Mediaboss Marketing

Washington was abuzz over the weekend over the decision of Rep. Jeff Van Drew to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans, precipitated by the Democratic House's impeachment of President Donald Trump. This was a historic move, and one likely not as knee-jerk (or single issue) as the press has been reporting.

In a November 27, 2019, post captioned "What Do Voters Really Think About Immigration? Interesting takeaways from a report apparently prepared for Democratic group", I wrote about a poll that had been purportedly commissioned by a group called "House Majority Forward", which I noted describes itself as "a progressive, non-profit organization committed to promoting economic growth and opportunity, social justice, environmental stewardship, and democracy in the United States of America."

I explained by way of background:

[T]he report purportedly covers the results of research on "two groups of White non-college voters", both male and female, from two congressional districts in New Jersey, NJ-02 (which covers the southern part of the state, currently represented in Congress by Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (D-N.J.)), and NJ-03 (in the middle of the state and cutting it in two, currently represented by Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.)).

Kim defeated incumbent Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur by fewer than 4,000 votes in the 2018 election, while a well-financed Van Drew defeated Republican Seth Grossman by fewer than 20,000 votes in 2018 (there were four other contenders), in a race for the seat that had previously been held by Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo.

I noted that there was an interesting takeaway in the "Overview" section of the report:

Most of the respondents across all of the groups said they side with Trump on immigration. Almost to a person, immigration was described as a matter of bringing "control" to our borders and immigration system (the treatment of children at the border barely came up during the groups).

In fact, among the males surveyed, national security and immigration were more important than abortion rights and government spending, and the respondents did not mention impeachment or Syria until they were asked.

Logically, Van Drew had to have known of this report (not that I think he reads my column, but it focused on his district and the report received attention but not a lot elsewhere). Long story short, if that report is accurate, his constituents plainly supported the administration on immigration, but were not that interested in impeachment, positions directly at odds with Democratic party leadership.

Switching parties is not as common as one would think. Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.-3) switched from Republican to independent in July, but that was largely because he is a libertarian and believed that the GOP was no longer a party of "limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty", and because he was fed up with the two-party system, which he views as "an existential threat to American principles and institutions". It is doubtful that he would find a home in the current Democratic party he has voted with the president's positions more often in the current 116th Congress (81.1 percent of the time) than he did in the last Congress (54.2 percent) but he did vote to proceed with impeachment. He is more of a man without a party than a man in the wrong one.

Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.-5) opted to leave the Democratic Party and become a Republican almost a decade ago out of frustration with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House leadership. His switch was a bellwether for GOP successes in the 112th Congress (2011-2013), when the party won back control of the lower chamber. It didn't help Griffith much, though he lost to Republican Mo Brooks in the ensuing primary, and then lost to him again in the next one.

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) switched from Republican to Democrat in 2009, all but giving the Democrats a supermajority in President Barack Obama's first term. It did not help him or the Democrats in the long-run, either: Specter lost the 2010 primary in a landslide to Rep. Joe Sestak, who lost the general election to Republican Pat Toomey.

Notably, as CNN reported at the time: "Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele ripped Specter, calling him a Republican in name only who was out of step with the rest of the party because of his 'left-wing voting record.'" I worked with his staff on legislation, and would have been a bit more charitable, but Steele was not entirely wrong.

Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.) switched from Democrat to Republican in 1994, reflecting a trend in the South toward the GOP, as did Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.) in 1995 following the defeat of a balanced-budget amendment that he supported and Democrats opposed. Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) switched from Republican to independent, caucusing with the Democrats and giving them control of the Senate in 2001. Jeffords' defection reflected a rift between moderates and conservatives in the GOP, and shifting allegiances in the Green Mountain State.

It is difficult to view Van Drew's switch as anything other than a rejection of the Democratic party's positions on many issues, including immigration. I gave plenty of caveats about the validity of the House Majority Forward survey in my November post, but one particular finding resounded with me: "When asked what Congress should try to work with Trump to achieve, immigration was the dominant response and as we heard in the beginning of the conversation, that would mean controlling immigration."

There are real problems at the border that the president has identified on numerous occasions, but Democrats in power and their supporters in the media seemed to be oblivious to them until they were undeniable. Even then, their responses were largely just a rehash of the positions they had taken before, and an effort to deflect blame on to the president.

For example, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) blamed President Trump's "'refusal to move forward' on comprehensive immigration reform as 'contributing to that humanitarian crisis'", while at the same time asserting that "'there's a lot we could do jointly and should do jointly' in Congress ... to address the border situation." Of course, no such legislation has been forthcoming, despite the president's stated willingness to reach a deal.

There is a saying on Capitol Hill: "When you stop representing your constituents, soon you will stop representing your constituents." Jeff Van Drew has learned this lesson. Immigration propelled Donald Trump to the White House. For the sake of the now 30 Democratic House members in seats the president won in the 2016 election, and her own speakership, Nancy Pelosi should learn this lesson on immigration as well.

Link:
Rep. Van Drew Joins the GOP - Immigration Blog

Rep. Tom Reed applauded the passage of the Bipartisan and Problem Solvers Caucus endorsed Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019 to help struggling farmers in New York gain access to much needed farm workers.

I hear it every time I step on family farms in Upstate New York when is Washington going to do something about access for farm labor?' Reed said. This common sense bipartisan compromise is a step in the right direction for this decades old problem, and will deliver relief to the farmers we care about across the nation to give them fair access to workers they need to prosper. I am proud the Problem Solvers Caucus could get behind this bill as we pushed it over the finish line in the House and onto the Senate.

However, this is just the start of immigration reform. We must secure our southern border and continue to fight to ensure a merit-based system is fully implemented such as the one proposed by President Trump this spring, concluded Reed.

The bill takes a two-pronged approach to meet year-round labor needs: creating a new, capped program for employers seeking to bring in temporary workers for year-round needs; and builds off current law dedicating an additional 40,000 employment-based green cards per year for agricultural workers. It also includes mandatory e-verify, new investments in farmworker housing, H-2A wage reform, and streamlined recruiting.

Access to a reliable workforce is a critical issue for Upstate New York dairy farmers like me, said family farmer David White from Clymer. I milk my cows 365 days a year. Current agricultural visa programs are seasonal and therefore dont provide a solution to dairys unique challenges. I commend Congressman Tom Reed for his work to support and pass the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act to address this critical issue for our Upstate economy.

New York Farm Bureau appreciates Rep. Reeds leadership in cosponsoring the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Farms in his district and across the state need access to reliable labor in order to produce the food we need and to support our rural economy. This legislation would especially support dairy farmers who have long been without access to the agricultural visa program, said David Fisher, New York Farm Bureau President.

We applaud House passage today of the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which takes significant strides to make badly needed improvements to agriculture immigration policy that address dairys unique workforce challenges, said Jim Mulhern, President and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation. Congressman Reed has been a vocal champion on this issue for Upstate New York dairy farmers and we thank him for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill and working to build momentum for this win in the House.

A resounding Thank You to all who have helped to call attention to Fredonia in the Small Business Revolution! ...

LAKEWOOD The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently issued bid invitations for a ...

OLEAN Tina Hastings, executive director of the Tri County Arts Council, recently announced that she will be ...

By TODD TRANUMPresident and CEO of the Chautauqua County Chamber of Commerce & Executive Director of the ...

Original post:
Reed applauds passage of bill to help NY farmers with access to workers | News, Sports, Jobs - Evening Observer

I still think your client is as guilty as hell. FBI Agent Shaw, Richard Jewell

On the recommendation of @cliffordbrown and others, I went to see Richard Jewell. It is a profoundly disturbing movie.

The protagonist is the kind of person who steps up in a crisis to do the right thing. Hes not perfect; his love affair with law enforcement seems to get him to go into beyond his job duties, and he is trying to help even when the FBI is targeting him but we would hope that a security officer took his job seriously. Remember If you see something, say something! Richard saved lives and really tried his best to do a good job.

For this, the FBI profiled him as a terrorist. All of his idiosyncrasies were turned into signs of guilt, and he was fed into the media wood chipper. For all the complaining about the heartless journalist and portrayal of the media, the journalist actually reconsiders. The FBI agent does not. Even as the situation changes, they stretch the theory of the case. And at no time is there any direct evidence the FBI decided he was guilty, and that was that. The quote above is as the agents hands over a letter clearing Richards name.

It is a nightmare. The full weight of the government brought against a law-abiding citizen for doing the right thing. It makes me think of George Zimmerman, who stopped to try to help the police deal with a crime rather than walk on by. He was then put under the microscope for his actions, declared to be white, and prosecuted on shoddy evidence that was revealed to be fraudulent. Incentives work if you punish good behavior, expect less of it.

This movie is also one of the best portrayals of an annoying defense lawyer as a heroic figure. Hes a jerk, but thats because he is adversarial. Its a paean to the adversarial justice system. You need a lawyer because the FBI might just decide to exploit any law-abiding traits to screw you over. I think lawyers would benefit from having defendants watch it, particularly regular citizens.

See more here:
Quote of the Day: Richard Jewell - Ricochet.com

One of my favorite photos of the last ten years comes from the Instagram of Lil Uzi Vert. In it, he and Young Thug appear to be taking a break from a shopping excursion. Thug is dripping in pearls and holding an open bag stuffed with hundred-dollar bills, but Uzi commands the frame. The eye follows his feet, clad in womens Chanel sneakers, along his tattooed calves, past a fetching cardigan short set, accented by a Chanel purse and a flute of ros, all the way up his smiling face, sandwiched between twin diamond-choked chokers and a top-knot of locs.

The decade started in darkness, with George Zimmerman killing Trayvon Martin for wearing a hoodie and further politicizing that garment. In the months and years that followed, alongside the Black Lives Matter movement, the expert display of black pain took on a bloody sheen of prestige, of importance. Affirmations of black happiness, then, emerged as a refusal of burnout, a pressure valve for the anguish of black life, and with them came an aesthetic of black boy joy: flower crowns, pastels, a visual softening of male aggression and stoicism most celebrated against a palette of cisness and straightness. Lil Uzi Vert is far from the first rapper to love fashion or wear feminine clothing, but he is a delightful bookmark for this new lens.

View post:
Why Lil Uzi Vert Is the Most Stylish Man of the Decade - GQ

Kirwan Institute legal analyst Kyle Strickland one of four panelists tabbed for the latest monthly panel discussion from the Columbus African Council

The Columbus African Council has been running monthly discussion panels tackling big-picture questions within the black community, delving into the state of black education and the growing racial wealth gap, among other topics. But the organizations upcoming forum, Breathing While Black, takes a more personal turn, exploring the reality that those within the community are forced to learn to be hyper-vigilant about our black bodies while dancing/selling bottled water/napping in a dorm/mowing the lawn/going to the store/walking through a neighborhood, as detailed in the Facebook event page.

When I heard about the concept, there were so many things I was immediately drawn to. I thought about Trayvon Martin. I thought about Michael Brown. I thought about Tamir Rice, and all of these [instances] where you have African American men shot and killed, and a justice system that never quite delivers the justice that it claims to, said Kyle Strickland, senior legal analyst at the Kirwan Institute for Race & Ethnicity, who will join a four-person panel in discussion at the Columbus Metropolitan Library on Tuesday, Dec. 17. "And you think, That could be me. That could be anybody at any moment in time.'"

Eventually, though, as Strickland considered the topic, he started to think on a more experiential level about the ways race had routinely exhibited itself in his life, often in ways as simple as never really having the benefit of the doubt, he said.

As an example, Strickland, who grew up in a predominantly white Worthington neighborhood, pointed to a visit he made to a childhood friend a couple of years back, when he was approached by a white woman while he sat in his parked car.

And she walks up and says, What are you doing here? Strickland said. As the conversation continued, Strickland informed the woman that he was merely waiting on a friend, and that he had in fact grown up in the area. And yet the woman persisted. And she finally said, You dont really fit in so you might want to move along, which was very much code for, Im going to call the cops.

While Strickland termed the encounter trivial compared with the experiences of others, it served as yet another in a lifetime of reminders that his skin color will sometimes be the first thing some people will see. In grade school, Strickland said it wasnt unusual for teachers to discipline him more harshly than his white counterparts. Then, while he was a senior at Ohio State, someone spray painted Long Live Zimmerman on Hale Hall, the universitys black cultural center, in reference to George Zimmerman, who shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012.

Even Harvard University, where Strickland earned his law degree, wasnt immune, with Strickland recalling the debates surrounding the Harvard Law School shield, which included three sheaves of wheat taken from the coat of arms of the Royall family, which amassed its fortune in the slave trade and on a sugar plantation in Antigua (Harvard Law School was established in 1817 with a bequest from Isaac Royall Jr.; the shield has since been removed from the law school).

And one day we woke up to seeing the portraits of all of the black professors with black tape over their mouths, said Strickland, who also serves as the director of My Brothers Keeper Ohio, a statewide network aimed at providing educational and community opportunities for young men of color. It seemed like a shock at the time: 'How could this happen in a place like this?' But then you look at it, and its like, No. Theres no shock at all. This exists, especially in places of power and prestige.'"

But for Breathing While Black, Strickland said hes as eager to hear from community members far removed from positions of power as he is fellow esteemed panelists, which include organizer Tammy Fournier Alsaada, Judge Kimberly Cocroft and former Ohio State Sen. Ray Miller.

Theres a great group of panelists but you could bring anybody up there to have these conversations and it would be just as powerful and impactful, Strickland said. And I think we often lose sight of that. Its not just the success stories, or people in positions of power [who should be heard]. Really, its the stories of everyday people who are too often ignored. We need to listen to the stories people tell and the pain that they go through.

While discussions centered on race can be difficult, Strickland said theyre essential to countering the long-simmering hatreds and prejudices that once led his fellow Harvard students to place black electrical tape over photographs of black professors, and the teachers in his predominantly white grade school to punish his perceived misdeeds more harshly than his fair-skinned classmates.

If you see ugliness and sit idly by and say, Were not going to talk about it, it will still persist. So Im going to continue to fight, and to talk about these injustices, Strickland said. I think about my two nieces, who are 3 and 1 years old, and I think about the type of country I want to see for them. Ultimately, you talk about being subjected to all of the ugly parts of this country, but there are so many beautiful parts within it, as well. Im not going to let somebody hijack that narrative from me of what it means to be an American.

More:
Forum will explore the difficulty of Breathing While Black - Columbus Alive