Mediaboss Marketing

When Canadian wildfires recently sent dangerous and unhealthy clouds of smoke over large swaths of the country, a new round of articles made the case that this latest devastating and strange weather event was a result of climate change.

Scientists and those who believe in the science of climate change have been passionately arguing their position for so long they may not have noticed the ground has shifted.  Most Americans already agree climate change is a threat — even across party lines.  

As message strategists and pollsters, we have often advised clients that the most effective way to motivate voters is to talk about the disastrous impact climate change will have on the world we are leaving behind for our children and grandchildren. But our recent polling on climate attitudes makes it clear that voters also see climate change as a serious problem right now.  

Even before the recent apocalyptic scenes of New York and New Jersey’s blood-red skies and air quality alerts causing school closures and other disruptions, 7 in 10 registered voters agreed with the statement: “With recent wildfires, drought, flooding, and storms, climate change is already having a serious impact on the country.”

Climate change has become personal, with slightly more than 4 out of 10 registered voters agreeing with the statement: “I or my immediate family have been negatively impacted by strange weather.” One can only assume that number has risen after recent events.  

It’s a message Republicans don’t seem to have heard. With their new majority, congressional Republicans made the decision to pick a high-profile fight over energy and climate change right out of the gate with H.R. 1., their pro-fossil fuel energy bill. They proposed in their debt ceiling bill to roll back the clean energy components of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Republicans clearly think this is a winning political issue for them. The National Republican Congressional Committee recently circulated a memo signaling its intention to use votes against H.R. 1 to go after vulnerable Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans such as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) continue to blithely dismiss the threat of climate change. 

But Republicans are leading with their chin. Majorities of voters across the political spectrum —including Republicans — believe that climate change is a major problem and have an unfavorable view of lawmakers who deny that it is a threat. A huge majority want to see a shift toward clean energy. Most problematic for Republicans, the political swing voters who will decide the 2024 election are strongly pro-climate and clean energy.  

Our research also shows voters have little patience for leaders who brush off climate change or oppose clean energy — for example, 63 percent of voters have an unfavorable view of lawmakers who deny that climate change is a threat. Among swing voters, these lawmakers’ favorability is underwater by a whopping 50 points. This tells us that voters are connecting their frustrations around climate to their political decisions. That’s not exactly great news for the Ron Johnsons of the world.

Not only is there a political price to pay for Republicans who hinder progress on climate, but there is also a political benefit for Democrats who do talk about their party’s accomplishments on this issue. Our research shows the IRA’s climate and clean energy provisions are very popular, with 63 percent supporting them and 27 percent opposing them. And after we simulate a balanced debate between the two parties’ approaches to energy, the swing voters who will decide the 2024 election prefer the Democrats’ approach by an overwhelming 26 points, even though they lean Republican on party identification by 14 points. Moreover, this debate causes voters to trust Democrats more on broader economic issues such as jobs and energy prices.  

The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underlined the desperate need for strong climate action now and even indicated that this may be our last shot.

Meanwhile, since the IRA became law, clean energy companies have already announced new projects that will create more than 142,000 clean energy jobs, helping reinforce the argument that the clean energy transition will boost the economy (something voters already believed).

The policy case for Democrats to engage in this fight is clear. As recent polling tells us, now more than ever, the political case is just as strong. If this is a fight Republicans want to have at the ballot box, especially in difficult swing districts, Democrats should be more than happy to oblige.  

Andrew Baumann is a Democratic strategist and leading expert on public opinion on climate change. Melissa Bell is a Democratic strategist and leading expert on public opinion and vote choice. They both work with candidates and top environmental organizations at Global Strategy Group. 

Link:
Republicans want a fight over energy and climate? Bring it on - The Hill

The executive committee of the Lynchburg Republican City Committee formally handed down a censure of Vice Mayor Chris Faraldi on Monday, rebuking him for a slew of actions they believe failed to meet the expectations of conduct put forth by the party, according to a news release from the party.

The basis of the censure, according to the resolution, dates back to actions of the vice mayor as early as the bodys heated Feb. 14 meeting, all the way through to the bodys most recent meeting on June 27, where Faraldi led a push to adjourn Lynchburg City Councils meeting before a scheduled discussion on a controversial workplace resolution put forth by another Republican member of council.

The censure resolution starts by accusing Faraldi of committing a perceived abuse of his power by asking a law enforcement officer to spy on Ward III Councilor Jeff Helgeson the night of the Feb. 14 meeting, which is when Helgeson was caught on the microphone calling Mayor Stephanie Reed the stupidest person Ive ever seen, she claims.

Continuing on, the executive committee later accused Faraldi of disparaging the committee in council meetings and in the media; betraying the trust of the party and its members by working with media against the other Republicans; abusing his office by retaliating against At-large Councilor Martin Misjuns to advance a personal agenda; blocking Misjuns workplace resolution debate; and refusing to communicate with his entire Republican caucus while promoting division in the public eye.

Wednesday afternoon, Faraldi issued a statement regarding the censure, saying hes profoundly disappointed to learn of the action taken by the committees executive board, but added he will refuse to succumb to and reject the bullying tactics and intimidation from those who would rather play political games than address the grave problems left by decades of liberal leadership in Lynchburg.

The vice mayor said the censure motion was propelled by a small group of unelected, biased individuals who are wailing in emotion because the council chose to make School Board appointments outside of their own personal preferences, and whose leader is rumored to be exploring a council run in Ward IV all this will not alter my course.

Firmly, he added, I believe that the overwhelming majority of our citys residents, regardless of their political leanings, would concur that I am not the one who is deviating from the proper course among the seven members of the City Council.

The censure is yet another instance of persistent infighting amongst Lynchburgs Republican-majority city council, dating back to the bodys organizational meeting this year, where the five Republicans split amongst themselves on their first vote for mayor.

Since that meeting, the body endured a months-long heated debate over how and when to bring forth tax relief, where numerous spats between councilors transpired. Misjuns wrote a note and passed it to Faraldi on the dais in late January, calling him a RINO, or Republican In Name Only, during a tax relief debate, according to Faraldi.

There was jostling amongst the Republicans over city council committee assignments, the aforementioned hot mic moment, confusion prior to approving the citys capital improvement plan and, most recently, the motion by Faraldi to adjourn councils meeting before engaging on a discussion regarding a controversial workplace resolution brought forth by Misjuns.

The latest event was one of the catalysts for the censure, according to the resolution, as Faraldi said he was retaliating against Misjuns for his treatment of city staff.

According to the resolution, Faraldi was informed of the censure on July 4; the committee adopted the censure on July 3.

In closing his statement, Faraldi said that he is devoted to the tasks at hand, and concentrated on the matters that truly impact our city. I will continue my focus on governing the city of Lynchburg with the conservative ideals I hold dear, principles endorsed by 61% of the voters in May of 2020.

Faraldi is in the midst of the third year of his first term on city council, having been elected in May 2020 to represent Ward IV.

On its face, censure is merely a symbolic gesture condemning an elected representative for their words or actions. The act has no bearing on an elected officials ability to remain in office, nor does it strip them of any governing abilities.

Its unclear, however, the effect the censure might have on Faraldis standing inside the party. Veronica Bratton, chair of the LRCC and leader of the executive committee, did not respond to attempts for comment or questions regarding the resolution or its allegations as of publication time Wednesday evening.

Bryson Gordon , (434) 385-5547

bgordon@newsadvance.com

@brysongordon on Twitter

Subscribe to our Daily Headlines newsletter.

Read more:
Citing a slew of complaints, Lynchburg Republicans formally ... - Lynchburg News and Advance

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos talks to the media after Gov. Tony Evers addressed a joint session of the state Legislature in the Assembly chambers during his State of the State speech at the state Capitol, Feb. 15, 2022, in Madison, Wis.

Conservatives have made it their mission to abolish diversity initiatives in schools around the country. In a historic blow to affirmative action, last week the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard University and the University of North Carolinas race-based admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

In addition to years of censoring educational materials in schools written by Black and brown authors as well as reversing affirmative action, it appears that the GOP is also setting its sights on scholarship programs for students of color as another way to eliminate diversity.

Read more

Last week, the Republican speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly, Robin Vos, implied that hell soon work to ban grants designated for minority undergraduate students. Vos took it upon himself to respond to a tweet asserting a scholarship program for Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and other minority students was equivalent to discrimination.

We are reviewing the decision and will introduce legislation to correct the discriminatory laws on the books and pass repeals in the fall, Vos wrote. Vos has always opposed anything related to diversity, equity and inclusion and even went as far as calling DEI programming at the University of Wisconsin as indoctrination.

Even though Wisconsin is projected to operate at a $7 billion surplus budget, Vos and other Republicans in the state Legislature voted to cut $32 million from the UW Systems budget unless it agrees to allocate the money toward workforce development as opposed to DEI resources. The Republicans are also planning on doing away with nearly 200 DEI jobs on UW campuses.

On the heels of the Supreme Courts devastating decision, we are certain this is just the beginning.

Story continues

More from The Root

Sign up for The Root's Newsletter. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Click here to read the full article.

Read the original here:
As If Affirmative Action Wasn't Enough, Now Republicans Are Coming for Minority Scholarships - Yahoo News

U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) talked with the Washington Blade on Saturday about the LGBTQ and womens history education bill that she and U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) reintroduced last week.

The legislation, just like actions recently announced by the White House, responds to book bans and curriculum restrictions that have increasingly cropped up in conservative states and school districts, which disproportionately target educational materials inclusive of LGBTQ subjects and histories.

Balint and Torress LGBTQI+ and Womens History Education Act of 2023 would authorize the director of the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of American History to develop and distribute resources for educators to teach LGBTQI+ and womens history education in a more inclusive and intersectional manner.

On June 8, meanwhile, the White House debuted plans to address attacks on the safety and rights of LGBTQ Americans. Among these were instructions to the U.S. Department of Education to appoint a coordinator who will address the growing threat that book bans pose for the civil rights of students, such as by providingnew trainings for schools nationwide on how book bans that target specific communities and create a hostile school environment may violate federal civil rights laws.

Balint told the Blade the education bill and these moves by the White House complement each other, but her efforts with Torres were not coordinated as much with the Biden-Harris administration as they were a product of the lawmakers shared understanding of this moment that were in as were both queer Americans trying to live our lives and not have our histories erased.

And I also come to this, Balint said, as a longtime social studies teacher in junior high who also taught history as the community college level. This push from the GOP to erase us from not just society but from history, she said, is so dangerous.

Its important for us to make sure that our histories and our stories are preserved, not just for posterity sake, but also because students across this country need to be able to see themselves in their history that were taught, Balint said.

Battles over the inclusion of Black, LGBTQ and womens history have roiled school districts across the country, leading to legislative restrictions that were passed in conservative states and even flaring up in areas traditionally known as liberal strongholds, like Southern California.

Last week saw protests over the inclusion of curricula that included the late gay rights activist and politician Harvey Milk in Temecula in Riverside County.

We cant write off any area of the country, Balint said. There are movements from from the right coming in more traditionally blue states, as well, and theyre trying to make parents and community members feel afraid of their neighbors.

As the right has sought to deliberately scapegoat queer and transgender kids, fear mongering to rile up the conservative base, the congresswoman said its really important that those of us in a position to shore up those those teachers in those schools who are trying to do the right thing, [because] they need help, theyre under siege right now.

Balint said that her wife is from Wyoming, a solidly conservative state where she also has experience teaching.

I understand the struggles that teachers have in those schools, when they want to bring in a more inclusive history, a more true history, of the complexity of life in this country, she said.

So, I think its a really important message for us to send, both from the White House and from Congress, and in this case, also, from the Smithsonian Institution, to say this is real history. Its important that you expose your students to it. And I think that gives those teachers more courage to be able to teach a curriculum that is more inclusive and true.

The LGBTQI+ and Womens History Education Act of 2023, Balint said, can also help educators in a more direct sense. Whether youre trying to teach the history of people of color in this country, or of women, or of queer and trans people, she said, it is a huge undertaking to try to do that research on your own.

Unfortunately, however, the congressman acknowledged the political roadblocks to its passage with Republicans controlling the U.S. House of Representatives.

Just before flying home to her district, Balint said she had to sit through a speech on the House floor in which a GOP member railed against how disgusting it was that there any kind of federal building or State Department building would fly, you know, a Pride flag, telling his colleagues thats not the kind of thing that we in this country want to be known for.

The congresswoman characterized the language this member used as hurtful and cruel, intended to demonize LGBTQ people.

There are good people in the Republican conference, Balint said. But when it comes to these issues, we have not seen any of them. In this congressional session, they are all falling in line. I welcome any partners across the aisle. To stand up to this kind of scapegoating.

For this reason, when it comes to her and Torres legislation, she said, I am not hopeful in this Congress. But we have to lay the groundwork for what will come when we hopefully are able to recapture the majority and really make movement on these things.

Balint told the Blade some of her Republican colleagues have assured her and other Democrats well, you know I dont believe this stuff that the extremists are pushing.

GOP members will admit that they have to take extreme anti-LGBTQ positions that they do not actually believe in for fear of losing a primary race to someone further to the right, she said.

And one of the things that Ive been talking about with my friends within my caucus is if, in the end, youre gonna vote just like your extremist colleagues, then frankly, youre not better! If youre not gonna use your position to stand up when you know [your colleagues in the GOP caucus] are shamelessly and cruelly scapegoating a group of people, then what will it take?

Balint said she nevertheless remains optimistic that the tides will eventually turn, but in the meantime we have to hold them accountable. And we have to stand with them when they are courageous, which is why I always try to point out that youve got a few bright spots one being the [Republican] governor of Utah, Gov. [Spencer] Cox, who made a very powerful statement about these anti-trans bills.

When legislation that would have prohibited trans students from playing on girls sports teams reached his desk in March, Cox vetoed it. When in doubt, he wrote, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion.

I cant overstate what it has meant for young queer and trans kids in Vermont and across the country, to be able to come and talk with me, Balint said, or any of her colleagues who are openly gay. We also are working so hard right now to make sure that we will be able to elect our first trans American to Congress, she said, we are so committed to that we have to have true representation.

Read more:
Gay and trans Republicans shocked DeSantis now targeting them - Washington Blade

Few issues have been more divisive among the Republican presidential candidates than the war in Ukraine and how, if at all, the United States should be involved.

It has illuminated one of the biggest ideological divides within the Republican Party: between traditional members who see the United States as having a significant role to play in world affairs, and an anti-interventionist wing that sees foreign involvement as a distraction from more important issues at home.

The old school has more adherents in the 2024 field, including Nikki Haley, Mike Pence and Tim Scott, who support sending Ukraine military equipment and weapons but not troops. This aligns with President Bidens strategy, though they maintain that Mr. Biden is executing it wrong.

But the anti-interventionist wing is dominant in terms of influence, with two members, Donald J. Trump and Ron DeSantis, far outpolling everybody else.

Only one candidate, Will Hurd, wants to significantly expand U.S. involvement.

Former President Donald J. Trump has said that the war in Ukraine is not of vital importance to the United States.

In a CNN town hall event, he did not give a straight answer when asked repeatedly whether he would continue to provide military aid, instead declaring that he would end the war within 24 hours by meeting with Presidents Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. He claimed falsely that the United States was sending so much equipment that we dont have ammunition for ourselves.

Mr. Trump who was impeached in 2019 for withholding aid to Ukraine to pressure Mr. Zelensky to help him electorally also suggested to Fox News that he could have prevented the war by ceding Ukrainian land to Russia. I couldve made a deal to take over something, he said. There are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas, frankly.

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has called the war a territorial dispute whose outcome does not materially affect the United States.

While the U.S. has many vital national interests securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them, he told the Fox News host Tucker Carlson in March.

After criticism from fellow Republicans, he backtracked, saying that his comments had been mischaracterized and that Russias invasion was wrong.

He has since endorsed a cease-fire, saying he wants to avoid a situation where you just have mass casualties, mass expense and end up with a stalemate. He has maintained his position that the United States should not get more involved.

The entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy opposes aid to Ukraine because, he argues, the war does not affect American interests.

He says he would pursue an agreement that would offer sweeping concessions to Mr. Putin, including ceding most of Ukraines Donbas region to Russia, lifting sanctions, closing all U.S. military bases in Eastern Europe and barring Ukraine from NATO. In exchange, he would require Russia to end its military alliance with China and rejoin the START nuclear treaty.

I dont think it is preferable for Russia to be able to invade a sovereign country that is its neighbor, but I think the job of the U.S. president is to look after American interests, and what I think the No. 1 threat to the U.S. military is right now, our top military threat, is the Sino-Russian alliance, Mr. Ramaswamy told ABC News. I think that by fighting further in Russia, by further arming Ukraine, we are driving Russia into Chinas hands.

Nikki Haley, a former ambassador to the United Nations, says that it is in the best interest of America for Ukraine to repel Russias invasion, and that she would continue sending equipment and ammunition.

A win for Ukraine is a win for all of us, because tyrants tell us exactly what theyre going to do, she said on CNN. She added: China says Taiwans next wed better believe them. Russia said Poland and the Baltics are next if that happens, were looking at a world war. This is about preventing war.

Victory for Ukraine, Ms. Haley said, would send a message more broadly: warning China against invading Taiwan, Iran against building a nuclear bomb, and North Korea against testing more ballistic missiles. To Russia, it would signal that its over.

In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, she said President Biden had been far too slow and weak in helping Ukraine.

Former Vice President Mike Pence supports aid to Ukraine and has accused Mr. Biden of not supplying it quickly enough. In June, he was the first Republican candidate to travel to Ukraine, where he met with Mr. Zelensky.

Like Ms. Haley, he has described helping Ukraine as a way to show China that the United States and the West will not tolerate the use of military force to redraw international lines, a reference to a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

This position sets him apart from the president he served under. Criticizing Mr. Trumps description of Mr. Putin as a genius, Mr. Pence said on CNN that he knew the difference between a genius and a war criminal.

He has emphasized that he would never send American troops to Ukraine, and said he did not yet want to admit Ukraine to NATO because he wanted to prevent the United States from becoming obligated to send troops. But he said he was open to admitting the country into NATO after the war.

Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina supports aid to Ukraine and told NBC News that Mr. Biden had done a terrible job explaining and articulating to the American people what the United States interests are there, an argument Mr. Pence has also made.

First, it prevents or reduces attacks on the homeland, Mr. Scott said. Second, as part of NATO and land being contiguous to Ukraine, it will reduce the likelihood that Russia will have the weaponry or the will to attack on NATO territory, which would get us involved.

He has endorsed a forceful defense of Ukraine from the start, writing in March 2022 that the fight was for the principles that America has always championed. That May, he voted for an emergency funding measure that went beyond what Mr. Biden proposed. He accused Mr. Biden of waiting too long to provide too little support, but Mr. Biden supported the increase.

Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has said that the United States should continue to support Ukraine until the war is resolved.

None of us like the idea that theres a war going on and that were supporting it, but the alternative is for the Chinese to take over, the Russians, the Iranians and the North Koreans, Mr. Christie said in a CNN town hall, calling the conflict a proxy war with China.

He added that some kind of compromise with Russia might eventually be needed, and that the United States should help negotiate it once Ukraine can protect the land thats been taken by Russia in this latest incursion.

He has said that Mr. Trump set the groundwork for the war and called him Putins puppet. And he compared Mr. DeSantis to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler.

Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas supports aid to Ukraine with audits to ensure funds are used as intended. He told C-SPAN that U.S. leadership was important in supporting Ukraine and bringing the European allies together against Russia, and that he disagreed with Mr. Trumps and Mr. DeSantiss more isolationist view.

Like several other candidates, he has argued that allowing Russia to win would embolden it and other authoritarian countries to attack elsewhere.

If we stand by and let this nation falter, it leaves a hostile Russia on the doorstep of our NATO allies, he said, adding, By taking a supportive and public stand in Ukraine, were sending a message to Russia and to China that their aggressive posture towards other nation-states is unacceptable.

Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota has indicated that he supports military aid with accountability on every dollar.

Russia cannot have a win coming out of this, because if its a win for them, its a win for China, Mr. Burgum told KFYR, a television station in North Dakota, while adding that he wanted Europe to shoulder more of the financial burden.

He told CNN in June that the domestic turmoil in Russia had created an opening that the United States and NATO could exploit. Lets give them the support they need, he said of Ukraine, without elaborating. Lets get this war over now instead of having it be protracted.

Mayor Francis X. Suarez of Miami supports aid but wants to tie it to new NATO rules requiring Europe to carry an equal burden.

In a National Review essay, he said Mayor Vitali Klitschko of Kyiv had warned him that if Mr. Putin was not stopped, Russia and China would continue to attack the West, possibly including the United States. Mr. Suarez added that Russia had to be defeated because it was part of a broader resurgence of communist-inspired regimes, though Mr. Putins Russia is not communist.

Without naming him, Mr. Suarez criticized Mr. DeSantiss position. It doesnt take a Harvard lawyer to see that the war in Ukraine is not a territorial dispute, he wrote, shortly after Mr. DeSantis used that phrase to describe it. It is a moral and geopolitical struggle between two visions of the world.

Former Representative Will Hurd of Texas who said from the start that the United States should send Ukraine as much weaponry as we can has espoused a more hawkish policy than any other major candidate, arguing that the United States should go well beyond providing equipment and weapons.

Mr. Hurd told ABC News that he supported establishing and helping enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. NATO leaders and U.S. lawmakers from both parties rejected that last year, saying they feared escalation. Mr. Hurd has brushed that concern aside, arguing that Mr. Putin had not escalated when a mercenary leader threatened a coup.

He said that the United States should help Ukraine retake not only the territory Russia invaded in 2022, but also Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.

Read more:
Where Trump, DeSantis and the Other Republican Candidates ... - The New York Times