ReportWire

Tag: Joe Lieberman

  • No Labels is no más for the 2024 election

    No Labels is no más for the 2024 election

    [ad_1]

    After years of heavy-breathing hints about giving polarization-fatigued Americans a bipartisan presidential choice, and months of painstakingly obtaining ballot access in nearly two dozen states, the 14-year-old centrist nonprofit No Labels has decided to not act like a political party after all.

    “Americans remain more open to an independent presidential run and hungrier for unifying national leadership than ever before,” founding CEO Nancy Jacobson said in a press release Thursday afternoon. “But No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House. No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down.”

    According to The Wall Street Journal, which broke the news, Jacobson had recently told supporters that the group went 0 for 30 in reaching out to potential “unity ticket” candidates. Among the refuseniks: Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I.–Ariz.), runner-up 2024 GOP contender Nikki Haley, vanquished Democratic challenger Dean Phillips (D–Minn.), former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.).

    Besides confronting the cruel math of third party/independent presidential politics, the organization is still reeling from the sudden death on March 27 of founding chairman Joe Lieberman, the longtime former senator (both Democratic and independent), who made history as Al Gore’s running mate in the razor-thin 2000 election.

    This latest failure of establishment/moneyed centrism in presidential politics follows the derailed ambitions of Haley, Bill Weld, Michael Bloomberg, Howard SchultzEvan McMullin, and plenty of others. Those with longer memories may recall the 2012 flash-in-the-pan Americans Elect, an internet-based third party that obtained ballot access in 29 states before abruptly closing shop.

    Jacobson in her statement tried to put a brave face on things, but it’s hard to imagine the organization doing much more than pushing its bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus on Capitol Hill.

    “We will…remain engaged over the next year during what is likely to be the most divisive presidential election of our lives. We will promote dialogue around major policy challenges and call out both sides when they speak and act in bad faith,” she vowed. “Like many Americans, we are concerned that the division and strife gripping the country will reach a critical point after this election, regardless of who wins. Post-election, No Labels will be prepared to champion and defend the values and interests of America’s commonsense majority.”

    The group’s mushy, hawkish, 30-point Common Sense Policy agenda will now have to be championed mostly outside the presidential race. Why? Because the people gaining traction on the political margins are not D.C. lifers repackaging ancient Reaganism. They are outsiders; even the one with the famous name.

    In five-way national polling, independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is averaging 10.5 percent—numbers not seen since the days of Ross Perot—and fellow independent Cornel West is at 2 percent, with presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 1.7 percent. Most polls as of yet do not include anyone from the Libertarian Party, whose nominating convention is in late May, with no clear front-runner. The L.P. is coming off three consecutive third-place presidential finishes.

    Kennedy, Stein, and the Libertarian nominee are all good bets to qualify for a majority of state ballots, with the L.P. currently in the lead, though Kennedy has plenty of money to throw at the problem. Notably, and very unlike No Labels, those three candidates plus West are all considerably more dovish on foreign policy than either President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump.

    With American public opinion souring on Israel’s war against Hamas, the anti-interventionist vote, which is constantly underrated by the more hawkish journalistic class, has plenty of alternative candidates to choose from. No Labels may be over, but third party sentiment in 2024 is alive and well.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Welch

    Source link

  • Joe Lieberman, former senator and vice presidential candidate, dies at 82

    Joe Lieberman, former senator and vice presidential candidate, dies at 82

    [ad_1]

    Joe Lieberman, former senator and vice presidential candidate, dies at 82 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Joe Lieberman, a former senator from Connecticut and the Democratic vice presidential candidate in the 2000 election, has died at age 82. Major Garrett looks back on his legacy.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joseph Lieberman Fast Facts | CNN

    Joseph Lieberman Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Here’s a look at the life of Joseph Lieberman, former United States senator from Connecticut.

    Birth date: February 24, 1942

    Death date: March 27, 2024

    Birth place: Stamford, Connecticut

    Birth name: Joseph Isadore Lieberman

    Father: Henry Lieberman, package-store owner

    Mother: Marcia (Manger) Lieberman

    Marriages: Hadassah (Freilich) Lieberman (1983-March 27, 2024, his death); Elizabeth Haas (1965-1981, divorced)

    Children: with Hadassah Lieberman: Hani and Ethan (stepson); with Betty Haas: Rebecca and Matthew

    Education: Yale University, B.A., 1964, Yale Law School, L.L.B, 1967

    Religion: Jewish

    Lieberman was Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential campaign. He was the first Jewish person to be nominated by a major party.

    When Lieberman ran for state senate in 1970, one of the volunteers who worked on his campaign was future President Bill Clinton.

    At Yale, his nickname was “Senator.”

    He has said that he took time off from college in 1963 to spend a few weeks in Mississippi doing civil rights work.

    1967-1969 Works with the private law firm Wiggin and Dana.

    1968 – Runs the Connecticut presidential campaign of Democrat Robert F. Kennedy.

    1970 Is elected to the Connecticut Senate, representing New Haven.

    1972-1983 Partner in the law firm Lieberman, Segaloff and Wolfson.

    1975-1981 – Majority leader of the Connecticut Senate.

    1980 Runs unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress.

    1983-1988 Attorney general of Connecticut.

    November 8, 1988 Becomes the first Orthodox Jew to be elected to the US Senate.

    1989-2013 US senator from Connecticut.

    1995-2001 Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

    August 8, 2000 Vice President Gore selects Lieberman as his running mate in the presidential race.

    January 7, 2003 Publishes the book, “An Amazing Adventure: Joe and Hadassah’s Personal Notes on the 2000 Campaign,” along with his wife Hadassah Lieberman.

    January 13, 2003 Declares he will run for president in the 2004 election.

    February 3, 2004 Drops out of the race for president.

    August 8, 2006 – Is defeated in Connecticut’s Democratic Senate primary by Ned Lamont. Lieberman then announces he will run in the election as an Independent.

    November 7, 2006 Wins reelection as an Independent.

    December 17, 2007 Endorses Republican Senator John McCain during the primary campaign for the presidential nomination. The endorsement stirs up controversy and after the election, the Senate Democratic Caucus strips him of his spot on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

    January 19, 2011 Announces that he will not run for reelection.

    January 2013 Retires from the Senate.

    June 6, 2013 – Joins the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP.

    January 2, 2014 – Announces he will serve as executive board chairman of Victory Park Capital, a private equity firm.

    January 12, 2015 – After the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Lieberman writes an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal and states that a global alliance is necessary to combat terrorists.

    August 10, 2015 – United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), an advocacy group that campaigns for sanctions against Iran, announces that Lieberman is its new chairman.

    May 17, 2017 – White House Spokesman Sean Spicer says that Lieberman is a candidate to replace James Comey as director of the FBI.

    May 25, 2017 – Withdraws his name from consideration for the position of FBI director.

    September 9, 2019 – In an opinion piece for USA Today, Lieberman, representing UANI, writes that the 2020 democratic presidential candidates should support Donald Trump’s Iran policy and not pledge to rejoin the 2015 nuclear agreement.

    October 19, 2021 – Lieberman’s book, The Centrist Solution: How We Made Government Work and Can Make It Work Again, is published.

    December 4, 2023 – Yeshiva University announces the establishment of the Senator Joseph Lieberman Center for Public Service and Advocacy.

    March 27, 2024 – Passes away at the age of 82.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joe Biden Has a Cornel West Problem

    Joe Biden Has a Cornel West Problem

    [ad_1]

    Pull up a sticky green lawn chair, everyone. It’s time for another round of Mounting Democratic Jitters, cherished summer pastime from Wilmington to the West Wing. Today’s installment: Cornel West, unlikely MAGA accessory.

    West, the famed academic and civil-rights activist, is a Green Party candidate for president. He probably will not win. Not a single state or, in all likelihood, a single electoral vote. But he remains a persistent object of concern around the president these days.

    I’ve talked with many of these White House worrywarts, along with their counterparts on Joe Biden’s reelection team and the usual kettles of Democratic anxiety who start bubbling up whenever the next existential-threat election is upon us. Even with the nuisance primary challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. polling in the double digits, West inhabits a particular category of Democratic angst, the likes of which only the words Green Party presidential candidate can elicit.

    You can understand the sensitivities, given the history. Democrats still recoil at the name Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee in 2016, whose vote total in key battlegrounds—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—wound up exceeding the margins by which Hillary Clinton lost in those states. What’s Dr. Stein doing these days, anyway?

    “She is my interim campaign manager,” Cornel West told me this week in a phone interview. Not a joke, as Biden would say. Or an acid flashback. Apparently Ralph Nader was not available. Not Dennis Kucinich, either (already snapped up to run RFK Jr.’s campaign). It might be kind of funny if the stakes didn’t involve a return Trump ordeal in the White House.

    “The fact that Jill Stein is running his campaign is a little on the nose,” one senior Democratic campaign strategist told me.

    West has repeatedly denied that he might play a spoiler role. “I would say that most of the people who vote for me would not have voted for Biden,” he told me. “They would have probably stayed home.” In a recent CNN appearance, West dismissed the two parties as a “corporate duopoly” and professed “great respect for my dear brother Ralph Nader and great respect for sister Jill Stein.” This did nothing to assuage Democratic jitters.

    I asked West whether he would campaign all the way to Election Day 2024, or if he might reconsider his venture at some point. “My goal is to go all the way to November,” he said, but allowed that circumstances could change and so could his plans. “I’m trying to be a jazzlike man,” he said. “Trying to be improvisational.”

    In his campaign-launch video, West promised that his candidacy would focus on core progressive issues such as health care, housing, reproductive rights, and “de-escalating the destruction” done to the Earth and our democracy. “Neither political party wants to tell the truth,” West said, by way of explaining why he is running as a third-party candidate.

    Notably, West has asserted that NATO was as much to blame for Russia’s war in Ukraine as the Kremlin. He has railed against the coalition as an “expanding instrument” of Western aggression, which he says is what provoked Russia’s onslaught. “This proxy war between the American Empire and the Russian Federation could lead to World War III,” he wrote in a social-media post calling for diplomatic talks. West also dismissed as a “sham” a House resolution—passed Tuesday—that affirmed U.S. support for Israel. “The painful truth is that the Israeli state—like the USA—has been racist in practice since its inception,” West wrote on Twitter.

    Several Democrats were eager to tell their own truths about West’s endeavor, expressing uniform exasperation.

    “This is not the time in order to experiment. This is not the time to play around on the margins,” warned Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison during a recent appearance on MSNBC. “What we see is a lot of folks who want to be relevant and try to be relevant in these elections and not looking at the big picture.”

    “Too little attention is being paid to this,” David Axelrod, the former top Barack Obama strategist, told me. Axelrod recently gave voice to the gathering Democratic freak-out when he tweeted out some basic historical parallels. “In 2016, the Green Party played an outsized role in tipping the election to Donald Trump,” he wrote. “Now, with Cornel West as their likely nominee, they could easily do it again.”

    In our interview, Axelrod noted that the 2020 race between Biden and Trump, in which neither Stein nor West was on the ballot, underscores how slim the Democrats’ margin of error remains. “When you have three states that you won by 41,000 votes combined, you just cannot afford to bleed votes, even a few of them,” Axelrod told me.

    Ben Wikler, the Democratic Party chair of one of these states—Wisconsin—said he expects Trump allies to help prop up any third-party effort as a way to undermine Biden. “Regardless of the motivations of third-party candidates themselves, they can have the effect of delivering net votes to Trump next year,” Wikler said, “especially if a Trump-aligned super PAC pours money into targeted messages,” he added. “And those are exactly the kind of cynical games you have to expect.”

    Cedric Richmond, a former Democratic congressman and White House adviser who recently signed on as co-chair of the Biden campaign, called West a “substantive person.” But Richmond argued that Biden has earned the support of the left through his record on the environment, health care, gun reform, and other progressive causes. “They also know that [Biden] could have done a hell of a lot more if not for this hostile Supreme Court,” Richmond told me. “And they know they got this hostile Supreme Court because ‘Hillary wasn’t good enough,’ because ‘we weren’t happy and we wanted to support Jill Stein’ or whatever the reason was at the time.” Now that voters have experienced a Trump presidency, he said, the cost of casting a protest vote with a third-party candidate should be much more apparent. “I think people have seen this movie, and they know the ending,” Richmond said.

    In recent days, the putative-centrist outfit No Labels—which many Democrats have been quick to label as a pro-Trump collaborator—has been the main source of third-party hand-wringing.  The group is trying to recruit a so-called unity ticket that would appear on ballots across the country, possibly led by Senator Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat.

    “The idea that a third-party candidate won’t hurt the Democratic nominee is preposterous on its face,” Matt Bennett, executive vice president of Third Way, a center-left policy think tank that lately has been focused on stopping No Labels, told me. Recent polls show that in a head-to-head race between Trump and Biden, Trump is more likely to benefit when a third-party candidate is added to the mix. Likewise, an NBC survey from last month revealed that 44 percent of registered voters would be open to a third-party candidate—and there were considerably more Democrats saying this (45 percent) than Republicans (34 percent).

    But Bennett explained that if No Labels does not recruit a serious candidate to actually run, the group will remain a largely hypothetical menace. West, meanwhile, is definitely running. The Green Party has an organizational structure in place in many states that will ensure the nominee’s position on general-election ballots. West has deep roots on the left, and is better known than Stein was in 2016. Like Clinton, Biden has faced uncertainty about how much enthusiasm he can expect from his own party, especially young progressives.

    “Dr. West has a huge following among college-age voters and a lot of folks who are more interested in social movements than they are in supporting Democratic or Republican candidates,” Basil Smikle, a Democratic strategist who was the executive director of the State Democratic Party of New York from 2015 to 2018, told me.

    West was a vocal supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign in the 2020 Democratic primary. He has said that he wound up voting for Biden in the general election because “a fascist catastrophe is worse than a neoliberal disaster.” He also dubbed Biden “mediocre” and “milquetoast” (a tepid endorsement, let’s say).

    Supporters of Biden are hopeful that the blessing of progressive allies such as Sanders, who endorsed his reelection in April, will insulate the president from the threat of West-inspired defections to the Green Party. “What Bernie can do is say, ‘Look man, we thought the existential threat of Trump had waned, but it’s still here,’” Smikle said. “We need you to show up again.”

    Another prominent Bernie booster from 2020, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, endorsed Biden during a recent appearance on the podcast Pod Save America. The host Jon Favreau asked a follow-up about what she thought of West. Ocasio-Cortez appeared to tread carefully but sounded deferential. “I think Dr. West has an incredible history in this country,” she said. “What he gives voice to is incredibly important.” She went on to slam No Labels as a source of great concern, given “the sheer amount of money and bad-faith actors involved with it.”

    “Not all third-party candidacies are created equal,” Ocasio-Cortez summarized. But she landed on a pragmatic point. “The United States has a winner-take-all system, whether we like that or not,” she said, adding that the cost of messing around could be fascism. “We have to live with that reality,” she said. Live with Joe Biden, in other words. Because the alternative is far worse—not a joke.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • Joe Lieberman Weighs the Trump Risk

    Joe Lieberman Weighs the Trump Risk

    [ad_1]

    Joe Lieberman wants to make one thing clear. “The last thing I’d ever want to be part of,” the former Connecticut senator and onetime vice-presidential nominee told me by phone last week, “is bringing Donald Trump back to the Oval Office.”

    Democrats have their doubts. Lieberman and his former party have been warring for years, ever since he won a fourth Senate term, in 2006, as an independent after Connecticut Democrats dumped him in a primary. Suddenly liberated, Lieberman endorsed the Republican John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008 and proceeded to tank the Democrats’ dreams of enacting a public health-insurance program through the Affordable Care Act.

    He’s now a co-chair of No Labels, the centrist group that, to the growing alarm of Democrats, is preparing to field a third-party presidential ticket in 2024. The organization’s leaders say they’re trying to save voters from a binary rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden that most Americans have told pollsters they don’t want. But Democrats and more than a few Republicans fear that such a plan might ensure exactly what Lieberman insists he would hate to see: Trump’s return to the White House. Both No Labels’ own polling and independent surveys have shown that a “moderate, independent” candidate could capture as much as 20 percent of the popular vote and would pull more of that support from Biden than from Trump. If the 2024 election is as close as 2020’s—and pretty much every political prognosticator believes it will be—that could be decisive.

    No Labels has already lost one of its co-founders, William Galston, over its push for a third-party ticket; Galston resigned in protest this spring over the possibility that the bid could tip the election to Trump. Democratic members of the No Labels–backed Problem Solvers Caucus in the House have disavowed the effort for the same reason. The moderate Democratic group Third Way is adamantly opposed to the idea, and a new bipartisan group is forming to stop it.

    For now, Lieberman is undeterred. “I think people in both parties, particularly the Democrats, are greatly overreacting,” Lieberman told me. “They really would do better to try to build up support for their own ticket and adopt a platform that’s more to the center.”

    Founded by the Democratic fundraiser Nancy Jacobson, No Labels launched in 2010 with an initial focus on promoting centrist policies and breaking partisan gridlock in Congress during the Obama presidency. It formed the Problem Solvers Caucus in 2017 and has touted some of the major bipartisan bills that have passed with Biden’s support, including the 2021 infrastructure law. It is now putting significant money behind an idea—a so-called unity ticket featuring one Democrat and one Republican—that has come up repeatedly over the past two decades but never actually materialized. Leaders of No Labels have said they won’t decide whether to nominate a ticket until the spring, when they would assess the major-party nominees and see what polling shows about the effect a third-party bid might have. So far they’ve refused to discuss who their actual candidates might be.

    Citing a large poll the group commissioned in December, No Labels has argued that a third-party ticket could win enough states—including some that are deeply red and deeply blue—to capture the Electoral College. Lieberman acknowledged that that remains a tall order. He said No Labels wanted a potential unity ticket to play “a constructive role” even if it didn’t win, drawing both parties back toward the ideological middle. They are hoping, for example, that one of the two parties will embrace the “Common Sense” policy agenda it released yesterday. It’s not clear, however, that this would make Biden or Trump any more palatable to voters.

    The group’s lodestar is the late Ross Perot, who captured 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and was the last third-party candidate to draw significant popular support. Lieberman credits Perot’s bid for prompting President Bill Clinton to embrace policies that led to a balanced federal budget; many Republicans believe the Texas businessman cost George H. W. Bush a second term. More recent third-party candidates such as Jill Stein in 2016 have garnered much less support but played more obvious spoiler roles, delivering Republican presidential victories. And Lieberman, who was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, is well aware of the impact that Ralph Nader had in that election, when he took crucial votes away from the Democratic ticket in Florida.

    “When I look at the data next year, I’m going to be very cautious about interpreting it,” Lieberman said. “If it appears that, notwithstanding our goals, we may create a real risk of inadvertently helping to reelect Donald Trump, I will be strongly opposed to running a third-party ticket. And I think I’m reflecting a majority of people in No Labels, including the leadership.”

    For all of Lieberman’s talk about caution, however, the group is aggressively laying the groundwork for what it calls a national “insurance policy” against a Biden-Trump rematch. No Labels is pursuing a $70 million effort to secure ballot access in every state and has already made progress in a few important battlegrounds. Today, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman will headline the formal launch of the group’s “Common Sense” agenda in New Hampshire. Manchin has not ruled out running for president on a No Labels ticket, although he insisted to CNN that his high-profile visit to the early-primary state was no indication that he’s warming to the idea.

    Lieberman is clear about his distaste for Trump, but he’s hazier on the question of why—or even whether—Biden has fallen short. He’s said repeatedly that if the choice came down to Biden or Trump, he’d vote for the Democrat, and he speaks affectionately of a man he first met nearly 40 years ago and with whom he served for 20 years in the Senate. Yet he’s still hunting for a better option. I asked him whether he supported a third-party ticket because Biden had done a bad job or because voters think he’s done a bad job. “I think it’s both,” Lieberman replied. “He’s an honorable person, but he’s been pulled off his normal track too often” by pressure from the left. That’s a frequent talking point from Republicans and a complaint Manchin has made from time to time.

    The perception that Biden has veered too far to the left, though, is not what has driven his low approval ratings. Indeed, in many ways Biden is the kind of president for whom moderates like Lieberman have long been clamoring. Yes, he signed two major bills that passed along purely party-line votes (the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act a year later), but he has repeatedly prioritized negotiating with Republicans, most recently over the debt ceiling. Lieberman credited Biden for his bipartisan infrastructure law and the budget deal he struck with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy this spring. “He’s done some significant things,” Lieberman said, also praising the president’s initial handling of the coronavirus pandemic. When I asked him what specifically Biden had veered too far left on, he initially declined to list any issues. Then he pointed to No Labels’ policy plan, noting that it included “commonsense” proposals on guns and immigration.

    Although he’s been out of office for more than a decade, Lieberman, at 81, is less than a year older than Biden. He said he believes the president remains up to the job, both physically and cognitively, and he was reluctant to call on him to stand down. But Lieberman gently suggested that might have been the better course. “I’m struck by how intent he is on running again,” he said with a chuckle. “It would have been easier for him not to run, and he could retire with a real sense of pride and just an enormously productive career in public service.”

    Lieberman’s response subtly pointed to No Labels’ hope that, come springtime, their decision will be an easy one. Perhaps Biden will change his mind and withdraw, or Trump’s legal woes will finally persuade Republican voters to look elsewhere. At the moment, neither of those scenarios seems likely.

    Lieberman and his allies might decide that nominating a third-party ticket won’t help reelect Trump, but that’s not something they can know for sure. I asked Lieberman: If he was so intent on keeping Trump out of office, wasn’t that too big a risk to take? He didn’t have a clear answer. “Yeah,” he replied. “I mean, we’ll see.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Did Kyrsten Sinema Betray Her Volunteers?

    Did Kyrsten Sinema Betray Her Volunteers?

    [ad_1]

    When Kyrsten Sinema campaigned for the Senate as “an independent voice for Arizona,” her volunteers didn’t take that literally. Perhaps they heard what they wanted to hear. Ana Doan, a retired teacher, thought Sinema would bring fresh energy to Washington as Arizona’s first openly LGBTQ senator. Devina Alvarado, a young Costco forklift driver, thought Sinema would defend women’s rights from Donald Trump. Michael (identified by his middle name to avoid retaliation) admired that Sinema had made it out of poverty after experiencing homelessness as a child, as he did. Each from a different corner of Arizona, they were all proud to have volunteered to get Sinema elected, proud of the doors they’d knocked and calls they’d made, proud to have had her glossy purple-and-yellow literature scattered in their home or on the floor of their car. But their pride had curdled long before Sinema announced she was leaving the Democratic Party last Friday.

    So far, both the White House and Sinema’s Senate colleagues have been conciliatory, praising her legislative skill and acting as if little will change following her switch. (Sinema will still caucus with the Democrats.) Although her influence will diminish in a forthcoming 51–49 chamber, Democrats can ill afford to make Sinema a pariah. When reached for comment about the switch, Sinema’s press secretary told me in an email, “Kyrsten’s approach remains the same from when she first ran for Senate,” and directed me to a sleek video Sinema released on Friday: “I’m gonna be the same person I’ve always been,” the senator said.

    But many of her most dedicated supporters don’t see things that way. I spoke with dozens of Sinema’s former volunteers from across Arizona, some of whom I managed in 2018 as a field organizer for the Arizona Democratic Party. What they’ve described to me is a feeling more raw and pained than mere disagreement over policies. Arizona Democrats are used to that; many have Republicans and independents in their family. They’re used to talking through differences. What they cannot forgive is the feeling that Sinema was not straight with them.

    Doan, the teacher, had worked on a lot of campaigns in the border town of Nogales. She had just retired when Sinema announced her run, and she threw herself into the Senate race. Sinema was smart, well-spoken, a member of the LGBTQ community, and a fundraising powerhouse. In previous elections, Doan had begged the state party to do more phone banking in Spanish, and she didn’t like that phone bankers rushed older Latino voters who had questions about important issues. Things were different on Sinema’s campaign. Doan could have phone-bank lists brought to the houses of other volunteers, so they could make calls from the comfort of their own home.

    She was thrilled when Sinema won, but her excitement was short-lived. Sinema, in her view, started spending too much time with the Big Business people who had funded her campaign and not enough time among the working-class folks who’d made phone calls for her. Doan told me it hurt to watch her senator block positive initiatives that other Democrats wanted to pass. “She made an idiot out of me, and I made an idiot out of all the people I spoke to,” Doan said. She said she wished Sinema had run as an independent in 2018, so people knew who she really was.

    Alvarado, the forklift driver, had never volunteered on a political campaign before. She canvassed for Sinema a few days a week after finishing work and on the weekends too, always wearing her pink Planned Parenthood shirt. Alvarado couldn’t believe it when Sinema said she thought protecting the filibuster was essential to protecting women’s rights. When Sinema comes up in conversation these days, Alvarado’s fiancé teases her. “He knows I’m super salty that I volunteered for her,” she told me. “I for sure look forward to canvassing for her opponent.”

    Michael considered Sinema to be a personal hero when he started volunteering on her campaign in Phoenix. A few years before, he’d been homeless, just as she had been. But Michael felt betrayed in March of 2021, when Sinema voted against raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. “Hunger changes people,” he wrote to me in an email. “It made me want to make no one feel that way. I’m guessing it made her protective of what she has.”

    Some of the people with the fewest illusions about Sinema were the people furthest away from her. Missa Foy, the chair of the Navajo County Democrats, didn’t even vote for Sinema in the primary. In 2018, she knocked on more than 1,000 doors for a ballot initiative in Navajo County, one of Arizona’s most rural regions. (You can’t walk down the sidewalk to the next house on your list in Navajo—you get back in your truck and drive there.) The voters Foy spoke with would offer her dinner and shelter from the cold, and listen to why they should oppose programs such as expanding school vouchers. Although Foy passed out the Democratic slate of candidates, with Sinema on top, she didn’t talk her up. Foy told me she was grateful for all the things that Democrats, including Sinema, were able to pass through the Senate, but she didn’t think Sinema’s new party preference was earth-shattering stuff. “Our mission is the same as before this news broke,” she said.

    When Sinema visited Hopi sovereign land in 2018, Karen Shupla was impressed by her familiarity with water rights and other issues important to Native Americans. A tribal-elections registrar, Shupla is scrupulously neutral, but she does volunteer hundreds of hours to make sure elections run smoothly in a region that Democrats carry by more than two to one. She was unsurprised when the Hopi and other tribes supported Sinema by broad margins, and she was indifferent about Sinema becoming an independent. “It depends on how she deals with Natives from here on out,” Shupla told me. “We don’t want to be guessing which side she’s going to take on matters.”

    The volunteer I spoke with over the weekend who still has the most affection for Sinema was the one who knew her personally. Martha “Marty” Bruneau met Sinema when the two of them ran for different seats in the Arizona state legislature in 2000. “I never ran again, and she never lost again,” Bruneau told me. The two of them stayed in touch. Bruneau thinks her fellow progressive Democrats have been exasperating and believes they put too much pressure on Sinema, who votes with Biden more than 90 percent of the time. She told me she doesn’t get Sinema’s reputation for being unapproachable. When I asked her if she’d support Sinema over a Democratic challenger, Bruneau praised Sinema’s record and said she’d have to look at both candidates. This was, in dozens of interviews, the closest that any of Sinema’s former volunteers came to saying they would vote for her again.

    Some believe that Sinema is becoming an independent because she can’t win against a primary challenger. Campaigning as an independent worked in Alaska for Lisa Murkowski in 2010, and in 2006 for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut—but they were running in deep-red and deep-blue states, where their party was dominant enough to form a coalition with voters from other parties. Arizona is purple, with roughly equal portions of Republicans, independents, and Democrats. Sinema positioned herself as a lone politician capable of uniting her state, but if she is reelected, it will likely be by forcing an expensive and vicious election.

    As David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic last week, Sinema’s move is flashy but comes from a place of weakness. She seems vulnerable to a challenge from not only the left but also the center. Arizona just elected a full slate of establishment Democrats in a year far less favorable than 2018, when Sinema won her seat. It’s unclear if the campaign arm of the Senate Democrats will even support her next time around. What’s more, 2024 is a presidential-election year in an era when split-ticket voting is rare. Although Sinema is an incumbent, her sour relationship with the Arizona Democratic Party means she will not benefit from party infrastructure, for fundraising or mobilization. They don’t know what to expect from her, and she feels no obligation to explain publicly what she believes, or why she believes it. That’s her prerogative. But it’s also the prerogative of people who lent Sinema their time and reputation to now turn against her. In bitter irony, the volunteers who cut their teeth working to get her elected may be among those working the hardest to defeat her.

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Kohrman

    Source link

  • Transparency For Payment Processors

    Transparency For Payment Processors

    [ad_1]

    Recently, PayPal released an update to its terms of service that said it would fine people using its service for spreading disinformation. It faced an immediate free speech backlash on social media. Former PayPal President David Marcus tweeted this policy was against everything the company believed. He seemed to think it was “insanity” for payment companies to refuse service “if you say something they disagree with.” Elon Musk tweeted his agreement.

    The company quickly reversed itself, saying the release was a mistake.

    But the controversy led libertarian lawyer Eugene Volokh to look more carefully at PayPal’s terms of service and he was horrified to discover that PayPal has a long-standing acceptable use policy that forbids “the promotion of racial intolerance or other forms of discriminatory intolerance.” As a good First Amendment lawyer he pointed out that “sharply criticizing a religion or government officials could be construed as the promotion of hate—and could theoretically violate that policy.” To protect himself from this danger and to protest this form of censorship he closed his PayPal account and urged others to do the same.

    Good luck finding an alternative. The reality is that payment companies have always had acceptable use policies, and for good reason.

    For one thing, they have legal responsibilities to stop money laundering and terrorist financing. So, they have to know who their customers are and what they are spending their money on. They also have a specific legal obligation to block unlawful internet gambling transactions. Payment companies also have policies against the use of their systems for illegal transactions and most of them take special precautions against copyright violations and child porn.

    Beyond these legal issues, payments systems restrict who they do business with for ethical and brand reasons. Amex doesn’t allow its services to be used by pornographers, even though pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Neither do Stripe, Amazon Pay, or Square.

    Visa and Mastercard allow their member banks to provide service to legal pornography merchants, but they also allow the banks to refuse this business and many of them do. This tolerance has its limits, however. The payment networks recently cut ties with Pornhub after revelations that it didn’t do much to control depictions of rape on its site.

    Both payment systems have broad brand protection clauses in their contracts with merchants and banks. They can withdraw service from “brand-damaging” transactions and reserve the right to unilaterally define what those transactions are.

    Some of these payment company restrictions seem idiosyncratic, to say the least. Amazon Pay, for instance, won’t pay for “occult services.” So, witches and warlocks stay away!

    But many of them seem right. In particular, the bans on hate speech that mimic PayPal’s. Amazon Pay prohibits “hate literature.” Square rejects “hate or harmful products.” Swipe bans a company or individual “that engages in, encourages, promotes or celebrates unlawful violence toward any group based on race, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic.”

    Visa and MasterCard could ban such merchants under their brand-protection programs, even without an explicit prohibition. What reputable business would want to be associated with companies or groups promoting hate speech? Responsible payment card companies flee contact with such people and they are right to do so.

    Of course, enforcement can often be controversial. In 2019 PayPal applied its policy against hate speech to Gab and Infowars, which brought cries of censorship from conservative activists. But displeasing some critics comes with the territory. Controversies over standards enforcement are an inevitable part of being in the payment business.

    I talked about these issues with former general counsel for the National Security Agency and current partner at Steptoe & Johnson LLP Stewart Baker on his October 17 Cyberlaw podcast (around 32:40). He’s more suspicious of payment card hate speech standards than I am but we agree that a good step forward would be transparency. Payment card companies should be required to disclose their standards, explain their disconnection decisions, and provide adequate opportunities for challenging them.

    Laws providing for this kind of transparency for social media companies are already on the books in some U.S. states and in Europe. Existing financial regulations should be supplemented to require similar transparency rules for payment card companies, to be enforced by the powerful regulators that already supervise financial institutions.

    Transparency has another advantage. It can reveal behind-the-scenes government pressure on card companies to withhold service. This apparently happened in December 2010 when Wikileaks began to release the contents of confidential diplomatic cables. Senator Joe Lieberman, then-Chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, publicly called for card companies to disconnect Wikileaks. But PayPal said that it received secret pressure from the State Department. Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal soon suspended Wikileaks’ accounts.

    Government agencies should not exert shadowy pressure on payment companies to disconnect disfavored companies and groups. A little sunlight on such hidden agency nudges would be a good disinfectant and transparency requirements would provide it.

    [ad_2]

    Mark MacCarthy, Contributor

    Source link

  • How Kyrsten Sinema’s decision makes Democrats’ 2024 Senate map tighter | CNN Politics

    How Kyrsten Sinema’s decision makes Democrats’ 2024 Senate map tighter | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema decided to shake up the political world on Friday by becoming an independent. The former Democrat is still caucusing with the party in the Senate, so the Democratic caucus still has 51 members. Now, instead of 49 Democrats and two independents within their ranks, the caucus has 48 Democrats and three independents.

    But that simple math hides a more clouded picture for Democrats and for Sinema herself. Sinema’s interests are no longer necessarily the Democrats’ best interests in the next Congress, and the 2024 Senate map became even more complicated for Democrats with Sinema’s decision.

    To be clear, Sinema has always been a thorn in the Democrats side during her time in Congress. Over the last two years, Democrats have had to almost always make sure that any bill or nomination had Sinema’s support to have any chance of passing. That’s the math when you have only 50 Senate seats in a 100-seat chamber. A lot of bills and nominations were never voted on without Sinema and Manchin’s backing.

    From 2013 (Sinema’s first term in Congress) to 2020, Sinema voted against her party more than almost any other member of Congress. She stayed with the party about 69% of the time on votes where at least one half of the Democrats voted differently than half of Republicans. The average Democrat voted with their party about 90% of the time on these votes.

    It’s quite possible that Sinema’s percentage of sticking with the party will lower now that she is an independent. Consider the example of former Sen. Joe Lieberman. The longtime Democrat won reelection as a third-party candidate in 2006, after losing the Democratic primary to a left-wing challenger (the now fairly moderate Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont)

    Relative to the average Senate Democrat, Lieberman voted with the party 10 points less of the time after becoming an independent than he had in his last term as a Democrat. If that happens with Sinema, she’ll become even more conservative than West Virginia’s Joe Manchin (the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus).

    This would make sense because the incentive structure is now very different for Sinema. Ahead of a 2024 reelection campaign, she no longer has to worry about winning a Democratic primary. Sinema has to worry about building a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans. That is far more difficult to do if you’re seen as too liberal.

    Indeed, the big reason Sinema became an independent is because it would have been very difficult to win a Democratic primary. Her approval rating among Arizona Democrats in an autumn 2022 CES poll stood at just 25%. A number of Democrats (e.g. Rep. Ruben Gallego and Rep. Greg Stanton) were already lining up to potentially challenge her in a primary.

    A question now is whether Sinema’s decision to become an independent will dissuade some of those Democrats from running. The idea being that Sinema still caucuses with the Democrats, and Democrats wouldn’t want to split the Democratic vote in a general election allowing a Republican to win in a purple state like Arizona.

    It’s an interesting bet from Sinema. After all, Democrats usually don’t run a candidate against independent Sen. Bernie Sanders in Vermont. The Democrats who run against independent Sen. Angus King in Maine have not gained traction in recent elections. Don’t forget the aforementioned Lieberman won as a third-party candidate.

    The electoral math structure was and is totally different in these circumstances, however. Sanders wouldn’t attract a left-wing Democratic challenger because he is already so progressive. Lieberman declared his third-party candidacy after the primary, so Republicans didn’t have time to find a well-known challenger. Republicans also knew that Lieberman, who was an ardent supporter of the Iraq War, was probably the best they could hope for in the deeply Democratic state of Connecticut.

    This leaves the King example. King, like Sinema, is a moderate from not a deeply blue or red state. There’s just one problem for Sinema in this analogy: King is popular. He had previously won the governorship twice as an independent and has almost always sported high favorables.

    Sinema is not popular at all. The CES poll had her approval rating below her disapproval rating with Democrats, independents and Republicans in Arizona. Sinema’s overall approval stood at 25% to a disapproval rating of 58%. Other polling isn’t nearly as dire for Sinema, but the average of it all has her firmly being more unpopular than popular.

    Put another way, Sinema’s current numbers are probably not going to scare off many challengers from either the Democratic or Republican side. Additionally, there’s zero reason for Democrats to cede the ground to Sinema because it would keep a Republican from winning. It isn’t clear at all that Sinema can win as an independent.

    What Sinema’s move did accomplish is that it made the electoral math a lot more complicated in Arizona and therefore nationally. Having two people in the race who are going to caucus with the Democratic Party likely makes it more difficult for the Democrats to win.

    One potential worrisome example for Democrats in a purple state (at least then) was the 2010 Florida Senate race. Then Republican Gov. Charlie Crist decided to run as an independent after it became clear he wouldn’t beat the more conservative Republican Marco Rubio in a Republican primary. Crist, who said he would caucus with the Democrats, split the Democratic vote with then Rep. Kendrick Meek, and Rubio cruised to a win.

    I should point out that Democrats certainly have a chance. The 1968 Alaska Senate race, for example, featured two Democrats (Mike Gravel and then Sen. Ernest Gruening as write-in). Gravel won in the state which Republican Richard Nixon carried, too, by a few points.

    In 2024, Arizona Republicans could nominate an extreme candidate that flames out. They just lost every major statewide race in 2022 because of who they nominated.

    Don’t dismiss the possibility too that Sinema could win like Harry Byrd did in the 1970 Virginia Senate election when both parties nominated candidates. Maybe voters will like Sinema’s new independent registration.

    Sinema also could find herself flaming out when running in the general election without a major party backing her like Gruening did in 1968 or then Sen. Jacob Javits in the 1980 New York Senate race.

    We just don’t know.

    All that said, the Democrats already have a difficult map heading into 2024. Depending on whether the Democrats win the presidency (and have a Democratic vice president who can break Senate ties), they can afford to lose zero to one Senate seats and maintain a majority.

    The vast majority, 23 of the 34, senators up for reelection in 2024 caucus with the Democrats. An abnormally large number (7) represent states Republican Donald Trump won at least once. This includes Arizona.

    With Sinema’s break from the Democratic party, the road is, if nothing else, curvier for Democrats.

    [ad_2]

    Source link