Alabama democrats push for party meeting on bylaws
Some Alabama Democrats are trying to call a state meeting amid a looming deadline from Democratic National Committee officials and an ongoing power struggle over the direction of the state party. U.S. Sen. Doug Jones is among those seeking an Oct. 5 meeting of the Alabama Democratic Party’s executive committee. Jones’ campaign started a “Fix the Party” website for committee members to review proposed new party bylaws and submit a meeting request. The Democratic National Committee in February ordered Alabama to update bylaws to provide representation of more minorities — not just African Americans — in the party and to hold new chair and vice-chair elections. A DNC panel this month gave the state party until Oct. 5 to approve the new bylaws, the latest in a series of deadlines given to the state party. Alabama Democratic Party Chair Nancy Worley scheduled an executive committee meeting for Oct. 12, a week after the deadline. She said the meeting was scheduled then so it wouldn’t interfere with October mayoral races. Executive committee members can call their own meeting if a majority of committee members agree. The Jones’ campaign said in an emailed statement that it created the “Fix The Party” website so members could easily access and view the new DNC-approved bylaws and the letters from DNC Chairman Tom Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee. “As of this afternoon we are confident that we will have enough support from SDEC members to call for the October 5th meeting,” the campaign statement read. Perez this month said the state party had “fallen far short of meeting its basic obligations” and national party officials have withheld funds because of the chronic problems. Worley, who was reelected as party chair last year, wrote in a text message that “malcontents” are pushing for the Oct. 5 meeting. She said the party leadership submitted several sets of bylaws, but said national officials seemed to always have a moving target. Worley said she believed the “real problem” is that some in the party remain unhappy with the result of last year’s leadership elections. Worley won reelection as party chair over a nominee backed by Jones. Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin on Friday said the party must “get it right.” “The Alabama Democratic Party must be a platform for progress for our state. As the mayor of the most progressive city in the state, we’re counting on the state party to get it right. If we’re going to have success in the future we just have a strong two-party state,” Woodfin wrote in an email. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Jimmy Carter says he couldn’t have managed presidency at 80
Weeks shy of his 95th birthday, former President Jimmy Carter said he doesn’t believe he could have managed the most powerful office in the world at 80 years old. Carter, who earlier this year became the longest-lived chief executive in American history, didn’t tie his comments to any of his fellow Democrats running for president in 2020, but two leading candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, would turn 80 during their terms if elected. Biden is 76. Sanders is 78. “I hope there’s an age limit,” Carter said with a laugh as he answered audience questions on Tuesday during his annual report at the Carter Center in Atlanta. “If I were just 80 years old, if I was 15 years younger, I don’t believe I could undertake the duties I experienced when I was president.” Carter’s observation came in response to a jovial inquiry about whether he had considered running in 2020 since he’s still constitutionally allowed another term. The 39th president left office in 1981 at the age of 56 after losing his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan, who served two terms and left office as the oldest sitting president in history, at 77. Either Biden or Sanders would be older upon their inauguration than Reagan was on his final day in the Oval Office. At 73, President Donald Trump is a record setter, as well. He eclipsed Reagan’s mark as the oldest newly elected president in history and would become the oldest president to be reelected. Age has been a flashpoint for some critics of Trump, Sanders and Biden. Carter, who turns 95 on Oct. 1, said the Oval Office requires a president “to be very flexible with your mind,” particularly on foreign affairs. He was speaking on the 41st anniversary of the Camp David Accords, a peace agreement he negotiated with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. “You have to be able to go from one subject to another and concentrate on each one adequately and then put them together in a comprehensive way, like I did between Begin and Sadat with the peace agreement,” Carter said. “The things I faced in foreign affairs, I don’t think I could undertake them at 80 years old,” he continued, before adding with a smile: “At 95, it’s out of the question. I’m having a hard time walking.” Carter said he remains undecided in the 2020 primary. “I’m going to keep an open mind,” he said, explaining that he wants to vote for a candidate who pledges to make the U.S. the world’s leading champion for peace, human rights and equality. “One of the major factors I will have in my mind is who can beat Trump,” he added, noting that he’ll vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election regardless.Still, Carter’s assessments on age could leave him with few easy choices in the primary. Carter repeated his previous disclosure that he voted for Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016, siding with the democratic socialist over the party establishment favorite. But Carter has since warned Democrats not to go too far left, lest they risk alienating independents and moderate Republicans who can help the party defeat Trump. He has specifically cited proposals like a single-payer health insurance system as potential deal-breakers for some voters inclined to vote against Trump. Sanders and another leading progressive candidate, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, back single-payer health insurance run by the federal government. Warren is 70 years old. Meanwhile, Biden is leading most national and early state primary polls in part because of his strength among more moderate Democrats. Other moderates in the field trail far behind Biden, Sanders and Warren. When Carter ran and won in 1976, he was the outsider toppling establishment favorites. But the former Georgia governor also represented the more moderate wing of a party that had been dominated by Northeastern liberals. Since his defeat, however, Republicans have used Carter as a liberal caricature. And Carter himself, through his work at the Carter Center, has embraced the role of an outspoken human rights advocate willing to criticize the world’s establishment institutions and accepted world order. He’s long blasted Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, even as both major U.S. parties more carefully navigated the U.S. alliance with Israel. As Israel tallies votes from its Tuesday elections, Carter lamented that returning hard-line Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power could “end the peace process” altogether. Exit polls show that Netanyahu’s party fell short of securing a parliamentary majority, potentially threatening his position. Speaking about his post-presidency legacy, Carter said he wants the Carter Center, which has focused since 1982 on public health and election monitoring, to be more willing to criticize the U.S. government, advocate for policies to combat the climate crisis and explicitly take sides against war. “The Carter Center has been basically mute on the subject of global warming,” Carter said, putting blame on himself. He also warned Americans against the consequences of perpetual military conflict. He noted that China, the major economic and geopolitical competitor to the U.S., has spent four decades at peace since Carter normalized relations with Beijing. In that time, China has spent trillions of dollars on infrastructure and education, Carter said, while the U.S. has spent corresponding amounts on military engagement. “That just shows you the difference between peace and war,” Carter said, later adding, “I just want to keep the world at peace.” By Bill Barrow Associated Press Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Democrats push ahead with short-term bill to avoid shutdown
Democrats controlling the House are steering clear of controversy in a short-term, government-wide spending measure that’s needed to prevent a government shutdown at the end of September. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has agreed to a White House request to replenish funds for bailout payments to farmers absorbing heavy losses as a result of President Donald Trump’s trade battles with China. She has also rejected suggestions from House liberals to try to use the must-pass stopgap measure to try to reverse the president’s controversial moves to raid military base construction projects to pay for the border wall, The temporary spending bill would keep the government running through Nov. 21 and is to be released Tuesday. House and Senate votes are expected well in advance of the Sept. 30 deadline to avert a shutdown, though its release remained held up over a relatively a relatively minor but complicated set of issues. The Senate, meanwhile, remains wrapped around the axle in its efforts to advance the 12 annual spending bills that would fill in the blanks of this summer’s bipartisan budget and debt deal. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican-Kentucky, has set up a procedural vote for Wednesday on a huge measure to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid, and domestic agencies like the energy and education departments, but Democrats appear likely to filibuster the measure to protest what they say is a raid on health and education programs to pay for more border wall projects. Next steps are unclear at best, and fears are growing that most of the government, including the Defense Department, will have to run on autopilot at current funding levels. “Of course Democrats oppose taking funds from Congress for our military to use on the president’s border wall. Everyone knows that,” Schumer said Tuesday. “McConnell has been accusing Democrats of threatening to block military funding because we don’t want to pass a bill that steals money from the military.” The maneuvering highlights the precarious nature of the summer’s bipartisan budget pact, which combined a two-year increase in the national debt with a set of new spending “caps” to prevent the return of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts to both the Pentagon and domestic federal agencies. In that agreement, both sides promised to steer clear of controversial provisions that, if included in the bills, would be so politically nettlesome that they would derail the entire process. But Sen. Patty Murray, Democrat-Washington, upset that education and health programs within her jurisdiction have been shortchanged and angry over a new Trump administration rule banning family planning providers that accept federal funds from counseling women about their abortion options, threatened an amendment to reverse the administration’s abortion “gag rule.” McConnell said Murray’s amendment — it would have likely passed the Appropriations Committee over opposition from GOP conservatives and the president — would violate the agreement to avoid politically toxic “poison pills,” and the typically bipartisan appropriations process in the Senate ran aground. A top Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said that Democrats want allocations they consider to be fairer to social programs and agreements on plotting floor consideration of legislation so they are not at a disadvantage in fighting for their priorities. “We get those things and the poison pills start drifting away,” Durbin said. The Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday did approve three bipartisan bills funding transportation and housing, the IRS and the Treasury Department, and agriculture programs. The stopgap measure to fund the government is aimed at buying time for action and negotiations on $1.4 trillion in annual appropriations bills. Some items can’t wait and will be included, like accelerated funding for the 2020 census and $20 million to combat Ebola in Africa. Since the temporary spending bill is the only must-do legislation on the immediate horizon, lawmakers are using it as a locomotive to haul other priorities into law. That bundle of provisions, negotiated behind closed doors, offers plenty of evidence of Capitol Hill’s chronic dysfunction. It’s not just that the Democratic-controlled House and GOP-held Senate can’t agree on big issues like infrastructure, guns and health care. They also can’t agree on lower-tier items that typically pass by wide margins, such as short-term extensions of the federal flood insurance program and the Export-Import Bank, which helps finance export deals important to large manufacturers such as The Boeing Co. The House and Senate banking committees are responsible for legislation to reauthorize both the Export-Import Bank and the flood insurance program, which is particularly important to the real estate sector in coastal areas. But there’s been no progress, so temporary extensions of the two programs have been attached to the interim spending bill. Democrats are deferring a showdown over Trump’s border wall, which sparked a 35-day partial government shutdown at the turn of the year. Democratic leaders opted against trying to use the bill as a way to take on Trump controversies like cutting military base projects to pay for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. But they’re not granting Trump any favors, either, denying provisions such as the flexibility to build new border wall segments. A new bipartisan report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released Tuesday found that this year’s shutdown and a more widespread 2013 shuttering of federal agencies cost taxpayers about $4 billion, mostly for back pay for workers who did not work during the shutdowns. Almost 57,000 years of worker productivity were lost, according to the report by Sens. Rob Portman, Republican-Ohio, and Tom Carper, Democrat-Delaware, contributing to piled-high trash at national parks, a suspension of consumer product safety inspections at U.S. ports, and delayed certifications for new aircraft. By Andrew Taylor Associated Press Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Analysis: Black votes will define electability for Democrats
For all the strategic calculations, sophisticated voter targeting and relentless talk about electability in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democratic presidential nomination will be determined by a decidedly different group: black voters. African Americans will watch as mostly white voters in the first two contests express preferences and winnow the field — then they will almost certainly anoint the winner. So far, that helps explain the front-running status of former Vice President Joe Biden. He has name recognition, a relationship with America’s first black president and a decadeslong Democratic resume. Black voters have long been at the foundation of his support — his home state of Delaware, where he served as a U.S. senator for nearly four decades, is 38 percent black — and until another presidential candidate proves that he or she can beat him, he is likely to maintain that support. In the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton held a strong lead among black voters over Barack Obama until he stunned her by winning the Iowa caucuses and proved to black voters that he was acceptable to a broad spectrum of Democrats. Those same voters returned to Clinton in 2016. Full Coverage: Election 2020 This cycle, many black voters are also making a pragmatic choice — driven as much or more by who can defeat President Donald Trump as the issues they care about — and sitting back to see which candidate white voters are comfortable with before deciding whom they will back. At the same time, the early courtship of black voters, overt and subtle, is part of a primary within the primary that includes detailed plans on issues like criminal justice reform, reparations, maternal mortality among black women, voter suppression and systemic racism. “As black voters and movers and drivers of national politics, our self-image and awareness of our power and influence is evolving,” said Aimee Allison, founder of the She the People network, which hosted the first presidential forum aimed specifically at female voters of color. Trump appealed to black voters during the 2016 campaign by saying “What the hell do you have to lose?” and ended up with only 8 percent of the black vote. But the Republican president again is saying he will try to win over black voters, frequently citing low unemployment and his own success in signing criminal justice legislation. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that he will succeed. But the first test of the decisiveness of black voters will come in the primaries. African Americans make up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population but 24 percent of the Democratic primary electorate. That number is more formidable in the early primary state of South Carolina, where black voters are two-thirds of primary voters, and in other early voting states like Georgia, Alabama and Virginia. Biden reminded black reporters in a recent roundtable that his strength is not just with working class whites, but with the black voters he’s known for more than half a century in politics. “After all this time, they think they have a sense of what my character is and who I am, warts and all,” Biden said. “I’ll be surprised if you find any African Americans that think I’m not in on the deal, that I’m not who I say I am … I’ve never, ever, ever in my entire life been in circumstances where I’ve ever felt uncomfortable being in the black community.”He acknowledged that his familiarity is no assurance of success. And he noted that black voters may ultimately prefer black candidates like Sens. Kamala Harris of California or Cory Booker of New Jersey. First, though, one of them would have to prove to black voters that they were viable alternatives. Black voters can be decisive not only in determining the Democrats’ nominee but also the ultimate winner. While Democrats have peaked in recent cycles with white voters at around 40 percent, black voters have been their most loyal constituency. But in 2016, a drop-off among black voters had consequences. Black voter turnout dropped from about 67 percent in 2012 to about 60 percent, according to government data. “It comes down to a strategy decision that campaigns have to make: Do they believe that the way to win the White House is to win white voters, or do they believe that the way to White House is to mobilize voters of color?” said Leah Daughtry, who recently hosted a 2020 Democratic forum for black faith voters in Atlanta. “Is there a strategy that allows you to do both? Perhaps,” Daughtry said. “But one is a sure bet. If you get us to the polls, we are most likely to vote Democrat. If you get white folks to the polls, you don’t know what they’re going to do.” In the past, Biden would have been a prohibitive favorite, said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter. But black voters are demanding that candidates deliver on their priorities in a way they haven’t done in recent history. “Black folks are looking to figure out who white voters are going to align with, but I don’t think that’s the driver that it has been in the past,” she continued. “Black voters, like white voters, are increasingly frustrated with the process. No longer is it good enough to choose between the devil or the witch.” EDITOR’S NOTE — Errin Haines is national writer on race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. Follow her work on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/emarvelous. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Democrats face identity crisis in next phase of 2020 race
Doug Ogden doesn’t know what to do. The 75-year-old retired law enforcement officer is disgusted by President Donald Trump. But he can’t imagine voting for a Democrat in 2020, either. A self-described independent in South Carolina, Ogden doesn’t recognize the modern-day Democratic Party. “The state of the Democratic Party is wild against wilder,” says Ogden, standing with his arms crossed at a recent town hall meeting for Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg. “It scares me.” At the core of Ogden’s concern is a broader question about the direction of the Democratic Party and its values in the age of Trump. While Democrats are united in their fierce opposition to the Republican president, most party leaders agree that Democrats will not reclaim the White House simply by running against him; they must give people something to vote for. But nine months into the first year of the 2020 campaign season, Democrats are no closer to resolving the big questions dividing their party by race, generation and ideology than they were on the day of Trump’s inauguration. And as the campaign enters a new heightened phase after Labor Day when far more voters begin paying closer attention, there is increasing pressure on Democrats to answer the questions behind their extended identity crisis. How can they peel back Trump’s support with white working class voters while boosting turnout with minorities and suburban women? How hard should they lean into anti-Trump fervor and calls for impeachment? And perhaps above of all, should they embrace transformational change on issues like health care, free college and higher taxes on the rich or a modest shift back to normalcy after Trump’s turbulent presidency? Some Democrats suggest an all-of-the-above strategy. But other presidential candidates, party leaders and top activists are searching for more definite answers to win over those anxious voters desperate for something or someone else to believe in. “There are diverse messages coming from diverse candidates,” Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a 2020 presidential candidate, said in an interview. “What the corporate media and the corporate pundits are trying to tell us is that it’s a middle-of-the-road agenda that will win the election. I categorically disagree,” said Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist. Sanders, of course, represents the Democratic Party’s energized left flank. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, the only member of the Democrats’ 2020 class who has held statewide office in a state Trump won, fears his party will scare away the very same working class voters it needs to beat Trump if they embrace extreme change. “We need to make sure voters know we can improve upon their lives,” Bullock said in an interview. “That’s less about a revolution than addressing the problems of here and now.”In the middle of the Democratic Party’s quest for a clear identity are candidates like Kamala Harris and Buttigieg, the 37-year-old openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, whose positions straddle the divide in a party whose poles are set by Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on the left and by former Vice President Joe Biden and Bullock, among others, as moderates. As Buttigieg courted overwhelmingly white audiences recently in rural South Carolina, he said it was a “false choice” to think Democrats have to appeal to minority voters at the expense of the white working class. And he offered a direct message to older, white voters like Ogden, who fear that his party has become too focused on the concerns of minority voters. “Supporting people like him and making sure we have racial justice in this country go hand in hand because everybody’s life in this country is diminished as long as these inequalities continue,” Buttigieg said in an interview. “We’ll know we’re getting where we need to be if being part of a minority — and, in particular, in this country right now being black — has no bearing on your health or your wealth or your relationship with law enforcement.” “It’s not only people of color who suffer from racial inequity. It drags down all of us,” Buttigieg continued. “I’m talking about what we’re trying to build up. And I think we can build a story about where America is headed, where everybody can see where they belong.” Buttigieg, like Sanders, Biden, Warren and Harris, will continue to have prominent voices in the 2020 conversation, having met new polling and fundraising standards to qualify for the next round of presidential debates. At the same time, several lesser-known centrists have been silenced by Democratic National Committee rules that pushed them off the debate stage altogether. Bullock, one of the castaways, fears his party isn’t doing enough to win back working class voters across the Midwest. Democratic leaders, he said, have “not incentivized actually talking to the voters that we need to win this election.” The Democrats’ search for a consistent message plays into the party’s broader quest to assemble a coalition to deny Trump reelection. Barack Obama twice won the presidency by inspiring stronger-than-normal support from young voters, minorities and working class men. That coalition failed to show up for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but young people in particular helped fuel Democrats’ success in the midterm elections last year. An estimated 31% of voters ages 18 to 29 turned out to vote in 2018, with 2 out of 3 backing Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Information & Research on Civil Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. Yet it’s unclear how committed Democrats are to energizing young voters in 2020.The Democratic National Committee only just recently hired its first full time staffer dedicated to youth turnout, according to Calvin Wilborn, president of the College Democrats of America. “The party is moving in the right direction. I’m not sure it’s moving fast enough,” Wilborn warned. Many liberal activists are convinced that black and Hispanic voters hold the key to Democrats’ victory in 2020. Much of the Democratic establishment, meanwhile, is far more focused on white working class men, a voting bloc that shifted
10 democrats set for next debate as several others miss cut
Struggling Democratic presidential candidates are facing the bad news that they are not among the 10 who have qualified for the next debate, a predicament that is likely to spell doom for their campaigns. Hours ahead of a midnight Wednesday deadline to qualify, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced she was dropping out of the race after spending at least $4 million on advertising in recent months to qualify. Billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and self-help guru Marianne Williamson were also among those missing September’s debate, as were Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and a handful of others. To appear on stage in Houston next month, they had to hit 2 percent in at least four approved public opinion polls while securing 130,000 unique donors . Two new polls released Wednesday affirmed that they were all below the threshold. The question shifted from who would qualify for the following debate to who would stay in the race. “Our rules have ended up less inclusive … than even the Republicans,” Bullock said on MSNBC, referring to the thresholds set by the Democratic National Committee. “It is what it is.” The 10 candidates who qualified for September’s debate are Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang. In a still-crowded Democratic field, not qualifying for the debate was expected to severely cripple a candidate’s prospects. However, several have pledged to forge on in hopes of reaching the requirements in time for the next debate, in October. Although earlier debates had lower thresholds, the DNC raised the stakes for the fall debates. “We believe you need to show progress in your campaign,” said Democratic Party spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. “There hasn’t been one candidate in 40 years who has polled under 2% the fall ahead of a primary and has gone on to be the Democratic nominee.” The DNC designed the requirements to bring order to an unwieldy field of more than 20 White House hopefuls, while elevating the role of online grassroots donors who are among the party’s most fervent supporters. In some ways, the party has succeeded. But the process has drawn complaints from those unlikely to make the cut. They argue that the rules are arbitrary and have forced candidates to pour money into expensive online fundraising operations that can sometimes charge as much as $90 for every dollar raised. Bennet said the threshold favored Steyer, and a memo by his campaign accused the billionaire of trying to buy his way into the debate. “Other candidates have had to spend millions to acquire donors on Facebook, instead (of) communicating with voters and laying the groundwork to beat” President Donald Trump, the Bennet campaign memo stated. Steyer, a late entry in the race, was the closest to qualifying but acknowledged Wednesday night that he too had fallen short. “While I’m disappointed that I won’t be on the debate stage in Houston this month, I’m excited by all the support you’ve shown us,” he tweeted to supporters. “We started this campaign to get corporate influence out of politics, and I won’t stop fighting until the government belongs to the people again.” In a separate letter to Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez, Bennet’s campaign asked how the DNC decided which polls to allow and questioned why Democrats were trying to narrow the field months before Iowa caucuses. Yet Hinojosa, the DNC spokeswoman, said those who are upset have had ample time to build support and reach the thresholds. Instead, most have consistently polled at 1% or below. “We are asking Democratic candidates to hit 2 percent in four polls. That is not a high threshold,” said Hinojosa, who added the DNC is accepting the results from 21 polls. Steyer and Gillibrand both poured millions of dollars into Facebook and TV ads to boost their standing in recent months. While Steyer met the donor threshold, he was one poll shy. Gillibrand was three polls away and had yet to lock in enough donors. Gabbard was two polls away from qualifying, and Williamson was three polls away.Several others who struggled had already chosen to drop out. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper all recently ended their campaigns. With no more than 10 participants, the September debate would be the first of the cycle held on a single night. Earlier debates featured 20 candidates split across two nights.Biden, the race’s early front-runner, said he would like the field to winnow even further. “I’m looking forward to getting to the place, assuming I’m still around, that it gets down to a smaller number of people so we can have more of a discussion instead of one-minute assertions,” the former vice president said Wednesday while campaigning in Spartanburg, South Carolina. By Brian Slodysko Associated Press Associated Press writer Bill Barrow in Spartanburg, South Carolina, contributed to this report. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Democratic national committee denies seats to Alabama party leaders
The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to deny seats to the two leaders of the Alabama Democratic Party after missed deadlines to comply with party directives. The DNC accepted a recommendation to revoke the credentials of Alabama Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy Worley and Vice-Chair Randy Kelley. The sanction came after the state party missed two deadlines to hold new elections for their positions and to revise party bylaws. A DNC spokesman said the action means Worley and Kelley will no longer be recognized by the DNC. Worley said Friday that she expected the action, and downplayed its impact. Worley said she and Kelley will remain in their state party positions. “It shouldn’t affect anything in the state party,” Worley said The action arose after challenges were filed contesting Worley’s and Kelley’s election last year. One challenge contended multiple rules were broken during the election to “stack the deck” in their favor. A separate challenge said the party did not follow diversity requirements. National party officials agreed and in February ordered new elections after finding procedural irregularities with Worley’s and Kelley’s election last year. Party officials also ordered the state party to develop an affirmative action plan and revise bylaws to provide representation of other minorities, not just African Americans. Richard Rouco, an attorney representing people who filed the challenge to Worley’s and Kelley’s election, said the action confirms the need for change at the Alabama Democratic Party. “I hope that the ADP’s leadership takes this action by DNC seriously because it’s a big deal when the two top officers of a State party are denied DNC credentials,” Rouco wrote in an email. Rouco said while Kelley and Worley are not technically removed from office, he was unsure how long they could continue. “An important and critical duty of the Chair and Vice Chair of a State Party is to represent state Democrats at the national level. Alabama Democrats deserve representation in the affairs of the DNC and it’s my sense that if the ADP does not move quickly to comply with DNC orders and run a new election for Chair and Vice Chair that the DNC will take further action,” Rouco said. The DNC credentials committee on Thursday recommended revoking the credentials of the Alabama party leaders until new elections are properly held. They said the state missed spring and August deadlines to comply with the directives. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Democrats take a look at a practical health care approach
Democratic voters appear to be reassessing their approach to health care, a pragmatic shift on their party’s top 2020 issue. While “Medicare for All” remains hugely popular, majorities say they’d prefer building on “Obamacare” to expand coverage instead of a new government program that replaces America’s mix of private and public insurance. Highlighted by a recent national poll, shifting views are echoed in interviews with voters and the evolving positions of Democratic presidential candidates on a proposal that months ago seemed to have growing momentum within their party. Several have endorsed an incremental approach rather than a government-run plan backed by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. It could mean trouble for Sanders and his supporters, signaling a limit to how far Democratic voters are willing to move to the left and an underlying skepticism that Americans will back such a dramatic change to their health care. “We hear Medicare for All, but I’m not absolutely certain what that means and what that would then mean for me,” said Democrat Terrie Dietrich, who lives near Las Vegas. “Does it mean that private insurance is gone forever?” Dietrich, 74, has Medicare and supplements that with private insurance, an arrangement she said she’s pretty comfortable with. She thinks it’s important that everyone has health care, not just those who can afford it. She said she would support Medicare for All if it was the only way to achieve that. But “I don’t think we can ever get it passed,” Dietrich added. Erin Cross, her 54-year-old daughter and also a Democrat, said she’s not comfortable with switching to a system in which a government plan is the only choice. She said Democrats won’t be able to appeal to Republicans unless they strike a middle ground and allow people to keep their private insurance. “We’ve got to get some of these other people, these Republican voters, to come on over just to get rid of Trump,” she said. Democratic presidential candidates also have expressed skepticism. California Sen. Kamala Harris’ new plan would preserve a role for private insurance. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker is open to step-by-step approaches. Meanwhile, health care moderates including former Vice President Joe Biden have been blunt in criticizing the government-run system envisioned by Sanders. In Nevada, the early voting swing state that tests presidential candidates’ appeal to labor and a diverse population, moderate Democrats have won statewide by focusing on health care affordability and preserving protections from President Barack Obama’s law. Nationwide, 55 percent of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic said in a poll last month they’d prefer building on Obama’s Affordable Care Act instead of replacing it with Medicare for All. The survey by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found 39% would prefer Medicare for All. Majorities of liberals and moderates concurred. On a separate question, Democratic support for Medicare for All was a robust 72 percent in July, but that was down from 80 percent in April, a drop Kaiser says is statistically significant but not necessarily a definitive downward trend. That said, Kaiser pollster Liz Hamel said it wouldn’t be surprising if it turned into one. On big health care ideas, she said, “as the public starts seeing arguments for and against, we often see movement.” The Kaiser survey also found broad backing for the public-option alternative that moderates are touting, a government plan that would compete with but not replace private insurance. Eight-five percent of Democrats supported that idea, along with 68 percent of independents. Republicans were opposed, 62 percent to 36 percent. Large increases in federal spending and a significant expansion of government power are often cited as arguments against Medicare for All. However, the main criticism Democrats are hearing from some of their own candidates is that the Sanders plan would force people to give up their private health insurance. Under the Vermont senator’s legislation, it would be unlawful for insurers or employers to offer coverage for benefits provided by the new government plan. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan argued during the last round of Democratic debates that that’s problematic for union members with hard-fought health care plans secured by sacrificing wage increases. However, Sanders has long asserted his plan will allow unions to obtain bigger wage increases by taking health care out of the equation. In interviews with The Associated Press, union workers in Nevada said they worried about how Medicare for All would affect their coverage. Chad Neanover, prep cook at the Margaritaville casino-restaurant on the Las Vegas Strip, said he would be reluctant to give up the comprehensive insurance that his union has fought to keep. He has asthma, and his wife is dealing with diabetes. The union’s plan has no monthly premium cost and no deductible. “I don’t want to give up my health insurance. I’ve personally been involved in the fight to keep it,” said Neanover, 44. “A lot of people have fought to have what we have today.”Savannah Palmira, a 34-year-old union construction worker in Las Vegas, said she’s open to supporting Medicare for All, but wants to know specifically what it would look like, how the country would transition and how it would affect her plan. “That’s one of the biggest things that I love about being in the union, is our quality health care,” Palmira said. Medicare for All backers say their plan has been unfairly portrayed. “The shift in polling on Medicare for All is a direct result of mischaracterizations by opponents,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat-California, a Sanders campaign co-chair. People are most interested in keeping their own doctors, Khanna added, and Medicare for All would not interfere with that. Longtime watchers of America’s health care debate see new energy among Democrats, along with a familiar pattern. “The long-standing history of health reform is that people want to hang on to what they have,” said Georgetown University public policy professor Judith Feder, who was a health policy adviser in the Clinton administration. Nonetheless, she noted a common interest
Nancy Worley could lose DNC credential after missed deadlines
Alabama Democratic party leaders will lose their seats on the Democratic National Committee after the state party twice missed deadlines for new leadership elections, under a recommendation made Thursday. The DNC’s credentials committee recommended revoking the credentials of Alabama Chairwoman Nancy Worley and Vice-Chair Randy Kelley. The full DNC will have to approve the recommendation on Saturday, but typically accepts the recommendations. Worley and Kelley would stay in their state roles, but won’t have a seat on the DNC. National party officials in February ordered new elections after finding procedural irregularities with Worley’s and Kelley’s election last year. Party officials also ordered the state party to develop an affirmative action plan and revise bylaws to provide representation of more minorities — not just African Americans. Committee member Harold Ickes, who helped lead the negotiations between the state and DNC, said the state party has “stalled this process.” “This has been sort of a textbook example of delay, delay, delay, delay. We’re mystified by it,” Ickes said. Worley said the challenge was filed by people unhappy with her election and suggested it was an effort to minimize the influence of African Americans. Worley said there is a “special circle in hell that is going to be as hot as it can be” for people who try to strip black voters of their voting rights, and told members they will need water, “cause you are going to be burning in hell for taking away people’s voting rights.” A committee member responded that the party takes its commitment to diversity seriously and that this came about because of the “flagrant irregularities” in Worley’s election last year. There have been calls for new party leadership after internal disagreement over management and decisions. Democrats for a decade have lost all statewide elections in Alabama with the exception of the 2017 election of U.S. Sen. Doug Jones. He is the only Democrat to hold statewide office in Alabama.
AP fact check: The democratic debates and Donald Trump counterpunch
In his typically boastful rally this past week, Donald Trump placed himself too high in the pantheon of presidents when it comes to getting his judicial picks on federal courts. He’s been having a good run on that front but he’s not where he said he is — ranking right under George Washington, no less. Much of the week was filled with the cacophony of Democratic presidential candidates having their say on the debate stage. Their pronouncements did not always fit with the facts. They skewed reality on climate science, immigration policy, the auto industry and more. A review: JUDGES TRUMP, on his record of filling federal judicial appointments: “There’s only one person … who percentage-wise has done better than me with judges.” — Cincinnati rally Thursday.THE FACTS: No, at least four have done better. Trump is properly ceding first place to George Washington, who had a judiciary entirely made up of his choices simply because he was the first president. But he’s not acknowledging that at least three modern presidents had a better record than Trump of getting their judicial choices on the courts. Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, has been keeping track. He found that Trump’s confirmed judges make up 17% of total federal judgeships. At this point in their presidencies, John Kennedy had filled 30% of the federal judiciary, Bill Clinton had filled 20% and Nixon had filled 25%. CLIMATE BETO O’ROURKE, former U.S. representative from Texas, on global warming: “I listen to scientists on this and they’re very clear: We don’t have more than 10 years to get this right. And we won’t meet that challenge with half-steps, half-measures or only half the country.” — Democratic debate Tuesday. PETE BUTTIGIEG, mayor of South Bend, Indiana: “Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of our catastrophe when it comes to our climate.” — Democratic debate Tuesday. ANDREW YANG, entrepreneur: “This is going to be a tough truth, but we are too late. We are 10 years too late.” — Democratic debate Wednesday. THE FACTS: These statements are out of step with science. Climate scientists don’t agree on an approximate time frame, let alone an exact number of years, for how much time we have left to stave off the deadliest extremes of climate change. Nor do they think it’s too late already. A report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris climate change agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it’s not a last-chance, hard deadline for action, as O’Rourke, Buttigieg and others have interpreted it.“The hotter it gets, the worse it gets, but there is no cliff edge,” James Skea, co-chairman of the report, told The Associated Press. Climate scientists certainly see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, but they do not agree that 2030 is a “point of no return,” as Buttigieg put it. “This has been a persistent source of confusion,” agreed Kristie L. Ebi, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington in Seattle. “The report never said we only have 12 years left.” IMMIGRATION Kamal Harris, senator from California: “We’ve got a person who has put babies in cages and separated children from their parents.” — Democratic debate Wednesday.MICHAEL BENNET, senator from Colorado, in a message directed at Trump: “Kids belong in classrooms not cages.” — Democratic debate Wednesday. TRUMP: “The cages for kids were built by the Obama Administration in 2014. He had the policy of child separation. I ended it even as I realized that more families would then come to the Border!” — tweet Wednesday. THE FACTS: There’s deception on both sides here. Family separations as a matter of routine came about because of Trump’s “zero tolerance” enforcement policy. President Barack Obama had no such policy and Trump’s repeated attempts to pin one on him flies in the face of reality. Trump only ended — or suspended — what Trump had started, and that was after a judge ordered that the practice be sharply curtailed and as an international uproar grew. Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union now says in a legal challenge that more than 900 children were separated from their parents at the border in the year after the judge’s order. The Obama administration also separated migrant children from families when a child’s safety appeared at risk with the adults or in other limited circumstances. But the ACLU says children have been removed after the judge’s order for minor transgressions by the adults, like traffic offenses, or for unfounded suspicions of wrongdoing. Trump, though, is correct in noting that the “cages” — chain-link enclosures inside border facilities where migrants have been temporarily housed, separated by sex and age — were built and used by the Obama administration. Democrats routinely ignore that fact when they assail Trump for what they call the cruelty of putting “babies in cages.” The Trump administration has been using the same facilities as the Obama administration. Joe Biden, former vice president, on Obama’s approach to people who came to the U.S. illegally as children: “The president came along and he’s the guy that came up with the idea, first time ever, of dealing with the Dreamers. He put that in the law.” — Democratic debate Wednesday. THE FACTS: He’s wrong that Obama achieved a law protecting those young immigrants. He notably failed on that front. Instead he circumvented Congress and used his executive authority to extend temporary protection, letting them stay in the country if they met certain conditions. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, as its name implies, merely defers deportations. Trump, also with executive action, tried to end the program but the effort has been tied up in courts, so the protection continues for now. Cory Booker, senator
Impeachment watch: Nearly half of house democrats support inquiry
Nearly half the House Democrats now support an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump — a milestone but still probably not enough to push Speaker Nancy Pelosi to launch proceedings. A tally by The Associated Press on Wednesday showed 114 Democrats in the House, and one Republican-turned independent, are now publicly backing an inquiry, a notable spike in the days since special counsel Robert Mueller testified on Capitol Hill. Some two dozen House Democrats, and two top senators, added their names after Mueller’s public appearance last week. The numbers also show the limits. Even with half the Democrats favoring impeachment efforts, it’s not seen by leadership as a working majority for quick action. Pelosi, who needs at least a 218-vote majority to pass most legislation in the House, has been unwilling to move toward impeachment without a groundswell of support — both on and off Capitol Hill. “The dynamics have shifted,” said Kevin Mack, the lead strategist at Need to Impeach, a group funded by Tom Steyer, who’s now a Democratic presidential contender and stepped down from the organization. “It’s time to get it started. It’s not enough to keep kicking the can down the road, running out the clock.” For Democrats who won control of the House, partly on the promise of providing a checks-and-balance on the Trump administration, the weeks ahead will be pivotal as lawmakers hear from voters during the August recess and attention turns toward the 2020 election.Outside groups have struggled to make inroads with the House, despite tens of thousands of phone calls and office visits pushing lawmakers to act more urgently. Steyer’s group and another founded by activist Sean Eldridge have been key advocates for impeachment. But it’s taken longer than expected to reach this benchmark, some say. Their work may become more daunting ahead of the primary elections if Democrats are reluctant to take greater strides toward impeachment. Still, what’s striking about the growing list of House Democrats who support some sort of impeachment inquiry is as much the names as the numbers. This week, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, became the ninth to call for impeachment inquiry — almost half of the House’s committee chairmen now on record in favor. Engel said the president’s “repeated abuses have brought American democracy to a perilous crossroads.” His committee is among those investigating Trump’s business dealings and ties to Russia – and running into obstruction by the administration that some say are grounds for impeachment. Also joining the list in the immediate aftermath of Mueller’s testimony was a top party leader, Rep. Katherine Clark, Democrat-Massachusetts, the vice chair of the Democratic caucus, who said the House has been met with “unprecedented stonewalling and obstruction” by the Trump administration. “That is why I believe we need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts,” she said. Two top Democratic senators, Patty Murray of Washington and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the third and fourth-ranking members of leadership, also announced their support for a House impeachment inquiry. Republican-turned independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan announced his support for impeachment shortly after he said he read Mueller’s findings about Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump administration’s response. Mueller’s testimony was supposed to be a game changer, his appearance months in the making since the April release of his 448-page report. But the 74-year-old Mueller’s halting testimony and one-word answers left a mixed result. Pelosi swiftly assembled lawmakers behind closed doors the evening after Mueller testified. The speaker has held Democrats in line on her strategy, with many deferring to her leadership. Pelosi’s only counsel was that if they needed to speak in favor of impeachment, they should not to turn it into a moral ultimatum. It was a signal that Democrats should not badmouth lawmakers who were still reluctant to call for an inquiry, according a person familiar with the private session and granted anonymity to discuss it. While the speaker called Mueller’s appearance “a crossing of a threshold,” she also quickly pivoted to the House’s legal action against the White House, saying Democrats are building the case that Trump is obstructing their ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch. “We still have some outstanding matters in the courts,” Pelosi said. She reminded that the Watergate case burst open after the House sued for access to audio tapes Richard Nixon made in the White House. “We want to have the strongest possible case to make a decision as to what path we will go down and that is not endless, in terms of time, or endless in terms of the information that we want,” she said. Yet the House Judiciary Committee has yet to file a lawsuit on one of their next priorities — enforcing a subpoena against Donald McGahn. That filing could come as soon as this week, but the process could take several months, pushing the impeachment timeline closer to the end of the year and the presidential primaries. The former White House counsel is among long list of administration officials who have refused to testify or provide documents to the panel under orders from Trump. The suit would challenge White House claims that such officials have “absolute immunity” from such testimony. In a separate case, the committee is in court trying to obtain secret grand jury information underlying Mueller’s report. In a court filing Wednesday, the committee and the Justice Department agreed to next steps in that matter by the end of September, pushing any resolution until October. Pelosi is of the mindset that impeachment should not be done for political reasons, or not done for political reasons, as she pursues a step-by-step case. In many ways, she is protecting those lawmakers who joined the House from districts Trump creating the House majority, from having to make tough choices on impeachment. But critics say Pelosi is depriving Democrats of a clear vote on
National democrat party officials reject Alabama state party bylaws
National party officials are expressing concern that the Alabama Democratic Party isn’t doing enough to attract more non-black minorities. The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee on Tuesday rejected the state party’s proposed bylaws. The national party in February ordered the Alabama party to hold new elections for party leaders and to revise bylaws and encourage participation by more minorities. The directive came amid challenges over the re-election of Nancy Worley as chair of the state party. Committee member Harold Ickes says the party’s proposal did not comply with the DNC directive. Ickes also says the party’s internal elections last year made the “Keystone Cops look organized.” Worley told the panel that people unhappy with her election are “refighting the civil war” with the challenges. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
