Mediaboss Marketing

The Democratic National Committees (DNC) flat-out rejection of anti-Israel language in the final version of its 2020 platform demonstrates that progressives should not be so quick to declare victory in the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Yes, a candidate backed by progressives toppled incumbent Rep. Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelHouse Democrats 'alarmed' by allegations about US diplomat in Brazil Democratic chairman subpoenas Pompeo for records related to Biden, Burisma Sherman joins race for House Foreign Affairs gavel MORE (D-N.Y.). Engel, the powerful chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee and a longtime supporter of Israel, will surely be missed. While this upset garnered headlines, moderates in races from coast to coast defeated an overwhelming majority of progressive insurgents. And that is a good thing for a nation that is eager to heal after years of fractious politics.

Despite the drubbing of progressive candidates, Slate magazine called Engels loss a cautionary tale for Democrats nationally. The Jerusalem Post called it a changing of the guard for Democrats. These estimations more than misread the political tea-leaves. They misrepresent reality.

As NBC points out, the vast majority of Justice Democrats who have run over the past two House cycles have lost. In 2018, Justice Democrats endorsed 65 non-incumbent candidates; only 24 survived their primaries and, in the end, just seven were elected to Congress.

The name Justice Democrats has proven to be an oxymoron. The groups strategy is divide and conquer. They single out Jews and Israel for scorn, allowing an unacceptable level of anti-Semitic rhetoric in their ranks; they seek to topple capitalism in favor of socialism.

Yes, a few progressives won high-profile races. And winning doesnt always come down to money or even the power of incumbency. As an insurgent candidate herself, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezTrump holds mini-rally at Florida airport Overnight Defense: House passes 5B Pentagon spending bill as part of broader package | One dead, eight missing after Marine Corps training accident | White House says Trump stands by controversial nominee House approves amendments to rein in federal forces in cities MORE (D-N.Y.) was dramatically outspent but still beat Rep. Joe CrowleyJoseph (Joe) CrowleyProgressive Bowman ousts Engel in New York primary How a progressive populist appears to have toppled Engel Bowman declares victory over Engel in New York primary as votes still counted MORE, a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership. Engel held similar stature and fundraising advantages over his opponent and still lost.

When progressives win, they follow a familiar playbook: They find soft targets of opportunity, like reliable but longtime incumbents who dont have social media star power and seem out of touch. Progressives win when they appeal to the changing demographics of their district. They win when they have a scapegoat, which all too often is Israel. And when they do claim a scalp, they declare victory for their movement.

But with greater regularity, progressives lose. They lose because they are on the wrong side of their electorate; their views are repudiated. Calling for economic boycotts of Israel or failing to repudiate anti-Semitic remarks do not comprise a winning strategy in a nation in which Jews play a vital role in civic and economic life.They dont win in a nation that is desperate to heal from years of division.

Nor should progressives declare victory in the presidential primaries. The darling of the Justice Democrats, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersVermont has a chance to show how bipartisanship can tackle systemic racism The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - At loggerheads, Congress, White House to let jobless payout lapse Sanders calls for the end of the filibuster following Obama's remarks MORE (I-Vt.), was defeated. He was hopelessly out of step with mainstream voters who comprise the majority of the electorate, and he had a fraught relationship with Jewish voters.

Instead, the winner was Joe Biden, who, as a senator and as vice president, went out of his way to bridge and heal Americas divides, not contribute to them.The 2020 DNC platform, with regard to Israel, is further evidence of the strength of center-left candidates and the weakness of the appeal of progressive policies to mainstream voters. In its rejection of language that would condition aid to Israel and refer to Israel as an occupier, the DNC has responded decisively to those on the radical fringe of the party.

The victorylap in this year's Democratic primaries goes to center-left candidates who stayed true to America's ideals and allies,including tolerance of Jews and support for Israel. Rumorsof the demise of such candidates, as the saying goes, are greatly exaggerated.

Jack Rosen is president of the American Jewish Congress, which advocates on behalf of American Jews and Israel through public policy, diplomatic and legislative actions.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives lost the battle for the Democratic Party's soul | TheHill - The Hill

Tom Perez, Democratic National Committee chair, speaks during an event in February in Charlotte, N.C. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

Tom Perez, Democratic National Committee chair, speaks during an event in February in Charlotte, N.C.

Updated at 7:25 p.m. ET

Democrats met remotely Monday afternoon to approve a lengthy policy platform that seeks to balance the interests of the Democratic Party's more moderate and liberal factions.

The virtual meeting came three weeks ahead of what will be one of the strangest party conventions in U.S. history: No delegates and few Democratic dignitaries will travel to Milwaukee to nominate former Vice President Joe Biden to be the party's standard-bearer. Instead, the convention will be held mostly remotely, with only Biden and a few other speakers appearing from Milwaukee.

The draft platform, released last week, draws heavily from a report issued this month by joint task forces organized by Biden and his onetime campaign rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. It tries to bridge the gap between Sanders' progressive politics and Biden's more moderate approach to governing.

Dozens of Democratic members considered amendments to the plan Monday.

They approved amended language opposing President Trump's deployment of federal agents to quell protests in Portland and other cities, as well as planks affirming support for unions, and for expanding paid sick leave. By Monday evening, the Democratic National Committee had not shared the exact language of the amendments.

The draft party document released last week endorses universal health care and makes it clear that low- or no-cost coverage for every American is the party's eventual goal. Rather than backing a single mandatory government-run health insurance program, however, it calls for adding a public option to the existing Affordable Care Act.

The platform does nod to "Medicare for All," the policy backed by Sanders, saying: "We are proud our party welcomes advocates who want to build on and strengthen the Affordable Care Act and those who support a Medicare for All approach."

The platform also sets aggressive goals for combating climate change, including making all American power plants carbon neutral by 2035 and adding 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines to the country's electricity grid within the next five years.

It also calls for a $15 minimum wage, mandatory paid family leave, more federal gun control, broad changes to federal sentencing guidelines and drug laws, and many other changes that most Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House have supported for years.

Platform committee co-chair Denis McDonough, who served as former President Barack Obama's chief of staff, called it the "boldest Democratic platform in American history."

Still, anticipating virtual floor fights and frustration from progressive activists who want the party to set an even more aggressive policy course, Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said at the top of the committee meeting that "we should never confuse unity with unanimity, nor should we confuse debate with division."

Indeed, as the platform committee meeting went on, several proposed amendments were rejected, including an attempt to shift platform language to fully support Medicare for all, and another to more forcefully condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Like most Zoom meetings in 2020, the Democrats' committee session had its buffering blips, unintentional mute moments and cross-talk.

But the Democrats' attempt to vote virtually was still more than Republicans tried: Trump and Republican Party leaders have decided to adopt the party's 2016 platform in full at their convention next month, rather than craft new language.

Read more:
What's In The Democratic Party Platform For 2020 - NPR

Mike Bloomberg, seen here speaking to supporters and staff in March in New York City, spent $1 billion of his own fortune to run for president but exited the race early on. Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Mike Bloomberg, seen here speaking to supporters and staff in March in New York City, spent $1 billion of his own fortune to run for president but exited the race early on.

Updated at 10:58 a.m. ET

When a billionaire with a history of investing generously and strategically in campaigns promised to spend whatever it takes to defeat President Trump, it made Democrats sit up and take notice.

And how did they interpret that pledge from former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg?

"It meant spending about a billion dollars," said Jim Messina, who ran President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign. "It meant making sure that Donald Trump did not have the typical incumbent advantage on finance, and it meant helping us catch up in a couple places where Trump was well ahead of us, which was digital and data."

It is the most ambitious campaign promise ever made by someone who isn't still running, and Bloomberg fully intends to fulfill it, according to former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, the national political chair of Bloomberg's short-lived primary campaign, in which the candidate spent $1 billion of his own fortune. But Nutter also says that "whatever it takes" can't be defined simply by a specific dollar amount; instead it's about how and where Bloomberg spends his money this year.

Bloomberg has already spent well over $350 million for Democrats this cycle, according to his team, including the following investments:

Altogether, it makes Bloomberg the single biggest donor to the Democrats this year, and it's having an impact on the ground, according to party strategists in battleground states.

North Carolina is one of those, and it has pretty much every political prize on the line in November with competitive contests for president, U.S. Senate, U.S. House seats, governor and control of the state Legislature, with redistricting looming next year.

"What the Bloomberg campaign did right was they put money into field organizing," said state Rep. Graig Meyer, who is in charge of fundraising and recruiting for Democratic Statehouse candidates. "And so that getting campaign operations up and running, building a volunteer base, setting up the structure for direct voter contact all of that is happening because they made that investment through the DNC."

But to give Democrats in North Carolina a real advantage, Bloomberg could do a lot more, according to Meyer.

"In no way has the Bloomberg operation put direct money into down-ticket races besides through the overall coordinated effort [with the DNC]," he said, adding, "$30 or $50 million is probably the right amount that would be a completely transformative game changer. I imagine Bloomberg could afford to do $30 to $50 million in North Carolina if he wanted to."

The Democratic leader in the North Carolina House of Representatives was even tougher on Bloomberg.

"I am the person he looked in the eye and said what he was going to do," said state Rep. Darren Jackson. "I am the person that endorsed him. And I have been the person that reached out to his campaign leadership."

Jackson said he doesn't know what Bloomberg's intentions are in North Carolina, but he adds, "I certainly hoped for help with the House caucus. We have such a once-in-a-decade opportunity. We need his help to take advantage of that. In whatever form he chooses."

In Georgia, Howard Franklin has similar expectations. He was a senior adviser in the state to Bloomberg's presidential campaign, and he is optimistic that Bloomberg will fulfill his pledge.

"I think he did set the bar high," Franklin said.

To make Georgia truly competitive, Franklin says, Bloomberg should make an eight-figure investment.

Georgia is another state with a lot at stake, as a longtime GOP stronghold that appears close at the presidential level, along with two U.S. Senate races due to a special election and competitive U.S. House races in the Atlanta suburbs. It's also felt the brunt of the two major crises of the year, the pandemic and unrest over racial justice.

There's a lot to invest in for Democrats to make the most of their opportunities in the state, according to Franklin: "I think eight figures gets you on the television in the media markets you care about. I think it puts boots on the ground. I think it gets you telephones and social media. And you know, again, with everything the country is going through and the attention that the city of Atlanta, in particular, has gotten, I just think that there isn't a better place to make the case for a more socially just and equitable approach to policing."

Bloomberg is getting pitches like that all day, every day.

Although there's no evidence yet that he is spending all that he promised, that doesn't mean Bloomberg can't or won't in the remaining days of the campaign, now fewer than 100.

Bloomberg has a history of coming in late and spending big. In 2018, he was the single biggest Democratic investor in House races, and the donations he made in September helped flip 21 red districts blue, out of 24 he invested in.

The remaining investments are "still being determined and decided and figured out" according to Nutter: "I mean, this is politics. You don't just kind of throw the money out the window and hope it lands in the right places. Mike makes strategic investments to change outcomes using data and evidence."

In the next month or so, Bloomberg's team says it will be clear how much and where he has decided to invest, and then Democrats can decide for themselves whether they think he's spending whatever it takes.

View original post here:
Bloomberg Vowed To Spend Whatever It Takes To Beat Trump. Democrats Are Still Waiting - NPR

Laura Ingraham opened Friday's edition of "The Ingraham Angle" by reflecting on a week in which it became clear "how radical and dangerous" Democrats have become.

Citing Tuesday's contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General William Barr, Ingraham claimed there is no longer even abipartisan consensus that rioting and mob violence is a bad thing and should be stopped.

The host then played clips of contentious moments and exchanges involvingBarr and committee chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., as well as Reps.Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., andDavid Cicilline, D-R.I.

At one point, Dean questioned the motives of the federal government's use of tear gas amid the Portland riots.

"I think it is very importantnonlethal option," said Barr.

"For protesters?" Dean responded.

"No, for rioters," Barr clarified. Later in the exchange, Dean accused Barr of "disrespect."

According to Ingraham, the hearing made clear that Democrats"will allow total mayhem togo unchecked and [Americans'] life's work [to be]destroyed if perpetrators areanti-Trump. If you have the right motives, theywill leave you alone."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The host then presented "another indication that theDemocrats have gone totally nuts ... their famed hyperventilation yesterday aboutTrump's tweet about mail-invoting andthis question ofdelaying the election. They all know he doesn'thave the power to do that norwas he even saying that he wouldtry to do that."

"For good reason," Ingraham explained, "the presidentbelieves that mail-invotingwould be a nightmare that wouldend up delaying election resultsfor weeks, even months.And that is what the Democratsthemselves have repeatedly said, too ...

"The Democrats aremadly pushing in mail-in votingfor one reason," Ingraham said. "They think it would help thembeat Trump.They know, and they don't evencare it can lead to fraud andcorruption."

Read the original:
Laura Ingraham looks back on the week that showed Democrats 'have gone totally nuts' - Fox News

Consider the platforms language on economic engagement with Beijing. Trump has moved to substantially decouple the worlds two largest economies. He has not only boosted tariffs on most Chinese products, but hes made it harder for American and Chinese individuals and firms to invest in each others country. Experts warn that this de-linking could leave the United States substantially poorer, and according to polls, Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it.

Thomas Wright: Pompeos surreal speeech on China

But the platform offers no positive argument for trade and investment with China. It never challenges the notionwhich Trump is making mainstream in the GOPthat the U.S. would be better if it disengaged economically from Beijing. Instead, it exaggerates the Chinese economic menace in an effort to show that Democrats will prove every bit as tough as Trump; theyll just be smarter and more multilateral about it. The platform declares that Democrats will take aggressive action against China or any other country that tries to undercut American manufacturing by manipulating their currencies. But, according to the International Monetary Fund, China isnt manipulating its currency. So Democrats are promising to take aggressive action against a problem that likely doesnt existand thus reinforcing Trumps message that Beijing is an economic menace.

In the document, Democrats promise they will rectify the damage President Trumps reckless [trade] policies have done to American farmers. But theyll do so by working with our allies to stand up to China. Working with allies is fine, but this language accepts Trumps terms of debate. For years, American farmers have benefited immensely from exporting to China. Trump disrupted that relationship by launching a ruinous trade war. Surely whats needed now isnt for Democrats to stand up to China but to cooperate with it to rebuild the economic ties on which so many American exporters depend. But when it comes to the economic relationship between Washington and Beijing, Democrats evidently deem the word cooperate to be too soft.

The Democrats response to the Trump administrations crackdown on Chinese and Chinese American students and academicsmany of whom have been barred from the U.S. or forced from their jobs in ways that evoke the McCarthy erais similarly backhanded. To its credit, the platform acknowledges that the openness of our society is a source of American strength. But it then concludes the paragraph by declaring that undermining those strengths would be a gift to the Chinese Communist Party. Even when arguing for preserving Americas openness to Chinese immigrants, students, and researchers, the manifesto justifies that openness in the language of confrontation. The document says a Cold War with China would be a trap, but, time and again, Democrats fall into that trap in their language.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats Are Allowing Trump to Frame the Debate on China - The Atlantic