Misguided across the party lines
America cannot afford a foreign policy that weakens its allies, rewards aggression, or turns a blind eye to the dangers posed by authoritarian regimes. At a time when Russia’s war against Ukraine threatens European security and Israel faces persistent threats from Iran and its regional proxies, the United States needs leaders who understand that national security and democratic values are inseparable.
Lifting Sanctions on Russia Sends the Wrong Message
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a direct assault on the sovereignty of an independent nation. Russia’s actions have destabilized Europe, cost countless lives, and challenged the principle that no country should be permitted to redraw international borders through military force.
Sanctions are not a perfect instrument, but they provide leverage. They impose economic costs, restrict access to resources and technology, and signal that aggression has consequences. Lifting them without meaningful, verifiable concessions from Moscow risks giving Putin precisely what he wants: economic relief without a durable commitment to peace.
Negotiations are necessary. Appeasement is not.
Any sanctions relief should be conditional on measurable progress, enforceable commitments, and protections against renewed aggression. Otherwise, the United States risks undermining Ukraine, weakening NATO’s credibility, and encouraging other authoritarian governments to believe that persistence will eventually overcome American resolve.
This is not merely a European issue. Russia’s relationships with Iran and other adversaries affect the broader security environment, including the Middle East. Washington must recognize that concessions to Moscow can have consequences far beyond Ukraine.
Angie Nixon’s Positions on Israel Raise Serious Concerns
Florida’s Democratic Senate nominee, Angie Nixon, has taken positions on Israel that have drawn criticism from supporters of the U.S.-Israel security relationship. Her advocacy for ending U.S. military assistance to Israel and her descriptions of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide raise important questions about how she would approach one of America’s most consequential alliances.
There is a fundamental difference between criticizing an Israeli government and undermining the security of America’s closest democratic ally in the Middle East. Proposing to cut off U.S. military assistance to Israel raises serious questions about whether a candidate fully understands the threats Israel faces from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran—and the consequences for American security along with antisemitism itself.
Equally troubling is the use of a Jewish song in a campaign advertisement in a way that critics may view as politically exploitative or disrespectful. Jewish culture and music are not campaign props. At a time when antisemitism is rising and Jewish communities are facing real threats, using a Jewish song for political effect without appropriate sensitivity sends the wrong message.
Respect for Jewish people must mean more than borrowing Jewish culture when it serves a political campaign; it must be reflected in the policies, judgment, and actions of those seeking our votes.
Nixon has also condemned Hamas and said she opposes antisemitism. Those statements should be acknowledged. Voters should assess her complete record, including whether her proposed policies adequately account for the threats facing Israeli civilians and the long-term consequences for American interests.
Jewish voters, in particular, should not feel obligated to support a candidate simply because that candidate carries a Democratic label. They should be able to expect a serious understanding of Jewish history, the threats facing Israel, and the distinction between holding a government accountable and undermining the security of an entire nation.
Abdul El-Sayed’s Record Deserves Equally Serious Scrutiny
Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, has also taken positions on Israel that have alienated some Jewish voters and raised questions about the future of the Democratic Party’s relationship with the U.S.-Israel alliance.
El-Sayed has described Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide and called for withdrawing U.S. military assistance. His response to the March 2026 attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, also drew criticism. He subsequently apologized and acknowledged making a mistake.
Both parts of this record matter. An apology should be recognized, and explicit condemnations of antisemitism should not be dismissed.
Withdrawing defensive military assistance is particularly consequential. Israel faces threats that extend beyond the battlefield in Gaza, including missile attacks and the danger posed by Iran. A serious foreign policy must account for those threats rather than treating all military assistance as interchangeable.
El-Sayed’s positions warrant scrutiny because of their potential implications for Israel’s security and the American alliance, not because of his religion or ancestry. The same standards should apply to every candidate, regardless of background. Leave it blank in Fl and MI.
These Are Questions of Judgment, Not Party Loyalty
The broader concern is whether candidates understand the strategic consequences of weakening American partnerships while adversaries continue to pursue their own interests.
The United States should not lift pressure on Russia simply to announce a diplomatic breakthrough. Nor should it undermine a longstanding security relationship with Israel without a credible plan for protecting Israeli civilians and deterring regional adversaries.
These positions are not mutually exclusive. America can pursue a negotiated settlement with Russia while maintaining leverage against Moscow. It can advocate humanitarian assistance for Palestinians while protecting Israel from terrorism and opposing antisemitism. It can criticize Israeli government policies without treating Israel’s security as expendable.
That is the standard voters should demand.
Democrats Must Be Willing to Draw a Line
Political parties do not earn voters’ loyalty automatically. They earn it by nominating candidates who demonstrate sound judgment, uphold democratic principles, and take national security seriously.
For voters who prioritize a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, an effective response to antisemitism, and a firm approach to Russian aggression, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Nixon and El-Sayed based on their documented policy positions.
America needs leaders who understand that peace requires leverage, alliances require trust, and democratic values require consistency.
Lifting sanctions on Russia without meaningful concessions would be a dangerous mistake. And voters who believe that American security, Israel’s survival, and the fight against antisemitism demand stronger leadership should not feel compelled to support Angie Nixon or Abdul El-Sayed. Party loyalty should never come before principle.
And Then We Wonder Why So Many Americans Are Becoming Independents
The answer is staring us in the face: the extremes on the left and the right do not represent who we are or what we believe.
Most Americans want common sense, moral clarity, responsible leadership, and a country that stands up for its values without abandoning its principles. They want leaders who can distinguish diplomacy from appeasement, criticism from hostility, and principled disagreement from political extremism.
We should not have to choose between two extremes to find leaders who get it right. We should not have to sacrifice our values to satisfy a political party, and we should never confuse blind loyalty with good judgment.
America deserves better than politics at the extremes. The left and the right may dominate the headlines, but neither has a monopoly on patriotism, principle, or common sense. It’s time we stopped rewarding the loudest voices and started demanding the strongest leadership.