Archive for March, 2017

How Democrats Can Come Back – Wall Street Journal (subscription)


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
How Democrats Can Come Back
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
President Trump's chaotic beginning has many Democrats envisioning a big comeback. They see the marches and protests and presidential tweets and expect newly energized Americans to vote blue in droves. But these hopes mask the decrepit state of the ...

Read the original post:
How Democrats Can Come Back - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Longest statewide office droughts for South Dakota Democrats – Rapid City Journal

The recent hiring of Democratic former congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin as president of Augustana University presumably takes her out of the running for any statewide political office in the near future. That is bad news for South Dakota Democrats, who have not had a winning candidate in a statewide race since 2008. This list shows the last time a Democrat won each of South Dakotas statewide offices, beginning with the most recent Democratic victory.

1. Class 2 U.S. senator: Tim Johnson, 2008.

2. (tie) U.S. representative: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, 2006; public utilities commissioner: Steve Kolbeck, 2006.

3. School and public lands commissioner: Bryce Healy, 2002.

4. (tie) Class 3 U.S. senator: Tom Daschle, 1998; treasurer: Richard Dick Butler, 1998 (photo not available).

5. (tie) Governor: Richard Dick Kneip, 1974; secretary of state: Lorna Herseth (grandmother of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin), 1974 (photo not available).

6. Attorney general: Kermit Sande, 1972 (photo not available).

7. Auditor: Harriet Horning, 1958 (photo not available).

View post:
Longest statewide office droughts for South Dakota Democrats - Rapid City Journal

KATHLEEN PARKER: Democrats’ foundation lacking – The Albany Herald

If the Democratic Party is ailing after losing the presidency to Donald Trump, state parties are on life support.

Here in the long-ago Democratic stronghold of Alabama, the party is all but dead, say some of its disheartened members. Consider: Not a single statewide office is held by a Democrat; the state Legislature is dominated by Republicans with just 33 Democrats out of 105 House seats and eight of 35 Senate seats.

Democrats havent won a U.S. Senate election in the state since 1992 or the governorship since 1998. There are no Democratic appellate judges, nor any Democratic members of the states Public Service Commission. Democrats also are becoming scarcer in county offices.

The Democratic Party in Alabama is on a crash-and-burn track unless something drastic happens to stop this runaway train, according to Sheila Gilbert, chair of the Calhoun County Democrats, who hand-delivered a letter outlining the partys problems following a speech I gave at Jacksonville State University as the Ayers lecturer.

The letter was signed by Gilbert as a leader of the Alabama Democratic Reform Caucus and 17 other members in attendance. The group, which formed two years ago to try to help revive the state party, wasnt coy about its reason for approaching me.

We need a spotlight on Alabama and some outside effort to avoid becoming a totally one-party state, Gilbert said.

I didnt bother to mention that the current U.S. attorney general, former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, was shining quite a spotlight on their home state. Whether Sessions is forced to resign after already recusing himself from any investigation into Russias role in the 2016 election campaign remains to be seen. The fall of such a high-profile Republican could be useful to Democrats back home trying to defibrillate the party.

But Gilberts group has been critical of state Democratic Party officials for missing an opportunity to recruit candidates when other Republican politicians were in trouble, including the governor and House speaker. A recent meeting of county and state party leaders reportedly became heated, as when state Chairwoman Nancy Worley offered to call police to escort one county chairman from the room and may be emblematic more broadly of the partys disintegration from within.

The GOP went through this same sort of infighting and navel-gazing on the national level several years back. After losing the presidency to Barack Obama in 2008, it regrouped, reformed itself, became disciplined and has taken the House, Senate, the White House and most of the nations governorships, while also successfully gerrymandering congressional districts that have given Republicans the advantage in many states at least until the next redistricting in 2020.

Democrats are readying themselves for that fight, but theyll need to do more than try to redraw the map. While Democrats were basking in Obamas sunny smile, Republicans were busy building benches of future leaders, especially at the state attorney general level, where they are now in the majority. The strategy has been to recruit and help elect strong attorneys general who could be groomed to become governors, senators and possibly president.

What, meanwhile, can Democrats do, a fellow in the audience asked me. There was a plaintive tone in his voice and I wanted to help, though the truth is, Im not accustomed to Democrats asking my advice. But in the spirit of it takes two to tango and the fact that Id rather not live in a country exclusively run by either party Ill give it a fresh, morning-after stab.

Whats really ailing Democrats is theyve fallen in love with abstract principles, as reflected on an ADRC handout, without building a foundation where such goals as fair pay, transparency, diversity and such can be played out. Trump may have been coarse and loose at times during the campaign, but he spoke in plain language with plain meaning: Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Whether Trump can fix trade, create jobs and make money for the rest of us was a gamble people were willing to take. Fixing the economy was Obamas mandate, too, but he decided to focus on health care instead. This is where lust for legacy interferes with good governance. Obama did manage to help turn the economic steamship around the market bounced from just under 8,000 when he took office to nearly 20,000 but Wall Streets recovery didnt trickle down to the middle class, where Trump planted his flag.

When in doubt, look to the victor.

Email Kathleen Parker at kathleenparker@washpost.com.

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Get Breaking News alerts from the Albany Herald delivered to your email.

Get the Local News headlines from the Albany Herald delivered daily to your email.

Get the Sports headlines from the Albany Herald delivered daily to your email.

Follow this link:
KATHLEEN PARKER: Democrats' foundation lacking - The Albany Herald

Father who lost son in Elgin crash advocates for immigration reform – Austin American-Statesman

Fred Funderburgh lost his son Billy and daughter-in-law Natalee in June when a Kia Optima slammed into the back of the couples motorcycle just outside of Elgin one Sunday morning, killing both of them.

Rodolfo Campuzano, who was driving the Kia and is suspected of being in the country illegally, fled the scene of the crash, according to police. He was later arrested at his home, intoxicated twice the legal limit.

Last week, Fred Funderburghs second son, Jason Synatschk, committed suicide.

Now, the family is asking for help from the public to pay for Synatschks funeral expenses, as well as to shine national attention to the plight of families who have lost loved ones at the hands of unauthorized immigrants.

Funderburgh is actively involved with the Remembrance Project, a nonprofit that advocates for these families.

In January, President Donald Trump flew Funderburgh and his other son James to Washington D.C. for a private meeting. They spoke in the Secretary of War Office at the White House then watched the president sign two executive orders: one to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and the other to deny federal funds to sanctuary cities that shield unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

Fred Funderburgh and his son James, who lost Billy Billy was Freds son and Jamess brother. Billys wife Natalee was also killed by an illegal immigrant, somebody that should never, ever have been here, Trump said in a speech in January.

On June 26, 2016 at 1:45 a.m., Campuzano failed to control his speed and struck the back of Billy and Natalees blue motorcycle as they were headed southbound on Texas 95 outside of Elgin, police said.

The couple was pronounced dead at the scene.

Campuzano, who fled the crash, was later found at his girlfriends house, where he failed a field sobriety test, according to his arrest affidavit. He was arrested and charged with intoxication manslaughter.

In September, he was released on a personal recognizance bond since a grand jury failed to indict him within 90 days.

Campuzano was arrested again in October, that time on two counts of causing an accident resulting in death. He was indicted in December and is being held at the Bastrop County Jail on $500,000 bail and a U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement detainer. If found guilty, he faces two to 20 years in prison.

The Funderburgh family came out in full force to the Bastrop County Courthouse on March 1 for Campuzanos pretrial hearing, which was later rescheduled to the end of the month.

On Friday, Synatschk, one of Billys brothers, shot himself in the head.

Jason took it really, really hard, Funderburgh said. He couldnt even come to court down there because it was so emotional for him. It was so sad and hurtful and afraid this guy was going to get out again. He didnt believe in the judicial system.

Campuzano had been previously arrested for driving while intoxicated in Travis County in 2011, according to court records. He served 14 days in jail and was released.

This guy shouldnt have been here, Funderburgh said. He should have been deported after the first DWI.

Maria Espinoza, cofounder and national director of the Remembrance Project, said the Funderburghs went to the Bastrop Countys Sheriffs Office for help through victim services, which covers funeral expenses, emotional support services and crime-related travel for families of victims that have died in a crime.

Synatschks funeral services would not be covered since his death was not the result of a crime, the office said.

The family is now asking the public for help. Anyone wishing to donate can do so through a GoFundMe page set up for Synatschk.

Fred has lost two of his sons, Espinoza said. He is just trying to keep his family and whats left of it together.

The Remembrance Project was founded in 2009 and advocates against the creation of sanctuary cities, where officials do not devote resources to enforcing federal immigration policies. Sanctuary cities have been a hot-button issue this legislative session.

In February, the Texas Senate approved a bill that would criminalize police and sheriffs departments who fail to participate in federal immigration enforcement. A Class A misdemeanor could be assessed against police chiefs, sheriffs, city and county officials and anyone in a position of authority who blocks law officers from asking detainees about their immigration status or fail to honor detention requests from federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 4, as it is known, would also require county jails to honor federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests to extend the detention of inmates suspected of being in the United States illegally.

Sen. Kirk Watson, whose district includes Bastrop County, has opposed the measure. He said SB 4 is not about public safety.

If it were, wed listen to the professional public safety leaders who tell us this wont make Texas safer. Instead, they tell us it makes us less safe, he said.

The bill was sent to the House in February.

Campuzano is scheduled to appear again in court for his pretrial hearing on March 29.

Statesman reporter Chuck Lindell contributed to this report.

Read the original:
Father who lost son in Elgin crash advocates for immigration reform - Austin American-Statesman

‘Polarizing moment’ for the First Amendment – Rockford Register Star

By Hillel ItalieThe Associated Press

NEW YORK Whenever Donald Trump fumes about "fake news" or labels the press "the enemy of the people," First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. hears echoes of other presidents but a breadth and tone that are entirely new.

Trump may not know it, but it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper," said Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

"But what's unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. We've had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press Richard Nixon comes to mind. ... But I can't think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it."

Journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week, which draws attention to the media's role in advocating for government transparency, at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press.

First Amendment advocates call the Trump administration the most hostile to the press and free expression in memory. In words and actions, they say, Trump and his administration have threatened democratic principles and the general spirit of a free society: The demonizing of the media and emphatic repetition of falsehoods. Fanciful scenarios of voter fraud and scorn for dissent. The refusal to show Trump's tax returns and the removal of information from government websites.

And in that battle with the Trump administration, the media do not have unqualified public support.

According to a recent Pew survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored fair and open elections while more than 80 percent value the system of government checks and balances. But around two-thirds called it vital for the media to have the right to criticize government leaders; only half of Republicans were in support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Americans by a margin of 53-37 trust the media over Trump to tell the truth about important issues; among Republicans, 78 percent favored Trump.

"We're clearly in a particularly polarizing moment, although this is something we've been building to for a very long time," says Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, a leading news and commentary source for journalism.

"I think one of the mistakes the press made is we became perceived as part of the establishment. And I think one of the silver linings of the moment we're in is that we have a renewed sense of what our mission is and where we stand in the pecking order, and that is on the outside, where we belong."

Hudson, ombudsman of the Newseum's First Amendment Center, says it's hard to guess whether Trump is serious or "bloviating" when he disparages free expression. He noted Trump's comments in November saying that flag burners should be jailed and wondered if the president knew such behavior was deemed protected by the Constitution (in a 1989 Supreme Court ruling supported by a justice Trump says he admires, the late Antonin Scalia).

Hudson also worries about a range of possible trends, notably the withholding of information and a general culture of secrecy that could "close a lot of doors." But he did have praise for Trump's pick to replace Scalia on the court, Neil Gorsuch, saying that he has "showed sensitivity" to First Amendment issues. And free speech advocates say the press, at least on legal issues, is well positioned to withstand Trump.

"We have a really robust First Amendment and have a lot of protections in place," says Kelly McBride, vice president of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism education center based in St. Petersburg, Florida. "That doesn't mean that attempts won't be made. But when you compare our country to what journalists face around the world, I still think the U.S. is one of the safest places for a journalist to criticize the government."

The First Amendment, which states in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," is far broader and more uniquely American than when ratified in 1791.

At the time, free expression was based on the legal writings of Britain's Sir William Blackstone. The First Amendment protected against prior restraint, but not against lawsuits once something was spoken or published. Truth was not a defense against libel and the burden of proof was on the defendant, not the plaintiff. And the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, but not to individual states, which could legislate as they pleased.

The most important breakthrough of recent times, and the foundation for many protections now, came with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case of 1964.

The Times had printed an advertisement in 1960 by supporters of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that noted King had been arrested numerous times and condemned "Southern violators of the Constitution." The public safety commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L. B. Sullivan sued for libel. He was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that allegations against the police also defamed him. After a state court awarded Sullivan $500,000, the Times appealed to the Supreme Court.

Some information in the ad was indeed wrong, such as the number of times King was arrested, but the Supreme Court decided unanimously for the Times. In words still widely quoted, Justice William Brennan wrote that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." He added that a libel plaintiff must prove "that the statement was made ... with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

"It was breathtakingly new," First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Brennan's ruling. "It was an extraordinary step the court was taking."

But freedom of speech has long been championed more in theory than in reality. Abraham Lincoln's administration shut down hundreds of newspapers during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson championed the people's "indisputable right to criticize their own public officials," but also signed legislation during World War I making it a crime to "utter, print, write, or publish" anything "disloyal" or "profane" about the federal government. During the administration of President Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Wilson-era Espionage Act was used to obtain emails and phone records of reporters and threaten James Risen of The New York Times with jail.

Predicting what Trump might do is as difficult as following his views on many issues. He often changes his mind, and contradicts himself.

During the campaign last year, he spoke of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. But shortly after the election, he seemed to reverse himself. He has said he is a "tremendous believer of the freedom of the press," but has worried that "Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it."

Trump's disparagement of the media has been contradicted by high officials in his administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said recently that he did not have "any issues with the press." Vice President Mike Pence was an Indiana congressman when he helped sponsor legislation (which never passed) in 2005 that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by federal courts. In early March, he spoke at a prominent gathering of Washington journalists, the Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner.

"Be assured that while we will have our differences and I promise the members of the Fourth Estate that you will almost always know when we have them President Trump and I support the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment," he said, while adding that "too often stories make page one and drive news with just too little respect for the people who are affected or involved."

See the original post:
'Polarizing moment' for the First Amendment - Rockford Register Star