 As many of you know by now, the most progressive members of Congress are all facing competitive primary challenges by well-funded opponents, and we now know that at least one of them is in serious danger of losing. That individual is Cory Bush. The New York Post reports a new poll by GOP firm Remington Research finds Bush losing by 22 points to rival Wesley Bell in the August 6th contest. While the poll was a small sample size of just 401 voters, the results are stark. In the survey conducted last week, 50% of those polled said they were in favor of Bell, a former prosecutor with just 28% saying yes to Bush. The margin of error was 4.9%. So obviously this is very alarming as somebody who supports Cory Bush, but there are a couple of caveats. As the article mentioned, the sample size was relatively small, and yes, this is a GOP pollster, but they are fairly reputable, not as reputable according to 538 as pollsters like ABC News and New York Times Ciena College, and their transparency score is comparatively low, but they have produced relatively accurate results, and they're certainly more trustworthy than Rasmussen, which skews heavily towards Republicans, but I mean, this poll is the only gauge that we have at this point of this primary race, and I think we would be foolish to not take it seriously. And as Josh Krajnar of Jewish Insider and Fox News puts it, this is a big red flag for far-left squad lawmakers. Now as you can see, he's also framing her as being anti-Israel and is implying that her position there is the reason why she's in this predicament currently. Now I think that him calling her far-left is a stretch because even though it's easy to think that's the case when the Overton window in the United States is so far to the right that anyone who's left of center seems like a commie, but I mean, in actuality, even though she's one of the most left-wing members of Congress, that doesn't make her an extremist. She's just a social Democrat. There's nothing extreme about any of her policy positions, but I think that there is something to be said here about him saying that she's losing because of Israel. It's not because of her stance, because I mean, what she's doing and calling for a ceasefire is the position that's supported by a majority of Americans, including a strong majority of Democrats. But the reason why her position has got her in this predicament is because of all the money being spent against her, and I think that he's also correct to point out that this isn't just a red flag for Cory Bush. It's also a red flag for other members of the squad as well, particularly Jamal Bowman and Elon Omar, who are also possibly in danger of losing, although we'll have to wait to see the polls. But I mean, this is really sad to see because she was bold and she chose to come out and do the right thing and call for a ceasefire. But now she is possibly going to be punished for it. Now, a couple of months ago, we learned that APAC is planning to spend more than $100 million to unseat progressives like Cory Bush, who called for a ceasefire and dared to criticize Israel. But before that, we learned this. Westley Bell announced that he would be abandoning his campaign for the U.S. Senate against Republican Josh Hawley to instead run against fellow Democrat Cory Bush. And it seems like he made the right decision for himself for the fact that he managed to raise a lot of money in comparison to Cory Bush, whose campaign is reportedly in debt with just $20,000 of cash on hand. So run against the Republican with unlimited funds or run against a Democrat who exclusively is raising money through small grassroots donations to remain principled. Which one's going to be easier here? So he made the easy choice. Now, this primary challenge is about Israel. But Bell, ironically, after choosing to get in this race because of her position on Israel is desperately trying to not make this about Israel. But I mean, it makes sense if you think about it, because defending a genocide isn't necessarily the most effective strategy. So instead, what he's trying to do is portray her as a bad representative, who I guess is not looking out for the interests of her constituents and is doing bad constituent services. I mean, it's so ridiculous that he would try to make this case. But this isn't what the election and the primary is about. This is about Israel. And he's only running against her because it'll be easier to fundraise against the progressive critical of Israel than it would be to fundraise against the Republican, right? So for him to try to pretend as if Israel isn't the number one issue here shows you how disingenuous he is. And Cory Bush is sounding the alarm about what this race is actually about, despite his attempts to deflect. The New York Times reports, unlike many of the primary contests fueled by various groups, like the American Israel Political Affairs Committee, its political affiliate, the United Democracy Project, and the independent Democratic majority for Israel, the Bush-Feebell battle in Missouri's first district pits progressive against progressive, each with a considerable record to write on that has little to do with Israel. And though driven by money from pro-Israel groups and firm Israel critics, the fight over Missouri's deep blue first district is likely to hardly mention the Middle East. Instead, it will be a battle over representation and what that should look like for troubled St. Louis. Quote, I'm being targeted by APEC because not only do I believe Palestinians deserve to live freely and peacefully just like Israelis, but because I want to protect our democracy from Republican extremism, Ms. Bush said Monday. I want to codify abortion rights. I want to pass meaningful gun violence prevention legislation. And I want to raise taxes on billionaires. All things APEC, their GOP donors and the insurrectionists they endorse oppose. And Cory Bush is exactly correct. This is about Israel. And I think that it would behoove her to at least point out why he's challenging her in the first place. But I mean, it's so infuriating to see Wesley Bell Larp as a progressive during the campaign. And he's only able to do this because he's able to control the narrative since he's raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, right? Even though Cory Bush is an incumbent with that incumbent advantage, he has so much money that he could flood the airwaves and get voters to think whatever he wants them to think about this entire race. It's really, it's really frustrating. But unfortunately, this is the way that US politics works. But as much as he wants to downplay his support for genocide now, he already gave away the game in an October 31st interview with Jewish Insider. Quote, he said that the Israel Hamas war and Bush's comments about it had factored into his decision to challenge her for her house seat. Quote, it contributed to my decision for the surface reasons that those comments were offensive on many levels, but also from a national security level as well. Bell said, but wait for it, Bell declined to say if he had been in conversation with APEC or Democratic majority for Israel, the pro-Israel PECs working to recruit challengers to squad members. But it gets even better. Quote, Bell, who traveled to Israel in 2017 with the American Israel Education Foundation and nonprofit Link to APEC said he'd seen firsthand the importance of Israel's iron dome missile defense system. Bush voted against supplemental iron dome funding in 2021 after the last war between Israel and Hamas. He is so dishonest, it's almost hilarious. Well, you know, yeah, I have this affiliation between APEC, I'm at least linked to them in a roundabout way, but I'm not gonna tell you if they're funding me after I literally decided to get in this race to challenge her because I know that the Israel lobby is gonna be spending big to defeat progressives calling for a ceasefire. I mean, this is just, it's so comical how people can run for Congress and be so deceitful about their reasoning, right? I think that if you run for Congress for opportunistic reasons, like I don't expect you to say that, but really we want people to run for Congress for selfless reasons, not selfish reasons, right? We want them to run because they actually care about people, not because, hey, this is gonna be easy because I could just jump in this race and automatically get like hundreds of thousands of dollars because the entire fucking Israel lobby is against this person. It's just, it's so frustrating. Now the reason why Cory Bush rightfully voted against the funding of Israel's iron dome is because they are overseeing a state of apartheid and that bill that she voted against had zero protections for Palestinians. But of course he didn't explain that because why would he? But he did use that vote to imply that she supports literal terrorists, which is something that Republicans have also done. Jewish Insider continues in a press conference announcing his candidacy, Bell said, quote, we cannot give aid and comfort to terrorist organizations. Pressed on that comment by Jewish Insider, Bell noted that Bush had voted against funding for the iron dome missile defense system and said that the US's foes, including Hamas, pay attention to public divisions in the US. Quote, they want propaganda to try and create confusion and disinformation, he said. I think it matters a lot. And then obviously how one votes, there's certain things that we cannot politicize and that's one of them in my opinion. And as we see, Republicans and Democrats like one of the few issues that we all come together on. Oh, so it's the squad who wants to propagandize the conflict and not his donors, I see. Makes total sense. And I love how he says that he is proud to come together with Republicans for this particular issue. Yeah, the same party who called for Gaza to be turned into a parking lot and to be wiped off the map. That's the party who you're proud to align with on this issue, really? I mean, why not just join them? It's astonishing to me that he is pretending to be a progressive here. I mean, you can't be progressive and pro-genocide at the same time, but I guess if you have enough money, you can make people think anything about you. It's just, right? Now, when he was confronted about this morally indefensible position by a non-Zionist Jewish woman, take a look at how he responded. I would like to first speak as a Jewish anti-Zionist because I do think it is important that we make it known that not all Jews support the violence, the genocide, the ethnic cleansing of the state of Israel. So please just make sure that you do not treat all Jews as a monolith as if all Jews support the ethno-state of Israel because we certainly do not. That is number one. But number two, when you talk about that you don't wanna be divisive and clearly you are insinuating there, you're implying that you believe Cori Bush is somehow divisive. You think somehow she's too divisive. I mean, I think that a lot of people could have said the exact same thing about you when you ran for your current position and based on that same mentality that it is quote unquote divisive to speak up for marginalized, oppressed, colonized people. A lot of people think that that is divisive. And so I think that's how that is gonna be interpreted when you say that. As you have chosen this exact moment to run while Cori Bush has been criticizing Israel's genocide and you are saying that sometimes we do need to hold, police officers accountable when they use excessive force but then I'm asked what I wanna ask you is about this contradiction when you say we need to always, always stand with our ally Israel. You keep saying ally but you don't say Israel. I think we got the question now. Why can we not hold them accountable for their very, very excessive force of over 10,000, 11,000, 12,000, half of which are children are killed. So tell me why that is not the same thing that we don't ever, ever, ever hold them accountable. Thank you for the question. So first and foremost, it's offensive to me that you would say that Israel defending itself is genocide. Genocide is intentionally trying to wipe out a people and no reasonable person would say that that is Israel's intention. Israel was attacked. Israel was attacked by Hamas and let's just, since we're gonna put this out and I'm not gonna take up the entire time with this but I do wanna make this point. Israel was attacked by a terrorist organization who in their charter says that the destruction of Israel is their goal that they stated after this attack that they were going to do it again and again. They contact, they attacked people at a concert. Those were not military targets. And so to call this ethnic cleansing, it is just wrong. It is misguided and her statements and your statements are wrong on that, period. And so- Wesley, did this begin on her purpose, Sally? I listened to it. Everything that you said Sally and I listened to everything you said and I did not interrupt you and now it's my turn. No, Sally, we're not gonna do this. I listened to your question and now it's my turn to end and now it's my turn to speak. And so here we are. We're talking about accusing folks who we know were victimized by genocide and ethnic cleansing during the Holocaust and throughout history. And we're gonna say that this country cannot defend itself against a terrorist organization that literally says they want to destroy Israel. No, I am not gonna sit here and play these word games and try to reinvent what actually is happening on the ground and what is actually happening historically. Did it start on October 7th, Wesley? Did all of this begin on October 7th? I'm not gonna make this a back and forth with you. Of course you're not, of course you're not. Yeah, I think that that exchange speaks for itself. Very, very telling in how he just wouldn't answer the question directly. He won't engage honestly with the question because doing so would force him to acknowledge war crimes Israel has committed. And if he did that, his donors wouldn't be too happy. So he's dodging questions like Neo from the Matrix and trying desperately to make this about anything but Israel even though that's the entire reason why he's in this race in the first place. What a dishonest hack. But you know what, let's play the game that he wants to play. Let's actually put aside both of their positions on Israel for a moment and look at actual policy positions that both candidates support. When you go to Corey Bush's campaign website you can see policy priorities. And when you click on one of them like Medicare for All for example, you can see thorough details about specific changes that she wants to make to our broken healthcare system. You can go to housing for all and see a plethora of practical solutions to one of the biggest crises facing the country right now. On the other hand, when you go to Wesley Bell's page you find no policies, zero. In fact, he doesn't even have a policy page and he's been in the race for months now. There is a page about him but there's not a peep about what he wants to do for you if you live in that district. But yet he wants to make this about constituents and not the candidates. That's hilarious to me. I mean the choice couldn't be more clear and if voters in Missouri's first congressional district get tricked into voting for this vacuous shill that would be incredibly sad for them because they'd be losing a representative who actually gives a damn about them. So I'm gonna put the donation link to Corey Bush in the description box and if you live in this district and you support Corey Bush, do what you can to help her. Text bank, phone bank, Canvas because if she were to lose that'd be a really sad day for America.