Archive for the ‘Democrat’ Category

MEP’s assistant trolls Romanian Social Democrat – POLITICO.eu (blog)

Viorica Dncil during a plenary session | EP

Ileana Grigorescu makes the news after correcting Viorica Dncils email on Romanian protests.

By Harry Cooper

2/2/17, 8:32 PM CET

Updated 2/2/17, 8:33 PM CET

Controversial plans in Romania to decriminalize some corruption cases, which led to mass street protests this week, have found their way into the hallways of the European Parliament.

Romanian MEPViorica Dncil, a member of the ruling Social Democrats, last week emailed her 750 colleaguesto explain why concernsabout the new laws were unfounded.We believe it is helpful to know the actual facts in order to correctly interpret the current situation, saidDncil.

Not everyone was convinced.

You have inspired me to perform a public service myself by making some corrections to your description of the status quo, as I felt that your briefing can be quite misleading, saidIleana Grigorescu, an assistant to U.K. Conservative MEP Andrew Lewer, in an email to the entire Parliament.

She proceeded to dissectDncils document, pointing out where she felt the MEP had given an incorrect interpretation of the facts.

For example, where Dncil described the government as having launched a public debate on the new laws, Grigorescu pointed out that the debate is just an email address where you can write your opinion.

Her intervention triggered uproar in Romania, with a reporter fromalocal TV station, regarded as close to the Social Democrats, contacting Grigorescuto ask why she was so poorly informed about the reforms. Grigorescu hung up the phone.

The station then ran the story as breaking news, accusing her of tampering with official documents.

Asked why she decided to criticize the MEPs document, Grigorescu told POLITICO: Protesting in Romania is the new social gathering. Every few months were out into the streets, or so it has been for the last few years.

I didnt expect it to have such an impact, she said.Lucky me for having a platform to reply and be read on.

Continued here:
MEP's assistant trolls Romanian Social Democrat - POLITICO.eu (blog)

Supreme Court choice Neil Gorsuch draws Democrat opposition – BBC News


VICE News
Supreme Court choice Neil Gorsuch draws Democrat opposition
BBC News
Leading Democrats have come out in staunch opposition to Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch for the vacant position on the Supreme Court. The court has the final say on such divisive issues such as abortion, gun control and gay rights. If ...
Senate Democrat admits fight against Gorsuch is just politicsNew York Post
Democrats face a choice: resist Trump or face the rage of "The Resistance"VICE News
Gorsuch Pick For Top Court Fulfills Trump Campaign Pledge, Confirms Democrats' FearsNPR
Huffington Post -Washington Post -CNN -Politico
all 3,606 news articles »

See the original post here:
Supreme Court choice Neil Gorsuch draws Democrat opposition - BBC News

Coming out as conservative: Why a College Democrat left the party – Washington Post

By Michael J. Hout By Michael J. Hout February 1 at 10:47 AM

Michael J. Hout, 22, is a junior majoring in history, English and political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. During the 2016 presidential campaign he participated in many Democratic activities as a leader in the College Democrats. But he recently quit the party. Here he explains his thinking.

By Michael J. Hout

Its generally accepted that many college campuses are bastions of liberal ideology. Theres a common perception perhaps even a correct one that this leads to a certain degree of indoctrination into the world of left-leaning politics. But my experience has been just the opposite.

As someone who has spent his life moving between Massachusetts and Georgia, Ive had exposure to Republican and Democratic politics in two states that could hardly be further apart in this regard. Coming to college in Massachusetts after being engaged in Georgia Democratic politics, I expected to be well within my comfort zone in and out of the classroom. That was not to be the case.

The more I studied and partook in various political efforts, the more conservative I felt compared to my classmates. The cold shoulder that I experienced from many progressive contemporaries, due to my more moderate leanings, fueled in me a desire to explore more conservative thought.

I came to the realization that between my own long-held convictions, already reasonably conservative, and the disturbing trends I was noticing among my peers and in the party at large namely their dramatic lurch to the left, and the increasing focus on identity politics over substance that I was not fighting for a party that welcomed my beliefs in its increasingly shrinking tent.

When I arrived at the decision to leave the Democratic Party, however, I was no longer on the correct side of campus culture. I went from being a high-ranking College Democrat to someone who must obviously be racist and misogynist and bigoted. For what other reason could I possibly have to entertain conservatism?

This decision perhaps the most difficult of my life to this early point was made over the course of a year or more of introspection, combing through perspectives of all sides in American political discourse. It was only as the sun set on the Obama presidency that I made the announcement I never anticipated that I would be leaving the Democratic Party to become an independent, and later, perhaps even a Republican. To some this may seem opportunistic, but I did not take this decision lightly.

My feeling of isolation originated not with the discovery of my conservative sympathies, but rather with my inherent, moderate ones. It was not enough to lead Democratic organizations, to sit on the National Council of the College Democrats of America, to help found new chapters at Amherst College and the entire state of New Hampshire, for that matter as the national chartering director of that organization.

No, what mattered was not loyalty to party, I found. What mattered was absolute devotion to the religion of dogmatic leftism. Many moderate Democrats just as easily could have been moderate Republicans. But these Democrats were rarely given the same opportunities or chances to succeed as their peers who were further to the left democratic socialists or social justice warriors. Now many of those same moderates are expressing to me a desire to leave the party as well.

Heres what I tell them: First, the Democratic Party needs moderates, so if you can stomach it, stick with the party and fight to move the conversation away from extremism and towards the center. America needs two sane options, so long as were in a two-party republic, with neither drifting so far away from the center that no compromise may ever be brokered.

Second, putting it plainly, you do not want to be a conservative on todays college campus. You will likely be ostracized to some extent, assuming your institution of higher learning is the norm. You will almost certainly lose friends, face bullying and need to develop thick skin. Ive experienced this, and I only came out as an Independent. Others Ive spoken to have horror stories worse than mine, attacked by fellow students, treated poorly by professors and administrators, accused publicly of racism, misogyny or unintelligence. And we have all received threats at one point or another. All things considered, perhaps I had it pretty good as a moderate Democrat. But my personal convictions prevented me from continuing to reside in the party that it has become, let alone the one that is to come.

This of course is a great irony. The so-called party of inclusivity, that values tolerance above all else, is extremely intolerant and wildly exclusive to ways of thinking that violate its delicate myopia. I contend that diversity of opinion both within and without parties is healthy and integral to our system. We must not only accept it, but demand it. Thus, we must be more accepting of conservative students, and the debate that they allow us to have, just as we must accept liberal students for the same reason. No one side should be able monopolize culture and community the way the left has been able to do on campuses. I ask my more progressive counterparts to be more accepting of students to their right, who likely have very legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do. Win with ideas, not intimidation. Be open to debate, and drop the baseless insults intended to stifle it.

At the end of the day, it was my view that not only was I more conservative than liberal in a contemporary sense (although I do identify as a classical liberal), but that I could do far more good towards repairing the Democratic Party from the outside than I could from within. Perhaps that will come in the form of aiding Republican campaigns. Perhaps that will come in the form of continuing to call out abuses in the Democratic Party and its affiliates through the media. I am not sure what the future has in store for me, but I know as long as my concern for this nation and those vying to run it persists, I will continue to speak out.

I will continue these discussions on a bipartisan blog I co-founded, with friends from a variety of backgrounds, called The American Moderate, as well as through a network of affiliated, bipartisan campus organizations we will be launching. Here, you will find a staunch commitment to free speech, diversity of opinion and a rational approach to politics and discourse. If you would like to join us, I encourage you to reach out. There is much work to do to begin to make our campuses more inclusive for all, conservatives included.

Read more:

At deep-blue Yale, students shocked to be facing Trump presidency

Yale professor: My students arent snowflakes, and they dont melt

On campus, Trump loses young Republicans but gains a flock

Continued here:
Coming out as conservative: Why a College Democrat left the party - Washington Post

Senate Democrats boycotting HHS, Treasury nominees – CNN

The Senate Finance Committee was set to vote on the nominations of Rep. Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary.

But minutes after the vote was scheduled to take place, Democrats on the panel convened an impromptu news conference to announce that they refused to participate in the proceeding, all as their Republican colleagues were waiting in a hearing room down the hallway.

Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, pointed to what he called "truly alarming news" that surfaced on Monday, referring to a Wall Street Journal Report that said Price had received a special discounted rate of stocks at an Australian pharmaceutical company called Innate Immunotherapeutics.

"This is contrary to congressional testimony he gave. Congressman insisted he didn't get special access to a special deal," Wyden said. "He misled the congress and he misled the American people."

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said Price had "outright lied to our committee."

Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch had choice words for his colleagues across the aisle, calling their actions "abysmal" and "amazingly stupid."

"This is the most pathetic thing I've seen in my whole time in the United States Senate," Hatch said. "They ought to be embarrassed."

Hatch accused Democrats of acting out because they are unhappy with Trump: "What's the matter with the other party? They're that bitter about Donald Trump? The answer has to be yes."

The senator said he fully intends for the committee vote on the two nominees to take place, and that he would call for another mark-up at his convenience.

But the timing remains unclear. The Senate Finance Committee's rules state that at least one Democrat must be present in order for the panel to take a vote on nominees. That means Democrats can continue to refuse to show up to future committee votes, making it impossible for the panel to consider a nominee.

Asked how Republicans plan to proceed, a committee aide said GOP lawmakers need to explore "next steps."

CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Senate Democrats boycotting HHS, Treasury nominees - CNN

United by post-inauguration marches, Democratic women plan to step up activism – Washington Post

Days into Donald Trumps presidency, large numbers of liberals say they plan to step up their political activity, with Democratic women particularly motivated to take action, according to a new Washington Post poll.

The results suggest that the womens marches immediately after Trumps inauguration, which brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators into the nations streets to protest his agenda, could reflect something more than a momentary burst in activism.

The poll finds 40 percent of Democratic women say they will become more involved in political causes this year, compared with 25 percent of Americans more broadly and 27 percent of Democratic men. Nearly half of liberal Democrats also say they will become more politically active, as do 43 percent of Democrats under age 50. Interest in boosting activism is far lower 21 percent among independents and Republicans alike.

I have called my senators. I called my congressman. I am sending emails. I just donated $100 to the ACLU, said Iris Dubois, 49, an attorney and human relations manager in Atlanta, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union. She did not join her local womens march but has nevertheless become more politically engaged particularly in opposing Trumps cabinet picks.

[Read the full poll results]

For some, the activism has been more subtle. Brenda Tucker, 63, a school bus driver from Yorktown, Va., said she didnt march and hasnt written any letters. But she is speaking up more at church, where many of her fellow congregants back the president. I call them out on their Christianity, Tucker said, noting her dislike of Trump. Everybody should be doing something, like marching, on everything he does. Obviously, the majority of people did not want him.

The breadth of activist leanings from the left follows a deeply divisive election in which Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton, the first female nominee of a major party to vie for the presidency. His treatment of women became an issue for his campaign, particularly after the release of a videotaped conversation in which he boasted about grabbing women's genitals.

Overall, female voters preferred Clinton by a 13-point margin, according to exit polls, with more than 7 in 10 of her female supporters saying a Trump presidency made them feel scared.

The new survey results echo what took place after President Barack Obama took office in 2009. Conservative voters, stunned and outraged by the election results, immediately began organizing to remake the Republican Party platform and block Obamas agenda under a loosely affiliated movement called the tea party.

The movement was effective, leading two years later to a sweep of state and congressional seats by conservative Republicans. But it remains to be seen whether the surge in liberal activism can coalesce into a similarly powerful force.

In the Post poll, majorities say they have heard a lot about the womens marches and that they support the demonstrations representing wider awareness and support than the tea party movement held at the height of its power in 2010.

(Zoeann Murphy,McKenna Ewen,Rhonda Colvin/The Washington Post)

Organizers of the womens marches are certainly trying to parlay the protests into something more sustained. Immediately after the Jan. 21 gatherings, they launched an effort dubbed 10 actions for the first 100 days, which included postcard-writing campaigns to members of Congress. Other liberal activists have launched major phone campaigns to protest Trumps agenda to lawmakers as well as to Trumps resorts and other businesses. A National Education Association campaign yielded more than 1 million emails to senators from people opposing Trumps education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos.

[More than 1 million email sent to senators, urging opposition to DeVos]

On Tuesday, march organizers Bob Bland and Tamika Mallory gathered with other activists near the Capitol to call for senators to reject Trumps nominee for the Department of Justice, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

The womens march on Washington aims to send a message to all levels of government and the current administration that we can stand together in solidarity and expect elected leaders to protect the rights of women, their families and their communities, organizers said in a statement.

But some women expressed skepticism that the marches could translate into political change.

I like what the women are protesting for, but I am not sure that protesting will really do anything, said Angelica Rodriguez, 22 a college student and in-home health aide in San Antonio, Texas. I dont think anyone in office is going to take the womens marches seriously or take their concerns seriously when it comes to passing the laws.

Rodriguez said she supported Clinton but did not vote. Now, she expects to feel the pain: She is worried she will lose access to free birth control, which she gets through the Affordable Care Act. Republicans, including Trump, have pledged to repeal the law.

Some voters see Trumps actions speaking louder than his words, and do not fear the effect on women.

Magdalene Rose, 66, a retiree from Phoenix who voted for Clinton, noted that Trump has daughters and appointed a woman, pollster Kellyanne Conway, as his White House counselor. While she has misgivings about the rest of his agenda, thats one of the few things Im not worried about, she said.

The survey was conducted Wednesday through Sunday among a random sample of 1,018 adults nationwide reached on cellular and landline phones and carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Asked about the recent womens marches, 60 percent say they support or lean toward supporting them while 29 percent oppose them or lean in opposition. One-third say they support the marches strongly, while 13 percent are strongly opposed.

The Post poll finds a sharp gap in plans for activism depending on views of the womens marches. Roughly one-third of those who support the marches say they plan to become more politically active, rising to 46 percent among those who support them strongly. By comparison, 13 percent of those who oppose the march plan to increase their political activity, including 18 percent who strongly oppose the demonstrations.

Americans are far more divided along partisan lines rather than gender lines toward the womens marches. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats support the womens marches (87 percent), as do 58 percent of political independents. Republicans hold largely negative views of the marches, though they are not as unified as Democrats: 27 percent support the marches, while 59 percent are opposed.

Women and men are about equally positive toward the womens marches, 61 percent and 60 percent in support, respectively, though women are seven points more likely to express strong support. Within partisan camps, women and men report similar views of the demonstrations.

A 57 percent majority say they heard a lot about the womens march protests, suggesting the single day of demonstrations garnered as much attention as the tea party movement attained through months of organization and protests. Pew Research Center polls in 2010 found the percentage of registered voters who heard a lot about the movement rising from 31 percent in March to a peak of 54 percent in late October, just before congressional elections.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

See the article here:
United by post-inauguration marches, Democratic women plan to step up activism - Washington Post