Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats were decimated at nearly every level of government over the past six years. Republicans control the House and may well do so for the foreseeable future; the party is looking at a very favorable Senate map in 2018. Democrats control just 31 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country and have a measly 16 governorships.

The oppositions glimmer of hope: Democrats have 22 state attorneys generalenough to gum up the works for President Donald Trump's agenda when congressional Democrats can't.

And these AGs aren't humble about this point.

New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman told CNN, "There's a sense of urgency and a real sense that we are now the guardians of the rule of law in the United States." New Mexico attorney general Hector Balderas told the New York Times, "It does seem that we are becoming, potentially, the fourth branch of government."

That fourth branch is responsible for Trump's chief policy setback so far. Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson sued to stop the president's executive order restricting travel from seven Middle Eastern countries. Washington state, later joined in the suit by Minnesota, won a temporary restraining order against the administration, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit.

Other Democratic attorneys general haven't wanted to be left out: Many signed a statement condemning the executive order shortly after Trump issued it, denouncing the order as "unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful." A total of 18 attorneys general joined in an amicus brief supporting Washington state.

Extreme vetting will hardly be the only target of litigation. A group of Democratic AGs, led by Connecticut's George Jepsen, has already filed a motion to protect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency with wide-ranging powers created under the Dodd-Frank law, which Trump wants to roll back. The AGs want the courts to defend the bureau, even though a district court last fall found the structure of the CFPB to be unconstitutional.

The Democratic AGs have a lot on their plate. They've stated their plans to challenge a reversal of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and other Environmental Protection Agency rules; to protect sanctuary cities; to push back against potential voter integrity measures from the Justice Department; and to protect funding for Planned Parenthood and contraception.

Virginia's attorney general, Mark Herring, is pushing for more power to prosecute hate crimes because he doesn't think Trump's Justice Department will.

Such state challenges to federal authority might almost make one think Democrats have discovered federalism. Republican AGs such as Greg Abbott, Scott Pruitt, Pam Bondi, and Ken Cuccinelli became stars challenging the Obama administration on Obamacare, immigration, and environmental rules (as chronicled in these pages by Fred Barnes, "The Last Redoubt," July 22, 2013). So why is it any different when Democrats do it?

"Conservative attorneys general have had some success at this, but progressives have a broader agenda," says Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice and a senior legal fellow with FreedomWorks. "Conservatives will use state litigation to fight government action. The left has always used litigation as another means of legislation."

Still, the Republican AGs who hounded the Obama administration were following the Democrats' lead. It was a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who sued to force President George W. Bush's EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. It resulted in a 5-4 ruling that gave states wide latitude for bringing lawsuits. And of course, well before that was the pioneering model for activist attorneys general: the tobacco wars of the 1990s, in which states sued to force tobacco firms to pay for Medicaid costs attributed to smoking.

But don't expect a repeat of the successful tobacco litigation, says Peggy Little, a constitutional litigation attorney in Connecticut: "So many states cite the tobacco model, but there is a much more even spread with Republican and Democratic attorneys general," she says. "With tobacco, you had 46 states. It's not the same today."

Democrats aren't expecting any Republicans to join their litigation, which has an air of election fundraising about it. The Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), for example, is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. After the Washington state victory, DAGA posted on its Facebook page: "Tonight is a win for The Constitution, for the idea that no man is above the law. Democratic AGs will lead that fight. Chip in and stand with them."

When it comes to sparring with Trump, New York's Eric Schneiderman may have the most experience. He brought the civil fraud suit against Trump University (which, after the election, Trump settled for $25 million without admitting guilt). New York provides expansive powers to its attorney general over the state's businesses and financial institutions. Schneiderman may use those expansive powers to turn over every rock of the Trump corporate empire based in New York state, making himself a de facto special prosecutor.

But is this sort of national activism what states have attorneys general for? No, says Hans Bader, senior attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute: "There is always an incentive to sue because that's what they do. The traditional role of state attorneys general was supposed to be to defend and advise state agencies, not being roving inquisitors."

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for the Daily Signal and author of Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.

Follow this link:
The Democrats' Last Hope - The Weekly Standard

President Donald Trump.

Average attendance at a Lexington Democratic Town Committee meeting used to be about 25 people. Now, its more than tripled.

Nearly 100 people filled the room when Arlington Democrats gathered to elect delegates to this years state convention the highest turnout in more than a decade.

Advertisement

Even in Rehoboth, a Republican hamlet near the Rhode Island border, a sea of new faces filled the room when Democrats caucused just over a week ago a surprise for the local party chairman, who thought he knew just about every Democratic activist in town.

People are coming out of the woodwork, said Raymond Olivier, chairman of what he calls Rehoboths little town committee. (There are about 40 people in its database.) Its kind of an exciting time.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

The wave of political dissent sweeping the country has surged through the ground floor of the Democratic Party as scores of people try to find ways to push back against the policies of President Trump.

The possibility of arrest could keep undocumented workers from speaking out about unsafe conditions, advocates say.

This is a great shot in the arm for the Democratic Party. There is significantly more activism and organizing and passion, said Gus Bickford, chairman of the state party. All of the meetings I attend, I hear from people that its twice or three times as many people than normally show.

But here in Massachusetts, as nationally, the party is struggling with the next step what to do with the newly energized base of activists. Party leaders are trying to figure out how to harness the energy of various progressive factions without isolating those newcomers who balk at partisan politics. Nationally, Democrats are grappling with issues of organization and identity as party members meet this weekend in Atlanta to vote on a new chairperson.

Advertisement

In Massachusetts, Democrats are in the initial stages of picking the people who will decide the partys platform. Bickford said this years Democratic state convention is on track to be one of the largest off-year conventions in history. If the surge continues, it could have an effect on the ballot in 2018 when Democrats will try to oust Republican Governor Charlie Baker.

The job now for the committee is to keep in contact with all of those people and try to find things that people can do that are meaningful, said Margaret E. Coppe, chairwoman of the Lexington Democratic Town Committee. Thats our challenge.

Some have compared this left-leaning surge to the conservative Tea Party movement, which pushed the GOP to the ideological right during former president Barack Obamas time in office.

The question is, do all these protests send the Democrats more to the left and make them more responsive? Thats what Republicans did with the Tea Party, said Erin OBrien, chairwoman of the political science department at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

In the Republicans case, the Tea Party mounted challengers to incumbents, and also generally moved the GOP to the right.

State Republicans, for their part, say theyve also seen a surge in activism.

Since Election Day, weve had over 4,000 new individuals sign up to get involved with the party, and hundreds of people express an interest in running for office, said Terry MacCormack, a spokesman for the state GOP.

Bickford said whats happening now is vastly different than the Tea Party movement. This, he said, is more of a gut reaction to the things said and done by the president. It transcends partisan politics, which is why the party is treading carefully for fear of isolating unenrolled voters if opportunities to become politically active appear too partisan, he said.

It doesnt have to be our brand, Bickford said. This is much more about the future of this country, and also the safety of this country.

Working with nonpartisan organizations, such as labor unions, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP, allows everyone to be motivated against what is clearly wrong, he said. We have a president that lies. It should be all parties standing up and saying thats unacceptable.

Once people arrive at a protest, rally, or organizing workshop, Bickford said, party activists try to draw them in by collecting their contact information and engaging them about issues supported by the Democratic Party.

Thats how South Shore Action came to be, said Ellen Whalen, chairwoman of the Hingham Democratic Town Committee and one of the groups founders.

It started organically just after the election, she said. The town committee was supposed to meet for its holiday party in December, but that didnt seem appropriate given the election results, so friends and neighbors gathered to vent and talk. There wasnt an agenda beyond that, Whalen said.

About 40 people showed up, and she said the issues that came up ranged from womens rights to nuclear Armageddon.

They decided to meet again and keep the group nonpartisan so that people who had never before been involved in party politics could feel comfortable joining them.

Partisanship wasnt a requirement, she said.

The next meeting, 50 people showed. The two after that: 85.

Now, theyve broken into working groups based on areas of interest and invited Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, to speak. A crowd of 300 showed, Whalen said, adding that the group sends out a weekly newsletter to some 400 people.

Outside of the Democrat Party, there are people finding each other and then coming into the Democrat Party from these groups, she said.

Aimee Coolidge has been a member of the Arlington Democratic Town Committee, which she now heads, since 2000, and said shes only seen caucus attendance at these levels once, 15 years ago, when there were five gubernatorial candidates on the primary ballot. When the party caucused on Feb. 11 for the convention in June, 100 people showed.

Usually, you just show up at the caucus and there are less people than slots, but this year it was competitive, she said. Thats very unusual for an off-year.

Lexington Democrats havent caucused yet, but they have held monthly meetings and watched attendance skyrocket.

Before the election, we might have 25 to 30 people show up to a meeting, Coppe said. The last one we had, there was 80 [people] and the one before that was maybe 50.

The challenge, she said, will be keeping people engaged, although shes not too worried.

As long as the White House keeps doing the things theyre doing, well have plenty of material, she said.

Read more here:
Democrats are seeing a surge in local activism. Now what do they do with it? - The Boston Globe

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose President Trump's proposed crackdown on immigrants and refugees.

For one thing, there's little evidence that migrants from the Middle Eastern countries the administration would like to ban pose an elevated risk to the United States. For another, "illegal immigration to the U.S. ended a decade ago," according to economist Noah Smith (relying on data from the Pew Research Center), and it "has been zero or negative since its peak in 2007." Then there's the fact that rounding up and deporting the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants who continue to live in the country would require police-state tactics that may well be more pernicious than allowing those people to stay.

These are pragmatic arguments, and the evidence speaks against Trump's proposals. But what if the pragmatic calculus changed?

What if the U.S. began to suffer deadly attacks perpetrated by terrorists who originated from Muslim-majority countries? What if the number of unauthorized immigrants in the country started to rise sharply (as it did over the two decades prior to 2007)? Or what if a plurality of Americans wanted to drastically curtail rates of legal immigration, or restrict who gets in on the basis of national origin or skill-level?

Judging from the sweeping moral arguments being marshaled against the Trump administration, many left-leaning critics of the president would oppose policy adjustments in such circumstances as well.

Many liberals argue that refugees are among the most vulnerable people on Earth and so must be welcomed with open arms. That forcing undocumented immigrants to leave the country is gratuitously cruel, violates their rights, and so justifies municipalities flouting federal law by turning themselves into "sanctuary cities." That banning entry to refugees or immigrants not yet within the United States can violate their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. And that the desire to restrict immigration is invariably an expression of xenophobia, racism, and other forms of irrational animus and so morally (and perhaps constitutionally) indefensible.

All of these claims are, at bottom, expressions of a fundamentally anti-political humanitarian ideology that is unlikely to fare well in the next presidential election. Democrats desperately need to confront the vulnerabilities of this position and stake out a more defensible and pragmatic one if they hope to push back against Trump's populist-nationalist message in upcoming years.

Many Americans believe that their constitution presumes or appeals to certain timeless, universal moral truths that apply to all human beings. But the U.S. Constitution itself like the constitutions, fundamental laws, and commonly affirmed norms and rules of all political communities is nonetheless instantiated in a particular place, rooted in a particular tradition. It also pertains and applies only to people who are members of the political community known as the United States of America.

Those who are members of this community are known as American citizens. They get a say in what laws get passed and how they get enforced. Those who are not members of this community who are not citizens don't get such a say. The community is perfectly within its rights to decide which and how many of these outsiders will be allowed to visit the country, how long they will be allowed to stay, when they will need to go, and how many, if any, will be permitted to join the community permanently by becoming citizens.

This is one of the most elemental acts of politics: the community deciding who to admit and on what terms. To treat this act as somehow morally illegitimate is to treat politics as such as morally illegitimate.

Note that nothing I've said tells us anything about how many immigrants or refugees the political community of the United States should welcome at any given moment of history, or what criteria should be used to make this determination. I generally favor liberal immigration policies; many Trump voters take a very different view. The point, as Josh Barro recently argued in an important column, is that the policy debate needs to be made in terms of the good of the political community as a whole and in its parts, not in terms of abstract, extra-political moral duties owned to prospective newcomers. A political community exists in large part to benefit itself to advance the common good of its citizens. There's nothing shameful in that. It's to a considerable extent what politics is.

All of Trump's claims about immigration are made in terms of the good of the country as a whole or in part: Immigrants from the Muslim Middle East threaten the U.S. with terrorism; undocumented Latin American immigrants commit crimes, steal American jobs, and depress working-class wages. The Democratic response needs to be made in equal and opposite terms. In some cases, this is easy: There have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. perpetrated by immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority countries Trump included in his original executive order; undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than American citizens; and so forth.

Things get more complicated when it comes to jobs and wages and there a fruitful debate about the relative advantages and disadvantages of low- vs. high-skilled immigration for various socioeconomic groups and regions needs to take place.

Most challenging of all is fostering a mutually respectful civic conversation about the relative benefits and harms of allowing high rates of immigration from specific regions, cultures, and religions not in terms of crime or terrorism, jobs or wages, but in terms of intentionally shaping the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic character of the nation. Explicitly or implicitly affirming humanitarian universalism, many on the left deny the moral legitimacy of having any such conversation at all, since those on the opposing side must be guilty of xenophobia and racism.

But citizens of a political community are allowed to have and express opinions about such issues as whether, for example, the country has admitted a disproportionate number of immigrants from Mexico in recent decades, and to craft policies in response to those opinions. Refusing to engage in the debate and denouncing those on the restrictionist side won't keep it from happening. It will merely ensure that those of us who favor a more cosmopolitan vision of American citizenship and patriotism lose out on the opportunity to make our case.

President Trump has jumpstarted an important and rancorous debate about immigration that is likely to drag on for several years. Democrats are vitally important participants in that debate. But they will be more likely to shape its outcome if they make their case on the merits instead of denying the legitimacy of having the debate in the first place.

Read the rest here:
Democrats are in denial on immigration - The Week Magazine

Hundreds of protesters from a progressive group taking cues from a Tea Party playbook gathered at congressional offices across Illinois Thursday encouraging elected officials to push harder against President Donald Trump and Republicans.

"The Trump agenda and the GOP agenda is so appalling. We feel the majority of American believe that it is time for us to wake up and fight back," said Jeff Radue, a Beverly resident and local organizer for Indivisible.

Groups and groups across the country have been founded to organize around the Indivisible Guide, a manual drafted by former Democratic staffers that borrows heavily from Tea Party tactics.

Local Indivisible groups, including ones made up of people from the Illinois 1st and 3rd Congressional districts, rallied and called for action from Democratic congressmen to oppose Trump and adopt more progressive stances on issues.

Radue, who heads the 1st District group, called for Rep. Bobby Rush to step down due to long absences from Washington. He said it was their top concern with the longtime 1st Congressional District congressman.

Rush has made it publicly known since 2014 that he has been caring for his wife, Carolyn, and has spent much of his time in his Chicago congressional offices to be closer to her.

"We do respect Congressman Rush, his history and his service. And we also respect his need to take care of his family," said Radue, who heads the Indivisible Illinois 1st group. But if Rush "is incapable of being present due to family health concerns, he should step down and work with the community to find a qualified replacement."

Rush, who did not mention the group's top concern in an interview Thursday morning, said he supported Indivisible "on the issues, most of the issues, 90 percent of them."

"As a lifelong organizer, I appreciate them and I respect them and, frankly, I'm inspired by them," Rush said.

The congressman's office has sent letters to the Trump administration and welcomes a potential sit down, especially to address comments the president has made about ongoing violence and the suggestion of sending troops to Chicago, Rush said.

"Get off your rump, Trump, and come to Chicago," he said Thursday.

About 150 protesters converged on Rush's office. Many taped form letters bearing their name to the office's windows.

About 50 people gathered on the sidewalk Thursday afternoon on Archer Avenue outside Rep. Dan Lipinski's office. Members of Indivisible met with the conservative Democratic congressman from Illinois 3rd District on Tuesday. He spent Thursday in Lockport and was not scheduled to be present for the rally.

Several protesters said they were concerned with Lipinski's views on social issues, in particular his voting record on women's issues.

"He doesn't promote any of the social issues that affect the civil rights of people," said Jim Longino, another local organizer for Indivisible.

"We were united in the fact that we want him to stand up and represent us. And if he does that, we will back him. But if he does not, we will be holding him accountable," Longino said.

While Lipinski has a conservative record, most of what the congressman supports is in line with what the members have stated they want, said Jerry Hurckes, Lipinski's chief of staff.

Lipinski didn't vote the for the Affordable Care Act, which some members of the grassroots groups are concerned that Republicans will repeal, Hurckes said.

But Hurckes said Lipinski has opposed every vote by Republican to repeal the act. He expressed doubts that congressional Republicans will march forward with a repeal based on the "the yelling and screaming they have heard over the last several weeks."

Nick Swedberg is a freelance reporter for the Daily Southtown.

The rest is here:
Hundreds of protesters urge Bobby Rush, other Illinois Democrats to fight harder against Trump - Chicago Tribune

Here's a headline currently running in the New York Times:

I don't have any beef with this. The Democratic base is demanding total war on Trump, and Democratic politicians have mostly gotten on board. What I do wonder, though, is whether the Times ever used language like this during the first couple of months of the Obama administration? Maybe they did, but via Google, here's a walk down memory lane as reported by the Times in early 2009:

Obama woos and visits and holds receptions and reaches out and sets a new tone. Republicans are "resistant," they skip briefings, they vote unanimously against budgets, and unanimously against the stimulus bill. But there's no war in those headlines.

Later, of course, we learned that there was a war. Before Obama was even inaugurated, Republicans met and agreed to form a united front that unanimously blocked every Obama initiative, sight unseen. The fact that the country was mired in the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression didn't matter. Their only goal was to prevent Obama from having any legislative successes.

The smoking guns that uncovered this strategy didn't come until later, but anyone reporting from Capitol Hill surely knew what was happening almost immediately. Republicans publicly spurned Obama's attempts to compromise. They voted against the stimulus bill unanimously in the House and nearly unanimously in the Senate. They launched the era of the routine filibuster on everything. They embraced the tea party within a month of Obama taking office.

In other words, it was all pretty obvious. And yet, coverage at the time tended to refer vaguely to a "breakdown in bipartisanship." Perhaps Democrats were pushing too hard? Maybe they were unwilling to compromise? Surely Republicans were sincere about their opposition to increasing the deficit?

So why the difference this time? Democratic activists have been pretty vocal about what they want, but then again, by this time in 2009 the tea party had already gotten its start. They were pretty vocal too.

My guess: as always, Republicans are given a pass for their ultra-conservative views, which might be a little crazy, but are still presumed to be deeply rooted and genuine. Democrats, conversely, are generally thought craven if they "give in" to their base. Democrats tend to be a bit wonkier and more policy driven than Republicans, and as a result reporters generally don't believe that they're truly passionate about their principles. The very fact that they're more willing to compromise proves this. So when they oppose Trump, they've "conceded" to their base; they're "mimicking" the Republican strategy; they're "quietly worried" that their base expects too much; they "still hope for compromise"; and "protesters are leading the politicians." In other words, it's pretty calculated, not at all like those Republicans with their deeply ingrained family values and distrust of government.

Blecch. Can you tell I'm annoyed?

Here is the original post:
Democrats at War? Let's Compare and Contrast 2009 and 2017. - Mother Jones