Bell Beats Bush (and Socialism) Again
While most eyes were on the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, a race that’s gone almost completely unnoticed by the press unfolded in Missouri. Wesley Bell, a progressive, pro-Israelcongressman, won his rematch against democratic socialist and ex-Squad member Cori Bush. Bush had the backing of the usual suspects, including Bernie Sanders, and had railed against AIPAC’s support for Bell. But voters in this majority-minority district didn’t seem to weigh Israel policy the way white, college-educated liberals elsewhere do. It wasn’t close — Bell won 59% to 36%. This should send a warning message to the democrat leadership and the DNC that are allowing socialists to come into their party. Namely. black voters don’t vote for socialists.
Bush and her supporters whined that Bell’s earlier win was driven solely by AIPAC money and it’s true that AIPAC again spent heavily to back him. But who could blame them? Bush is clearly antisemitic and while in office was highly critical of Israel saying that the “collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza is a war crime.” But Bell did not waver in his support for Israel and in a majority black district decisively rejected Bush’s antisemitism.
There are two key differences between Bell and Bush. First, Bell is not a socialist, he is a progressive. After his victory, he said: “St. Louis is up against a president that is coming after our healthcare, our due process, and the paychecks of working families. These are neighbors losing coverage, families watching grocery bills climb, and people picked off our streets without so much as a semblance of due process and basic fairness. I will keep standing up to this reckless and cruel administration every single day.” Yep. Sounds like a progressive to me.
Second, Bell supports Israel while Bush has aligned herself with pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas wing of the democrat party. The race became the most expensive primary in Missouri this year, with candidates and outside political action committees combining to spend $8.4 million — $7.2 million of it on Bell’s behalf.
The press has been rushing to call Sanders a “kingmaker” – no irony intended – but I bet little if anything will be said about his backing a loser in Cori Bush. Once more, black voters are rejecting the socialist grift from the democrat socialists which is being completely ignored by the media. Almost gone unnoticed is that in every race thus far where a socialist has run to oust an establishment democrat, blacks have overwhelmingly backed the establishment democrat. This means that in the general election, the democrats are going to have to worry about black turnout. Will blacks now show up to vote for a candidate that they obviously reject – just because there is a “D” next to their name? I seriously doubt it. Because now the question is that if the democrats insist on having socialists carry their banner in the fall, will blacks sit this one out? Wouldn’t it be ironic that the democrats may lose an election because their most loyal constituencies, blacks and Jews are repelled by the socialists and antisemitics on the ballot?
Just remember: you read it here first.
haroldblackphd.com 
I would like to think that when I am in the voting booth, I am completely agnostic to the race, gender and creed of the person that I’m voting for. I truly do not care anything about a person’s race as I try to focus almost exclusively on their policy positions and their historical actions.
Take Mr. Obama for example. The lazy and easy opposition to him is surmised to be his race. I truly do not care about Mr. Obama’s race and would fully support any desire he has. To take pride in or advance policy elements for his race. My personal opposition to him was 100% due to his policy positions and his philosophies. I found him to be divisive and on the wrong side of just about every policy initiative that he stood for other than his support for nGOs that provided many benefits that government was not fit or capable to do.
So… About Miss Bush. My complete and total opposition to her has nothing to do with her race or her gender – and I don’t even know her creed. Honestly, I would love it if we would get to a place where we have a purple candidate with great policies that many could get behind just as proof the color doesn’t matter. Of course, too many on all sides of the argument, color is the only thing that matters, and so we drift into the bad nature of identity politics.
These DSA idiots are going to destroy this country if they’re given even a small opportunity to shape policy. I don’t know who they are. I don’t know what race they are. I don’t know what creed they are and I can see their gender from obvious traits. And I don’t care about any of those things other than they’re wanting disregard for anything that is truly American other than their right to say it – which, by the way, I will fight for. This is becoming not a battle of wills, but a battle of brains.
LikeLike
Actually I am surprised you focused on race of the candidates. My point being that blacks eschew socialism which may flip the senate seat in Michigan due to the socialist democrat.
LikeLike
I guess I did a poor job of explaining why I took that tack!
my assumption is that the only reason to vote for someone whose policies are as warped as Bush’s is because they’re playing to identity politics that trump (apologies) otherwise sensible decision dynamics. And this is not focused on the trait of one’s color but includes creed, gender and probably membership in the Rotary Club!
LikeLike