US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Campaigning AOC electrifies crowds as Democrats fear brutal midterms

      by

      Campaigning AOC electrifies crowds as Democrats fear brutal midterms Congresswoman has been a boon to progressive candidates in Texas while party grapples with rift in WashingtonHolding a gold microphone and wearing a seafoam-green pantsuit, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez energized the San Antonio crowd with her vision for flipping the state of Texas to Democratic control.“It will happen,” Ocasio-Cortez said at a rally earlier this month. “The only question is when, Texas.”As the crowd cheered, she added: “The work that you put in today, the work that you put in tomorrow, the work that you put in on Monday – when you go one more door when you’re tired, when you make one more call when you feel exhausted, you’re bringing that day one day sooner.”The progressives in the audience roared in response, hanging on to her every word.“Texas will turn blue,” @AOC says to the crowd as they cheer her on. “It’s inevitable!” pic.twitter.com/YZBJHCbx1n— Priscilla Aguirre (@CillaAguirre) February 12, 2022
      Four years after bursting on to the national political stage with a shocking primary victory over a long-serving House Democrat, Ocasio-Cortez is using her substantial political influence to promote progressive candidates and policies. Ocasio-Cortez’s first campaign in 2018 was largely dismissed as a pipe dream, but the leftwing New York congresswoman is now impossible to ignore.Just this month, the New Yorker interviewed Ocasio-Cortez about the fight for voting rights and her role as a progressive icon, while the editors of New York magazine are releasing a book documenting her rapid rise in Democratic politics. As she makes headlines, Ocasio-Cortez has continued to use her massive social media following and her significant campaign war chest to advance her leftist policy agenda.AOC calls Tucker Carlson ‘trash’ for saying she is not a woman of colourRead moreWith Democrats bracing for a potentially disastrous midterm season, the congresswoman’s actions on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill make it clear that she will continue to be a dominant force for the progressive movement. There seems to be no question now: AOC is here to stay.On the trailOcasio-Cortez travelled to Texas this month to campaign for two of the progressive candidates she has endorsed this election cycle, Jessica Cisneros and Greg Casar. Since her first victory in 2018, Ocasio-Cortez has used her celebrity status to help other progressives attract voters and raise money, which she has a unique talent for. During the 2020 cycle, her campaign committee raised more than $20m.“Having her there on stage with you, it just is an amazing experience,” said James Thompson, a former congressional candidate who held a 2018 rally with Ocasio-Cortez in Wichita, Kansas. “The immediate impact on my campaign was fundraising. We raised a substantial amount of money off of the rally that we had here. It really energized the people.”An endorsement from Ocasio-Cortez has the ability to immediately elevate a progressive candidate’s campaign, and the congresswoman does not limit herself to open-seat races. In the four years since she won her own primary against the then congressman Joe Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed a number of candidates who are challenging sitting lawmakers. Cisneros, for example, is attempting to defeat Henry Cuellar, a Democrat who has served in the House since 2005.“AOC endorses more primary challengers to incumbents than pretty much anyone who is a current incumbent in Congress,” said Waleed Shahid, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats, which backed Ocasio-Cortez’s first campaign. “I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that she was the primary challenger to an incumbent, so she knows personally how difficult it is to get support for something that requires that level of courage.”But Ocasio-Cortez’s willingness to openly oppose Democratic incumbents has rankled some of her House colleagues who have been on the receiving end of her criticism.“This election is taking place in the 28th congressional District of Texas – not New York City,” Cuellar’s campaign said in a statement ahead of Ocasio-Cortez’s rallies in San Antonio and Austin. “The voters will decide this election, not far-left celebrities who stand for defunding the police, open borders, eliminating oil & gas jobs, and raising taxes on hard working Texans. Members should take care of their own district before taking failed ideas to South Texas.”Ocasio-Cortez’s rallies in Texas also displayed her singular ability to enrage her Republican critics, who swiftly denounced her suggestion that the traditionally conservative state would inevitably move to the left.“If AOC thinks for a moment that Texans will fall for her whacked-out, woke, socialist idiocy, she doesn’t know Texas,” said Dan Patrick, the state’s lieutenant governor. But to Ocasio-Cortez’s many admirers, her frequent clashes with Democrats and Republicans alike have set an example for a new kind of politics.“She’s been an inspiration, I think, to a lot of people,” Thompson said. “Now, I think that scares the hell out of the Democratic party though, too, because we’re bucking the establishment and saying, ‘Look, we want you to represent the people, not just party interest.’”In the halls of CongressOcasio-Cortez’s willingness to clash with members of her party extends beyond the campaign trail to her work in Congress.Earlier this month, she pursued the bold strategy of trying to force a vote on a bill to ban members of Congress from trading stocks. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had voiced opposition to the proposed ban, and Ocasio-Cortez’s tactics seemed aimed at forcing the hand of Democratic leadership. (Pelosi has since struck a more open-minded tone about the ban on members’ stock-trading.)Ocasio-Cortez has also been unafraid to criticize some of her centrist colleagues who have attacked progressive policy proposals. On Friday, after Axios published a report suggesting moderate Democrats blamed the party’s falling polling numbers on progressives and their support for the “defund the police” movement, Ocasio-Cortez hit back over Twitter.She argued the real reason behind Democrats’ bleak prospects in the midterm elections was the party’s failure to pass the Build Back Better Act, the $1.75tn spending package at the heart of Joe Biden’s economic agenda. Ocasio-Cortez accused her centrist colleagues of tanking the legislation by allowing the bipartisan infrastructure bill to pass on its own, leaving Democrats with nothing to campaign on.“They don’t know how to accept responsibility so are lazily blaming the same folks they always do,” Ocasio-Cortez said.Rahna Epting, the executive director of the progressive group MoveOn, similarly dismissed claims that Ocasio-Cortez and her allies are dragging down Democrats’ electoral prospects as “utter nonsense”.“Members of Congress of the progressive flank have raised expectations on Democrats broadly to deliver and prioritize people over profits. There is nothing wrong with that,” Epting said. “What Democrats need to do is to stop the infighting.”Epting, whose group was one of the only progressive organizations to endorse Ocasio-Cortez during her 2018 primary battle, praised the congresswoman for using her platform to advocate for important issues including student debt relief and the climate crisis.“AOC’s superpower is to expose and shed light on corruption and injustices that have been longstanding,” Epting said. “I think she has been one of the most electrifying members of Congress, probably in the history of the United States. And she’s a true champion for people.”But Ocasio-Cortez will be the first to admit that her hopes of enacting meaningful progressive policies have suffered setbacks in recent months. Build Back Better remains stalled in the Senate because of Democrat Joe Manchin’s opposition, and the party has failed to enact national voting rights legislation.Instead of bemoaning congressional inaction, though, Ocasio-Cortez has urged patience.“We have a culture of immediate gratification where if you do something and it doesn’t pay off right away, we think it’s pointless,” she told the New Yorker. “There is no movement, there is no effort, there is no unionizing, there is no fight for the vote, there is no resistance to draconian abortion laws, if people think that the future is baked in and nothing is possible and that we’re doomed.”Thompson has seen the long-term impact of Ocasio-Cortez’s work for himself. He lost his 2018 race, but since then, the politics of Wichita have shifted. Democrats now make up a majority of the Wichita city council, when they previously only held one of seven seats.“Even though I didn’t win, her coming really energized our local Democrats in our community,” Thompson said. “It made us realize that look, we’re not alone. And we can do something when we come together.”TopicsAlexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocratsUS politicsUS CongressfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Britney Spears invited to US Congress to discuss conservatorship legal battle

      by

      Britney Spears invited to US Congress to discuss conservatorship legal battleSinger shares letter from Congressmen Charlie Crist and Eric Swalwell on Instagram, saying she was ‘immediately flattered’ The singer Britney Spears has shared a letter she received from two members of the US House of Representatives inviting her to Congress to talk about her long-running legal battle over her conservatorship that ended with victory in November.“I was immediately flattered and at the time I wasn’t nearly at the healing stage I’m in now,” Spears, 41, said in the Instagram post about the letter she received in December from Congressmen Charlie Crist of Florida and Eric Swalwell of California.Britney Spears reveals conservatorship has left her scared of music businessRead more“I’m grateful that my story was acknowledged. Because of the letter, I felt heard and like I mattered for the first time in my life!!! In a world where your own family goes against you, it’s actually hard to find people that get it and show empathy.”The letter conveyed Crist and Swalwell’s congratulations to Spears and her attorney Mathew Rosengart for winning the case that ended the conservatorship of the singer’s affairs, which lasted for almost 14 years and was mostly under the direction of her father, Jamie.In an interview following her courtroom victory in December, Spears said the entire affair had left her “scared” of the music business.The House representatives said they were troubled that “for years you were unable to hire your own counsel to represent your personal and financial interests”, among other issues, and invited Spears to Congress to speak about her “empowering” story and for them to learn more of “the emotional and financial turmoil you faced within the conservatorship system”.In her post, Spears thanked the congressmen for the invitation but did not indicate if she intended to take it up.“I want to help others in vulnerable situations, take life by the balls and be brave. I wish I would have been,” she said.“Nothing is worse than your own family doing what they did to me. I’m lucky to have a small circle of adorable friends who I can count on. In the meantime thank you to Congress for inviting me to the White House [sic].”An apparently starstruck Crist responded to Spears’ post in a short video clip of his own, released on Thursday morning.“I wanted to thank Britney Spears for sharing on social media about the conservatorship and the letter that I and Eric Swalwell wrote to her to make sure she understood what was going on,” Crist said.“I’m so happy for her, glad that her conservatorship was resolved. God bless her.”Despite winning back control of her affairs, Spears is still embroiled in disputes with her family.She has threatened legal action against her sister Jamie Lynn for a tell-all book she claims contains “misleading or outrageous claims” and is “potentially unlawful and defamatory”. And in January she made new allegations of financial impropriety against her father in response to his insistence she pay his legal bills.TopicsBritney SpearsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Thanks to new congressional maps, most Americans’ votes won’t matter

      by

      Thanks to new congressional maps, most Americans’ votes won’t matterAs many as 94% of representatives may be running in safe districts, fueling polarization as candidates play to their bases Hello and happy Thursday,The most fundamental concept in American government is that all politicians are accountable to the people. Constituents accept laws shaped by the people they vote for, knowing that they have the power to eventually vote them out of office if they disagree.But when it comes to the US House of Representatives, this pillar of democracy is crumbling. An overwhelming majority of seats in the US House are becoming non-competitive. That means that when voters show up at the polls in November to vote for their candidates, the contests will already be decided. Their votes won’t matter.It felt strange writing that as the opening to a story we published last weekend exploring the decline of competitive congressional seats. How could voters’ choices not matter in an American election? But academics, analysts and other experts say the trend is undeniable.America faces greater division as parties draw safe seats for congressional districtsRead moreJust 27 of the 335 congressional districts that have been drawn so far as part of the redistricting process are considered competitive – meaning either party has less than a five-point advantage – according to FiveThirtyEight. Dave Wasserman, an elections expert for the non-partisan Cook Political Report, told me he expects there to be 30 to 35 competitive seats in total once states finish drawing all 435 district boundaries. That means that as many as 94% of representatives would be running in relatively safe seats – a figure that astonished me.Why is this happening? Some of the decline in competitive seats is due to natural geographic clustering of likeminded voters. That clumping means that when states draw new lines, it’s harder to draw competitive districts. In 2012, there were 66 competitive districts, Wasserman noted. By 2020, under the same set of lines, there were 51.But politicians are undoubtedly accelerating the decline in competition by distorting district lines to their advantage. As redistricting has unfolded this year, elected officials made aggressive efforts to change district lines to shore up incumbents, locking in their seats for several more years. The clearest example of this happened in Texas, where Republicans, who have complete control over the redistricting process, reduced the number of competitive districts from 12 to one .The decline in competition has huge consequences. No longer worried about a general election, politicians become more worried about fending off challengers in a party primary. That disincentivizes bipartisan compromise and incentivizes playing to their party’s base.“This will further increase polarization … it’s also a reflection of polarization, but it’ll also entrench polarization more deeply,” Richard Pildes, a law professor at New York University, told me. “They will do even more of what we know they already do, which is tack to the more extreme wings in order to try and fight off potential primary challengers to protect themselves on that flank.”The lack of competition can have consequences beyond congressional races, said Amanda Litman, the co-founder and executive director of Run for Something, which focuses on down-ballot contests. She noted that the Democratic party focuses its resources in battleground states where there are competitive congressional districts. Fewer competitive districts, she said, would mean fewer resources.“The fewer competitive elections there are, the fewer places that will be able to have concentrated effort and intentionality around [races],” she told me.Thinking about competitive districts also caused me to rethink what constituted a “fair” electoral map. A state that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans – with 10 congressional districts, for example – could draw five safe Republican districts and five safe Democratic ones. Would that map be fair? Would it be fairer than one that has three safe districts for each party and four competitive districts?I posed this question to Pildes. He said that politicians tended to favor the former approach.“One reason parties don’t like competitive seats is that if the districts are all 3% to 4% predicted to go in one particular direction, they can all flip in a single election. Whereas if they’re plus-nine for one party, a three-point shift isn’t gonna do anything,” he said.“The value of competitive districts gets sort of short shrift in the political process because there’s not a lot of political self-interest in creating competitive districts.”Also worth watching …
      Texas election officials are seeing a staggeringly high number of mail-in ballots rejected ahead of the state’s 1 March governor’s primary.
      Amy Weirich, a Tennessee prosecutor, defended a six-year prison sentence for Pamela Moses, who tried to register to vote while ineligible.
      A federal judge blocked a portion of a new Texas law that made it a crime for election officials to solicit mail-in ballots. Texas is appealing the ruling.
      Florida Republicans are considering adopting a new measure that would make it harder to vote by mail, potentially causing headaches for at least 400,000 voters in the state.
      TopicsUS CongressFight to voteUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Insurgency review: how Trump took over the Republican party

      by

      Insurgency review: how Trump took over the Republican party From 2016 to the Capitol riot, Jeremy Peters of the New York Times delivers a meticulously reported and extremely worrying tale of how and why the US came to thisAfter the Iraq war and the Great Recession, public trust in government plummeted while the flashpoints of race, religion and education moved to the fore. Barack Obama’s mantra of hope and change left many unsatisfied, if not seething. On election day 2016, Donald Trump lit a match. But the kindling was already there, decades in the making.Bannon compared Trump escalator ride to Leni Riefenstahl Nazi film, book saysRead moreStaring at the mess is Jeremy Peters of the New York Times, with Insurgency, his first book. A seasoned national political reporter and MSNBC talking head, Peters chronicles how the party of Lincoln and Reagan morphed into Trump’s own fiefdom. He writes with a keen eye and sharp pen. Beyond that, he listens.He captures the grievance of the Republican base, its devotion to the 45th president and its varied voices. He repeatedly delivers quotable quotes, painstakingly sourced. This is highly readable reporting.At the outset, Peters acknowledges Trump’s grasp of human nature, the media and resentment. Messaging and visuals matter to Trump, as does cementing a bond with his crowds. Fittingly, one chapter is titled “Give Them What They Want …”For many, Trump did so. As president, he kept campaign-trail promises. He reshaped the supreme court, moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and battled Isis.Most of all, he stuck a barbed middle finger at political correctness. His jagged edges thrilled his core as they elicited revulsion elsewhere – just as he wanted. His persona was Melania’s problem, not theirs.Trump rode into the White House on enmity to immigration, the sleeper issue of our times, over which Democrats continue to stumble. Chants of “build that wall” delivered far more votes than “defund the police”.Trump’s mien mattered too, as Peters notes. He was relatable to working Americans. He knew where wokeness was grating, that what passes as orthodoxy in the halls of academe is not applauded by kitchen table or barstool America.“Trump’s Latino Support Was More Widespread Than Thought, Report Finds,” a Times headline announced. It was Bernie Sanders, not Joe Biden, who led among those voters in the Democratic primaries of 2020. Right now, polls show Trump ahead of Biden in that bloc. Biden’s standing has also slipped among younger Black voters.From Peters’ vantage point, Trump’s description of himself as a “popularist” – an unintended malapropism – comes close to the mark. Trump can size up an audience, meet expectations and receive their adulation. For all concerned, it’s a win-win proposition.Peters gets people on the record. Per usual, Steve Bannon is there on the page, where he rates his former boss among the worst presidents with James Buchanan and Millard Filmore. Those two failed to halt the march to civil war.Bannon also likens Trump’s history-making escalator ride to Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda film. “That’s Hitler, Bannon thought”, as Trump descended to a bank of cameras and microphones. Peters memorializes those italicized words as another chapter title.Elsewhere, Bannon posits that for Trump it’s all about himself, and he would be pleased to see a Republican successor fail.“Trump doesn’t give a shit,” Bannon says. “He’s not looking to nurture. He’s fucking Donald Trump, the only guy who could do it.As for Trump, he talks to Peters and his observations are frequently dead-on. Most of all, he internalized that Republican success hinged on the white working-class base, a reality to which most other GOP politicians paid lip service.Offering tax cuts to the rich while plundering entitlements didn’t quite cut it. Sure, race and culture were part of Trump’s equation. But so was preserving social security and Medicare. Voters could not be expected to support candidates who took away things they had earned.The priorities of the Republican donor class did not align with those of the swing voters who seized on Trump. In the heartland, corporations definitely aren’t considered “people” – a lesson Mitt Romney failed to learn in 2012.A country club candidate who looked and sounded like a country club candidate might win the nomination but stood to lose in November. George HW Bush, remember, eked out a single term after eight years as vice-president to Ronald Reagan.Peters relates that Trump pushed back hard when Paul Ryan, the former House speaker and Romney’s running mate, suggested curbing government-funded retirement spending.“You tried that four years ago,” Trump told him. “How’d that work out?”For good measure, Trump snapped: “No thank you.”Insurgency also documents the capitulation of those Republicans who stood ready to take on the mob as it swarmed the Capitol on January 6 but then, hours later, voted against certifying the election.Peters tells of Ronny Jackson, a retired navy rear admiral who was White House physician to Trump and Barack Obama. When the glass started to shatter, Jackson removed his tie – so it would be that much more difficult to strangle him. But Jackson’s loyalty to Trump remained. He voted to discount the results, despite all he saw. Now, Jackson demands Biden’s mental fitness be tested.Trump stokes the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. No matter, in Republican ranks at least. Fidelity to Trump and his false claims are “musts” for the foreseeable future. Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, at odds with Trump this week, are at some political risk.Pence refused to defy his legal mandate and reject electoral college results. He sticks by his decision. Of January 6, deemed “legitimate political discourse” by the Republican National Committee, McConnell bluntly says: “It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent a peaceful transfer of power.”Peters sees the dark clouds. His book is chilling.
      Insurgency: How Republicans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted is published in the US by Crown
      TopicsBooksPolitics booksRepublicansDonald TrumpUS politicsUS elections 2016US elections 2020reviewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US Congress approves sexual harassment bill in #MeToo milestone

      by

      US Congress approves sexual harassment bill in #MeToo milestoneLegislation guarantees that people who experience sexual harassment at work can seek recourse in the courts Congress on Thursday gave final approval to legislation guaranteeing that people who experience sexual harassment at work can seek recourse in the courts, a milestone for the #MeToo movement that prompted a national reckoning on the way sexual misconduct claims are handled.Man upset over Canada mask mandates calls in bomb threat to police – in Ohio Read moreThe measure, which is expected to be signed by Joe Biden, bars employment contracts from forcing people to settle sexual assault or harassment cases through arbitration rather than in court, a process that often benefits employers and keeps misconduct allegations from becoming public.Significantly, the bill is retroactive, nullifying that language in contracts nationwide and opening the door for people who had been bound by it to take legal action.Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has spearheaded the effort, called it “one of the most significant workplace reforms in American history”.Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, said the arbitration process was secretive and biased and denied people a basic constitutional right: a day in court.“No longer will survivors of sexual assault or harassment in the workplace come forward and be told that they are legally forbidden to sue their employer because somewhere buried in their employment contracts was this forced arbitration clause,” she said.Gillibrand, who has focused on combating sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the military, originally introduced the legislation in 2017 with the Republican senator Lindsey Graham.The legislation had uncommonly broad, bipartisan support in a divided Congress. That allowed the bill to be passed in the Senate by unanimous consent – a procedure almost never used for significant legislation, especially one affecting tens of millions of Americans. The House passed the bill this week on a robust bipartisan basis in a 335- 97 vote.The former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, who accused the then network chief, Roger Ailes, of making unwanted advances and harming her career when she rejected him, testified in support of the legislation. Some employee contracts at the network included binding arbitration clauses.Carlson, who appeared with Gillibrand and other senators at a news conference after Senate passage of the bill, said she could never have imagined, after coming forward with her allegations five years ago, that it would lead to a change in the law that both Democrats and Republicans would get behind.“Marching in the streets can inspire us. Editorials can open our minds. Hashtags can galvanize, but legislation is the only thing that lasts,” Carlson said.An estimated 60 million American workers have clauses tucked into their employment contracts forcing them to settle any allegations of sexual misconduct in private arbitration proceedings, rather than in court. The widespread practice has come under fire in the wake of the #MeToo movement for forcing employees to seek recourse without a jury, a chance to appeal a decision or the sunlight of a public court process.The White House released a statement earlier this month in support of the bill.TopicsUS CongressUS politicsSexual harassmentnewsReuse this content More