Mediaboss Marketing

The war hero. The star fundraiser. The popular governor. The toughened ex-senators.

These are the blue-chip recruits many Democrats believe are essential to winning back control of the U.S. Senate in 2016 after a midterm drubbing cost them their majority.

Less than four months after the painful losses, Democratic officials have begun charting a path back to Senate control that runs through more than half a dozen blue and purple states where the presidential campaign is expected to boost Democratic turnout. But even in that favorable terrain, the party faithful fear they could fall short if marquee challengers dont step forward, since their talent pool is shallow and they are trying to unseat a well-prepared group of Republican senators.

The bench is short, but the aces are strong, said Democratic donor John Morgan. He summed up the all-or-nothing outlook with another baseball analogy: All you need is a right-hander that throws 99 mph, and you dont need a bench.

Needing to gain four seats five if a Republican wins the White House to reclaim the majority, Democrats are under intense pressure to enlist top contenders. Since House Republicans hold their widest majority in decades and are early favorites to stay in power, the fight for the Senate stands to determine whether the next president will face a split Congress or one controlled completely by the GOP.

Candidates matter, said former Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell (D). The lesson of 2010 is that even in the wave election, where Republicans nominated candidates with flaws, they lost. So we cant just nominate anybody. Weve got to find really good candidates.

Interviews with more than a dozen state-based and national Democrats revealed an early wish list headlined by well-known former Ohio governor Ted Strickland; Rep. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), a decorated Iraq war veteran who lost her legs during a combat mission; popular New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan; former senator Russell Feingold (Wis.), a liberal favorite; Rep. Patrick Murphy (Fla.), a talented fundraiser from a swing district; and former senator Kay Hagan (N.C.), who lost a close reelection race.

None have ruled themselves in or out. They will be closely watched in the coming months, with some Democrats already fretting about recruiting at a time when recent down-ballot losses have thinned the ranks of promising prospects.

Im worried, of course, said Peter Buttenwieser, a longtime Democratic donor. But on the other hand, I have confidence that when the time for the ballgame rolls around, we will have those kinds of people.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee officials declined to discuss which possible challengers the committee is looking at and dismissed suggestions that they cant win back the Senate without landing recruits who have run statewide before. Their message: Its early.

See more here:
Democrats seek star recruits to try to win back control of the Senate

Democrats on a congressional oversight panel are stepping up their investigation into how well states are regulating the disposal of oil and gas waste, citing continuing public concern about the potential environmental and health risks of hydraulic fracturing.

Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., the lead Democrat on a health subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says he will be pressing environmental agencies in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia for fuller answers to his panel's questions on their level of inspections and enforcement actions. Republicans on the committee, including subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, have not yet taken a position on whether to join the investigation, citing in part jurisdictional questions.

Of particular concern is making sure their waterways are not contaminated by waste from fracking, which uses millions of gallons of high-pressure water mixed with sand and chemicals to break apart rocks rich in oil and gas. That process leaves behind a host of chemicals, sludge and other potentially toxic fluids.

Cartwright is also asking for a state accounting of how complaints from local residents about health effects are handled.

He said state replies so far have been disappointing, mostly listing state regulations without discussing enforcement. Cartwright said the responses did little to allay questions about potential gaps in state oversight that the federal government may need to address. Currently, federal regulations on hazardous waste generally exempt those fluids related to fracking.

"I remain committed to this investigation, and I am looking for answers, not a collection of public files," Cartwright told The Associated Press.

The review was launched in October, focusing first on Pennsylvania, the third-largest natural gas producer. Democrats were reviewing whether to extend their inquiry to other high-fracking states, which include California, Colorado and Texas.

It comes amid heightened public attention on the environmental and public health impacts of fracking, which has unlocked billions of dollars of gas reserves and a boom in production, jobs and profits. Regulators contend that overall, water and air pollution problems are rare, but environmental groups and some scientists say there hasn't been enough research. Last December, New York said it would ban fracking, citing unexplored health risks, while scores of cities in other states have considered bans.

In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection under then-Republican Gov. Tom Corbett responded to Cartwright's inquiry last fall in part by sending copies of its state code.

New Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf has since reinstated a ban on new natural gas drilling on Pennsylvania state parks and forests that sit atop the natural gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation and announced plans for a natural gas severance tax. A spokeswoman for the department, Julie Lalo, said it has not yet heard from Cartwright but "absolutely agrees that managing waste generated by oil and gas development is a serious issue that requires strong oversight."

Read more:
Democrats seek to step up fracking oversight

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced he is set to let the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) funding expire and said it would not be the fault of the Republican Party.

The DHS funding is set to expire on Feb. 27, and Congress has yet to pass new funding for the department. The House of Representatives introduced and passed H.R. 240, which would fund the DHS for the 2015 fiscal year, but amendments were attached to defund President Barack Obama's immigration executive orders. While H.R. 240 passed the House, the legislation has stalled in the Senate on at least three occasions because of Democrats' filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recognized the filibuster by Senate Democrats and has called for the House to introduce new legislation.

"The Constitution makes it pretty clear that the House has to do its work and the Senate has to do theirs. The House has acted to fund the department and to stop the president's overreach when it comes to immigration and his executive orders," Boehner said during an interview on Fox News Sunday, noting Obama's 22 instances when the president acknowledged he did not have the authority to do issue immigration executive action.

"Congress just can't sit by and let the president defy the Constitution and defy his own oath of office. So the House acted. Now it's time for the Senate to act," Boehner said.

Boehner recognized Senate Democrats are blocking the House-approved DHS funding bill and won't even debate it. While McConnell offered senators to introduce amendments, the debate on the DHS funding has not moved forward.

"It's their (the Senate's) turn. That's the way the system works. That's the way the Constitution spells it out, and so the House has done it's job. We've spoken. If the Senate doesn't like it, they'll have to produce something that fits their institution," Boehner said.

On whether Boehner will let the DHS funding expire, he reiterated the House "has acted, we've done our job." He added, "Senate Democrats are the ones putting us in this precarious position and it's up to Senate Democrats to get their act together."

Boehner blamed Senate Democrats for jeopardizing the DHS' funding and does not understand why they will not offer new ideas to the House-approved bill. Boehner reaffirmed the House did its responsibility to fund the DHS and will let the department's funding expire. If DHS funding expires, Boehner said it will be the Democrats' fault.

Meanwhile, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., and Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., introduced a "clean bill" to fund the DHS without amendments erasing Obama's immigration executive actions.

See original here:
Immigration Reform News Today: Speaker John Boehner Ready ...

By Juan A. Lozano Associated Press

HOUSTON -- A federal judge temporarily blocked President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration Monday, giving a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's decision puts on hold Obama's orders that could spare as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

The federal government is expected to appeal the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Justice Department had no immediate comment late Monday night.

Hanen's decision will not have any immediate effect because the first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- is not set to start taking effect until Feb. 18. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, is not expected to begin until May 19.

In a 2013 ruling in a separate case, Hanen suggested the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.

The coalition, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

In their request for the injunction, the coalition said it was necessary because it would be "difficult or impossible to undo the President's lawlessness after the Defendants start granting applications for deferred action."

Congressional Republicans have vowed to block Obama's actions on immigration by cutting off Homeland Security Department spending for the program. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House passed a $39.7 billion spending bill to fund the department through the end of the budget year, but attached language to undo Obama's executive actions. The fate of that House-passed bill is unclear as Republicans in the Senate are six votes shy of the 60-vote majority needed to advance most legislation.

The White House has said Obama's executive order is not out of legal bounds and that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws. Past U.S. Supreme Court decisions have granted immigration officials "broad discretion" on deportation matters.

Read the original:
Immigration reform: Judge blocks Obama's executive order

By Lou Cannon, State Net Capitol Journal | Published on 02.16.2015 12:00 p.m.

With national immigration reform stymied by partisan division, several states have extended privileges associated with U.S. citizenship to millions of unauthorized immigrants. At the same time, states are leading the legal charge against President Barack Obamas executive orders protecting up to 5 million immigrants from deportation.

California is in the forefront of states accommodating unauthorized immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of them flocked to 150 Department of Motor Vehicleoffices and four special processing centers last month as the Golden State rolled out a law allowing anyone 18 and over to obtain a drivers license after passing road-knowledge and driving tests.

Two of three individualswho took the written test in a language other than English failed to pass on the first try. Even so, the DMV licensed 40,000 new drivers in January and is on track to reach a three-year goal of 1.4 million new licenses.

The new law has been largely welcomed by law-enforcement officers as a safety issue. Julie Powell, a spokeswoman for the California Highway Patrol, said that requiring unauthorized immigrants already on the road to pass a driving test and obtain insurance will bolster public safety.

Californias liberalized policy on drivers licenses is the latest in a series of laws that have eased the lives of unauthorized immigrants, called undocumented by their advocates and illegal by their detractors. California is home to nearly a fourth of all such immigrants in the United States 2.8 million out of 11.6 million, according to Pew Research figures.

In 2014, California enacted 26 laws on immigration, many removing long-existing barriers. Unauthorized immigrants in California can now receive subsidized health care, student loans and financial aid, and licenses to practice law and medicine. Child welfare courts no longer make immigration status a determinant of guardianship.

These laws reflect the liberal political leanings of a state where Democrats hold every statewide office and control the Legislature.More fundamentally, they reflect a sea change in public perceptions of Latin American and Asian immigrants, not long ago regarded as a drain on the state.

In 1994, California voters approved a ballot initiative intended to deny educational and medical benefits to unauthorized immigrants. Courts found most of this initiative unconstitutional but vestiges remained on the books until 2014, when they were repealed at the behest of Latino legislators.

A recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Californians are more likely to say that immigrants are a benefit to California because of their hard work and job skills (63 percent) than to say that immigrants are a burden to the state because they use public services (32 percent).

Originally posted here:
Lou Cannon: In Paradox, States Play Conflicted Role in National Immigration Debate