It’s a running discussion, whether newspaper endorsements mean anything in a modern world where crazy Uncle Steve and a few hundred Russian bots can create a groundswell of enthusiasm for the dimmest of political bulbs. But this morning’s Strib shout-out for Don Samuels over Ilhan Omar in next Tusday’s DFL primary may be a bit different in that, unlike a Republican primary, it’s talking to a mostly sanity-based audience.
The endorsement comes within a (very) long recitation of Samuels’ activist-within-the-accepted system bona fides. And there’s no disputing that at age 72 he’s covered a lot more ground than Omar, who is 39.
But as I read the endorsement I was reminded again of something I tell cranky lefties rolling their eyes at positions the Strib Op-Ed page takes on a range of issues. And that is that big newspapers (TV news doesn’t risk opinionated stands) are almost by definition a status quo entity. They see themselves playing a stabilizing role, calming and shushing the hormonal impulses of the fringes. In football terms, news organizations like the Strib prefer, and with their opinions they play a game between the 40 yard-lines. A little wiggle over this way, then a little wiggle back. Never too far or too much. But rather everything at mid-field, far from the over-heated end zones.
This is by way of me saying that I’ll vote for Omar again next Tuesday. Not necessarily because I see her as a more disciplined bureacrat, or even as the Strib argues for Samuels a more imaginative legislator, but because I see value in what the Strib sees as her excesses.
Omar is invariably lumped in with “The Squad”, the band of firebrand liberal women that includes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib. The women, all under age 50, representing barely 1% of the current Congress, yet are constantly irritating Washington’s Democratic leadership with loud demands for an aggressive, progressive agenda. And on the flip-side they are perpetually inflaming the nightmares of Trumpist Republicans who see all women of color as the deepest kind of threat to “the American way.”
These are both qualities hard to quantify but which I find appealing … and valuable.
It’s absolutely true that Omar has stepped in it more than once. In her first term, she exuded more than a bit of the entitled attitude that comes with being a good-looking woman — (a lot like the ‘tude that comes with star athletes, guys like Aaron Rodgers for example, who have pretty much always lived a rareified, revered existence substantially different than their peers.) She seems to have learned to modulate her public comments a bit more in her second term.
I suspect that her much-quoted remarks about Israel and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and Muslims in general did very little to stoke her appeal to the Twin Cities’ and U.S. Jewish community. But, for what it’s worth, what I heard in what she was saying, or trying to say, was that today’s Israeli government, only recently and perhaps only temporarily, released from the claws of the rigidly conservative, deeply corrupt Benjamin Netanyahu was the central issue … not simply that Israel is a Jewish state and all Jews are racists.
And what informed audience is going to deny that about Netanyahu and Israel’s version of our bat shit conservatives?
More central to my point here, what American political figure is going to make a consistent point of that? Of drawing regular attention to the crude and frankly ugly, counter-effective ways conservative Israeli governments have behaved in the Middle East?
I know nothing about how well Omar’s office has provided constituent service, but if it’s average it’s good enough, and if it pays particular attention to the Fifth District’s Somali population, that too is tolerable.
The Strib clearly sees Samuels being a better agent for Minneapolis’ black community. But I have a hard time imagining Omar neglecting the north side’s problems, despite her, um intemperate anger over name-your-favorite-Minneapolis-cop-killing of an unarmed black constituent.
And a final note to the bad faith crowd forever playing purely team-oriented politics. Ilhan Omar, AOC and the rest of the scary hyper-liberal “Squad” bear no resemblance — none — to the appalling freak-show idiocy and recklessness of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert, Paul Gosar, Louie Gohmert, Madison Cawthorn, Jim Jordan and on and on … and on and on … down there in the Republican end zone.
Omar still has plenty learn. But she’s engaged in serious, valuable progressive messaging and legislation. And she remains a unique voice in a Congress badly polluted by authoritarian dimwits and musty, status quo bureaucrats.
So yeah. I’m voting for her, again.
I’m going for Samuels. I agree there’s a false equivalency between the Squad and the MAGA crazies but I would like a more moderate, more effective representative in Congress. Ms. Omar, who is a talented politician, uses her office as a platform for social activism and less for legislative work. She’s certainly not the first, only or last pol to do so, but I am more impressed by elected officials who do the hard work of negotiating legislation, mastering the details and working across the aisle (cue the Pollyannish music). I see Ms. Omar at a lot of press conferences, on social media and elsewhere but not so much at committee markup sessions.
As an aside, I was happy to vote for her in general elections and particularly enjoyed how she triggered the fat Florida man who used to be on Twitter; I think the thing that scares him most in the world is a strong woman of color. Should she win the primary – which looks highly likely IMHO – I will happily vote for her again.
Agree
No argument about anything you said. There also is, however, value in promoting positions in ways that don’t create push-me/pull-you politics within the Democratic party.
As it is, Omar gives Republicans an easy way to brand all Democrats as lunatics. Like it or not, Republicans vote in immovable blocks these days, which means Democrats who don’t also play to win (Manchin and Sinema, for example) are playing to lose.
I am so trying to resist the urge to run to the left and adopt some of the absolutist positions the residents there insist on. Primarily because I don’t see a way back from there to an environment where we’re more focused on common ground than on “owning” one another’s partisans. Once they’re in their bunker and we’re in ours and there’s nothing but a vast no man’s land of people wishing a pox on both our houses then the current political system is as dead as the tree in my neighbor’s yard and will fail in the next hard weather.
Maybe this is a form of creative destruction needed so that something new and better can emerge, but that seems far from a certainty; it could be what we’re living through is just plain old destruction.
And, of course, I’m far from blameless for our current condition. Anyone so inclined can pull from my Twitter feed or the blog I used to help host any number of examples of my hyperpartisanship in opposition to the FFMWUTBOT and before that of George W. and Mitt Romney. Those latter attacks in particular haven’t aged well: when I wrote – as I did repeatedly – that 43 was “the worst president ever” I had no idea the universe was listening and thinking, “Oh, yeah? Try this.”
I’m more amused than I am impressed by lefty pols who can step up to a mic and drop a good line on the “loyal opposition’s” incessant disinformation machine. It does only a little good, legislatively. But … but … there is something to be said about energizing our base. The ugly, dumb-as-a-stump bomb-throwing of your Greenes, Boeberts, Jordans, etc. doesn’t have a mirror image on the left. What Omar and AOC and the like are saying isn’t flagrantly stupid. Sometimes intemperate, yes. But I for one have long since wearied of worrying how FoxNews, Tucker, Alex Jones will respond if some Democrat makes a tad too acid remark about … whatever. Like it or not, in this just-dawning age of social media the game of messaging and counter-messaging has changed dramatically. In that context, I continue to follow with interest what Gavin Newsom clearly sees as a way to “inspire” voters, and that is by calling bullshit where it is plain to be seen. (Here’s looking at you, Ron DeSantis.)
I was annoyed with Omar for running a primary challenge against a great feminist legislator, Phyllis Kahn. I did not prefer her in the primary for the 5th district. However . . .
All the Dem whining about Omar is just that . . . whining. Somebody needs to stick up for the Palestinians. Israel — not the “Jews” — is committing genocide on the installment plan against the Palestinians; I’m glad she’ll say it.
I remember a couple of years ago, Ron Latz said he had “talked” to Omar about her remarks about Israel. What a patronizing, mansplaining a-hole.
I think what a of old Dem men don’t, or don’t want, to realize is that Omar represents the future of opinion about Israel. Unquestioned support of Israel is a millstone around our necks.
And Don Samuels? Please. He wants to burn North HIgh School to the ground.
She wasn’t wrong when she said “it’s all about the Benjamins”. That lobbying/PAC by/from/for Israel is absolutely HUGE.
Also, Samuels is a DINO along the lines of Manchin and Sinema.
If I lived in Hennepin, I’d probably vote for Samuels for the reasons Austin articulated, though I probably should do more research first. Still, I think we all have to recognize that a lot of the criticism Omar has faced is do to racism, ageism, and religious bigotry. If she wins, I’m sure she’ll continue to grow into the legislative role. Maybe others in Hennepin will grow into the role of accepting a representative who looks and acts differently than what they’re used to.
The support of Palestine is a big part of why a lot of old, white Dems don’t like her. But here’s a good comparison of the two candidates.
https://jacobin.com/2022/08/ilhan-omar-don-samuels-mn-primary-schools/
I agree with much of what you say, Brian Lambert. I will also vote again for Ilhan. While most Democrats in Congress have put themselves up for sale, Ilhan continues to accept only small donations from supporters and to fight for ordinary Americans. She has the courage to criticize Israel (which has been conducting its campaign of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians for nearly seventy-five years) and to speak out against corruption and hypocrisy, while getting legislation passed that helps her constituents. As for Samuels, you don’t have to dig very deep into his history before you find evidence of him accepting money from wealthy Republican donors. I’m sure Samuels would get along very well with corporate and conservative Democrats–and with AIPAC.