Hamawy of New Jersey: worse than Platner?
Here’s a disturbing game: who’s the worst Democrat nominee this cycle? Platner is definitely in the running – although he’s not yet officially the Democrats’ nominee for senator from Maine. But arguably neck and neck with Platner is Dr. Adam Hamawy, the nominee in New Jersey’s 12 district for the US House of Representatives.
The way he was advertised in the campaign was as a military veteran and doctor who saved lives during the Iraq War. And that is true:
I’m Dr. Adam Hamawy. I’m a father, a husband, a humanitarian, a surgeon, a veteran, and a small business owner. I’ve dedicated my life to serving others, and I’m running for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District to build a government that works for you, not special interests.
Just a great guy, right? He goes on to criticize ICE in typical Democrat fashion, and then segues to some Obama-esque “let’s all get together” pablum:
This is not about Republicans or Democrats. Both parties have failed to address the problems facing our families – affordability, healthcare, education, and so much more. Congress has the power to solve our problems instead of making them worse, but only if we elect Members with the courage to fight for us.
I’m stepping up now to fight for you because the people of New Jersey’s 12th district deserve a leader that puts our interests first, not billionaires and special interests.
Here’s a slightly more detailed bio that he offers. But nowhere does he seem to mention – much less try to explain – what even Politico calls his “controversial past” [my emphasis]:
Hamawy, who lives in South Brunswick and runs a plastic surgery practice in Princeton, entered the race as a political unknown. His campaign quickly gained traction as progressives simmered over Israel and its war with Hamas in Gaza. Hamawy’s work volunteering at a Gaza hospital during the war earned him support. …
Hamawy, 56, led the Democratic field in fundraising even before a new super PAC called American Priorities, founded as a pro-Palestinian counterweight to the pro-Israel AIPAC, spent $2 million on his behalf. …
Hamawy’s campaign planks are unabashedly progressive, including “Medicare For All” and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (which his campaign website says is “full of neo-Nazis at all ranks”) and dismantling the Department of Homeland Security.
So we have a Hamas-friendly, Egyptian-born, MD who is extremely to the left and considers ICE ‘neo-Nazis.” So far, that’s unfortunately not all that atypical for today’s Democrat Party.
But then we also have this:
But the heroic picture portrayed by Hamawy’s campaign and allies met a stark contrast when a publication tied to an anti-Islamic group resurfaced news reports of his 1995 testimony in defense of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “blind sheikh”who was convicted on terrorism and seditious conspiracy charges, and whose followers conducted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Hamawy, then a medical student in his 20s, had four years earlier accompanied Abdel-Rahman on a trip from New Jersey to Michigan, where Abdel-Rahman spoke at a conference and talked of “conquering the land of the infidels.” Even after the World Trade Center bombing, Hamawy acknowledged translating a document for Abdel-Rahman for a press conference.
Hamawy said on the campaign trail that he disavowed Abdel-Rahman’s calls for violence and called the critiques against him as “guilt-by-association attacks on Muslim and Arab candidates.”
He’s the victim, of course.
And his opponents among the Democrats were in the odd position of being reluctant to mention it, probably because of the danger of being accused of Islamophobia or the like. So I wonder how many of Hamawy’s voters even knew of his past:
While the Abdel-Rahman controversy got significant media attention and criticism from the right, most of Hamawy’s rivals declined to touch it. Plainfield Mayor Adrian Mapp, an exception, called Hamawy a “radical extremist.”
Hamawy in November faces Republican Gregg Mele, who has run unsuccessfully for several offices in New Jersey as a Republican and libertarian.
That’s not the only thing in Hamawy’s background that’s “controversial.” I’ve cued up just a couple of minutes of the Ruthless podcast discussing some of the rest, which includes an al Qaeda connection:
[NOTE: See also this article on the general theme of the radicalism of the current Democrats.]
Now that’s what I call triangulating to the center!
Dems have a lot going for the midterms. They don’t seem to be making the most of it.
It’s northern NJ. It doesn’t matter who runs there as long as they are a democrat. And with his soul mate running the city just across the Hudson, he’s in good company.
Andrew McCarthy was the prosecutor in one of the World Trade Center bombing trials, and I read some of his commentary on it.
I recall this gem about Abdel-Rahman’s defense attorney. I think it caused some significant stir in the media at the time of the trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart
Dems have a lot going for the midterms. They don’t seem to be making the most of it. — huxley
Absolutely. It’s quite unfortunate, but the currently high gasoline prices following on the heels of the big burst of Biden inflation is a huge headwind for the GOP going into the midterms, IMO. Plus, historically the party in power will generally lose members in one of these elections.
I’m not sure I understand the Dem’s reasons behind these candidates.
Are they that hard-up for candidates & they’ll take anyone who can make a splash?
Is their base so messed up that these candidates are a good match to their desires?
Does the Dem leadership understand that they have an electoral advantage now and wish to move their elected officials as far to the left as possible?
He was working at the gaza hospital that was a hamas base, that puts a whole other spin on things
Recall imam rauf over in north bergen was pushing the ground zero mosque a decade ago the cordoba project
The conquest of a defeated target like hagia sophia
Which failed due to strong resistance at that time
Much like therapist galindo
TommyJAY:
“I’m not sure I understand the Dem’s reasons behind these candidates.
Are they that hard-up for candidates & they’ll take anyone who can make a splash?
Is their base so messed up that these candidates are a good match to their desires?
Does the Dem leadership understand that they have an electoral advantage now and wish to move their elected officials as far to the left as possible?”
#1 is true but #2 is the biggest reason. And #3 may also come into play.
@TommyJay:historically the party in power will generally lose members in one of these elections.
Our gracious hostess determined this is not true. It’s endlessly repeated but never checked up on.
Anyone that supports hamsters supports barbaric atrocities as a political weapon. So, no complaints when someone says “here’s your share dipshit” before they whack them.
I commented earlier that I thought the Democrats were ripe for a takeover. My reason for saying that was that I couldn’t think of a single core value that distinguished the modern Democratic Party. There are common attitudes, even policies, or at least talking points, but core values? That leaves them open to exploitation. The DSA is one group angling for power, there are others. The party is rotting from within.
Qualitatively, Hamawy may be somewhat worse, but Platner could do more damage as a senator because he’d be one of one hundred rather than one of 435.
There was another Platner scandal story today. Whatever made Democrats think such a person would be a good candidate? Perhaps some Mainers may vote for Janet Mills after all.
Re: Midterm disadvantage of President’s party.
As I read the data post-WW II this disadvantage holds up strongly in the House and moderately so in the Senate:
___________________________________________
1954 / Eisenhower House -18 Senate -1
1958 / Eisenhower House -48 Senate -13
1962 / Kennedy House -4 Senate +4
1966 / Johnson House -47 Senate -4
1970 / Nixon House -12 Senate +2
1974 / Ford House -48 Senate -4
1978 / Carter House -15 Senate -3
1982 / Reagan House -26 Senate +1
1986 / Reagan House -5 Senate -8
1990 / Bush House -8 Senate -1
1994 / Clinton House -54 Senate -8
1998 / Clinton House +5 Senate 0
2002 / Bush House +8 Senate +2
2006 / Bush House -30 Senate -6
2010 / Obama House -63 Senate -6
2014 / Obama House -13 Senate -9
2018 / Trump House -40 Senate +2
2022 / Biden House -9 Senate +1
Total House change: -511 seats over 20 midterms
Average House change: -25.6 seats
Total Senate change: -68 seats over 20 midterms
Average Senate change: -3.4 seats
___________________________________________
This disadvantage has been quite real since WW II. A loss of 3.4 seats in the Senate is a 3.4% loss of the Senate.
Platner is running for the Senate not to be Governor. I cannot believe the democrats in DC met with him.
Hopefully Susan Collins has some damaging information to finish his campaign off.
More likely the NYT story is a plant to get rid of Platner by the D machine. It put the ex governor back on track to go against Collins
Worthwhile to revisit the 2020 Senate election in Maine, where Collins lost every public poll and won the election by 9 points.
It’s not repeating itself, but it’s rhyming.
You didn’t even mention Scott Weiner, who’s likely to replace the retiring Nancy Pelosi…
DisGuested:
Of course – thanks, fixed.