Rene Gonzalez’ terrible, horrible, no good, very bad campaign for Portland mayor is both mean and clumsy.

“She came from behind, sort of surprised me,” Gonzalez said.”

In early February, Gonzalez claimed he was “assaulted” by a fellow MAX passenger, but video footage released later by Trimet showed “incidental contact” — a fancy way of saying that he completely fabricated the incident.

Rene has been cheerleader #1 for the police union’s ‘Portland-so-dangerous’ campaign (they are best buds). But that not must be hitting like it used to, so Rene took matters into his own hands.

Even fact-checkers with the website X (formerly Twitter) hit Gonzalez’ claim with a Community Note:

Petty Corruption and Wikipedia

Just last month, it was revealed Gonzalez used over $6,000 of city money to pay an outside PR firm, WhiteHat Wiki, to manipulate the mayoral-hopeful’s Wikipedia article.

WhiteHat Wiki claims to be the “the leading ‘white hat’ ethical provider for Wikipedia strategy and problem solving, including crisis management.”

No doubt Gonzalez is keen to suppress public awareness of his various scandals — many of which are described in this article!

The City Elections Office is now investigating.

Any Ngo Fanboy

Rene was caught liking a repugnant post by far-right street provocateur Andy Ngo. If only he’d waited a few months until X (formerly Twitter) owner — and fellow weirdo — Elon Musk turned off the ‘View Likes’ feature across the website. D’oh!

Comic Book Corruption Greases Downtown Real Estate Deal

Usually, Portland politicians are smart enough to break bread with their major corporates backers in the privacy of the Multnomah Athletic Club or at dinner parties in their West Hills mansions.

But a 2022 “gift” from mega-Downtown property inheritor Jordan Schnitzer caught the ire of the public — and the City’s election office.

Per OPB, “Portland City Council hopeful Rene Gonzalez was slapped with a hefty fine Tuesday for accepting — and failing to report — a steep discount on rent on his campaign office from real estate company Schnitzer Properties Management.”

Schnitzer waived rent and charged the Gonzalez campaign only for parking (also at a steep discount). According to data from Portland real estate firm Norris & Stevens, the rent should have been about $7600/month.

That’s substantially more than FREE.

A few months later, Gonzalez announced a cruel ban prohibiting his favorite punching bag — Portland Street Response — from handing out live-saving tents and tarps. Downtown property owners rallied around Gonzalez’ tent distribution ban and recently secured another Gonzalez-led victory when the City enacted an all-out ban on camping.

Unsheltered Portlanders are dying on the street, but some of Portland’s biggest property owners are cashing in.

Rene Will Trip You On The Soccer Pitch

The man is bush league!

P.S. An honorable mention that didn’t make this Top 5 list. Per the Portland Mercury:

“The city commissioner and candidate for mayor insists the city should no longer ‘platform abolitionists’ by allowing comments about police brutality during council votes on legal matters.”

Big business and their puppets like Rene are contemptible — but we can beat them — if regular people get organized.

Click here to get Portland DSA’s monthly elections newsletter and join the movement to win working-class leadership — not soccer cheaters — in Portland City Hall.

Tonight on Revolutions Per Minute, we travel to the United Kingdom, where far-right riots have swept the country. We ask Alex Roberts, a UK-based organizer and host of the anti-fascist podcast 12 Rules for WHAT, how communities can fight back. We also speak to Paolo Gerbaudo, a senior research fellow at Complutense University in Madrid, on the role of social media in contemporary politics. 

By Rose L, aka Rosenriot

Let it be known, I did everything I was supposed to do. 

2017 was a different time. I still thought I was cis. I did not want children. I knew I wasn’t fit to be a mother. I have health conditions that I didn’t ever want passed down. I was abstinent at the time, but had been previously sexually assaulted. I knew getting pregnant wasn’t going to always be my decision. 

So I did the responsible thing and I pursued sterilization. I went to my OBGYN, who had cared for me for the prior 10 years. The nurse came in to see me, and asked me about the nature of my visit. I told her I wanted sterilization. I’d done my research. I was sure. The nurse smiled and said, “I can’t imagine that being an issue. The doctor is a huge feminist.” I was so relieved. 

The doctor came in. She sat down and proceeded to lecture me on what a disastrous procedure I was considering. What if I changed my mind? What would my future husband think? What if my inability to bear a child affected my desirability?

I was crushed. But I persisted. There were other doctors. I was eventually able to find a doctor willing to perform a sterilization on me. A male doctor, in fact, who only asked me three questions: Was I sound of body? Yes. Was I sound of mind? Debatable but yes. And did I want this? Absolutely, yes. A month later, I received a tubal ligation and uterine ablation, the latter being a doctor recommendation to ease my period, as I would no longer have use for a menstrual cycle.

But again, 2017 was a different time. Republicans had not yet started proposing total abortion bans. So when my doctor warned me that I would have an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy from my procedure, I didn't even blink an eye. I was so naive then. 

Since getting my procedure, 14 states have passed total abortion bans. These bans not only criminalize abortions, they often conflate ectopic pregnancies with viable fetuses. The truth is that ectopic pregnancy by definition is not viable, as the fertilized egg plants itself outside of the womb. Ectopic is also medically and factually an abortion. 

Lately Republicans have tried to redefine abortion to not include cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening medical conditions such as ectopic pregnancies. When being questioned by Rep. Ayanna Pressley about ectopic pregnancies, Erin Hawley, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a known hate-group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, used such rhetoric: “That’s not an abortion because it does not have the intent to end the life of the child.” This misunderstands abortion: abortion is not subject to intent. It is objectively a medical procedure, and a safe one at that.

Abortion bans often prohibit doctors from prescribing methotrexate in the early stages of an ectopic pregnancy to abort the unviable egg and to save the pregnant person. Without early intervention, an ectopic pregnancy can result in hemorrhage, sepsis, or organ failure. These can only be prevented by abortive surgery, a surgery doctors are now terrified to perform for fear it will violate their state’s abortion laws. These laws put doctors in the position of going to prison for saving a pregnant person’s life. It puts the pregnant person in the position of dying, waiting on the operating table for help that will never come.

I did everything right in 2017, but Republicans would still have me and others like me dead. They’ve consistently moved the goalposts of what is acceptable behavior for people with uteruses, pushing it farther and farther to outlaw exceptions for ectopic pregnancy, to outlaw exceptions for incest, to outlaw exceptions for rape, to outlaw contraception, to make sure that everyone with a uterus slowly but surely loses their bodily autonomy.

But Republicans didn’t stop there. When I came out as trans and nonbinary in 2019, I was still in the state of Tennessee. There were only a handful of doctors willing to prescribe Hormone Replacement Therapy, or HRT, a treatment I wished to pursue in my transition. At least when I found a doctor for my sterilization, I only had to wait a month. For HRT, the waitlists for these doctors were years long, with spots only opening up as trans patients moved away or passed away, either of old age or by their own hand. And many did pass away by their own hand, as increasingly oppressive laws around trans people passed left and right without any consideration for their quality of life or existence.

And that’s what this is all about, isn’t it? Our right to exist, autonomous, as we are, as we choose to be. 

I hear controversy in the pro-choice movement about using terms like “pregnant people” or “people with uteruses” and whether trans people deserve to be included or considered the same way as cis women are in this struggle. But the fact of the matter is, when we’re in the hospital, and I’m bleeding out from an ectopic pregnancy, and you’re giving birth to a child you were forced to have because there were no abortion clinics in your area, it’s not going to matter that you’re cis and I’m trans; that you’re a woman, and I’m not. It’s going to matter that we had wombs and we tried to use them in ways that were unacceptable to the heteronormative cisnormative patriarchal establishment.

Trans or cis, our bodily autonomies are intertwined. Our right to exist unyielding is intertwined. It might be easy for you, if you are a cishet ally, to think that the shooting at Club Q doesn’t affect you. That bills like SB49 aka the “Don’t Say Gay” bill have nothing to do with you. That drag shows being protested by Proud Boys are a problem, but not your problem. But my people, queer and trans people, are canaries in the coal mine. If you think violence against abortion clinics and feminist spaces won’t increase too, if you think violence in general will not increase, you haven’t been paying attention. Any deviation from the path that Conservative Evangelical fascists would prescribe to you will be met with extreme violence.

In just the last few months I have watched my fellow drag performers, of all genders, be targeted by hate groups. I myself was targeted by Libs of TikTok for a drag brunch I wasn’t even in, a drag brunch that Proud Boys showed up to, heavily armed, threatening my fellow performers. I watched a livestream of Proud Boys protesting Naomi Dix in Moore County, before shooting up a power station and cutting electricity to an entire population for days on end. After Club Q, I attended the Trans Day of Remembrance Vigil in Raleigh and spoke the name “Daniel Davis Aston”, a bartender at Club Q, before major news outlets had even grabbed hold of his name. I learned he was one of the victims through a drag performer I knew from Colorado Springs. That drag performer said when he moved to Colorado Springs, Daniel was the first friend he made there, and Daniel even helped him obtain top surgery. Daniel’s mother said his death is “a nightmare that you can't wake up from.”

We are about to be in that neverending nightmare, too. Violence will increase against all marginalized peoples. No longer is this a fight for women’s rights or trans rights. In fact, our greatest mistake was ever thinking these fights were separate. The struggles of all those marginalized and targeted by Conservatives and Christo-Fascism are united. They will not stop until trans and queer people are dead or conforming, they will not stop until women are dead or conforming, they will not stop until Black people are dead or conforming, they will not stop.

So it’s time for us to begin. It’s time for us to embrace the intersectional approach they know will defeat them, that they try everything to dissuade. If we continue to fight this fight separately, we will not survive. 

NC Triangle DSA has several ways to get involved with the intersectional fight facing us. The Socialist Feminist Working Group is making headway on shutting down a local Crisis Pregnancy Center, aka Anti-Abortion Center, via pickets and escalations. The Queer and Trans Solidarity Working Group is focusing on building mutual aid support networks for Queer folk in the Triangle to rely on whether the federal or state governments are blue or red or fallen. These, and several other Working Groups, fall under our chapter’s Priority Campaign, a resolution voted on by our chapter to increase our focus on bodily autonomy issues. 

We must unite. We must realize that many of us here are both oppressed and oppressor, and to unlearn the systems of supremacy that make us perpetuate harm into our communities. We must learn how to protect ourselves, to heal ourselves, to create the skills that help us cultivate safety. 

The time for awareness is over. The time for action is now.

About the Author:

Rose L (they/them), also known by their drag persona ROSENRIOT, is a member of NCTDSA, activist, and queer performer living and working in Central NC. They’ve lived in the South for over half their life, and can be found working on sewing and craft projects in places you wouldn’t expect sewing or crafting to occur.

If Grand Rapids wants to meet the goals of 62% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035 and 100% by 2050, bold action is needed now! Will you send a message of support for GR Climate Coalition’s Beyond a Number: A Call For Bold Climate Action in Grand Rapids?

Grand Rapids’ emission reduction goals are the floor, not the ceiling. They can only be met with meaningful policies and adequate funding. Officials may turn away from these to save money in the short term or embrace the familiar status quo. But we can not wait any longer. Our representatives must make good on their promises.

Making sure our representatives know where we stand on the climate crisis is necessary now more than ever. Our City Leaders are most likely to act when the public exerts pressure on them.

Climate chaos is no longer just a specter on the horizon. It is here. It’ll get worse if we don’t act fast. Extreme heat and weather will increase cost of living and leave those who are already struggling with high prices even farther behind. We must not leave individual residents to solve the problems caused by systemic injustice and policy failures.

The GR Climate Coalition recently kicked off Beyond a Number with an Open Letter to the City Commission. The GRDSA is proud to have signed on to that letter. Now it’s your turn to take action and send a message to City Leaders to prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emission.

The post Tell Grand Rapids City Leaders the Time is Now for Bold Climate Action! appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

by Saige Smith

Robinson recently released a new ad appearing to take a more moderate stance on abortion. His stance on abortion hasn’t changed; he’s only fine tuned his talking points in the wake of the upcoming election.

WATCH NOW: Mark Robinson’s new campaign ad:#ncpol #ncgov pic.twitter.com/TgLurZnpLQ

— Mark Robinson (@markrobinsonNC) August 2, 2024

Mark Robinson has been vocal about his extreme anti-abortion beliefs for years. He previously said “Abortion in this country is not about protecting the lives of mothers. It’s about killing the child because you weren’t responsible enough to keep your skirt down” and “If I had all the power right now, let’s say I was the governor and I had a willing legislature, we could pass a bill saying you can’t have an abortion in North Carolina for any reason,” yet in the ad he pivots to supporting “commonsense” legislation with “exceptions.”

This ad is a perfect encapsulation of the GOP’s post-Dobbs rhetorical strategy. This article is going to detail how and why this is just the latest attempt by the anti-abortion movement to save face now that the harsh reality of abortion bans has really come to light post-Dobbs. The anti-abortion movement thrives off of abortion stigmatization, medical misinformation, and emotionally charged rhetoric, and this 30 second ad is full of it.

Fueling abortion stigma

“30 years ago, my wife and I made a very difficult decision – we had an abortion. It was like this solid pain between us that we never spoke of”. Then his wife, Yolanda Robinson, states “it’s something that stays with you forever”. Mark Robinson continues, “that’s why I stand by our current law. It provides commonsense exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, and rape … Which gives help to mothers and stops cruel late-term abortions. When I’m Governor, mothers in need will be supported”

While neither Robinson went into detail about Yolanda’s abortion during the short ad, it’s important to note a few things. Research shows that people experience a mix of positive and negative emotions in the days after having an abortion, with relief predominating. The intensity of all emotions diminishes over time, mostly over the first year. The vast majority – 95% – of people who get abortions said that it was the right decision for them. People who are denied abortions have worse physical and mental health and worse economic outcomes than those who seek and receive abortions.

Mark starts by contributing to the idea that abortion itself is a difficult decision. Abortion is sometimes difficult and sometimes not – there are many nuances around having an abortion. Every decision to have an abortion is unique, individual, and deserving of respect. Just like they were able to decide to have an abortion 30 years ago, all people should be trusted to make the reproductive healthcare decisions that are best for them — including abortion — on their timeline and with the resources they need.

The beginning of the ad further implies that abortion is something regretful and shameful and therefore the wrong decision to make. Abortion stigma is perpetuated by abortion restrictions and inevitably leads to criminalization even when there are no authorizing statutes. Abortion stigma is everywhere, whether it’s the protesters at the clinic harassing you on your way in for your appointment, your parents threatening to kick you out, a teacher you confide in who tells you that’s not something you should talk about, a toxic romantic partner pressuring you against what you want for your pregnancy, the societal pressure to become a mother while ostracizing child-free people, or the laws creating barriers to abortion care.

The anti-abortion movement’s post-Dobbs rhetorical pivot

More and more horror stories have emerged since the overturn of Roe v Wade of people being forced to carry doomed pregnancies, give birth in a car after being turned away from the emergency room, or forced to travel out of state for abortion care – and the anti-abortion movement knows this.

Post-Dobbs, Republicans have had to deal with how unpopular and harmful their abortion bans are. Rather than admitting that pregnancy is too complex to legislate and addressing how these bans are detrimental to pregnant people, the anti-abortion movement is focusing on fine-tuning their talking points: by focusing on exceptions in abortion bans that do not work; moving away from calling abortion bans “bans” and instead calling abortion bans “commonsense consensus” or “compromise”; and performative amendments that do nothing but attempt to repair their image.

By design, exceptions do NOT work

On paper, abortion bans may include exceptions, but in reality, these exceptions are nothing more than PR points for the anti-abortion politicians who pass these nightmare bans. These supposed “exceptions” are intentionally vague and narrowly defined so that it’s impractical to actually use them — and that’s the point. When Republicans fall back on how the current ban has “commonsense exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, and rape”, this is a rhetorical strategy to defer the actual problem — the wide-ranging harm caused by banning abortion — and pivot to appealing to the less stigmatized reasons people get abortions.

In North Carolina, abortion is banned after 12 weeks with a few vague exceptions up to 20 weeks. For example, North Carolina’s exception for the life of the mother defines a medical emergency as the following (emphasis mine):

“Medical emergency. – A condition which, in reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including any psychological or emotional conditions. For purposes of this definition, no condition shall be deemed a medical emergency if based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct which would result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function”.

The language used does not define what exactly constitutes a “major bodily function,” nor what constitutes a “substantial and irreversible physical impairment” to a major bodily function. This intentionally vague language puts physicians in a bind when pregnant patients need an abortion for health reasons. It shifts the decision away from the medical providers and patients and over to the facility’s lawyers. The second part of this definition shows how Republicans anticipate that abortion bans will make people suicidal, so they specifically outline that abortions are not allowed to preserve psychological or emotional well-being of the mother.

How much of an “exception” is it if people have to wait for their vital signs to crash before they’re legally allowed treatment? How much permanent harm to one’s organs is an acceptable trade-off? Exactly how close to death does one have to get to so they can receive treatment?

As Jessica Valenti pointed out, “This is all by design; Republicans deliberately write in exceptions that will be near-impossible to use. So why in the world aren’t Democrats shouting as much from the rooftops? Instead, they’re giving Republicans a tremendous gift: The ability to point to exceptions that no one can actually use as proof that they’re ‘softening’ on abortion … If the exceptions meant to save people’s lives aren’t usable, what makes anyone think those for rape and incest would be?”

Reporting requirements and time limits place barriers in the way of survivors of sexual assault seeking abortion care in states with abortion bans. When you add in a culture that doesn’t believe victims about sexual violence, the purpose and ineffectiveness of rape and incest exceptions become more evident. When the state forces victims to provide proof of their assault to receive healthcare, the state inevitably creates policy that protects sexual abusers. This is the side that wants you to think that they’re the moderate ones.

Compromise? Who? Common sense? Where?

“30 years ago, my wife and I made a very difficult decision – we had an abortion. It was like this solid pain between us that we never spoke of”. Then his wife, Yolanda Robinson, states “it’s something that stays with you forever”. Mark Robinson continues, “That’s why I stand by our current law. It provides commonsense exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, and rape which gives help to mothers and stops cruel late-term abortions. When I’m Governor, mothers in need will be supported”

Calling North Carolina’s 12 week abortion ban “common sense” and intentionally not calling it a ban are tactics we saw sprout up last year when the NC Senate was hearing debate over S.B.20. As Jessica Valenti pointed out, “Bill sponsor Sen. Joyce Krawiec says, ‘this is a pro-life plan, not an abortion ban.’ (Let that sink for a moment: Republicans are so afraid of abortion rights’ popularity, they’re not even willing to call their bans ‘bans’ anymore.)”. Mandating humiliating, burdensome, and time sensitive barriers to healthcare is far from “common sense”. Going directly against medical providers warnings about the harms caused when abortion is banned is not “common sense”.

Post-Dobbs, polling shows that the vast majority of Americans want abortion legal: over 80% of Americans don’t want pregnancy to be legislated, 78% of Americans believe the decision to have an abortion should be left between the patient and doctor, and 7 in 10 voters support access to abortion medication. Republicans began to really embrace the stance that they believe in exceptions for abortions to make it seem like they are willing to compromise to appeal to moderate voters in the aftermath of the overturn of Roe v Wade. In reality, they aren’t compromising on “common sense” legislation – they’re compromising the health and well-being of the very people they’re claiming to protect.

Medical Misinfo: late-term abortion edition

In true Republican fashion, Mark mentions “late-term abortions” at the end of the ad. The anti-abortion movement thrives off of emotionally-inflammatory rhetoric and abortion stigma, which are two characteristics of the phrase “late-term abortion”. This was Mark’s subtle way of appealing to moderate voters with extremist policy that’s been rhetorically watered down to make it more palatable in order to gain votes come November. 

“30 years ago, my wife and I made a very difficult decision – we had an abortion. It was like this solid pain between us that we never spoke of”. Then his wife, Yolanda Robinson, states “it’s something that stays with you forever”. Mark Robinson continues, “That’s why I stand by our current law. It provides commonsense exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, and rape which gives help to mothers and stops cruel late-term abortions. When I’m Governor, mothers in need will be supported.”

The phrase “late-term abortion” is a political buzzword that anti-abortion proponents have latched onto as a talking point to demonize abortions later in pregnancy when the vast majority (98.7%) of abortions are before 21 weeks. The anti-abortion movement has a reputation for using stigmatizing, emotionally-charged rhetoric to justify banning abortion and to ostracize the people who get and provide abortions. Anti-abortion opponents made up the phrase “late-term abortion” and embrace it because they define it however they want as a part of their language war.

According to experts like the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), the term “late-term abortion” has no medical significance and is not used in a clinical setting or to describe the delivery of abortion care later in pregnancy. When health care providers use language like “full term” and “late term” in the context of pregnancy, they’re talking about how far along the pregnancy is (with “full term” meaning between 39 and 40 weeks and “late term” meaning 41+ weeks). It’s important to note that they do not use these terms to categorize types of abortion care. 

The reasons people seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion. What’s cruel is delaying and denying people the healthcare they need.

Despite all this, leaders in the anti-abortion movement can’t even agree on exactly when a ‘late-term abortion’ supposedly happens. It seems to be determined by whatever Republican or anti-abortion organization writing the bill wants it to be.

For example, in 2021, congressional Republicans sponsored the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (model legislation created by the National Right to Life Committee), a bill that determined abortions after 20 weeks to be “late-term”. The next year, they sponsored the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act,” that determined “late-term” after 15 weeks. The anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute claims the phrase is appropriate for abortions performed after only 13 weeks of pregnancy.

Taking a page out of the playbook

Since abortion bans are highly unpopular and harmful, Mark Robinson is using the rhetorical tactics directly from the post-Dobbs playbook. It’s easier to fine-tune an extreme candidate’s political messaging in the months before the election than it is to address the wide-ranging devastation caused by their own policies that harm the people they claim to protect.

For years, Mark Robinson has been vocal about his anti-abortion stance by perpetuating abortion stigma and medical misinformation, and this pre-election rhetorical shift is no different. Don’t let him fool you. As he said, if it were up to him, we would have a total abortion ban with no exceptions. Remember this in November when you go to the voting booth, and remember to donate to the local abortion fund.

Read on Craftivist the Activist!

Our endorsed candidate

Vermonters will go to the polls on Tuesday, Aug. 13, to select the major parties’ nominees for the general election in November. The membership of the Champlain Valley Democratic Socialists of America voted to endorse just one candidate in the primary: Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, an active member of our chapter and a powerful voice for Vermont’s working class.

The Chittenden-Central District consists of Winooski and Essex Junction, most of Burlington and Essex, and a sliver of Colchester. If you live here, we urge you to vote on the Democratic ballot for the Vermont Senate’s only Progressive and its only socialist (Tanya also received DSA’s national endorsement).

In the last biennium, Tanya helped win the Vermont PRO Act and a safe injection site in Burlington. She also spoke out for Palestinian liberation and recently sued the governor. She introduced bills to prevent the privatization of public services and to increase civilian oversight of the police, and while these didn’t pass, we know she won’t stop fighting for bold ideas.

A Republican-backed TV celebrity wants to cut short Tanya’s important work in Montpelier. Of the four Democratic competitors in Chittenden-Central, a three-seat district, newcomer Stewart Ledbetter, a tough-on-crime “moderate,” is easily the worst.

But thanks to the generosity of various landlords and business owners, Ledbetter has easily outraised all three incumbents combined. As Senate President Pro Tempore, Phil Baruth doesn’t appear to be at risk, but Sen. Martine Gulick, a self-proclaimed social democrat whom Tanya has called an ally, does.

Alongside Tanya, we recommend voting for Martine. A Democrat who just completed a productive first term in office, she introduced several minor but successful bills with unobjectionable aims, such as improving safety for road work crews, promoting doula services, and creating a pathway to legalization for psilocybin in therapeutic settings.

The Progressive slate

With our usual reservations, we also recommend the Vermont Progressive Party’s full 2024 slate, which includes four statewide candidates: Bernie Sanders for U.S. Senate, Esther Charlestin for Governor, David Zuckerman for Lieutenant Governor, and Doug Hoffer for State Auditor.

Zuckerman, the Progs’ standard-bearer, faces another well-funded challenger, Winooski Deputy Mayor Thomas Renner, whom the Democrats have identified as a rising star in their party. Renner has publicly positioned himself as a left-liberal – albeit one without Zuckerman’s stubborn hippie streak – but his top donors belong to the plutocratic Tarrant family, including a former Republican nominee for U.S. Senate who spent $6 million of his own money in a failed attempt to take down Bernie Sanders.

In the Champlain Valley, the Progs have endorsed three new candidates for State Representative: Larry Lewack in Chittenden-13, Missa Aloisi in Chittenden-17, and Chloe Tomlinson in Chittenden-21.

Of the three, Tomlinson seems to have the leftmost instincts on issues like climate and criminal justice. As one of two active candidates in a two-seat district in Winooski, she also has the easiest path to office, where she would replace outgoing Progressive Rep. Taylor Small. A CVDSA member, Nick Brownell, filed to appear on the ballot but later decided against campaigning this time.

Lewack, a founding member of the Progressive Party who works as a town planner, has a long track record of involvement in community and politics and, with Rep. Gabrielle Stebbins having declined to seek re-election in Burlington’s South End, a chance to claim an open seat. He faces two candidates with credible résumés of their own in a district that tends to favor traditional Democrats, but running principally on a promise of tax reform, Lewack has not presented himself as a radical.

Aloisi has to defeat a Democratic “incumbent” who, owing to a dirty move by Gov. Scott, took over Progressive Emma Mulvaney-Stanak’s House seat in the final weeks of the 2024 session, following her mayoral inauguration. With Mulvaney-Stanak’s endorsement, Aloisi aims to win a district that straddles Burlington’s Old North End and its New North End, combining disparate constituencies.

Socialism isn’t on the ballot in any of the abovementioned House races. But the campaigns by Tomlinson, Lewack, and Aloisi represent plausible opportunities for the Progressive Party to expand its footprint in Montpelier, as long as the three incumbent Progs running unopposed in Chittenden-15 and Chittenden-16 continue to caucus with the party. For opponents of the political duopoly that afflicts every US state except our own, this prospect has a value that hinges only in part upon the particular character of Vermont’s left-wing alternative.

Important policies like just cause eviction and paid family leave are also, to some degree, at stake. With Progressive candidates vying pragmatically to win the Democratic Party’s ballot line, be sure to vote in the Democratic primary. The names on the Progressive Party’s ballot, which exists purely as a legal requirement, are placeholders.

On Aug. 13, polling stations will open at 7 a.m. and close at 7 p.m.

Hudson County DSA Statement on Hoboken Rent Control Vote 8/5/24

Hudson County DSA is an organization of working people across the county with a shared vision of a future with security, dignity, and real freedom for every person. We believe, without qualification, that housing is a human right and that an injury to one is an injury to all. Our current effort to fight Ron Simoncini and Miles Square Taxpayers Association’s initiative to undermine rent control protections in Hoboken is led by our Hoboken members and other Hoboken residents who want to see a future for their city that isn’t restricted to the very rich. The truth is that if we were not in Hoboken, we likely wouldn’t be present in this fight – not one of us is being paid for our work, and we all have day jobs, so it’s likely that MSTA’s attempt to quietly gut rent control protections wouldn’t have been on our radar if our organization didn’t include Hoboken tenants who would be directly affected and are simply keeping tabs on their own city’s politics.

 

If either MSTA’s ballot measure or City Council’s “compromise” pass, the results for tenants in Hoboken will be catastrophic. Not a single person isn’t already aware of the exorbitant price of rent in Hoboken as it is – the only residents who are paying anything close to what most people would consider reasonable rent are long-time tenants in rent-controlled units, disproportionately seniors, whose landlords would be immediately incentivized to force them out of the apartments that have been their homes for decades just to increase their profit margin. Further, those who can currently afford the rents on controlled units without the benefit of that decades-long residence would be effectively denied a future in the city. By passing their “compromise,” City Council would be telling these people that in order to start a family, in order to get married or split up, they will need to look for housing elsewhere and leave the unit they’re currently occupying open to decontrol and inaccessibility to anyone but the wealthy.

 

The argument for this “compromise,” supposedly mitigating the damage of the passage of the full ballot measure while giving MSTA the lion’s share of what they want, is either a cynical excuse to cozy up to the landlord lobby or rank political cowardice, and in either case is a gross dismissal of the agency of the people of Hoboken. City Council should not be negotiating and rolling over on behalf of tenants who have no seat at the table and if they truly want to stop the harm that a successful referendum would bring they should be using their positions as civic leaders to mobilize opposition to the measure. People will be at the polls for the Presidential election in November and we trust the people of Hoboken, we ask that City Council trusts them too.

 

Housing in Hoboken is also not the only issue here. The ballot measure in Hoboken is one part of a large-scale effort by Simoncini to undermine rent control protections and drive up rent prices throughout the state. Our Hoboken members are leading the charge to protect their own community, and the people and Council of Hoboken should stand with tenants and not greedy landlords in their city but City Council currently and the Hoboken voters in November have a larger social responsibility here to tenants all across New Jersey to not set the precedent that it’s acceptable to undermine anyone’s access to housing. Where our members who live outside Hoboken are helping fight MSTA’s attack on rent control, they’re doing it first in solidarity with the local tenants who will be immediately affected and second because Hoboken tenants aren’t the only ones at risk – if rent control can’t be saved in Hoboken, every other city will be fighting this same battle in the near future. 

 

While local DSA members are organizing in Hoboken with help from their neighbors and fellow DSAers, MSTA is attempting to smear us as outside agitators. Let’s look at the facts here: Ron Simoncini, the public face of the ballot measure, lives in Ridgewood. While both our and MSTA’s efforts are focused on mobilizing voters in Hoboken, our members are speaking to their neighbors about the real content of the legislation and its potential impact on the community, whereas MSTA has paid canvassers to collect petition signatures with a vague and misleading line about “affordable housing.” While the measure would allegedly create as many as 700 new affordable units, no one is disputing that it would remove as many as 8,000 already existing affordable units. The idea that this group of landlord lobbyists with a clear financial incentive to displace rent control tenants is a legitimate political actor and representative of the interests of Hoboken, but tenants who live in Hoboken represent some sort of shadowy conspiracy, is absolutely ridiculous. We’re here now in solidarity with our neighbors and community members, we’ll be here to fight the referendum in November, and we call on Hoboken City Council to have the political courage to do the same. 

 

Send the Council a letter and take action here

Join the Hoboken City Council Meeting Call Monday, August 5th 7PM

RSVP for our debrief call after the vote, Tuesday, August 6th 

The post Hudson County DSA Statement on Hoboken Rent Control Vote 8/5/24 first appeared on North NJ DSA.