Connect with us

Opinions

Wisconsin judicial election shows Democrats can win

We must stay united to defeat Trump’s MAGA threat

Published

on

(Photo by BackyardProductions/Bigstock)

Democrats can win if they pledge solidarity. Wisconsin showed it’s possible. Solidarity doesn’t mean there aren’t primaries and debates. What it means is everyone pledges to support the winner of the Democratic primary. The midterm elections will be local elections. Democratic candidates must do whatever they can, often highlighting different issues, to get their voters to the polls. For my support in the general election, a candidate must pledge their first vote to elect Democratic leaders, whether in the statehouse, or Congress. 

It’s been clear for many years what the goals of the Democratic Party are. That doesn’t mean every Democrat is for everything the party espouses. That is what comes from having a ‘Big Tent.’ The party stands for: equality, gun control, raising taxes on the wealthy, and working to ameliorate climate change. It stands for choice, passing the ERA and Equality Act, fair immigration laws, being part of NATO, and the World Health Organization. The party supports raising the minimum wage, strong Medicare and Medicaid, robust Social Security, unions, and working toward a two-state solution in the Middle East. The party supports Ukraine remaining a free nation, fair trade policies, and making sure we have three equal branches of government; legislative, executive, and judicial, to ensure a vibrant system of checks and balances. The Republican Party, which today is Donald Trump’s MAGA party, paid for by his Nazi sympathizing co-president, Elon Musk, has clearly shown they believe in none of this.

So, my serious question to those Democrats and independents, who write and shout for one reason or another, “I will never again support a Democrat,” or those who believe in these Democratic Party values but then stay home and don’t vote: What is it you are looking for? Help me, and others, to understand. With this wide schism in values between the two parties, and the reality is except for a couple of rare districts, there are only two parties that can actually win a general election, what do you think you can accomplish by your actions, or lack of action? I am at a loss. So again, please help me understand.

I was brought up on institutional politics. I believe more strongly than ever in the Democratic Party. Do our leaders do everything right? No. Do they sometimes get me mad? YES! Should some of them retire and let younger people get elected, definitely YES! But despite all of this, the schism in values is so wide, the thought of continued domination by the MAGA Republican Party is so frightening, I believe we will not have a democracy left to fight for if we don’t stand together, and defeat them. 

We lost this past election and are stuck with President Felon, and his co-president, the Nazi sympathizing megalomaniac, Musk. We lost for a host of reasons, a big one is our voters either stayed home, voted for a third party, or some even for Republicans, to register their displeasure. Whatever the reason, they created this frightening reality we face today. 

I have a difficult time trying to understand how others don’t see this. Or if they do, why some still don’t want to join hands, to do something about it. That is my problem, and a huge problem for the Democratic Party. The question is, how do we reach those people who often say they share the Democratic Party’s values, but don’t come out to vote in huge numbers to help change things, or at the minimum, stop Trump/Musk, and what they are doing to destroy our country?

In 2024, Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. Trump won 3,059,799 more popular votes than he won in 2020. Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes or 48.3 percent of the votes cast. That was 6,285,500 fewer popular votes than Biden won in 2020. So had even half of those voters come out for Harris, she might have won. So those who didn’t vote for the Democrat in 2024, where do they see the country going? What is it they want? Will anything get them to vote for Democrats in the future? In 2024, 116,000 changed votes, out of over 15 million cast in three states — 40,000 in Michigan, 61,000 in Pennsylvania, and 15,000 in Wisconsin — would have changed the election.  

I hear Democrats attacking the party for not fighting back. They then follow that up with “I will never vote for Democrats again!” So, again, my question is “who is it they will vote for?” Some say they want younger people to lead the party. I agree with that. I have written there should be age limits, and term limits. I don’t like that nearly 60 out of 100 senators are over 70. Many over 80. They are in both parties. It is time to stop asking young voters to vote for their grandparents, or even great-grandparents. 

But then my question to those who complain is, “what are you going to do about it?” Seems to me unless you vote, it won’t change. I think to get the younger people you want as leaders in the future, you have to work to elect them. First, encourage the people you want to run for office. When they agree, you will then have to volunteer in their campaigns, donate money if you can, and come out and vote for them. In my mind, learned in old line institutional politics, that is the way you get change.

I recently saw a post on Facebook, “sign a petition to not give any money to Democrats until Schumer (D-NY) resigns as Senate minority leader.” I am not sure what that person expects to happen, and how not giving to Democrats doesn’t play directly into the hands of Musk and Trump. Knowledge of the system, means you understand the leaders of the party in the Senate are elected by their caucus. What happens if you don’t like the Democratic caucus’s choice to replace Schumer? 

For me, again an older guy brought up on institutional politics, and having political science and public administration degrees, I have a hard time understanding young people today thinking they can get instant change in politics. We do not have a king or dictator, even though Trump thinks he is one, and whose heroes are Putin and Xi Jinping. The instant change he is trying for isn’t progress, but as we see, moving backwards. Is that what we want? Our Constitution is written, and our government is set up, so change, moving forward towards progress, is incremental. It takes time. Whether it’s progress in women’s rights, the rights of the LGBTQ community, the disability community, civil rights, or ameliorating climate change; it takes time. I know that’s incredibly frustrating. But to see progress one must stick with it. 

Over all the years I have voted, never have I voted for a perfect candidate. Perfect candidates, like perfect people, don’t exist. Is that what young people are looking for?  I don’t know, but I think the Democratic Party, and its local candidates, need to find out what it will take to get people out to vote, and vote for them.  

My thoughts are the 2025 and 2026 elections will be determined at the local level. From school board, to county council, from statehouse, to Congress. The debates, and fight for votes, will be on the ground. I believe as we move forward, the wins will come from the ground up, not the top down. It will be up to those over six million who didn’t vote for Harris in 2024, to decide if they will come out for Democrats locally in 2025 and 2026. If they do, we will win like we did in Wisconsin. If they don’t, we may actually lose our democracy. 


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

‘A New Alliance for a New Millenium, 2003-2020’

Revisiting the history of gay Pride in Washington

Published

on

A scene from the 2001 Capital Pride Festival. (Washington Blade archive photo by Clint Steib)

In conjunction with WorldPride 2025, the Rainbow History Project is creating an exhibit on the evolution of Pride: “Pickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington.” It will be on Freedom Plaza from May 17-July 7. This is the ninth in a series of 10 articles that share the research themes and invite public participation. In “A New Alliance for a New Millenium” we discuss how Whitman-Walker’s stewardship of Pride led to the creation of the Capital Pride Alliance and how the 1960s demands of the Mattachine Society of Washington were seen as major victories under the Obama administration.

This section of the exhibit explores how the Whitman-Walker Clinic, a cornerstone of the community since the 1970s, stepped up to rescue Pride from a serious financial crisis. The Clinic not only stabilized Pride but also helped it expand, guiding the festival through its 30th anniversary and cementing its role as a unifying force for the city’s LGBTQ population. As Whitman-Walker shifted its focus to primary healthcare, rebranding as Whitman-Walker Health, a new era began with the formation of the Capital Pride Alliance (CPA). Born from the volunteers and community partners who had kept Pride going, CPA took the reins and transformed Capital Pride into one of the largest free LGBTQ festivals in the country. Under CPA’s stewardship, the festival grew to attract hundreds of thousands, with multi-day celebrations, headline performers, and a vibrant parade. 

This period saw Pride become a true cross-section of the community, as former Capital Pride Alliance executive director Dyana Mason recalled: “It was wonderfully diverse and had a true cross section of our community… Everybody was there and just being themselves.” The festival’s expansion created space for more people to find a sense of belonging and affirmation. This growth was made possible through the support of sponsors, volunteers, and a city eager to celebrate-but it also sparked ongoing debates about the role of corporate funding and the meaning of Pride in a changing world.

National politics are woven throughout this era. In a powerful moment of recognition, Frank Kameny — the architect of D.C.’s first White House picket for gay rights and a founder of the Mattachine Society — was invited to the White House in 2009. There, President Obama and the U.S. government formally apologized for Kameny’s firing from federal service in 1957, a symbolic act that echoed the earliest demands of DC’s own Mattachine Society, the city’s first gay civil rights organization founded in 1961. The 2009 National Equality March revived the spirit of earlier mass mobilizations, linking LGBTQ rights to broader movements for social justice. The 2010s brought landmark victories: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed, marriage equality became law. These wins suggested decades of protest had borne fruit, yet new generations continued to debate the meaning of true liberation and inclusion.

Our exhibit examines how the political edge of Pride has softened as the event has grown. As the festival expanded in scale and visibility, the focus on protest and activism has sometimes faded into the background, even as new challenges and divisions have emerged. Some voices have called for a return to Pride’s more radical roots. The 2017 Equality March for Unity and Pride drew 80,000 people to D.C., centering intersectional struggles — police violence, immigrant rights, trans inclusion — and exposing the widening rift between mainstream LGBTQ progress and the lived realities of the most vulnerable. The question remains: Are LGBTQ officers marching in uniform a sign of progress or a painful reminder of Pride’s roots in resistance to state violence? During Capital Pride 2017, activists blocked the parade, targeting floats sponsored by corporations linked to weapons manufacturing, pipeline financing, and other forms of oppression. 

As we prepare for WorldPride and the anniversaries of D.C.’s first Gay Pride Day Block Party and the White House picket, the Rainbow History Project invites you to experience this living history at Freedom Plaza. Through archival images and the voices of organizers and participants, you’ll discover how Pride in DC has been shaped by resilience, reinvention, and the ongoing struggle to ensure every voice is heard. 


Zoey O’Donnell is a member of the Rainbow History Project. Vincent Slatt is RHP’s senior curator. 

Continue Reading

Opinions

Council must approve new Commanders stadium deal

An important catalyst for economic development

Published

on

RFK Stadium (Screen capture via Voice of America/YouTube)

I am a strong supporter of the Commanders stadium deal at the RFK site. The Council members who understand economic development will vote “yes.” 

Chairman Phil Mendelson, and some of the others, are smart. Despite the chair being peeved he wasn’t in on the negotiation, he will have some good ideas to tweak the deal, and will then get the seven members of the Council needed to pass it. While the deadline is July 15, there is a paragraph in the agreement reading it can be extended if both sides agree. Again, Mendelson is a smart guy. He will not pass up this incredible opportunity. Besides that, he recognizes it could happen without the Council if the president and Congress want it. It was NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and Commanders owner Josh Harris, who worked with the mayor, lobbying hard to get us the 180-acre site. Chances are, without their help, we wouldn’t have it. So, the deal will move forward, as it should, based on its merits. 

The domed stadium proposed by the Washington Commanders for the 180-acre RFK site is only one part of the planned incredible economic development opportunity Mayor Muriel Bowser has negotiated. This was a dream of the mayor for 10 years, and she worked with Congress to get the site turned over to the District. This finally happened last year when Congress passed the D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act. The legislation was signed into law by President Biden in January 2025. It gave the District the ability to develop the long-underutilized space for a mix of uses, lifting the restrictions that were in place under the previous lease. The legislation requires 30% of the RFK campus be reserved for parks and open space, not including a 32-acre riparian area along the Anacostia River.

Since the legislation was signed, the mayor worked closely with Josh Harris, principal owner of the Commanders, to negotiate the single largest private investment in the District’s history — a $2.7 billion investment from the Commanders. The mayor understands this investment will be the catalyst to activate 180 acres of what she has called ‘opportunity’ at the RFK campus. It is not only a sparkling new domed stadium. That will complement the transformation of the entire campus to include housing, parks and recreation, hotels, restaurants, retail, and neighborhood amenities. 

The mayor understands the economy of D.C. is changing. Between the pandemic, and now reduction in federal workforce, the city has to change how we generate revenue. As the mayor said, “When we got control of 180 acres of land on the banks of the Anacostia, we knew right away that partnering with the Commanders would be the fastest, and surest, route to bringing the entire RFK campus to life. As we focus on the growth of our economy, we’re not only bringing our team home, but we’re also bringing new jobs and new revenue to our city, and to Ward 7.” We have seen what Nationals’ stadium did as the catalyst for that part of D.C. Remembering the fights over that stadium, and the fact the city, not the team, paid for it, we know it moved forward profitable development of the entire area by a minimum of 10 years. 

Yes, it may be possible to redevelop this 180-acre site without a stadium; but it’s also clear it would take at a minimum at least 10 years longer, if ever, to do it without the Commanders investment. Under the terms of the deal, the Commanders will drive the investment of at least $2.7 billion to build a roofed stadium that can be used year-round, together with related improvements. The District will invest $500 million for stadium horizontal and non-vertical costs, paid for from the Sports Facilities Fee (formerly known as the Ballpark Fee). By leveraging dedicated funds from the Sports Facilities Fee, the District will not need to make cuts to the city’s operating budget. In addition, the District will facilitate parking development using a $175 million revenue bond, which will be funded by in-stadium activity once the stadium is operating. Events DC will contribute up to $181 million for parking garages near the community recreation facilities, which Events DC will own. Additionally, similar to other large development projects such as St. Elizabeths East, the District will invest $202 million for utilities infrastructure, roadways, and a WMATA transit study. The study will determine if at some time there might be new bus routes, or even an additional Metro stop. Let us remember there was a stadium there before and the RFK campus is today readily accessible by many public transit options.

The approximately 65,000-seat stadium, expected to open in 2030, will occupy only 11% of the site. In addition to building the stadium, the Commanders will be responsible for activating and developing multiple parcels of land around the stadium. Those will include restaurants, entertainment venues, hotels, housing, green space, and more. The entire campus is expected to create approximately 5,000-6,000 housing units, of which at least 30% being affordable housing.

Throughout the construction process, the District will seek to preserve and continue to operate the popular Fields at RFK. The District will invest an additional $89 million to build a new sportsplex to host year-round sporting events and tournaments for youth in D.C. The mayor’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal will include $89 million for the sportsplex. Adjacent to the fields, park space, and sportsplex, the District will develop a new Kingman Park District, which will include housing, mixed-use development, open space, and recreational space. To do this, the campus planning effort, will be taking all the development parcels through the D.C. 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. In this way, community members and neighbors will have an opportunity to weigh in on what types of uses would best serve the community. All parcels in the Kingman Park District will go through the District’s RFP process and prioritize local businesses.

As the economy of the District changes, the mayor and Council must be
focused on responding to the shifts. Activation of the RFK campus through this deal is expected to create approximately 14,000 jobs in connection to the stadium construction alone, and 2,000 permanent jobs. The stadium and surrounding development are anticipated to create approximately $4 billion in total tax revenue, and yield more than $15.6 billion in direct spending over 30 years.

The District has a successful history of using catalytic sports investments to transform underutilized spaces into vibrant neighborhoods, including in Chinatown-Gallery Place with Capital One Arena (originally the MCI Center); Capitol Riverfront with Nationals Park; and St. Elizabeths East with the CareFirst Arena (originally the Entertainment and Sports Arena) in the past decade. During her time in elected office, the mayor has worked on successful deals for Audi Field, the CareFirst Arena, the renovation of Capital One Arena, and now this partnership with the Washington Commanders.

Again, Mendelson will have some good ideas that he will want to negotiate into the agreement as it moves through the Council. But the overall positive impact of this deal on the District’s economy will win the day. He, and many Council members, understand major sports are a significant driver of the District’s new economy, generating $5 billion in 2022 and attracting 7.4 million visitors in 2023. The fact is D.C.’s sports teams and their facilities have boosted neighborhood investment, with nearby commercial development outpacing the rest of the city, after each facility opened. 

This is a once-in-a-lifetime deal for D.C. I urge everyone to contact your Council member, and tell them to vote yes.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

PDAB: A mysterious acronym that could affect your health

We must make medications affordable without sacrificing access

Published

on

(Photo by Ackley Road Photos/Bigstock)

As the executive directors of LGBTQ+ advocacy orgs in nearby states, we share an unshakeable commitment to the wellbeing of our communities. This commitment drives us and our organizations to advocate for health care affordability and accessibility, whether for gender-affirming health care and HIV treatment, or simple prevention measures and non-discrimination. And, it is why we oppose giving unaccountable advisory boards the power to set prices, and therefore threaten access, to critical, life-saving drugs such as HIV treatment medication. 

The LGBTQ+ community loves acronyms, but there’s one that we wish more people knew about: PDAB. A Prescription Drug Affordability Board is an appointed board that reviews the cost of some prescription drugs and determines if they are affordable. While this sounds good, the reality is that these boards may actually limit access to some important drugs, or even cause new affordability problems for patients. Plus, they have done little to consider patient or community input or demonstrate true accountability to the communities affected by their decisions – like our friends and family members living with HIV. 

Our organizations continue to raise concerns about PDABs and their expansion because of our serious concerns about their potential impact on LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV and other chronic conditions. In fact, Virginia’s governor recently vetoed a bill that would have created a prescription drug affordability board. In his veto statement, Gov. Youngkin said: “This legislation risks limiting patient access to essential medication by prioritizing costs over medical necessity. Affordability of prescription drugs is a critical issue, but this proposal would instead compromise patient welfare in the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

Maryland’s PDAB was created in 2019 and has yet to bring down costs, even for those in the state health plans. FreeState Justice advocated against expanding the board’s scope to potentially set “upper payment limits” or UPLs for drugs purchased by state and local government health plans. UPLs can easily backfire and decrease access for many patients. We are particularly concerned about the potential unintended consequences of actions by these boards.

Because LGBTQ+ communities are disproportionately affected by HIV, our organizations advocate for the rights, equality, and well-being of people living with HIV. Thanks to significant advancements in science and treatment, HIV is now a manageable chronic illness. But only if we maintain access to the medications that people living with HIV rely on.

Beyond HIV, LGBTQ+ people experience higher needs for health care and steeper barriers to access than other populations. Almost half, or 47 percent, of LGBTQ+ people have a medical condition that requires monitoring or medication. And, LGBTQ+ people are more likely to delay or go without care due to cost issues. That is why PDABs, and in particular, upper payment limits, could exacerbate health disparities for the LGBTQ+ community.

In the handful of states with PDABs, these boards have made decisions that impact patients living with chronic conditions, including HIV– often without considering comments from advocates, patients and providers, or the programs that support patients in accessing and affording these treatments. 

Programs like the AIDS Drug Assistance Program and other supports help make the cost of HIV treatments affordable for patients. These programs were hard-won by advocates, who for years have held fast to the mantra: nothing about us, without us. This principle of HIV advocacy is directly opposite of what PDABs do: empower an appointed board of experts to make decisions about the affordability of HIV medications without any input from people living with HIV. 

In February, the Oregon PDAB heard many stakeholder comments on the importance of preserving access to HIV treatment. Advocates explained how drug assistance programs work and why patients need access to as many treatment options as possible. Despite this strong testimony, the board chose to review an HIV medication, Odesfey, against community recommendations.

Today many communities including people living with HIV are concerned and fearful about the serious impacts of federal funding cuts to health care. State PDABs are a costly tool, and they have not produced the savings they promised. This is a moment to preserve access and stabilize the system, and avoid any changes that could jeopardize the care people need.

There’s so much at stake for our communities when it comes to access to health care. We do need to address the high cost of prescription drugs, but there are better ways to do it that earnestly incorporate community input and take a more comprehensive look at the complex health care system. Our organizations are ready to bring LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV into the discussion. By bringing patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers to the same table, we can come up with better solutions that truly make medications affordable without sacrificing access. Our north star is clear: a healthcare system that listens to all voices and makes sure everyone gets the care we need to thrive.


Phillip Westry is executive director of FreeState Justice in Maryland and Narissa Rahaman is executive director of Equality Virginia.

Continue Reading

Popular