I haven't followed the Cori Bush campaign closely enough to offer any critique of its tactics, or her moves on I/P policy. In general, though, somebody has to be the tip of the spear, so I can't agree with the drift of some advice to the effect that progressive politicians should stay hiding in the hedges on I/P. The overall drift of the party on domestic policy is positive, on foreign policy it is clearly problematic in the face of the current regime of provocateurs in Israel. What to do? Beats me. It's an LBJ world, which didn't end well. Now all sorts of risks are heightened. The Nixon Republicans were evil, murderous swine, but compared to the current lot they were Renaissance men.
I called the anti-Bush effort one that was fueled by Israeli money. Calling it Jewish is clearly misbegotten, but it is just as clearly an enduring, hostile, reactionary domestic U.S. political force, not unlike the Russia bots. It should be identified. Until it is, it can't be fought.
I'd go further and say that since the Democratic Party indulges such interventions against Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, in that light it would be fair for such candidates to go third party in general elections. We cannot go forward with rules that it's o.k. for party establishments to attack our favored incumbents (or in the notorious case of India Walton, the legit winner of her primary), but we are supposed to keep playing nice.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
I was thinking Bush, Bowman, and Nina Turner, and maybe even India Walton (she was outspent a couple years ago in Buffalo) might get together some kind of counter to AiPAC and other big donors. Third party hadn't occurred to me. It's hard to know when that move would be safe and effective.
You're right. She should run