Mediaboss Marketing

Seattle traffic is not fun. (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)

Washington Democrats are no longer hiding their disdain for drivers. They have removed congestion relief from their list of transportation goals. That leaves you stuck in Washington traffic. And the lawmakers behind the bills are sending mixed messages.

House Bill 2688 and companion Senate Bill 6398 highlight seven identical transportation goals as the state moves forward on various projects. Ditching the goal of economic vitality as the lead, the bills promise more accessibility to improve affordable access to the places and goods Washington residents, organizations, and businesses need to live, work, study, play and pray.

In place of offering Washington traffic relief, the bills aim to enhance the quality of life through transportation investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and toxins, promote energy conservation, and protect lands and waterways.

In their world, drivers no longer get a pass to pollute the environment. Instead, Democrats aim to accommodate pollution-free transportation and multimodal transportation projects. That means theyll keep you stuck in Washington traffic, until you give up your gas-powered car.

While lofty, the goals are unattainable in the near-to-distant future and wholly ignore the needs of millions of Washington drivers.

Instead of continuing to build our roads where individual members come up with projects because theres a congestion in their district, what we need to be doing is we need to be looking at this more holistically, House Bill sponsor Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D-Bellingham) testified to the committee (I first saw this issue reported by Mike Lindblom in the Times).

There has long-been this claim, primarily by Democrats, that you cant build your way out of congestion. This position is, of course, generally incorrect.

Rantz: WSDOT alters algorithm to worsen traffic, collect much higher tolls

Weve actively seen, for example, projects to specifically address congestion. But under this new framework, projects like the I-5 JBLM Area Improvements wouldnt be approached. The I-405 Renton-to-Bellevue widening project definitely wouldnt go anywhere since its expressly designed to reduce congestion.

Do voters want to abandon these types of projects? Surely not.

While reviewing another story for my radio show, I came across a quote by State Senator Marko Liias (D-Lynnwood). He addressed a possible cut in funding to Sound Transit.

When I talk to my constituents, they dont want to be stuck in traffic, Liias said. They want light rail to come to us, but they also want their cars to be valued fairly.

Its clear that this quote accurately represents his constituents. But why, then, is he cosponsoring the bill that kills congestion as a goal for transportation projects?I asked Liias about the legislation via Twitter. It appears he didnt realize the language what it omits and adds is identical.

Perhaps whats lost in this discussion is what we mean by congestion relief. Is this all about changed basic definitions to needlessly confuse a simple issue?

I think of accessibility as embracing the concept of congestion relief and mobility, but thinking about from a people-centered viewpoint, Liias tweeted. Congestion relief is really about making sure people can spend more time with their families, not stuck in traffic.

In a way, his comments dont really mean anything. It just gives off the impression of meaning something. All transportation projects are people-centered because its people who are driving, busing, or light-railing it to their destinations.

But he seems to be walking back his reasonable car-centered approach he held in the previous quote. It went from appreciating car owners to shifting his goal to simply making sure people can spend more time out of traffic.

That doesnt sound like an argument to help drivers, but an argument to expand light rail or buses. And while the arguments have been that it ends up helping traffic congestion get better, it doesnt. It helps congestion problems from worsening, and only to an extent.

It feels like Democrats will tell you they care about congestion relief when a constituent might corner them with a specific question. But when it comes to the underlying framework in developing transportation projects, they ditch congestion relief goals all together. Why is that?

I trust Liias when he tells me that he can address our concerns as they debate the two bills. But I dont think other Democrats want to do that.

The easiest way to say you care about addressing congestion relief is to say it. Right now, theyre choosing to delete it from their agenda. At the same time, agencies must evaluate proposals relative to the states transportation policy goals. That means, unless congestion relief is explicitly put back into one of the goals, drivers will get shafted.

The legislation makes room for a equity and environmental justice carve out for transportation policies. Surely helping drivers find Washington traffic relief can also fit. Unless, regardless of what Liias says, thats truly not part of their goals.

Listen to the Jason Rantz Show weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (or HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to thepodcast here. Follow@JasonRantz on Twitter.

Follow this link:
Rantz: Democrats admit they want you stuck in Washington traffic - MyNorthwest.com

Democratic presidentialhopeful Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' Buttigieg congratulates Sanders on 'strong showing' in New Hampshire MORE (D-Minn.)on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a "big tent" for people of different beliefs, including those who oppose abortion rights.

Klobuchar, who isrunning as acentrist candidate andalternative to Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' Buttigieg congratulates Sanders on 'strong showing' in New Hampshire MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' 5 takeaways from the New Hampshire primary MORE (D-Mass.), said while she is "pro-choice" but she doesn't think the party should shut out Democrats who disagree.

"There are pro-life Democrats, and they are part of our party, and I think we need to build a big tent," she said.

"I think we need to bring people in instead of shutting them out."

.@MeghanMcCain on @TheView: Do you think theres room for pro-life Democrats to vote for you?

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Im strongly pro-choice. I have always been pro-choice, but I believe were a big tent party I think we need to bring people in https://t.co/ECpbtTFzQB pic.twitter.com/xMgs6zTE9C

Klobuchar andother Democratic presidential candidates have vowed to reverse the Trump administration's anti-abortion policies and to only appoint judges that support Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that established a woman's right to abortion.

While every Democrat running for president supports abortion rights, the general public is stilldivided on the issue, with many polls showing thatmajoritiessupport some restrictions on the procedure.

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in December, 15 percent of Democrats surveyed consider themselves "pro-life" while 84 percent said they are "pro-choice."

Top-tier candidate and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul ButtigiegWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' Buttigieg congratulates Sanders on 'strong showing' in New Hampshire MORE received a question on the issue from an anti-abortion Democrat at a Fox News town hall last month.

I respect where youre coming from, and I hope to earn your vote, but Im not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you. I am pro-choice, Buttigieg said.

I know that the difference of opinion that you and I have is one that we have come by honestly and the best that I can offer, and it may win your vote and if not, I understand if we cant agree on where to draw the line, the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line, and in my view, its the woman whos faced with that decision," he said.

Supporting abortion rights is a key part of the Democratic National Committee's platform. Campaign groups like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have faced pressure from progressives to stop supporting Democrats who oppose abortion rights.

The Democratic Attorneys General Association announced in November it would only endorse candidates that support abortion access.

Go here to see the original:
Klobuchar: 'We need to build a big tent' for anti-abortion Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

On Feb. 8,just beforeAmerica'sfirst-in-the-nation primary,Demand Justice,the left-wing group dedicatedto transforming our courts,hosted aNew Hampshireforum for Democratic presidential candidates, along withthe abortion-focused groupsNARAL,the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the All* Above All Action Fund.These groups were able to attractall the viable Democratic presidential contenders with the exception of former Vice PresidentJoe Biden.

Lets give the event hosts credit for a forum that gave us a chance to hear from the candidates on thesubject of thecourts, a topic that has rarely come up during the debates.They did voters a service, however unintentionally, by revealing just how dangerous it would be to our judicial system to elect a Democratic president in 2020.

The leading contenders made it clear they would advocate changing the very structure of the Supreme Courtin order to advancetheirliberal ideology or, to use the more familiar term, packingthe court.Consider as a historical reference point Franklin D. Roosevelts notorious proposalof1937, which would have authorized the expansion of the Supreme Court to as many as 15justices.Although Democratsdominated Congressat the time, enough of them had the statesmanshipto recognize a blow to our judicial system when they saw it, and accordingly blocked it.

HELGI WALKER: CLARENCE THOMAS' LEGACY IS ONE ALL AMERICANS SHOULD ADMIRE

As celebrated as Roosevelt has been among presidents, thatepisode is widely agreed to be among the lowest points of his administration, which helps explain whyallof his successorshad enough common sense and respect for our institutions not to advance a similar scheme.

Fast forward to 2020. Former South Bend, Ind.,Mayor Pete Buttigiegis touting the idea of expanding the court to as many as 15 justices.Itsalmostas ifwe needed an explicit reminderthat the next Democratic president would repeat the worst mistakes of the past.Other contenders followed suit with court-packing ideas.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,would rotate Supreme Court justices and limit their terms.Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was not asked about court-packing at the forum, but was one of the first of the pack to entertain it as a conversation thats worth having.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Of course, court-packing is an extreme means of advancing an extreme agenda using the courts as a vehicle to advance policy preferences instead of going through the peoples elected representatives. Buttigieg stated succinctly, My appointments will make the court more progressive. Whenever the question came up at the forum, the candidates admitted they would impose a litmus test on abortion, the environment, and labor when making judicial nominations, even on the circuit level.

Yet even at an event focused on the courts, none of the Democrats had the guts to name names of the people they are considering for Supreme Court. Not even Sandersor Sen.Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who have each spent 13 years in the Senate andclaim they have lists of potential judges ready to go.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Demand Justice released its own list of preferred Supreme Court prospects last fall a group of ideologues left of even the typical Obama appointee. The vast majority lacked appropriate judicial experience. Thetype of radical activists todays Democratic Party is clamoring for would deal a devastating blow to the rule of law.

President Trump made history in 2016 with his transparency in releasing his list of the principled men and women he would choose from to fill Supreme Court vacancies.The American people loved it. I dare Democrats to do the same, but it seems they are going to keep hiding.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY CARRIE SEVERINO

See the original post:
Carrie Severino: 2020 Democrats are looking to 'pack' the Supreme Court with secret picks - Fox News

Democrats and many on the left use race as a sword and a shield interchangeably.

Sometimes they dont even get the race, or more accurately, the ethnicity correct. Remember when CNNs Areva Martin told me I was white and therefore capable of white privilege. The ease with which she made that assumption was genuine and should frighten all of you.

And now for the latest and Democratic primary race drama. South Carolina state Sen. Dick Harpootlian and campaign surrogate for former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' 5 takeaways from the New Hampshire primary MORE is being attacked for allegedly racist remarks against South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus Chairman Jerry Govan. Govan is a paid surrogate for Democratic presidential candidate Tom SteyerTom Fahr SteyerBiden, Warren on ropes after delegate shutout Webb: Race and the Democratic primaries Mellman: Debating Michael Bloomberg MORE.

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Govan got almost $50,000 from Steyer as a paid surrogate. And Harpootlians race crime was pointing that out. Writing, Mr. Money bags a.k.a @tomsteyer has paid S.C. State Rep. Jerry Govan almost $50,000 for a month worth of work? Is he pocketing the dough or redistributing the wealth?

Steyers ineffective campaign is simply spending money and not getting the return on investment with the Democratic base. You can only buy so much of any voters confidence. He also comes across as a political fraud with many independents in his contradictions based on how he made his money that are there for all to see.

Still, he eats up airtime. While media outlets make money from his campaign ad buys, he helps to keep the Democratic field uncertain and in disarray.

Its simple, a black politician got paid for taking a position, went against the expected, and the political race segregationists in the Congressional Black Caucus jumped in, also as expected. I still dont understand the loyalty of blacks to Biden who has spent decades in Washington promising returns for blacks, never delivering, and now wants their support again.

About half the states Black Caucus stood together and demanded an immediate apology and that Biden distance himself from Harpootlian. Good luck with that. Harpootlian has been in this political battle and many others. If he apologizes it will be for political expediency.

You see, South Carolina is black country for Democrats in the primary and according to the current political narrative, Biden owns much of that country.

Biden, no newcomer to the political world after decades in Washington decided to seize on the opportunity and go after Steyer, who can outspend him and has the will to do so. Biden needs to win South Carolina. Its his firewall against final failure.

By the way, this is going to get worse and more ridiculous. Just check out former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul ButtigiegWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' Buttigieg congratulates Sanders on 'strong showing' in New Hampshire MORE. He mistakenly said black money instead of dark money during an interview. The usual race pimps pounced.

The man not on the debate stage thus far is Mike Bloomberg.

Of course, Bloomberg, who already had issues with getting support from blacks, has to defend his New York City mayoral position on stop, question and frisk. Democrats pounced on the video of Bloomberg explaining the program from a statistical point of view.

Its not often that I get the chance to defend Bloomberg, who is an elitist and his anti-second amendment stance is abhorrent to any constitutionalist like me, but hes not wrong on the application of the program. One of his failures, however, was to make sure that when the program went wrong it was addressed. It was very effective in removing illegal guns from the streets of New York City and the corresponding reduction in gun violence is evidence of this.

So how will Democrats use race against other Democrats in the primary? I cant answer that, and you have to watch it play out. Fact is theyre really using race against blacks for their vote and when its time, every other minority is on the table.

Webb is host of The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Patriot 125, host of Reality Check with David Webb on Fox Nation, a Fox News contributor and a frequent television commentator. His column appears twice a month in The Hill.

Continued here:
Webb: Race and the Democratic primaries | TheHill - The Hill

Dionne, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and Washington Post columnist, tells a story about American politics that I find clarifying. In the past, thorny policy debates typically took place between the two parties. Examples include the best way to expand health insurance (through the private sector or government), control pollution (through taxes or regulations) and reduce the deficit (through spending cuts or tax increases).

Today the Republican Party has become so radicalized that it opposes almost any government action to solve problems. Its domestic agenda consists largely of cutting taxes for the rich and freeing companies from oversight. The substantive part of many policy debates now happens within the Democratic Party which means that tensions are only natural.

And yet progressives and moderate Democrats still agree on far more than they disagree. Each side would be more effective if it were open to learning from the other, Dionne writes, rather than lapsing into an unseemly moralism that feeds political superiority complexes.

Progressives are right that over the past half century Democratic moderates have often allowed conservatives to dictate the terms of political conversation, on economic growth, criminal justice, family values and more. Id add that moderates have also spent too much time designing technocratically elegant policies (like tax credits) rather than creating easily understandable, popular programs.

Moderates, for their part, are right that every great progressive victory in American history abolition, womens suffrage, the income tax, labor rights, Social Security, civil rights, Medicare, marriage equality and more has required compromise in the service of persuading allies who disagree with progressives on other issues. Its not enough to state your case purely and wait for a silent progressive majority to emerge as never before.

In the long run, each side is likely to accomplish much more if it can recognize that the other isnt the enemy. In the short run, obviously, there is an inescapable dilemma: The party can nominate only one person.

Before that choice is made while both sides are fighting hard for their preferred nominees, as they should they should pause to reflect on the strengths of the other side. For progressives, that means recognizing that moderate congressional candidates really did fare better in swing districts in 2018. It also means celebrating (quietly, for now, I realize) the progressivism of, say, Buttigiegs agenda.

Original post:
The Question All Democrats Need to Ask Themselves - The New York Times