Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats on Tuesday unveiled a long-awaited linchpin of their drive to protect voting rights, introducing legislation that would make it easier for the federal government to block state election rules found to be discriminatory to nonwhite voters.

House leaders expect to pass the bill, named the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act after the late civil rights icon, during a rare August session next week. They say it would restore the full force of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after a pair of adverse Supreme Court rulings and that it would help combat a wave of restrictive new election laws in Republican-led states.

Today, old battles have become new again as we face the most pernicious assault on the right to vote in generations, said Representative Terri Sewell, the bills chief author and a Democrat from Alabamas civil rights belt, where Mr. Lewis and others staged a national campaign for voting rights in the 1960s. Its clear: federal oversight is urgently needed.

But like other voting rights legislation to come before Congress this year, its chances of passing the evenly divided Senate are exceedingly narrow. Only one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, is likely to support the legislation, leaving Democrats far short of the 60 votes they would need to break a Republican filibuster and send the bill to President Bidens desk.

Senate Republicans already blocked Democrats other marquee voting rights bill, the For the People Act, which would establish national mandates for early and mail-in voting and end gerrymandering of congressional districts. And while Democratic leaders in the Senate have vowed more votes on the matter in September, unless all 50 Democrats unite in a long-shot bid to change Senate filibuster rules, they are headed for an identical outcome.

The legislation introduced by Ms. Sewell on Tuesday is an effort to restore key pieces of the landmark 1965 voting bill struck down or weakened by the Supreme Court over the last decade. Doing so, its proponents say, would make it far harder for states to restrict voting access in the future.

The most consequential ruling dates to 2013, when the justices effectively invalidated a section of the law that required states and localities with a history of discriminatory voting rules to clear any changes to their elections policies with the federal government. At the time, the justices said that the formula used to determine which states were subject to clearance was out of date and invited Congress to update it.

The bill also attempts to respond to a decision just last month in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee that effectively made it more difficult to challenge state voting laws as discriminatory in court using a different provision of the law.

Voting rights activists fear the two decisions will make it far easier for those in power to marginalize voters of color at the ballot box and during the once-in-a-decade redistricting process underway this year. Just this year, more than a dozen Republican-led states have enacted restrictive new voting laws.

We have seen an upsurge in changes to voting laws that make it more difficult for minority citizens to vote and that is even before we confront a round of decennial redistricting where jurisdictions may draw new maps that have the purpose or effect of diluting or retrogressing minority voting strength, Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, told a House panel on Monday.

Republicans joined Democrats in large numbers to reauthorize the full Voting Rights Act as recently as 2006. But since the high courts 2013 decision, they have shown little interest in updating the statute, arguing that discrimination is largely a thing of the past and that the federal government ought to stay out of states rights to set their own election rules.

Asked about the bill on Tuesday, Russell Dye, a spokesman for Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, accused Democrats of ignoring real problems like the crisis of Afghanistan, the influx of migrants at the southern border and rising crime in favor of pushing a radical far-left political agenda.

More here:
House Democrats Introduce John Lewis Voting Rights Legislation - The New York Times

During a hearing of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee about Afghanistan in May, I asked a senior Defense Department official if the U.S. military would return if the Afghan government asked the United States for help. The official replied: I am reluctant to get into a hypothetical. My committee colleagues asked several thoughtful questions about Afghanistans future during the proceedings. We all got the same answer.

Shortly thereafter, I joined 10 other members of Congress in writing a letter to President Joe Biden outlining recommendations for improving stability in Afghanistan in light of the decision to withdraw. We never received a reply from the White House.

During a hearing of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee about Afghanistan in May, I asked a senior Defense Department official if the U.S. military would return if the Afghan government asked the United States for help. The official replied: I am reluctant to get into a hypothetical. My committee colleagues asked several thoughtful questions about Afghanistans future during the proceedings. We all got the same answer.

Shortly thereafter, I joined 10 other members of Congress in writing a letter to President Joe Biden outlining recommendations for improving stability in Afghanistan in light of the decision to withdraw. We never received a reply from the White House.

I suppose we are now experiencing the consequences of not getting into a hypothetical. Public executions and forced marriages are reportedly back. People are fleeing. The Taliban are in Kabul, and the government has fallen. This is a catastrophe.

This negligence was par for the course for the last U.S. administration. I am disappointed to see it now. At minimum, the Biden administration owed our Afghan allies of 20 years a real plan. They also owed it to our military service members and their families, particularly the men and women in uniform and their families who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Not to mention the women and girls of Afghanistan who are now experiencing a devastating new reality.

During my time in Congress, I have seen attention on Afghanistan wax and wane. Before the United States collectively moves on, I want to explore where we go from here.

To start, we need to remind ourselves why we were in Afghanistan in the first place: to dismantle al Qaeda and their enablers, deny them a safe haven, and stop them from plotting and planning against the United States. The Taliban offered a safe haven to extremist groups in the past. With the Taliban having taken Kabul, it is only a matter of time before Afghanistan turns into another extremist haven.

While U.S. troops were protecting the homeland from another attack, they fought for human rights, stymied the Talibans repressive ideology that the vast majority of Afghans do not want, and prevented a humanitarian catastrophe. Had they remained longer, they also would have ensured a safe exit for interpreters, journalists, and activists, many of whom may never get out.

The United States also risks ceding influence to Russia and China. China could forge a partnership with the Taliban to complete its genocide of Uyghur Muslims. Pakistani officials are celebrating the victory of their preferred strain of extremism, and some of Irans militias have marched back from Syria into Afghanistan.

Given the current situation, U.S. diplomats must refocus on what will bring the Taliban to the negotiating table and on providing options to Biden for conducting airstrikes, withholding foreign aid, or putting boots back on the ground. If extremist groups like al Qaeda are reconstituting or committing atrocities, we are returning to Afghanistan.

In the future, we must take extra care to establish and monitor development assistance programs so they are as effective as possible. Before last week, government watchdogs frequently reported rampant fraud and waste in Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers financed schools that were not built and roads that were never repaired. We donated equipment that the Afghan military did not need. Now, the Taliban have stolen that equipment and munitions, and they are stronger for it. Economic and security assistance should never be an afterthought.

Finally, regional engagement. Central Asia is not exactly a hot-ticket destination for diplomats, but we need these dedicated public servants to lay the groundwork for the U.S. military to use existing bases from which to conduct potential airstrikes. We will also need partnerships for intelligence missions, a place to establish a consulate if the embassy in Kabul remains closed, and a plan for resettling the surge of refugees.

We must also persuade Afghanistans neighbors to not fund their preferred factions within the country. We must hold this lineor Afghanistan will collapse. We need a strategy that prioritizes our diplomatic, development, and defense objectives so that we can condition regional foreign aid in pursuit of degrading al Qaeda and ensuring Afghanistans stability.

The administration has addressed some of the challenges with the Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans, but we need to increase our efforts hundredfold. We should also reflect on what our service members have done in the past 20 years. There has not been another major attack on U.S. soil. Al Qaeda is not thriving in Afghanistan, as it once was. Until last week, 50 percent of the American University of Afghanistans students were women. That would not have been possible without us. Sadly, at another university in Herat, female students have reportedly been banned from campus already.

Critics may say the past few months were an indictment of our ability to train the Afghan military. I would say instead: Look at what 2,500 U.S. soldiers, intelligence, and air support working with the Afghan military were able to hold back for so many years. The consequences of our decision to abandon Afghanistan are now on full display for the world to see. It didnt have to be this way.

I pray for all U.S. troops and personnel. We must spare no cost to ensure their safe return home.

See the article here:
I'm a Democrat Who Opposed the Withdrawal. This Catastrophe Is Why. - Foreign Policy

Kevin Paffrath, Kevin Paffrath smiles for a selfie in front of the California State Capitol in Sacramento on Friday, July 16, 2021.

Kevin Paffrath via AP

Last year at this time, Kevin Paffrath was focused on his YouTube channel, where his half-million-plus followers could tune in for daily commentary on housing, stocks and stimulus checks. It earned him nearly $10 million over the last 12 months.

Now, the 29-year-old former real estate broker is following Gov. Gavin Newsom around his home state. It's the best way he can think of to draw attention to his unlikely effort to replace Newsom in the upcoming recall election on Sept. 14.

Paffrath is a registered Democrat and self-declared centrist who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. While he's highly critical of Newsom and says he's been a "failed leader," Paffrath is equally concerned that the Democratic Party has no emergency plan.

Should more than half of California voters support the recall on their ballots, the next governor would be whichever of the 46 successor candidates gets the most votes, making it much easier for an outsider to win. Paffrath is one of the nine candidates listed as a Democrat, but party leaders are urging a "No" vote to the recall effort and saying voters should skip the second question asking who should be governor if the recall succeeds.

"It was mind-blowing to us that they didn't put at least somebody in, so that way, worst case, they had a hail mary," Paffrath said in an interview on Friday over a coffee, after attending a Newsom press event in San Francisco.

In an early August poll by Survey USA, Paffrath had the most votes in the field of replacements, with 27%. The next six candidates are all Republicans, including conservative talk show host Larry Elder and reality TV star and former Olympic athlete Caitlyn Jenner.

"We think in the last two weeks of this campaign if the recall looks more and more likely, the Democratic party will be forced to pick a Hail Mary back-up candidate," Paffrath said. "Given that we're No. 1 in the polls, we hope that's us."

California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks with media at a long-standing encampment along Highway 80 in Berkeley, California, August 9, 2021.

John G. Mabanglo | Pool | Reuters

Democrats are right to be nervous.

A poll conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, and the Los Angeles Times in late July showed 51% of registered voters opposed the recall, with 36% in favor. But among likely voters, the gap favoring Newsom's retention narrowed to three percentage points.

The anti-recall movement has raised about $51 million, almost eight times as much as the side trying to oust Newsom. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has contributed $3 million in support of the governor.

Donors can contribute an unlimited amount for or against the recall, but only up to $32,400 in support of any specific replacement candidate. Paffrath said he's raised close to $400,000 and has put in about $200,000 of his own money. The average donation is $70, he said.

"We don't have the war chest that Newsom does, so we have to do everything in our power with grassroots and social media," Paffrath said.

For example, Paffrath paid his brother-in-law, an app developer, to build his "Meet Kevin" app. And he's trying to get in front of the media as much as possible. Most of his ad spending is via text message to let voters know there's a Democratic alternative.

On Friday, Paffrath hung out outside Manny's restaurant in San Francisco as Newsom spoke inside to the press. Dressed in a navy suit with a purple tie, Paffrath made himself easy to spot for reporters. He said he's careful not to be disruptive at the events.

"We have to combat, this 'Oh yeah he's a YouTuber, he's a prankster,'" Paffrath said. "We stand there very respectfully and reporters recognize us. They talk to us."

From San Francisco, he's following Newsom to Los Angeles and San Diego, and possibly beyond.

The recall effort picked up momentum during the pandemic as frustration mounted about the state's shutdown of schools and small businesses, and the slow pace of the reopening even as Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations plummeted.

Newsom critics pounced at the opportunity to highlight the worsening homeless problem and increasing crime rates while taxes and living costs remained among the highest in the country. Paffrath said he wasn't an initial proponent of the recall and didn't get involved until it was well underway.

"The reason I think folks are frustrated is we pay our taxes, then we look up to see what our government is doing for us with the services we're paying for," he said. "And we see people dying on the street. We see blight. That's why people are leaving."

Paffrath, who lives with his wife and two young sons in Ventura, about 70 miles from Los Angeles, has made addressing the homeless issue his top agenda item. His proposal is to build new emergency facilities and lease commercial and office buildings, including many that have been vacated during the pandemic, to set up mass spaces with cots and small rooms, supported by staffing from the National Guard.

His aim is to get all of California's 160,000 homeless people off the streets in 60 days at an eventual cost of $10 per person per day, covering food, medical support and bathrooms.

Paffrath has equally ambitious some may say outlandish goals for new types of "future" schools, a system of underground tunnels to alleviate traffic problems and the building of Las Vegas-style casinos as part of a plan to fully legalize gambling.

He also recognizes the existential threat posed by fires and droughts. He advocates spending on controlled burns and a pipeline from the Mississippi River to double water flow to the Colorado River. When it comes to solar plants, he wants to incentivize companies to stay in California rather than going elsewhere.

"I'm tired of hearing about Tesla building solar panels in New York and Nevada," he said. "Those should be in California."

Paffrath's fans are used to hearing him opine on such matters. He now has almost 150,000 Twitter followers and 1.7 million on YouTube. Regular topics include interest rates, the crypto economy and politics.

Paffrath got his start in real estate a little over a decade ago by teaching people how to invest in the market. He became a broker and started buying property, then took his teaching experience and market knowledge to YouTube. By 2018 was making enough money a couple thousand dollars a day to let his broker license expire and to get out of sales.

At the coffee shop on Friday, he pulled out his phone and navigated to his YouTube earnings dashboard. Over the past year, the page showed, his ad revenue on the site topped $3.5 million. Affiliate revenue and money he makes from courses on building wealth brought in an additional $6 million or so, he said.

Kevin Paffrath on the campaign trail

Ari Levy | CNBC

But his focus now is on politics. Paffrath said he'll run in 2022 even the recall is unsuccessful or if another replacement candidate wins. That's as far out as he's projecting.

"I don't want to be a career politician," he said. "I want to fix California."

He also wants to assure Democrats that he's not just using their party label because it gives him the best chance to win. With a legislature that's three-quarters Democratic, he said it's important to start on things that the majority cares deeply about, like the homeless problem.

Control of the U.S. Senate could also be at stake. Dianne Feinstein, the state's senior senator, is the oldest member of the chamber at 88. She's not up for reelection until 2024, and questions have been swirling around whether she'll retire before then.

If so, the governor would get to pick her temporary successor. The Senate is currently at a 50-50 split, with Vice President Kamala Harris in position to cast deciding votes when needed.

Paffrath made it clear he would pick a Democrat.

"I'm not going to burn the party," he said. "I don't want people to think that just because I'm a recall candidate I'm going to go in there and do what Republicans say they want to do, start cutting things and throwing around the furniture. It's not going to work. You've got to respect the legislature."

WATCH: California Gov. Newsom faces recall

Link:
This 29-year-old YouTube millionaire has a good chance to be the next governor of California - CNBC

Texass Republican governor, Greg Abbott, has vowed to arrest Democrat lawmakers who have fled the state in an attempt to stop an overhaul of election laws that they say damages the right to vote, especially for communities of color.

Private planes carrying more than 50 Democrats left Austin for Washington DC on Monday, skipping town just days before the Texas house of representatives was expected to give early approval to sweeping new voting restrictions in a special legislative session.

The move denied the Republican-led legislature a quorum, leaving it with too few lawmakers in attendance to conduct business. That means it could not, at least for now, vote on the bill.

Even though Democrats cannot stop the Republican legislation, bringing the legislature to a halt might give them some kind of leverage in negotiating over the bills, as the Guardian previously reported. Walking out also signals to constituents how far Democrats are willing to go to try to stop Republican efforts to make it harder to vote.

In response Abbott told an Austin television station he would simply keep calling special sessions of the legislature through next year if necessary, and raised the possibility of Democrats facing arrest upon returning home.

As soon as they come back in the state of Texas, they will be arrested, they will be cabined inside the Texas capitol until they get their job done, Abbott said.

The cross-country exodus was the second time that Democratic lawmakers have staged a walkout on the voting overhaul, a measure of their fierce opposition to proposals they say will make it harder for young people, people of color and people with disabilities to vote.

But like last months effort, there remains no clear path for Democrats to permanently block the voting measures, or a list of other contentious GOP-backed proposals up for debate.

The Texas bills would outlaw 24-hour polling places, ban ballot drop boxes used to deposit mail ballots and empower partisan poll watchers.

The measures are part of a Republican drive across America rush to enact new voting restrictions in response to former president Donald Trumps false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. More than a dozen states this year have passed tougher election laws but only in Texas have Democrats put up this kind of fight.

Texas Democrats, shut out of power in the state capitol for decades, last fled the state in 2003 to thwart a redistricting plan. They ultimately lost that fight.

Trump won Texas easily in 2020 and it is already one of the hardest places to vote in the US. It does not have online voter registration nor allow everyone to vote by mail. Texas was also among the states with the lowest turnout in 2020.

But it has been trending Democratic in recent election cycles, pushed in part by changing demographics, and the Republican effort is seen by many as a way of seeking to offset that change by making it harder to vote for groups who traditionally vote Democrat.

Here is the original post:
Governor vows to arrest Democrats who fled Texas to block voting restrictions - The Guardian

A growing number of Democrats are ringing the alarm that their party sounds and acts too judgmental, too sensitive, too "woke" to large swaths of America.

Why it matters: These Democrats warn that by jamming politically correct terms or new norms down the throats of voters, they risk exacerbating the cultural wars and inadvertently helping Trumpian candidates.

Top Democrats confide that they're very aware of the danger. Already, we've seen a widespread pullback in the "defund the police" rhetoric.

Democratic strategist James Carville has been warning his party about this for months, telling Vox in an April interview:

Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal that she believes the left is misreading its position and "overplaying its hand."

On the flip side, "How to Be an Antiracist" author Ibram X. Kendi, who directs Boston University's Center for Antiracist Research, wrote in The Atlantic on Friday that Republican operatives "have conjured an imagined monster to scare the American people and project themselves as the nations defenders from that fictional monster."

What we're hearing: Moderate and swing-district lawmakers and aides tell Axios' Margaret Talev and Alayna Treene that the party could suffer massive losses in next year's midterms if Democrats run like Sen. Elizabeth Warren is president.

Between the lines: The big question is how different the midterms will be from 2020. People voted for Democrats in November when the same talking points and ideas were being discussed. The presidency was at stake, but the other cultural or social issues were the same.

What to watch: This tension is a huge test for President Biden. He knows that the rising left in his party, while great for fundraising and media coverage, could be electorally disastrous.

Axios' Kim Hart and Alayna Treene contributed reporting.

Go here to read the rest:
Rise of the anti-"woke" Democrat - Axios