Mediaboss Marketing

President Bill Clintons strategy of triangulation was essentially an effort to lift pieces of Reaganism for Democratic gains. The era of big government is over, he famously declared in his 1996 State of the Union address.

Deeply aware of the role Mr. Reagan played in shifting American views on spending, President Barack Obama took office in 2009 believing that his administration could help end the countrys adherence to conservative economic policy.

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not, Mr. Obama said during his 2008 campaign. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasnt much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

Yet Mr. Obama also struggled to escape that path, eventually moderating his agenda and spending months making fruitless efforts to get bipartisan support for his ideas. Even the health care law that would come to be named after him was a compromise between liberals, who wanted a single-payer system, and moderates, who feared the size of such a huge new program.

Theres some evidence that Mr. Biden may be able to accomplish what Mr. Obama could not. Since the start of the pandemic, polling has found Americans expressing more positive sentiments about their government over all. Nearly two-thirds of Americans supported Mr. Bidens relief bill, with similar numbers backing his infrastructure plans. The most recent NBC News polling found that 55 percent of Americans said government should do more, compared with 47 percent who said the same a dozen years ago.

Unlike in 2009, when the government response to the Great Recession helped ignite the Tea Party movement, theres been no backlash so far to the big spending in Washington. After Congress passed the $1.9 trillion relief bill, many Republican voters told me that they were supportive of the legislation. Republicans in Washington have struggled to find a cohesive line of attack against the policy. And some who voted against the bill now highlight its benefits, an implicit acknowledgment of public support.

Former President Donald Trump, too, helped hasten the death of limited government, undercutting Republican credibility for making the case against federal spending. He drove the national debt to the highest level since World War II, pushing through a $2 trillion tax cut that did little for middle-class families.

Read the original:
Joe Biden, the Reverse Ronald Reagan - The New York Times

Progressives have a message for President Joe Biden, and Wednesday night they delivered it in a formal response to his first address to Congress.

"We've always said that the election of Joe Biden is the door but not the destination," said Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the Working Families Party.

The Working Families Party, a prominent left-leaning group, tapped Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-New York, to deliver its response.

The move is unusual because Bowman is a member of the president's own party. Traditionally, the opposition party offers a response when the president delivers a speech to Congress and it's usually critical.

But the point of Bowman's speech wasn't to criticize the president or open a rift in the Democratic Party. It's goal was to complement the president's speech and highlight the kinds of action the left wants to see from the White House moving forward.

"A combination of affirming the things that we hear Joe Biden say that we align with and then going a step further towards how we actually get there," Mitchell said.

For decades, the party without control of the White House has delivered a rebuttal of presidential addresses. When the president is a Democrat, the response is usually given by a Republican, and vice versa.

This year was no different, with Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina, delivering the GOP's rebuttal.

The proliferation of social media has led other party leaders to jump in the game and offer their own responses via live-stream. The practice has been embraced by tea party groups to major political figures, like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont.

The Working Families Party, for one, started delivering its own response separate from the Democratic Party during the Trump administration. It decided to continue the tradition with the Biden administration.

"It's about inspiring everyday people to take up the mantle of change," Mitchell said.

Last year, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, R-Massachusetts, spoke on behalf of the Working Families Party. In 2019, it was delivered by Wisconsin's Lieutenant Governor, Mandela Barnes. And Donna Edwards, the former Maryland congresswoman, did it in 2018.

Top lawmakers and activists on the Left are generally happy with the Biden administration so far.

"President Biden has definitely exceeded expectations that progressives had," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, said of the president's relationship with progressives earlier this week.

But they credit some of that goodwill to their dedication to holding him accountable and making sure their voices are heard at the White House.

The Working Families Party says Bowman was the right person to convey that message.

"Congressman Bowman is a regular person," Mitchell said. "He's an educator that grew up in his district, that understands in a very real way the contradictions and challenges that everyday working class people are trying to deal with."

Trending stories at Newsy.com

Visit link:
Progressives respond to President Joe Biden's first address to Congress - KPAX-TV

Armadas of trucks heading southeast from three major interstate highways all come together in Cincinnati to traverse the four southbound lanes of the Brent Spence. The bridge is part of a corridor that, according to one study, contains the second-most congested truck bottleneck in the United States, ranking behind Fort Lee, N.J., home to a perennially clogged interchange leading to the George Washington Bridge into Manhattan.

Its all the trucks, said Al Bernstein, who lives in Covington, the smaller city on the Kentucky side of the bridge, and whose wife refuses to drive over it. The local citizens they get hurt. But its the trucks that cause it.

One proposal that has circulated for years would spend $2.6 billion to build a new, much wider bridge next to the Brent Spence, doubling the lanes.

The challenge of overhauling the bridge corridor is not new to political leaders in Kentucky, Ohio or Washington, where it has long been held out as a symbol of the nations backlogged infrastructure needs. President Barack Obama made a speech in front of the bridge in 2011 as he pitched a major jobs and public works plan. President Donald J. Trump promised to fix it, too.

I remember when McConnell started becoming a big person in Washington, we were like, Oh, this is great. Were going to get more federal money and were going to get the bridge done, said Paul Long, a resident of the Kentucky side of the river who would do anything I can to avoid driving across the bridge. Then we had Boehner, who was the speaker of the House at the same time, he added, referring to John A. Boehner, the retired 12-term congressman whose district sat just north of Cincinnati. People were thinking, Yes, definitely going to get it done now.

A conversation about a bridge that everyone wants to fix but no one ever does is a conversation about the dysfunction of modern politics itself. Debate over its fate quickly turns into a lament about how dogmatic philosophies like Republicans blanket aversion to tax increases, or Democrats insistence on including an ambitious federal safety-net expansion in their public works plan have supplanted the subtle art of the backroom deal.

Decades ago, such compromises were powered in large part by so-called earmarks, which lawmakers could insert in legislation to direct federal money toward their pet projects. But the practice came to be seen as a symbol of self-dealing and waste as the antispending Tea Party swept the Republican Party, and after a series of scandals including one that led to the imprisonment of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff Congress banned it in 2011.

Read the rest here:
Bidens Expansive Infrastructure Plan Hits Close to Home for McConnell - The New York Times

U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Moline, says she will not seek a sixth term in Congress next year.

"As I turn every corner on each decade of life, I take time to reflect and evaluate what my next chapter might bring. Thats how, 10 years ago, I decided to run for Congress. And its why, today, I am announcing I will not seek reelection after completing this term," Bustos said in a statement sent by her campaign.

The congresswoman said it's "time for a new voice."

Bustos narrowly won her current term, coming within a few thousand votes of losing to Republican Esther Joy King.

The 17th Congressional District Bustos represents has long been a Democratic stronghold, but has been drifting right in recent years. Bustos won her most recent race in her rural district mainly on the strength of higher Democratic turnout in the urban areas of her district, including Rockford, the Quad Cities, Peoria, and Galesburg.

Bustos was first elected in 2012 after defeating Tea Party Republican Bobby Schilling after the 17th Congressional District was redrawn. The district is slated for redrawing again ahead of the 2022 election. Illinois Democrats steer that process with their supermajorities in both houses of the General Assembly and control of the governor's mansion.

Bustos also was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, but she stepped down after House Democrats lost several seats in the 2020 election, despite the party winning back the White House.

King sent out a statement shortly after Bustos' announcement, saying she plans to run again next year.

"I am running for Congress in 2022 because I know that the residents of this district deserve so much better than what the liberal elites have been serving them up in Washington," King said in a written statement. "We need a battle-ready leader. We need a fighter who wont back down. Someone who knows that the residents of the 17th district matter more than Washington DC special interests."

As for Bustos, she said she's not ready to announce her next chapter yet.

Community support is the greatest funding source for WCBU. Donations from listeners and readers means local news is available to everyone as a public service. Join the village that powers public media with your contribution.

Original post:
Five And Done: Cheri Bustos Won't Run For Another Term in 2022 - WCBU

Law raises parallels

It has occurred to me that if the new Florida "anti-riot" lawwere widely used then all the supporters at the Jan. 6 rally forPresident Donald Trump would be subject to arrest without bail because of the several hundred who stormed the Capitol.

Moreover, a similar law in colonial Boston would mean that Sam Adams and his Tea Party group would suffer strong penalties for destroying private property i.e. cases of tea. That would also mean that the law of unintended consequences is alive and well.

Rich Batsavage,

St Augustine

The USA TODAY editorial Thursday was staggeringly unprofessional. Stop it right now.

To quote, "The truth is that it took a mountain of prosecution evidence to convict one brutal cop of murdering a Black man during the simple act of arresting him for allegedly using a $20 counterfeit bill to buy cigarettes."

Your statement starts with, "The truth is...", but is that the "whole truth"? To a thinking person, seems there might be more to the story than passing a $20 counterfeit bill. Care to use some unbiased professionalism to elaborate? Apparently not. Might ruin your narrative?

Further in the column, "They can insist police officers refrain from carrying Tasers and handguns on the same side of their body, so they don't accidentally shoot someone they intend to stun, as happened April 11 near Minneapolis in the death during a traffic stop of Daunte Wright, 20."

Again, it strains credibility to think that police would even consider stunning someone, much less shooting someone, for a traffic violation. Upon reading your column, one might envision someone being stunned for an improper lane change or a faulty taillight. Is there more to this "traffic stop" story or are you selectively leaving out facts to again suit your narrative?

Your closing, as is typical for closings, clearly summarizes your message, laying bare your naked bias. "Until it is instilled in police that their first loyalty is to the George Floyds of the world, there will be no winners for the conviction of Derek Chauvin."

Please help me understand this tortured logic. So, the first loyalty of police is to law-breaking criminals during the commission of criminal acts? Seems the two are diametrically opposed, no?

OK, last question, I promise. Have you lost your mind?

View original post here:
Anti-riot act could be used against conservatives, editorial was 'outrageous' - St. Augustine Record