Mediaboss Marketing

Albany

A group of progressive organizations on Monday gathered to voice their opposition to holding a constitutional convention, which voters will decide on Nov. 7.

We have far more to lose than we have to gain, said Ron Deutsch, executive director of the labor-backed Fiscal Policy Institute. We think this is a recipe for disaster.

While supportive of ideas such as a constitutional amendment ensuring a right to clean air and water, Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York, said he believes a convention could endanger existing environmental protections.

It places them on a chopping block where they are subject to political trades, Iwanowicz said.

Charles Khan, organizing director at Strong Economy for All Coalition, another labor-backed group, said he feared a constitutional convention could turn out to be a Trojan Horse, during which billionaire activists could use their money and influence to help choose the delegates and create policies.

Every 20 years New Yorkers can choose whether to have a constitutional convention. If they do, delegates would then be selected to develop a slate of potential amendments to the state constitution. Voters in 2019 would decide whether to approve any amendments.

Supporters including the New York Bar Association and the New York Peoples Convention, backed by activist Bill Samuels, say a convention could fix the states partisan redistricting process, as well as create more environmental protections and measures to close campaign finance loopholes. Amendments could also simplify the states voting process and court system, advocates say.

Opponents such as Fiscal Policy Institute and New Yorkers Against Corruption, fear it could set the stage for rolling back protections and rights such as public-sector pension guarantees and legal protections for immigrants and the poor.

Monday's conference comes as opponents have been pouring money into ad campaigns for a "No" vote.

Opposition forces have already shelled out more than $1 million on their efforts in the run up to the final month, some bigger money is flowing as the Nov. 7 vote draws near.

Convention opponents went up on the airwaves last week with two ads slamming the process and urging New Yorkers to vote no on convening a convention this November.

According to filings with the Board of Elections on Friday, New Yorkers Against Corruption backed by labor unions, environmental groups, women's groups and others dropped nearly $600,000 on the TV ads.

The group spent more than $1 million total, raising $1.8 million (bolstered by $500,000 from NYSUT, $350,000 from AFSCME and $250,000 from CSEA).

It's that kind of money that convention supporters have known they'd have trouble competing with.

New York People's Convention reported $55,000 in spending since Oct. 6 in their latest financial filings released on Friday. That included nearly $22,000 for radio ads, digital ads, ad production and campaign literature, but no television spots.

Another group, the Committee for a Constitutional Convention, reported no advertising or literature spending part of about $5,500 in expenditures.

Matthew Hamilton contributed.

rkarlin@timesunion.com 518 454 5758 @RickKarlinTU

Read the original:
Progressives urge "No" vote on constitutional convention ...

To this day, Republicans havent forgiven Chief Justice John Roberts for casting the deciding vote that upheld the core of the Affordable Care Act. But along with his tie-breaking vote in the 2012 decision, Roberts also did something conservatives give him far less credit for, and he even convinced two of his more liberal colleagues to join him. He dealt a crippling blow to Obamacares Medicaid expansion, declaring that the requirement was essentially extortion: Agree to expand health-care coverage or lose all of your existing Medicaid funding. This, Roberts wrote, was akin to a gun to the head of the states, and thus unconstitutional.

Blocking that kind of unlawful coercion is federalism in action, which conservatives have fought long and hard to defend as a local check against federal overreach. And now that Donald Trump is running the federal government, its a principle that liberals and progressives are embracing with open arms, as Democratic-leaning states and localities mobilize to shield themselves from federal policies they consider retrograde or just plain damaging to their residents and interests. Hand over undocumented immigrants to Trumps deportation machine? Perish the thought. Let the chief executive faithlessly sabotage the health-insurance market in an otherwise liberal bastion? Over our dead bodies. Or how about Jeff Sessionss intended crackdown on local marijuana laws? Get out of town.

Progressive federalism is not a phrase you hear often, but the Trump era may have prompted a liberal awakening to the benefits of local pushback against centralized executive fiat. When the president announced his ill-begotten travel ban a week after he took office, it was up to states like Washington and Minnesota to score the first major victory against the executive orders implementation. And so its been with other hotly contested legal battles over sanctuary cities, clean air, the payment of certain subsidies under Obamacare. It has fallen to Democratic attorneys general and municipal leaders to be standard-bearers for the legal resistance against Trump, who otherwise seems committed to trampling on states rights, conservative principles be damned.

For Heather Gerken, the new dean of Yale Law School and one of the leading scholars in support of progressive federalism, Republican control of Congress and the presidency has given new urgency to her work. In the aftermath of the election, she co-authored a users guide in the journal Democracy on how localities can best harness the power of federalism to serve progressive ends. Thats not to say Democratic enclaves will necessarily carry this flag for the long haul. In an interview, she told me that people on both sides of the political spectrum tend to opportunistically wield federalism for their partisan ends and not because of some high-minded constitutional commitment. Both sides are fair-weather federalists. Both sides use it instrumentally to achieve their goals, she said.

The leaders of the liberal resistance, naturally, wont just cop to favoring federalism because it now suits them. During a recent press conference to announce a new lawsuit challenging Sessionss war against jurisdictions that wont turn over undocumented immigrants to the feds, Xavier Becerra, Californias attorney general, suggested his effort wasnt about opposing Trump, but rather about standing up for our founding document. I dont see this as a fight against the federal government, Becerra said, according to the Recorder, a legal publication. Were fighting to protect the Constitution.

Thats the kind of lofty and legalistic talking point that Republicans have elevated to an art form. For example, Becerras counterpart in Texas, Ken Paxton, has insisted time and again that the scores of lawsuits his office felt compelled to file against President Obama were all about the rule of law and preventing federal encroachment in local affairs. To protect civil liberties and prevent the concentration of power, the Constitution divides authority through the separation of powers and federalism, Paxton wrote in a recent letter defending his decision to threaten more litigation over an Obama-era program aimed at protecting young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. If Texas really cared about federalism, it shouldve gone after the federal program that helps these kids years ago.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are the ones relying on similar litigation tactics and conservative precedents to oppose Trump. And theyve won some significant victories so far, which in turn have had the effect of slightly moderating the administrations stance on some issues. In April, a federal judge in San Francisco admonished the Department of Justice that it cant just threaten to strip funding from cities and counties simply because they refuse to do the governments bidding on immigration. And he did so borrowing from Chief Justice Robertss language in the first Obamacare challenge before the Supreme Court: The threat is unconstitutionally coercive, wrote U.S. District Judge William Orrick about Trumps executive order against immigrant-friendly sanctuary cities.

More dramatic still is whats been happening in the second most powerful court in the country, the federal appeals court in Washington, where the Trump administration has been waging a fierce regulatory battle with New Yorks Eric Schneiderman and other state attorneys general who insist that their states have skin in the game of how the federal government should enforce its own laws. In back-to-back decisions earlier this month, judges in that court recognized that these states should be able to intervene in cases where Trump, if left to his own devices, could simply decide that ozone pollution standards dont matter, or stop making millions in cost-sharing payments to insurers that make coverage affordable to poor Obamacare beneficiaries.

In these court confrontations, tellingly, lies a key difference in how progressives and conservatives employ federalism. For conservatives, its all about stopping executive policy they dont like: Texas alone spearheaded efforts to invalidate federal rules and directives aimed at protecting transgender students and patients, workers considering joining a union, and the undocumented parents of American citizens and permanent residents all in the name of upholding the Constitution and laws and their state budgets and businesses. Progressives, on the other hand, really like some of these policies and have jumped in the fray to save them from non-enforcement or outright repeal by the Trump administration. And in the face of new actions by Trumps team, their strategy has been to play offense, as in the bid by sanctuary states and localities to get the federal government to leave them alone on immigration.

These interventions have emboldened the Democratic base and maybe even contributed to the political aspirations of attorneys general and other local politicians. Federalism is now a tool to #resist. But is there a principled way for progressives to seize the moment and learn to love federalism for federalisms sake, rather than just as a means to score political points against Trump or salvage a policy they favor?

Writing in National Review, Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor and longtime libertarian scholar of federalism, expressed hope that the Trump era could well be the time to make federalism great again for both progressives and conservatives a moment for politicos and legal thinkers from both sides to find common ground and form a new bipartisan and cross-ideological appreciation for limits on federal power.

Yale Laws Gerken, for her part, is skeptical that one can make a bright-line rule for federalism, but she says that there are issues, such as national security and the enforcement of federal civil-rights laws, that everyone should agree belong in the realm of the national government vis--vis the states. Ive never met a [federalist who says] that a state should control our nuclear arsenal, she says. There are always things no matter what side youre on that you believe should be centralized. And there are almost always things that you think should be decentralized. The real question is, how much weight do you put on the scale for the values of federalism, and what you think federalism can achieve, given your goals?

Convicted killer Mark James Asay lost his last appeal, and was executed on Thursday night.

Weeks ago, nearly 50 counties had no insurer selling Obamacare plans. Despite Trumps many acts of sabotage, that number is now zero.

So long as the president has an internet connection, hes bound to read and, occasionally retweet all manner of far-right wing nuts.

Weve had the time of our lives, and we owe it all to him.

If Trump were to be removed from office via impeachment, the GOP would continue to rule with much the same policies. So why all the talk of a coup?

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says hes recommending changes to a handful of national monuments.

Its an acknowledgement that the sailors are not expected to be found alive.

History shows the party in the White House struggles to knock off incumbent senators in midterms. Its one of many cross-cutting factors for 2018.

Fix the Debt is now fixin to get paid.

Police are reporting that one person died, and the suspect was shot and taken to the hospital.

It could become a Category 3 storm and cause potentially devastating floods by dumping close to two feet of rain in some areas.

Now that the president has put a government shutdown squarely on the table, Democrats must decide if they want a deal, or just a Trump defeat.

A primer on how the Houses struggle to pass a 2018 budget could blow up tax reform and Americas credit rating.

The White House chief of staff is controlling the flow of information to the president and presenting him with decision memos.

The president plays backseat Majority Leader, as relations between the White House and Capitol Hill continue to sour.

Progressives have taken up a conservative principle as a shield against the federal government. But is it just a marriage of convenience?

Rick Dearborn, who is now deputy chief of staff, reportedly passed along information about someone trying to connect Trump officials with Putin.

The charges stem from his use of pepper spray at the rally in Charlottesville, which he says was justified.

They said his words have given succor to those who advocate anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia.

The reported plan gives Mattis six months to figure out what Trumps tweets mean for service members and by then the courts may have weighed in.

Here is the original post:
A New Romance: Trump Has Made Progressives Fall in Love With Federalism - New York Magazine

Common Dreams

The Long Game For Progressives Common Dreams "Progressive values include fairness, equity, a level-playing field, compassion, justice, reverence for our planet and environment, and a genuine pursuit of peace, not war all things which play extremely well in the hearts of Americans, not to ...

View original post here:
The Long Game For Progressives - Common Dreams

Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (DVt.) and Rep. John Conyers (DMich.) met with a crowd of 2,000 at the Fellowship Chapel in Detroit to discuss their new bill on universal healthcare. The event also became a rally for progressive values as cheers of Bernie 2020 came from the audience along with multiple standing ovations.

Conyers said his Medicare for All bill now has 117 cosponsors. He emphasized the government needs to combat high youth unemployment rates as well.

"There are two fundamental human rights in our great democracy: everyone should have health care from the minute they're born, and then of course, after you get born, you got to get a job," he said.

Conyers also discussed water activism, referencing instances when Detroits water has been shut off, stating it was a U.N. human rights violation.

Sanders touched upon the Charlottesville violence, as he criticized President Donald Trumps both sides argument. What was scary to U.S. citizens, he said, is that the United States has seen Nazis and white supremacists before, but have never seen a president Democrat or Republican who could not condemn them.

There are no nice Nazis, he said.

Sanders moved on to echo Conyers speech on universal healthcare. He also added the government should invest in education to combat youth unemployment and automatically register 18 year olds to vote, arguing his ideals are not radical if other countries do them as well.

During the Q&A session, an audience member asked if progressives should make their own party, leaving behind the Democrats and Republicans. Sanders, who is the longest running Independent senator in the United States, said while he welcome critiques of the Democrat party, it would not be accurate to equate them to the Republicans.

Dont lump Democrats and Republicans together, he said, explaining he made the choice to work with Democrats so the conservative party does not have another four years. He also emphasized the wish for the Democrats to open to the working class.

Vibha Venkatesha, a Wayne State University 2015 alum, said she came to the townhall interested in hearing about Sanders and Conyers healthcare policies. She wanted to see more about the Medicare for All push.

A lot of Democrats rally about keeping the Affordable Care Actwhich I agree with and I am on the Affordable Care ActI really wanted to see if there is any push to go beyond that, she said.

The rest is here:
Progressives rally in Detroit at Bernie Sanders, John Conyers townhall - The Michigan Daily

Paul Waldman, a senior writer for the American Prospect and a contributor to the Washington Posts Plum Line column, is out with a melodramatic performance piece tied to excerpts from Hillary Clintons forthcoming book. It was headlined: Has Hillary Clinton abased herself sufficiently to satisfy her critics?

The column instantly received praise from Democratic strategists and commentators for its unsubtle attack on people, whom Neera Tanden, Joan Walsh, or Mark Moulitsas might have labeled alt-left (except now that President Donald Trump used it to draw a false equivalency with white supremacists in Charlottesville, theyre a bit more careful when it comes to deploying it).

The central argument is that Clinton is repeatedly asked to apologize for failing to defeat Trump because she is a woman. Presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry, or Al Gore never had to get down on their knees and beg forgiveness for their failures every time they appeared in public after losing their presidential elections.

He also argues Clinton has taken responsibility for her failure, and yet, it is not good enough for reporters. Much of the piece is spent on the mainstream media and how cable news spent time on a book by Peter Schweitzer called Clinton Cash, which made Clinton look corrupt. And of course, there were the damn emailsan orgy of coverage of Clintons emails.

Waldmans performance piece is undermined by the fact that he is not specific at all when claiming that there are people demanding a ritual begging of forgiveness from Hillary Clinton.

One can gather that people who share Waldmans perspective are upset about the media and how they covered Clinton, and they believe this played a significant role in the outcome of the 2016 Election. But then the column should be headlined: Has Hillary Clinton abased herself sufficiently to satisfy the media? Instead, it is abstractly aimed at critics.

Are these Trump supporters? Progressives or Democratic socialists who still fervently back Senator Bernie Sanders? Communists or full-blooded socialists? Is this a left-wing problem or a right-wing problem or both?

Maybe, Waldman and others are convinced the problem is so pervasive that it does not matter who is doing it. However, there are next to no critics named, and the only example offered is Clinton Cash, which the New York Times and Washington Post struck a deal to cover, even though it contained several falsehoods about the extent of the Bill and Hillary Clintons corruption.

This would not be a topic of discussion currently if Clinton was not in the early stages of hyping her book, What Happened, on her election campaign. She wants the public to see her campaign from her perspective, but consequently, that is going to result in critics questioning her assertions because that is what people do with politicians.

Waldman would have Sanders progressives and others with valid critiques silence themselves because apparently there is some need to guard Clinton from being perpetually vulnerable. Waldmans framing implies she is not a strong enough woman to stand up for herself, even though she was one of the most powerful Democratic politicians in the recent United States history.

This argument is born from the same detestable and intellectually dishonest place that birthed the Bernie Bro label used to smear those who challenged Clinton from the left during the election. In fact, Waldman wrote a piece for the American Prospect on June 27, 2016, called The Last Bernie Bro?

Waldman invoked the reports of Sanders supporters willing to vote for Trump. He also added, How many Sanders supporters are there who wont decide to vote for Clinton until Bernie says its OK to do so? The number gets smaller every day. And if he waits long enough, he could find that almost none of them are still waiting with him.

He ostentatiously quotes an excerpt (that is new) from her forthcoming book: Every day that I was a candidate for president, I knew that millions of people were counting on me, and I couldnt bear the idea of letting them down but I did. I couldnt get the job done, and Ill have to live with that for the rest of my life.

Waldman jibes, Is that abject enough for you?

It is as if all the statements people made that Waldman and other Democrats despise must be apologized for retroactively because the public now has a truly clear-cut statement from Clinton that she had a job to do and did not succeed.

On top of that, Waldman neglects to include statements like, I take responsibility for every decision I made, but thats not why I lost, which she uttered at the Code Conference in June. She blamed the Russian government, WikiLeaks, and Trump for weaponizing information, and concocted a kooky unsubstantiated theory about voters in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania doing Google searches for WikiLeaks to find fake news on the released emails.

Clinton contended the Democratic National Committees data operation was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, [and] wrong. She maintained she had to fund the operation to keep it from dying.

Andrew Therriault, the former DNC director of data science, reacted, Irony of her bashing DNC data: our models never had MI/WI/PA looking even close to safe. Her team thought they knew better.

He added, Also, thats pretty precious when she couldnt have raised all [her money for campaigning] without the DNCs higher limits as a laundering vehicle.

Why must anyone engage in a crass form of paternalism, this pseudo-feminist thinking that cheapens feminism, and ignore this aspect of Clintons responses to critics?

Every candidate, even those who win, makes lots of mistakes. There are no perfect campaigns, Waldman rationalizes. He concludes with a sentence that suggests the last thing we should care about is whether Clinton apologizes sufficiently for losing.

This really is not about Clinton. She can write a book, go on tour, and tell all the world about why she thinks she lost. She has nothing meaningful to offer anyone struggling to resist Trump nor does she have a meaningful alternative to his insidious agenda.

Clinton has crawled out from her cabin in the woods every couple of months to collect a hefty check for a speaking engagement and rekindle another round of arguments over the 2016 Election. That does not help anyone, but certainly, there are people like Waldman, who are far more comfortable debating the past than imagining and contemplating what to do for the future.

Democrats may think Waldman is performing some kind of meaningful service by fending off villainous critics. But what Waldman is doing is ensuring a comments thread at Plum Line remains populated with liberal Democrats, who bicker with Trump supporters and Sanders progressives so the Washington Post can keep up clicks and ad revenue. What he is really doing is ensuring that people squabble on social media and generate interest in his piece so the Post can justify keeping Waldman employed as a regular contributor.

And the effect is that the spectrum of permissible debate about the Democratic Partys neoliberal politics, and the politicians it promotes, remains narrow so that pundits who cheer this piece are not forced out of their establishment comfort zone.

Visit link:
Have Hillary Clinton Supporters Tormented Progressives Enough To Satisfy Themselves? - Shadowproof (blog)