Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON

Ask Republican lawmakers about the specter of protests in their districts next week, and they'll likely shrug off constituent outbursts as "manufactured" or "scripted."

The GOP is largely adopting the Democratic posture from the summer of 2009 that angry voices at town halls don't represent a political threat. That may be true. The question is how Republicans now, and Democrats back then, arrived at that conclusion.

Even as some GOP lawmakers move to hold their constituent forums online or over the phone instead of in-person, they insist they're not worried.

In a Wednesday letter to Republican chiefs of staff, Matt Gorman, communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, dismissed recent protests that have erupted at town halls across the country.

"Don't be fooled by this incredibly vocal minority that is attempting to drown out the millions of voices that have since its passage called for Obamacare's repeal," he wrote.

Unlike the tea party, Republicans say, this year's protests are a strictly partisan reaction to the 2016 election, with Democrats targeting Republicans.

"I don't have scientific methodology to say that or prove that to you," said FreedomWorks' Jason Pye, whose tea party-aligned group is organizing its own protests to encourage lawmakers to repeal the 2010 health care law.

"But based on the emails I'm getting from groups on the left I subscribe to them all I doubt this is an organic movement," Pye said.

To Republicans, the conservative bent of the districts where some of the most vociferous protesting has occurred is proof that GOP lawmakers have nothing to worry about. Tennessee Rep. Diane Black encountered tough questions last month, but both she and President Donald Trump won her district by nearly 50 points last fall.

"There's a huge difference between political theater, which people are paid to create, and the actual feelings of constituents, which show up in surveys and election results," said longtime GOP operative Mike Shields, who recommends members do "tele-town halls" because they can reach more people.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz encountered 1,000 constituents inside a high school auditorium in his district last week, with hundreds more left outside. The Beehive State has never been hospitable to Trump, but the congressman won a fifth term by 47 points last fall. (About 78,000 people voted against Chaffetz, so even in his district, there's a base of people to protest him.)

"The idea that suddenly there's a big liberal movement there that could take the congressman out is absurd," said Shields, a veteran of the Republican National Committee and, most recently, a super PAC dedicated to preserving the GOP's House majority.

Republicans have pointed to a SurveyMonkey poll that found that 85 percent of participants in last month's women's marches identified as or leaned Democratic. The online poll, conducted Jan. 26-30, sampled self-reported marchers. Republicans haven't yet done their own polling of the crowds, but they've cited this survey as proof that the protesters don't pose a new political threat to them.

Democrats, however, see protests in ruby-red districts as evidence of the extent to which Americans even Republicans have woken up to the reality that they might lose their health care.

"The way they've gerrymandered the hell out of districts, (Republicans) feel warm and toasty safe. But it's a time like this that has a way of taking out members," said Democratic media consultant John Lapp, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Democrats would know. They acknowledge that at the time of the tea party's rise, their party was slow to see the writing on the wall.

But there were signs.

"In 2009, we saw a dramatic shift as the health care debate went on over the summer," said Jon Vogel, who was executive director at the DCCC at the time. Generic ballot polling in Democratic congressional districts started to trend toward the Republicans.

"Between the August town halls and the November loss of the Virginia and New Jersey governors' races, that's when the problems we were facing crystallized, even if we weren't ready to admit it," said Jesse Ferguson, a former DCCC communications and independent expenditure director.

"From then on, there were a lot of attempts to convince ourselves it wasn't a big deal but they were all just distractions," Ferguson added.

In the spring of 2010, Democrats won the special election to hold on to the late Rep. John P. Murtha's seat in Pennsylvania, reassuring them that they could weather any tea party insurgence at the ballot box that fall.

Instead, the party lost 63 House seats in the midterm election.

"I don't think anybody really saw the wave that was coming until people started counting votes on election night," said Bill Burton, a DCCC veteran from the 2006 cycle who worked in the White House during President Barack Obama's first term.

Burton cautions that Democrats have work to do to harness this year's town hall energy for 2018.

Vogel predicts there'll be even more energy on Democrats' side once congressional Republicans move closer toward repealing the health care law.

"I find it hard to believe we're going to win that seat in Utah," Vogel said. "But if we have that much energy there ... imagine how much energy" there may be in a true swing seat."

Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman, who represents a perennially targeted swing district, was one of the first Republicans to find himself overwhelmed by the number of constituents who showed up at an event to meet one-on-one with him. The five-term congressman hasn't planned a town hall for next week. Instead, he said he'll be visiting hospitals and advocacy groups.

Representatives from the NRCC's communications staff have met with at least 70 members' offices over the last several weeks to offer suggestions about remaining "visible and accessible to their constituents." But Gorman stressed in Wednesday's letter that the types of public events members host is up to them.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen won his New Jersey seat by 19 points last fall, but he finds himself on the DCCC's target list this year. He won't be holding any in-person town halls next week, though. He's cited scheduling and the difficulty of finding a venue in his suburban 11th District.

Meanwhile, a group of Democratic and Republican constituents who oppose repealing the health care law and cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood have secured venues for town halls, which they plan to hold with or without the congressman.

Asked on Tuesday in an interview off the House floor whether he sees that kind of protest as a political threat, Frelinghuysen demurred.

"Quite honestly, everybody works pretty hard to represent their district," he said, before scurrying into an open elevator.

Go here to read the rest:
Like Democrats before them, GOP dismisses town hall threat - MyPalmBeachPost

President Trumps purportedly lax security practices are the subject of a letter sent from more than a dozen congressional Democrats this week to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Rep. Ted Lieu, California Democrat, urged committee leadership this week to investigate troubling reports that have emerged recently with respect to Mr. Trumps operational security, including his apparent use of a consumer-grade Android smartphone to communicate over Twitter, among other items of concerns.

Those reports, according to Mr. Lieu and 14 colleagues, suggest Mr. Trump is jeopardizing national security by egregiously failing to implement commonsense security measures across the board.

Cybersecurity experts universally agree that an ordinary Android smartphone, which the President is reportedly using despite repeated warnings from the Secret Service, can be easily hacked, the Democrats wrote in a letter to committee leadership sent on Wednesday this week and made public two days later.

This behavior is more than bad operational security it is an egregious affront to national security, they wrote to Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, and ranking member Elijah Cummings, Maryland Democrat.

The congressmen want the Committee to hold public hearings devoted partially to the presidents smartphone usage and the security risks therein, according to the letter, the likes of which have already made waves across Washington since Mr. Trump took office last month.

In addition to concerns surrounding Mr. Trumps smartphone usage, the lawmakers write that administration officials have been documented discussing national security issues in public settings and using private email accounts for official business, among other insecure practices. In light of Mr. Trumps frequent tweets, however, the Democrats warn that Mr. Trumps smartphone is a particularly deserving of a congressional probe.

The use of an unsecured phone risks the President of the United States being monitored by foreign or domestic adversaries, many of whom would be happy to hijack the Presidents prized Twitter account causing disastrous consequences for global stability, they wrote. More frighteningly, hackers could present the President with alternative information, which, as the President has repeatedly demonstrated, can have a huge impact on his beliefs and actions.

It is out hope that you can put our national security and the American people first and seriously investigate these concerns in a public hearing. Our country depends on it, their letter said.

Mr. Chaffetz, meanwhile, already expressed concerns of his own this week over Mr. Trumps security practices. The Republican wrote the White House on Tuesday demanding answers involving the security protocols in place at the presidents Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after it emerged that Mr. Trump and the Prime Minister of Japan discussed national security issues in the presence of the public last week.

Another letter sent this month to the Pentagon by Senate Democrats asked the Defense Department to explain how it is safeguarding Mr. Trumps smartphone from hackers.

While it is important for the President to have the ability to communicate electronically, it is equally important that he does so in a manner that is secure and that ensures the preservation of presidential records, Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Claire McCaskill of Missouri wrote in a February 9 letter to the Pentagon.

Here is the original post:
Democrats ask for hearings involving Trump's smartphone security - Washington Times

WASHINGTON With President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans threatening to go after the people who leaked classified material about Trumps ties to Russia, Democrats are asking the Justice Department to investigate the potential intimidation of whistleblowers and they want Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself.

In a particularly stern letter, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee asked DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to look into whether the Trump administration has engaged in any improper effort to intimidate or threaten whistleblowers. Democrats also asked the inspector general to determine whether Sessions should sit out that sort of investigation, considering his personal ties to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was also involved with the Trump campaign.

Trump campaign aides had contact with Russian intelligence officials during the election and Trump has long-standing ties to Russia,The New York Times revealed this week. Intelligence agencies also concluded that Russian officials tried to influence the U.S. election.

Given the significance and magnitude of these developments, we believe it is appropriate that your office in conjunction with other Offices of Inspectors General, if necessary conduct an investigation, Democrats wrote to Horowitz, who has served as the DOJ inspector general since early 2012.

Outraged that whistleblowers are turning over classified information to the news media, Trumptargeted leakers on Thursday in one of his classic early morning Twitter rants, saying that leaks have been a big problem in Washington for years and that low-life leakers will be caught.

Later that afternoon, in a confrontational and at times, unhinged press conference, Trump went after whistleblowersagain, saying they were left over from the Obama administration.

The two lead authors of the Democrats letter, ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers (D-Mich.) and member Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), noted Trumpsangry and unhinged threats and attacks on the law enforcement and intelligence communities, only adding to our concerns about the conflicts with Attorney General Sessions.

We therefore believe it is more important than ever that the Inspector General conduct this requested review, they continued.

Sessions has a number of potential conflicts of interest in investigating the Trump administrations threats against whistleblowers, as The Huffington Post noted this week:

Sessions relationship with the Trump campaign is especially relevant because Flynns contacts with Russian envoys reportedly began before the election. Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump. White House chief strategist Steve Bannon described Sessions as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy in the Trump administration, and the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trumps agenda during the election. Sessions regularly appeared with Trump on the campaign trail, and the Alabama senator formally nominated Trump at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. One of Sessions former aides became a senior adviser in the Trump White House.

Its unclear whether the Justice Department would actually look into the potential intimidation of whistleblowers, especially with Sessions presiding over the department. But Democrats appeal to the inspector general appears to be a way to get around the attorney general and receive an answer from an Obama-appointed official.

Read Democrats full letter below.

Continued here:
Democrats Want An Investigation Into Donald Trump's Whistleblower Threats - Huffington Post

MyDemocratic Party believes there is man-made climate change.

MyDemocratic Partybelieves in science.

My Democratic Party believes in protecting the environment.

On February 17, 2017 two Democratic United States Senators voted for a man who is a climate denier, a science denier and a destroyer of the environment to head The Environmental Protection Agency.

For that alone, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp must be "primaried" in 2018 and we should start finding qualified, principled, Progressive candidates in their states today who can take them on and represent true Democratic values in Congress.

I don't care that West Virginia is a coal state and it is a specious argument for Joe Manchin to say that he didn't want to offend his coal industry folks. Bernie Sanders, a hater of coal and a huge advocate for tough and immediate action to fight man-made climate change and a huge advocate for massive environmental protection won the Democratic Primary by 15.6 points and might even have won the entire state in the General.

And I don't care that Donald Trump won North Dakota byalmost 36 points. Those people didn't, and many of them wouldn't vote for Scott Pruitt and Heidi Heitkamp shouldn't have either

One of our greatest Democratic Presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, famously said that "The only thing to fear is fear itself". It's about time for Democrats to grow up, toughen up and stop being afraid of Republicans or Donald Trump . . .

And to remember that Franklin D. Roosevelt won 4 consecutive national elections . . .because he was fearless, he was principled and he was gutsy. ("Don't want to confirm my New Deal policies, Supreme Court? Ok then. I'll add 6 more Justices and we'll get those policies through!")

FDR and Bernie generated tremendous loyalty and support because they didn't emasculate themselves to the tyranny of polls and pollsters - they led and lead through the courage and integrity of their conviction. Do this, Democrats, and the Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans will come out of the woodwork for you.

There is no excuse for any Democrat to vote for a climate denier to head The Environmental Protection Agency and if The Democratic Party is ever going to find its soul and excite the country it must find its integrity first.

Donald Trump won West Virginia, North Dakota and many other states because he inspired voters who had never voted before to come out, register and vote for him. A new, fresh, courageous Democrat with conviction . . . a real Democrat . . . in these states and others, can light a fire with those who are dismayed that their Senators would vote against fighting the existential threat of climate change, against science and against their and their children and grandchildren's environment.

Who will those new, fresh courageous Democrats be? On behalf of your party, your states and our country, file your papers and begin your run against these old style politicians and Democrats, today!

(And I will dedicate an entire article to each of the first3 qualified candidates who post a copy of their filing papers in West Virginia and in North Dakota in the comment section, below!)

Update: Ive received a number of comments here and elsewhere about how Manchin and Heitkamp know their fossil fuel states, how they are the best we can hope for in those states and that we need them to try to re-take the majority and that they are there for us on the important votes.

Totally understand all of that but I wrote the article for two reasons:

1. We need Senators Manchin and Heitkamp to be with us next month when the Senate votes on the confirmation of an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-civil and voting rights, anti-gun safety and pro-money in politics 48 year old Supreme Court pick who can serve on the Court, voting that way, for 30 or even 40 years, 10 times the tenure of a President. If Manchin and Heitkamp are catering to their states on Trump picks that Democrats CANT filibuster in order to buy some leeway on filibustering Neil Gorsuch next month then I will thank them, take this article down and even donate money to their upcoming campaigns. But I doubt this is the case.

2. Even more importantly, I wrote the article to add to the conversation (just before the vote for DNC Chair) about the heart and soul and future of The Democratic Party. I firmly believe that we either stand up to climate denial and environmental abuse, the denial of womens rights, homophobia, allowing guns into the hands of dangerous people, voting rights abuses and big money in politics . . . and to Donald Trump . . . or we dont have a brand or a party worth voting for. And, I firmly believe that if we do stand up to these things, and for their opposites, that we can be a great, exciting and compelling party and capture the hearts and energies of The American People. The Democratic Party, overwhelmingly, represents the policies and wishes of the majority of this country. We just need to have the guts to stand up for them and we WILL be The Majority Party in The United States for a long, long time!

Go here to read the rest:
It's Time to Primary Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp and For Democrats To Have Guts - Huffington Post

Michael F. Brown Power Suits 17 February 2017

David Friedman, Donald Trumps pick for US ambassador for Israel, has raised millions of dollars for Israeli settlements.

David Friedman faced a few sharp questions Thursday as a US Senate committee considered his nomination for the post of ambassador to Israel.

This was to be expected: Friedman had previously described supporters of the liberal Zionist group J Street as far worse than kapos Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps.

Some senators were bound to ask him about such intemperate comments and it was not surprising that Friedman repeatedly expressed regret for his undiplomatic language. But it was equally predictable that senators would avoid pressing Friedman on aspects of his background curtailing Palestinian rights.

Friedman has a home in Talbiyeh, a West Jerusalem neighborhood that was ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces in 1948.

No senator asked Friedman whether he lives in a home owned by a Palestinian or in a residence constructed since the mass expulsion. No one asked him what should be done with the private property in his neighborhood to which uprooted Palestinians hold the deeds.

Friedmans appearance before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations demonstrated there is a very long way to go before Palestinian political and economic rights are properly addressed by US politicians.

Senators were widely reluctant to confront the reality of occupation. They did not want to engage the fact that Palestinians enjoy fewer rights than Israeli Jews and that there is a military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

No senator dared to describe Israel as an apartheid state. Only the protesters who briefly disrupted the proceedings drew attention to the forcing out of Palestinians at the time of Israels establishment.

The process initiated has less to do with whether all 11 Republicans on the committee will vote en masse for Friedman a likelihood and more to do with whether the emerging partisan split on Israel will continue to grow.

Will Israels staunchest Democratic allies the partys Trump-Netanyahu wing endorse Friedman?

Some of them might.

Bob Menendez is one, though the Democratic senator from New Jersey described Friedmans appearance before the foreign relations committee as a nomination conversion.

Mike Merryman-Lotze, Palestine-Israel Program Director for the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization, stated, When you have spent years spreading virulently racist hate, saying that you reject your previous statements when confronted with them at a job interview does not absolve you of responsibility for your action nor demonstrate your genuine contrition.

Yet even if all Democrats on the committee vote against Friedman, their motives in doing so should be scrutinized. Why are they more concerned with how Friedman has insulted Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer now the Senates minority leader and J Street than how he has aided Israels crimes?

For that is precisely what Friedman has done. Friedman heads the American Friends of Bet El Yeshiva Center. In that capacity, he has funneled millions of dollars into an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.

Consequently, he has played a significant role in sustaining a colony built in violation of international law.

Friedmans efforts to present himself as moderate this week should not fool anyone.

He claimed, for example, that he currently does not support annexation of the West Bank by Israel. Yet annexation is clearly the objective of the settler movement to which he belongs.

Implicitly, Friedman admitted that his attempts to sound reasonable were made to ensure that his nomination is approved. When Bob Corker, the committees chair, expressed astonishment that he was willing to recant every strongly held belief that youve expressed, almost, Friedman replied that serving as ambassador to Israel would be the fulfillment of my lifes work.

There were some notable contributions from Democrats at Friedmans hearing.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire was perhaps the most outspoken in raising concerns that carried the discussion beyond the offense Friedman caused J Street and its supporters. She sounded the alarm about Israels discriminatory treatment of visiting Arab Americans and secured Friedmans agreement for what its worth to raise this matter with the Israeli government when it happens on his watch.

Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia managed to get Friedman on record agreeing that it would be untenable to force Palestinians to accept inferior rights in the context of a one-state solution.

Kaine is no champion of Palestinian rights. Not long ago, he was the running mate of Hillary Clinton, who had pledged to have an even stronger relationship with Israel than Obama if she were elected president.

Overall, the Democrats displeasure with Friedman was encapsulated by Tom Udall, senator from New Mexico. Udall complained that Friedman regarded anyone who doesnt agree with the ambassador-in-waitings extreme views or approach to Israel as an anti-Semite.

The posting of a settlement advocate as US ambassador to Israel would certainly mark a new extreme. But it would not be illogical.

For decades, the US political elite Democrats and Republicans alike have advanced Israels colonialist project by providing billions of dollars in military aid. This is simply another step toward the US government normalizing the illegal settlements it has watched grow over the last 50 years.

With President Trump indicating Wednesday that he does not care whether Israel and the Palestinians choose one state or two states, such settlements appear certain to grow and soon the US will have to choose between accepting Israeli apartheid or insisting on equal rights for all.

Read the rest here:
Why won't Democrats call out Friedman's crimes? - The Electronic Intifada (blog)