Mediaboss Marketing

In 2019, when more than two dozen Democrats were vying for the partys presidential nomination, they all seemed to agree on one thing: They opposed former President Donald Trumps draconian immigration policies. Beyond that, though, it got messy. One camp of more progressive Democrats, helmed by former San Antonio mayor and housing secretary Julin Castro, advocated for repealing a law that makes unauthorized border crossings a crime. Other candidates expressed unease with the idea, raising concerns about what that would mean for human traffickers or drug smugglers crossing the border.

But the fact that Democratic presidential candidates were discussing decriminalizing border crossings still represented a significant break. Over the years, Democrats have moved to the left on immigration, and Democratic voters now hold more progressive views on immigration than both their Republican equivalents and one-time Democratic Party leaders like former President Barack Obama. But as the 2019 presidential primary debate shows, theres still a lot of debate in the party on just how far left to go. Democratic strategists and immigration experts Ive talked to say its hard to understand why immigration remains such an issue for Democrats without first factoring in how the partys relationship to immigration has changed and what that has meant for competing factions within the party. Understanding these trends also helps explain why Democrats dont really campaign on immigration, and why this makes President Bidens decision about how to address the current increase of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border an even more complicated situation for a party that doesnt want to risk its congressional majority next year.

Today, its easy to lump the Democrats into two camps: moderate and progressive. But it wasnt always so straightforward. Back in the 1980s and 90s, when the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. began to tick up, there were two main schools of thought in the Democratic Party regarding immigration: A civil rights wing aimed at advancing equal opportunity in housing, education and voting rights and, as such, was pro-immigration, and a dueling labor wing that was wary or even hostile toward immigrants whom they worried would replace union workers or undermine working conditions.

But immigration wasnt the polarizing issue it is today, so it wasnt a big talking point among Democrats. (The partys 1984 platform didnt even include a section on immigration.) Republicans, however, were talking about immigration more and started to push for stricter immigration measures, including building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. This, coupled with an effort to crack down on crime, created a dynamic where the GOP was perceived as the party that was tough on crime, while Democrats were depicted as soft on crime.

That changed for Democrats, though, with the election of President Bill Clinton, who ran on a pro-law enforcement platform and criticized his opponent, George H.W. Bush, for cutting local law enforcement aid during his tenure. (Clinton doubled down on this approach, later running on a reelection platform that said, We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it.) And it was under Clinton that the law that in essence created the immigration enforcement system as we know it today was passed. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act authorized greater resources for border enforcement, added penalties for undocumented immigrants who committed a crime in the U.S., and placed the onus on asylum seekers to provide the documentation needed to support their applications.

In many ways, Democrats decision to get tough on immigration was part of a larger effort to push tougher law enforcement policies. In this same period, Clinton also signed into law the 1996 welfare reform act, which he said would end welfare as we know it and made assistance far more temporary and dependent on employment. There was also the now-infamous 1994 crime bill, which accelerated mass incarceration in the U.S.

Cristobal Ramn, an independent immigration policy consultant, told me that Democrats have gradually moved on from these positions, but stressed how interconnected the laws from then were. The dominant political view, Ramn told me was, that deterrence was the only way to stop violations of the law, including the nations immigration laws. But these laws have left Democrats with an uncomfortable legacy, as they disproportionately affected and criminalized people of color.

In the early 2000s, though, a few things shifted in the Democratic Party. For starters, the share of the partys voters expressing concern about immigrants and refugees entering the U.S. dipped after the number of migrants entering the U.S. declined substantially. Plus, tough on crime policies were expensive and their impact was minimal.

As time went on, the older divides in the party fell away. While there were still some concerns among Democrats about the impact of immigration on the American worker, the pro-union wing of the party became more pro-immigrant after mounting pressure from other unions, in particular service-worker unions, many of whose members are Hispanic. The AFL-CIO also reversed its anti-immigrant positions, calling in 2000 for undocumented immigrants to be granted citizenship. Another major development during the latter part of this decade was an omnibus immigration reform bill Republicans pushed through Congress in 2006, which didnt become law, but would have emphasized border security and raised penalties for illegal immigration.

This is also when Republican and Democratic voters began to dramatically split on immigration, according to polling from the Pew Research Center. In the mid-2000s, the two parties were pretty close in their views. When asked in 2003 if immigrants make the country stronger, 47 percent of Democrats and people who lean Democratic and 46 percent of Republicans and people who lean Republicans agreed. Now, though, nearly 90 percent of Democrats feel that way compared to just 40 percent of Republicans.

But despite this seismic move to the left on immigration, there are still important divisions within the Democratic Party, many of which have roots in the partys past. The two major camps we see elected officials fall into today are the establishment, pro-immigrant wing, which tends to include moderate Democrats, including those who hail from purple districts and/or live along the U.S.-Mexico border and the progressive wing, which includes members who generally see the Democratic Party as too centrist and too cautious.

There is one thing both wings seem to be united on, though: advancing the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which lets undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children apply for renewable work permits and avoid deportation. Theres been some movement on this program as of late: All House Democrats plus nine Republicans voted in favor of the Dream and Promise Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. (Its less clear how the bill will fare in the Senate.)

But thats about all the two wings have in common. The establishment, pro-immigrant wing of the party tends to approach immigration from a more economic-based lens, according to Veronica Vargas Stidvent, executive director of the University of Texas at Austins Center for Women in Law and former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Labor. This wing is more likely to be more concerned about the impact of immigrants on the American worker and support limited deportation for certain immigrants (like those in the U.S. without documentation who have committed a crime).

Many elected officials who fall into this group are making tough political calculations. For some (think members like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California liberal who has been pro-immigration crackdowns), the fact that they fall in this wing of the party is more a reflection of their moderate politics. But for other members hailing from districts that arent as Democratic, and from states where migrant influxes are more pronounced and Latino voters have shown some signs of moving toward the GOP the fact they fall in this wing is more a reflection of their political reality.

Those who live closest to the U.S.-Mexico border most directly experience the disruptions of unauthorized immigration. As a result, the politics around immigration are complicated. Many Texas Latinos, for example, embrace enforcement-minded views on immigration, even if they also empathize with the migrants. Democrats in this camp are unlikely to support broad overhauls of the immigration system for fear of being alienated from their constituencies. Going too far on immigration reform can also mean theyre depicted as supporting open borders, a phrase that has become a right-wing talking point.

Members of the progressive wing, meanwhile, do want a more humanitarian-based immigration system focused less on border enforcement. Many want to abolish or dramatically restructure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement a rallying cry that became popular among some Democrats amid some of Trumps most stringent immigration policies and they want the federal government to stop deporting immigrants. They also want to broaden immigrants access to social safety net programs.

Democrats remain at odds over how best to move forward. Bidens approach has so far been to roll back what Trump did, but he is ultimately going to have to pick a side within his party or work toward some sort of compromise. That wont be easy, though, especially when it comes to handling the current issue at the border. For starters, hed likely need Republican support to get anything immigration-related passed (budget reconciliation might not be an option, given parliamentarian rules, unless immigration measures are tacked onto another bill) and the GOP doesnt look likely to cooperate with Democrats.

Plus, whatever action Biden does take risks angering one of the aforementioned wings of his party. If he moves too far left, he risks losing moderate voters, but at the same time, if he doesnt move left enough, he risks breaking his promise of a fair and humane immigration overhaul.

Immigration also presents a broader electoral challenge for Biden. While he gets high marks on his overall job as president, handling of the economy and COVID-19 pandemic, according to a mid-March CBS/YouGov poll, only 52 percent of U.S. adults approve of the way he is handling immigration, among the lowest of the issues YouGov polled.

Anytime you have competing factions, it can do one of two things: push people to the middle to find compromise or result in a stalemate, Stidvent said. And ultimately, as Stidvent cautioned, a Democratic Party that is divided on how best to handle immigration doesnt help either party. That said, it wouldnt be completely surprising if some of the more moderate Democrats did propose some type of compromise with Republicans. (House Democrats passed two bills earlier this year that would offer legal protections for millions of undocumented immigrants, including DACA recipients, and Senate Democrats, hamstrung by the filibuster, might have to find middle ground on Republicans demands for more border enforcement if they want their bills to get to Bidens desk.) But with the current makeup of Congress and the drastically opposing views on immigration reform both within and between the parties, any type of comprehensive immigration reform will be tricky.

See the rest here:
How Democrats Became Stuck On Immigration - FiveThirtyEight

The Democrats currently control the House, Senate, and White House for the first time in more than ten years. That enviable position, which came to them after unexpectedly winning two Senate runoffs in January, has allowed them to pass President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion recovery and stimulus plan and to tee up another package of up to $4 trillion of investments in green energy and other priorities.

Democrats with unified control of government, a popular new president, and passing ambitious agenda items aimed at making a green recovery from a deep recession sound familiar?

This is almost exactly the situation former president Barack Obama enjoyed in 2009-2010. But the rest of the decade was largely disappointing for Democrats. Though Obama was reelected in 2012, the party lost the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, as well as 958 state legislative seats over the course of Obama's presidency. Donald Trump's win in 2016 and Republicans' capture of the House and Senate capped off this dismal period of Democratic decline.

As in 2010, Democrats today face several converging threats to their ability to hold on to power. Unlike a decade ago, the party can see them coming, but internal disagreements and the persistence of the Senate filibuster may make it hard for Democrats to head off a loss of power, even though they currently control Washington.

So what is it that they are worried about?

To start with, the party in power almost always pays a price in its first midterms. This is as close to an iron law as exists in US politics. The only two presidents to break it did so amid seismic political events: Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 at the height of the Great Depression, and George W. Bush in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks.

What's more, Republicans at the state level have embraced voter suppression as a political tactic. In more than a dozen states under unified GOP control, legislators are considering measures to restrict access to voting. Most of these measures will disproportionately hurt the access of Democratic constituencies Black people, young people, and the poor to the ballot.These efforts are directly connected to Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and they're popular with the GOP base.

Back in DC, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is once again reviewing the Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation that offers broad protections for people's right to vote.. In Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, the court effectively overturned the act's Section 5. A case the court heard in early March could overturn Section 2, which allows legal challenges to voting rules on the basis of discriminatory impact. Challenges under Section 2 were crucial to Democrats' legal efforts to contest restrictive voting rules in the runup to the 2020 election.

Democrats are also expected to lose out in the US's once-a-decade redistricting process, which determines the map of congressional districts. After huge Republican gains in state legislatures in the 2010 cycle, the GOP was able to draw favorable districts in key states, ensuring an advantage in Congress even in states where the partisan split was relatively even. Ahead of the 2020 cycle, Democrats identified this as a problem, but efforts to flip state legislative chambers last year mostly failed. As a result, Republicans will once again draw the borders for many more congressional districts that will take effect in 2022: 181, versus only 53 for the Democrats.

Finally, Democrats have seen their demographic hopes thrown into question by the 2020 election. For years, Democrats had seen the US's changing demographics as a key advantage, reasoning they stood to benefit as the country became less white. But Trump, despite his frequent use of racially incendiary rhetoric, actually improved his position in 2020 with Black men (+6 percent), Hispanics (+4 percent), and Asian Americans (+7 percent) versus his 2016 performance, likely a result of a strong economy that ran closer to full employment than the US has in decades (until the coronavirus hit). That means that Democrats can't necessarily count on demographic change to inexorably shift big states like Texas into their camp.

The Democrats aren't asleep at the wheel, of course. House Democrats have passed two pieces of legislation that could address some of these problems: HR.1, which sets minimum voting standards for states, and HR.4, which strengthens the Voting Rights Act. But Republicans are universally opposed to both, so neither can pass the Senate's 60-vote filibuster threshold for most legislation.

That has strengthened calls for Democrats to reform or abolish the filibuster. Several Democratic senators have expressed a willingness to do so in recent weeks, but a critical group of moderate Democrats continues to defend the 60-vote requirement. One potential compromise could be a carveout from the filibuster for civil and voting rights legislation, but even that solution doesn't yet have the universal support it would need among Senate Democrats. Moderates especially those from states that voted for Trump face very different political incentives than their colleagues from safe Democratic districts, with their political futures dependent on their ability to distinguish themselves from the unpopular brand of the national Democratic Party. That gives them little incentive to support voting reforms that the GOP is already attacking as a nationalization of voting that opens the door to fraud.

In the meantime, Democrats' sense of impending doom is pushing them to do as much as they can, as quickly as they can, trying to make as much policy as possible before they lose power. Democrats know that unless they can resolve the contradictions between the political incentives of moderates and progressives, they may be doomed to see history repeat itself.

Jeffrey Wright is Analyst, United States at Eurasia Group.

View original post here:
The Democrats run Washington so what are they scared of? - GZERO Media

Democrats got off track around 1967, when Lyndon Johnson, who was well on the way to becoming a second FDR, blew it all on Vietnam. He also sought to go FDR one better by getting serious about racial justice.

But that led to the infamous white backlash, as exploited by Nixons Southern strategy of coded racism. On both issues, Democrats splintered, and its been downhill ever since.

Under Carter, Clinton, and Obama, Democrats sought to recoup by becoming a Wall Street neoliberal party that was liberal-ish on social issues. That demolished any prospects of reviving a multiracial coalition based on common pocketbook interests. And so we got the Tea Parties and then Trump.

More from Robert Kuttner

Now, something unexpected and miraculous is happening. Joe Biden, the most centrist of the 2020 Democratic field, is governing as if he were FDR.

The Democrats are Democrats again. On pocketbook help for struggling people. On public investment, big-time. On using public debt for public purposes. On taxing the rich. On backing the labor movement. Biden is taking risks to be a racial progressive. He is beginning to rein in corporate abuses. He has even defined infrastructure as not just bricks, mortar, and steel, but as caring infrastructure.

That model was there all along, waiting to be revived. But Bidens three Democratic predecessors dismissed it and evaded it.

We can speculate on why Biden chose this path. Was it the pandemic? Was it Trump? Did the moment help him discover his inner progressive, which was hidden there all along?

The point is that he did it. And it is popular.

And Biden, unlike FDR and LBJ, is doing it with the slimmest of legislative majorities. But as Lincoln famously said, Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.

And of course, public sentiment is not static. Success builds on success.

Now, we can depress ourselves with all the ways this could come off the rails.

The Democrats could lose their nerve on using budget reconciliation to pass all major economic legislation with a simple majority. Joe Manchin could continue to play the role of dog in the manger, and resist breaking the filibuster on other urgent legislation like voting rights. A Democratic senator could die, leaving Republicans to take back the Senate.

But remember, this wasnt supposed to happen at all. Dems were not supposed to take back the Senate, and Biden was not supposed to be a progressive.

So for now, let us relish the moment and work to maximize it. I am not especially religious, but I am reminded of my favorite Jewish prayer, the Shehecheyanu, which gives thanks to the Almighty for allowing us to reach this day.

Go here to read the rest:
The Moment When Democrats Recovered Their Soul - The American Prospect

Heres what you need to know:Representative Tom Suozzi, Democrat of New York, warned that he would not support the presidents spending plan unless it eliminated a rule that prevents taxpayers from deducting more than $10,000 in local and state taxes from their federal income taxes.Credit...Cheriss May/Getty Images

Senior Democrats on Monday proposed a tax increase that could partly finance President Bidens plans to pour trillions of dollars into infrastructure and other new government programs, as party leaders weighed an aggressive strategy to force his spending proposals through Congress over unified Republican opposition.

The moves were the start of a complex effort by Mr. Bidens allies on Capitol Hill to pave the way for another huge tranche of federal spending after the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that was enacted this month. The president is set to announce this week the details of his budget, including his much-anticipated infrastructure plan.

He is scheduled to travel to Pittsburgh on Wednesday to describe the first half of a Build Back Better proposal that aides say will include a total of $3 trillion in new spending and up to an additional $1 trillion in tax credits and other incentives.

Yet with Republicans showing early opposition to such a large plan and some Democrats resisting key details, the proposals will be more difficult to enact than the pandemic aid package, which Democrats muscled through the House and Senate on party-line votes.

In the House, where Mr. Biden can currently afford to lose only three votes (not eight votes, as an earlier post said), Representative Tom Suozzi, Democrat of New York, warned that he would not support the presidents plan unless it eliminated a rule that prevents taxpayers from deducting more than $10,000 in local and state taxes from their federal income taxes. He is one of a handful of House Democrats who are calling on the president to repeal the provision.

And in the Senate, where most major legislation requires 60 votes to advance, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, was exploring an unusual maneuver that could allow Democrats to once again use reconciliation the fast-track budget process they used for the stimulus plan to steer his spending plans through Congress in the next few months even if Republicans are unanimously opposed.

While an aide to Mr. Schumer said a final decision had not been made to pursue such a strategy, the prospect, discussed on the condition of anonymity, underscored the lengths to which Democrats were willing to go to push through Mr. Bidens agenda.

The presidents initiatives will feature money for traditional infrastructure projects like rebuilding roads, bridges and water systems; spending to advance a transition to a lower-carbon energy system, like electric vehicle charging stations and the construction of energy-efficient buildings; investments in emerging industries like advanced batteries; education efforts like free community college and universal prekindergarten; and measures to help women work and earn more, like increased support for child care.

The proposals are expected to be partly offset by a wide range of tax increases on corporations and high earners.

The Biden administration announced a plan on Monday to vastly expand the use of offshore wind power along the East Coast, aiming to tap a potentially huge source of renewable energy that has so far struggled to gain a foothold in the United States.

The plan would designate an area between Long Island and New Jersey as a priority offshore wind zone and sets a goal of installing 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind turbines in coastal waters nationwide by 2030, generating enough clean electricity to power 10 million homes. To help meet that target, the administration said it would accelerate permitting for proposed wind projects off the Atlantic coast, offer $3 billion in federal loan guarantees for offshore wind projects and upgrade the nations ports to support wind construction.

The White House said on Monday that the plan would avoid 78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

The moves come as President Biden prepares an approximately $3 trillion economic recovery plan that will focus heavily on infrastructure to tackle climate change, an effort he has framed as a jobs initiative. Officials made a similar case on Monday, saying offshore wind deployment would directly create 44,000 new jobs, such as building and installing turbines, and indirectly create another 33,000.

The president recognizes that a thriving offshore wind industry will drive new jobs and economic opportunity up and down the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico and in Pacific waters, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said during a briefing on Monday.

Republicans said they were skeptical of Mr. Bidens promise of millions of green jobs. They have criticized his earlier moves to suspend new oil and gas leases and revoke permits for the Keystone XL pipeline as responsible for killing well-paying jobs in their states.

Gina McCarthy, the White House national climate adviser, called offshore wind a new, untapped industry that will create pathways to the middle class for people from all backgrounds.

Last month, the Biden administration took a key step in approving the nations first large-scale offshore wind farm, off the coast of Marthas Vineyard in Massachusetts a project that had stagnated under the Trump administration. The proposal for 84 large turbines with 800 megawatts of electric generating capacity is slated to come online by 2023.

Vineyard Wind is one of 13 offshore wind projects proposed along the East Coast, and the Interior Department has estimated that as many as 2,000 turbines could be rotating in the Atlantic Ocean by 2030.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

President Biden, charged as vice president under President Barack Obama to oversee the implementation of the 2009 stimulus bill, is preparing a new, vastly larger, economic recovery plan that would once again unite the goals of fighting climate change and restoring the economy.

While clean energy spending was just a fraction of the Obama stimulus bill, Mr. Biden wants to make it the centerpiece of his proposal for trillions of dollars not billions of government grants, loans, and tax incentives to spark renewable power, energy efficiency and electric car production.

Mr. Bidens plan, for example, is expected to call for funding at least half a million electric vehicle charging stations.

But the failures of the Obama stimulus and Mr. Bidens role in them he oversaw Recovery Act spending could haunt the plan as it makes its way through Congress. The risk to taxpayers could be much higher this time around, and Republicans for years have proven adept at citing Solyndra a solar panel company that went defunct after securing federal subsidies to criticize federal spending.

Mr. Bidens advisers, many of whom worked on the Obama stimulus, say the situation is very different this time around.

For one, the market demand for electric vehicles is much higher, and the cost of the cars much lower than in 2009, the year after Tesla Motors produced its first roadster. Solar power is more economically competitive. The use of wind power is expanding rapidly.

You have to step up to the plate and take a swing in order to hit the ball, and sometimes you swing and you miss, said Jennifer Granholm, the energy secretary, who served as governor of Michigan during the Obama years.

Advisers to Mr. Obama concede they fell short, especially on electric cars. The recovery act was supposed to put a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015, but mustered fewer than 200,000. Even today, fewer than 1 percent of vehicles on the road are electric.

Republicans are already weaponizing the losses of the Obama green stimulus in their political attacks against the Biden plan.

The Obama administration promised thousands of green energy jobs, said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee. These jobs never materialized.

Most economists say that, on balance, the Obama green stimulus spending did lift the economy, and had a long-lasting impact. Clean energy spending created nearly a million jobs between 2013 and 2017, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

It also made money for taxpayers: The Energy Departments loan guarantee program ultimately made $2 billion.

That is why Democrats say that one of the biggest lessons from the Obama stimulus is to go bigger much bigger.

One element of the spending in Mr. Bidens bill that was not in the Obama plan could draw bipartisan support: Mr. Biden has spoken explicitly of the need to adapt the nations roads and bridges to a changing climate, which will bring stronger storms, higher floods and more intense heat and drought.

In a series of speeches, interviews and Twitter posts, Mike Pompeo is emerging as the most outspoken critic of President Biden among former top Trump officials. And much as the former Trump secretary of state did when in office, he is ignoring the custom that current and former secretaries of state avoid the appearance of political partisanship.

In back-to-back appearances in Iowa and during an interview in New Hampshire over the past week, Mr. Pompeo questioned the Biden administrations resolve toward China. In Iowa, he accused the White House of reversing the Trump administrations immigration policy willy-nilly and without any thought. He derided Mr. Biden for referring to notes during his first formal news conference on Thursday.

Whats great about not being the secretary of state anymore is I can say things that when I was a diplomat I couldnt say, Mr. Pompeo said the next morning, to a small crowd at the Westside Conservative Club near Des Moines.

It seems clear that Mr. Pompeo, a onetime Republican congressman from Kansas, is animated not just by freedom but also by a drive for high elective office long evident to friends and foes. His appearances in a pair of presidential battleground states only seem to confirm his widely assumed interest in a 2024 presidential campaign.

Usually former presidents and secretaries of state try not to quickly trash their successors especially in foreign policy, said Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian. He said Mr. Pompeo probably believes he is demonstrating his Trumpiness by castigating the performance of the newly installed President Biden.

Last week, Mr. Pompeo tweeted that the Biden administrations plans to restart aid to the Palestinians canceled under Mr. Trump were immoral and would support terrorist activity. Americans and Israelis should be outraged by the Biden administrations plans to do so, Mr. Pompeo wrote.

But his commentary goes beyond foreign policy. Mr. Pompeo has also condemned Mr. Bidens backward open border policies. And on March 19, he simply tweeted the number 1,327 an apparent reference to the number of days until the 2024 election.

There is little sign that Mr. Pompeos criticism has struck a nerve among Biden officials and their allies. Asked about the remarks last month, a State Department spokesman, Ned Price, declined to respond directly but said the Biden and Trump administrations shared the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

No one cares, Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser to President Barack Obama, tweeted in response to a recent news report about a Pompeo critique of Mr. Bidens policies.

Kelly Tshibaka, an Alaska Republican who promoted former President Donald J. Trumps false claims of rampant election fraud, announced Monday that she would challenge Senator Lisa Murkowski, one of Mr. Trumps fiercest Republican critics, in 2022.

Ms. Murkowski, a moderate who called on Mr. Trump to resign after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and then voted to convict him on a charge of incitement in his subsequent impeachment trial, had expected a fight after the former president called her disloyal and invited challengers.

Ms. Tshibaka who is from Alaska, served as the chief data officer in the U.S. Postal Service inspector generals office, and held other high-profile jobs over a 17-year career in Washington before returning home in 2019 is pitching herself as an outsider taking on the insider, Ms. Murkowski.

In a preview of the kind of campaign she intends to run, Ms. Tshibaka posted a five-minute ad on her campaigns Facebook page that included a scathing takedown of Ms. Murkowski, who was censured by the state party earlier this year for being one of seven Republicans to vote for Mr. Trumps conviction in the Senate.

Lisa Murkowski is so out of touch that she even voted to remove Donald Trump from office, even after he was already gone, Ms. Tshibaka said, in a video that alternated footage of her speaking in her kitchen with images of her standing in front of snow-blanketed mountains. (If Mr. Trump had been convicted in the trial, the Senate could have voted to bar him from running for office in the future.)

Earlier on Monday, Ms. Tshibaka stepped down as commissioner of Alaskas sprawling Department of Administration, which oversees many of the states agencies.

In a resignation letter posted on her personal Facebook page, Ms. Tshibaka wrote that she was leaving, effective immediately, to pursue other endeavors.

Last November, Ms. Tshibaka, a graduate of Harvard Law School, wrote an op-ed in which she claimed, inaccurately, that there were many credible allegations and documented incidents of fraud, voter oppression and voting irregularities during the election. She slammed the news media for what she called its premature announcement that Biden is our president-elect.

Ms. Murkowski a daughter of Frank Murkowski, who served as governor and represented Alaska in the Senate has not formally announced her intention to run again, but she filed the necessary federal paperwork this month.

Speaking to reporters in Juneau last month, Ms. Murkowski said she was doing what I should be doing to ensure that I have that option and that opportunity to run for yet another term.

Ms. Murkowski, a resourceful and tenacious campaigner, has managed to win all four of her Senate campaigns, despite never breaking the 50 percent threshold, thanks to the presence of third-party candidates who have divided the opposition.

She has faced tough primary opponents before. In 2010, she lost the Republican nomination but managed a stunning victory as a write-in candidate with strong backing from local unions and Alaska Natives.

But the dynamic will be different next year.

In 2020, Alaska voters approved a ranked-choice system that eliminated party primaries and replaced them with a free-for-all primary from which the top four candidates, whatever their affiliation, will advance to the November election.

A frustrated Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in a securities fraud class-action case against Goldman Sachs, with several justices indicating puzzlement about what they were supposed to do in light of both parties seeming to agree about the governing legal standard.

Two justices, using the same metaphor, said they saw little daylight between the two sides.

The case was brought by pension funds that said they had lost as much as $13 billion because of what they called false statements about the investment banks sales of complex debt instruments before the 2008 financial crisis.

The contested statements were abstract and general. One example: Our clients interests always come first. Another: Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business.

The plaintiffs argued that those statements and others were at odds with what they said were conflicts of interest at the firm, which they accused of packaging and selling securities intended to fail even as Goldman Sachs and its favored clients bet against them. Goldman has denied deceiving investors.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, said Goldmans statements, in context, were enough to allow the case to proceed as a class action. If that decision is upheld, it would simplify future plaintiffs task in bringing class-action fraud suits.

Securities fraud cases often involve examining whether false statements caused a companys stock price to rise, but in this case, the plaintiffs argue that the statements served to keep the stock from falling, until it plummeted in 2010 on word that the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating one of the banks funds that dealt with subprime mortgages.

A lawyer for Goldman Sachs, Kannon K. Shanmugam, said the exceptionally generic and aspirational statements could not have affected its stock price, but conceded as a general matter that courts could take account of generic statements in deciding whether investors had relied on them.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the positions of the pension funds and Goldman Sachs had evolved and converged during the litigation. It seems to me that youve both moved toward the middle, she told Thomas C. Goldstein, a lawyer for the pension funds. Theyve backed off on how important they think generality is and whether it can be decided categorically. But youve also conceded that generality is relevant.

And Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested there might be nothing for the Supreme Court to do, as its main job is to announce general legal principles rather than to decide particular disputes.

This seems like an area that, the more that I read about it, he said, the less that we write, the better.

Pressure is growing on President Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to renew the thaw in relations with Cuba that began under President Barack Obama.

Mr. Biden, focused on the pandemic and its economic devastation, has said little as president about how and when he would change United States policy toward Cuba, irking some progressives and former administration officials who urge a swift return to the more accommodating policies of the last Democratic administration.

A Cuba policy shift is not currently among President Bidens top priorities, Mr. Bidens spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said earlier this month.

Theres no reason for the Biden Administration to stick with Trumps failed reversal of the Cuba opening and plenty of good reasons for the Cuban people and US interests to reopen relations ASAP, Ben Rhodes, an Obama White House official who helped negotiate a 2014 agreement with officials in Havana, wrote Monday on Twitter.

On Sunday, demonstrators in Havana demanded an end to the 60-year-old U.S. embargo on the island. Reuters reported that more than 50 small protests took place around the world, including in the United States, in an effort to press the Biden administration to act.

Earlier this month, 75 progressive congressional Democrats wrote the White House, urging Mr. Biden to use his executive authority to quickly void all of Mr. Trumps actions on Cuba especially his designation of Cuba as an official state sponsor of terrorism a few days before he left office. That reversed Mr. Obamas decision in 2015 to remove Havana from the list.

By signing a single order, you have the power to revert these regulations back to their status on the final day of the Obama-Biden administration, the members wrote.

Mr. Trump took dozens of executive actions that chilled relations between the two nations, aimed at pleasing the politically critical, conservative Cuban-American community in South Florida. His actions included a renewed ban on the importation of Cuban goods such as rum and cigars, and an order that in effect prohibited Cubans residing in the United States from sending cash remittances to their relatives back home.

During the campaign, Mr. Biden sharply criticized those executive actions, suggesting he would swiftly reverse them and arguing during the 2020 campaign that they had done nothing to advance democracy and human rights.

But his administration has done little thus far, apart from beefing up the investigation into mysterious illnesses suffered by U.S. diplomatic officials in Cuba, known as Havana syndrome.

And Ms. Psaki, when pressed, offered no timetable for any changes, telling reporters only that the White House was committed to carefully reviewing policy decisions made in the prior administration.

The Biden administration suspended a trade pact with Myanmar on Monday following one of the deadliest weekends in the country since the military ousted the civilian leadership and began a killing spree on civilians.

United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a statement that the halt on a 2013 trade agreement with the country would remain in place until a democratically elected government is restored.

The killing of peaceful protesters, students, workers, labor leaders, medics and children has shocked the conscience of the international community, Ms. Tai said in a statement. These actions are a direct assault on the countrys transition to democracy and the efforts of the Burmese people to achieve a peaceful and prosperous future.

The suspension is largely a symbolic move to condemn the violence in Myanmar, where more than 100 people were killed on Saturday during protests against the Tatmadaw, the countrys military, according to the United Nations. Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said during a briefing on Monday that the suspension would take effect immediately.

Were deeply concerned by the recent escalation of violence against peaceful protesters in Burma, Ms. Psaki said. Burmese security forces are responsible for hundreds of deaths in Burma since they perpetrated a coup on February 1st.

Myanmar, formerly Burma, is the United States 84th-largest trade partner, with the two countries exchanging $1.4 billion worth of goods during 2020. And the country was the United States 100th-largest goods export market last year, according to the Trade Representatives office.

The Treasury Department last week also announced sanctions on two miliary holding companies in Myanmar to target the economic resources of Burmas military regime.

The Tatmadaw has killed more than 420 people and assaulted, detained or tortured thousands of others since the Feb. 1 coup, according to a monitoring group.

Many of the civilians killed on Saturday were bystanders, including teenagers and a 5-year-old boy. A baby girl in Yangon, Myanmars largest city, was also struck in the eye with a rubber bullet.

Last weeks killing of children is just the most recent example of the horrific nature perpetrated by the military regime, Ms. Psaki said.

transcript

transcript

When I first started at the C.D.C. about two months ago, I made a promise to you: I would tell you the truth, even if it was not the news we wanted to hear. Now is one of those times when I have to share the truth, and I have to hope and trust you will listen. Im going to pause here. Im going to lose the script. And Im going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom. We have so much to look forward to, so much promise and potential of where we are, and so much reason for hope. But right now, Im scared. We have come such a long way: Three historic scientific breakthrough vaccines, and we are rolling them out so very fast. So Im speaking today not necessarily as your C.D.C. director, and not only as your C.D.C. director, but as a wife, as a mother, as a daughter, to ask you to just please hold on a little while longer. I so badly want to be done. I know you all so badly want to be done. We are just almost there, but not quite yet. We can change this trajectory of the pandemic, but it will take all of us recommitting to following the public health prevention strategies consistently while we work to get the American public vaccinated. We do not have the luxury of inaction. For the health of our country, we must work together now to prevent a fourth surge.

President Biden, facing a rise in coronavirus cases around the country, called on Monday for governors and mayors to reinstate mask mandates as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned of impending doom from a potential fourth surge of the pandemic.

The presidents comments came only hours after the C.D.C. director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, appeared to fight back tears as she pleaded with Americans to hold on a little while longer and continue following public health advice, like wearing masks and social distancing, to curb the viruss spread. The nation has so much reason for hope, she added.

But right now, she said, Im scared.

The back-to-back appeals reflected a growing sense of urgency among top White House officials and government scientists that the chance to conquer the pandemic, now in its second year, may slip through its grasp. According to a New York Times database, the seven-day average of new virus cases as of Sunday was about 63,000, a level comparable with late Octobers average. That was up from 54,000 a day two weeks earlier, an increase of more than 16 percent.

Public health experts say that the nation is in a race between the vaccination campaign and new, worrisome coronavirus variants, including B.1.1.7, a more transmissible and possibly more lethal version of the virus that has been spreading rapidly. While more than one in three American adults have received at least one shot and nearly one-fifth are fully vaccinated, the nation is a long way from reaching so-called herd immunity the tipping point that comes when spread of a virus begins to slow because so many people, estimated at 70 to 90 percent of the population, are immune to it.

The warnings come at the same time as some promising news: A C.D.C. report released Monday confirmed the findings of last years clinical trials that vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer were highly effective against Covid-19. The report documented that the vaccines work to prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections in real-world conditions.

The seven-day average of vaccines administered hit 2.76 million on Monday, an increase over the pace the previous week, according to data reported by the C.D.C. On Sunday alone, nearly 3.3 million people were inoculated, said Andy Slavitt, a senior White House pandemic adviser.

Mr. Biden said on Monday that the administration was taking steps to expand vaccine eligibility and access, including opening a dozen new mass vaccination centers. He directed his coronavirus response team to ensure that 90 percent of Americans would be no farther than five miles from a vaccination site by April 19.

See original here:
Democrats Weigh Strategy to Force Through Bidens Infrastructure Plan - The New York Times

The tally of signatures on recall petitions won't be complete until next month, but it's looking increasingly likely that Gov. Gavin Newsom will face a recall election.

If theres a recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom, heres how it will work.

There will be two questions on the ballot. The first will ask voters whether they want to recall Newsom. The second will ask who should succeed him if he is recalled, listing all the candidates who have qualified. Even those who vote no on the recall will be asked to vote for a replacement governor, who would take office if the recall succeeds.

That raises a tough question for Democratic leaders: Should they encourage a candidate or candidates to run to succeed Newsom, given that they dont believe he should be recalled in the first place?

One answer was put forward by Nancy Pelosi at a news conference last week: Absolutely not. If the recall election goes forward, Democrats shouldnt even think about jumping into the race, she said, but should show their support for Newsom and the party by staying out.

Thats what Newsom wants too. His backers note that he is much more popular than Gov. Gray Davis was in 2003 when he faced and lost a recall election. A poll this week by the Public Policy Institute of California showed 56% of likely voters say they would not vote to recall Newsom. The Democratic voter margin is greater in the state now than it was in 2003. Newsom is on track to win, they say, and the last thing he needs is competitors from his own party running for his job, which would give implicit permission to Democratic voters to vote yes on the recall.

But that approach call it the Pelosi approach strikes other Democrats as extraordinarily risky. What if a majority of Californians does vote to oust Newsom and then there are no Democrats on the ballot to replace him? The party could find itself without a candidate in the race for governor, and a Republican could slip into office. (Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor in a recall election with less than 50% of the vote).

Lets call that the Willie Brown argument. Brown, the former mayor of San Francisco and former speaker of the California Assembly, told Politico that the Democratic Party absolutely must offer voters an alternative to the Republican candidates who will be on the ballot. You cant take the risk of Democrats losing the governorship, he said. Youve got to literally protect it.

Story continues

So theres the conundrum. Risk having no candidate in the race? Or potentially undermine Newsom to protect the party?

Ive got a suggestion for solving this problem, but it only works if the Democrats are smart and disciplined and thats a big if.

The party should find another candidate but one who understands that his or her role is to be a second choice alternative. Once theres agreement on who that person should be, that candidate and Newsom should campaign together, almost as a ticket, pitching a unified message. And the message is: Vote against this recall, to keep Newsom in office. And then, just in case something goes wrong, vote for our alternative candidate on the second question. (Newsom, by law, may not run to succeed himself.)

The alternative candidate could be the current lieutenant governor or one of the Democrats currently hemming and hawing and hinting about running. Or someone else.

Why would they agree to do this? In part for the chance of becoming governor, but also to increase their name recognition and visibility and set themselves up for future statewide runs. Also, Newsom would be in their debt.

This plan would require discipline from all involved including voters, who would have to understand and embrace a complicated message. It would work better if other Democrats stayed out of the race. And it would require Newsom to acknowledge that his personal political future is not the only thing at risk here the entire party has an interest.

Newsoms supporters say its too complicated. The recall is confusing enough without telling people they have to vote for two different Democrats.

Its much easier to communicate 'No' than it is to communicate anything more complex than that, said Nathan Click, a spokesman for the No-on-the-Recall campaign.

Maybe so. But to rely on the assurance that Newsom has this in the bag seems, well, dangerous. What if hes caught again at the French Laundry? What if a new COVID surge hits California and hes blamed? What if Kimberly Guilfoyle writes a tell-all? What if any of a number of unanticipated events occurs, driving him suddenly down in the polls?

In 2003, top state Democrats tried to put together a pact under which no statewide elected officials would run to succeed Davis in the recall election. But it didnt work. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante broke ranks and ran and lost. Bustamante urged a no vote on the recall and a yes on his own candidacy, but he and Davis worked at cross-purposes throughout the campaign. Also, Bustamante lacked the fame and charisma of his chief opponent, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Its still a matter of dispute if Bustamantes candidacy harmed Davis or, if so, how much.

The reality is that in 110 years, only one gubernatorial recall has made it to the ballot in California and it resulted in Davis ouster. Thats not enough precedent to predict with any accuracy what the dynamics will be this time around.

I understand why Newsom wants a united front. Why wouldnt he? But theres a lot to be said also for taking the cautious, risk-averse approach and having a Democrat on the ballot. Just in case.

@Nick_Goldberg

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

See original here:
Column: Newsom's recall strategy could cost Democrats the state. Here's a better idea - Yahoo News