Mediaboss Marketing

There are two different schools of thought among Democrats about when they make their move to replace Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced on Thursday he was stepping down. The first school: The White House and Senate Democrats should push for the replacements confirmation during the lame-duck session after the midterms -- in case Republicans win control of the Senate. Definitely, we should have confirmation hearings as quickly as possible in the Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) told NBCs Andrea Mitchell yesterday. With such a move, and with the filibuster now deactivated for all appointments but Supreme Court ones, Democrats would pretty much ensure that Holders replacement would get confirmed. Republicans, of course, want Democrats to slow down. I hope the president will now take his time to nominate a qualified individual who can start fresh relationships with Congress so that we can solve the problems facing our country, Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said. That brings us to the second Democratic school of thought: You wait until next year and possibly dare a GOP-controlled Senate to blow up an attorney general nomination, especially during a time the U.S. is waging a military campaign in Iraq and Syria. What I think the president ought to do is make this the first test of whether the new Republicans are going to continue to obstruct, Sen. Chuck Schumer said, per the New York Times.

A reminder: We probably wont know which party controls the Senate until December or January

There are two other things to keep in mind regarding timing. One, it is more than likely we wont know which party will control the U.S. Senate until December and maybe even January, with potential runoffs in Louisiana (Dec. 6) and Georgia (Jan. 6). And then theres the case of Greg Orman in Kansas -- if he wins that Senate race, we might not know with which party hell caucus for quite some time. So folks are likely fooling themselves if they know who will be in charge of the Senate right after Election Day. Two, the White House maintains that Holder will stay in his job until a successor is confirmed. Thats a warning to the GOP: If you dont help confirm a new nominee, youll be stuck with Holder.

The Replacements

As for the short list to replace Attorney General, here are the top names our sources are giving us:

No longer on this list is Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who was once considered the favorite. The reason why: On Thursday, Patrick denied rumors that he is next in line for the job. According to an aide, he said at an event in Hudson that the post of attorney general is an enormously important job, but it's not one for me right now. And if he has ANY interest in a presidential or VP bid in 2016, Patrick probably realizes that attorney general isnt the best stepping stone.

The misunderstood Eric Holder

As for Holder, has there been anyone who was more misunderstood in Obamas cabinet -- especially on the right -- than the attorney general? In statement after statement yesterday, Republicans referred to Holder as a deeply partisan attorney general. But the big complaint about Holder, particularly from Democrats in the first Obama term, was how politically tone deaf he was. More than anything else, Holder became a proxy punching bag for House Republicans, who said things to (and about) Holder that they might not have said to the president. It was a turbulent tenure for Holder, especially in the first four years, but that tenure wasnt as controversial when you reflect on it. Meanwhile, the New York Times looks at Holders complicated legacy with the left. Mr. Holder, who announced his resignation Thursday, frequently invoked the [Robert] Kennedy legacy as he made civil rights the centerpiece of his six-year tenure But Mr. Holder has continued Mr. Kennedys work in another way, one he is less likely to embrace but is no less part of his legacy. Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Holder has frustrated and confounded even his staunchest allies for his views on civil liberties.

Ways and Means chairman race will force Paul Ryans hand

The news that Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) says he will seek to chair the powerful House Ways and Means Committee is significant for this simple reason: It will force Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to declare his intentions -- run for president or Ways and Means chairmanship -- sooner rather than later. By the way, Bradys declaration isnt exactly new. Back in February, Brady had announced expressed his desire to chair Ways and Means. Roll Call: Hes a terrific leader, a good friend, Brady said of Ryan, according to early transcript of a portion of the interview that will air on Bloomberg TV. But the point is, Im qualified and prepared to lead this committee. At the right time, Im going to make that case to my colleagues. This is all about the ideas and how we can move tax reform, trade, entitlement reform forward, so its good to have a healthy competition.

Go here to read the rest:
When Will Democrats Try to Replace Eric Holder?

By Abby Livingston Posted at 11:12 a.m. on Sept. 25

Benishek is a Republican from Michigan. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Updated 3:49 p.m. | A Democratic super PAC has cut a television ad reservation for the partys best offensive opportunity in Michigan, according to two sources who monitor media buys.

House Majority PACs cancellation could be a sign Democrats are no longer optimistic their nominee, retired Army Maj. Gen.Jerry Cannon, can defeat Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich.

In June, HMP a super PAC that boosts House Democrats reserved $375,000 for the district, according toThe Washington Post. A Republican source said the reservationwas for Sept. 23 through Oct. 13 in the Marquette and Traverse City media markets.

But this week, HMP went dark in Michigans 1st District.

That HMP reservation previously filled in a two-week gap when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did not plan on airing ads in the district.

According to a GOP source, Cannon is currently on television this week, but Democrats are not slated to air any ads in the district as of next week: The candidate, the DCCC and HMP have not bought or reserved airtime for the week of Sept. 30.

Cannon plans to be back on the air on Oct. 6, and the DCCC reserved another weeks-long window beginning Oct. 14.

The cancellation occurred several weeks ago, according to a Democratic insider. On Sept. 16, the National Republican Congressional Committee reserved $1 million in the Traverse City market.

See more here:
Democrats Cut Ad Time in Michigan House Race (Updated)

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Three Senate Democrats have urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to conduct a thorough review of the London Metal Exchange, the largest exchange of aluminum futures, arguing that U.S. manufacturers and end users are being gouged by anti-competitive market behavior. Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, want the CFTC to probe the aluminum markets used by U.S. participants before approving the LME's application as a foreign board of trade. The letter is the latest effort to reform the aluminum market after the New York Times reported in 2013 that many big banks owned commodity subsidiaries and were skirting LME rules to hoard aluminum, driving up prices for consumers and manufacturers.

See the original post:
Senate Democrats ask CFTC to probe London Metal Exchange

Close Up Hangout with U.S. Rep Steny Hoyer
5 Maryland high schools will discuss the minimum wage, immigration reform/the border crisis, and net neutrality with Rep. Steny Hoyer.

By: Close Up Foundation

Originally posted here:
Close Up Hangout with U.S. Rep Steny Hoyer - Video

In light of President Obama's decision to delay his much-anticipated edict on immigration until after November's elections, some critics are asking why the president and Democrats in Congress didn't pass immigration reform back when they had overwhelming majorities in both House and Senate.

It's a good question and a good reason to revisit 2009 and 2010, when immigration reform could have become a reality.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promised to put comprehensive immigration reform back on the nation's agenda during my first year in office. After victory in 2008, he had the clout to do so: sky-high approval ratings, 257 Democrats in the House and, for a while, a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Immigration activists pressed hard for Obama to act; after all, he had promised.

As 2009 unfolded, Obama encouraged the activists to believe he was committed to introducing a comprehensive reform bill. After a White House meeting, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, told reporters Obama had promised a bill in the very near future.

The next month, April 2009, the White House sent out word that Obama was preparing to move. The New York Times reported: (O)ver the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

Things seemed to be on track.

Throughout June, Obama and top Democrats promised action. After meeting with congressional leaders, Obama declared they all want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now.

As the summer of 2009 went on, though, the talk slowed down as work on health care reform consumed the administration. Immigration fell out of the first tier, if it had ever really been there. By August, Obama put reform at the bottom of a long list.

Immigration reform would have to wait for 2010. And then 2011. And then 2012. And then 2013. And now 2014.

Read more:
Immigration reform still a promise