Mediaboss Marketing

Despite such caps and advances in public financing long a goal of progressive activists officials with good government groups were left shaking their heads at how the commission arrived at its decisions after fractious public hearings and what they say were secret back-room negotiations.

The public hasnt seen any language. This commission has been operating largely out of sight, and it appears that the only feedback they react to is from governor and legislative leaders, said Blair Horner, the executive director of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Indeed, the commission often seemed to be changing its mind on issues mid-thought: At one point on Monday morning, the panel rejected a proposal to raise the contribution limit for races in the Assembly. Minutes later, after the arrival of one of Mr. Cuomos appointees, Mylan L. Denerstein, the commission took up the proposal again and passed it.

In one victory for small parties, the commission did not eliminate so-called fusion voting, which allows candidates to collect votes on multiple lines, including third parties, thus helping those parties meet the thresholds for staying on the ballot.

As the groups deadline approached and third parties existential anxieties peaked, Senator Chuck Schumer, along with three New York Congress members, urged the panel to leave the practice alone. Mr. Cuomo had expressed measured support as well, saying he had benefited from fusion voting, which is allowed in only a handful of other states.

Leaders of the state Conservative Party, which seemed better positioned to survive a new 2 percent threshold, nonetheless also attacked the commission, questioning its constitutional authority.

This is a classic example of government engineering a crisis and then presenting an impossibly bureaucratic solution to it on the backs of taxpayers, the party chairman, Gerard Kassar, said in a statement.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats Plan Will Suppress Third Parties in New York - The New York Times

Attorney General William Barr discussing the counting of citizens in the country and the legal issues surrounding that effort, behind him stands Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, in the Rose Garden at the White House.

Michael Brochstein | LightRocket | Getty Images

The House Oversight Committee filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross over the Trump officials' refusal to turn over documents related to the administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

"President Trump and his aides are not above the law," Committee Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "They cannot be allowed to disregard and degrade the authority of Congress to fulfill our core Constitutional legislative and oversight responsibilities."

The Supreme Court effectively killed the administration's plans to add the question in June, reasoning that the official reason provided was a pretext. The administration argued that the question was needed in order to better enforce certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

The committee's lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. and asks the court to force the two top officials to comply with congressional subpoenas. The Justice Department declined to comment.

A spokesperson for the Commerce Department said in an email that the lawsuit was "fueled by overzealous Oversight Democrats" and "lacks merit."

"Moreover, the Department of Commerce has cooperated in good faith with the Committee," the spokesperson said. The spokesperson said the department made more than 2,000 documents available to the committee and "submitted hundreds of pages of additional documents since the Supreme Court's decision."

The lawsuit follows a vote in June to hold both Barr and Ross in contempt of Congress. At the time, Barr and Ross issued a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., urging her to postpone the vote because the materials sought by the committee were protected. Trump has asserted that the documents are covered by executive privilege.

In their lawsuit, the Democrats wrote that Barr and Ross "have identified no valid privilege that would justify their refusal to comply."

"Their unlawful withholding of information is injuring the Committee in carrying out two critical constitutional functions: conducting effective oversight of the Executive Branch and its officials, who have provided false testimony to Congress and misled Congress and the American public; and determining whether legislation is necessary, potentially on an emergency basis, to ensure the integrity of the 2020 Census," they wrote.

Earlier this month, Maloney issued a memorandum to the committee that said that the panel's investigation had collected evidence that the administration "may have been trying to stop immigrants from being counted in the Census or in legislative districts, which one Republican operative concluded would be 'advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.'"

Trump backed down from his efforts to add a citizenship question to the census following the Supreme Court's decision, but said he would press on to obtain the information by other means.

During a July address, Trump said he ordered "every department and agency in the federal government to provide the Department of Commerce with all requested records regarding the number of citizens and non-citizens in our country."

"We will utilize these vast federal databases to gain a full, complete, and accurate count of the non-citizen population, including databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration," he said.

Link:
House Democrats file lawsuit against William Barr and Wilbur Ross for refusing to hand over census docs - CNBC

Scott Jennings, Opinion contributor Published 11:20 a.m. ET Nov. 26, 2019

In 2016, Donald Trumps message of busting political correctness won him the White House. Rejecting the Democratic Partys identity politics run amok was a sneaky good strategy, working like a charm among working-class voters in Americas heartland. Trump, though he had just become a Republican five minutes ago, better sensed than the partys established leaders the emotional needs of rank-and-file Republicans.

For all his faults, this is Trumps superpower sensing cultural undercurrents and reflecting the emotions of histarget audience. He often says what regular folks are thinking but dont feel they are allowed to verbalize.

Today, a great many Americans feel angst about their children inheriting a country that allows for the indiscriminate destruction of reputations via cancel culture and promotes narratives over truths in the name of political correctness. In 2020, Trump can rekindle his old strategy by giving voice to these concerns to overcome serious political headwinds.

Scott Jennings: How Beshear deals with GOP will decide if term is Kentucky Democrats' last gasp

Extreme uneasinessexists in middle America over cancel culture, the practice of journalists and woke activists unearthing old utterances of celebrities, athletes, and even some regular peoplefor the purpose of embarrassing them and ruining their lives.

Do some human beings say or tweet dumb things? Yes. Does it often happen when a person is younger, less experienced in the world and not enlightened enough to know that at some point in the future someone might find their thoughtless tweet offensive? You bet.

If theres anyone in America who could rally the canceled to his cause, it's Trump, who faces cancellation attempts every day. Heck, several Democrats have proposed taking his twitter feed for violating the platforms terms of service.

But thats the point why should we tolerate a society in which a group of inquisitors is given carte blanche to silence people they dont like, banish political thoughts that arent welcome in liberal enclavesand ruin peoples lives over things uttered years ago? Never one to eschew affiliation with the controversial, Trump is uniquely positioned to make this a voting issue in 2020.

In Washington, D.C., when a 12-year-old African American girl claimed that three white boys at her private Christian school pinned her down and shaved her dreadlocks, the media predictably fell for it hook, line and sinker, demanding answers of Vice President Mike Pences wife, Karen, who teaches at the school.

The account was too perfect for media types who crave stories confirming their own political biases: white-on-black violence, Christian school, connection to Trump. Instead of seeking the truth, however, the media just as it did with the Covington Catholic and Jussie Smollett stories was blinded by a narrative instead of approaching the fantastical claim with caution.

After a few days, the little girl confessed to making it up. I dont blame her; in America these days, a good narrative is better than the truth when you want attention. Just ask the liberal politicians seeking the Democratic nomination for president.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, for instance, falsely tweeted a debunked allegation that Michael Brown was murdered by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, never mind that President Barack Obamas Department of Justice disproved the hands up, dont shoot narrative long ago. In doing so, Warren and Harriscravenly served their political ends without regard for the societal damage done by spreading falsehoods on such tragic stories.

Scott Jennings: Trump's no angel, but liberals with their ugly threats have become what they claim to hate

Warrens use of false narrativesextends to her own origin story, which now includes multiple fabrications including that she is Native American and was once fired from a teaching job for getting pregnant. Last week, she misled a voter about sending her children to private school (she did, but claimed she didnt).

Scott Jennings, columnist(Photo: photo courtesy Scott Jennings)

Warren is not a woman of color, despite allowing employers to describe her as such, nor was she fired in the 1970s for becoming pregnant, according to recently discovered school board documents. But being a plain old white woman who declines job offers and is wealthy enough to send her kids to private school doesnt sell in todays Democratic Party, so she conjured a put-upon alter ego and rocketed to the top of the primary field.

No wonder our kids are inventing plights of their very own.

Americans are rightly worried about their children inheriting a sick culture. President Trump can jujitsu his political problems by relentlessly focusing on the need to defeat this cancer; hell get a lot of Amens in flyover country (think Pennsylvania, Michiganand Wisconsin) if he does, and no Democratic contender has the wherewithal to stop him.

Scott Jennings is a Republican adviser, CNN political commentator and partner at RunSwitch Public Relations. He can be reached at scott@RunSwitchPR.com and on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY. His firm represented Nicholas Sandmann in the aftermath of the Covington Catholic story.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2019/11/26/donald-trump-can-beat-democrats-and-their-false-narratives-race/4295360002/

View post:
Opinion: Trump can use his 'superpower' to defeat Democrats and their false narratives - Courier Journal

A top Democratic campaign consultant and former pollster for President Bill Clinton is pleading with partyleaders to abandon plans to vote on the impeachment of President Trumpor risk electoral disaster.

In an interview on "Fox and Friends" last week, Trump predicted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., would not see the impeachmentprocess through to a vote.

"No, I dont expect it,"he said at the conclusion of two weeks of impeachment hearings, "I think its very hard for them to impeach you when they have absolutely nothing."

The Hill reportedon Saturday that aHouse Democratic leadership aidecalled it fantasy land to think that there wouldn't be a vote on the House floor.

Democratic strategist Doug Schoen suggested that he hopes that the president is right.

"I am praying for censure. It canturn what could be a loss into a certain victory," he said,arguing thatPelosishould forgo impeachment and instead vote to publicly reprimand the president.

"While the Democratic electorate is almost unanimously in favor of impeachment, swing voters in swing states... are decidedly mixed, if not negative,"the polling expert explained on Fox Nation's "Deep Dive."

"And given that states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida -- ones the Democrats have to win in some combination to win the presidential election, it's hard for me to see that impeachment is anything but a very problematic issue for the party," he argued.

Paradoxically, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, who has been harshly critical of the Democrats' impeachment effort, said that he hopesthat the House votes and moves theprocess to the Senate.

"I'm praying for a trial because it will boomerang terribly on the Democrats and only ensure the president's reelection come November," said Jarrett.

"Let's start exposing some of these malignant actions by people, not just [House Intelligence Committee Chairman]Adam Schiff, and the whistleblower, but others involved in this as well," Jarrett contended. "This is the witch hunt, the sequel. And it's ten times as preposterous as the original Trump/Russian collusion hoax."

COULD PELOSI ABANDON IMPEACHMENT EFFORTS?: LEGAL ANALYST PREDICTS SHE MAY

Jarrett argued that if the Senate wereto take up a trial of the president,Republicans would be in a position to raise questions over former Vice President Joe Biden's involvementin Ukraine policy, as well as his sonHunter's work with a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian company.

'There's an old saying -- the recoil is more dangerous than the projectile. And the recoil here is Hunter Biden and Joe Biden," continued Jarrett. "Ithink the more we find out about the machinations of Hunter Biden, who appears increasingly like a prodigious grifter, this is only going to damage his father in his quest to become the next president of United States. I mean, Lindsey Graham is vowing an investigation of the activities of Hunter Biden and by implication, Joe Biden's actions in a quid pro quo."

Schoen agreed with Jarrett that Joe and Hunter Biden's behavior appeared to have been wildly inappropriate.

"The idea that Burisma,Hunter Biden and Joe Biden didn't know what was going on is ridiculous," said Schoen. "To me,Joe Biden turned the other cheek, turned the other eye,put a bag over his head, whatever. Why did he do that? He had a troubled son who landed a big, lucrative gig, and he was hoping against hope that he could skate through. Well, we're seeing now that that's not the case. I don't know that there was anything that was done that was illegal. It sure smells and it smells really bad."

Schoen concluded that his party may regret devoting so much time and energy to the impeachment process.

"I also think that we Democrats are losing a huge opportunity because on issues like gun violence prevention, climate change, health care, we have an advantage. We won the midterm elections in 2018 because of the utilization and in part of those issues. And to not take advantage of what people care about, which is real-world day to day problems of our quality of life, and instead, just keep focusing on impeachment. If I were recommending to the Democrats what to do. I'd say vote for censure, get it and move on."

To watch all of"Deep Dive"go toFox Nationand sign up today.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR A FOX NATION FREE TRIAL

Fox Nationprograms are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers.Go to Fox Nationto start a free trial and watch the extensive library from Tomi Lahren, Pete Hegseth, Abby Hornacek, Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Greg Gutfeld, Judge Andrew Napolitano and many more of your favorite Fox News personalities.

Read more here:
Top Democratic strategist pleads with party to abandon impeachment - Fox News

Pete Buttigieg launched a political action committee in June 2017 to relatively little fanfare. The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, at the time was still a minor political figure. He had made an unsuccessful run for Democratic National Committee chairman and been the subject of some positive press from national columnists, but he was little-known nationally.

His PAC, dubbed Hitting Home, would mobilize resources to elect Democrats, at every level and in communities both red and blue, who will put the lived experiences of Americans front and center, Buttigieg wrote.

We will support candidates who focus on showing voters what we are for not just what we are against and understand how to do so in terms of our everyday lives, he continued.

Two years later, as his 2020 presidential campaign began to take off, Buttigieg shut down the group. And it hadnt come close to living up to his billing of its aims.

The PAC had done relatively little to help Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections, when the party waged its hard-fought battle to win control of the U.S. House. But it had paid significant sums to a host of Democratic consultants and staffers to promote Buttigiegs image. Of the slightly more than $400,000 Buttigieg raised for the PAC, it donated just $37,000 to other Democratic candidates.

At the same time, the PAC paid nearly $70,000 to Lis Smith, who served as Buttigiegs spokesperson and became the communications director for his presidential bid. Another $27,500 went to Michael Schmuhl, who served as the PACs treasurer and is now Buttigiegs campaign manager. The PACs finance director received $34,500. A top Democratic media consulting firm was paid $28,500.

The PAC helped Buttigieg catapult from a well-credentialed mayor of a 101,000-population college town to a leading contenderfor the nations highest office. It served as a springboard that had more to do with personal promotion than it did with aiding other Democrats.

Buttigieg has now entered the top tier of Democrats seeking the presidential nomination: Polls show him doing well in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, though his weakness with voters of color means he trails the leading trio of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sandersand former Vice President Joe Biden in most national surveys.

In a statement, Buttigiegs campaign attributed the PACs low rate of support for other Democrats to a failure to raise money. Some of the PACs administrative costs were similar to those of other presidential contenders: Buttigieg spent about $77,000 on accountants, compliance and legal fees involved with setting up this group, while Bidens PAC spent about $67,000 and Harriss group spent nearly $90,000.

The committee was created before Pete was a national figure and the PAC brought in less money than envisioned, Buttigieg spokesman Sean Savett said. As a result, a higher percentage of the spending went to administrative and legal costs. As a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Pete remains committed to building the party bench and has put forward a platform that can keep the House, take back the Senate, and elect Democrats up and down the ballot when hes elected next year.

During the time the PAC was in operation, Buttigieg received glowing coverage aplenty in the national press: His wedding was written up by The New York Times, Rolling Stone profiled him and he sat for lengthy interviews with PBS and MTV.

Buttigieg seeded the PAC with money left over from his unsuccessful bid for the DNC chairmanship. Throughout the PACs existence, it was able to take in unlimited donations, including a $50,000 contribution from Christel Dehaan, a prominent Republican-turned-Democratic donor in Indiana and major backer of charter schools. (Buttigieg has called for more oversight of for-profit charter schools and suggested a pause in the expansion of charter schools.)More than a third of its funds came from either corporate donations or individual gifts above the standard federal limit.

The PAC donated between $500 and $2,000 to 23 Democrats running for federal offices, 14 of whom won their elections. Many of them, like Buttigieg, were either openly gay (now-Kansas Rep. Sharice Davids) or military veterans (Kentuckys Amy McGrath, New York Rep. Max Rose) or both (Texas Gina Ortiz Jones.) Only two were incumbents: Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly (who lost) and Iowa Rep. David Loebsack (who won).

Several of the other Democratic White House candidates who had, in virtually all cases, higher political profiles and decades to develop national fundraising bases donated far more. Warren, for instance, donated $10,000 to all 50 state Democratic parties, plus additional donations to individual candidates. California Sen. Kamala Harris PAC donated over $700,000. And Bidens PAC forked over more than $600,000 to other Democrats.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

See original here:
Pete Buttigiegs PAC Was Supposed To Help Elect Democrats. It Mostly Touted Him. - HuffPost