Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Because Democrats Need a Refresher Course on How to Be Effective – Observer

When I was a Congressional staffer for a Democratic House member in the early years of the George W. Bush administration, a colleague said something that has stuck with me for the last decade and a half: The Democrats have not learned how to be a minority party.

At the time, my reaction was something along the lines of Good, I hope we never do. After four decades of controlling the House without interruption, Democrats at that point had only been in the minority for seven or eight years, and the margin was close enough to entertain notions of winning back the chamber in the next midterm election. I saw my colleagues observation as an expression of surrender, an unacceptable resignation to defeat before the next battle had even been fought.

Only in recent weeks did Iand perhaps Congressional Democrats as wellfully understand what my colleague meant. Learning how to be effective in the minority is not an acceptance of defeat, but rather the first step toward regaining the majority. And Democrats, by refusing to work with Republicans on their deeply flawed health insurance proposal, demonstrated that they are finally learning that lesson.

The president, after his fractured House caucus was unable to even bring his signature healthcare bill to the floor for a vote, blamed the embarrassing loss on the Democrats refusal to provide any support to the effort. Not a single vote! he complained.

One can be forgiven for rolling ones eyes at this unseemly whine after eight years of unflinching, united Republican opposition to President Barack Obamas agenda. And even putting aside the political payback angle, it also shouldnt have been impossible to anticipate Democratic refusal to lend any support to an effort to dismantle the health insurance plan they and their ideological forebears fought for 60years to get.

But I suppose one also can forgive the Republicans for their surprise that the Democrats finally figured out that playing along in the hopes of being thrown an occasional bone was ineffective. By refusing, as Napoleon once advised, to bail out their opponents when those foes were in the process of defeating themselves, Democrats demonstrated political acumen, unity and backbone that they often lacked during the George W. Bush administration, when they repeatedly allowed themselves to get played, bullied and rolled by the GOP.

I remember how, in those days, Democrats argued among themselves about whether to oppose each new piece of Republican legislation, or to work with Republicans in the hopes of improving an end result that they ultimately didnt have enough votes to block. There were always enough Democrats willing to roll over, and in the end, the Republicans got virtually everything they wanteduntil Bush went too far and suggested a partial privatization of Social Security, a pill that not even every Republican was willing to swallow. A key example was Democratic cooperation with Republicans on the No Child Left Behind Act, which some educators saw as a means of discrediting public schools by setting standards that were ultimately impossible to meet. Too often, the few concessions the Democrats received in return for cooperating were negligible, and the gambit was also a political loser for Team Blue: the party never got any credit from Republicans or independents for their cooperation, and their base was unhappy with the concessions.

But by remaining united, the Democrats put the onus of passing this legislation entirely on the Republicans, whose warring factions were not able to unite behind a mutually acceptable solution. The far-right Freedom Caucus felt that leaving any part of Obamacare in place was unacceptable, and the rest of the Republican caucus, beset by angry constituents at town halls, feared a midterm backlash against making any further cuts. In the end, the Republican leadership could not cobble together a plan that would produce a majority vote. By letting the Republicans fail, rather than trying to cut a deal, Democrats allowed their opponents to deal themselves a massive and embarrassing defeat. (They also kept Obamacare in place, at least for now. Who would have expected that result?)

Democrats have long prided themselves on being the party that makes government work, and there is often an inherent discomfort on the left with the notion of gumming up the works. Many Democrats view this as a tactic more befitting a party that regards government not as a problem solver but as the problem itself. But blocking legislation is better than cooperating to win minor concessions to a bad bill.

As one of the 20th centurys most noted Republicans, Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, reportedly said, The duty of the opposition party is to oppose. If the Democratic Party wants to return to the majority sooner rather than later, it needs to continue embracing its inner obstructionist and place itself squarely in opposition to Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and the entire Republican agenda. Democrats must offer a clear choice, not a muddled message. This is the way to distinguish themselves and to unify and motivate their base, which is no less divided than the quarreling Republicans.

Cliston Brown is a communications executive and political analyst in the San Francisco Bay Area who previously served as director of communications to a longtime Democratic Representative in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter (@ClistonBrown)and visit his website atClistonBrown.com.

See the article here:
Because Democrats Need a Refresher Course on How to Be Effective - Observer

Schumer seizes on offer to Democrats – The Daily Times

TAKING HIS NEXT STEPS President Donald Trump announces the approval of a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline in the Oval Office Friday. Trump, on Sunday, attacked conservative lawmakers for the failure of the Republican bill to replace Barack Obamas health care law as his aides pledged to court moderate Democrats on upcoming initiatives from health care to tax cuts -- Associated Press

WASHINGTON President Donald Trumps aides opened the door to working with moderate Democrats on health care and other issues while Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer quickly offered to find common ground with Trump for repairing former President Barack Obamas health care law.

Schumer said Sunday that Trump must be willing to drop attempts to repeal his predecessors signature achievement, warning that Trump was destined to lose again on other parts of his agenda if he remained beholden to conservative Republicans.

Trump initially focused the blame for the failure on Democrats and predicted a dire future for the current law. But on Sunday he turned his criticism toward conservative lawmakers for the failure of the Republican bill, complaining on Twitter: Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare!

The Freedom Caucus is a hard-right group of more than 30 GOP House members who were largely responsible for blocking the bill to undo the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The bill was pulled from the House floor Friday in a humiliating political defeat for the president, having lacked support from conservative Republicans, some moderate Republicans and Democrats.

In additional fallout from the jarring setback, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, said he was leaving the caucus. Poe tweeted Friday that some lawmakers wouldve voted against the 10 Commandments.

We must come together to find solutions to move this country forward, Poe said Sunday in a written statement. Saying no is easy, leading is hard but that is what we were elected to do.

On Sunday, Trump aides made clear that the president could seek support from moderate Democrats on upcoming legislative battles ranging from the budget and tax cuts to health care, leaving open the possibility he could revisit health care legislation. Whether he would work to repair Obamas law was a big question.

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus scolded conservative Republicans, explaining that Trump had felt disappointed with a number of people he thought were loyal to him that werent.

Its time for the party to start governing, Priebus said. I think its time for our folks to come together, and I also think its time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board as well.

As he ponders his next steps, Trump faces decisions on whether to back administrative changes to fix Obamas health care law or undermine it as prices for insurance plans rise in many markets. Over the weekend, the president tweeted a promise of achieving a great healthcare plan because Obamacare will explode.

Priebus did not answer directly regarding Trumps choice, saying that fixes to the health law will have to come legislatively and he wants to ensure people dont get left behind.

I dont think the president is closing the door on anything, he said.

Schumer, a New York Democrat, suggested that if he changes, he could have a different presidency.

But hes going to have to tell the Freedom Caucus and the hard-right special wealthy interests who are dominating his presidency he cant work with them, and well certainly look at his proposals, Schumer said.

Their comments came after another day of finger-pointing among Republicans, both subtle and otherwise. On Saturday, Trump urged Americans in a tweet to watch Judge Jeanine Pirros program on Fox News that night. She led her show by calling for House Speaker Paul Ryan to resign, blaming him for the defeat of the bill in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Priebus described the two events as coincidental, insisting that Trump was helping out a friend by plugging her show and no preplanning occurred.

He doesnt blame Paul Ryan, Priebus said. In fact, he thought Paul Ryan worked really hard. He enjoys his relationship with Paul Ryan, thinks that Paul Ryan is a great speaker of the House.

Priebus said Trump was looking ahead for now at debate over the budget and a tax plan, which he said would include a border adjustment tax and middle-class tax cuts.

Its more or less a warning shot that we are willing to talk to anyone. We always have been, he said. I think more so now than ever, its time for both parties to come together and get to real reforms in this country.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the Freedom Caucus, acknowledged he was doing a lot of self-critiquing after the health care defeat. He insisted the GOP overhaul effort was not over and that he regretted not spending more time with moderate Republicans and Democrats to find some consensus.

Priebus spoke on Fox News Sunday, and Schumer and Meadows appeared on ABCs This Week.

STEUBENVILLE Special honors for special people will be a big part of the Ohio Valley Health Centers ...

WELLSBURG The Wellsburg water-sewer board on Thursday discussed the next step in its ongoing effort to separate ...

WHEELING The next run for racing greyhounds in West Virginia could be to Florida another state that has dog ...

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump is set to announce a new White House office run by his son-in-law that will ...

The Republican Party of no for Democrat Barack Obamas eight years is having a hard time getting to ...

More:
Schumer seizes on offer to Democrats - The Daily Times

Democrats, Buoyed by GOP Health Defeat, See No Need to Offer Hand – New York Times


New York Times
Democrats, Buoyed by GOP Health Defeat, See No Need to Offer Hand
New York Times
WASHINGTON President Trump, looking for a flicker of hope after his Republican majority fell to pieces last week, predicted that the opposition party would eventually give in: I honestly believe the Democrats will come to us and say let's get ...
Democrats determined for 2018 | Government and Politics | qctimes ...Quad City Times
Oregon Democrats call for party unity in wake of TrumpEast Oregonian (subscription)
After Trumpcare Failure, Democrats Have a Small Window to Change Perception of Healthcare in AmericaThe Daily Banter

all 50 news articles »

Read this article:
Democrats, Buoyed by GOP Health Defeat, See No Need to Offer Hand - New York Times

White House looks past conservatives on tax reform – to Democrats – Reuters

WASHINGTON Fresh off a defeat on U.S. healthcare legislation, the White House warned rebellious conservative lawmakers that they should get behind President Donald Trump's agenda or he may bypass them on future legislative fights, including tax reform.

The threat by White House chief of staff Reince Priebus to build a broad coalition on tax reform that could include moderate Democrats came as the Republican head of the tax-writing committee in the House of Representatives said he hoped to move a tax bill through his panel this spring.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady said his committee had been working on tax reform in parallel with the failed healthcare reform push.

"We've never stopped working," Brady told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo." "We will continue to make improvements."

Brady said the committee planned to move on the bill in the spring. He said he wanted the House blueprint to be the basis for Trump's tax reform plan rather than have competing versions from Treasury and the White House.

Investors on Wall Street worry the healthcare bill's defeat bodes poorly for tax reform. Equities have rallied since Trump's election partly on expectations of tax cuts. Economic growth would be more modest without fiscal stimulus and U.S. equity index futures fell to a six-week low on Sunday.

Both Trump and Priebus have scolded hardline conservatives who rejected legislation backed by the White House to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Priebus held out the possibility of working with moderate Democrats as well as Republicans to pass other aspects of Trump's agenda, such as his proposed budget, the revamp of the tax code and a renewed effort at healthcare reform.

"If we can come up with a bill that accomplishes the goals of the president with Republicans alone, we'll take it and we'll move forward with it," Priebus said.

But he added: "I think it's more or less a warning shot that we're willing to talk to anyone. We always have been and I think more so now than ever."

In an embarrassment for Trump, who had campaigned for the White House on what he said were his skills as a dealmaker, the healthcare bill was pulled from the floor of the House of Representatives on Friday because it failed to draw enough support from within Trump's Republican Party.

Objections from members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and from moderate Republicans left leaders short of the votes needed for passage, with Democrats unified in opposition.

Trump failed to win over the Freedom Caucus lawmakers despite courting them intensively. Outside conservative groups such as the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America that are closely aligned with the Freedom Caucus had strongly opposed the Republican healthcare bill and urged lawmakers to reject it.

In a tweet on Sunday morning, Trump lashed out at both the Freedom Caucus and the conservative groups, saying their actions had left "Democrats smiling in D.C."

Priebus said it was a "real shame" that conservative lawmakers decided not to get behind the healthcare bill.

"And I think the president is disappointed in the number of people he thought were loyal to him that weren't," he said.

MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT

Trump has put tax reform at the top of his legislative agenda now that the healthcare bill has failed.

Priebus said Trump was not backing off his view that the tax reform bill needed a border tax. He also said that the measure would include a middle-class tax cut that he said might help to attract votes from moderate Democrats.

In a sign that not everyone in the Freedom Caucus was in line with its approach and a positive signal for Trump as he looked ahead to tax reform, U.S. Representative Ted Poe, a Texas Republican, said he had resigned from the group.

"In order to deliver on the conservative agenda we have promised the American people for eight years, we must come together to find solutions to move this country forward," Poe said in a brief statement. "Saying no is easy, leading is hard."

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump over his handling of the healthcare bill and said Republicans would face roadblocks from conservatives on other issues.

"They're going to repeat the same mistake they made on Trumpcare with tax reform," Schumer told ABC's "This Week."

He urged Trump to go a different path: Reject the Freedom Caucus and work with Democrats.

"If he changes, he could have a different presidency," Schumer said. "He's going to have to tell them he can't work with them and we'll certainly look at his proposals. But it's going to be guided on our values."

Republican Representative Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said on Sunday he was optimistic on tax reform and that his group could support a plan that is not revenue neutral.

"So, tax reform and lowering taxes, you know, will create and generate more income," he said. "And so we're looking at those, where the fine balance is. But does it have to be fully offset? My personal response is 'no.'"

Another Freedom Caucus congressman, Jim Jordan, rejected fingerpointing over the collapse of the health bill.

"Instead of doing the blame game, let's get to work," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

(Additional reporting by Jessica Toonkel and Jennifer Ablan in New York; Writing by Caren Bohan; Editing by Andrew Hay and Peter Cooney)

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday will announce that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will oversee a broad effort to overhaul the federal government, a White House official confirmed.

U.S. stocks slid on Monday amid concerns that Republican President Donald Trump may struggle to push a sweeping overhaul of the tax code through Congress in the wake of his party's failure last week to pass broad healthcare legislation.

Go here to see the original:
White House looks past conservatives on tax reform - to Democrats - Reuters

The Best Option for Democrats on Gorsuch – Bloomberg

Charles Schumer, the leader of the Senate minority, has said that he will ask Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. In response to that request, the Senate Democrats have four options. Each of them has considerable appeal, but each also runs into significant objections.

1: Return to normal order. At least since the unsuccessful nomination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, Supreme Court nominations have been highly politicized and occasionally ugly, and the situation has been getting worse. Before Borks defeat, it would have been possible to say that so long as a Supreme Court nominee meets basic tests of character and competence, the Senate will confirm him -- and that members of the opposing party will not mount a serious protest. After all, Antonin Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 in 1986.

At least on some days, a principled Democratic senator might be tempted to think: Lets stop this, here and now. Judge Gorsuch clearly passes the character and competence tests. Thats that. An advantage of this approach is it might reduce partisan contestation over Supreme Court nominees in the future.

The chief objection is that if youre in a real fight, and if the national stakes are high, unilateral disarmament can be a terrible idea. After the Republicans disgraceful refusal even to allow a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, should the Democrats suddenly capitulate, when there is no guarantee that Republicans will ever show reciprocity? Wheres the good in that?

2: Return to normal order -- while rejecting judicial extremists. Democrats might call a halt to the confirmation wars of recent years and return to the approach they embraced during the Bork nomination. Sure, presidents are entitled to deference, but the Senate need not confirm people who are out of the mainstream. Robert Bork, no; Anthony Kennedy, yes.

Democrats could endorse this approach while sincerely insisting on the need to return to normal order, and while signaling to the White House and to Senate Republicans that they are prepared to be reasonable. In one version of this approach, Democrats might even vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch on the ground that he is a distinguished nominee who falls within the mainstream. In another version, Democrats might vote a firm but nonetheless gracious and respectful no (without resorting to the filibuster), carefully engaging with the nominees record to argue that he has not established that he is a mainstream figure.

The appeal of an approach of this sort is it could well reduce the intensity of future confirmation battles, while leaving the Democrats room to fight hard against genuinely unacceptable picks. But the objection is obvious: It might seem to be another form of capitulation, especially in the immediate aftermath of the Garland fiasco.

3: Protect liberty and equality on principle. For many Democrats, the issue is simple. In view of the immense importance of Supreme Court nominations on the most fundamental questions -- racial justice, privacy, executive power, gun control, campaign finance -- it is perfectly appropriate for senators to oppose nominees on the ground that they disapprove of their likely judgments, above all if those judgments would be destructive to liberty and equality.

From this point of view, partisan battles over Supreme Court nominations are a reasonable response to the centrality of the Supreme Court to American life -- and to the fact that political convictions inevitably affect the justices votes. Democrats can explain to the public that their full-throated opposition is principled, in the sense that it depends on what the nominee is likely to do.

The appeal of this position is that it is refreshingly candid. The objection is that it acknowledges that confirmation wars are here to stay, which would be pretty terrible news.

4: Its all about political power. The Republicans success in blocking the Garland nomination might mean that with respect to Supreme Court nominations, the only real question now is: Do you have the votes?

If Hillary Clinton had been elected president, and nominated someone as far to the left as Judge Gorsuch is to the right, there is no question that Republicans would have done whatever they could to stop that nominee. They used their power to block Judge Garland. Why shouldn't Democrats do the same?

The best answer is that two wrongs do not make a right. The system for confirming Supreme Court justices is badly broken, and if you insist that its all about power, it will stay that way.

For this reason, we should rule the fourth approach out of bounds. And under current conditions, no Democrat is likely to be drawn to the first.

That leaves the second and third options, and, for many Democrats, the choice between the two will not be obvious. But in my view, the balance of considerations favors some version of the second. It reflects a sensible understanding of the system of separation of powers, and it would be a form of statesmanship. We can certainly use some of that.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Cass R Sunstein at csunstein1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

Link:
The Best Option for Democrats on Gorsuch - Bloomberg