Mediaboss Marketing

President BidenJoe BidenFour members of Sikh community among victims in Indianapolis shooting Overnight Health: NIH reverses Trump's ban on fetal tissue research | Biden investing .7B to fight virus variants | CDC panel to meet again Friday on J&J On The Money: Moderates' 0B infrastructure bill is a tough sell with Democrats | Justice Dept. sues Trump ally Roger Stone for unpaid taxes MORE is approaching the 100-day mark high in the polls, thanks in large part to his ability to unite fractious Democrats behind his policies.

Two polls out earlier this week showed Bidens approval ratings at almost full support. A Quinnipiac University survey showed Biden with support among Democrats at 94 percent. A Monmouth University poll showed Biden doing even slightly better, at 95 percent, with those in his party.

The results are surprising given the skepticism many progressives had for the 78-year-old Biden, whose age and background seemed out of step with the direction of his party.

But as he approaches the 100-day marker, Biden has been successful in uniting Democrats behind him.

First of all, they were wrong, says Michael Eric Dyson, the author and historian, of the progressive skepticism.

People who predicted a sore thumb or a problem have been pleasantly surprised that he's been far more progressive and far more aggressive in getting stuff done. He ain't waiting around.

Bidens first weeks in office were focused on a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. It was popular in part because of the $1,400 direct payments to most households, but it also included provisions prized by the left meant to help working families and address inequalities for women and minority groups.

The president decided to move the package with the use of budget reconciliation rules that sidestepped a filibuster, something that pleased progressives worried the pursuit of GOP votes could water the package down.

Now Biden is eyeing the same basic strategy for moving a large infrastructure package costing trillions of dollars. It also goes beyond infrastructure and includes measures tackling climate change that are prized by progressives.

While the $2.2 trillion bill is not as large as some on the left want, it is plenty big. Democrats do differ on a number of parts of the bill, and there are likely to be some difficult weeks of negotiations ahead.

But it has also generally kept Democrats in line, debating within and not complaining about the direction of the bill.

Thus far, he has been astute at picking those areas that can keep his coalition in place rather than tearing it apart, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

Moderates and progressives agree, for instance, that infrastructure matters a great deal and that endless wars without clear progress dont benefit the U.S. or its allies.

Thats a reference to this weeks announcement by Biden that the U.S. will withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11.

Biden is showing that despite the tensions between moderates and progressives, there is a remarkable degree of consensus over big issues within the party, Zelizer said.

While Biden had been an unsuccessful advocate for smaller troop presence in Afghanistan during the Obama years, progressives were nevertheless surprised to see him embrace the progressive position of a full withdrawal given his more moderate rhetoric on the campaign trail.

This wasnt necessarily where candidate Biden was. There were others who were bolder and calling for this more often, said Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War.

Biden has shown a decisive streak so far in his presidency, deciding quickly to cut bait with the GOP on the COVID-19 talks when Republicans offered a proposal less than a third the size of his own.

Biden advisers say part of the reason hes moving quickly is because he knows he doesnt have the luxury of time, particularly as the midterm elections move closer.

Biden understands that time is of the essence and thats why hes moving at a rapid but responsible clip, said one adviser to the president. And the 100 days has also shown us the gap between the political class on cable and Twitter and the rest of the country; Bidens numbers are strong and as important, the public support for his proposals is strong.

The adviser added that its been a terrific start under terrible circumstances in the middle of a pandemic and following an insurrection at the Capitol.

There have certainly been some moments of friction.

Progressives criticized Biden for proposing a slight increase in the defense budget,rather thancutting it.

There have also been complaints about Bidens handling of the border crisis, where child migrants are being held as a wave hits the border. On Thursday, Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiBiden angers Democrats by keeping Trump-era refugee cap Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones calls on Breyer to retire Biden rebuffs Democrats, keeps refugee admissions at 15,000 MORE (D-Calif.) gave a nudge to Biden on refugees, arguing it was time for him to lift a ceiling on the number allowed into the country.

Progressives are also wary of the Biden administrations plans to move ahead with a $23 billion arms sale to the United Arab Emirates that had been approved under the Trump administration.

But Dyson, who with other historians met with Bidenlast monthat the White House, said the president clearly learned lessons from his time as vice president under Obama, who was more cautious on policy issues.

That kind of caution, carefulness, calculation, this man has seemed to throw to the wind, he said.

Dyson said even he has been somewhat surprised by Bidens approach, which he says is more Lyndon Johnson than Obama.

I thought he would be working with Republicans out of necessity and temperament, he said. But he wont compromise fatally with Republicans and he hasnt done it with venom. Hes done it with a smile on his face.

View post:
Biden wins over skeptical progressives | TheHill - The Hill

The Democrats now in power should weigh the present opportunity against future peril. Republicans have their own ambitious agenda which they will be delighted to enact over the helpless cries of a filibuster-less Democratic minority as soon as they can. A tour of recent history offers some stark examples of what that might look like.

In 1995, its not much of an exaggeration to say, the filibuster saved the regulatory state.

The previous years midterm elections under President Bill Clinton was a bloodbath for Democrats. Republicans gained 54 House seats and nine in the Senate, handing them majorities in both chambers. The GOP-controlled House, led by hard-charging Speaker Newt Gingrich, immediately passed an avalanche of bills to fulfill the so-called Contract with America. The presidents veto pen provided some defense, but Clinton, chastened by his partys electoral defeat and repositioning himself toward the center for his 1996 reelection, was reluctant to veto many GOP bills. The sturdiest backstop against the Gingrich juggernaut was the 47-member Senate Democratic minority caucus armed with the power of unlimited debate.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia in his Capitol Hill office, April 5, 1995. | AP Photo/Joe Marquette

A key GOP target at that time, as it is now, was the nations regulatory regime. A GOP bill to cripple the ability of agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue public health and safety rules came to the Senate floor. Majority Leader Bob Dole sought to end debate three times, but the Democratic minority held firm, and each cloture petition fell short, the last by only two votes. The bill failed.

In 2005, President George W. Bush, emboldened by his reelection and backed by healthy GOP majorities in Congress, set out to partially privatize Social Security. The proposal would have transformed the governments social safety net for elderly Americans into a stock market investment. Solid opposition by the 45-member Democratic Caucus stopped the proposal in its tracks, even before it came to the Senate floor. Just three years later, the global financial crisis erased trillions of dollars from Americans private retirement savings but Social Security checks went out as scheduled.

Proponents of filibuster abolition correctly point out that the filibuster has been sometimes deployed to block noble bills such as the mid-20th century civil rights legislation. But obstruction by the minority can eventually be overcome by popular will and presidential leadership, as eventually occurred with civil rights. In contrast, an unchecked majority can wreak havoc.

It isnt necessary to look as far back as 1995 or 2005 to see what life would be like without the filibuster. Just remember the past four years of presidential nominations.

In late 2013, Democrats, frustrated with the slow pace of confirmations for President Barack Obamas nominees, deployed the so-called nuclear option by unilaterally changing the rules to allow for simple majority confirmation of executive branch and judicial nominations, except for the Supreme Court. In the short term, it paid off: they were able to win confirmation of many Obama nominees in the remainder of that Congress, before the GOP regained the Senate majority in the 2014 midterm and ground the nominations process to a near-standstill.

But in the long term, it was a disaster for Democrats.

When Donald Trump became president in 2017, he had free rein to nominate and win confirmation of virtually anyone, including some Cabinet and sub-Cabinet nominees whom Democrats considered plainly unqualified or repugnant. Moreover, he had a clear field to repopulate the federal judiciary with young Federalist Society-blessed nominees. Altogether, Trump appointed a record 174 district court judges, 54 courts of appeals judges and three Supreme Court justices in only four years.

It is laughable that commentators gave Trump and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell credit for the accomplishment of confirming so many judges. It is no accomplishment to shoot fish in a barrel. With no filibuster to give the Democrats leverage, all McConnell needed to do was schedule votes and the outcome was inevitable.

When Democrats attempted to muddle McConnells schedule, he brandished the precedent of their 2013 rules change to justify a retaliatory strike by unilaterally changing the rules to speed nominations, including to the Supreme Court. Most disturbingly, McConnell was able to ram through Amy Coney Barretts confirmation to the high court in blatant disregard of his blockade of Merrick Garlands appointment because the filibuster was no longer available for nominations.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett meets with then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as she begins a series of meetings to prepare for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, on Capitol Hill, September 29, 2020, in Washington, DC. | Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images

One reason McConnell had so much time to schedule votes on judicial nominees is that he had few legislative items with any hope of enactment and for that, Democrats largely have the filibuster to thank. Republicans wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and limit protections for undocumented immigrants, among many other priorities. The reason those goals were not realized was the legislative filibuster. For example, a proposal to impose stiff restrictions on abortion had majority support in a 2018 vote, but failed to advance when 46 senators said no.

In those years, Trump was as frustrated by the filibuster as any Democrat is today. He repeatedly called on congressional Republicans to nuke the legislative filibuster and called them fools for not doing so. Yet McConnell and his GOP colleagues did not yield to presidential pressure.

One persistent argument for the rules change among Democrats is that we might as well do it because if we dont, they will. But from 2015 to 2020 Republicans had ample opportunity to go nuclear for legislation and they refrained. It was during this period that a bipartisan group of 61 senators, including then-Senator Kamala Harris, signed a letter defending the legislative filibuster.

Be assured, McConnell would not refrain again if Democrats do him the favor of detonating the next nuclear bomb. Pledging precisely such retribution in a March 16 statement, McConnell previewed the nightmare slate of anti-labor, anti-abortion and anti-immigrant bills Republicans would pass when they regain the majority in the future. There is no reason to doubt McConnells ability to deliver these chilling results if the filibuster disappears.

At the moment, full repeal seems unlikely because some moderate Democrats are not on board. A seemingly more modest proposal has emerged among some in the party to exempt from the filibuster certain urgent bills such as those pertaining to voting rights or climate change.

This idea is just as dangerous. Every bill is critical to one constituency or another. The slope is endlessly slippery. The other side has a list of urgent bills as well, and theirs include limiting voting rights and blocking regulation of fossil fuels. Soon, the exceptions will swallow the rule and the filibuster will be gone.

Without the filibuster, the Senate would become revenge-soaked, Hatfield and McCoy-style, as the two sides take turns passing laws over the futile objections of their adversaries. If Democrats expand voting rights, the next Republican majority will constrict voting rights. If Democrats expand the membership of the Supreme Court, Republicans will expand it further to add GOP appointees.

Some, such as Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman, argue that such policy swings are appropriate in a democracy: Its what an accountable system is supposed to look like; otherwise, the voters never get what they vote for. True, in many European countries, the government simply enacts its program. But compromise and moderation are baked into those parliamentary systems, as multiple parties compete for proportional representation and the government falls if it loses support from one wing of the coalition or the other.

The U.S. system is different: a rigid, increasingly polarized two-party, winner-take-all-contraption where power is often decided by a tiny margin. Whoever wins, the Senate filibuster is a cushion against the sudden imposition of that partys policy wish list on the rest of the country.

Without that cushion, each shift in congressional control will unleash a legislative free-for-all. Half of the country will be euphoric and the other half infuriated. This would be an unhealthy scenario for any democracy, but an especially alarming prospect for ours, where there is already so much distrust of institutions and demonization of opponents, and where the violence of Jan. 6 by a pro-Trump mob may be a harbinger of things to come.

Most fundamentally, it is unhealthy if the process by which a nations policy disputes are resolved is up for grabs. Just as baseball teams dont get to claim four outs when they come to bat, the ground rules of our democracy must be obeyed. Challenges to the umpires of democracy calls to disregard state-certified election results, or to fire the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian for her interpretation of Senate rules, or Trumps unceasing attacks on our nations courts should be condemned.

The rule of law is not a mere slogan. It means that laws and rules apply equally to all and can be changed only by legitimate means.

So, whats the solution for those who bemoan the current gridlock but want to avoid civil war?

At least give the traditional legislative process a chance to work. It is noteworthy that 10 Republicans were willing to negotiate with President Joe Biden about coronavirus relief. Their initial offer was too low and Biden knew that negotiation was unnecessary since he had the option to pass his bill under filibuster-less reconciliation process. But if 10 GOP senators were willing to visit the Oval Office to talk about compromise on one bill, shouldnt Democrats at least explore that avenue on other bills before blowing up the chamber?

(Reconciliation, by the way, is like "The Purge" films in which crime becomes legal for a day. Like the Trump record on nominations, reconciliation is another preview of life without the filibuster where both parties go big on either tax cuts or social spending. But at least it is somewhat constrained by budget rules.)

The bill most proponents of filibuster abolition insist must pass immediately without minority input is H.R. 1, pertaining to voting rights and related topics. Voting rights has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a bipartisan bill and has been reauthorized several times with broad bipartisan support, the last time in 2006 with unanimous Senate support.

To be sure, todays Republican Party is no longer the party of Everett Dirksen, and H.R. 1 will not pass the Senate in its current form. But is incremental progress possible? How can we know before the bill is even marked up in committee?

If compromise proves impossible, Democrats should consider filibuster reform before leaping to filibuster repeal. Biden has expressed support for requiring bill opponents to engage in live debate, like Jimmy Stewart in the classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Ironically, the talking filibuster might actually disadvantage the majority party, which typically wants the ability to conduct other business while a cloture petition to end debate is pending.

Go here to read the rest:
Opinion | A Post-Filibuster World Would Be a Nightmare for Progressives - POLITICO

BATON ROUGEOf the 144 seats in the Louisiana Legislature, Democrats hold 47, and even fewer of those members espouse progressive ideas.

At the federal level, progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders advocate for higher minimum wages, universal health care and criminal justice reform and expect to make some headway toward their goals under the Biden administration. But in red Louisiana, the few progressives often find themselves having to moderate their stances as their ideas rarely make it through the Republican-run Legislature.

Most of the dozen or so progressive members belong to the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus and represent lower-to-middle income parts of the states biggest cities.

Theres a lot of lobbyists representing special interests, but the people of Louisiana dont have anyone representing them at the table, said Rep. Matthew Willard, D-New Orleans. Theres no high-paid lobbyists representing the people.

Willard was elected in 2019, as was Rep. Mandie Landry, D-New Orleans, another progressive.

A lot of members in Baton Rouge I think they just dont understand me, she said. Im like an alien to them.

In the legislative session that started Monday, Willard is pushing for easier access to midwives to help bring down the states high maternal and infant mortality rates. He also wants to establish a state income tax credit for parents with children under 18.

The progressives also support other proposals, like increasing the minimum wage, that would benefit the white working class, even though many of its members vote Republican. They also are seeking changes in the criminal justice system and hoping to bring more voters over to their side.

MINIMUM WAGE

The division between moderate Democrats and progressives recently appeared on the federal level when eight Senate Democrats voted against a proposal in Washington to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Louisiana is one of five states that does not have a minimum wage set at the state level, and the federal one has not risen since 2009.

About half of Louisianas workforce would have seen a pay increase if the federal minimum wage would have increased to $15 an hour, Willard said. Louisiana defaults to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, a fact that Willard said is totally unacceptable.

Rep. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, said a low minimum wage creates negative societal impacts.

To me it seems to make more sense that we would want to ensure that people have a living wage, so they can work one good job to take care of family, be at home in the evening and help with homework or help with Little League, so that kids arent out breaking into cars, he said.

Gov. John Bel Edwards has tried several times to establish a state minimum wage as high as $10 an hour but has failed to get the votes given GOP opposition. He plans to try again this year, but Landry does not think he will succeed.

I think its more likely going to happen on a federal level, especially with the Democrat majorities. I just dont see it happening in our state, she said.

Jan Moller, executive director of the nonprofit Louisiana Budget Project, said that polls since 2012 have shown broad support across party lines, age and race in Louisiana for raising the minimum wage. But the bill usually dies in the House Labor Committee, where lobbyists from the restaurant and other low-wage industries oppose it.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

Another focal point for progressives is to push for more changes in the states criminal justice system.

Stung that Louisiana had become the incarceration capital of the world and by the cost of housing for so many inmates, Democrats and Republicans agreed in 2017 to let thousands of non-violent offenders out of jail.

But, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Louisiana in 2019 still had the highest incarceration rate of any state, with 683 incarcerated per 100,000 residents. The following states are Oklahoma with a rate of 639 and Mississippi with 636.

We warehouse more people in prison than anywhere else, and I think its one reason we stay impoverished here, Landry said. Its a waste of resources, in the sense of were wasting money on jails, but were also wasting our actual people.

Its not like people from Louisiana are any more dangerous than people anywhere else, she added. There is nothing in the water that makes people in Louisiana commit more crimes.

Duplessis wants to change that Louisiana is one of six states that sentences criminals to life without parole. According to the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., Louisiana held 4,377 prisoners on life sentences without parole in 2020. That equates to 14% of the prison population, tied for the highest in the country with Massachusetts.

I dont believe everybody should be released, but I do believe everybody should have the opportunity to come up for review, to assess whether or not they have rehabilitated themselves, said Duplessis.

We are a state that promotes Christian values in our faith, he added. And part of Christian values, the last time I checked, is believing in redemption. I want us to have a conversation around the issue of redemption.

SELLING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

The Democratic Party in Louisiana can do a better job at our messaging in letting the people of Louisiana know that we are working on their behalf, Willard said.

In a conservative state, Democrats are often hurt by cultural and religious issues, like their partys pro-choice stance on abortion. Willard sees Louisiana Democrats as more diverse.

Sen. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe, introduced a bill in 2019, for instance, that outlawed abortion after a heartbeat was detected. Edwards, the only Democratic governor in the U.S. who is pro-life, signed the bill into law.

We have always been a big tent party, Willard said. Were not the type of party where if you disagree or dissent, which is at the heart of American democracy, that youre going to be censored or called out. I think thats anti-democratic.

Landry, one of the few white progressive Democrats in the Legislature, is fervently pro-choice. Landry also has authored a bill for the 2021 session that would decriminalize prostitution. Her bill would help individuals who are being trafficked or encounter violence during consensual sex go to the police without the threat of being arrested.

Landry thinks she seems alien to other lawmakers not just because of her ideas but because she is one of only 26 women in the Legislature.

As much support as I get from my district, I get stuff thrown at me elsewhere, she said. Its mostly from men, mostly from white men, but not entirely. I get a little bit from white women around the state. But its a lot.

LATEST POSTS

Excerpt from:
Progressives in Louisianas Legislature break down their stances on criminal justice reform, minimum wage increase - BRProud.com

I would like to respond to Jon Miceks editorial in the April 14 edition of the Daily Item.

John, I am a Republican, and I do support repairing and rebuilding road and bridges, ensuring safe water, and strengthening our power grid. Unfortunately, President Biden and the Democrats have decided to brand things totally unrelated as infrastructure and add them into the bill. This is their way of advancing the progressive agenda.

Look at how they are solving problems. Our government is paying people to stay home, while businesses cant find employees. They canceled a pipeline project with great paying jobs, and tell those workers to go work on solar energy jobs for one fourth the pay, plus losing their retirement. They have abdicated any control of our borders.

As far as electric cars are concerned, if everybody went electric today, the grid would have massive failures. While there have been major gains in solar, wind, and battery technology, we are at the point of diminishing improvements.

The progressives are against many of the ways of generating electricity, including coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric power, but current solar and wind power wont cover the added electric demand. Lithium mining for the car battery material is extremely dirty, and most of the lithium available is mined in other countries, mainly China. Also, our fire departments need training and equipment to handle an electric car fire.

The reason they are called progressives is that they want to progressively expand government, to progressively gain more control over our lives, while progressively increasing our taxes. This is because they know much better than the people who earn the money how it should be spent!

Thomas L. Dahlmann,

Shamokin Dam

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continue reading here:
Progressive agenda | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Of the 144 seats in the Louisiana Legislature, Democrats hold 47, and even fewer of those members espouse progressive ideas.

At the federal level, progressives like U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders advocate for higher minimum wages, universal health care and criminal justice reform and expect to make some headway toward their goals under the Biden administration. But in red Louisiana, the few progressives often find themselves having to moderate their stances as their ideas rarely make it through the Republican-run Legislature.

Most of the dozen or so most progressive members belong to the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus and represent lower-to-middle income parts of the states biggest cities.

Theres a lot of lobbyists representing special interests, but the people of Louisiana dont have anyone representing them at the table, said Rep. Matthew Willard, D-New Orleans. Theres no high-paid lobbyists representing the people.

Willard was elected in 2019, as was state Rep. Mandie Landry, D-New Orleans, another progressive.

A lot of members in Baton Rouge I think they just dont understand me, she said. Im like an alien to them.

In the legislative session that started Monday, Willard is pushing for easier access to midwives to help bring down the states high maternal and infant mortality rates. He also wants to establish a state income tax credit for parents with children under 18.

The progressives also support other proposals, like increasing the minimum wage, that would benefit the white working class, even though many of its members vote Republican. They also are seeking changes in the criminal justice system and hoping to bring more voters over to their side.

The division between moderate Democrats and progressives recently appeared on the federal level when eight Senate Democrats voted against a proposal in Washington to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Louisiana is one of five states that does not have a minimum wage set at the state level, and the federal one has not risen since 2009.

About half of Louisianas workforce would have seen a pay increase if the federal minimum wage would have increased to $15 an hour, Willard said. Louisiana defaults to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, a fact that Willard said is totally unacceptable.

State Rep. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, said a low minimum wage creates negative societal impacts.

To me it seems to make more sense that we would want to ensure that people have a living wage, so they can work one good job to take care of family, be at home in the evening and help with homework or help with Little League, so that kids arent out breaking into cars, he said.

Gov. John Bel Edwards has tried several times to establish a state minimum wage as high as $10 an hour but has failed to get the votes given GOP opposition. He plans to try again this year, but Landry does not think he will succeed.

Its more likely going to happen on a federal level, especially with the Democrat majorities. I just dont see it happening in our state, she said.

Jan Moller, executive director of the nonprofit Louisiana Budget Project, said that polls since 2012 have shown broad support across party lines, age and race in Louisiana for raising the minimum wage. But the bill usually dies in the House Labor Committee, where lobbyists from the restaurant and other low-wage industries oppose it.

Get the Louisiana politics insider details once a week from us. Sign up today.

Another focal point for progressives is to push for more changes in the state's criminal justice system.

Stung that Louisiana had become the incarceration capital of the world and by the cost of housing for so many inmates, Democrats and Republicans agreed in 2017 to let thousands of non-violent offenders out of jail.

But, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Louisiana in 2019 still had the highest incarceration rate of any state, with 683 incarcerated per 100,000 residents. The following states are Oklahoma with a rate of 639 and Mississippi with 636.

We warehouse more people in prison than anywhere else, and I think it's one reason we stay impoverished here, Landry said. It's a waste of resources, in the sense of we're wasting money on jails, but we're also wasting our actual people.

"It's not like people from Louisiana are any more dangerous than people anywhere else, she added. There is nothing in the water that makes people in Louisiana commit more crimes.

Duplessis wants to change that Louisiana is one of six states that sentences criminals to life without parole. According to the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., Louisiana held 4,377 prisoners on life sentences without parole in 2020. That equates to 14% of the prison population, tied for the highest in the country with Massachusetts.

I dont believe everybody should be released, but I do believe everybody should have the opportunity to come up for review, to assess whether or not they have rehabilitated themselves, said Duplessis.

We are a state that promotes Christian values in our faith, he added. And part of Christian values, the last time I checked, is believing in redemption. I want us to have a conversation around the issue of redemption.

The Democratic Party in Louisiana can do a better job at our messaging in letting the people of Louisiana know that we are working on their behalf, Willard said.

In a conservative state, Democrats are often hurt by cultural and religious issues, like their partys pro-choice stance on abortion. Willard sees Louisiana Democrats as more diverse.

State Sen. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe, introduced a bill in 2019, for instance, that outlawed abortion after a heartbeat was detected. Edwards, the only Democratic governor in the U.S. who is pro-life, signed the bill into law.

We have always been a big tent party, Willard said. Were not the type of party where if you disagree or dissent, which is at the heart of American democracy, that youre going to be censored or called out. I think thats anti-democratic.

Landry, one of the few white progressive Democrats in the Legislature, is fervently pro-choice. Landry also has authored a bill for the 2021 session that would decriminalize prostitution. Her bill would help individuals who are being trafficked or encounter violence during consensual sex go to the police without the threat of being arrested.

Landry thinks she seems alien to other lawmakers not just because of her ideas but because she is one of only 26 women in the Legislature.

As much support as I get from my district, I get stuff thrown at me elsewhere, she said. Its mostly from men, mostly from white men, but not entirely. I get a little bit from white women around the state. But its a lot.

Originally posted here:
Louisiana's Legislature isn't totally conservative. Here's where progressives are focused - The Advocate