Mediaboss Marketing

They just don't care.

"The filibuster is such a silly, non-intuitive tactic that most people don't even believe it exists," Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal blog DailyKos.com, told CNN in an email.

Inside the Senate, some red-state Democrats and longtime institutionalists have fretted that mounting an all-out battle to stop Gorsuch will hurt the party's chances of winning future fights and further degrade the more deliberative chamber of Congress. The 'nuclear option' would lower the bar from 60 senators needed to break a filibuster to 51, and Republicans currently control the chamber with a 52-48 margin.

But off Capitol Hill, Democrats -- from Washington insiders to progressive activists across the country -- are sick of hearing about those precautions.

Fueled by the base's anti-Trump energy, Democrats across the spectrum don't want to hand Trump any easy victories. They are insisting on showing Republicans that blocking Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination in President Barack Obama's final year won't go without retaliation.

And they see the filibuster -- which McConnell could erase at any point -- as a gun with no ammunition.

"The filibuster is effectively gone. If you don't filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell will just get rid of it next time," said Adam Jentleson, a former Harry Reid aide who's now a senior strategic adviser for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Many Democrats were frustrated by senators' initial openness to supporting Gorsuch, but the nominee bungled the opportunity to win many of them over with what Democratic senators viewed as dismissive answers to questions during his confirmation hearing and to written follow-ups, Jentleson said.

Contrary to some institutionalists' hopes, McConnell would be even more likely to invoke the nuclear option to get the next Supreme Court nominee confirmed, he argued.

"Next time, the balance of the court would be at stake, so the motivation to go nuclear is even stronger. It goes both ways," he said. "It's false to say Democrats don't care. But I think it's just not their choice."

"Reid put up with years and years of incredible amounts of obstruction, and pressure from his base, before he finally went nuclear," Jentleson said. "McConnell, by sort of signaling he's going to do it beforehand -- literally the very first opportunity to go nuclear, he's pulling the trigger."

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, was the 41st Democrat to pledge to oppose Gorsuch, guaranteeing a filibuster. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he is open to negotiating with Republicans to find an agreement on avoiding the nuclear option -- so long as the GOP doesn't invoke it on the next confirmation battle.

"I said, 'I will vote against closure unless the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can somehow find an agreement that is trustworthy and reliable, where on the next Supreme Court nominee they won't change the rules and we will have input, and a more confirmable, consensus nominee will be put in front of the Senate,'" Coons said. "I'm not saying that I'm insisting that we force the Republican majority to break the rules. That's a choice they're going to have to make."

Like Coons, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, publicly agonized over his decision. But on Monday, he said he would filibuster Gorsuch, saying he "cannot vote solely to protect an institution."

Campaigning Friday in New Jersey, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez and deputy chair Keith Ellison, a Minnesota congressman, both called for a filibuster of Gorsuch, knowing it would likely lead McConnell to invoke the nuclear option.

"If you do not have enough support, we should not change the rules for you," Ellison told Democrats in Asbury Park. "We should change the nominee."

Perez made the point again in a statement Monday, after it became clear Democrats would filibuster Gorsuch.

"It's plain and simple: Gorsuch has not earned the votes in the Senate to join the Supreme Court," he said. "Republicans can't fix Gorsuch by changing the rules. They need to change the nominee."

Other Democrats directly called for the filibuster's elimination, taking the long view that it could help the party if and when it regains Senate control.

Moulitsas mocked the hand-wringing about the loss of the 60-vote threshold, saying "it's mostly been a tool used by conservatives" and noting that the Heritage Foundation and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had talked about keeping an eight-seat Supreme Court through the entire tenure of a President Hillary Clinton before the election.

"Majority rule means accountability to the voters," he said. "It also means that elections really do matter, since the losers can't hide behind parliamentary maneuvers. So if McConnell really has the votes to kill it, good riddance."

Read the original here:
Why Democrats aren't worried about the 'nuclear option ...

Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday will continue a floor debate on President Trumps Supreme Court pick to replace the conservative Antonin Scalia.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,took the floor of the Senate on Tuesday nightand started a marathon session to protest the Republican blockade of President Obamas nominee for the seat, Merrick Garland.

"Make no mistake: this is a stolen seat & if this theft is completed, it will undermine the integrity of the court for decades," Merkley tweeted as he began.

Merkley's speech wasn't expected to delay Wednesday's debate on President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch or Thursday's votes.

The Senate voted on Tuesday afternoon to formally start debate, leading up to the expected vote later in the week.

Senate Democrats have secured enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch. Forty-two Democrats have said they will vote to block his nomination. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of Gorsuch's most vocal critics, said the nominee did little to win support during his confirmation hearings.

The facts in this case are simple:Gorsuch counts 55 supporters in the Senate: the 52 Republicans, along with three moderate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

As long as Republicans enact a rule changefamously called the nuclear optionit would lower the threshold to confirm Gorsuch from 60 to a simple majority. Republicans would have the votes and Gorsuch would be confirmed.

The divide on Gorsuch's nomination is deep. Senate Republicans see him as a fair jurist, while Democrats see him as in the pockets of big companies.

Gorsuch, 49, is a 10-year veteran of a federal appeals court in Denver, where he's compiled a highly conservative record.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News The First 100 Days Monday that Gorsuch is going to be on the Supreme Court by midnight Friday night. I can assure you that. One way or the other, hes going to get the necessary votes to get there."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday said Democrats have hit a new low in their obstruction. He still has said that he would employ the nuclear option and has filed a motion for cloture-- the first step in invoking the nuclear option.

He reportedly said he would not end the 60-vote threshold on legislation while majority leader.The Senate will vote to invoke cloture on Thursday. Sixty votes are needed to invoke cloture, and McConnell will likely come up short.

Senate Democrats have continued to hit the Trump pick.

Theres a reason they call it the nuclear option, and that is that theres fallout. And this fallout will be dangerously and perhaps disastrously radioactive for the Senate in years to come, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told The Washington Post.

Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

Read the original post:
Senate Republicans, Democrats set for floor debate on ...

New York Times

GOP and Democrats Set to Collide on Filibuster and Supreme Court New York Times Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, at a news conference in Washington on Tuesday. The American people will be watching, he said of a Democratic plan to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. With Gorsuch filibuster, Democrats embrace a 'political' Supreme CourtWashington Post In history-making showdown, Senate GOP breaks Democratic filibuster of Trump's Supreme Court pickLos Angeles Times Let the Filibuster Burn! Democrats Are Better Off Without It.Slate Magazine The Boston Globe -Chicago Tribune -Reuters all 4,396 news articles »

Continued here:
GOP and Democrats Set to Collide on Filibuster and Supreme Court - New York Times

Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Trump would need a war authorization to bomb Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Like the Obama administration, the Trump administration has launched airstrikes against ISIS using legal justification from the 2001 war authorization that passed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But that would not cover Assad, Cardin argued.

"If we decide to do military in Syria, he really needs to come to Congress," Cardin said. "In regards to an attack against the Assad government, there is no authorization."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has pushed for a war authorization against ISIS, also argued Trump would not have the authority to attack the Assad regime.

"Dropping bombs inside a civil war was a bad idea in 2013, it's a worse idea in 2017," Murphy said. "It will make some Americans feel better, but it will make that battle space more chaotic and end up with more people getting killed, not less. And again, he doesn't have the authorization from Congress to do this."

Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN's Erin Burnett that Congress should evaluate and decide on a war in Syria before Trump moved in on his own.

"I think if we are going to put boots on the ground, we have to authorize the use of force," Speier said. "That should be something debated by the Armed Services Committee and by the full House. We must engage in wars first by evaluating them and Congress taking action, not by allowing the President to act independently, which has been going on now for two decades."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said in the short-term, the President has the authority to take action without getting congressional approval first.

"The prudent course of action would be for him to go to Congress and consult, discuss privately what he is going to do," Corker said. "I'm sure they will take that course of action, or at least I hope they would. So, they have the authority without that, but my sense is that they will come to us."

When Obama tried to get authorization to strike Assad, Republicans were reluctant to get on board to vote for it, Cardin said.

This time, he added, there could be an easier path, especially if it's tailored specifically to respond to the chemical attack.

"Certainly if it's well tailored toward the chemical weapons violations, you might be able to do it," he said.

It's not just Democrats who want Trump to come to Congress. Sen. Rand Paul, known for his libertarian ideology, told Fox News Radio, "Short of Congress voting on it, I'm opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars."

"The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution," Paul said on "Kilmeade and Friends."

At the same time, the situation on the ground in Syria is more complicated for Trump now than it was back in 2013, as Russia has gotten involved militarily to bolster the Assad regime.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he was most concerned about a large US ground force deploying to Syria, but noted that Russia makes even trying to ground Syria's air force difficult.

"It gets complicated because it's not only Assad's air force, it's Russia's air force," King said.

CNN's Ted Barrett, Eli Watkins and Dana Bash contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Democrats: Trump 'really needs to come to Congress' to approve strikes on Assad - CNN

Does anybody here remember Blanche Lincoln? She was a two-term senator from Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who prospered in a red state by defying liberal power brokers like big labor.

The unions and ultra-left pressure groups went after her big-time in 2010, backing a primary challenge by Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. She survived the primary -- barely -- but suffered mortal wounds in the process, and lost badly in the fall to Republican John Boozman.

We thought of Lincoln as the purist wing of the Democratic Party re-emerged this spring and threatened to run primary opponents next year against senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Their sin: daring to support President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

As one of those purist pressure groups, We Will Replace You, said in their manifesto: "The next crucial step is escalating our demands, and demonstrating that we won't accept anything less than full opposition -- by showing Democrats just how many people are willing to back primary challenges to Democratic collaborators and enablers of Trump."

This harassment is beyond stupid. It's suicidal.

Democrats are struggling to win elections and have lost control of both Congress and the White House. Trump won West Virginia by 67 percent, North Dakota by 62 percent and Indiana by 56 percent.

The only Democrats who could possibly hold Senate seats in those states are ones like Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly: moderates who separate themselves from the rigid tenets of liberal theology. Lincolnizing them, purging them as heretics, would have only one result: making it easier for Trump and his congressional allies to retain power.

Look at the facts. Yes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million, but that's a highly misleading figure, based entirely on huge Democratic margins in a few coastal and urban enclaves. In California alone, Clinton rolled up a lead of 4.3 million; in New York, it was 1.7 million. Take away those two states and Trump's national margin was above 3 million.

Trump won about 84 percent of the counties in America; Clinton, 16 percent. Only 26 percent of voters identified as liberals in Election Day exit polls, with 39 percent calling themselves moderates and 35 percent conservatives.

Add the nature of the American system: House members represent individual districts that are often gerrymandered to protect the party in power; each state gets two senators, no matter its size; and the Electoral College determines the president, not the popular vote.

The math is undeniable and unrelenting: Democrats cannot take back the White House or Congress simply by building up large majorities in Brooklyn and Boston. Politics is always about addition, not subtraction. Condemning moderates as "collaborators" and "enablers" will condemn the party to permanent minority status.

Groups like We Will Replace You are directly connected to Bernism, the mass mania that infected liberals during the Democratic primaries. They deluded themselves into believing that a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, mouthing totally unrealistic slogans like "free college tuition," could actually win.

Sure, Sanders backed Clinton after the conventions, but he stayed in the primaries far too long and convinced far too many of his followers that she was a flawed candidate not worth voting for. Yes, Clinton was a poor candidate, but without a doubt, Sanders helped elect Trump. He Lincolnized Clinton.

The fallout from Bernism is not just bad for the Democrats; it's bad for the country. Moderates like Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly are an essential part of a functioning Senate. They are the dealmakers, the conciliators, the lubricators who make the legislative machinery run. Their shrinking numbers help explain why the Senate is imploding over Gorsuch's nomination to the high court.

In 2005, a group called the Gang of 14 -- seven Democrats, seven Republicans -- brokered a pact over judicial nominations that avoided a partisan showdown. Only three of those 14 Senators, all Republicans, remain in office. All the Democrats are gone, including four moderates from red states: Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

There was no deal this year, comparable to the one forged 12 years ago, because there are so few dealmakers left.

If the Democrats forget Blanche Lincoln, if they insist on purging anyone who strays from liberal orthodoxy, they will misread -- once again -- the nature of the American electorate. And they will weaken, not strengthen, their ability to resist Trump.

View original post here:
Liberal purges last thing Democrats need - Arizona Daily Sun