I understand she has a national following, as the first Somali elected to national office is important and has made a name for herself as a member of the Squad. She isn't that good of a Representative though. She's missed a lot of votes and there are corruption questions around her and her campaign manager, now husband.
Yes she does. The MN primary is August 11th. Her opponent is Antone Melton-Meaux (pronounced "Mewks). He's an African American attorney and minister. His positions are pretty much similar to Omar's. He's raised a decent amount of money to run against an incumbent and got the endorsement of Minneapolis Star Tribune. I haven't seen polling but incumbency is very powerful and if I had to put money on it I would put it on Omar. That said it's pretty telling she's getting such a primary challenge.
I just saw on local news that Omar’s primary challenger out raised her by around a million in the second quarter. I’m guessing a lot of that money might be from out of state but numbers like these are unusual for a House seat primary.
Melton-Meaux is a 47-year-old Lutheran with a master’s degree in the study of the Hebrew Bible and has ties to the Minneapolis area’s Jewish community. My guess is his position in the middle east will be vastly different. Also, hes an attorney, this "masters degree" isn't listed. I'm not one for conspiracy theories and none of my positions are similar to hers but I think this guy is clearly a planted money magnet stooge Out of state money should really be banned.
I trust Pure Clutchfans who live in Minnesota talking about Minnesota This is how Clutchfans use to be
He's definitely getting out of state and money there's no way I think he raises all of that money locally. That said he's not a plant he's lived here and even had endorsed Omar during her first run. It wouldn't surprise me also if a fair amount of Omar's money is from out of state too as she has a national following.
Turley fans. @jiggyfly @Major https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/...mbers-move-to-condemn-rep-omar-in-resolution/ “Anti-American”? House Members Move To Condemn Rep. Omar In Resolution July 17, 2020 I have recently been highly critical of reports that Rep. Iihan Omar (D., Minn.) has given up to one million dollars in campaign funds to her own husband’s company, one of the long-standing loopholes for corruption in Washington. Omar has been highly controversial for her positions and statements but this should be a matter that unifies people across the political spectrum. However, the attention of her colleagues has not been on closing this loophole but instead lashing out at her recent call for “dismantling the whole system of oppression” in the United States from its economic to political structures. A resolution, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R., Ariz) would denounce Omar for having “a documented history of expressing anti-American sentiments.” The resolution is a mistake that undermines both free speech and democratic values. It should be withdrawn. Omar recently declared: Many commentators and fellow members immediately denounced Omar’s positions. It was an example of how free speech is meant to work. Omar’s speech was met with counter speech. However, members now want a formal censure or condemnation from the House as a whole. It is obviously not going to happen with the Democratically controlled house. Yet, the resolution itself is a concern for what it says about the right of members to voice their views of the inherent flaws or abuses of our system. I do not happen to agree with Omar but I find the resolution far more concerning than her hyperbolic comments. The resolution denounces Omar for advocating “a Marxist form of government that is incompatible with the principles laid out in the founding documents of the United States.” As a Democratic nation, members have every right to call for sweeping reforms, even changing the emphasis or structure of our economic and political system. Omar has become a member of Congress to seek such changes lawfully and constitutionally. To her credit, she has overcome much in her life to attain her position in Congress and has become a global figure of influence. I do not agree with her and will oppose many of her proposals. However, we are all working within a constitutional structure that allows for and protects different visions for this country. It is not enough to say that such resolution are just an exercise of free speech for other members. These members are seeking to use the imprimatur of their house to denounce political opponents. I have long opposed the use of such institutional statements, including most recently the effort on my own faculty to denounce Attorney General Bill Attorney as a law school institution. Individual members, like faculty members, are free to join as individuals in such statements. It is a misuse of the Congress to use resolution to denounce those with opposing political or economic views. It is also a practice that makes for poor legislative cultures. The House Democrats could endlessly pass resolutions condemning their opponents as racists or fascists. Since these resolutions do not take any concrete action, courts are likely to view the matters as outside of the realm of judicial review or lacking a cognizable injury for judicial relief. The result is to further the stifling intolerance for opposing views that we are seeing across the country, particularly on our campuses. This becomes an insatiable appetite to use our institutions to denounce or silence or marginalize those with opposing views. The way to defend our system is not to use the Congress to denounce political opponents. We have gone through ugly periods like the Red Scare where such condemnations were comment and members used their institutional power to intimidate or coerce those with dissenting views. The greatest “anti-American” threat to our freedoms is the effort to oppose or chill the exercise of free speech, particularly by a political leader. The debate started by Omar is the ultimate example of our core values. We can disagree with each other while affirming our right to call for and seek changes within our system. The use of institutional resolutions of censure or condemnation undermine those values. Members, like free speech, require space. Indeed, in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan noted that “the freedoms of expression” require “breathing space…to survive.” I do not question the sincere feelings of anger of these sponsors but they should withdraw this resolution in the interests of the very American values that they cite. He includes a link to the resolution
Still not sure why I'm supposed to know who that is or why I care what he thinks. Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with random journalists or simply reposting other people's thoughts. I like to think for myself.
I do question the sincere feelings of the sponsors as I believe the quotes they bring up that they are offended by aren't offensive.
I agree with Turley. Stuff like this is they type of partisan hyperbole that turn people off from politics. While it get's the Right worked up it also riles up the Left and actually benefits Omar. Given the nature of this district besides incumbency the biggest thing going for Omar is that Trump and other Republicans hate her and put out childish ad hominens against her like this resolution.
