Mediaboss Marketing

But as Democrats throw every procedural hurdle they can think of at Trump, they're facing a bleak reality: they have virtually no power in Washington.

The party has no clear successor to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton who can speak with one voice for the party. And there is no consensus yet on a strategy to thwart Trump's legislative agenda -- or even how to prioritize the issues they plan to challenge him on.

There's one thing giving them comfort: Trump himself. The President's initial actions in office have been so breathtaking in their scope and breadth that frustrated Democrats say their base is galvanized in ways they haven't seen in a long time. That could make it easier for Democratic groups to gear up for a more forceful effort to sway the balance of power in 2018 and 2020.

Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist and CNN contributor, said there was lull after the November election, in part because many Democrats were legitimately shocked at Trump's win. At that time, Democratic congressional leaders were still debating whether it was more advantageous to try to work with the President on some areas, rather than to risk appearing obstructionist by trying to block him at every turn.

But they were emboldened, Rosen said, not only by their early success in stalling Trump's vow to immediately repeal Obama's health care law, but also by the unexpected energy of the crowds at womens' marches last month and the protests against the immigration ban around the country.

"It underscored that there was a large community of dissenters out there -- it came from the ground up and the leadership sort of jumped on top of it," Rosen said.

The final straw, she said, was Trump's hastily announced travel ban, which was criticized as a religious test.

"It cemented the left's view that we are not going to work with this guy -- the idea that this is not going to be someone we can appease; who we can compromise with. The base won't allow it," Rosen said. "I think what we've seen is the left and the center left kind of merge. ... There's not going to be any tolerance for the middle ground."

One early test of the strength of the resistance will be Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

There is disagreement among the Democratic ranks in the Senate about whether to pursue a filibuster that would require 60 votes for the nomination to advance -- a threshold the GOP can't reach on its own. But Republican leaders could respond by simply getting rid of the filibuster entirely, which would leave Democrats even weaker if Trump were to nominate a future justice who could change the court's balance of power.

The weak hand of Democrats was also on display Wednesday morning when Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee quashed their attempt to boycott two Trump Cabinet nominees, Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Price to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Democrats did manage to temporarily delay the confirmation process of EPA nominee Scott Pruitt by boycotting his committee vote on Wednesday.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer called the boycott attempts "childish" and "a disservice to the American people."

As they forge a strategy to take back congressional seats in 2018 and 202, the most hopeful signs for Democrats may be beyond the Beltway, said former Obama aide Tommy Vietor.

Scores of demonstrators who turned out for the marches supporting womens' and immigrant rights were protesting for the first time. That fresh enthusiasm has helped ease some of the disappointment and disillusionment among Democrats about their losses in November.

"Suddenly the idea of protesting is becoming normalized," said Vietor, who co-hosts the podcast "Pod Save America." "That's the really hopeful thing for people who are opposed to Trump. They are trying to learn the lesson of the (2016) campaign. They're not pretending that social media activism is going to cut it."

The hope, Vietor said, is that sustained protests will draw attention to what he views as the Trump administration's "incompetence." And if the president's unpopularity grows, he thinks Republican members of Congress will be less eager to support his agenda.

Buffy Wicks, a Democratic strategist who was an early field organizer for then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008 and was one of his senior aides in 2012, said there has been an unusual confluence of three factors: first time activists taking to the streets, criticism of Trump policies by business leaders who normally stay out of the fray and "huge surges in members and donations" for established Democratic organizations.

"We are in a super unique moment in time," said Wicks. "The important part is for us now to take that energy and make sure we're funneling it in the right way in 2018 and 2020. That's how you actually make change, you have to translate that energy into electoral power."

Legal resistance to Trump's actions is also growing, and already has octopus-like tentacles with different groups seeking to unravel or block the most controversial aspects of his executive actions.

Immigration lawyers from the ACLU and other groups acted swiftly Friday night after Trump released his executive order limiting immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries. A federal judge blocked part of the order on Saturday, preventing the removal of some individuals who arrived at airports after the order was issued. Lawsuits were also filed in a number of other states.

Members of the California Legislature, which is dominated by Democrats, have retained former Attorney General Eric Holder, promising to challenge any Trump policy that threatens the state's progressive actions on issues like climate change.

San Francisco officials argue in the lawsuit that "in blatant disregard of the law, the President of the United States seeks to coerce local authorities" into abandoning their sanctuary city laws and policies.

They called Trump's executive order "a severe invasion of San Francisco's sovereignty" and argued that the Executive Branch "may not commandeer state and local officials to enforce federal law."

"This strikes at the heart of established principles of federalism and violates the U.S. constitution," the lawsuit says.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats face their powerlessness - CNN

The president of Planned Parenthood says the group is willing to talk to Republicans about threats to its federal funding because [at] Planned Parenthood, were nonpartisan. In fact, the groups political action committee gave 98 percent of its campaign contributions in the 2016 election to Democrats.

The groups president, Cecile Richards, alsospoke at the Democratic National Convention in support of the partys 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. Lets go win this election! she told Democrats.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., receives federal funding for health care services, but that funding is in jeopardy. House Speaker Paul Ryan announced last month that the House would move to defund Planned Parenthood as part of legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Planned Parenthoods funding has long been a target of Republicans over the groups abortion services. As we have noted before, the Hyde Amendmentlimitsfederal funding to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Abortions accounted for about 3 percent of the groups total of nearly 9.5 million services in fiscal year 2014, according to itsannual report. Most of its health services were for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases and infections, cancer screenings, and other womens health services.

Richardstouted the groups nonpartisan status during a Feb. 2 interview on MSNBCs Morning Joe. MikaBrzezinski, the shows co-host, asked Richards about the threat of losing federal funding, and whether the group was willing to negotiate with Republican President Donald Trumps administration.

Brzezinski, Feb. 2: But you realize you have to cut a deal of some sort with this new administration in some way? Would you come to the table?

Richards: Were always at the table. I mean we talk to everybody. I mean because Planned Parenthood, were nonpartisan.

Richards is the presidentof thePlanned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., which is a tax-exempt corporation under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3)and prohibited from political activities and making campaign contributions. She is also the president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is the political arm of PPFA. Planned Parenthood Action Fund is registered as a 501(c)(4), which is a social welfare organization that is allowed to engage in political activity.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund PAC, which is registered with theFederal Election Commission, contributed about $694,000 to congressional candidates in the 2016 cycle, and 98 percent of that went to Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal campaign contributions.

The group also contributed $9,613 to Clintons presidential campaign. Richards, as we mention, spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. The daughter of former Democratic Texas Gov. Ann Richards, Cecile Richards told Democrats at the convention how proud her mother would be to see a woman elected president.

Richards, July 26, 2016:Tonight, we are closer than ever to putting a woman in the White House. And I can almost hear mom saying, Well, it sure took yall long enough. So what do you say? Are you ready to make history? Lets go win this election.

Richards support for Clinton and the PACs contributions to Democrats is not surprising given that many congressional Republicans oppose abortion rights and seek to defund Planned Parenthood. And we understand the point that Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a nonpartisan provider of health care services. But the groups leader and its PAC are not nonpartisan.

Continue reading here:
Planned Parenthood and the Democrats - FactCheck.org

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt at a Jan. 18 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing for his nomination to lead the EPA. Pruitt's nomination passed in committee Thursday. He will still need to be confirmed by the full Senate. Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt at a Jan. 18 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing for his nomination to lead the EPA. Pruitt's nomination passed in committee Thursday. He will still need to be confirmed by the full Senate.

For the second time in as many days, a Senate committee's GOP leadership has bypassed a boycott by Democrats to advance President Trump's Cabinet nominees.

The Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted the second meeting in a row to confirm Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA.

Committee rules say that two members of the minority party must be present for a vote, but chairman John Barrasso, R-Wyo., suspended the rules so Pruitt's nomination could pass the committee with only Republican votes, and he passed 11-0. Pruitt will still need to be confirmed by the full Senate, which appears likely. A Democratic aide from the EPW committee says they recognize that the move is "allowable under Senate rules" even if it's unprecedented for the committee.

Upon reconvening the committee, Barrasso said: "It is disappointing that they chose that course of action. We will not allow it to obstruct."

Hearings on Trump's nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., were moving ahead Thursday morning.

Pruitt has faced fierce opposition from Democrats. He sued the EPA as Oklahoma's attorney general and was asked during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 18 by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., whether he would recuse himself from cases he was a part of. Pruitt's response was that he would "follow the guidance and counsel" of ethics lawyers at EPA, which was not a satisfying answer for Democrats.

Democrats say they have not received full answers on Pruitt's record and positions. The committee's ranking member, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., sent a letter to Barrasso on Monday requesting more records from Pruitt's time as Oklahoma attorney general, as well as more complete answers on his positions regarding clean air and water regulations.

"It's unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent for the committee to allow him to stonewall on these important questions," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in a statement from committee Democrats after the vote on Thursday.

"This committee has conducted an extremely thorough and fair process of reviewing attorney general Pruitt's nomination," Barrasso said on Thursday. "That includes a hearing of unprecedented length, number of questions and timely responses from the nominee."

In the past, Pruitt has questioned climate change. Here's what the EPA nominee told senators at his confirmation hearing: "Let me say to you, science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some matter impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue. And well it should be."

Democrats boycotted a hearing to vote on Pruitt's nomination Wednesday. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee did the same to block votes on Trump's nominees to lead the Department of the Treasury as well as Health and Human Services earlier this week. On Wednesday, Finance Committee chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, suspended committee rules to approve those nominees without Democrats present.

Delaying nominees is the most Democrats can do. Due to rule changes in recent years, Cabinet positions can clear the Senate with a simple majority, as opposed to the 60-vote threshold required on most legislation and Supreme Court nominees setting up a big fight in the months ahead of Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

There is growing frustration among some Democratic voters that their leaders are not doing enough to block nominees. At a rally held Monday night by congressional Democrats to protest Trump's executive order to pause the entry of refugees from all nations and immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries, some in the crowd demanded action in addition to the words being offered. "That's just like the Republicans did for Obama, only this time with a good cause. They should really be fighting for everything they can do to hold up the administration," Tom Johnson of College Park, Md., told NPR.

In addition to boycotting committee votes, Democrats have delayed other Cabinet nominees on the Senate floor. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was confirmed Wednesday night after Democrats forced two full days of deliberation.

Without the filibuster, Democrats have been unable to block any Trump nominees so far. The only one that looks to be in serious trouble is Betsy DeVos, the nominee to lead the Department of Education. An advocate of school choice, she lost the support of Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska on Wednesday. She has no support from Democrats, and if one more Republican opposes DeVos she will not be able to be confirmed.

See more here:
Senate Republicans Bypass Another Boycott By Democrats To Advance EPA Nominee - NPR

The popular progressive understanding of the Republican party and conservative movement is something like this: It is, at heart, a conspiracy of corporate oligarchs who use a collection of so-called social issues religion, bigotry, racial resentment, anti-immigrant sentiment to stir up the rubes in support of its own parochial economic agenda, tricking them into voting against their own interests in the popular progressive phrase. Wall Street guys pulling the strings and writing the checks, foot-washing snake-handlers manning the barricades.

This isnt really true, of course, as anybody who ever has spent any time around actual Republican politicians or conservative activists knows.

But might something similar actually be true of the Democratic party?

A few progressives have been wondering aloud this week why it is that Democrats have stirred themselves to oppose, with steely resolve, the nomination of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education, while more or less going along with the nomination of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. DeVos (a friend of this magazine) may have ideas about school choice that dont comport with the views of some Democrats (though they comport very much with the views of other Democrats, particularly those of the black urban middle class), but she is a relatively anodyne figure, a philanthropist and activist who has made a career out of doing what she can to look after the interests of children who dont have the advantages enjoyed by her own. Sessions, on the other hand, is their view, not mine a racist as well as a radical who as attorney general would be empowered to do real damage to all that progressives hold dear.

So why does DeVos get the Eichmann treatment while Sessions just gets a rap on the knuckles?

Whats the matter with Camden?

Here is one possibility: The Democratic party in reality is the cartoon version of the Republican party stood on its head, with cold-eyed self-serving economic interests using the so-called social issues to stir up the rubes while they go about seeing to their own paydays and pensions.

The economic interests attached to the Democratic party are fairly easy to identify: people who work for government at all levels. You may come across the occasional Ron Swanson in the wild, but when it comes to the teachers unions which are the biggest spender in U.S. politics or the AFSCME gang or the vast majority of people receiving a taxpayer-funded paycheck, the politics of the public sector is almost exclusively Democratic. And what they care about isnt social justice or inequality or diversity or peace or whether little Johnny can use the ladies room if his heart tells him to they care about getting paid.

Heres an interesting point of comparison. When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he opposed gay marriage. So did Hillary Rodham Clinton, but Obamas opposition was especially interesting in that he cited religious doctrine in support of his position: My faith teaches me...that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union Gods in the mix. George W. Bush, who was derided as a fundamentalist bigot by lifestyle liberals, never said anything like that. (Dick Cheney was well to the left of the Democrats on the question.) But there was barely a murmur of opposition to Obamas staking out this ground on the wrong side of history. Social issues are for the nafs.

During the 2008 Democratic primary, Obama gave an off-the-record speech to a group of Wall Street financial executives in which he shared his frustration with the sclerotic and bureaucratic state of American education, and declared that he was close to publicly endorsing a nationwide school-choice program. (This is according to one of those in attendance.) The moneymen were enthused by this, but nothing ever came of it. In fact, Obama went hard in the opposite direction, working to gut the school-choice program in Washington, D.C., a popular program, which benefited urban black families almost exclusively. You dont have to be a hard-boiled cynic to suspect that this has to do with the manpower and money-power of the teachers unions, who could have done a great deal more than they did to elevate Hillary Rodham Clinton over Barack Obama that year.

Think about that: If you are the candidate of the Left running in the party of the Left, you could, in 2008, run against equal rights for gay people but you could not, if you had any sense of self-preservation, run in favor of school choice. Justice is one thing, but getting paid is the real issue.

That probably explains why Betsy DeVos is getting the business and Jeff Sessions really isnt.

Democrats are in an awful position just now. Hillary Rodham Clinton was beaten by Donald Trump; Republicans control the Senate; Republicans control the House; Republicans are about to put an Antonin Scaliastyle constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, a development made possible by the Democrats weak position in the Senate; Republicans control 34 of 50 governorships; Republicans control the great majority of state legislative houses. What, exactly, are the Democrats up to? Dressing up as vaginas and inviting Madonna to rile up the rubes with empty speeches in D.C. while the real power in the party the public-sector unions concentrate their fire on...Betsy DeVos, who believes that there should be some choice and accountability in public education.

What is the Democratic party? Is it a genuine political party, or is it simply an instrument of relatively well-off government workers who care about very little other than securing for themselves regular raises and comfortable pensions?

If I were a progressive, Id be curious about that.

Kevin D. Williamson is National Reviews roving correspondent.

See the article here:
What Is the Democratic Party? - National Review

In my first election in 1982, Democrats rigged about 25 percent of the voting machines to vote for everyone on the ballot but me. Thats 11 of 45 machines. The whole state was Democrat. Nothing was done to fix it. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), in a meeting between congressional Republicans and Vice President Pence, article published Jan. 27, 2017

While expressing support for the Trump administrations plans to investigate potential voter fraud in the 2016 election, an Alabama congressman offered a stunning claim: Democrats rigged 11 of 45 voting machine in his first election to the state legislature in 1982.

Thats a significant charge, especially since its pretty tough to rig an election. So we set out to find out whether facts supported Brookss claim.

Brookss comment, made during congressional Republicans meeting with Vice President Pence, became public via a leaked audio recording of the private meeting. His office corroborated the statement but did not offer much evidence to support it.

His office provided newspaper clippings showing there were complaints about malfunctioning voting machines in Brookss legislative district in Huntsville, Ala. During the afternoon on Election Day, Brooks announced that he planned on challenging election results and charged that 11 voting machines at one time or another during the day would not register Mo Brooks votes.

Brooks changed his mind after he won the election.

Im not going to contest it, Brooks said at his victory party on election night. But I hope therell be an investigation.

A month later, the county requested the FBI to investigate Election Day irregularities in Brookss district. But there is no evidence the FBI conducted an investigation or, if it did, whether it found that anyone (Democrat or otherwise) had tampered with the machines. Brookss office did not respond to our repeated requests for more evidence.

State investigative agencies and the U.S. attorneys office had no record of this investigation or its findings. News clippings from 1982 and 1983 reviewed by the Huntsville-Madison County Public Library and the Alabama Department of Archives and History had no reference to any investigative findings, either.

In fact, Alabama was one of three states the Justice Department placed under its watch in 1982 for potential voting rights violations or discrimination against black voters. There were nearly 200 federal observers at Alabama polling places on Election Day.

Henry Frohsin, anassistant U.S. attorney in Alabama at the time, could not recall any investigation or indictment related to Brookss 1982 election.

Had there been any bona fides to the allegation, we would have investigated and prosecuted it, if it had merit. But based on the fact that I dont recall that, I would have to conclude that there was no validity to the complaint, said Frohsin, who was interviewed for a 1982 Huntsville Times article about the irregularities.

Voting machines at the time had one lever for a straight-ticket vote and levers for individual races. The individual levers would sometimes malfunction, Frohsin said. News clippings show that some of the problematic machines were fixed by the afternoon on Election Day.

The Voting Rights Act had singled out states in the South, and we were cognizant of that. We were not going to have any hanky-panky going on in the polling areas, Frohsin said.

After our inquiry, Brooks told AL.com that the Alabama Bureau of Investigation confirmed that voting machines were not counting votes for him but could not find who was at fault.The agency could not provide The Fact Checker any record of this investigation.

Brooks claimed Democrats rigged a quarterof the voting machines in his 1982 election, but there is no evidence to support such a claim. Some voters reported problems with voting machines that day, but theres no record that an investigation turned up rigged machines or any Democrats responsible for it.

Memories may fade and change over time, and perhaps Brooks made the claim in the confidence of a private meeting. But its irresponsible to make a claim about a politically charged topic like this without the evidence to back it up. We dont know how oftenBrooks has been telling this apparently tall tale, but its time to retire it.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

How would you rate this claim? (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

See the article here:
Alabama congressman's unsupported claim that Democrats rigged voting machines in his election - Washington Post