Mediaboss Marketing

By ANN BROWN

The day before the Independence Day holiday last summer, local progressivesfiled a petitionironically named Alaskans for Better Elections, which would destroy the integrity of Alaskas elections. If passed, the ballot initiative would bring us ranked-choice voting. The petition was sponsored, in part, byformer District 22 Rep. Jason Grenn.You may remember that Mr. Grenn wassoundly defeatedby now-Rep. Sara Rasmussen in 2018. Are sour grapes on the menu here?

In a ranked-choice general election, voters would rank their choice of four candidates for a given office. Candidates garnering more than 50% of the vote in the first ranking would win office immediately. If no one person wins a majority, candidates are whittled away and ranking continues until one individual is declared the winner.

This initiative is backed nearly entirely by Outside donations; its major supporter is a Colorado-based organization thatgave $500,000 in one pop last month.

Progressives will say this election system brings more moderate voices to the Legislature. Perhaps that is the way Mr. Grenn sees himself. When viewed in practicality, however, this initiative can largely be seen as a plan by progressives to take control of Alaskas political system. Ranked-choice voting has been implemented in Maine, as well as in municipalities in California and Michigan, locations which can hardly be considered strongholds of conservative political thought.

Perhaps what is probably most appealing to Mr. Grenn and his initiative supporters is, however, that ranked-choice voting enables candidates with limited voter support to win elections. Maybe Mr. Grenn believes he could have defeated Rep. Rasmussen in 2018, even without support from his constituents, under this system. All Mr. Grenn would have had to do to continue to be considered is not be the candidate with the lowest votes received; he could have persisted in the race long after his expiration date.

Consider this a 2015 study of four local elections in Washington and California using ranked-choice ballots found that the winner in all four elections never received a majority of the votes. This is because voters usually do not rank all possible candidates.

For the sake of expediency and their own sanity, voters typically only list their top two or three candidates. If those candidates are eliminated, then so are the votes of these individuals. Under a ranked-choice system, ballots that do not include the ultimate victors are summarily cast aside.

While this creates the appearance of a majority of votes in favor of the winner, it obscures actual voter choices; its a system that fundamentally disenfranchises voters.

In Maines2018 federal congressional race, the conservative incumbent was thrown out, despite receiving a plurality of votes in the initial election. Maines Secretary of State eliminated more than 14,000 ballots that didnt rank the remaining candidates and handed the win to the liberal challenger.

Australias 2010 election had a strikingly similar outcome; the liberal party took over the House, despite receiving 38% of the initial vote. The conservative party received 43% of the vote, but was somehow denied victory.

One can see why progressives are so excited about this proposal. It reeks of elitism and is engineered to pad the fortunes of liberal candidates. Alaskan voters, dont let yourselves be taken in. If this initiative reaches your ballot next year, vote it down.

Ann Brown, formerly of Fairbanks, now lives in Anchorage. She is an experienced trial lawyer who was the managing partner of her firms branch office, with a focus on labor and employment law. Currently retired, she is the vice chair of the Alaska Republican Party.

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:
Ranked choice voting? Why progressives want it here - Must Read Alaska

All the while their representatives in the House of Representatives endured a marathon debate coming after painstaking, months-long investigations through various committees before voting for impeachment, their arguments coming in impassioned bursts about this "solemn day" and Trump's "travesty of law".

To be fair, Trump's six-page stream-of-consciousness letter to Nancy Pelosi, proclaiming his looming impeachment a declaration of war, was an atypical display of sustained exertion. But back in Congress his unwavering Republicans reverted to the less-is-more template the sort that countered Hillary Clinton's deluge of forgettable policy offerings in 2016 with pledges to build a wall and make things great again. They rose briefly to their feet for a moment's silence to honour the Americans who voted for Trump at that election. These voters being dead, apparently.

To the Democrats' claims that Trump's dealings with Ukraine and Congress undermined the rule of law, the Republicans effortlessly flip the accusation to allege with genius timing that even Jesus enjoyed more due process before he was nailed. Some might see this assertion as a metaphor for Democrats killing Christmas. For at the same time the Democrats in Congress were opening their veins in defence of the constitution:Trump was in Michigan addressing the very much alive blue-collar workers he lured into his camp in 2016, bearing a cheerful message for them and for the roughly half of the population still in his camp Merry Christmas! (And, OK, a rather lengthy, "I did nothing wrong.")

In the near future, Senate Republicans will almost certainly embrace simplicity when, after a trial and formal deliberation, they'll carefully consider the articles of impeachment and on each and every one of them declare: Nyet.

Whatever his outsize flaws, Boris Johnson does not deserve to be lumped with his so-called conservative counterpart across the Atlantic. But as a rallying cry, "Get Brexit Done" rendered with faint backing vocals about raising spending on services has that pared-down Trumpian quality.

As journalist Andrew Sullivan observed in New York magazine, Johnson plotted a course that might actually bring the UK out of the "epic, years-long, once-impossible-looking mess he helped make." What more did Johnson need than three plain words?

Well, he was helped immeasurably by a Labour "Opposition" that responded with a mammoth utopian manifesto. Corbynites being so remote from a cynical and jaded public, it never occurred to these apparatchiks that the very idea of policy volume would be enough to send terrified workers into the arms of an avuncular toff.

To "Get Brexit Done", Labour answered: "Hail the new Green Industrial Revolution, free full-fibre broadband for everyone, the workers collectively owning 10 per cent of companies, nationalisation of rail, mail, water and energy, giving the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return to the lands from which they should never have been removed."

In Australia, after its shock election loss in May, Labor finally embraced brevity in a 500 word post-mortem that acknowledged "a cluttered policy agenda", and the "size and complexity" of its spending announcements contributed to the party's defeat. To its shopping list of promises on negative gearing, childcare, education, franking credits (I still have no idea what that was about), Scott Morrison responded, broadly speaking, with tax cuts. Tax cuts and a lump of coal. Tax cuts and religious freedom.

I can only agree with those who warn that conservative and right-wing populism is likely to keep winning in the near future. Not because the "workers" are dumb. Not even because their would-be saviours are too clever, though they are too energetic. Too optimistic. The broad left correctly diagnoses societal ills such as economic inequality and wage stagnation; it just can't offer a credible cure.

Loading

So while presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders gives himself a heart attack blitzing America's trailer parks, perhaps America's left-behinds would be better helped by progressives finding a few choice words to swing an election. Say: "Crooked Donald." And: "Merry Christmas."

Julie Szego is a Melbourne writer.

Original post:
Sorry, progressives, we can expect the right to keep marching onwards - Sydney Morning Herald

Progressivism in the United States today is defined by political partisanship, and has wrongly become synonymous with a a single party. The reality is that true progress requires disparate groups to come together in honest debate. At a time when members of one party have co-opted progressivism, let us recall that the successful progressive movement of the early twentieth century started with Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, and ended with Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

As a progressive Republican in New York, that issue is close to my heart.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Progressives agree that in the United States nobody should lack food, housing, education or healthcare. At the same time, an essential American ideal is the freedom to aspire for choice in all areas of life and the ability to achieve it through hard work and innovation. While both sides might agree on a forward-looking initiative, they may seek to achieve it in different ways.

Progressives do not easily disqualify individuals. We look for the common ground. We are happy to work with members of the other party on matters that are beneficial for the local constituents they represent. And we are eager to work with anyone who shares a vision for a future in which the United States is a global leader, never subject to the values of other countries and their leaders.

A progressive Republican like me knows that aspiration flows from capitalist forces that unleash incentive, growth and progress. Republicans know that only American-style wealth allows us to talk about food, healthcare, education and housing as human rights. American-style wealth only exists where there is American-style democracy. As a nation, we were the first progressives, revolting against monarchy and embracing democracy. The United States served as a model for other nations with respect to democracy in the nineteenth century. Then, in the twentieth century, we funded and facilitated successful democracies in Europe and around the world.

The socialist twitch in Europe would not have been made possible without American intervention in the Second World War, and continued American funding and protection through the end of the century. Republican progressives reject the notion that American-subsidized European socialism is a relevant model for our country.

As progressive Republicans, we appreciate the potential impact that laws and legal systems have in the lives of people. We believe that the law distinguishes us from animals, facilitating peaceful resolution. And progressive Republicans want law to err on the side of compassion. It is not a weapon to be wielded by for-profit lawyers. We support strong enforcement of laws meant to curb prosecutorial misconduct, and legislation where it is not enough. We also support reforms that reduce legal fees and that compel lawyers to work in their clients legal and financial interests.

We want to craft government so that it is compatible with our most ambitious plans for the future and that involves rethinking our federal agencies and bureaus. We cannot wait until the markets compel governmental change, or until it is too late. There are certain areas where markets are paralyzed and where government must take the lead in order for investments to follow. Consider twentieth-century federal regulation, the type which even the most conservative people would agree is necessary. Without air traffic control, commercial airliners would not be possible. Without government regulation of radio frequencies, there is no investment in broadcast radio, television, cellular phones and satellites.

Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clintons deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.

EPA

Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.

Getty

The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.

Getty

Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trumps personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the presidents enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a shadow foreign policy.In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trumps behalf and has called himself a hero.

AP

The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the favour he was asked for.Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.

AFP/Getty

The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.However, Trump announced that Pence had had one or two phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trumps actions.It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.

AP

Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didnt even want to.The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.

Getty

The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trumps opponent in the 2020 election.Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Bidens son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.

Reuters

Joe Bidens son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Bidens lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.

AP

The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trumps preoccupations with the Bidens and the Clinton emails.Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a cover-up of a cover-up.

AP

The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.

AFP via Getty

The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.

Getty

Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a parody of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.The Washington Post awarded Schiff a four Pinocchios rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.

Reuters

Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.

Reuters

The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff later identified as diplomat David Holmes overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about investigations the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trumps opponents, saying: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support."

Getty Images

A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trumps personal lawyer, of leading a campaign of lies against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.

Getty Images

One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack very intimidating. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: Shes going to go through some things.Yovanovitch said she was shocked, appalled and devastated by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.

REUTERS

A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trumps 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.

Getty Images

A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it unusual because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents.

Getty Images

The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraines reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest.

Getty Images

An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake.

Getty Images

In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: Was there a quid pro quo? Yes, said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the presidents political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his evidence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr Trump who went from calling Sondland a great American a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him.

AP

A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August undermining a Republican argument that there cant have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didnt know that aid was being withheld.

Getty Images

The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.

EPA

Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was being involved in a domestic political errand.She said: I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up. And here we are.

AP

The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald Trump. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line because his voice was so loud and distinctive and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear asking about the investigations and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate.

REUTERS

Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clintons deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.

EPA

Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.

Getty

The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.

Getty

Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trumps personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the presidents enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a shadow foreign policy.In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trumps behalf and has called himself a hero.

AP

The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the favour he was asked for.Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.

AFP/Getty

The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.However, Trump announced that Pence had had one or two phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trumps actions.It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.

AP

Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didnt even want to.The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.

Getty

The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trumps opponent in the 2020 election.Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Bidens son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.

Reuters

Joe Bidens son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Bidens lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.

AP

The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trumps preoccupations with the Bidens and the Clinton emails.Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a cover-up of a cover-up.

AP

The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.

AFP via Getty

The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.

Getty

Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a parody of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.The Washington Post awarded Schiff a four Pinocchios rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.

Reuters

Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.

Reuters

The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff later identified as diplomat David Holmes overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about investigations the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trumps opponents, saying: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support."

Getty Images

A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trumps personal lawyer, of leading a campaign of lies against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.

Getty Images

One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack very intimidating. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: Shes going to go through some things.Yovanovitch said she was shocked, appalled and devastated by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.

REUTERS

A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trumps 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.

Getty Images

A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it unusual because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents.

Getty Images

The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraines reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest.

Original post:
As a progressive Republican, I want to work with Democrats but this partisan impeachment makes it hard - The Independent

Skip to content

By using this website, you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, visit our Privacy PolicyX

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks at a news conference at a gun control advocacy event on February 26, 2019, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo / John Locher)

EDITORS NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvels column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrinas column here.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Just when you thought the Democratic presidential field couldnt get any more crowded, former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has swooped in with a $37 million ad blitz.Ad Policy

His motives for intervening at this late hour are hardly mysterious. If he were focused on the vital issues he has championed, such as gun safety or climate change legislation, he could just spend those millions in support of the Democratic nominee and/or on helping to take back the Senate. The fact is Bloomberg disdains those on the left in the Democratic primaryand perhaps fears that none of the other moderates in the field can win. With the idea of a wealth tax backed by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT)and strikingly popular among Democrats, independents and even many RepublicansBloomberg has billions of reasons to flex his financial muscle.

Its like clockwork. When progressives are gaining ground, the big-money wing of the Democratic Party often chooses to turn its fire on the leftas if progressives represented the real threat, and not President Trump, the GOP and their billionaire backers. Its why the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has chosen to blacklist vendors who work for progressive primary challengers such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) instead of, for example, vendors who also work for corporate polluters or union busters.

Read the full text of Katrinas column here.

Excerpt from:
Why Are Big-Money Democrats Turning Their Fire on Progressives? - The Nation

Tick-tock, the clock is running down and the day of reckoning approaches. Labour inches forward tantalisingly in the polls, but can it cut the Tory lead to below that crucial 7% mark, stopping an outright majority? Extreme agitation grows, anticipating the exit poll results, seconds after 10pm on election night. One thing is certain: Labour will not win a majority. Whether you yearn for it or dread it, the party is as likely to have its HQ hit by a meteorite on 12 December as win outright. (Happy to eat a hundred hats if Im wrong.)

What is all too possible is a blue wave sweeping all before it to wipe out all that tactical nuancing of each seat. In that instant our Brexit doom will be sealed and Boris Johnson will be off the leash with the BBC, NHS, and safety, food and work regulations all in peril. As his partys manifesto suggests, we will be out of the European convention on human rights, and he will be free to do anything that takes his populist fancy (alone with Belarus, no place for minorities or journalists). Whether throwing away keys, reintroducing capital punishment, banishing foreigners, stamping on scroungers or cracking down on Gypsies and Travellers, now that hes replaced Tory liberal lawyers with cohorts of Priti Patel, he will be able to use any means to bind his ex-Labour Brexit seats to Torydom.

Thats the nightmare: Britain joining the right-wing authoritarians to break Europes civilised democratic values

Thats the nightmare: Britain joining the rightwing authoritarians to break Europes civilised democratic values. Johnson has discovered that truth and rules are for little people. He finds there is no authority to stop his rule by yobs with posh accents, if only they can grab those Labour votes. Look at that peevish threat to review Channel 4s licence for empty-chairing him.

Theres only one alternative but its a good one. This deeply divided country needs a parliament to reflect itself and block the blue menace. The only balm is a parliament of compromise that blends progressive manifestos and sends the Brexit decision back to the voters, because nothing else can settle it.

Heres another certainty: a majority will not have voted for Johnson. An even bigger majority will not have voted for Jeremy Corbyn. Call it what they like a confidence and supply agreement, a vote by vote pact but Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, Greens and Plaid Cymru together have the makings of a very good government. Never mind the nominal leader: its priorities, taxing and spending would be set together as all are agreed on ending austerity; electoral reform would be the glue.

Can Labour stop a blue victory? We who travel about asking at bus queues, pubs and school gates, or knocking on doors, glean little more than those perusing unreliable polls. You sniff the air and hope to catch prevailing breezes. You hear pain, irritation with politics and ever more uncertainty. Sharp vignettes illuminate family lives framed in doorways. And some dottiness makes your head spin.

I was listening in the Wakefield constituency, which voted 63% in favour of Brexit, making it one of the weak bricks in Labours so-called red wall. Mary Creagh defends a 2,176-vote majority. If she falls, she leaves 14 years of landmarks: she fought for a new performing arts Brit school of the north, flood defences saving the city so far, a new hospital and more. She would be a loss to the green cause: the Environmental Audit Committee she chaired was instrumental in the ban on microbeads, and it won a single-use plastic bottle return law. Now it is in the midst of a fight over tons of fast-fashion waste. Good and bad MPs are swept along by election tides.

In Ossett, Creaghs most Brexit-supporting ward, she talks of austerity 11 Sure Start centres lost, 69m school cuts, food banks, a homeless man found dead last week. But theres a Fuck off! from a man in paint-splashed overalls. Im for Farage, he says, for sending back immigrants. Youve got a clown for a leader. Creagh usually tells Corbyn doubters, You might not like the manager but you still back the team. Thats no use here.

A mother murmurs, yes, shes Labour. Her autistic son cant leave the house, four years out of school but he can only find three hours a week tutoring. Sure Start was great when he was little, she says. Im sorry it went. Im for remain, Im really worried what Brexit will do. Will her husband vote Labour? She looks nervous and whispers, Youll have to ask. We dont talk about it. I dont know. Inside, he says brusquely: I was Labour, but no more. Im for Farage, got his feet on the ground. We voted out, so its out!

Many do greet Creagh warmly: firm Labour supporters, talking of cuts and remembering the time she got their personal independence payments (Pip) restored, the bedroom tax sorted, a universal credit payment challenged or the books she got for an empty school library. But theres that other wild card: one mum outside the school gates stomps past, hissing, Im voting Corbyn, not for you, Blairite!, a sign of another upcoming battle.

Heres Brenda Trenam to cheer the day with her home full of animals and birds. She voted leave but regrets it now. Changed my mind, I never expected disruption, she says. Its bad for our childrens future and for food prices. Labour? We always are. Shes a housekeeper for a cystic fibrosis ward. I see the nurses stress getting worse. I should be retired, but they took away my pension. Will Labour really give it back? But shes stunned when her husband Leslie says, Im uncertain. Im Brexit and Boris says hell get us out. Ive been Tory a few years. Oh no he hasnt! Brenda says, outraged.

Lisa Dodd is another leave regretter. We use the NHS a lot, my husband broke his neck, I had cancer, my mum was sick, so that 350m on the bus for the NHS swayed me. Now I worry what Brexit will do for our children and I want to vote again. Shes out posting Labour leaflets. But what do you say to the mother who tells me her whole family is moving to Spain unless they get Brexit? Or to a nurse wasting a vote here on no-hope Lib Dems?

Out of all that, the thwack of firm government forcing a non-consensual Brexit, with only minority support, would break politics as we know it. Roll on a progressive concordance of the reasonable that would let voters fix the Brexit mess.

Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

This article was amended in two respects on 3 December 2019. The proportion of referendum voters in the constituency of Wakefield who favoured leaving the EU was corrected to 63%. The previously quoted figure (66%) referred to the area covered by Wakefield council. Secondly, the Environmental Audit Committee helped the passage of a return law for single-use plastic, rather than glass, bottles.

Here is the original post:
To hold back the Tory wave, progressives will have to join forces - The Guardian