Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Postal Service Plans Price Increases and Service Cuts to Shore Up Finances

      by

      The 10-year plan, which would lengthen promised delivery times and reduce post office hours, among other provisions, drew immediate condemnation from Democrats in Congress.WASHINGTON — The Postal Service unveiled a 10-year strategic plan on Tuesday that would raise prices and lengthen promised delivery times, among other measures, in an effort to recoup $160 billion in projected losses over the next decade.The announcement, which comes as the beleaguered agency is already reeling under nationwide delivery delays and falling use of traditional mail, drew immediate condemnation from Democrats in Congress, who would have to pass legislation to carry out some parts of the proposal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California instead vowed to advance an infrastructure bill “to ensure that the Postal Service has the resources needed to serve the American people in a timely and effective manner.”Among other things, the plan would reduce post office hours, consolidate locations, limit the use of planes to deliver the mail and loosen the delivery standard for first-class mail from within three days in the continental United States to within five days, an effort to meet the agency’s 95 percent target for on-time delivery. In a news conference, Kristin Seaver, an executive vice president at the Postal Service, maintained that 70 percent of first-class mail would continue to be delivered in one to three days.The postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, a Trump megadonor and former logistics executive who has faced criticism over his handling of the agency, argued that the steps were necessary given the Postal Service’s worsening financial situation. The agency, which is supposed to be self-sustaining, has lost $87 billion in the past 14 fiscal years and is projected to lose another $9.7 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.“We have to start the conversation with we’re losing $10 billion a year,” Mr. DeJoy said in an interview on Tuesday, “and that’s going to continue to go up unless we do something.”“We are hopeful that this is taken for what it is, a positive story, and everybody, let’s get on board,” he added. “And I think, you know, there’s different aspects within each side of the aisle over there that this plan has good stuff for.”But if anything, the release of the plan appeared to intensify opposition to Mr. DeJoy’s leadership among Democrats, who had already blamed him for delivery slowdowns that coincided with operational changes last summer. They had also accused him of sabotaging the Postal Service as President Donald J. Trump promoted unfounded claims of vote-by-mail fraud before the 2020 election.On Tuesday, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, renewed a call for the sitting members of the agency’s Board of Governors to be fired and for Mr. DeJoy to be “escorted to the street where his bags are waiting for him.” The plan should be a “dead letter” for the agency, he added.Ms. Pelosi said Mr. DeJoy’s “cutbacks” would undermine the agency’s mission, “resulting in serious delays and degradation of service for millions.”The Postal Service said that relying more on ground transportation would make delivery more reliable. But the result would be, for some, slower mail.Among the most contentious provisions were price increases for the agency’s services. In its plan, the Postal Service said it expected to find $44 billion in revenue over the next 10 years through regulatory changes, including pricing flexibility. Mr. DeJoy said he could not offer details about the increases.The single largest opportunity for savings under the plan lies in lawmakers’ hands. Congress has mandated that the agency must prefund 75 years’ worth of its retiree health benefits. In the strategic proposal, the Postal Service estimates that it could recoup $58 billion by eliminating the prefunding requirement and introducing Medicare integration, which would align the agency’s retiree health benefit plans with those of many private sector employers and state and local governments.Mr. DeJoy and Ron A. Bloom, the chairman of the Board of Governors, would not offer an explanation of how the Postal Service might recoup the expected $58 billion without legislative and administrative action. Instead, Mr. Bloom maintained, “We’re going to make this happen.” Mr. DeJoy said the agency has had “good conversations” with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.“If people choose to make this about politics, then they can,” Mr. Bloom said. “And it’s Washington, so it won’t surprise anyone if that happens from some time to time.“But you know, you have a bipartisan Board of Governors. You had a rigorous process to choose the P.M.G.,” he added, referring to the postmaster general. “You have what I think is a plan that demonstrates what we’ve been saying for a while, which is we want to grow and revitalize this institution.”Postal legislation has languished in Congress, but Democrats expressed interest in pushing ahead. Senator Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, expressed concerns about several elements in the Postal Service plan but expressed support for postal legislation more generally.Postal Service insiders said the plan was mixed. It promises potential for growth and an investment in new vehicles, along with post offices that meet community needs. But other elements are cause for concern, they said.“If they’re talking about, you know, service excellence, that to us it’s a contradiction to then have mail take longer to get to point A and point B or to reduce hours in retail units,” said Mark Dimondstein, the president of the American Postal Workers Union. “So we certainly oppose and have deep concerns about those part of the plans.”At least some of the elements of the plan will require an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission before they can be enacted, said Michael Plunkett, the president of the Association for Postal Commerce. He called it a “tall order” that consumers would accept higher prices from the Postal Service, along with reduced service.Mr. Plunkett said the plan made clear the Postal Service was aiming to bolster its package services, which have made up a growing share of its business. But he said the lack of effort to retain mail volume was disappointing.“On the mail side, they seem to just accept the fact that mail is going away,” Mr. Plunkett said.Asked about his ties to Mr. Trump and those who might disapprove of the plan as a result of those connections, Mr. DeJoy brushed off any criticism.“I’m here representing the Postal Service,” he said, adding, “I don’t pay attention to that.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Two New Orleans State Senators Win Runoff Spots for U.S. House Seat

      by

      Troy Carter and Karen Carter Peterson will meet in an April runoff for the seat vacated by Cedric L. Richmond.NEW ORLEANS — A pair of Democratic state senators from New Orleans claimed the most votes Saturday in a special election to replace former Representative Cedric L. Richmond, who is now a senior advisor to President Biden. State Senators Troy Carter and Karen Carter Peterson (they are not related) will advance to an April 24 runoff that will determine who represents a heavily Democratic seat in a Black-majority district that stretches from New Orleans along the Mississippi River to Baton Rouge.With 98 percent of precincts reporting in a notably light turnout, Mr. Carter was winning 36 percent of the vote, while Ms. Peterson claimed 23 percent in a 15-person field. Gary Chambers, a Baton Rouge activist, finished a surprisingly strong third place, nearing Ms. Peterson thanks to strong support in white liberal precincts. In another special Louisiana congressional election, in the northern part of the state, Julia Letlow, a Republican, won over 50 percent of the vote, averting a runoff and winning a seat that had been held by her husband, Luke, before he died of Covid-19 in December.Ms. Letlow is one of two widows running this year to claim House seats that had been held by lawmakers who succumbed to the virus. In Texas, Susan Wright is attempting to succeed her late husband, Ron Wright, in a special election later this year.It’s in South Louisiana, though, where the first competitive congressional race of the Biden era is taking place.Mr. Carter and Ms. Peterson are both veteran politicians and have roots in the competing, and fractious, Black political factions of New Orleans. Both have also run for this seat before — both of them in 2006, and Mr. Carter again in 2008 — without success.But when Mr. Richmond resigned after a decade in Congress to work for Mr. Biden, it gave Mr. Carter and Ms. Peterson a new chance to fulfill their longstanding ambition.As with many New Orleans elections, the contest quickly became a proxy fight. When another local ally of his decided not to run, Mr. Richmond quickly backed Mr. Carter in hopes of blocking his rival, Ms. Peterson.Recognizing the popularity and clout of his patron in the West Wing, Mr. Carter has sought to capitalize on Mr. Richmond’s endorsement. “I would have the ear of the guy who has the ear of the president of the United States of America,” Mr. Carter said.In response, Ms. Peterson has sought to run to the left, portraying herself as an anti-establishment Democrat even as she trumpets her role as a former state party chair and her numerous national endorsements.She has dismissed Mr. Carter’s calling card, saying that she has her own contacts in the Biden administration and does “not need to have the ear of the ear of the ear of the toe of the thumb of someone.”Given the intensity and history of their rivalry, as well as the often spicy politics of New Orleans, the runoff could be hard-fought.Two of Louisiana’s most prominent Democratic officeholders have yet to weigh in and could prove consequential if they do intervene. Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans surprised some in the city by not endorsing Ms. Peterson, an ally, before the first round of voting. Also still on the sidelines is Gov. John Bel Edwards, who has clashed with Ms. Peterson in the past and is widely thought to be in Mr. Carter’s corner.Perhaps most significant is who shows up to vote next month. Early voting before Saturday’s all-party primary was anemic — fewer than 6 percent of eligible voters cast ballots — and turnout was little better the day of the vote.The combination of the turbulent 2020 election, a pandemic that is only now showing signs of receding and a new, no-drama president has left the electorate apathetic, according to local officials. “Grandpa Joe has really taken the air out of the balloon, and there’s not that fever about politics,” Andrew Tuozzolo, a Democratic strategist said, referring to Mr. Biden. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Louisiana Special Election Sets Up a Democratic Showdown

      by

      The first competitive special congressional election of 2021 will unfold on Saturday, with two rival Democrats poised for a runoff to succeed the Biden adviser Cedric Richmond.DONALDSONVILLE, La. — The first competitive special congressional election of the Biden era is most likely heading to a runoff next month, but the battle lines are already drawn ahead of the initial balloting on Saturday in the race to succeed former Representative Cedric L. Richmond of Louisiana.At the center of the debate: which of two New Orleans Democrats positioned to face off in April can better leverage their connections to lift a South Louisiana district hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic.“I would be a freshman with the relationships of a senior member,” State Senator Troy Carter, one of the two lawmakers, said after a sign-waving session on Thursday morning at a busy New Orleans intersection. He was alluding to his endorsements from Mr. Richmond, who left Congress to become a senior White House aide, and from prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus like Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat.But after a meet-and-greet 60 miles up the Mississippi River, his chief rival, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson, said the extensive contacts she had made serving in the State Legislature and on the Democratic National Committee would better benefit voters — and she poked fun at her opponent and his patron, Mr. Richmond.“I don’t need to have the ear of the ear of the ear of the toe of the thumb of someone,” Ms. Peterson said, adding that she would not “have to call the White House” to reach cabinet members because she already knew many of them.After sending a succession of powerhouse Democrats to Washington, from Longs to Landrieus, Louisiana has become so red that its only Democratic representation in the nation’s capital hails from its lone predominantly Black seat, the Second Congressional District, which stretches from New Orleans along the so-called river parishes to Baton Rouge. This small foothold of power brings obvious limitations, but it also confers outsize influence in the party — and never more so than when Democrats have full control of the federal government, as they do now.The eventual winner will have clout not only with a range of political and judicial appointees in the state but also over how Louisiana benefits from the infrastructure bill that is among the next priorities for President Biden. And few regions in the country have the varying needs of South Louisiana, with its dependence on two sectors of the economy that suffered heavily from the coronavirus: tourism and oil and gas.The all-party vote on Saturday, which will head to a runoff between the top two vote-getters if no one reaches a 50 percent threshold, is not the state’s only special congressional election. Voters in the heavily Republican Fifth District in North Louisiana will go to the polls to fill a seat that was supposed to be held by Luke Letlow, 41, who won election in November before dying of Covid-19 the next month. His widow, Julia Letlow, has the support of most state and national Republicans and is heavily favored.It’s in New Orleans, however, where the politics are, as ever, most complex, competitive and more than a little piquant.State Senator Karen Carter Peterson is a former chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party and served as a vice chair on the Democratic National Committee.Chris Granger/The New Orleans Advocate, via Associated PressThe field to replace Mr. Richmond is 15 strong and includes the Baton Rouge-based civil rights activist Gary Chambers Jr., who has developed a following in the state capital.Yet the race has been dominated by the two New Orleans state senators, who would largely vote the same way but represent competing political factions and are running sharply different races as it relates to the seat’s previous occupant.When he announced in December that he was resigning to take a senior position in the White House, Mr. Richmond said he would most likely offer an endorsement. Anyone with more than a passing interest in New Orleans’s byzantine web of political relationships and rivalries knew what that translated to: He would support whoever emerged as the strongest candidate against Ms. Peterson.With its one-party dominance, New Orleans is a city riven not by partisan divisions but by the sort of personal feuds that often shape municipal politics. And, to put it mildly, Mr. Richmond and Ms. Peterson are not allies.“New Orleans is a city of neighborhoods, and this is a multigenerational turf war between the political organizations they came up in,” said Clancy DuBos, a longtime political analyst in the city.This, of course, all mattered very little outside the land between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain.But then Mr. Richmond joined the White House and Ms. Peterson jumped in the race to succeed him. She was quickly joined by Mr. Carter, who, with the departing congressman’s blessing, boasted, “I would have the ear of the guy who has the ear of the president of the United States of America.”Which is why Ms. Peterson, sitting in a folding chair as her supporters helped themselves to a post-event jambalaya feast near the levee in Donaldsonville, was grinning as she cracked to a visiting reporter about ears, toes and thumbs.A former state Democratic chair and national party vice chair, Ms. Peterson said she would be able to deliver for the district without going through the West Wing.Citing the names of the transportation, energy and housing secretaries, she said, “They personally know me and my work.”Without directly mentioning Mr. Richmond in her remarks to the group, Ms. Peterson implicitly contrasted herself with the former congressman. In a part of the state known as “cancer alley” because of its convergence of illness and petrochemical plants, she presented herself as more pro-environment and said she had heard complaints “that people have been absent.”Julia Letlow has the support of most state and national Republicans and is heavily favored to win the special election in Louisiana’s Fifth Congressional District.Brett Duke/Associated PressMr. Richmond has been criticized by some for being too close to industry and insufficiently attentive to the district’s rural communities.Ms. Peterson’s best applause line, though, might also reflect her best chance to prevail.“There’s never been an African-American woman to serve, in the history of Louisiana, in Washington in the federal delegation,” she said. “When women aren’t at the table, we’re usually on the menu.”At a moment when Black women want to see more of their counterparts in positions of power — a view much of the Democratic base shares as Black women run this year in high-profile elections in places like New York City, Virginia and Ohio — the message plainly resonated.“I’m all for women right now, we just need representation,” said Angela Steib, a Donaldsonville resident who attended the get-together.For his part, Mr. Carter is quick to highlight his support from an array of local female leaders, including the New Orleans City Council president, Helena Moreno — and to intimate that he would be more effective in Washington than Ms. Peterson because of what she acknowledges is her hard-charging approach.“We have a very different style,” he said.Philosophically, the two have not been that far apart in the past. But Ms. Peterson has sought to outflank Mr. Carter on the left in this race, portraying herself as an insurgent even as she trumpets her service as a former state chair and her roster of endorsements, which include the backing of Stacey Abrams and Emily’s List, the group that supports women who are in favor of abortion rights.Asked to describe her style of politics, though, she avoided an ideological label, instead calling herself “responsive” and “honest.” Mr. Carter said, “I am center-left.”In a sleepy spring special election, though, the winner may be determined by which of the two leading candidates has a stronger organization. Both have a long history in local office, both have sought this seat in the past and they have been competitive financially, although Emily’s List has given Ms. Peterson third-party help that Mr. Carter lacks on the airwaves.The early voting ahead of Saturday was dismal, with most of the ballots mailed in by older voters. In a city that loves its politics, there is an unmistakable somnolence to this race, one that locals attribute to the pandemic and fatigue from the 2020 election.That, however, could change once it becomes a head-to-head contest — and especially if the state’s two other Democratic power brokers in office join the fray and make the proxy war complete. Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans is a Peterson ally who has, notably, not yet endorsed anyone, and Gov. John Bel Edwards, who is closer to Mr. Carter, has also stayed on the sidelines.Asked about the mayor’s potential support, Ms. Peterson suggested that the race was about to become enlivened.“She will speak to her position on the race at the appropriate time,” she said, failing to suppress a smile. More

    • 63 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Influence Has Become Democracy’s Influenza

      by

      Two months after the departure of Donald Trump, the world is seeking to understand the contours of the new administration’s still hesitating foreign policy. US President Joe Biden made a bold step forward this week when he vowed to pursue the fantasy of Russiagate, the Democratic equivalent of QAnon. He may fear that without the Russian bugbear, MSNBC, the news channel that contributed so effectively to his election, will see its audience plummet even further than in the weeks since the inauguration. Russiagate alone kept MSNBC’s audience hooked through four years of Donald Trump.

      CNBC delves into the private thoughts of a president who now apparently feels empowered to judge the moral status of other leaders: “President Joe Biden says he believes Russian leader Vladimir Putin is a killer with no soul.” Biden intends to make the Russian president “pay a price” for interfering in the 2020 US election.

      A Deeper Look into Hong Kong’s Evolution

      READ MORE

      Biden’s remarks followed a report issued by US intelligence that included the following observation: “A key element of Moscow’s strategy this election cycle was its use of people linked to Russian intelligence to launder influence narratives including — misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden — through US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, some of whom were close to former President Trump and his administration.”

      One may forgive the incoherence of the author’s punctuation, but no reasonable reader can fail to deplore the confusion of the charges, highlighted by the use of phrases such as “people linked to” and “some of whom.” And then there is the semantic enormity of the phrase, “launder influence narratives.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Influence narrative:

      Anything any politician or diplomat of any nation happens to utter in speech or writing. The basis of all political discourse.

      Contextual Note

      In his book, “The Ultimate Goal,” former Indian spy chief Vikram Sood explores the way governments and their intelligence arms build and promote their self-interested narratives. Like a modern Machiavelli, Sood offers today’s princes the basic recipe: “Manage narratives to manage your destiny … tell your story first, any other story thereafter will only be a reaction.” That sums up the business of the CIA. The fact that US intelligence operatives want people to feel shocked that Russia might be using “influence narratives” reveals more about the CIA and its belief in the naivety of the US public than it does about Russia. The report itself is a perfect example of an “influence narrative.”

      Covering the same topic for The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima confusingly repeats the CIA’s metaphor of laundering when she cites the report’s claim that Russians used “Ukrainians linked to Russian intelligence to ‘launder’ unsubstantiated allegations against Biden through U.S. media, lawmakers and prominent individuals.” “Launder,” in this context, is clearly a metaphor in spy language borrowed from the idea of “money laundering,” the act of pushing dirty money through indirect channels to return to the economy with a clean appearance. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      It may seem odd to apply a metaphor borrowed from the banking world and apply it to the hyperreal field of political narrative. But given the intelligence community’s well-documented predilection for dirty information — otherwise known as lies — it should hardly surprise us that the masters of plots and subplots see the public narrative as something that needs to be laundered. Sood, after all, tells us that the political language in any official narrative “is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidity to the pure wind.”

      Since the idea of “laundered narrative” belongs specifically to spy vocabulary, it may seem disconcerting that Washington Post journalists have uncritically adopted the term and feel no need to explain what it means. Could it be that they are corrupted by their incestuous relations with the spymasters in Langley, Virginia, who feed them much of their most valuable content and which they reprint uncritically? In contrast with The Post, Al Jazeera took the liberty of substituting a different verb, writing: “Moscow sought to ‘push influence narratives’ that included misleading or unsubstantiated claims.” 

      “Launder” has become part of The Post’s standard vocabulary. In September 2020, during the presidential election campaign, Post columnist Josh Rogin had used the term concerning the same claims about Moscow’s interference. According to Rogin, Democratic leaders demanded “a briefing based on concerns that members of Congress were being used to launder information as part of a foreign interference operation.”

      This pushes the accusation a little further by supposing that the members of Congress referred to were actively involved in making the dirty information look clean. But that’s exactly how the fabricated Russiagate narrative is designed to play out: Putin’s accomplices and useful idiots can be found under every table. Just like in the good ol’ days of Joe McCarthy. After all, if the narrative tells us there’s a threat, we really do need to feel threatened. That’s the CIA and the media doing their job. Who doesn’t remember all the al-Qaeda sleeper cells that populated every American city following 9/11?

      Historical Note

      The website Strategic Culture offers a succinct explanation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird that permitted it to infiltrate domestic media in the US. The journalist, Wayne Madsen, writes: “A major focus of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency from its very inception was the penetration of the news media, including the assignment of CIA agents to the newsrooms and editorial offices of America’s largest media operations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Hearst Newspaper, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, and other major newspapers and broadcast networks.” That has been ever since one of the harder components of US soft power.

      This week, Matt Taibbi interviewed the famous whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who, in 1971, leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, exposing the embarrassing truth about the war in Vietnam that had been carefully hidden from the media. Taibbi recounts how “Ellsberg described a vicious cycle, in which leaders lie pervasively, then learn to have so much contempt for the public that swallows those lies, that they feel justified in lying more.”

      In its own dissemination of the content of the intel report released this week, The New York Times admits that the “report did not explain how the intelligence community had reached its conclusions about Russian operations during the 2020 election.” The report itself explains: “The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the specific information on which it bases its analytic conclusions, as doing so could endanger sensitive sources and methods.” In other words, don’t ask for evidence, you won’t get it. Glenn Greenwald reminds his readers that when, last October, the story broke concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop that intel attributed to Moscow’s meddling, the FBI had already “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.”

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      When the same discredited story reappeared months later with no significant changes and still with zero evidence, instead of casting doubt on the entire story, the obedient media interpreted it as confirmation of the original narrative. What better illustration of Vikram Sood’s principle, “tell your story first, any other story thereafter will only be a reaction”?

      Perhaps the most neglected dimension of this debate concerns the official role of intelligence. A month after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, former President Harry Truman complained in an op-ed for The Washington Post that the CIA — an agency he had created — had betrayed its straightforward mission of gathering information to clarify the president in his decision-making. Truman insisted that “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.” When Operation Mockingbird under the direction of Cord Meyer was launched during Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, the CIA had not only begun focusing on influencing the president, it realized that the best way of influencing executive decisions was to control the narrative that the media would share with the public.

      The result is visible today, though no public figure will admit it. Democracy itself is engulfed within an elaborate system coordinated between the intelligence community, vested interests and the commercial media that generates and disseminates an endless stream of influence narratives.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      House Renews Landmark Domestic Violence Bill, but Obstacles Wait in Senate

      by

      The House vote was bipartisan, but many Republicans object to new gun restrictions on domestic abusers that could complicate Senate passage.The House moved on Wednesday to renew the Violence Against Women Act, adding firearm restrictions for convicted domestic abusers and other new provisions to a landmark law that has helped combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking but expired in 2019.President Biden, who wrote the law into existence as a senator in 1994, has made strengthening it one of his top domestic priorities during his time in office, and Wednesday’s vote was the first significant step toward putting it back into effect after lapsing under President Donald J. Trump. The law’s renewal has taken on added urgency amid alarming increases in domestic violence during the coronavirus pandemic.The House’s 244-to-172 vote was bipartisan, with 29 Republicans joining united Democrats to approve the bill. But substantial conservative opposition to a measure that has enjoyed broad backing from both parties in the past foreshadowed a more difficult path ahead in the Senate, where Democrats control just 50 of the 60 votes necessary for passage.In a statement after the vote, Mr. Biden urged the Senate to “bring a strong bipartisan coalition together” to send him a bill to sign into law as soon as possible.“Growing evidence shows that Covid-19 has only exacerbated the threat of intimate partner violence, creating a pandemic within a pandemic for countless women at risk for abuse,” he said. “This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue — it’s about standing up against the abuse of power and preventing violence.”Much of the House’s proposed update to the Violence Against Women Act, commonly known as VAWA, is noncontroversial. It would build on a patchwork of programs like violence prevention and housing assistance for abuse victims, reaffirm legal protections for victims and their families, and more aggressively target resources to minority communities.In an effort to expand the law’s reach, however, Democrats have also included provisions tightening access to firearms by people convicted of a violent crime or subject to a court order, and expanding protections for gay, bisexual and transgender people. In an attempt to cut into high rates of domestic violence against Native American women, their bill would grant tribal courts new authority to prosecute non-Indians for sex trafficking, sexual violence and stalking.“This bill opens the door of the armor of the federal government and its protection of women who continue to lose their life and men,” said Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas and one of its principal authors. “Yes, it is a culturally sensitive initiative that protects immigrant women, it protects Native Americans, it protects poor women.”But what Democrats characterized as equitable expansions of the law meant to meet the needs of a changing nation have prompted intense backlash among conservative Republicans, who have eagerly jumped into ideological battles with Democrats again and again in recent weeks.In sometimes fiery debate on the House floor on Wednesday, several conservatives accused the majority of using a law meant to protect women as a Trojan horse for a “far-left political agenda” on gun control and gay and transgender rights while holding hostage a clean reauthorization of the bill.“The most egregious provisions of this bill push leftist gender ideology at the expense of important protections for women’s privacy and safety,” said Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, who recounted her own experience with domestic violence. “If this bill is enacted, these shelters under penalty of federal law would be required to take in men and shelter them with women, putting vulnerable women at risk.”Ms. Lesko appeared to be referring to provisions barring groups that receive funds under VAWA from discriminating based on gender identity that were enshrined in law in 2013 and merely reiterated in the new bill. Its proponents say they have caused no widespread safety or privacy issues. One new aspect of the bill would require the Bureau of Prisons to consider the safety of transgender prisoners when giving housing assignments.Republicans were just as angry over the proposed closing of the so-called boyfriend loophole. While existing federal law forbids people convicted of domestic violence against a current or former spouse to buy or own a firearm, the new legislation would extend the prohibition to those convicted of abusing, assaulting or stalking a dating partner, or to those under a court restraining order.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would allow the government to fund firearm training and self-defense classes for women.“If you want to protect women, make sure women are gun owners and know how to defend themselves,” she said. “That’s the greatest defense for women.”Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, offered an alternative proposal on Wednesday that would have reauthorized the law without changes for a single year to allow time for more bipartisan negotiation. It failed 177 to 249.Democrats and some Republicans did adopt an amendment by Representatives Jackie Speier, Democrat of California, and John Katko, Republican of New York, that appends what would be the first federal law to specifically address “revenge porn.” Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have put their own such laws in place in recent years, but advocates of a federal statute say they are inconsistent.The disagreements were many of the same ones that led the law to expire two years ago. House Democrats first passed a similar version of the bill to the one adopted on Wednesday in 2019 with modest support from across the aisle, but the Republican-controlled Senate declined to take it up for a vote amid an intense lobbying campaign by the N.R.A. to oppose the gun provisions.This time Democrats control the upper chamber and have vowed to hold a vote. Still, they will need at least 10 Republicans to join them to send a bill to Mr. Biden and will have to placate the minority party over many of the contentious new measures in the weeks ahead.Senate Republicans, led by Joni Ernst of Iowa, are preparing their own alternative to try to force compromises. Ms. Ernst, who has spoken about her own experience of sexual assault, told reporters this week that her colleagues objected chiefly to the gun provisions included in the House-passed measure, but she suggested their bill would eliminate other unwanted liberal proposals, too.Mr. Biden, who has called VAWA his “proudest legislative accomplishment,” enthusiastically backed the House bill and has not indicated what, if any, changes he would embrace. He won the presidency last fall in part based on the commanding support of women.The law was considered a watershed when it was written in the early 1990s. It addressed several issues that federal lawmakers had not tackled in a single piece of legislation, including keeping confidential the addresses of abused people and recognizing orders of protection across jurisdictions. Before the law was enacted, a state court order of protection in one state could not be enforced in another state.Though the law authorizing VAWA programs expired, Congress has continued to fund many of them in the meantime.Mr. Biden has already tried to make good on campaign promises to strengthen efforts to prevent domestic violence. His $1.9 trillion stimulus bill allocated $49 million for groups that aid survivors of domestic abuse, as well as housing assistance for people fleeing abuse, sexual violence and human trafficking.Katie Benner More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      A Father’s Gift to a Mayoral Candidate: A $1 Million Super PAC

      by

      Super PACs for two candidates raised millions of dollars to help their chances in the New York City mayor’s race. One, for Shaun Donovan, was bankrolled by his father.With New York City’s mayoral primary a little more than three months away and a deadline to qualify for the city’s generous matching-funds program having just passed, pleas for donations have been in overdrive in recent days.But in the background, another spigot of money has quietly opened for two Democratic mayoral candidates who are trailing in early polls: Raymond J. McGuire and Shaun Donovan.An independent expenditure committee for Mr. McGuire, a former Wall Street executive, has garnered more than $3 million since Feb. 1, with more than 70 donations from business magnates, including Kenneth Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot; the art world philanthropist Agnes Gund; and the real estate developer Aby J. Rosen.A new super PAC for Mr. Donovan, a former cabinet member in the Obama administration, in contrast, has drawn $1.02 million from just two donors — the primary benefactor being his father, Michael Donovan, an executive in the ad tech industry who donated $1 million.In an interview, Mr. Donovan, the candidate’s father, said he was trying to “level the playing field,” particularly since some candidates began raising money before they even declared they were running for mayor.“I can’t give very much to Shaun directly, and seeing the amount of money McGuire had raised and all these other people, I felt he needed enough to go out and compete and get the message across,” Mr. Donovan said.The two super PACs are among several seeking to influence the race for mayor, the most important election in recent city history.Business-friendly organizations, motivated by the leftward tilt of some candidates in the Democratic field, have already raised millions of dollars. The billionaire developer Stephen M. Ross is rallying fellow business leaders to commit tens of millions of dollars in an effort to push moderate Democrats to vote in the June 22 mayoral primary and “change the future course of the city.”Progressive groups are also involved, creating their own super PACs to supplement their on-the-ground efforts and social media campaigns.The super PACs supporting Mr. McGuire and Mr. Donovan hauled in more than their respective campaigns raised during the most recent city filing period, which began in January. Mr. Donovan, who ran Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s housing agency before joining President Barack Obama’s cabinet as budget director and housing secretary, is participating in the city’s public funding program. Mr. McGuire, a former vice chairman at Citi and one of the highest-ranking African-Americans on Wall Street, is not.The super PAC supporting Mr. McGuire, New York for Ray, plans to spend its bounty on advertising — television, digital and print — “in an effort to cut through the clutter and introduce a larger number of voters to Ray McGuire, his story and inclusive plans to revitalize and rebuild New York City,’’ said Quentin Fulks, the group’s executive director.Kenneth I. Chenault, the former chairman and C.E.O. of American Express, who, with his wife, Kathryn, donated $250,000 to the super PAC for Mr. McGuire, said he had known Mr. McGuire since they attended Harvard University together and that he wanted to help him get his name out.“We’re convinced that he can be a strong leader,” Mr. Chenault said, adding that it was “important for people to understand Ray’s story and to hear Ray’s story. We think it’s compelling and that’s why we’re doing it.”Brittany Wise, the treasurer for the super PAC supporting Mr. Donovan, New Start N.Y.C., did not specify how the funds would be spent, saying only that the group would promote Mr. Donovan as having “the experience to tackle Covid, racial equity, and affordable housing and move New York City forward.”Perhaps inevitably in the small world of political professionals, both super PACs are staffed and funded by people whose circles overlap with the campaigns.Ms. Wise worked on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s 2013 campaign with Bill Hyers, who served as Mr. de Blasio’s campaign manager and is now advising Mr. Donovan’s campaign.Kimberly Peeler-Allen, who is helping to run Mr. McGuire’s super PAC, co-founded Higher Heights for America, an organization that aims to elevate Black women in politics. L. Joy Williams, who is working on Mr. McGuire’s campaign, is the chairwoman of Higher Heights’s PAC.Campaigns are not allowed to coordinate with super PACs, or independent expenditure committees, as they are known in New York State.But Seth Agata, a former counsel in the governor’s office who helped write New York’s independent expenditure regulations, said there was often a “wink and a nod” that characterized interactions between campaigns and super PACs.“You know what’s going to help the candidate,” Mr. Agata said. “You’re out there because you know what the candidate needs and you say the right things.”Both campaigns said they had not coordinated with their respective super PACs.“I know nothing about it,” said Lupe Todd-Medina, a spokeswoman for Mr. McGuire’s campaign, referring to New York for Ray.Yuridia Peña, a spokeswoman for Mr. Donovan’s campaign, said that Mr. Donovan had likewise not coordinated with his father on his super PAC.“We take the prohibition of coordination with any outside entities as a hard line, and any efforts to support Shaun are completely independent of our campaign,” Ms. Peña said.New York City’s strict donor limits make it difficult for big spenders to make their presence felt through direct contributions to candidates. But the Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, paved the way for barely regulated money to pour into super PACs, giving donors another way of exerting influence.“The Supreme Court that decided Citizens United and related cases got it wrong,” said Chisun Lee, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Election Reform Program. “Any reasonable voter knows that huge donors with unlimited influence have a detrimental effect on representative democracy.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats, Pushing Stimulus, Admit to Regrets on Obama’s 2009 Response

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Biden’s Stimulus PlanBiden’s AddressWhat to Know About the BillAnalysis: Economic RescueBenefits for Middle ClassAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDemocrats, Pushing Stimulus, Admit to Regrets on Obama’s 2009 ResponseIn pitching President Biden’s relief package, Democrats have said their 2009 stimulus efforts under Barack Obama were insufficient. Those close to Mr. Obama have noticed.President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill during a ceremony in Denver in February 2009.Credit…Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesMarch 16, 2021Updated 11:00 a.m. ETAs Democrats pushed this month to pass the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, they were eager to rebuke Republicans for opposing en masse a measure filled with aid to struggling Americans. But they had another target as well: the core policy of President Barack Obama’s first-term agenda.Party leaders from President Biden on down are citing Mr. Obama’s strategy on his most urgent policy initiative — an $800 billion financial rescue plan in 2009 in the midst of a crippling recession — as too cautious and too deferential to Republicans, mistakes they were determined not to repeat.The pointed assessments of Mr. Obama’s handling of the 2009 stimulus effort are the closest Democrats have come to grappling with a highly delicate matter in the party: the shortcomings in the legacy of Mr. Obama, one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and a powerful voice for bipartisanship in a deeply divided country.The re-examination has irked some of the former president’s allies but thrilled the party’s progressive wing, which sees Mr. Biden’s more expansive plan as a down payment on his ambitious agenda. And it has sent an early signal that Mr. Biden’s administration does not intend to be a carbon copy of his Democratic predecessor’s. Times, all concede, have changed.“This time, the feeling was, ‘We’re not very willing to negotiate what we think is needed,’” said former Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota who retired ahead of the 2010 midterm elections. “In 2009, I think the feeling was, ‘Oh we wanted more, but we didn’t get what we wanted.’”The careful dance around Mr. Obama and his accomplishments continues a dynamic from the Democratic presidential primary. While taking care not to disparage his administration, several candidates stressed the need for the party to embrace a more take-no-prisoners political approach with Republicans; others criticized Mr. Obama’s policies on immigration: though he used an executive order to aid the Dreamers, he also pushed deportations and border detentions.It also highlights the rapid change in Washington over a decade of partisan brawling. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden came into office on promises of unity and bipartisanship in the face of an economic crisis, but Mr. Biden is the beneficiary of a changed landscape in the party. Democrats are now more cognizant of Republican obstruction, less deferential to the deficit hawks and energized by a growing progressive wing that has pulled the party’s ideological midpoint to the left.A decade ago, Mr. Obama’s strategy reflected the Democratic Party’s mainstream, an insistence on negotiating with Republicans, keeping the Senate filibuster and trimming his own ambitions for a nation that he and others worried could handle only so much change after electing its first Black president. Now, the progressive criticism of that posture has become party canon.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a leading progressive voice, said the changes should be attributed partly to the growth of the left, but partly to an inadequate Democratic response to the Great Recession, which she said “created so much damage economically, for people, but it also created a lot of political damage for the party” by not being larger in scope.“I came of age watching Democratic governance fail me and fail my family,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said.President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will travel the country next week to promote the benefits of the American Rescue Plan.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Obama is himself a person who carefully takes stock of his presidential legacy and his place in Democratic Party politics. He has not publicly responded to the recent criticism of his stimulus strategy, and through a spokesman he declined a request to comment for this article.But for friends and allies who are close to him, the characterizations of Mr. Obama’s 2009 efforts sting.Some describe it as an attempt, in a different political era, to act as Monday-morning quarterback, and bristle that figures who were involved in the 2009 negotiations — like Senator Chuck Schumer or Mr. Biden — have now publicly expressed regret over them. Others describe it as the natural course of politics: past actions being used as a baseline for improvement.Valerie Jarrett, Mr. Obama’s former senior adviser, said the administration was acting on the evidence and the political possibilities of the time.“This was the worst economic recession since the Great Depression,” she said. “And therefore, there wasn’t a body of evidence about the size of the package and the impact it would have.” She also mentioned a political incentive: “It was important to show the country early in President Obama’s time in office, he was willing to work with Republicans.”Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor who served as Mr. Obama’s first chief of staff, said Democrats would do well to compare themselves with their Republican presidential counterparts, and not with other Democrats.“It’s really about Obama versus Bush, and Biden versus Trump, not the other way around,” Mr. Emanuel said. “We built long-lasting, robust economic growth. And I think comparing one to the other is, is historically not accurate. And also, more importantly, it’s strategically not advantageous.”David Axelrod, who served as a chief strategist to Mr. Obama, said he believed the current criticism was born of a desire to avoid a midterm shellacking similar to the one Democrats suffered in 2010.“It is irksome only in the sense that it was an entirely different situation,” Mr. Axelrod said. “If the Obama economic record were deficient, I’m pretty sure Joe Biden wouldn’t have run on it.”In many ways, the maneuvering is a stand-in for larger tensions within the party. Mr. Obama’s close-knit circle is keenly devoted to protecting his policy legacy. A growing left wing wants more investments in health care and combating climate change, and a break from hard-line policy on immigration. Mr. Biden’s administration is seeking to chart its own path.In a recent address to House Democrats, Mr. Biden argued that it was Mr. Obama’s “humility” that cost Democrats at the time, because the president didn’t spend enough time explaining the benefits of his stimulus package to the American people.“Barack was so modest, he didn’t want to take, as he said, a ‘victory lap,’” Mr. Biden said. “I kept saying, ‘Tell people what we did.’ He said, ‘We don’t have time, I’m not going to take a victory lap,’ and we paid a price for it, ironically, for that humility.”Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York linked her own ascension to Congress to the failings of the Democratic response the recession in 2009.Credit…Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesThe White House recently announced that Mr. Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and some key administration figures would travel the country.In the former president’s recently released memoir, he often returns to a familiar argument: that the ambitions of his legislation were hamstrung by an obstructionist Republican Party and moderate Democrats who were unwilling to go it alone without any bipartisan support..css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-k59gj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;width:100%;}.css-1e2usoh{font-family:inherit;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;border-top:1px solid #ccc;padding:10px 0px 10px 0px;background-color:#fff;}.css-1jz6h6z{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;text-align:left;}.css-1t412wb{box-sizing:border-box;margin:8px 15px 0px 15px;cursor:pointer;}.css-hhzar2{-webkit-transition:-webkit-transform ease 0.5s;-webkit-transition:transform ease 0.5s;transition:transform ease 0.5s;}.css-t54hv4{-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-1r2j9qz{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-e1ipqs{font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;padding:0px 30px 0px 0px;}.css-e1ipqs a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-e1ipqs a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1o76pdf{visibility:show;height:100%;padding-bottom:20px;}.css-1sw9s96{visibility:hidden;height:0px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cz6wm{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’nyt-franklin’,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:left;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cz6wm{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1cz6wm:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1cz6wm{border:none;padding:20px 0 0;border-top:1px solid #121212;}Frequently Asked Questions About the New Stimulus PackageThe stimulus payments would be $1,400 for most recipients. Those who are eligible would also receive an identical payment for each of their children. To qualify for the full $1,400, a single person would need an adjusted gross income of $75,000 or below. For heads of household, adjusted gross income would need to be $112,500 or below, and for married couples filing jointly that number would need to be $150,000 or below. To be eligible for a payment, a person must have a Social Security number. Read more. Buying insurance through the government program known as COBRA would temporarily become a lot cheaper. COBRA, for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, generally lets someone who loses a job buy coverage via the former employer. But it’s expensive: Under normal circumstances, a person may have to pay at least 102 percent of the cost of the premium. Under the relief bill, the government would pay the entire COBRA premium from April 1 through Sept. 30. A person who qualified for new, employer-based health insurance someplace else before Sept. 30 would lose eligibility for the no-cost coverage. And someone who left a job voluntarily would not be eligible, either. Read moreThis credit, which helps working families offset the cost of care for children under 13 and other dependents, would be significantly expanded for a single year. More people would be eligible, and many recipients would get a bigger break. The bill would also make the credit fully refundable, which means you could collect the money as a refund even if your tax bill was zero. “That will be helpful to people at the lower end” of the income scale, said Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst at Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. Read more.There would be a big one for people who already have debt. You wouldn’t have to pay income taxes on forgiven debt if you qualify for loan forgiveness or cancellation — for example, if you’ve been in an income-driven repayment plan for the requisite number of years, if your school defrauded you or if Congress or the president wipes away $10,000 of debt for large numbers of people. This would be the case for debt forgiven between Jan. 1, 2021, and the end of 2025. Read more.The bill would provide billions of dollars in rental and utility assistance to people who are struggling and in danger of being evicted from their homes. About $27 billion would go toward emergency rental assistance. The vast majority of it would replenish the so-called Coronavirus Relief Fund, created by the CARES Act and distributed through state, local and tribal governments, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. That’s on top of the $25 billion in assistance provided by the relief package passed in December. To receive financial assistance — which could be used for rent, utilities and other housing expenses — households would have to meet several conditions. Household income could not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, at least one household member must be at risk of homelessness or housing instability, and individuals would have to qualify for unemployment benefits or have experienced financial hardship (directly or indirectly) because of the pandemic. Assistance could be provided for up to 18 months, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Lower-income families that have been unemployed for three months or more would be given priority for assistance. Read more.Options like budget reconciliation, the parliamentary tactic Mr. Biden used to pass the coronavirus relief plan by a simple majority vote, were not even proposed by most progressives, former aides to Mr. Obama said. That meant that any legislation would need a filibuster-proof 60 votes.“Between Republican attacks and Democratic complaints I was reminded of the Yeats poem ‘Second Coming,’” Mr. Obama wrote in the book. “My supporters lacked all conviction, and my opponents were full of passionate intensity.”But Mr. Obama’s own public comments since his presidency hint at a changing worldview. At the funeral for Congressman John Lewis, the civil rights icon who died in 2020, Mr. Obama seemed to endorse ending the Senate filibuster as a way to expand voting rights — a move he had long avoided. He said during the Democratic primary that while he was proud of his presidential campaigns, the landscape had changed and required more expansive policy proposals.“I want candidates now to propose beyond what we were able to get done then, because the politics have changed,” he said at a 2019 fund-raiser.That task is now left to Mr. Biden, who lacks the cult of personality that surrounded his former boss but is also less interested in cultivating one. In passing his first piece of signature legislation without a Republican vote, the president has subtly rejected the way Ms. Jarrett framed unity — he will pursue it not by endlessly wooing Republicans but by passing legislation that most Americans support.Mr. Obama at a news conference the day after Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesSenator Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who backed Mr. Obama’s stimulus measure after it was pared back, said the Democrats’ approach on the stimulus bill passed last week was a reversion on the president’s campaign promise to be a unifying figure.She recently told reporters that Mr. Schumer, the majority leader who led the negotiations on Mr. Biden’s bill, “showed that he had absolutely no interest in trying to negotiate a bipartisan agreement.”Progressives like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez say the willingness to forgo Republican buy-in is proof the entire party now agrees on the need for structural reform, and the hardball tactics that may be required.“Schumer spoke to the very real pain of delaying decisive action, which is a self-inflicted wound, I would say, for the party,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “Where you delay and you water down, and you just kind of hand Susan Collins a pen, to have her diminish legislation for months, just for her to not even vote for it in the end.”But Mr. Emanuel advised Democrats to remember the lessons of the presidential primary. After one debate in Detroit, when candidates repeatedly remarked on the failures of Mr. Obama’s tenure and how they would do better, voters rushed to defend the nation’s first Black president, and the running mate who stood with him.“When the Democrats were criticizing President Obama, it was Biden that said: ‘What are you guys doing? He’s our president,’” Mr. Emanuel said. “So I’m with Joe Biden on that analysis.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Can Anything End the Voting Wars?

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyCan Anything End the Voting Wars?As battles over voting rules burn hotter, the stakes are still lower than both sides seem to think.Opinion ColumnistMarch 16, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Illustration by Arsh Raziuddin, Photos, via Getty More