Mediaboss Marketing

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is applying pressure to President BidenJoe BidenFormer chairman of Wisconsin GOP party signals he will comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena Romney tests positive for coronavirus Pelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better MORE and Senate Democrats to pass his signature Build Back Better Act by the State of the Union at the start of March.

Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalPelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better Left says they're not to blame for Biden's problems On The Money Economy had post-recession growth in 2021 MORE (D-Wash.), who chairs the caucus, said in a statement on Thursday afternoon that the case for passage of the partys sweeping climate and social spending package has only become more urgent since negotiations around thebill stalled.

Public housing residents have endured devastating fires, the cost of insulin and other prescription drugs continue to crush working people, and parents are desperate for child care support. This desperately needed relief cannot be delayed any longer, she said.

Jayapal said the caucus wants Biden and Senate Democrats to secure the plans passage byMarch 1 so the president can use the power of the State of the Union platform to share with the nation the relief that people will soon receive.

This is both achievable and necessary, she said. There is agreement among Senate Democrats on significant parts of this bill: climate action, the care economy, taking on Big Pharmas price gouging, and lowering health care costs. There is agreement on the need to reduce rising costs facing ordinary Americans and that is exactly what Build Back Better does.

Democrats have been working since last summer to pass the trillion-dollar plan, a significant chunk of Bidens legislative agenda that the party hoped to use to unlock funding for items like universal pre-K, historic investments for climate action and affordable housing.

However, negotiations stalled around the plan last month amid opposition from Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinPelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better On The Money Fed's inflation tracker at fastest pace since '82 Billionaire GOP donor maxed out to Manchin following his Build Back Better opposition MORE (D-W.Va.), a key centrist holdout who has been reluctant to get on board with the spending package, citing concerns about the size of the package and rising inflation.

I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can't. I tried everything humanly possible. I can't get there," Manchin declared on "Fox News Sunday" in December. "This is a 'no' on this legislation."

Since then, Democrats have reached out to Manchin to revive talks around the plan.

There's a lot of conversation going on now. They've been reaching out, Manchin said in an interview with West Virginia MetroNews's Hoppy Kercheval on Thursday morning. He also said hes still open to participating in negotiations around the spending plan, though he added he wants to be realistic, after again voicing concerns about inflation.

The interview comes a week after Manchin said Democrats would be "starting from scratch in talks around the plan, casting more uncertainty about when the party will likely pass the package after already spending months crafting the legislation.

Original post:
Progressives apply pressure on Biden, Senate to pass Build Back Better | TheHill - The Hill

Some opponents of the effort to recall three San Francisco school board members say the campaigns backers are a bunch of Trump-loving Republican billionaires trying to buy school boards in an effort to privatize public education.

Yes, that Matt Gonzalez.

Sure, some of the recall campaigns financial backers are wealthy, conservative investors, but some of the citys most well-known progressives are also energized over this election. Bucking the recall opponents narrative, Gonzalez signed a paid argument in the voter guide supporting the recall, and his face has appeared on campaign mailers. He recently drank masala chai in the Haight Street kitchen of the couple that launched the recall, praising them afterward as quite progressive and really authentic.

Curious about his reasoning, I asked Gonzalez to explain why hes supporting the Feb. 15 recalls of Commissioners Alison Collins, Gabriela Lpez and Faauuga Moliga. Like any good lawyer, he made a compelling, thorough, well-reasoned case that boiled down to one theme: They lack competence.

You could probably list about a dozen issues that people are just shaking their heads over, Gonzalez told me, citing poor oversight of the budget crisis, failing to prioritize the safe reopening of schools during the pandemic, failing to properly oversee bond money meant to maintain school facilities, making numerous historical errors while trying to rename schools, and seeking to remove historic murals.

Plus, theres the $87 million lawsuit filed by Collins against her own school district and fellow board members for losing her vice president title over 2016 tweets in which she wrote that some Asian Americans used white supremacist thinking to assimilate and get ahead.

He called his decision to back the recall easy and said theres nothing contradictory about progressives with true San Francisco values supporting the recall.

This whole idea its a Republican-backed thing, I think that shows a lack of political maturity to make that argument, he said. I see it as very much trying to appeal to San Francisco voters to get at what theyre most proud of their progressive orientation. Its a rhetorical device to get them focused on that issue rather than the competency issues of the board, which this is actually about.

Special Election Resources

Moliga took issue with Gonzalezs argument, saying, I reject the notion that I have been incompetent on the school board. My record is strong, and my reasoning for the votes I have taken has been sound. Lopez did not return a request for comment. Collins asked who Gonzalez is and did not respond when I explained.

Gonzalez is hardly the lone progressive supporting the recall. John Burton, the former chair of the California Democratic Party, and former Mayor Art Agnos are also on board. Agnos explained, We cant let ideology get in the way of competence, and this school board has demonstrated unparalled incompetence.

Supervisors Matt Haney and Hillary Ronen and former Supervisor David Campos support the recall of Collins.

To be sure, plenty of progressives oppose the recall, including former Assembly Member Tom Ammiano and Supervisors Shamann Walton and Dean Preston. The United Educators of San Francisco is also against it, and its president, Cassondra Curiel, said the recall should offend everyone, largely because it has attracted major funding from venture capitalists and is a waste of money that could be better spent on schools.

The wasteful and unnecessary recall election opens a can of worms that could be horribly damaging to the education of every student in San Francisco, Curiel said.

A lot of the opponents arguments have centered around their distaste of recalls. Gonzalez said that while he didnt support the recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom and doesnt support the recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin, he has no problem with recalls in general. He said that despite opponents claims, they are democratic and, in California, they started because of progressive Gov. Hiram Johnsons populist voting reforms.

He added hed rather see these particular board members recalled and voters pay more attention to candidates in the future than the alternate idea of turning permanent control of the board over to the mayor.

Gonzalez first caught wind of the questionable school board over the 2019 vote to paint over a historic 1936 mural at Washington High because it includes imagery of slavery and a dead Native American.

It was the first moment that I started paying attention to, Hey, how did this happen? Who are these people? said Gonzalez, whos an artist in his spare time.

To Gonzalez, the decision amounted to an attempt to literally paint over history. The murals were painted by Victor Arnautoff, a Russian immigrant and communist, who was commissioned to depict the life of George Washington for the opening of his namesake school.

Arnautoff didnt want to glorify Washingtons life and instead depicted the truth: that Washington owned slaves and was the leader of a country founded on land already occupied by Native Americans.

Would these opponents of the mural prefer a sanitized depiction of history that omits the oppression of their ancestors? Gonzalez wrote in an opinion piece slamming the vote. Students must see what preceded them in order to fight for justice and more decency.

As with so many of the boards votes, this one prompted a lawsuit. A Superior Court judge ruled in July that the board violated state law in its decision-making, and the murals remain on view.

Gonzalez found similar historic haphazardness in the boards vote to rename 44 schools despite major errors and the inclusion of no historians, a process Gonzalez called such an embarrassment. Again, a threatened lawsuit halted the renaming, and all of the names remain.

Gonzalez said the board showed a similar lack of consistency and mature thinking in its decision to ditch merit-based admissions at Lowell High in favor of a lottery. He said hed rather see more investment in elementary and middle schools where students havent historically gone on to Lowell.

And he asked why merit-based admissions for academics arent acceptable, but auditions for entry into the Ruth Asawa School of the Arts are OK. The latter has a larger proportion of white students and a smaller proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students than Lowell.

Gonzalez said hell talk to anyone who wants to debate the school board recall and has found its not hard to convince the progressives if theyre willing to listen.

It quickly becomes an, Aw, shucks, I know I should probably be on your side, Gonzalez said.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @hknightsf

Go here to see the original:
He's a public defender and legendary SF progressive. Here's why he backs the school board recall - San Francisco Chronicle

Chile's new president, Gabriel Boric, introduces a new style of politics that hasnt been seen in the region for quite some time.

Photo: Flickr via CC BY 2.0

In Chiles recent presidential elections, the country voted in a leftist 35-year-old former student protestor, Gabriel Boric, who promises transparency and new economic hope. Young candidates are also springing up in other countries. But many Latin American countries have entrenched elites and political dynasties that are hard to oust.

This week, the Altamar team of Peter Schechter and Muni Jensen is joined by Juan Gabriel Valds, Chiles former minister of foreign affairs and former ambassador to the United States, the U.N., Argentina and Spain, as well as the U.N. envoy to Haiti.

Valds holds degrees and fellowships from the University of Essex in England, and from Princeton and Notre Dame in the United States. The year ahead is a difficult one for Latin America as the region tries to reverse its democratic and economic backsliding. Is a new generation of leaders on its way to power?

The enormous growth that Latin America had in the 90s and the beginning of this century was the result of Chinese expansion, and it was a result of the good prices of primary goods, explains Valds. But no reforms were really made. There was a fragile middle class that came up as a result of these successes.

The fact is that these reforms and successes were not possible to sustain. In 2014, inequality was again growing and there was a deceleration of economic growth. And this was simply the result of the fall in the prices of primary goods and in capacities of governments to lead toward reforms that could sustain growth and could sustain redistributive policies.

Chile had long been considered the gem of Latin America, with a thriving economy, a robust middle class and busy global trade. In the past years, however, it seems that the bubble burst, and student protests, violence and discontent has been the norm. What happened in Chile? asks Altamars Peter Schechter.

There are multiple polls that show that Chile is the country where individuals mistrust each other more than in any other country in the region. And they complain more than others about what we call desigualdad de trato this way in which people treat those who are felt to be of a lower class, or to be weaker, or to be women, or to be from the regions.

This phenomenon had an enormous explosion on the 18th of November, 2019, with the protests. This explosion was a result, in my opinion, of the enormous amount of expectations that Chile had developed on the basis of the growth of the country during the previous decade. The idea that public education would be expanded. That health would be at the disposal of everybody.

When growth stopped, this was a complete sense of abandonment from the government, answers Valds. The first explanation for this rebellion was the phenomenon of inequality and the feeling of frustration that most people felt at that time. But the other thing was, I think, the distance between the elite and the people of the general population. There was a supposition that there was a lack of understanding or a terrible indifference of the elite toward the real situation of most of the population, says Valds.

The new president, Gabriel Boric, introduces a new style of politics that hasnt been seen in the region for quite some time. There is something vertiginous in his rise to power. And this has to do with his personality, says Valds.

He addresses people who oppose him directly. And he says he wants to listen to them. He has an enormous task in front of him. And I think that he faces the problem that all reformist leaders face: You cannot make changes in a society if you dont have leadership. At the same time, you cannot have leadership if you are not able to create some consensus. And therefore, the fight between introducing new topics and creating consensus will be a very difficult thing for him to carry out, comments Valds.

But its not only Chile that is seeing the youth rise to the occasion. Names to look out for are Andrnico Rodrguez in Bolivia, or Guilherme Boulos in Brazil. Both under 40, both left-wing, theyre paving the way for a potential resurgence of the Left. Will young politicians take the helm of their countries?

Related Reading

There is a new generation of leaders that respond to different logics than the traditional logic of our countries. They dont want to confront the type of politics that was organized before. They would like to have a different sort of political party. They value the social movements in a way which were not valued before. New topics like climate change, social and gender rights are a more direct, horizontal style of political exchanges. I think that what these young people value the most is clarity, transparency, and non-corruption. They will make an effort to change the political reality of Chile and in Latin America I think that this will come out sometime in the near future, answers Valds.

The most important conclusion we have by now is that people are voting against their governments. People want change from the present governments. The present governments are enormously discredited. They are trying to change them. This situation becomes critical because what you realize is that the political system is not working, and therefore, the need to change the political system and to change the type of participation you have in the political system is becoming crucial.

This is why, in Chile, the new constitution will become the most important element in the future, even more than the administration of Gabriel Boric, points out Valds. Many Latin American governments from the right, the center and the left have been criticized for their failure to provide for the people. This has brought about a need for change, which Valds says has only one answer: the creation of consensus and social pacts.

If you dont have governments that are able to generate a certain level of consensus in society, and a certain perception that you can organize a community that can live together and has a will to live together, then you will have one failure after the other, says Valds.

More:
The Rise of Latin America's Young Progressives BRINK Conversations and Insights on Global Business - BRINK

Is a Russian invasion of Ukraine imminent? At the heart of this avoidable catastrophe is Moscow's concern over the ever-increasing U.S. military threat on its doorstep. Since the Soviet Union fell, the United States, through itsNATOallies, has pushed troops and arms closer to Russia, despite the "not one inch eastward" promise made by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Now, close to 100,000 Russian troops are massed on the Ukrainian border. The Ukrainian military is on high alert. Adding fuel to the fire, President Biden ordered 8,500 U.S. troops on high alert and is pouring weapons into Ukraine.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, who has reported on Russia for decades, explained on the Democracy Now! news hour: "Russia, the Soviet Union, lost 27 million people in World War II. There is a real continuing fear, even in younger generations, about being encircled... What if Russian troops suddenly decided to alight in Mexico? Borders matter, especially in the Russian historical consciousness."

Pope Francis said on Wednesday, "Today, I especially ask you to join in praying for peace in Ukraine." Invoking Ukraine's 20th-century history, he continued, "More than five million people were annihilated during the time of the last war. They are a suffering people; they have suffered starvation, they have suffered so much cruelty, and they deserve peace... Please: War never again!"

About 30% of Ukraine's 50 million citizens are native Russian speakers, most in the southeast region of Donbas bordering Russia and on the Crimean Peninsula. Russia militarily annexed Crimea in 2014, as "Euromaidan" protesters in Kyiv's main square and in other cities demanded closer ties to the European Union. The national debate on whether to align with East or West erupted into a military conflict, with close to 14,000 people killed, 1.5 million displaced, and two regions within the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk, declaring independence from Ukraine and aligning with Russia.

Anatol Lieven, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, offered his analysis on Democracy Now!: "The crisis has grown to this point because of Russia's deep unhappiness with the expansion ofNATOto its borders and the threat ofNATOadmitting Ukraine, which Russia regards in much the same light that America regards the appearance of hostile military alliances in Central America."

President Kennedy's confrontation with the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis is considered the closest we have ever come to all-out nuclear war. Kennedy acted much like Putin is now, engaging in military brinksmanship to deter the deployment of foreign weapons and troops along a national border.

In addition to the mobilization of U.S. troops, the U.S. andNATOallies are shipping weapons to Ukraine. William Hartung, also with the Quincy Institute, has long followed the unchecked growth of Pentagon spending and the weapons manufacturers that profit from war. "The U.S. has sent $2.7 billion in military aid and training to Ukraine since 2014. President Biden is talking about a couple hundred million more. And more, no doubt, will follow," Hartung said on Democracy Now!

The United States, the biggest spender inNATO, has forced the "2% defense investment guideline" on NATO's 29 other member nations, pressuring European countries to increase military spending. AsNATOstates on its website, "In 2014, three Allies spent 2% ofGDPor more on defense; this went up to 11 Allies in 2020 and a majority of Allies have national plans in place to meet this target by 2024." Hartung added, "the tensions that are related to [Ukraine] augur for their ability to keep military spending and military procurement high."

Thich Nhat Hanh is one peace activist whose voice will be missing throughout this crisis. The legendary Buddist monk and spiritual leader died in his native Vietnam this week at the age of 95.

Considered the founder of the engaged Buddhism movement, Thich Nhat Hanh was exiled from Vietnam in 1966 for opposing the war. In his 1967 book "Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire" he explained how the movement of young Buddhists was pushing their less engaged elders: "In a river current, it is not the water in front that pulls the river along, but the water in the rear that acts as the driving force, pushing the water in front forward."

The U.S. media provides a parade of pro-war politicians and pundits from both the Democratic and Republican parties, while progressive peace advocates are almost entirely shut out. Progressive Congressmembers Pramila Jayapal and Barbara Lee warned the Biden administration on Wednesday, "there is no military solution" to the crisis.

Grassroots movements must demand peace and diplomacy, now, before the outbreak of war.

See more here:
Opinion | Progressives Must Demand Peace in Ukraine - Common Dreams

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty

If you want to understand the massive political dysfunction in the Democratic Party, look no further than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs recent comments about Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

This week, Ocasio-Cortez appeared on MSNBC and declared that supporting a potential primary challenge to Sinema would be the easiest decision I would ever have to make. She also personally scolded Sinema, saying, She is not an ally on civil rights, and accusing her of contributing to the threat that we have in stabilizing our democracy. The New York congresswoman further called the Arizona senator a profound ally of corporate interests.

Democratic infighting and disunity (an obvious problem since Bidens Build Back Better bill crumbled) aside, Im most interested in the timing of her remarks. Its not just what she said, its when she said it.

AOC made her comments Wednesday night, just hours after news broke that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was planning to retire. Let me put this in context. With a 50-50 Senate in which Democrats will need every vote to replace Breyer with an African American woman (as President Joe Biden has promised), AOC attacked one of the 50 Democrats who could scuttle the nomination.

Bidens Lack of Toughness Could Lead to the Second Coming of Trump

Keep in mind that Democratic control over the Senate could not be any more precarious. In fact, Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe has previously argued that a vice president cant break a tie on a Supreme Court nomination. While it seems highly unlikely his constitutional argument will win the day, the only obstacles between Biden getting his first SCOTUS pick are a) the life and health of 50 Democratic senatorsmany of whom are in their golden yearsand b) the possible defection of Sens. Sinema or Joe Manchin.

When you realize that President Donald Trump won Manchins home state of West Virginia by almost 40 percentage points, you start to realize that Manchin might be better off switching parties. Likewise, Sinema has a higher approval rating among Arizona Republicans than Democrats (a party that just voted to censure her). Now, I dont actually think either will switch parties, although crazier things have happened. But that doesnt mean Sinema and Manchin couldnt vote against Bidens nomineeespecially if that nominee hits some bumps en route to confirmation.

Story continues

But even then, unless progressives like AOC find a way to completely alienate them from the Democratic Party, it seems highly likely that Sinema and Manchin will both support the nomineeas will some Republicans.

As CNNs Manu Ragu notes, Manchin has long deferred to presidents nominees; Sinema tends to vote for Biden nominees. Amber Phillips of the Washington Post agrees, writing, Manchin and Sinema have both supported his lower court picks, including one that is high on Bidens short list for the high court: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. And Ben Jacobs at New York magazine says both senators look ready to help the president fulfill his promise from the 2020 presidential primary of putting the first Black woman on the Court.

It was ill-advised for AOC to attack Sinema (and Manchin) at the exact moment when they are poised to deliver a huge win for their party. Even if its unlikely theyll be angered enough by the attacks from the partys left-flank that theyd derail the nomination, Supreme Court confirmations are precious. Why chance blowing it?

Rather than seizing this opportunity to cast stones inside their own house, this moment should serve as a reminder to Democrats that they should be thankful for centrists like Sinema and Manchin whoeven if they sometimes fall short of the progressive purity teststill represent the party in states that are far from safe for Democratic incumbents.

Its entirely plausible that Sinema could be defeated by a Republican, a scenario made more likely by Democratic infighting. It also seems almost certain that a Republican would replace Manchin if he retires or loses reelection. Given those realities, Democrats should take what they can get (such as a lifetime justice on the high court!) and avoid making perfect the enemy of good.

Now, AOC may not have much appreciation for the political realities of living in a red (or purple) state, coming from a safe New York congressional district. But the rest of the country doesnt share the political sensibilities of her New York City district. Despite her relatively brief tenure in the lower house, AOC has a huge megaphone, commands media attention, and has a huge social media following. All this is to say, her ability to pressure (and alienate) moderate Democrats in the upper chamber exceeds her congressional seniority. This is a problem for the party.

Dems Had One Job: Dont Be Crazy. Theyre Mucking It Up.

If Democrats want to achieve grand progressive results (a la FDR and LBJ), they need grand majoritiessomething thats highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. Its unrealistic to think you can always count on having unanimous support from your caucus, so you need a little cushion. This is the cost of doing the business of politics.

They can build a cushion by winning more electionsnot by harshly disciplining their narrow majority, which will unintentionally lose seats. As James Carville told Vox, If we want to pass more liberal policies, we need to elect more Democrats. Period. End of story.

I couldnt have said it better myself. And to accomplish this task, Democrats need to get their most famous and important progressive star, AOC, on board.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Get the Daily Beast's biggest scoops and scandals delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now.

Stay informed and gain unlimited access to the Daily Beast's unmatched reporting. Subscribe now.

See the article here:
Progressives Should Be Thankful for Sinema and Manchin - Yahoo News