Mediaboss Marketing

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructiv...e war in the Middle East. Thats why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in Americas interest it has significantly rolled back Irans nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes with Iran the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why todays announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on Americas closest allies, and an agreement that our countrys leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding Americas credibility, and puts us at odds with the worlds major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So its important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Irans nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Irans nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Irans entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this wont happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But thats precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Irans destabilizing behavior and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to Americas own security; and trigger an arms race in the worlds most dangerous region. If the constraints on Irans nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

Follow this link:
Democrats - Home | Facebook

The Democrats are coming off an election in which their presidential candidate won only 487 of the nations 3,141 counties. Four years before, Barack Obama won just 689 against Mitt Romney. The party is in severe geographic retreat, and it has happened with alarming speed.

If I told you that Democrats once controlled the governors mansions in the unlikely states of Tennessee, Wyoming, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma, what year would you think I was referring to? Maybe 1987? Nope. Up through the 2010 elections, Democrats governed all these states. Likewise, the Democrats had a House majority until those elections. They controlled seats in large swaths of North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, both Dakotas, Indiana, West Virginia and Appalachian Ohio.

They held up to 257 seats in those days. They got decimated in 2010 and 2014, and maybe there just wasnt that much they could have done about it. But they could have identified some young comers from swing and heartland states and elevated them to positions of greater prominence than they did. For example, in the 114th Congress (2015-2016), the Democrats had nine leadership positions and only one was held by a representative from a state that didnt have a coastline.

And if youre wondering whether the Republicans do the same thing in reverse, no, they dont. Their Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, comes from their Southern base, but their last three House leaders have been from Wisconsin, Ohio and Illinois two purple states and one blue one. Kevin McCarthy, the partys No. 2 in the House and the leading contender to replace Paul Ryan as its leader this fall, comes from California.

Mr. Schumer is a very skilled legislative leader. So for that matter is Ms. Pelosi, whatever her perceived liabilities. And maybe Mr. Crowley is Lyndon Johnson and William Pitt the Elder rolled into one. But if Democrats charge into 2020 advertising themselves as the party of New York and California, the rest of the country will notice.

Read the original post:
Opinion | The Democrats Real Diversity Problem - The New ...

In very liberal Marin County (Clinton 77.3 percent, Trump 15.5 percent, median household income $100,310), elected officials of at least seven local municipalities have voted to oppose the legislation.

Jonathan Chait, writing in New York Magazine on Wednesday, pointed out that the housing issue in California and elsewhere,

is ultimately a question of whether the most prosperous parts of blue America can be opened up to new entrants, or whether they will remain closed off and increasingly unaffordable. It is also a political test for whether progressives will be manipulated by knee-jerk suspicions, or be able to think clearly about using the market to serve human needs.

After overwhelmingly Democratic City Councils along the California coast voted to oppose the legislation, the Democratic State Senate answered Chaits question and killed the bill.

The maneuvers in California are a reflection of a larger problem for Democrats: their inability to reconcile the conflicts inherent in the partys economic and racial bifurcation.

Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard, addressed the Democrats dilemma in a recent essay for Project Syndicate:

In principle, greater inequality produces a demand for more redistribution. Democratic politicians should respond by imposing higher taxes on the wealthy and spending the proceeds on the less well off.

In practice, Rodrik writes

democracies have moved in the opposite direction. The progressivity of income taxes has decreased, reliance on regressive consumption taxes has increased, and the taxation of capital has followed a global race to the bottom. Instead of boosting infrastructure investment, governments have pursued austerity policies that are particularly harmful to low-skill workers. Big banks and corporations have been bailed out, but households have not. In the United States, the minimum wage has not been adjusted sufficiently, allowing it to erode in real terms.

Why?

Rodrik cites the work of the French economist Thomas Piketty, who argues that political parties on the left have been taken over, here and in Europe, by the well-educated elite what Piketty calls the Brahmin Left. The Brahmin Left, writes Rodrik,

is not friendly to redistribution, because it believes in meritocracy a world in which effort gets rewarded and low incomes are more likely to be the result of insufficient effort than poor luck.

Michael Lind, a professor of public policy at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote in a prescient 2014 essay, The Coming Realignment: Cities, Class, and Ideology After Social Conservatism, that high-density downtowns and suburban villages are coming to have an hourglass-shaped social structure.

Wealthy individuals are at the top, according to Lind, with a large luxury-service proletariat at the bottom. Democrats, in this scheme, have become the party of

the downtown and edge city elites and their supporting staff of disproportionately foreign-born, low-wage service workers.

Linds point raises a fundamental question for the Democratic Party: Can it find a way to hold its hourglass-shaped political coalition together?

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, predicted the potential political developments of this situation in an article in March 2016:

Over the next decade or so, the Republicans will split between their growing nationalist-populist wing and their business establishment wing, a split that the nationalist-populist wing will eventually win. The Democrats will face a similar split between the increasingly pro-corporate but socially liberal Clinton wing and a more economically progressive Sanders wing, a split that the Clinton wing will eventually win.

The outcome?

The Democrats will become the party of urban cosmopolitan business liberalism, and the Republicans will become the party of suburban and rural nationalist populism.

Clearly, the 2016 election demonstrated the fragility of the Democratic coalition and its vulnerability to challenge from the populist right.

Dani Rodrik picks up this point in his Project Syndicate essay:

Why were democratic political systems not responsive early enough to the grievances that autocratic populists have successfully exploited inequality and economic anxiety, decline of perceived social status, the chasm between elites and ordinary citizens? Had political parties, particularly of the center left, pursued a bolder agenda, perhaps the rise of right-wing, nativist political movements might have been averted.

The forces behind the conversion of the Democratic Party into the party of urban cosmopolitan business liberalism, as described by Drutman, may be inexorable. If so, Rodriks call on the center-left to adopt a bolder agenda may be beyond reach.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion | The Democrats Gentrification Problem - The New ...

The approach is laced with peril for a party divided over matters of ideology and political strategy, and increasingly dominated by activists who tend to resent what they see as meddling from Washington. A Democratic effort to undercut a liberal insurgent in a Houston-area congressional primary in March stirred an outcry on the left and may have inadvertently helped drive support to that candidate, Laura Moser, who qualified for the runoff election next month.

But in some areas, Democratic leaders have concluded it is worth enduring backlash to help a prized recruit or tame a chaotic primary field.

They are moving most aggressively in California, where the states nonpartisan primaries present a unique hazard: State law requires all candidates to compete in the same preliminary election, with the top two finishers advancing to November. In a crowded field, if Democrats spread their votes across too many candidates, two Republicans could come out on top and advance together to the general election.

There are at least four races in California where Democrats fear such a lockout, including the 39th Congressional District, where in addition to Mr. Cisneros and Ms. Tran there are two other Democrats running: Sam Jammal, a youthful former congressional aide, and Andy Thorburn, a wealthy health insurance executive who is backed by allies of Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont. The district is among the most coveted for Democrats nationwide a seat left open by the retirement of Representative Ed Royce, a popular Republican, in an area Hillary Clinton won by about 8 percentage points.

National Democrats may also intervene in the Southern California districts held by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Jeff Denham, where multiple Republicans and Democrats are running, and in the seat held by Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican who is retiring. Voters receive mail-in ballots starting in early May, making the next few weeks exceptionally important.

House Majority PAC, a heavily financed Democratic group that spends millions in congressional elections, recently polled all four races and has been conducting digital surveys that simulate the complicated California ballot, according to people briefed on the groups strategy. The super PAC has run ads in California in the past when Democrats have faced disaster in primary season.

Representative Judy Chu, a Los Angeles-area Democrat, said the open primaries had led Democrats to take unusual steps to prevent Republicans from dominating the first round of voting.

That would stop our goal of taking the House back, Ms. Chu said. We have to have a viable candidate, and I think that if it does turn out to be a Democrat versus a Republican, the Democrat will win.

Ms. Chu said the campaign committees endorsement of Mr. Cisneros was a signal to donors and volunteers that it was time to close ranks.

But picking favorites is not easy for Democrats: Until mid-March, Southern California lawmakers were divided in the 39th District race between Mr. Cisneros, who is backed by Representative Linda T. Snchez, an influential member of the Democratic leadership team, and Jay Chen, another Democrat who was endorsed by Ms. Chu. It was only after Mr. Chen opted against running, with a call for party unity, that Ms. Chu and other Democrats swung behind Mr. Cisneros.

Ms. Snchez said the glut of Democratic candidates remained concerning across California, and acknowledged having lobbied the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to back Mr. Cisneros. National leaders, Ms. Snchez said, had a role to play in terms of trying to talk to nonviable candidates and urging them to be team players.

Meredith Kelly, a spokeswoman for the committee, said the group was taking action in California because voters deserve to have a Democrat on the ballot in November.

Any decision to get involved in these races is toward that goal and based on intelligence from the ground in California, extensive data and partnerships with as many local allies as possible, Ms. Kelly said.

In the 39th District, Democrats went beyond prodding underdogs like Ms. Tran, 52, to stand down. Mr. Thorburn said the D.C.C.C. presented him with polling that suggested attacks on his finances and business record would be damaging in the general election data Mr. Thorburn dismissed out of hand. He said the committee clearly indicated its preference for Mr. Cisneros.

Mr. Thorburn, 74, is now the most unsettling rival for Mr. Cisneros and national Democrats, pairing a pointed ideological message with a personal fortune to spend on advertising. Deriding Mr. Cisneros as a wishy-washy newcomer to the party, Mr. Thorburn said he would strike back hard if the committee were to attack him, as it did Ms. Moser.

Im much more of a fighter than the national party, Mr. Thorburn said, warning: If they do something like they did in Texas, we would come back guns blazing.

Mr. Cisneros has won over important state groups, including the muscular California Labor Federation. But his campaign office, at a strip mall in Brea, about 30 miles southeast of Los Angeles, showcases his national allies: One wall boasts an enormous sign from the gun-control group Giffords, which supports him, while another displays photographs of Mr. Cisneros with Barack and Michelle Obama.

Mr. Cisneros, a soft-spoken 47-year-old who became a philanthropist and Democratic donor after winning the California lottery in 2010, said his unlikely biography was at the core of his message, along with issues like gun violence and health care. He said his views on those subjects had been consistent, though his party registration had changed. From the beginning, Mr. Cisneros said, its always been about getting my story out.

Interviews with voters in the Republican-held district revealed why the race is so promising and tumultuous for Democrats. A labyrinth of highways and shopping centers and residential developments, the district has shifted in recent years as its Latino and Asian-American communities have grown. But a dozen voters there said they were not following the race or remained undecided.

At a shopping mall in Fullerton, a hospital worker named Lynn who declined to give her surname because she did not want to be identified at work said she wanted to repudiate Republicans but had not picked an alternative. An Asian-American woman in her 40s, she said she was alarmed by President Trumps environmental policies and what she described as an outpouring of overt bigotry.

Its not because I want a Democrat I just dont want a Republican, she said. Ever since you-know-who became president, people are really racist and its really, really obvious.

Some voters sounded unlikely to take their cues from national parties. Outside a Fullerton coffee shop where Mr. Jammal was greeting voters, Adam De Leon said he was suspicious of the candidates using personal wealth to sway the race. Mr. De Leon, 72, said he favored Mr. Jammal, 36, because of his government experience.

What does it tell you when people spend millions of dollars to get into a position that pays maybe $140,000 a year? Mr. De Leon said, somewhat underestimating the $174,000 congressional salary. Its all about power and connections.

The Republican field is in flux, too. Young Kim, a longtime aide to Mr. Royce, is the front-runner but has several candidates challenging her from the right. With Republicans in Washington focused on defending beleaguered incumbents, they have been less intent than Democrats on shaping open primaries.

For Democrats, that project extends beyond California: On the same day the D.C.C.C. endorsed Mr. Cisneros, it also boosted candidates in New York and Arkansas who face contested primaries. In New York, the committee enlisted Juanita Perez Williams, a former candidate for mayor of Syracuse, to challenge Representative John Katko this month, though a lower-profile Democrat was already running with the support of local party leaders.

That kind of big-footing may be trickier in California. Mr. Chen, the Democrat who opted out of the 39th District race, said the party still faces a precarious situation there. He said he had decided against running after conducting a poll that showed him neck and neck with Mr. Cisneros and Mr. Thorburn but with Democratic voters fragmented enough to create an all-Republican general election.

He predicted none of the remaining Democrats would follow his lead and get out.

If youve never been involved in the party before and you just ran because you want to run, then you dont really have those considerations, Mr. Chen said. They are new to this. They dont have bridges to burn.

Go here to read the rest:
Fearing Chaos, National Democrats Plunge Into Midterm ...

Since Barack Obamas 2008 victory, Democrats have watched with dismay as the president has been vilified by opponents and as Washington, already polarized, has become downright toxic. (Republicans have their own ideas about when the polarization began.)

What had been a complicated patchwork of Democratic voting blocs before Obama has coalesced into fewer groups that are more unified. Theyre not exactly moving in lock step they never do but their allegiance to the president has softened the usual party divisions.

His embrace of gay marriage is instructive: it was a galvanizing moment for supporters, and it didnt seem to hurt him with the large blocs of Democrats who are socially conservative.

The 2012 Democratic herd is charted here along a left-to-right continuum of party loyalty, based chiefly on the Pew Research Centers Political Typology as well as the views of political experts. The size of the donkey icons approximates the relative strength of each bloc.

Pews tracking of party affiliation shows that a growing number of Americans identify as independent. With party loyalists on both sides largely decided, the race will move at the margins, said Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic consultant. Thats why the campaigns are focused on identity groups: women, Latinos, older voters. Peeling off even slivers of these could well determine who wins the election.

Read more:
A New Guide to the Democratic Herd - Multimedia Feature ...