Mediaboss Marketing

The 116th Congress also demonstrated that political influence outside of Washington does not always translate into legislative victories, as progressives are promising.

Without question Ms. Ocasio-Cortezs influence on the Democratic Party also is striking in modern politics for a freshman House member. In her first few months in office she got normally skittish Democrats and some early presidential candidates to sign on to her Green New Deal (introduced with Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts), forced a national conversation about marginal tax rates and Medicare for All, helped tank a plan for Amazon to move to Queens, and catalyzed a vast rejection of corporate PAC money for incumbents who had just a year ago eschewed that plan as impractical at best, unilateral disarmament at worst.

But here was the reality for progressives: Medicare for All got little more than a hearing or two, while the House passed bill after bill pressing more incremental health care changes (but none of which the Republican-controlled Senate would even entertain). The Green New Deal had a messy if high-profile roll out, then fizzled. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez did not have even the modest legislative victories enjoyed by other freshman Democrats like Joseph Neguse of Colorado, Deb Haaland of New Mexico and Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who ran on getting health care bills on the floor.

What is more, many Democrats began to fret early on that the far left was going to do to them what the Tea Party had done to Republicans a few years back: Run them out of town, one primary at a time. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez previously suggested that Democrats who were not sufficiently loyal to an emergent brand of progressive politics should have others like her run against them in a primary. She is now suggesting that, exit polling be damned, Mr. Bidens latest string of successes is because of the strong-arming of corporate lobbyists, something Mr. Sanders has underscored by repeatedly calling Mr. Biden the establishment candidate.

But the results speak for themselves. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez threw her weight behind Cristina Tzintzn Ramirez in her Senate primary campaign in Texas to defeat the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committees chosen candidate, M.J. Hegar. Ms. Hegar ended up easily outpacing a crowded Democratic field.

There are some people who one dont really seem to understand the math of the majority making, said Representative Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, a former intelligence officer, whose Richmond-area district had been held by Republicans for decades. Theres some people that just think that were out of touch and that if we just worked hard, more Democrats would come out of the woodwork, and so we should just try to say all the things that excite all the Democrats. You can say that until youre blue in the face, but there are just not that many Democrats in my district.

Jennifer Steinhauer, a political reporter for The Times, is the author of the forthcoming The Firsts: The Inside Story of the Women Reshaping Congress.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read more:
Why Democrats Are Still Not the Party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - The New York Times

On Saturday, April 4, the Mint Hill Chamber of Commerce will host the second annual Chamber of Commerce Spring Tea and Brunch.

The idea behind the Spring Tea and Brunch is two-fold. In part, its a fundraiser. Historically, the Chambers biggest fundraiser is the Golf Classic held in September. The tournament is open to anyone, but it mainly draws participation from Mint Hills male community leaders. The Chamber began to think about a way they could raise additional funding to augment the Chambers offerings while also putting a spotlight on the positive role women play in both the Chamber and the Mint Hill community.

The Spring Tea and Brunch is a day to celebrate the positive role of women in both local businesses and the community of Mint Hill, says Mint Hill Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Paige McKinney. Proceeds from the event will assist the Mint Hill Chamber of Commerce in expanding events and opportunities for community members.

Last years spring tea at Arlington Baptist church was a wildly successful, sold-out event. This years Spring Tea and Brunch Committee composed of Denise Boston, Sandy Harrison, Amy Laughinghouse, Jennifer Manchester, Paige McKinney, and Kim Rhodarmer has laid the groundwork for this years event to be bigger and better, featuring more tables as well as more raffle and silent auction items.

This years Spring Tea and Brunch will take place at Philadelphia Presbyterian church, allowing the chamber to offer twenty-five table sponsorships, ten more than last year. Each table seats eight and may be secured for $320. Table sponsorship is open to anyone: local businesses, clubs, and organizations, groups from schools or neighborhoods, or even just eight girlfriends who want to enjoy a morning out together! Sponsors decorate their table in a style of their choosing advertising their business, choosing a unique theme or simply utilizing seasonal spring decor. Last years tables featured everything from a Mad Hatter Tea Party and Mint Hill in Bloom to Disney World and Chick-fil-A.

The table sponsorship fee includes hot and cold tea, appetizers, a main entree, and dessert for all eight women seated at the table. The Chamber is grateful to have Mint Hill Roasting Company, Chick-Fil-A Albemarle Road, Fresh Chef Kitchen, and Daphnes Bakery returning as sponsors who will provide hot and cold tea, appetizers and dessert. The Chamber is also pleased to welcome back Atrium Health, who is returning as the events presenting sponsor.

Last years spring tea was wildly successful, and this year we expect an even bigger turnout, says Jennifer Manchester of Suburban Properties of Charlotte. Our sponsor, Atrium Health secured this years sponsorship at last years event due to its popularity. So far we have pre-sold about half the tables and expect a sell-out.

This is a showcase for ladies who enjoy the aesthetics of beautifully crafted table settings and expressing their own creativity, says Servants Heart Founder and Executive Director Kim Rhodarmer. Laugh with friends. Enjoy a three-course menu from resident eateries. Grow the Chambers support of local businesses in our town. You wont be disappointed.

All of the money raised from the Spring Tea and Brunch goes to fund Chamber events and further their ability to do more in the community, like their Shop Small and Living Local campaigns. Funds raised from the Spring Tea and Brunch also support the Chambers college scholarship fund.

For those who would like to support the Spring Tea and Brunch, the Chamber is continuing to collect raffle and auction items. They welcome donations of products or gift cards from local businesses.

The Spring Tea and Brunch will take place on April 4 from 10:00 am 1:00 pm at Philadelphia Presbyterian Church. For additional information, to reserve a table, to donate a raffle or silent auction item, or to secure a sponsorship, call (704)-573-8282 or email paige@minthillchamberofcommerce.com. Table selections are secured upon payment.

We know its going to be a sell-out event, says McKinney. Secure your table quickly if you want to participate!

More:
Mint Hill Chamber of Commerce to host second annual Spring Tea and Brunch - Mint Hill Times

After throwing all her weight behind the socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) confirmed this week that she will support former Vice President Joe Biden if he were the Democratic Partys nominee.

Speaking with late-night comedian Seth Meyers on his show Thursday, the congresswoman stated that she thinks its important that Democrats unite in November regardless of who gets the nomination, even if that nomination goes to a 77-year-old white man who was hand-picked by the establishment and who accepts money from Americas billionaire class.

Ive said throughout this entire process that what is so important is that we ultimately unite behind who that Democratic nominee is, Ocasio-Cortez said on the show, as reported by HuffPost.

The congresswoman added that she believes this to be a two-way street and denounced both sides who said they would not support the other if they were the nominee.

And I think its a two-way street, she said. Ive been concerned by some folks that say if Bernies the nominee, they wont support him, and the other way around. This is more important than all of us. We really need to make sure that we defeat Donald Trump at the polls, assuming, and knowing, how insane its going to get between now and then.

The socialist congresswomans statement regarding the potential nominee is markedly different than what she said in January when she scolded the Democratic Party establishment from catering to conservative interests and supporting moderates over true-believers.

For so long, when I first got in, people were like, Oh, are you going to basically be a tea party of the left? And what people dont realize is that thereis a tea party of the left, but its on the right edges, the most conservative parts of the Democratic Party. So the Democratic Party has a role to play in this problem, and its like were not allowed to talk about it. Were not allowed to talk about anything wrong the Democratic Party does, she told NY Mag. I think I have created more room for dissent, and were learning to stretch our wings a little bit on the left.

Democrats can be too big of a tent, she later added. In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are.

Bernie Sanders alsopledged on Thursday that he would support Joe Biden if he were the nominee.

Joe Biden is a decent guy, and I know if he wins the nomination, I will be there for him, he said.And if I win, he will be there for me.

So, essentially, the two socialists who claim to stand up for working-class Americans and who denounce political corruption are now ready to support a man whose son earned $50,000 a month working for a Ukrainian energy company possibly because of Joe Bidens status as Vice President.

President Trump has capitalized on the two-faced nature of the Bernie Sanders campaign by characterizing him as a man who talks a big game but ultimately becomes a good puppy when the party leaders want him to be. That was true with Hillary Clinton in 2016 (sick of hearing about your damn emails) and is true in 2020.

I was surprised, when Bernie got beaten up last time, that he went out and endorsed Hillary and went around and did like a good puppy, like hes supposed to do, Trump told Sean Hannity this week. I was a little surprised at that.

And, even this time, he was saying about how wonderful Joe Bidens a wonderful guy, wonderful man, Trump concluded. And Im a little bit surprised by its almost like hes I dont know if hes admitting defeat. He might be. But I watched him yesterday saying or just a little while ago, saying very good things about sleepy Joe Biden. And I was a little bit surprised.

Aside from Sanders losing, Occasio-Cortez also had a rough night on Super Tuesday when the candidates she backed all failed to deliver.

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) may have been the biggest loser on Super Tuesday as all of the candidates that she backed, including socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), did not live up to her hype of them, reported The Daily Wires Ryan Saavedra this week. Ocasio-Cortez recently started her own far-left group called Courage to Change to take on establishment Democrats, and none of the candidates she backed ended up performing very well.

Go here to see the original:
Hard-Core Bernie Supporter AOC: I Will Back Biden If He Is The Nominee - The Daily Wire

For Biden and Trump, that anger also has a physical component, redolent of toxic masculinity. After news of the Access Hollywood tape came out, Biden said of Trump, "If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him." More recently, he said that Trump was like "the bully that used to make fun when I was a kid that I stutter, and I'd smack him in the mouth."

Trump, too, loves to present himself as a fighter, gleefully sharing a video that portrayed him as a wrestler body-slamming the media.

Anger bolsters these candidates for a lot of reasons. It's used to signal virility, a heartiness and strength that the three septuagenarian candidates need to harness to convince voters that, despite their age, they're still capable of throwing a punch. In fact, the way they've coalesced around anger is a sign of how few emotional options are open to them, as both men and as elderly people, two groups who feel enormous pressure to avoid any signs of weakness.

They're also tapping into a deep well of anger in the nation. We are in an age of political rage, rage that has found a home in movements ranging from the Tea Party to Black Lives Matter to the #MeToo movement. Books like "Mad as Hell," "Eloquent Rage," and "Good and Mad" have presented rage as a powerful, and often positive, political emotion.

See the original post here:
Only one kind of anger counts in the 2020 race - CNN

Taxpayers, all of us, ought to be concerned at the superficiality of the process employed to approve the spending of over $800 billion of peoples money this financial year. No individual, no private company would put up with the carefree approach, downright sleazy at times, carried out year after year by the Standing Finance Committee of Parliament.

In a matter of a scant few hours of scrutiny, mostly contestatory rather than explicatory, the money is voted, always without substantial amendment. No matter what has been said during the enquiry, our collective pockets are raided and the Government runs wid it.

It is actually a little better than it used to be. The Public Administration and Appropriations Committee does have a preliminary, but not very searching, look at the expenditure proposed, and members of parliament (MPs) now have somewhat more than a week to try to understand the more than a thousand deliberately opaque pages of figures and narrative about how ministries, agencies and public bodies propose to operate.

The process is frustrating because it is largely pointless. The heavy hand of inertia in the public sector has been working for months to keep things largely as they always have been. Then there are the usually conflated efforts of the Cabinet to introduce new projects.

Some of these recur, unfulfilled or hopelessly overspent, year after year. Words like it is proposed and we are going to recur endlessly. Who remembers that well done is much more to be prized than well said?

The searching questions from whoever is in opposition are side-stepped or rejected. The process is a sham. We need the equivalent of a Boston Tea Party a taxpayers revolt.

Whichever government is in office chronically complains of a lack of resources to do needed things. But all administrations refuse to administer a dose of salts to the heads of recurrent expenditure; to clean out the waste, corruption and low productivity which are embedded and repeated year after year. And MPs are complicit.

More than two years ago, I sought support from colleagues for the introduction of a system of zero budgeting, whereby each line of every years Estimates of Expenditure would be assessed for necessity and efficiency. Take three years and evaluate each ministry, not for financial rectitude as the auditor general does, but for contribution to productivity. Let this process influence who gets or stays employed, how much they are paid, and how we spend what has been taken forcibly out of peoples pockets. Once done, start the process all over again.

Thats what public-sector transformation should mean, and successive administrations are afraid of the idea. It is very likely that this Parliament will be prorogued and the resolution falls off the Order Paper without even a debate on the issue. Shame!

My estimate is that there is at least a quarter of the recurrent expenditure which will be wasted, stolen or could be much better used. The minister of finance has more than an inkling of the extent of the problem. I doubt if he has the courage or could muster the political support to correct it. I wish he would prove me wrong.

Think of what $200 billion would mean if applied to taxpayers purchasing power, or to debt reduction, or to health and education. Livity would be different. It is within our remit to make it happen. Yet we settle for a noisy, defensive, tribal-inspired surface inquiry and so, witlessly, remain slaves to our unjust past.

Happily, this year, we were able to have a good, spirited conversation about the education budget, tragically inadequate, as it needlessly is. Despite a huge primary surplus, there is hardly anything more for schooling this year.

Peter Bunting pointed out the choice which has been made by the Holness administration to invest in national security rather than in the socialising, schooling and training, which is the only way to stanch crime. There was neither denial nor rebuttal.

Karl Samuda understands what needs to be done, but has been dealt a mean hand by those crafting the Budget. He is chafing that there is insufficient resolve to disturb the existing inadequate narrative. His passion and well-honed management skills impel him to acknowledge the shortcomings rather than being defensive about them. This is a hopeful sign.

But still there will be less than $100 a day to provide breakfast and lunch for the two-thirds of schoolchildren who need nutrition to learn. Nothing meaningful, either, to revive the brilliantly conceived Brain Builders Programme for children from conception to age three or, more generally, for crucial early-childhood education.

The disastrous policy to discourage families who can afford, no matter how much or how little, to contribute to their childs education, persists, although at last, the education ministry says it is being reconsidered. So are the modalities of funding tertiary education. But why is the Budget supporting, without any report of its targets and measured outcomes, the National Education Trust when its very premise was to raise investment for the sector.

Dont even start me on the easy acceptance of the hundreds of millions reported stolen from the JUTC fare box and the brushing over the endless billions of subsidy being sunk in that decrepit organisation. And there is the cruel injustice of denying the Church-run childrens homes and places of safety equal support as given to state-sponsored institutions.

We can do much better with what we have if we are more thorough, bold and clear-thinking in the choices we make.

Ronald Thwaites is member of parliament for Kingston Central. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.

Read more here:
Ronald Thwaites | Doing more with what we have - Jamaica Gleaner