Mediaboss Marketing

Earlier this month comedian Bill Maher delivered a biting commentary on self-styled progressives, mocking the recurrent theme on the far left that things have never been worse. On privileged university campuses, Maher noted, progressive students cant see that (their) dorm in 2021 is better than the South before the Civil War. Among progressive elites, woe unto the brave soul who points out that there are progressive talking points that simply do not withstand serious scrutiny. In such quarters, Maher says, what you say doesnt have to make sense, or jibe with the facts, or ever be challenged.

Mahers point was illustrated by the most recent deluge of thousands of Hamas rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli civilian centers. As always, Hamas attacks on Israel produce the confident if bizarre progressive orthodoxy that rocket attacks blanketing Israeli communities are somewhere between no big deal and perfectly fine, whereas Israels efforts to protect its civilians by stopping them constitute war crimes.

With the 2022 midterm elections already in view, some Democrats willing to risk eternal damnation as Not Sufficiently Progressive worry that slavishly following the Partys left may result in losing control of Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024. It isnt hard to see why. Republicans have the wind at their back, with historical precedent strongly suggesting that they will pick up seats in both houses of Congress. They need only a small handful of pick-ups in the House of Representatives to seize control there, and a net gain of only a single seat to regain control of the Senate. As for 2024, the bravado about Bidens 7.1 million popular vote margin obscures this reality: had only 6,000 Biden voters in Arizona, 6,000 in Georgia and 11,000 in Wisconsin voted instead for Donald Trump, he would be five months into his second term.

A recent analysis of the 2020 election by three Democratic groups contained some serious warnings for Democrats. One was that the Republican line that Democrats were socialists and favored eliminating law enforcement may drive Rachel Maddow-watchers berserk, but they resonated, including among core Democratic constituencies. Republican attempts to brand Democrats as radicals worked, the authors concluded. The data firm Catalist calculated that Bidens percentage share of Latino voters decreased by 8% relative to Hillary Clintons 2016 share, his share of Black voters fell 3% and his share of Asian American Pacific Islander voters slipped 1%. In many key Congressional districts, Democratic candidates trailed Biden. Some districts where law and order or socialism was a drumbeat also a saw a higher share of Latino/AAPI/Black supporters who supported the GOP, the Democratic groups report found.

These warnings may be dismissed by some Democrats who delude themselves that Cambridge, Mass., is representative of the country, and that the nation is just waiting to embrace the Democratic Socialists of America.

To be sure, the Republican Party is a hot mess, dominated by insurrectionists, charlatans and phonies. A new Economist/YouGov poll published on the very day President Biden was meeting with Russias Poisoner-in-Chief reported that the Russian president is more popular among Republicans than the American president. Thirty percent of Republicans believe that it is likely that Trump will be reinstated as president within six months, and 70% of them believe the whacked-out hogwash that Trump won the 2020 election. Simply put, the GOP is barking mad, and the left believes that that ought to be enough to keep control of Congress and the presidency.

It wont be. Over-the-top rhetoric and the disconnected, even haughty assumptions by progressive Democrats that Americans believe what they believe run the risk of leaving them, and Democrats generally, sorely disappointed two Novembers from now.

Jeff Robbins is a Boston lawyer and former U.S. delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Read more:
Robbins: Progressives bet the farm that America sees things their way - Boston Herald

NEW YORK CITY A new wave of progressives seem to be on the verge of taking charge in the city.

Although results are just preliminary, especially considering ranked choice voting in the case of municipal elections, their elections could represent change coming to New York City.

We put out a vision for Manhattan of marrying safety and fairness based on my lived experience of confronting public safety challenges and police accountability challenges, and my work experience of doing both, said Alvin Bragg; hes poised for become the next Manhattan District Attorney.

PIX11 caught up with Bragg in Harlem, where he was born and raised and has been stopped and frisked at gunpoint by police.

He has deep reservations of about Eric Adams pledge to increase the careful use of stop, question and frisk to combat the recent surge in gun violence should he become mayor.

I hope we can have a dialogue on that, Bragg said. Its not just my lived experience, but when I was at the Attorney Generals office and leadership, we studied this issue. We looked at four years of data that showed only 0.1% of stops resulted in a conviction for a gun offense.

Other progressives who are leading in their races take things a step further.

Current City Councilman Antonio Reynoso, ahead currently in the race for Brooklyn Borough President, said previous NYPD reform efforts nibble around the edges.

The messaging Im pushing as some thing people might consider radical, Reynoso said. But I think its only a matter of time before communities that have been underrepresented and marginalized, realize the way of dealing with these issues and the ill of society, is by dealing with the root cause, which is poverty.

Some of that language is echoed by Councilman Brad Lander, who often campaigned with Reynoso, and may be poised to become the next comptroller.

Lander so far is outperforming the leading progressive in the race for Mayor Maya Wiley.

What we wanted to show is that on the other side of this pandemic we can build a more just and equal city and honor those essential workers we clapped for with better pay and protections, Lander said. Lets make sure federal rescue funds get to all neighborhoods to protect tenants and small businesses and expand childcare.

See original here:
Meet a new wave of progressive leaders in NYC - WPIX 11 New York

The For The People Act, Democrats' sweeping election and voter reform bill, is expected to collapse in the Senate on Tuesday much to progressives' chagrin, Politico writes.

The left is reportedly "steaming" that President Biden neglected to employ his "bully pulpit" to encourage a deal within Congress or further the bill's progress. Democrats want to know, Politico reports, how leaders can say "in one breath that democracy is in jeopardy and in the next let [the For The People Act] crash and burn."

Progressive activist Ezra Levin criticized Biden's lack of activism surrounding the bill, highlighting how former President Barack Obama debated "with House GOP on the [Affordable Care Act]" or how former President Bill Clinton "gave 18 speeches on NAFTA" because that is "what legislatively successful presidents do!" As protestors mobilize and state legislators call on Congress to pass the bill, Levin simply wants to know, "Where is the president?"

Added Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), if Congress fails to "meet the moment": "We are going to lose the opportunity to basically enact legislation for the people for a decade, or decades, to come." It's, as he puts it, "very, very, very bleak." Read more at Politico.

7 scathingly funny cartoons about Democrats' Joe Manchin problem

Bernie Sanders wants to know if cannabis reporter is 'stoned' right now

'No one will be spared': Georgia election workers have reportedly received a 'torrent' of threats from Trump supporters

Originally posted here:
'Where is the president?': Progressives lament Biden's approach to the likely doomed For The People Act - Yahoo News

The California flag waves in the breeze in Huntington Beach on May 23, 2020. (Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: The common theme in the responses to your "Reimagine California" series is that we, individually or corporately, are not making choices that will create a more "equitable" society, and that more government action is needed.

While the "reimagine" exercise can yield insightful options, reimagine does not mean "do-over." Whatever is proposed will have to navigate or modify existing structures.

Will the resulting government and economic structures be capable of producing the technical, scientific, cultural and economic achievements equal to those produced by the previous model? There is little evidence to support an affirmative response.

The pursuit of a more "equitable" society will only enable and benefit the government class. Everyone else will be disappointed.

Scott Perley, Irvine

..

To the editor: Thank you for the "Reimagine California" letters. They were diverse, reflective and at times moving. The letters reminded me that unless we embrace our shadow sides the pain, suffering and trauma around the pandemic and the election hope and renewal are illusory.

For me, the shadow sides are not about the other, but about that trauma and pain that I carry within me, bound up together with others. So it was with great sorrow that I witnessed the Trump administration's self-destructive attacks on science, public health and expertise.

Similarly, there's a deep shadow side as well to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. It's terrible to lose and to be a loser. That said, I hope that we can turn away from the self-destructive and dangerous lies about the election.

I pray that we Americans can open our hearts to this trauma of losing and realize that the protections of our voting process remain totally nonpartisan. Let our hearts and minds become open so we reject the Big Lie that our election was flawed and corrupt.

Stanford Searl, Culver City

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

See more here:
Letters to the Editor: Progressives want to 'reimagine California.' What about the rest of us? - Yahoo News

Democrats and Republicans in Washington may have finally found an issue they can both support. Earlier in June, the U.S. Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) which proposes significant changes to science and technology policy with an eye to U.S. China policy. Approved by a surprisingly bipartisan 68-32 vote, the bill merges Senate Majority Leader Chuck SchumerChuck SchumerThe Innovation and Competition Act is progressive policy Infrastructure deal: Major climate win that tees up more in reconciliation bill Democrats seek to calm nervous left MOREs (D-N.Y.) Endless Frontier Act and Sen. Robert MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezThe Innovation and Competition Act is progressive policy Schumer says Senate will vote on repealing 2002 war authorization The Hill's Morning Report - Biden-Putin meeting to dominate the week MOREs (D-N.J.) Strategic Competition Act. President Joe BidenJoe BidenTrump calls Barr 'a disappointment in every sense of the word' Last foreign scientist to work at Wuhan lab: 'What people are saying is just not how it is' Toyota defends donations to lawmakers who objected to certifying election MORE has urged speedy passage of the bill in the House, where its headed next.

Progressives in the House should support and advance this $250 billion bill, which contains strong provisions that will smartly make the U.S. more competitive, through investments in communities, innovation, improving racial and gender justice and income equality. The bill authorizes the most extensive investment in U.S. innovation infrastructure in a generation, building technology hubs in disadvantaged areas, increasing federal funding for both fundamental and applied research, increasing STEM scholarships and modernizing U.S. technology policymaking. The bill introduces measures to combat systemic sexism in the scientific community and targets minority-serving institutions (MSIs) for additional grants, scholarships and support. The bill also makes strides in recognizing and funding climate change mitigation measures, including clean energy development and conservation mechanisms. Most notably, it expands the definition of STEM to include energy and environmental studies, which will refocus a range of federal policies on these fields. The bill also prioritizes clean technologies for inclusion in the regional technology hub program.

It should not be surprising that USICA has received support from a broad range of stakeholders, including many progressives. The Thurgood Marshall College Fund voiced support for the bills $750 million grant program to build research capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and MSIs. The American Association of Universities, a group of 66 leading research universities, also praised the bill, calling it an important step in renewing our countrys commitment to federally sponsored scientific research to better position the United States for a healthier, more secure, more prosperous future. The bill also contains many of the policy recommendations from the Human Rights Watch regarding international responses to the Chinese government genocide of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang province.

So, whats not to like? As USICA moves to the House, some progressive groups have voiced concerns about framing these investments around competition with China. But competition with China is not synonymous with conflict. We should ensure that we are building better, rather than racing to the bottom. That is precisely how this legislation is crafted. A competitive policy toward China that strengthens America should be welcomed by progressive, and all, policymakers.

Competing with China to innovate, provide international development aid and secure supply chains can result in positive-sum and highly progressive policies, pushing American innovation to greater heights and supporting a thriving economy for the American people. This bill is an opportunity to show the strength of democracy and deliver public goods domestically and abroad. This type of competition is not about China-bashing or xenophobia; rather, it provides an opportunity to address problems in the U.S. that need to be fixed. It creates space for healthy competition in areas where American strength and opportunity have atrophied and where we are being outpaced by China. Confronting the Chinese governments human rights abuses, poor labor conditions, military excursions and instances of predatory aid are all fundamentally progressive positions that reinforce American values.

There are a few key areas of this bill that could benefit from more progressive activism in the House. The current bill expands research security initiatives and the role of the FBI in China policy without addressing systemic racism in these initiatives and institutions. It also authorizes $52 billion in economic aid to semiconductor manufacturers without assuring that the money is used for real investment and does not go to stock buybacks and other financial maneuvers. The bill can and should go further in protecting human rights in China. Progressives should advocate for inclusion of the main provisions of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act in this legislation, both of which have strong bipartisan support.

Ultimately, passing a bill with such significant bipartisan support is, in itself, a win for the American people. This type of cooperation demonstrates to Americans and our allies that democratic governance is viable, that no matter how stark our differences, we can come together to expand economic progress and increase security.

Nina Palmer is a senior fellow on the National Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress, and was the attach for the U.S. Department of Energy in Beijing.

Read more:
The Innovation and Competition Act is progressive policy | TheHill - The Hill