Mediaboss Marketing

It is obviously very early in the 115th Congress, but its easy enough to look back and compare where the Republican government is today with where previous unified governments were in the past.

By this time in 2009, Obama had expanded the State Childrens Health Insurance Program to cover more children in families living near poverty, and had signed legislation making it easier for women suffering from pay discrimination to file lawsuits. By February 17, he had signed an $800 billion economic rescue bill, and his congressional caucuses were aligned in principle behind the health care reform architecture that ultimately became Obamacare. He had filled nearly every cabinet vacancy, with people who were qualified to run their respective departments, and none of his executive orders had triggered global crisis or destroyed the countrys credibility.

The Bush administration had a slower start, but this was at least partially attributable to the fact that Bushs transition didnt begin until after the Supreme Court had installed him into the presidency in mid-December. By June, hed passed a large income tax cut, with modest bipartisan support.

Trump has thus far signed one bill: to exempt his secretary of defense from the law prohibiting commissioned officers from running the Pentagon unless theyve been retired for seven or more years. As youd expect of any Republican White House, his aides are drawing up plans to deregulate polluters and financial practicesdoing the kinds of things that have Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying there is a high level of satisfaction with the new administration.

This is another way of saying Republicans on the Hill are getting some things they want.

But they are also getting to cast votes on the worst, most unqualified, and corrupt cabinet in modern history. They are getting to answer for Trumps broadsides against the judiciary, and to clean up his disastrous ad hoc haranguing of American allies. They are getting to pretend McConnells decision to discipline Senator Elizabeth Warren for quoting Coretta Scott Kings criticism of Jeff Sessionsin the middle of black history monthwas a stroke of genius. (Corralling nearly every Republican senator to vote for that censure was apparently part of that master plan.) They are getting to make excuses for Trumps undisguised efforts to enrich himself and his family. And theyre getting to do all this as members of the most important national institution to fully corrupt itself on Trumps behalf. (Democrats, judges, consumer brands, civil society organizations, and government bureaucrats, have all conducted themselves with enough basic integrity to preserve a glimmer of hope that Trump cant just shamble Kool-Aid man-style through the entire social fabric.)

Its possible that a major payoff awaits the GOP. Perhaps they really will repeal and replace Obamacare before the end of the year, even though, according to Senator Bob Corker, theres not any real discussion taking place right now. They seem no closer to a major supply-side tax reform or infrastructure bill or welfare rollback either.

Republicans will presumably fill the Supreme Courts vacancy in the coming weeks, but that is less a dividend Trump is paying them than one they carried over themselves from the last Congress. And their nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is already condemning Trump in closed door meetings with Democratic senators.

Trump, meanwhile, is about as unpopular now as Bush was in late 2005before the Democratic Partys midterm landslide in 2006, but after he had locked in his biggest legislative accomplishments. Republicans made a Faustian bargain with the president, and theyre in the process of getting stiffed. Its just unclear why they thought Trump would treat them any differently than anyone else hes partnered with.

Read more here:
The Republicans Are Off to a Pitiful Start - New Republic

As judges on the 9thCircuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trumps immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.

They argue that the 9this too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.

Right now, Flake said, the circuit is far too sprawling.

It represents 20 percent of the population -- and 40 percent of the land mass is in that jurisdiction. Its just too big, Flake told Fox News on Wednesday. We have a bedrock principle of swift justice and if you live in Arizona or anywhere in the 9th Circuit, you just dont have it.

Flake says it typically takes the court 15 months to hand down a decision.

Its far too long, he added.

Conservatives have mocked the 9thCircuit for years, often calling it the Nutty 9th or the 9thCircus, in part because so many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the country, in large part because of its makeup. Eighteen of the courts 25 active judges have been appointed by Democrats. Former President George W. Bush appointed six justices, while former President Barack Obama appointed seven.

Under Flakes bill, the new circuit would cover Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Alaska, leaving the 9th with three Pacific states as well as the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.

A separate House version introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republicans would leave Washington state in the 9th Circuit.

Congressional efforts to split the circuit go back to 1941.

The problem is the judges in the 9th Circuit, particularly the liberal judges, dont want to give up any of their jurisdiction, Flake said.

Congress created the court in 1891. At the time, the area was sparsely inhabited only four percent of the U.S. population lived in the area compared to todays 20 percent.

In 1998, Congress appointed a commission to reexamine the federal appeals courts structure. The commission ultimately recommended against splitting the 9th Circuit.

But carving up the large circuit isnt out of the realm of possibility. In 1929, Congress split the 8th Circuit to accommodate a population boom and increased caseloads.

Democratic strategist Joe Lestingi pushed back on accusations the court leans left.

We dont complain about courts being too conservative, he told Fox News. The truth is the liberal side of that court provides the conflict we need to settle our most basic disagreements.

He added that the 9th Circuits track record of rulings being overturned -- sometimes unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court -- is all part of the judicial process.

If the Supreme Court wasnt going to overturn lower courts' decisions, then we dont need a Supreme Court anymore, Lestingi argued.

Read more here:
Republicans push bill to split up 'nutty 9th Circuit' - Fox News

The high-profile battle between Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions would never have happened if both had not, earlier in their careers, been blocked from jobs they wanted by strong opposition in the Senate.

Sessionss story of beingdenied a federal judgeship is well known, and it was reprisedafter Warren was prevented from reading Coretta Scott Kings letter of opposition to Sessionss 1986 nomination.

The more recent impediment of Warren was instructive, too.

After the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, Warren, who had advocated for the creation of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau under the law and worked with the Obama administration to set it up, was seen as the obvious candidate to run the CFPB.

But in 2011, Republicans held 47 Senate seats, and the filibuster rules of that time allowed them to block any nominee who could not earn every Democratic voteand seven of their own. Republicans made it clear that they would not confirm Warren unless the CFPB was scaled back something Democrats would never do. In May 2011, all 47 Republicans signed a letter promising to block a recess appointment to the CFPB. The letters chief author insmall irony was then-Sen. Jeff Sessions.

Never in history had a minority in the Senate pre-rejected a presidential nominee just because they didnt like the agency he or she was due to run, Warren wrote in her 2014 memoir,A Fighting Chance. Progressives were outraged, and a number argued that this was the right moment for the president to fight back: He should nominate me, have a showdown with the Senate Republicans, and then, if needed, make a recess appointment.

That didnt happen. The Obama White House made what seemed, at the time, to be a compromise with Republicans Warren would not be nominated, replaced by former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray, whom Warren had hired to run the CFPBs enforcement arm.

Not becoming the CFPB director freed Warren to run for the Senate. Had Republicans let her take the CFPB job a compromise that would have alienated plenty of donors, who considered Warren a threat Democrats might not have found a strong enough candidate to unseat Massachusettss then-senator, Scott Brown.

The full-court press in 2011 is also instructive about Republican messaging in 2017.

Some of President Trumps most popular campaign rhetoric waspurloined from Warren: Where she said that the system is rigged, referring to the financial system, Trump pronounced a whole globalist system rigged against the working class.

On the other hand, Republicans have attempted to portray Warren as a left-wing, alienating figure. Theyve latched onto a poll from early January that found 51 percent of Massachusetts voters viewing Warren favorably and just 44 percent saying she deserves reelection in 2018. America Rising, the pro-Republican opposition research group, has focused an unusual amount of fire on Warren, whose state gave just 33 percent its vote to Trump last year.

In conservative media, its widely accepted that raising Warrens profile will be bad for Democrats: A Fox Business segment on Wednesday featured host Stuart Varney calling her the outspoken socialist senator from Massachusetts and assuring that Democrats are making a mistake by putting Senator Warren out front in a very attacking, moralistic mode.

For some, its easier to think that Republicans cleverly elevated Warren to tie Democrats to the left than it is to believe that they have repeatedly stumbled and elevated her as an effective opponent. But that largely relies on a equivalence of the right and left as equally extreme, and equally upsetting to centrist voters, and that might not reflect reality. In December, for example, Morning Consult asked a polling sample of Trump voters if they favored elimination of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau: 50 percent of Trump voters wanted it expanded or left alone; just 7percent agreed with nearly every Republican politician in calling for it to be scrapped.

And recent history suggests that partisans are not always the best judges of what the opposition might do to alienate voters. The hack of John Podestas email recovered a memo from April 23, 2015, from Hillary Clintons pre-campaign organization to the Democratic National Committee. Among the early goals of any campaign, they believed, was to force all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.

We dont want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, wrote the memo authors, but make them more Pied Piper candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Three candidates were named: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Ben Carson and Donald Trump.

Read more here:
Republicans don't like Elizabeth Warren. So why do they keep handing her a megaphone? - Washington Post

MSNBC

On civil rights, Republicans pick the wrong fight at the wrong time MSNBC Given the racially charged themes tying together several recent Republican moves, the GOP would probably be better off avoiding an argument over civil rights, but a variety of prominent officials in the party were nevertheless eager to dive in yesterday. and more »

Read this article:
On civil rights, Republicans pick the wrong fight at the wrong time - MSNBC

First of all, despite the martyr act, no one has the power to silence Sen. Elizabeth Warren and thats a good thing.On the other hand, the impulse to silence Warren is completely rational, and it has nothing to do with her gender, ancestry, or ideology. It has everything to do with her sanctimonious lecturing,habitual dishonesty, and disregard of norms. Shes been a bully her entire career.

But when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pulled Rule 19, which prohibits all members from taking to the floor and directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator, I assumed it was a failure in the optics department. (Not to mention an arbitrary, speech-inhibiting rule that should not be used, but thats another story.)

Shutting down a female senator while shes reading a letter from civil rights icon Coretta Scott King is a bit on the nose, even for the GOP. She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted, McConnell mansplained. The incident was transformed into Twitter hashtags #LetLizSpeak and the less catchy #ShePersisted. Both went viral, instilling millions of Democrats with a new sense of purpose.Hashtags > voting.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that the nomination of Jeff Sessions as attorney general was likely a done deal. So it was unlikely any persuadable voter would have even heard about Warrens grandstanding if it werent for the kerfuffle. If it were up to me, however, Id let Warren speak whenever she wanted to ceding my time, if necessary for as long as she wanted on any stage she demanded. The more she speaks, the better for conservatives.

As The Washington Post points out, however, McConnell probably gave Warrens 2020 presidential aspirations a huge in-kind contribution by forcing her to follow rules of decorum. Its possible, I suppose, that the GOP is playing the same 3D chess mastered by Donald Trump. Maybe shutting down Warren was a surreptitious means of making her the de facto voice of the Democratic Party and #TheResistance (formerly known as unprecedented obstructionism). Maybe it was just good luck.

Warren as the voice of the Left might be the best-case scenario for Republicans. For one thing, Warren is no Barack Obama on the charisma front. For another, Warren saves conservatives the trouble of going after socialist strawmen. Theyll have a real one.

Still, theres one potential hitch in the plan.Republicans, like everyone else, tend to assume politicians they loathe will be equally loathed by most of the electorate. Be cautious of what you ask for. Youll no doubt remember how many liberal pundits acted like the prospect of Marco Rubio or Ted Cruzas president was scarier than Trump when they thought the latter had no chance in a general.

The real question is would Warrens left-populism play on the electoral map Trump has rejiggered? Is her protectionist trade rhetoric enough to win over white-working class voters in Pennsylvania coal country even though she rails against fossil fuels and cheap energy? Would a lawyer who built a political career growing bureaucracies and pushing regulatory burdens on Americans be popular with rural workers in Ohio? Is it possible that someone who believes Obamacare didnt exert enough government control over the health-care system going to run strong in a general election campaign in suburban Indiana?Moreover, can a Northeasterner with extreme social views bring working-class Missourians home to Democrats? Liberals from Massachusetts, after all, are still 0-3 (here, here, here) over the past 50 years. And Warren is farther Left than any of them, by a mile.

I use a lot of question marks in the above paragraph because 2016 taught me that the American electorate is volatile and angry, and coastal elites should never make assumptions about its temperament. Still, its fair to say at this point and a lot can change under Trumps leadership the answer to most of these questions seems to be Unlikely.

The fuss over silencing Warren also reminds us that Democrats will, like they did with Hillary Clinton, rely heavily on the identity politics that have failed them for six years, if not longer. CNN, for example says, For Elizabeth Warrens supporters, the vote leading to #LetLizSpeak was a textbook case of males silencing a woman.Then there is this from Kamala Harris, a rising star on the Left:

Women suffer indignity, violence, poverty, and death at the hands of theocrats around the world every day, but Harris believes that the Senate leader asking a woman to follow the rules of decorum is a rallying cry for justice. The fact that Democrats spent the day aiming most of their ire at Betsy DeVos, who now runs perhaps the least consequential department in the cabinet, speaks to their hypocrisy.

Then again, few things are more unintellectual, irrational, or un-American than demanding people comport their political worldviews to their skin color, sex, or ethnicity. And if a Warren candidacy or anyone elses ensures that Democrats will spend another four years accusing half the country of being moral troglodytes while waiting for demographics to win them elections, Republicans should supporttheir efforts.

Enjoy:

Read more:
Republicans Should Make Elizabeth Warren The Voice Of Democrats - The Federalist