Getting What You Asked For

[T]he Democratic Socialists of America have admitted implementing a long-term strategy to exploit the Democratic Party’s ballot access, alarming establishment figures….

Establishment Progressive-Democrats, who are no longer mainstream Party members, but have been pushed to Party’s fringe right, are upset at these DSA usurpers. Jaime Harrison, Democratic National Committee Chairman from 2021 to 2025:

I say this with no ill will or animosity: if you hate the Democratic Party, then please don’t run for our nomination.
Don’t use our resources. Don’t rely on our volunteers. Don’t use our infrastructure. Don’t ask Democrats to invest their time, money, and energy in your campaign. Focus on building the party you actually support.

Umm, they are focused on that. And they’re using the broad access you and yours have been pushing for so many years already: opposition to SAVE America Act, which demands only citizens be allowed to vote and demands presentation of proof of citizenship when registering; moving to let non-citizens vote in local elections; and especially pushing jungle primaries, where party affiliation doesn’t matter, and if no single candidate gets an outright majority, the top two regardless of party go to a runoff.

Or did that broad access only apply when you could use it to upend Republican primaries and to stack national elections in your favor?

New York City DSA Co-Chair Gustavo Gordillo:

We’re on the Democratic Party ballot line. We contest the primaries, and when they’re in the legislature, they’re part of the Democratic Party caucus, but we don’t agree with the way the Democratic Party establishment organizes or runs its party apparatus.

And

We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals […] We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful, and push our own agenda from the inside.

Compare that with then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama saying just before his first election to President that Party was just days away from fundamentally changing America and to then-Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden in his first SOTU speech saying that he wanted to fundamentally change our economy.

Or did that fundamental change only apply if the now fringe right wing of Party could change our nation, and not apply to fundamental change of Party?

Don’t Sell F-35s to Turkey because…

…Turkey still has Russian S-400 air defense missile systems?

The Trump administration is expected to override a decision by a Democratic lawmaker who is blocking a proposed $750 million sale of jet engines to Turkey over concerns about the country’s ties to Russia.
Congressman Gregory Meeks (D, NY) had placed a hold on the sale to Turkey—a NATO ally that is hosting an alliance summit next month—because the country continues to hold a Russian S-400 air-defense system that it bought roughly a decade ago, along with other concerns about Turkey’s role in the region.

That S-400 system, after all, might spy on Turkey’s F-35s and learn how to defeat it.

This is silly. There are reasons to not sell F-35s to Turkey, but the idea that the S-400 can compromise the F-35’s stealth capabilities isn’t one of them, at least not anymore (if it ever was). We’ve sold lots of F-35s to other nations over the years. If the jet’s stealth capabilities could ever be compromised, they already have been, just from their use around the world and our enemies observing their use, including by those objectionable S-400 systems, and collecting data on detecting and otherwise countering the jets. And that foolishly ignores the fact that over those intervening years of F-35 operational use, there have been a plethora of—steadily more and more capable—systems watching and observing and analyzing the F-35 in all its operational flexes.

There are reasons for going ahead with the sale, too, and these should be weighed against those reasons for not selling. The presence of S-400s in the buying nation is not relevant.

What the Progressive-Democratic Party now Stands For

With Party’s nomination of three Democratic Socialists of America for our nation’s House of Representatives, its election of DSA member Zohran Mamdani as New York City mayor, its all but election of a DSA supporter as mayor of DC, and its nomination DSA acolytes for positions up and down the ballot across America, the Progressive-Democratic Party has made plain what it has chosen to stand for.

  • open support for Palestinians and Hamas
  • end to support for Israel, which is genocidal and apartheid
  • defunding our police departments, elimination of the police function altogether(!)
  • end to jail/prison for convicted felons
  • open national borders
    • abolish ICE
    • end deportations
  • seizure of the means of production
    • seize apartments, other rentals from existing landlords
  • Medicare for all—provision of a national, government produced, health system
  • push for all union employment, elimination of right to work provisions
  • packing Supreme Court
  • ever higher income taxes and wealth taxes

None of these is good for our nation. Any combination of them will be disastrous.

That’s the Point

Recall that one of New York City’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s goal was a plethora of city government-run grocery stores to sell groceries at “affordable prices”—which, for Mamdani, meant “cheaper than what existing grocery stores were selling.” He could mean only that, else he’d be conceding that those prices already were affordable.

The outcome of such a move is laid out in the subheadline:

His socialist supermarkets could put New York’s little grocers out of business.

That’s the point.

Like any good socialist, Mamdani wants government to control the producers. Especially if it’s the particular socialist’s government. Getting rid of the little businesses demonstrates to the larger stores and the chains—whose individual stores generally are franchises run by moms and pops or collections of them run by small- or mid-sized businesses—that they’d better kowtow to the socialist government or leave. In either case, that would increase government’s control over the remains.

An Upstart Election Win

Andy Burnham, a deep back bencher in the UK’s Labour Party, won the special district election held in the dinky little district in northern England, defeating his closest competitor, a Reform candidate, by 55%-34%. This puts him in line to overtly push his challenge to the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and at least get Starmer tossed as PM. Starmer has been insisting all along, in the face of his collapsing support and popularity, that he won’t go quietly.

Labour has long been the strongly dominant party in Makerfield, so the Reform candidate had no real chance. The Conservative candidate, who would have been the traditional strongest challenger, might as well have not bothered: he got all of 2% of the vote.

This raises a question in my pea brain. Is Nigel Farage, Reform’s leader, Machiavellian enough to get the Makerfield Reform candidate to tank the election in order to bump up Burnham’s numbers in order strengthen Burnham’s effort to get Starmer tossed in order to longer-term benefit Reform in the ensuing national election?

Inquiring minds are curious.