Mediaboss Marketing

Esteemed Members of the LPDF,

Many thanks that you are making time for us today, I understand it is not the best day to have meetings but I didn't want to postpone this gathering, I wanted to address you as soon as possible after my briefing to the Security Council, and as soon as possible after my briefing to the Secretary-General and the leadership of the United Nations.

The meeting of the Security Council took place two days ago, and yesterday I briefed the Secretary-General. Today, I am briefing you. So with apologies for doing so on Friday, but I didn't want to postpone this any longer because otherwise, it would have been possible to have this meeting only approximately a week from now, and I considered that it would be too much.

I would like to thank you also for sending to myself and my colleagues your questions in advance. I would like to react to some of them now and then no doubt during the discussion. Many thanks for that as well.

Let me start by highly acknowledging the work of all of you, of LPDF of all the members of the LPDF. You have achieved something that no one expected, not only some months but maybe even weeks ago. You achieved a way towards the unification of the country, towards the sovereignty of the country you managed to get one government for the whole country. You managed to get a session of the parliament that was split, into a unified session. You managed to get the confirmation of the new government in a unity session of the Parliament. You managed to get the interim executive authority, including the Presidency Council, that is now recognized by the whole international community. You managed to get the Parliament to start working on their duties, for example, the budget for the country. You are keeping them under very tight control, you are keeping them accountable to you. This is a very big achievement that has historic nature and character.

I can also confirm that even after the February meeting of the LPDF, after you nominated the new interim executive authority not that many believed in such a breakthrough, in such a progress, inside of the country, including those that were nominated to lead the country in this interim period, towards the elections on the 24th of December. But also outside of the country. I was receiving dozens, hundreds of questions: is it possible to move this exercise forward? Or would it end up in a similar situation to what happened after 2015- 2016 that eventually resulted in two governments. This time there were concerns that there might be a third government added to the two that claimed power. This is a small miracle, and the Prime Minister shared with me this view several times.

Many of the processes moved under the constitutional umbrella because indeed there are some institutions and authorities of the country that have the sole prerogative and authority, for example, to confirm the vote of confidence and eventually take the oath of the Government or of the Presidency Council. They have the sole authority to legislate and that's why, we and I believe it was good that you gave space two these authorities to act, and they acted, they delivered the government and they delivered the new Presidency Council; but your work remains relevant. This body, the LPDF, is relevant and remains a key platform as the custodian of the achievements to ensure the follow-up on the implementation of the Roadmap, of its objectives. Because this is what it comes to, objectives.

This is one of the questions that I have received, and I would like to return it back to you. Yes, you are relevant, and you will be relevant also in the future.

As I said it was beneficial and it delivered the results the fact that you gave space to the authorities and institutions of the country to act. But now it's the time to get together and to discuss to take stock and maybe to listen to each other that would then help us take the next steps. I had this intention and I know that you also came with the initiative to convene a meeting of the LPDF with some points that you shared among yourselves, and with us as well, and at the same time you continued working in the framework of the Legal Committee, and I would like to highly acknowledge that work as well.

We were also using the time of the past weeks since I arrived, and let's just confirm it, I'm relatively new, I started only some five to six weeks ago, so we were using the time to mobilize the support of the international community, and to align the whole international community behind the objectives that you set forth in the Roadmap. I am very happy to report to you that the international community is aligned behind the objectives, behind the aspirations of the Roadmap and is committed to them.

The Working Groups of the Berlin Process have continued to meet and they again were a very useful source of encouragement to the authorities here in the country to move forward and implement the objectives of the Roadmap. The Political Working Group was briefed by Prime Minister Dbeiba, and Presidency Council President Mr Mnefi, and more recently by HNEC Chairman Dr. Emad Sayyeh.

The 5+5 Joint Military Commission also continued its important work. I would like to acknowledge their patriotic approach to the issues related to the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and notably also in facilitating the holding of the HOR session in Sirte. And we tried to contribute to this as well through our outreach to some international partners that then help creating a conducive environment including the possibility to use the Ghardabyia airport for moving members of the HOR to Sirte.

I visited numerous international capitals and had numerous telephone conversations with ministers of foreign affairs of a large number of countries, including neighboring countries of Libya, countries of the region, countries in Europe and as far as - if you wish - Japan and the United States, and all of them are - as I said - aligned at this point in time in support of and requesting the implementation of the LPDF Roadmap. I also briefed the Security Council, and you also registered that even in the previous Presidential Statement, the Security Council expressed its support for these processes and underlined the importance of the unification of the national institutions as set-up again in your Roadmap. This is again a confirmation of your successes and your achievements.

In my discussions with members of the Security Council and also, on Wednesday when I briefed the Security Council, I requested them to express themselves in a Security Council resolution in favor and in support of these positive developments. But again stressing what are the critical objectives of this support and referring to the objectives, as set out by yourselves, and among these critical objectives that we follow as a priority, is facilitation for the holding of the elections on 24 December of this year.

All the members of the Security Council were united in requesting the elections on the 24th of December of this year. All the countries of the region that I talked to, of your neighboring countries that I talked to, are united in requesting elections on the 24th of December. Yesterday, you had an opportunity to witness a very important visit of three Ministers of three leading European Union countries, France, Italy, and Germany. Germany is the Godfather of the Berlin process. They came here and said very clearly, among their priorities is holding of elections and supporting the holding of the elections on 24th December of this year. Therefore, this is for us and I hope that for the institutions and authorities of this country, not only a clear message but an imperative that I hope they will translate into concrete actions of a constitutional and legislative nature.

In my discussions, and meetings and conversations with the Speaker of the Parliament, I stressed the necessity of holding the elections and the obligation of the Parliament to take action to legislate and in our previous discussion with the Speaker, he reassured me that the Parliament is ready to ensure the necessary legal framework for the holding of the elections on 24 December. I plan to raise this issue in the coming days during my visit to him [HOR Speaker].

The head of the HoR Legislative Committee has been invited to brief the next meeting of the Political Working Group of the Berlin process. This is another format and, in another form, how to impress on the Parliament to live up to its responsibilities and duties.

But the time is of the essence, still, we do not see sufficient movement forward. There are questions and legitimate questions about whether indeed the Parliament will move and from our perspective, we cannot let it go by just hoping that they will move.

We need to think about some other alternative ways how to encourage them to take action. Because we know and we know it from the Chairman of the HNEC that he needs - and the country needs - to have a clear constitutional basis and legal framework for elections by the 1st of July to be able to ensure orderly preparations and conduct of the elections.

Therefore, the work of the Legal Committee, the continuation of its work with a clear focus on sound proposals for the constitutional basis for elections is, might and most probably will prove critical in finding a way for this issue.

And I hope that the Legal Committee will expedite its work with this very clear focus and will be able to complete this work relatively soon to contribute to creating the right atmosphere and send a strong signal to those who not only hesitate with elections but create problems and impediments to stall the process, that they will not be allowed to move with this kind of attitude.

In the meantime, we - UNSMIL - other parts of the UN but also other partners but also the international community is working with the HNEC on a number of files of a technical nature that should allow the holding of quality elections on the 24 of December. I am very grateful to a number of UN Member States for providing additional financing these days to the work of HNEC, through the UNDP Election Support program.

I plan to meet Dr Sayyeh soon in the coming days to continue our discussions on which areas he needs more support, more technical assistance and for that I already supported the request from the previous government addressed to the UN to send a needs assessment mission, experts from the UN HQ to agree with Chairman Sayyeh on additional areas of support.

This morning I met virtually with womens group and with civil society activists organized in the 24 December Movement to start our discussions, how to engage these very critical stakeholders, women, youth, civil society, both for the elections but also in favor of holding of the elections through their political and other campaigns, and through working in many areas, and I was encouraged to see their clear demand and clear focus. I look forward to working with them, in the future, very closely.

I raised this topic with Prime Minister Dbeiba the other day and he pledged to give the necessary support including the necessary budgetary means to the HNEC to be able to deliver the elections. I was very happy to note that one or two days after our meeting he came and visited HNEC and agreed again to providing support and this is, at least from my perspective, a welcome move.

There are many other areas in the Roadmap as objectives for the country. I am aware of a very slow process as regards to sovereign positions and it is on my and our agenda. I am aware of the disappointment when Prime Minister Dbeiba failed to nominate more women to ministerial positions. Yes, important portfolios, ministry of foreign affairs, ministry of justice are now in the hands of women, but this is not enough, and this is not the pledge that he gave when he was elected by you. His pledge was very clear: 30% of women in the senior positions and we will continue working on this with him.

Of course, there is the big task of national reconciliation and I again remember from the meeting in February, President of the Presidency Council, Mr Mnefi, saying very clearly that this is one of his top priorities. I heard from Prime Minister Dbeiba several days ago only that this is one of his topical priorities. So we would urge them not only to declare it but to take expeditiously steps and measures to establish a National Reconciliation Commission and to prepare a plan and to start to implementing it. I hope, and I will strongly recommend it to the executive authority to appoint a woman as the head of the National Reconciliation Commission.

The last point that I would like to mention is that we continue working on the withdrawal of all foreign forces and mercenaries from Libyan soil. It is a difficult process. It is a process but we dont only speak about it. I can tell you that in my meetings with a number of foreign countries the need to be addressed on this is. I am raising it because I know one thing that Libyans, the Libyan authority, institutions, including the 5+5 Joint Military Committee request the withdrawal of foreign forces and fighters from the country and indeed it is for all friends and partners of Libya to honor this request.

The country must finally be fully sovereign without any foreign presence that is not desired and at this point in time we need to work for the full implementation of the ceasefire and the withdrawal of all foreign forces and mercenaries from the Libyan soil.

I apologize for taking too long, but in the past weeks many things happened and I wanted to brief you about some of our activities but also about the vision, about the way forward, and to raise to some of your questions and also concerns, legitimate questions and legitimate concerns so that is why I took the floor for quite a while but now I will stop and I would like to invite you to make your points and comments that will inform our next steps.

Thank you very much for your patience and attention.

Excerpt from:
Transcript of the opening remarks of the Special Envoy for Libya, Jan Kubis, in the virtual meeting of LPDF - verbatim, 26 March 2021 - Libya -...

ATLANTA (AP) Some of Georgias most prominent corporate leaders on Wednesday began to more forcefully criticize the states sweeping new election law, acknowledging concerns of civil rights activists and Black business executives who say the measure targets nonwhite voters and threatens the democratic process.

The chief executives of Delta Air Lines DAL, +1.14% and Coca-Cola KO, -0.38% pivoted from earlier, more equivocal statements and called the law unacceptable, opening an unusual rift with Republican leaders who championed the legislation and typically enjoy a cozy relationship with the states business community.

The business lobby in Georgia, home to 18 Fortune 500 companies, wields significant clout in state politics. Civil-rights activists blamed influential executives for not helping spike the new law thats become a focal point in the nationwide, partisan fight over voting rights, and there is rising pressure nationally on corporate titans to defend voting rights more explicitly and oppose Republican efforts in states that could follow Georgias lead. Deltas and Coca-Colas latest declarations could push Georgias other marquee brands, including UPS UPS, +0.76% and Home Depot HD, +0.82%, to take a stronger stand.

Deltas statement finally tells the truth even if its late, said Ns Ufot of the New Georgia Project, which has launched an ad campaign targeting major corporations.After Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed the new law last week, Delta issued a statement promoting parts of the law such as expanded weekend voting, but said we understand concerns remain over other provisions and there continues to be work ahead in this important effort.

Chief executive Ed Bastian was more blunt in a memo sent Wednesday to employees. The entire rationale for this bill was based on a lie: that there was widespread voter fraud in Georgia in the 2020 elections. This is simply not true, Bastian wrote, alluding to former President Donald Trumps false claims that he lost because of fraud. Unfortunately, that excuse is being used in states across the nation that are attempting to pass similar legislation to restrict voting rights.

Bastian said Delta joined other major Atlanta corporations to work closely with elected officials from both parties, to try and remove some of the most egregious measures from the bill. We had some success in eliminating the most suppressive tactics that some had proposed.

But, he said, I need to make it crystal clear that the final bill is unacceptable and does not match Deltas values.

See: Delta Air Lines CEO walks back supportive statement on Georgias new voting law

Speaking on CNBC, Coca-Cola chief executive James Quincey called the legislation a step backward.

It does not promote principles we have stood for in Georgia around broad access to voting, around voter convenience, about ensuring election integrity, he said. This legislation is wrong and needs to be remedied.

Kemp insisted the law was being misrepresented. He accused businesses of ignoring their role in its development. Throughout the legislative process, we spoke directly with Delta representatives numerous times, the governor said in a statement. Todays statement stands in stark contrast to our conversations with the company, ignores the content of the new law, and unfortunately continues to spread the same false attacks being repeated by partisan activists.

Republicans in the Georgia House added their disapproval later Wednesday, voting to strip Delta of a tax break worth tens of millions of dollars annually. The vote was rendered symbolic when the state Senate failed to take up the measure before adjourning its yearly session.

From the archives (March 2018): Georgia lawmakers kill jet-fuel tax break after Delta drops NRA discount

The reaction wasnt much friendlier from voting-rights groups that fought the legislation and criticized corporate players for not trying to block it altogether.

Ufot chided Bastian for his timing and alluding to conversations with leaders and employees in the Black community late in the process. She also noted advocates pending demands that Delta and other companies no longer use their political action committees to back lawmakers who support voting restrictions.

Bastians memo did not address that matter. Quincey noted on CNBC that Coca-Cola, even before Georgias action, already had paused its PAC activity and would consider politicians position on voting rights as part of future contributions.

Also on Wednesday, dozens of Black business executives from around the country, including Merck chief executive Kenneth Frazier and former American Express AXP, +2.21% chief executive Kenneth Chenault, released a joint letter in the New York Times urging corporate America to stand up forcefully on matters of racial justice.

Black activists, meanwhile, recall that many U.S. corporations took public stands last summer amid nationwide demonstrations against systemic racism and police violence.

Bishop Reginald Jackson, who presides over more than 400 African Methodist Episcopal churches in Georgia, said too many corporate leaders have been silent on voting laws. He has called for his 90,000 parishioners to boycott Delta, Coca-Cola and other major brands.

This is not just a Georgia issue or problem. It is a national problem that we believe puts our democracy at risk, Jackson said.

Business analysts say the dynamics are challenging for corporations.

Delta clearly felt a lot of heat for its previous statement. Deltas problem now is credibility, said Henry Harteveldt, a travel industry analyst in San Francisco. Will people believe future Delta statements or actions regarding voting rights or social justice?

Kemp signed the measure last Thursday, hours after a negotiated version cleared the state House and Senate in whirlwind votes. It is part of a tide of GOP-sponsored election bills introduced in states across the country after Trumps false assertions about the 2020 elections. Democrat Joe Biden won the presidential race in Georgia by about 12,000 votes out of almost 5 million cast, and Democrats won two Jan. 5 Senate runoffs to give the party control of the chamber on Capitol Hill.

Georgia officials, including Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, also a Republican, vouched for elections accuracy even as they backed some changes that could make it harder for Georgians to cast absentee ballots, a method that more than one-fifth of the November electorate used.

The new law adds a photo ID requirement for voting absentee by mail, cuts the amount of time people have to request an absentee ballot and limits where drop boxes can be placed and when they can be accessed. It also bans people from handing out food or water to voters waiting in line and allows the Republican-controlled State Election Board to remove and replace county election officials while curtailing the power of the secretary of state as Georgias chief elections officer.

Republicans insist the changes are needed to restore voters confidence.

Civil-rights groups have filed federal lawsuits seeking to overturn the Georgia law.

See: Biden sympathetic to call for baseballs All-Star Game to be pulled from Atlanta over Georgia voting restrictions

Theyve otherwise turned their focus to Washington, where Democrats are pushing a comprehensive federal overhaul of election law that could effectively override many changes being enacted in Georgia and considered elsewhere. Advocates want corporate leaders like Bastian and Quincey to help.

Theyve been out there trying to claim victory in Georgia, saying basically that this bill could have been worse, said Mia Arreguin of Progress Georgia. But this was never going to be a voter-friendly bill. Now they can really do something about it in Washington. We arent watching what they say. We are watching what they do.

Bastian nodded toward Capitol Hill action in his memo, declaring that federal proposals would expand voting rights nationwide. He noted one bill is named after the late Atlanta civil rights hero and Delta friend John Lewis, the longtime Georgia congressman who died last year.

But Bastian stopped short of an explicit position. Delta, he wrote, is closely monitoring legislation.

Originally posted here:
Republican lawmakers hit back after Delta CEO blasts Georgia voting law as undemocratic - MarketWatch

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Senate Republicans cleared the way Thursday for new, sweeping restrictions to voting in Texas that take particular aim at forbidding local efforts meant to widen access.

In an overnight vote after more than seven hours of debate, the Texas Senate signed off on Senate Bill 7, which would limit extended early voting hours, prohibit drive-thru voting and make it illegal for local election officials to proactively send applications to vote by mail to voters, even if they qualify.

The legislation is at the forefront of Texas Republicans crusade to further restrict voting in the state after last years election. Although Republicans remain in full control of state government, Texas saw the highest turnout in decades in 2020, with Democrats continuing to drive up their vote counts in the states urban centers and diversifying suburban communities.

Like other proposals under consideration at the Texas Capitol, many of the restrictions in SB 7 would target initiatives championed in those areas to make it easier for more voters to participate in elections.

The bill deemed a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick now heads to the House for consideration after moving rapidly through the Senate. Just two weeks after it was filed, a Senate committee advanced it Friday. That approval followed more than five hours of public testimony, largely in opposition over concerns it would be detrimental to voters who already struggle to vote under the states strict rules for elections.

While presenting the bill to the Senate, Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes said the legislation standardizes and clarifies voting rules so that every Texan has a fair and equal opportunity to vote, regardless of where they live in the state.

Overall, this bill is designed to address areas throughout the process where bad actors can take advantage, so Texans can feel confident that their elections are fair, honest and open, Hughes said.

In Texas and nationally, the Republican campaign to change voting rules in the name of election integrity has been largely built on concerns over widespread voter fraud for which there is little to no evidence. More recently, Texas Republican lawmakers have attempted to reframe their legislative proposals by offering that even one instance of fraud undermines the voice of a legitimate voter.

But Hughes was met by fierce opposition from Senate Democrats who took turns arguing the legislation would make wholesale changes to address isolated and rare incidents of fraud at the expense of voting initiatives that were particularly successful in reaching voters of color.

As I see this bill, its a pure case of suppression. There are some things in here that are really offensive, said state Sen. Borris Miles, D-Houston. This hurts to the core.

The bill originally limited early voting hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., curtailing the extended hours offered last year in Harris County and other large counties where voting ran until 10 p.m. for several days to accommodate people, like shift workers, for whom regular hours dont work. The bill was rewritten before it reached the Senate floor to allow for voting only between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.

But those hours will still prohibit the day of 24-hour voting Harris County offered last November. The legislation would also outlaw the drive-thru voting set up at 10 polling places in the county for the general election.

While questioning Hughes, Democratic state Sen. Carol Alvarado of Houston referenced an analysis by Harris Countys election office that estimated that Black and Hispanic voters cast more than half of the votes counted both at drive-thru sites and during extended hours.

Knowing that, who are you really targeting? Alvarado asked.

Theres nothing in this bill that has to do with targeting specific groups. The rules apply across the board, Hughes replied.

In defending the portions of the bill that target Harris Countys initiatives, Hughes in part pointed to the limitations he claimed drive-thru and overnight voting presented for poll watchers oversight, characterizing them as the eyes and ears of the public. Poll watchers are not public watchdogs but instead inherently partisan figures, appointed by candidates and political parties to serve at polling places. And poll watchers did have access to observe drive-thru and 24-hour voting last year.

If passed into law, the legislation would broaden poll watchers access at polling places, even giving them power to video record voters receiving assistance in filling out their ballots if the poll watcher reasonably believes the help is unlawful. That provision has drawn particular concerns about possible intimidation of voters who speak languages other than English, as well as voters with intellectual or developmental disabilities who may require assistance through prompting or questioning that could be misconstrued as coercion.

The collection of civil rights organizations that have warned the bill could lead to disenfranchisement of voters of color and voters with disabilities did see one of their most prominent concerns addressed in the version of the bill passed by the Senate.

Texas allows people looking to vote by mail based on a disability to request a ballot for an individual election or apply once for ballots in every election in a calendar year. Originally, the bill would have required voters citing a disability to provide proof of their condition or illness, including written documentation from the Social Security Administration or a doctors note, to qualify for the latter. Hughes endorsed an amendment by state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, to nix that requirement, citing the confusion it had created and feedback from advocates for people with disabilities.

But Republicans rejected more than a dozen amendments offered by Democrats to strike other portions of the bill and to clarify language on how local elections officials could make vote-by-mail applications available to voters seeking them. They also rejected an amendment that appeared to affirm the right to vote.

Just before the Senates vote to advance the bill, state Sen. Royce West of Dallas criticized Republicans for not listening to Democrats concerns about how the bill would harm communities of color represented by senators of color all of whom are Democrats who have faced a legacy of suppression when it comes to voting.

I hope that one day you hear us not only hear us but listen to us, West said. Passage of this bill tonight makes clear that on these issues you have not understood our plight in this country.

SB 7s prohibition on sending vote-by-mail applications to voters who havent requested them comes after a pandemic-era election that saw a significant increase in votes cast by mail as voters tried to keep safe from a deadly virus. Other Texas counties proactively sent applications to voters 65 and older, who automatically qualify to vote by mail, but Harris County came under Republicans scrutiny for attempting to send applications to all 2.4 million registered voters in the county with specific instructions on how to determine if they were eligible. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately blocked that effort.

Texas Republicans attempt to prevent a repeated of that echoes efforts in other states, including Georgia, where Republican lawmakers recently passed a similar prohibition. After voters of color helped flip key states into the Democrats column during the presidential election, Republicans have channeled their myth that the election was stolen into legislative pushback in state capitols across the U.S.

Hughes rejected Texas Democrats inferences throughout the debate that his bill is part of a national push from his party. He noted that aspects of SB 7 carried over from failed legislation proposed during the 2019 legislative session.

If we focus on the provisions of this bill not what the feds are doing but whats in this bill and Texas elections well have to agree these are provisions that will apply across the board, theyre consistent, theyre fair, Hughes said.

But Democrats pointed to the focus on increased voting regulations in diverse, urban areas. Beyond the restrictions targeting Harris County, the legislation would also set specific rules for the distribution of polling places in only the handful of counties with a population of at least 1 million most of which are either under Democratic control or won by Democrats in recent national and statewide elections.

Its a strange, strange coincidence that all of these laws are being filed right now, West said. Thats all Im saying.

More:
Texas Senate advances voter restrictions as part of bigger Republican push - The Texas Tribune

Yettheres little evidence these transplants are the sole, or even the driving,cause of Texass approaching swing-state status. As the Houston Press wrote last year, It is utter nonsenseto assume that every person coming here is some wide-eyed socialist hippie whodreams of high taxes and replacing Whataburgers with soy patties. Another write-up noted that it wassignificantly reductive to ascribe Texass leftward lurch to these new arrivals.

Indeed,theres a kind of cognitive dissonance at play in the Texas rights claim thatthe sole reason for the states political shift is wayward Californians. Afterall, shouldnt these uprooted Californians be fleeing the supposedly failedsocialist policies in California? Why would they be bringing these left-leaningpolicies with them? Are California politicians secretly plotting to spread theseeds of socialism wherever the roots of liberty run deep?

Thiswillingness to pin Texass political changes on an influx of liberals acts as akind of cover, or an excuse, for a state Republican Party unwilling to face newgenerations and demographics of Texans disgusted by the partys Trumpian turn.Younger Texans, nonwhite Texans, second-generation Americans whose immigrantparents selected Dallas and Houston and El Paso as the place to raise theirfamilyall of these contingents are increasingly sloughing off the outdated imagesof Texas that prep schoolers like Roy and Rodimer cling to. Its these true-nativeTexans who are refashioning those tiredtropes,all while steering the state leftward, toward a more multiethnic polity aimedsquarely against the authoritarian rot at the heart of the Texas RepublicanParty.

Buttheres one more irony at the heart of these far-right transplants attemptingto claim the mantle of Texanness. When the state first began convulsing towardindependence in the 1830s, the states residents broke into two camps. On theone end was a multiracial cohort composed of older Anglos and most of thestates Tejanos, content to remain within the anti-slavery republic of Mexico.On the other end was a contingent of young, transplanted Anglos, comprising theso-called War Party.

Read the original:
The Republican Poseurs Who Claim to Be True Texans - The New Republic

Theres been a concerted push over the last few years to encourage more women to run for elected office, with punchy slogans like Real women run and events and training aimed at supporting female candidates.

Its a worthy endeavor. Despite those efforts, Utah still ranks 40th in the proportion of female representatives at the state legislative level, and women remain underrepresented at other tiers of government, as well.

We got a demonstration of why thats the case over the last several days, as more than a half dozen Republican women came forward about a toxic, abusive culture perpetuated by the leaders of the Salt Lake County Republican Party.

As my colleague Leia Larsen reported, the partys communications consultant, Dave Robinson, had engaged in a months-long pattern of degrading and disparaging these women, making sexually inappropriate and objectifying comments, and threatening to ruin them if he didnt get his way.

Some examples:

Salt Lake County Council candidate Laurie Stringham said in September that Robinson mocked a campaign video she had produced and made sexually inappropriate comments to her.

He tells me if I want to wh--- myself out, that is my choice, Stringham said.

Recorder candidate Erin Preston said Robinson commented on her breasts and backside and had been threatening toward her.

And Councilwoman Aimee Winder Newton raised concerns about Robinsons behavior going back to last summer, Robinson co-authored an email where, among other things, he questioned Newtons sexuality and that of her family.

When all of these women and others took their complaints to County GOP Chairman Scott Miller, he blew them off, telling them thats just how Robinson acts and that they need to get thicker skins.

But Miller wasnt alone in his indifference, a point Stringham drove home in a statement Tuesday evening. After Miller ignored her concerns, Stringham said, It was also immediately reported to other elected officials. Yet it continued and increased.

Stringham specifically told Larsen in an interview that she had discussed Robinson with Councilman Richard Snelgrove. Preston also told me Tuesday she had emailed Snelgrove about the matter and that other party officials knew of the behavior, as well.

After these women and others spoke to The Tribune about Robinsons abuse, rather than apologizing, Miller excused Robinsons actions and attacked the victims, accusing them of trying to sabotage his bid for Utah Republican Party chairman.

Are most of the accusers sore losers who failed to win their respective races? Miller wrote in an incendiary email to county party delegates. Is this an attempt to disrupt my efforts to become the Utah GOP Chairman? I will not be CANCELLED.

There it is, right on cue. The cancel culture excuse that, as I wrote a few weeks ago, has become the most popular dodge to avoid accountability for reprehensible behavior. You call it getting cancelled, everyone else calls it the consequences you deserve.

Miller resigned his party post Sunday, a day after The Tribune story ran and in the face of widespread criticism from Republican leaders, including Gov. Spencer Cox and Lt. Gov Deidre Henderson, who condemned Millers indifference and victim-blaming.

Let us be clear: This type of behavior should never happen and when it does we will not tolerate it, ignore it, or explain it away, they said in a joint statement. It is unacceptable.

On Tuesday, the party announced it was forming an ethics committee in the wake of the allegations.

Robinsons mistreatment of these women is obviously shocking and reprehensible and also completely believable to anyone who knows his track record.

Salt Lake County Republican officials called for him to be fired back in 2018, after he blamed the lifestyle LGBTQ youth live, including grundles of sex, for their high suicide rate. (This, remember, is from the county partys communications pro.)

For whatever reason, Miller refused to cut ties with Robinson then, and stuck with him until the end despite being warned again and again of his behavior.

In the face of this debacle Miller is plowing ahead with his campaign for state party chairman, hoping to take his colossally failed leadership to the state level.

In a way, Im glad he is. It gives Republican state delegates a clear opportunity to either condone the unconscionable behavior, or to categorically rebuke Miller and his sidekick and send a clear message that his kind of indifference will not be tolerated.

But lets not pretend this is just a Republican problem. In 2017, several women made similar allegations of abuse and harassment against a candidate for state Democratic Party chairman and the response was bungled as bad, if not worse.

And this boorish behavior is by no means limited to politics.

If youre a woman you know this already and, if youre a man and havent heard the stories of unwanted comments and hostile encounters from your female friends or colleagues, you need to start paying closer attention.

This is a societal problem and it stems from two fundamental failures: First, the failure of certain men, drunk on self-importance and privilege, believing they are somehow entitled to behave like knuckle-dragging fools.

Second, its a failure of those in power overwhelmingly men who lack the clarity or courage or compassion to make clear that abuse in any setting will not be tolerated.

We cant have a climate conducive to elevating women to leadership whether in politics or the boardroom if they are simultaneously being subjected to an abusive environment lacking the structural supports and safeguards to prevent boorish behavior and punish the perpetrators.

Until we get to that point, the high-minded rhetoric about valuing women and their contributions will continue to ring hollow.

See original here:
County Republican Party is the latest example of a culture that professes to want women in leadership, but fails to stand up for them - Salt Lake...