Page 22«..10..21222324..3040..»

Category Archives: Democrat

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine: Part two – WSWS

Posted: March 31, 2022 at 2:48 am

Part One | Part Two

The Russian question was put back on the US agenda in the course of the 2016 presidential election. Democrat Hillary Clinton ran openly as the preferred candidate of the national-security apparatus and a strident advocate of stepped-up intervention in the territories of the former Soviet Union.

Soon after the Republican convention nominated Trump, and on the eve of the Democratic convention that would do the same for Clinton, the Democrats began a carefully prepared attack on Trump for his alleged ties to Russia. The signal came from the New York Times, which questioned Trump on the NATO pledge to go to war if any member state, including the small Baltic republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, came into military conflict with Russia. Trump gave an ambiguous response, and a media barrage began immediately.

A column by Paul Krugman in the Times branded Trump The Siberian candidate, (a takeoff on the Cold War thriller, The Manchurian Candidate), suggesting he was a Russian agent. Similar columns, with less lurid headlines but equally inflammatory arguments, appeared in The Atlantic magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and elsewhere. Clinton took up this theme and made it central to her general election campaign.

The WSWS wrote that the anti-Russia media campaign was a measure of how central the military buildup and war preparations against Russia are to US imperialist policy around the globe. The commentary continued:

It also provides a window into the real character of the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. At its heart, it consists of a fusion of identity politicsthe relentless promotion of race, gender and sexual orientation as the motive forces of US societyand a viciously pro-war imperialist policy. The objective of this poisonous mix is to sow divisions in the working class while fashioning a new constituency for imperialist war from among privileged layers of the upper-middle class and the pseudo-left satellites of the Democratic Party.

The Democrats were not just using the corporate media to advance the Trump is a Russian agent smear. Clinton contacted the military-intelligence apparatus directly, leading to the opening of an FBI probe of Trump and his entourage, which would ultimately be transformed into the Mueller investigation. At the same time, Trumps campaign chairman Paul Manafort came under fire for his past work as a lobbyist for the pro-Russian ex-president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, and was forced to step down, only three months before the election. He was replaced by Steve Bannon, an out-and-out fascist.

The Clinton campaign mobilized hundreds of former national security officials to endorse her candidacy and denounced Trump as a danger to the overseas interests of the United States. These included many of the architects of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the broader war on terror, and the use of torture in secret CIA prisons and illegal mass spying by the National Security Agency.

The near-unanimous support for Clinton in the military-intelligence apparatus was in sharp contrast to the indifference and outright hostility among wide sections of the working class, particularly after the eight years of the Obama administration had resulted in a general decline in their living standards and social conditions. Trump was able to capitalize on these sentiments, as well as making a demagogic appeal to mass disaffection with the forever wars in the Middle East. He won a narrow victory in the Electoral College, despite losing the popular vote by three million.

This shock result touched off a furious response within the capitalist state. Within weeks of the election, before Trump had even taken office, leaks from the CIA and other agencies generated media reports of supposedly massive Russian interference in the presidential election. There were claims that politically damaging transcripts of Clintons closed-door talks to Wall Street audiences, published by WikiLeaks before the election, had been leaked to the anti-censorship group by Moscow, and that Russian military intelligence had hacked the Democratic National Committee to obtain emails proving that the DNC favored Clinton over her principal primary challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders.

A huge hue and cry arose over an alleged Russian media campaign that at most had produced a small number of Facebook ads promoting Trumps campaign. Even if these ads could be attributed to Russia, the total outlay was in the range of $100,000, a drop in the bucket for an election contest whose total cost approached $10 billion.

Enormous pressure was placed on the White House through the corporate media and leaks from the FBI. In response, Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, setting off a political firestorm in Washington. Trump was compelled to agree to the appointment of a special prosecutor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, to investigate all aspects of supposed Russian intervention into the 2016 election and any coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign.

In the early stages of this political crisis, the WSWS published a statement of the Political Committee of the Socialist Equality Party, written by Joseph Kishore and David North, Palace coup or class struggle: The political crisis in Washington and the strategy of the working class. The palace coup against Trump was based not on mobilizing any genuine popular opposition to his ultra-right policies, but on behind-the-scenes plotting with elements within the military/intelligence establishment and corporate-financial elite.

This statement identified three separate social sources of the opposition to the Trump administration: his ruling class opponents, with differences centered primarily on foreign policy; sections of the upper-middle-class, oriented to issues of race and gender, and incapable of genuine independence from the ruling class; and the working class, driven by profound socio-economic concerns, above all the massive growth of economic inequality and social distress.

In relation to the factions of the ruling class opposed to Trump, the statement pointed out:

Their differences with the Trump administration are centered primarily on issues of foreign policy. Their real concern is not with Russias supposed subversion of American democracy, as if this could compare to the subversion of American democracy by the ruling class itself, but with Russias actions in Syria, which have frustrated US efforts to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. They are determined to prevent Trump from weakening the anti-Russia policy developed under Obama, which the Hillary Clinton campaign was dedicated to expanding.

The statement declared that the working class would gain nothing from the removal of Trump and the shift in US foreign policy sought by his ruling class opponents. It outlined the principled basis for the working class to oppose both sides in this bitter factional struggle within the ruling class, maintaining its political independence from the efforts of the Democratic Party to divert mounting opposition to the Trump administration into the blind alley of militarism and anti-Russia chauvinism.

The Mueller investigation continued for nearly two years, culminating in a report, delivered in April 2019, which found no evidence that Russian actions in the course of the 2016 election played any significant role in its outcome, or that there was any direct collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state. While indicting more than a dozen Russian officials and agentsall of whom were inaccessible to the US courts and unlikely to respond to the charges against themthe Mueller probe indicted only a few minor Trump advisers on charges of lying to investigators, essentially crimes triggered by the probe itself.

But long before it ended as a legal whimper, the Mueller investigation and the unrelenting pressure from the military-intelligence apparatus had succeeded in accomplishing one of the main goals of the Democratic Party: reorienting American national security strategy to target Russia and China openly.

As elaborated in the new National Security Strategy document approved by Secretary of Defense James Mattisthe recently retired general who had been given a waiver of the rules requiring a civilian chief at the PentagonUS military policy was to be shifted away from the war on terror, which had been the ostensible focus since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Now the central axis was to be preparation for great power conflict with Russia and China, defined as revisionist powers because they presented challenges to the global domination of the United States.

Congressional Democrats hailed the new strategic orientation. They had supported the waiver for Mattis and the selection of other retired generals for top positions in the Trump administration, including national security advisor, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and, later, White House chief of staff. The Democrats and their media allies promoted these retired military brass as adults in the room who would restrain Trumps wilder impulses and prevent him from making concessions to Russia that he was supposedly preparing because of his political debt to Vladimir Putin.

This drive towards a more aggressive military posture was reinforced by another political operation involving the Democratic Party. This was the influx of a large number of military-intelligence operatives seeking seats in the House of Representatives. Nearly 60 ran as candidates for Democratic Party nominations, the largest single occupational group, surpassing elected officials, lawyers, and businessmen and professionals. Some 30 won their primaries, most for seats that would be competitive in the general election.

The WSWS first identified this processwithout precedent in US political historyin a series of articles under the title, The CIA Democrats, published in March 2018. We explained that after the November election there would be more former CIA agents and military officers in the House Democratic caucus than former supporters of Bernie Sanders, adding that this marked the further ascendancy of the military-intelligence apparatus within the Democratic Party.

The WSWS traced the continuity between the right-wing basis of the 2016 Clinton campaign and the huge number of former intelligence agents, military commanders and civilian war planners now choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle:

Clinton ran in 2016 as the favored candidate of the military-intelligence apparatus, amassing hundreds of endorsements by retired generals, admirals and spymasters, and criticizing Trump as unqualified to be the commander-in-chief.

This political orientation has developed and deepened in 2018. The Democratic Party is running in the congressional elections not only as the party that takes a tougher line on Russia, but as the party that enlists as its candidates and representatives those who have been directly responsible for waging war, both overt and covert, on behalf of American imperialism. It is seeking to be not only the party for the Pentagon and CIA, but the party of the Pentagon and CIA.

As the fall campaign developed and polls showed the Democrats heavily favored to win back control of the House of Representatives, it became clear that the CIA Democrats would have a critical and perhaps decisive voice in the new Congress. Ultimately, they made up 13 of the new members of the House, which convened in January 2019. They would soon be able to play an outsized role.

In August 2019, a leak from a CIA operative working in the White House revealed that Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official phone call to come up with political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. This was in relation to the lucrative position his son Hunter had taken on the board of directors of Burisma, a Ukraine energy company. The appointment of the younger Biden, who had no relevant qualifications or experience, was a transparent effort to curry favor with his father, who had been put in charge of US policy in Ukraine.

As part of his efforts to force the government in Kiev to undertake political dirty work against his most likely opponent in the 2020 election, Trump then withheld arms shipments to Ukraine for several weeks. The exposure of this delay, and the apparent quid-pro-quo of demanding political favors as the price of supplying weapons, was turned into a political sensation by the corporate media.

A decisive step in this campaign came when an op-ed by seven freshman Democratic members of the House of Representatives appeared in the Washington Post, calling for a formal impeachment inquiry. Six of the seven co-signers were among the CIA Democrats, and the seventh also had a military background.

The Democratic congressional leadership immediately moved to begin that inquiry. The House Intelligence Committee held a series of public hearings where current and former foreign policy officials involved with US relations to Ukraine testified about the significance and seriousness of the cutoff of weapons shipments. Many of the witnesses had been involved in the 2014 operation to subvert and overthrow the elected government of Ukraine and transform that country into a base of operations for US imperialism against Russia.

The WSWS pointed to the extraordinary character of this line-up against a sitting president by his own appointees as well as career national-security operatives. We wrote in a perspective column:

The ferocity with which the entire US national security apparatus responded to a temporary delay in sending anti-tank missiles and radar to Ukraine raises the question: Is there a timetable for using these weapons in combat against Russia?

Indeed there was, and that timetable now drives US foreign policy following the installation of the Biden administration. But the first Trump impeachment fell short of its goal. He was impeached (indicted) by the House of Representatives in December 2019, but a brief Senate trial ended in his acquittal on February 5, 2020, as only one Republican senator voted to convict.

The selection of Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nomineethe very outcome that was foreshadowed in the first Trump impeachmentrepresented an intensification of the pro-military focus of the Democratic Party.

The convention that nominated Biden was dominated from start to finish by appeals to restore America as a country that wins wars, as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo put it. He was followed by speakers like former secretary of state Colin Powell, one of the architects of the Iraq War, another former secretary of state, John Kerry, and a large group of representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus who accused Trump of undermining NATO and strengthening Russia.

As SEP national secretary and 2020 presidential candidate Joseph Kishore observed, in a commentary on the convention:

Over the past nearly four years, the Democrats have worked to suppress all popular opposition to the Trump administration and direct it behind the reactionary campaign for a more aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East and against Russia.

At every point, the Democrats ceded all opposition to Trump to the military and the generals, including when Trump staged his coup attempt on June 1, threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act and branding protests over police violence as terrorist. This is their most important constituency, along with Wall Street and the intelligence agencies.

The election of Biden as president in November 2020 set the stage for a renewal of the campaign of confrontation with Russia that had been blocked temporarily by the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The Democratic Party responded to Trumps fascistic January 6 coup attempt, which nearly succeeded in overturning the results of the election, by covering-up the far-reaching attack on democratic rights and pledging unity with Trumps Republican Party co-conspirators. A central component of this unity within the ruling class was the escalation of military conflict against Russia.

This was signaled by Bidens appointments to high positions at the State Department. For secretary of state, he chose his long-time foreign policy adviser Antony Blinken, who had played a key role in Obama administration policy in Syria in 2013-2014, and in the formulation of the US response to the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, before rising to deputy secretary of state.

Even more significant was Bidens choice for the third-ranking position at the State Department, deputy secretary for political affairs. Victoria Nuland was notorious as the principal architect of the Maidan coup and a longtime supporter of US military aggression, having served as a top foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney during the Iraq war, as US ambassador to NATO, and then as Secretary of State Hillary Clintons top spokesperson, in the course of a 37-year career in the State Department. She is also married to Robert Kagan, longtime neo-conservative strategist most closely identified with the Bush administrations decision to invade and conquer Iraq.

The accession of Biden, Blinken and Nuland was followed by greatly increased aggression on the part of the Ukrainian regime. In February, the Zelensky government shut down three popular television stations run by pro-Russian opposition leader and billionaire Vikto Medvechuk, on the grounds of national security. In March, Ukraines National Security and Defense Council approved a strategy for retaking Crimea, including restoring full Ukrainian sovereignty not just over the peninsula, but over the port city of Sevastopol, home of the Russian Navys Black Sea fleet.

Blinken visited Ukraine in May, accompanied by Nuland, for meetings with Zelensky to prepare for an eventual visit by the Ukraine president to Washingtonthe same invitation he had unsuccessfully sought when Trump was in the White House. The visit came only a week after right-wing elements held a march in Kiev to celebrate the 78th anniversary of the establishment of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, also known as the 1st Galician, comprised of Ukrainian and German volunteers who fought for Hitler against the USSR.

Zelensky, Blinken and Nuland all have Jewish backgrounds (Nulands father was born in the Bronx of Ukrainian immigrant parents), but they shamefully said nothing about the neo-Nazi celebration in the capital of Ukraine. Instead, they discussed the ongoing military build-up in which these fascist elements play a key role.

A series of military exercises that summer ensued with NATO and Ukrainian forces operating together. In May came Defender 2021, a major land exercise across all of Eastern Europe involving 28,000 troops from 26 countries. Germany, which invaded the Soviet Union and killed 27 million people during the Second World War, provided the main base of operations.

In June came Operation Sea Breeze, the largest ever naval maneuvers in the Black Sea, begun just days after an incident in which Russian warplanes dropped bombs near a British warship that crossed into Russian territorial waters off Crimea.

In July, Cossack Mace included forces from Ukraine, Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and the United States. It involved defensive actions followed by an offensive to restore the borders and territorial integrity of the country that has been attacked by a hostile neighboring state. This was followed by Three Swords 2021, a land exercise involving Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania and the US.

In August, Ukraine convened the inaugural Crimea Platform summit in Kiev in an effort to build international support for a military offensive against Russia to return the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine. Officials from 44 countries took part, including representatives from all 30 NATO members. Zelensky opened the conference by denouncing Russian aggression, and declaring, I will personally do everything possible to return Crimea so that it becomes part of Europe together with Ukraine.

The participants of the summit issued a Joint Declaration that stated, Participants in the International Crimea Platform do not recognize and continue to condemn the temporary occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea, which constitutes a direct challenge to international security with grave implications for the international legal order that protects the territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty of all States.

Given that Russia regarded Crimea as part of its national territory, and Sevastopol in particular as vital to its security, this declaration was little short of a declaration of war. This was followed by Zelenskys long-awaited visit to the United States, where he met Biden at the White House, as well as Blinken, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, and Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. Biden declared his support for the Crimean Platform, while boosting military aid by another $60 millionmore than the derisory $55 million in coronavirus vaccines going to to Ukraine.

The Ukrainian population has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the developed world, with only 34.5 percent of the population fully vaccinated, the second-lowest rate in Europe (ahead only of Bulgaria), trailing Mozambique, Guatemala, and occupied Palestine. But the Zelensky government refused offers of the Russian-made Sputnik vaccine against coronavirus.

The key result of the Zelensky trip was a new strategic defense framework agreement signed by Lloyd Austin and Ukrainian Defense Minister Andrei Taran. This laid the basis for the formal signing of the US-Ukrainian Charter on Strategic Partnership, on November 10, 2021, by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.

As the WSWS explained after the details of this agreement were made public last month, the agreement was openly that of an offensive military alliance, endorsing the goals of retaking Crimea and the separatist-controlled Donbass and pledging both sanctions and other relevant measures until restoration of the full territorial integrity of Ukraine. The last phrase is a circumlocution for war.

The WSWS analysis continued:

Washington also explicitly endorsed Ukraines efforts to maximize its status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner to promote interoperability, that is, its integration into NATOs military command structures.

Ukraines non-membership in NATO is and was, for all intents and purposes, a fiction. At the same time, the NATO powers exploited the fact that Ukraine is not officially a member as an opportunity to stoke a conflict with Russia that would not immediately develop into a world war

It will fall to historians to uncover what promises the Ukrainian oligarchy received from Washington in exchange for its pledge to turn the country into a killing field and launching pad for war with Russia. But one thing is clear: The Kremlin and Russian general staff could not but read this document as the announcement of an impending war.

There is little that needs to be added to this historical record. The Democratic Party has played the central role in preparing a NATO war against Russia over more than a decade. Joe Biden, as a leading Senate voice on foreign policy, as vice president tasked by Obama with running Ukraine policy, and now as president, is deeply implicated in this long-running operation. Now that this policy has produced the war that has long been its goal, American imperialism is pressing ahead toward its ultimate aimthe dismemberment of Russia, and the creation of a series of vassal states, dominated by the United States and the European powerseven at the risk of provoking a nuclear war.

from Mehring Books

The New York Times 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History

A left-wing, socialist critique of the 1619 Project with essays, lectures, and interviews with leading historians of American history. *Now available as an audio book from Audible!*

Visit link:

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine: Part two - WSWS

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine: Part two – WSWS

Who is Tim Ryan? What to know about the congressman running for senate in Ohio – USA TODAY

Posted: at 2:48 am

In the crowded Ohio senate race, House member Tim Ryan is the frontrunner on the Democratic side of the ticket. Ryan launched his campaign to replace retiring Republican Senator Rob Portman in April of last year. He will face off against progressive candidate and attorney Morgan Harper and tech executive Traci Johnson in the Democratic primary on May 3.

The Ohio Democratic party endorsed Ryan in February, as did Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. Ryans campaign focuses on Ohioan workers, promising to revitalize the states once thriving manufacturing sector and to push for higher wages.

Here is what to know about Ohio senate candidate Ryan.

2022 midterm Senate races:Pennsylvania, Arizona, Alabama; the Senate primary races to watch in 2022

Trump Ohio endorsement?: Trump doesn't want to back a loser in Ohio Senate race. But he hasn't found a winner

Who is J.D. Vance?: What to know about venture capitalist running for senate in Ohio

Ryan is a Democrat who represents Ohios 13th district in the House of Representatives. He has represented Ohio in the Congress since 2003. He is also a former Democratic presidential candidate. Before Ryan was elected to Congress, he served as an Ohio state senator. Ryans career in politics began in 1994 when he worked as an intern for Democratic Ohio congressman James Traficant.

Ryan was born on July 16, 1973. He is 48 years old.

Ryan was born and grew up in Niles, a northeastern Ohio town near Cleveland and Youngstown.

Ryan is basing his campaign on 14 key issues, but the thrust of his pitch centers Ohios working class.

Ryan voted to pass the PRO Act in 2021, which expands protections for workers attempting to unionize, and has pledged to continue his support for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Part of Ryans plan for revitalizing the states working class includes creating new jobs by investing in infrastructure and funding more apprenticeship and skills training programs.

Ryan has served in theHouse of Representatives since 2003. He represents the 13thcongressional district, which encompasses Youngstown and Warren. Ryan is in his 10th term in the house.

The states Republican-led redistricting commission recently redrew the 13th and other congressional districts, but the changes were struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court for unfairly advantaging Republicans.

Ryan married his wife Andrea Zetts in 2013. They live in Howland, Ohio and have three kids together, two from Zetts previous marriage. Zetts is an elementary school teacher.

Ryan hoped to win the democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election. He announced his candidacy for president in April 2019. His longshot bid for the presidency ended in Oct. 2019, when he announced his withdrawal from the race. Ryan qualified for the first couple Democratic debates in summer 2019, but failed to crack 1% in the national polls.

Ryan's major endorsements come from the Ohio Democratic party and Ohio. Sen. Brown. Fellow democratic Ohio congresswomen Joyce Beatty and Marcy Kaptur also endorsed Ryan.

Ryan also won the endorsement of a number of Ohiolabor unions, including the AFL-CIOand the United Auto Workers.

In 1995, Ryan got a bachelors degree in political science from Bowling Green State University in Ohio. He then got a law degree from the University of New Hampshire Law School in 2000.

Read the original:

Who is Tim Ryan? What to know about the congressman running for senate in Ohio - USA TODAY

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Who is Tim Ryan? What to know about the congressman running for senate in Ohio – USA TODAY

Several incumbents will face challengers; local election filing ends – The Times and Democrat

Posted: at 2:48 am

Several incumbents will be facing challengers in upcoming elections, but many officeholders will be running unopposed.

Candidates seeking local political office had until noon Wednesday to make their intentions known.

Party primaries will be held June 14 with any runoff scheduled for June 28.

The general election is Nov. 8.

As of late Wednesday, the following candidates had filed:

State and federal

U.S. Congressional District 2 Incumbent Rep. Joe Wilson, a Republican, and Judd Larkins, a Democrat.

U.S. Congressional District 6 Incumbent Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat; Gregg Marcel Dixon, a Democrat; Michael Addison, a Democrat; Duke Buckner, a Republican, and A. Sonia Morris, a Republican.

S.C. House District 90 - Incumbent Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg; Evert Comer Jr., a Democrat; and Sharon Carter, a Republican.

People are also reading

S.C. House District 91 Incumbent Rep. Lonnie Hosey, D-Barnwell.

S.C. House District 93 Incumbent Rep. Russell Ott, D-St. Matthews.

S.C. House District 95 Incumbent Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, and Jeffrey Cila, a Republican. Cobb-Hunter will now be located in this newly redrawn district. It is currently represented by Rep. Jerry Govan, D-Orangeburg, who is running for state Superintendent of Education.

Orangeburg County

Probate Judge Incumbent Pandora Jones-Glover, a Democrat.

Auditor - Incumbent Audrey Asbury, a Democrat.

Treasurer - Incumbent Matt Stokes, a Democrat.

County Council District 1 - Incumbent Johnnie Wright Sr., a Democrat.

County Council District 6 Incumbent Deloris Frazier, a Democrat.

County Council District 7 - Latisha Walker, a Democrat. Incumbent Willie B. Owens Sr. announced that hell be leaving council for health reasons, effective June 30.

Bamberg County

Auditor Incumbent Rosa Robinson Verner, a Democrat, and Gale H. Black, a Democrat.

Treasurer Incumbent Alice P. Johnson, a Democrat.

County Council District 2 - Incumbent Sharon Hammond, a Democrat.

County Council District 3 Incumbent Larry Haynes, a Democrat, and Teri Linder, a Republican.

County Council District 6 Incumbent Evert Comer Jr., a Democrat.

Calhoun County

County Council District 3 Patrick W. Mack and Rebecca A. Bonnette, both Republicans, filed for the seat currently held by John Nelson. Nelson did not file for re-election.

County Council District 4 Incumbent Cecil M. Thornton Jr., a Democrat.

County Council District 5 Incumbent James E. Haigler, a Democrat.

This story has been changed from its original version.

Contact the writer: dgleaton@timesanddemocrat.com or 803-533-5534. Follow "Good News with Gleaton" on Twitter at @DionneTandD

Subscribe to our Daily Headlines newsletter.

The rest is here:

Several incumbents will face challengers; local election filing ends - The Times and Democrat

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Several incumbents will face challengers; local election filing ends – The Times and Democrat

Tina Kotek Is Accomplishedand Struggles to Gain Traction With Some Democrats. Why? – Willamette Week

Posted: at 2:48 am

With less than two months to go until the May 17 primary, Tina Kotek is the Democratic front-runner to be Oregons next governor.

Yet she faces an unusually challenging path to an office her party has held for nearly four decades.

As the longest-serving speaker of the Oregon House, Kotek, 55, delivered on an ambitious agenda with steely efficiency.

But for some reason, nobody whos done the job Kotek now seeks is endorsing her. Nor is her counterpart in the Senate.

Not former Govs. John Kitzhaber, Ted Kulongoski or Barbara Roberts. Not Senate President Peter Courtney (D-Salem), who led the Legislature alongside Kotek since 2012. (Kitzhaber and Roberts have endorsed State Treasurer Tobias Read, Koteks chief opponent in the primary. The others are staying on the sidelines.)

And all are Democrats.

Of that group, only Roberts would discuss her reasoning.

But interviews with legislators, staffers and lobbyistspeople who love and fear Kotekreveal a complex portrait of a formidable operator and help explain why some Democrats feel uneasy about her.

For many elected officials, the best way to succeed is to do little and advance through attrition.

Not Kotek. Under her leadership, House Democrats won passage of a progressive wish list ranging from a minimum-wage increase and health care for nearly all to criminal justice reform and the nations most aggressive housing legislation.

Kotek led the way in a calculating, sometime ruthless fashion, pushing hard to the left. Her success made her both the favorite of most progressive interest groups and perhaps Oregons most beatable Democratic front-runner for governor in decades.

The prospect of challenging Kotek enticed the most formidable unaffiliated candidate in 90 yearsformer state Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose)and an unheard of 19 GOP contenders to enter the race.

Heres what makes Kotek effectiveand vulnerable.

Tina Kotek (Brian Brose)

SHE CUTS DEALS

During her tenure as House speaker, Kotek successfully engineered an ambitious agenda with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker. She passed massive new taxes, yesbut also pushed the envelope on abortion, housing, the environment and workplace laws.

Shes been a very strong and very effective speaker, says former Senate President and Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. Shes shown over a long period of time that she can deliver on key Democratic priorities.

Kotek has been so effective in part because of her willingness to cut deals.

After a failed attempt to raise Oregons minimum wage in 2015, Kotek agreed to a compromise that some Democrats opposed: lower minimum wages for rural Oregon. The bill passed in 2016.

And in 2017, Democrats passed the biggest single tax increase in state history, a massive $5.3 billion transportation funding bill, with significant concessions to Republicans, such as a new rail terminal near Ontario and the widening of Interstate 205 near West Linn.

The transportation package in 2017 was incredibly difficult, says Oregon Labor Commissioner Val Hoyle, who was then House majority leader. It was something that people didnt think we would be able to pass.

Koteks partisan rivals appreciated her pragmatism.

No speaker can be effective without being transactional, says former House Minority Leader Mike McLane (R-Powell Butte), who often battled Kotek. I counted on that. I needed her to be that way.

But the dealmaking that clinched the most consequential bill of Koteks career required her to betray a central segment of her partys base: public employee unions.

In 2019, Kotek spent months navigating between business interests, who wanted to scale back the states underfunded Public Employee Retirement System, and progressives, who wanted a big corporate tax increase for schools, called the Student Success Act.

She was able to achieve both, even though it meant strong-arming Democrats, including Reps. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) and Andrea Salinas (D-Lake Oswego)who came to the House floor in tears after Kotek persuaded her to vote yes on the pension cuts.

Theres no way that the Student Success Act would pass without [the PERS cuts], says then-state Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer (D-Portland). I give Tina huge kudos for standing up to the labor unions. They made it incredibly painful for all of us who voted for the bill.

That grudge persists.

Some of our folks are still really upset about that vote, says Joe Baessler, political coordinator for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 75, which joined the United Food and Commercial Workers in not endorsing Kotek in the May primary.

Kotek says when she made hard choices, it was always for better outcomes.

I bristle at the word transactional because it does seem to imply that youre making choices to get things done that arent good choices, she says. When people ask for things and I think theyre a bad idea, I dont do them.

Koteks transactional nature also cost her the support of former Gov. Roberts, who for years has bestowed the individual endorsements most coveted by Democrats.

Roberts says shes backing Read because of the broad perspective he gained in six years as a statewide official. But her choice rekindled chatter about what both women acknowledge is some history.

In 2017, Special Olympics Oregon needed a financial bailout. Roberts, a longtime supporter of the organization who left office in 1995, approached Kotek for help.

The conversation went badly. According to people familiar with the exchange, Kotek said shed consider an appropriation, but only if Roberts would help convince a reluctant Democratic lawmaker to support a crucial housing bill. That annoyed the ex-governor, who left Koteks office empty-handed.

To be honest, I had had a long day, Kotek recalls. I made a flip comment that she mistook as transactional. It was not. And I thought we had lunch and made up and had resolved our conflict.

Tina Kotek (Brian Brose)

SHE IS VERY LIBERAL

During the course of Koteks tenure, Democrats consolidated power and moved aggressively on such measures as granting drivers licenses and publicly funded abortions to undocumented immigrants and one of the nations most aggressive green energy mandates. They also passed statewide rent control and abolished single-family residential zoningfirst-in-the-nation policies aimed at relieving the states housing crisis.

Such policies played well in deep-blue Portland. Shes done more than any other leader in the state, maybe the country, on housing and homelessness, says Keny-Guyer, who represented a liberal Southeast Portland district.

But some Democrats say Koteks prioritization of social justice and environmental issues put her to the left of the average voter in a statewide race.

In 2021, Kotek was chief sponsor of House Bill 3115, which enshrined in state law the right to camp in public spacesover pushback in Salem from critics who saw the bill as exporting Portlands policies to the rest of the state.

In 2018, Kotek abruptly removed a longtime moderate as chair of the House Judiciary CommitteeRep. Jeff Barker (D-Aloha)to achieve a top progressive priority: criminal justice reform, including the abolition of Oregons death penalty.

We used to get along well, says Barker, a retired Portland police lieutenant and ex-president of the Portland Police Association. We were very aligned on abortion and organized labor. I supported her for speaker, and she came out to my house for dinner.

But Barker opposed lawmakers overturning the death penalty without a vote of the people. (The public had approved the death penalty with a 1984 ballot measure.) So Kotek yanked Barkers gavel as chair of House Judiciary Committee, a position he had held for 15 years. I was shocked, says Barker, who retired from the Legislature in 2021.

Barker was not interested in entertaining criminal justice reform in a moment where we had to have different conversations, Kotek says. And so Jennifer Williamson took over.

And in the 2019 session, Williamson and Senate Judiciary Chair Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) effectively ended the states death penalty.

As we gained more seats, she went back to her true philosophical positions, says former state Rep. Brian Clem (D-Salem), who served with Kotek for 15 years. She started her career as a lobbyist for hungry kids, and she went back to her rootsprogressive activist Tina. (See Hammer of the Gods, below.)

Tina Kotek (Brian Brose)

SHE DOESNT ALWAYS KEEP HER WORD

The two most common criticisms of Kotekthat shes too pragmatic and at the same time too liberaldont really square. What kind of inflexible leftist ideologue cuts a deal that outrages public employee unions?

What the two conflicting characterizations reflect is how often Kotek got what she wanted, and how many egos she left bruised in the process. Like Michael Jordan on the basketball court, shes more revered than lovedbecause she would do anything to win.

If you are in her way, McLane says, you are going to be roadkill.

Supermajorities in her last two sessions as House speaker gave Kotek the power to dictate terms. She wasnt shy about using it. Over time, Kotek gained a reputation as a politician for whom the ends justified the means.

I dont think thats a very helpful way to learn leadershipto have absolute power, says Roberts. I just dont think its healthy.

Some adversaries she bested even feel she lied to them.

In January, she alienated state Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-Clackamas), one of the states few Black lawmakers. In the wake of George Floyds murder in 2020, Bynum led her colleagues in passing a package of police reform measures. Afterward, she told Kotek she thought it was time for a person of color to be House speaker.

Bynum left the conversation believing Kotek had pledged to support her for speaker in the future if Bynum didnt mount a bid to challenge Kotek for the post in 2021.

It didnt work out that way. After Kotek announced she would run for governor, Bynum put her name forward as a candidate for speaker. But the Democratic caucus that Kotek ran with iron discipline for almost a decade fell in behind now-Speaker Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis) instead. Bynum told WW at the time she felt betrayed.

Kotek says Bynum (who declined to comment for this story) misunderstood Koteks intentions. I believe shes a strong leader, and I have a lot of respect for her, but I dont believe I made the commitment that she thinks I did, Kotek says.

In 2021, Kotek irked Democrats in April when she gave Republicans an equal say in the once-per-decade process of redistricting to keep the GOP from blowing up the session.

Then, in September, Kotek infuriated Republicans by reversing herself and telling House Minority Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) she was changing the deal to give Democrats a majority on the panel drawing congressional maps.

They didnt hold up their end of the bargain, Kotek says. So, having convinced Republicans not to block their agenda, Democrats now got the congressional district maps they wanted too.

Former state Rep. Margaret Doherty (D-Tigard), whose gavel as chair of the House Education Committee Kotek yanked in 2020, says the Bynum and redistricting episodes reflect Koteks willingness to say anything to get what she wants.

I worked with both of them [Kotek and Read], says Doherty, a retired teachers union official who served with Kotek for a decade, and Im endorsing Tobias because I want somebody in that office who has integrity.

Tina Kotek (Brian Brose)

The ultimate question about Kotek is whether the longest-serving speaker of the House in Oregon history has made the state better.

Some indicators, such as K-12 test scores, the housing shortage, and inadequate provision of mental health services, suggest the state remains deeply troubled.

Portland pollster John Horvick of DHM Research says Kotek is the strong front-runner for the Democratic nomination but also notes that Oregon voters unhappiness has reached historic levels. Were seeing the most negative numbers Oregonians have expressed in the past 30 years, he says.

We are a high-tax state with low services, adds former state Rep. Jules Bailey (D-Portland), who is endorsing Read. Shits not working.

Opponents label Kotek Kate Brown 2.0, hoping Browns low approval ratings will taint Kotek.

Both are Portland liberals who emerged from legislative leadership, both identify as LGBTQ+, and both have held power as Oregon descended into its current funk.

But Brown is endlessly consultative. Kotek, by contrast, moves decisively. Their leadership styles are wildly different, says Felisa Hagins, political director of Service Employees International Union Local 49, whose members back Kotek.

Kotek is less outgoing and more liberal than Brownand perhaps more focused on an agenda and clear-eyed about Oregons problems.

She concurs with Baileys assessment that shits not working.

I agree, Kotek says. I dont think things are working the way they should be working.

Of Democrats major accomplishments on her watch, Kotek says increases in the minimum wage have made a substantial impact, benefitting hundreds of thousands of Oregonians. Other victoriesincluding the Student Success Act, statewide zoning changes and $1 billion in new funding for housing, and a half-billion dollars in new money for mental health serviceswill take more time to show results.

Yet Kotek is on the ballot nownot when those results arrive.

She blames COVID-19 for much of the states malaise. Prior to the pandemic, we had the biggest economic numbers weve ever seen, Kotek says. We were bringing prosperity to more parts of the state, and then the pandemic hit.

COVID-19 exposed underinvestment and poor management at the Oregon Employment Department and other state agencies. Kotek says if she were to be elected governor, the skills that made her an effective speaker would make the state function better.

To treat me fairly, people should look at my record, she says. My job was to make sure the Legislature functioned and pass important legislation. And I think anybody who is going to be honest will say, thats an A+.

The Kotek Puzzle (Brian Brose)

To all but a few intimates, Tina Kotek remains a cipher.

Tina Kotek steered legislation through the Oregon House with the same no-drama efficiency that shes piloted a 2004 Honda Civicmethodicallyto Salem since first winning election in 2006.

The vehicle now has 250,000 miles on it. State Rep. Barbara Smith Warner (D-Portland), Koteks top deputy for four years, says its still in mint condition. You could eat off the floor of that car, Smith Warner says.

When the two traveled together, however, Smith Warner always drove.

Tina will not go a mile over the speed limit, Smith Warner says. Shes a very cautious driver.

Of the triumvirate that ran Salem, Gov. Kate Brown is known for her bubbly, warm nature, Senate President Peter Courtney (D-Salem) for his emotional style and reverence for tradition, and Kotek for her steely, robotic efficiency.

Kotek calls herself a private person and an introvert. Shes most comfortable sipping unsweetened Lipton black tea in her office with a small inner circle (mostly long-term staffers and labor leaders) or road-tripping around the state with colleagues, Prince or Abba on the stereo, a bag of Swedish Fish at the ready.

She grew up in York, Pa., a blue-collar town of 45,000 about 85 miles southwest of Philadelphia. (Kotek always kept a supply of York Peppermint Patties in her House office.)

In high school, Kotek played three sports, edited the yearbook and school newspaper, and graduated second in her class.

Kotek began college at Georgetown, but as an emerging lesbian from a working-class town, she says she felt out of place at the elite Catholic school.

A foray in commercial diving left her with a damaged ear and unemployed. She then worked as a travel agent for two years and enrolled at the University of Oregon in 1990, earning a degree in religious studies.

After finishing her masters in international studies and comparative religion at the University of Washington in 1998, Kotek moved to Portland and worked first as an advocate at the Oregon Food Bank and, after that, for Children First for Oregon.

In 2005, she and her now-wife, Aimee Wilson, bought a modest, 1,089-square-foot home in Kenton where they still live. A lapsed Catholic, she now attends an Episcopal church and for years was part of a Capitol prayer group along with former House Minority Leader Mike McLane (R-Powell Butte) and others.

The district she represented, HD 44, a working-class area that includes Kenton and St. Johns, contains fewer Republicans than all but two of the states 60 House districts.

Kotek loves her dogs, Rudy and Teddy, and will sip the occasional bourbon (Portlands Freeland is her favorite). She loves watching superhero movies in a darkened theater with a small group of friends, all of whom often wear T-shirts promoting the films they watch (Kotek particularly likes Thor: Ragnarok and kept a Captain America shield in the speakers office).

Once I got into office, my moviegoing was escapism, Kotek says. So thank God, Marvel decided to make a whole bunch of movies.

See the original post here:

Tina Kotek Is Accomplishedand Struggles to Gain Traction With Some Democrats. Why? - Willamette Week

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Tina Kotek Is Accomplishedand Struggles to Gain Traction With Some Democrats. Why? – Willamette Week

Opinion | What We Know About the Women Who Vote for Republicans and the Men Who Do Not – The New York Times

Posted: at 2:48 am

Kahan and his collaborators went on: Increasing hierarchical and individualistic worldviews induce greater risk-skepticism in white males than in either white women or male or female nonwhites.

In other words, those who rank high in communitarian and egalitarian values, including liberal white men, are high in risk aversion. Among those at the opposite end of the scale low in communitarianism and egalitarianism but high in individualism and in support for hierarchy conservative white men are markedly more willing to tolerate risk than other constituencies.

In the case of guns and gun control, the authors write:

Persons of hierarchical and individualistic orientations should be expected to worry more about being rendered defenseless because of the association of guns with hierarchical social roles (hunter, protector, father) and with hierarchical and individualistic virtues (courage, honor, chivalry, self-reliance, prowess). Relatively egalitarian and communitarian respondents should worry more about gun violence because of the association of guns with patriarchy and racism and with distrust of and indifference to the well-being of strangers.

A paper published in 2000, Gender, race, and perceived risk: the white male effect, by Melissa Finucane, a senior scientist at the RAND Corporation, Slovic, Mertz, James Flynn of Decision Research and Theresa A. Satterfield of the University of British Columbia, tested responses to 25 hazards and found that white males risk perception ratings were consistently much lower than those of white women, minority-group women and minority-group men.

The white male effect, they continued seemed to be caused by about 30 percent of the white male sample who were better educated, had higher household incomes, and were politically more conservative. They also held very different attitudes, characterized by trust in institutions and authorities and by anti-egalitarianism in other words, they tended to be Republicans.

While opinions on egalitarianism and communitarianism help explain why a minority of white men are Democrats, the motivation of white women who support Republicans is less clear. Cassese and Tiffany D. Barnes, a political scientist at the University of Kentucky, address this question in their 2018 paper Reconciling Sexism and Womens Support for Republican Candidates: A Look at Gender, Class, and Whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Races.

Cassese and Barnes found that in the 2016 election, social class and education played a stronger role in the voting decisions of women than of men:

Among Trump voters, women were much more likely to be in the lower income category compared to men, a difference of 13 points in the full sample and 14 points for white respondents only. By contrast, the proportion of male, upper-income Trump supporters is greater than the proportion of female, upper-income Trump supporters by about 9 percentage points in the full sample and among white voters only. These findings challenge a dominant narrative surrounding the election rather than attracting downwardly-mobile white men, Trumps campaign disproportionately attracted and mobilized economically marginal white women.

Cassese and Barnes pose the question Why were a majority of white women willing to tolerate Trumps sexism? To answer, the authors examined polling responses to three questions: Do women demanding equality seek special favors? Do women complaining about discrimination cause more problems than they solve? and How much discrimination do women face in the United States? Cassese and Barnes describe the first two questions as measures of hostile sexism, which they define as negative views toward individuals who violate traditional gender roles.

They found that hostile sexism and denial of discrimination against women are strong predictors of white womens vote choice in 2016, but these factors were not predictive of voting for Romney in 2012. Put another way, white women who display hostile sexist attitudes and who perceive low levels of gender discrimination in society are more likely to support Trump.

Visit link:

Opinion | What We Know About the Women Who Vote for Republicans and the Men Who Do Not - The New York Times

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Opinion | What We Know About the Women Who Vote for Republicans and the Men Who Do Not – The New York Times

Pennsylvania’s Senate race is a bellwether for Democrats in 2022 and beyond | TheHill – The Hill

Posted: March 27, 2022 at 9:45 pm

Democrats midterm election prospects are daunting.

They are defending razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate in a year when voters arepessimisticabout the state of the country and the economy and arefrustratedthat the party has moved increasingly to the left.

Democrats are also faced with a problematic internal chasm between progressives and moderates a dynamic that plagued President BidenJoe BidenRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Biden to propose minimum tax on billionaires in budget MOREs first year in office and is now a defining feature of Democratic Primary contests across the country.

Consequently, there are two major questions heading into the 2022 midterms:

First, will Democrats be able to turn around this unfavorable political climate by delivering on a more centrist yet still forward-looking agenda in order to win key toss-up races?

Second (which will portend the answer to the first), will the moderate wing of the Democratic Party that has a much broader national appeal compared to progressivism ultimately prevail in primary contests?

In the coming months, we will be able to answer both questions by focusing on one contest in particular: the Pennsylvania Senate race. The result of this Democratic primary will be a bellwether for the partys national performance in November; and at the same time, the outcome of this general election will provide a strong indication of the partys current and future political viability.

Generally speaking, statewide races in swing states, especially without an incumbent, are often indicative of the current national political environment. The Pennsylvania Senate race fits the bill: it involves an open-seat Republican Sen. Pat ToomeyPatrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyThe Supreme Court just made a US-EU Privacy Shield agreement even harder The Hill's Morning Report - Biden on Russia: Distrust and verify Overnight Health Care Biden eyes additional COVID-19 funding MORE is retiring in a toss-up state that Joe Biden won in 2020 after Donald TrumpDonald TrumpBiden administration names FAA safety official as agency's acting chief Pennsylvania Senate primaries get personal Can Rick Scott trump Ron DeSantis to win the GOP base? MORE carried it in 2016.

Notably, the political power and tendencies of suburban voters in Pennsylvania mirror those of national suburban votersan important parallel, as suburban areas are the last remaining competitive areas left in the country, perDoug Sosniks recent analysis.

Indeed, elections both nationwide, and in Pennsylvania are won or lost in the suburbs. In 2020, the enthusiastic turnout for Democratsin the suburbs of Philadelphiapropelled Joe Biden to victory in the state and helped him win the presidency, along with his strong showings in the suburbs of Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

In 2018, suburban voters in Pennsylvania reelected Democrats in statewide races and secured upset wins for Democrats in local contests a trend that illustrated the partys strong performance nationally.

However, in the 2021 elections, there was ashift toward the G.O.Pin the Pennsylvania suburbs similar to suburbs across the country, even in blue states. In statewide elections inVirginiaandNew Jersey, as well as local races inNew Yorks Long Island suburbs, there was a demonstrable swing toward the G.O.P. that was driven by suburban voters defecting from Democrats.

Why did this shift occur, and what can Democrats do to prevent it from continuing in 2022?

Sosniks analysis provides critical insight. He notes that suburban voters main misgivings about the G.O.P. center on anti-Trump attitudes; while on the Democratic side, suburban voters dislike the culture wars and identity politics that are pervasive on the left, are concerned about rising crime, and arent looking for an expansive or intrusive federal government.

Thus, in 2021, Democrats alienated suburban voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere because the party was viewed as being supportive of big spending plans, and as embracing or at the very least, not discrediting the identity politics and culture wars of the progressive wing.

At the same time, these voters clearly view Republicans more favorably without Donald Trump. In Trumps absence, Republicans found a viable model for a candidate with a suburban appeal: Glenn YoungkinGlenn YoungkinJudge rules 12 Virginia families with immunocompromised kids can ask schools to require masks Majority believes public schools on wrong track: poll Youngkin's crusade against equity hurts white people too MORE, the newly elected governor of Virginia. Youngkin was thought of as a more moderate Republican who spoke to issues that suburban voters in particular care about: lower taxes, less government interference in schools and businesses, and lowering crime.

In this sense, the general election for Pennsylvanias Senate seat will ultimately be a dry run and potentially a harbinger for the 2024 presidential election. Indeed, the frontrunner in the G.O.P. primary in Pennsylvania hedge fund CEO Dave McCormick, who has a9-point advantageover Mehmet OzMehmet OzPennsylvania Senate primaries get personal Biden asks Herschel Walker and Mehmet Oz to quit council or be ousted The Hill's Morning Report - Jackson fends off attacks; Biden to Europe MORE is working to delicately balance, as Youngkin did, the Trump-wing of the party with the moderate side.

Ultimately, if Democrats are unable to advance a national agenda this year that is centered on core moderate themes, Republicans will have a much better chance at winning the Senate seat in Pennsylvania, and of retaking control of Congress.

That being said, Democrats ability to convincingly make this strategic shift to the center by November hinges in large part on the success, or lack thereof, of moderates in key primary races across the country. In a number of congressional races and some Senate races, moderate Democrats are facing primary challenges from the left, as is the case in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

In Pennsylvania, the progressive Lieutenant Governor, Josh Fetterman, is in a close contest with Rep. Connor Lamb, who is backed by the establishment and is viewed as a more moderate, conventional candidate who has more crossover appeal to suburban voters.

Put another way, while a Fetterman win would be a daunting indicator for the Democrats chances of retaining control of Congress in the general election, a Lamb victory would be an encouraging sign for the party.

Indeed, Lamb winning would indicate that the Democratic Party is choosing to embrace a more moderate, effective and electable approach and at the same time, would show that Democrats have a fighting chance to regain their footing among suburban voters in Pennsylvania, and across the country.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael BloombergMichael BloombergHow Biden and Democrats can stack up legislative wins before November Biden's State of the Union address won't help Democrats politically This SOTU, Biden can win back voters with a plan for lower drug prices MORE. He is the author of The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat." Zoe Young is vice president of Schoen Cooperman Research.

View original post here:

Pennsylvania's Senate race is a bellwether for Democrats in 2022 and beyond | TheHill - The Hill

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Pennsylvania’s Senate race is a bellwether for Democrats in 2022 and beyond | TheHill – The Hill

The Democrat the White House Fears the Most – The New York Times

Posted: at 9:45 pm

This month, after The New York Times first reported that U.S. officials were visiting Caracas to explore talks with oil-rich Venezuela, the diplomatic gambit drew an angry response from one senator in particular.

The democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said in a blistering statement, are worth much more than a few thousand barrels of oil.

These were harsh words coming from a member of the presidents own party, who was furious that he hadnt been adequately consulted on the trip. But they were emblematic of the extraordinary influence the New Jersey Democrat wields over some of the most politically radioactive topics in U.S. foreign policy, current and former lawmakers, officials and Senate aides say. The administration quickly denied accusations that the Caracas trip was part of an effort to find new supplies of energy to replace Russian oil or to undercut the Venezuelan opposition.

There is no dialogue between us and the regime, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said under questioning from reporters.

The episode is only the most recent example of how Menendez, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is able to define the boundaries of what is acceptable on subjects from Iran to Venezuela. He is plugged in with Washington-savvy pro-Israel groups and with the politically active Cuban- and Venezuelan-American communities in South Florida. Sometimes in sync with the administration and often at odds with it, he is always to be handled with a healthy amount of respect and fear.

Hes somebody that you need on your side no matter what, so theyre very careful, said Juan Cruz, who served as a senior director for the Western Hemisphere during the Trump administration.

Last year, in a measure of the deference given to Menendez, the White House allowed him to suggest who should and should not be invited to an event with President Biden. The three individuals Menendez nixed were critics of the decades-old economic embargo of Cuba, which many on the left view as an example of a failed, right-wing policy.

Menendez has a very moralistic and inflexible view on the use of sanctions to punish and improve human rights, regardless of evidence, said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, a think tank in London.

At the same time, Menendez has been a crucial administration ally on a number of Bidens priorities, from clearing a path for dozens of appointees Republicans have tried to block to fostering a bipartisan consensus on the Ukraine war. Top administration officials consult with Menendez multiple times a month. His relationship with Biden is also a vast improvement over the tension-filled Obama era, allies said.

Chairman Menendez is a partner on our foreign policy goals and this administration benefits from his counsel, said Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the White Houses National Security Council.

In response to questions about tensions with the Biden administration, Menendezs office pushed back hard on the perception that he approached the job of chairman any differently than he had under previous presidents of both parties.

Menendezs clout may soon be tested anew if and when the administration unveils its long-awaited reset of the Iran nuclear deal.

In recent days, officials have briefed members of House and Senate committees about the status of the talks in Vienna, and details of the 25-page agreement have begun to spill out in newspaper accounts.

One of the final obstacles, according to those who have attended the briefings, is Irans demand that the U.S. no longer designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Doing so would mean little in a practical sense because other sanctions on the group still apply, proponents of a deal say. But the Biden administration would need to expend precious political capital defending the move at a time when it has little to spare.

Id want to see what that means in practice, said Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey, who said he was waiting to see the text of an agreement. But once Iran gets the bomb, our ability to confront their other malign activities will be diminished.

Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut, said in an interview that hed seen bone-chilling assessments of how close Iran is to producing weapons-grade uranium. Others who have been briefed on the U.S. intelligence assessments say Iran could produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon in as little as two weeks, escalating the risk that Israel might take military action.

The consequences of no deal are horrific, Murphy said. And there is no other practical path to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon other than diplomacy.

The main reason the crisis has reached this point, advocates of a deal say, is Donald Trumps withdrawal from the original nuclear deal, which allowed Iran to keep enriching uranium past agreed-upon levels.

But the Biden administration also moved too slowly to engage Tehran upon entering office, fearing Menendez-led blowback on Capitol Hill.

It didnt want to lose fence-sitters in Congress, said Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at the International Crisis Group.

Now that a deal is close, administration officials are being cagey about whether they believe Congress must be allowed to review its terms. Under a bipartisan law passed in 2015, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the administration must submit the text of any new agreement to congressional oversight.

Menendez, who opposed the original nuclear agreement in 2015 and has criticized the current deal under discussion, has signaled he will insist on the Senate having its say. In February, he teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, to propose his own diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.

There is no chance in bringing Senator Menendez on board, and the alternative that he offers is unworkable for the administration, Vaez said. I think its a lost cause.

State Department officials caution that an agreement is neither imminent nor certain, as one put it. The administration is also still examining its legal options regarding congressional review of a potential deal, which might not technically qualify as new.

If an Iran deal is put to a vote in the Senate, Menendezs reaction will be crucial. Republicans most likely will uniformly oppose it. The administration can still afford to lose a handful of Democrats, because only 41 votes would be needed to allow a revived agreement to proceed. But it might take some arm twisting to round up enough votes to win.

Ben Cardin, the hawkish Maryland senator, has already expressed concerns about delisting the Revolutionary Guards. Other influential Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, such as Chris Coons of Delaware, have said little in support of a fresh deal.

A defeat in the Senate could deal the president a damaging blow on one of his signature foreign policy initiatives, supporters of the talks warn. And given Irans rapid advance toward producing weapons-grade uranium, should diplomacy fail, the president could be facing the prospect of a new conflict in the Middle East on top of a grinding war in Ukraine.

If there is no deal, Vaez said, I think this will escalate very quickly and the specter of war will emerge as soon as the spring.

Closing segment

Its certainly not rare for a senator questioning a nominee to interrupt. At one point during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings this morning, Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, did just that, apologizing to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as he did so and explaining he had only four minutes left.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, took it to another level one that made the interruptions themselves, not the content of the questions and answers, the main feature of his line of questioning.

During Grahams exchange with Jackson on Wednesday, she asked for permission to speak multiple times, with Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat and the chair of the Judiciary Committee, occasionally hopping in to help. When Jackson did speak, Graham shook his head dismissively or fidgeted in his chair, trying to jump in.

Toward the end of his line of questioning, our colleague Catie Edmondson described audible groaning and noises of protest from many of the spectators as Graham interrupted her. When his time was up, he left the dais.

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, later tried to one-up Graham, refusing to stop talking when his time was up. When he asked Durbin why he wouldnt allow his last question, Durbin said, You wouldnt allow her to answer anyway.

And what was Cruzs excuse for more time? Durbin wouldnt stop interrupting him.

Thanks for reading. Well see you tomorrow.

Blake & Leah

Is there anything you think were missing? Anything you want to see more of? Wed love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

Excerpt from:

The Democrat the White House Fears the Most - The New York Times

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on The Democrat the White House Fears the Most – The New York Times

Democrats’ fight over bail reform might be a fight for the party’s direction – POLITICO

Posted: at 9:45 pm

Fixing New Yorks bail requirements was hailed as a national victory after Democrats regained dual majorities in the state Senate in 2019. A series of reforms, which included banning cash bail for all but the most violent felonies, were signed into law as a symbol of what the party could do united in power for the first time in years.

Flash forward three years later: The fierce fight over how to address a crime wave has infiltrated the debate in all New York statewide races this year, including for governor, and for critical House seats that could help determine the control of Congress in November.

I believe this is a nationally coordinated campaign, quite honestly, about linking crime to progressives, and linking crime to people in power, said state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Yonkers), whose conference is resisting pressure to revise the bail laws.

I dont subscribe to that, but I understand that is politics.

In New Jersey, liberal Democrats and more moderate ones battled last year over abortion rights, leading Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy to sign a pared back measure that passed in January. And in California, liberal Democrats are clamoring to end offshore oil drilling while moderate Democrats have echoed industry calls to intensify fossil fuel production given overseas volatility.

In New York, calls for rollbacks to bail reform are being championed by newly elected New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a moderate who beat progressive candidates at the polls last year. Gov. Kathy Hochul, a moderate herself, is trying to satisfy Adams and his supporters, but also compromise with the Democratic-controlled, more left-leaning Legislature in the coming days of budget negotiations for the fiscal year that starts April 1.

Theres potential peril in how leaders in Albany proceed: Several local candidates, particularly on Long Island, lost elections last year to Republicans, who tied bail reform to spikes in crime and won election in the battleground, suburban areas.

We need to look at crime holistically because whats driving violent crime is not bail reform. Unfortunately, thats a narrative, but thats not what the facts are, warned state Sen. Peter Harckham, a Westchester County Democrat in a moderate district.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is facing pressure to reform New York's bail laws, but is facing pushback from progressive Democrats in Albany.|Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP Photo

No issue has dominated New York politics in recent months more than crime and what to do about it. No data, so far, suggests that bail reform has been responsible for higher rates of violent crime New Yorkers are seeing on the news, on the streets and in the subways, according to several recent analyses.

But that hasnt stopped political candidates from saying so on the airwaves, in mailers and at news conferences, especially as voters across the political spectrum signal that crime will be their top concern heading to the ballot box.

Its political gold for Republicans, who are hoping to make gains in the suburbs this fall.

Those who support the bail law after two NYPD officers were murdered and innocent New Yorkers were being pushed in front of subways, attacked on the street with hatchets and followed into their homes and stabbed to death will have blood on their hands, state GOP Chair Nick Langworthy said.

Long Island Rep. Tom Suozzi, who is challenging Hochul from the right in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, has accused Hochul of being ill prepared and uncommunicative about how she will address crime. Changes to the bail reform law particularly changes to allow judges more discretion about when to require cash bail for dangerous individuals are just common sense, he said Thursday.

We have a crime crisis, and the governor has treated it like an afterthought, he said.

The drumbeat of criticism from moderate Democrats and Republicans has left centrists like Hochul who initially attempted to avoid the debate by emphasizing other public safety proposals toeing a difficult line.

Shes at odds with the left wing of the party if she suggests adding more exceptions to the laws, but could face backlash by moderates and independents on Election Day if she doesnt, officials suggested.

Republican New York City Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli, who supports more extensive rollbacks to bail reform than what Hochul laid out, called the proposal a lose-lose.

It gives her a political headache without actually addressing the root of the problem, he said. It makes no one happy and gives her opponents from every angle a new round of criticism. She should literally fire whoever told her this is a good idea.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins have raised concerns about an overhaul of bail laws in New York.|(AP Photo/Hans Pennink)

Hochul has proposed a series of changes to bail and other criminal justice laws, including allowing judges to set bail for repeat offenders and in all felony cases involving illegal guns.

In an op-ed in which she outlined the plan after days of refusing to discuss it in public she also argued that bail reform was not responsible for the recent spike in crime and conceded her proposal would not immediately reverse the rise in violence.

The proposal, and its timing just days before the due date for the state budget where shed like it included, sparked immediate backlash on the left, while failing to quell criticism from the right.

And it appears unlikely much of her plan will make it in the final state budget deal. Liberal Democrats fear a watered-down, new law would lead more poor people to be kept in jail and discriminate against minorities, as had been the case for decades.

This governor literally has said that these bail reforms have nothing to do with the rise of crime, has literally said they wont lower crime, but has literally said were going to do it anyway, said New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, who is running against Hochul in the Democratic primary, and headlined a rally against her plans outside the governors office in Manhattan on Thursday.

The criminal justice reform movement embodied by the massive protests that swept New York and the country after the 2020 murder of George Floyd is butting up against concerns against rising crime.

Many Democrats who rushed to promise more criminal justice reform during the wave of protests with some embracing the call to defund the police are less than two years later in the camp seeking to roll back previous reforms.

Democrats are terrible about talking about public safety, Williams said in an interview. They default to Republican-lite talking points because the fear mongering gets so [bad], they get so overwhelmed with it they dont know what to do.

Rep. Tom Suozzi talks to reporters at the state Capitol in Albany on Thursday, March 24, 2022, as he runs in a Democratic primary for governor.|Joseph Spector/POLITICO

Jared Trujillo, policy counsel at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the backlash was predictable.

One of the primary goals of the reforms was to ensure that poor communities and people of color would not be disproportionately penalized by their inability to pay bail, especially for low-level crimes.

Proponents regularly pointed to the case of Bronx teenager Kalief Browder who spent three years on Rikers Island because his family could not raise $3,000, only to have a robbery charge dropped for lack of evidence. Browder later died by suicide.

These bills are some of the most significant civil rights reforms in New Yorks history, Trujillo said. After every civil rights victory in this country, there has been pushback to it. After Reconstruction, we got Jim Crow. After the civil rights movement of the 1960s, we got the Rockefeller drug era and we got mass incarceration.

The people that capitulated during all those movements, they are not heroes. It got them no electoral wins. It did not help them, he said.

At first it seemed like Hochul, who is running for reelection less than a year after she took office in the wake of Andrew Cuomos resignation in August, would avoid the debate.

She pointed to her seriousness about crime with a series of public safety proposals that include addressing illegal gun trafficking and funding community-based gun violence prevention programs.

She and Adams last month jointly announced they would ramp up enforcement in subway stations to get people experiencing homelessness out of the subways and into housing or treatment. Just one day earlier theyd both pled for party unity at the state Democratic convention in Manhattan.

But Adams, a former NYPD captain who centered his campaign on a pledge to bring down gun violence, is one of several of her fellow moderates who say that new public safety plans should also include changing the bail laws to give judges discretion to hold people in jail before trial if they are deemed dangerous.

Hochuls proposal stops short of that, but Adams has backed the measures she outlined.

I complain about every dangerous person thats released. Every one. We dont need dangerous people on our streets, Adams told reporters at City Hall this week. Its contributing to the sea of violence that we are experiencing.

In February voters seemed to be on the same page, according to Siena College Research Institute polling.

By a 65-27 percent margin, they said the so-called bail reform law should be amended to give judges more discretion to keep dangerous criminals off the streets.

The state budget is often where policies as controversial as bail reform are accomplished using political pressure from key spending elements, a point brought up by Cuomo, who also waded into the debate from a comeback tour speaking event on St. Patricks Day.

I will wager anyone in the room if they dont pass a law changing bail reform in the budget they wont pass any meaningful reform by the end of the session in June, he told a group of Hispanic clergy and former politicians.

But legislative leaders have maintained a cool reception to Hochuls suggested changes to bail laws, though they acknowledge it could affect some of the more vulnerable members in their conferences at the polls this year.

Nobody in our conference is wanting to go backwards, Stewart-Cousins said.

I will continue and my conference will continue to do what we think is right for the people of New York state, she said. And I believe that if we continue to do that, we will transcend politics, especially politics of lies, and untruth.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie of the Bronx, who hails from the same borough as Browder, said he no longer believes the debate is centered around the policy itself.

I know our opponents are going to say: They are being soft on crime; they dont care about victims. Thats all bullshit, Heastie said. We care about having safe communities, and I hate when people try to politicize these things.

CLARIFICATION: The article has been updated to clarify that New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a pared-back version of the bill that was sent to his desk.

See original here:

Democrats' fight over bail reform might be a fight for the party's direction - POLITICO

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Democrats’ fight over bail reform might be a fight for the party’s direction – POLITICO

Here’s who’s running in the Democrat and Republican primaries June 14 – Press Herald

Posted: at 9:45 pm

SACO In one area race for the State House, two Republicans are in a primary contest to run against an incumbent Democrat.

And in one county race, two Democrats are each running to win their partys nod to run for District 3 York County Commissioner in the fall election.

Both contests will play out in party primaries June 14.

The deadline for candidates to submit nominations for state and county offices for Democratic and Republican primaries was 5 p.m. March 15.

In House District 134, which includes part of Biddeford, along with Kennebunkport and part of Kennebunk, Republicans Elizabeth Jordan and Ronald Russell are each seeking the nod from their party to run against Democrat incumbent Traci Gere Nov. 8. All live in Kennebunkport.

Also, in York County Commission District 3, incumbent Allen Sicard is challenged in the Democratic primary by former state Senator Justin Chenette. The district includes Saco, Old Orchard Beach, Buxton, and Hollis. There is no Republican in the primary, and barring an independent bid in November, whoever wins the primary would be elected. Both are of Saco.

There are no candidates for the Republican primary for five seats, including one State House race and four York County government offices.

Democratic candidate Marc Malon is running for House District 133, part of Biddeford, an open seat formerly known as House District 11. There is no Republican candidate. Democrat Ryan Fecteau, who currently holds the seat and is Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, will have completed four terms by the end of this year and because of Maines term limit law cannot run for a fifth consecutive term.

In York County government races, incumbent District 2 County Commissioner Democrat Richard Dutremble of Biddeford is seeking a fifth, four-year term. There is no Republican candidate in the district, which includes Biddeford, Arundel, Kennebunk, and Kennebunkport.

Democrat incumbent Kathryn Slattery of Old Orchard Beach is seeking her partys nod for York County District Attorney, also known as Prosecutorial District 1. Incumbent Democrat incumbent Nancy Hammond of Lyman is running for York County Register of Deeds. As well, incumbent Democrat Bobby Mills of Biddeford is running for York County treasurer. There are no Republican candidates for those races.

There are several others in the running for their partys endorsement.

Incumbent Democrat Sen. Donna Bailey of Saco and Republican Sharri MacDonald of Old Orchard Beach, a former member of the Maine House, are looking to represent Senate District 31, which includes Saco, Old Orchard Beach and Buxton.

In Senate District 32, Democrat Henry Ingwersen of Arundel and David Corbett of Lyman are running for the open seat. Ingwersen is a former member of the Maine House; Corbett has made previous bids for York County Sheriff. The newly reapportioned district includes Arundel, Biddeford, Dayton, Hollis, and Lyman. The current senator, Democrat Susan Deschambault, is termed out.

In the running for House 129, part of Saco, incumbent Democrat Margaret ONeil and Republican Stephen DuPuis are each seeking their partys nod June 14. ONeil is currently serving her third term.

Incumbent Democrat Lynn Copeland and Republican Theodore Sirois are in the running for House District 130, part of Saco.

In House 131, incumbent Democrat Lori Gramlich and Republican Scott Eccleston are looking to represent Old Orchard Beach.

In House 132, part of Biddeford, incumbent Democrat Erin Sheehan and Republican Timothy Keenan are each seeking their partys nod in the June 14 primary.

Incumbent Democrat York County Sheriff William L. King of Saco is looking for his partys endorsement for a third, four-year term in the June 14 primary. Retired deputy Roger Hicks of Hollis is seeking the nod from Republicans which means a rematch from the 2018 election, provided no independent candidates join the November race.

Go here to see the original:

Here's who's running in the Democrat and Republican primaries June 14 - Press Herald

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Here’s who’s running in the Democrat and Republican primaries June 14 – Press Herald

Democrats have a chance to get their rules right for 2024 – Brookings Institution

Posted: at 9:45 pm

It isnt getting colder in Hell just yet, but the Democratic National Committee and its Rules and By-laws Committee does seem to be getting warmer in its efforts to create a new primary calendar for selecting delegates to its 2024 National Convention. As everyone knows, the early states are critical to the presidential nomination system. And, according to a draft resolution circulating before the next Rules Committee meeting, the DNC looks like it will seriously consider changing the traditional opening sequence of the nomination system.

As things stand right now, the first state to hold a delegate selection process in 2024 would be Iowa, whose 80% white electorate hasnt voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in a decade. As Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party said of the current primary calendar, as it was getting underway in Iowa in 2020, It is bizarre. It makes absolutely no sense except for tradition, and sometimes tradition doesnt get us anywhere. The second state would be New Hampshire, which may have more of a historical and legal claim to be first in the nation but whose electorate is even whiter, 90%, than Iowas. At least it can claim a greater tendency to vote Democratic in statewide contests. Most importantly, neither state voted for Joe Bidens candidacy in 2020, thus depriving them of the ability to use their loyalty to the incumbent President to block this latest effort to restructure the calendar as has happened so often in the past.

Under the committees proposal, states wishing to help kick start the 2024 campaign would have to apply to the DNCs Rules and By-laws committee, which would base their final decision on which states get to go early from among those who:

Iowa loses on all three counts; New Hampshire is on shakier grounds but could take a simple step to solidify their claim.

Since the party will want to get an early reading on the preferences of all four regions in the country, if the party passes over Iowa, their biggest decision will be on which Midwest state to choose to take Iowas place on the calendar. The most likely choice, given the criteria, would be Michigan, whose attempt to go early in 2008 resulted in each of the delegates selected in the primary held outside the window of the partys primary calendar being given only a half of a vote at the Denver convention that nominated Barack Obama. Despite that punishment and Hilary Clintons primary victory in Michigan, the former President carried Michigan in the general election by over 800,000 votes, but it has become much more competitive lately. That, along with its diversity and strong labor presence will allow Michigan Democrats to make a strong case that they are the Midwest state that best meets the DNCs proposed criteria of diversity and general election competitiveness.

The only other real choice facing the DNC, should it adopt the co-chairs proposal, is which eastern state to choose to go early, if not New Hampshire. South Carolina and its powerful spokesperson, Congressman James Clyburn, will successfully argue for their continued inclusion as the early southern state, not just because of the states large percentage of African American voters but, more quietly, their key role in President Bidens nomination. Nevada has already taken steps to change their early caucus to a primary. Even without the recently departed Senator Harry Reid around to argue their case, the strong union and Latino presence in this western region states electorate makes them almost a shoo in for an early spot. That leaves the question of New Hampshires early status on the table.

As was argued back in the 1980s when I chaired the partys rules commission, one of the reasons for having a few states go early is the opportunity it provides for a relatively unknown candidate, such as Jimmy Carter, to campaign on a smaller budget until they become better known. New Hampshires traditional primary style of campaigning in small gatherings in small towns may be more myth than reality, but the stories the national press corps files every day during their primary does allow candidates to become better known nationally. However, their media market, which is mostly driven by Boston television, is relatively expensive for the size of their electorate.

This potential weakness is, however, not a problem if the competing eastern state is New Jersey, which it appears to be at this stage of the deliberation. To reach New Jersey voters, candidates have to buy time on New York media, the most expensive market in the country. Add to that New Jerseys lack of any history of effective one on one campaigning for statewide office and New Hampshire still looks like it will survive this new process. There is, however, one thing New Hampshire can do to assure their first in the nation status, at least for 2024.

To deal with the states lack of diversity, the party should permit only registered Democrats to vote in its primary in 2024, abandoning their tradition of allowing voters from one party to vote in the other partys contest. The courts have given the Democratic party the authority to enforce such a rule, in a case that tested that very provision (Rule 20B) in the rules written by what is generally known as the Winograd Commission for the 1980 nominating process. (Yes, I was the Chair of that Commission and, full disclosure, also the Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party.) The policy argument in favor of enacting such a rule is easily made by citing the potential for mischief if Trump voters are given a chance to vote against President Biden in the primary. But in terms of the DNCs proposed criteria for being an early state, such a Democrats only electorate would be more proportionally diverse and give greater weight to the states burgeoning suburban vote that will be so crucial for victory in the general election. If the New Hampshire Democratic party enacts such a provision as part of their application to the DNC, their already good chances to remain first in the nation, increase to almost a certainty.

As I wrote for Brookings almost two years ago, although no set of rules can guarantee the selection of a presidential nominee who is prepared to meet the challenges the country now faces, by increasing the participation of as many Democrats as possible in a process that better reflects the makeup of todays Democratic coalition, the party can improve the odds that its next nominee will win the prize national politicians dream about. Lets hope for the sake of our American democracy the party surprises the pundits and does the right thing this time.

See original here:

Democrats have a chance to get their rules right for 2024 - Brookings Institution

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Democrats have a chance to get their rules right for 2024 – Brookings Institution

Page 22«..10..21222324..3040..»