Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

3 out of 5 NV congressional Democrats want to let the mining industry party like it’s 1872 Nevada Current – Nevada Current

Three-fifths of the Democrats in Nevadas congressional delegation agree with the states only Republican in Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei: If theres one thing the federal government should do, that thing is whatever mining wants.

Amodei got a bill passed on the floor of your United States House of Representatives this week.

First, congratulations, Congressman. A representative getting the House to pass a bill was no small thing even back in what might be thought of as saner times. The good ship Saner Times having sailed, the current Republican-controlled House, despite recent life signs, remains on pace to be the least productive in decades.

And it looked like that stunning record of mayhem-enriched underachievement would likewise doom Amodeis bill, which went belly up on the House floor last week when someone evidently forgot to tell a few Republican members of a narrowly divided House that there was work that day.

But there was a mining industry to protect, dadgummit, and Amodei, a former president of the Nevada Mining Association (while he was still in the state Senate ha ha is that the Nevada Way or what?), would not be denied.

If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, the bill would erase a 2022 federal court ruling that tried to impose a small measure of long-overdue sense on another law that was sponsored by a Nevadan on behalf of the mining industry 150 years earlier, the General Mining Law of 1872.

Background: A couple years ago in what is known as the Rosemont decision, a federal appeals court said when mining companies stake claims on federal land, and they find minerals on that land, mine away, as per usual, under ye olde 1872 law. But! The court also ruled and this was new that companies cant use adjacent federal land on which no valuable minerals have been proven to exist as part of the mining operation. So no filthy slag heaps on the other side of the road, that sort of thing.

Amodeis bill aims to overturn the Rosemont decision, and thus make filthy slag heaps on the other side of the road great again.

The vast majority of House Democrats, including Nevadas Dina Titus and Susie Lee, voted against Amodeis bill. But there were eight Democratic exceptions, one of whom was Nevada Rep. Steven Horsford, who is reliably eager to demonstrate fealty to Nevadas mining industry.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto was predictably giddy over the House passing Amodeis bill, her being a lead co-sponsor of companion legislation in the Senate.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen is one of that measures co-sponsors, which wont win her many votes in the rurals this year, but at least should help dissuade the mining industry from spending any money against her in her reelection campaign.

A similar and successful safeguarding of the mining industrys bottom line earned Cortez Masto a small assist from the industry in the rurals during her 2022 reelection campaign.

Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is also a co-sponsor, so between her, both Nevada senators, and all Republicans, its conceivable the bill could pass the narrowly divided Senate. If Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer lets it come up.

Mining corporations and the politicians who love them have been urgently stressing how vital their industry is to national security. That emphasis, almost always accompanied by saying China a few times, helps put the critical in critical minerals.

After House passage of his bill this week, Amodei didnt disappoint. Securing our domestic mineral supply chain is not only critical to our nations economic success, but to our national security, he said.

When touting the Senate version of the legislation last year, Cortez Masto said we must produce minerals in the United States and not solely rely on foreign sources, some of whom threaten our national securityAll of this means we must address the complications created by the Rosemont decision.

And on multiple occasions, Cortez Masto has warned that the Rosemont decision will upend the mining industry.

Evidence suggests otherwise: The same mineral deposits at the heart of the terrible horrible no good very bad Rosemont decision the example Cortez Masto refers to when she says the decision will upend mining are included in an Arizona mining complex currently being developed by the same Canadian corporation that was developing the Rosemont mine. Except now the project is bigger. And instead of Rosemont, its called Copper World.

If enacted, the Amodei-Cortez Masto legislative effort to reverse the Rosemont decision, like a call from Cortez Masto and Rosen to allow lithium mining corporations to get tax credits against extraction costs, may help Nevadas nascent lithium industry and other newly developing critical mineral mines save a buck or two and pass those savings on to shareholders the world over.

But whether the Rosemont decision is left intact will have no impact whatsoever on the certainty or scale of future mineral production. That will be determined by the price of the mineral. Period.

That doesnt mean the legislation is meaningless.

It could potentially enhance returns for mining corporation shareholders.

It could provide Rosen yet another opportunity to make a campaign ad celebrating how much she loves to stand up to Democrats and vote with Republicans.

It confirms yet again that there is a contingent of Nevada Democratic politicians who believe Nevada should remain a mining colony.

And, most consequentially, it would assure massive hills of mining waste where they dont belong, on public lands that arent even being mined, doing what massive hills of mining waste always do: contaminating soil, water, and air, far into the foreseeable future.

See more here:
3 out of 5 NV congressional Democrats want to let the mining industry party like it's 1872 Nevada Current - Nevada Current

Speaker Mike Johnson Survives Marjorie Taylor Greene Move to Oust Him – The New York Times

Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday easily batted down an attempt by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia to oust him from his post, after Democrats linked arms with most Republicans to fend off a second attempt by G.O.P. hard-liners to strip the gavel from their party leader.

The vote to kill the effort was an overwhelming 359 to 43, with seven voting present. Democrats flocked to Mr. Johnsons rescue, with all but 39 of them voting with Republicans to block the effort to oust him.

Members of the minority party in the House have never propped up the other partys speaker, and when the last Republican to hold the post, Kevin McCarthy, faced a removal vote last fall, Democrats voted en masse to allow the motion to move forward and then to jettison him, helping lead to his historic ouster.

This time, the Democratic support made the critical difference, allowing Mr. Johnson, who has a minuscule majority, to avoid a removal vote altogether. While for weeks Ms. Greene had appeared to be on a political island in her drive to get rid of yet another G.O.P. speaker, 11 Republicans ultimately voted to allow her motion to move forward.

That was the same number of Republicans who voted in October to allow the bid to remove Mr. McCarthy to advance but back then, they were joined by every Democrat.

I appreciate the show of confidence from my colleagues to defeat this misguided effort, Mr. Johnson told reporters shortly after Wednesdays vote. As Ive said from the beginning and Ive made clear here every day, I intend to do my job. I intend to do what I believe to be the right thing, which is what I was elected to do, and Ill let the chips fall where they may. In my view, that is leadership.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

See the rest here:
Speaker Mike Johnson Survives Marjorie Taylor Greene Move to Oust Him - The New York Times

How Democrats Hope to Limit Protests at the DNC in Chicago – TIME

In roughly 100 days, President Joe Biden is set to stand on a stage in Chicago's United Center and accept his party's presidential nomination. The organizers of this year's Democratic National Convention hope America will focus its attention at that moment on Biden's words and the cheers and enthusiasm of the crowd in the arena.

But many Democrats fear that voters' attention will be at best divided between the heavily stage-managed activities in the arena and the chaos unfolding just outside it.

More than 70 organizations have joined a coalition to March on the DNC when Biden and others in his administration arrive in Chicago. Protest organizers predict it will be the largest protest for Palestinian rights in Chicagos history, with tens of thousands of people showing up from across the country.

Our goal is to send a message to Biden that he and his party have been complicit in the genocide that he has had the power since October to stop by turning off the tap of money and weapons to Israel, says Hatem Abudayyeh, chair of the U.S. Palestinian Community Network and a spokesperson for the Coalition to March on the DNC.

The group was denied a permit to hold protest marches within blocks of the DNC. Organizers say they plan to march near the convention site with or without a permit and have sued the city alleging First Amendment violations. They say the citys proposed alternative locationfour miles away from United Centeris unacceptable as it will mean they wont be seen or heard by those attending the convention.

Protest leaders hope to harness the energy that has powered pro-Palestinian protests on dozens of college campuses in recent weeks, most of which are expected to largely wind down as soon as the spring semester ends. Columbia University and the University of Southern California are among the institutions that canceled commencement ceremonies due to the unrest. For protest leaders the DNC will provide an even bigger national stage.

Read more: What Americas Student Photojournalists Saw at the Campus Protests

We are very sensitive to the environment that were walking in here in Chicago, DNC Chair Minyon Moore, a longtime Democratic strategist, said at a news conference in April. We know that these protesters are coming. Were trying to create an environment where everyone is welcome. We do protect First Amendment rights, but we also want to reassure you that the people are excited about this convention coming.

For Biden, how he handles the escalating protests could shape the political landscape as he works to cast himself as running a more orderly and competent federal government than former President Donald Trump did. To help ensure the event goes smoothly, Biden added a trusted aide, Louisa Terrell, to the conventions leadership team. Terrell started working for Biden two decades ago and most recently served as his director of legislative affairs.

While the campus protests have drawn global attention, Bidens advisers don't believe the Israel-Hamas conflict is the main priority for young voters in this election. Yet they are keenly aware that managing the fallout from these demonstrations remains crucial to maintaining support from young people and Muslim Americans.

What Biden has done to allow that to happen is inexcusable and unforgivable, Abudayyeh says. And none of us in the Palestinian and Arab community in this country will ever forgive him or his partyThere's nothing that comes out of this President's mouth anymore that anyone from my community cares about.

Whether that anger will still burn as strongly in four months is an open question. Biden officials have been working for months to obtain a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict. And Biden just announced he would withhold certain weapons from Israel over concerns that the Israelis might use them in Rafah, where more than one million civilians are sheltering. Yet protest organizers anticipate that frustration with Biden will not ebb over the summer after his months of support for a military campaign in which more than 30,000 people in Gaza have died.

Protesters have been a fixture at party conventions for decades, and are expected to also show up at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee in July. Yet some Republicans predict the DNC protests will be far more intense and more politically damaging. Montana Senator Steve Daines, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told a group of reporters last week that he thinks the pro-Palestine protests could be a big problem for Democrats in August in Chicago.

For decades, every Democrat and Republican political convention has been declared a national special security event by the Department of Homeland Security. That designation puts the Secret Service in charge of coordinating safety planning with the FBI, FEMA, police in Chicago and other federal and state and local agencies. In March, Congress allocated $75 million for both the DNC and RNC for security.

DNC organizers are focused on securing the area around McCormick Place, the convention center along the shore of Lake Michigan where official party meetings will take place, and around United Center, the home arena for the Bulls and the Blackhawks and the location for most of the evening proceedings that will draw the biggest audiences. The exact borders of the security perimeter for those locations will be announced at the end of July, said a person familiar with the planning who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

In Chicago, security training started last year to prepare for many different scenarios, including preparations for civil disturbances and how to share information quickly during an emergency, according to a statement provided by the Secret Services Chicago field office. By the time the Democrats' convention starts in August, security agencies will have conducted multiple tabletop exercises for potential emergencies and led security forces through 400 hours of training, according to the Secret Service.

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Larry Snelling said in March that Chicago police will protect all those exercising their first amendment rights in and around the convention. What we will not tolerate is criminal activity, he added. Violence, vandalism will not be tolerated.

Last month, when pro-Palestinian demonstrators blocked the road into Chicagos OHare airport, police removed protestors from the roadway within 90 minutes. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker later told CNN that the action showed that the Chicago police were ready for protests around the convention in August.

The impending confrontation between pro-Palestinian protesters and authorities at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago has drawn comparisons to 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, where a violent police crackdown on anti-Vietnam War protesters gained national attention and hurt the partys nominee, Hubert Humphrey.

Read More: Violence Was Inevitable: How 7 Key Players Remember the Chaos of 1968s Democratic National Convention Protests

We wanted to stop the war, and we thought the best way to do that would be to make as much trouble as possible for the Democrats, Michael Kazin, who attended the DNC protest in 1968 as a member of Students for a Democratic Society, recently recalled to TIME. I think we succeeded in turning off a lot of Americans in the middle from voting for Democrats. Later that year, Republican Richard Nixon won the White House, further escalated the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and started the selective service draft.

Kazin, who is now a history professor at Georgetown University and the author of "What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party," recalled most Americans at the time sided with the police over the protesters, even as images of police brutality by the Chicago Police Department during the riot drew outrage.

But the parallels for Democrats between 2024 and 1968 go beyond a robust protest movement and a convention in Chicago. Kazin points to how Humphrey ultimately lost to Nixon amid domestic angst over the Vietnam War.

Joe Biden is a liberal Democrat, as Hubert Humphrey was, and he's tried to do a lot domestically that people on the left generally like, he says, but at the same time, they don't like his foreign policy, which is similar to what was going on in the mid-to-late 60s.

Read more:
How Democrats Hope to Limit Protests at the DNC in Chicago - TIME

Inside the College Democrats’ Rebuke of Biden – The New York Times

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email transcripts@nytimes.com with any questions.

[BELLS RINGING]

So heres what we know when it comes to the antiwar protests on college campuses and electoral politics. President Biden has a problem with young activists. And the disapproval, particularly from the left, has only intensified in the days after the president spoke critically about the protests. But whether or not he has a problem with the young electorate at large remains to be seen, which is why one response from a more mainstream organization really caught my attention, the College Democrats of America, who said last week, the White House was on a, quote, mistaken route, unquote, that could make it harder to win young voters.

The statement turned heads in political circles, because the College Democrats are closely aligned with national party leadership. Leaders of the group are delegates to the Democratic Convention. And its pretty rare to see them say anything bad about a Democratic president.

And as I soon learned, the statement also divided the groups leadership. So over the past few days, we reached out to a bunch of the groups members, including members of the executive board, the head of its Muslim caucus, and the chair of its Jewish caucus, to get the inside story of what happened and why.

Today, how the College Democrats of America came to break with the Democratic president and what it could mean for the fall. From The New York Times, Im Astead Herndon. This is The Run-Up.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hey, how are you?

Good, how are you, Astead.

Good. Good, thanks for chatting with us.

Yes. No, thank you for having me on. How have you been so far?

Im doing OK. My Friday is kind of just largely starting. How about yours?

Im trying to finish up my senior thesis, which is like 30 pages.

Oh, whats it about? Tell me.

Its about populism, actually. Im doing a comparative study on populism in Brazil and Turkey.

Hasan Pyarali is a senior at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Hes also the chair of the College Democrats Muslim caucus. And he helped craft the statement that the College Democrats put out last week.

Growing up, I really wasnt into politics that much, not because I didnt find it interesting. Of course, I did. I just never thought there was a place in there for me. You can ask some of my friends in middle school and high school. I always talked about being a prime minister of Pakistan thats where my familys from because I never thought I had a future in politics here.

Why did you feel that?

I guess because there was no role models out there for me. Obama had been elected when I was a little kid. And I saw the backlash that he had gotten as the first Black president. And people were saying, this will never happen again.

Where things changed for me on that score was 2018. And then I saw people like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, people who proudly wore their Muslim identities and told the world who they were. And they got elected for that.

So seeing them win was just so heartening. And it made me feel like I had a chance, too, because growing up, post 2001, post 9/11, that generation that I was part of, the only thing I saw was the rejection of Islam, the rejection of Muslims. And so that was really inspirational to me.

Eventually, Hasans interest in politics led him to volunteer for Bernie Sanders in his bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

Let me tell you, I was spending all my free time and my friends can tell you, in high school, I was spending all my free time knocking doors, calling people, saying, you got to vote for Bernie. Come on, you got to do this. I was posting on my Instagram, posting on Snapchat.

Its so funny, because I would consider myself a fairly political high-schooler. And the idea of me spending my free time knocking on doors for a political candidate is wild.

Yeah. No, literally, I would go to farmers markets and be like, hi, would you like to vote. And I would be the only one there passing out flyers. And I would just talk to and me being a high-schooler, so that was just how I spent my free time. Seeing that not work out, though, was a little bit of a hit to me. I was like, dang.

Seeing the Bernie campaign not working?

Yeah. Yeah, because it represented everything we wanted in terms of economic policy, social policy. The change was real. The energy was there. We just about had it. And then, for that not to have worked out was a little bit of a blow to me personally.

But when Joe Biden ultimately became the Democrats nominee, Hasan was impressed with his outreach to young voters and got on board.

He adopted $15 an hour. He was talking about canceling $10,000 in student debt, which isnt everything, but its still a lot. He talked about bringing a new revolution in terms of public transportation. And I was like, wait, there is some good here. There is some things I can latch on to. So it was actually purely policy-driven, my willingness to work on his campaign.

Mm-hmm, so Biden goes and wins in 2020. And in the first couple of years, Im curious how you felt about the administration and also how your involvement in College Democrats developed.

In terms of Biden, in the first couple of years, I was elated. I was like, rah, rah, rah, Biden, I love him, because he did the Child Tax Credit, the American Rescue Plan, the checks. They werent quite $2,000, but they were pretty good, right, opening things back up in a pretty efficient manner, I think.

And the biggest thing for me was the withdrawal from the Afghanistan war, because I had seen so much devastation for so many years. And being antiwar was also one of those things that a lot of people in my community, a lot of Muslims were antiwar. But that was a very non popular view.

And that was a big deal. So seeing that happen, I was on the moon. I was like, wow, hes really delivering. I think, at least in the first couple of years, I was very happy.

How did you come to be the Muslim Caucus chair?

Yeah, it was the beginning of my senior year. And before that I hadnt really seen too much outreach on the behalf of the Democratic Party towards Muslim Americans, I dont think, besides the occasional Happy Ramadan and things like that. So I was like, yeah, theres a lot of work here to be done. It sounds like actually a really cool position. And then, this year has been my [INAUDIBLE] of being Muslim Caucus chair.

And what a year. I mean, I am partially I mean, this is what were here to talk about is the ways that chair seat has put you in the center of some big developments with College Democrats. I guess I wanted to start on October 7 or around that time. Thats when, obviously, Hamas launched their attack in Israel, killing 1,200 people, according to officials there. I mean, what did you think when you saw the events unfold? And what was the immediate conversation among the College Democrats of America?

Right, so first of all, just to start off with, yeah, youre right. That chairmanship was supposed to be vote on things when votes are brought up and advocate for the Happy Ramadan posts. Thats all. It turned out to be a lot more.

So on October 7, when that all went down, it was like, OK, we need to appoint people on this. We need to have a stance on this. And my feelings on that day were, I couldnt see a good way out. But also, this is not a new issue.

The problem didnt start on October 7. I remember going to the mosque. I think it was 10 years old. And halfway through the prayer, the imam, who is supposed to keep a solemn tone, just read the verses, and then move on, he broke down halfway through and started crying.

And this never happens. Ive never seen it. And after that, too, Ive never seen it in my life. And he started crying about Gaza. And so, on October 7, I was like, this has been happening for so long.

Did you say that?

I did. I did. And I not only said that, I wrote a piece in the Old Gold and Black about it, talking about how this is not a new thing, this has been going on since I was a kid.

Thats the campus newspaper.

Yes.

in Wake Forest.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thats our campus newspaper. And I wrote a piece saying, I so sympathize with your pain because youre so devastated. And Ive been devastated, too. We have to come together now and stand with each other in our pain.

So when we had a vigil here for the Jewish lives lost, I went there with my Jewish friends and stood with them. And Im so glad to say that, when we had our Muslim vigil, when the retaliation started, and I think at the time, 5,000, 8,000 people were killed, a lot of my Jewish friends came and stood with me at that Muslim vigil. So I knew I had a heightened role.

I personally have put out a lot of statements in terms of me and my personal capacity, right, both on Instagram, in the Old Gold and Black, and I was trying to keep things tame on our campus. And I talked about it a lot with people in College Democrats. And the culmination of my role really came around November and December, where I was like, OK, Ive been in these conversations. Something needs to be said. We need to take a position and call for a ceasefire.

How were you received?

Very well, actually. Everyone who I talked to was like, Ive been looking for someone to do this and I havent done it yet. but Im so glad that you did, because it takes a lot of courage to do this. And nearly everyone I talked to put their name as co-sponsors.

Then I got to talk to the Jewish Caucus chair, who was the last person who I hadnt spoken with, and talked to her for the first time Allyson, very nice person. And we got working together. And she also cosigned that ceasefire resolution. And when we put it up for a vote, it got unanimous consent.

And if I read the resolution, it says, The College Democrats of America, spearheaded by the Muslim Caucus and Jewish Caucus, unanimously called for a ceasefire in the Middle East and denounced the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on college campuses across the country.

Yeah.

And I see a lot of the main chairs here, of the College Democrats of America, signed it. And you said the resolution was passed unanimously.

Thats right.

Now, question I have, though, is, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, politicians you have mentioned here, were calling for the Biden administration to do that also around this time. And you werent really seeing that get big traction among national. Why did you all feel that you had to go ahead of where the main Democrats are?

So in December, it was actually a very rare and tough position to take, which is why I was so hesitant for so long. But I just felt like a moral compulsion that I had to at least try. And if I tried and failed, that would be OK. But at least I tried. And I thought our position as a part of the DNC gave us a platform that no one really else had. Of course, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, were calling from them from the outside. But it will be huge for the party itself to rebuke the president and say, we are calling for a ceasefire. And thats what we

The youngest members of the party and members of the DNC to call for it itself. I do think its unique. I mean, one question I have for you is, around that time, there was an explosion of youth activism, people interrupting the president and vice president, particularly at their public events. We spoke to some protesters who interrupted President Biden at Mother Emanuel in South Carolina.

At the church, yeah.

In the church, some of those actions were controversial. What did you think of those tactics that others were using to push the administration from the outside?

Oh, I thought they were amazing. I have so much respect for those activists who interrupted him at the church and everywhere else, because I think when politicians take a contra not even controversial. When they take a morally wrong stance, they shouldnt be given any peace. Everywhere they go, they should be yelled at. And I got to do some of my own yelling to politicians here at Wake Forest.

They had invited President Bush to come on. And when Bush came, and he started talking about how the Iraq war was justified, I dont know what came over me. But I got up in my seat and just started yelling at him, you liar, you lied to the American people, youre lying now.

Im kind of curious as to your embrace of these tactics, considering youre someone who exists both in a insider-y and outsider-y space. I think about your work with Biden campaign, while at the same time saying that you believe that politicians who take stances that are deemed morally reprehensible should face no peace. I mean, do you see any tension in the worlds that you exist in?

Oh, theres so much, yeah.

Yeah, I guess Im saying, how do you untangle that?

Its tough to be in this space because I think it takes both. I think it takes people on the inside pushing the envelope and calling for change internally. I think, when that message comes from someone like me, who has worked on the Biden campaign, who has worked in local congressional races, I think it has a little bit more meaning to it because Ive done the work and Ive been there. And also, I think they need to feel the public pressure, too. If its just me saying it with no public pressure, it falls flat because they dont feel the need to listen.

Mm-hmm, well, lets talk about the last couple of weeks, because those have really exploded this issue even further, particularly the liberated zones or encampments that we have seen across college campuses and in places like Columbia University, where university presidents called in the police after students forcefully took over a building. I mean, when you see actions like that, is there any uncomfort with students taking over a building, some folks where weve seen individual instances of anti-Semitism, how do you separate the larger agreement with the moral cause, with an alignment with some protesters that have become increasingly controversial within the Democratic Party?

Thats right. I think theres a parsing that we can do thats pretty easy for me to do personally. I can say, at the same time, yes, theres bad actors here and that youre going to have that in any movement. But I think, as long as the majority of people are doing the right thing and standing there in a morally just cause, I think thats something that we should stand with. And I dont think its worth condemning an entire movement, which is what weve seen.

Mm-hmm, I was going to ask about what you thought about the White Houses response to the encampments. What were you hoping that the president said versus what he actually did say?

Yeah, I was hoping he would say, I hear you, I stand with you, its time to change, and call for a ceasefire. I hope he would see that theres a wide swath of people all across the country crying out, what were doing is morally wrong and it needs to change. But also politically, if I saw my own voters coming out there and protesting, I would change course. And thats what I was hoping for.

What I saw was a condemnation of all the protesters as anti-Semitic and no support for them. They were given the cold shoulder in both his press conference yesterday and his statement that he released beforehand. And that was just it was saddening, it was shameful, and I think it was just disgraceful the way he went about it.

The last thing I wanted to say, and then I want to get to the actual statement you all put out in the last couple of days, is about Bidens response. You said that you felt that he was just painting everyone with a full brush of anti-Semitism or things. But he also did affirm the larger right to protest.

Hes talked about his own involvement in movements previously. But he tried to make a distinction between what he felt was happening in these verses more peaceful protests. Why isnt that the right tone for a president to strike, in your opinion?

Yeah, and I think, of course, that distinction needs to be made. But you have to look at the majority of what people are doing is painting them with a broad brush and saying, yeah, but the few of you who are peaceful have a right to protest. I think that approach paints the majority of people as violent. It paints the majority of people as anti-Semitic, too, when theyre not.

And so I think that its important to draw a distinction. And at the same time, you can recognize what the majority of people are calling for. And if he really wanted to get things toned down on college campuses, he would change course.

Well, take me through the steps. You all decide to take the very unique action of criticizing the administrations response. But logistically, did you write the statement alone?

Yes.

Did you write the what happened.

So, yeah, logistically, this what happened. So we were talking about it. They said, guys, we have to write something on this. And I was like, this is what needs to be said. From there, it took a few drafts.

If you look at my Google Docs right now, theres like draft 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4. Different people are shared on it. I got to work with Allyson Bell, our Jewish Caucus chair, as well, because she made it very clear that she wanted to see the denouncement of anti-Semitism. And I stood with her in that and said, yes, there needs to be the case.

Were there other red lines that people had? What did you have to include?

Yeah, no, that was one of the biggest red lines is that we had to include a condemnation of anti-Semitism. The other red lines people had mentioned to me was we have to stand with the cause for divestment and an immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, which is what we were able to do.

And so thats an interesting point. You all would more than say, we affirm the general rights of protest.

Oh, yeah.

You said, We stand with their specific policy goal of asking these campuses to divest from companies that make money off of whats happening in Gaza and to affirm the existence of a Palestinian state. Did that cause backlash internally?

No, actually, I was very surprised, because at first, I was like, I dont know how this statement is going to very similar to my ceasefire thing, I was like, I dont know how this is going to go. I dont know how well-received its going to be. And they said, we think its great. Lets put it up for a vote. And it passed by 8 to 2, which is amazing. I think I wasnt really expecting that wide of a margin. And I was so glad that they gave me the room, space, and leadership to do that.

Mm-hmm, Ive seen some of your colleagues criticize the statement, saying that they didnt feel like they were fully a part of the process. What have you made of some of the criticism? And I have read that some people had said that other drafts had gone further in terms of a denouncement of anti-Semitism.

Yeah.

I guess Im saying, I know that you got enough support for it to be 8 to 2, should have been 10 to 0.

Yes, I would have loved it to be. And in terms of one of the reasons why it wasnt, I think, it was Josh who said it didnt condemn Hamas. Well, this is about college campuses and whats going on there and their demands. And I think we did say we want to release the hostages.

We did say we want a peaceful two-state solution. And I think people forget that ceasefire means ceasefire for Hamas, too. We want them to stop shooting as well. So I tried to address those criticisms.

I hear where theyre coming from. And they all have valid points. There was earlier drafts that took the overwhelming approach of denouncing anti-Semitism.

What we were trying to do here is stand with the majority of college students. And the majority of college students are not anti-Semitic. The majority of people protesting are not hateful and violent and Hamas supporters. So thats the approach we ended up taking. And obviously, we didnt go 10-0. I wish it had been 10-0.

This week, right after President Bidens press conference, when asked whether the protests had had any material effect on his Middle Eastern policy, he said no. And I guess Im wondering, as someone who helped get this worked to get this person elected, how does that feel?

Its a little bit disheartening, Id say. Its tough to hear someone and I work so hard not only did I work so hard, young people worked so hard. And I think growing up, especially in the Democratic party, we had this idea of a coalition of the ascendant. Im sure youve heard the term, where as theres more and more young people, more and more progressives, more and more people of color, the countrys getting more diverse, eventually youre going to have a point where Democrats are just running away with it.

Thats kind of what we were hoping for. But for some reason, they found a way to break up that coalition and give us the cold shoulder. But at the end of the day, were still out here. Were still trying to talk with them and see if we can change things. And I do see a future where I would love to be right there knocking doors again for Biden in 2024.

Thats what I was going to ask. Are you going to vote for Biden in November? Or do you plan to organize for Biden in November?

I would sure hope to. And I think that question rests more with him than it does with me, because it matters on how he goes about this. If he continues on this path, if he continues to go harder, the genocide becomes worse and worse and worse, thats going to make it tougher for me.

But Im saying, if six months from now, if Joe Biden is continuing to back Netanyahus government, are you voting for Joe Biden?

Thats a tough question. And Im struggling with that every day. I havent really quite come to it. I think, at the end of the day, I probably would is the tough thing. But the fact that its a real tough question for me, I think should show that its probably a no for a majority of young people.

Continue reading here:
Inside the College Democrats' Rebuke of Biden - The New York Times

Democrats, Sensing Shift on Abortion Rights Among Latinas, Push for More Gains – The New York Times

Hours before Arizona state legislators voted to repeal an 1864 abortion ban last month, a group of mostly Latina Democrats huddled at a nearby Mexican restaurant for a strategy session on galvanizing Latina voters over abortion rights.

I am 23 why do I have less rights than my abuelita in Mexico? Melissa Herrera, a Democratic campaign staffer, asked the cluster of women at the restaurant, referring to her grandmother.

The question crystallized what Democrats hope will be a decisive electoral factor in their favor this year, one that upends conventional political wisdom: A majority of Latino voters now support abortion rights, according to polls, a reversal from two decades ago. Polling trends, interviews with strategists and election results in Ohio and Virginia, where abortion rights played a central role, suggest Democrats optimism regarding Latinas once considered too religious or too socially conservative to support abortion rights could bear out.

Since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022, stringent curbs have been taking effect in Republican-dominated states. In Arizona, for one, the May 2 repeal of the blanket ban from 1864 still leaves abortions governed by a two-year-old law prohibiting the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with no exception for rape or incest.

As of April 2023, according to the Pew Research Center, 62 percent of Latinos believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Twenty years earlier, most Hispanics told Pew that they opposed abortion rights by a nearly two-to-one margin. (The most recent polling has been conducted online, instead of over the phone, but the surveys show an overall gradual shift in opinions.)

Here is the original post:
Democrats, Sensing Shift on Abortion Rights Among Latinas, Push for More Gains - The New York Times