Mediaboss Marketing

Late last year, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a first-term Democrat from a rural district in Washington State, began receiving a deluge of alarmed texts from her friends. Before she was elected to Congress, in 2022, Gluesenkamp Perez ran an auto-repair shop with her husband; her professional and personal acquaintances still largely consist of people who work in the trades construction, carpentry, woodworking. Now a number of those friends were venting about, of all things, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The C.P.S.C. had recently proposed a rule effectively requiring that all new table saws sold in the United States come equipped with a high-tech safety feature that stops and retracts the saws spinning blade within milliseconds of its making contact with flesh. The finger-saving technology has been likened to airbags in cars a straightforward but ingenious safety solution but many of Gluesenkamp Perezs friends didnt see it that way. They were worried that a government mandate would increase the cost of a new table saw by hundreds of dollars, while also giving SawStop, the company that developed the technology, an effective monopoly.

What may seem like a minor regulatory hiccup is to Gluesenkamp Perez emblematic of the disconnect between government and the governed that she has dedicated her short time in office to addressing. Too often, she believes, policymakers are not only disrespectful to people who work with their hands, but also ignorant of the reality of their day-to-day lives. If the commission had had somebody who has worked in construction in the body, they would know that if you raise the cost of a table saw by $400, people are just going to put a circ saw on a sheet of plywood and more people are going to lose their fingers, she says. In April, she introduced legislation that would prohibit the commission from implementing the rule until five years after SawStops patent expires. (SawStops chief executive, Matt Howard, said that the company has promised not to enforce its patent once the rule is implemented.)

Sworn into Congress at age 34, with no previous experience as an elected official, Gluesenkamp Perez operates very differently from most of her fellow politicians. Interviewing prospective staff members, shes as likely to ask them about what kind of car they own as about what kind of political experience they have. She hired her legislative director, in part, because the woman drove a Toyota Camry with 200,000 miles on it. That says a lot, Gluesenkamp Perez explains. But what really sets her apart is the way she thinks about the federal government itself which she believes is woefully out of touch with the needs of working-class Americans.

Earlier this year, at a private dinner for Democratic representatives with Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Gluesenkamp Perez asked one question: How many of your employees at the F.T.C. dont have a college degree? Khan couldnt produce a number. Gluesenkamp Perez suspected that was because the answer is zero. (Through a spokesman, the F.T.C. said the actual figure is 8 percent.) To Gluesenkamp Perez, this served as further evidence of an overly academic, wonky approach to governance that produces bad, alienating policy. I feel like in D.C., people have this idea that equity is translating the lawyerly gobbledygook on government websites into Spanish, she says. That is not equity. Equity is being able to navigate the website with an eighth-grade reading level in English and without having to hire a compliance firm.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Go here to see the original:
The Blue-Collar Democrat Who Wants to Fix the Party's Other Big Problem - The New York Times

1. Biden wins crucial support of Democratic governors to continue campaign: Were going to have his back as it happened  The Guardian US
2. Biden to Hold Crisis Meeting With Democratic Governors at the White House  The New York Times
3. Second House Democrat calls on Biden to withdraw from race  CNN

Visit link:
Biden wins crucial support of Democratic governors to continue campaign: Were going to have his back as it happened - The Guardian US

Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas is the first congressional Democrat to publicly call for President Biden to withdraw from his reelection bid after last week's poor debate performance. Sergio Flores/Getty Images hide caption

Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett is the first congressional Democrat to call for President Biden to withdraw from the presidential election. Earlier on Wednesday, Doggett told NPRs Leila Fadel that Biden has not convinced the American people that hes fit for reelection.

Doggett fears that with Biden as the candidate, Democrats will not be able to stop Donald Trump from becoming the new authoritarian strongman in our country.

Despite Bidens transformational accomplishments, Doggett sees a lack of enthusiasm and excitement that could cause Democrats to lose not only the presidency, but also the House and Senate in the upcoming elections.

While party leadership so far has voiced continued support for Biden, he says his dissent represents widespread concern.

The following is an edited and condensed version of the conversation with Rep. Lloyd Doggett.

Leila Fadel: So why do you want Biden to withdraw?

Rep. Lloyd Doggett: You have a criminal and his gang who are about to take over our government. We've got to do everything we possibly can to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the new authoritarian strongman in our country. [...] President Biden has some significant accomplishments. I've supported him throughout, but he has not convinced the American people.

Fadel: Are you saying that you don't think he can beat Donald Trump?

Doggett: I think that he is far behind and that we have to put our best possibility forward instead of putting forward the same person that so many people, some called the double haters, have rejected. We need to add some enthusiasm and excitement in our campaign. Yesterday, while I was the only person to call for him to step aside, in Washington state, in Maine, I had colleagues who said Donald Trump will win. There's much of that thinking out there that's difficult to overcome. And there is great consternation across the country, I believe, from the people I've heard from, that we could lose not only the presidency, but the House and the Senate.

Fadel: I want to get a sense of how representative your opinion is. I mean, the party leadership is rallying around the President right now? Are you in the minority here?

Doggett: I think there are people that don't agree with me. From the conversations that I had on the floor of Congress the morning after the election and some of the conversations that I've had since then, I think the concerns I'm voicing are widespread.

I'm a member who's been in Congress for a while, as you noted, not starting my career. I'm not a vulnerable member in this election, so I'm able to step forward and speak out about what I think is so critical for our country in ways that perhaps some other people have not, but I certainly have not gotten any discouragement from within the leadership of the party.

Fadel: What do you say to Democrats who might say, now isn't the time to withdraw support from Biden because it could help Donald Trump, his opponent, contrary to what you're saying?

Doggett: You know, that's the very concern that caused me to not speak out about this earlier. I wish this had been resolved earlier. President Biden said he would be a transitional figure. He's had some transformational accomplishments, but he's worked now for a year, and he's not been able to close the gap, and he made that gap wider after this debate, raising real questions in the minds of so many Americans as to his capability to govern the country now and over the next four years. I just say don't take that chance.

I don't want to do anything to diminish his chances of success. If he is our nominee, he certainly will have my backing. It just will be a heavy lift for me and for many candidates who I believe across the country will begin to distance themselves from the president because they fear being dragged down by the problems that he's having.

The audio version of this interview was edited by Ally Schweitzer. The digital version was edited by Majd Al-Waheidi and Dana Farrington.

Here is the original post:
Democratic congressman says Biden needs to exit the race - NPR

On Thursday night, President Joe Biden gave a widely panned performance in the debate against Donald Trump, causing panic throughout the Democratic Party and raising questions about whether Biden should continue on as the Partys candidate. Biden is already trailing Trump in national and swing-state polls, in which voters have registered significant concerns about the Presidents age. (He will be eighty-two in November.) At the debate, Biden stumbled over his words, at times appeared to blank out entirely, and had trouble giving clear answers, likely entrenching these concerns among voters. (A CNN poll taken immediately after the debate found that fifty-seven per cent of viewers said they had no confidence in Bidens ability to lead the country; for Trump, the number was forty-four per cent.)

More than four months ago, the Times columnist and podcaster Ezra Klein wrote a column titled Democrats Have a Better Option than Biden, in which he called on the Party to convince Biden that he should not run again. He worried that Biden was on a losing path, felt that it was imperative for Democrats not give in to fatalism about the race, and argued that the Party should push for an open convention in which another candidate could be chosen. The column caused a splash, but obviously did not lead to Biden being significantly challenged in the primaries, or to a major push for him to step aside.

On Friday morning, I spoke by phone with Klein about what happened on Thursday, and what Democrats should do now. Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

Why do you think what you suggested should happen in February didnt happen?

I think it is very hard to get around an incumbent President who wants to run for relection. I dont think anything that I argued in February was particularly unusual or not felt by many Democrats, including many top Democrats. I got a lot of feedback on that piece, and the feedback I almost never got was, Youre wrong. Joe Biden is a strong candidate. Hes the best candidate the Democrats could put on the ballot in November.

What people said was, There isnt another option. There isnt another option because he wont stand aside. There isnt another option because, even if he did stand aside, Kamala Harris isnt strong enough. There isnt another option because you dont think Kamala Harris would win in a convention, and if she didnt win in a convention it would tear the Party apart. To me, the blockage in peoples minds was not so much whether Bidens age had become a really substantial risk on the campaign trail or even within the Presidency but in imagining that the Party was strong enough to do something else and take on the risk of doing something else.

There was a collective-action problem. Any individual politician or Joe Biden staffer or adviser or confidant who stepped out of line and said privately or publicly that Joe Biden shouldnt run faced real career risk. Whereas saying nothing did not pose a risk.

Challenging an incumbent President is generally seen as both hard for the challenger and potentially damaging for the incumbent. One thing that does occur to me, though, which I wish Id thought of at the time of your column, is that when the incumbents main issue is his or her age, theres an added benefit to challenging them: something like this debate could have happened during the primaries, which I really think wouldve shaken things up.

I had planned that exact piece out with my editor, and I was going to run it right after the midterms. Then the Democrats did so unexpectedly well in the midterms that you could feel the possibility of a challenge drain out of the Party. My understanding was that people were at least considering entering a primary for this exact reason, and might have been amenable to the argument that Democrats needed a primary simply to see if Joe Biden was still capable as a campaigner. There was no chance of it after the Democratic performance in 2022, which was called uponincorrectly, I thinkas proof that I was wrong not just about Democrats but about Joe Biden.

Something were seeing this year is Biden trailing congressional Democrats. Theyre leading in the key Senate races, in states where he is running behind. So its clear now that people are more willing to vote for your median Democrat than for Joe Biden, and its very plausible in my view that the delta on that is age.

The problem was, again, the Party. I want to keep coming back to this: the Party wouldve needed to make a more strategic decision. The Party wouldve needed to do things that were uncomfortable to manage downside risk. Instead, there was a cohering around the best possible case for Joe Biden. Sometimes people say that I walked my piece back after the State of the Union, but thats not how I think about it. What I said after the State of the Union was, essentially, If this Joe Biden shows up every day until the election, people saying what Ive been saying are going to look a little silly. But he was not going to show up that way every day between now and the election.

I dont really know why his State of Union was so strong. But the hope that you were going to get that guy every day when anybody who watched his speeches and his performances regularly knew you were not getting that guy every day is a problem.

Even if you didnt watch his speeches or performances, hes eighty-one years old, and youre probably not getting that performance every day simply because hes eighty-one.

I think this is something that Democrats have been treating as a superficial issue as opposed to a substantive issue.

Right, one of the most interesting things you talked about in your piece and have talked about since is this idea of whether Biden is too old to run for President versus too old to be President. How do you think about that now?

The point I made in the piece, which is something I heard from a lot of people around Joe Biden, is that he was perfectly up to the job of the Presidency. I would be told, although Im not in these meetings, that if you were in meetings with him, youd see he was sharp, he was making good decisions, that people had no concerns about his ability to perform the role in terms of decision-making. His ability to perform the role in front of cameras was another thing. So I made this point that he did seem up to the job of the President, but that he did not seem up to the job of campaigning for President.

I thought about that line a fair amount after I published the piece because I felt the situation was a little less clear than I made it sound. The way I put it now is that I think its a blurrier distinction. I dont think Joe Biden is senile. I dont think hes making bad decisions. But I do think, first, the ability to communicate is part of the job of the President. In the classic formulation in political science, the power of the Presidency is the power to persuade. Joe Biden has become quite limited in his persuasive capacities. Part of the job of the President is to instill confidence in people that you have the manifold problems of the world under control.

The Democratic Party has become this party of normalcy and of systems and of institutions in a way thats different from when I got into politics, when business was very aligned with the Republicans. You really have this alignment in which every major institution in American life has become much closer to Democrats. So, in a way that I think is a little bit complicated for them, this party that is on the one hand the party of reform is also the party of preserving what we have. Its a party of both conservation and change.

Read more here:
Ezra Klein on Why the Democrats Are Too Afraid of Replacing Biden - The New Yorker

Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) said Wednesday that hes unsure what Democratic candidate could prevail over Donald Trump in November.

In his first interview since penning an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News, Golden stopped short of calling on President Biden to exit the presidential contest after his faltering debate performance. But he did predict that Biden would lose to Donald Trump in November. He added that hes unsure whether Vice President Harris could beat Trump, either.

Asked whether he believes there is a Democrat who could prevail over Trump, Golden said, I dont know who can beat Trump in this current moment.

And he panned the Biden campaigns focus on safeguarding democratic principles as a winning message against Trump, calling it a complete, abject failure.

Golden, who sits in a district Trump won by roughly seven points in 2020, predicted that Biden would lose his Republican-leaning House district in November by a margin larger than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. He warned that a major loss in his district could be a warning sign for other vulnerable Democrats who have voted with the Biden agenda more often than he has.

Goldens perspective comes as his fellow House Democratic colleagues continue to grapple with whether Biden should remain atop the Democratic ticket after a debate performance last week that has brought about more questions than reassuring answers from Bidens orbit. Only one has so far publicly called on Biden to step aside: Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.).

Golden and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), who co-chair the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, both publicly said Tuesday that Biden would not fare well in their swing districts.

But they stopped short of calling for Biden to exit.

I recognize that Im in not in a position to make that decision for Joe Biden. He is, Golden said. What I can say is what I think is going to happen if he is the nominee.

Golden offered that perhaps another Democrat could beat Trump. But he didnt say who, and he was bearish on Harriss chances given that he hasnt heard from constituents about her and how she fares in his district.

I would love someone running for president in either party or both candidates to be fresh faces, like young with new ideas, not retreads of the past, Golden said. And thats not what weve been given by either party in Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Goldens decision to speak out was not meant to coincide with Doggetts. Though he did not watch the debate, Golden said he knew he would have to put out a statement about Biden because its what everyone in America is thinking and talking about. He said it was notable to him that former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on MSNBC on Tuesday that its a legitimate question to say, Is this an episode or is this a condition about the president.

Goldens message to his party goes beyond his warning about Biden and directly against a core argument Democrats are making. The Maine Democrat acknowledges the need to run local races but said hes concerned that Democrats may be too keen on attacking Trump as a threat to democracy. He says, rather, that Democrats should be focusing on how their constituents are feeling economically and socially.

The preferred campaign message of not just Joe Biden but a lot of Democrats that this election is about saving democracy happens to be a complete, abject failure. If youre trying to appeal to, lets say, just regular people or to, like, swing voters in swing states, its very clearly going to be about the economy, as it almost always is, he said. When you look at the last Congress, like, theres plenty of good things that we did.

Unlike most of his colleagues, Golden believes Democrats must tout the strength of American democracy even though it was tested on Jan. 6, 2021. But he says the message should be that the system held because of government leaders who were willing to do the right thing and stand up to Trump and uphold the law. He believes Trump would be surrounded by similar people during a second Trump administration.

He echoes what many House Democrats have recognized since the debate: Its imperative for them to win back the majority because they may be the only chamber that could act as a check on another Trump administration.

Golden stated, for instance, that the House could block a Republican majoritys attempts to reimpose Trumps 2017 tax law, which slashed taxes for corporations and rich Americans.

Weve got good new laws that the Congress passed that we can run on. We should be talking about those things and reminding people, Listen, when the Republicans are in control, like, you know what they do? They try and cut taxes for the rich, he said.

More:
Jared Golden unsure whether any Democrat can beat Trump in November - The Washington Post