Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she believes Christopher Wray should get a committee vote next week. | Getty

Senate Republicans are pushing for a speedy vote on Christopher Wrays confirmation to lead the FBI and at least one powerful Democrat is willing to help.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she believes Wray should get a committee vote next week, although any senator who sits on the panel could ask that it be held over for seven days.

Story Continued Below

Its been the tradition, Feinstein said, referring to the fact that nominees for FBI director have rarely faced the one-week delay. And I think theres no reason not to.

Feinstein noted that the nine Democrats on the Judiciary Committee hadnt yet discussed whether Wrays nomination should be delayed a routine practice in the committee that gives senators more time to vet candidates. Still, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Thursday that nominees for FBI director generally havent been delayed, and he scheduled a committee vote for Wray for July 20.

Earlier this week, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in an interview before the confirmation hearing that he would favor a delay, because I think as with any hearing, there will likely be questions.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Still, the comments from Feinstein show just how little opposition and concern there is from Democrats about Wray, currently a lawyer in private practice who also served in the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.

A handful of Democratic senators said during Wrays hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that they would back his confirmation to replace James Comey, who was abruptly fired by President Donald Trump in May.

And Wrays Democratic support grew on Thursday, when Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he would vote for his confirmation after meeting privately with him.

I am likely to support his confirmation, added Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in an interview Thursday. He answered, directly and clearly, a whole series of questions about his independence, his willingness to resist an overreaching president and his determination to provide [special prosecutor] Bob Mueller with the resources and freedom to continue his investigation that he needs and deserves.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the article here:
Democrats signal support for quick vote on FBI nominee Wray - Politico

But more so than other recent Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton tested the conscience of a lot of Catholics who see abortion as immoral. She dropped the pledge that pro-abortion rights Democrats have offered to make abortion rare. Instead, she advocated voiding the Hyde Amendment so that federal funds could be used to pay for abortions. Even Clintons running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, opposed repealing the Hyde Amendment.

The Pew survey released this week did not detect a similarly large divide over religion in the GOP; it found that sixty-eight percent of moderate and liberal Republicans said religion had a positive impact.

The survey of 2,504 adults also looked at attitudes toward other major institutions, including the national news media, financial institutions, labor unions and colleges.

The two wings of the Democratic Party had somewhat similar responses in certain areas, such as colleges, where large majorities saw a positive influence: seventy-two percent favorable, and; nineteen percent, negative. That broke down to seventy-nine percent favorable for liberals and sixty-seven percent for moderates and conservatives.

In contrast, Republicans divided over colleges, with a breakdown of fifty-one percent positive and forty-three percent negative for moderate-liberal Republicans and twenty-nine to sixty-five for conservatives.

Partisan differences over banks and financial institutions have widened, since, according to Pew, it was the first time since 2010 that more Republicans had a positive view of the businesses than negative. In this survey, forty-six percent of Republicans saw the financial institutions in a positive light, and thirty-seven percent viewed them as a negative for the country. Among Democrats, fifty-four percent had a negative view and thirty-three percent, positive. As recently as 2015, Pew found that there were no partisan differences on this issue. Now, there is a thirteen-point gap.

What all this tells us is that attacking colleges and the national news media and defending churches would seem to be effective to attract, or perhaps pander, for conservative Republican votes. For Democrats, the same can be said of attacking banks and financial institutions. The survey shows that if anything, the ideological gap between the parties is widening. Catholics are known to serve as a moderating influence on both parties, but the countrys drift is toward deeper partisan division.

See the original post here:
The Democrats' Religion Problem - Commonweal

By Richard A. Moss By Richard A. Moss July 13 at 11:47 AM

Donald Trump Jr. appeared on Fox News's "Hannity" on July 11 to defend his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign, and his father jumped to his defense on Twitter. (Amber Ferguson,Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Yesterday, President Trump suggested in a Reuters interview that there wasnt anything surprising or wrong about his sons enthusiasm for learning secrets that he had been told were part of a Russian effort to help Trumps presidential campaign. He said:

I think many people would have held that meeting. Most of the phony politicians who are Democrats who I watched over the last couple of days most of those phonies that act holier-than-thou, if the same thing happened to them, they would have taken that meeting in a heartbeat.

Trump is right that foreign powers have tried to influence U.S. politicians in the past. Foreign powers have many ways to exercise influence in representative democracies. Some of these may be public, and others surreptitious. 2016 certainly wasnt the first time the Kremlin tried to influence a U.S. election, and Moscow is by no means alone in attempting to sway U.S. politics. However, these efforts have worked in complicated ways, andAmerican politicians have not been as quick to accept their help as Trump suggests.

Russia tried and failed to support the Democrats in 1968

In 1968, Moscow feared that the staunchly anti-communist Richard M. Nixon would be elected. To forestall that, the Kremlin decided to reach out to Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Hubert H. Humphrey. As Anatoly Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador to the United States from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, revealed in his memoir,In Confidence, two decades ago: The top Soviet leaders took an extraordinary step, unprecedented in the history of Soviet-American relations, by secretly offering Humphrey any conceivable help in his election campaign including financial aid. Dobrynin explained:

I received a top-secret instruction to that effect from [Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei] Gromyko personally and did my utmost to dissuade him from embarking on such a dangerous venture, which if discovered certainly would have backfired and ensured Humphreys defeat, to say nothing of the real trouble it would have caused for Soviet-American relations. Gromyko answered laconically, There is a decision, you carry it out.

The opportunity soon arose for the well-connected ambassador at a breakfast at Humphreys home. Dobrynin subtly raised the issue of Humphreys campaign finances during a discussion of the election, but the vice president deflected the issue. Humphrey, I must say, Dobrynin wrote, was not only a very intelligent but also a very clever man. He knew at once what was going on. Humphrey told Dobrynin that it was more than enough for him to have Moscows good wishes which he highly appreciated. Dobrynin felt relieved that he had followed his orders and Humphrey had avoided the potentially explosive issue.

Humphrey did not mention the Soviet election outreach or even Dobrynin in his 1991 memoir, The Education of a Public Man: My Life and Politics.

Russia had tried to hurt Nixons chances in 1960

Russian worries about Nixons anti-communism did not begin in 1968. At their first face-to-face meeting in Vienna, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev joked with the new U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, that the Soviet Union had cast the deciding ballot in [Kennedys] election to the Presidency over that son-of-a-bitch Richard Nixon, in 1960. When Kennedy asked for clarification, Khrushchev explained that he had waited until after the U.S. election to release Francis Gary Powers, a U-2 spy-plane pilot shot down over the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960, to undercut Nixons claim that he could work with the Soviets.

Khrushchev may have conflated Powerss release which didnt happen until 1962 with two American survivors of an RB-47H spy plane that was shot down in July 1960. Both Nixon and Kennedy had called upon the Soviet Union to release the American pilots. Nevertheless, as Adam Taylor previously wrote in The Washington Post:

Noting that the two candidates were at a stalemate, Khrushchev recalled saying that if Powers or the other Americans were released before the election, it could give Nixon a boost. It would be better to wait until after the election, the Soviet premier thought.

My comrades agreed, and we did not release Powers, he wrote. As it turned out, wed done the right thing. Kennedy won the election by a majority of only 200,000 or so votes, a negligible margin if you consider the huge population of the United States. The slightest nudge either way would have been decisive.

Even 57 years later, the consequences of Khrushchevs actions remain difficult to assess. However, the Soviet Unions activities apparently were indirect, and did not involve any quid-pro-quo.

China possibly tried to influence U.S. politics in 1996

Moscow isnt the only foreign power that has probably tried to influence U.S. politics. The China Lobby the efforts of the Republic of China (Taiwan) under the Kuomintang has been well-documented (for example) as soliciting political, economic and military support from the 1940s to the 1970s for Chiang Kai-shek and Taiwan in opposition to Mao Zedong and the Peoples Republic of China. In addition to Taiwans efforts, and possibly to counter them, the PRC may have been involved in U.S. congressional and presidential elections during the 1990s.

In February 1997, Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and Brian Duffy wrote of alleged efforts by the PRC to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee before the 1996 presidential campaign. The 1996 U.S.campaign finance controversy resulted in congressional and FBI investigations but did not lead to the appointment of an independent counsel. The Peoples Republic of China consistently denied any involvement in the U.S. election campaign.

These are the games nations play

In his interview with Reuters, Trump also said: I am not a person who goes around trusting lots of people. But [Putins] the leader of Russia. It is the second most powerful nuclear power on earth. I am the leader of the United States. I love my country. He loves his country. It should come as no surprise that Russian leaders saw it in their interests to support him.

Trumps statement suggests that countries will pursue their interests when and where they can. This reflects the pragmatic realpolitik (devotion to interests above ideals) embodied by Lord Palmerstons famous quip in 1848: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

In its influence campaign and possibly more direct efforts to shape the 2016 election, Russian leaders were almost certainly opposing a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who they saw as an impediment to their interests, much as the Kremlin opposed Richard Nixon in 1960 and 1968. One of the ironies of history is that the Soviet Union was able to achieve a relaxation of tensions dtente with the United States with the very person it had opposed, Nixon.

Other great powers have attempted to influence or have actually influenced elections including the United States in places like France and Italy in 1948, Latin America and elsewhere. Great powers will do so as long as it is in their interests and as long as they feel they can get away with it.

The problem is that if you are caught doing it, you, and the politicians you support, may face serious blowback, as Anatoly Dobrynin recognized in 1968 when he did his utmost to dissuade the Kremlin from attempting to support Hubert Humphrey.

Richard A. Moss is an associate research professor at the U.S.Naval War Colleges Center for Naval Warfare Studies. He is grateful to John B. Turner Jr. of Memphis for reminding him about the section of Dobrynins memoir on the 1968 election

Authors note: The views presented here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or its components.

Follow this link:
Donald Trump is wrong. When Democrats were offered secret help ... - Washington Post

The special election in Kansas didnt go the way Democrats had hoped. Neither did the race in Montana. And neither, most expensively, did Jon Ossoffs run for an open House seat in Georgia.

But Tuesday night, Democrats picked up two seats in Oklahoma, a once-blue state where the Obama years had reduced them to a rump party. It was the fourth pickup in a state legislative race this year,* the only electoral bright spots for a party that is lagging in fundraising and fighting localized battles over leadership and messaging. Michael Brooks, whod lost a 2014 race for the states 44th Senate District, won it by 9 points on Tuesday; Karen Gaddis, whod narrowly lost the 2016 race for the 75th District of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, took it by 5 points this time.

There was celebration on progressive social media as soon as the races were called. Turns out Donald Trump was right about one thing during his campaign Were going to win so much, wrote Daily Koss political editor, Carolyn Fiddler. Except he probably didnt mean Democrats winning and over-performing in a ton of special elections since his election.

Each victory and a run of closer-than-expected races has occurred in a low-turnout environment. In 2014, when Brooks lost the Senate race, 10,482 ballots were cast. On Tuesday, just3,619 ballots were cast. But while Democratic turnout fell by half, Republican turnout fell by around two-thirds.

The victories also did little to slice into what, by the end of the Obama years, had become a Republican supermajority. After Tuesday, just seven Democrats will sit in the 42-member state Senate. After the 2008 election the first since 1972 in which the Democrats presidential candidate carried no Oklahoma county Democrats held 22 seats. Many of the losses since then had come in rural districts. Tuesdays gains came in the metro areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

The races marked the first wins for the party under Anna Langthorn, who got national attention for taking over the beleaguered Oklahoma Democrats two months ago at age 24.

Both of the races came out of Republicans resigning after sex scandals, said Langthorn. They didnt do a lot of preparation, whereas we had candidates whod run before and were willing to run again. We had a field organizer in each race, for $2,500 per month. There were campaign PACs that spent a little money. Clearly, it was worth it.

*Democrats lost a seat in Louisiana when none of their candidates filed for a seat that had swung hard to the right.

See the original post:
Democrats see hope in Oklahoma special elections - Washington Post

Last Friday evening, a diverse crowd gathered in an airless Los Angeles church for a Democratic National Committee Resistance Summer rally. The plan was simple: to invigorate the base with speeches, then run a phone bank to oppose the Republican healthcare bill.

Instead, Democratic Party officials quickly lost control of the event.

Less than five minutes into DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellisons introductory remarks, a group of people stood up and chanted vehemently, Single payer now! They unfurled a banner across an entire pew, and heckled the speakers so freely that an older woman made the sign of the cross, as if warding off their revolutionary spirits, and said, Shame on you. Ellisons remarks about party unification were nearly inaudible because two attendees were standing and screaming at each other. California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman simply stopped speaking. Halfway through the rally, two-dozen single-payer healthcare demonstrators a fifth of the attendees walked out, using a bullhorn to stage their own press conference on the sidewalk nearby.

Once again, the Democratic Party found itself unprepared to respond to its vocal left flank. Democratic Party handlers poked the demonstrators and begged them to sit, but the five-member security detail on hand stood at the back of the church, hands clasped. Their decision not to expel or otherwise silence the demonstrators was the right one.

Those who demonstrated represented a variety of movements and political ideologies. One was a registered Democrat with the #RecallRendon movement, which has sought to push California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) out of office since he shelved Senate Bill 562, the states single-payer bill, in June. Another was a political independent with Our Revolution, a movement that seeks to continue the goals of Bernie Sanders presidential candidacy. Another was a self-described revolutionary communist with ResistFascism.org. And yet these demonstrators, who had organized themselves on Facebook, had a clear, singular message that dominated the event.

The Democratic Party speakers, who rhetorically wandered through a variety of issues, including womens rights and the 1st Amendment, did not.

Many party speakers noted, in response to the demonstrators, that theyd been vocal supporters of single-payer healthcare, and in some cases had co-sponsored bills to enact it. But they were ad-libbing on the defensive, instead of setting the agenda for their own meeting, or sharing a vision for how to make a unified push for single-payer healthcare. Demonstrators didnt come to see legislators talk about their collective helplessness they wanted a plan of action.

The event came on the heels of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees decision to release a series of slogans that sunk like a lead balloon with many in the base. While none were particularly inspired, one rankled the most: "Democrats 2018: I mean, have you seen the other guys?" The slogan made it abundantly clear that, after a bruising loss in November, Democrats wouldnt be presenting new ideas or deeply examining their policy stances. Instead, they were doubling down on a visionless strategy of vanilla centrism, selling themselves as better than the worst dude.

Single-payer demonstrators werent the only attendees who hungered for the party to shift to the left. Polo Morales, a 40-year-old immigration advocate from Whittier, noted that the event platform said nothing about immigration at a rally in a state with the United States largest immigrant population. Morales said that if the Democratic Party tries to swing to the center to win in 2018 without examining the root causes of its previous failures, then its going to have a really difficult time turning out the vote.

In an interview after the event, Ellison, who has supported single-payer healthcare, noted social justice is often achieved through disruption. So thats why Im not out of joint about how the meeting went.

Ellison said Democrats dont need to go to the left, right or center; they need to go down, to the nail shops on the block, the college campuses and the union halls.

But while rhetorically compelling, Ellisons argument is a straw man. No progressives or leftists Ive met see their vision as incompatible with grassroots organizing.

Ellison says hes keen on rebuilding trust between the Democratic Party and those it represents. Look, how do you build a trust relationship? Ellison asked. You listen to me, I listen to you. When you count on me, when you call on me, you can count on me. But what have we had with the Democratic Party? Sometime around election time we call you and ask you to vote for us. Maybe we ask you for money and then you don't see us again until we need more votes and more money. One of the goals of the Resistance Summer events is to put the party in contact with the people it represents outside of an election year a good and necessary idea.

So why wouldnt Democrats, who could have easily seen these demonstrators were counter-organizing before the event, anticipate the concerns of the room and begin by directly addressing the single-payer advocates? The most radical course of action articulated that evening was to impeach Trump and put Vice President Mike Pence in office, a message that felt terribly lackluster for a crisis moment that better than the worst dude vision again.

Demonstrators, on the other hand, came with a compelling vision which made the Democratic Partys pressing need for one all the more obvious.

Melissa Batchelor Warnke is a contributing writer to Opinion. Follow her @velvetmelvis on Twitter.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook.

Read more here:
Democrats are doubling down on the same vanilla centrism that helped give us President Trump - Los Angeles Times