(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Can Colin win? [1]
['Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags', 'Showtags Popular_Tags']
Date: 2023-05-02
Joe Bowen of Texas Signal looks at the advantages and disadvantages of Allred’s probable bid to become the first Texas Democrat to win a statewide office in 20 years.
There is one aspect to a potential Allred candidacy that shouldn’t go overlooked. Texas Democrats have developed a track record over the past twenty years for running white candidates at the top of the statewide ticket, filling out the ballot with a more diverse slate of candidates in down-ballot offices. While the Texas Democratic Party has done a great job recruiting diverse slates of candidates in recent cycles, there hasn’t been a major Black candidate at or near the top of the ballot in Texas since Ron Kirk’s 2002 Senate race. Democrats consistently bemoan low turnout in Black communities across the state after subpar election results, while neglecting the hard work of recruiting strong Black candidates and giving them the support network they need to lead our tickets to success. Allred could turn that tired formula on its head, and give Black voters throughout Texas a reason to be excited to cast a ballot in 2024. That could be a tremendous asset for a Democratic candidate, and to be frank, Texas Democrats won’t win in 2024 without dramatically increasing their investment in Black and Brown communities.
Remember that Rep. Allred won his Congressional seat, in part, because Beto O’Rourke ran a highly competitive race against Ted Cruz in 2018. A 2024 Senate pick-up in Texas would be glorious but not likely. But in a presidential election year, a highly competitive U.S. Senate race could very well have its effect on control of the House, as well.
Asher Lehrer-Small of the non-profit education news site The 74 notes that a little-recognized clause in a 2021 Texas law bans a key component of civics education in The Lone Star State.
Since state legislators in 2021 passed a ban on lessons teaching that any one group is “inherently racist, sexist or oppressive,” one unprecedented provision tucked into the bill has triggered a massive fallout for civics education statewide. A brief clause on Page 8 of the legislation outlawed all assignments involving “direct communication” between students and their federal, state or local officials. Educators could no longer ask students to get involved in the political process, even if they let youth decide for themselves what side of an issue to advocate for — short-circuiting the training young Texans receive to participate in democracy itself. [...] Practically overnight, a growing movement to engage Texas students in real-world civics lessons evaporated. Teachers canceled time-honored assignments, districts reversed expansion plans with a celebrated civics education provider and a bill promoting student civics projects that received bipartisan support in 2019 was suddenly dead in the water.
Alan Rappeport of The New York Times explains the “X-date”; a key date that defines the exactly date when the United States will run out of cash.
With June now just a few weeks away, uncertainty around the timing of when the United States will run out of cash — what’s known as the X-date — remains, and determining the true deadline could have huge consequences for the country. Determining the X-date depends on a complex set of factors, but ultimately what matters most is how much money the government spends and how much it takes in through taxes and other revenue. The Bipartisan Policy Center, which tracks federal revenues, projected in February that lawmakers would need to raise or suspend the debt limit sometime between summer and early fall to avoid a default. The specific date would largely depend on how quickly tax revenues are coming into the government’s coffers. There are signs that 2022 tax receipts are trickling in too slowly for comfort. Economists at Wells Fargo wrote in a note to clients last week that because tax collections appear to be weaker than expected, there is a chance the X-date could be as soon as early June. However, they continue to believe early August is the most likely default deadline.
Kyle Pope of Columbia Journalism Review juxtaposes the glitz of the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner with the reality that most Americans simply cannot afford quality journalism.
..The complaint most leveled against the national press is that it doesn’t understand—and so doesn’t cover—the issues that matter most to Americans, in particular kitchen-table issues like the cost of housing and education. The relatability gap is only reinforced by the images of reporters in black ties and gowns in a DC ballroom. (The New York Times rightly decided a few years ago not to participate in the event, though that didn’t stop the paper from running a best-dressed list from the party over the weekend.) And yet, occasionally, an important truth manages to break through. This year, that moment came when The Daily Show’s Roy Wood Jr., who was hosting the event, noted that the dinner contrasted with one of the most intractable problems in the news business. “The issue with good media is that most people can’t afford that,” said Wood, whose father, Roy Wood Sr., was a trailblazing journalist who cofounded the nation’s first Black radio network. “All the essential, fair, and nuanced reporting is stuck behind a paywall. People can’t afford rent. People can’t afford food. They can’t afford an education. They damn sure can’t afford to pay for the truth.”
Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog writes that the Supreme Court will consider a case that challenges the ability to federal agencies to interpret statutes.
Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its ruling in Chevron. The question comes to the court in a case brought by a group of commercial fishing companies. They challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires the fishing industry to pay for the costs of observers who monitor compliance with fishery management plans. [...] The fishing companies came to the Supreme Court in November, asking the justices both to weigh in on their challenge to the rule and to overrule Chevron (or, the petition suggested, clarify that when a law does not address “controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute,” there is no ambiguity in the statute, and therefore no deference is required). After considering the case at five consecutive conferences, the justices agreed to take up only the second question, on the Chevron doctrine.
Michael Macagnone of Roll Call says that a partisan clah is expected when the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up the issue of a binding code of ethics for U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
Democrats will make the case for Congress to pass a law to force the Supreme Court to adopt such a code, in the wake of reports that Justice Clarence Thomas did not disclose luxury trips and a real estate deal with billionaire Harlan Crow. But some Republicans on the committee have painted those efforts as an attack on a conservative justice who is part of a 6-3 majority of appointees of Republican presidents who have issued rulings on abortion and gun rights. Gabe Roth, executive director for Fix the Court who has advocated for Congress to pass an ethics code for the justices, said that getting buy-in from Republicans will be key to any steps forward on long-standing issues surrounding the Supreme Court. Roth said he is “not sanguine” that there will be a bridge between Democrats who may make hay of the allegations against Thomas but view them as emblematic of ethics problems at the court and Republicans who view the stories as attacks on a conservative justice.
Ishaan Tharoor of The Washington Post says that the situation in Sudan continues to decline as Sudanese refugees head to the borders of neighboring countries and foreigners continue to evacuate.
Before hostilities flared last month, a third of Sudan’s 46 million people required humanitarian assistance. Now, conditions are even more grave. Across the country’s major urban centers — particularly in Khartoum, long-insulated from the worst of the many conflicts that previously ravaged Sudan — countless residents are trapped in vulnerable, desperate conditions. Many report being without electricity, running water and food. Access to urgent health care has, in many places, become virtually impossible. In the western Darfur region, the warehouses of various aid groups and international organizations have been looted. With battles raging and Sudan sliding toward state collapse, the outlook is bleak. Martin Griffiths, the United Nations’ top humanitarian official, warned in a statement Sunday that, in Sudan, “the humanitarian situation is reaching breaking point” and that the warring parties needed to ensure safe passage for civilians and help facilitate relief operations and the personnel carrying them out. “The scale and speed of what is unfolding in Sudan is unprecedented,” Griffiths said. “We are extremely concerned by the immediate as well as long-term impact on all people in Sudan and the broader region.” For days, the focus in Western media has centered on the evacuations of foreign nationals in the country. After clashes between the two main factions — the regular Sudanese army, led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), whose leader is Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti — began in Khartoum and elsewhere more than two weeks ago, a host of Western and regional governments started conducting evacuations by air and by sea. By this past weekend, many governments indicated that they were wrapping up operations.
David Isaacharoff of Haaretz thinks that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should confront and challenge House Speaker Kevin McCarthy about the extreme anti-semitism of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
From embracing QAnon's theory of Satanic cults that run the world and are bankrolled by Hungarian-born Jewish billionaire George Soros, to the idea that Rothschild family-funded lasers in outer space cause wildfires, Greene’s long list of conspiracy theories offer an underlying theme of antisemitic blood libels against Jews who run a ‘deep state’ for a ‘globalist order' which is a threat on white society. Greene equated Covid-19 mask mandates to restrictions on Jews during the Holocaust, and likened proof of vaccination to the gold star badges that Nazis forced Jews to wear. Last year, she spoke at a conference hosted by white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who the Anti-Defamation League has called, “among the most prominent and unapologetic antisemites" in the U.S., a “vicious bigot and known Holocaust denier.” [...] ...Israel has a dangerous flirtation with the radical Right, especially in Europe, whose anti-Islamic stances compensate for antisemitic views and ties to neo-Nazism. While Israel officially boycotts the German far-right AfD, Yair Netanyahu, Israel’s unofficial ambassador to the European far-right, seems to court it. This elder son and whisperer of the prime minister was featured on a campaign poster asserting that “Christianity is the cure for the evils of the globalist EU.”
Finally today, Claire Potter writes for her “Political Junkie” Substack about a working definition for “malarkey.”
Vanquishing malarkey is a big part of what Biden has done as president. It's a big part of what many of us independent writers have been laser-focused on since Donald Trump announced his presidential candidacy in 2015. The lies and conspiracy theories the GOP has wedded itself to have caused much damage. Still, it is the malarkey that has disabled one of our two major political parties and fatally undermined our political culture. [...] But it is crucial to have a working definition of our keyword. "Malarkey" describes a communication dynamic rather than false speech. As Trump's 2016 strategist Steve Bannon would say, malarkey is a way to "flood the zone with shit." According to Merriam-Webster, it emerged in the United States around 1923 and best translates as exaggerated, foolish, insincere, or nonsense talk designed to deceive by obscuring the truth with word salad. Malarkey, in other words, may contain facts or individual assertions that are true but conveyed in such a way as to conceal the truth. Although malarkey sounds Irish (indeed, there are apparently Irish people with the surname Malarkey and Mullarkey), the word was likely invented by an Irish-American boxing writer and political cartoonist named Thomas Aloysius ("Tad") Dorgan. Dorgan began his career at the San Francisco Chronicle in 1902 and moved to the New York Journal in 1905. Repurposing words and phrases to describe modern phenomena was one of his talents. According to H.L. Menken, Dorgan was one of the top inventors of slang after 1900: he is said to be responsible for popularizing "applesauce" as a synonym for nonsense, "dumbbell" as slang for a stupid person ("Dumb Dora" for a stupid woman), and "hard-boiled" as a way for describing a tough guy.
Have the best possible day, everyone!
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/2/2166989/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Roundup-Can-Colin-win
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
