Mediaboss Marketing

The Democratic National Committee once more does not want to let the people decide who the nominee should be. Politico recently reported that a small group of its members is seeking ways to weaken Bernie SandersBernie SandersButtigieg surges in poll ahead of New Hampshire primary Buttigieg: It was 'disgraceful' to hear Trump's attacks on Romney House approves pro-union labor bill MORE and his campaign. They may have their reasons, as he is an independent and does not fully represent their principles. Republicans are hoping that he is the Democratic nominee, as many of them believe that his policies, most notably Medicare for All, will ensure victory for President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump discusses coronavirus with China's Xi El Paso Walmart shooting suspect charged under federal hate crime law Buttigieg: It was 'disgraceful' to hear Trump's attacks on Romney MORE.

Unfortunately, I would have to agree. If all this was not enough, the Iowa caucuses this week were completely disastrous. This meltdown has been the third consecutive presidential election cycle during which there have been problems with the Iowa caucuses, raising serious questions about the integrity of the results in the state. This is all because Iowa Democrats wanted a new app. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom PerezThomas Edward PerezClintons top five vice presidential picks Government social programs: Triumph of hope over evidence Labors 'wasteful spending and mismanagement at Workers Comp MORE today finally called on the Iowa Democratic Party to recanvass the vote.

Parenthetically, this speaks to the issues of technology within our society. While technology has created so much good across the world, it has also contributed to the breakdown of civic communication. People are more likely to attack someone that they cannot personally see. Some of the first philosophers argued that a function of rhetoric is to bring us together and create a common polity in which we can make critical decisions together.

Democratic leaders, some of whom have previously questioned whether a more diverse state should host the first contest in the country, were also criticizing the Iowa caucuses. Fundamentally, this leads me to ask, what is wrong with the Democratic Party? I ask not because I am championing the Republican Party, but because at present it seems the Democrats are the only hope for establishing some semblance of respectable governance.

These last three days have been a huge wakeup call for Democrats. The State of the Union address, despite the egregious lies Trump told, was a strong speech not only for his base, but also for some African Americans and Latinos. The president artfully managed the politics of race. Trump mentioned proposed legislation regarding sanctuary cities, even though libertarian Cato Institute found that native born residents are more likely to be convicted of a crime than illegal immigrants in the state of Texas.

This speech is a warning to Democrats. On an emotional level, African Americans and Latinos may not like his behavior and rhetoric. However, his acknowledgement of African Americans and Latinos, and his mention of school choice, opportunity zones, criminal justice reform, historically black colleges, the strong economy, and low unemployment are enough to move some African Americans to pick him at the ballot box this fall.

If Trump can chip away five points of the black vote from Democrats, that is far more important than five points of the Hispanic vote in terms of the Electoral College. If Trump wins five points more of the black vote than he did in 2016, it would be enough to win the Electoral College again. Voters who dislike Trump should not solely focus on the popular vote. It is also about the Electoral College, like when he beat Hillary Clinton last time.

The State of the Union serves a major warning to Democrats, and so does everything from the Iowa caucuses to Trump delivering a good show in his address and getting acquitted by the Senate this week. If Democrats are not careful, Trump will be reelected. It is time for them to wake up.

Quardricos Driskell is a federal lobbyist and professor of politics with the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

See the original post:
Democrats need to wake up | TheHill - The Hill

President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address at the Capitol, in Washington D.C. , Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2020. (Doug Mills/Pool via Reuters)They will make it more difficult for people to believe that any of their future opposition to Trump is rooted in research, principle, or legitimate consideration, even if it really is.

The most talked-about moment of President Trumps State of the Union address on Tuesday was probably House speaker Nancy Pelosi ripping up the speech on-camera after it had ended.

It was, truly, a bizarre moment. I myself have appeared on countless panels alongside people with whom Ive disagreed, at times even vehemently and yet, the thought of closing out those segments by grabbing their notes and ripping them up has never even crossed my mind. After all, I have always preferred to express my disagreement using counterarguments, finding them much more effective than temper tantrums.

The truth is though, that Pelosis speech-shredding was just one of many instances of Democrats using the SOTU to display their all-consuming hatred of Trump.

Im not, of course, saying that Trumps speech was perfect. In fact, it included several things such as his touting the importance of a wall along the Mexican border that had me shaking my head in disagreement on my couch. Its not the first time Ive disagreed with him, either. In fact, I didnt vote for him in the last election, and I wont vote for him in the next one. (Every time Ive voted, Ive always voted strictly libertarian writing in my cats name when theres no libertarian option.)

Despite this, though, there were certainly some things in Trumps speech that I supported. Moreover, some of them (such as him referencing low unemployment and honoring Tuskegee Airman Charles McGee and his grandson) seemed too objectively support-worthy to be controversial.

They seemed that way but apparently, they werent.

See, when Trump was celebrating the good economy, and lawmakers got up to cheer it, many Democrats (such as House impeachment managers Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff) remained seated. Even more shockingly, Democratic representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib refused to join their fellow lawmakers in standing and cheering for McGee and his service.

Clearly, their most important goal on Tuesday night was to show that they hate Trump and to steer clear of doing anything that could look even remotely like they were supporting him. Thats their choice and their right, but they really should ask themselves: At what cost am I doing this? And is it worth it?

The reality is that refusing to celebrate objectively good developments (such as low black unemployment and fewer opiate deaths) and noble deeds (such as risking your life to serve your country) puts you in a position to risk offending the associated groups such as black Americans who are doing better financially than in the past, people with family members who have struggled with drug addiction, and veterans.

Whats more, you also risk looking like you care more about racking up burn-points in a political feud than you do about the welfare of the country. Youre showing that you cant celebrate good things, just because those things happened during the tenure of a president you cant stand.

Unfortunately for them, these lawmakers behavior ultimately hurts their own credibility more than anything else. A common Republican talking point, after all, is that Democrats objections to Trumps policies and presidency boil down to nothing more than Trump Derangement Syndrome. Think about it: Refusing to join in on honoring someone who risked his life for your freedom, just because Trump is the one prompting you to do so, sends the message that youll never be happy with anything that Trump says or does, strictly because Trump is the one saying or doing it.

The problem here is that youll make it more difficult for people to believe that any of your future opposition to Trump is rooted in research, principle, or legitimate consideration, even if it really is. Like it or not, youre making it harder for people to believe that youre ever objecting for any good reason because you have already shown them that youll still object without one.

See the article here:
SOTU: Someone Should Tell Dems They Can Hate Trump and Support Veterans - National Review

By Bryan McCarthy & Jon Ungerland

These are, as nearly everyone has said, strange (or interesting or scary or tribal) times. Far from the initial vision of a functional Union, all-consuming discord and fracturing have become our everyday. We are screeching at each other. Climate Change. Russia. The Wall. Immigration. Abortion. Guns. Race. Gender. Speech.

Perhaps most startling and suggestive of our disintegration, we are at war over our president in a historically unprecedented way.

As a result of the bickering, each of us (regardless of which side we take in any of these battles) fosters a mindset in which autocracy or totalitarianism is just a little less repulsive than usual. Of course, no one describes their own evolving predilections this way (okay, someone on some comment thread somewhere probably does).

But while we may not feel this about ourselves, we are so apt to believe it of our opponents that the relevant headlines have come to acquire the gently tedious stench of political clich: The Right wanted a strong man to fix all their problems and embraced autocracy (see here and here); the totalitarian Left is trying to force their social justice agenda on everyone else (see here and here). And the rhetoric shows no sign of abating.

Rather than mount a defense against one or the other of these positions, however, let us for a moment assume that each of them contains a kernel of truth. Autocracy and totalitarianism are efficient, after all. So efficient, in fact, that it can be hard to detect their beginnings before they have become unstoppable.

In times of turmoil, terror, and threat (which many argue we have inhabited since 2001), having to run the plan by other people slows down the process of accomplishing stated aims, e.g. security on the Right and progress on the Left. In a time of stalemate and division, a little good, old-fashioned realpolitik feels like a welcome change of pace. But, in the depths of our minds and at the core of our being as a historically free people, we know this train is hard to stop once it leaves the station, and is neither democratic nor republican. Naturally (and rightly), we bristle when we see the other side jump aboard.

Here is the grand lesson of our zeitgeist: If America cannot get its act together and, like successful spouses or partners who do not quite see eye to eye, proffer a united front and vision for the benefit of a unified and peace-filled household, no one is going to enjoy or thrive through the results.

When Abraham Lincoln told his party that a house divided against itself cannot stand, he did not expect the country to fall, just that slavery would become uniformly lawful or uniformly lawless. Those, too, were strange times. So, maybe a similar outcome will prevail in our own day. One side of American party politics really could emerge as being right about a given issue, bringing opponents on board over time.

But this is far from obvious. Exactly no one is expecting Mericans or Deplorables to become Woke or SJWs, or vice versa, not to mention what happens with the host of other political agendas on offer.

Besides, the Civil War situation enjoyed a distinct technological advantage over us: They did not suffer the infection of social media. Along with its host of benefits, this innovation wreaks a twofold political catastrophe. For one, it obscures the fact that the political extremes have more in common with each other than either of them has with sensible and benevolent policy. And two, it makes scattered and fringe ideologues feel like a movement, when they would otherwise fade into the obscurity appropriate to their actual numbers relative to the rest of society.

All of this means that todays Union really could fall. At which point there will be plenty of bad actors only too happy to step in and undo or otherwise ruin what many of us have fought to protect and all of us cherish.

The Union needs a truly unifying solution appropriate to our modern moment. And, humbly, we offer a proven mechanism: The Constitution. This itself has become a rhetorically divisive topic in our time. However, here are three reasons you should take it seriously this election:

1. The Constitution is progressive (and, thus, anti-reactionary): Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the Constitution is a social justice document. In principle, Article V allows us to codify whatever rights we desire, so long as there are enough of us who think it is a good idea. Of course, in practice, rights are usually delineated anew by the courts or one of the various law-making agencies, in line with contemporary interpretation of how the Constitution describes the function of the governments branches.

In both of these ways, however, the document outlines a system that permits its own evolution to suit the will of the people, a radically self-directed process relative to the global landscape of political systems. If progressives want a system of social justice like socialism, they can have it. However, because it must suit all citizens of the union, protected under the rights afforded by the Constitution, any American socialism will inherently be a republican socialism. This brings us to the second reason.

2. The Constitution is conservative (and, thus, anti-radical): While the first reason demonstrates how the Constitution appeals to the progressive approach, this second reality accords with conservative thinking. It is true that the Constitution is nimble enough to allow for some socialist progress, but since it also ensures a republican character for that socialism, it will not be a European or Venezuelan socialism but a socialism of our own republic, shaped by American values. In particular, it will be forged within the framework of debate and consent amongst the three branches of government and fifty states of the union. Thus, we are faced with an either/or: We can uphold the Constitution, which only permits a republican variety of socialism, or we can continue to chisel away at the authority of this fundamental structuring, inviting a totalitarian variety instead. Which signals the final reason.

3. The Constitution is anti-autocratic and anti-totalitarian: Implied by the first two reasons is a third that is in step with both progressives and conservatives as well as libertarians, and all other political groups willing to compromise. The Constitutions balance of powers is specifically designed to prevent the viral spread of authoritarianism and totalitarianism across the body politic. Thus, for all the progressives worried about the possibility of President Trumps inaugurating an autocratic future and all the conservatives and libertarians worried about the totalitarian Left creating a Brave New World for everyone else, we can be no safer than to bolster the Constitution as an enduringly successful vaccine, as it prevents both dangers.

So, we implore you, the next time you read that another state has applied to have a Constitutional Convention to move the documents chess pieces around (looking at you, red states), or you read another damn liberalsaying we should ditch the whole thing or punch holes all through it, ask yourself:

Who gets to decide which chess pieces get moved and where they go?

What do we get instead of the Constitution, or where and how many holes get punched in it?

Who keeps the lawyers and financial backers of whatever group you hate from answering those questions for you?

If we do end up with real autocracy or totalitarianism, who prevents it from enforcing values that none of us wants?

And who ensures that the military we have is still poised to pounce on whatever foreign power you think most threatens our sovereignty during this period of pick-up-sticks with the rules that prop up our republic?

Fact is, the answer to any of the above is not likely to be you or your side. History is a body count of evidence showing that, regardless of which group has the more righteous approach to American politics, it will have a Leviathan adversary in any force that does not care about the good and, with a newly jettisoned Constitution, wields the power to effect unspeakable tyranny.

A modest proposal:This election season (and every one going forward), dance with the one who brung ya. Amend it if you must, but, as a force that is both progressive and conservative but neither radical nor reactionary, the Constitution is our only hope against the seductiveness of its very real and dark alternative.

Bryan McCarthy is an educator, philosopher, and storyteller. He teaches at the University of Pittsburgh, Greensburg, where he cheerfully flouts Ockhams Razor in hopes of demonstrating the truth and inspirational value of the counterintuitive. He can sometimes be found marvelling at wild fungi in the forest.

Jon Ungerland is an entrepreneur committed to flourishing local economies and democratic access to financial services; hes a passionate practical philosopher, accomplished business and management consultant, pioneering technologist, and a staunch libertarian (who somehow stumbled into and survived the Ivy League).

Read the rest here:
Opinion: Founding Father Wokeness and Socialism for Republicans - The Libertarian Republic

Cavid Qara, a candidate for parliament in Azerbaijans northern Quba region, admits that many of his would-be constituents arent moved by his declaration of a climate emergency.

But he says that when he frames it in terms that rural voters relate to water quality, irrigation, pollution they get it. We have to word it in a different way, to link it to farming and how global warming will affect farming and how its affecting it already, he said. When you link it like that, its interesting for them.

In previous elections, Azerbaijans opposition politicians have traditionally been focused on a single message: the need to get rid of the corrupt, authoritarian ruling regime in Baku. What, precisely, would be the plan after that has not been a large part of the discussion.

But Qara, 28, is one of a group of young activists who are taking a novel approach in the upcoming February 9 vote: a focus on ideas and ideology. Qara has put environmental issues at the forefront of his campaign.

Im the only candidate in our district that has a clear platform, the other ones have short brochures with some abstract claims, he told Eurasianet.

The activists are mostly part of a new bloc, Hereket (Action), that is non-partisan but definitely opposition-leaning, in the words of Turgut Gambar, one of the blocs founders and himself a candidate in the election. Hereket includes a wide variety of ideologies, from the leftist Togrul Veliyev (the Azeri Bernie Sanders) to the libertarian Samed Rahimli.

The emergence of Hereket has been one of the few notable developments in an otherwise unremarkable election season, which an interim report by OSCE monitors described as low key with limited visibility.

Compared to the last parliamentary elections in 2015, the current electoral period is accompanied by increased political activeness in the pre-election period, where some positive elements are noticed, wrote one independent group, the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center, in a pre-election report. Especially, the participation of the growing number of young opposition-minded candidates in the elections in an independent manner has drawn attention.

What we see now, for 20 years the general anti-government campaigns havent worked, Rahimli said. Thats why were trying a different strategy left, or right, or libertarian, or Marxist, or social democrat, some kind of coherent ideology. Ideology is important without ideology, pragmatism doesnt work.

Rahimli, a prominent human rights lawyer, has been taking his message of small government decentralization, lower taxes and abolishing military conscription to tea houses and cafes in his Baku district. He said he has faced skepticism from voters about whether the ideas are workable. Many people say, this is a very crazy thing for Azerbaijan, it cant be done in Azerbaijan. And I say: I know, but we should talk about it.

Despite their disagreements on principles, the activists in Hereket cooperate on logistical matters like making promotional videos or posters and in organizing election monitoring the day of the vote. Rahimli said that in a freer political environment, he would be competing against a leftist, not cooperating with him. But because of the political reality, we are in the same electoral bloc, he said.

Not everyone in Hereket believes that ideology should be the focus of the campaign.

Nurlana Jalil describes herself as a feminist, and as she campaigns for a seat representing Zaqatala, in northwestern Azerbaijan, empowering women is a plank on her platform. But its behind more technocratic promises like budget transparency and agricultural development.

Jalil said that, in an environment of heavy government oppression, political parties and civil society groups have barely been able to form.

In this situation how can we develop an ideology? she asked. In this moment, we independent young politicians have to build a new era in Azerbaijan. First, we can enter parliament and be the voice of the population, and maybe then after some years we can create the field for some ideologies. Maybe in five years, in the next election, we can run on ideologies. But in this case, its impossible.

There is room for both approaches, Gambar said.

The main argument was that yes, we can all have different political points of view and ideologies, but first its necessary to solve the issue with the government and then we will have elections and we will know whos who, he said. This is still a very popular approach, and I dont necessarily think that its wrong, because only in a truly democratic society where elections are free, the political party system and ideological system can truly develop. At the same time, I think its very good that there are people challenging this view and who want to do their work based on ideological lines. I think thats good as well.

It remains unclear whether any of this will matter on February 9. Independent monitors have reported that, in spite of the governments rhetoric that it is modernizing and liberalizing, significant obstacles to a free and fair vote remain. One of major opposition blocs, the National Council of Democratic Forces, is boycotting because it believes the conditions are unfair. Candidates supported by President Ilham Aliyevs ruling New Azerbaijan Party benefit from substantial support from state institutions and it will be a major upset if any opposition candidate is elected.

The young, independent candidates have faced varying levels of official harrassment. Jalil was the target of an online campaign attacking her, which she attributed to government troll armies. Qara said police in Quba invited him to the station for a conversation on February 5, but he declined, and said he hasnt suffered any repercussions. He also said he is bracing for fraud on election day, but has organized dozens of observers to watch polling places.

The Baku-based candidates have faced fewer problems. In general, they [the authorities] ignore me, Veliyev said.

The day before speaking to Eurasianet, Veliyev had knocked on 300 doors in his Baku district, spreading the word about his platform of eliminating university fees and raising pensions, among other proposals. My campaign is based on leftist ideas, he said. Were thinking about people, not the economy in general.

Voters are receptive to new voices, he said. People are tired of the old faces, the same faces, he said.

There can be some confusion about leftist ideas, though. While canvassing, Veliyev met some government supporters and told them he was a socialist. They said oh, socialism, we love Stalin! We said no, we are not Stalinists, we are socialists, we want a more equal society, he said with a laugh. They said they would vote for us.

Even if they dont achieve success on election day, the candidates say their strategy is a long-term one.

Parliament is not our main goal. Our main goal is society. We change society, we change the culture, and we will change our future, Rahimli said. Because we are younger, we have a lot of time, this isnt the last election for us.

Jalil said she may not win this time. But, she added: This is not the end for me. Next elections I will run and I will win and I will sit in parliament.

Read this article:
Young Azerbaijani opposition candidates have a plan for that - Eurasianet

When Michael Bloomberg entered the 2020 race, some declared his $60bn fortune an asset for taking on Donald Trump, who once claimed he was going to self-fund his own campaign.

Trump and his party raised a record-shattering nearly half a billion dollars in disclosed donations last year a number that does not include the hundreds of millions in dark money non-profit groups will spend on social media and TV ads.

How did we end up with such a broken system where billionaires can openly or anonymously spend millions to distort election results in our representative democracy?

Charles Koch whose mega-corporation Koch Industries is running a PR campaign with the tagline We made that helped make that, or rather helped break that.

Newly uncovered documents reveal Trump and Bloomberg owe thanks in part to Koch for the power to tap their enormous personal fortunes to run for office.

Koch claimed in 2014 that it was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process. The truth is he got involved in elections and trying to overcome election laws 45 years ago.

Archives show that Koch funding for the Libertarian party helped subsidize the legal effort that resulted in the infamous Buckley v Valeo decision, which equated spending money with free speech.

Buckley also created a loophole that allowed David Koch to self-fund his campaign for vice-president in 1980, establishing perhaps one of the most extreme examples of privilege in politics today: most Americans cant afford to max out in campaign contributions, but a couple of billionaire white guys have what amounts to a supreme court-divined right to spend an unlimited amount on their own elections.

The big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans

Until now, however, few people outside the Koch inner circle knew it was really Charles who was bankrolling that political party and its attacks on federal election laws, before Davids failed run.

After Buckley, the FEC gave the Libertarian party an advisory opinion to allow Koch to give the party 25 times the limit Congress had adopted. Koch then bundled money with his family to become that political partys biggest donor, giving it an amount that seems small now but was big then and was the start of something bigger.

Two years later, he pledged to match at least $50,000 raised by the party (despite the $25,000 limit). The year after that, he was one of the largest donors helping to fund lawsuits attacking federal campaign laws.

Buckley litigation also laid the foundation for the discredited Citizens United decision.

Since that ruling in 2010, American elections have been conducted like the Koch-funded Libertarian wishlist circa 1976: the uber-rich have virtually no real limits on how much they can spend to influence the outcome of our elections because they can deploy non-profits to escape donation and disclosure rules applicable to candidates, political parties, and Pacs.

As a result, non-profit groups collectively spent more than all candidates in 28 congressional midterm races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The $2.6bn in independent expenditures in 2018 also exceeded spending by both political parties combined.

And, just days ago, Kochs operatives announced their biggest election effort ever for 2020. Koch spending down the ballot will help buoy Trump, without naming him, as it did in the 2016 Senate races.

Kochs use of secret billionaires cash to secure the Senate and states is not new. To win in 2016, Koch planned to amass and spend $889m Koch Industries even bought the URL: 889million.com.

The new reality is that billionaire-funded dark money groups, like the ones run by Charles Kochs network with its sophisticated voter databases, can operate like a shadow political party but they are more powerful, unbound by donation limits and disclosure rules that govern parties.

And because personnel is policy, this means Koch often gets the policies and judges he wants. Despite Charless public posture of disdain for the president, Trump policy is largely Kochs. When Charles Koch decided that Trump represented a once-in-a-generation chance to change the tax code to slash taxes for the richest few, Koch got it.

The same goes for Koch helping to pack the supreme court, which Charles flagged as another top priority for his network of billionaires.

Koch has touted the help of Leonard Leo, who sits at the helm of a dark money operation that has spent more than $250m to change the makeup of the federal and state courts through the secretive funding of groups like the Judicial Crisis Network. Leo recently bragged to donors that America is on the precipice of a revolution to roll back nearly a century of legal precedents.

If successful that revolution would mark a return to the robber-baron era of limited democratic control over corporations, which Koch fueled in innumerable ways. But with the devastating climate changes under way, more is at stake than the chains he and Leo want to put on the power of American democracy.

We are in a continuing constitutional crisis, where the big money of a tiny few is swamping the voices of most Americans. And Charles Koch helped make that.

Lisa Graves is the former chief counsel for nominations on the US Senate judiciary committee and is the founder of the new watchdog group True North Research, where she manages the new clearinghouse website about Charles Koch, KochDocs.org

Link:
Love the billionaire bucks flooding US 2020 elections? Thank Charles Koch - The Guardian