Burgess Everett, Politico: Democrats look to exploit Trump divisions with GOP Congress
Senate Democrats hint they’re willing to play ball with the president-elect and use the filibuster sparingly.
“There are areas where [Trump] is much more of a Democrat,” said a senior Democratic aide. “He could cut deals and leave [Republicans] in the dust.”
The first real inflection point for Democrats will be Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. The expectation is that McConnell will stick with the 60-vote standard, unless Democrats bait him to change it by blocking the nominee, which Merkley admitted is a possibility.
“I hope that what’s going to happen is we don’t do that,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said of a rules change. “I’ve already received some calls from Democrats wanting to work together to resolve this issue.”
Groundhog Day – Welcome back to December 2002. Let’s keep that powder dry some more.
The filibuster will only get to be used once to block something McConnell really wants, because at that point it will be gone. This isn’t “keeping your powder dry”, it “using your last bullet carefully”.
In addition, if the Republicans + Trump want something for the next two years, they get it. Our only effective tactic for the next two years is splitting them somehow – Trump from Ryan, the NeverTrump Senators from Trump (there are 3, so that can block), or the crazy caucus from Ryan. That requires cordial relations with at least some Republicans and probably Trump as well. Remember, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
It is the rhetoric as much as the strategy. It is what got Hillary Clinton and others saddled in 2002 with the Iraq War and the guys on the intelligence committee being kept in the dark about what was going on.
It might be a valuable strategy as you say, but to leak it when Democratic voters are still traumatized just compounds the idea that DC doesn’t give a shit about voters.
I will grant some of your arguments, but a public stance of capitulation makes it seem like the good old Democrats from the Bush administration and Schumer taking care of Wall Street and not the country.
That will come back to bite in the midterms. Do not assume and automatic backlash from Trump policy. The political argument still must be made and Democrats must ensure that it gets through the media fog to the people–something they’ve not figured out how to crack yet. If Soros would just buy ClearChannel, that might be a start. Just in the symbolism to start with. If he then broke it up and sold it to actual local owners with a provision that prevented it from being sold to non-locals owners, that would be even better. Privately reinstate the ownership restrictions on media that existed before Reagan. But it would not make Soros any richer, so it won’t happen.
Therefore, the one use of the filibuster needs to be used on something that is important to the process of continuing governance, of high interest to the public across party lines, easily understood by the public, and a potential huge game changer in 2018.
That one issue would be what?
Even preserving Social Security falls short and fuzzing up legislation so that no politician can explain it makes it difficult to cut through the BS.
Right now the best use looks like Medicare deform. It depends on what comes out of the House, of course.
Much depends on the Senate rules once the new Congressional session starts in early January. It is conceivable as has been noted elsewhere that the majority could simply do away with Cloture altogether, in which case blocking toxic legislation becomes a moot point. Under those circumstances, there is no motivation for the Democratic Party to cooperate at all. Whether or not the Democratic Party can function as a true opposition party remains to be seen. We’re really counting on its leadership to figure it out pronto. Essentially, the message should be that the GOP is taking full ownership for everything, including those left to die as they are kicked off insurance coverage, those left to stagnate as those incomes stay stagnant and those jobs never do quite miraculously come back, and so on. Rub their noses in every bad thing that happens on the GOP’s watch. But if the cloture remains intact, use it, and use in the same way the GOP did. But also make the public aware of what an alternative to GOP domination could look like. Easier said and done in an era when echo chambers are more impenetrable than ever, I know. But that really is the only hope. Resist and offer alternative that would better the lot of workers, better the lot of those of us who are minorities of one sort or another, and so on. Just my two cents.
It may not come to this.
I think there’s a meaningful possibility that the Senate majority kills the filibuster rule entirely on Inauguration Day. Conway said yesterday that they may hold an Obamacare repeal vote on Inauguration Day, and the only way they do that successfully is if they kill the filibuster at the beginning of the next Congress.
As part of that, Ryan is claiming that the ACA is causing Medicare to go broke (exactly the opposite of the truth- the Medicare fund’s sustainability has been improved greatly by Obamacare), so the Speaker wants to jam into the Bill a privatization of Medicare.
I think they do this on January 20th. Time to start organizing against all of this now. We have no more time to relitigate the campaign.
Then there is no reason for Democrats to vote yes on anything at all. Let the Republicans own all of it. That’s something some Blue Dogs never let happen during the Bush administration even on very egregious legislation.
Let’s try to prevent the killing of the filibuster and steel Congressional Democrats for war. The first must happen in order to make the second an effective obstruction tactic.
My worry is that getting Dems too publicly aggressive in stating their preparation for monolithic obstruction in the next Contress will help McConnell and Co. make the public justification for killing the filibuster.
It’s a tender balance.
How would you suggest “we” do this. I’m just a passenger in this handbasket to hell at the moment; I’ve already voted.
I don’t know. Wish I did. Having to depend on Mitch McConnell’s impulse to defend institutional norms of the Senate makes me extraordinarily unhappy.
Why are we not doing anything at all? We could occupy DC and surround the capital, WH, and Supreme Court to get them to address the Electoral College and voter suppression. Except Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Dem establishment seem resigned to this Trump elect reality. I understand the need to normalize and rationalize, but this seems really dangerous to allow this election result to stand. I say that knowing overturning the EC is a fantasy, but if it somehow happened it would be crossing another Rubicon that could have long term dire results. However, what the Founders designed it to do was stop a demagogue like Trump, but we are supposed to forget that part.
I don’t know the right course of action, but it seems like allowing candidates to not release their tax records, to accept an authoritarian Know-Nothing celebrity “billionaire” that was helped by interference from Federal gov’t agencies and foreign governments is a recipe for disaster that will not end well. This seems really bleak and people don’t understand what they are really accepting if they normalize this monstrosity of a result.
And the alternative was what? A candidate and party that had to lie and cheat to win the nomination. A candidate that gobs and money and power spent two decades building up and making over to become the first woman president. A candidate that ran on what? Sure wasn’t her resume that is thin on accomplishments and long on bad judgment. A candidate that has been dishonest and secretive for decades.
Might be somewhat less “unsavory” if politicians had one position.
Or a shred of either honor or conscience.
You seem like a decent poster, and I have read your comments for months.
However, you don’t do anything but bitch and complain. Yours is a sad fatalism as you rant and rail against everyone else trying to escape your suffocating impotence and looming mortality.
If you have a way forward, it would be the first time I have seen that perspective from you and would be curious to what it entails. It needs to be grounded in reality and not a fantasy world you wish existed which is what your complaint about a politician only having one position amounts to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.Enlighten us on Jefferson’s or Lincoln’s one view on slavery or were they too unsavory for you, because they were successful?
When the choice is limited to A or B and they’re both dreadful in similar and different ways, you’re correct, I have no answer while A or B is unresolved or in the immediate aftermath when one prevails and the other is mourning/lashing out/in denial but still retains the power to drown out the voices seeking a positive and different way forward.
Nobody here offered any complaint when I criticized and trashed Trump. But criticizing and trashing Trump didn’t make the Democratic nominee better. I offered my recommendation as to who IMO was better nominee in this election cycle for a year up until June 2016. Y’all had a better idea; so, suck it up and stop blaming others for an outcome that you don’t like.
On policy, it’s not rare for me to offer suggestions for alternative ways to go. Much time, research, and effort has gone into writing such diaries over the past decade. Based on readership and threads to those diaries, they aren’t of interest to more than a handful here. So, now I put in the time, research, and effort for my own edification and skip the formal write-up and posting.
You answered yourself in your own mind with your a and b dilemma, if b stands for Bernie. If you read up thread, I know people who have worked for Bernie. He has a ton problems, I won’t go into atm.
Hillary is not the demon, you have built her up to be. She doesn’t have such a great record, because she allowed others like Kennedy to take the credit. D.C. is a bunch of fiefdoms and the Kennedy, Schumer, Sanders, Clyburn, Pelosi, Cummings and Hoyer types are always working the angles that are best for them and not the party or the country. They are not psychopaths, so I am a Democrat. I have no idea how to make the party more responsive to the people. Webb has a few good ideas, but is a Neanderthal on many other core liberal issues. O’Malley looks good on paper, but his limited window closed when Freddie Gray was murdered. If you look into his zero tolerance policy as Baltimore mayor as Democrat with a conscience, I don’t know how you reward his behavior.
It is bleak if people think we have some Phoenix under the hood ready to rise, because no one wants to do the work. It is always someone else’s problem, because “I voted Bernie or Edwards” is an easy fallback defense mechanism to remove oneself from ones own accountability.
No — Sanders was not part of my A or B dilemma.
Hillary has never let anyone take credit for something positive that she has done. Although she had tried to take credit for what others have done.
Also, never said said that Hillary is a demon. She’s probably very nice and pleasant in person, particularly and with those that share her worldviews on economic and military/”defense” public policies. I happen not to share those worldviews and see them as destructive to the lives and well being of ordinary people.
O’Malley was ambition without the core principles that animated the Democratic Party 1932-1972. Politically immature and that overwhelmed his not insignificant physical charisma. You’re correct that the murder of Freddie Gray took him out of contention, but before then he wasn’t worth considering as an alternative to Clinton.
Uh, wouldn’t those decrying the hairball by continuing to claim Hillary’s superiority be engaging in exactly the same thing as what you accuse Edwards’ once supporters of doing? (btw, I was never gullible enough to buy Edward’s schtick. Opposed him in ’03-’04 and again in ’07-’08. His record didn’t match his campaign rhetoric.) And anyone that claims Edwards as the nominee would have won against GWB in ’04 is delusional.
At this particular moment in time, those bellyaching about Trump’s win and Clinton’s loss, absolutely do have to hear form those that have good and solid reasons for why Trump or any other GOP candidate would have lost to Bernie. And explain why you instead chose a candidate with net negative favorable ratings over a candidate than had inspired millions of $27 donors and held a net positive favorable rating with the general electorate. Those were the nomination “deciders” and if they can’t/don’t figure out why they got it wrong, they will make the same mistakes in the future.
4)You understand the delusion in others circa ’04, but do not recognize the shared similarities in your own present situation?
Bernie is not an Alpha male. That would have shown up in the debates, if Trump participated, because DJT probably would have been way ahead. Sanders looked impotent when Trump yanked his chains about a debate before the California primary. That would have been the GE writ large.
Unlike you, I’ll admit I could be mistaken, but you have not made much of a case beyond your special snowflake fee fees. Everything I know from a lifetime of experience as a uneducated white cis male in mostly Republican states, my time with voters, and watching Trump and Sanders on the campaign trail lead me to believe Clinton was the better choice. As stated, perhaps I’m mistaken.
You are totally mistaken. Bernie was eager to debate Trump. Trump chickened out.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/26/trump-chickens-refuses-debate-sanders-bernie-pays-10-million.
html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/sanders-fries-chicken-donald-trump-10m-debate-flip-flop-art
icle-1.2652416
Bernie “is not an alpha male”. Give me a break. He would have wiped the floor with Trump, because Trump doesn’t know shit.
Bernie looked like a chump. Not sure how to explain it to you. He had no leverage. He allowed himself to be manipulated into looking more impotent than when he started. If you think it was a winning move, then you need to question if your bias towards the democrats, the Left, or BS is warping your perspective.
Why do I need to question MY bias? Maybe you need to question your bias. You seem to have a very high opinion of your own opinions.
NoBooRevu, I’m told by you that you’ve had ‘a lifetime of experience as a uneducated white cis male in mostly Republican states’. First I had to look up cis = what uneducated people might call straight or hetero? From the length of your remarks, their insistent tone and general clarity, I would’nt have ever thought that your ‘uneducated’. How much education have you actually had then since you make a point of telling us about it: look, even little old me, knows better than you? You’ve made the same statement at least once in another remark. It struck me the first time as odd and still does.
http://allthetropes.wikia.com/wiki/Simple_Country_Lawyer
You only just started posting, but I would say, look in the mirror. You’ve spewed more negativity in the last few days than almost anybody I can remember. What’s your way forward, if I may ask?
I am critical of the lazy thinking that got us here. I am questioning the way forward, be it strident aggressive action or more surreptitious means. I am open to anything at the moment, but I don’t think doubling down on one avenue or abandoning another is prudent when we are unsure what took place last week.
Not sure how that is negative. The posters giving me the most grief have been the most negative the past 6 mos.
If you’re critical of the lazy thinking that got us here, you’ve made a strange choice of targets. You’re attacking all the Sanders people. Sanders didn’t lose this election.
You can debate about whether Sanders could have won or not. I already said there’s no way to prove it. But I don’t see how anyone could deny that he at least understood the disaster we were heading for and tried as best he could to prevent it. Hillary sure didn’t.
The reason I say you’re negative is that according to you, everybody is wrong, nobody here understands the situation as well as you do, and yet I haven’t seen you make one suggestion other than surround Washington, DC.
Not even our respected Arthur Gilroy could make anything of that.
“Move right, move right” has been the mantra of centrists Democrats in response to every Democratic loss since 1972. How much further right can Democrats go than Hillary did actively and publicly courting the likes of Kissinger (just one example) before they bear any resemblance to a Democrat? Oh, and have the kids squander their energy protesting individual Republican creeps because that keeps them occupied and doesn’t interfere with the institutional mechanisms of the D party.
I think he’s trying to say, we need a Democratic version of Trump. Which Hillary, no matter how far right she might be, certainly isn’t.
Bernie Sanders wasn’t good enough for him. I guess he thinks Bernie is a wuss. He might be looking for a fire breathing Dixiecrat. Or maybe somebody like Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung.
heh. A belligerent nincompoop, whatever party brand they choose to slap on themselves, is still a fascist asshole. It was what the 1972 MI Democratic primary voters recommended if the D party wanted to win that year.
Have you got a link for that?
Michigan May 16, 1972 and to a lesser extent that same day in Maryland. Although can’t discount a huge sympathy vote developing overnight from the shooting the day before.
So far, one of the few silver linings to this PoS election is that the Clintons have lost control of the Democratic Party. Keith Ellison as chairman of the DNC? Fine by me. Fine by Sanders, Warren … and even Schumer.
One bizarre effect that we’re just waking up to, is that the press now has a new set of “moderates”. After all, Marilyn Allbright doesn’t like Trump. Condi Rice doesn’t like Trump. And so on.
Cheny hates Trump, but supported him. Well, at least Mike Pence really likes Dick Cheney. Isn’t that special?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-pence-cheney-idUSKCN11O0TQ
ANd finally … Donald Rumsfeld likes Trump. Well, thank God for that! Kind of reaffirms my faith in human nature.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/23/donald-rumsfeld-donald-trump-clint
on/86280248/
Not to be overlooked is that the Bushes were also taken out in this election. And while the Clintons were getting hugs from the Bushes, they didn’t bring along the Bush voters for Clinton.
True, but that already happened during the primaries.
Anyway, it’s having a good effect on Warren already:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-obamacare-trump-democrats_us_582a4402e4b0c4b63b
0e3988
The fact that Schumer is on board should clue you into its potential for disaster.
This is the current Fox News headline:
“Who is Keith Ellison? Left-wing congressman with past ties to Nation of Islam wants DNC job”
Watch this clip and tell me what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZXt5J0ZkqU
“Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time”
Harry S Truman quotes (American 33rd President of the United States, 1884-1972)
If that’s a problem, what better way to nuke the entire Democratic DC infrastructure and try to figure out what candidates need to win instead of how best to channel K Street money. It could be that national party infrastructure has been supplanted by the PAC-SuperPAC-K Street structure of campaign funding directly to candidates. And is an albatross for both parties. Wouldn’t the movement that shed this excess baggage first and had a better touch with the grassroots have an advantage?
The symbolism of a Muslim responding to Donald Trump’s every political move has a narrative for some people, and at the moment it’s whose dirty hands are going to take charge of the DNC. We know that so far it’s all status quo in the Congressional caucuses. Where are the upstarts like the Tea Party that scare the status quo into concessions of power?
Schumer and Pelosi certainly don’t start building a bench. We are at the point that Democrats might start getting young blood just because the lines of succession on the Republican side are long. For now, the powers that be in the Democratic party have been shoving the newcomers out of the nest and then wondering where the fledgling are going to come from.
A Millennial is now old enough to run for President. Think of that. And pretty soon the succeeding generation (whatever it’s marketing name is) will be eligible for Congress. It still is only age 25.
There should be a bunch of #OccupyWallStreet, #blacklivesmatter, LBGTQ, and next wave feminists crowding to gain office.
But for the money barrier.
Did you watch the clip?
Do you understand the amount of Islamophobia that exists in what remains in the Democratic Party in red states?
Yes, Ellison is a good spokesperson on the TV, but it is going to take more than that to have the DNC act as means of unifying a party of independently funded strong-willed candidates. Especially in a post-Citizens United environment. It is not personal; it is structural first, and the people either resist the diversion from public service or the capitulate to where the money is.
It will take a lot of face time for Ellison to undo the damage that Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz did with the non-public relations part of the job. And it will take a lot of face time for Ellison to be (1) perceived as a reasonable politician and (2) to have his Muslim identity be acknowledged as a part of the source of his values.
The structural issue is by far the most difficult. When there were party bosses who exclusively paid out campaign funds and earmarks and a bipartisan logrolling Congress, stuff could get done and party leaders could force some sort of discipline. It seems that now the public business cannot get done because of the contention of special interests. None of the party infrastructure that exists contributes to better results. Or to winning elections.
Well, yes, I did watch the clip.
What do I think of the clip?
Now in answer to the first part of your comment.
Seeing that I really admire Keith Ellison, and that he really does understand Trump; seeing that Bernie Sanders feels the same way; and so does Elizabeth Warren; and so does Chuck Schumer — that means we’re all in agreement. especially since it represents a realignment of the Democratic Party. I only wish this could have happened a few years ago, but of course it couldn’t have.
I certainly don’t agree with Schumer about everything, but he’s not wrong about everything either. Such as this.
The political situation in this country is about to change, and you are going to see some realignments. And you might find that this is not the best time to be so negative about people who are on the front lines against the new fascism.
And that is why we lose again. I’ll explain if thd comments.
I think I get it. We ought to put people in charge of the DNC that Fox News likes. Hey, why didn’t any of us think of that?
I get that too, but we need a chair that that FoxNews will never like in order to win. And a chair that will not telegraph Democratic strategy through a Republican outlet.
Ok, so you guys watched, but you watched it as libs or Dems. Now watch as if you’re an undecided and not that informed white guy.
Go to approximately the 5:20 mark and Chris Hayes asks about King’s comment about Ellison and Sharia law. King straight forwardly states he is glad Chris will ask Ellison. Then Ellison talks a bunch of mumbo jumbo about patriotism and builds up Republican Paul Ryan for his “courage” in speaking out. Yes, he speaks about compatibility between US and Muslim values, but he never directly states the Constitution trumps Sharia law, which was the charge king made. So you have the Republican snake seem to be strong and direct. The Democratic response is an almost 3 minute filibuster that avoids the actual question. Voters may not be sophisticated enough or have the vocabulary to articulate why they prefer King over Ellison in this exchange. We can point out truth and honesty as critical factors, but the media won’t get involved. P Jr. thinks Hayes did a good job. He did, if he was supposed to play the media stereotype of the sneering elitest egghead.
Ellison comes from +22 Dem district. He is flabby in having to win a swing election. He is smart but not experienced nor disciplined enough to be an effective DNC chairman. He reminds me of a young Ed Rendell and that is not a compliment.
So why didn’t you come out and point that out without the Socratic method?
Good analysis. So who would be a good pick assuming the DNC hangs around as an institution?
And who for executive director?
Too much Bob Somerby?
We just are not that sharp anymore in terms of arguments, and especially how others see the world. I also wanted to see how others saw it, and check it against mine and others impression. So many of us have never talked to a real life undecided voter or voters that support another candidate that are not our friends or acquaintances.
I have no idea, and that is not my fault. We have lost an entire next generation of Democrats, since Obama took office.
Anyone else you like or curious?
I see requirements but cannot know who can fit them.
The organizational ability has to do with standing up dynamic state party organizations in burned over states. And seeing that state parties do not write off counties. That likely takes some good volunteer training in democratic processes, something that the Democratic Party should, but isn’t very good at. And it must surface local issues and proposals to be dealt with locally, drive state policy, and federal policy in a pretty visible way. That link between local and state levels is the weakest and makes actual representation of Representatives weak as well, which is one of the key failings that affect winning elections. There is an important difference between representing the opinions of your constituents and representing the interests of your constituents. The GOP has been very good at reducing government to the opinions level. And can fail at interests and point back at that failure as a systemic failure, not a personal failure.
I can come up with communication names and with organizing names but not with both skills. Public facing persuasion and invward-facing development are quite different skill sets.
And current campaign practice begins after the local activity has dwindled to nothing and the precinct becomes pretty pro forma. There are no local events to allow that sort of conversation to happen in a non-confrontational way. And canvassing deliberately (and wisely IMO) focuses on the lean and likely and in principle ignores the undecided or opponents in order to remove the practical barriers to actually turning out. Moreover most of us find it hard these days to talk to our friends and acquaintances.
Most of the folks that I have witnessed in action are now pretty old and some have passed. Most of the younger ones I’ve watched are among those lost since 2009 (for example, Brad Miller).
This is very good. If you want to do a diary about the DNC or the Democratic Party going forward, let me know. We can work on it together or I can add some information, if you have an idea.
The three things for me are:
The other side of 3 is that the local neighborhoods that did have intense attention do not get continuity after the election. The Obama campaign set up a precinct canvassing house in a residential neighborhood near me just to canvass this neighborhood (roughly 65% D) in 2012. It was a temporary outpost but with the right familiy it could have become a node for between-election organizing.
Yes, I’m thinking of how urban machines organized wards and precincts and were nodes of service delivery without the old school arm-twisting patronage. There must be continuity and independence of particular political candidates for the voters to be able to hold politicians accountable through primaries. And counterbalance the influence of campaign donors (around here, real estate and devlopment interests and construction). What the DNC has, in principle, are unity lists of voters. What the DNC IT infrastructure apparently has is an insecure data warehouse subdivided into candidate spaces for recording contacts. Having that list as a starting point for organizing current R +PVI precincts, counties, and states and having some way of locals building the network is a first priority to my mind. The worst county in west Kansas still has over 200 Clinton voters. But the wizards you list still routinely write them off because 200 cannot be built into a state majority in 18 months.
Having local activists interact away from their local areas does build collegiality and networks across the party. But, those experiences must result in some sort of victory to maintain momentum. The big problem with that is that the collective knowledge base that was learned in that experience is unlearned by the OMG midterm is coming cycle that leaves locals totally alone to pull it out for the local candidates, when often those “local’ candidates are recruited in DC for reasons not related to representing their localities. Networks that become priivileged or become groupthink or factions are not generally helpful.
By far the biggest challenge is the voter suppression challenge. Voters need to know that there is a regular voting place. It must be convenient to workers. And it must be provided with equal and adequate resources to allow convenient voting. The games being played by boards of elections this year have been hideous, even to the point of disobeying federal court orders. It is possible, but we will never know, that Clinton based on sentiment and turnout did indeed win North Carolina; that’s how bad suppression was from the purge list onward. Not because of great GOTV but because the targets of Trump’s campaign did get themselves out.
The second is that pool of 47% non-voters. What doe we actually know about this group as to the varieties of reasons for not voting? More localized an continuous political presence would better inform that.
How would that interchange of info work? I don’t see any mechanism for messaging within the BT site.
Yes, and I was on the DFA conference call November 10th, with Pramila Jayapal, Robert Reich, and Keith Ellison, and they are acutely aware of these problems. It was a big part of what they talked about. Which is another reason why I think Ellison is a good choice.
http://democracyforamerica.com/site/event/dfa-live-election-debrief-with-pramila-jayapal-robert-reic
h-and-keith-ellis
That’s a fine analysis. But I see you refer to the Republican as a “snake”. Why? Because the question he asked is a trick question, and you know that as well as I do. It can’t be answered. It’s like that old chestnut, “Are you still beating your wife?” You’re screwed either way.
Sharia law and U.S. Constitutional Law are two completely different systems. They don’t deal with the same things, they don’t come from the same authority, any more than Catholic or Greek orthodox canon law. Why? Because in this land of ours we have (a) no established religion and (b) freedom of religion. And in addition, there are (c) many different schools of sharia (d) even within those schools, conflicting opinions.
Admittedly there are some extremely radical schools of sharia of the theocratic variety that do think sharia takes blanket precedence over any secular system. But then, there is a whole philosophy within Protestantism, called Dominionism, more political than theological, that believes Biblical law takes precedence over U.S. law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
If you would ask an observant Jew which takes priority, halakha (Jewish religious law) he or she would not be able to answer yes or no either. All they would say is, there is no conflict. Which is what Ellison said. He would never say U.S. law is more important than Jewish religious law, because if it were, it would mean that American law was impinging on his religious freedom.
There have been cases like that, particularly in the area of dietary laws, and the religious law (in our country) is upheld.
The Mormons know a lot about such conflicts. In their history they’ve had much more conflict between their religious law and Constitutional law than Islam or Judaism have.
Hayes really did a good job to point out the parallels to the Protestant fear-mongering about Catholicism. It’s absolutely relevant, and at least if the uneducated guy we’re talking about were Catholic, he probably would get the point.
An uneducated American Christian has no conception of sharia law except that it sounds “scary”, and nothing a Muslim could say on the subject would be intelligible to him, other than than what Ellison said. The more specific the Muslim would explain, specifically, the less the American would understand.
It’s one thing to reach out to everybody but there are limits, beyond which you are pandering or distorting, or falling into traps set by trick questions, Mr. Ellison understands this very well. I’m sure he has had lots of practice. There are extremists in the American hinterlands as well. There are voters out there with Dominionist beliefs. Do you expect Democrats to cater to them?
We can do a LOT better than the Clintons’ Democratic Party in talking to people — without needing to go so far as to pander to extremists. What are we supposed to do, promise them there won’t be any N&$$#@s or H$b%s in our government? Most people are not that extreme, and if they are, it’s not going to do anybody any good to pander to them. If that’s the only reason they wouldn’t vote for Snaders, fuck ’em.
Dude he is a US Congressman. He has to be able to articulate that he is not beholden to a religious test, just as JFK did. It is not hard, quit making excuses for shoddy work.
I’m not making excuses. He just did it. If you can’t see that, it’s not my problem, and it’s not his problem either.
By the way. he’s not running for president, and DNC chair is an administrative position in the party, not a public office. But he’s held office in his own district in Minnesota almost ten years now, and is popular.
You’re just milking this. Nobody’s going to get everybody’s vote, and the Dems can do a lot better than the Hillary approach without trying to pander to people who wouldn’t vote for any Democrat under any conditions.
You’ve done nothing but make excuses every time you’ve replied to me.
He already has a full time job. Tim Kaine was not that effective as DNC leader, because he was governor for half his tenure. It is not a public office, but he is the public face of the party. Whenever he is asked about working with terrorists or enacting Sharia Law, he answers with gobbledygook about patriotism, but never directly answers the question. You may feel like to answer it is some sort of trap, but did you feel the same way when Donna Brazile obfuscated about providing debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign? Brazile wrapped herself in the Bible and religion while furiously trying to change the subject. I thought you were tired of the “Hillary approach.”Or are you only tired of people connected to Clinton?
As I stated previously, he is smart, so perhaps he can learn on the job. However, as we learned with the President, personal popularity is not transferable to other candidates and learning on the job is not a solid recipe for success.
I voted for Dean in the 2004 Primaries as sort of an FU to the party. I was really unsure if he could win, but doubted anyone could beat Bush as a wartime leader. I thought he was the only candidate speaking to Democratic values, when everyone else was trying to be a Republican lite or literally was a DINO in the case of Joe “Bipartisan ” Lieberman. I have not been that impressed with him since he was forced out as DNC chair. He has taken large piles of money from corporate interests in the intervening years, so that makes him suspect to many. Just in terms of messaging he was never that good. He never seemed to do his homework and committed numerous gaffes. I have no idea how well he did with 50 states strategy as the Obama team lead by Emanuel immediately tried to discredit him, then they went out and basically destroyed the party. So I don’t know give much credence to the Obama team narrative. However, I have conflicting accounts of people on the ground about how good he was as DNC chair. Not sure how many were biased one way, but I think the Democratic Party had numerous advantages during his tenure that he was the beneficiary.
I really like Tom Perez and think in rebuilding relationships and party infrastructure he would be fantastic. I am intrigued by Jaime Harrison having heard good things about his work in South Carolina. However, I have no idea how he comes across in interviews. I would be interested in the private thoughts of Franken and Klobucher. If they supported Ellison over R.T. Rybak, then I would feel better about Ellison. The fact that Schumer a very selfish politician and seemingly only interested in his own fiefdom is for him is a huge red flag in my book. Schumer seems to prefer an ineffective Chair.
When did the DNC Chair become the public face of the Democratic Party? That task used to be the President’s.
Did Don Fowler, the genius who let SC go to seed, start that practice or was it earlier?
WTF does Don Fowler have to with anything? Is Roy Romer pertinent to this discussion? If you think Harrison is bad then make your case.
We don’t have a Democratic President for the next 4 years, so I don’t get your point. Not sure about how a hack from 20 years ago has any meaning as well. Democrats will have limited opportunities to speak to voters over the next 2-4 years in making their case. If I had to choose one skill over the other it would be rebuilding the infrastructure over communication talent, but I think we need as much help as possible, so people able to multitask would be valuable.
This seems like a bipolar response to what you wrote last night.
I was trying to figure when a DNC chair became the public face of the Democratic Party.
I expect that given the number of media outlets these days that what I remember it as the job of one of the Congressional leaders. Dirksen and Halleck as a team (no, not Schumer and Pelosi, please). Newt Gingrich stands out. For the moment, Elizabeth Warren seems to be grabbing that role. Interesting.
I apologize, I thought you were jumping down my throat about Harrison or something. I think you could be right about Fowler doing more interviews than before.
They could have a dual chair like they had with I think Ed Rendell being General and Joe Andrew being National back around 2000. Like maybe Warren and Perez or Ellison and Perez? Although I would prefer two with no other commitments.
What you call “excuses” I call answers based on substance, answers you have yet to address. You simply ignore what I say and repeat your talking points.
As for Donna Brazile, why her answer to one question has anything to do with Keith Ellison’s answer to a completely different question, is beyond me. Plus, may I remind you, giving answers to debate questions beforehand is cheating, whereas simply being a Muslim is not. I didn’t know it was a theological inquisition. Ellison was elected by his constituents to represent them in congress, and is now up for possible chair of the DNC, neither of which has a religious test attached to it, as far as I am aware.
As to Howard Dean, I happen to agree with all your points.
I don’t know what to say about Schumer. The results of this election put him in a crucial position in the Senate, and one he’s not been in before. In fact, I don’t think the country’s been in this position before, and I don’t know that anybody entirely understands it yet, because Trump seems to be making it up as he goes along. Who’s really in charge? Bannon? Pence? Jared Kushner? Somebody else? Trump’s the least likely.
Schumer is extremely smart and extremely tough and resourceful when he wants to be. We might be very thankful to have such a person as Senate minority leader under the present dire circumstances. Or not. We shall see.
Oh, and by the way, if you think bringing Dominionism into this was getting too theoretical, maybe this will make it a little more concrete for you:
http://www.politicalresearch.org/tag/ted-cruz/
These people are not going to vote for a Democrat under any way, shape, or form. To equate them with all Trump voters is totally ridiculous. But on the other hand, these people are more extreme Christians, if they even are Christians, than all but a small minority of American Muslims are Muslims, if they even are Muslims.
There are a lot of people the Democrats could reach. Hillary Clinton didn’t even try.
You write:
Another lunatic heard from. Must be the supermoon.
Who the fuck are ‘we,” NuBooRevu? The fools who supported HRC as she and her henchmen/henchwomen completely booted the election into the lap of OrangeMan? useless, leach and every one.
We have armed forces that probably couldn’t “occupy DC and surround the capital, WH, and Supreme Court,’ considering how badly they have failed in foreign countries. How do you expect a bunch of elitist, entitlement-gorged, middle aged fools to do it?
WTFU.
It’s a done deal.
Deal wid it.
Hunker down and hope it breaks down from its own inconsistencies in time to save some shreds of the republic.
Benjamin Franklin: A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
We ain’t doin’ so well so far…
AG
It’s as if GOP total obstructionism didn’t get the House back within two years of Obama’s inauguration and with such an overwhelming majority that holding it for the subsequent three election cycles was a piece of cake.
As if total obstructionism hurt the GOP when Scott Brown went after Ted Kennedy’s senate seat in the January 2010 special election. Later that year they did come up a bit short to take Bobby Byrd’s seat, but Manchin is still a tick to the right from Byrd.
Total obstructionism couldn’t trump personal likeability; so, the charmless Mitt didn’t get the job done for them in 2012.
Then came 2014 and 2016 — hoo-boy.
However, Democrats would be very naive to conclude that DC Republicans used a hatchet to effect their total obstructionism. The general public only learned long after the fact that Republicans had pledged total obstructionism. For public consumption, they used Obama’s bipartisanship fetish to claim that he failed to offer enough concessions to the GOP and therefore, they had no choice but to reject Obama’s legislative proposals. That strategy played poorly with the rightwing electorate and politicians that wanted all out war against Obama and Democrats and they went on to create/build the teabag faction in the GOP which is both a blessing and a curse for the GOP elites.
The problem for Democrats in general is that their principles and policies are mushy. Too much speaking out of both sides of their mouths and too much attention to personalities and behaviors that they go ballistic on if done by a Republican but give a pass to a Democrat, often by covering it up. GWB’s drone policy = bad; Obama’s well… Trump’s pledge to deport 2.5 million undocumented immigrants = bad; Obama’s 2 million deportations, well…
If Trump chooses to act like a President Joe McCarthy not much to stop him because that’s the extraordinary power that Democrats and Republicans willfully ceded to the POTUS over the past fifteen years or so. And during the Obama years, ordinary partisan Democrats screamed STFU until they were blue in the face at anyone that opposed those powers. Because they put their trust in a person to exercise such powers appropriately and not in systems and law that restrict and limit extraordinary power.
McConnell’s obstructionism depended on Democratic division and key committees being sold out.
We don’t enjoy the same advantage relative to our issues and policy directions.
The guys who want to co-opt or stop stuff always have a inherent advantage over those who seek to do the right thing.
Sometimes we have the popular will and supermajority to overcome this; most of the time we don’t. The grief is over the thought that the moment when that popular will was required, the history of Democratic waffling over 28 years came back to bite us. But it caught one of the architects of that 28-year failure and some of the lobbyists who enabled it to be a failure. And bankers who profited from that failure, although they didn’t bet much.
Plenty of this stuff gets convoluted and turned upside down. It was the teabag faction that stopped the catfood commission and put the breaks on TPP. Not because they object to the policy but because of who advocated for it. Had those rigid “just say no” Republicans not figured prominently in the 2010 takeover of the House and 2014 takeover of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats would have handed us both the TPP and Obama’s “Grand Bargain.”
Democrats could have learned the lesson from NAFTA – both as to policy and politics. A GOP policy that a GOP POTUS couldn’t get through a Democratic Congress.
The Tea Party did object to those two particular policies. “Government keep your hands off my Medicare!” And moving plants to China and white collar jobs to India has been a smoldering fuse.
The “keep hands off my Medicare” was in response to the ACA. They didn’t stop the ACA but they did manage to preserve the funding for Medicare Part C that on a per capita basis is more costly to the government than traditional Medicare. It also favors those that already have more.
The tea party folks ascribe to nativism, but are weak and highly inconsistent as to policies that they support and oppose. While having his own brand products made in China (or wherever), Trump jumped on the anti-TPP bandwagon as a symbol that he opposed Obama and it differentiated him from the other GOP candidates. Had HRC been nominated without a primary challenger from the left, she would have stuck with her pro-TPP position and then run into a real buzz-saw in the general.
Worse than the buzz-saw she did run into? 47% in Minnesota!
I’m absolutely flabbergasted that she did better than Tammy Duckworth! I never heard anyone say anything against Duckworth except for Joe Walsh and Mark Kirk. Walsh with the dumb “ran away” comment and Kirk with the racist Thailand comment.
I’m not sure about this information is correct http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/illinois. NY Times shows Schneider winning in 10th, but local news reported Dold won.
Duckworth only fell sixty-nine thousand votes short of Hillary’s in IL. Some of that may have been Republican voters that went with HRC and Kirk who got thirty-two thousand more votes than Trump. Or maybe they left the top line blank and a small number of HRC voters left the senate line blank. (Other was about the same in both races.)
Do you have a reliable link to IL official results? I don’t trust the NYTimes.
For all the HRC is an ambitious bitch stuff I hear, Tammy Duckworth really is at least in my dealings with her. She was hell on wheels when she was appointed to the VA by Obama as Asst. Security under a schedule C appointment.
It cracks me up when people wax poetic about Bernie Sanders or Tammy Duckworth and have no idea who they are and the people they surround themselves. Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver are evil. Well Weaver is my neighbor and not nearly as bad. He is extremely loyal to Sanders, but is willing to do some pretty shady stuff under certain conditions. You can tell when people talk about them like they are the vanguard of a new improved transparent Democratic Party that is they have no idea what they are babbling about.
…Meet the new boss…
I was part of the Christine Cegelis primary campaign against her. I held a grudge for a long time. I was part of CREDO’s “Take Down Joe Walsh” campaign and consoled myself that my activities were anti-Walsh not pro-Duckworth. Since then I’ve been her constituent and have to say that she far exceeds corporate Democrat Mellisa Bean. I enthusiastically supported her this time because she is pro-Labor (Votes and actions, not just words) and says she will vote against TPP. Mark Kirk is a POS who is always trying to inflate his non-existent war record. I’ve heard many Republicans who hate his guts.
And that is my point. We tear down other Democrats, but if I lived in her district or state I would fight like hell for her. If you take people out of context, they look terrible. I think Sanders would have been a disaster, but I would have canvassed if he were the nominee. We have to put aside the petty differences and some times sizable ones for the greater good and each other. Too many of us don’t get that basic concept. Republicans get Dems too often don’t. “Oh, they didn’t pick McCarthy, so I’m ok with Nixon and a conservative Supreme Court for the rest of my lifetime.” This is not a mantra, but a suicidal death chant.
I’ve lived in the 8th district since 1990 . Tammy Duckworth is by far the best Congressman we’ve had. You can see that the bar is very low. I lived in the neighboring 6th district from 1981 to 1990. The bar is underground for that one.
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Hillary outperformed Duckworth (and other rustbelt Democrats). If Hillary outperformed Duckworth, there was most likely a significant Hillary-Kirk vote. Turnout is driven by the top of the ticket, and Hillary concentrated on minorities and Republicans unhappy with Trump. Meanwhile, rustbelt Democrats needed turnout from populist Democrats, some of whom might have voted for Trump. So, it sounds to me like Republicans voting for Hillary was the culprit.
The only problem is that I can easily see this explaining Feingold, but not quite as much for Duckworth.
Except she didn’t run into a TPP buzzsaw. While MN is reliably blue, often enough the margins are less robust than many states that flip back and forth. That said, if Democrats/DNC run the same policies and campaign they have been running in the past three election cycles in 2018 and 2020, MN may hand them another unwelcome surprise.
Of interest: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/a-turning-of-gop-tide-in-solidly-democratic-
illinois/article_52aced0a-166d-5843-9841-cfd0760c3e13.html
IMHO, the poor Clinton showing and Quinn defeat were personal defeats, not partisan. i.e. it was the candidate not a partisan shift per se. I, myself, voted against Quinn after backing him in many many votes. He was just a bad Governor and should have been primaried out. No, I didn’t vote for Rauner,either.
“The tea party folks ascribe to nativism, but are weak and highly inconsistent as to policies that they support and oppose.” Yes, they’re nuts. Remember my boss was a Tea Party County Chairman. The other known Tea Party member thankfully transferred to Wyoming where I’m sure he will meet like minded individuals in Cheney country. BTW, after his divorce, he took off for Wyoming to sight in his Garand. Isn’t that a comforting thought?
Anwar al-Awlaki, US citizen assassinated by a US drone in a foreign country. Without due process. On the arbitrary instructions of the President.
On January 20, Donald J. Trump will have that “legitimate” authority and certainly the means to arbitrarily any “enemy of US interests”.
On January 20, Donald J. Trump will have access to the most widespread warrantless wiretapping store of internet and phone information in history and the authority as “First Customer” of running searches on anyone in the world’s communications. Including members of Congress, opposition parties, social movements.
On January 20, Donald J. Trump will have the power to order US Department of Homeland Security Fusion centers to coordinate with state and local militarized police departments to address any “state of emergency” or local disorder. Your local cops, already problematic, now become federales. With national guard first, and US military capabilities available to be deployed within the US Northern Command as with any of the other commands, Posse Comitatus law or no.
I’m not sure that Democrats are up to speed with the capabilities in Donald Trump’s hands or the fact that Steve Brannon could be given clearance to work with the information that the NSA and its Five Eyes (US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) swap on their own citizens.
I’m not sure that Democrats are up to speed with the capabilities in Donald Trump’s hands…
When you say Democrats are you speaking of those in office, elected and appointed, or citizen Democrats? The former knows exactly what powers Trump will have to work with because they put them in place and Obama has made use of them. Citizen Democrats were fine with that while Obama was POTUS and would have been fine with it if HRC were to become POTUS. Now it’s OMG! from them. Stupid cows may have to learn the hard way.
Anthony D Romero was getting it all along. Partisan Democrats didn’t even recoil when Hillary suggested that Assange could be droned.
In this case, I mean the Democratic members of Congress who enabled Obama to avoid going to Congress on some powers, allowed the intelligence community off the hook on others, and passed legislation that extended other powers.
Even after Bush-Cheney, they did not consider the presence of bad faith actors with those powers and the various ways that those powers could be used.
Or they were intimidated into silence. I find Patrick Leahy’s silence on Amerithrax particularly troubling. A few symbolic feints and then let it go.
Laying the deep state’s gizzard out in front of the public even as mildly as was done by the Church Committee traumatized them and increased the determination of the deep state never to see actual oversight happen again.
Maybe that’s the source of the lack of nerve now.
Oh yes, I must add Temer of Brazil to my list of Trump nationalist buddies.
In 2008 the electorate gave Obama and the DP the power to do the right thing. If they didn’t exercise that power out of fear, then they’re not up to the task. If they didn’t exercise it because maintaining a system to do the wrong thing was a power that they enjoyed holding, then they’re no better than the opposition. Or worse because at least Republicans are out front and relish doing the wrong thing; whereas, Democrats pretend they doing right while doing wrong.
Adam Johnson tweet:
Trust the trolls won’t miss the income.
That little “DP” covers a lot of idiots, a good many of whom were cleansed in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. Too bad most were replaced with crazier Republicans.
What we saw from the email dump was that Podesta wired the appointments even before the election. Who exactly was he working for then?
Well, paying trolls was pretty apparent in the attempt to cleanse the dKos comment threads. And the multiple HRC accounts.
Wonder how much they expected state and local parties to do on Latino voter outreach.
It’s that 47% (is that some recurring constant of the political universe) that did not vote at all that is striking. A lot unregistered (and now hard to register), a lot turned off by politics, a lot turned off by the candidates, a lot to preoccupied with work and family, enough too lazy to vote.
Some smart person needs to figure out where the demotivators are with these people and form a Freedom from Politics Party.
Democrats believe in a government, not of laws or so their actions speak.
Is this another way of saying: Trust us is not justice.
Yes it is.
Democrats believe in a government, not of laws or so their actions speak.Democrats believe in a government of men, not of laws or so their actions speak.
You know, would people who talk about due process take the trouble to understand it?
First it goddam was NOT arbitrary.
US court’s are limited by jurisdiction.
The 4th and 5th Amendment due not apply in foreign countries.
I know this will come as a shock to people.
But this is how jurisdiction works.
Anwar had taken up arms against the US.
It is a LIE to say it is clear how the Constitution applies in this instance. A legal argument – a pretty good one – would argue this is covered by the AUMF.
There is just so much nonsense on the left about this stuff.
Is the “arbitrary” the precedence in these arguments here or is that your go to straw man? The problem is the star chamber courts, shadowy oversight of the Deep security state, the lack of a public trial record, and only the State’s prosecution evidence being shared for public consumption.
I am not a lawyer, everything I know about the law I learned from “The Good Wife.”
Yes, this.
The reason you have due process is to ensure that (1) the person being punished or pre-emptively killed is indeed the person you have determined is guilty or a threat; (2) to determine that in fact they are guilty or are an imminent threat.
In a foreign war, you also have the obligation to determine that you are not being self-defeating in your aggression.
What we have seen from Bush 43’s selection of Guantanamo as the location of a prison, the designation of its inhabitants as “enemy combatants”, and destruction of records is a President playing around with jurisdiction in order to evade the Geneva Conventions.
The process with respect to assassination of US citizens through administrative process does create a precedent that could be used by a President like Trump to assassinate “enemies of the state” on US soil.
Most people operate that the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights mean what they say and provide some protection of human rights.
I understand that the point of view of the clients of most lawyers is “Don’t tell me what I can’t do; figure out how I can do what I want to do.” Over time that corrodes legal protections.
But because it is what makes lawyers income, the professional attitude is that the details matter to the future of the Republic even as those protections disappear.
If nothing else happens out of this election, I hope that we of the professional class as they call us now understand that public does not like brushoffs of serious concerns being labeled as nonsense.
Is there protection from a leader assassinating anyone he wants or is there not?
If it takes a technical legal argument, ordinary citizens should not be accused of telling a lie. We really want those legal arguments to defend the public not justify arbitrary power.
My heart bleeds for the traitorous son of a bitch.
Until a President labels you that “traitorous son of a bitch” and sends a Predator into your roof that has “collateral damage” of your neighbors.
Administrative procedure does not provide a mechanism of checks and balances to ensure that the “threats” really are or that the person offed is indeed the person claimed.
this cannot possibly surprise you. They are who we thought they were. the Democratic political class will come through this just fine. America not so much.
Actually, it did surprise me because I thought that the good ole boys like Schumer would realize that status quo eventually means the end of the Democratic Party organization as a legal entity. Like the Federalists and the Whigs.
Just think how that backlash works its way through blue state governments. Cuomo’s corruption is not helping Democrats in NY. Rahm will eventually lose out in Chicago with the current national trends.
Well, Bernie tried to wake them up.
2016 Democratic Party election campaign in a nutshell:
Glenn G responds:
Yes while one side was trying to win, the GGs of the world did everything in their power to prove they were right, and we get the world GG wanted the whole time.
GG?
Sigh. Another projectionist? Knows everyone’s inner thoughts…. Wish more attention had been paid to GG when he was screaming about installing the Surveilance State under a DEM presidency, fgs.
If GG has changed from 2003 to today, it’s only that he’s come to have less use for the US Libertarians, but it was never more than a slight lean for him.
Those with an opinion on GG that has changed from that of 2003-2008 period aren’t rational. They’re hypocrites (if they’re sentient beings); otherwise, they’re nothing other than partisan stooges.