GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH - FORMER US PRES DEAD AT 94 (R.I.P.):
BORN - JUNE 12, 1924 (MASSACHUSETTS)
DIED - NOV 30, 2018 (TEXAS)
SERVED AS 43rd VICE-PRES - 1981 to 1989
SERVED AS 41st PRES - 1989 to 1993.
Post Sources: CNN, Wikipedia, Youtube
Congressional leaders announced that an arrival ceremony will be held for Bush on Monday at 5 p.m. ET. The public will then be invited to pay their respects from 7:30 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. Wednesday. The statement said that the Bush family will provide additional details regarding arrangements beyond the ceremony at the Capitol.
GEORGIA GOV RACE UPDATE - FED JUDGE ORDERS STATE TO PROTECT PROVISIONAL BALLOTS:
EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT (VOTING RIGHTS).
MOST STATES (MARYLAND -PG COUNTY) HOLD PROVISIONAL BALLOTS UNTIL 13 DAYS AFTER ELECTION SO THEY CAN THROW AWAY CERTAIN BALLOTS.
STACEY ABRAMS IS A 21st CENTURY CHANGE AGENT.
I’M PROUD OF HER.
Post Sources AP, NBC News, Youtube
***** Judge orders Georgia to protect provisional ballots in Abrams-Kemp race
A federal judge has ordered Georgia take steps to ensure provisional ballots aren't improperly rejected and to wait until Friday to certify the results of the midterm elections that include an unsettled race for governor.
In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg ordered the secretary of state's office to establish and publicize a hotline or website where voters can check whether their provisional ballots were counted and, if not, the reason why.
And, for counties with 100 or more provisional ballots, she ordered the secretary of state's office to review, or have county election officials review, the eligibility of voters who had to cast a provisional ballot because of registration issues.
Totenberg also ruled that Georgia must not certify the election results before Friday at 5 p.m., which falls before the Nov. 20 deadline set by state law.
State elections director Chris Harvey testified at a hearing last week that the state had planned to certify the election results on Wednesday, a day after the deadline for counties to certify their results. He said that would allow preparations to begin for any necessary runoff contests, including one already projected in the race for the next secretary of state.
Current unofficial returns show Republican Brian Kemp leading by a margin that would make him the governor-elect. But Democrat Stacey Abrams insists that enough outstanding votes remain to be counted that could pull Kemp below the majority threshold and force a Dec. 4 runoff.
Totenberg acted in response to a lawsuit filed Nov. 5 by Common Cause Georgia. The suit accuses Kemp, the state's top elections official until he resigned as secretary of state last week, of acting recklessly after a vulnerability in Georgia's voter registration database was exposed shortly before the election.
Kemp's actions increased the risk that eligible voters could be illegally removed from the voter registration database or have registration information illegally altered, the lawsuit says.
Sara Henderson, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, said in an emailed statement that the ruling helps increase voter confidence in elections.
The secretary of state's office was reviewing the order and considering its options, spokeswoman Candice Broce said in an email.
Totenberg's order doesn't change the Tuesday deadline for counties to certify their results. But Abrams' campaign filed a lawsuit Sunday asking a federal court to push that deadline to Wednesday, while also requiring that elections authorities count certain provisional and absentee ballots that have been or would be rejected for "arbitrary reasons."
"I am fighting to make sure our democracy works for and represents everyone who has ever put their faith in it. I am fighting for every Georgian who cast a ballot with the promise that their vote would count," Abrams said in a statement explaining her refusal to end her bid to become the first black woman elected governor in American history.
Kemp's campaign retorted that Abrams' latest effort is "a disgrace to democracy" and ignores mathematical realities.
"Clearly, Stacey Abrams isn't ready for her 15 minutes of fame to end," said Kemp spokesman Ryan Mahoney.
As of Monday evening, a hearing had not been scheduled for arguments in the case, but Abrams' campaign was expecting a federal court in Atlanta to set a Tuesday hearing, given the time sensitivity.
Unofficial returns show Kemp with a lead of about 60,000 votes out of more than 3.9 million cast; Abrams would need a net gain of about 21,000 votes to force a Dec. 4 runoff. NBC has rated the race too close to call at this time.
The Georgia race, along with Florida's gubernatorial and Senate matchups that are requiring recounts, are among the final measures of a midterm election cycle that already has allowed Democrats to deal serious blows to President Donald Trump.
Democrats already have won the House, flipped seven governor's seats and reclaimed more than 300 state legislative seats in statehouses around the country. The GOP maintained its Senate majority, and could still expand it. But it's looking to hold the governor's mansions in Florida and Georgia to deny Democrats important gains in presidential battlegrounds ahead of the 2020 election.
Republicans have been governor in Georgia since 2003 and in Florida since 1999, and Trump has put a premium on the two states, endorsing both Kemp and Florida's GOP nominee Ron DeSantis when they were in competitive GOP primaries and then campaigning in person for them ahead of the Nov. 6 election.
Georgia's interim Secretary of State Robyn Crittenden on Monday directed county officials to count some provisional ballots that had been rejected because of voters' failure to provide their year of birth, provided the voter's identity and eligibility was still established.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the State Election Board asked Crittenden to send a letter instructing county election officials how to handle absentee ballots.
Republican Gov. Nathan Deal appointed Crittenden to replace Kemp, who resigned last week after declaring victory in the governor's race. He called his margin — 50.3 percent of the vote — "clear and convincing," but said he wanted Georgians to have confidence in the certification process.
Crittenden's directive was in line with one form of relief sought by the Abrams campaign lawsuit but rejected another.
When casting absentee ballots, voters have to sign an oath and have to write their address and year of birth. The lawsuit asked the judge to order that county election officials accept any absentee ballots on which there was missing or insufficient oath information as long as that doesn't "substantially obstruct" officials from verifying the absentee voter's identity.
The lawsuit says that at least 1,095 qualified voters who cast absentee ballots in Gwinnett County had them "arbitrarily and unlawfully rejected" because of missing or insufficient information.
Under Georgia law, any issues causing a voter to cast a provisional ballot must be remedied within three days of the election — Nov. 9 for this election. The lawsuit asks that county election officials be required to consider evidence proving eligibility through Wednesday at 5 p.m.
Crittenden's guidance to the counties noted that the Nov. 9 deadline for verifying the eligibility of provisional ballots was set by state law.
The lawsuit also asked that provisional ballots cast by a voter registered in another county be counted as if the voter had shown up at the wrong precinct. The lawsuit says that of the 1,556 provisional ballots Fulton County reported having rejected by Nov. 9, nearly 1,000 were disqualified because they were cast by voters whose registration records showed them registered in another county.
Further, the Abrams' campaign is asking that any of the court's orders in the case be applied retroactively to counties that already have certified their returns, meaning those counties would have to reopen their counting process using any new standards and then submit updated returns to the state.
STACEY ABRAMS WON’T CONCEDE; DEMANDS RUN-OFF, I CONCUR:
VOTES ARE STILL BEING COUNTED & THE MARGIN IS VERY SLIM.
THUS A RUN-OFF SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
STACEY WORKED EXTREMELY HARD TO GAIN VOTER CONFIDENCE.
IT’S NOT ABOUT RACE......IT’S ABOUT WINNING WITH INTEGRITY.
EVERY BALLOT CAST FOR STACEY SHOULD COUNT.
THE ENTIRE WORLD IS WATCHING 2018 GEORGIA GUBERNATORIAL RACE.
Post Sources: CNN, Youtube
***** Stacey Abrams refuses to concede Georgia governor's race, hoping for runoff
Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams is not conceding the Georgia governor's race to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, arguing that the high stakes contest is too close to call with the possibility of a runoff next month.
Kemp is currently ahead of Abrams by nearly 68,000 votes with 99% of precincts reporting, according to CNN election results. But he only has 50.4% of the vote. If neither candidate receives 50%, there will be a runoff in early December.
"I'm here tonight to tell you votes remain to be counted. There's voices that are waiting to be heard," Abrams, who would be the nation's first black female governor, told supporters early Wednesday morning gathered in Atlanta.
Kemp told supporters he is confident of his victory.
"There are votes left to count. But we have a very strong lead. And folks, make no mistake, the math is on our side to win this election," he said.
According to a statement provided to CNN by her campaign, Abrams is holding off on conceding to see if a runoff is possible.
The campaign cited several specific places in the state that could play a role in a scenario to force the runoff, including three of the state's largest counties that "have reported only a portion of the votes that were submitted by early mail" and four other large counties that "have reported exactly 0 votes by mail," according to the campaign. Together, it said, the seven counties "are expected to return a minimum of 77,000 ballots."
"These counties also represent heavily-Democratic leaning constituencies, and the majority of those votes are anticipated to be for Stacey Abrams," the statement read. The campaign also said absentee ballots could make a difference.
"Across our state, folks are opening up the dreams of voters in absentee ballots, and we believe our chance for a stronger Georgia is just within reach," Abrams said Wednesday morning.
Voters rights issues have taken front and center in the the high-profile gubernatorial race between Kemp, the GOP secretary of state, and Abrams, a state representative.
Democrats have accused Kemp of a conflict of interest as he refused to step away from his post overseeing state elections while he campaigned for governor.
Last month, a federal judge ruled Georgia election officials had to stop rejecting absentee ballots with voters' signatures that didn't appear to match signatures on record.
On Sunday, Kemp's office opened an investigation into the Georgia Democratic Party for what it said was an attempted hack of the state's voter registration system, without providing proof. Georgia Democrats flatly denied the allegation.
He dismissed critics alleging that he weaponized state law to suppress the minority vote as "outside agitators."
A lawsuit filed Tuesday in a Georgia federal court by five state voters asked a judge to strip Kemp of his powers over the midterm election -- including any potential runoffs.
Voters in the Peach State also faced long lines and malfunctioning machines during Tuesday's vote.
LARRY HOGAN (R-MD) IS RE-ELECTED, DEFEATS BEN JEALOUS (D):
JEALOUS WAITED TOO LATE TO GAIN MOMENTUM.
DEMS TRIED TO USE FAKE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS & FAKE SAME DAY VOTER REGISTRATION/ BALLOTS & STILL LOST.
WHETHER YOU LIKE HIM OR NOT, HOGAN WON THIS ELECTION FAIRLY.
CONGRATS
Post Sources: The Intercept, NY Times
***** WHY BEN JEALOUS LOST THE MARYLAND GOVERNOR’S RACE
LAST NIGHT, BEN JEALOUS, the Democratic candidate for governor in Maryland, lost his race to incumbent Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, 56 percent to 43 percent.
Jealous would have been Maryland’s first African-American governor and was running on one of the most left-wing policy platforms in the country,
Although polls had been showing Hogan with a significant lead for months, progressives hoped a strong blue wave on Election Day could bring about a major upset. After all, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-1 ratio in Maryland.
But Jealous didn’t lose because he ran on issues like “Medicare for All,” a $15 minimum wage, and legalizing marijuana. In fact, voters in Maryland largely agree with Jealous on his signature policy issues.
A Goucher College survey released in mid-September found that 54 percent of Maryland residents hold a favorable opinion on “Medicare for All” or single-payer health care, with 33 percent holding an unfavorable view. Support for other key parts of Jealous’s plan polled even higher. Seventy-one percent of Marylanders support raising the statewide minimum wage to $15 dollars per hour, with just a quarter of residents against it.
This was actually a substantial jump from February, when Goucher found 66 percent of Marylanders supported the $15 minimum wage. On legalizing marijuana for recreational use, 62 percent of Maryland residents support it, with just one-third opposed.
A Hobbled Campaign
The primary reason Jealous lost is that his campaign couldn’t pull in the necessary funds to compete effectively. Despite winning 22 out of 24 counties in the state’s crowded Democratic primary, the Jealous campaign’s own internal polling revealed that as of July, one-third of Maryland voters, and one-quarter of the state’s Democratic voters, did not know who Jealous was. He had never run for office before, but had earned the teachers union’s endorsement in the primary, which many believe helped secure him his June victory.
Meanwhile, Hogan started out with a big fundraising advantage and a high approval rating. Although Jealous assumed he could turn things around after Labor Day, by then it was too late to change the narrative.
At the end of August, Hogan had $9.4 million to spend for his re-election campaign, compared to Jealous’s mere $385,000. And the gap never closed. In the final two weeks of the campaign, Hogan had almost 12 times more cash than Jealous, or $3.3 million to the Democrat’s $275,000. Few people wanted to donate to a race that seemed uncompetitive, which in turn made it even less competitive as the weeks went on.
While Hogan’s campaign and the Republican Governors Association have blasted negative ads against Jealousnonstop since July, Jealous’s campaign didn’t run its first TV ad until mid-September, and the Democratic Governors Association didn’t run their first ad against Hogan until late October. Jealous couldn’t afford to compete on television, or even really through mailers.
The Jealous campaign understood that it needed to invest more in on-the-ground organizing to make up for the complacency that gripped Democrats in 2014, when Hogan eked out his upset victory. So this year, 70 Democratic organizers were hired to work across the state, compared to 15 field organizers for the state’s Democrat-coordinated campaign in 2014.
But even Jealous supporters noted that his campaign was making it difficult to rally support for his team. On his campaign website, there was nowhere for supporters to order lawn signs, bumper stickers, or other paraphernalia to demonstrate support — unlike on Hogan’s website, where such ordinary purchases were made prominently visible and available. Supporters had to ask around to learn that they had to show up in person at a campaign office to get any swag. That information wasn’t even available on the website.
And while Democratic candidates across the country have been leaning on new media platforms like viral two-minute online-only campaign ads, the Jealous campaign relied predominantly on awkward and less popular tools like Facebook Live.
Lack of Endorsements
The Washington Post has been writing favorably about Hogan for years, so much so that a reader wrote a letter to the editor in June asking, “Seriously, has Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) changed his name? Apparently so, at least according to The Post. In nearly every reference to the governor, The Post’s writers insist on referencing him with a new first name of ‘popular,’ as in the popular Maryland governor.”
As a result, it was unsurprising when the Washington Post gave its endorsement to Hogan, praising him for having the “agility and sense to govern as a moderate — that disappearing breed of American politician.” The Post dismissed Jealous’s plans as mostly “politically unrealistic” and “unwise.” But more staggering was the Baltimore Sun, which endorsed Jealous in the primary but endorsed Hogan in the general election, despite literally acknowledging in its own endorsementthat Hogan’s “actions in office have too often treated [Baltimore] as an afterthought, if not with outright contempt.” (Hogan’s decision to cancel the Red Line light rail, a project that had been in the works for a decade and to which the federal government was going to contribute $900 million, was a disastrously cruel move for the long-neglected city.)
Outside Maryland, the national press was also largely uninterested in Jealous’s general election challenge, especially when compared to the attention paid to Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum, black candidates running to be Georgia’s and Florida’s first African-American governors, respectively. The Maryland race was deemed uncompetitive, and thus less exciting to cover.
During the primary, most of Maryland’s Democratic establishment lined up behind Rushern Baker, the outgoing county executive in Prince George’s County. (Kevin Kamenetz, the county executive for Baltimore County was also a frontrunner, and had raised more money than other candidates in the primary, but he died unexpectedly of cardiac arrest six weeks before the election.)
After Jealous won, several dozen Maryland Democrats announced their support for Hogan, though most were older white men who hadn’t served in office for years. Others had received political appointments from the governor, or had records of supporting Republican candidates in the past.
Jealous did end up securing endorsements from the Democratic Party’s current elected officials, but some were much slower to voice their support, and many remained muted in their enthusiasm. The long-serving state Senate president, Mike Miller, was a prime example. He was guarded in his support for Jealous, while being enthusiastic in his praise for Hogan’s work. Ike Leggett, the outgoing executive of affluent Montgomery County, at first withheld his endorsement of Jealous over tax issues that he said would hurt his wealthy constituents. When he finally did endorse Jealous in in mid-October, he did so in the world’s most half-hearted way. When the Washington Post asked him if Jealous would be a better governor than Hogan, Leggett declined to say yes. “That’s a good question,” he said. “I’m simply for the Democratic nominee.” About 45 percent of Montgomery County ended up voting for Hogan.
It’s unlikely that vocal enthusiasm from Leggett and Miller could have really changed Jealous’s fundraising numbers in a substantial way, but they certainly didn’t help.
Jealous also tamped down enthusiasm from some otherwise natural allies. Despite running on one of the most progressive platforms in the country, he didn’t even try to court some of the newly established Democratic Socialists of America chapters or get their endorsements. He also upset a lot of leftists over the summer, when he disavowed socialism in a way that not even Barack Obama did during the eight years he was blasted for being on the left. After Hogan called Jealous a “far-left socialist” in an interview, a different reporter followed up by asking Jealous if he identified as a socialist. Jealous responded, “Are you fucking kidding me?” The Republican Governors Association funded a TV ad this summer that featured Jealous saying, “Go ahead, call me a socialist,” cutting off the rest of his sentence, in which he went on to say, “It doesn’t change the fact that I’m a venture capitalist.” The Jealous campaign demanded that local stations pull the ad for being false and too misleading.
Larry Hogan Was a Better Campaigner
Hogan’s schtick of acting moderate was largely successful, in part due to the light press coverage his administration has received over the past four years. Over the summer, for example, he earned glowing national headlines by recalling Maryland’s four National Guard troops from the southern U.S. border — thus appearing to be someone willing to stand up to Trump and his family separation policy — but his actual record on immigration was far more hostile and overlooked. Hogan also moved to the left when he felt he needed to politically: In July, he announced a new student debt relief plan and announced he would no longer take donations or an endorsement from the National Rifle Association. In 2014, he took the gun lobby’s money and endorsement, and also received an A- rating.
It also helped that while Maryland voters are generally Democratic, they’re not always very progressive. Fifty-six percent of Marylanders think their state taxes are “too high,” and Hogan spent the bulk of his campaign emphasizing that he’d continue to cut taxes and that Jealous would significantly raise them. While the Jealous campaign was banking on major turnout in the city of Baltimore to push him over the edge, in the end, nearly one-third of Baltimore went for Hogan, up from 22 percent in 2014.
In the Maryland legislature, however, Democrats maintained their veto-proof majority. Republicans had targeted eight Democratic seats and hoped to flip five, but failed. Baltimore’s three largest suburban counties will now also be led by Democrats, with Anne Arundel and Howard counties flipping blue.
CHRISTINE FORD vs BRETT KAVANAUGH - 36 YRS AGO WHO REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS ACCURATELY?
DIDN’T THIS INCIDENT OCCURR IN HIGH SCHOOL?
I’M NOT MOCKING CHRISTINE FORD NOR AM I TRYING TO SOUND HYPOCRITICAL BUT WHY IS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS FOR GOP SCOTUS COURT NOMINEES? WHY??
I WAS TRYING TO REMAIN SILENT BUT I HAD TO SPEAK UP.
THIS DRAMA IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING WOMEN, IT’S STRAIGHT POLITICAL THEATER.
Post Sources: BBC News, Fox News, NBC News, Washington Post, Youtube
***** Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh hearing: Key takeaways so far
With a seat on the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are appearing in front of senators to state their case and share their stories. Here are some of the key takeaways so far.
Everyone knew what Christine Blasey Ford was going to say before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday morning. Her formal opening statement was released to the public on Wednesday evening.
Reading what she was going to say and hearing her speak it, in a quiet, sometimes faltering voice, are two very different things, however.
The committee hearing began with statements by Republican chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, and the exchanging accusations of political obfuscation and procedural misconduct threatened to cover the proceedings in a political fog.
For a taut 20 minutes, however, Ms Ford cut through the fog with searing emotion. She spoke of traumatic memories and decades of shame; of a civic duty to come forward and recent months of hounding media and death threats.
The images of her speaking - the first glimpse the public at large has had of her besides a few grainy photos - will linger well beyond Thursday's hearing or even Brett Kavanaugh's ultimate professional fate.
Once Ms Ford concluded, the fog descended again. Thanks in large part to a disjointed format that featured five-minute segments alternating between veteran sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a surrogate questioner for the Republicans, and Democratic senators, there was little flow to proceedings.
It was as if viewers were flipping back and forth between a CourtTV criminal cross-examination and a public-access television congressional hearing.
Democrats succeeded in gleaning a few memorable moments from Ms Ford. She said she was 100% certain that Brett - referring to Mr Kavanaugh repeatedly by his first name - was the teenager who assaulted her.
She also, in reply to a question by Vermont Democrat Pat Leahy, recounted how the enduring recollection she has from the incident was Mr Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, laughing as they stumbled down the stairs after the alleged attack.
Ms Mitchell, in her interrogation, pulled at a number of threads in Ms Ford's story.
Who drove her to and from the house on the night of the party?
Why did she tell Senate investigators that she couldn't meet them in Washington because she was afraid of flying if she frequently travelled by air for pleasure?
Did she or did she not share her 2012 therapist records with a reporter from the Washington Post?
That final line of questioning is key, since it's those records that help corroborate that Ms Ford had spoken about the assault well before Mr Kavanaugh became a candidate for the Supreme Court.
The other questions seemed more geared toward undermining Ms Ford's credibility - the kind of strategy useful during depositions or trials to undermine a jury's trust in a witness or, perhaps, force them to crack under the accumulated pressure of the interrogation.
Every five minutes, however, Democrats threw Ms Ford a lifeline.
In the end, however, Ms Mitchell herself seemed slightly exasperated by the format she was working under. When it comes to trying to arrive at the accurate recollection of trauma, she said, "there's no study that shows that this setting, in five-minute increments, is the best way to do that.
As the first half of the hearing drew to a close, the senators began to argue about entering various outside statements into the record, only to be interrupted by one of Ms Ford's lawyers.
"Can we be excused?" he asked.
With the partisan fog thick again, it's a sentiment many Americans may have shared.
JOHN MCCAIN IS DEAD - POLITICAL BATTLE FOR HIS SEAT BEGINS BEFORE HE IS EVEN BURIED:
AUGUST 29, 1936 - AUGUST 25, 2018
MCCAIN LEFT BEHIND MIXED POLITICAL LEGACY, HOWEVER HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REST IN PEACE AND STILL HONORED FOR HIS U.S. MILITARY SERVICE.
I SEND MY PRAYERS AND CONDOLENCES TO HIS FAMILY.
Post Sources: ABC News, BBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Youtube
****** John McCain's death means potential legal battle to fill his Senate seat
With the news that Arizona Senator John McCainhas passed away due to complications from brain cancer, the speculation over who will succeed him in the position he has held since 1987 has begun in earnest.
The timing of McCain’s death results in a complicated process that could end up in a court battle in a state that will be key to determining the balance of power in the U.S. Senate this midterm cycle.
According to Arizona state law, the governor appoints a replacement for any vacancy in a U.S. Senate seat who will hold it until the "next eligible general election."
That person must belong to the same political party of the person who held the seat.
That means Doug Ducey, Arizona's Republican governor, would appoint a Republican to fill McCain's seat until the next general election or until the governor decided to call a special election.
However, the most relevant piece of election code in this situation is that the candidate filing deadline for the election cannot be fewer than 90 days before a primary for that special election.
The State of Arizona Election Procedures Manualstipulates that the vacancy "must occur sufficiently before" that deadline to gather signatures to get on the primary ballot.
Since the Arizona primaries will be held this Tuesday, the filing deadline for candidates would have had to have been May 30 for a special election to comply with state law.
So even though the next general election in Arizona is in November, the timing of McCain’s passing likely ensures that whomever Ducey appoints to replace him will serve until 2020, the next general election year.
Matt Roberts, the communications director for the Arizona Secretary of State, confirmed to ABC News that under state election regulations, Ducey can appoint a replacement that will serve in McCain’s seat until 2020.
Democrats could challenge that relevant portion of state election guidance to try and force a special election in 2018, which would put both of the state's Senate seats up this cycle since retiring Sen. Jeff Flake's seat is also up.
When asked about potential plans to pursue legal action to force a special election in 2018, a spokesperson for the Arizona Democratic Party declined to comment on the subject, instead telling ABC News, "John McCain is an American hero and our thoughts are with him and his family at this difficult time."
A special election this year would force Republicans to defend two Senate seats this cycle in a state Donald Trump won by just four percentage points in the 2016 presidential election.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. And, perhaps, your potential leakers closer yet.
President Donald Trump's political operation has made a regular practice of providing soft landing-pads for discarded staffers, offering nebulous jobs at big salaries to aides who have been pushed out of his West Wing.
The revelation this week that former White Houseassistant Omarosa Manigault Newman was offered a high-paying job on Trump's re-election campaign in return for signing a non-disclosure agreement was the clearest demonstration yet of how a slot in the Trump orbit is being used to take care of loyalists — and protect against potential liabilities.
Manigault Newman, who contends in her new book that she was offered a hush-money contract with the Trump campaign paying $15,000 a month, is hardly the first erstwhile staffer to find a lucrative off-ramp in the expanse of pro-Trump political organizations. The former staff members have found a wide range of rehabilitation within Trump's orbit: his re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee, and outside groups that support both him and Vice President Mike Pence.
Keith Schiller, the president's former bodyguard who served for eight months as director of Oval Office operations, has been paid the same $15,000 by the Republican National Committee as a security consultant for its national convention — in 2020 in Charlotte.
John McEntee, Trump's former personal aide, is paid 14,000 a month by the Trump re-election campaign.
One-time Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski joined Pence's Great America PAC in May, and former press secretary Sean Spicer was announced in June to replace him as the "senior advisor and spokesman" for pro-Trump super PAC America First Action.
Manigault Newman told MSNBC's "Hardball" on Monday, "They told me I could work from home, I didn't have to come in if I didn't want to. ... I could choose between the RNC, America First or the Trump campaign." She says she said no.
Now she has released a book filled with unsavory White House inside stories — Trump says the ones about him are false — and has been playing recordings of the president and others on TV.
That's exactly what he wanted to avoid, and his presidential campaign filed an arbitration action against her on Wednesday, alleging she had breached a confidentiality agreement she had signed.
The outside groups have also become magnets for Trump backers who were not brought into the administration, like Katrina Pierson and Trump daughter-in-law Lara Trump.
The all-in the-family approach to taking care of stalwarts is nothing new. But the systematic approach with which Trump White House veterans have been offered plush gigs is.
According to aides, it reflects a reality that for some the lucrative private sector jobs that are typically available to exiting White House officials never materialized, while for others, it serves as a way keep them nearby and quiet.
Some current and former staffers have struggled to find post-White House jobs — given the conflicted feelings on the Trump administration in Washington — making the campaign or a super PAC an attractive paycheck.
And Trump, despite his reality-television catch-phrase, is loath to fire anyone from his inner circle, preferring to keep receiving their public and private adoration.
"When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems," Trump tweeted about Manigault Newman on Monday. "I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me - until she got fired!"
CHARLOTTE MAYOR VI LYLES (DEMOCRAT) WISELY CHOSE BUSINESS & JOBS OVER FOOLISH PARTISAN POLITICS.
CHARLOTTE VOTERS NEED TO FIRE ALL CLOSE-MINDED PARTISAN POLITICIANS SO THE CITY’S ECONOMY CAN FINALLY REBOUND.
NOW IT’S TIME FOR CHARLOTTE TO DEVELOP A ZOO & OTHER TOURIST ATTRACTIONS THAT WILL ENTERTAIN LARGE CROWDS FOR AN ENTIRE WEEK.
VI LYLES WOULD SOMEDAY MAKE A GREAT PROGRESSIVE 21st CENTURY GOVERNOR FOR NORTH CAROLINA.
CONGRATS
Post Sources: Charlotte Observer, Youtube
****** GOP picks Charlotte for 2020 convention. Now, the fundraising and organizing begin
Charlotte won its second national political convention in a decade Friday, kicking off two years of planning, fundraising and anticipation.
The Republican National Committee on Friday formally awarded Charlotte the 2020 party event, pushing Charlotte into a small group of cities that will have held both major party conventions.
The vote capped a dramatic week in which the Charlotte City Council agreed to host the convention Monday by a single vote. Four Democrats joined two Republicans in support. Five Democrats voted no.
“We could not be more excited,” North Carolina GOP Chair Robin Hayes said in a statement. “Today’s announcement is a testament to the strong leadership in Charlotte that has followed a long North Carolina tradition of putting the needs and opportunities of our people before politics.”
But politics was behind the contentiousness surrounding the council decision.
More than 100 people debated the convention publicly and passionately before Monday’s council vote. Through it all, Democratic Mayor Vi Lyles championed the event and urged people to put partisanship aside.
Asked Friday if she would have started the bidding process had she known the opposition it would spark, she said she would have. She said the city would have had the same debate, even if the outcome may have been different.
“I think we would have done exactly what we did,” she told reporters. “The outcome I can’t project.”
Friday’s RNC vote means Charlotte will host its second national political convention eight years after finding itself the site of Democrat Barack Obama’s nomination for a second term.
Lyles and council members who joined her in Austin said they’re confident that law enforcement officials can provide security for the convention and the city.
“We’ve got two years to plan for protests we know will happen,” said Mayor Pro Tem Julie Eiselt, a Democrat.
Republican council member Ed Driggs agreed.
“We were very clear-headed about the political climate we’re in right now,” Driggs said. “We felt the benefits to the city outweigh the risks.”
Businessman Ned Curran co-chairs the host committee with Doug Lebda, the founder of Lending Tree, and attorney Walter Price. Former council member John Lassiter will be the host committee’s CEO and executive director.
Curran said the committee is “way ahead of schedule” in reaching its $70 million fundraising goal. In 2012 Democrats fell $10 million short of theirs. Duke shareholders footed about $6 million of that after the company was not repaid.
Lassiter told reporters the host committee already has raised “more than 10 percent” of what they need.
Other Republicans applauded the RNC’s selection.
“I think it’s going to be great,” said Saul Anunzis, Michigan’s former GOP chairman. “It’ll make sense politically for us.”
GOP National Chair Ronna McDaniel complimented not only Charlotte but Lyles.
“I love that it’s the Queen City and we have Mayor Vi Lyles — you are a queen,” McDaniel said. “We look forward to Charlotte being center stage when the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump and Mike Pence for a second term.”
“To be one of only a few American cities to host conventions from both political parties is a testament to the people of our state,” Pat McCrory, North Carolina’s former governor and Charlotte’s former mayor, said in a statement.
The convention is expected to involve not only uptown Charlotte but venues around the region.
“Every venue in the region is in play, and part of the attraction,” Curran said.
For nearly two years, Republicans have watched uncomfortably, and often in silence, as President Trump has swatted away accusations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential race, attacked his own intelligence agencies and flattered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
On Monday, even for members of his own party, Mr. Trump apparently went too far.
The president’s extraordinary news conference with Mr. Putin in Helsinki, Finland, stunned Republicans across the ideological spectrum and the party’s political apparatus, leaving them struggling to respond after the president undermined his national intelligence director, blamed both the United States and Russia for poor relations between the two countries and seemingly agreed to Mr. Putin’s suggestion that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, cooperate with Russia.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, declared, “No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant.” Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and Trump adviser, declared the news conference “the most serious mistake of his presidency.” Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and current Senate candidate from Utah, called it “disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles.”
The effect extended far beyond official Washington. One local official — Chris Gagin, the chairman of the Republican Party in Belmont County, Ohio — resigned his post, announcing on Twitter that he “did so as a matter of conscience, and my sense of duty.” Neil Cavuto, a Fox Business Network host, called Mr. Trump’s performance “disgusting,” adding, “I’m sorry, it’s the only way I feel. It’s not a right or left thing to me, it’s just wrong.”
Yet no Republican in Congress pledged any particular action to punish Mr. Trump, such as holding up his nominees or delaying legislation, nor did any Republican promise hearings or increased oversight.
It was left to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to demand actual action. He called for increased sanctions on Russia; for Mr. Trump’s national security team to testify before Congress; for defense of the Department of Justice and other intelligence agencies; and for Mr. Trump to press Mr. Putin to extradite the 12 Russian intelligence agents who were indicted Friday.
“In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an adversary the way President Trump has supported President Putin,” Mr. Schumer said.
He added: “A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House: What could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States? Millions of Americans will continue to wonder. The only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump.”
Republican leaders largely tempered their remarks, confining their backhanded comments to denunciations of Russia and expressions of faith in American intelligence agencies. But even they appeared to have given up hope that they could shape the actions of an erratic and unpredictable president.
Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, concluded that Mr. Trump was unable to distinguish between the fact that Russia had interfered in the election and the accusation — as yet unproven — that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia.
“In the president’s mind, I think he’s conflating different things — the meddling and the collusion allegations for which there does not appear to be any evidence,” Mr. Cornyn said.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who has defended Mr. Trump amid the Russia inquiry, was not quite as charitable: “I understand in the bigger picture the president genuinely feels that he can establish better relations with Russia the way Nixon did with China,” Mr. King said in an interview, “but the nuance eludes him.”
And as to Mr. Trump’s openness to having Russia cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Mr. King said, “It would be like bringing ISIS into a joint terrorism task force.”
At least one Republican, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, veered from the script and delivered a full-throated defense of Mr. Trump: “I think it’s a good idea to have engagement, and I guess I don’t quite understand all of the people who have gone completely deranged criticizing the president.”
Elected Republicans have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views toward Russia and his willingness to embrace Mr. Putin since Mr. Trump first grabbed the attention of the party as its primary contest heated up in summer 2015. Many thought that once he was in office, surrounded by Washington’s national security experts, Mr. Trump would adopt the wary stance that has guided previous American presidents.
Instead, time and again he has defied those expectations, as he repeatedly called into question the collective conclusions of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other intelligence agencies, and ignored his own advisers’ advice in seeking a personal relationship with Mr. Putin.
For most Republicans on Capitol Hill and around the country, Mr. Trump’s stance toward Mr. Putin, coupled with his recent attacks on the United States’ allies in Europe, have presented a challenge: either defend the post-World War II international order, and risk angering a president who is immensely popular with their voters, or hold their tongues.
That challenge is especially tricky for Republican leaders, who must work closely with Mr. Trump and are especially reluctant to criticize him in public.
Hours passed on Monday before Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, commented. During a rare hallway interview in the Capitol, he uttered three terse sentences: “The Russians are not our friends. I’ve said that repeatedly, I say it again today. And I have complete confidence in our intelligence community and the findings that they have announced.” He refused to answer questions.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan was a bit more pointed. “The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally,” he said in a carefully worded statement. “There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals.”
Democrats wanted more than carefully calibrated statements.
“This is a disgraceful moment. The president’s party knows better,” John Kerry, the former secretary of state and senator, wrote in a statement. “America needs them to speak out with clarity and conviction not just in this news cycle, but until there’s common sense governing America’s foreign policy.”
Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, suggested on Twitter that if Republicans “were serious,” they would pass a long-stalled legislation protecting the jobs of special counsels such as Mr. Mueller.
But Republican leaders did not appear ready to go beyond measured phrases. Mr. Cornyn told reporters that it was “wishful thinking” to expect Mr. Putin to agree to the extradition of the 12 Russian agents. “Much of what Senator Schumer’s asking for, I think we’ve already done,” he added.
As Republican leaders struggled to come up with tactful ways to respond to a stunning news conference, responses from some of their colleagues signified a moment when Republicans could not defend their president.
Mr. McCain’s was undoubtedly the harshest.
“It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout — as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience,” said Mr. McCain, who has brain cancer.
“But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician,” he continued. “These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.”
Mr. McCain’s fellow Republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, released his own rebuke: “I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression. This is shameful.”
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican Alaska, struck a mournful tone: “Sadly President Trump did not defend America to the Russian president, and for the world to see. Instead, what I saw today was not ‘America First,’ it was simply a sad diminishment of our great nation.”
Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska and a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, echoed the sentiment. “Everyone in this body should be disgusted by what happened in Helsinki today,” he said Monday in a speech on the Senate floor.
Even for congressional Republicans used to avoiding commenting on the president’s outbursts, Mr. Trump’s performance in Helsinki was difficult to ignore. For those who are accustomed to speaking out against Mr. Trump, and those whose impending retirements have freed them to do so, it was yet another occasion for public hand-wringing.
Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the retiring chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he “did not think this was a good moment for our country.”
It was, he added, a very good moment for Mr. Putin.
“It was almost an approval, if you will, a public approval by the greatest nation on earth towards him,” Mr. Corker told reporters. “I would guess he’s having caviar right now.”
The head of the state's Republican Party said Friday that he has been told the competition to host the 2020 Republican National Convention is down to about three cities, with Charlotte one of the strongest bids.
N.C. GOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse, who is attending the Republican National Committee meeting in Miami, said he has been told by numerous national Republicans that they were impressed by the city's Democratic leadership teaming up with statewide Republicans.
Woodhouse said he believed Las Vegas is a strong competitor.
CNN reported that Nevada GOP chairman Michael McDonald made a presentation this week to a site selection committee.
Woodhouse said Las Vegas appears to have placed a late bid to host the RNC.
Earlier this week, a spokesperson for the city of Las Vegas said they weren't aware of a bid.
A spokesperson for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority said Thursday that Republicans asked the city to bid, but it had to decline because it "doesn't have the facilities to accommodate the event."
On Friday, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority said it was surprised by the story that Las Vegas was bidding.
It said it turned down the GOP with a letter earlier this year.
Las Vegas considered bidding for the 2016 RNC, but dropped out.
But the state Republican party appears to be moving forward with a bid, even if tourism officials aren't on board yet.
On Thursday, the San Antonio City Council decided in a closed session meeting not to bid.
"There's a reason that San Antonio has not pursued a political convention for the past 20 years and why so few cities seem interested in this convention," San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said, citing disruptions to traffic and neighborhoods.
As San Antonio council members prepared to consider a late bid, some Democratic activists said the city shouldn't seek the RNC.
They said the Trump administration's push for a border wall would damage the city's close ties with Mexico.
The bids for the RNC were originally due Feb. 28, but that deadline was pushed back.
In past years, cities have been vocal about wanting to land a political convention, which are said to be worth tens of millions in dollars in economic impact.
But this year only Charlotte and Las Vegas have said publicly they want it.
Charlotte hosted the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
Woodhouse said he was told that as many as seven cities had expressed interested to the RNC, but some dropped out.
He doesn't know what the other city is, though he said he has heard Texas.
A tourism official in Dallas said the RNC approached the city about bidding, but the city declined.
A spokesperson for the Houston mayor's office declined to comment, but a City Council member said it had not been discussed.
"They were really impressed that a Democratic city and Democratic leaders have come together with Republicans to host the RNC," Woodhouse said.
He said the RNC will meet again in August. A decision could be made then, he said.
One of the many odd features of American politics, circa 2018, is that the primary beneficiaries of our nation’s social safety net are also the core supporters of the party that wants to slash it. No age group derives a bigger benefit from our welfare state than America’s elderly; but no cohort is as susceptible to the cultural paranoia and racial resentment that sustain the modern right, either. Thus, conservatives can’t shrink “big government” without retaining the allegiance of the voters who stand to lose most from the erosion of social insurance.
The tensions inherent to this arrangement grew conspicuous during last year’s fight over Obamacare repeal — when congressional Republicans tried to pass a health-care bill that would have drastically increased the cost of health insurance for older, working-class voters in rural America (a core GOP constituency) while dramatically lowering premiums for 20-something city-dwellers (an overwhelmingly Democratic demographic). Many purple-district Republicans voted for the bill, anyway, effectively betting that it was more politically hazardous to thwart the ideological goals of their big-dollar donors, than to betray the material interests of their gray-haired voters.
This may have been costly mistake.
According to polling from Reuters/Ipsos, the percentage of college-educated white voters who say “health care” is their top issue rose from 8 percent in 2016 to 21 percent today; over that same period, the demographic went from favoring a Republican Congress by ten points, to backing a Democratic one by two.
Of course, this shift isn’t solely the product of health-care politics. While older whites with college diplomas have swung left by 12 points since 2016, those without bachelor’s degrees have remained solidly in the GOP’s camp.
If material self-interest were the only force pushing older whites out of the Republican tent, one might expect “working class” elderly whites to be leading the exodus. Nevertheless, the Ryan agenda does seem to have played a role in alienating college-educated white Republicans, whose educational backgrounds already rendered them a less-than-ideal audience for Trump’s anti-intellectual shtick. As Reuters reports:
John Camm has been a Republican since the Nixon Administration, but the 63-year-old Tucson accountant says he will likely support a Democrat for Congress in November. He is splitting with his party over access to health insurance as well as its recent overhaul of the nation’s income tax system. He also supports gun control measures that the party has rejected.
“I’m a moderate Republican, and yet my party has run away from that,” Camm said. “So give me a moderate Democrat.”
… Voters between the ages of 60 and 65 are particularly worried about healthcare, said Brigid Harrison, a political scientist at Montclair State University in New Jersey, because they are paying ever higher private health insurance premiums and are not yet eligible for Medicare.
Polling on this fall’s elections have consistently demonstrated that the Democratic base is more energized than the Republican one. In the face of this grim data, Republicans have sought consolation in the fact that core Democratic constituencies (like nonwhite and younger voters) have historically failed to turn out for midterms in high numbers.
But the Democrats’ turnout advantage in the past year’s special elections put a dent in that hope — and the leftward lurch of elderly whites all but eviscerates it. Older, college-educated whites are among the most reliable voters in the nation. And in many of this fall’s most competitive districts, such voters account for nearly 10 percent of the population, according to Reuters’ analysis. Republicans were already at risk of losing the House due to shifts in turnout patterns, alone — but if those shifts are accompanied by significant defections among reliable GOP constituencies, the party could suffer historic losses up and down the ballot.
“The real core for the Republicans is white, older white, and if they’re losing ground there, they’re going to have a tsunami,” political scientist Larry Sabato told Reuters. “If that continues to November, they’re toast.”
Remarkably, even as Republicans have lost ground with this key demographic — and Democratic candidates have won improbable special election victories while painting their Republican opponents as enemies of Medicare and Social Security — Paul Ryan has persisted in calling for sweeping cuts to entitlement spending. Meanwhile, House Republicans are preparing a symbolic vote on a “balanced budget” amendment — a gesture meant to appease die-hard fiscal conservatives, but that seems just as likely to help Democrats put a spotlight on the potential costs of the Trump tax cuts to ordinary Americans, not least those who are relying on Uncle Sam’s largesse to get them through their golden years.
Gov. Larry Hogan remains highly popular in Maryland, according to a new poll, despite being a Republican in an overwhelmingly blue state in an election year when Democrats hope to capitalize on opposition to President Trump.
Sixty-nine percent of Marylanders approve of the way Hogan is handling his job, an increase from 61 percent in February, according to a Goucher College poll released Tuesday. It’s his highest approval rating in the Goucher poll since fall 2016.
He receives praise across party lines: from 65 percent of registered Democrats, 64 percent of independents and 81 percent of Republicans.
Hogan is vying to become the second GOP governor in 60 years to be reelected in Maryland, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2 to 1. He has tried hard to avoid a partisan label and has repeatedly distanced himself from Trump and Republicans in Congress.
So far, the strategy seems to have worked. Seventy percent of Marylanders disapprove of Trump, nearly the opposite of Hogan’s approval rating, according to the Goucher poll. But 47 percent of Marylanders polled say Hogan has distanced himself “about the right amount” from Trump. Twenty-seven percent say he’s distanced himself too little, and 9 percent say too much.
A 53 percent majority think the state is heading in the right direction; 28 percent say the state is on the wrong track.
“If I were Larry Hogan, I’d probably be doing somersaults,” Todd Eberly, a political scientist at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, said after looking at the poll results. “If there’s going to be a blue wave, I think Hogan is in the best position he could be in a Democratic state if you were going to withstand that wave.”
Mileah Kromer, director of the Goucher polling team, cautioned that there remain plenty of undecided voters and — with the wide-open Democratic gubernatorial primary still nine weeks away — a long road to November.
“What probably concerns them is the fact that approval isn’t necessarily the same thing as support for reelection,” Kromer said. “We’re really far out. It’s not like he can pack it in.”
If Hogan were pitted now against one of the contenders in June’s Democratic primary, between 44 and 47 percent of likely voters say they would choose Hogan, according to the poll. Between 22 and 27 percent of likely voters say they are undecided.
Hogan holds a 44 percent to 31 percent lead against Prince George’s County Executive Rushern L. Baker III, the Democratic front-runner in other recent polls. He leads by an identical margin against former NAACP president Ben Jealous, who narrowly trailed Baker and former Michelle Obama policy aide Krishanti Vignarajah in this weekend’s Western Maryland Democratic straw poll .
A February Mason-Dixon poll found Hogan leading Baker by 15 points in a general-election matchup, while a Gonzalez poll released in January gave Hogan a 10-point advantage.
The governor performed well in the Goucher poll on the question of whether Marylanders trust him or Democratic leaders on several specific issues. Fifty-five percent of Maryland adults say they have more confidence in Hogan to deal with the state’s budget and finances, vs. 28 percent who had more confidence in Democrats. He is more trusted on crime (48 percent to 32 percent), taxes (47 percent to 35 percent), economic development (49 percent to 35 percent) and transportation and infrastructure (45 percent to 36 percent).
Democrats have a double-digit advantage only on the environment (47 percent to 34 percent). They have a narrower edge on education (44 percent to 37 percent).
The poll revealed age and gender gaps that show that it is crucial for Democrats to get millennials and women to the polls.
Hogan has a 24-point advantage over Baker among likely voters age 55 and older, a higher-turnout group in a nonpresidential election year, when fewer than half of voters typically cast ballots. He trails his top Democratic rivals by roughly 20 points among likely voters under 35. Hogan leads by about 2 to 1 among men, but is tied with the Democrats among women, who made up 54 percent of voters in the 2014 gubernatorial election, according to the Census Bureau.
The Goucher poll was conducted April 14-19 among a random sample of 617 residents of Maryland, including landline and cellphone respondents. Full results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points. The margin of error was 4.6 points among the subset of 449 likely voters.
A partisan split in the Washington area’s congressional delegation over how to increase federal funding for Metro has raised concerns that the lack of unity will lead Congress to balk at giving the transit system critically needed support.
The division emerged Tuesday when Democratic House members from the area filed a Metro funding bill that would double the federal subsidy to the transit agency and be more friendly to its unions than legislation proposed by Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock (Va.).
The House bill, a copy of which was obtained in advance by The Washington Post, would raise the federal contribution to the transit agency from $150 million a year to $300 million a year for 10 years. Comstock’s bill would increase it by 50 percent, to $225 million annually.
The Democrats’ legislation also would provide a federal subsidy for Metro’s operating costs. That would be a significant change. The grants Metro receives — such as other direct federal subsidies for public transit — pay only for capital investments.
In perhaps the most important difference from Comstock’s bill, the Democrats’ legislation would not require the creation of a five-member reform board with power to revise existing union contracts and take other steps to restrain labor costs.
Instead, it addresses concerns about Metro’s performance by requiring that the agency to strengthen its Office of the Inspector General and meet targets for safety, reliability and cost efficiency as conditions for receiving the extra money.
“The other bill almost reads punitive when it comes to labor unions and the workforce,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (Va.), the lead sponsor of the Democratic legislation. “We don’t tell Metro they have to vitiate existing labor contracts,” or weaken pension guarantees or limit overtime, as Comstock’s bill does, he said.
Connolly said his bill has support throughout the Washington region. Co-sponsors, all Democrats, include Reps. Anthony G. Brown, Steny H. Hoyer, Jamie Raskin and John Sarbanes, all of Maryland; Rep. Don Beyer (Va.); and D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
But Comstock’s bill, which she filed in December, has the advantage of being sponsored by a member of the party that controls both the House and the Senate. Her bill, which was drafted in consultation with regional business leaders, including some Democrats, also reflects their support for replacing the 16-member Metro board with a reform board designed to improve the agency’s governance.
Comstock defended her bill in a statement Tuesday and faulted the Democrats’ legislation for not requiring specific management reforms on pensions and overtime supported by Metro General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld.
“Throwing billions more at Metro without defined reforms is a dead-on-arrival strategy,” Comstock said. “It’s unfortunate that in the nine years it took Gerry Connolly to write an eight-page bill, he failed to include any of the substantial management, financial or pension reforms advocated on a bipartisan basis by numerous transportation experts and Metro advocates who have been working for years to seriously improve and reform the system.”
The differences between the parties’ bills aggravated concerns among Metro supporters that Congress will be reluctant to endorse a package that lacks unified support from the region.
“What’s so discouraging about this is, it really undercuts the bipartisan necessity of getting a federal funding source for Metro,” said Gus Bauman, a former chairman of the Maryland Blue Ribbon Transportation Funding Commission. “To have an all-Democratic bill and an all-Republican one does no one any good.”
The Democrats’ decision to take on Comstock appears aimed in part at hurting her chances of positioning herself as an effective champion of Metro when she seeks reelection in November. Comstock, whose Northern Virginia district has been trending Democratic, is viewed as vulnerable.
“I don’t know their true motivations, but they must be intensely aware that giving a major victory on Metro funding to Barbara Comstock would be an enormous benefit to her reelection chances this year,” said Mark J. Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.
MetroNow, a coalition of leading business groups and nonprofit organizations, issued a statement applauding Connolly’s leadership, but warned that the region’s politicians need to work together on Metro.
“This is a critical time when our leaders must collaborate instead of compete against one another,” the group said.
While the region’s federal representatives trade jabs, there have been signs recently of a narrowing of partisan differences in Maryland and Virginia, where state lawmakers are considering bills to provide Metro with dedicated funding.
Numerous political obstacles remain to the legislation in both states, but many Metro supporters and political veterans say there is unprecedented momentum for change. The federal bickering adds another hurdle.
The Democrats’ position partly reflects their desire to represent the interests of labor, an important part of their political base.
Brown noted that his congressional district, which includes portions of Prince George’s County, is home to more Metro workers than any other, and said “they deserve a voice” in the debate about the agency.
“It’s mistaken to believe that Metro’s problems are excessive labor costs,” Brown said. “I don’t think you need to mess around with their pensions and arbitration, or somehow blow up or reform the board, and think that’s going to solve it.”
The Connolly and Comstock bills have one thing in common: They call for extending and increasing a $150 million annual federal subsidy for Metro that is scheduled to expire after the fiscal year ending in 2019.
Connolly’s bill would do so in two steps.
First, it would extend the program, part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), for 10 years and increase the subsidy to $200 million a year. Of that, $150 million would continue to be for capital investment. The District, Maryland and Virginia would continue making a matching contribution totaling $150 million.
The additional $50 million in the Connolly bill would go to operations. Of the latter, $10 million would be for Metro’s inspector general. This money would not require a local match.
Obtaining federal money for operating expenses — such as wages, fuel and electricity — would be a breakthrough long sought by many Metro supporters. They have complained for years that the District, Maryland and Virginia pay for all of Metro’s operating subsidies even though the federal government depends on the system to get its workers in the Washington area to their jobs.
“I have always believed that the federal government gets a free ride,” Connolly said. “The largest single user of Metro every day is the federal government.”
The condition for extending and increasing PRIIA money would be to strengthen the Office of the Inspector General by giving it new powers, including independent budget, procurement and hiring authority. Congress and others have pressed for a more robust IG to hold Metro accountable.
The second part of the funding plan in Connolly’s bill would give Metro an additional $100 million a year in grants for capital investment for 20 years. These federal grants also would have to be matched by a total of $100 million annually contributed by the three jurisdictions.
For the first five years, the additional money would be subject to the condition of Metro meeting performance bench marks set by the U.S. transportation secretary together with the District, Maryland and Virginia.
The secretary would grant the money each year only after certifying that Metro was “making progress toward goals and metrics for system performance established by the Secretary in collaboration with the signatories to the [Metro] Compact on safety, reliability and operations costs as measured by vehicle revenue miles,” the bill says.
For the remaining 15 years, the $100 million a year in additional grants would be conditioned on continued progress toward the goals and metrics, plus the establishment of a dedicated funding source by the District, Maryland and Virginia of at least $300 million a year.
SCOTUS BLOCKS NC ANTI-GERRYMANDERING DECISION FROM LOWER COURT:
GOP’S NC VOTING DISTRICTS APPROVED.
BLACK ELITE NORTH CAROLINA LEADERS & WHITE DEM LEADERS WERE TOO BUSY BEING RACIALLY DIVIDED TO SEE THIS POLITICAL ALBATROSS LOOMING OVERHEAD.
WHILE BLACK ELITE & WHITE DEM LEADERS WERE COMFORTABLY BLOCKING PROGRESS FOR LOCAL NC VOTERS, THE GOP QUIETLY REVISED NORTH CAROLINA’S VOTING DISTRICTS.
“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”
DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR, 1964
Sources: NY Times, PBS News, The Young Turks, YouTube
**** Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks North Carolina Gerrymandering Ruling
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a trial court’s order requiring North Carolina lawmakers to produce a revised congressional voting map, making it likely that the midterm elections this year will be conducted using districts favorable to Republican candidates.
The trial court had found that Republican legislators in the state had violated the Constitution by drawing congressional voting districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates.
The Supreme Court’s move was expected and not particularly telling. The court, which is considering two other major tests of partisan gerrymandering, has granted stays in similar settings. Its decisions in the pending cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, are likely to effectively decide the North Carolina case, too.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted dissents from Thursday’s order, which was brief and unsigned.
The previous North Carolina decision, issued by a three-judge panel last week, was the first from a federal court to strike down a congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. Republican state lawmakers, the court said, had violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection by drawing voting districts to their party’s advantage.
The judges noted that the legislator responsible for drawing the map had not disguised his intentions. “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said the legislator, Representative David Lewis, a Republican. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
The plan worked. In 2016, the court said, Republican congressional candidates won 53 percent of the statewide vote. But they won in 10 of the 13 congressional districts, or 77 percent of them.
The Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering can violate the Constitution. But it has never struck down a voting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Republicans and, in private, many Democrats in North Carolina had expected the Supreme Court to stay last week’s ruling, which ordered legislators to prepare a new map by Jan. 24. But elected officials and political strategists had been preparing for the possibility of a hasty redrawing of the congressional map and an upending of carefully laid plans for the midterm campaigns.
Even the brief gap between the trial court’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s order left the state in turmoil weeks before the deadline to declare candidacies.
Few states in recent years have seen as much political turbulence as North Carolina, where Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2010 and now face off regularly with a Democratic governor. Many of the high-decibel clashes in North Carolina, even before Gov. Roy Cooper was elected in 2016, focused on elections and voting procedures.
A voter ID law has been the subject of contentious litigation, and a different three-judge panel concluded that many of the state’s legislative districts had been racially gerrymandered. In 2016, a court struck down a different version of the congressional map, saying it was a racial gerrymander.
But last week’s ruling stirred particular anger in Raleigh, the state capital, with Republicans infuriated that the judges had begun making arrangements for a court-appointed expert to draw a map as an alternative to one that the Legislature might develop.
Although observers said the three-judge panel’s ruling, stayed or not, had offered Democrats a valuable talking point in the months before midterm elections, Republicans welcomed the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday.
“We did fully expect this, but we are still grateful,” said Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, who complained in an interview that the lower court had tried to “inject chaos into our elections.” Mr. Woodhouse said he fully expected that this year’s elections would be carried out under the existing map.
Critics of the map expressed disappointment and frustration with the court’s order.
“We still believe the day is coming soon for the General Assembly to be held to account for this madness,” said Allison Riggs of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represents the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, a group that challenged the map. “The law and the facts of this case make that clear.”
J. Michael Bitzer, a political scientist at Catawba College, near Charlotte, said the Supreme Court’s order was an important, if perhaps temporary, win for Republicans in North Carolina.
“Certainly, Republicans will view this as a victory but probably a short-term victory,” he said. “They certainly dodged a bullet tonight. The question is: ‘How long do we have before the Wisconsin decision comes down, and what kind of impact will that have on 2018’s elections?’”
In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case from Wisconsin. The trial court in that case had struck down a voting map for the State Assembly as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
The Supreme Court has also agreed to decide whether Maryland Democrats crossed a constitutional line by redrawing House districts to flip a Republican-held seat to Democratic control.
In asking the Supreme Court to block the North Carolina ruling, state lawmakers said the trial court had made legal errors and unreasonable demands, notably in ordering new congressional maps to be drawn by Jan. 24.
The lawmakers’ brief reminded the justices that they had granted a stay in the Wisconsin case. “Particularly given the relief this court already granted to Wisconsin,” they wrote, “it makes no sense whatsoever to force North Carolina to immediately remedy a purported partisan gerrymandering violation and commence its 2018 election cycle under a new court-imposed map before this court can even decide whether and under what circumstances such claims may be adjudicated.”
In their own brief, lawyers for Democrats challenging the map said the lawmakers’ motive in seeking a stay was “plain as day.”
“The Republican contingent of the legislature wants to enjoy the fruits of their grossly unconstitutional actions for yet another election cycle,” the brief said.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
