Mediaboss Marketing

Senator Bernie Sanders and DNC Chair Tom Perez during their Come Together and Fight Back tour in Miami.

Next month Im returning to Marthas Vineyard. Its a lovely place and, for progressives, the ultimate safe space. It sometimes seems that Republicans need a green card just to visit, and that the island only issues 10 per year.

But this creates a problem: What passes for political wisdom can become, shall we say, insular. As a journalistic eminence murmured after enduring a dinner party where, in his view, progressive piety strangled reality by the throat: As Marthas Vineyard goes, so goes Cambridge, Berkeley, and the upper West Side of Manhattan.

Advertisement

Which puts me in mind of certain Democratic liberals and lemmings.

Hold the outrage, please. I like to think Im as progressive as the next guy, including ardent support for voting rights, LGBT rights, reproductive rights, racial justice, and preventing dangerous people from slaughtering innocents with guns. Over the years, Ive devoted considerable energy to these issues. But, for me, the current ideological fratricide among Democrats evokes the mythic rodents who commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs.

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

This years contest for DNC chair in essence, a tiresome rerun of the fight between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders featured lemmings galore. Among them were the raucous activists who booed the liberal Tom Perez for beating the even more liberal, and more controversial, Keith Ellison, perpetuating the ongoing divide between the merely progressive and the truly pure.

Demography as much as geography has determined the Democrats defeat, despite a decided popular vote victory in the presidential election.

Inescapably, this spectacle raised questions. What slice of the populace do these folks represent? At this critical juncture, were Perez and Ellison the best choices Democrats had? What about Pete Buttigieg, the young and appealing mayor of South Bend, Ind. who, having succeeded in a red state, emphasized expanding the partys appeal in middle America? And what does all this fractiousness portend for the Democrats ability to reverse their electoral fortunes?

Nothing good. To heal the wounds, Perez and Sanders launched a unity tour. Quickly, it foundered on their support of the Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Neb., Heath Mello who, it transpired, had taken antiabortion positions as a state legislator. Quickly, abortion-rights groups pounced, asserting that the partys support for Mello was unacceptable.

Advertisement

Progressives like Sanders and Elizabeth Warren defended the right of a local candidate to hold views at odds with theirs, sensibly distinguishing between a would-be mayor of Omaha and, say, a Supreme Court nominee. But the head of NARAL denounced this as politically stupid. Swiftly, Perez capitulated, asserting that Democrats commitment to abortion rights is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.

Leadership this is not.

Lets be clear. The Democratic Party firmly embraces reproductive rights and should. And, yes, the antiabortion movement is tainted with misogyny, patriarchy, and fundamentalism. But, unavoidably, the debate over abortion includes a genuine ethical issue regarding how we define life. And, as a practical matter, a significant minority of Democrats oppose abortion; some are women who support maternal leave, better child-care policies, and wage equity.

Abortion rights should not, in itself, be a litmus test of decency or of who gets to be a Democrat in Nebraska.

But doctrinal purity is contagious. Shortly, Sanders stumbled, when asked if Jon Ossoff a Democrat opposing an antiabortion GOP zealot in a bright-red Georgia congressional district was a progressive. I dont know, Sanders flatly stated. Really? When did Georgia become Vermont? And when did progressive orthodoxy become so rigid and exclusionary?

But among Democrats, this ideological Stalinism is all too common. A few years ago, a friend and leader in the gun-control movement refused to support the incumbent Democratic senator from Arkansas, deeming him too compromised on guns. He lost to a Republican who opposes everything my friend cares about. Now Republicans control the Senate, and Neil Gorsuch sits on the Supreme Court.

This illustrates the complex relationship between moral urgency and political actuality. The civil rights movement was not driven by political exigency, but by the uncompromising commitment of brave men and women who transformed our national conscience. But translating civil rights into law required a Democratic president working through a Democratic Congress.

Too many activists fail to grasp this or that their desire to thwart Donald Trump exceeds their partys ability to do so. Thus some on the left threaten primary challenges against Democrats they perceive as insufficiently militant.

This is political self-immolation. The Democrats are defending Senate seats in red or purple states like Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania all of which Trump carried. Do these petulant purists really think that a Warren-style Democrat could win in Montana? Or care that they risk losing the last bastion of legislative resistance to Trump even, perhaps, the filibuster?

Already, Democrats are ceding most of America with alarming celerity. Since 2006, the party has lost 10 percent of its seats in the Senate, 19 percent in the House, 20 percent in state legislatures, and 36 percent of governorships. The 16 percent of counties won by Hillary Clinton resemble, demographically, a cocktail party on Marthas Vineyard urban, affluent, well-educated, and, increasingly, politically homogenous and sociologically isolated. In such circumstances, political antennae rust, litmus tests flourish, and a vision of deplorables sets in that mirrors the intolerance of the right.

No surprise, then, that many middle-class and blue-collar Americans including former Obama voters feel that national Democrats favor the wealthy. Programmatically, this simply isnt so. No doubt this misperception owes much to the GOPs rank dishonesty. But ideological rigidity and cultural condescension surely do not help nor, frankly, do enormous speaking fees from Wall Street.

So what should Democrats do? Some think the party should focus on turning out its core demographic well-educated whites, women, young people, and minorities; others on winning back some of the voters it lost to Trump. But this is a false choice. Nor is it sufficient for Democrats to define themselves merely by opposing Trump. Instead, the party needs to prioritize engaging voters rather than excluding them.

This requires what went missing in 2016: a compelling and unifying vision of how Democratic policies improve the lives of more Americans, helping unleash the potential of every person wherever and whoever they are to lift themselves and their country. This message of inclusion and economic opportunity transcends geography and demographics and, as well, any single issue or constituent group no matter how important. It says, rather, that every American is not merely worthwhile, but valuable.

That is what a national party looks like.

Read the rest here:
The Democrats' liberal lemmings - The Boston Globe

Emerging from a meeting on the first floor of the Capitol Monday night, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana told reporters they are attempting to work with Democrats to see if there is a way forward to fix the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

"We had 10 or 11 senators who came tonight. I think that's significant," Collins told reporters after a meeting. "What we're trying to do is to get away from the partisanship that has made it very difficult to come up with solution and we're trying to get away from semantics, we're trying to get away from people being locked into a party position and instead raise fundamental questions about how can we move forward."

Collins and Cassidy are authors of their own legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare, but said that their legislation wasn't necessarily the starting point for any negotiation.

"This was really a meeting to look at all sorts of ideas," Collins said.

The moderate Republican senators stressed that the talks are still preliminary, with just a handful of Democrats involved. They estimated there were three or four Democrats in the meeting and a few more interested who couldn't attend Monday night. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- both red-state Democrats facing re-election in 2018 -- were spotted coming out of the meeting room.

Also spotted at the meeting were Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Dan Sullivan of Alaska.

When asked if any progress had been made in the meeting, Manchin told reporters, "no, not really."

"There's no way I can vote for a repeal," Manchin said.

Manchin said there were "some good ideas thrown out and talked about."

"It was mostly to see is there a way forward without repealing. Is there a way forward without throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" Manchin said.

The meeting happened as Republican senators charge ahead with their own working group of 13 members who have been tasked with finding a GOP path forward to repeal and replace Obamacare. Collins and Cassidy said their party's leadership, however, was made aware of their bipartisan effort.

CNN's Phil Mattingly contributed to this report.

Follow this link:
Republicans and Democrats try to launch bipartisan effort on health care - CNN

Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez plans to meet with pro-life group Democrats for Life of America, amid an ongoing controversy within the party over whether and to what extent Democrats should pursue voters who oppose abortion. Democrats for Life advocates for pro-life Democrats and describes itself as the pro-life voice of the Democratic Party.

The meeting, which the DNC is setting up at the groups request, is one of several conversations that Perez is having with pro-choice and pro-life Democrats, an aide to Perez confirmed to The Atlantic. As part of that outreach, Perez has spoken with Democratic elected officials and party leaders, and held a meeting earlier this month with womens groups. The effort comes at a time when prominent Democrats are attempting to walk a fine line between affirming their partys pro-choice platform and suggesting that there is room in the party for pro-life voters and candidates.

How Bad Is Disclosing 'Code Word' Information?

The partys 2016 platform supports access to safe and legal abortion, and vows that Democrats will oppose, and seek to overturn, federal and state laws and policies that impede a womans access to abortion. The DNC recently named Jess OConnell as its new CEO, the former executive director of EMILYs List, which works to elect pro-choice Democratic women to office.

Earlier this month, Nebraska Democratic candidate Heath Mello lost a mayoral election in Omaha following national backlash over his personally pro-life views, and legislative record on access to abortion. At least some of Mellos supporters in Nebraska believe fallout from the controversy stalled the campaigns momentum at a crucial point in the race.

When news broke last month that Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, the countrys most popular progressive lawmaker, and Deputy DNC Chair Keith Ellison would attend a rally with the self-described personally pro-life mayoral candidate, pro-choice organization NARAL Pro-Choice America went after the DNC, saying that its support of an anti-choice candidate was disappointing and politically stupid.

Perez had previously suggested that the Democratic Party should not demand fealty on every issue, including abortion. After NARALs criticism, however, the DNC Chair put out a statement widely viewed inside and outside the Democratic Party as a demand for unequivocal support for the partys pro-choice platform.

Every Democrat, like every American, should support a womans right to make her own choices about her body and her health, the chair said. That is not negotiable. He added: We must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.

A race against an incumbent Republican mayor in a state Trump won handily would not have been easy for any Democratic candidate, but a source close to the Mello campaign argued that backlash from pro-choice activists and Perezs statement that the party should speak with one voice on the issue of abortion, hurt Mello by opening him up to attack from national progressive groups and Republicans in Nebraska all at the same time.

Perezs comments on the race were used against Mello by his Republican challenger Jean Stothert. The Stothert campaign cited Perez saying it is a promising step that Mello now shares the Democratic Partys position on womens fundamental rights,a reference to the candidates pledge not to restrict access to reproductive healthcare if electedto accuse Mello of having dramatically changed his stance on [the] issue of life as an elected leader to satisfy pro-abortion activists. A mailer urging voters to pick Stothert pointed to the same Perez quote to argue that Mello was closely tied to The Liberal Washington, DC Establishment, warning Heath Mello Will Take Omaha Backwards.

The fundamentals of the race were a challenge to begin with, but the whole situation did a lot of damage, the source close to the Mello campaign said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The DNC chair shouldnt be saying things that can be interpreted as a litmus test that will alienate people from the party.

Red-state and pro-life Democrats denounced Perezs statement as a litmus test on the issue of abortion. And in the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the Mello campaign, prominent Democrats, and the DNC, have suggested that while the party advocates a pro-choice platform, there is room in the big tent for pro-life Democrats.

The party does not believe in a litmus test, Xochitl Hinojosa, a DNC spokeswoman, said in response to a request for comment. Our role is to support state parties and candidates up and down the ballot and thats exactly what we did when we invested in the state party in Nebraska as well as Mellos campaign. An aide to Perez told The Atlantic last month the DNC Chair never said he doesnt support pro-life candidates.

Democratic leaders in Congress, meanwhile, have argued even more explicitly that there is space within the party for pro-life voters and candidates.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said last month that of course Democrats can be pro-life, while Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said that Democrats are a big-tent party. Pelosi later told The Washington Post that Democrats are not a rubber-stamp party, adding that there are people in her family, extended family, [who] are not-pro choice. You think Im kicking them out of the Democratic Party? Pelosi and Schumer both have 100 percent ratings from Planned Parenthood Action Funds congressional scorecard.

Appeals from prominent Democrats to the idea that the party is a big tent, however, and news that Perez is expected to meet with pro-life Democrats have frustrated some pro-choice activists who fear that Democratic leaders are signaling that support for access to abortion is negotiable, despite the party platform.

Its incredibly discouraging to hear what sounds like equivocating on this issue, said Erin Matson, a reproductive rights advocate based in Virginia. Thats what it looks like when Democrats, in Congress or at the DNC, indicate a willingness to support, or set aside time to meet with, anyone who doesnt believe that womens reproductive rights are fundamental human rights. Matson added that the DNC should be transparent about the details of Perezs outreach to pro-life Democrats, including who participates in any conversations with the chair, and what is discussed.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood declined to comment for this story.

For now, the DNC faces pressure to act as a sort of ideological compass for Democrats and show that it the party is learning from past mistakes. Part of the challenge in pulling that off, however, is that there remains widespread disagreement among Democrats over exactly where the party went wrong in the first place, and why its power has so severely eroded at the federal and state levels in recent years. Abortion is just one of the issues at the center of that ongoing debate.

A date has not yet been scheduled for the meeting between Perez and Democrats for Life, but it is expected to take place at DNC headquarters in Washington, DC.

Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life of America, said her organization hopes to make the case during the meeting with Perez that there needs to be a stronger message from the top of the party on down that we want to include pro-life Democrats in the party. She added: that means the party needs to help find pro-life Democratic candidates to run for office, help raise money for them, and help them win.

According to Day, Democrats for Life met with past DNC chairs, including Terry McAuliffe, Howard Dean, and Tim Kaine, adding that the group made attempts to meet with former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but was not granted a meeting.

In an interview, Dean confirmed that he met with the group while serving as DNC Chair. I dont believe we should exclude people from the Democratic Party just because they call themselves pro-life, he said.

A spokesman for Wasserman Schultz said she does not recall declining a meeting with the organization. As DNC Chair, Wasserman Schultz did, however, generally invoke the idea that the Democratic Party is a big tent. Representatives for McAuliffe did not respond to a request for comment.

Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, and a board member of Our Revolution, the progressive organization that formed out of the embers of the Sanders presidential campaign, said she has not been approached by the DNC to talk about Perezs intervention in Mellos race for mayor of Omaha.

Kleeb commented that if the DNC is reaching out to pro-life Democrats that would be a step in the right direction, but added: if the party has learned a lesson, its a shame that one of the rising stars, not only in Nebraska, but in the party, [former Nebraska mayoral candidate Heath Mello] essentially had to become collateral damage for it to be learned.

Kleeb added: I hope that never happens to another Democratic candidate ever again.

Read more from the original source:
DNC Chair Tom Perez to Meet With Pro-Life Democrats - The Atlantic

While Democrats may trot out any number of demands or maneuvers to influence the selection of the next director of the FBI, here's a reality check: Republican President Donald Trump fired James Comey, and he and his party will decide who's next.

And they're not wasting time. Trump said Monday the selection process for a nominee for FBI director was "moving rapidly."

Democrats irate over Comey's abrupt ouster, and concerned by the inclusion of politicians on the list of possible replacements, are demanding Trump not select a partisan leader. Although they're likely to mount considerable pressure before and during the confirmation process, they don't control enough votes to influence the outcome becauseRepublicans hold a 52-seat majority in the Senate.

"If they can keep all 52 together, then it won't matter," said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. If Republicans "start to lose a couple, or two or three look like they're not on board, that could create more pressure on the majority leader and the president to perhaps do something other than what they were planning on doing."

The next director will immediately be confronted with oversight of an FBI investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, an inquiry the bureau's acting head, Andrew McCabe, has called "highly significant."

The person also will have to win the support of rank-and-file agents angered by the ouster of Comey, who was broadly supported within the FBI. And the new director will almost certainly have to work to maintain the bureau's credibility by asserting political independence in the face of a president known for demanding loyalty from the people he appoints.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein interviewed eight candidates Saturday, including some who were not among the names distributed a day earlier by the White House. The list includes current and former FBI and Justice Department leaders, federal judges and Republicans who have served in Congress.

Among those interviewed was McCabe, though it's not clear how seriously he's being considered.

It'd be unusual for the White House to elevate an FBI agent to the role of director, and McCabe during a Senate hearing last week broke with the White House's explanations for Comey's firing and its dismissive characterization of the Russia investigation.

FBI directors have predominantly been drawn from the ranks of prosecutors and judges. Comey, for instance, was a former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan before being appointed deputy attorney general by George W. Bush. His predecessor, Robert Mueller, was a U.S. attorney in San Francisco.

One contender who could prove politically palatable is Michael Garcia, a former U.S. attorney in Manhattan with significant experience in terrorism and public corruption investigations. He was appointed by FIFA in 2012 to investigate World Cup bidding contests. He later resigned after he said the global soccer organization had mischaracterized a lengthy investigative report he had produced.

The FBI Agents Association has endorsed former Republican congressman Mike Rogers, an ex-FBI agent and former chair of the House intelligence committee who had collegial relationships with his Democratic counterparts.

Senate Democrats have insisted that Trump should not pick a politician as the next FBI director. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that the choice should be "certainly somebody not of a partisan background, certainly somebody of great experience and certainly somebody of courage."

One Republican whose name had been mentioned as a possible candidate, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said Monday that he had taken himself out of the running.

Given the partisan uproar over Comey's firing, Democrats seem unlikely to support any FBI candidate put forward by Trump. But the nominee will require only a simple majority vote in the 100-member Senate, meaning Republicans can use their 52-48 majority to confirm the next director without needing Democratic votes.

Democrats are demanding appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Russia's involvement in the 2016 election and ties to Trump's campaign, and have discussed trying to slow down the confirmation process or other business of the Senate as a way of drawing attention to the demand.

Senate rules requiring unanimous consent or 60-vote thresholds on various procedural or legislative steps give Democrats the ability to slow the Senate to a crawl and delay committee hearings.

Given the Republicans' narrow Senate majority, the larger consideration for the White House is that some GOP senators also insist on a non-partisan choice as the next FBI director.

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on "Meet the Press" that Trump has is obligated "to pick somebody beyond reproach outside the political lane." Graham said under the circumstances he wouldn't be able to support his colleague Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, who is under consideration.

Some House Republicans, who technically have no role in the pick, have spoken out about the need for non-partisanship and independence.

"The FBI is America's pre-eminent law enforcement agency. As such, it needs to be led by a person of unquestioned character and completely divorced from partisan politics," GOP Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma wrote in an opinion column circulated Monday.

House Democrats are weighing their own steps related to the firing. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is asking House Speaker Paul Ryan to join in a call for Rosenstein to brief House members, as he will do for senators Thursday. Democrats will also try to use a procedural maneuver to force a vote on legislation calling for an independent commission to investigate Russian election interference, although they're unlikely to prevail.

More:
Trump, GOP control FBI chief pick despite Democrats' calls - Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON Both parties are preparing to contest the 2018 midterm elections on a familiar battlefield health care.

Democrats see the potential for a wave that washes many of their House candidates into office, and at least some political prognosticators agree with them.

The Cook Political Report, for example, recently shifted its ratings of 20 House races in the direction of Democrats. The organizations David Wasserman based his justification for the shift on the American Health Care Act that passed the House.

For several dozen Republicans, adding support for the AHCA to their voting record is an unequivocal political risk, Wasserman wrote.

He moved southwest Iowas 3rd district from likely Republican to lean Republican. In that district, Republican Rep. David Young opposed the initial version of the legislation before eventually coming around and voting for the bill.

Cook already had Nebraskas Omaha-based 2nd District in the lean Republican category. Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican freshman, narrowly defeated Democratic incumbent Brad Ashford last year. Bacon has enthusiastically supported the health care bill.

The National Republican Congressional Committee recently named both Bacon and Young to its Patriot Program for vulnerable incumbents.

Being named to the program is a good news-bad news situation because it means the party is prepared to offer additional fundraising and organizational support, but it also means those races are among the most competitive.

Wasserman wrote that the House health care bill guarantees Democrats will have at least one major on-the-record vote to exploit in 2018 and suggested that it could help produce that wave Democrats are seeking.

Much is left to be decided on the legislation, which could change substantially as it goes through the Senate.

But both national parties have been releasing early ads that represent a kind of dress rehearsal for themes likely to fill the airwaves next fall.

Democrats cite an analysis that the legislation could increase premiums for older and sicker Americans, produce higher out-of-pocket costs and undermine protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

Republicans, on the other hand, say Democrats are simply supporting the status quo and ignoring crumbling elements of the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare. In particular, Republicans cite the continuing trend of insurers abandoning the laws exchanges, a development that threatens to leave many Americans, including Nebraskans and Iowans, with few options.

Weve got to find a way to reduce premiums, and weve got to find a way to get more insurers back on the market so that people have choices, Bacon told The World-Herald.

Bacon has said many times that he wants to protect those with pre-existing conditions and says that the GOP proposal would still require insurers to cover those individuals. He said states that seek waivers from the requirement would have to show alternatives to protect those with pre-existing conditions. He and other Republicans have noted the billions of dollars in the legislation aimed at helping the states to cover people.

Opponents say its not nearly enough money and note that the legislation also includes tax cuts that would particularly benefit wealthier Americans.

Asked about that, Bacon said he believes in more fiscally responsible government and, while the tax cuts werent the element that sold him on the bill, he also doesnt want high taxes.

If Democrats want to campaign against tax cuts, let them go ahead and do it, I guess, Bacon said.

Enthusiasm among Democrats could result in crowded primaries next year.

In Nebraskas 2nd District, for example, Kara Eastman, who is the head of a nonprofit group known as Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance, is expected to run for the seat, while Ashford or possibly his wife, Ann is expected to be on the ballot as well.

In Nebraskas 1st District, Democrat Dennis Crawford already is running against Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., who supported the health care bill, and other Democrats could jump in.

Still, Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford offered a word of caution for those on the left who see opportunity.

Democrats core supporters often fail to show up in midterm elections and its a long way to go until Election Day, Goldford said.

You can talk at this point about all the enthusiasm in the world, but we dont know yet.

joe.morton@owh.com, twitter.com/MortonOWH

See more here:
Health care looms large over 2018 midterms as Democrats see opportunity after AHCA vote - Omaha World-Herald