This article is my own intellectual property and was originally published via Disobedient Media.
Tim Canova's fight for the Congressional seat in Southern Florida's 23rd District in November is the most critical example of what it means to be a real progressive in 2018. His independent run blazes a trail for all others who wish to genuinely turn the tables on a terminally corrupt Democratic Party.
Canova's campaign accepts no corporate funds whatsoever despite the fact that it faces one of the most overtly corrupt and powerful political figures in the country. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, we remind readers, is the same former DNC Chairwoman at the heart of rigging the 2016 primary against Sanders, not to mention the illegal destruction of ballots in her previous race against Canova.
Wasserman-Schultz is also a defendant in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit, and was centrally involved with the infamous Awan scandal, which President Trump's Department of Justice has since refused to prosecute, conveniently making the issue disappear just in time for the upcoming midterm elections.
This author previously wrote regarding the death of hope, citing the experience of supporting Bernie's 2016 campaign. After being cheated of the nomination, Sanders went on to endorse Clinton and even plug the Russiagate narrative that the DNC and Clinton camp used to deflect from the revelation of evidence of their election meddling. Rising from that destruction of hope, this writer concluded in part that the only legitimate way to reclaim some semblance of the Democratic process would be through independent and third-party candidacies.
To grasp the importance of Tim Canova's campaign, we must take into account a broader context of recent events, including Andrew Cuomo's primary win over Cynthia Nixon, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's recent actions and the observations of Jared Beck in his book What Happened To Bernie Sanders, to provide additional context for the conclusion that the only legitimate avenue to pursue progressive agendas lies distinctly outside the Democratic Party and its faux-liberal supporters of establishment corruption. In that light, the heightened significance of Canova's efforts become clearly apparent.
Groundhog Day In New York City
The latest instance of alleged Democratic primary election rigging should come as no surprise to progressives in New York. Disobedient Media and others previously reported on the New York City Board of Elections's admission that over 200,000 Democratic Primary voters were illegally purged from voter registration rolls in 2016. Though the wrongdoing was admitted, no substantial changes were laid in order to protect voters from actual election interference in future.
It seems rather predictable, then, to see allegations of voter suppression arise from the recent Democratic gubernatorial primary race between incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo and progressive candidate Cynthia Nixon. Journalist Nomiki Konst, wearing a Bernie Sanders shirt, reported: "Went into vote skipping. But just found out my name was not listed on the roll at my polling place. Despite having the recently sent documentation from board of elections with me. Had to fill out provisional."
Konst's choice of attire added a surreal sense of deja-vu to the situation that already seemed to be a near throw-back to the 2016 Primary. If Cuomo wins the general race in November, he will match his father's three-term reign as Governor of New York. Dr. Jill Stein, former Green Party Presidential candidate, noted the newest allegations of corruption, writing via Twitter:
In an additional pair of Tweets, Stein wrote: "There's no evidence alleged Russian interference affected any votes, yet we've seen non-stop investigations & media coverage for 2+ years. There's evidence of widespread voter purges in NY Dem primary, but no investigation or coverage. So... do Dems care about democracy or not?... A still-unknown number of people were denied their right to vote in New York's Democratic primary by apparent voter purges. What if it’s Russian interference - or worse! Where are all the #Resistance activists when we need them to defend our democracy?"
Independent journalist Niko House also reported that the NYC Board of Elections sent incorrect polling locations to its constituents, in what appears to have been an additional attempt to lessen voter participation. House further expressed his frustration with the hampered democratic process via Twitter, writing:
Under Cuomo's two-term leadership, New York has remained the most infamously corrupt sate in the nation. Evidence of pay-to-play corruption haunts Cuomo's career, just as it taints that of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The many parallels between Cuomo's race against a progressive and Clinton's campaign against Sanders informs us that the rigging against Sanders was not an isolated incident, but is in fact standard procedure in the Democratic Party.
The overall message that these races deliver to us is that no matter the will of the public, the establishment-backed candidate will succeed if the DNC is allowed to control the process of choosing the nominee. This point is also methodically argued by Jared Beck in his text What Happened To Bernie Sanders.
Cuomo also seemed to confirm this conclusion when he was reported to have called the insurgent progressive wave in his party 'not even a ripple.' Cuomo's sentiments - perhaps unintentionally - echo the reality that a genuine progressive insurgency cannot exist in the current Democratic Party matrix.
The Ocasio-Cortez Factor
While Tim Canova is independently facing off against one of the most corrupt career politicians in the country, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been busy endorsing them. Cortez has come to represent an example of why and how a supposed progressive cannot survive within the DNC framework with their integrity intact.
After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her Democratic Primary race, she was lauded as the vanguard of a new wave of progressives inspired by Bernie Sanders's candidacy. Unfortunately, her rise played out in terms that all-too-closely mirrored Sander's own candidacy, ultimately endorsing everything she ran against. First came a shockingly over-the-top lament in the wake of John McCain's death. Her sentiments left many wondering how authentic her tale of being a newcomer to the political arena really was.
The fact that she interned with a member of the Kennedy family speaks to a political ambition that originated long before Sanders threw his hat into the ring for the 2016 Primary race. Such an internship would suggest that Ocasio-Cortez was highly motivated in her pursuit of a political career from a very young age, and that she was successful in working with establishment figures prior to her upset win as a "progressive."
Her over-the-top statement on McCain, a died-in-the-wool war hawk who during his shameful career stood beside Nazis and terrorists in addition to loudly supporting every failed US invasion of the modern era, totally belies Cortez's campaign promise of being not only an anti-establishment candidate, but an anti-war candidate.
Cortez is the recipient of degrees in Economics and International Relations from Boston University. Boston Magazine reported: "She was also involved with the Howard Thurman Center for Common Ground, which strives to bring together students from diverse backgrounds, and studied abroad in Niger, according to the BU student paper, the Daily Free Press."
As discussed in the DecipherYou series, degrees in International Relations are often a recruitment ground for intelligence agencies. If Cortez was recruited before running for office, it would hardly be surprising, especially given that the number of Democratic congressional candidates running in the 2018 midterms with a military intelligence or IC background was reported by the World Socialist Website to have been astoundingly high.
Cortez's little-reported time spent in Niger as part of her international relations degree compliments her attitude towards the infamous legion of CIA Democrats. The World Socialist Website reported that Cortez appears to be "covering" for the CIA Democrats, stating: "Cortez refused to rule out endorsing former military and CIA agents who are running for Congress alongside Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic Party."
Soon after Cortez's emotional tweet memorializing the war-hawk and infamous war criminal John McCain, she further cemented herself within the neoliberal confines of DNC when she endorsed Andrew Cuomo in the wake of his controversial Primary win. The endorsement raised a furor not only because the multi-generational Cuomo dynasty in New York is the gubernatorial equivalent of the Bush or Clinton political ruling families, but also because of the legion of reports of election meddling in the primary itself.
Many perceived her endorsement of Cuomo as a slap in the face to all those who voted for her based on an anti-establishment progressive platform. Given the overt parallels between Cuomo's win and that of Hillary Clinton in 2016, many saw Cortez's endorsement as the final crack that ultimately shattered her pretense of progressivism.
Overall, Cortez's history and recent actions have raised questions among the public as to the likelihood that Cortez may have been groomed to run for office as a faux-progressive.
Jimmy Dore summed the feeling up succinctly, saying: "There is no progressive takeover of the Democratic Party." He added: "When Bernie said he was calling for a revolution, he wasn't being truthful. That was just a gimmick. He won't come on this show and talk about it... he'll do any interview with anybody who says they voted for Hillary, but if you don't, he won't come near you. That's the opposite of political courage."
When attorney for the plaintiffs in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit, Jared Beck, penned his book What Happened To Bernie Sanders, he outlined precisely the multiple factors ensuring that there is no possibility of any candidate winning a DNC primary race: unless that candidate was pre-approved by the DNC. In light of that context, he posted the following query via Twitter:
So why are we talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in an article focused on the importance of Tim Canova's candidacy?
The reason is simple: it is crucially important to differentiate between the candidacy of Canova, who is running as an independent outside of the DNC machine, and the campaign of a faux-progressive like Ocasio-Cortez, who represents the alleged "progressive insurgency" within the Democratic Party, but who nonetheless endorses corrupt establishment-backed figures.
Like Sanders, Cortez illustrates that even a supposed "insurgency" within the Democratic Party ultimately transforms those who pursue it into apologists for the same establishment they claim to fight - by design or accident, the result is the same.
In some ways, this variety of betrayal is more grievous than that of an overtly corrupt politician like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who gives virtually no pretense of progressive-tendencies, and relies on outright voter fraud to remain in power.
All Eyes On Broward County
If the repeated history in New York City's gubernatorial Democratic Primary is any indication, we can expect to witness repeated rigging in Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's November standoff against Canova.
On announcing his bid to run as an Independent rather than as a Democrat, Canova explained to Disobedient Media that his decision arose directly from his previous experience of being actively sabotaged when running as a Democrat as well as the illegal destruction of ballots. He likened the treatment to an abusive spousal relationship, an analogy that many progressives have drawn when explaining the need to leave the Democratic Party.
Canova recently addressed this history of corruption head-on and openly (Unlike Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement of blatantly corrupt actors), saying: "It paints a very sad picture, doesn't it? That it's really one Party out there, the Party of money. At least at the establishment level. And sometimes they wear blue shirts, and sometimes they wear red shirts. That's what we're fighting against. You can imagine how depressing this was... it was losing the confidence we have in our Democracy."
The full video of Canova's statement is available below.
If Jared Beck's thesis holds, the only chance of bypassing the gridlock of DNC corruption is by bypassing the Democratic Party entirely. This is the path Tim Canova has chosen to take in Florida. If the election is yet again tampered with, it will prove once and for all that the American Democratic process is dead. And it will be Democrats, not Russians, who killed it.
So What?
It is this author's sincere hope that by the end of this article, readers will understand the difference between the candidacies of insincere progressive like Sanders and true trailblazers like Canova who refuse to operate within the stranglehold of DNC corruption. The difference between supporting candidates with integrity and falling for a cult of personality is that the former involves holding candidates to account for their actions, not hoping for the best based on their campaign slogans.
Canova is currently delivering on his promise to fight for the people and against corruption through not only his candidacy but his fight to expose illegal ballot destruction, while Sanders and Cortez spit in the face of everyone who voted and donated to their efforts in the hope of real change when they endorse the very actors that cheat real progressives.
What Ocasio-Cortez has shown us through her actions, including the Cuomo endorsement, would be the equivalent of Canova endorsing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz after she cheated the first 2016 election: instead, Canova took legal action.
This is why it is beyond critical that the entire country - not just Floridians - throw the full weight of their support behind Canova in whatever form they can. It may not be enough to prevent yet another episode of vote tampering, but it will at the very least help to expose the US Democratic process for the sham that it is if election interference takes place again.
What we gain at minimum from Tim Canova's tireless work is the concrete knowledge that corrupt politicians, rigged elections and the maintenance of a pro-plutocratic neoliberal status-quo will be the future of the Democratic Party. Rule by the corrupt will no longer be considered an aberration: it will have clearly become the norm.