoric that sounds warning bells for many Jews. AIPAC is a single-issue organization that lobbies Congress and spends obscene amounts of money to influence elections on the only issue it cares about: unconditional support for Israel’s current government (which for nearly 20 years has meant the corrupt, racist, expansionist Netanyahu regime). That means happily backing the January 6 insurrectionists, among others, so long as they toe the line on Israel. This has a corrosive effect on our democracy that’s unambiguously bad—but not uniquely evil. Contrary to Bowman’s claim that “they oppose the working class, multiracial, multieconomic, multicultural democracy that we are trying to build,” AIPAC really just cares about Israel. Building it up into an all-powerful front against all things good doesn’t help progressives, Palestinians, or the Jews who support them. Also considering how much AIPAC loses, turning it into an all-powerful boogeyman only redounds to its benefit. So, too, the attempt to retrofit Latimer into a racist running a Southern strategy, rather than talking more about his indefensible refusal to raise taxes on the rich. Latimer made plenty of cringeworthy comments about race, but he just wasn’t monster material. It mostly made Bowman seem disconnected from the reality on the ground. Local Black leaders endorsed Latimer in Mount Vernon and Yonkers, where he seems to won handily.

I’m not happy about any of this. I grew up in the non-Riverdale, Bronx portion of the district Bowman first won before it was redrawn, and he would’ve been my candidate (I’ve also defended him in The Nation). There are 50 Latimers already serving in Congress, and he will neither stand up to the Netanyahu government nor represent the 25 percent of the district that is Black better than Bowman. But it is Bowman’s mistake to think that he lost because AIPAC was able to “brainwash people into believing something that isn’t true,” as he said in his concession speech. The Jewish voters who could not support him are not mindless drones, and neither are the vast majority of non-Jewish voters who contributed to his 60-40 loss.

At some level he—and the movement that supported him—has to own that.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!

More money spent than in any House race in history. But I'm sure that had no effect. Other than for the fact that over 90% of races are won based on who spent the most money.
 

moose eater

Well-known member

Over and over again...
The sooner we burn it down, the sooner it can be rebuilt again without so much of the graft.

There's no reforming this one back into the bottle. It's too far gone. The pigs never leave the trough willingly as long as there's slops in it.

 

Cannavore

Well-known member
Veteran
Do a little actual open eyed looking. You asked me previously for the examples of the ongoing 'battle' - oppression, which I gave, which you ignored. Perhaps you are isolated in a city far away from the ongoing brutality and push back (and don't wish to see). As you have stated regarding the Palestinians, it is not just about the land (although that is big and some Indigenous cases have prevailed)
Gazans:
- Can't leave Gaza, they will be shot and killed if they do
- Can't find jobs (highest employment in the world)
- Under military blockade by land air and sea
- Are not citizens of any country


Native Americans:
- Can leave their reservations and the US
- Can find jobs
- Are not under military blockade. They can also serve in the US military.
- Are US citizens
- Are able to use the power of the judicial system to try and ameliorate their conditions


Sorry but I don't see these two things as equal.

Do you have enough kindness in your heart to give back?
?? Give back what?

One person giving up their land does nothing. This is tantamount to asking someone who is in favor of higher taxes to start paying higher taxes even though it's not on the books to pay that much. It's a drop of water in a bucket. These problems are systemic, not an individualistic choice.
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
The sooner we burn it down, the sooner it can be rebuilt again without so much of the graft.

There's no reforming this one back into the bottle. It's too far gone. The pigs never leave the trough willingly as long as there's slops in it.


I post a good deal of Hartmann's content on here.
One of the things that I liked most about him, was that he does on a regular basis name the three Supreme Court decisions that have resulted in our country having legalizing political bribery.
Citizens United being the third, and final insult.
Those decisions could be overturned by a more balanced court as well as being remedied by Congress.
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Sorry but I don't see these two things as equal.
Neither do I, at least not in contemporary terms. I was not trying to portray them as equal; just making a statement that you are a colonizer. What individuals choose to give back can have profound positive effects. You speak as if the oppression of the North American Indigenous people is ancient history, yet government enacted stealing of children and forced re-education was still ongoing in the 70s and 80s well post 1948. I actually tried to give a large acreage to an Indian Band (as they are legally defined) in the form of a trust conservation covenant. This was prohibited by federal law.
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
I would like to share something I heard said quite recently:
With the death of JFK, two wars reached a conclusion.
The first being the American Civil war- the South won.
The second being WWII, and the axis did prevail.

The individual who made the statement is Dave Emory,
who describes himself as an anti-fascist researcher.
His website: spitfirelist.com
 
Last edited:

moose eater

Well-known member
I post a good deal of Hartmann's content on here.
One of the things that I liked most about him, was that he does on a regular basis name the three Supreme Court decisions that have resulted in our country having legalizing political bribery.
Citizens United being the third, and final insult.
Those decisions could be overturned by a more balanced court as well as being remedied by Congress.
The overwhelming majority of both primary political parties' members in DC are corporatists, and sponsored by their nat'l orgs that are sponsored by the corporations and the wealthy. They're not about to craft, let alone pass, any legislation that endangers their comfortable imbalance they benefit from, despite the known fact that this same system disenfranchises the commoners.

The SCOTUS justices are appointed by the presidents who represent these same corporatist entities and are endorsed by the same nat'l political parties' orgs, with ALL of these campaigns financed by high-dollar 'political investors' whose aim is to insure that those on top of king turd hill remain there for the benefit of those.... oligarchs..... who contribute to, and influence both parties' platforms and direction....

There will be no promising insightful justices or representatives to arise in any great number from this quagmire sufficient to upend this now mature sham on the public. They will not disrupt this long-cultivated rouse. If anything, they will make the disparities more incredible and brazen, just as they have been steadily doing.

The pigs will not abandon the trough as long as there are slops in it; not without brute force and/or sufficient pain or fear that instills injury to this system that's greater than their profits from the scams. I've raised hogs, and these scammers and corporatists are no different in this regard.

"Burn down the mission, if we're gonna' stay alive. Watch the black smoke rise to Heaven...."

Edit: in mental health, many years ago, there was an adage occasionally used, that went something like this: "Change will occur when the pain, fear or suffering resulting from not changing outweighs the pain, fear or suffering of change."

I've found this to be mostly true of our species, and directly correlates, in my opinion, with how we've permitted ourselves to end up in this mess to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
The overwhelming majority of both primary political parties' members in DC are corporatists, and sponsored by their nat'l orgs that are sponsored by the corporations and the wealthy. They're not about to craft, let alone pass, any legislation that endangers their comfortable imbalance they benefit from, despite the known fact that this same system disenfranchises the commoners.

The SCOTUS justices are appointed by the presidents who represent these same corporatist entities and are endorsed by the same nat'l political parties' orgs, with ALL of these campaigns financed by high-dollar 'political investors' whose aim is to insure that those on top of king turd hill remain there for the benefit of those.... oligarchs..... who contribute to, and influence both parties' platforms and direction....

There will be no promising insightful justices or representatives to arise in any great number from this quagmire sufficient to upend this now mature sham on the public. They will not disrupt this long-cultivated rouse. If anything, they will make the disparities more incredible and brazen, just as they have been steadily doing.

The pigs will not abandon the trough as long as there are slops in it; not without brute force and/or sufficient pain or fear that instills injury to this system that's greater than their profits from the scams. I've raised hogs, and these scammers and corporatists are no different in this regard.

"Burn down the mission, if we're gonna' stay alive. Watch the black smoke rise to Heaven...."

Edit: in mental health, many years ago, there was an adage occasionally used, that went something like this: "Change will occur when the pain, fear or suffering resulting from not changing outweighs the pain, fear or suffering of change."

I've found this to be mostly true of our species, and directly correlates, in my opinion, with how we've permitted ourselves to end up in this mess to begin with.
Thank you moose eater, I appreciate your perspective a great deal.
Ran across one of your fellow mental health professionals with an alarming perspective:
 

moose eater

Well-known member
Thank you moose eater, I appreciate your perspective a great deal.
Ran across one of your fellow mental health professionals with an alarming perspective:

Both primary (embarrassing) candidates represent loathsome issues; both are corporatists beholding to Wall Street and the DoD's inside circle of contractors, and both are shallow and callous when it comes to many issues.

Trump, indeed, demonstrates a series of major personality disorders, and is unfit to caretake small animals, let alone sit in the Oval Office. I wouldn't want him SWEEPING the Oval Office as a janitor.

Biden represents another form of narcissistic personality disorder, is now clearly experiencing early dementia, and has a long history of supporting reprehensible, ignorant, racist, illegal, destructive policies. For FUCKING YEARS.

There's no deserving winner in any of this, and no depth of vision or wisdom. And every citizen of more common means will lose, whether they recognize it or not. Like walking into a restaurant voluntarily, full well knowing you're about to be served rotted food, yet making the reservations and paying the tab anyway.

Silliness abounds in the Stockholm world of political negative relativism.

"My mentally ill, sold-out, pretentious and disingenuous, callous and self-serving maniac is better than yours."

And an insufficient number of people are willing to do otherwise than to vote for such destructive mutant assholes.
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
We are watching them unbolt the country we live in.
As per Bannon : The deconstruction of the administrative state.
There's no shortage of things that are wrong here,
but both parties are not equally guilty or dirty.
The democratic party has a few anticorporate members,
with numbers that are slowly increasing.
I know which party it was that felt good about financing
the likes of Mussolini and then Hitler.
I see the pattern being repeated, with immigrants
taking the place Jews held then.
We went into WWII with one set of values,
and midway through the conflict turned our
backs on a most staunch ally, and embraced
the values of the country we had go to war
against.
The 2025 agenda set forth by the republican
party delivers everything the bastards behind
the coup of the thirties wanted.
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
This story has been soundly debunked. Ingham cited publications not in existence and had to apologize for misleading data on several fronts. She extrapolated from one experiment; this is not sound science. She 'coincidentally' left her post at university. At the same time as this she was stating the use of EM fermentations caused alcohol which would kill plants despite it's extensive successful use in Asian countries. I spoke out in those days against her dogma that all anaerobes and actinobacteria are bad.


 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran

 
Last edited:
Top