Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON After President Donald Trump launched a Tomahawk missile strike on a Syrian airfield, the debate among congressional Democrats was not over the actual merits of bombing Syrian airfields but instead about Trumps decision process.

The reaction of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the most progressive member of the Senate Democratic caucus, was a case in point.

It is very questionable whether it is legal to bomb the Syrian air force without congressional involvement, Sanders told The Huffington Post.

Some of Sanders colleagues were less equivocal, including Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who said this certainly is not a lawful act. On the other end of the spectrum, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said it seems like a reasonable exercise of presidential power.

But only a handful of Democrats questioned the evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on civilians, the efficacy of using force to address that crime or the overall pattern of U.S.involvement in the Middle East.

The relatively measured criticism from top Democrats reflects a complex array of factors that have again put the party out of step with some grassroots members. In many cases, Democratic lawmakers simply agree with the need to punish Assad for using chemical weapons on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, even as they are uneasy about Trumps leadership, the legality of his actions or the consequences of a strike.

Carlos Barria / Reuters

That leaves Democrats in an interesting political position. For months they have taken every opportunity to lambaste Trump as a threat to the very fabric of the American republic. And from Trumps travel ban to the Obamacare replacement debacle, the strategy has largely paid off. Now, with Trump launching the first direct attacks on the Syrian government, Democrats are more ambivalent.

Larry Korb, a senior fellow at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress, said he was not surprised that Democrats were sympathetic to the idea of a retaliatory airstrike. Many Democrats subscribe to a responsibility to protect doctrine that swift force is justified to prevent major humanitarian catastrophes, according to Korb.

Democrats should be more concerned, Korb said, with the prospect of this leading to more significant U.S. intervention in Syria.

The real question is: What comes next? said Korb, who supported the Obama administrations decision not to heed calls to arm Syrian rebel groups more aggressively or remove Assad by force.

The fact that Democrats may have substantial reasons to embrace the idea of retaliating against Assad does not diminish the divide between many elected leaders and the ardent anti-interventionism of the partys base.

My expectations [of Democrats] were very low, and my expectations were met, said Phyllis Bennis, a foreign policy expert at the left-wing Institute for Policy Studies. Am I disappointed that we dont have an antiwar party? Yes, I am.

Bennis represents a wing of the peace camp that believes military force, whether legal or not, is justified only in very limited circumstances of self-defense. The last U.S. intervention she considers legitimate was World War II.

Bennis and other progressive critics argue that there should be a full international investigation of the use of chemical weapons to determine definitively whether Assad is responsible, which they admit is extremely likely.

Having a full investigation is not some sort of delaying tactic. It is essential to getting real accountability, said Stephen Miles, director of the progressive Win Without War coalition.

That view got a high-profile boost from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who urged caution in an interview with The Globe and Mail on Thursday. Trudeau called for a United Nations Security Council resolution that will enable the worldto determine first of all who was responsible for these attacks and how we will move forward.

Even if Assads guilt is established, punishing him militarily would not be an effective response, according to Miles of Win Without War. He supports removing the weapons from Syria, negotiating a diplomatic end to the war and trying alleged war criminals.

The ultimate accountability comes from international tribunals, Miles said. It is really gratifying to blow things up, but that doesnt make it accountability.

But Win Without War, Credo, MoveOn.org and Peace Action, which jointly condemned Trumps strike as a reckless act of war, have largely mirrored Democrats talking points about the strikes legality in their mobilization strategy.

A petition Credo is circulating that quickly picked up over 57,000 signatures calls on Democrats to rein in Donald Trumps unauthorized military strikes and hold immediate emergency deliberations on Trumps illegal escalation of military engagement in Syria.

Miles praised House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for demanding that Congress reconvene to debate a new authorization for use of military force and saved his criticism for Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who voiced unreserved agreement with Trumps decision.

Its not the first time we have seen Democrats in Congress who are way out of touch with where their base is, he said.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Democrats have often chafed under Republican claims that they are weak on national security. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, critics saw signs of this insecurity in the ease with which Democratic lawmakers lined up behind then-President George W. Bushs invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

But veteran Democratic foreign policy thinkers argue that Democrats ambivalence about President Trumps missile strikes against Assad have more to do with former President Barack Obama and his foreign policy legacy than the ghosts of the Bush presidency.

Obama famously warned the Syrian government that use of chemical weapons would cross a red line, forcing the United States to consider military action against Assads regime.

When the U.S. concluded in August 2013 that Assad had used chemical weapons against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, Obama announced plans to launch missile strikes against Syrian military targets.

After the British Parliament rejected a bid for the United Kingdom to participate in the strike, Obama decided to seek congressional approval for the move. It soon became clear that the strike faced bipartisan opposition, and the White House pulled the request.

Despite public opposition to the retaliatory strike, Obama endured a lot of criticism, including from members of his own party, for not honoring his red line ultimatum, undermining U.S. credibility.

The residue of the decision not to bomb in 2013 created an environment where the next time it happened a strike was going to be a foregone conclusion. Thered be no alternative, said Steven Simon, who was senior director of Middle Eastern and North African affairs on Obamas National Security Council in 2011 and 2012.

That leaves Democrats who want to avoid a replay of 2013 with limited grounds on which to criticize Trump, admitted Simon, now a history professor at Amherst College.

They have sort of squared the circle by applauding the use of force but registering concerns about lack of congressional consultation, Simon said.

Then there is the matter of deeper disagreement within the Democratic Party about Obamas broader policy toward Syria. Obama rejected the suggestions of many advisers, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to intervene more forcefully to protect Syrian civilians and speed up Assads ouster. Those disagreements were evident in Clintons campaign promise to create a no-fly zone in Syria, as well as her callsThursday for the U.S. to take out all of Assads airfields a more ambitious step than Trump ended up taking.

Clinton and other proponents of greater intervention in Syria argue that by declining to diminish Assad, the U.S. will never have the leverage needed to stop his atrocities and forge a diplomatic solution.

As a candidate, Trump ran against Clintons strategy, repeatedly insisting that Assad was preferable to the Syrian groups trying to overthrow him.

For Democrats hoping Trump would adopt a more Clintonian approach, it is tempting to view his strike on the Syrian airfield as the beginning of a recognition that Assad must face greater pressure, including the threat of force, to end the conflict.

But one such proponent of more robust action, Michael Breen, president of the center-left Truman Center and Truman National Security Project, warned against getting too optimistic.Breen is concerned about Trumps haste and apparent lack of strategy.

A lot of people wanted to see the U.S. get more involved in Syria and wanted to see a response to the regimes atrocities, but it is way too early to suddenly say Donald Trump is a different president than he was two days ago.

Ryan Grim and Mike McAuliff contributed reporting.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats Are Walking A Careful Line In Criticism Of Trump's Syria Strike - Huffington Post

April 7 at 8:08 PM

Mitch McConnell, a Republican, represents Kentucky in the Senate and is majority leader.

The day after Neil Gorsuchs nomination to the Supreme Court was announced, I wrote about his sterling credentials, record of independence and long history of bipartisan support and predicted they would matter little to hard-left special interests that invariably oppose the Supreme Court nominees of any Republican president. I asked Democrats to ignore those extreme voices and their attacks and join us instead in giving Gorsuch fair consideration and an up-or-down vote, as we did for the first-term Supreme Court nominees of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, Democrats made a different choice.

On Thursday, Democrats mounted the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in U.S. history; in other words, a partisan Democratic minority tried to block the bipartisan majority that supported Gorsuch from even voting on his nomination. It was a direct attack on the traditions of the Senate and yet another extreme escalation in Democrats decades-long drive to transform judicial confirmations from constructive debates over qualifications into raw ideological struggles.

Their success in tearing down Robert Bork in 1987 taught Democrats that any method was acceptable so long as it advanced their aim of securing power. In 2003, when President George W. Bush was nominating judges, Democrats pioneered the idea of using routine filibusters to stop them; in 2013, when Obama was nominating judges, Democrats invoked the nuclear option to prevent others from doing the same. It was a tacit admission that they should have respected the Senates long-standing tradition of up-or-down votes for judicial nominees in the first place.

But Democrats did leave themselves one notable loophole, allowing future Supreme Court nominees to be denied an up-or-down vote via a partisan filibuster. Its a tactic that Democrats had tried before most recently when they attempted, unsuccessfully, to sink Bushs nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006 and a tactic, by the way, that Senate Republicans have never employed.

So why did Democrats mount this unprecedented partisan filibuster? Because Gorsuch wasnt qualified? No, our colleagues agree hes well-qualified. Their objection was really that a president of a different party had nominated him and because hard-left groups like those I warned about back in February demanded it. Some Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), even mused openly about holding the seat vacant indefinitely. So it didnt really matter who the nominee was, it became clear that Democrats were determined to deny that person a vote.

This unprecedented attack on the traditions of the Senate, if allowed to succeed, would have resulted in a brazen new standard that the nominees of Democratic presidents would be allowed to proceed to up-or-down votes, but the nominees of Republican presidents would have to secure supermajority support to do so an obviously untenable situation.

I urged Democrats to reconsider. I regret that they could not be dissuaded from their latest and most audacious attack on the norms and traditions of the Senate. And while I regret the inevitable consequence of their decision, I welcome the opportunity to fully restore the Senate to its historic norms of up-or-down, majority votes for all nominations. That is how things operated before Democrats pioneered the idea of routinely filibustering judges 14years ago. Moreover, since this rules change does not touch the legislative filibuster something I will protect as long as I am majority leader what happened in the Senate Thursday will actually change little moving forward. Most bills will still require 60 votes to get through. Nominees will require 51votes to get through, as they did before.

Thats just what happened with the Gorsuch nomination. I was proud to take that vote. I think hes going to make a fantastic addition to the court. The Senate, of course, does a lot more than confirm Supreme Court justices. This is an important institution with an important role to play in the many issues well consider in the coming months. Each member, regardless of party, can have a critical role in that process if they choose to do so.

I ask Democrats to consider the significant things weve been able to achieve in recent years when we worked together. Democrats can continue listening to those on the left who call for blind resistance to anything and everything this president proposes, but we can get more done by working together. Perhaps this is the moment Democrats will begin again to listen to the many Americans the people who sent us here who want real solutions, so we can work together to help move our country forward.

Follow this link:
Sen. Mitch McConnell: Democrats reap what they have sown - Washington Post

Democrats in the state Assembly are watching what they say behind closed doors after discovering a mole in their ranks.

Theyve even dubbed him, or her, Cuomole.

The governor himself spilled the secret by sending a text to Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie asking, Why are you bad-mouthing me? during a private meeting Wednesday about the delayed state budget.

Since the meeting was still under way, Heastie and his colleagues suspected that Cuomo had an informant in the room.

Lawmakers quickly started floating possible suspects. One of them was Brooklyn Assemblyman Walter Mosley.

Im not the mole, Mosley told a reporter. Who said that? Id like to know who they are.

Manhattan Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh was also mentioned and denied the baseless smear.

One legislator said he is unnerved by the spy saga.

It has a sort of chilling effect on our ability to freely and confidentially discuss those issues and needs that are most important to us as a majority, said Assemblyman Matt Titone (D-SI).

Some legislators blamed the governor as much as the mole.

The governor ought to respect the separation of powers and the confidentiality of the meetings that take place between the members of the majority of party in one of the houses of the Legislature. Its really an embarrassment that he would participate in something like that, said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston).

Heastie on Friday dismissed spygate as irrelevant.

Read more:
'Cuomole' has state Democrats on edge - New York Post

New York Times

Democrats See Opening in Tax Overhaul Fight: Trump's Own Deductions New York Times A tax code overhaul gives Democrats the chance to again bring up Mr. Trump's refusal to release his tax returns and to press for details of how his business deals are financed. That focus could also affect which tax code items, such as interest ... and more »

Visit link:
Democrats See Opening in Tax Overhaul Fight: Trump's Own Deductions - New York Times

Special congressional elections are notoriously quirky and often hazardous to ruling parties. So with Donald Trump struggling in Washington, its hardly surprising that Republicans are nervous about four contests this spring, especially one this month in Atlantas suburbs.

The poster child for what could happen occurred in Mississippi in 1981, six months after Ronald Reagan became president, when the GOP sought to capitalize on his popularity to hold a vacated Republican seat.

Television ads posed the choice as between Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Thomas (Tip) ONeill, an outspoken liberal hardly popular in conservative Mississippi. But the district elected a Democrat, foretelling the partys successes in the 1982 mid-terms.

Such intimations of broader trends sometimes prove misleading eight months after a closely watched 2010 Democratic victory in Pennsylvania, Republicans regained the House. But with Trump far less popular than Reagan, Democrats are looking hopefully at the April 18 election to succeed Tom Price in Georgias 6th District, the first of the four seats vacated by Trump choices for top administration positions.

On the surface, the GOP should have little reason for concern, but changing demographics and Trumps unpopularity give Democrats a chance in Atlantas northern suburbs.

The Georgia district is similar to others with educated, upscale populations where 2016 Democrat Hillary Clinton either won or narrowly lost while voters re-elected GOP House members. Trumps 2016 plurality was far less than Mitt Romneys 23-point margin four years earlier.

So Democrats are pouring in funds, more than $3 million so far, while the GOP belatedly mounts a counter-attack. Early voting has been more Democratic than the district as a whole, suggesting the kind of enthusiasm gap that often determines such low turnout contests.

And though special-election polling is notoriously unreliable, a recent Opinion Savvy poll for Fox News also buoyed Democrats. It showed Jon Ossoff, a filmmaker and former congressional aide around whom Democrats have united, leading the 18-candidate field at 40 percent, within reach of the 50 percent that would avoid a June 20 runoff.

Avoiding a runoff is almost certainly Ossoffs best chance. Three Republicans had at least 10 percent, and the 11 Republicans totaled more than 50 percent. Ossoff led narrowly in a projected runoff with Republican Karen Handel, but one in six voters were undecided, most presumably backers of other GOP hopefuls.

An Ossoff victory would send shock waves through the GOP, but a Republican victory would merely confirm the GOP leanings of the district once represented by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The Democrats second-best chance is in Montana. Their candidate in the May 25 election, country musician and Bernie Sanders supporter Rob Quist, is running a populist campaign against Republican Greg Gianforte, a software entrepreneur who lost the 2016 governors race. Though generally Republican presidentially, Montana is a politically independent state that currently has a Democratic governor and one Democratic senator.

The other two districts look safely Republican.

One is Kansas 4th District, centered in Wichita. The Republican candidate, state Treasurer Ron Estes, is favored over Democrat James Thompson and Libertarian Chris Rockhold, in Tuesday's race to succeed Mike Pompeo, now director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Both Pompeo and Trump won the district with slightly more than 60 percent.

The other is South Carolinas 5th District, north of Columbia, where party primaries are May 2 and a general election June 20. Mick Mulvaney, now the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Trump won last November with 59 and 57 percent respectively.

There is a fifth special election, to fill the solidly Democratic Los Angeles-area seat vacated when Xavier Becerra became state attorney general. The Democratic nominee selected Tuesday will be heavily favored in the May 23 general election. Becerra carried the district with 77 percent, and Clinton with 83 percent.

Lately, Republicans have cast the Atlanta race as a choice between the agendas of conservative GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan and liberal House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

But that might be a dubious strategy, considering a far more popular Ronald Reagan couldnt carry a Mississippi district for the GOP.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News.

carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com

Read more:
Carl P. Leubsdorf: Democrats have shot in special elections - The Columbus Dispatch