SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Democrats like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (l) and Ayanna Pressley (c) are fed up with the DCCC blacklist. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)
Progressive Democrats are going on record with their displeasure over the establishment higher-up's decision to protect incumbents, a reflection of the party's division over a vendor blacklist.
"The only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die."
--Lizz Winstead
On Sunday, The New York Times published an article from reporter Jennifer Steinhauer in which a number of the party's rising stars took public positions against a March decision by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to blacklist vendors who work with anyone--including primary challengers--who run against an incumbent Democrat.
As Common Dreams reported at the time, the policy says the DCCC "will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting member of the House Democratic Caucus."
Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), who won her seat by beating fellow political newcomer Mary Glassman in a primary contest for retiring Rep. Elizabeth Esty in 2018 before winning the general election, said that the policy is choking off the possibility of fresh ideas and and a new generation of leaders.
"If I waited my turn, I wouldn't be here," Hayes told the Times. "There is a gatekeeper mentality that sometimes can diminish new ideas."
That point was echoed by Steve Welchert, a spokesperson for Crisanta Duran, who is challenging Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) in next year's primary.
"It is having a chilling effect on everyone's capacity to move forward," said Welchert, who also called the DCCC policy "bullying."
Other Democrats Steinhauer spoke to were more specific in their criticism, citing the party's incumbent bench of white men as the main thing that will be protected by the new rules. Two-thirds of the caucus's longest-serving members are white, and two-thirds are men.
"It is hard enough for challengers, for a lot of reasons," said the consultant, Amy Pritchard, who worked last year for Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts, in her successful campaign to defeat a 10-term Democratic incumbent. "And this policy is a bridge too far. I'd like to see a majority of women in Congress, and it's not going to happen with this policy."
....
The new policy will most likely block candidates seeking to follow in the footsteps of Ms. Pressley, who is black, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is of Puerto Rican descent, both of whom defeated veteran white male Democrats last year, Michael Capuano and Joseph Crowley.
Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead, in an angry tweet, sounded off on the policy.
"The only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die," said Winstead.
\u201cDo I have this right- Dem incumbents are mostly men. A woman who would like to primary a seat. If she shows she could win, is a better choice, will get no financial support from @DCCC? That says the only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die\u201d— Lizz "Insufferable Wench" Winstead (@Lizz "Insufferable Wench" Winstead) 1559481069
"It makes sense that the incumbent faction would try to block the challengers," writer David Menefee-Libey said on Twitter, adding that he was referring both to candidates and the entrenched consultant class that runs Democratic campaigns.
Menefee-Libey's read was similar to that of NBC News reporter Jonathan Allen, who put the DCCC action in the context of where the organization gets its money--and who it protects. They're not necessarily the same people, said Allen.
"The DCCC is an incumbent-protection organization funded in part by member dues," Allen said. "But, over time, its budget has grown as a result of fundraising outside of members and their big-dollar supporters. So, they're now asking grassroots to fund incumbent-protection services."
Thus far the policy has only been softly enforced, but it's had an effect.
In April, Common Dreams reported that Marie Newman, an Illinois Democrat challenging anti-choice incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), was having trouble finding people to work on her campaign due to the blacklist. Earlier that month, a story at The Interceptshowed the same issue was being navigated by McKayla Wilkes, who is running to replace longtime Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
"Progressive challengers like Marie Newman will see more of this cronyism," said Progressive Change Committee's Marissa Barrow.
"But," Barrow said, "the progressive grassroots will have their backs."
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Progressive Democrats are going on record with their displeasure over the establishment higher-up's decision to protect incumbents, a reflection of the party's division over a vendor blacklist.
"The only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die."
--Lizz Winstead
On Sunday, The New York Times published an article from reporter Jennifer Steinhauer in which a number of the party's rising stars took public positions against a March decision by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to blacklist vendors who work with anyone--including primary challengers--who run against an incumbent Democrat.
As Common Dreams reported at the time, the policy says the DCCC "will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting member of the House Democratic Caucus."
Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), who won her seat by beating fellow political newcomer Mary Glassman in a primary contest for retiring Rep. Elizabeth Esty in 2018 before winning the general election, said that the policy is choking off the possibility of fresh ideas and and a new generation of leaders.
"If I waited my turn, I wouldn't be here," Hayes told the Times. "There is a gatekeeper mentality that sometimes can diminish new ideas."
That point was echoed by Steve Welchert, a spokesperson for Crisanta Duran, who is challenging Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) in next year's primary.
"It is having a chilling effect on everyone's capacity to move forward," said Welchert, who also called the DCCC policy "bullying."
Other Democrats Steinhauer spoke to were more specific in their criticism, citing the party's incumbent bench of white men as the main thing that will be protected by the new rules. Two-thirds of the caucus's longest-serving members are white, and two-thirds are men.
"It is hard enough for challengers, for a lot of reasons," said the consultant, Amy Pritchard, who worked last year for Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts, in her successful campaign to defeat a 10-term Democratic incumbent. "And this policy is a bridge too far. I'd like to see a majority of women in Congress, and it's not going to happen with this policy."
....
The new policy will most likely block candidates seeking to follow in the footsteps of Ms. Pressley, who is black, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is of Puerto Rican descent, both of whom defeated veteran white male Democrats last year, Michael Capuano and Joseph Crowley.
Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead, in an angry tweet, sounded off on the policy.
"The only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die," said Winstead.
\u201cDo I have this right- Dem incumbents are mostly men. A woman who would like to primary a seat. If she shows she could win, is a better choice, will get no financial support from @DCCC? That says the only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die\u201d— Lizz "Insufferable Wench" Winstead (@Lizz "Insufferable Wench" Winstead) 1559481069
"It makes sense that the incumbent faction would try to block the challengers," writer David Menefee-Libey said on Twitter, adding that he was referring both to candidates and the entrenched consultant class that runs Democratic campaigns.
Menefee-Libey's read was similar to that of NBC News reporter Jonathan Allen, who put the DCCC action in the context of where the organization gets its money--and who it protects. They're not necessarily the same people, said Allen.
"The DCCC is an incumbent-protection organization funded in part by member dues," Allen said. "But, over time, its budget has grown as a result of fundraising outside of members and their big-dollar supporters. So, they're now asking grassroots to fund incumbent-protection services."
Thus far the policy has only been softly enforced, but it's had an effect.
In April, Common Dreams reported that Marie Newman, an Illinois Democrat challenging anti-choice incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), was having trouble finding people to work on her campaign due to the blacklist. Earlier that month, a story at The Interceptshowed the same issue was being navigated by McKayla Wilkes, who is running to replace longtime Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
"Progressive challengers like Marie Newman will see more of this cronyism," said Progressive Change Committee's Marissa Barrow.
"But," Barrow said, "the progressive grassroots will have their backs."
Progressive Democrats are going on record with their displeasure over the establishment higher-up's decision to protect incumbents, a reflection of the party's division over a vendor blacklist.
"The only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die."
--Lizz Winstead
On Sunday, The New York Times published an article from reporter Jennifer Steinhauer in which a number of the party's rising stars took public positions against a March decision by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to blacklist vendors who work with anyone--including primary challengers--who run against an incumbent Democrat.
As Common Dreams reported at the time, the policy says the DCCC "will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting member of the House Democratic Caucus."
Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), who won her seat by beating fellow political newcomer Mary Glassman in a primary contest for retiring Rep. Elizabeth Esty in 2018 before winning the general election, said that the policy is choking off the possibility of fresh ideas and and a new generation of leaders.
"If I waited my turn, I wouldn't be here," Hayes told the Times. "There is a gatekeeper mentality that sometimes can diminish new ideas."
That point was echoed by Steve Welchert, a spokesperson for Crisanta Duran, who is challenging Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) in next year's primary.
"It is having a chilling effect on everyone's capacity to move forward," said Welchert, who also called the DCCC policy "bullying."
Other Democrats Steinhauer spoke to were more specific in their criticism, citing the party's incumbent bench of white men as the main thing that will be protected by the new rules. Two-thirds of the caucus's longest-serving members are white, and two-thirds are men.
"It is hard enough for challengers, for a lot of reasons," said the consultant, Amy Pritchard, who worked last year for Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts, in her successful campaign to defeat a 10-term Democratic incumbent. "And this policy is a bridge too far. I'd like to see a majority of women in Congress, and it's not going to happen with this policy."
....
The new policy will most likely block candidates seeking to follow in the footsteps of Ms. Pressley, who is black, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is of Puerto Rican descent, both of whom defeated veteran white male Democrats last year, Michael Capuano and Joseph Crowley.
Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead, in an angry tweet, sounded off on the policy.
"The only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die," said Winstead.
\u201cDo I have this right- Dem incumbents are mostly men. A woman who would like to primary a seat. If she shows she could win, is a better choice, will get no financial support from @DCCC? That says the only time they support getting more women is when male incumbents leave or die\u201d— Lizz "Insufferable Wench" Winstead (@Lizz "Insufferable Wench" Winstead) 1559481069
"It makes sense that the incumbent faction would try to block the challengers," writer David Menefee-Libey said on Twitter, adding that he was referring both to candidates and the entrenched consultant class that runs Democratic campaigns.
Menefee-Libey's read was similar to that of NBC News reporter Jonathan Allen, who put the DCCC action in the context of where the organization gets its money--and who it protects. They're not necessarily the same people, said Allen.
"The DCCC is an incumbent-protection organization funded in part by member dues," Allen said. "But, over time, its budget has grown as a result of fundraising outside of members and their big-dollar supporters. So, they're now asking grassroots to fund incumbent-protection services."
Thus far the policy has only been softly enforced, but it's had an effect.
In April, Common Dreams reported that Marie Newman, an Illinois Democrat challenging anti-choice incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), was having trouble finding people to work on her campaign due to the blacklist. Earlier that month, a story at The Interceptshowed the same issue was being navigated by McKayla Wilkes, who is running to replace longtime Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
"Progressive challengers like Marie Newman will see more of this cronyism," said Progressive Change Committee's Marissa Barrow.
"But," Barrow said, "the progressive grassroots will have their backs."
One union leader called President Donald Trump's executive order "the most significant assault on collective bargaining rights we have ever seen in the United States."
A coalition of labor unions representing federal workers across the United States sued the Trump administration on Friday over its recent order aimed at stripping union rights from more than a million government employees, a move that the lawsuit characterizes as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
The suit, brought by unions that collectively represent more than 950,000 federal workers, stems from a March 27 order titled "Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs," in which President Donald Trump cites a provision of a 1978 law to deny collective bargaining rights to certain government workers on national security grounds.
But the unions behind the new lawsuit say the national security justification is a smokescreen to hide the true intent of the order: further eroding workers' organizing rights.
"Federal employees have had the right to join a union and bargain collectively for decades—through multiple wars, international conflicts, and a global health emergency during President Trump's first term," said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. "During all that time, they served the American people with honor and distinction. No one, including President Trump, ever suggested unions were a national security concern."
"Trump's newest order to revoke union rights is a clear case of retaliation," he added. "But I've got news for him: We are not going anywhere."
The lawsuit points specifically to language included in a fact sheet the White House released in conjunction with Trump's March 27 order. The document claims that "certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda," citing AFGE lawsuits against the administration and legal actions by Veterans Affairs unions.
Shortly after Trump signed the order last week, the administration sued AFGE and many of its local affiliates in federal court in an attempt to cancel dozens of collective bargaining agreements between unions and federal agencies. Reuters noted that the administration claimed the union contracts are impeding "Trump's abilities to purge the federal workforce and protect national security."
"The labor movement stands in solidarity, and we will not let this administration's union-busting tactics silence us."
The unions' new lawsuit states that the "avowedly retaliatory nature" of Trump's executive order and its "attempt to punish federal unions who engage in politically disfavored speech and petitioning activities and decline to 'work with' the president renders it unconstitutional under the First Amendment."
The lawsuit also notes that billionaire Elon Musk, the richest person in the world and a top Trump lieutenant, has used his social media platform to promote a recent post that attacked several federal workers' unions by name.
"The president's unlawful executive order attacking federal unions is not only an attack on a million federal workers but is a direct attack on all workers who seek a collective voice to bargain for a better future," April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement Friday. "This is blatant retaliation against brave workers who dared to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize this administration's authoritarian overreach. The labor movement stands in solidarity, and we will not let this administration’s union-busting tactics silence us."
Randy Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), called Trump's order "the most significant assault on collective bargaining rights we have ever seen in the United States" and said it is "clear that this executive order is retaliation for federal unions fighting back against the Trump administration's attempts to dismantle the civil service."
"This is yet another direct attack by the President not only on federal employees, but also veterans, working families, and the very fabric of our democracy," said Erwin. "However, federal workers' collective bargaining rights are protected by law and President Trump does not have the right to unilaterally eliminate them. NFFE and our allies are confident the rule of law will be upheld, and the critical rights of working people will be protected."
"What AOC is doing is leadership—and people see that," said one observer.
A poll released Friday from the progressive think tank Data for Progress has Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez besting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also a Democrat, by 19 points in a hypothetical matchup in the 2028 New York primary for a U.S. Senate seat.
According to the poll, which was was first shared exclusively with Politico, 55% of voters said they would cast a ballot for Ocasio-Cortez or leaned toward supporting her, and 36% said they would support Schumer or leaned toward supporting him, with 9% undecided.
The only subgroup that supported Schumer over Ocasio-Cortez were moderates, who favored Schumer 50%-35%, with 15% undecided. Ocasio-Cortez carried all other subgroups with an outright majority, except for voters over the age of 45, 49% of whom said they would support her or leaned toward supporting her.
The poll—while several years out from the actual race—comes in the wake of Schumer's decision to throw his support behind a Republican-backed spending bill in early March, a move that roiled his own party and prompted calls for him to step aside from his leadership position in the Senate.
The episode also sparked murmurs among some Democrats that Ocasio-Cortez should consider a primary bid against Schumer in 2028.
The poll was conducted March 26-31 and surveyed 767 likely Democratic primary voters in New York state. According to Data for Progress, the polling indicated that the hypothetical matchup between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer is "relatively static" and does not shift when voters are offered more information about the respective candidates.
Ocasio-Cortez recently declined to speak about a potential run for Senate in 2028, according to Politico.
"Replacing Chuck Schumer with AOC would be an incredible upgrade. I guess we'll have to wait four more years…," wrote Bhaskar Sunkara, president of The Nation.
Zephyr Teachout, a professor at the Fordham University School of Law, shared Politico's reporting on the poll and wrote: "Good morning to leadership and fighting oligarchy!"
"What I mean is that what AOC is doing is leadership—and people see that," added Teachout, who also highlighted that the poll found that an overwhelming majority of respondents, 84%, want their leaders to do more to resist the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Another observer, market researcher Adam Carlson, highlighted that despite Schumer's loss in the hypothetical race, most respondent subgroups still view him favorably, according to the poll. Besides "very liberal" voters and those between ages 18-44, Schumer stands at over 50% "favorable" among all other subgroups surveyed.
"People just want a changing of the guard," said Carlson.
"Trade and tariff wars have no winners," said China's foreign ministry. "We urge the U.S. to stop doing the wrong thing."
The Chinese government on Friday responded to U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping new tariffs with 34% import duties on all American goods beginning next week, intensifying global blowback against the White House and accelerating a worldwide financial market tailspin.
China's tariffs on U.S. imports, which match the tariffs the Trump administration moved this week to impose on Chinese goods, are set to take effect on April 10. Trump's 34% tariffs on Chinese imports come on top of the 20% tariffs the U.S. president imposed earlier this year.
"The U.S. approach does not conform to international trade rules, seriously damages China's legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice," China's Ministry of Finance said in a Friday statement.
Additionally, China's Commerce Ministry announced immediate export restrictions on rare earth materials and "added 16 entities from the U.S., including High Point Aerotechnologies and Universal Logistics Holdings Inc., to its export control list," according to the state-run China Daily.
"Under the new rule," the outlet reported, "Chinese companies are prohibited from exporting dual-use items to these 16 U.S. entities. Any ongoing related export activities should be immediately halted, said the Ministry of Commerce."
Retaliatory tariffs from the world's second-largest economy mark the latest step in a global trade war launched by the Trump White House, which—despite warnings of disastrous impacts for working-class U.S. households and the broader economy—plowed ahead this week with a 10% universal tariff on imports and larger tariffs on a number of trading partners, including China.
Following Trump's official tariff announcement, Beijing condemned the duties as "unacceptable" and vowed to "take measures as necessary to firmly defend [China's] legitimate interests."
"Trade and tariff wars have no winners. Protectionism leads nowhere," said the spokesperson for China's foreign ministry on Thursday. "We urge the U.S. to stop doing the wrong thing, and resolve trade differences with China and other countries through consultation with equality, respect, and mutual benefit."
Other nations hit by Trump's tariffs are expected to respond in the coming days.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters Thursday that the E.U. was "already finalizing the first package of countermeasures in response to tariffs on steel, and we are now preparing for further countermeasures to protect our interests and our businesses if negotiations fail."
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed that "we are going to fight these tariffs with countermeasures."
"In a crisis, it's important to come together and it's essential to act with purpose and with force," Carney added. "And that's what we will do."