washingtonmonthly--2020-07-27--How Joe Biden Will Pick His Running Mate

The New York Giants shocked the football world when they chose Joe Judge to be their new head coach .
The decision was unusual because Judge had no prior head coaching experience and had never been the coordinator of an offense or a defense .
He ’ d spent his career coaching special teams : kickoffs , punts , and field goals .
Admittedly , he was considered very good at this , and had been part of many championships with Nick Saban ’ s University of Alabama team and Bill Belichick ’ s New England Patriots .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone like Judge for such a high profile position .
By all accounts , he won the job by knocking his interview out of the park .
Based on Ryan Lizza ’ s reporting for Politico , the interview process is also likely to determine who Joe Biden will choose for his running mate .
None of the candidates check every box .
Prospects who have run a national election , like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris , are somewhat like football coaches who have losing records .
Sure , they have relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven they can win .
Others are like coaching prospects who have specialized on only one side of the ball .
A vice-presidential contender with experience in foreign affairs but little experience with domestic policy is a bit like a coach who has spent their whole career working on defense .
Susan Rice might fit into this category .
Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is more like the coach who is well-versed in offensive philosophy but has never worked on the defensive side of the ball .
Tammy Duckworth is a more balanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , but she ’ s never been in an executive decision-making position .
Gov .
Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island has executive experience but would probably upset the fan base .
Raimondo would have some explaining to do for people on the left .
She has had some nasty fights with unions in her state and during the Democratic primaries she endorsed Mike Bloomberg .
But if she made it to a sit-down ( or Zoom chat ) with Biden , she ’ s the kind of person you could see winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Irish and Italian ancestors feuding in places like Wilmington and Providence .
There are other considerations , too .
Biden wants someone who is “ simpatico ” with his political outlook , and he wants someone loyal and focused more on being a partner than preparing for a future presidential run .
Some of these factors may not be working in Kamala Harris ’ s favor : When former Sen. Chris Dodd , a member of Joe Biden ’ s vice presidential search committee , recently asked Kamala Harris about her ambush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dodd was stunned by her response .
“ She laughed and said , ‘ that ’ s politics.
’ She had no remorse , ” Dodd told a longtime Biden supporter and donor , who relayed the exchange to POLITICO on condition of anonymity .
“ Dodd felt it was a gimmick , that it was cheap , ” the donor said .
The person added that Dodd ’ s concerns about Harris were so deep that he ’ s helped elevate California Rep. Karen Bass during the vetting process , urging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a loyal No .
2 .
And that ’ s what Biden really wants.
” Another consideration is simply to “ do no harm ” considering that Biden appears to be on a glide path to victory .
Trump hasn ’ t been able to lay a glove on Biden , so he ’ ll be looking to pounce on his running mate .
The strategist said that Warren “ checks the box of can-be-president tomorrow .
The question for Elizabeth is whether it ’ s too much octane for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn Biden into a scary radical lefty .
He can ’ t do that so his tactic is to make him seem like a tool of the scary radical left .
She would become the nominee for president in the mind of Republicans .
Trump will say , ‘ Biden is so old that he won ’ t survive a year and she is going to be calling the shots and then she will be president.
’ ” A compelling case can be made against every known contender , which is all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be decisive .
The Giants chose Joe Judge because he demonstrated the kind of leadership abilities they were looking for .
He ’ s going to have a hard time succeeding at first because the COVID-19 crisis has cancelled all in-person practices and the entirety of the pre-season game schedule .
The first time he sees his players in action , he ’ ll be coaching in a real game against the very experienced and stable Pittsburgh Steelers on Monday Night Football .
Yet , if the organization made the right choice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the team winning again in short order .
Joe Biden doesn ’ t have some proven winner like Vince Lombardi to choose from , but Lombardi didn ’ t have head coaching experience when the Green Bay Packers hired him .
Sometimes , you just have to do your research and go with what feels right .
There ’ s a good chance that whoever Biden selects will be president someday , so even though I can ’ t give him any useful advice , I hope he makes a wise decision @

The New York Giants shocked the football world when they chose Joe Judge to be their new head coach. The decision was unusual because Judge had no prior head coaching experience and had never been the coordinator of an offense or a defense. He’d spent his career coaching special teams: kickoffs, punts, and field goals. Admittedly, he was considered very good at this, and had been part of many championships with Nick Saban’s University of Alabama team and Bill Belichick’s New England Patriots. But there wasn’t much precedent for hiring someone like Judge for such a high profile position. By all accounts, he won the job by knocking his interview out of the park.
Based on Ryan Lizza’s reporting for Politico, the interview process is also likely to determine who Joe Biden will choose for his running mate. None of the candidates check every box. Prospects who have run a national election, like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, are somewhat like football coaches who have losing records. Sure, they have relevant experience, but they haven’t proven they can win. Others are like coaching prospects who have specialized on only one side of the ball. A vice-presidential contender with experience in foreign affairs but little experience with domestic policy is a bit like a coach who has spent their whole career working on defense. Susan Rice might fit into this category. Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is more like the coach who is well-versed in offensive philosophy but has never worked on the defensive side of the ball. Tammy Duckworth is a more balanced choice who has both military and legislative experience, but she’s never been in an executive decision-making position. Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island has executive experience but would probably upset the fan base.
Raimondo would have some explaining to do for people on the left. She has had some nasty fights with unions in her state and during the Democratic primaries she endorsed Mike Bloomberg. But if she made it to a sit-down (or Zoom chat) with Biden, she’s the kind of person you could see winning him over with some shared reminiscing about their Irish and Italian ancestors feuding in places like Wilmington and Providence.
There are other considerations, too. Biden wants someone who is “simpatico” with his political outlook, and he wants someone loyal and focused more on being a partner than preparing for a future presidential run. Some of these factors may not be working in Kamala Harris’s favor:
When former Sen. Chris Dodd, a member of Joe Biden’s vice presidential search committee, recently asked Kamala Harris about her ambush on Biden in the first Democratic debate, Dodd was stunned by her response. “She laughed and said, ‘that’s politics.’ She had no remorse,” Dodd told a longtime Biden supporter and donor, who relayed the exchange to POLITICO on condition of anonymity. “Dodd felt it was a gimmick, that it was cheap,” the donor said. The person added that Dodd’s concerns about Harris were so deep that he’s helped elevate California Rep. Karen Bass during the vetting process, urging Biden to pick her because “she’s a loyal No. 2. And that’s what Biden really wants.”
Another consideration is simply to “do no harm” considering that Biden appears to be on a glide path to victory. Trump hasn’t been able to lay a glove on Biden, so he’ll be looking to pounce on his running mate.
The strategist said that Warren “checks the box of can-be-president tomorrow. The question for Elizabeth is whether it’s too much octane for the tank. Trump is desperately looking to turn Biden into a scary radical lefty. He can’t do that so his tactic is to make him seem like a tool of the scary radical left. She would become the nominee for president in the mind of Republicans. Trump will say, ‘Biden is so old that he won’t survive a year and she is going to be calling the shots and then she will be president.’”
A compelling case can be made against every known contender, which is all the more reason why the interview will probably be decisive. The Giants chose Joe Judge because he demonstrated the kind of leadership abilities they were looking for. He’s going to have a hard time succeeding at first because the COVID-19 crisis has cancelled all in-person practices and the entirety of the pre-season game schedule. The first time he sees his players in action, he’ll be coaching in a real game against the very experienced and stable Pittsburgh Steelers on Monday Night Football. Yet, if the organization made the right choice, he’ll overcome these disadvantages and get the team winning again in short order. Joe Biden doesn’t have some proven winner like Vince Lombardi to choose from, but Lombardi didn’t have head coaching experience when the Green Bay Packers hired him.
Sometimes, you just have to do your research and go with what feels right. There’s a good chance that whoever Biden selects will be president someday, so even though I can’t give him any useful advice, I hope he makes a wise decision.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-25--A Realistic Strategy for Overturning Citizens United Within 10 Years

Most Americans share similar views about how to get big money of politics .
Polling released in 2018 showed that 66 percent of Republicans , 70 percent of independents , and 85 percent of Democrats support a constitutional amendment .
But since we haven ’ t amended the Constitution since 1992 , the idea sounds like an impossibility to many .
Of course , passing an amendment is inherently difficult—requiring support from two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states .
Yet we are already closer to the goal than most people know .
In fact , an amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other widely discussed policy proposals .
With a focused bipartisan campaign , activists could push one across the finish line in less than a decade .
Consider where things stand today .
47 sitting Senators have already expressed support for an amendment , compared to just 15 who have signed on to Medicare For All .
More than 200 House members back it too , compared to only 21 who have signed on to the Free College For All Act .
Additionally , 20 states have already expressed their support for an amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including “ red states ” like Montana and West Virginia .
All told , that ’ s more than half that is needed .
Plus , when those two states agree with California and Oregon , you know this is an issue than can transcend partisanship .
But ten years after the Supreme Court ’ s Citizens United v. FEC decision , which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections , we are still waiting .
That ’ s primarily because the idea does not yet have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does among voters .
And that ’ s due to the specific Republicans that have been in power since 2010 .
Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy are huge beneficiaries of big money and , not coincidentally , staunch opponents of campaign finance reform .
Another reason is that some amendment proposals to overturn Citizens United have been divisive and partisan .
Many politicians and activists have conflated campaign finance reform with abolishing all corporate constitutional rights , which misunderstands the problem and draws valuable energy away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment protections away from corporations would allow the government to seize property without just compensation , but would not bring us closer to campaign finance reform .
Similarly , by framing the fight to get big money out of politics as a battle between Democrats and Republicans , instead of one between the people and the powerful , some organizations have made the issue unduly polarizing .
Fortunately , there are ways to improve our chances of making history .
By focusing on the core issue of campaign finance reform rather than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a path toward ensuring that Citizens United does not survive another ten years .
Though passing a constitutional amendment may sound like a drastic step , it is the most logical way to fix our broken campaign finance system .
Big money got into politics because of Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United , which struck down federally enacted campaign spending limits designed to reduce political corruption and ensure that ultra-wealthy individuals and artificial entities did not gain undue influence over elections .
In both cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acknowledge that independent expenditures—outside spending from individuals and groups—jeopardize the integrity of our elections and government .
Now , the only way to overturn those grievous decisions is through a constitutional amendment .
It would be folly to expect subsequent decisions to reverse course .
At the same time , the problems caused by big money in politics are important enough that we can not afford to wait for the court to change its mind .
And the reforms we can use within the current system are simply not enough .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can stop billionaires from spending unlimited amounts of money .
Plus , there is always the risk that without an amendment , the Supreme Court could strike down some public financing systems as unconstitutional .
An amendment that gives Congress , state legislatures , and voters the power to enact limits on campaign spending is the best response to the Court ’ s dangerous precedents .
The good news : This is achievable .
Campaign finance reform has widespread bipartisan support among voters—74 percent of voters in “ very red ” districts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 76 percent in “ very blue ” districts .
Campaign finance reform has historically been a bipartisan issue .
In 1990 , William Rehnquist and Thurgood Marshall agreed that restrictions on political expenditures by corporations were both constitutional and desirable in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce .
As recently as 2002 , the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act ( also known as McCain-Feingold ) passed with support from 51 congressional Republicans .
Today ’ s GOP may have even more reason to support reform than their predecessors because many have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 election cycle for instance , liberal undisclosed “ dark money ” groups outspent conservative ones $ 81 million to $ 43 million .
But that reality is lost on many voters .
Citizens United has become too polarized .
John Katko of New York is the only Republican member of Congress signed onto any campaign finance reform amendment proposal .
Much of that is due to Mitch McConnell ’ s leadership within his party .
But that doesn ’ t mean we shouldn ’ t also look at holes in the advocacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians , such as Representative Pramila Jayapal , have combined the effort for a campaign finance reform amendment with a separate goal of abolishing all corporate constitutional rights .
But it is a mistake to conclude that corporate constitutional rights—or the concept of corporate personhood—were the basis for Citizens United , or that abolishing such rights would solve the problem .
The problem is that the Court has given both corporations and individuals a right neither should have—the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections .
The sensible solution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow legislatures to enact limits on outside spending by individuals or artificial entities , because such spending poses a “ mortal danger ” to the political process .
Furthermore , as law professor Garrett Epps has written , “ [ T ] he Court in Citizens United expressly said that it was not relying on the idea of personhood as the basis for its decision striking down the McCain–Feingold Act ’ s limits on money in electioneering .
The Court relied on the nature of the speech itself , not the identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort we enacted a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people , a future conservative Court would have no trouble striking down limits on corporate political expenditures anyway.
” Nonetheless , Representative Pramila Jayapal has introduced an amendment proposal aimed at overturning Citizens United that would also abolish all the constitutional rights of corporations and unions .
That comes with two flaws .
First , such a provision could lead to unintended consequences , such as preventing nonprofits like Planned Parenthood from filing lawsuits , or allowing the government to conduct searches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even many liberal law professors like Epps and Kent Greenfield oppose the abolition of all corporate constitutional rights .
Second , by pairing the far less popular idea of abolishing the rights of unions and corporations with the goal of campaign finance reform , Jayapal ’ s proposal deters potential allies who share the second goal , but not the first .
Other proposals that are focused exclusively on campaign finance reform , like H.J .
Res 2 or the Restore Democracy Amendment ( which I wrote ) , offer a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing a constitutional amendment is going to require bipartisan support .
That means progressives need to adjust their approach accordingly .
Too many organizations have pursued an incomplete strategy of trying to pass an amendment solely by electing Democrats .
For example , one PAC founded by former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraisers called End Citizens United has raised more than $ 50 million by targeting left-leaning donors .
But rather than attempting to build bipartisan support for an amendment , End Citizens United ’ s primary focus is on unseating Republicans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ done stellar work getting more than 200 Democrats to cosponsor H.J.Res 2 , but that ratio has to change dramatically for an amendment to succeed .
Simply put , we must make the same effort to work with Republicans who may support campaign finance reform that we do to unseat those who don ’ t .
That doesn ’ t mean we should expect an amendment to pass through this House or Senate .
It won ’ t .
We need to understand that this is a long-term project .
But no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is essential .
The push for a campaign finance reform amendment among Congressional Republicans can follow a similar trajectory to the fight for same-sex marriage , by steadily gaining support over time .
In 2009 , only 21 percent of Republicans supported same-sex marriage , but in less than a decade , that more than doubled to 47 percent .
Passing an amendment to undo the damage caused by 40 years of bad Supreme Court decisions is one of the most important things we can do to improve government .
If we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big money in politics , we will never be able to tackle income inequality , prescription drug prices , or any other major problem that is exacerbated by our campaign finance system .
In short , solving this problem is a prerequisite to solving our other problems .
Fortunately , we are closer to achieving the historic goal of passing a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics than most people know .
It can be done in ten or maybe even five years .
But to cross the finish line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance reform rather than corporate personhood .
We must work with Republicans and Democrats , and make the issue one of our top priorities .
If we can do that , we can put Citizens United where it belongs—in the dustbin of history alongside Dred Scott v. Sanford and Bowers v. Hardwick .

Most Americans share similar views about how to get big money out of politics. Polling released in 2018 showed that 66 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of independents, and 85 percent of Democrats support a constitutional amendment. But since we haven’t amended the Constitution since 1992, the idea sounds like an impossibility to many. Of course, passing an amendment is inherently difficult—requiring support from two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states. Yet we are already closer to the goal than most people know.
In fact, an amendment has more momentum in Congress than many other widely discussed policy proposals. With a focused bipartisan campaign, activists could push one across the finish line within a few years.
Consider where things stand today. 47 sitting Senators have already expressed support for an amendment, compared to just 15 who have signed on to Medicare For All. More than 200 House members back it too, compared to only 21 who have signed on to the Free College For All Act. Additionally, 20 states have already expressed their support for an amendment through legislation or a ballot initiative, including “red states” like Montana and West Virginia. All told, that’s more than half that is needed. Plus, when those two states agree with California and Oregon, you know this is an issue than can transcend partisanship.
But ten years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, we are still waiting. That’s primarily because the idea does not yet have the bipartisan support in Congress that it does among voters. And that’s due to the specific Republicans that have been in power since 2010. Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy are huge beneficiaries of big money and, not coincidentally, staunch opponents of campaign finance reform. Another reason is that some amendment proposals to overturn Citizens United have been divisive and partisan.
Many politicians and activists have conflated campaign finance reform with abolishing all corporate constitutional rights, which misunderstands the problem and draws valuable energy away from the real battle. Stripping Fifth Amendment protections away from corporations would allow the government to seize property without just compensation, but would not bring us closer to campaign finance reform.
Similarly, by framing the fight to get big money out of politics as a battle between Democrats and Republicans, instead of one between the people and the powerful, some organizations have made the issue unduly polarizing.
Fortunately, there are ways to improve our chances of making history. By focusing on the core issue of campaign finance reform rather than the red herring of corporate constitutional rights, there’s a path toward ensuring that Citizens United does not survive another ten years.
Though passing a constitutional amendment may sound like a drastic step, it is the most logical way to fix our broken campaign finance system. Big money got into politics because of Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, which struck down federally enacted campaign spending limits designed to reduce political corruption and ensure that ultra-wealthy individuals and artificial entities did not gain undue influence over elections. In both cases, a slim majority of justices failed to acknowledge that independent expenditures—outside spending from individuals and groups—jeopardize the integrity of our elections and government.
Now, the only way to overturn those grievous decisions is through a constitutional amendment. It would be folly to expect subsequent decisions to reverse course. At the same time, the problems caused by big money in politics are important enough that we cannot afford to wait for the court to change its mind. And the reforms we can use within the current system are simply not enough. Neither more disclosure requirements nor publicly financed elections can stop billionaires from spending unlimited amounts of money.
Plus, there is always the risk that without an amendment, the Supreme Court could strike down some public financing systems as unconstitutional. An amendment that gives Congress, state legislatures, and voters the power to enact limits on campaign spending is the best response to the Court’s dangerous precedents.
The good news: This is achievable. Campaign finance reform has widespread bipartisan support among voters—74 percent of voters in “very red” districts are in favor of an amendment, along with 76 percent in “very blue” districts.
Campaign finance reform has historically been a bipartisan issue. In 1990, William Rehnquist and Thurgood Marshall agreed that restrictions on political expenditures by corporations were both constitutional and desirable in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. As recently as 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) passed with support from 51 congressional Republicans. Today’s GOP may have even more reason to support reform than their predecessors because many have been targeted by outside spending. In the 2018 election cycle for instance, liberal undisclosed “dark money” groups outspent conservative ones $81 million to $43 million.
But that reality is lost on many voters. Citizens United has become too polarized. John Katko of New York is the only Republican member of Congress signed onto any campaign finance reform amendment proposal. Much of that is due to Mitch McConnell’s leadership within his party. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also look at holes in the advocacy for an amendment.
Some groups and politicians, such as Representative Pramila Jayapal, have combined the effort for a campaign finance reform amendment with a separate goal of abolishing all corporate constitutional rights. But it is a mistake to conclude that corporate constitutional rights—or the concept of corporate personhood—were the basis for Citizens United, or that abolishing such rights would solve the problem. The problem is that the Court has given both corporations and individuals a right neither should have—the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. The sensible solution, which dissenting justices have expressed, is to allow legislatures to enact limits on outside spending by individuals or artificial entities, because such spending poses a “mortal danger” to the political process.
Furthermore, as law professor Garrett Epps has written, “[T]he Court in Citizens United expressly said that it was not relying on the idea of personhood as the basis for its decision striking down the McCain–Feingold Act’s limits on money in electioneering. The Court relied on the nature of the speech itself, not the identity of the speaker…Thus if by a heroic effort we enacted a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people, a future conservative Court would have no trouble striking down limits on corporate political expenditures anyway.”
Nonetheless, Representative Pramila Jayapal has introduced an amendment proposal aimed at overturning Citizens United that would also abolish all the constitutional rights of corporations and unions.
That comes with two flaws.
First, such a provision could lead to unintended consequences, such as preventing nonprofits like Planned Parenthood from filing lawsuits, or allowing the government to conduct searches and seizures of businesses without a warrant. Even many liberal law professors like Epps and Kent Greenfield oppose the abolition of all corporate constitutional rights. Second, by pairing the far less popular idea of abolishing the rights of unions and corporations with the goal of campaign finance reform, Jayapal’s proposal deters potential allies who share the second goal, but not the first. Other proposals that are focused exclusively on campaign finance reform, like H.J. Res 2 or the Restore Democracy Amendment (which I wrote), offer a better chance of success.
Of course, passing a constitutional amendment is going to require bipartisan support. That means progressives need to adjust their approach accordingly. Too many organizations have pursued an incomplete strategy of trying to pass an amendment solely by electing Democrats. For example, one PAC founded by former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraisers called End Citizens United has raised more than $50 million by targeting left-leaning donors. But rather than attempting to build bipartisan support for an amendment, End Citizens United’s primary focus is on unseating Republicans. Similarly, groups like Public Citizen have done stellar work getting more than 200 Democrats to cosponsor H.J.Res 2, but that ratio has to change dramatically for an amendment to succeed. Simply put, we must make the same effort to work with Republicans who may support campaign finance reform that we do to unseat those who don’t.
That doesn’t mean we should expect an amendment to pass through this House or Senate. It won’t. We need to understand that this is a long-term project. But no matter how long it takes, bipartisan support is essential. The push for a campaign finance reform amendment among Congressional Republicans can follow a similar trajectory to the fight for same-sex marriage, by steadily gaining support over time. In 2009, only 21 percent of Republicans supported same-sex marriage, but in less than a decade, that more than doubled to 47 percent.
Passing an amendment to undo the damage caused by 40 years of bad Supreme Court decisions is one of the most important things we can do to improve government. If we can’t solve our underlying problems like big money in politics, we will never be able to tackle income inequality, prescription drug prices, or any other major problem that is exacerbated by our campaign finance system. In short, solving this problem is a prerequisite to solving our other problems.
Fortunately, we are closer to achieving the historic goal of passing a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics than most people know. But to cross the finish line, the focus should be on campaign finance reform rather than corporate personhood. We must work with Republicans and Democrats, and make the issue one of our top priorities. If we can do that, we can put Citizens United where it belongs—in the dustbin of history alongside Dred Scott v. Sanford and Bowers v. Hardwick.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-28--Why This Pandemic Is Crushing Trump and GOP Governors

Governors in states like Texas , Florida , Georgia , and Arizona happily followed Trump ’ s advice to relax restrictions and reopen their states in the midst of a pandemic .
This is the result .
Similarly , Major League Baseball held their season opening last week .
They ’ re already questioning whether that was a good move .
Monday morning ’ s news that at least 14 members of the Miami Marlins and their staff have tested positive for the novel coronavirus in recent days was chilling .
The immediate consequences were the postponements of the Marlins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Phillies ’ home game against the Yankees , who would have been occupying the clubhouse those Marlins just showered and dressed in Sunday .
The wider effect : Back-to-normal , or even semi-normal , in sports was shattered , just days after being reintroduced .
In the midst of all of that , Allison Shuster wonders why Democrats are resisting the Trump administration ’ s pressure to reopen schools in a few weeks .
The president says it ’ s all political .
But writing about the pandemic ’ s impact on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation well .
Why are we here ?
The answer is pretty simple , yet inexplicably unacknowledged in wide swaths of this country : The pandemic is in control , and it stays in control until you stop it , suppress it , dominate it and crush “ the curve.
” America has not come within a million miles of that outcome — though many other countries have…The entire American experience of this pandemic has been : Stay ahead of this virus or it will crush you .
That is essentially what Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to wonder how many people will have to lose their health , lives , and livelihoods before people like Trump , DeSantis , Abbott , Ducey , and Kemp begin to understand that basic fact—or if they ever will .
It ’ s not like their ignorance is gaining them anything politically .
All of them are sinking like rocks when it comes to job approval ratings .
If the stated goal of all of this nonsense is to reignite the economy in order to help Trump and Republicans in the November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to do so .
As an example of that failure , Trump and his spokespeople continue to say that testing for COVID-19 is no longer a problem .
But from Senate candidate John Ossoff in Georgia , we hear a completely different story .
Ossoff ’ s wife is a medical professional and tested positive , so he needed to be tested .
Here ’ s what happened .
I ’ m good at the internet and I ’ ll be honest — it wasn ’ t easy to figure out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s DPH web site is just plain bad .
An isolated & ailing senior would have a lot of difficulty .
I finally found the info I needed on Fulton County ’ s website .
I arrived at the testing site at 8:30 this morning ( it opened at 9 ) and got my test by around 10 .
The line was much longer by then .
I was told to expect results in 2-4 days .
Clinics I called last night ( some charging $ 200 ) and CVS stores in Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve talked to confirm there ’ s a shortage of accurate rapid tests in Georgia , which is a big problem .
Labs are having trouble with timely turnaround even for normal tests — and there are severe shortages of reagents ( chemicals used for testing & processing ) .
We ’ re in Month Five of this pandemic .
Testing shortages are totally inexcusable .
Everything we know about dealing with this pandemic is that it all starts with adequate and timely testing .
Obviously that isn ’ t happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases continues to rise .
What is that doing to the economy ?
Last week Georgia ranked second highest in the number of unemployment claims filed—lagging only behind Florida .
That ’ s what happens when you fail to grasp the most basic fact about the pandemic : “ Stay ahead of this virus or it will crush you .
”

Governors in states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona happily followed Trump’s advice to relax restrictions and reopen their states in the midst of a pandemic. This is the result.
Similarly, Major League Baseball held their season opening last week. They’re already questioning whether that was a good move.
Monday morning’s news that at least 14 members of the Miami Marlins and their staff have tested positive for the novel coronavirus in recent days was chilling. The immediate consequences were the postponements of the Marlins’ home opener against the Orioles and the Phillies’ home game against the Yankees, who would have been occupying the clubhouse those Marlins just showered and dressed in Sunday. The wider effect: Back-to-normal, or even semi-normal, in sports was shattered, just days after being reintroduced.
In the midst of all of that, Allison Shuster wonders why Democrats are resisting the Trump administration’s pressure to reopen schools in a few weeks. The president says it’s all political.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280232979781111808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1280232979781111808%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2020%2F07%2F24%2Fscience-and-data-say-school-reopening-is-safe-so-why-do-democrats-oppose-it%2F
But writing about the pandemic’s impact on sports, Thomas Boswell summed up the situation well.
Why are we here? The answer is pretty simple, yet inexplicably unacknowledged in wide swaths of this country: The pandemic is in control, and it stays in control until you stop it, suppress it, dominate it and crush “the curve.” America has not come within a million miles of that outcome — though many other countries have…The entire American experience of this pandemic has been: Stay ahead of this virus or it will crush you.
That is essentially what Joe Biden said not long ago.
Amazingly, [Trump] still hasn’t grasped the most basic fact of this crisis: To fix the economy, we have to get control over the virus.
One has to wonder how many people will have to lose their health, lives, and livelihoods before people like Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, Ducey, and Kemp begin to understand that basic fact—or if they ever will. It’s not like their ignorance is gaining them anything politically. All of them are sinking like rocks when it comes to job approval ratings.
If the stated goal of all of this nonsense is to reignite the economy in order to help Trump and Republicans in the November election, they are failing miserably and will continue to do so.
As an example of that failure, Trump and his spokespeople continue to say that testing for COVID-19 is no longer a problem.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1287536846050820102
But from Senate candidate John Ossoff in Georgia, we hear a completely different story. Ossoff’s wife is a medical professional and tested positive, so he needed to be tested. Here’s what happened.
I’m good at the internet and I’ll be honest — it wasn’t easy to figure out testing in Georgia. The state’s DPH web site is just plain bad. An isolated & ailing senior would have a lot of difficulty. I finally found the info I needed on Fulton County’s website. I arrived at the testing site at 8:30 this morning (it opened at 9) and got my test by around 10. The line was much longer by then. I was told to expect results in 2-4 days. Clinics I called last night (some charging $200) and CVS stores in Georgia currently estimate 6-10 days. Senior docs I’ve talked to confirm there’s a shortage of accurate rapid tests in Georgia, which is a big problem. Labs are having trouble with timely turnaround even for normal tests — and there are severe shortages of reagents (chemicals used for testing & processing). We’re in Month Five of this pandemic. Testing shortages are totally inexcusable.
Everything we know about dealing with this pandemic is that it all starts with adequate and timely testing. Obviously that isn’t happening in Georgia, even as the number of cases continues to rise. What is that doing to the economy? Last week Georgia ranked second highest in the number of unemployment claims filed—lagging only behind Florida. That’s what happens when you fail to grasp the most basic fact about the pandemic: “Stay ahead of this virus or it will crush you.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-25--A Realistic Strategy for Overturning Citizens United

Most Americans share similar views about how to get big money out of politics .
Polling released in 2018 showed that 66 percent of Republicans , 70 percent of independents , and 85 percent of Democrats support a constitutional amendment .
But since we haven ’ t amended the Constitution since 1992 , the idea sounds like an impossibility to many .
Of course , passing an amendment is inherently difficult—requiring support from two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states .
Yet we are already closer to the goal than most people know .
In fact , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many other widely discussed policy proposals .
With a focused bipartisan campaign , activists could push one across the finish line within a few years .
Consider where things stand today .
47 sitting Senators have already expressed support for an amendment , compared to just 15 who have signed on to Medicare For All .
More than 200 House members back it too , compared to only 21 who have signed on to the Free College For All Act .
Additionally , 20 states have already expressed their support for an amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including “ red states ” like Montana and West Virginia .
All told , that ’ s more than half that is needed .
Plus , when those two states agree with California and Oregon , you know this is an issue than can transcend partisanship .
But ten years after the Supreme Court ’ s Citizens United v. FEC decision , which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections , we are still waiting .
That ’ s primarily because the idea does not yet have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does among voters .
And that ’ s due to the specific Republicans that have been in power since 2010 .
Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy are huge beneficiaries of big money and , not coincidentally , staunch opponents of campaign finance reform .
Another reason is that some amendment proposals to overturn Citizens United have been divisive and partisan .
Many politicians and activists have conflated campaign finance reform with abolishing all corporate constitutional rights , which misunderstands the problem and draws valuable energy away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment protections away from corporations would allow the government to seize property without just compensation , but would not bring us closer to campaign finance reform .
Similarly , by framing the fight to get big money out of politics as a battle between Democrats and Republicans , instead of one between the people and the powerful , some organizations have made the issue unduly polarizing .
Fortunately , there are ways to improve our chances of making history .
By focusing on the core issue of campaign finance reform rather than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a path toward ensuring that Citizens United does not survive another ten years .
Though passing a constitutional amendment may sound like a drastic step , it is the most logical way to fix our broken campaign finance system .
Big money got into politics because of Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United , which struck down federally enacted campaign spending limits designed to reduce political corruption and ensure that ultra-wealthy individuals and artificial entities did not gain undue influence over elections .
In both cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acknowledge that independent expenditures—outside spending from individuals and groups—jeopardize the integrity of our elections and government .
Now , the only way to overturn those grievous decisions is through a constitutional amendment .
It would be folly to expect subsequent decisions to reverse course .
At the same time , the problems caused by big money in politics are important enough that we can not afford to wait for the court to change its mind .
And the reforms we can use within the current system are simply not enough .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can stop billionaires from spending unlimited amounts of money .
Plus , there is always the risk that without an amendment , the Supreme Court could strike down some public financing systems as unconstitutional .
An amendment that gives Congress , state legislatures , and voters the power to enact limits on campaign spending is the best response to the Court ’ s dangerous precedents .
The good news : This is achievable .
Campaign finance reform has widespread bipartisan support among voters—74 percent of voters in “ very red ” districts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 76 percent in “ very blue ” districts .
Campaign finance reform has historically been a bipartisan issue .
In 1990 , William Rehnquist and Thurgood Marshall agreed that restrictions on political expenditures by corporations were both constitutional and desirable in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce .
As recently as 2002 , the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act ( also known as McCain-Feingold ) passed with support from 51 congressional Republicans .
Today ’ s GOP may have even more reason to support reform than their predecessors because many have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 election cycle for instance , liberal undisclosed “ dark money ” groups outspent conservative ones $ 81 million to $ 43 million .
But that reality is lost on many voters .
Citizens United has become too polarized .
John Katko of New York is the only Republican member of Congress signed onto any campaign finance reform amendment proposal .
Much of that is due to Mitch McConnell ’ s leadership within his party .
But that doesn ’ t mean we shouldn ’ t also look at holes in the advocacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians , such as Representative Pramila Jayapal , have combined the effort for a campaign finance reform amendment with a separate goal of abolishing all corporate constitutional rights .
But it is a mistake to conclude that corporate constitutional rights—or the concept of corporate personhood—were the basis for Citizens United , or that abolishing such rights would solve the problem .
The problem is that the Court has given both corporations and individuals a right neither should have—the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections .
The sensible solution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow legislatures to enact limits on outside spending by individuals or artificial entities , because such spending poses a “ mortal danger ” to the political process .
Furthermore , as law professor Garrett Epps has written , “ [ T ] he Court in Citizens United expressly said that it was not relying on the idea of personhood as the basis for its decision striking down the McCain–Feingold Act ’ s limits on money in electioneering .
The Court relied on the nature of the speech itself , not the identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort we enacted a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people , a future conservative Court would have no trouble striking down limits on corporate political expenditures anyway.
” Nonetheless , Representative Pramila Jayapal has introduced an amendment proposal aimed at overturning Citizens United that would also abolish all the constitutional rights of corporations and unions .
That comes with two flaws .
First , such a provision could lead to unintended consequences , such as preventing nonprofits like Planned Parenthood from filing lawsuits , or allowing the government to conduct searches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even many liberal law professors like Epps and Kent Greenfield oppose the abolition of all corporate constitutional rights .
Second , by pairing the far less popular idea of abolishing the rights of unions and corporations with the goal of campaign finance reform , Jayapal ’ s proposal deters potential allies who share the second goal , but not the first .
Other proposals that are focused exclusively on campaign finance reform , like H.J .
Res 2 or the Restore Democracy Amendment ( which I wrote ) , offer a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing a constitutional amendment is going to require bipartisan support .
That means progressives need to adjust their approach accordingly .
Too many organizations have pursued an incomplete strategy of trying to pass an amendment solely by electing Democrats .
For example , one PAC founded by former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraisers called End Citizens United has raised more than $ 50 million by targeting left-leaning donors .
But rather than attempting to build bipartisan support for an amendment , End Citizens United ’ s primary focus is on unseating Republicans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ done stellar work getting more than 200 Democrats to cosponsor H.J.Res 2 , but that ratio has to change dramatically for an amendment to succeed .
Simply put , we must make the same effort to work with Republicans who may support campaign finance reform that we do to unseat those who don ’ t .
That doesn ’ t mean we should expect an amendment to pass through this House or Senate .
It won ’ t .
We need to understand that this is a long-term project .
But no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is essential .
The push for a campaign finance reform amendment among Congressional Republicans can follow a similar trajectory to the fight for same-sex marriage , by steadily gaining support over time .
In 2009 , only 21 percent of Republicans supported same-sex marriage , but in less than a decade , that more than doubled to 47 percent .
Passing an amendment to undo the damage caused by 40 years of bad Supreme Court decisions is one of the most important things we can do to improve government .
If we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big money in politics , we will never be able to tackle income inequality , prescription drug prices , or any other major problem that is exacerbated by our campaign finance system .
In short , solving this problem is a prerequisite to solving our other problems .
Fortunately , we are closer to achieving the historic goal of passing a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics than most people know .
But to cross the finish line , the focus should be on campaign finance reform rather than corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Democrats , and make the issue one of our top priorities .
If we can do that , we can put Citizens United where it belongs—in the dustbin of history alongside Dred Scott v. Sanford and Bowers v. Hardwick .


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-28--Trump’s Eight Potentially Impeachable Offenses in Six Months

It has been almost six months since Senate Republicans refused to hold Trump accountable for the two articles of impeachment referred to them by the House .
Senator Susan Collins of Maine didn ’ t attempt to defend the president ’ s actions , but instead , claimed that he had learned his lesson .
One month ago , Fred Hiatt set out to determine if there was any evidence that Collins was right .
What he found was that Trump had committed four additional offenses that were worthy of an impeachment inquiry .
This week , he revisited that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with updates to some of the original four .
Here ’ s a summary of all of them .
Article 1 : Negligence , leading to the deaths of thousands of Americans , in the handling of the novel coronavirus .
Article 2 : Abuse of law enforcement powers , including both the use of force against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square and in Portland , Oregon .
Article 3 : Abuse of appointment power in seeking retribution against those who testified against him during the impeachment hearings .
Article 4 : Abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes both his willingness to ignore China ’ s treatment of the Uighurs in exchange for help with farmers during trade negotiations as well as the fact that he has totally ignored Russia placing bounties on the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan .
Article 5 : Abuse of power for personal enrichment in asking the ambassador to Britain to steer the British Open golf tournament to a Trump-owned resort in Scotland .
Article 6 : Abuse of reprieve and pardon power in commuting the sentence of Roger Stone .
Article 7 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying about fraud associated with mail-in ballots and a refusal to commit to abiding by the results of the election .
I would add an eighth article to the list : Failure to comply with Supreme Court rulings .
In June , the Supreme Court refused to end the DACA program and also refused to dismiss the subpoenas from the Manhattan District Attorney ’ s office for the release of Trump ’ s financial records .
On the former , this is what is being reported by the Los Angeles Times .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground as officials reject new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , sidestepping a Supreme Court ruling reinstating DACA , legal experts and lawmakers say .
On releasing his financial records , the president is obviously stalling .
US President Donald Trump on Monday filed a new challenge to the Manhattan District Attorney ’ s subpoena for his tax returns , weeks after the United States Supreme Court said the president was not immune from state criminal probes .
In their new court papers , Trump ’ s lawyers said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wildly overbroad ” and “ amounts to harassment of the President ” .
So in less than six months , this president has committed eight offenses that would be deemed worthy of an impeachment investigation .
It is worth noting that the attorney general is complicit in at least four of them ( 2,3,6 , and 7 ) .
Perhaps in addition to tracking Trump ’ s lies , the Washington Post should set up a system of tracking his impeachable offenses leading up to January 20 , 2021 .
As Hiatt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing in common with the original articles of impeachment : “ Putting personal , political gain above the interests and values of the nation.
” So over the last six months , Collins has been proven terribly wrong and Representative Adam Schiff nailed it .
You can ’ t trust this president to do the right thing .
Not for one minute .
Not for one election .
Not for the sake of our country .
You just can ’ t .
He will not change and you know it… He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromised our elections .
And he will do so again .
You will not change him .
You can not constrain him .
Truth matters little to him .
What ’ s right matters even less .
And decency matters not at all .
None of this is to suggest that the House should start another round of impeachment hearings .
With the election less than 100 days away and a pandemic ravaging the country , that would not be advisable .
But history needs to be clear about this president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be held accountable for their complicity in allowing this to happen .

It has been almost six months since Senate Republicans refused to hold Trump accountable for the two articles of impeachment referred to them by the House. Senator Susan Collins of Maine didn’t attempt to defend the president’s actions, but instead, claimed that he had learned his lesson.
One month ago, Fred Hiatt set out to determine if there was any evidence that Collins was right. What he found was that Trump had committed four additional offenses that were worthy of an impeachment inquiry. This week, he revisited that list and added three more offenses, with updates to some of the original four. Here’s a summary of all of them.
Article 1: Negligence, leading to the deaths of thousands of Americans, in the handling of the novel coronavirus.
Article 2: Abuse of law enforcement powers, including both the use of force against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square and in Portland, Oregon.
Article 3: Abuse of appointment power in seeking retribution against those who testified against him during the impeachment hearings.
Article 4: Abuse of power in foreign affairs. This includes both his willingness to ignore China’s treatment of the Uighurs in exchange for help with farmers during trade negotiations as well as the fact that he has totally ignored Russia placing bounties on the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Article 5: Abuse of power for personal enrichment in asking the ambassador to Britain to steer the British Open golf tournament to a Trump-owned resort in Scotland.
Article 6: Abuse of reprieve and pardon power in commuting the sentence of Roger Stone.
Article 7: Undermining faith in the electoral process by lying about fraud associated with mail-in ballots and a refusal to commit to abiding by the results of the election.
I would add an eighth article to the list: Failure to comply with Supreme Court rulings. In June, the Supreme Court refused to end the DACA program and also refused to dismiss the subpoenas from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office for the release of Trump’s financial records. On the former, this is what is being reported by the Los Angeles Times.
President Trump is venturing onto increasingly shaky legal ground as officials reject new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, sidestepping a Supreme Court ruling reinstating DACA, legal experts and lawmakers say. On releasing his financial records, the president is obviously stalling. US President Donald Trump on Monday filed a new challenge to the Manhattan District Attorney’s subpoena for his tax returns, weeks after the United States Supreme Court said the president was not immune from state criminal probes. In their new court papers, Trump’s lawyers said the subpoena of his tax records was “wildly overbroad” and “amounts to harassment of the President”. So in less than six months, this president has committed eight offenses that would be deemed worthy of an impeachment investigation. It is worth noting that the attorney general is complicit in at least four of them (2,3,6, and 7). Perhaps in addition to tracking Trump’s lies, the Washington Post should set up a system of tracking his impeachable offenses leading up to January 20, 2021. As Hiatt noted, all of these articles share one thing in common with the original articles of impeachment: “Putting personal, political gain above the interests and values of the nation.” So over the last six months, Collins has been proven terribly wrong and Representative Adam Schiff nailed it. You can’t trust this president to do the right thing. Not for one minute. Not for one election. Not for the sake of our country. You just can’t. He will not change and you know it… He has betrayed our national security. He has compromised our elections. And he will do so again. You will not change him. You cannot constrain him. Truth matters little to him. What’s right matters even less. And decency matters not at all. None of this is to suggest that the House should start another round of impeachment hearings. With the election less than 100 days away and a pandemic ravaging the country, that would not be advisable. But history needs to be clear about this president’s crimes and misdemeanors, while Senate Republicans need to be held accountable for their complicity in allowing this to happen.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-28--Where the Veep Race Stands

Where the Veep Race Stands

Ryan Lizza created a stir in Politico on Monday when he reported that former Senator Christopher Dodd , who is vetting potential vice-presidential candidates for Joe Biden , is unimpressed with Kamala Harris .
In particular , Dodd allegedly doesn ’ t like how Harris responded when asked about her decision to go after Biden on the busing issue in the first Democratic debate .
This set off a furious response from supporters of Harris , including her online KHIVE fanbase .
It was probably counterproductive , unless you think sending a mob to trash Chris Dodd is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figured the appearance of this article indicated that it was a lost cause in any case , but some interpreted the Dodd story as a desperate attempt to derail a nearly completed process that will put Harris on the ticket .
I don ’ t know where Harris currently stands , but Politico is back today with a story from Nahal Toosi on Susan Rice .
Considering how many sources friendly to Rice cooperated on the article , it ’ s a pretty clear lobbying effort .
The Rice camp is probably pleased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reads like an advertisement .
Taken together , the Lizza and Toosi articles are turning Politico into an enemy of the Harris camp .
Yet , their coverage of Karen Bass has been more critical .
Quint Forgey focused on something the California congresswoman said at the time of Fidel Castro ’ s death : In an interview on MSNBC , the five-term House lawmaker and chair of the Congressional Black Caucus addressed her decision to describe Castro as “ Comandante en Jefe ” in a statement she issued marking his death in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ translates in English to commander in chief , has been criticized as unduly deferential to the communist strongman who presided over various human rights abuses .
“ I have talked to my colleagues in the House about that , and it ’ s certainly something that I would not say again , ” Bass said .
“ I have always supported the Cuban people , and the relationship that Barack Obama and Biden had in their administration in terms of opening up relations.
” Of course , Bass was only asked about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Marc Caputo “ detailing outrage among Florida Democrats over former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s vetting of Bass to become his running mate.
” The Florida Democratic Party has spent two years fighting a renewed GOP effort to brand it as socialists , and the state and national parties are spending big this year in Miami to defend two congressional seats and win two crucial state Senate contests in districts with sizable Cuban-American populations .
All four lawmakers condemned Bass ’ Castro remarks .
“ The comments are troubling .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Castro regime was about .
So I have to learn more about her position and perspective on Fidel Castro , ” said Miami state Rep. Javier Fernandez , whose bid for an open state Senate seat could bring Democrats closer than ever to flipping control of the chamber .
So , somehow a contest that pits three talented , well-credentialed and ambitious black women against each other , is playing out by proxy in the pages of Politico .
Yet , Elizabeth Warren is still in the running .
Last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examination of how she became “ an unlikely confidant and adviser to Biden.
” On June 15 , she helped Biden raise $ 6 million in a single event .
Two weeks ago , Natasha Korecki of Politico announced “ Tammy Duckworth bursts into VP contention ” and “ The Purple Heart recipient has captured the imagination of donors and the Biden team.
” There ’ s been a little less buzz about her in the last few days , but she ’ s probably with the others on the finalists ’ list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of governors Gina Raimondo and Michelle Lujan Grisham , as well as Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Florida representatives Val Demings , but they certainly haven ’ t been as successful at self-promotion as the others .
Maybe that ’ s a plus in Biden ’ s mind , but it seems like their hopes have faded .

Ryan Lizza created a stir in Politico on Monday when he reported that former Senator Christopher Dodd, who is vetting potential vice-presidential candidates for Joe Biden, is unimpressed with Kamala Harris. In particular, Dodd allegedly doesn’t like how Harris responded when asked about her decision to go after Biden on the busing issue in the first Democratic debate.
This set off a furious response from supporters of Harris, including her online KHIVE fanbase. It was probably counterproductive, unless you think sending a mob to trash Chris Dodd is going to impress Biden. Of course, some figured the appearance of this article indicated that it was a lost cause in any case, but some interpreted the Dodd story as a desperate attempt to derail a nearly completed process that will put Harris on the ticket.
I don’t know where Harris currently stands, but Politico is back today with a story from Nahal Toosi on Susan Rice. Considering how many sources friendly to Rice cooperated on the article, it’s a pretty clear lobbying effort. The Rice camp is probably pleased with the result, as the piece reads like an advertisement. Taken together, the Lizza and Toosi articles are turning Politico into an enemy of the Harris camp.
Yet, their coverage of Karen Bass has been more critical. Quint Forgey focused on something the California congresswoman said at the time of Fidel Castro’s death:
In an interview on MSNBC, the five-term House lawmaker and chair of the Congressional Black Caucus addressed her decision to describe Castro as “Comandante en Jefe” in a statement she issued marking his death in 2016. The Spanish phrase, which translates in English to commander in chief, has been criticized as unduly deferential to the communist strongman who presided over various human rights abuses. “I have talked to my colleagues in the House about that, and it’s certainly something that I would not say again,” Bass said. “I have always supported the Cuban people, and the relationship that Barack Obama and Biden had in their administration in terms of opening up relations.”
Of course, Bass was only asked about this comment in response to a Politico article from Marc Caputo “detailing outrage among Florida Democrats over former Vice President Joe Biden’s vetting of Bass to become his running mate.”
The Florida Democratic Party has spent two years fighting a renewed GOP effort to brand it as socialists, and the state and national parties are spending big this year in Miami to defend two congressional seats and win two crucial state Senate contests in districts with sizable Cuban-American populations. All four lawmakers condemned Bass’ Castro remarks. “The comments are troubling. It shows a lack of understanding about what the Castro regime was about. So I have to learn more about her position and perspective on Fidel Castro,” said Miami state Rep. Javier Fernandez, whose bid for an open state Senate seat could bring Democrats closer than ever to flipping control of the chamber.
So, somehow a contest that pits three talented, well-credentialed and ambitious black women against each other, is playing out by proxy in the pages of Politico. Yet, Elizabeth Warren is still in the running. Last week, the Associated Press weighed in with an examination of how she became “an unlikely confidant and adviser to Biden.” On June 15, she helped Biden raise $6 million in a single event.
Two weeks ago, Natasha Korecki of Politico announced “Tammy Duckworth bursts into VP contention” and “The Purple Heart recipient has captured the imagination of donors and the Biden team.” There’s been a little less buzz about her in the last few days, but she’s probably with the others on the finalists’ list.
There’s been some discussion of governors Gina Raimondo and Michelle Lujan Grisham, as well as Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Florida representatives Val Demings, but they certainly haven’t been as successful at self-promotion as the others. Maybe that’s a plus in Biden’s mind, but it seems like their hopes have faded.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-29--A 21st Century Model for Fighting Terrorism

On March 15 , 2019 , a white supremacist walked into two mosques in Christchurch , New Zealand , armed with an automatic weapon and a camera .
After using his phone to live stream the intrusion on Facebook , he opened fire .
By the time he was done , 51 worshippers were dead and a further 49 were injured , the shooter ’ s Facebook Live stream had been viewed some 4,000 times before finally being removed and his racist rantings were all over the internet .
The incident was the epitome of an online horror : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the murders in the style of a first-person shooter game—aiming for a high body count—and the killings were a performance designed to spread his message of hate .
Yet the massacre was just the latest in a long sequence of white supremacist terror attacks , from the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people , including many children , to the 2011 attack on the Norwegian prime minister ’ s office and a socialist youth camp that left 77 dead .
In all these cases , the terrorists aimed to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inspire new followers to carry out copy-cat attacks .
The painful truth is that Facebook , YouTube , Twitter and other social media companies had made the Christchurch nightmare possible by repeatedly ignoring warnings about the spread of violent extremist content on their platforms .
Worse yet , even after the killings neither they , nor governments or civil society groups appeared to have any serious ideas to stop this happening again .
She knew she had to act but understood she could achieve little alone as the leader of a small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules on the tech giants , those companies were likely to leave rather than comply with new regulations .
But just asking them to do a bit better next time was a clearly inadequate response .
So , in an act of great imagination and creativity , Ardern decided to build a coalition of democratic governments , civil society groups , and technology companies to tackle the spread of terrorism and violent extremist content online .
Over the next two months , in partnership with French President Emmanuel Macron , and in consultation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonprofits , Ardern ’ s team drafted the Christchurch Call , a commitment by governments and online service providers to stop the amplification of terrorist propaganda while protecting individuals ’ freedom of expression and human rights .
The robust commitments on preserving freedom of speech successfully discouraged authoritarian governments from signing up , making this a massive project of the world ’ s democracies .
Of course , there was one glaring exception : the United States .
Once again , the Trump Administration refused to stand by its allies in a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join , such as Germany , Italy , and the United Kingdom , agreed to fund media literacy efforts that would teach users how to recognize terrorist narratives , and to support the development of industry standards to ensure that reporting of terrorist attacks would not amplify terrorist propaganda .
The online service providers agreed to install processes to stop terrorists from uploading and sharing violent content or streaming attacks in real time ; to be transparent about the policies they adopt to stop terrorists and violent extremists from abusing their platforms ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and to redesign their algorithms so they no longer encourage radicalization but instead offer positive alternatives .
The providers also agreed to strengthen the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism ( GIFCT ) , an industry body to act as an information hub for all the online service providers .
The governments and providers committed to work with civil society groups to create effective counter-messaging to online terrorists and to commission academic research to investigate how people are radicalized digitally .
At the same time , the Call forcefully emphasized the necessity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the providers to respect , the right to free expression under both domestic and international law .
A year later , the Christchurch Call has won global support : 48 countries , the European Commission , two international organizations and the eight largest online service providers have joined the call , working with an advisory network of human rights and counter-radicalization experts to develop practical approaches to combating the spread of online terrorist content .
The Call ’ s first area of focus was to transform the GIFCT from a talking shop to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ management function .
The online service providers agreed to fund the expansion , and the newly independent body designed a series of crisis response protocols to help the online service providers react to a future terrorist attack .
For instance , New Zealand hosted a simulation exercise in December 2019 with providers , law enforcement and other government agencies to test their effectiveness , refining the protocols and ensuring that all parties were ready to act in the event of another livestreamed attack .
The protocol was soon tested , in May 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona attempted to livestream his attack .
The platform companies applied the GIFCT methodology to shut down the streams immediately , blocking any copies from being distributed online .
The system had worked .
In other words , Ardern has created a new model of global leadership .
The success of the Call has lessons for governments across the world can work together to address the unique nature of the 21st Century terrorist threat .
The United States Government , under the Trump Administration , remains an outlier , refusing to join this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate agreement or the Iran deal , the Trump team shows no interest in working with other countries to address urgent global problems .
After toying with the New Zealand and French government throughout the drafting of the Call , the United States decided to snub Ardern and Macron , charmingly announcing that is was “ not currently ” in a position to join the call on the day of the launch and refusing even to send an observer to the launch event .
On the same day , Trump attacked Facebook for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tweeting about how his allies were being censored , while the White House unveiled a website where Trump supporters could report online liberal bias .
The U.S. Embassy in New Zealand issued a remarkably apologetic statement , assuring their host government that the U.S. supported the aims of the Call even if it could not join it .
On background , the Trump team cited free speech concerns with the Call , saying in a formal White House statement that it stood “ with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Call ’ s goals , but said that the United States is “ not currently in a position to join the endorsement.
” This decision generated predictable support from right-wing allies and horror from internationalists , who saw the decision as another example of the U.S. ignoring democratic allies and of walking away from international engagements .
Some American free speech advocates , normally not Trump supporters , took the First Amendment concerns seriously , arguing that just about any international agreement that deals with free speech should be unacceptable to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the drafters had intended , “ the broad wording and voluntary nature of the Call would not have compelled the U.S. to restrict any First Amendment-protected speech.
” Of course , there is a delicious irony in a president who describes the media as the enemy of the people invoking press freedoms .
Even more bizarre , that same president then takes a doctrinaire view of the First Amendment to argue that a voluntary agreement encouraging private companies to stop their own services being used to spread violent extremism is somehow a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Call focuses on what companies can do to fix their processes , and what governments and civil society groups can do to help them while ensuring that free expression is protected .
As private companies , the service providers are not bound by the First Amendment anyway .
Rather , they make business decisions about what speech they will host .
In the U.S. , that choice is under the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .
An argument of American exceptionalism simply does not fit the facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why a future U.S. Administration , perhaps Joe Biden ’ s come January 2021 , with a greater commitment to combating terrorism and working with allies , might reconsider and decide to join the Christchurch Call .
Indeed , if Biden is elected , his administration will face an enormous list of urgent tasks as it deals with a pandemic that has spiraled out of control , rebuilds the American economy , returns to global engagement , and tackles the now even more urgent challenge of climate change .
Many of these projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but in a few cases , just returning to international agreements will go a long way toward establishing a new reality .
At the Munich Security Conference last year , Biden explained to an audience hungry for the return of an America they deeply miss that “ the American people understand that it ’ s only by working in cooperation with our friends that we are going to be able to harness the forces of a rapidly changing world.
” This logic underpinned his commitment to returning to the Paris Climate Agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same logic also argues that a Biden Administration should look closely at joining the Christchurch Call , not just as a gesture of solidarity with our allies in New Zealand , so badly scarred by an act of white supremacist terrorism , but as a practical way of beginning to fight against the scourge of online violent extremism and restoring the internet as a force for good .
There are few decisions that are easy to implement , which will bring immediate practical benefits , and build goodwill with allies .
For a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Call could well be one .

On March 15, 2019, a white supremacist walked into two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, armed with an automatic weapon and a camera. After using his phone to live stream the intrusion on Facebook, he opened fire. By the time he was done, 51 worshippers were dead and a further 49 were injured. The shooter’s Facebook Live stream had been viewed some 4,000 times before finally being removed and his racist rantings were all over the internet.
The incident was the epitome of an online horror: the murderer was radicalized online, he carried out the murders in the style of a first-person shooter game—aiming for a high body count—and the killings were a performance designed to spread his message of hate.
Yet the massacre was just the latest in a long sequence of white supremacist terror attacks, from the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, including many children, to the 2011 attack on the Norwegian prime minister’s office and a socialist youth camp that left 77 dead. In all these cases, the terrorists aimed to use the coverage of their deeds to recruit and inspire new followers to carry out copy-cat attacks.
The painful truth is that Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social media companies made the Christchurch nightmare possible by repeatedly ignoring warnings about the spread of violent extremist content on their platforms. Worse yet, even after the killings, neither they nor governments or civil society groups appeared to have any serious ideas to stop this from happening again.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, did.
She knew she had to act but understood she could achieve little alone as the leader of a small country. If New Zealand imposed new rules on the tech giants, those companies were likely to leave rather than comply with new regulations. But just asking them to do a bit better next time was a clearly inadequate response. So, in an act of great imagination and creativity, Ardern decided to build a coalition of democratic governments, civil society groups, and technology companies to tackle the spread of terrorism and violent extremist content online.
Over the next two months, in partnership with French President Emmanuel Macron, and in consultation with other democratic governments, technologists and nonprofits, Ardern’s team drafted the Christchurch Call, a commitment by governments and online service providers to stop the amplification of terrorist propaganda while protecting individuals’ freedom of expression and human rights. The robust commitments on preserving freedom of speech successfully discouraged authoritarian governments from signing up, making this a massive project of the world’s democracies. Of course, there was one glaring exception: the United States. Once again, the Trump Administration refused to stand by its allies in a time of need.
The governments that did join, such as Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, agreed to fund media literacy efforts that would teach users how to recognize terrorist narratives, and to support the development of industry standards to ensure that reporting of terrorist attacks would not amplify terrorist propaganda. The online service providers agreed to install processes to stop terrorists from uploading and sharing violent content or streaming attacks in real time; to be transparent about the policies they adopt to stop terrorists and violent extremists from abusing their platforms; to prioritize content moderation of terrorist content; and to redesign their algorithms so they no longer encourage radicalization but instead offer positive alternatives. The providers also agreed to strengthen the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an industry body to act as an information hub for all the online service providers.
The governments and providers committed to work with civil society groups to create effective counter-messaging to online terrorists and to commission academic research to investigate how people are radicalized digitally. At the same time, the Call forcefully emphasized the necessity of governments to protect, and by the providers to respect, the right to free expression under both domestic and international law.
A year later, the Christchurch Call has won global support: 48 countries, the European Commission, two international organizations and the eight largest online service providers have joined the call, working with an advisory network of human rights and counter-radicalization experts to develop practical approaches to combating the spread of online terrorist content.
The Call’s first area of focus was to transform the GIFCT from a talking shop to an independent organization with a 24/7 crisis management function. The online service providers agreed to fund the expansion, and the newly independent body designed a series of crisis response protocols to help the online service providers react to a future terrorist attack.
For instance, New Zealand hosted a simulation exercise in December 2019 with providers, law enforcement, and other government agencies to test their effectiveness, refining the protocols and ensuring that all parties were ready to act in the event of another livestreamed attack. The protocol was soon tested in May 2020, when a shooter in Glendale, Arizona attempted to livestream his attack. The platform companies applied the GIFCT methodology to shut down the streams immediately, blocking any copies from being distributed online. The system had worked.
In other words, Ardern has created a new model of global leadership. The success of the Call has a lesson for governments across the world: They can work together to address the unique nature of the 21st Century terrorist threat.
The United States government, under the Trump Administration, remains an outlier, refusing to join this effort. Much like with the Paris Climate agreement or the Iran deal, the Trump team shows no interest in working with other countries to address urgent global problems.
After toying with the New Zealand and French government throughout the drafting of the Call, the United States decided to snub Ardern and Macron, charmingly announcing that it was “not currently” in a position to join the call on the day of the launch and refusing even to send an observer to the launch event. On the same day, Trump attacked Facebook for removing far-right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, tweeting about how his allies were being censored, while the White House unveiled a website where Trump supporters could report online liberal bias. The U.S. Embassy in New Zealand issued a remarkably apologetic statement, assuring their host government that the U.S. supported the aims of the Call even if it could not join it.
On background, the Trump team cited free speech concerns with the Call, saying in a formal White House statement that it stood “with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online,” and supported the Call’s goals, but that the United States is “not currently in a position to join the endorsement.” This decision generated predictable support from right-wing allies and horror from internationalists, who saw the decision as another example of the U.S. ignoring democratic allies and of walking away from international engagements.
Some American free speech advocates, normally not Trump supporters, took the First Amendment concerns seriously, arguing that just about any international agreement that deals with free speech should be unacceptable to the U.S., while other scholars argued that, as the drafters had intended, “the broad wording and voluntary nature of the Call would not have compelled the U.S. to restrict any First Amendment-protected speech.”
Of course, there is a delicious irony in a president who describes the media as the enemy of the people invoking press freedoms. Even more bizarre, that same president then takes a doctrinaire view of the First Amendment to argue that a voluntary agreement encouraging private companies to stop their own services being used to spread violent extremism is somehow a threat to free expression.
In fact, the Call focuses on what companies can do to fix their processes, and what governments and civil society groups can do to help them while ensuring that free expression is protected. As private companies, the service providers are not bound by the First Amendment anyway. Rather, they make business decisions about what speech they will host. In the U.S., that choice is under the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. An argument of American exceptionalism simply does not fit the facts of this situation.
That’s why a future U.S. Administration, perhaps Joe Biden’s come January 2021, with a greater commitment to combating terrorism and working with allies, might reconsider and decide to join the Christchurch Call.
Indeed, if Biden is elected, his administration will face an enormous list of urgent tasks as it deals with a pandemic that has spiraled out of control, rebuilds the American economy, returns to global engagement, and tackles the now even more urgent challenge of climate change. Many of these projects will need careful thought and detailed work, but in a few cases, just returning to international agreements will go a long way toward establishing a new reality.
At the Munich Security Conference last year, Biden explained to an audience hungry for the return of an America they deeply miss that “the American people understand that it’s only by working in cooperation with our friends that we are going to be able to harness the forces of a rapidly changing world.” This logic underpinned his commitment to returning to the Paris Climate Agreement and to the Iran deal.
This same logic also argues that a Biden Administration should look closely at joining the Christchurch Call, not just as a gesture of solidarity with our allies in New Zealand who are so badly scarred by an act of white supremacist terrorism, but as a practical way of beginning to fight against the scourge of online violent extremism and restoring the internet as a force for good. There are few decisions that are easy to implement, which will bring immediate practical benefits, and build goodwill with allies. For a new U.S. Administration, joining the Christchurch Call could well be one.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-29--How White Supremacists Are Using Protests to Fuel Racial Tensions

The day after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers , peaceful protesters took to the streets .
But the first serious incidence of violence came two days later on May 27th when a masked man started breaking windows at an auto parts store .
That set off a chain reaction of looting , fires , and rioting .
Three days later , Attorney General Bill Barr made a statement , saying that “ In many places it appears the violence is planned , organized and driven by anarchic and far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote the violence.
” The president echoed those remarks .
On Tuesday , we learned something about the so-called “ umbrella man ” in the video above .
A masked man who was seen in a viral video smashing the windows of a south Minneapolis auto parts store during the George Floyd protests , earning him the moniker “ Umbrella Man , ” is suspected to be a member of the Hell ’ s Angels biker gang seeking to incite racial tension in a demonstration that until then had been peaceful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man was also an associate of the Aryan Cowboy Brotherhood , a small white supremacist prison and street gang based primarily in Minnesota and Kentucky .
Police have also connected the Aryan Cowboy Brotherhood to an incident in which a Muslim woman and her daughter were harassed in Stillwater , Minnesota by a group of men wearing white supremacist insignia .
Last weekend , something similar happened in Richmond , Virginia .
Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tore down police tape and pushed forward toward Richmond police headquarters , where they set a city dump truck on fire .
If we add all of that to the involvement of the far-right anti-government group Boogaloo Boys , it becomes clear that much of the violence we ’ re seeing on the streets is coming from two groups : ( 1 ) law enforcement , and ( 2 ) far-right/white supremacist groups .
But as the president and attorney general defend the use of force by law enforcement to “ dominate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither one of them has called out the actual extremists who are involved .

The day after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers, peaceful protesters took to the streets. But the first serious incidence of violence came two days later on May 27th when a masked man started breaking windows at an auto parts store.
That set off a chain reaction of looting, fires, and rioting. Three days later, Attorney General Bill Barr made a statement, saying that “In many places it appears the violence is planned, organized and driven by anarchic and far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics, many of whom travel from outside the state to promote the violence.” The president echoed those remarks.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266760009872007171?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1266760009872007171%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fjustice-department%2Fattorney-general-barr-blames-far-left-extremist-groups-violent-protests-n1219696
On Tuesday, we learned something about the so-called “umbrella man” in the video above.
A masked man who was seen in a viral video smashing the windows of a south Minneapolis auto parts store during the George Floyd protests, earning him the moniker “Umbrella Man,” is suspected to be a member of the Hell’s Angels biker gang seeking to incite racial tension in a demonstration that until then had been peaceful, police said… A subsequent investigation revealed that the man was also an associate of the Aryan Cowboy Brotherhood, a small white supremacist prison and street gang based primarily in Minnesota and Kentucky.
Police have also connected the Aryan Cowboy Brotherhood to an incident in which a Muslim woman and her daughter were harassed in Stillwater, Minnesota by a group of men wearing white supremacist insignia.
Last weekend, something similar happened in Richmond, Virginia.
Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials. Protesters tore down police tape and pushed forward toward Richmond police headquarters, where they set a city dump truck on fire.
If we add all of that to the involvement of the far-right anti-government group Boogaloo Boys, it becomes clear that much of the violence we’re seeing on the streets is coming from two groups: (1) law enforcement, and (2) far-right/white supremacist groups. But as the president and attorney general defend the use of force by law enforcement to “dominate” the streets, it is significant that neither one of them has called out the actual extremists who are involved.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-29--Everyone Hates the Senate Republicans’ Coronavirus Bill

A CNBC/Change Research survey of voters in Arizona , Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin found overwhelming opposition to the Senate Republicans ’ coronavirus stimulus approach .
Sixty-nine percent want the federal government to give aid to states to help them avoid massive budget cuts .
Sixty-two percent want an extension of the federal $ 600-a-week unemployment insurance enhancement .
And 58 percent are opposed to giving legal immunity to corporations from COVID-19 related lawsuits .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell found it impossible to get any consensus within his caucus for a bill .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , Senator Rick Scott served two terms as the governor of Florida , so you might expect him to be sympathetic to the concept of aiding states that are now facing huge budget shortfalls .
But he ’ s too much of an ideologue to have any empathy for his successor : “ I ’ m very concerned about the amount of money we ’ re talking about .
What I don ’ t want to do is bail out the states .
That ’ s wrong.
” Maybe Sen. Scott would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his party ’ s bill : Senator Rand Paul was so concerned about the cost that he stormed out of a caucus meeting , despite the fact that the bill “ would slash the extra federal unemployment benefit to $ 200 per week , [ and ] then shift to a 70 % replacement of an individual ’ s previous wages.
” As to the unpopularity of his position , he was defiant : “ I think they have the misguided notion that you have to spend this or you can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results , Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Martha McSally of Arizona probably think Rand Paul is out of his mind .
The liability protection provision is not only included in the GOP bill , but McConnell insists it ’ s the one thing that is non-negotiable .
Pelosi and Schumer questioned McConnell ’ s willingness to reach an agreement , saying the Kentucky Republican has indicated he wouldn ’ t compromise on his demands for liability protections for schools and businesses in the next bill .
“ That is no way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so extreme , ” Schumer told reporters Tuesday afternoon .
Drawing a “ red line ” on a policy that is supported by only 33 percent of voters in battleground states seems like dumb politics , but McConnell is serving his funders here — and money can shape opinion .
Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to sound optimistic , saying : “ I think if Mitch can get half the conference , that ’ d be quite an accomplishment.
” But , of course , that comment makes little sense .
McConnell needs near-unanimity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic votes .
And his bill will have to be merged with Nancy Pelosi ’ s completely different House bill and then go through the Senate a second time .
McConnell has zero leverage because his caucus is not behind him and the public hates his proposal .
Pelosi is happy to walk away and blame the Senate for pursuing toxic policies .
However , the further McConnell moves in Pelosi ’ s direction , the fewer votes he will have from Senate Republicans , so he ’ s at risk of passing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handful of his caucus .
If nothing passes , it will badly hurt his party ’ s chances in the fall , and he knows this even if Rand Paul does not .

A CNBC/Change Research survey of voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin found overwhelming opposition to the Senate Republicans’ coronavirus stimulus approach. Sixty-nine percent want the federal government to give aid to states to help them avoid massive budget cuts. Sixty-two percent want an extension of the federal $600-a-week unemployment insurance enhancement. And 58 percent are opposed to giving legal immunity to corporations from COVID-19 related lawsuits.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell found it impossible to get any consensus within his caucus for a bill. The end product satisfied no one. For example, Senator Rick Scott served two terms as the governor of Florida, so you might expect him to be sympathetic to the concept of aiding states that are now facing huge budget shortfalls. But he’s too much of an ideologue to have any empathy for his successor: “I’m very concerned about the amount of money we’re talking about. What I don’t want to do is bail out the states. That’s wrong.”
Maybe Sen. Scott would be less perturbed if he actually read his party’s bill:
The Republican proposal would not allocate any new aid to states and municipalities, instead giving them more flexibility in how they spend relief money approved earlier this year.
Senator Rand Paul was so concerned about the cost that he stormed out of a caucus meeting, despite the fact that the bill “would slash the extra federal unemployment benefit to $200 per week, [and] then shift to a 70% replacement of an individual’s previous wages.” As to the unpopularity of his position, he was defiant: “I think they have the misguided notion that you have to spend this or you can’t get elected.” Based on the survey results, Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Martha McSally of Arizona probably think Rand Paul is out of his mind.
The liability protection provision is not only included in the GOP bill, but McConnell insists it’s the one thing that is non-negotiable.
Pelosi and Schumer questioned McConnell’s willingness to reach an agreement, saying the Kentucky Republican has indicated he wouldn’t compromise on his demands for liability protections for schools and businesses in the next bill. “That is no way to negotiate particularly when his provision is so extreme,” Schumer told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
Drawing a “red line” on a policy that is supported by only 33 percent of voters in battleground states seems like dumb politics, but McConnell is serving his funders here — and money can shape opinion.
Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to sound optimistic, saying: “I think if Mitch can get half the conference, that’d be quite an accomplishment.” But, of course, that comment makes little sense. McConnell needs near-unanimity from his caucus to pass anything without Democratic votes. And his bill will have to be merged with Nancy Pelosi’s completely different House bill and then go through the Senate a second time. McConnell has zero leverage because his caucus is not behind him and the public hates his proposal. Pelosi is happy to walk away and blame the Senate for pursuing toxic policies.
However, the further McConnell moves in Pelosi’s direction, the fewer votes he will have from Senate Republicans, so he’s at risk of passing something that is supported by only a handful of his caucus. If nothing passes, it will badly hurt his party’s chances in the fall, and he knows this even if Rand Paul does not.