Mediaboss Marketing

With just two days left for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lock down votes on the infrastructure bill, Bidens sitdown with Manchin and Sinema could be pivotal. While Sinema has been engaging with a group of House lawmakers behind the scenes, Manchin has been largely mum about his support for the partys sprawling bill with a price tag of up to $3.5 trillion. Sinema will head to the White House for a second meeting later Tuesday.

And many progressives in the caucus say theyll refuse to move forward until those two senators spell out their position in some formalized way with Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. If not, they fear Manchin and Sinema will ditch the broader spending talks as soon as the public works bill is complete.

My father told me when I was growing up, theres a fine line between a good guy and a goddamn fool. I dont want to be rolled, said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, theres going to be a reconciliation bill.

Im not a yes until we have assurances that it will pass, echoed Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.).

An agreement with Manchin and Sinema would be critical to resolving the deadlock in the House, said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

I think it would give confidence to a lot of people in the House and around the country, Hoyer told reporters Tuesday, reiterating that the House wouldnt take up any social spending plan that the Senate couldnt support. What were hoping this week is to get a number and a framework.

Pelosi and her leadership team as well as progressive and moderate leaders have been working furiously behind the scenes on a compromise that all corners of the party can back. They hope that so-called framework can be enough for Jayapal and her caucus to back the vote Thursday, helping leadership and the White House avoid a humiliating defeat.

Jayapal released a statement reiterating the CPCs position on Tuesday afternoon after an hourlong meeting with the progressive caucus, which was held the day after Pelosi stunned many liberals by announcing Monday night that the House would proceed with an infrastructure vote even as the partys broader spending bill slipped past this week. During that meeting, not a single progressive member spoke up to say they would support the vote on Tuesday without the broader spending bill staying firm on the caucuss earlier position.

Pelosis decision to muscle ahead with infrastructure without the social spending bill in tow was essentially a reversal of the vow she made to progressives earlier this summer to pass both at the same time a dynamic that will complicate leaderships ability to lock down the votes before Thursday.

Asked about how Democrats would convince progressives to support that vote, Pelosi said: Thats a question that well deal with, but Im not going to negotiate that right now.

Well see what we need to have and that is the essence of the Build Back Better, Pelosi told reporters.

Democrats expect an intense whipping operation from Pelosi and her leadership team for the infrastructure plan, but it hasnt formally begun yet. Many lawmakers have pegged their hopes on Biden nailing down a commitment from Manchin, thereby prying more progressive commitments loose.

"I haven't started whipping anything yet, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said in a brief interview.

Jayapal has said as recently as Monday afternoon that dozens of progressives as many as 60 would be willing to block Bidens infrastructure bill Thursday.

But there are others within the caucus who say they cant go that far with the presidents agenda on the line.

Ive come to the conclusion that keeping things moving helps us, even though its got some risks that some folks will say, Hey I got what I want, I wont keep going, said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), alluding to many of his colleagues fears that Manchin and Sinema will ditch the broader spending talks as soon as the public works bill is complete.

House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries projected confidence Tuesday that the caucus would be in lockstep behind Bidens two priorities before the vote later this week.

On substance the votes are there, in the context of what were trying to get accomplished, Jeffries told reporters. Now were figuring out the pathway to get both of these very important bills over the finish line.

More here:
Progressives threaten rebellion as Pelosi pushes forward on infrastructure - POLITICO

WASHINGTON (JTA) After the controversy last week surrounding a progressive push to block extra Iron Dome anti-missile funding for Israel, the final vote to pass it was lopsided: 420-9.

And in the end, most progressives backed it: Of the 95 members of the Democrats progressive caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, 85 voted yes.

At first glance, that resounding progressive yes to the $1 billion in additional funding to replenish the systems batteries depleted from the latest Gaza conflict in May would seem to put to rest the narrative that the Democratic Partys largest caucus was discarding pro-Israel tradition.

But last week did mark a significant change: the way the funding was ultimately approved, in addition to statements from some of the progressive caucus members who voted yes, made clear that from now on, Israel can no longer expect a blank check for defense assistance, at least from progressives.

Last week the progressive caucus forced Democratic leadership to pull out the $1 billion from an unrelated emergency government funding bill that came before Congress on Sept. 21.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who led the push to separate the Iron Dome funding from the larger spending bill, said it was absurd to shove through such an amount of money without first debating its merits.

That just isnt the way things work around here, she told CNN the following day, after the House passed the spending bill, sans Iron Dome. There was no discussion about it.

After the critique, Democratic leadership moved quickly. There was a debate last Thursday, and it seemed to have been persuasive: Jayapal was among those who voted yes, and so were some of Israels toughest critics in the progressive caucus, among them Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Betty McCollum of Minnesota and Jamaal Bowman of New York.

Bowman told Bloomberg News that his problem with the original effort to approve the Iron Dome funding had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the rush to get it voted on without traditional debate.

Its not about Israel, its about, once again, leadership, throwing something on our table last minute and expecting us to decide in five minutes what to do with it, thats the bigger problem, he said.

The eight Democrats who voted against funding, and the two who voted present, got plenty of political and media attention Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortezs lengthy and anguished explanation of her present vote late Friday made many headlines, in part because of the tears she admitted to shedding on the House floor. Republicans in Congress tried to paint them as the true face of the Democratic Party (a single Republican, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, was among the small group that voted no on the final funding bill).

But many of the progressives who spoke during the debate were reportedly unequivocal in agreeing with their more moderate colleagues that the Iron Dome was purely a defensive measure, and deserves support because it saved lives.

The legislation before us ensures that Israel can fully defend all its citizens, a necessary condition for lasting peace, said Rep. DeLauro, D-Conn., the progressive who is the chairwoman of the Houses most powerful committee, Appropriations, in remarks reported by the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

Still, while Iron Dome may have been an easy yes, progressives otherwise made clear that the days of unquestioning approval of Israels defense requests were over.

Just hours before the vote Thursday, Rep. Andy Levin, D-Mich., convened a press conference outside the Capitol to announce a bill that would enshrine the two-state outcome as U.S. policy. But it includes restrictions on how Israel could spend U.S. funding, with explicit bans on spending on West Bank settlements.

The bill makes clear that assistance to help Israel to address its very real security challenges should continue at not one dollar less, but it cannot be used in a manner that violates internationally recognized human rights, or for activities that perpetuate the occupation or enable de facto annexation of parts of the West Bank, said Levin, who is Jewish.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency asked the five co-sponsors present at the press conference whether they planned to vote for the Iron Dome funding, and each said yes.

Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., who is Jewish, underscored the defensive nature of the antimissile system in explaining her vote.

Ill be voting for it; I think what this bill that were talking about calls for is the legitimate use of our support for the security of Israel, and thats what Iron Dome does, she said. And its time for a new chapter and a new approach, where were making sure that this defensive equipment is used in furthering that.

More:
The vast majority of progressives overwhelmingly backed Iron Dome funding but with a caveat - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

In the final days of Germanys election campaign, the center-left Social Democrats appeared to focus their final message to voters on one idea: respect. The message was plastered across the country on vibrant red posters and featured in the closing campaign speech of the partys candidate for chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who pledged that a Germany under his leadership would recognize the contributions of everyone in society, regardless of their professional or social merit.

We are working very hard on respect. Recognition is a question of how we live together in our societies, Scholz told me and a small group of reporters following his final campaign rally, in the West German city of Cologne. What mattered, he said, was that Germans all felt a degree of responsibility for the future, and that none thinks they are better than the others.

The message, though earnest and somewhat anodyne, nevertheless contains an anti-populist pitch aimed at combatting the narrative, both in Germany and around the world, that establishment parties such as the Social Democrats are out of touch with the wants and needs of everyday real people. A Germany led by Scholz would, the party seemed to be arguing, respect the contributions of all Germans.

This strategy, dull though it may be, might just have worked: Preliminary official results published today showed that the Social Democrats won the largest share of votes in yesterdays election, beating outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkels center-right Christian Democrats for the first time in more than a decade. Although the Social Democrats barely scraped together more than a quarter of all ballots, and the outcome of the election is still uncertain (coalition negotiations could take weeks, if not months), the results are being received as a great success by the partyone that other progressives can learn from.

And that is partly because Scholz and his team are open about the lessons theyve learned from progressive parties elsewhere. Close advisers to the candidate said that while he was crafting his political message, Scholz studied two of the lefts biggest political failures in recent memory: the United States 2016 presidential election and Britains Brexit referendum. His primary takeaway from both events was that we should, as progressives, be very careful to acknowledge all the different choices that people make about their life, Wolfgang Schmidt, a junior finance minister and one of Scholzs closest advisers, told me. Thats why Olaf Scholz talked a lot about respect. Somebody without a college degree should not get the impression [that] he or she is seen as part of a basket of deplorables, he said, referencing Hillary Clintons infamous gaffe about Donald Trumps supporters.

Scholz might not disagree with Clintons assessment. But his point is that this kind of rhetoric isnt the best way to reach voters. In a recent interview with The Guardian, he surmised that the main reason Britons voted for Brexit and Americans voted for Trump was that people are experiencing deep social insecurities, and lack appreciation for what they do. During his final campaign speech, Scholz bemoaned societys tendency to determine peoples merit on the basis of their education or profession, noting that lawyers such as himself are no more important to society than laborers or craftspeople. By appealing to those individuals and making them feel heard, Scholz would argue, progressives can bring them back into the fold and, crucially, steer them away from the appeals of the populist right.

Read: What Germany says about far-right politics

In some ways, Scholzs approach speaks to the consensual nature of the German system. Although it does see some elements of name-calling and partisan attacks (Merkels Christian Democrats, for example, sought to cast Scholz as a harbinger of the far left, despite the fact that he currently serves as deputy chancellor in Merkels governing coalition), German politics hardly rivals the polarization in American and British politics. Throughout the campaign, Scholz sought to avoid any rhetoric that would make him appear overtly partisana move that his campaign manager, Lars Klingbeil, said was intentional.

There are hard attacks in the election, but in the end, we know that we have to be respectful to the others because we have to work together in some coalitions, Klingbeil, the Social Democrats secretary general, told me and other American journalists in a briefing, noting that one of the issues he has observed in U.S. politics is politicians inclination to speak to their party base rather than to the people writ large. This, he argued, not only brings about polarization, but also unnecessarily limits a candidates appeal. Here, he said, we focus on the middle of society.

It helps, of course, that Scholz hasnt had to face a major populist challenger akin to Trump in the U.S. or Marine Le Pen in France. Although the far-right Alternative for Germany maintains a significant presence in German politics, support for the party has essentially flatlined since it entered Germanys parliament, following the countrys previous federal election, in 2017. That the AfD is all but certain to be excluded from any coalition talks has allowed Germanys mainstream parties to largely ignore it.

Yascha Mounk: The world wont miss Angela Merkel

Scholzs strategy has made him the front-runner to succeed Merkel as Germanys next chancellor. Yet winning an election and retaining power are two different things, and respect has to be more than just a slogan to be effective. In the Social Democrats case, that means following through on the partys pledge to address societal inequality by, among other initiatives, increasing the hourly minimum wage by 25 percent to 12 euros ($14) an hour and reintroducing a wealth tax on the countrys rich. Such promises wont be easily fulfilledespecially if the Social Democrats are forced into coalition with the pro-business Free Democratic Party, one of the elections kingmakers (the other being the Greens) and a fierce opponent of tax hikes.

Whether Scholz gets the chance to achieve any of these goals will be determined by coalition talks, which have already begun. Although his Social Democrats will enjoy the symbolic boost of having secured the highest number of votes, it doesnt guarantee that Scholz will succeed Merkel.

Still, Scholz is optimistic that progressives will look to his campaign not as a failure but as a playbook.

The Friedrich Ebert Foundation (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung) supported reporting costs for this article.

Original post:
Germany's Progressive Playbook - The Atlantic

As someone whos dedicating my career to climate action, I find it wild that an ostensibly climate-focused group is primarying @DawnEuer, the senator most instrumental in passing the strongest climate statute weve ever had, while leaving actual anti-climate Dems unchallenged, he tweeted.

What an absurd waste of resources, Regunberg wrote. Real progressives dont let petty egos and personal bulls--- derail movement-building like this.

But the Rhode Island Political Cooperative didnt back down amid the backlash, instead piling more fuel on the fire.

Jennifer Rourke who co-chairs the co-op along with Brown and state Senator Jeanine Calkin tweeted: Boy, are the Fauxgressives upset today.

When asked why they were challenging Euer, the three co-op co-founders issued a written statement listing four reasons:

We have been clear since the beginning that our mission is to oust the political establishment and win a governing majority that will work for all Rhode Islanders, the co-op co-chairs said. That cannot happen as long as legislators like Euer continue to empower corrupt, conservative politicians like Ruggerio.

In response, Euer told the Globe, I am proud of my history of accomplishments in the Senate passing major legislation. The Act on Climate was landmark legislation that finally enshrined environmental climate standards in state law in a way that has already affected agency decision making.

For example, the Energy Facility Siting Board and the Coastal Resources Management Council have already factored the law into their decisions, she said.

I am also proud of the role I played in codifying Roe v. Wade in 2019, especially in light of the national conversation on abortion right now, Euer said of the Reproductive Privacy Act.

Also, she said was ready to meet with Green New Deal advocates but they canceled.

At the end of the day, we need bills that are going to make it to the governors desk and be signed, Euer said. Im focusing on doing the work representing my constituents and making positive change on their behalf, including sharing information about available rent and mortgage relief funds and advocating for aggressive solutions to the states housing crisis.

The attempt to oust Euer is just one of the flash points in a rapidly intensifying progressive civil war.

Representative Brandon Potter, a Cranston Democrat, fired a shot heard around the Twittersphere on Friday when he wrote a commentary piece in Globe Rhode Island, blasting the co-op as toxic to Rhode Islands progressive movement.

In that piece, Potter said he ran for the House in 2020 as a co-op member, but the group booted him out because he voted for K. Joseph Shekarchi, a Warwick Democrat, for House speaker. He claimed co-op members dont have a say in key decisions and must pay membership dues for campaign services that are for the most part never delivered.

In an interview, Potter said he campaigned against then-House Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello, a Cranston Democrat, but after Mattiello lost his district seat, he joined almost every other progressive legislator in backing the leadership team of Shekarchi, House Majority Leader Christopher R. Blazejewski and House Majority Whip Katherine S. Kazarian.

Potter said he wanted to give the leadership team a chance to follow through on commitments, and he was pleased the House passed the Act on Climate, boosted the minimum wage to $15 an hour over four years, banned housing discrimination based on source of income, and authorized harm reduction centers where people can use drugs under supervision.

How are you going to say these things are not progressive? Potter asked. Young and impressionable people have been made to believe the legislation we passed is not truly impactful. As someone personally affected by source of income discrimination as a teenager, being able to see that bill pass hit home and shows how much of a difference we can make.

The co-ops co-chairs issued a statement Monday, calling Potters commentary full of lies and willful mischaracterizations.

Brandon is lying because the co-ops slate is an unprecedented threat to the corrupt political establishment that he has aligned himself with, ever since he violated his campaign pledge to oppose the Mattiello machine by voting for Joe Shekarchi Mattiellos hand-picked successor, the co-chairs said.

They said co-op candidates collectively make key decisions, including the development of a shared policy platform, and supports campaigns and candidates from the moment they launch all the way through the election by providing a broad and comprehensive set of services. Those services, listed in the FAQ section of the groups website, include producing candidate videos, maintaining a website, and a providing bulk email service.

While Potter points to progress being made, co-op leaders say their goal is a governing majority controlling the House, the Senate, and the governors office.

We have done some good things this year, but we need to go further, Calkin said in an interview last week. Its been weak tea.

For example, she said the state must act with more urgency to combat climate change by, for example, passing her bill to require carbon-emissions-reduction goals be considered in energy plant siting proceedings.

And Brown called for increasing the minimum wage to $19 an hour. Fifteen dollars an hour was a good idea when it came out 15 years ago, he said. But the cost of housing has gone through the roof, the cost of health care has gone through the roof. That is not a living wage.

The battle of the progressives also will play out in the Oct. 5 primary for the state Senate District 3 seat that Gayle L. Goldin vacated to join President Joe Bidens administration. In a five-way Democratic primary, the co-op is backing Geena Pham while the Rhode Island Working Families Party is backing Bret Jacob, and that splinter in progressive forces might help catapult another candidate to victory, Providence College political science professor Adam S. Myers said.

Myers said its unclear if the progressive schism reflects deep policy differences or simply competing egos and personality clashes, but it does reveal a clear difference in political strategy.

The co-op wants to be more assertive and aggressive in taking on the leadership in the General Assembly, Myers said. Whereas on the other side of the progressive camp, they are taking a more consensus-driven approach, trying to get buy-in from the existing leadership and folks already serving in the Assembly for progress policy goals.

In this battle of pragmatism vs. revolution, the stakes are high.

If the co-op wins all these primary races next year, then this will probably be the biggest shift in Rhode Island politics since the Bloodless Revolution in 1935, Myers said. But if their slate of candidates bombs, he said, their whole political theory will have been proven completely wrong.

Of course, the end result might fall between total victory and abject failure.

We will likely see middle ground where the co-op wins some seats, he said. If that happens, the next General Assembly will have a few more progressives, but still plenty of conservative Democrats, and the intra-party war will continue.

Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at edward.fitzpatrick@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @FitzProv.

More:
A progressive civil war is brewing in Rhode Island - The Boston Globe

The current stalemate in the Democratic Party between moderatesand progressives proved to be destructive after Congress failed to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Author Eddie Glaude says appeasing Republicans should no longer be in the interest of Congressional Democrats, who instead need to stand their ground on progressivepolicies.

The Democratic Party often acts like a scorned lover the center of the partys political imagination is a white hetero male wearing a construction hat that particular constituency drives political strategy it seems. Eddie Glaude Jr., PrincetonUniversity

Eddie Glaude Jr. is Chair of African American Studies at Princeton University and author of Begin Again: James Baldwins American and Its Urgent Lessons. He says the Democratic Party that came into existence to respond to Reaganism is no longer relevant. We are witnessing in real time the collapse of the age of Reagan, its ideological pillars have revealed themselves to be hollow that all government is bad or that tax cuts are the source of economic stimulus many of those precepts are revealed to be bankrupt. Glaude says Democrats need to press progressive agenda instead of attempting to appease modern Republicans. The Democratic Party often acts like a scorned lover the center of the partys political imagination is a white hetero male wearing a construction hat that particular constituency drives political strategy itseems.

On the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act that Congress failed to pass, Glaude says the legislation was doomed by Democrats complicity in allowing it to be framed as an issue of law and order. Most people who respond to defund the police negatively are acting in bad faith we know it was a slogan aimed at budgeting values . Instead some politicians used it to focus on ourfears.

Glaude says many moderate Congressional Democrats are uninterested in addressing the systemic background to the issue of police overreach. Now were beginning to see that crime is a much more complex phenomena that requires a much more complex answer every community deserves to be safe, every community deserves to be secure, but what that entails goes beyond more police and more incarceration, hesays.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today

Read more:
Moderate Democrats Need to Stand Their Ground on Progressive Policies, Says Author of "Begin Again" - WDET