Last Seen Blogs
rookedpaperbird
whoops I am still here teehee
myinstiness
Golden Child updates
thecaptainlily
Fly with me
salemprincesrpg-blog
salem princes ⛥
Text
Railing Against Corruption Could Backfire on Democrats
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9682
Railing Against Corruption Could Backfire on Democrats
ANALYSIS — Democrats are running like it’s 2006 again. That strategy may help them win races in November, but it isn’t risk-free.
The revival of the minority party’s anti-lobbying, anti-big-donor messaging, known as the “culture of corruption” mantra from a dozen years ago, speaks to disheartened voters. It also allows Democrats to highlight the persistent ethical and legal troubles, including indictments and guilty verdicts, among those in the Trump orbit.
But even though the message aims to inspire voters to elect Democrats to clean up what they characterize as the GOP’s mess, it could also just make citizens feel more disaffected in the long run. After all, what sounds compelling on the campaign trail, such as banning lobbyist donations to members of Congress, is unlikely to ever make it into law — or to dramatically reshape Washington’s influence business even if it did.
What voters often get are empty pledges from candidates looking to woo them.
Who could forget that candidate-for-president Donald Trump promised he would drain the swamp, borrowing a term that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi used back in ’06? He hasn’t drained it yet, unless you count the guilty verdict of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, once a lobbyist for far-flung foreign clients, whom the president recently called a “good man” and a victim of a “witch hunt” investigation.
ICYMI: ‘President Did Nothing Wrong,’ Sanders Says
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have a long history of blasting the special interests on the campaign trail, while filling their coffers with donor dollars and, yes, consulting with lobbyists about policy and legislation.
Vilifying lobbyists amounts to “cheap talk,” says Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, author of “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It.”
Most voters do say they want an overhaul of federal campaign finance, lobbying and ethics laws. Fully 77 percent of respondents to a Pew Research Center poll earlier this year said they support limits on the amount of money that people or groups can spend on campaigns, while 65 percent said new laws could be effective in reducing the role of money in politics.
The sound bites and talking points, specifically from Democrats this cycle, sound appealing to that end. But what happens if, or when, they come up short, or empty?
Voters may give up, more disillusioned than before.
Lessig, an advocate of using taxpayer dollars to finance elections, says that risk exists. But the measure of overhaul proposals, he says, should not be whether it’s easy to pass but whether it would have any effect.
“Democrats have been trying to do reform on the cheap,” he said.
“What really disappoints me is when you see these supposed leaders, even progressives, take the easy way out.”
He puts a new proposal from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, in that category because she doesn’t include a shift to public financing of elections.
Warren’s bill would ban former members of Congress and agency heads from ever lobbying, ban lobbyists from making campaign contributions and create a new anti-corruption agency, among several other proposals.
In rolling out her effort, she told reporters that the country is going through a “crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy.”
“Big money eats away at the heart of our democracy,” she added. “Over the last few decades, it has created a pervasive culture of soft corruption that colors virtually every important decision in Washington.”
The overhaul group End Citizens United has tracked more than 200 candidates, nearly all Democrats and 100 now competing in the general election, who have taken pledges this cycle not to accept donations from corporate political action committees, said the group’s spokeswoman Anne Feldman.
Such moves, along with Warren’s proposal, fall flat with conservatives, who note that it’s not just Republicans who have become embroiled in corruption scandals over the years.
“They like to decide what’s good money and bad money,” said conservative lawyer Cleta Mitchell, a partner at Foley & Lardner, about Democratic proposals on money in politics. “And they want to silence their opposition.”
Offering a clear glimpse of the partisan divide on how to go about rooting out corruption in government, Mitchell offers a counterpoint to Warren’s idea of creating a new agency to deal with graft.
“You know how you end corruption in Washington, you take away the decision-making power that Washington has,” she said.
Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Here’s where Democrats are spending most money in midterms
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9678
Here’s where Democrats are spending most money in midterms
If television viewers in Washington’s 8th Congressional District feel besieged by negative political advertising, there’s a reason for that. Democrats have spent more on that congressional seat than any other nationwide over the last month, according to a McClatchy analysis. Republicans are just starting to respond.
Since the beginning of August, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has poured more than $1.4 million into the 8th District, mostly on TV ads attacking Dino Rossi, a veteran GOP politician seeking the open seat, according to campaign filings with Federal Elections Commission. He faces Kim Schrier, a pediatrician making her first run for office.
The Democrats’ expenditures are more than double what they have spent on the open House seat in Florida’s 26th District, the second-highest recipient of DCCC independent expenditures since early August.
Voters haven’t elected a Democrat to Congress in Washington’s 8th District since it was created following the 1980 Census. But the times are changing. So are the demographics in this once-rural district, now home to Seattle and Tacoma’s growing suburbs. The retirement of moderate GOP incumbent Dave Reichert gives Democrats a big opening in the 8th, where voters in 2016 narrowly opted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.
“This district may be in more transition than we realize,” said Ron Dotzauer, a Democratic political consultant in Seattle who is not working for any of the campaigns. The 8th District, he said, has seen a big influx of liberal tech workers into suburbs east of the Puget Sound, one reason a majority voted for Clinton in 2016. Clinton won the district by 3 percentage points, but it was a surprise in the increasingly conservative district.
“We were definitely expecting this to be a tough race,” said Andrew Bell, campaign spokesman for Rossi, a former state lawmaker. Bell attributed the DCCC’s recent spending partly to the Democrats’ three-way battle in the Aug. 7 primary, where the leading candidates “put every last dollar into the race.” Schrier, from Sammamish, ultimately edged out her competitors.
Putting Rossi on the defensive, the DCCC has launched two TV advertising blitzes, the latest one accusing Rossi of proposing budget changes as a state lawmaker that hurt seniors in nursing homes and would have kicked “46,000 kids off health care.” Rossi has rejected those claims, and a fact check by Seattle’s KING-5 TV also suggested that some of the DCCC’s claims were misleading.
Republicans struck back last week with an attack ad claiming that Schrier’s medical practice turned away children on Medicaid. KING-5’s fact check found that ad “lacks context and requires more background to understand the full picture, ” and late last week, Schrier’s campaign sent cease-and-desist letters to stations airing the ads, calling them “demonstrably false.”
Largely because of outside spending, the 8th District race is on track to become the most expensive in Washington state history, as McClatchy reported in July.
And that spending doesn’t include “independent expenditures” — supposedly separate from a candidate’s campaign — such as those the DCCC used to buy ads attacking Rossi. Because of the 2010 “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision, outside groups are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts in independent expenditures, unencumbered by campaign contribution limits.
This year, the parties and their supporters are raising record amounts. Through the end of July, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had helped raise $91 million for the DCCC. Countering that money is the Congressional Leadership Fund, a GOP Super PAC tied to House Speaker Paul Ryan, which sponsored the recent attack ad against Schrier and has spent $430,000 against her since Aug. 31.
In July, the leadership fund announced it had raised a record $51 million in the second quarter of 2018, and had $73 million on hand.
Related stories from McClatchy DC
In the 8th District, spending by the parties is being supplemented by right-and-left leaning PACs and other outside groups. Planned Parenthood, Women Vote!, the House Majority PAC and other liberal groups have also made major contributions on Schrier’s behalf. Rossi has also benefited from spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Club for Growth and other groups.
Tight competition is one reason the 8th District has gained such a high profile. Although Reichert was popular and re-elected six times, his retirement gives Democrats a chance to pick up independents and seize on the “blue wave” nationwide. As of Friday, the Cook Political Report rated the 8th District as a toss-up, but other analysts have recently moved it into the Democratic column.
Dr. Kim Schrier / AP photo
Larry Sabato’s group at the University of Virginia changed its forecast in several races last month partly because of President Trump’s legal troubles. These include federal prosecutors obtaining a conviction against Trump’s former campaign chairman and a guilty plea from his former lawyer.
The revised forecast was also a reflection of the Aug. 7 primary for the congressional seat, in which Democrats received nearly 52 percent of the vote, compared to 48 percent for Republicans, said the University of Virginia report. “Seats like WA-8 — an open seat held by the presidential party that the other party’s presidential nominee carried two years earlier — have often flipped to the non-presidential party in recent midterms,” the report said.
If elected, Schrier would become the only female doctor in Congress. Her campaign is highlighting that distinction at a time when women’s reproductive rights are a hot issue, with congressional Democrats asking Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about whether he would providing a fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
By contrast, Rossi is seeking to paint himself a fiscal conservative who will stand behind Trump’s tax breaks, while not toeing the president’s line on every issue.
Schrier and Rossi have agreed to engage in a Oct. 17 debate, according to officials for both campaigns. It is scheduled to be held in Ellensburg, the county seat of Kittatas County, a more conservative part of the 8th District, and could prove pivotal in the race.
Since Schrier has never run for office, she has yet to be tested as a campaigner and debater, said Dotzauer. Rossi, by contrast, is an experienced pol, although that experience includes losing campaigns for governor and U.S. Senator.
“Rossi is really good in those formats,’ said Dotzauer, referring to campaign debates. “He’s really smooth, really prepared.”
Along with the 8th District, Democrats hopes to flip one or two other seats in Washington. These include the 3rd Congressional District, where incumbent Jame Herrera Beutler faces an unexpected strong challenge from Democrat Carolyn Long. Also possibly at play is the 5th District seat held by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who will face Democrat Lisa Brown in November.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Commission recommends investigation of state GOP complaint, dismisses Fayette Democrats complaint | Local News
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9667
Commission recommends investigation of state GOP complaint, dismisses Fayette Democrats complaint | Local News
In a lengthy hearing Monday, the Fayette County Voter Registration Commission considered complaints filed by the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Fayette County Democratic Party alleging election code violations.
The state GOP originally called last month for an investigation into allegedly illegal voter registration tactics by Democrats at the Fayette County Fair, including offering prizes such as Steelers gear and a trip to Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, as inducements to vote or change their party affiliation to Democrat.
A week later, the Fayette County Democratic Committee subsequently alleged that the Fayette County Republican Party’s former chairman sold illegal raffle tickets at the Fayette County Fair, claiming that the ticket sales violated the Local Option Small Games of Chance Act, which regulates games of chance such as raffles, 50-50 drawings and punchboards among licensed eligible organizations.
At Monday’s hearing, the county voter registration commission in a 3-0 vote moved to recommend that the office of Fayette County District Attorney Rich Bower, and in the event of his recusal, the office of state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, investigate any voter registration violations allegedly committed by Fayette Democrats during the county fair.
Bower said Monday that he had not recused himself from either complaint and had asked Uniontown state police to investigate, adding that one of the claims had already been referred to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation. He declined to specify which claim had been referred.
Later, the voter registration commission in a 3-0 vote dismissed the Fayette County Democratic Committee’s complaint without referral to either Bower’s or Shapiro’s office, telling Democratic committee Solicitor Michael Aubele that the commission did not have jurisdiction to recommend an investigation of the matter, for which Aubele could not cite a specific election code violation.
A photo that state Republican Party Director of Communications Jason Gottesman said was provided by a fair-goer to the party last month showed a sign allegedly at the fair indicating that prizes included a Steelers basket, conceal and carry purse, and a weekend for two at Nemacolin Woodlands Resort along with a bottle of champagne and dinner for two at the Stone House Restaurant and Country Inn in Farmington, but only for those registering as Democrat or changing their party to Democrat.
The Pennsylvania Election Code prohibits intentionally giving or offering to give money or goods to an individual “as an inducement for the individual to enroll in a particular party or for a registrant to change political enrollment.”
Aubele said at Monday’s hearing that 15 voter registrations were filled out at the fair before the language in the sign was questioned, and then the wording was changed and no prizes were given out to anyone.
“The issue was corrected,” Aubele said, adding that nobody was intimidated if they wanted to register as a Republican or was anyone paid to change their party affiliation. “Nobody received anything.”
“The fact that you ultimately don’t give it doesn’t negate the violation itself, because you, in fact, promised and offered to give it,” said Ronald L. Hicks, Jr., an attorney representing the state Republican Committee.
Fayette County Democratic Committee George Rattay answered some questions posed to him by the commission but repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer other questions, such as how whose idea putting up the sign, which party member was in charge of ensuring that prizes were awarded, whether the prizes were donated or purchased.
Democrat and former state Rep. Tim Mahoney also testified, saying that his attorney turned in the voter registrations collected while the sign was up to the election bureau and that the Nemacolin condo among the prize offerings was his.
“I just think there was a little mistake made, and I think the Democrat Party (is) owning up to the mistake,” Mahoney said.
The commission signed off on the issuance of a subpoena for documents including a list of all individuals who worked at the Fayette Democrats’ fair booth, any list of voters registered at the fair and any completed voter registration forms that have not yet been submitted to the election bureau by Wednesday at 4:30 p.m., as well as the list of 15 voters in question before 4:30 p.m. Monday.
The commission consisted of Herbert Mitchell, Jr., Angela M. Zimmerlink and Mark Rowan. Mitchell and Rowan were appointed to replace county Commissioners Vincent A. Vicites and Dave Lohr after they recused themselves from decisions on the matters filed by both parties, since Vicites is an executive committee member of the Fayette County Democratic Party and Lohr is a member of the state Republican Committee.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Build sustainability into Democratic platform | My View
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9665
Build sustainability into Democratic platform | My View
As many of you clearly understand, the Democratic Party is extraordinarily proficient in shooting itself in the foot. Instead of countering Republican claims and actions with strong messages proclaiming, “Here are our goals and why they’re important to you,” fossilized leadership seems to be in a permanent “react” mode, and no matter the phrasing, their uninspiring messages are really no deeper than, “We’re not Trump.”
I truly don’t know what the priorities of Democratic Party leaders are today. They vacillate on important issues. They seem to be most concerned about staying in office versus doing what needs to be done for their constituents and the country (no different than what Republicans are doing). But historically there has been a platform, leadership and progress through communication and compromise. I’m beyond sick of politicians swearing they’ll fight for me. Fighting is all they’re doing. Here’s a thought — how about working for all of us?
One of my concerns has been the utter nonexistence of reminders regarding legislation and regulation Democrats have championed over past decades, through compromise and support of many Republicans. Millions of voters today weren’t around in the 1950s and have no real concept of the difference between life then and now (at least prior to the Trump administration). They hear about issues such as relaxing regulations, but they weren’t around to see why those regulations were implemented and don’t understand the implications of relaxing or dropping those standards. No one is shedding light on that side of the issues.
As I began to look at key environmental and social changes achieved through law or regulation since the 1950s, I realized everything had roots in a single concept — sustainability. Sustainability — a foundational belief integrated into everything we do. Everything is interconnected in some manner. Human actions can have a lasting impact on the planet. Actions today must consider future generations. Sustainability means continually moving forward, making changes and improvements to enrich and enhance our quality of life on this planet in a balanced manner.
The term is most often heard regarding the environment. Fundamentally, that is where it all starts and ends. But sustainability flows to affect the orientation of technology; our economy and employment; our educational, scientific, medical, manufacturing and regulatory institutions; and ultimately, quality of life.
There is no planet B. Either we value this planet as a gift and sustain it and ourselves; or, shortsightedly, we ambivalently and callously doom ourselves and future generations for the sake of today’s personal gain and greed by a minuscule number of individuals.
Education is crucial. Since the Democratic Party has no clear platform, give it one — a history of sustainability. Thanks to laws and regulations championed by Democrats, you can no longer set the Cuyahoga River on fire. Women have legal autonomy over their economics and their bodies. We elected an African-American to the presidency for two consecutive terms. And so much more. We certainly aren’t “there” yet. But until the current fear-mongering, divisive, emotion-of-the moment-based, wing nut administration came into office, we were at least continuing — albeit too slowly — to build sustainability into our practices.
This message won’t come from party leadership, so it must start at grassroots, local levels. Write to local newspapers and other media; participate in the local Democratic Party; write to the Democratic Party leadership; meet with active members. Urge candidates to remind voters what Democrats have historically prioritized, accomplished and, hopefully, to clearly re-engage in sustainability going forward. It’s a campaign that needed to start long ago.
T.J. Taub is retired and living in Santa Fe.
/*<![CDATA[*/ window.fbAsyncInit = function() FB.init( appId: '1519422651719737', xfbml: true, version: 'v2.12' ); /** comment callback */ FB.Event.subscribe('comment.create', function(response) // Track comment event __tnt.trackEvent( 'network': 'Facebook', 'socialAction': 'comment', 'url': 'http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/build-sustainability-into-democratic-platform/article_cbc54703-4658-530b-8522-e9cf0a3fc6ba.html' ); ); ; (function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); /*]]>*/
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
What would JFK think of today's Democrats? – The Forecaster
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9670
What would JFK think of today's Democrats? – The Forecaster
As a result of recent primary elections, the Democratic Party’s stripes have been revealed. The socialists are out. Loud and proud.
The Donkey party’s ultra-left progressive membership rocked the vote in recent primaries and successfully nominated ultra-left ideologues for the November election.
Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts and fellow Congressional hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York will join other extreme Democrat candidates as their party’s standard-bearers. And, barring a miracle, these extremists will win nomination in their Democrat-dominated districts. Their influence will certainly grow as the party en masse turns more extreme.
Strange as it sounds, the takeover of the Democrat Party by its socialism-touting members couldn’t be better news for Republicans. It’s helping Americans to see the Democrat Party for what it really is – it’s not for the little guy anymore, it’s for removal and re-engineering of the country’s governing system.
Because of the takeover of the Democrat Party by avowed socialists, the Republican Party, despite Democrats’ decades-long effort to make us think the Grand Old Party is only an assembly of the rich and privileged, has become the only refuge for the majority of Americans who just want sanity and structure to reign over the land.
Democrats stand for stuff that sounds good at first, like a supper filled with sweets sounds good to a child. But their policies ultimately leave the corporate body sick and unsatisfied. Look at any major city where liberal policies have conned a few generations into thinking the government is only there to provide them free housing, food, health care and even cell phones. That is sick thinking.
At its core, the progressive agenda posited by the new Democrats simply means more money coming out of taxpayer pockets. Cortez and Pressley ran on similar pledges of universal health coverage, abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, and government-funded college education for all.
They are mimicking Bernie Sanders of course, the proud Democratic Socialist from Vermont who’s never met a government program he didn’t like. The more entitlements the better, according to The Bern. (Until other people’s money runs out, as the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher famously warned of British entitlements run amok.)
Core Republican ideas ensure the continuation of our society: Keeping a lid on government overreach and taxation, holding to the Constitution, ensuring a top-notch military and being tough on criminals to dissuade future crime. I’d bet that the average voter on the street would agree with those four principles. They might think they’re a Democrat, but really they’re Republicans stuck in old ways of thinking that the Democrat Party is the party for hard-working folks.
Especially here in Maine, where many need to work two or three jobs to make ends meet, I bet it’d be hard to find many people agreeing that free health care, free college and abolishing the agency that keeps 7 billion people from flooding through our country’s borders are workable ideas.
Democrats used to represent the working man. Even 20 years ago, with Bill Clinton at the helm, they had a “Big Tent” approach to governing. They’ve lost their way and now stand for everything that seems foreign to what the average American thinks of this country. Because they’ve veered so far left, I’ll be surprised if the country rewards the Donkeys with the much-ballyhooed “Blue Wave” in November.
The new breed of Democrat represents a kind of mentality that would also be anathema to one of the great heroes of the Democrat Party, President John F. Kennedy. JFK would roll over in his grave after seeing how Bernie and his minions are hijacking the Democratic message, which used to be: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
Now the Democratic message represents the complete opposite of that inspirational phrase from a half-century ago. The Democrat Party is the party of “gimme.”
Kennedy’s accomplishments in office would disturb Pressley and Cortez. He called for reducing exorbitant Eisenhower-era tax rates, the repeal of which led to a bullish decade of growth. He was hawkish on foreign policy, most notably in his efforts to turn back Communist influence in Cuba and Vietnam, noble but failed goals as they were. And he called for dramatically increasing the defense budget.
JFK surely would have been a Republican today, since military strength, reducing taxes and exerting American influence around the globe in the name of freedom are all things to which the Republican Party subscribes. I hope old-time Democrats think twice before they blindly vote for any of the new breed of Democrats.
John Balentine, a former managing editor for Sun Media Group, lives in Windham.
//<![CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.async = true; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); //]]>
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Why do Democrats want a sanctuary state? – Chico Enterprise-Record
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9686
Why do Democrats want a sanctuary state? – Chico Enterprise-Record
Another writer responded to my last message with a description of the wording of Senate Bill 54. However, he failed to give a description of the procedures and practices of certain cities within California and within the state itself.
It is true that SB 54 gives discretion in giving assistance to federal immigration agencies. This allows criminals to remain in California without fear of deportation. I label those persons as criminals because they have broken national laws by entering this country without documentation or following the laws.
Now, ask yourself who was it that proposed and passed this travesty. It was developed by members of the Democratic Party as a protest against the election of President Donald Trump and a continuation of the efforts by the “Deep State” to destroy his administration.
The writer also listed the requirements that must be met in order to vote in California. He was correct in that list but lacked in the actuality that occurs. I have worked as a voting official and have witnessed people violating those rules with impunity because there is no requirement to show proof that the voter is actually a citizen or the person named on the register of voters.
Again, ask yourself who refuses to require proof of citizenship to vote and why not? The Democratic Party won’t agree to require proof because that could decrease their power base in California. The Democratic Party is already trying to allow criminals to vote “only in local elections.” Why?
— Ronald Steinke, Chico
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Marin DA race roiled by party endorsement controversy – Marin Independent Journal
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9659
Marin DA race roiled by party endorsement controversy – Marin Independent Journal
The Marin Democratic Party’s endorsement in the Marin County district attorney’s race has taken center stage.
Last month, candidate Lori Frugoli objected to her opponent, Anna Pletcher, stating in her candidate statement that she was endorsed by the party. Pletcher did receive the endorsement, but California election law specifies “the statement shall not include the party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organization.”
The matter was ultimately decided by Marin County Superior Court Judge Roy Chernus, who ruled that the statement, while improper, would be allowed to stand due to a procedural error by the Marin County Registrar of Voters.
Now, Pletcher is raising issues about various campaign mailings by Frugoli, which she says make it appear that Frugoli was endorsed by the Democratic Party.
“The Frugoli campaign’s recent attempt to censure the section of my ballot statement noting that I am endorsed by the Marin Democratic Party seems particularly ironic,” Pletcher wrote in an email, “given their history of deception around this issue.”
At the end of August, the Marin Democratic Party issued a statement decrying what it said was a “misleading” mailer by Frugoli.
“The mailer features the phrase, ‘The Only Democratic Candidate’ in large bold font followed by ‘Endorsed by Every Former Marin County DA’ in a much smaller font,” according to the statement.
It went on to state: “Due to the emphasis and treatment placed on the phrase ‘The Only Democratic Candidate,’ the Marin Democratic Party sees this as an attempt to confuse or mislead voters and urges the Frugoli campaign to cease such actions in the future.”
“We understand that candidates in hotly contested races will often push the envelope in their attempts to mitigate the impact of their opponent’s endorsements,” Paul Cohen, chairman of the Marin Democratic Party, said in the statement. “In this case, we felt it crossed the line.”
In another mailer, Frugoli’s name is followed by a line that reads: “Most qualified candidate & only Dem.” The line underneath that line states, “Endorsed by every former Marin DA.”
Frugoli has sent out at least two flyers labeled as Democratic voter guides that list her as the recommended candidate in the district attorney’s race.
“Although there is a fine-print disclaimer noting that these are not official party endorsements, these mailers are a clear attempt to confuse voters regarding the Democratic endorsement for the DA’s race,” Pletcher wrote in her email.
In a statement, Frugoli’s campaign responded, “Pletcher complains about a statement she concedes is ‘factually correct,’ that Lori is the only Democratic candidate endorsed by every former Marin County DA. Marin voters are extremely intelligent and will not be confused by varying font sizes or different types of mailers about this statement.”
Pletcher notes that Frugoli has also dispatched a “Latino Voter Guide” and “Senior Voter Guide” that list her as the preferred candidate.
“I am endorsed by multiple Latino organizations,” Pletcher wrote. “I do not believe she has any such endorsements. I am not aware of any senior citizen groups endorsing Ms. Frugoli.”
Andre Charles, Frugoli’s campaign manager, said, “We sent out slate mailers; but we made no such claim.”
Brian Sobel, a Petaluma-based political analyst., said, “The use of slate cards is pervasive in politics and races of every stripe. They are sold knowing that they often times infer things that may or may not be 100 percent accurate.”
According to Pletcher’s campaign manager, Ross Green, during the primary Frugoli’s campaign paid $22,496 to voter guide companies producing slate mailers.
Pletcher said that she has made her voting record and party affiliation public; Frugoli, a Marin County deputy district attorney, has not.
In a statement, the Frugoli campaign wrote that Frugoli’s voting record was sealed “after a criminal defendant she was prosecuting made a specific threat in a jury trial to cut or slice her up.”
Charles said releasing Frugoli’s voting record public would have resulted in her address being made public.
Pletcher, however, challenged that explanation.
“I’m a prosecutor too,” Pletcher said. “I’m not aware of any prosecutors who as a matter of course seal their voter records. There are procedures for public safety officials who are concerned about their address being disclosed to just seal that piece of it.”
The Frugoli compaign countered that Pletcher spent most of her career as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division.
Following the court decision that allowed Pletcher to include the information about her Democratic Party endorsement in her campaign statement, Frugoli requested that Marin County Registrar of Voters Lynda Roberts correct some statements her office included in its court statement.
According to that court statement, Charles first registered a complaint about Pletcher’s campaign statement on Aug. 17.
The registrar’s court statement went on to say that it wasn’t until Aug. 21, a day after the 10-day window for the filing of writs challenging candidate statements had expired, that Charles notified the registrar’s office that the endorsement would disclose Pletcher’s party affiliation; the Marin Democratic Party’s bylaws require that all endorsed candidates be party members.
In his decision, Judge Chernus wrote that the law “expressly requires any challenge to the contents of a candidate’s statement to be made during the 10-day period following the deadline.”
According to Frugoli, however, Charles actually registered his initial complaint on Aug. 13, and was led to believe that Pletcher’s candidate statement would be corrected. Frugoli said Charles discovered the registrar wasn’t planning on challenging the statement on Aug. 20 when he called to ask if any concerns had been raised regarding her statement.
Frugoli said Charles told the registrar’s office on Aug. 20, before the deadline, that according to the California and Marin County Democratic bylaws only party members can receive the party’s endorsement.
In her note to Roberts, Frugoli wrote, “The timeliness of responding to the initial complaint, or lack thereof, was entirely the result and the responsibility of the Elections Department and the Registrar. This fact should be unequivocally communicated to the public.”
Roberts, however, declined to amend her statement.
In response, she wrote, “The Elections Department must maintain a neutral position and making any additional statements on this matter – statements that are not called for by the statutory and judicial process — could jeopardize this stance.”
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Anti-Semitism mailer targets New York Democrat in contentious primary — RT US News
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9655
Anti-Semitism mailer targets New York Democrat in contentious primary — RT US News
Ahead of New York’s Democratic primary, someone within the party has paid for a mailer accusing progressive gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon of anti-Semitism.
Approved and paid for by the New York State Democratic Committee, the mailer accuses Nixon of remaining “silent on the rise of anti-Semitism,” and supporting BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), a worldwide movement to boycott Israeli goods. Nixon, it argues, “won’t stand strong for our Jewish communities.”
The mailer was delivered to 7,000 New York households, and cost around $11,300, according to journalist Zach Fink. It was sent out on Saturday, one day before the start of Rosh Hashanah, or Jewish New Year.
Nixon accused rival Democrat and incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo of approving the mailer, and called it an “attack not only on my family, but on all New Yorkers.” The former ‘Sex and the City’ actress added that the grandparents of her two children with Danny Mozes escaped the Holocaust.
Cuomo denied any responsibility for the mailer’s contents, according to his campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. New York State Democratic Party committee executive Geoff Berman did not admit responsibility but issued something of an apology, saying that the mailer was “inappropriate” and that it “will not happen again.” The person responsible will be “dealt with,” Berman said.
Let me be very clear: This mailer was a mistake and is inappropriate and is not the tone the Democratic Party should set — it will not happen again.
— Geoff Berman (@geoffberman) September 9, 2018
Nixon’s fellow New York progressive, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, demanded to know why the Democratic party was taking sides in a primary in the first place, and whether it would take any action to compensate Nixon before Thursday’s primary vote.
How did the NYS Democratic Party manage to spend $11k on a mailer, falsely accusing a Dem candidate of anti-Semitism, w/o party leadership knowing?
Why isn’t it issuing corrective action before Thursday’s primary?
& why is the party taking sides in a primary to begin with? https://t.co/pzc0y0k4VV
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) September 10, 2018
Berman promised some sort of compensation, but any corrective action would need to be taken fast, as Nixon faces off against Cuomo on September 13. The incumbent governor is leading Nixon by 41 points and across all demographics, according a poll published Monday.
The last-minute mailer comes as the Democratic party struggles with a national identity crisis. After Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election loss, the party has seen its platform shift leftwards, driven by progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), and New York congressional hopeful and avowed socialist Ocasio-Cortez.
The progressives have pushed for a platform that includes raising the minimum wage, establishing universal single-payer healthcare, gun control, and immigration reform. All have called for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a position that would have been anathema to the party establishment just a few years before.
Read more
Save for some local issues, like fixing New York’s subway system, Nixon’s platform is identical to those of this new breed of progressives.
Within the party establishment, some have embraced this leftward shift. After her shock primary victory in June, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez called Ocasio-Cortez “the future of our party.” Others have been less warm to the progressive agenda. Veteran Democrat and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) cautioned that Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory was a local phenomenon, and warned the party not to get “carried away.”
Hillary Clinton’s failure at the polls in 2016 has been widely attributed to the DNC’s decision to muscle out Sanders in a primary that many thought, and WikiLeaks confirmed, was rigged in favor of Clinton. The rest was history, with Democrats failing to win the presidency or dent the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.
It is unclear why someone in New York Democratic Party thought a smear mailer against Nixon was necessary, given her establishment opponent’s 41-point advantage. However, if the recent string of victories for outsider candidates across the country is anything to go by, the suit-and-tie establishment within the DNC may well be expecting the unexpected.
Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
How Primary Results Could Reshape New Hampshire Democrats' Politics
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9662
How Primary Results Could Reshape New Hampshire Democrats' Politics
Primary Day can simply be the day when voters choose who will represent their parties during the general elections.
But primaries can also shape – or reshape – a party, and sometimes in lasting ways. This year could be one of those times for the New Hampshire Democratic Party.
Joining All Things Considered host Peter Biello to talk about these particular primary politics is Josh Rogers.
Note: This transcript has been edited for clarity
So we have two major Democratic primaries this year, in the race for governor and in the race for the 1st congressional district. How could these races change the Democratic Party?
I think one way to look at these primaries is that they are in a sense posing two different questions, but let’s start with a big similarity. In both races, for governor and for Congress in the 1st C.D., New Hampshire’s top elected officials quickly coalesced around two candidates: In the governor’s race, Molly Kelly, and in the 1st CD, Chris Pappas.
[N.H. Voter Resources: What You Need to Know Before Heading to the Polls on Primary Day]
I can’t think of a year when that’s happened to the extent it has in 2018. Part of that may be a quirk of the political calendar; neither of New Hampshire’s senators are up for reelection this year, which frees them up to get involved. There is also the fact that in both races, you have what you could call a real party regular running.
Both Molly Kelly and Chris Pappas have been loyal to Democratic party’s power structure, by serving party leaders, winning election to lower office and adopting the electoral model set by Jeanne Shaheen, to be liberal on social issues, staunch on abortion rights, but more moderate on fiscal matters
So by that do you mean “take the pledge” to oppose a sales or income tax?
That is part of it, and while neither Democrat running for governor backs a new broad-based tax, the pledge kind of does define their race. In Molly Kelly you have someone who never took it before running for governor, and in Steve Marchand you have someone who makes much of not taking it because he says a cultural change is needed, that Democrats need to “let it rip.” If there is anything New Hampshire’s Democratic governor’s haven’t done – we are talking about Jeanne Shaheen, John Lynch, Maggie Hassan – let it rip.
Now Shaheen and Hassan have both been campaigning for Kelly. Their message is, “Molly is like us?”
Less that – though that is kind of implied – than ,”We know her and trust her.” And they do. All of them, also, remember, endorsed Hilary Clinton in the 2016 New Hampshire primary. And we know how that race went. Steve Marchand, who supported Bernie Sanders, is certainly trying to tease out the parallel, but I don’t think you can say his campaign really channeling Sanders so much – although Marchand is trying to get or appear to be on Kelly’s left on every issue – it more that he’s operating wholly outside the power structure that New Hampshire’s most successful Democrats have built.
And should he win – and no one I’m talking to is ruling that out – it would really upend the model for Democrats running for Governor.
There hasn’t been a nominee who hasn’t taken the pledge since 2002. That election didn’t end well for Democrats – Republican Craig Benson trounced the pro-income tax Mark Fernald. But the discussion on taxes is starting to change within the party, and that could intensify depending on what happens tomorrow.
So this race could be a referendum on the political model that party leaders believe have served Democrats for years?
That’s one way to see it
What about the other big primary?
Well in the first C.D., you’ve got a big field, 11 candidates, but in one of the perceived frontrunners, Maura Sullivan, you’ve got someone who just moved to New Hampshire, and maybe moved here simply to run for office. And she’s running a campaign that’s almost airlifted in.
Pretty much all of her money comes from elsewhere, her biggest support comes from outside New Hampshire.
So the idea that the way to do things here is to stoke grassroots support and rely on community support, that’s not Sullivan’s approach?
Well, if it were it probably would not work, because she has few ties to the state, she is a former marine who worked in the Obama VA. But she, and the outside groups that back her have spent big.
And then you have the other perceived frontrunner, Chris Pappas, who’s been in New Hampshire politics pretty much his entire adult life, been a state rep, a country treasurer, executive councilor. Plus, his family owns the Backroom in Manchester, certainly one of the most popular restaurants in the state, and still he could lose to a big-spending newcomer who hasn’t really excited voters.
And that’s why you seen Shaheen, Hassan, and even former Governor John Lynch, who’s largely abandoned party politics since leaving the governor’s office, out there working things for Pappas. Whether voters care about these efforts – for Pappas and the similar ones on Kelly’s behalf – is hard to know.
And another thing is that since neither Kelly’s nor Pappas’ campaigns have spent money on tracking polls, they are kind of flying blind, without a clear sense of how voters feel about these races. Which is another reason these races are interesting in the ways they are testing what’s been the Democratic M.O.for years in New Hampshire.
Maybe the status quo wins, but if it doesn’t, lots of Democrats will be looking at the world differently.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Ad Watch: Dems slam McSally on healthcare vote in new ad | Local news
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9645
Ad Watch: Dems slam McSally on healthcare vote in new ad | Local news
The Arizona Democratic Party has put up a new digital ad attacking Arizona Senate candidate Martha McSally, accusing the two-term Republican Congresswoman of breaking her pledge to protect her constituents with pre-existing conditions from future cuts in healthcare.
The new 42-second ad titled “Martha McSally: Doesn’t care about your health care. Doesn’t care about you.” says that McSally refused to stand by her statement at at Green Valley to protect her constituents with pre-existing conditions.
A spokeswoman for the McSally campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In the new ad, the Arizona Democratic Party argues that her last town hall in Sahuarita in 2017, McSally backed Republican legislation that cut healthcare and highlights a Fox News interview where McSally told the host that “we’ve got to get this done” in reference to repealing the Affordable Care Act.
The ad says McSally “voted to gut these protections for 2.8 million Arizonans” and refers to an ABC News story dated May 3, 2017. It does not refer to any specific bill that McSally supported.
A spokesperson said the ad will appear on digital platforms this week.
youtube
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Democratic candidates seek to rise above crowded field in 1st District
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9673
Democratic candidates seek to rise above crowded field in 1st District
MANCHESTER, N.H. —
A crowded field of Democrats are competing in the 1st Congressional District, but two candidates might have the edge in Tuesday’s primary.
Many political analysts believe Chris Pappas or Maura Sullivan are best positioned to rise to the top of the 11-candidate field.
>>Voter Guide: 1st Congressional District race
Pappas, with former Gov. John Lynch at his side, spoke with voters Monday at Maryann’s Diner in Derry.
“We’re having conversations wherever we can, and I think we’re going to see a record turnout in the Democratic primary tomorrow, and that bodes well not just for the Democratic Party, but for democracy as a whole,” Pappas said. “I think we need a check and a balance on President (Donald) Trump and the Republicans in Congress.”
Pappas and Sullivan have led the field in fundraising, which may help their chances Tuesday. Sullivan stopped by Calef’s Country Store in Barrington on Monday afternoon as she sought to win over every last possible vote.
“I think voters are really energized, and I think this is probably the most important election, certainly of my lifetime, and we are feeling that and hearing that at the doors,” she said.
Sullivan has come under fire in the final days of the race following negative mailers against Pappas and a flap over the fact she did not vote in the last two midterm elections. While she has expressed regret about not voting, she said that’s not what the electorate is worried about.
“It’s just not what I’m hearing from voters,” Sullivan said. “What I’m hearing from voters is that these are unprecedented times in our country. The future of America is at stake.”
Pappas declined to respond directly to questions about Sullivan, but he said it’s important to send someone to Washington who will take action.
“Enough with some of the personal politics and some of the extreme policies we see being pushed,” Pappas said. “People in New Hampshire want someone who’s worked on the issues and who’s ready to go to bat for them.”
Another question in the race is who progressive voters might choose. Several other candidates are trying to appeal to voters on the left, and they might benefit if turnout is high.
All the other candidates said they were excited for voters to make their picks Tuesday.
“It feels like the race just started a week ago with the debates, and now we’re actually starting to talk to voters, and they’re paying attention,” candidate Deaglan McEachern said. “But because of the work we put in, because of the infrastructure we built, we feel like we’re in a really good position.”
Candidate Mindi Messmer said she can bring a perspective that no other candidate can.
“What’s resonating with people is that I’m a scientist,” she said. “They really think it’s important to send a scientist to Washington. But also, I’ve made a commitment to be a grassroots campaign. Eighty-nine percent of our money comes from in-state New Hampshire, which is different than some people talking about being a grassroots campaign.”
Candidate Lincoln Soldati said his campaign is coming in under the radar.
“We’re very confident,” he said. “We feel that we’re sort of the stealth campaign, and we think we’re going to surprise a lot of people, so we’re feeling good.”
Naomi Andrews, chief of staff for outgoing U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, said she would bring valuable experience to the job.
“I committed to myself that I was going to work hard and win,” she said. “This was nothing new to me. I’ve been working for Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter for over 11½ years as chief of staff, a winning campaign manager, so I said I was going to work hard to win and have fun doing it, and that’s what we’ve been doing.”
Candidate Terence O’Rourke said he has been receiving a good deal of support on the trail.
“It’s good to see that people haven’t made up their minds yet, that they haven’t been so overwhelmed by TV commercials or who the establishment picks are that they’re still committing to candidates like myself,” he said.
Levi Sanders said his campaign has been connecting well with the people of New Hampshire.
“I talk about income and wealth inequality,” he said. “I talk about Medicare for all. I’ve worked in legal services for 18 years. I’ve been a union member for 24 years, and I understand on an intimate level what’s going on in people’s life, in my opinion, a lot better than the other folks.”
Mark MacKenzie said his campaign reflects his life spent working to help others.
“I offer an opportunity for people to vote for somebody who has spent their entire lifetime, as a firefighter in Manchester but also as an advocate, fighting on behalf working families,” he said.
Candidate William Martin urged voters to not just go along with the most well-funded candidate.
“Never be afraid to vote with your conscience,” Martin said. “It’s not about who comes into a race with the most money and most connections. Anyone can do well. Everybody who goes through Congress, everyone there is going to be backed up by a variety of experts.”
Candidate Paul Cardinal is also fighting for the Democratic nomination.
AlertMe
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Opinion | Democrats Are Credible on Health Care
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9651
Opinion | Democrats Are Credible on Health Care
And while the exchanges are covering fewer people than projected, Medicaid is covering more than expected, so that overall gains in coverage have been surprisingly on target. In early 2014, the Congressional Budget Office projected that under the A.C.A., by 2018 there would be 29 million uninsured U.S. residents. The actual number is … 29 million.
What’s particularly impressive about Obamacare’s stabilization is that it’s happening despite desperate attempts by Trump and his allies to sabotage his predecessor’s achievement. Republicans have repealed the mandate that was supposed to induce people to sign up for coverage while still healthy, and the Trump administration has done all it can to increase risks and drive insurers out. Yet Democrats built their system so well that it’s still standing despite everything thrown at it.
Of course, Obamacare would be doing even better if it were run by people who weren’t trying to kill it. Look at what’s happening in New Jersey, where a Democratic governor and Legislature have used their powers to undo most of the Trumpian sabotage: 2019 premiums will actually drop 9.3 percent, even as they rise modestly in the nation as a whole.
And on the other hand, if Republicans hold Congress this November, they will simply kill Obamacare outright, taking coverage away from millions. If you have a pre-existing medical condition, or a job that doesn’t come with good insurance, be very, very afraid.
Now, Obamacare is hardly a perfect system. It was always an awkward compromise reflecting the political constraints of the time, and many Democrats — including Barack Obama himself — are now suggesting moving beyond it to “Medicare for all,” although it’s not clear exactly what that would mean.
But the Affordable Care Act really did achieve a lot. And this achievement bears strongly on the current political debate. Basically, Democrats have earned a lot of credibility on health care: They delivered what they promised, and they have showed that they can build systems that work.
Republicans, on the other hand, aren’t just lying about their health plans — pretending, for example, to protect people with pre-existing conditions when they aren’t. They’ve also been utterly wrong about everything, and have learned nothing from their mistakes.
So are Democrats justified in running as the defenders of American health care? Yes.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Democratic Party holding annual barbecue fundraiser
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9641
Democratic Party holding annual barbecue fundraiser
The Yolo County Democratic Party will holding it annual barbecue/bean feed fundraiser on Sunday, Sept. 16 from 4:30 to 8 p.m. at the Davis Senior Center 646 A St. The themes for this year are “Take Back the House” and “Keeping Families Together”: they are based on Yolo County Democrats working with others to make sure California increases its Democratic seats in Congress and working to bring families together that have been separated at the southern border and to remind that many are people seeking asylum, according to Yolo County Democratic Party Chair, Bob Schelen. Speakers will discuss both of these themes during the program with a keynote provided by Rep. John Garamendi. A donation of $35 or $50 per couple is requested. For questions, please email Dillan Horton at [email protected]
Related
(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&appId=234235926959495&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); window.fbAsyncInit = function() FB.init( appId : '234235926959495', xfbml : true, version : 'v2.6' ); ;
(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Democrats, Republicans welcome Obama's venture into midterm campaign
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9654
Democrats, Republicans welcome Obama's venture into midterm campaign
WASHINGTON (Circa) —
At his first campaign rally of the 2018 election cycle, former President Barack Obama attempted to impress upon California Democratic loyalists how urgent it is that they vote in November, but Republicans are banking on their base getting the same message from the rare attack on a current president by his predecessor.
“This is a consequential moment in our history. The fact is if we don’t step up things can get worse…,” Obama said in Anaheim as he stumped for seven Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in districts that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. “But the good news is in two months, we have a chance to restore some sanity in our politics. We have a chance to flip the House of Representatives.”
While Obama’s comments about threats to democracy and political division Saturday seemed to be aimed at President Donald Trump, he never mentioned the current White House occupant by name. A day earlier, at an event in Illinois, he targeted Trump more explicitly than he had since the end of the 2016 campaign.
“It did not start with Donald Trump, he is a symptom, not the cause. He is just capitalizing on resentment that politicians have been fanning for years, a fear, an anger that is rooted in our past but is also borne in our enormous upheavals that have taken place in your brief lifetimes,” Obama said at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It is not yet clear how often the former president will be seen on the campaign trail this fall or how much of his messaging will be focused on Trump. Obama will appear in Ohio Thursday at an event for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray, and he is scheduled to speak in Pennsylvania later this month.
“President Obama’s campaign appearance in California is all upside for Democratic congressional challengers…,” said Darry Sragow, a longtime California Democratic strategist. “A primary purpose of his visit is to increase Democratic turnout in districts that historically have voted Republican.”
Considering how vital former Obama voters were to Trump’s victory in 2016, he is well-positioned to encourage those voters to switch back, according to David Ormsby, an Illinois public relations consultant and former press secretary for the Democratic Party of Illinois.
“The former president can speak uniquely to the demographic who voted for both him and Donald Trump, aiming to persuade those swing voters with buyer’s remorse to return to the Democratic column in November,” he said.
For a Democratic base that has been marching through the streets in outrage over Trump’s presidency, Obama is a welcome, if belated, conscript to the resistance.
“There in some ways had been a certain amount of frustration given what has been happening over the last 20 months he hasn’t been out there,” said Neil Sroka, communications director for Democracy for America, a progressive political action committee that endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. “The forcefulness and the directness of his comments I think is broadly in line with where many parts of the grassroots base are on this election.”
Especially exciting for activists were Obama’s shout-outs to new progressive policy ideas like Medicare-for-all.
“That was something a lot of people noticed and appreciated,” Sroka said. “It’s a good reflection of the fact that former President Obama seems to be responding to the changes happening in the political landscape.”
Republicans were also happy to see Obama embrace some of the more liberal policies on the Democratic agenda.
“As long as Barack Obama is talking Medicare-for-all, he’s pushing independent voters into the Republican camp,” said Mark Weaver, an Ohio-based GOP strategist.
According to Jason Mollica, a former journalist and communications professional who now teaches at American University, Obama and other prominent Democrats must be cognizant of Republicans who are reluctant to support Trump but struggling to find a palatable alternative.
“They want to make sure they’re putting forth messaging that’s going to work for Americans who have a difficult choice,” he said.
It remains to be seen whether Obama can thread that needle, but his first foray into the midterm battle drew aggressive counterattacks and cries of hypocrisy from Republicans.
“If he’s right and Donald Trump is the symptom of a cause, well, Donald Trump got elected in 2016 after eight years of Barack Obama as president. He can’t detach himself,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Vice President Mike Pence called Obama’s attacks “very disappointing” in an interview with CBS News, but Republicans are hoping his highly-publicized speeches will continue to remind GOP voters why they supported Trump in the first place as the election approaches.
“I think it helps Republicans every time Barack Obama campaigns,” Weaver said.
According to Sroka, the risk of inadvertently galvanizing Republicans is overstated and is far outweighed by the boost Obama can provide for Democratic candidates.
“Honestly, it’s hard to imagine an individual or activist that wasn’t already supporting Donald Trump’s bigoted agenda being drawn into the process because Barack Obama spoke up for decency and democracy,” he said.
Much like Trump is campaigning in favorable districts and staying out of Democratic strongholds, Mollica expects Democrats will deploy Obama strategically to minimize the blowback.
“President Obama is very smart and he’s not going to just go out there and fly off the handle,” he said.
A recurring theme in Obama’s comments was the importance of getting out and voting this fall. Weaver questioned whether delivering that message is worth the potential Republican backlash.
“If the Democrat base were flagging or there was a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats for voting, then Obama running around taking potshots at the president might help, but Democrat voters are already planning on voting,” he said.
Sroka fears that perception could make Democrats complacent.
“Certainly, Democrats are enthusiastic,” he said, “but I think there is broad agreement we cannot take one single shred of that enthusiasm for granted.”
Republicans have portrayed Trump’s election as a repudiation of Obama’s presidency, but Obama had an approval rating nearing 60 percent when he turned over the Oval Office. His final rating in Gallup’s daily tracking poll was higher than it had been since mid-2009. As with most things in modern politics, though, opinions on Obama are highly partisan, and there is no doubt his speech stirred anger within the GOP base.
At a campaign event Friday afternoon, Trump joked that he had fallen asleep during Obama’s speech. His predecessor’s criticism clearly stung, though, leading Trump to tweet out rebuttals over the weekend. Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was brought in to brief the press Monday in what appeared to be an effort to refute Obama’s assertion that he bears some responsibility for the health of the economy.
“President Trump has achieved clear success in jump starting the economy, defying repeated attempts to credit the Obama Administration,” a fact sheet distributed by the White House Monday claimed.
As he promised before leaving office, Obama has never fully receded from the national stage. He has issued statements rebuking Trump, albeit somewhat obliquely, on several occasions defending his legacy on issues like the environment, health care, and immigration.
“It’s kind of bad form for a retired president to wade back into politics,” Weaver said. “In some churches, there’s an unwritten rule that when a minister retires from the church, he needs to find another church to worship in because his presence in the congregation is a constant reminder of his past service and makes it harder for the new pastor to be successful.”
Experts agree a former president launching such a full-throated assault on his successor is unusual. It is also unusual for the current president to call the previous president “sick” and regularly accuse him of overseeing a massive illegal conspiracy, as Trump has done.
“It’s a hard job. He’s got plenty on his agenda. It’s difficult,” former President George W. Bush said in early 2009, explaining why he intended to abstain from criticizing Obama. “A former president doesn’t need to make it any harder.”
Despite that sentiment, Bush did publicly question Obama’s policies at times. In one June 2009 speech, he argued against Obama’s economic stimulus package and his efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, but he did not refer to Obama by name.
Historians often highlight the unexpected friendships and alliances forged by former presidents, but it is not unheard of for a sitting president to be overtly criticized by his predecessor. Herbert Hoover made his opposition to the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt well-known, declaring in a 1936 speech that the New Deal was “the poisoning of Americanism” and calling for a “holy crusade” against it. He then actively supported Roosevelt’s opponent in the general election.
Harry Truman criticized Dwight Eisenhower sharply, and he delivered more than 20 campaign speeches on behalf of Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson in 1956. He also campaigned “extensively” for Democrats in the 1958 midterms, according to the Library of Congress.
After Ronald Reagan accused Jimmy Carter of leaving the U.S. in “the worst economic mess since the days of Franklin Roosevelt” in 1982, Carter fired back, alleging at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser that Reagan was not yet ready to accept the responsibilities of the presidency.
Carter has become more vocal in recent years, slamming the war in Iraq regularly throughout George W. Bush’s presidency. In 2007, Carter declared Bush’s administration “the worst in history,” but he later said that comment was careless and not intended as a personal slight against Bush. Clinton and Obama have also drawn Carter’s ire at time.
If Obama is violating the unspoken rules of the post-presidency club over Trump, he is not alone. Clinton, who campaigned doggedly for his wife in 2016, has occasionally criticized Trump since the election as well. Carter has publicly called Trump “a disaster,” George W. Bush has made public statements widely perceived as anti-Trump, and George H.W. Bush was quoted as calling him a “blowhard” in a 2017 book.
As Obama hits the midterm campaign trail in a way none of his modern predecessors have, Timothy Blessing, a professor of history and political science at Alvernia University and co-author of “Greatness in the White House,” noted he is unique in one other significant way.
“If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, he broke with the Republican Party and Republicans didn’t particularly want him to campaign for them,” he said. “Taft was a defeated president and persona non grata for Republicans. Wilson had a serious stroke. Harding was dead. Coolidge was very sick. Hoover was persona non grata because of the Depression. FDR was dead.”
Harry Truman left office with an approval rating in the 20s, Dwight Eisenhower had suffered heart attacks, John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Lyndon Johnson was sick, and Richard Nixon was “the ultimate persona non grata,” Blessing said. More recent presidents have also struggled with health problems or scandals tainting their image toward the end of their terms.
“It’s really hard to find presidents who are both popular and healthy after they leave the White House,” Blessing said.
After 20 months of President Trump discarding countless norms of presidential behavior, some shrugged off Obama’s divergence from expectations for post-presidential conduct.
“After Trump has stomped – proudly – on so many norms, traditions, and protocols, to accuse Obama of breaking some post-presidential decorum is just bizarre,” Ormsby said. “Of course, if he appears in tan suit, then folks are free to feel scandalized.”
According to Sragow, too much is on the line in November for Democrats to withhold one of their most potent political weapons in deference to perceived traditions.
“Given how high the stakes are for the Democrats in this fall’s congressional elections, the party leadership would be committing political malpractice if it didn’t pull out all the stops,” he said.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Elections board: Santagata properly on Pawtucket ballot as Democrat - News - providencejournal.com
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9649
Elections board: Santagata properly on Pawtucket ballot as Democrat - News - providencejournal.com
The candidate running against state Rep. Jean Philippe Barros was one of 16,000 people ensnared by a massive DMV computer glitch.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Despite eleventh-hour questions about legislative candidate David Santagata’s eligibility to run in Wednesday’s Democratic primary, the Rhode Island Board of Elections voted unanimously Monday to let the 32-year-old running against state Rep. Jean Philippe Barros remain on the ballot in Pawtucket’s House District 59.
The board also reinstated him as a Democrat so he can vote for himself on Wednesday.
The board did so in the absence of any evidence that Santagata — who was one of 16,000 people ensnared by a massive DMV computer glitch — intended to drop his Democratic party affiliation and become a member of the small “Moderate Party” when he went online to renew his driver’s license last February.
Santagata told the board he had no recollection of doing so or ever intending to do so as a lifelong Democrat, but could not say for certain he did not.
Simply put, Santagata — a first-time candidate, who said he is unemployed but designs jewelry at his home — recalled renewing his license and getting on with his day.
Under these circumstances, the board questioned the wisdom — and legality — of letting people change their party affiliations while doing totally unrelated business online with the state’s Division of Motor Vehicles, in light of a state law that, in all other cases, requires a voter to physically sign an affidavit if he or she wishes to change party affiliation.
Santagata’s case presented thorny issues, complicated by the fact that the elections board’s executive director was unable to get deep enough into the DMV website to screen-capture and print a copy of the page that give drivers — doing DMV business — a chance to register to vote or update their existing voter-profile.
Santagata’s situation came to light a little more than a week ago when the secretary of state’s office discovered, by chance, that the DMV website had not over an extended period of time transmitted the voter-registration records to the state’s central voter registration system for 16,000 people.
While there was no change for most of those people, the number included the records of approximately 1,400 newly registered voters, and close to 3,600 others who had updated their addresses or their party affiliations while doing unrelated tasks on the DMV website.
City and town canvassing boards scrambled last week to send “change notices” in the mail to every potential voter caught up in the snafu who may have applied for a mail ballot, had gone online earlier to check the location of the polling place, and had gotten wrong information because their record had not yet been updated.
The acting elections board chairman Stephen Erickson said he has since learned the glitch came about when people hit a question on the website: “Do you want this information to be transmitted … If somebody clicked ‘yes,’ it didn’t necessarily get transmitted. It might have been treated as a ‘no’.”
“So we know where the glitch was. Whether that impacts the entire credibility of the system is a different issue. We’ve just got one case in front of us,” Erickson said.
The board asked its executive director Robert Rapoza to provide a screen shot of the DMV website to see what any visitor there, including Santagata, might have seen that related to a party affiliation changes. He reported back that he had been unable to do so.
The Journal asked the DMV at 11:53 a.m. to provide a screen shot. This was the response from DMV spokesman Paul Grimaldi at 5:01 p.m.: “Your request will be accommodated in the course of DMV staff responsibilities.”
(function() var _fbq = window._fbq )(); window._fbq = window._fbq || []; window._fbq.push(['track', 'PixelInitialized', ]);
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
Nixon slams Dem Party mailer questioning her support for Jewish people - News - recordonline.com
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9634
Nixon slams Dem Party mailer questioning her support for Jewish people - News - recordonline.com
ALBANY, — Cynthia Nixon’s campaign cried foul on Monday over a pro-Andrew Cuomo mailer paid for by the Democratic Party that questions her support for Jewish people, with the candidate calling on the governor to apologize to New Yorkers.
Nixon, who has two children being raised in the Jewish faith, called the mailer “dirty, sleazy politics” and said Cuomo’s explanation that he didn’t know about the mailer isn’t believable.
“The idea that they would accuse me of being soft on anti-Semitism is an outrage,” she told Buzzfeed’s news show AM To DM on Monday. “The idea that Andrew Cuomo didn’t know this was happening is completely bogus and I think he actually owes an apology not just to say it was a mistake, but that it’s factually wrong…This is fear-mongering for political gain at its worst.”
The mailer says Nixon opposes funding for Jewish schools, supports “racist, xenophobic” calls to boycott Israel over its treatment of Palestinians and that she has been “silent on the rise of anti-Semitism.”
“With anti-Semitism and bigotry on the rise, we can’t take a chance with inexperienced Cynthia Nixon, who wouldn’t stand strong for our Jewish communities,” the mailer reads.
Cuomo controls the state Democratic Party and recently transferred $2.5 million to its account for election-related expenses. He said Sunday he wasn’t aware of the mailer until angry voters began complaining about it and still hasn’t seen it.
State Party Executive Director Geoff Berman has called the mailer a “mistake” and offered to use party money to pay for a Nixon mailer of her campaign’s choosing. Nixon says it’s too late to send a mailer and on Sunday suggested that Cuomo instead hold a press conference to apologize.
The state party hasn’t said who approved the mailer, or how many were sent out to voters. Messages left with the Cuomo campaign and the state party were not immediately returned Monday.
A poll released Monday suggests Cuomo has widened his lead over Nixon, an education activist and former “Sex and City” star. According to the survey, Cuomo now leads Nixon 63 to 22 percentage points.
The poll was taken before questions surfaced about the anti-Nixon mailer — or before the state was forced to close the second span of the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge just a day after Cuomo held a celebratory ribbon cutting.
The second span was supposed to open to the public on Saturday but crews disassembling the nearby old Tappan Zee Bridge discovered that it had destabilized and could fall, potentially hitting the new span. The span is expected to reopen to traffic Tuesday evening.
Read full story here
0 notes
Text
PA Dems Fall Dinner: Rally Behind Casey and Wolf, Share Anti-Trump Message
https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=9676
PA Dems Fall Dinner: Rally Behind Casey and Wolf, Share Anti-Trump Message
Written by John Cole, Managing Editor
The road starts in Pennsylvania. What path will the party take though?
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party Fall meeting taking place this past weekend, just 60 days before the election, stressed the significance of electing Democrats up and down the ballot and discussed what they believe voters want to see.
“What they don’t want to hear is what we’re against. They want us to say, tell us what you’re about,” Gov. Tom Wolf said. “We are exactly what people want.”
On the other hand, the keynote speaker for the Keystone Dinner, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), didn’t shy away from sharing what he thinks the masses see in their President.
“We have a hater in the White House,” Jeffries said. “The grand wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” He also described Trump as a “Richard Nixon type crook.”
Wolf boasted about his record in office thus far and believes that Democrats need to tell voters that they are for three things: helping people, doing the right thing, and showing integrity.
The seasonal meeting took place at the Sheraton Hotel in Harrisburg. The dinner included speeches from Jeffries, Wolf, lt. Gov candidate John Fetterman, PA State Chair and Vice Chair, Nancy Patton Mills and Sen. Shariff Street, state Sen. John Blake, and state Rep. Donna Bullock, and Abe Amoros, the Pennsylvania Legislative Director for the Laborers International Union of North America.
A major theme of the evening was boasting about the special election victory of Rep. Conor Lamb in March, while promoting progressive talking points in the party.
Democrats in the state believe that Pennsylvania can play a unique role in the party’s effort to take back the house. During her first state committee meeting as party chair, Nancy Patton Mills, recalled a conversation she held with DNC Chair, Tom Perez stressing the role of her commonwealth.
“He said ‘Nancy, you are ground zero in Pennsylvania,” Mills said. “I said we are ready for it.”
The new Congressional map ordered by the State Supreme Court in Pennsylvania has helped change the expectations of the Democrats in the fall, but wanted to reiterate the special election victory of Rep. Conor Lamb as proof the wave is coming regardless.
“We also won a seat before that redistricting in Conor Lamb and he showed us the blueprint for how it can be done in Pennsylvania,” Mills said.
The Democrats currently have 6 of the 18 Congressional seats in the state, but the most recent FiveThirtyEight polling shows a 9-9 split delegation after November’s election.
Since the divisive 2016 election, the one giant uniter for the Democratic Party has been President Donald Trump. No one at the dinner Friday night channel that energy better than the New York congressman, who the Washington Post dubbed “Brooklyn’s Barack Obama.” Jeffries deemed the current President as an “existential threat.”
“Our diversity is a strength, not a weakness,” he said. “Out of many we are one, that’s what makes America great.”
Channeling the message of diversity before Jeffries’s address, Bullock discussed the need to encourage more diverse individuals to run for public office.
“I often joke about the fact that, and no offense to you if your name is Mike, but there are more men, white men named Mike in the general assembly than there are women of color, 13 Mikes, 10 women of color,” Bullock said.
“I’m not here asking, I’m here to dare you to get out to vote,” she said. “I dare you to embrace all of our Democrats, whether they identify as a socialist, a progressive, a liberal, a Berniecrat, it does not matter. We’re knocking on your door.”
“There’s something about that dare,” Bullock said. “Because I’ll tell you, If you dare me, I’m going to get it done.”
In their plea to voters for the 2018 election, several speakers recognized the errors the Democratic party has made in recent elections.
“We haven’t done well the past 2 cycles,” Blake said. “The other side is better at dividing us.”
Sen. Blake first won election in 2010 when the Pennsylvania State Senate was 30 Republicans and 20 Democrats. Today, there are 34 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
The Democrats have seen a gradual decrease in representation outside of the metropolitan areas of the state, and the party is hoping to change that starting in November.
“To my friends and colleagues in rural Pennsylvania, we didn’t show up,” Street said. “Republicans had a terrible message for you in ‘16, we had no message at all.”
Street also believes the party didn’t do an adequate job reaching out to black and latino communities in 2016.
“We also didn’t go into the inner city,” he said. “We took votes for granted.”
Looking forward to the upcoming election, multiple speakers touted specific policy issues that they believe will bring the Democrats back into power.
Wolf’s running mate, Braddock Mayor Fetterman, delivered a fiery speech defending Wolf’s record and asking the crowd what they believe in.
“This man (Wolf) is the firewall that protects that and safeguards that in Pennsylvania,” Fetterman said, referring to union rights, a women’s right to choose, and other Democratic policies.
The state committee members present responded passionately to the pleas of various progressive ideas mentioned during speeches.
“Are you ready to take our country back from the millionaires and billionaires who are robbing taxpayer dollars to subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and famous,” Jeffries asked the crowd. “We’re going to fight for a real infrastructure plan that invests $1 trillion and creates 16 million good-paying jobs.”
The multiple references of defending unions resulted in some of the loudest responses in the evening and was particularly emphasized from the lone labor leader speaker.
“Working families will no longer tolerate continued disrespect and inaction by elected officials,” Amoros said. “Because for too long, organized labor has been the punching bag for right-wing extremists, who chose to side with greedy corporate interests, while forgetting about the little guy and gal.”
Jeffries likened the current state of the nation as a plane going through turbulence, but believes the country, led by Democrats will provide better days.
“Democrats will save our democracy,” Jeffries said. “The beautiful thing about this country is that everytime we found ourselves in the midst of adversity, everytime we find ourselves in the midst of turbulence, we always make it to the other side.”
Casey was not present at the dinner or meeting, but relayed a message via recorded video at the Saturday meeting discussing the important work of Democrats and his campaign.
“Democratic values are the values that allow us to win,” Street said. “They are the values that represent ordinary folks.”
September 10th, 2018 | Posted in Congress, Front Page Stories, Governor, Harrisburg, Senate, Top Stories | 2 Comments
Read full story here
0 notes