Mikulski Leads Senate Democrats Fighting for a Fair Shot for Equal Pay for Women
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014, U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women, led Senate Democrats in calling for passage of the Payc...
By: SenatorMikulski
Follow this link:
Mikulski Leads Senate Democrats Fighting for a Fair Shot for Equal Pay for Women - Video
Congressional Democrats Stage Photo Opp, Demand Redskins Name Change
Should Congress jump into a fight over an NFL team name? Democrats called a news conference, standing with tribal leaders, to demand new a DC squad mascot.
By: PJ Media
Continue reading here:
Congressional Democrats Stage Photo Opp, Demand Redskins Name Change - Video
Washington GOP bigwig Karl Rove says that it is still possible Republicans wont win a Senate majority in the fall midterm elections.
Yes, that Karl Rove the chief strategist for George W. Bushs 2000 presidential campaign, top fundraiser for the right-leaning American Crossroads super PAC, the guy who argued on air when Fox News awarded Ohio to President Obama on election night 2012. In other words, a staunch figure in the party.
Mr. Roves got a piece in the Wall Street Journal today titled Why a GOP Senate Majority Is Still in Doubt. It argues that the Democrats might still maintain control of the chamber after November despite their disadvantages, which include President Obamas poor approval ratings, some lackluster performances by Democratic candidates, and greater enthusiasm amongst Republican voters.
Why? In a word, money. Rove notes that to this point Democrats have outraised and outspent Republicans on Senate races, by some measures. Democratic candidates have spent $24 million more on TV ads than their GOP opponents, Rove writes.
Republican candidates and groups must step up if they are to substantially reduce that gap, writes Rove.
Is this just someone who benefits from fundraising saying that lack of fundraising is a problem? After all, to a hammer, every problem is a nail thats sticking out and needs hammering down. Or something like that.
Maybe. But on the other hand, Rove is a smart guy, and hes not the only one pointing to a GOP cash shortfall to explain the surprisingly close midterm Senate contest.
Nate Silver, the data whiz behind the new 538 data journalism site, said this week that Democrats have more cash than the GOP in key Senate races. Thats a possible reason why some election forecasts show the battle for the chamber to be a toss-up, according to Silver.
And campaign ads do matter particularly when a candidate can outspend their opponent, and time is short until Election Day, so the effect doesnt wear off.
So maybe Roves right. He also emphasizes that Republican candidates have to campaign as a block to the ambitions of the unpopular President Obama. But his warning might be late. Thats not because theres too little time for Republicans to catch up. Its because they already are or already might be, rather, if polls and forecasts are any guide.
See more here:
Why is GOP's Karl Rove warning Democrats might keep Senate?
When a handful of Republican Senate candidates called for oral contraceptives to be sold without a prescription, Democrats cried foul.
Republicans still want to repeal "Obamacare," they said, and insurers generally don't pay for over-the-counter products. Women would end up paying more for over-the-counter contraceptives than they would under the free, mandatory coverage provided under President Barack Obama's 2010 health law, Democrats said.
The Republican pitch to sell select forms of birth control over the counter is "a cynical attempt to mask their larger efforts," said the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Other critics say Republicans are desperate to narrow the "gender gap," in which women especially young and single women prefer Democratic candidates.
That's the message Democrats are pushing in four states where Republican Senate nominees have endorsed over-the-counter birth control pills: Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and Minnesota. The stakes are highest in North Carolina and Colorado, where tight races will help decide whether Republicans gain the six new seats they need to control the Senate.
The over-the-counter proposal is something Republicans "are coming up with now to try to take some of the heat off of what they've done," Sen. Kay Hagan, a North Carolina Democrat, said in an interview. "I think women are consistently upset about people playing politics with their health care."
Hagan is competing against Republican challenger Thom Tillis, speaker of the state House. Tillis, a steady critic of "Obamacare," surprised Hagan at a recent debate by calling for over-the-counter sales of oral contraceptives.
It would provide "more options for women for contraception," Tillis said.
Hagan and her allies later noted that Tillis has supported the "personhood" initiative, which would give fertilized human eggs the same rights as adults. He says, however, the initiative shouldn't restrict access to contraceptives, and abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life.
Democrats also note that Tillis supported the cutoff of state funds to Planned Parenthood, whose clinics provide women's health screenings as well as abortions.
Reproductive rights is also a front-burner issue in Colorado, where first-term Democratic Sen. Mark Udall faces Republican Rep. Cory Gardner. Udall is hammering Gardner for his previous support of a "personhood amendment" to the state constitution.
Read more from the original source:
Senate Races: Democrats Decry Birth Control Plan
Congressional Democrats are divided over the idea of a debate later this fall on setting the terms of war against the Islamic State -- a debate that would take place despite the unified support of House and Senate leaders for President Obama's initial request for training pro-Western rebels.
Rank-and-file Democrats in the House and Senate say they are looking forward to a broad war powers debate in the lame-duck session after the Nov. 4 midterm elections, echoing similar comments from most Republicans. However, Democratic leaders are divided over that issue, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) among those counseling patience and, for now, a more narrow debate.
The scope of debate is important because many Democrats supporting the initial authorization request -- approved Wednesday on a bipartisan vote and about to have a similar result Thursday in the Senate -- suggested their yes votes were based on the premise that there would be a bigger debate on the parameters of war later this year.
Some Democrats opposed to deeper military intervention said their colleagues had been duped into believing a big war debate was coming. "That's the illusion," said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), one of 85 House Democrats who opposed the president's request. "This was the vote."
The schism among Democrats became clear at a Thursday press conference of Senate Democratic leaders, during which Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said that a full war debate would take place in the lame-duck session leading to "one of the most important votes we can cast."
"It's long overdue," said Durbin, citing the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations as outdated for today's threats. "We are living on borrowed time and we're traveling on vapors."
Moments later, Reid demurred on how expansive the post-election debate should be. He cited it along with a host of other issues, ranging from allowing states to impose an Internet sales tax to confirming more presidential nominees. We have a lot to do in the lame-duck," Reid said.
Reid noted that the National Defense Authorization Act, which he expects to debate after the election, has language related to Syrian rebels. "It's already in the bill," he told reporters, suggesting a broad debate might not be necessary.
Left unsaid: that language was a small piece of a broad bill that, if enacted, would merely ratify the modest plan to train and arm the pro-Western rebels that Congress is approving this week.
This approach mirrored Pelosi's belief that, under Obama's current war plans, there is no need for a broad debate. "I don't think he needs a bill right now to do what he is doing in the bigger sense," she told reporters Wednesday. "I think he has all of that authority. But there is a threshold that, if it is crossed, Congress will have to act."
Originally posted here:
Democrats divided over broader war debate on Islamic State