Republicans are sweating bullets when asked to repudiate Donald Trumps bigotry toward Muslims and Mexicans, and so far have only provided limp criticism of Trump’s call. But voters who want to uphold America’s best values about tolerance and brotherhood can take some comfort that one party, at least, refuses to give Trump’s bigotry an easy pass, as evidenced by recent statements from Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.
Hillary Clinton has just posted a strong statement against Donald Trump’s bigotry and his GOP rivals weak response on her campaign web page:

Donald Trump has made a name for himself in this election by trafficking in prejudice and paranoia. Now he says he wants to stop all Muslims from entering the United States. It’s a shameful idea. It’s also dangerous. At a time when America should be doing everything we can to fight radical jihadists, Mr. Trump is supplying them with new propaganda. He’s playing right into their hands.
Now some Republican candidates are saying that Donald Trump’s latest comments have gone too far. But the truth is, many GOP candidates have also said extreme things about Muslims. Their language may be more veiled than Mr. Trump’s, but their ideas aren’t so different.
Ben Carson says that a Muslim shouldn’t be president. Marco Rubio compares Muslims to members of the Nazi Party and refuses to rule out monitoring and closing of mosques. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz have suggested that we implement a religious test for Syrian refugees–one that only Christians would pass. Chris Christie says not even 3-year-old Syrian orphans should be let in. And they insist on using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism”–in fact, they criticize anyone who says anything else–even though it drives the exact narrative the jihadists want to advance: that we’re at war with an entire religion.
When you take a step back and see what the Republican field as a whole says about Muslims–not just one or two candidates for President, but nearly all of them–it’s hard to take seriously their attempts to distance themselves from Mr. Trump. He’s just articulating the logical conclusion of what the rest of them have been saying. As Mr. Trump said in an interview this morning, “They condemn practically everything I say, and then they always come to my side.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders has also made his contempt for Trump’s bigotry clear, as noted by John Wagner at Post Politics:

“What somebody like a Trump is trying to do is to divide us up,” Sanders told host Jimmy Fallon. “A few months ago, we were supposed to hate Mexicans. He thinks they’re all criminals or rapists. Now we’re supposed to hate Muslims. And that kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America.”
…”Throughout history, you’ve had demagogues trying to divert attention away from the real issues,” Sanders said. “This country today faces some enormous problems. You know, we have a middle class that is disappearing. We have almost the wealth and income going to the top 1 percent. We have climate change. We have a corrupt campaign finance system.”
“I think what the American people understand is, given the problems we face, we’ve got to stand together, come together and create a decent life for all of our people and stop the scapegoating of one group or another,” Sanders said.

Former Maryland Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley was equally-strong in condemning Trump’s fear-mongering, reports Maryalice Parks at abcnews.com:

“Let me ask you this. Who is next? Catholics? Trade unionists? Artists? We’ve seen this road before, and it does not lead to a good place,” he said.
“Panic and political opportunism are a toxic mix — a mix that can often precede fascism or the plunging of our republic into a security state,” O’Malley added. The audience jeered and booed at his references to Trump.
After the speech, reporters pressed O’Malley on whether he thought Trump himself was a fascist. O’Malley would not say so explicitly, but said the language Trump uses is similar.
“When he pushes things like registries and ID cards based on things like religion, I do believe that is the sort of appeal that historically has often preceded fascism,” he said. “We should not think that we are so superior as a nation that we cannot ourselves fall victim to those sorts of appeals.”

Clinton added,

He’s also taking aim at our values. Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. The notion that here, people are free to practice their faith, whatever it is, is one of America’s most cherished principles…Nearly 3 million Americans are Muslims. They’re our family, our friends, our neighbors, and co-workers. They serve in the military, save lives as doctors and nurses, and serve our communities as police officers, firefighters, teachers, and civic leaders. They’re patriots–proud Americans, just like the rest of us. They deserve better than this.”

Clinton called on Trump’s fellow Republican candidates to come forward and speak out against hate-mongering and scapegoating: “Now is the time for all of us–especially Republican leaders–to stand up to hateful, dangerous words and deeds.”
Given the GOP candidates’ sorry record thus far, it could take a while.

Associated Press reports on a study showing that Utah counties that permit voting by mail are seeing huge increases in turnout:

According to a report released by the Utah Foundation on Wednesday, all 70 cities in Utah that chose to vote my mail increased turnout compared to municipal elections in 2013 and 2011.
The report shows that voter turnout has dipped in recent decades, setting a record low in 2014 with only 28.8 percent of the state’s eligible voters participating in the general election.
Cities that saw major increases in voter participating include Salt Lake City, where canvass results show turnout was 54 percent — up from 13 percent in 2013 and 24 percent in 2011; Green River with 65 percent, up from 35 percent; and Moab with 62 percent, up from 16 percent.

Scott Keyes comments on the Utah study at ThinkProgress:

Researchers found that the effect was particularly pronounced in smaller communities rather than larger cities. Still, some cities saw major gains as well. Salt Lake City, for instance, saw its turnout rate soar to 55 percent in 2015 from 13 percent in 2013 and 24 percent in 2011.
“It’s been smoother on our end; it’s been smoother on (voters’) end,” Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen told the Deseret News after a primary election in August of this year. “We’ve just had a great response.”
Why is this election reform so successful? “Vote-by-mail can increase awareness about smaller elections and potentially have larger turnout in localized issues,” the report concluded. In addition, the convenience factor, especially for workers who can’t take time off on a Tuesday in November, can’t be overlooked. Further boosting vote-by-mail’s case is the fact that it saves states millions in taxpayer dollars by eliminating the need for in-person polling places.
Some caveats do apply. The authors acknowledged that vote-by-mail could have benefited from a “novelty” effect that may fade over time. In addition, whether mail-in voting would have the same outsized effect in non-municipal elections, such as those for Congress or governor, remains in question.
Three states currently conduct all their elections by mail: Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, which just recently joined the club. All three consistently rank among the top states by turnout, and far outperform neighboring states.

No doubt, Republicans will do everything they can to kill reforms which would expand voting by mail, wherever they can. But Democrats should not let this fact discourage them from making voting by mail a top priority. If mail voting can be instituted in communities in overwhelmingly Republican Utah, it can be done anywhere.
And, would it be too much to ask local media to force Republicans to explain their opposition to this much-needed reform? If the media won’t do its job, then local groups of citizens who care about saving American democracy should dog the obstructionists at every public appearance, and make them explain to their constituents on camera why they are against voting by mail.

From William Galston’s Wall St. Journal column, “Making Our Roads ‘Shovel-Ready’: Hillary Clinton offers a valuable proposal for an overdue upgrade of U.S. infrastructure.”:

On Sunday, with less national fanfare than the announcement deserved, Hillary Clinton released a major proposal to boost infrastructure investment by $500 billion, much of this over the next five years. The plan includes three principal financing mechanisms: direct public investments, subsidies to reduce interest costs on taxable infrastructure bonds, and a national infrastructure bank that would leverage $25 billion in public seed capital that would support up to an additional $225 billion in direct loans, guarantees and other forms of credit enhancement.

You can almost hear the conservative knee-jerk response, “So who is going to pay for all of this?” Galston has an answer. But first he explains that all Americans are going to pay, and pay dearly if we continue to do nothing about our crumbling infrastructure, a point that should always be underscored. The opportunity costs of infrastructure repair have become untenable:

The case for action is clear. Over the past three decades, America has systematically underinvested in infrastructure by about 1% of GDP each year, resulting in a shortfall of trillions of dollars. The nation’s roads, highways, bridges and dams are aging, imposing extra costs (an estimated $377 annually per driver) to operate a motor vehicle while exposing everyone to increased risk. Many ports and the transportation networks that support them are becoming impediments to the efficient flow of trade. Anyone who has traveled outside the U.S. knows that many American airports are far from world class…Each year of delay raises project costs substantially.

Further, adds Galston,”In the most recent Global Competitiveness Rankings issued annually by the World Economic Forum, the U.S. stood…only 13th for infrastructure quality as a whole, 14th for roads, 15th for railways and 16th for electrical-supply systems.”
As for financing the needed infrastructure upgrades, Galston notes that “The principal source of funding for surface transportation, the 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax, has not been raised since 1993, and resistance to any further increase is intense, especially in rural areas and small towns whose residents typically drive long distances for work, shopping and medical services.” He argues for exploring “new strategies, including the more leveraged use of scarce public funds to reduce interest rates on taxable bonds and attract private capital for infrastructure” and “routing more project choices through an infrastructure bank with an independent board and skilled technical experts.”
“Western democracies such as Germany and Canada generally grant permits,” Galston points out, “including environmental reviews–for major infrastructure projects in two years or less,” He applauds Clinton’s plan’s to “cut red tape” and “streamline permitting,” which is “in sharp contrast to the fragmented U.S. system wherein an aggrieved group can thwart decisions for years.”
Gaston warns, however, that by tying up proposed projects in ‘regulatory knots,’ the U.S. has become irrationally timid about fixing broken-down public facilities that serve all Americans. Meanwhile “other democracies can plan, fund and execute projects in less time than it takes in the U.S. to complete the required environmental-impact statements.”
It may be that the time is fast approaching when a coalition of Democrats and a handful of Republicans who are fed up with their party’s knee-jerk obstruction of urgent public works projects, can help the nation achieve the needed upgrades. But Galston believes there must also be a consensus “to strike a better balance between parochial concerns and the public interest.”
Galston is surely right that Clinton’s plan is the most detailed, credible set of infrastructure improvement proposals yet presented. Forging the consensus needed to move forward will likely require an electoral spanking for infrastructure obstructionists, parochial and otherwise.

Trump may get the headlines with his daily outrages, but a new poll brings some very good news for Sen. Bernie Sanders: “A stunning new poll by Quinnipiac suggests Bernie Sanders is the most electable candidate in either party to be the next president of the United States,” says Brent Budowsky, reporting at the Observer News. Budowsky says further,

In the Quinnipiac poll Mr. Sanders would defeat Republican frontrunner Donald Trump by 8 points, while Hillary Clinton would defeat him by only 6 points. Mr. Sanders would defeat Ben Carson by 6 points, while Ms. Clinton would defeat him by only three. Mr. Sanders would defeat Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz by 10 points, while Ms. Clinton would defeat him by five. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton would both defeat Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio by one point.

Budowsky takes a stab at the why behind the numbers, and explains:

First, Mr. Sanders has very high ratings for integrity, trust and authenticity in an election year where large numbers of voters feel strong distrust for major political figures and media institutions.
Second, Mr. Sanders embodies a pure play candidate for a progressive populist agenda that has powerful and, I would argue, majority support from American voters.
Mr. Sanders campaigns against the corruptions of money that plague American politics–in favor of major reforms of Wall Street to make our financial system more fair, for a free public college education financed by a transaction tax on Wall Street speculation, for an increase in social security benefits at a time when next year Americans will receive no cost of living increases in social security benefits, and for a Medicare-for-all health care program that would dramatically lower health care costs far more than ObamaCare or GOP plans to repeal ObamaCare without offering any credible alternative.
These positions all have strong support from voters and are offered by a candidate with a strong reputation for championing major reforms and income inequality with high levels of credibility and trust.

For a little icing on the Sanders cake, Sam Frizzell reports at Time Magazine that the Senator has another good news story percolating:

With less than four days until TIME’s Person of the Year poll closes, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is holding on to a strong lead over some of 2015’s most influential people.
The Vermont Senator had 10.5% of the vote in the reader poll as of Thursday morning, well ahead of Malala Yousafzai, who is in second place at 5.2%. Trailing Sanders is Pope Francis, at 3.8%, TIME’s 2013 Person of the Year. Sanders is far ahead of other presidential candidates, including Republican Donald Trump (2%) and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton (1.3%).

Sen. Sanders has been around long enough to know such poll leads can evaporate as fast as they appeared. What may prove a source of more enduring satisfaction for the Sanders campaign, however, is that his progressive policies are getting traction across the political landscape — and that would not have happened without his leadership.