The Dictatorship
Maine Democrats made the right choice with Troy Jackson
Maine Democrats on Saturday selected former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson to replace Graham Platner as the party’s U.S. Senate nominee. Jackson now has just three months to make his case that Mainers should pick him to represent them in Washington over five-term Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
The Democrats’ scramble echoes the 2024 presidential electionwhen Kamala Harris ran for president after President Joe Biden withdrew. In this case, Jackson is the one taking the reins toward the end of a tight high-stakes race after his predecessor imploded and dropped out. But considering the disastrous circumstances, the nomination of Jackson looks like a pretty decent outcome for Democrats. There’s reason for cautious optimism that he could prevail in his race, given his unique position as a progressive insider with something to offer voters looking for populist outsiders.
This may end up being the smoothest passing of the baton Democrats could have hoped for.
It all came together shockingly fast. Platner’s campaign collapsed after a sexual assault allegation, and Democrats had less than two weeks to figure out how to replace him on the ballot. And the outcome of the convention held on Saturday had, in fact, been determined by the quickly cobbled-together process leading up to it.
The week before the state convention, registered Democrats voted in county-level mini-conventions in which they selected delegates to send to the state convention. The process was rushed and ad hoc, and the participation in the state conventions was less than a tenth of the primarybut the results were clear: Jackson dominated, winning 478 of 500 delegates up for grabs. Saturday’s state convention was a mere formality.
This may end up being the smoothest passing of the baton Democrats could have hoped for. At the level of state politics, Jackson is understood to be a logical replacement for Platner: He campaigned with him before his scandals, and according to Slatehe had the support of about 75% of the volunteers who had rallied behind Platner.
Jackson, 58, is a known quantity in Maine, having worked for over two decades in state politics, including both in the state Senate and in the state House of Representatives. He has the trust of the state party establishment and has a good reputation among progressive groups in the state. The power of his reputation was evident during the rapid-fire nomination process, as Jackson was able to secure the rapid backing of unions in the state and quickly rack up delegates. “Troy’s been around,” Jason Shedlock, a labor leader in Maine, told CNN. “If you don’t know him, you know somebody who does. And if you don’t know somebody who does, the person standing next to them has been impacted by him.”
At the same time, Jackson has progressive credentials that mirror much of Platner’s policy platform and will help him claim populist status. Before he got into politics, Jackson was a fifth-generation logger and participated in high-profile labor activism. He has supported progressive policies, and his unsuccessful campaign for governor this year was backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Jackson’s policy platform for Senate includes demands for Medicare for All, taxing billionaires, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and cutting off aid to Israel’s military to “end the genocide in Gaza.” He said he doesn’t support Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York to continue as leader of the Senate Democrats. (He said he prefers Sanders.) Maine Democrats who were excited by Platner’s platform and voted for him overwhelmingly in the primary have little reason to recoil from Jackson.
Jackson also exhibits shades of Platner in one other way: a history of reactionary views. Jackson started in Maine politics as a Republican and entered the Maine State House as an independent, before becoming a Democrat in 2004. He used to be a social conservative, voting against gay marriage and abortion rights. But he has expressed regret about those views, and for years he has supported gay marriage and robust abortion rights, and has since gained the strong backing of advocacy groups that support those rights. His campaign platform calls for a federal right to abortion. Depending on one’s perspective, Jackson’s political evolution could be an asset or a liability. At worst, he could be slammed as unreliable and a chameleon. At best, he will be seen as independent-minded and willing to learn from mistakes.
Jackson currently occupies a competitive position in the polls. A University of New Hampshire poll of likely general election voters in Maine conducted between July 15 and July 20 — that is, while Jackson was gaining momentum before the convention — found 49% of respondents said they would vote for him if the election were held today, while 46% said they would vote for Collins. Meanwhile, 2% said “another candidate” and 3% said they were undecided. And in a promising sign of momentum, even before he clinched the nomination, Jackson raised $1 million for his Senate bid. That’s a lot for a guy who barely raised more than that over the course of an entire campaign for governor, which lasted about a year.
We don’t know if Jackson will maintain such a competitive position against a longtime incumbent. He doesn’t have Platner’s charisma, and his weaknesses are about to be tested. But the buzz that Platner generated is lingering around this race, and Maine is considered a must-win if Democrats are to win back the Senate. Jackson has a decent combination of qualities going for him, as a politician with experience and trust across the state and with a vision that will not betray the many Mainers who were enthralled with Platner before his fall from grace.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.
President Donald Trump said Monday that Israel would have been “terminated” without U.S. military intervention against Iranarguing that his administration’s strikes on Tehran’s nuclear program prevented destruction to America’s closest ally in the Middle East.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One while traveling to Michigan, Trump defended the U.S. campaign against Iran, saying it fundamentally altered the balance of power in the region.
“You know who wouldn’t survive without us? Israel. Bibi’s coming, he’ll tell you,” Trump said. “If I didn’t get involved, and I didn’t blow up those nuclear, essentially, soon to be nuclear weapons to dust, Israel would have been terminated months ago.”
Later Monday, while delivering remarks at the General Motors Proving Ground in Milford, Michigan, Trump touted the United States’ strikes in Iran, saying the U.S. had destroyed Tehran’s navy and air force, while diminishing its drone and missile manufacturing capabilities.
While he touted the U.S. military strikes on Iran as a major success, the audience was notably less enthusiastic about his remarks on the war than they were about immigration and the southern border.
Trump was in Milford to bolster support among auto workers and voters in the key battleground state by highlighting his administration’s efforts to revive domestic manufacturing, expand auto industry jobs and strengthen the economy ahead of the midterm elections.
Trump’s remarks came one day before he is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House to discuss the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
Trump said he and Netanyahu remain “pretty close” on Iran ahead of their scheduled meeting Tuesday, though he acknowledged minor differences without elaborating.
The U.S. and Iran halted attacks over the weekend, but Trump has repeatedly warned that military action could resume if the talks fail. The president told reporters Iran had reached out seeking renewed negotiations.
“Iran took a beating over the last 14 days, and they asked us very nicely, ‘Please stop. Let’s meet,’” Trump said. “If we don’t make a deal, we go back to the same thing.”
The president also brushed aside concerns raised by Netanyahu over the potential sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, signaling that he would not allow foreign leaders to dictate U.S. arms sales.
“Nobody tells me what we should be selling,” Trump said when asked about Netanyahu’s reported objections. He added that “Turkey’s been a tremendous ally.”
Trump first signaled earlier this month that he was open to restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35 program, reversing a policy that removed the country after it purchased Russia’s S-400 air defense system. Israel has traditionally sought to preserve its qualitative military advantage, including access to more advanced U.S. weapons systems than neighboring countries.
At the rally in Milford, Trump argued his economic agenda is fueling a manufacturing resurgence, even as many Americans continue to grapple with higher gasoline prices and other lingering economic pressures amid the war with Iran.
“I’ve done more for you than your parents,” Trump said to a crowd of autoworkers.
The national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $4.11 on Monday, compared with $3.15 a year ago, according to AAA. That is an increase of 0.96 cents per gallon, or about 31%, as fuel prices remain elevated following recent volatility in global oil markets tied to the conflict.
In the latter half of the speech, Trump returned to familiar themes he often discusses on the campaign trail, including border security, crime, election integrity and foreign policy.
Jake Traylor contributed to this story.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
At the end of June, President Donald Trump and his MAGA allies lost — for now — the Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship. Vice President JD Vance said MAGA needed to keep fighting birthright citizenship after the ruling in Trump v. Barbara, but it’s set its sights on a different nativist victory, this time relying on a set of racist laws the high court approved back at the start of the 20th century.
Just two weeks after the ruling on June 30 didn’t go MAGA’s way, Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., introduced H.R. 9724, the End Birthright Citizenship for Territories Act. The bill would deny children born on or after Jan. 1, 2027, in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands automatic citizenship unless at least one parent is already a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. Griffith calls it a crackdown on “birth tourism,” and the bill doesn’t hide where its legal authority comes from.
“The application under the Barbara case of birthright citizenship in the U.S. territories differs from what is established in the 50 U.S. States according to Supreme Court cases,” Griffith noted in a July 16 e-newsletter about the bill. “The birthright discrepancy between the territories and the States dates to legal cases beginning in the early 20th century known as the Insular Cases.”
Those Insular Cases are generally considered so racist that even Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch called them “shameful” back in 2022.
No matter how many times this country calls me a U.S. citizen, Washington still isn’t sure what to do with the place where I was born.
For those unfamiliar with the Insular Cases, from 1901 to 1922, the Supreme Court issued a series of rulings on how much of the Constitution applies to places like Puerto Rico — which had become booty of war after the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898 — and other U.S. possessions. In the lead case, Downes v. Bidwellthe court ruled that Puerto Rico belonged to — but wasn’t part of — the United States in a constitutional sense, and used language like “alien races” and “savage tribes” to describe people living there. The doctrine’s author, Justice Edward Douglass White (a former Confederate soldier), built the reasoning explicitly on “differences of race,” warning against extending citizenship to “uncivilized race[s]” he deemed “completely unfit to receive it.” This year marks the 125th anniversary of that first ruling, and is a topic I cover in a new podcast about Puerto Rican colonialism, aptly titled “American Colony.”
“This bill is divisive, it is racist in its foundation, and it is corrosive of the principles of American law. It fits a broader pattern in Congressman Griffith’s record of measures that diminish Black and brown people,” Rep. Stacey Plaskett, a nonvoting member representing the U.S. Virgin Islands, said in a statement. “To be clear — this bill has not attracted a single cosponsor. It has no discernible path to consideration, particularly given the calendar of inaction the Majority has laid out, but we do not dismiss it. We do note that the Vice President has said this is an idea the Administration is ‘looking at,’ and we take that seriously.”
I was born in Puerto Rico, where U.S. citizens still have fewer rights, so when I saw Griffith’s bill for the first time, it raised the same feeling I have always had when it comes to my own birth certificate: that no matter how many times this country calls me a U.S. citizen, Washington still isn’t sure what to do with the place where I was born. For 125 years, the Insular Cases have viewed Puerto Rico as a second-class colonial possession, even when thousands of Puerto Ricans have fought and died for a country that has never fully accepted them.
Griffith’s bill is just the latest attempt to insult us by threatening the possibility of Puerto Ricans having no citizenship at all. Of course, the bill doesn’t explicitly say that, but the threat is there for anyone born next year in Puerto Rico — because the Insular Cases appear to provide some legal justification for it.
That’s not paranoia. Efrén Rivera Ramos, a law professor and former dean at the University of Puerto Rico School of Law, told “Democracy Now!” that the bill’s own drafting creates exactly this kind of ambiguity — the first part reads as if it strips citizenship from anyone born in Puerto Rico after 2027, and only in the bill’s very last provision does it narrow that down to children of noncitizens and non-permanent residents. That sloppiness, Rivera Ramos warns, “may cause problems in the future” if this bill ever becomes law.
But fighting Griffith’s bill clause by clause misses the point. The Insular Cases need to go entirely, a position Neil Weare, co-director of Right to Democracy, has been pushing in court for years.
“It’s not surprising. Two hundred fifty years after the U.S. rejected colonial rule, the federal government continues to rely on the racist Insular Cases for the idea it can do whatever it wants in U.S. territories regardless of founding principles like ‘consent of the governed’ and all ‘created equal,’” Weare said.
Such a resolution is highly unlikely in this political climate, as long as MAGA is involved. Just last week, the White House brought back the image of Trump tossing paper towels after Hurricane Mariaan image that continues to enrage Puerto Ricans nine years later. To him, Puerto Rico is reduced to a meme. Any prospects of statehood are laughed off whenever he says he wants other countries like Canada, Greenland and Venezuela to become states. In fact, according to Trump, he might cry if places like Puerto Rico were to become states.
So why would we expect anything different when it comes to birthright citizenship?
Trump already made this bet once and lost. The Insular Cases are the backup plan, a racist relic that gets dusted off when the nativists fear the end of a lost America. Colonies like Puerto Rico have lived with that excuse since 1901, and it shouldn’t have to keep proving, generation after generation, that its people deserve the citizenship they already have.
Julio Ricardo Varela is the founder of “The Latino Newsletter” and co-editor of “Pressing Issues from Free Press.”
The Dictatorship
We are pediatricians in South Carolina fighting for parents to get accurate info about vaccines
Parents deserve honest answers about vaccines. They deserve physicians who will listen to their concerns, explain the evidence and help them make informed decisions. Above all, they deserve confidence that the nation’s leading public health institutions are communicating science and not suggesting that there’s uncertainty where none exists.
That is why the recent changes to information presented on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website regarding vaccines and autism are so concerning. News organizations reported in November that the website had been wrongly edited to say, “The statement ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim.” Last week, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said that in exchange for his support for Dr. Erica Schwartz to lead the CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services made “a sign of good faith” and “modified the CDC’s autism and vaccines webpage.”
The science has not changed: Vaccines do not cause autism.
But those changes have done nothing to mitigate the concerns. The website continues to wrongly say that a rejection of a link between vaccines and autism isn’t based on evidence. It also says, “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.”
As pediatricians who have spent our careers caring for children and their families, we know that trust is one of the most valuable tools in medicine. Trust takes years to build and moments to erode. At a time when public confidence in health institutions has already been tested, government agencies should be strengthening that trust by communicating what decades of scientific evidence have consistently shown, not reopening questions that have long been settled.
The science has not changed: Vaccines do not cause autism.
This conclusion does not rest on one study, one expert or one government agency. The conclusion follows decades of rigorous research conducted around the world involving millions of children, using multiple study designs and across different populations and health systems.
The evidence is overwhelming.
A 2014 meta-analysis by Taylor and colleagues pooled data from more than 1.2 million children in cohort studies and nearly 10,000 children in case-control studies. The researchers found no association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorder; no association between the measles-mumps-rubella, or MMR, vaccine and autism; and no evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines or mercury exposure increased autism risk.
In 2021, the Cochrane Collaborationwidely regarded as one of the highest standards in evidence-based medicine, reviewed studies examining MMR, MMRV and varicella vaccines. Once again, researchers found no evidence linking MMR vaccination to autism spectrum disorder.
That same year, an updated systematic review commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality examined 338 studies identified from more than 56,000 scientific citations. The authors concluded with high-strength evidence that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk of autism.
Perhaps the clearest assessment came from The Lancet Infectious Diseases, where researchers described autism as the example for which evidence demonstrating no relationship with vaccination is “particularly strong.” Study after study, conducted by different investigators using different methodologies in different populations, has reached the same conclusion.
Healthy science welcomes questions. But science also requires us to acknowledge when a question has been answered.
In medicine, that is what scientific consensus looks like.
Healthy science welcomes questions. It encourages new evidence, replication and debate. But science also requires us to acknowledge when a question has been answered. Continuing to imply uncertainty after decades of consistent evidence does not advance scientific inquiry; it risks undermining public confidence in one of the safest and most effective public health interventions ever developed.
Cassidy, a physician who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was right to emphasize that the overwhelming body of evidence shows vaccines do not cause autism. Reasonable people may disagree about public policy, but scientific facts should not be replaced with political talking points.
The consequences of confusion are not theoretical.
We are already witnessing the return of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities where vaccination rates have fallen. As pediatricians in South Carolinawhich had almost 1,000 cases of measles before May this year, we have seen firsthand the disruption that follows every measles case: public health investigations, exposure notifications, quarantine recommendations, missed school and work and understandable fear among families with infants, children receiving cancer treatment or others who cannot fully be protected through vaccination.
These outbreaks are not acts of fate. They are, in almost every circumstance, preventable.
The overwhelming majority of American parents continue to vaccinate their children because they understand that vaccines save lives. They deserve clear, consistent communication from the institutions they rely on, not messages that suggest long-standing scientific conclusions are suddenly open for debate.
Families affected by autism deserve better than having their children’s diagnoses negatively and repeatedly linked to a theory that has been disproven for more than two decades.
Meanwhile, families affected by autism deserve better than having their children’s diagnoses negatively and repeatedly linked to a theory that has been disproven for more than two decades.
Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental condition that affects millions of children and adults. Families deserve continued investment in understanding its causes, improving early identification, expanding access to evidence-based therapies and ensuring children receive the support they need throughout their lives. Revisiting a debunked vaccine theory does nothing to advance those goals. Instead, it diverts time, attention and resources away from the questions that remain unanswered.
As pediatricians, our responsibility is not to defend political leaders or government agencies. It is to advocate for children and to provide families with the most accurate information available. When misinformation threatens children’s health, even inadvertently, we have an obligation to speak clearly.
Parents should always ask questions. Physicians should always answer them honestly. Public health institutions should always communicate the strongest available evidence.
After decades of careful research involving millions of children, that evidence remains unchanged. Vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccines save lives.
Our children deserve public conversations, and public policies, that reflect both truths.
Dr. Martha Edwards graduated from Brown University with a degree in neuroscience and completed medical school and residency at the University of Virginia. She has been recognized with multiple community service awards for her years volunteering in a children’s free clinic and currently serves as the President of the SC Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Dr. Deborah Greenhouse is a pediatrician at Palmetto Pediatric and Adolescent Clinic/ South Carolina Pediatric Alliance in Columbia, South Carolina. She is a past president of the South Carolina Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She has served on the AAP Committee on Federal Government Affairs and is currently the AAP District IV Vice Chair.
- Benedict Cumberbatch, Alan Cumming and Benedict Wong urge UK to take action against Paramount-Warner Bros. merger
- Pentagon mum as US casualties in Iran war rise
- Senate tees up final vote on Jay Clayton intel chief nomination
- EPA: Data center power not subject to acid rain restrictions
- Paul releases Fauci’s diary entries ahead of hearing
- Trump says U.S. strikes on Iran saved Israel from being ‘terminated’
- MAGA’s backup plan to end birthright citizenship relies on a racist legal relic
- We are pediatricians in South Carolina fighting for parents to get accurate info about vaccines
- Stevens to El-Sayed: ‘Thank you for clarifying that you didn’t call me an ogre’
- ‘I’ve never lost:’ Rahm Emanuel makes his case for the White House
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words