Mediaboss Marketing

What can the American people expect from the 115th Congress? Sounds like a trick question, rightor the start of a bad political joke? I mean, what have the American people come to expect from every Congress: dysfunction, partisanship, hypocrisy, opportunism, chaos Down, down, down the list spirals.

Donald Trump's Eternal Campaign

For all his Whos-your-daddy swagger and drain-the-swamp chatter, Donald Trump is unlikely to make much of a dent in this dynamic. (Some cultures are simply beyond help.) But that doesnt mean Capitol Hill isnt braced for upheaval. Every election, particularly one involving a presidential transition, reshuffles legislative priorities and power dynamics. Toss in an erratic, ideologically fuzzy commander-in-chief who stumped hard against both congressional teams, and things could go topsy-turvy pretty quickly.

Democrat or Republican, uncertainty is the name of the game for lawmakers. Yes, the GOP majority has legislative plans that it aims to pursue at top speed. Battle lines are being drawn over issues ranging from tax reform to infrastructure spending to the state of the Supreme Court. The Obamacare cage match is already raging. But where Trump will come down on, and the degree to which he will meddle in, these and other fights remains a sizable X factor. (Even before taking office he was throwing shade at pieces of the GOP tax package, as well as any talk of axing Obamacare before a replacement was ready for prime time.)

Indeed, pretty much everything about Trumps handling of his new gig has lawmakers speculating, in part because he is the first president with no record of public service. Its a totally unique situation in American history, said senior House Republican Tom Cole. With Obama, you at least had a clue, said Cole. But Trump? We dont really know how hes going to react.

A House Democratic aide (who, like most people I spoke with, wished to remain nameless on the topic of Congresss navigating the Trump era) put it less charitably: Its uncharted territory with a madman at the helm.

Amidst the ambiguity, however, there are Big-Picture adjustments that Hill folks acknowledge need to be madeby both teamssome of which go to the heart of how Congress has functioned (or not) in recent years.

For triumphant Republicans, the central challenge extends beyond the strategic into the existential: They must learn to function stripped of their unifying identity as anti-Obama warriors. Democrats, meanwhile, will be attempting a precarious balancing act of disagreeing, strongly and often, yet without being so disagreeable that they brass off the white-working-class Trump voters they are so desperate to win back.

This is a tougher transformation than you might think. For the past eight years, whether in the majority or minority, the House or the Senate, GOP lawmakers have rallied their conference, and their voters, around a single, straightforward mission: to make life as difficult as possible for the 44th president.

This was especially true in the House, where the bulk of Republicans were expressly elected to fight Obama. Less than a third of the conference has served under any other president. For the rest, a life of stalwart opposition is all they have ever known. And as frustrating as it may have been at times, the goal of stopping Obama at all costs stood clear and constantcomfortable even.

That all ended Friday.

Back in 2009, then-House minority leader John Boehner shared with me (with excruciating prescience) how much easier it is to be in the minority than to run things. One of the great shocks of 1994 was--we had won the majority, and no one in our caucus had ever been in the majority--no one realized how much more work it is. Stopping the other team from scoring is relatively simple, he said. But when youre in charge? You hand the football off to a fullback, and hes gotta run with it.

With Trump in the White House, Republicans face a similarly seismic shift. Whatever does (or does not) come out of Washington going forward, the GOP owns it. (As Cole has been joking of late, You cant blame it on somebody else now.)

Most practically, Republican lawmakers must pivot from blocking someone elses agenda to crafting legislation that can garner at least a smidge of bipartisan support. (The GOPs Senate majority, you will recall, shrank this election, and Democrats are not in a conciliatory mood.) They can no longer just hate on government. Theyve got to figure out how to make it better.

Along the way, GOP lawmakers will be working to manage expectations and reactions from all sides. Among conservative voters and interest groups, excitementand impatienceare running high. (On K Street, defense contractors and Wall Street types are among those eyeing the Trump era with great expectations.) Disappointments are bound to occur. Its the nature of politics, said Cole. Managing those will be thornier without the all-purpose Obama card to play.

On the flip side, members and staff are discussing how to mollify constituents who may not like some of what Congress does accomplish. (Already, some lawmakers have encountered pushback from folks at home upset over the prospect of losing their Obamacare.)

Republicans also will need a vastly subtler approach to disagreeing with their new president. They cannot simply vilify Trump as they did Obama without risking his voters turning on them. Trickier still, Trump does not take even gentle criticism well. With apologies to Michelle Obama: When they go low, he does not go high.

This will be a brave new world in particular for the House Freedom Caucus, whose entire two-year existence has revolved around attacking Republicans deemed insufficiently adversarial toward Obama. Trump poses a more fraught target and denies Freedom Caucusers some of their flashier tactics. Lots of tools they used to use arent going to be very helpful, said Cole. For instance: Shutting down the government with a Republican administration is pretty much off the table.

Well aware of this, Freedom Caucusers have been hard at work fashioning a new identity and purpose: less bomb throwing and ideological purity policing; more policy promotion.

Through all the ups, downs, and reinventions, Republicans will need to police themselves against overreach. Fat chance, predicts a Senate GOP staffer. With all that testosterone flowing, there are going to be some bad decisions made. Exhibit A: House Republicans ill-fated move to neuter the Office of Congressional Ethics, blithely attempted on the first day of the new Congress. The Senate staffer fears a similar PR disaster looming with earmarks, which the House was raring to vote on in November. The House GOP is itching to bring back earmarks. Ryan will have to grease some wheels somehow, the staffer observed. The whole reason Ryan had to stop the vote is because he did not have the votes to stop it!

So what will Democrats be up to while Republicans are test-driving a new raison detre? Working on their role as a strongbut not nihilistically obstructionist!bulwark against the GOP juggernaut.

Oh, sure, some Democrats, like former Senate leadership aide Jim Manley, would like to see the team stick it to Republicans for their Obama-era policy of total gridlock. (Republican leader Mitch McConnells nine months of stonewalling Obamas Supreme Court nominee is an especially sore spot.) The only thing to do is steal a play from McConnells playbook and try to burn the whole place down, grumped Manley.

But for now at least, this is not the plan. That makes it too easy to pin us as obstructionist, a senior Senate Democratic aide told me. And besides, a former House leadership staffer said of his party, its not in our Democratic DNA. (The blue team, he said, is too invested in the notion that government should work to play that level of hardball.)

Instead, Democrats are prepping a divide-and-conquer strategy: foot-drag and (yes) gridlock on policies favored by congressional Republicans (like killing Obamacare and unraveling Wall Street reforms) but extend a hand to Trump on campaign promises he made that mesh with their values. (Think: infrastructure investment and trade.)

We are presenting a choice to the president, said the senior Senate aide. If he pursues issues that align with Democratic priorities, he will find Democrats eager to work with him. This will, however, require Trump to buck the Republicans in Congress, stressed the aide. Democrats selective cooperation is not aimed at finding middle ground with GOP members, the aide clarified, but about Trumps upending decades of Republican orthodoxy and going around congressional Republicans on particular issues. The goal: deny the majority legislative wins while positioning Democrats as the party that can work with Trump to get stuff done.

Not that Democrats really expect Trump to follow through on his progressive promises. They tend to see those as just another piece of the massive con job he perpetrated on the electorate, and exposing the con is central to rallying public sentiment against the president, they say. We have to confront him on substantive issues in surgical ways: Show reporters and constituents exactly how hes not living up to his impossible promises, said the House Democratic aide.

Operationally, this will mean getting better at the granular stuff, like coordinating news releases, said the House aide. Have every House Dem send something to their local press list and post on social media at the same time. You may have noticed, House Democrats arent very good at this currently. And all seem to agree that it does not pay to go tweet-to-tweet with Trump. That way lies madness.

There will, of course, be issues on which individual Democratic members need to break ranks in order to keep constituents back home happy. This is as it ever was. Thus, especially on environmental and energy issues, look for Senate Democratic chief Chuck Schumer to allow his troops (especially those up for reelection in 2018 in states won by Trump) occasional voting flexibility--so long as the overall count denies Republicans a filibuster-proof supermajority.

(At some point, look for restive House Republicans, and perhaps even Trump, to pressure McConnell to go nuclear and do away with the filibuster. But McConnell is an institutionalist, and Senators on both sides of the aisle tend to be wary of tinkering with the chambers prerogatives. Certainly, many Democrats now regret the 2013 move by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid to end the filibustering of presidential appointees below the Supreme Court level.)

Then there is the oh-so-delicate crusade upon which both parties will be embarking: wooing--or at least not alienating--the white working-class voters who put Trump in office. This demographic has issues with both congressional teams, and both acknowledge that the cohort must be handled with care.

Democrats say they are upping their game on outreach and messaging. Thus, their willingness to work with Trump on more populist issues favored by this block. The prevailing narrative about the partys need to choose between the Obama coalition and the white working class presents a false choice, said the senior Senate aide. If we have a sharp, bold economic message backed up by policies that dont just nibble around the edges, the aide insisted, we can keep our base motivated and activated and still reach and empower those voters that we lost.

For their part, Republicans will be working to embrace their new voters without allowing them to fundamentally alter the party. The white working class tends to be not only less conservative on social issues than the GOPs evangelical base but also significantly less hostile to Big Government.

These voters are more accepting of federal government spending and power, said the Senate Republican aide. How will the GOP accommodate these new members of their governing coalition? Will the theater of Trump be enough, or will policy concessions need to be made to make them show up in November 2018 as well? Keeping Trumpkins in the fold without diluting core conservative values will be a juggling act for the entire conference.

So while Congress may not become significantly more functionalor less maddening--in the coming session, it will at least get shaken up a bit as exotic new challenges are layered atop deeply entrenched ones. In the Trump era, the rule of thumb on Capitol Hill is the same as everywhere else: expect the unexpected.

Read the rest here:
How Will Congress Cope With Trump? - The Atlantic

Filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza told Pete Hegseth on Fox & Friends that calls for an end to anti-Trump rioting and violence will go largely unanswered from the peaceful faction of the political left.

"The rhetoric that has inspired this violence has come from the mainstream of the Democrat Party," D'Souza said.

Pirro: Trump Will Be 'Biggest Change Agent' in US History

Frank Luntz Recounts Hotel Assault by Trump Inauguration Protester

Schumer Hits Inauguration Crowd for Booing Him: 'Speaks Poorly of Them'

He said that a common belief among many on the Left is that President Trump is a "modern-day [Benito] Mussolini", and recalled how actress Ashley Judd compared the president to Adolf Hitler.

"The party is largely brain-dead," he said, adding that the rioting in Washington over the weekend embodied a "juvenile embitterment of losing an election they think they could have won."

D'Souza said that former President Obama kept the "backroom" faction of the Democratic Party, led by Hillary Clinton, and the more active faction lead by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) together, but that Clinton's loss will allow the "Bernie Faction" to "gain prominence".

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

'Inclusion and Compassion': Watters Visits the Women's March in Washington

Madonna: 'I Have Thought an Awful Lot About Blowing Up the White House'

Ashley Judd Recites 'I Am a Nasty Woman' Poem at DC Women's March

Read the original:
Dinesh D'Souza: 'Brain-Dead' Democrat Party Will Allow Public Unrest to Continue - Fox News Insider

Variety

Chelsea Handler Nixes Two-Party Politics: 'I'm Not a Democrat Anymore' (Watch) Variety Handler revealed that after the results of the 2016 election, she no longer considers herself a Democrat. Divisiveness is not the answer, and I think to get that message, we have to reach across party lines, Handler said. Forget your party. I'm ... and more »

Continue reading here:
Chelsea Handler Nixes Two-Party Politics: 'I'm Not a Democrat Anymore' (Watch) - Variety

A steadily growing number of congressional Democrats are refusing to attend Donald Trumps inauguration, sending a message of resistance at the outset of Trumps presidency. Its less clear, however, what exactly that message is, and whether it will do the Democratic Party much good as it attempts to find its way in the Trump era.

The high-profile protest was galvanized by the president-elects rebuke of civil rights icon John Lewis as all talk and no action over the weekend after the Georgia congressman said he does not view Trump as a legitimate president and did not plan to attend Trumps inauguration. At the latest count, more than 60 Democrats in Congress have now announced they will not show up. Painting a bleak picture of what the country now faces, some Democrats warn that the incoming Trump administration could fundamentally erode American democracy.

A Reflection on Trump's Uncharted Presidency

Trump is absolutely trying to attack our democratic institutions and to make the country more authoritarian, Democratic congressman Ted Lieu from California said in an interview, citing what he described as Trumps attempts to undermine the free press, and barrage of attacks against anyone who criticizes him. Those are authoritarian actions, and I think its important for those who love America and love our democracy to resist, he added. I think our country is facing a grave threat, Jared Huffman, another Democratic congressman from California warned. I dont think we can take for granted the continuation of democracy as usual.

The problem for Democrats is that a highly-publicized spectacle of resistance might contribute to an erosion of democratic norms in its own right if it disrupts the peaceful transition of power from one president to the next. The different reasons some Democrats have for not attending inauguration, and the fact that high-profile party leaders are not taking part in the boycott, also highlight the partys struggle to craft a unified opposition.

Its really not something I ever could have imagined, but that tells you just how far out of the mainstream this particular situation is, and I cant normalize it, congressman Huffman said. I cant sit there and pretend that everythings just fine with our democracy when I know its not. When asked whether a boycott could further erode norms, however, Huffman added: I do have that concern.

Seeking to defend the decision not to attend inauguration, Democratic Congresswoman Chellie Pingree said there were numerous Republicans who didnt attend Obamas first or second inaugural, adding: so its not as much of a tradition or a norm as people think. A Senate Historian told The Sacramento Bee that while about 100 lawmakers skip the presidential inauguration every four years due to scheduling conflicts, the Senate Historical Office had no record of a boycott comparable to that being proposed for Trumps inauguration. And even if rank-and-file members of Congress dont always attend inaugurations, a high-profile show of resistance is far more dramatic then quietly skipping town.

Democratic congresswoman Pramila Jayapal from Washington decided not to attend the inauguration because she wants to spend time with her constituents, many of whom she says are truly terrified of what Trumps presidency might bring. She does not consider her decision a boycott, but argued that Democrats cannot back down from the potential threat of a Trump presidency. He cant expect everybody else to play by the rules, if he himself is not playing by the rules, she said.

In making his case against Trumps legitimacy, Lewis invoked Russias alleged involvement in the election. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, he said on Meet The Press. A report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently concluded that Russia led an influence campaign during the election intended to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency, a campaign which involved the hacking and release of emails from the Democratic National Committee. It did not find any evidence of interference with the actual vote count.

Other congressional Democrats have pointed to reasons apart from the specter of election interference to argue that Trumps legitimacy is in doubt, though not every Democrat refusing to attend inauguration has gone so far as to say that Trump is illegitimate.

The legitimacy I question really is more about his moral legitimacy, Democratic congressman Mark Takano of California said, citing Trumps criticism of Lewis over Martin Luther King Day weekend. You need more than a technical, legal win of the Electoral College to lead our country ... you need a certain amount of moral authority, and respect from the citizenry, he added.

Congressman Lieu added that Trump faces serious issues surrounding legitimacy, based on his refusal to release his tax returns and the warnings of ethics experts that he will face conflicts of interest when he takes office due to his business holdings. I accept that Donald Trump will be our next president, but I absolutely have concerns about his legitimacy, and he alone can clear up those concerns, he said.

Trump himself spent years seeking to sow doubt over President Obamas legitimacy by falsely suggesting whether he was an American citizen. The rationale, tactics and circumstances are very different now: Trump was not an elected official, and was giving voice to false rumor and innuendo, not citing intelligence agency findings and the expert opinions of ethicists. Congressional Democrats stature as elected officials could mean that whatever they say to sow doubt over Trumps legitimacy might be more likely to take hold among their constituents.

The show of opposition has met with criticism from some Republicans in Congress who suggest the action might have dangerous consequences. Im disappointed that all these Democrats are saying theyre going to stay home, Republican congressman Sean Duffy said in an interview on CNN, arguing that if these events become partisan in nature, thats bad for the country. Trump dismissed the protest as unimportant in an interview on Fox News. What happens to their tickets?, he asked. I hope they give me their tickets.

Of course, even the loftiest ideals would not prevent an inauguration celebrating the election of a political figure from being a partisan event on some level. And some Democrats have defended their decision as well within the bounds of expressing dissent in a democracy. Not attending inauguration is fundamentally not about Democrats saying that we oppose the peaceful transition of power, congressman Takano said. We are fundamentally doing an American thing by voicing our dissent. Nothing about a constitutional, peaceful transfer of power says that theres no room for dissent.

Whether Democratic defections at inauguration sets the tone for how the party works with Trump when he becomes president remains to be seen. Some Democrats have been quick to emphasize that just because they wont be attending inauguration does not mean they plan to refuse to work with Trump once he takes office. Theres a difference between obstructing for the sake of obstruction, which is what the Republicans did to President Barack Obama for eight years, versus not normalizing unacceptable behavior, and racism, sexism, and bigotry, Lieu said, adding: If a piece of legislation is a good idea ... Im going to vote for it. If its a bad idea, Im going to vote against it. Im not simply going to obstruct and vote no.

Democrats may be concerned that voters will label them obstructionists, but in seeking to prove that they will work with Trump if he acts in good faith, they risk coming across as insincere. Anxious Democratic voters may find it hard to imagine how a lawmaker could on the one hand warn that Trump poses an existential threat to American democracy, but still find it acceptable to work with him if he comes up with a good policy proposal. It also seems unlikely that Trump and Democratic members of Congress who fiercely oppose so many of his statements and actions to date will manage to find much common ground.

Read this article:
Why Some Democrats in Congress Refuse to Attend Trump's Inauguration - The Atlantic

I am bracing for a Trump presidency with a concern, mixed with ambivalence, and a healthy dose of cautious optimism. We live in the most magnificent country on earth, and Donald J. Trump is assuming an awe-inspiring office that will hopefully transform him for the better; perhaps, even inspire him to be a leader our country so rightly deserves.

I empathize with those still outraged by the election of an ostensibly unqualified, erratic president with the angst of an arriviste.

My mouth fell to the floor when Trump was elected president.

I assumed he had no chance to win, but no poll could detect the severe deficiencies in Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonThis feminist stands against abortion rights captivity of women's rights Thousands expected for women's march Saturday Five takeaways from Trump's inauguration MOREs lackluster candidacy for president and the broken hearts of voters, even previously loyal Democrats, so disenchanted by our political system.

Many made the case against the potentially debilitating impact of the Trump presidency. The media such as yours truly tried to raise awareness of his divisive personality. Some pointed to the potential erosion of our illustrious, longstanding constitutional values. Despite it all, this was simply met with a shrug by enthusiasts who were sick of politicians facile talking points, and empty rhetoric.

Trump was real after all, or so they said.

But, is he? Trump could be a pragmatist in ideological sheeps clothing, and that is a reason to be guardedly optimistic, at least from a liberal standpoint.

He allegedly told the New York Times behind closed doors, he wouldnt deport all undocumented immigrants. During the campaign, Trump soften his stance on a Muslim ban. After talking with President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaFive takeaways from Trump's inauguration Michael Reagan: Trump's fighting words rattle Washington Obama's post-presidential vacation delayed by bad weather MORE, Trump moderated his once vehement criticism of the Affordable Care Act. His concrete wall became a fence, and just recently, Trump has signaled his willingness to maintain sanctions on Russia, but open to removing them.

As an American, I want to see my country thrive, and de facto, would like to see Trump be successful as a president. If Trump is prosperous, our country could be better off as well. When I say this, I make that statement with some caveats; a successfully presidency is uniting our country, protecting all Americans, and making it a better place for everything no matter their race, religion, or color.

This is the definition of a fruitful presidency, not merely measuring whether goals have been accomplished, regardless of their merits.

Despite his numerous flaws, controversies, and insecurities, Trump is our president, a president of all Americans whether we voted for him or not. When assuming the highest office of the land, Trump has the potential to lead our country towards a better tomorrow as clich as that sounds.

I hope Trump can take his preeminent role in the history books as a man who changed our country for the better. The president-elect is far from docile, which can be seen from his unconventional candidacy. We need a president who can combat the political gridlock, and bring succor to those left behind by our government.

Our country was built on a mix of optimism and realism. As Americans, we hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Trump will assume office, and as Americans, we must carefully offer him the benefit of the doubt as hard as that can be.

Perhaps we were wrong about Trump all along? Perhaps he isnt as terrible as he acts in public? Maybe a dreadful person can be an effective president? Possibly he will unite us more than ever? These elusive questions will be knocking at our hypothetical door soon enough or, conceivably, smashing through it with a battering ram.

Our constitutional Republic was designed to have checks, and balances.

If Trump is as abysmal, as he appears, we need to be ready to hold him accountable through political means, that is our duty as Americans. This is our country, and no one has the right to undermine the tenuous democracy we hold so precious.

That is why we, the American people, elected him, to make critical, expansive decisions that benefit all of us, and that is why we should pray he makes the right choice every day. For if he doesnt, there will be hell to pay.

I know many Americans are scared, but we have to be united. We have our disagreements, but as Americans, we need to put the divisiveness aside to find real solutions to the problems that we face as a society. With time, maybe, just maybe, Trump could be a president a majority of Americans respect.

I hope my fellow Democrats will at least entertain that unlikely possibility.

Matt Fecteau of Pawtucket, R.I., was a Democratic congressional candidate in 2014. He is a former White House national security intern and Iraq war veteran. Follow him on Twitter @MatthewFecteau.

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Original post:
A Democrat's (very cautious) case for optimism in the Trump era - The Hill (blog)