Mediaboss Marketing

The word in Washington is that Donald Trump will deliver a unifying inaugural speech after he accedes at precisely noon to the presidency. And that he will pivot to a proper presidential persona.

Certainly the oath Trump is about to take the affirmation required before he enter on the execution of his office ought to be the occasion of national unity. Its an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

What makes it so unifying is that every officer of the United States every legislator and judge, not just of the federal government, but of the state and county governments must be bound by oath to support the Constitution. New citizens, too.

So why are the Democrats so bitter? Why are some 50 members of Congress vowing to boycott the inauguration? Why is California hiring a former attorney general to fight the new administration? Why the incessant weeping and wailing?

The most persuasive theory is that it has nothing to do with meddling by the Russians or James Comey or the crustiness of Trumps campaign or his personal behavior. Rather, its something other than politics. Its almost psychiatric.

This was an insight I first heard from one of my journalistic mentors, Robert Bartley, editor of the Wall Street Journal. Shortly before he died, he wrote two columns on the anger of the Democrats.

Bartley comprehended that the Democrats fury went beyond politics and must have deeper, subconscious roots. His theory was that they were unable to deal with a sense they were losing their birthright.

What he meant was that, as he put it, base Democrats think of themselves as the best people: the most intelligent and informed, the most public spirited, the most morally pure. If thats whats at stake, no wonder theyre so devastated.

At the time Bartley wrote those columns late 2003 the Democrats were gearing up to run John Kerry for president. They seemed as confident of impending victory then as Hillary Clinton was just three months ago.

But, as Bartley warned in a particularly prophetic column, that confidence belied the weakness of the glue that held together the partys coalition. The Democratic Party, he wrote, has descended into a collection of interest groups not bound together by any ideals. It was floundering before the American people.

We see scions of inherited wealth berating the rich, Bartley wrote. We see supposed champions of civil rights standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent vouchers that might give a break to black children in the District of Columbia.

How those words echo today, as, say, a visionary advocate of school choice (and a billionaire to boot), Betsy DeVos, is up for confirmation as secretary of education. And as the rest of Donald Trumps cabinet of millionaires enrages the Democrats.

Bartley was particularly withering on the betrayal of JFKs vow made in his 1961 inaugural address to bear any burden in the cause of liberty, which the Democrats were, when Bartley wrote, then abandoning in Iraq as they had earlier abandoned in Vietnam.

Yes, above all the war, Bartley wrote. The self-identity of the Democratic base is still wrapped up in Vietnam, which had started as a liberal, Democratic war and could only be abandoned by assertions of a higher morality.

And now Trump is working with Congress on Kennedy-Reagan-style tax cuts. Its just too much for the Democrats. They cant process it. They may actually believe that the election is illegitimate.

All the greater the logic of a unifying speech and policies. If Trump gets the tax cuts and deregulation he wants, America will get the investment and jobs growth we need. America will be eager for immigrants.

To those whove been cast from power, I can hear Bartleys advice as clearly as I heard it when the shoe was on the other foot and the party I was rooting for had lost: Dont be afraid of the wilderness.

Bartley was loved for the strength and optimism he maintained during his wilderness years. He knew its miseries but also its joys, including the chance to think, to experiment and to regroup.

The Democrats wont be the only ones in the wilderness, either. Plenty of Republicans were routed by Trump. My own guess is that hell come to need them both. Its a time to remember that theyll all have been sworn to the same parchment.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats' real fury is over their own collapse - New York Post

Story highlights

Close to 60 Democrats announced in recent days they would boycott President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration after Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and 1960s civil rights leader, said last week he didn't believe Trump is a "legitimate president" in the wake of the US Intelligence Community assertion that Russians meddled with US elections, and said he didn't plan to attend the ceremony at the US Capitol.

But the two-thirds of House Democrats who are going won't use the term "Obamacare" and instead the pins will use the phrase "#ProtectOurCare."

The pins, which are being handed out by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's office, will tout support for the Affordable Care Act, the official title of the health care law enacted in 2010, and will be distributed before House Democrats head out to the platform on the West Front of the Capitol.

Lewis wrote a letter to fellow House Democrats on Wednesday urging those who were attending to show support for the health care law. He thanked his colleagues for supporting his decision to boycott, but said for those going they should "demonstrate their commitment to the work ahead by showing their solidarity," on preserving Obamacare, which Trump and Republicans on the Hill are already working to dismantle as the first major move of the new Congress.

Texas Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey announced his decision to attend Trump's inauguration on Thursday to "serve as a reminder to the President-elect that as Members of the US House of Representatives, my colleagues and I constitute a co-equal branch of government."

He also said, referring to Lewis's push to defend the ACA, "I will be proudly wearing a symbol of solidarity for my friend and colleague, Congressman John Lewis."

This story has been updated.

See the rest here:
Democrats at inauguration to wear pins supporting Obamacare - CNN

A little over three years ago, Senator Mitch McConnell stood on the Senate floor and issued a warning to the Democrats who then controlled the majority.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, youll regret this, McConnell, then the minority leader, told them. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

At the urging of Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats had just voted along strict party lines to change the rules of the Senate, deploying what had become known in Washington as the nuclear option. McConnell and his Republican colleagues were furious. Under the new rules, presidential nominees for all executive-branch positionincluding the Cabinetand judicial vacancies below the Supreme Court could advance with a simple majority of 51 votes. The rules for legislation were untouched, but the 60-vote threshold for overcoming a filibuster on nearly all nominations was dead.

The Donald Trump Cabinet Tracker

As Donald Trump prepares to assume the presidency this afternoon flanked by Republican majorities in Congress, McConnells warning is looking more and more prescient. Trump may win Senate confirmation of his entire Cabinet, and while Democrats will oppose many of his nominees, it was their vote in November 2013 that helped pave the way for their success.

Certainly it would have been easier to defeat them had the rules not changed, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer acknowledged on Thursday. The New York Democrat has mocked Trumps nominees as the Swamp Cabinet and has spent the last few weeks denouncing the incoming presidents picks for their conflicts of interest, unpaid taxes, and their adherence to rigid conservatism. Hes accused Senate Republicans of trying to jam through the nominees with quick hearings and minimal vetting. From top to bottom, its clear that Republicans were attempting to orchestrate a cover up of the president-elects swamp cabinet, Schumer said. Senate Democrats and the American people wont stand for it.

But can they stop it?

While Democrats plan to allow at least two of Trumps nominees to be confirmed Friday after his inauguration, they have identified eight of his picks as controversial and are demanding either more information or a lengthy floor debate before a vote. Those include Rex Tillerson for secretary of state, Steve Mnuchin for treasury secretary, Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general, Representative Tom Price for health and human services secretary, and Betsy DeVos for education secretary. Yet because of the rules change, Democrats can only stall for so longprobably a few weeks in total. They need at least three Republican defections to defeat any nominee, and so far not a single GOP senator has said they would vote against a Trump choice.

Schumer has voiced regret about the nuclear option since Trumps election, telling CNN earlier this month that he had argued internally for keeping the 60-vote threshold not only for Supreme Court nominees but for the Cabinet as well.

Reid, who retired earlier this month, has no such regret. I doubt any of us envisioned Donald J. Trumps becoming the first president to take office under the new rules, he wrote in The New York Times in December. But what was fair for President Obama is fair for President Trump.

I doubt any of us envisioned Donald J. Trumps becoming the first president to take office under the new rules.But what was fair for President Obama is fair for President Trump.

Democrats had grown frustrated over the GOPs frequent use of the filibuster, either to block nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote or simply to gum up the works in the Senate and limit how many people the Democrats could confirm. Reid and his allies have said winning confirmation of three judges to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appealswidely considered the nations second most powerful courtalone justified the move.

It was obvious Democrats would have less power to block Trump nominees immediately after the election. But the impact of the 2013 rules change is becoming even more apparent as Trumps nominees face the kind of problems that have forced potential appointees to withdraw in the past. Democrats have, for example, assailed Price for buying stock in a medical-device company just a week before introducing legislation that would have benefitted the firm. Representative Mick Mulvaney, Trumps pick for budget director, disclosed that he had failed to pay more than $15,000 in federal taxes on a household employee. A similar issue forced Tom Daschle to abandon his nomination for health and human services secretary eight years ago. DeVos has yet to detail how she will comply with conflict-of-interest laws as education secretary.

So far, however, the only complaints have come from Democrats. Republicans have stuck with Trump, treating the Democratic huffing-and-puffing with a collective eye roll. Thank you for this anger management hearing, Senator Pat Roberts quipped after one Democrat laid into Price at his hearing before the health committee on Wednesday. McConnell has suggested Democrats simply havent gotten over their election defeat.

The only nominee who has run into trouble with Republicans so far is Tillerson, who annoyed Senator Marco Rubio by refusing to call out Vladimir Putin and other regimes for human-rights violations. Rubio hasnt said how hell vote on Tillersons nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee, and his opposition could jeopardize the former ExxonMobils confirmation. Other Republican senators, however, have predicted that all of Trumps nominees would be confirmed.

That hasnt happened at the beginning of a presidency since the Reagan years. While the Senate hasnt rejected a nominee in a floor vote since 1989, each president in the last three decades has seen at least one of their original nominees withdraw under political pressure.

Would Democrats have been able to block a number of Trumps nominees if the filibuster threshold were still 60 votes? For a variety of different reasons, I think they would have been, said Jim Manley, a former spokesman for Reid and Senate Democrats. Manleys reasoning, however, rests as much on the Beltway changing norms as it does on the particular revelations Trumps nominees are confronting. In years past, he said, there had been some sort of an idea that presidents deserve to have their nominees in place absent some serious allegations of misconduct. But that was then, and this is now.

Another ex-Reid aide, Adam Jentleson, argued that the rules change didnt alter the dynamic as much as it might seem. Even though Cabinet appointees needed bipartisan support to overcome a filibuster, their nominations only imploded once members of the majority party started peeling away. If those nominees could have gotten more than 50, they would have been put on the floor, said Jentleson, who is now a senior strategic adviser for the political arm of the liberal Center for American Progress. Theres a different set of considerations that go into Cabinet nominees. People believe the president deserves to eventually have his team in place.

If you're going to sink a Cabinet-level nominee, he added, youve got to sink them on a simple majority vote. Thats always been the case, and it still is today.

A filibuster cant defeat a nominee outright; it only postpones indefinitely an up-or-down vote. And over time, Jentleson said, Democrats would have to defend why they were preventing someone who had the support of a majority of the Senate from taking office. That political pressure, he noted, is what forced Republicans to eventually confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general in 2015 after a lengthy delay. The public will stomach delay, especially when they are unanswered questions, Jentleson said. But they probably wont stomach indefinite blocking.

Still, the factors that a president considers when choosing how and where to spend political capital go beyond simple vote counts, and its possible the Trump team would have chosen different nominees if they knew theyd need Democratic support in the Senate.

For now, Democrats are using the leverage they do retain to drag out the confirmation of Trumps Cabinet for a few more weeks in the hope that more scrutiny and at least the hint of scandal will cause Republicans to abandon the more controversial picks. And theres some hope they might work. I think it's very possible that one or more are not going to be able to survive the process, Manley said.

If nothing else, they reason they can inflict some political pain on Trump and the Republicans while showing the Democratic base that they wont be rolled over by the new president, Manley said. Yet the likelihood is that before spring arrives, Trump will have most if not all of his Cabinet nominees in place. Confirmation delayed, after all, is not the same as confirmation denied.

Originally posted here:
How Democrats Paved the Way for the Confirmation of Trump's Cabinet - The Atlantic

Miami is not where Jon Cowan expected to be on Inauguration Day.

He was certain he would be toasting the nations first female president at Elephant and Castle, a pub smack on the inaugural parade route. It was this unbelievable space where we were going to have this large gathering of Democrats, said Cowan, who runs the left-of-center think tank Third Way.

But instead, he found himself at a South Florida resort, offering straight talk about the state of the Democratic Party to elite donors and strategists who were also driven by the election results to cancel long-held bookings in Washington. Instead of celebrating a new Clinton era, they were hundreds of miles away, picking apart where they went wrong and plotting a comeback.

Friday was a reality check for Democrats and progressives, still shell-shocked it is Trump who is taking power. His failure to so much as shake Hillary Clintons hand as he strode to the stage riled them. The images of her stoically watching Trump assume the role that nearly 2.9 more million Americans voted to give Clinton were like a gut punch.

There comfort to be had in the sparse attendance at the event as compared with President Obamasfirst inauguralwas cold comfort.

He has no kind of decency left in him, said Beritu Haile-Selassie, a 62-year-old retiree from Washington holding a sign that said Fake President. You have no idea what he is going to do.

Disgust Trumps actions through the transition drove many Democrats opted to deny him the usual grace period given a new president. They seized on the inauguration as a galvanizing moment, assembling in Washington and around the country to send a loud message of resistance and map their resurgence. The huge Womens March anti-Trump forces have planned for Saturday was preceded by pockets of protest on the streets Saturday. Some windows were broken. Arrests were made.

All the while, the soul-searching intensified, as Democrats wrestle with the collapse of their coalition on election day and the realization that their troubles extend beyond Hillary Clintons performance. While arguments will persist over whos to blame and the best direction for the Democratic Party, Friday marked a moment to harness the resilience and unity that Trumps rise has helped foment among the left.

We must not despair, Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted Friday morning. We must not be overwhelmed or throw up our hands. It is time to roll up our sleeves and fight for who we are.

Speaking up was more complicated for some than others. Dozens of members of Congress struggled to find the appropriate form of protest. They anguished over the idea of boycotting, which threatened to undermine a pillar of democracy lawmakers hold sacred: the peaceful transfer of power. Harris joined all the other senators in attending the swearing in. More than 60 Democratic in the House stayed away.

I am sad not to be attending this ceremony, said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael),who was among the first lawmakers to announce a boycott. It takes an extraordinary set of circumstances for someone like me to say they cant be part of this. If any other Republican who ran were being sworn in, I would be there.

But, Huffman said, Trumps pattern of scorched earth, chaosand boorish behavior persuaded him to spend the week volunteering with his Northern California constituentsand presiding over a citizenship ceremony for hundreds of immigrants.

Democratic Rep. Tony Cardenasof Los Angeles spent the swearing-in hour elsewhere, meditating. Fellow Angeleno Rep. Ted Lieu decided to serve his Air Force Reserve duty in California.

Union leaders who went to both of Obamas inaugurals instead mapped out their message for taking on Trump. At Service Employees International Union, an organization representing a large numberof Latinos, leaders worked on redoubling their advocacy for undocumented workers, in defiance of a new president planning to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexicoborder and restrict Muslims from entering the country.

We are not going to allow extremists to divide us with their mythology that immigrants are taking away our jobs, said Mary Kay Henry, president of the union, who attendedObamas second swearing-in. As with other progressive advocacy groups, the union has seen interest surge since election day. Earlier plans to increase the number of members contributing $10 monthly to half a million have been revised. Now SEIU is confident itll reach the 1-million mark.

Others grabbed the moment in their own way. Estefania Garcia, wrapped in a Mexican flag, took advantage of the free marijuana getting passed out by pot legalization advocates as she protested Trumps immigration policies. "Wanted to see history, have my voice heard and get some free pot," said Garcia, who became a US citizen two years ago.

Democratic mayors who had planned to hang around and hit the inaugural party circuit after this weeks U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington instead packed up and left. Many went back home to begin the work of countering the incoming Trump administration.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg says officials in his city will explore how to update their decades-old sanctuary city law to provide protection to immigrants in the U.S. illegally who could be targeted by the new administration. We will stand with people who feel threatened, Steinberg said in an interview as he prepared to fly home.

Another disappointed Northern Californian, business mogul Susie Tompkins Buell, hopped a flight heading in the other direction. Buell, a longtime friend of Clinton and one of her biggest donors, is still registering the shock of Trumps win. Its so crazy,she said. It is hard to believe what is happening. I said to my husband this morning, This is worse than it would have been to lose to a legitimate candidate.

Follow this link:
Democrats once dreamed of Inauguration Day. Now they're soul-searching instead - Los Angeles Times

On the day Donald Trump officially becamepresident of the United States, Democrats still remained steadfastly opposed tothe billionaire businessmans proposals.

During the inaugural ceremony Friday, many House Democrats worebuttons emblazoned with the hashtag #ProtectOurCare, calling out Republicans and Trumpfor their promise to overthrow former President Barack Obamas signature health care legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

Members wanted to wear a sign of solidarity with the Affordable Care Act at the inauguration, Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told Talking Points Memo.

As TheBlaze reported earlier this month, Senate Republicans have already taken the first steps to repeal Obamacare with a nearly party-line vote 51-48 last week. The procedural voteestablished special budgetary rules that protect the GOP from a Democrat-led filibuster, permitting a repeal vote to take place with a simple majority in the 100-member Senate.

While the wheels are rolling down the path to undo the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are divided about what to do once the historic legislation is history.

Many Republicans have proposed repealing the bill and slowly replacing portions of the law while others have called for a delay in repealing Obamacare until a replacement is ready. But Trump, speaking to the New York Times, said a replacement law must follow very quickly or simultaneously.

All of this comes at a time when Obamacare has reached an all-time-high in popularity.

According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 49 percent say they favor the 2010 health care bill, while 47 percent remain opposed to the law.

More:
See the button House Democrats wore to Trump's inauguration - TheBlaze.com