Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Basu: King challenger Weaver says heat from fellow Democrats pushed her out of the race – DesMoinesRegister.com

Kim Weaver(Photo: Special to the Register)

Oh, how tempting it was to jump in and publicly ridicule and distance ones self from Kim Weaver. Plenty of observers did that after it was reported in April that the Democrat challenging the infamous Steve King in Iowas 4th congressional district had eight years ago done tarot card readings for pay.

She was accused onlineof exploiting defenseless people andwas urged to drop out of the race. Some people, calling her a liar and a shyster, asked herto take their names off her mailing list. Someone put King bumper stickers in her mailbox. And a For Sale sign mysteriously showed up infront of her house.

It got to the point where the extrovert didnt want to go to the grocery store and have to see people. Sheended up at the Sheldon hospital with gastritis. The doctor asked whether she had been under stress, and Weaver quipped, "Youre not from around here. (He wasnt.)

Andhere's the rub: She says 95 percent of the negativity came from Democrats. She even thinks a Democrat shared the information about her past with the press, she said in aninterview Monday.

I was surprised at how slanted it was, she said. All of a sudden, Im no longer a viable candidate.

Her second race against King had a promising start she raised more than $179,000 $144,000 more than Kingin the first three months of the year.

Maybe Im being idealistic, the 52-year-old Weaver wrotein Iowa Starting Line May 4, but I believe Iowans want to hear about issues that actually impact the lives of the people of this district. ... I want to expand access to education, not defund it. I want to strengthen Social Security, while Steve King wants to privatize it. I want to work towards Medicare-for-All and ensure that every Iowan has access to good and affordable healthcare; Steve King wants to 'rip it out by the roots...

But by June 3, she'dhad it. Referring tothreats and intimidation, among other things, she announced she was dropping out of the race.

Kim Weaver, Democratic candidate for Iowa's 4th Congressional District, tells Register reporters and editors about how her experience as an ombudsman has taught her to listen to all sides of an issue. The Register

What makes her especially indignantis, she said: Ive spent 20 years being an advocate. I risked my job to fight for seniors. But all that was forgottenbecause of some tarot card readings.

As someone who has visitedcard readers and astrologers, and has a friend who is one for some ofDes Moines' well-heeled,I wonder what all the fuss is about. It's fun, and there's no exploitation when you go in with eyes open. And yes, those doing it deserve compensation.

Raised in the Lutheran church,Weaver says she was always interested in spirituality and counted among her friends Wiccans, pagans and a Native American medicine man.Shedid online and phone readings for a couple of years, and hosted a podcast, charging $1.99 a minute and spendinghalf of thaton fees, she said.In recorded readings, she comes across as compassionate, even offering a womanwho feared her missing husband was deada free, in-depth reading off the air.

Yes, the 4th District is a conservative, conformist part of the state. But belief in the supernatural is hardly a freak event in areligious district. And isn't freedom of religion what everyone saysthey want?

People around the world have held office with far bigger scandals in their pasts:A Colorado state representative who boasted of performing an exorcism to make a lesbian straight; a former Toronto mayor elected to the City Council despite a crack cocaine addiction; a former porn star who served five years in Italys Parliament.

At worst, Weaver was naive not to have anticipated the responses. But she wasnt planning on running for office back in 2009. And thats the other thing.We want real people as representatives, not just those born into politics or privilege. Weaver has also been a single mother, suffered from postpartum depression and lost 130 pounds through gastric bypass surgery. Now, she says she's faced with the possible loss of her job at the state Long-Term Care Ombudsmansoffice.Sheworries, like countless other Americans, how shed afford her $1,200 health insurance premiums.

Currently on leave, she says her supervisor told her the agency's budget was being cut 12 percent as punishment for her candidacy. Thesupervisor has denied that. ButWeaver showed me a May 15 e-mail she says she wrotein response, saying howbad she felt ever since you told me it was my fault that the budget was cut the way it was. She saysthe boss never replied or denied it.

Kim Weaver, a Democrat running to unseat Iowa's longtime congressman from northwestern Iowa, charged up to $3.99 per minute for psychic readings and advised callers on romance, finances and careers. Wochit

She has found support from unexpected places. Hillary Clinton called with words of encouragement after she dropped out.Afew friends and co-workers have been stalwarts, especiallyClaire Celsi, a West Des Moines Democrat who challenged Republican Rep. Peter Cownie for his West Des Moines seat last year andmade a point of promoting other female Democraticcandidates.

But for the most part, other Democrats who should have stood up for Weaver andpushed back againstthose ridiculing herdid not. Instead of highlighting all she has done for real people compared with the bluster from King that passesfor action, they just chickened out.

Rekha Basuis an opinion columnist for The Des Moines Register. Contact:rbasu@dmreg.comFollow her on Twitter @RekhaBasu and atFacebook.com/ColumnistRekha. Her book, "Finding Her Voice:A collection of Des Moines Register columns about women's struggles and triumphs in the Midwest," is available at ShopDMRegister.com/FindingHerVoice

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2spHbgx

Read the original here:
Basu: King challenger Weaver says heat from fellow Democrats pushed her out of the race - DesMoinesRegister.com

Can Democrats Fix the Party? – RollingStone.com

Illustration by Victor Juhasz

The Obama years sparked a Washington renaissance, transforming the District of Columbia from a jumble of wealth and blight into a gilded capital, one frankly worthy of heartland resentment. Glassy condos rise from a once-derelict warehouse district now called "NoMa." On gentrified 14th Street, brasseries like Le Diplomate cater to the city's elite. Anything that isn't under construction is gleaming including the Capitol dome, fresh from a $60 million face-lift.

But at the dawn of the Trump age, one complex just south of Capitol Hill stands out. It looks like it missed the Obama boom entirely, which is hard to fathom because it's the headquarters of the Democratic Party home to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as well as the Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). The sprawling three-story concrete-and-glass structure is wedged between an elevated railroad track and the Capitol Power Plant. Exterior paint that may once have aspired to adobe has faded to an indistinct pink, recalling lox. Streaks of rust mar the walls. Someone has tried to spruce up the joint, on the cheap, tacking up a floor-to-ceiling poster in a third-floor window of the party's post-donkey logo, a blue-circled "D."

Our republic is in crisis. And the party leaders who run this complex will play an outsize role in determining how the American experiment survives the Donald Trump presidency and a Republican Party that has abandoned patriotism for power. Paradoxically, after eight years of the most successful Democratic presidency in generations, the Democratic Party finds itself not only powerless in Washington, but with a party infrastructure as battered as the building that houses it. As Tom Perez, the intense new chair of the DNC, tells me from his top-floor office: "This is a turnaround job."

The Democratic Party is in the worst shape of its modern history. The presidency of Barack Obama papered over the fact that the party was being hollowed out from below. Over Obama's two terms, Democrats ceded 13 governorships to the GOP and stumbled from controlling six in 10 state legislatures to now barely one in three. Across federal and state government, Democrats have lost close to 1,000 seats. There are only six states where Democrats control both the legislature and the governor's mansion.

More troubling: Even amid the great upwelling of anti-Trump resistance, Democratic favorability ratings have continued to tumble since Election Day to just 40 percent in a May Gallup poll. "Our negatives are almost as high as Trump's, as far as party goes," says Rep. Tim Ryan, a rugged Ohio Democrat serving Youngstown. Ryan led an unsuccessful 63-vote insurgency against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in November because, he says, "We weren't winning."

There is no official accounting for this erosion of power and popularity. Unlike the GOP in the aftermath of Mitt Romney's 2012 defeat, Democrats have not published post-mortems. But get party insiders talking with anonymity exchanged for candor and there's little debate about how the party went sideways.

Responsibility rests foremost at the feet of former President Barack Obama. As a candidate, Obama sidestepped the party's next-in-line culture, riding into the White House on the strength of a then-revolutionary digital-and-grassroots machinery of his own creation. "Obama was almost like the anti-Democrat," a former DNC chair tells Rolling Stone. "The president didn't care about the Democratic Party."

Once in office, Obama had the weight of the world to bear. He staved off financial collapse and secured health insurance for an estimated 20 million Americans, leveraging the party's infrastructure for these fights. "When you're at the head of the DNC and you have the White House," says Sen. Tim Kaine, who chaired the party from 2009 to 2011, "a lot of the job is about promoting the president's agenda." But Obama and his team neglected a far less heroic duty: the care and feeding of the national party, which Democrats had rebuilt during the Bush years with a "50-state strategy" that had empowered Obama with dominant Democratic majorities in Congress.

The GOP took full advantage of the president's disregard for party politics. The Tea Party vaulted Republicans to control of the U.S. House and statehouses across the country in 2010 putting the party in the driver's seat for the once-a-decade redrawing of legislative boundaries known as redistricting. The White House mounted no resistance. "The Obama team, David Axelrod, had no organized structural redistricting [game plan]," says a longtime Democratic strategist. "The Republicans just ran up the fucking score everywhere. They got two or three extra congressional seats in state after state after state, creating lasting struggles to get back to a majority." Case in point: Democratic House candidates netted 1.3 million more votes than Republicans in 2012, but secured 33 fewer seats.

The 50-state strategy devolved under Obama into a presidential-battleground strategy, leaving state parties starved for cash and leadership. "Obama didn't put resources into local parties unless it was for his re-election effort," says the former party chair. Making matters worse: Obama tapped ambitious Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz a favorite of White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett to run the DNC in 2011. "That congresswoman had no idea what she was doing," adds the former chair.

Wasserman Schultz went rogue. In a rift with the White House that spilled into a story on Politico, she was criticized for using the DNC as a vehicle for self-promotion, hoping the office would serve as a springboard into House leadership. The White House made overtures to oust Wasserman Schultz, but she dug in, promising an ugly fight that could tar the president as both anti-woman and anti-Semitic. (Wasserman Schultz, who was forced to resign in the aftermath of the Russian hack of the DNC, declined to participate in this story.)

Obama dodged that fight, and instead fostered Organizing for Action, the grassroots group born of his campaigns. "They had a mirror organization that did just their politics, and it weakened the DNC," says a source in House leadership. "It directed money elsewhere and was not in the interest of the long-term stability [of the party]. It was a selfish strategy."

The hobbled DNC's chief remaining value was as a fundraising vehicle. For Obama, it "was like his ATM and Clinton was the same," says the former chair. Clinton pioneered a strategy that allowed her largest donors to give $10,000 to each of 32 state parties participating in her Victory Fund. But that money didn't stay in the states. Instead, nearly every penny was hoovered up to the DNC for the benefit of Clinton's election.

Clinton today says she found the DNC to be a liability. In an onstage interview at a Recode tech conference in May, Clinton recalled, "I get the nomination....I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. It was bankrupt....I had to inject money into it the DNC to keep it going." Clinton then raised eyebrows by indicting the DNC's data, which the party had inherited from the Obama re-election campaign. "Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong," Clinton said. (The DNC's former data chief hit back, tweeting that Clinton's broadside was "fucking bullshit," but declined to be interviewed.)

Under Obama, the party infrastructure was honed to elect a president. And being a presidential party is a powerful thing until you lose the White House. The Clinton campaign lost significantly on its own merits, though the party is loath to admit it. The same candidate who was caught flat-footed by the rise of Obama in 2008 found herself stunned by the grassroots surge behind Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And she was really surprised by how strong Trump was and part of it was she just sucked," says the Democratic strategist, who criticizes Clinton despite being entrenched in her center-left, pro-trade wing of the party. "At a really fundamental level we gotta get people to acknowledge what a fucking piece of shit her campaign was, because Donald Trump should not have won this election." The strategist adds, "Yes, Comey happened. And yes, the Russians happened. But she had more money than God, and they spent all of it trashing him and not actually rebutting his ideological agenda." By transforming the election into a referendum on character, Team Clinton let Trump off the hook as the frontman for the extremist GOP platform. "The country's waking up shocked to what he's doing because Hillary didn't actually explain to anybody what he was going to do when he became president," the strategist says. "We focused on him groping people and not on him saying he was going to end our alliance with Europe or he was going to strip health care. It was an amazing failure of our politics to make our case."

For national Democrats, the loss of the White House was compounded by a weak showing in House races. Clinton's 3-million-vote popular victory moot for the Electoral College should have paid dividends in swing districts. But the electoral machinery of the DCCC had its own troubles. Hampered by poor recruiting, the Democrats lost in 23 districts that Clinton won, including seven in California alone. The party netted just six seats to remain in a two-dozen-seat deficit to Paul Ryan and the House GOP.

The DCCC's woes were separate from the DNC's. The committee has functioned as the political machine of Nancy Pelosi, leader of House Democrats since 2003, who is the DCCC's prodigious chief fundraiser and has hand-picked its chairman. On Pelosi's watch, the committee has caught flak from allies for being slow to adapt to the digital and demographic revolutions in politics, creating a disconnect with the emerging electorate. "We weren't focused on how to communicate with younger people who are online and not watching TV," says Rep. Tim Ryan. A consultant now working with the DCCC says the party also lacked an effective Hispanic-vote strategy. "We were not really talking to a big chunk of the people we need to get to vote for us," he says. The result is that House Democrats are beginning the 2018 cycle in a deeper hole than necessary. "We should not be 24 seats down."

The weight of reviving the Democratic Party in the Trump era rests on the trim shoulders of 55-year-old Tom Perez. The new chair of the DNC has a runner's build, working-class teeth and a feisty disposition. Perez favors dark suits and baggy white dress shirts, with no tie. His corner office is Spartan save for a cluster of photographs near his desk. A late-Nineties picture with Ted Kennedy, whom Perez worked for as special counsel, is inscribed by the late Massachusetts senator: "To Tom, with thanks for your skillful help...in advancing the cause of equal justice under law."

Facing off against Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison in the race for chair, Perez was tarred by many as an avatar of the party establishment. But that's hard to square with Perez's biography. Raised in Buffalo, the fourth child of Dominican immigrants, Perez worked his way through Brown University with blue-collar jobs including collecting garbage. Earning both a law degree and master's in public policy from Harvard, Perez spent much of his career as an attorney at the Justice Department, and in the early Obama years served as assistant attorney general for civil rights. From that post, Perez blocked a discriminatory voter-ID law in Texas, sued Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio over racist policing in Arizona and oversaw the first convictions under an expanded federal hate crimes act passed in 2009. His record drew the ire of then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who decried Perez's "fundamentally political approach to the law."

Perez gained a national profile as President Obama's labor secretary; he fought for adoption of the "fiduciary rule," requiring financial advisers to work in the interests of mom-and-pop investors, not to line their own pockets with commissions. (This rule's implementation has been delayed by President Trump, who is seeking to overturn it.) Perez's record is not as a party insider but rather as a public servant who has stuck his neck out to protect vulnerable Americans. "I'm quite proud of the battles that I've picked with Wall Street," he says.

Perez is not a natural politician. He speaks with a taut seriousness that can lead to moments of abruptness. On an eight-city "unity tour" with Sanders, Perez accused Trump of not giving "a shit" about people and decried the president's "shitty" budget. The peppering of profanity rang false like a dad trying to "hang" with his teenager's friends.

But Perez earns unvarnished praise from his former rival Ellison a natural communicator whom Perez tapped as his deputy chair. "He's an awesome human being. No bullshit," the congressman tells me. "He's smart, incredibly earnest and serious. He's good in terms of organizational management, and he's relentless."

Perez brings years of experience wrangling federal bureaucracies to his new job, and seems to relish the task of rebuilding the DNC: "I come to this enterprise with immense optimism." The "turnaround job" Perez envisions has two components. One is structural. "We have redefined our mission," he says. "We are no longer just here to elect the president, but to elect Democrats up and down the ticket." The other is message restoring trust in a "wounded brand."

On the structural front, Perez has already taken control he's cleaned house from the Wasserman Schultz era and brought on board a new CEO, Jess O'Connell, the former head of the pro-choice fundraising powerhouse EMILY's List. Perez tells me he's seeking to double the DNC's budget from $50 million to $100 million, with the aim of building "state parties that can actually thrive."

The marker of success, Ellison tells me, is that people entering Democratic politics at the community level will know they've got a powerful ally in Washington. "If the people on the ground the city council members, the aldermen are not feeling like we're backing them up," Ellison warns, "then we're failing."

Perez envisions the DNC as a mainframe distributing technology, cash and expertise to state and local parties. "We're in the infrastructure business," Perez says cheerfully. "You can't run successful campaigns over time if you're not organizing, if you don't have a voter-protection operation, if you don't have a robust voter file, if you don't have a training operation. All of those basic building blocks for success are what we're trying to do here."

Even before Clinton's attack at Recode, Perez had made beefing up the DNC's "digital architecture" a top priority. Despite the wealth of voter data it inherited from the pioneering Obama campaigns, the DNC is now playing catch-up to the Republican National Committee. In the wake of Romney's loss in 2012, then-RNC chair Reince Priebus invested tens of millions of dollars to centralize Republican data and analytics. The RNC developed powerful digital-targeting tools and made them available to anyone running for Republican office, from a city council candidate in Oklahoma City to the presidential nominee. First deployed in the 2014 midterms, the RNC's data system was primed and ready for Trump when he secured the 2016 nomination and outperformed the data operation of the Clinton campaign. An RNC digital officer bragged to me, shortly after the election, that Democrats "are back at square one, and we've got a product already built and tested through two major elections."

In our interview, Perez touted a tech advisory committee he's convened with "the best and brightest minds" including Obama's chief digital strategist, Joe Rospars to build "a platform that's going to enable us to engage voters in ways that we've never done before."

On the messaging front, Perez sees Trump's mounting betrayals of working-class Americans as an opportunity to reassert what Democrats stand for. "We allowed Donald Trump to hijack the basic narrative of the Democratic Party," he says, "which is that we've always fought for the underdog to make sure that they have a good job, that pays a middle-class wage, that provides health care and housing and retirement security for their family." Perez is trying to build a big tent around a fractured party, encouraging Democrats to look to the beliefs they share and Trump threatens. "If our values were not aligned," he says, "then we'd have big trouble. But whether it's climate, whether it's wage inequality, whether it's immigration, all of the abiding issues of our time, there's a real alignment." While some Democrats may "want to tweak the Affordable Care Act" and others "want a Medicare-for-all model," he says, "those are discussions wherein the value proposition is the same: Health care is a right for all and not a privilege for a few."

For average Americans, the first glimpse of the DNC's rebuilding effort will come through a $1 million organizing project called Resistance Summer, which launched in June. Ellison explains the concept in an interview off the House floor. Representing Minneapolis, and the first Muslim member of Congress, Ellison is best understood as the DNC's chief grassroots officer. The 53-year-old is the kind of politician who amplifies the energy in a room. He has been barnstorming the country, lavishing attention on Democrats in red states. "I went to Boise, Idaho. They packed out the joint. In Boise!" he says. "They packed out the joint in Indianapolis. They're fired up. They believe Indiana is a blue state if we can get everybody out to vote."

Resistance Summer will put Democratic Party boots on the ground at the rallies, marches and parades of the anti-Trump movement. Making common cause with protesters and a new universe of grassroots political organizations is part of the culture shift Perez and Ellison are driving at the DNC. "We're getting local Democratic Party units out of the campaign office and into the street," Ellison says. "When you open your ballot on Election Day, you're not going to have Indivisible or Swing Left or Our Revolution on your ballot. You're going to have to vote Democrat. We can't show up late to the party."

By beginning in 2017 an off-election year Ellison hopes Democrats can engage in real dialogue, both listening to the concerns of voters and making the party's pitch that "we can change this problem by winning elections," he says. "'Do you like being able to get health care when you have a pre-existing condition? If you do, we're here to help.'"

Republicans in Congress have given Democrats just the icebreaker they need to talk to voters, Perez tells me with the Obamacare repeal vote. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the GOP bill would raise premiums by 20 percent in the first year and deprive 23 million people of health insurance over a decade. "They want to get a tax break of $600 billion to rich people by making it harder for you to access health care," Perez says. "We have to take that story to people. We're going to be talking about this in local mayors' races. We're going to be talking about this in governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey. We're going to be talking about this when we take over the Congress next year."

Except in daydreams of an anti-Trump tsunami, the congressional takeover plotted by Democrats for 2018 does not include the Senate. The map is so deeply disadvantageous with Democrats seeking re-election in red states like West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri and Montana that defense is the name of the game. "Here in the Senate we're looking to hold the blue line," says Maryland's Chris Van Hollen, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Van Hollen adds that there are a few "pickup opportunities"; Jeff Flake in Arizona, Dean Heller in Nevada and, at the outside, Ted Cruz in Texas could have tough races on their hands.

The linchpin of the Democratic Party's anti-Trump efforts for 2018 is capturing the House. The man crafting the strategy is the chair of the DCCC, Ben Ray Lujn, a fifth-term representative from New Mexico whose district includes Santa Fe. Lujn is a compact man with a Reaganesque haircut. Like Perez, Lujn is the first Latino to hold his committee chair. In public appearances, the 45-year-old plays up his working-class roots "My dad was an ironworker, my mom worked for the local public schools" but this elides a deep political legacy. Lujn's father, Ben, was a lion of New Mexico state politics, serving 11 years as speaker.

Though his sharp grooming wouldn't put him out of place on K Street, Lujn has a lilt to his speech and a folksy demeanor. He gets riled up when asked whether Democrats are ceding the heartland. Rural outreach, Lujn insists, "is important to me; it's also personal. I represent a district that's 47,000 square miles. It takes eight and a half hours to drive across it. In some of the small towns, the town halls are at the local saloon. After the meeting, people talk over a beer."

This is Lujn's second stint as chair of the DCCC a post to which he was appointed in 2015 by Pelosi and won re-election for, unopposed, this cycle. I first encounter Lujn at a press conference at party headquarters, where he announces an expansion of Democratic targets on the 2018 electoral map adding 20 additional Republican districts, bringing the total to 79. The increase has less to do with individual races than a national mood that's turning against the GOP putting almost any district where Trump won by five points or fewer into play. "With Donald Trump's favorability in the 30s, Paul Ryan's in the 20s, we need to push in," Lujn says. "The DCCC is preparing for battle."

The air of confidence and optimism around the DCCC is a sea change from the weeks after Election Day when rank-and-file anger about 2016 House results spilled over into a minor mutiny against Pelosi's leadership. Members were frustrated with a political machine that failed to break the GOP's stranglehold on Congress for a third consecutive cycle. Seth Moulton, a 38-year-old Massachusetts representative, says that he and others pressed the committee to "come to terms with the fact that we've been losing elections. To stop patting themselves on the back and say, 'What do we need to change to start winning again?'"

Member anger wasn't targeted at Lujn who enjoys broad support, even among DCCC critics but rather at staff, pollsters and consultants. "Ben Ray has been doing a good job of trying to figure out a new way to do it," says Rep. Tim Ryan. Adroitly, Lujn did not fight calls for change, but saw an opportunity to put his own stamp on the committee, both with the support of, and autonomy from, Pelosi. "He's a very dynamic person, and he wants to do things that work," says Pelosi's deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill. "She's involved. She meets with Lujn frequently for updates and strategy. She's involved in fundraising. But she's not running the building. He is."

In one key early change, Lujn deployed field staff to districts high on the DCCC's target list. "We were able to get a field team put together in 20 Republican-held districts starting in February," he tells me. When Democratic nominees eventually step forward in these races, they'll plug into an organizing structure that's already been running in these districts for months.

The DCCC can be an oddly opaque institution. The committee did commission a 2016 post-mortem, but its 28 recommendations are treated like state secrets. The one DCCC official I can persuade to break the code of silence is Rep. Ted Lieu a 48-year-old Air Force Reserves colonel who now serves in Henry Waxman's old seat in Santa Monica. Lieu is a Taiwanese immigrant in his second term. He has shined among drab Democrats for his willingness to spar with Trump on Twitter. In person, Lieu is sober and thoughtful, with the gravitas you'd expect of a governor. (Jon Soltz, the chairman of VoteVets, which helps elect veterans, describes Lieu in two words: "Unlimited. Ceiling.")

"The Democratic Caucus was not happy with the performance of the DCCC the last term," Lieu says plainly. "So we made a series of reforms. We made the chair of the DCCC elected; we created five vice chairs all elected to provide additional guidance, diversity of views, more fresh faces. We also are doing a deep dive on our pollsters and our consultants. Those who don't meet the standards will be fired."

As one of the five new vice chairs, Lieu is responsible for the Western region. "There is a systematic change to decentralize the decision-making so it's not all from Washington, D.C.," he says. For starters, the DCCC is opening a dedicated West Coast "pod" in Irvine, California, with a staff of 10 that will oversee the fight for the nine districts the DCCC is targeting in the state.

One of the reasons Democrats fared poorly in 2016, Lieu says, was a weak class of candidates. In too many districts, he says, "not only did we not have a good Tier I candidate, we didn't have a good Tier II candidate. That's not going to happen this year. We have the opposite problem."

"We're raining candidates!" says the DCCC's head of recruiting, Rep. Denny Heck of Olympia, Washington. "It's unprecedented." Heck points to Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who ran unopposed in 2016 in a district that Clinton carried. "We have 21 candidates who are interested," Heck says. "It's like, 'Where were you people the last four years?' I was out there beating my head against the wall trying to get people to run."

Ultimately, the Democrats can't control whether 2018 becomes a wave election. The upshot for the party is that their rebuilding efforts don't need to be perfect. The DCCC can fall short on some of its 28 reforms. The DNC's reinvention can still be a work in progress. "If Democrats retake the House," says David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, "it won't be because they suddenly devised some brilliant campaign strategy. It will be a voter backlash against Trump. The vast majority of seats are subject to the political crosswinds of national politics."

Still, for the Democrats to win back the House, the party will need to both harness the energy of its base and reach to the center. "What will put them over the top is if they start winning over huge shares of independent voters," says Wasserman. "The last few times the House flipped, independent voters voted for the out party by about 18 points."

Most encouraging to Democrats today is that the anti-Trump backlash is already producing a windfall of young veteran candidates men and women in the mold of Tammy Duckworth, a former Army helicopter pilot whose Senate victory was one of the few bright spots for Democrats last November. "We've got about three dozen candidates who are veterans," says Lieu. Moulton, who served four tours in Iraq, says he's pleased to see the DCCC embrace veteran candidates. "The Democratic Party has realized that some of these thoughtful public servants who serve the country are exactly the kind of folks that independents are looking for in these swing districts."

To get a flavor of the class of 2018, I interviewed three veterans who weren't recruited by the party but have tapped themselves to run for office. They're all earnest, disciplined and formidable. And while they're all proud Democrats, their partisanship takes a back seat to patriotism. Josh Butner is a former Navy SEAL commander challenging Rep. Duncan Hunter in a California district east of San Diego. Hunter represents one of the most conservative districts in the state but is also under criminal investigation for allegedly misusing campaign funds. Jason Crow, running in a swing district in Colorado that Clinton won easily, is a former Army Ranger who addressed the 2012 Democratic National Convention for Obama, saluting the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He's running against Rep. Mike Coffman, who promised to stand up to Trump but has emerged as a rubber stamp.

And then there's Mikie Sherrill, a mother of four and former federal prosecutor who flew helicopters for the Navy after graduating from Annapolis. (Sherrill also holds a law degree from Georgetown and a global-history master's from the London School of Economics.) As charismatic as she is smart, Sherrill is running for a New Jersey seat held by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, a hoary 22-year incumbent who refuses to hold town-hall meetings and barked at constituents questioning his support of Trumpcare to "back off." Frelinghuysen even complained to one of his donors, a board member at the company where a participant in the resistance was employed, that "one of the ringleaders works in your bank!"

Sherrill is aghast that Frelinghuysen won't talk to his constituents, which she considers "Job One." But she's also running because she feels that America's institutions are "being attacked from within." When I ask Sherrill at the end of our interview if she has any closing thoughts, she sounds less like a rookie candidate and more like she could be the next secretary of state.

"I'm very concerned," Sherrill says. "This country is at its best when it leads from courage and optimism. This administration has been leading through fear and intimidation. It's making us smaller than we should be, and it's decreasing our role globally. The world looks to us to lead. And I'm afraid if we don't live up to the task we've held for the last 50 years, we're not gonna like what comes next."

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

Read the original:
Can Democrats Fix the Party? - RollingStone.com

At First Full Meeting, Trump Claims Historic Success and Cabinet Rushes to Pay Him Tribute – NBCNews.com

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump blamed "obstructionist" Democrats for slowing his agenda Monday, even as he lauded his success as historic an assessment many of his Cabinet members lined up, one by one, to endorse.

Meeting at the White House with his entire Cabinet for the first time, Trump used his opening remarks to blame Democrats for delaying the meeting, saying they'd held up key appointments in the Senate to score political points.

"They are obstructionists, and that's sad. But we are coming up with something that I believe will be very, very good with zero support from the obstructionists," he said.

(Senate rules require only 51 votes to confirm presidential appointees, so the Republican majority has enough votes to approve Trump's picks on its own. Democrats can do little more than delay the process.)

Trump went on to boast that he had already accomplished more than most other presidents in U.S. history.

"Never has there been a president with few exceptions, in the case of FDR, he had a major Depression to handle who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than what we've done," Trump said. "I think we've been about as active as you can possibly be at a just about record-setting pace."

Trump added that he was following through on his campaign promises "at a much faster pace than anyone thought," citing executive orders, the rollback of government regulations and 34 bills passed by Congress.

Many Cabinet members rushed to agree.

As Trump went around the large table, one by one, most praised the president, while others gave brief updates on their departments' work.

When it was his turn, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said it was "an honor to be on team," telling Trump that "my hat is off to you" for pulling the United States out of Paris climate agreement.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley proclaimed "a new day at the U.N.," where she said Trump has provided "a very strong voice."

"People know what the United States is for," Haley said. "They know what we're against. They see us leading across the board."

And the tributes kept coming:

Chief of Staff Reince Priebus went even further, telling Trump: "We thank you for opportunity and blessing you've given us to serve your agenda and the American people."

As for Vice President Mike Pence, working under Trump has been "the greatest privilege of my life," he said.

It was all too much for Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who tweeted a "staff meeting" parodying the White House flattery festival.

Meanwhile, almost all of the legislation signed by Trump has been inconsequential; many of those measures include naming people to positions and designating buildings.

Congressional Republicans have increasingly voiced concern about the slow pace of legislative accomplishments on health care, tax reform, and other issues. As for nominations, the real bottleneck in the process, Democrats and others say, is at the White House, which has yet to appointment nominees to fill many vacant positions in the government.

Alex Seitz-Wald reported from Washington. Alex Johnson reported from Los Angeles.

More here:
At First Full Meeting, Trump Claims Historic Success and Cabinet Rushes to Pay Him Tribute - NBCNews.com

Four members of Mueller’s team have donated to Democrats – The Hill

Four members of special counsel Robert Mueller's team on the Russia probe have donated to Democratic presidential campaigns and organizations, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Michael Dreeben, who serves as the Justice Departments deputy solicitor general, is working on a part-time basis for Mueller,The Washington Postreported Friday.

Dreebendonated$1,000 dollars to Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonThe Memo: Trump allies turn fire on Mueller Feehery: Checks and balances Likely W.Va. Senate GOP rivals spar in radio appearances MOREs Senate political action committee (PAC), Friends of Hillary, while she ran for public office in New York. Dreeben did so while he served as the deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department.

The political affiliations of Mueller's team have been spotlighted by former House SpeakerNewt Gingrich(R-Ga.) an ally of Trump.

After initially hailing Mueller's appointment as special counsel, Gingrich questioned for former FBI director's abilityto be impartial on Monday because of "who he is hiring."

Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he is hiring.check fec reports. Time to rethink.

Two other members of Mueller's team also have donated to Democrats.

Andrew Weissmann, who serves in a top post within the Justice Departments fraud practice, is the most senior lawyer on the special counsel team,Bloomberg reported.He served as the FBIs general counsel and the assistant director to Mueller when the special counsel was FBI director.

Before he worked at the FBI or Justice Department, Weissman worked at the law firmJenner & BlockLLP, during which hedonated six timesto political action committees for Obama in 2008 for a total of $4,700.

James Quarles, who served as an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, has donated to over a dozen Democratic PACs since the late 1980s. He was also identified by the Washington Post as a member of Mueller's team.

Starting in 1987, Quarles donated to Democratic candidate Michael Dukakiss presidential PAC,Dukakis for President. Since then, he has also contributed in 1999 to Sen. Al GoreAl GoreFour members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats OPINION: Don't repeat the mistakes of Clinton and 1998 with Trump Overnight Energy: Coalition bucks Trump, commits to Paris climate goals MOREs run for the presidency, then-Sen. John KerryJohn KerryFour members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats Kerry: New Iran sanctions may be dangerous Trump reignites debate over travel ban MOREs (D-Mass.) presidential bid in 2005, Obamas presidential PAC in 2008 and 2012, and Clintons presidential pac Hillary for America in 2016.

He also donated to two Republicans, Rep. Jason ChaffetzJason ChaffetzFour members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats Rep. Trey Gowdy wins Oversight gavel Sessions rejects request to testify before Oversight on Fast and Furious MORE (R-Utah) in 2015 andSen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2005.

Several of the figures on Mueller's team are well known and respected for their work at the Department of Justice.

Dreeben has reportedly received bipartisan praise for his handling of the departments criminal appellate cases, the Post reported.

Weissmann is well-known for his work in the investigation on Volkswagen cheating on their diesel emissions tests, which they pleaded guilty to earlier this year.

Mueller, who formerly served as FBI director, was first appointed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2001.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel last month.

Read the rest here:
Four members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats - The Hill

Are Democrats really that divided? Here’s what’s going on. – The … – Washington Post (blog)

As Democrats look at a White House in disarray, a president with approval ratings in the 30s and the very real prospect of taking back the House in 2018, one political mission rises above all others: Dont screw this up.

But can a divided party focus enough to achieve what will still be a difficult goal? And can it avoid falling into the same kinds of conflicts that embroiled the Republicans when Barack Obama was president?

We in the media have a bias that leads us to notice signs of intra-party division, because that means conflict, and conflict is the foundation of all drama. Not only that, there are some people for whom intra-party conflict is an organizing force, something they actively seek out. And they tend to be the ones who are loudest about expressing their views. David Weigel reports from the Peoples Summit conference in Chicago, where Bernie Sanders was cheered and videos of Hillary Clinton were presented so that the crowd could boo:

Nearly a year after effectively conceding the Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders was the star of this years Peoples Summit, which has quickly become the countrys largest progressive political conference. At least 4,000 people trekked to Chicago for a weekend of teach-ins, panels and dance parties. In a Saturday-night speech, Sanders planned to tell activists to charge ahead because ideas that, just a few years ago, seemed radical and unattainable, are now part of Main Street discussion.

But as Sanders used his star power to unite activists behind the Democrats, some debated whether the Democratic Party could ever be fixed to their liking. Faced with unified Republican control of Washington, progressives were less interested in simple unity than in a purity that they believed could win.

The New York Times called this a widening breach in their party. But Im not so sure. Theres no question that there are many left activists out there whose goal is to upend the Democratic Party. They believe that the party is hopelessly corrupt and that supporting its candidates is next to useless in achieving progressive goals. That makes them similar in some ways to the tea party activists who emerged after Obama was elected. The difference, however, is that the tea party essentially took over the entire GOP. And there is almost no chance that the left activists will do the same to the Democratic Party.

Former labor secretary Thomas Perez narrowly defeated Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) for chair of the Democratic National Committee following a contentious battle over the fate of their party. Ellison called on his supporters to rally behind the new chairman. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)

Why? Because there is no reason to believe that most Democrats are itching for that kind of upheaval. And theres an interesting contrast with what began in 2009. There was no real substantive difference on policy between the tea party and the establishment GOP; they both wanted tax cuts, an attack on the safety net, the gutting of environmental regulations, the destruction of reproductive rights, and so on. The differences were about attitude and tactics. They argued about questions such as: How far should we go to achieve our shared goal of destroying the Affordable Care Act? Is it a good idea to shut down the government? How about defaulting on the debt?

But the differences between left activists and establishment Democrats are mostly about substance and arent really that large. Should we have single-payer health care or some kind of Affordable Care Act-plus? How high should the minimum wage be? Should we make college free for everyone? Those questions become tactical when you pose them as What should Democrats advocate for in elections? but at heart theyre about policy. And that actually serves to make the arguments less vituperative than they might otherwise be, when no one is advocating a kamikaze mission to plunge the global economy into chaos.

Now lets be honest: For some people, fighting against the power is about not only substance but also identity. Its the thing that gives their work purpose, so an alliance with more centrist elements is by definition a betrayal. Id include Sanders in that group, despite his occasional efforts to help mainstream Democrats get elected. Its why he refuses to become a Democrat himself. Sanders doesnt know how to work from the inside and doesnt want to; hes been an outsider for his entire career, and he isnt going to change now.

Which is fine. You can argue that he and other left activists are succeeding, in that the Democratic Party of today is noticeably more progressive than it was just a few years ago. A $15-an-hour minimum wage has become the consensus position for Democrats, as have paid family leave and more government involvement in health care. Dont be surprised to see multiple contenders for the 2020 presidential nomination embrace marijuana legalization and single-payer.

The Democratic electorate the audience both forces are trying to persuade is perfectly open to more moves to the left on substance, but its also pragmatic in a way that makes outright revolution against the party a tough sell. For instance, right now, Democrats, even extremely liberal ones, want to win. The liberal blog Daily Kos has raised just short of a staggering $2 million for Georgia House candidate Jon Ossoff, whos nobodys idea of a fire-breathing liberal.

Or note this: Even in the Trump era, many Democrats realize that compromise is sometimes unavoidable. Even now, faced with the most horrifying president any Democrat can remember, the partys voters are split about down the middle (see here or here) when polls ask whether their leaders should try to work with Donald Trump or resist him on everything. Thats far more openness to compromise than Republican voters ever showed when Obama was president.

We havent had a real practical test of the power of the anti-establishment left, and one has to acknowledge that before the tea party took down people like Eric Cantor in primary elections, no one thought it was possible. But are rank-and-file Democrats filled with rage at their partys leadership? Theres very little evidence that they are. And if they arent, they wont want to burn their party down. Theyll just want to get as many Democrats elected as possible.

The rest is here:
Are Democrats really that divided? Here's what's going on. - The ... - Washington Post (blog)