Mediaboss Marketing

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Originally posted here:
Letter to the editor: Democrats don't automatically win in Westmoreland - TribLIVE

Michigan residents are getting restless as the coronavirus pandemic grows more political in Michigan by the day.

There were grumbles about Gov. Gretchen Whitmers first stay-at-home order in March. But prolonging the order through April 30 has angered Republican legislators and others who are itching to restart the economy.

The governors order only allows essential workers to continue working outside their homes. But Republicans are pleading to let businesses that pose minimal risks of spreading COVID-19 to re-open.

"We expected that the governor was going to exercise some common sense with things that could be performed very safely, said State Sen. Tom Barrett, R-Charlotte. Instead, she went the opposite direction and further restricted freedoms.

Tensions spilled out onto the steps of the Michigan Capitol on Wednesday, April 15, as people protested Whitmer and her stay-at-home order throughout the afternoon, in cars and on foot in an event dubbed Operation Gridlock.

It was organized by conservative groups and with grassroots support -- protesters boasted Trump flags and MAGA signs and some Republican lawmakers signaled support, including House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering.

But it drew ire, too, from people who criticized the protesters for gathering in a large group and not observing recommendations for masks or social distancing.

And one person it didnt sway was Whitmer.

While some Republicans are asking Whitmer to weigh public health and the economy equally, she said in a press conference this week all of her decisions are driven by the central question, How do we save lives?

Think about the 1,602 Michiganders whove died from COVID-19, Whitmer said on Monday. While some of us are grieving the loss of our freedom, theyre grieving the loss of their loved ones.

Republicans, businesses urge changes

Examples of sectors Republicans want reopened include landscaping companies, greenhouses, golf courses, realtors, construction and more.

Shes a smart lady, she could convene the business groups and the interest groups and look at what occupations, what activities could be done in a safe, social distancing manner," said Rep. Triston Cole, R-Mancelona.

"For example, yard maintenance, marinas, dock installation, landscaping many, many things can be done while taking this virus extremely seriously.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce has also said the state can protect the public health and the economy at the same time be reopening some businesses.

Whitmer and health experts disagree with the timing, saying its too soon and would jeopardize lives.

"This is not the time to take a risk," said Teena Chopra, infectious diseases specialist for the Detroit Medical Center. "We are not at a stage where we can start doing the activities we used to do before, whether it is socializing, playing golf and even grocery shopping."

Another Republican criticism is Whitmers order is stripping Michiganders of the fundamental freedoms theyre entitled to, Barrett said.

Residents know the risks, he said. Its time to let people weigh those risks for themselves, instead of letting Whitmer and the overzealous attorney general keep people under house arrest, Barrett said.

"My own kids weren't allowed to go see their grandparents on Easter because of our governor and our attorney general," Barrett said. "And to me, that's a sad circumstance."

Barrett likens it to vehicle crash deaths. Even though there are thousands annually across the U.S., lawmakers allow residents to weigh the risks for themselves.

"We don't tell people they have to stay home and can't drive a car," Barrett said. "We don't set the speed limit at 25 mph on the freeway."

Is it politically advantageous to attack Whitmer?

Republicans arent criticizing the governor for just economic reasons but also political ones, said TJ Bucholz, president and managing partner of Vanguard Public Affairs.

Whitmers name is becoming a household Democratic name across the nation, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden has said Whitmer is on his list of possible vice president picks.

She also gave the Democratic response to Trumps State of the Union address in February. Trump referred to Whitmer as that woman from Michigan in a recent interview, and told Vice President Mike Pence not to call her as she asked for supplies to battle the coronavirus.

Whitmer believes Republicans are using the stay-at-home order as a pretense to politically attack her, calling out Wednesdays protest for being a political rally. Science and data should drive decisions, she said, not politics.

Im not focusing on politics, Im trying to save lives, here," Whitmer said. The enemy is the virus, not one another. We have to keep that straight.

Many Republican lawmakers and groups have expressed support for Whitmers actions, Bucholz said and all are saying social distancing of some kind needs to be maintained.

But Bucholz has seen a correlation between people who are anti-quarantine and people who are anti-Whitmer. And for Republican legislators in dark red districts, it could be an advantage to criticize the stay-at-home order.

"The people of Michigan have already been hunkered down for three weeks and with no end in sight," Bucholz said. "I think you're seeing those frustrations bubble to the surface. I do think some of this is partisan."

Both Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clark Lake and Chatfield have written opinion pieces for publications in recent days attacking the governor. Shirkey called it absurd that Michiganders can buy marijuana but not flowers. Chatfield dubbed the stay-at-home order illogical.

However, Michiganders as a whole are supportive of Whitmer during the pandemic, according to a recent poll from the Center for American Progress, a progressive Washington think-tank. Of the 303 voters polled, 71 percent approved of how Whitmer is handling the crisis. Of the respondents, 44 percent were Democratic and 40 percent were Republican.

Those polled also said they trusted Whitmer more than President Donald Trump to provide accurate information during the pandemic, with 55 percent trusting Whitmer more and 28 percent trusting Trump more.

Another idea from Republicans is to open parts of the state that arent heavily affected by the virus. The 23,000-resident Antrim County shouldnt be treated the same as Wayne County, which has 1.75 million residents, Cole said.

Cole sent multiple letters to Whitmer in recent weeks, saying northwest lower Michigan shouldn't be "painted with the same brush" as southeast Michigan. Cole hasn't received a response, he said.

"It's beyond frustrating and very unprofessional for her to not respond to a top member of leadership in the house," Cole said.

Regionalizing how the state is responding to the virus is a bad idea, Chopra the infectious disease specialist argues. The virus can be passed along through people who have no symptoms, making it hard to tell how prevalent COVID-19 is without more testing, she said.

Areas with lower case totals shouldnt be celebrating that theyre out of the woods, Chopra said. They should be thankful they can take precautions now to thwart disease transmission before it gets out of control.

(Residents) cant afford for anyone to play fast and loose with the rules and make exceptions for certain parts of the state, Whitmer said. Because of course, COVID-19 doesnt observe county lines.

Opening too quickly could endanger lives

The debate about when its safe to reopen the economy is not a new one. Michigan lawmakers faced the same questions and made some of the same arguments as today during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.

When Detroit reopened for business less than three weeks after the shutdown in 1918, it led to a second spike in influenza deaths. Reopening too early this time will also lead to a second wave of cases and deaths, said Joneigh Khaldun, Michigans chief medical executive, at a press conference Monday.

Data shows economic rebounds are slower post-pandemic when social distancing and careful reopenings arent done right, she said.

While COVID-19 cases in Michigan seem to be plateauing, that doesnt mean its time to reopen the state, Chopra said. Knowing were ready doesnt just mean looking at case totals and death numbers, she said.

Michigan needs to test asymptomatic people and experts must better understand infected people will have antibodies that make them immune in the future, she said.

For now, Whitmer has been rigid on her stance that stay-at-home order exceptions wont be made. But allowing some low-risk businesses to reopen could be how Michigan transitions to the next stage once were ready.

"We will get to that point," Whitmer said, of allowing exceptions to the order. "But we are not there yet."

But the political battle is far from over. Its in the hands of the Republican-controlled Michigan legislature to decide in the next couple weeks if Whitmers emergency powers should be extended beyond April 30.

Some Republicans are already indicating they dont want to extend the state of emergency, which would handcuff Whitmers ability to extend the stay-at-home order further.

I dont want to get into a hypothetical situation of where we will be at on April 30, but I continue to converse with the governor on a daily basis, Chatfield said. Im encouraged by the talk, but Id be pleased with action."

PREVENTION TIPS

In addition to washing hands regularly and not touching your face, officials recommend practicing social distancing, assuming anyone may be carrying the virus.

Health officials say you should be staying at least 6 feet away from others and working from home, if possible.

Carry hand sanitizer with you, and use disinfecting wipes or disinfecting spray cleaners on frequently-touched surfaces in your home (door handles, faucets, countertops) and when you go into places like stores.

Read more Michigan coronavirus coverage here

When and how will it end? Considering the end-game for Michigans coronavirus crisis

Whitmer says shes disappointed in coronavirus stay-at-home protest, but supports free speech rights

Protesters angry with Gov. Whitmers stay-at-home order gridlock Michigan capitol

All but one county in Michigans Lower Peninsula have a reported coronavirus case; 153 more deaths

6 reasons Michigan has four times more coronavirus cases than Ohio

Michigans deadliest year: Look back at 1918 flu pandemic

Michigan inmates hide coronavirus symptoms to avoid prison quarantine

4 Northern Michigan sheriffs wont strictly enforce Whitmers vague framework of emergency laws

Peek Through Time: Flu epidemic of 1918-19 ravaged Jackson, Michigan and world

Go here to see the original:
Republicans, Democrats at odds about who should return to work and when - MLive.com

Gilens, Page and their critics basically agree on the same set of facts. Their differences emerge from their conflicting interpretations of those facts.

Take the enactment of Obamacare. For Gilens, the final legislation reflects the failure of the Democratic Party to achieve progressive goals:

In 2009, with unified Democratic Party control and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Democratic Party failed even to include a public option in Obamacare, much less establish a health insurance program that would cover all uninsured Americans.

The Affordable Care Act, Gilens continued, is one illustration of the power of interest groups in constraining Democratic Party policy.

Critics of Gilens argument contend that enactment of Obamacare marks the first major downwardly redistributive federal legislation in generations, a major progressive achievement after decades of conservative success in distributing income and wealth to those in the top brackets.

The A.C.A. was less sweeping than it could have been because of the constraints imposed by a powerful health care lobby, but it was more sweeping than anything that had come before, Rhodes wrote by email. The fact that significant health care legislation was enacted in spite of substantial resistance was a testament to the strength of progressive mobilization at the time.

In other words, for Gilens, the glass is half empty, for Rhodes, half full.

Grossmann and Isaac write:

The view associated with Bernie Sanders and some scholars, which suggests that both parties have been bought off by rich donors to represent the rich and big business at the expense of the middle class, is inconsistent with the patterns we observe.

The Republican Party, they contend, perhaps unnecessarily,

does seem consistently responsive to business preferences and its positions are more often associated with those of the affluent. On economic policy in particular, Republican leaders much better represent affluent and business preferences.

But the Democratic Party, Grossmann and Isaac argue, is not aligned with business preferences or affluent preferences in any domain and actually represents middle-class views over affluent views on economic policy.

Along similar lines, Rhodes and Schaffner found in their 2017 paper that:

Individuals with Democratic congressional representatives experience a fundamentally different type of representation than do individuals with Republican representatives. Individuals with Democratic representatives encounter a mode of representation best described as populist.

In contrast, they continue,

individuals with Republican representatives experience an oligarchic" mode of representation, in which wealthy individuals receive much more representation than those lower on the economic ladder.

In an email, Rhodes noted that

Democrats are on average more responsive to their less affluent constituents than they are to their more affluent constituents, while for Republicans the reverse is true.

If the standard in judging the Democratic Party is whether it would support a radical upheaval vastly expanding the federal government, Rhodes continued, then

its fair to say that few elected Democrats at the national level are contemplating major departures from prevailing economic and political arrangements. Theres little evidence that most elected Democrats want an economic revolution.

But, Rhodes continued, the reality is more complicated than the Sanders claim that the party is dominated by corporate interests and is unresponsive to the demands of the working and middle classes.

Instead, according to Rhodes,

theres a decent case to be made that many Democratic elected officials are indeed representing their working- and middle-class constituents by taking moderately liberal positions on most economic issues.

Interestingly, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party faces another challenge from an unexpected source.

Go here to see the original:
Bernie Sanders Only Had Eyes for One Wing of the Democratic Party - The New York Times

Former Vice President Joe Biden talks to the media as he leaves a polling station after a visit on the day of the New Hampshire presidential primary in Manchester, N.H., February 11, 2020. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)Over and over, they are boxed in by their own believe all women standard. Its clear they never believed in it in the first place.

They never learn, do they? Democrats and their pundit class have a long habit of promoting standards for others that their own side cant abide living under. Somehow, they make arguments year in and year out that come back to bite them, and they never pick up on the slightest clue that this will, predictably, happen again.

So it is now that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has been accused by a woman who worked for him in the early 1990s of sexually assaulting her. If we apply the standards that Republicans and conservatives have advocated for these kinds of things, the question we would ask right now is whether the evidence shows the allegation to be credible. We can return to that another day. Because under the Believe All Women standard promoted by Democrats, liberals, and progressives, Biden should be simply assumed to be guilty. Case closed. David Harsanyi has a selection of those arguments from the Kavanaugh hearings, including from Biden himself.

The examples he lists are not hyperbole; they are what Democrats argued with straight faces as recently as a year and a half ago. They made those arguments loudly, insistently, repeatedly, emotionally, sometimes with tears in their eyes and voices quivering with rage. They argued them in congressional hearings and on the campaign trail, tweeted them and memed them. And those Democrats who even bother to notice Tara Reades allegations against Biden will now be forced to explain that they never really meant any of it. To all of them, I now say: Not only did we warn you and warn you and warn you that this exact thing would happen to you sooner or later (and probably sooner), but it has happened to you before and you learned absolutely nothing from it.

Those of you old enough to remember the Clarence Thomas hearings will recall that a major part of the argument for believing Anita Hills sexual-harassment charges against Thomas was this same line of reasoning. We were told that men just dont get it and cannot and should not attempt to evaluate the facts and testimony to judge whether Hill was telling the truth. This you-must-believe, you-may-not-question stance became a centerpiece of the Democrats 1992 Year of the Woman Senate campaigns. There were reasons that they took this tack: Polls at the time by Gallup and the New York Times/CBS News showed that more voters believed Thomas than Hill, and voters throughout the hearings favored his confirmation by a two-to-one margin. The cleanest way to avoid discussion of the credibility of your witnesses is to argue that their credibility is irrelevant.

This happens nowhere else in politics or the law. We should, of course, listen to every accuser who comes forward with a claim of sexual assault or abuse, and too often as a society we have failed to do so. We should listen to Reade, just as we should listen to the women who have made accusations against Donald Trump and other political figures of both parties. But in any accusation of misconduct (sexual or otherwise), what matters most is whether it is true or not. In the civil and criminal law, that means we have the protections of due process. In politics, it sometimes means making judgments about the facts without the benefit of a legal proceeding. But the duty to take the truth seriously and apply our common sense in finding the truth is no less important.

Lots of people on the right argued at the time that the thou shalt not question Anita Hill edict was an insane standard that would sting the Democrats at the next opportunity. Democrats, recklessly disregarding all these warnings, not only persisted in making the argument but also went ahead and nominated a notorious Lothario for president in 1992. Predictably enough, early in Bill Clintons presidential term, he was sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones, a former subordinate in Arkansas. Kathleen Willey, a Democratic supporter of Clintons, accused him of groping her in the Oval Office. He was also accused, by Juanita Broaddrick, of rape.

The Paula Jones case eventually expanded to questions of Clintons other workplace sexcapades, thanks to the liberal discovery rules of civil litigation. That, in turn, led to the referral of the Monica Lewinsky affair to yet another liberal innovation the independent counsel. The independent counsel was, itself, a Carter-era Democratic creation. In 1988, Justice Antonin Scalia tried to warn liberals of precisely why it was dangerous, with its presumption in favor of launching unaccountable investigations. Not one of these events dented the absolute certainty of liberal pundits and Democratic politicians in making deeply illiberal arguments, so long as the targets were Republicans. All of them were shocked when their own rules were forced on them during the Clinton presidency. The believe all women standards went quiet for a long time, workplace sexual harassment was shrugged off as compartmentalized from Clintons presidency, and the independent-counsel statute was allowed to expire by bipartisan consent in 1999.

But in the long term, Democrats learned nothing. When presented with the chance to play the credibility-of-the-accuser-doesnt-matter card in pursuit of Kavanaugh, they took the same absolutist position all over again. It didnt take long to blow up in their faces, as the thirst for corroborating allegations brought out people such as the bottom-feeding attorney Michael Avenatti to push ludicrous gang-rape charges against Kavanaugh that just proved his defenders point. Boxed in by their own standards, Democratic senators actually read Avenattis nonsense into the Senate record during the hearings. Republicans and conservatives warned them that they would regret these standards the next time charges were leveled against one of their own. It didnt take long, as two women came forward to publicly accuse Virginia lieutenant governor Justin Fairfax of rape in mid-2019. Fairfax is still in office, and he plans to run for governor, and his party may well fall in line behind him. Now an accusation has been raised against the partys presumptive presidential nominee.

Will Democrats learn their lesson this time? Dont bet on it.

See more here:
Joe Biden, Democrats, and Sexual Assault: They Never Learn - National Review

The question of whether state lawmakers needed to appear in person at the Colorado Capitol Monday to extend a pause in the lawmaking term because of the new coronavirus opened a rare public rift between Democrats in the Colorado House and Senate.

The situation highlights just how much pressure the disease is putting on the legislature and how much of a threat it is to Democrats policy agenda. Lawmakers had a tentative, bipartisan plan to avoid gathering and extend the legislative recess until April, but that fell apart on Sunday afternoon.

Instead a handful of legislators gathered at the Capitol on Monday for a few minutes to recess until later this week.

The latest from the coronavirus outbreak in Colorado:

>> FULL COVERAGE

A letter was drafted and was set to be signed by about two-thirds of the legislature both Democrats and Republicans explaining that the General Assembly was going to continue its recess until at least April 13. But instead of returning to the Capitol to extend the pause in the legislative session as was originally thought to be necessary, lawmakers would stay home to avoid the risks posed by the disease.

A copy of the letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun, says lawmakers recognize the critical importance of protecting the health and safety of the members and staff of this body and all other persons who work at the Capitol or who seek to observe and participate in their government, by respecting and adhering to the recommendations of public health officials.

But the letter was scrapped at the behest of House Democrats in favor of a few top lawmakers returning on Monday to punt the decision on whether to extend the recess to later in the week.

Senate Democrats appear to have been mostly united behind sending a letter, rather than meeting in person

I think its irresponsible for us to go in tomorrow, and I think we should follow the example we want to set for everybody, Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat who was at the Capitol Monday, said in an interview late Sunday.

On the other side is House Speaker KC Becker, a fellow Boulder Democrat, who said the best option was for a brief return to the Capitol on Monday. She worried that using a letter to extend the recess might not be legal. Returning, she said, is the safest course of action right now.

Becker was marked excused on Monday during the Houses minutes-long gathering. A spokesman for Becker said House leaders wanted to limit the session to as few people as possible. House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, a Denver Democrat who lives a mile away, was designated to handle the quick proceedings.

The Senate appeared to gather for even less time.

Both chambers adjourned for three days, until Thursday, the longest period for which they are allowed to temporarily recess without a quorum and a vote. Both Senate and House Democrats urged their members not to show up for safety reasons.

Only nine lawmakers were in the 65-person House Monday morning. So few senators showed up that Senate President Leroy Garcia, D-Pueblo, didnt even bother to take a count to see if there were enough lawmakers present to proceed with business.

Gov. Jared Polis has ordered people to stay home until at least April 11 to slow the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus which has killed nearly 50 Coloradans and sickened at least 2,300 more. The legislature is exempt from the order.

The General Assembly shut down on March 14 for two weeks because of the disease with the hope of returning on Monday. But with the viral outbreak only worsening since then, lawmakers couldnt safely resume their business.

The idea behind the letter was to allow lawmakers to return the week after Polis stay-at-home directive expired. Many preferred sending the letter because it allowed everyone to stay home, including nonpartisan staffers and the legislative leadership who had to quickly clock in and clock back out again.

And while the Office of Legislative Legal Services, the legislatures attorneys, feels sending the letter to extend the recess likely was legally sound, it wasnt willing to call it bulletproof.

There is a risk that someone may challenge the constitutionality of any legislation adopted following the return of the legislature, the office wrote in an opinion.

Meanwhile, the legislature is waiting for the Colorado Supreme Court to make a decision on whether it can extend the lawmaking term beyond May 6, the day lawmakers were originally supposed to adjourn. Becker said she is hopeful that ruling will come in the next few days and by Thursday they will have a better picture of how to proceed.

We just need to wait to hear from the Supreme Court, she said. I want to spend our time figuring out how were going to move forward as a legislature for the next several months. This is just a disagreement in how you effectuate that.

Becker called the clock-in-clock-out approach, which required just legislative leadership and nonpartisan staff, a middle ground between the letter and a push from some in her caucus to return to vote in person to extend the lawmaking pause. The vote would have required at least 33 members of the House and 18 members of the Senate to show up at the Capitol.

Plans were underway last week to make that happen, beginning by choosing the least vulnerable lawmakers to come into the building. One legislator state Sen. Jim Smallwood, a Parker Republican has tested positive for the coronavirus, but is recovering after experiencing only mild symptoms.

Becker said there was never a deal to go with the letter, but that she understands the position of those who didnt want to return to the Capitol. I think thats a very fair position to have and I totally get it, she said. What weve put forward doesnt require any other members to come into the chamber.

Fenberg was emphatic about the danger of gathering. I dont think we should be going into the Capitol, he said. It puts us at risk. It puts our communities at risk when we go back. It puts our staff at risk.

Want exclusive political news and insights first? Subscribe to The Unaffiliated, the political newsletter from The Colorado Sun. Join now or upgrade your membership.

Democratic Sens. Julie Gonzales, of Denver, and Faith Winter, of Westminster, were among those ready to sign the letter. This procedural vote could have been achieved without putting nonpartisan staff at risk, Gonzales said.

Both Winter and Gonzales did not go to the Capitol on Monday.

Senate Minority Leader Chris Holbert, a Parker Republican, said he also was ready to sign onto the letter. I thought it was a viable solution.

Holbert, the top GOP state senator, said more than half of his caucus was ready to sign the letter. He said legislative leadership has been trying to find a way to avoid making people come back to the Capitol.

He was at the Capitol on Monday morning for the brief gathering, along with a few other Senate Republicans.

There are some folks who really feel the responsibility to be there, Holbert said. They were elected and we are convening so they are going to be there.

Staff writer John Frank contributed to this report.

Updated at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, March 30, 2020: This story has been updated to reflect the Colorado House and Senate met briefly on Monday morning to recess until later in the week. House Speaker KC Becker, D-Boulder, was marked excused.

Original post:
Democrats in the Colorado legislature jostle over whether they must return to the Capitol to continue their coronavirus pause - The Colorado Sun