The congresswoman spent her brief tenure on Capitol Hill swimming in donations from weapons manufacturers and advocating for war, and now she’s out of a job
Democrat or Republican, this description of how this congressperson received primary funding from the war machine explains a lot about how things run in Congress, and most likely most other congresspeople stay in office the same way, yet is not reported upon, nor is the public aware. If this were reported on, we would have a better government that focused on solving problems rather than serving globalist, economic interests.
Jen Kiggans, the person who defeated Lauria, and whom you decribe in one sentence as a "nurse practioner," is actually a former Navy pilot, from a military family, with a military spouse, father, and son. Who promises on her website to "never support defense cuts." And to "hold the Biden Administration and Democrats in Washington accountable for their failures to confront terrorist threats from ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda and from nuclear threats like North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia that consistently threaten our homeland, our allies, and the American people." She also "knows the importance of a well-funded military and strong national defense and will work tirelessly in Congress to ensure our active duty military men and women have the full support of the federal government." And promises to support "critical funding" for military bases and installations,
and military "technology" (ie the products of the very corporations whose support for Lauria you rightly decry). The second "priority" listed on her website is bellicosity towards China.
Basically, Kiggans is a typical wing nut (election denier curious, and, in any event, a would be vote suppressor, gun nut, forced birther, xenophobe, racist, etc), with not even an inkling of divergence from the war mongering Blob FP that is so prevalent in DC.
And the district in question, VA-2, is a military-heavy district, with three bases, and lots of military and military and defense contractor adjacent, and military family, and retired military voters. So, whoever represents it, D or R, is not likely to be a critic of the Blob or in favor of reduced military spending.
Given all that, your glee at Lauria's defeat seems a little misplaced.
I don’t believe that my critique of Luria is misplaced. I agree that Kiggans won’t be any better and I explicitly state this at the end of the article. You’re also not wrong that the individual who represents VA-2 will be a hawkish advocate for the defense budget, whether they happen to be a Democrat or a Republican… this is the entire premise of the piece and of much of my writing – that both parties support war and hold a dangerous worldview that endangers millions.
That a Republican is going to be atrocious on these issues, to me, is the predictable default position. I hold Democrats, who began this century as the supposed anti-war party, to a higher standard. Or, at least, I used to. And to be fair, I tried to make it really clear all throughout the piece that my problems with Luria all stem from the fact that she agrees with Republicans far too often, on far too many issues. Kiggans will be shitty too. I don’t disagree and I never indicated that I believed this.
Respectfully, I’d finally like to say that I am uninterested in defending my criticism of the Democratic Party with a repetitive loop of proving my hatred of the Republican Party as well, especially when all of my writing about Democrats is that they’re far too conservative and resemble their counterparts on the right far too closely. They’re all terrible. That’s the problem. After I make this point, many people then pivot to the domestic front, i.e. “if both parties are filled with hawks, isn’t it better to at least have someone who will be better on other issues?”
To me, both parties serve Corporate America at the end of the day and share similar views on single-payer healthcare, criminal justice, among numerous other topics. Even if that weren’t the case, I don’t think a representative who’s strong on some issues, but also fights to stop our endless wars and militarism is too much to ask for. That’s where I’m at. I appreciate your feedback and thanks for reading.
"To me, both parties serve Corporate America at the end of the day and share similar views on single-payer healthcare, criminal justice, among numerous other topics."
Hand wave. A standard Dem is overwhelmingly likely to be better on a whole host of issues than a standard Republican.
"Even if that weren’t the case...."
It's not.
"I don’t think a representative who’s strong on some issues, but also fights to stop our endless wars and militarism is too much to ask for....."
It's not too much to ask for. But asking ain't getting. Politics is the art of the possible. A decent on other issues but bad on war and militarism D is the best US Rep possible from this district. A Repub who is just as bad on war and militarism as the Dem, but worse on virtually every other issues is.....all around, a worse choice.
That's really all there is to it.
".....I appreciate your feedback and thanks for reading."
Democrat or Republican, this description of how this congressperson received primary funding from the war machine explains a lot about how things run in Congress, and most likely most other congresspeople stay in office the same way, yet is not reported upon, nor is the public aware. If this were reported on, we would have a better government that focused on solving problems rather than serving globalist, economic interests.
Jen Kiggans, the person who defeated Lauria, and whom you decribe in one sentence as a "nurse practioner," is actually a former Navy pilot, from a military family, with a military spouse, father, and son. Who promises on her website to "never support defense cuts." And to "hold the Biden Administration and Democrats in Washington accountable for their failures to confront terrorist threats from ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda and from nuclear threats like North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia that consistently threaten our homeland, our allies, and the American people." She also "knows the importance of a well-funded military and strong national defense and will work tirelessly in Congress to ensure our active duty military men and women have the full support of the federal government." And promises to support "critical funding" for military bases and installations,
and military "technology" (ie the products of the very corporations whose support for Lauria you rightly decry). The second "priority" listed on her website is bellicosity towards China.
Basically, Kiggans is a typical wing nut (election denier curious, and, in any event, a would be vote suppressor, gun nut, forced birther, xenophobe, racist, etc), with not even an inkling of divergence from the war mongering Blob FP that is so prevalent in DC.
https://jenforcongress.com/our-priorities/
And the district in question, VA-2, is a military-heavy district, with three bases, and lots of military and military and defense contractor adjacent, and military family, and retired military voters. So, whoever represents it, D or R, is not likely to be a critic of the Blob or in favor of reduced military spending.
Given all that, your glee at Lauria's defeat seems a little misplaced.
I don’t believe that my critique of Luria is misplaced. I agree that Kiggans won’t be any better and I explicitly state this at the end of the article. You’re also not wrong that the individual who represents VA-2 will be a hawkish advocate for the defense budget, whether they happen to be a Democrat or a Republican… this is the entire premise of the piece and of much of my writing – that both parties support war and hold a dangerous worldview that endangers millions.
That a Republican is going to be atrocious on these issues, to me, is the predictable default position. I hold Democrats, who began this century as the supposed anti-war party, to a higher standard. Or, at least, I used to. And to be fair, I tried to make it really clear all throughout the piece that my problems with Luria all stem from the fact that she agrees with Republicans far too often, on far too many issues. Kiggans will be shitty too. I don’t disagree and I never indicated that I believed this.
Respectfully, I’d finally like to say that I am uninterested in defending my criticism of the Democratic Party with a repetitive loop of proving my hatred of the Republican Party as well, especially when all of my writing about Democrats is that they’re far too conservative and resemble their counterparts on the right far too closely. They’re all terrible. That’s the problem. After I make this point, many people then pivot to the domestic front, i.e. “if both parties are filled with hawks, isn’t it better to at least have someone who will be better on other issues?”
To me, both parties serve Corporate America at the end of the day and share similar views on single-payer healthcare, criminal justice, among numerous other topics. Even if that weren’t the case, I don’t think a representative who’s strong on some issues, but also fights to stop our endless wars and militarism is too much to ask for. That’s where I’m at. I appreciate your feedback and thanks for reading.
"To me, both parties serve Corporate America at the end of the day and share similar views on single-payer healthcare, criminal justice, among numerous other topics."
Hand wave. A standard Dem is overwhelmingly likely to be better on a whole host of issues than a standard Republican.
"Even if that weren’t the case...."
It's not.
"I don’t think a representative who’s strong on some issues, but also fights to stop our endless wars and militarism is too much to ask for....."
It's not too much to ask for. But asking ain't getting. Politics is the art of the possible. A decent on other issues but bad on war and militarism D is the best US Rep possible from this district. A Repub who is just as bad on war and militarism as the Dem, but worse on virtually every other issues is.....all around, a worse choice.
That's really all there is to it.
".....I appreciate your feedback and thanks for reading."
Same to you.