Mediaboss Marketing

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

Now that the judicial filibuster in the U.S. Senate has been nuked, its time to look at the political fallout going forward. And for Democrats, the news is all bad. Here are three reasons why Democrats just made a dumb mistake by filibustering Neil Gorsuch.

The argument for years as to why Republicans needed stealth Supreme Court candidates like David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts (who have all gone on to be disappointments to varying degrees) was the filibuster.

Since it only requires a simple majority now, the GOP can freely confirm real heirs to Antonin Scalia. Where this could be a real benefit is throughout the federal circuit and district courts, which need an overhaul after decades of stockpiling progressives.

Theres literally no tradeoff here for Democrats, because we all know Republicans werent gonna have the stones to partisan filibuster in the future anyway. The GOP is the party that actually nominates for president the people who support and vote for the Democrats most progressive judicial nominees after all (see John McCain).

So this isnt a case of what goes around comes around that benefits Democrats in the future; this is being too smart by half, and negotiating against yourself. In other words, this is a case of Democrats tactically acting like Republicans for once. They needlessly cornered the GOP into a position that forced them to actually draw a line in the sand, which isnt exactly the GOPs thing. (They aint called the surrender caucus for nothing.)

By doing so, Democrats helped set a precedent that will only benefit Republicans from here. For they gave Republicans leverage they never wouldve asserted on their own, while at the same time Democrats gave away leverage theyve had all along.

Even if you think the Stand with Rand and Make DC Listen filibusters by Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, respectively, were publicity stunts doomed to fail, at the very least both of those events inspired the GOP grassroots and elevated the national profiles of two of the partys emerging stars.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the Gorsuch filibuster didnt even do that. For example, the lackluster attempt by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., at filibustering this week didnt generate nearly the attention Paul and Cruzs did, even from a more-than-sympathetic media.

At the very least, if youre going to contrive political theater, have someone who excites your base and could be your future standard-bearer as the face of it. Instead, Democrats came out of a fake fight without any real stars to rally behind. A missed opportunity, especially with the country already seeming to start to tire of President Trump.

In short, the Democrats Gorsuch filibuster accomplished more for Republicans than it did for Democrats, because it accomplished nothing for the latter. If this is what the resistance looks like, its going to have to try a lot harder.

Steve Deace is broadcast nationally each weeknight on CRTV. He is the author of the book A Nefarious Plot.

Read the original post:
3 reasons Democrats just made a dumb mistake - Conservative Review