Mediaboss Marketing

With Democrats defending 25 seats in 2018, a competitive race against Sen. Ted Cruz would be a major boon to the party. | AP Photo

Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke is expected to announce Friday he will challenge Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for Senate next year, people familiar with the decision confirmed.

O'Rourke, if he declares, would be the first Democrat to announce his intention to challenge Cruz. Rep. Joaquin Castro is also considering a Senate run. With Democrats defending 25 seats in 2018, including 10 in states won by President Donald Trump, a competitive race against Cruz would be a major boon to the party. Only two other GOP-held seats, Arizona and Nevada, are currently expected to be competitive. Democrats would need to pick up three seats to win the majority.

Story Continued Below

The announcement is expected to come at a rally in El Paso, according to the Houston Chronicle, which first reported the news. A spokesman for ORourke did not immediately return a comment.

O'Rourke wouldn't confirm he was running Wednesday but also didn't refute the Houston Chronicle story, saying only he hasn't talked to the newspaper.

"I don't want to say anything publicly about a decision to run until I can do it in front of the people I represent," O'Rourke said.

O'Rourke did say he has talked to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently but wouldn't divulge details. The Texas Democrat said he has not spoken with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of Senate Democrats' campaign arm, since last year.

But O'Rourke didn't pass up a chance to slam Cruz, saying he's sure the controversial Republican is beatable even in deep-red Texas.

"He's been running for president for four years while he should've been serving the people of Texas," O'Rourke said.

Castro told POLITICO he hasn't ruled out also running for the Texas Senate seat, saying he still plans to announce his decision at the end of April.

In an interview this month, O'Rourke insisted a Democrat can win in the conservative bastion.

"People have just come to take it as an article of faith that a Democrat can't win," O'Rourke said. "I don't think there's anything real magical about this."

A spokeswoman for Cruz declined to comment.

The immediate challenge for O'Rourke will be fundraising: Cruz ended 2016 with $4.2 million in his Senate campaign account, far more than the $399,000 O'Rourke had in his coffers as of last Dec. 31.

O'Rourke first won his El Paso-based and majority Latino House seat in 2012, after upsetting Rep. Silvestre Reyes in a Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton won 68 percent of the vote in O'Rourke's district last year.

Read this article:
Democrat O'Rourke to take on Cruz for Senate in 2018 - Politico

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said Monday that he intends to filibuster the nomination of President Trumps Supreme Court nominee Hon. Neil Gorsuch.

The announcement of a Democrat coming out against Gorsuch is not a notable news item, but Nelson is seen as a centrist. Republicans were relying on centrists like Nelson to carry the Colorado jurist to the 60 votes needed to avoid a Democratic block.

Nelson made the announcement in a statement released from his office. He said he met with Gorsuch and entered the hearings with an open mind. His concerns seemed to echo those of his colleagues on his side of the aisle.

The judge has consistently sided with corporations over employees, ad in the case of a freezing truck driver who, contrary to common sense, Judge Gorsuch would have allowed to be fired for abandoning his disabled rig during extreme weather conditions, he wrote.

The Wall Street Journal reported that as of Tuesday afternoon, more than two dozen Senate Democrats said they would vote no on Gorsuchs nomination. No Democrat had said he would vote yes.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee said in a statement reported by Politico that in 2006 Nelson voted for cloture to end the filibuster on Judge Alitos nomination. The same year, Nelson joined his Senate colleagues to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a unanimous vote. Clearly Nelson has been in Washington way too long and is forgetting he represents Florida, not Washington liberals.

Gorsuchs confirmation to the high court appears to be very likely. He will benefit from a Republican-controlled Senate. He needs 60 total votes. Republicans hold 52 seats. Ten Democrats represent states that voted for President Trump in November. And, Republicans can go nuclear and change the rule to confirm Gorsuch to a simple majority.

Supporters of Gorsuch said Democrats tried their best to land blows against Trumps nominee. Perhaps one of the Democrats most effective exchange during the confirmation hearings came in a line of questioning from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.

Franken asked Gorsuch how he could rule in favor of a company that fired a truck driver who abandoned his trailer on the side of an interstate on a -14 degree night. Alphonse Maddin, the driver, noticed that his trailers brakes were frozen and his heater did not work.

Maddin unhitched his trailer and drove off to wait somewhere warm. Gorsuch wrote that the company gave him the legal option to wait with his trailer.

I had a career in identifying absurdity, Franken, a former member of Saturday Night Live, said. I know it when I see it, and it makes me question your judgement.

KRAUTHAMMER: GOP SHOULD CHANNEL CLINT EASTWOOD IF DEMS FILIBUSTER GORSUCH

Franken announced that he would not support Gorsuch.

Pam Keith, a 2016 U.S. Senate candidate considering a bid against Nelson, said in a text message to Politico that Nelson VERY much is feeling the pressure, as are many Dems in DC.

Bottom-line is that the base is far more strident than they are, Keith continued. The grassroots could give a damn about collegiality' or decorum in the halls of Congress. I think the leaders are learning that the appetite for outright obstruction is as high on our side as it ever was for the Tea Party.

Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

See the article here:
Key Democrat comes out against Gorsuch, may be indicator of things to come - Fox News

There are three in Minnesota the 1st, 7th and 8th districts plus Nevada's 3rd district and New Hampshire's 1st. These five districts are arguably the core of the Trump Democrat group, places where Trump appears to be stronger than the sitting representative.

It's hard to imagine the White House would see a benefit in moving to the center on policy and strategy to pick up five votes. And even if the herd of Trump Democrats is bigger, such as the 15 districts where Trump did better than he did nationally, it's not a big gain.

In order to make a real a difference in Trump's House tally and build a sustainable coalition, he would likely have to reach a larger group of Democrats. To do that, he would probably need to move more dramatically to the center on policy.

And, of course, actions have reactions. A pivot to the center could in turn push away other House Republicans who feared a backlash in their home districts, particularly in strongly conservative districts. The nation's partisan divide is deep and potent.

When you look at the math and the possible action and reactions, you begin to understand why building a centrist coalition would be so difficult for the White House.

The numbers suggest there aren't a lot of potential Trump-friendly Democrats wandering around Washington. And trying to create a herd of them would likely create another set of problems for Team Trump.

See the original post:
Trump Says He'll Work With Democrats, But Will Democrats Work With Him? - NBCNews.com

Natalie Matthews-Ramo

In the hours after his American Health Care Act foundered on the shores of Nopesylvania, Donald Trump insisted he was not mad at Paul Ryan. He claimed he did not fault the Freedom Caucus. He promised he bore no ill will toward the Tuesday Group. Instead, the presidents ire was reserved for the Democratic Party.

Katy Waldman is a Slate staff writer.

We had no Democrat support, he fumed on TV. The losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, because now they own Obamacare. This is not anything but a Democrat health care.

What is a Democrat health care? It is, presumably, the handiwork of the Democrat Party, which is both one of the United States two major political parties and an insult cast in the furnaces of midcentury partisan discourse. As Hendrik Hertzberg documented for the New Yorker in 2006, politicians like Joe McCarthy and Bob Dole used the term, which lowers a guillotine blade between democratic principles (good) and Democrats (bad). George W. Bush favored it as well. The epithet has an unlovely sound; it fairly screams rat, Hertzberg observed. At a slightly higher level of sophistication, he continued, its an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Most important of all, the name accomplishes the objective of getting under Democrat(ic) skin. Left-wing politicians look pedantic when they bother to correct the record, and they look weak when they allow their adversaries to dictate what they are called. Over the years, Democratic National Committee delegates have tried to dream up an equivalent taunt. One proposal, to call the GOP the Publican Party, ironically evoked Roman tax collectorsand also conjured, for me, the delightful prospect of a Pelican Party, which would scoop all Americans into its capacious beakbut the committee rejected it.

The fact that a motion must pass through a committee before Democrats can drop a burn may encapsulate something essential about the Democrats. But anyhow, the reason the committee balked was because, in one delegates words, Republican is the name by which our opponents product is known and mistrusted. A few years later, progressives unsuccessfully proposed Republicants and, riffing on the GOPs growing reputation as a tent for snake-oil salesmen, Republicons.

This is all very dumb. The Republicans express their contempt for the Democrats by purposefully getting their name wrong, and the Democrats, when they havent somehow convinced themselves that the most wounding option is to get the Republicans name right, are volleying back lame puns. It is far better to dismiss the opposition with a careless or absurdist errorRepublicanist, maybe, or the GOB. (The GYP or GOOP or Gee Oh Pee Pee falls into sandbox territory.)

The name itself doesnt matter. What the Republicans have that the Democrats dont is coordination. Liberals must choose one epithet and employ it at every opportunity.

The Republicanist proposal on tax reform leaves much to be desired.

Democrats or Propublicans, we are all Americans first.

When it comes to keeping this energy plan cost-effective, we look forward to working out a solution with our counterparts in the Gee Yop.

I have to disagree with my colleague Sen. McConnell of United Russia.

Alternatively, Democrats could take a cue from Sen. Chuck Schumer. The Senate minority leader recently told his colleagues that the Republican Party might as well be called the Trump Party now. Could there be any crueler gibe?

More:
Republicants, Republicons - Slate Magazine

Schiff fires back, questioning why Nunes called off a hearing with former Obama officials.

By Aidan Quigley and Nolan D. McCaskill

03/29/17 10:41 AM EDT

Updated 03/29/17 03:45 PM EDT

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes on Wednesday tried to blame Democrats for the troubles plaguing the panels investigation into Russias apparent meddling in the election, as a prominent moderate Republican cast doubt on the future of the House probe.

Nunes has come under fierce criticism from Democrats, who have accused him of colluding with the White House to undermine the panels probe, which is also examining whether Trumps campaign colluded with Russian officials.

Story Continued Below

But Nunes on Wednesday claimed it was Democrats who were not dedicated to the investigation.

Were beginning to figure out whos actually serious about the investigation because it appears like the Democrats arent really serious about this investigation, he said, as reported by NBC News.

A spokesman for Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, blasted the comments. In a statement, the spokesman noted that it was Nunes who called off a hearing scheduled for Tuesday of this week with former Obama administration officials, including former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Yates and potentially others were expected to deliver testimony that contradicted prior administration statements about Russia contacts.

"The Minority submitted a list of witnesses to the Majority yesterday. This list represents only the first of many witnesses we believe should be called to testify, the spokesman said. Additionally, the Minority proposed days ago that two hearings be scheduled for next week both the closed hearing with [James] Comey and [Mike] Rogers requested by the Majority and the open hearing with Yates, Clapper and Brennan that had been previously agreed to by both parties and cancelled abruptly and unilaterally by the Chair. We have yet to receive a response."

Adding to Nunes woes, moderate Republican Rep. Charlie Dent on Wednesday questioned whether the House Intelligence Committees probe could reasonably go forward. Dent called the current state of the Houses investigation unfortunate.

My sense right now is the House is in a situation where the issue has become overly politicized, Dent told CNN. It doesnt seem like theres much cooperation on either side.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer reaffirmed the administration's confidence in Nunes during Wednesday's press briefing. "There is nothing that I see that is problematic in him conducting an investigation that we asked both the House and Senate intelligence committees (for)," he said.

Many Democrats, including Schiff, are calling for Nunes to step aside amid concerns of coordination between Nunes and the White House. After Nunes announced last week he had seen evidence that Trump associates were incidentally surveilled after the election, he revealed this week that he met with his source on White House grounds the day before.

Critics are raising concerns that Nunes is working with the White House to protect the president, which Nunes has denied. In particular, Schiff has criticized Nunes for canceling the public hearing that was scheduled to occur Tuesday and feature the former Obama officials.

Sally Yates is willing to testify, WH says they want her to testify, public wants to hear from her, Brennan and Clapper...what's the holdup? Schiff tweeted on Wednesday.

The controversy around the Houses probe intensified on Tuesday when The Washington Post reported that the White House tried to discourage Yates from testifying something Spicer later denied.

Tensions between Nunes and Schiff picked up after Schiff called for Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation Monday. But Nunes has repeatedly and emphatically said he will not step aside from the investigation.

Other members of the committee still have not seen the documents Nunes was referring to, which Trump said somewhat vindicated his unsubstantiated claim that he was wiretapped by President Barack Obama in Trump Tower before the election.

Nunes said the Democrats have not given him a witness list and said as far as he knew they had done very little to read the documents provided by the intelligence agencies.

So, at the end of the day here, were going to get to the truth, were going to find out whos actually doing a real investigation, he said.

Democrats on the committee have fired back against Nunes' complaints. Democrat Mike Quigley of Illinois told MSNBC he believes Nunes should step down and that Nunes appears to be stalling the investigation at the request of the White House.

"My point of view, it begins and ends at the White House," he said. "I believe, unfortunately, the chairman is following their orders. That is just my belief, I can't say I know for sure, but that is what makes the most sense to me."

Also criticizing Nunes this week was California Democrat Jackie Speier, who said Tuesday she "didn't trust" Nunes and thought he was "in over his head."

Democrats have also been calling for an independent investigation for weeks, joined by a handful of Republicans, including Sen. John McCain and Rep. Darrell Issa.

Get breaking news when it happens in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Sen. Richard Burr and Mark Warner are leading the Senates investigation, which Dent said is more credible than the Houses.

At a joint news conference Wednesday, Burr told reporters that seven professional staffers have been provided an unprecedented amount of documents that the committee should be finished examining within weeks. He said the panel has requested 20 individuals for interviews, five of whom he said are already on the docket.

The senators, however, would only identify Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner as someone who will testify. They said his hearing won't be scheduled until after the committee has gathered enough information to know what to ask him.

This is one of the biggest investigations that the Hill has seen in my tenure here, said Burr, who admitted to voting for Trump but maintained that his job in the Senate overrides any personal beliefs that I have or loyalties that I might have.

This investigations scope will go wherever the intelligence leads it," Burr added.

And, in just one example of the stark contrast between how the House and Senate panels are operating, Warner, Burrs Democratic counterpart, backed him up.

I have confidence in Richard Burr, that we, together, with the members of our committee, are gonna get to the bottom of this, he told reporters. If you get nothing else from today, take that statement to the bank.

Continue reading here:
Nunes tries to blame Democrats for troubled Russia probe - Politico