Mediaboss Marketing

Representing what has been a solidly Republican district, two-term incumbent Tom Oliverson is a conservative advocate for robust Second Amendment rights and a limited role for government. His children are homeschooled, he staunchly opposes abortion rights, and has prioritized expanding religious liberty.

During the 2017 session of the Legislature, when a bill banning transgender people from using using public bathrooms matching their gender identity dominated debate, Oliverson authored a bill that would have provided a religious exemption for discrimination against LGBT people. Neither bill became law and after losing seats in the next election, Republicans shifted their focus.

A medical doctor specializing in anesthesia, Oliverson has a solid track record sponsoring bipartisan bills including protection against surprise billing for emergency room visits. Last session, with a lift from Democratic Rep. Senfronia Thompson, a bill Oliverson co-authored requiring pharmaceutical companies to justify price jumps became law. And in the face of projected budget shortfalls, he says he will work to protect the increased education funding passed in 2019.

Im willing to work with anyone who is willing to work with me, Oliverson told the editorial board, adding, Good policy isnt partisan.

It is based on that attitude that we recommend Oliverson for re-election, despite misgivings.

His Twitter account, for instance, is often divisive. We are also troubled by photos of him not wearing a mask in situations where physical distancing was not possible. With COVID-19 continuing to devastate lives and our economy, we expect more from a physician leader.

Democratic challenger Bryan Henry was a 2019 Texas Council for Social Studies high school teacher of the year and now teaches at a community college. His home flooded during Harvey and he stresses the need for flood mitigation as well as slowing climate change. We were impressed by Henrys depth of knowledge and clarity on health care access, gun violence, education, criminal justice reform and other issues.

Texas House District 130 includes rapidly growing and diversifying communities in the northwest corner of Harris County. Voters there can choose between two intelligent candidates who represent different visions for Texas.

While we wish he were a better physician leader during this pandemic, we recommend Oliverson based on his experience and success working across party lines.

Read the original post:
Editorial: We recommend Tom Oliverson in Texas House District 130 - Houston Chronicle

While two of the congressional races for the San Antonio area are hotly contested, with millions of dollars pouring into campaigns and plenty of national attention, three other races are decidedly low-key affairs. These three races feature long-standing incumbents and marginal challengers.

In Congressional District 28, we recommend U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar for another term. During his eight terms in this district, which runs from San Antonios South Side to Texas border with Mexico, Cuellar has become one of the least favorite Democrats in Congress among the partys progressives. His real challenge came in the primary against immigration attorney Jessica Cisneros.

Cuellar is a conservative Democrat. He is anti-abortion, pro-gun rights and works well with Republicans. He also gets things done.

Cuellars conservatism and bipartisanship have made him an effective representative for his district and South Texas. The only Texas Democrat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, hes leveraged his political capital into funding for new immigration judges, area military bases and Hispanic Serving Institutions, and he was critical in funding San Antonios new federal courthouse.

Cuellar has earned a ninth term.

His Republican challenger, Sandra Whitten, didnt respond to requests for an interview. On her website, she describes herself as a Christian, Constitutional Conservative, Pro-Life, Supporter of Strong Borders and Legal Immigration.

In District 35, we recommend U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett for a 14th term. As one of the most prominent liberal voices in Congress, Doggett has long been targeted by Republicans to the extent of their creation of weirdly gerrymandered districts designed to unseat him.

The district hes represented since 1995 connects East Austin to East San Antonio. Doggett has never forgotten that while a central duty of a member of Congress is to shape policies on national issues, the most important function of the office is constituent services.

While advocating for progressive causes and against the policies and rhetoric of President Donald Trump, Doggett, who turned 74 on Tuesday (happy birthday!), is a constant and vigorous presence throughout his district and an effective representative tending to his constituents personal issues, interceding for them with government agencies such as the Social Security Administration or Veterans Affairs.

His Republican challenger, Jenny Garcia Sharon, was born in Houston and is a graduate of the University of the Incarnate Word. She is a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservative who believes that increased federal government involvement in our Nations healthcare system would only make the problems worse.

And in District 20, we recommend U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro for a fifth term. Castro is quickly emerging as a national voice on immigration, health care and national security. He has brought attention to the poor treatment of immigrants in detention and, more recently, concerns about changes to the U.S. Postal Service.

He is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and hes been equally impressive serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Castro faces Mauro Garza, owner of the Pegasus nightclub, who declined our interview request.

Here is the original post:
Editorial: Castro, Doggett and Cuellar have earned another term - San Antonio Express-News

President Donald Trump has an extensive track record of name-calling and othering, and the 2020 presidential election season has provided no exception. His portrayal of Democractic candidate Joe Biden as a radical leftist, among other things, has made this more and more clear as election day draws nearer.

Not only is this classification of his opponent utterly untrue, but a reliance on this sort of rhetoric should be considered a major weakness in Trumps campaign; its use to further divide Americans ultimately demonstrates his incompetence as president and as a candidate for reelection.

While it is stated on Bidens campaign website that he supports the expansion of new clean-energy technologies, recommitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change and conserving 30% of Americas lands and waters by 2030, he said during the 2020 presidential debate that he does not support the more liberal Green New Deal.

While he supports the ban of assault and high-capacity magazines, regulation of existing assault weapons and the reduction of stockpiled weapons, he does not go as far as saying that the Second Amendment should be repealed, the most extreme form of gun control.

While he supports a free two years of community college, tuition-free four-year public colleges and universities for all students with household incomes less than $125,000 and student debt relief, he does not believe that public colleges and universities should be completely tuition free and that all student debt should be cancelled like democratic-socalist Bernie Sanders.

These are only a few issues that illustrate Bidens overall moderate democratic stance, but they aid in showing that Trumps claims about his opponent being a radical leftist are simply untrue they might as well be added to his long-running list of false or misleading claims.

In addition to being dishonest, the sheer amount of time Trump has committed to making these sorts of claims is a glaring weakness in his campaign, given that they take away from talk of actual policy. Dedicating so much breath on scorning and obfuscating his opponent instead of highlighting his own beliefs and politics should be a very concerning point for voters.

For instance, in his GOP acceptance speech on Aug. 27, Trump mentioned Bidens name 44 times. Biden did not once reference Trump by name in his speech at the Democratic convention a week earlier.

How can voters really know who they are voting for when a candidate is running a campaign that is so reliant on diverting the focus onto someone else?

A large portion of that speech was devoted to all the ways in which Biden would be, in the words of Trump, the destroyer of American greatness if elected. This was a cultivation of negative partisanship, or voters who are motivated to vote by their fears of the bad things the opposition party will do then they are the good things they hope their party will do as defined by Eric Black of MinnPost.

Trump used this same strategy in 2016 when running against Hillary Clinton. He portrayed her as an ethically compromised, out-of-touch establishment figure, according to Holly Otterbein and Alex Isenstadt of Politico. And it obviously worked.

Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster cited a rise in negative partisanship and its prevalence as a driving force behind votes in their study Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans. They wrote that it is likely that this new style of partisan behavior has led to a series of deleterious consequences for governance and representation, including citizens loss of trust in their governing institutions.

Further, Jennifer McCoy, Tahmina Rahman and Murat Somer found that people are more likely to accept illiberal measures like restricting freedom of expression or using force against political opponents when they see leaders and supporters of the other party as villains who are out to cause harm to their nation.

Trumps rhetoric of Biden, and many others for that matter, has done just that: He is the destroyer of Americas jobs and, we have spent the last four years reversing the damage Joe Biden inflicted over the last 47 years are just two ways in his 2020 GOP acceptance speech that Trump attempted to illustrate Biden as a sort of evildoer to his listeners.

Theres certain irony in portraying ones opposing candidate as evil when that portrayal has been found to cause rifts in democracy. Especially when misinformation is an added component. Presidential candidates should be strategic, but opting for a strategy that causes deleterious consequences and encourages people to tolerate illiberal measures is unacceptable.

Casting an opponent in an untrue light while compromising the opportunity to express ones own beliefs should not be the norm of American politics. A presidential candidate should make clear what they plan to do if elected to the office, not hide behind a shield they created out of another candidate. They should aim at unifying a nation, not at actively creating mistrust and polarizing two sides for their benefit.

Call me an idealist, but I believe America can do better than a leader chosen out of fear for the other.

Haley is a senior studying Journalism, with a certificate in French. What are your thoughts on Trumps strategy? Do you think negative partisanship is harmful? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.

Go here to see the original:
Evil constructing evil: Trump's exploitation of negative partisanship - Daily Cardinal

State Rep. Robert Sutherland, R-Granite Falls, faces Claus Joens in the race to represent the 39th Legislative District in the state House. The district includes eastern Skagit and Snohomish counties and northeastern King County.

Sutherland was elected to the position in 2018 and is running for a second, two-year term.

Joens, a Democrat who resides in Marblemount, hopes to unseat Sutherland.

"I will do a better job than Sutherland has," he said in a statement to the Skagit Valley Herald. "As both a businessman and a teacher, I understand how budgets work, and education is our largest budget item."

Joens said additional strengths he would bring to the table include connections with agriculture having grown up on a small farm and the environment.

Sutherland on the other hand said in a statement to the Skagit Valley Herald that key issues he and Joens disagree on include rights to gather peacefully, gun rights, property taxes, and transportation taxes and fees.

"We need to strengthen, not weaken, our Constitutionally-protected rights," Sutherland said.

Joens said as someone who hunts and has a concealed carry permit he supports the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

"But I do not threaten people with loaded guns," he said, later referencing news reports of Sutherland toting guns and making threats at protest events in April and June.

The Seattle Times reported that at an April protest in Olympia against Gov. Jay Inslee's COVID-19 stay-at-home measures, Sutherland took a microphone and told the crowd: When we go fishing, theyre going to send their guys with guns, and theyre going to write us tickets ... You send your goons with guns, we will defend ourselves.

As for taxes, Sutherland said he has a plan to do away with a state property tax that brings in about $3.7 billion a year. A bill he sponsored House Bill 2960, introduced to the Legislature in March states it would eliminate that tax, which is collected to support public schools, over a four-year period.

Joens said that tax, collected at a rate of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value, is critical to supporting public schools the state already struggles to adequately fund.

Follow this link:
Sutherland facing challenge from Joens in the 39th - goskagit.com

Lansing Jeff and Sheila Humphrey of Burton stood in the rotunda of the Michigan Capitol Thursday, gazing up at the inner dome more than 100 feet above them. It was their first time inside the building. They carried AR-15 firearms.

"The most beautiful building I've ever seen," Jeff Humphrey, 50, said.

They visited Lansing as part of the "Second Amendment March," in which participants many of whom openly carried weapons gathered to celebrate their right to bear arms. The event occurred as a heated debate flared on in Michigan over whether to continue allowing guns in the Capitol building.

Militia members listen to a speaker. Gun rights advocates rally for the Second Amendment March at the Capitol Building in Lansing, Michigan on September 17, 2020.(Photo: Chris duMond, Special to the Detroit News)

"I don't see any problem with any gun being in this building," Jeff Humphrey contended. "Everything is done by a person's intentions. So if you blame a person before they've done anything ... what's the point of having any rights?"

"It's not so much the guns that are killing people. It's the people who are killing people," Sheila Humphrey, 51, added.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Thursday's Second Amendment March drew an estimated crowd of more than 200 people, including some militia members and supporters of the right-wing Proud Boys.

Similar rallies are held every year at the Capitol. However, this one occurred as the Michigan Capitol Commission continues to consider whether to limit firearms inside the building.

On Monday, the six-member commission rejected one proposal to generally ban guns and another to limit only the open carry of weapons. However, the panel, which is usually in charge of maintaining the Capitol grounds, plans to continue considering the matter, including meeting with the leaders of the Michigan House and Senate.

Commission member Joan Bauer, a former Democratic lawmaker from Lansing, has contendedthe commission has a "moral and legal responsibility to act before something terrible happens."

The discussion was spurred by an April 30 rally at the Capitol against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home orders. During the protest, dozens of people some of whom carried firearms ventured inside the Capitol building demanding entry into the House chamber. Michigan State Police troopers stood in a line blocking the protesters, who chanted, "Let us in."

Some protesters with firearms also went to the Senate gallery, which was open to the public and where demonstrators occasionally shouted down at lawmakers as they were in session.

Founder of the 2nd Amendment March, Skip Coryell, addresses the crowd. Gun rights advocates rally for the Second Amendment March at the Capitol Building in Lansing, Michigan on September 17, 2020.(Photo: Chris duMond, Special to the Detroit News)

"Its been four months since armed gunmen stood above elected officials while they worked," the Michigan Senate Democrats' official Twitter account posted this week. "Legislators, staff, children & teachers shouldn't have to fear guns in the Capitol."

But participants in the Second Amendment March disagreed Thursday. Phil Robinson of Michigan Liberty Militia said a ban would infringe on people's constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"This is my house," Robinson said gesturing toward the Capitol building. "I make the rules here, not them ... We have every right to be in that building with our guns."

Jack Griffes of Lenawee County held a sign at the event that said, "Gun control kills kids." Griffes said the Michigan Constitution is clear that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. Banning guns in the Capitol would go against that, he said.

"They obviously can't make laws that are against the Constitution," Griffes said. "The only way that they could do that legally is by amending the Constitution."

Douglas Fell, 33, of Mount Clemens, walked around the ground floor of the Capitol on Thursday as the rally took place outside. He carried an AR-15.

Asked why guns should be allowed in the Capitol, he gestured toward a Michigan State Police trooper who had walked by.

"He's doing it," Fell said. "Why can he and I can't?"

cmauger@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/17/second-amendment-advocates-march-keep-guns-michigan-capitol/3481252001/

Read more:
Second Amendment advocates march to keep guns in Michigan Capitol - The Detroit News