Mediaboss Marketing

Now heres some lawyering that may turn out to be too clever by half.

Democratic litigator Marc Elias on Monday submitted his latest brief on behalf of defeated congressional candidate Rita Hart. He wants the House of Representatives to overturn the election in Iowas 2nd district, which Ms. Hart lost by six votes to GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. But rather than asserting that if state election law is strictly followed his client would win, Mr. Elias tells House Democrats that they may need to bend the law to reach their desired outcome.

His brief responds to questions from the Committee on House Administration. In the first response, on procedures the committee should use in adjudicating the election challenge, Mr. Elias says the Committee is certainly not bound to follow state law. The quote is from a 1985 case when the House overturned an Indiana election to seat the Democrat.

That sentence wasnt a slip. Mr. Elias adds that when voter intent can be determined but a ballot is not, for one reason or another, in strict conformity with state law, it should be counted. He urges the Committee to exercise its discretion to depart from Iowa law, and adopt counting rules that disenfranchise the smallest possible number of voters.

Mr. Elias is right as a constitutional matter that each house of Congress has sweeping authority to judge its Members elections. But the explicit suggestion that state law be discarded gives the political game away.

Here is the original post:
Democrats Give Their Iowa Game Away - The Wall Street Journal

In the aftermath of last weeks mass shooting in Georgia that killed eight people, political leaders and the Asian American community are grieving and calling for justice.

Let me start off by saying this: The role of an activist is not the same as the role of a politician. That has been true of grassroots campaigns and activists campaigns since the beginning of time. It was true during the civil rights movement, said Guy Cecil, chair of Priorities USA, during a recent briefing with reporters. Having said that, in the aggregate, when you look at the totality of the election, defund the police in the aggregate neither helped nor hurt the cause.

One analysis by a Democratic consultant, provided exclusively to POLITICO, measured the effectiveness of GOP attack ads on defunding the police. House candidates recently shared the report to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to a person familiar with their communications.

Matthew Weaver, an adviser for battleground Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), said he conducted the study because he wanted to look at it in a very rigorous and statistical way, as opposed to via anecdotes, which is where a lot of the debate seems to be right now.

His findings: The GOP attack ads accusing Democrats of wanting to strip resources from cops were not any more powerful than other TV spots run by Republicans. On the other hand, Democratic ads that refuted the GOPs claims that they were looking to defund the police made a difference: Those candidates who aired such spots performed better than President Joe Biden by 1.5 percentage points for every 1,000 gross ratings points a measure of advertising impact run.

The lesson, Weaver said, is that not addressing certain false allegations explicitly and head-on is a strategic error that many cannot afford to make. But only a quarter of House Democratic candidates in the most contested races countered the GOPs blitz on broadcast television, he said.

The DCCC may be part of the reason why. During the 2020 election, some at the committee advised Cartwright not to reply on TV because candidates should never repeat a negative, said a person close to the conversations. With the help of a former local police chief who backed him up, Cartwright ultimately shot down the defund idea in ads anyway, and he won his competitive district by nearly four points; Biden lost it by more than four.

The DCCC is now under new leadership: New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney became chair after the election. Helen Kalla, a spokesperson for the DCCC, did not respond directly to questions about the discussions with Cartwright or where it stands now on the issue.

As for its preparations for attacks over defunding the police in the future, she said, We expect that Republicans will continue spreading lies and misinformation about our candidates and their positions, and Democrats will be ready to combat those Republican lies and make clear to voters where they stand.

Cartwright, an attorney by trade, said that he decided to respond to his opponents negative ads because he decided they were a kill shot an attack, which if believed by the decision-maker, either a jury or, in politics, the voter, will end your chance of success. He called Weavers analysis fascinating.

Cartwright confirmed that there were voices at the DCCC who were giving the archetypal when youre responding, youre losing advice. But once he explained, for instance, the large number of lawn signs in his district expressing support for police including in yards without any campaign signs at all others at the committee supported his efforts to push back.

Once they got the picture, Cartwright said, "they were all in."

Some of Priorities USAs findings were similar to Weavers. During a Zoom briefing with reporters last week, Cecil said the net effect of Republican attack ads over defunding the police was neither negative nor positive.

Certainly there are people that respond negatively to defund the police. There are people that respond in our surveys by the way, of all races, all income brackets, that respond negatively to defund the police, he said. What's also true is that the activism and the energy and the attention that was brought to this issue, without a doubt, led to more votes, and more voters coming into the fold for the first time.

Another item from Priorities USAs research demonstrates how potent Democrats response to this issue and racial justice could be in the midterms: Asked about their decision to go to the polls, 91 percent of new Biden voters said "they wanted someone that would address racism and stand up for racial justice, said Cecil.

Many activists say they are not arguing for the wholesale elimination of police funding but rather the reallocation of resources.

There is another effort underway that will likely play a major role in influencing the debate around the net political effects of defund: a Democratic post-mortem being done with the help of the CBC, CHC, CPC and other caucus groups.

The partnership of centrist and liberal groups examining the impact of the call to remove funding from the police, along with other hot-button issues such as socialism and the Green New Deal, includes Third Way, Collective PAC, Latino Victory Fund and End Citizens United. No conclusions from the report have been made yet, and it will be finished around the end of May, said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way.

Given the fact that the study is being aided by both moderates and progressives, as well as powerful institutional players such as the CBC, its findings could go in multiple directions and will likely have a big impact.

At the same time, Black Lives Matter activists are discussing the possibility of holding a press conference or making some other kind of formal response to moderates claims, said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party and a leader in the Movement for Black Lives coalition. They considered the option last year but deprioritized it because they were busy in the aftermath of former President Donald Trumps efforts to overturn the election as well as the insurrection at the Capitol, he said.

I do think that there is a conversation that needs to happen that puts Democrats on notice around what our movement would consider harmful to our efforts in their efforts to push back on these attacks, he said. If they buttress themselves with law enforcement validators and tried to prove that they were more law-and-order than Republicans, then what you're doing is you're ceding and youre re-ascribing these far-right myths that make it harder for Democrats and harder for people in general to be able to critique and challenge what is by most measures a failing criminal legal system.

See the original post here:
A conversation that needs to happen: Democrats agonize over defund the police fallout - POLITICO

Democrats are warning they won't tolerate GOP stonewalling as they try to make good on their pledge to enact a bold agenda and avoid Obama-era missteps.

Fresh off a big win on coronavirus relief, Democrats are facing intense pressure not to water down their legislative priorities after years of a backed-up wish list during the Trump era and a decade since the party has had a unified governmentit could use to muscle through sweeping reforms considered anathema to the GOP.

We will try to get them to work with us. But if not, we will put our heads together and figure out how to go, Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats make low-tax states an offer they should refuse Biden must keep his health care promises FEMA pauses flood insurance rate update after Schumer pushback: report MORE (D-N.Y.) told reporters.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem JeffriesHakeem Sekou JeffriesDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Anger over anti-Asian violence, rhetoric rips through Capitol Democratic majority shrinks, but finds unity MORE (N.Y.) was more blunt, calling GOP leadership divorced from reality for opposing policies that are popular even among Republicans outside the Beltway.

Our standard for bipartisanship can no longer be what happens here in the Capitol, because we know that the strategy of my colleagues, legislatively, is not to try and find common ground it's obstruction and mischaracterization, he said. They ran this playbook during the Obama administration. ... They are running the same playbook again.

We will not let them get away with it," he added.

The plow-ahead strategy is significant with a host of big agenda items looming in the coming months, including sweeping proposals addressing infrastructure needs, climate change and fixes to the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. John YarmuthJohn Allen YarmuthDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Democratic majority shrinks, but finds unity On The Money: Biden celebrates relief bill with Democratic leaders | Democrats debate fast-track for infrastructure package MORE (D-Ky.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, said Democrats would prefer bipartisan proposals, particularly on issues like infrastructure that are widely popular in both parties. But Democrats have no intention of letting up, he added, when it comes to pursuing legislation that polls well among voters of all stripes. With that strategy, Democrats are all but daring Senate Republicans to oppose policies popular on both sides of the aisle.

"We're going to keep putting stuff over there, because Schumer's going to keep putting it on the floor and make them cast bad votes," Yarmuth said.

The political reality is two-fold: Democrats, particularly in the House, are disgusted with GOP colleagues who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and feel little incentive to offer an olive branch. And in a significant shift from the Obama years, theres a growing belief within the party that going small or letting priorities stall out in hopes of making them bipartisan is the wrong tact.

I think its significant. Holding out and not getting it. Or you know, holding out and having [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell or [then-House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor, at the time, say Hey look guys, were not going along with any of this,' said Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP This week: Senate works to confirm Biden picks ahead of break Kaine says he still has tingling sensations, hot spots after coronavirus infection MORE (D-Va.), about the lessons learned from the Obama administration.

I think the balance were trying to strike is: Were not going to wait around to do what the public needs, but we want your good ideas, he added.

Unlike in the Obama era, the growing desire to not let Republicans stonewall Democrats priorities is being coupled with the fallout from the Jan. 6 Capitol attack that has deepened partisan rancor, particularly in the majoritarian-run House where 139 Republicans voted to challenge election results.

Were still getting some of these confused messages from our colleagues about the insurrectionary violence that took place," said Rep. Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Calls grow from lawmakers for IRS to extend filing deadline The world abandoned COVID-19's best antidote: Whistleblowers MORE (D-Md.). "I think some of our colleagues are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance because their rhetoric is to support the police, but when our police were violently and viciously attacked for hours by fascist insurrectionist[s], they turned the other cheek."

Raskin added that he is willing to work with Republicans on positive legislation but added a warning: Im not going to entrust anything valuable to my country to those people.

House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP GOP hammers Democrats over Iowa Democrat's election challenge 14 Republicans vote against resolution condemning Myanmar military coup MORE (D-Md.) summed up the first quarter of 2021 as a volatile, sad, dangerous period in the Congress's history.

Those tensions have been on display as conservatives have led an effort to gum up the House floor, an effort that doesnt successfully prevent Democratic priorities from passing but does cause big headaches for leadership.

On the Senate side, Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden: Back to the future on immigration, Afghanistan, Iran Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Johnson, Grassley indecision freezes key Senate races MORE (R-Wis.) sparked broad backlash for telling a radio host that he wasnt afraid during the Jan. 6 attack by a pro-Trump mob, but if "those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned."

Hoyer called it a racist statement, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called Johnson a racist. In an acknowledged break with chambers typical clubby decorum, Sen. Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Border surge scrambles Senate immigration debate Democratic senators urge Biden to take executive action on ghost guns MORE (D-N.J.) used a speech on the Senate floor to call Johnson a racist and accuse him of spreading bigoted tropes.

The verbal fireworks come even as Democrats, particularly in the Senate, stress that theres still interest in working with Republicans, who they are in constant touch with on myriad lower-profile issues.

I will always do everything I possibly can to try to find common ground, said Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP On The Money: IRS chief says unemployment recipients shouldn't file amended tax returns | GOP senator blocks bill to prevent private debt collectors from seizing stimulus checks GOP senator blocks bill to prevent private debt collectors from seizing stimulus checks MORE (D-Ore.). The question becomes, what do you do if the other side just says 'No way'? And what Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Johnson, Grassley indecision freezes key Senate races Republicans set to rebound big in 2022 midterms, unless... MORE did in 2009, he said, 'MyNo. 1 goal is to stop Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP There's a five-alarm crisis on the border and Team Biden imposes a media blackout Future of the GOP? The art, promise and lesson of politics MORE from getting reelected.'

Democrats want infrastructure to be bipartisan, and the Biden administration has been in touch with GOP senators as recently as Thursday.

But there are deep divisions over the scope of the bill and key aspects like how to pay for it, leading Democrats to acknowledge that theyll likely need to lean on their own members and pass it through reconciliation.

"What I have seen this year and in past years is that if we want to do something significant, it is very hard to get Republican support," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie SandersBernie SandersDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP The Memo: Two months in, strong Biden faces steep climbs Cotton: Democrats' infrastructure bill will be focused on higher taxes, 'Green New Deal' MORE (I-Vt.). If Republicans are prepared to support a significant and important piece of legislation that deals with climate change, deals with infrastructure, that's great. My own feeling is at this point I doubt that that will be the case.

Meanwhile, the House is sending over a slate of bills that represent big agenda items but that were passed along party lines, putting growing pressure on Democrats to nix the filibuster orriskletting GOP opposition stall their priorities.

Among that slate of legislation are bills to expand background checks prior to gun sales and extend citizenship to Dreamers two ideas with overwhelming popular support across the country, but not among Republicans on Capitol Hill. Democrats are increasingly using that popular support not the stance of GOP lawmakers as a gauge for what theyll bring to the floor.

Im just pleased that what were doing here very much has bipartisan support outside the Congress, said Rep. Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP Pelosi says top Democrats won't back measure to expel Greene House Democrats push to create public reminder of Jan. 6 riot MORE (D-Mich.). And I think that matters more than whats happening here.

Democrats dont have the votes, currently, to nix the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most legislation, and Republicans havent actually filibustered a bill yet this year. But supporters argue that watching Republicans block bills that have 50 Democratic votes and broad bipartisan support could move senators who are on the fence about changing the rules.

Wyden, who supports the "talking" filibuster, described the Senate as kind of at an inflection point, questioning the tenability of blocking bills that garner support from a swath of their own voters.

If, as we saw on the Recovery Act, we continue to say, A, we would like to work together,B, show that were serious about it things like doing it for a sufficient amount of time and then, C, and then go forward with an agenda ... where the individual items get strong support from Republicans, I dont know how they're going to be able to find that a winning strategy, Wyden said.

I cant recall a time when Ive seen strong support from Republican voters at the kind of grassroots level in terms of the individual items, he added, and then Republicans saying, 'Were not going to support it.'

After the Jan. 6 attack and the exit of the mercurial Trump administration, some lawmakers said they were hoping for a return to a more gracious era of bipartisan cooperation. Since that hasnt happened, some Democrats suggested they have no choice but to plow ahead with the agenda voters elected them to pursue.

I was hoping that after the inauguration, after things settled down, that we would get a spirit of bipartisanship. But it doesnt seem to be coming, said Rep. G.K. ButterfieldGeorge (G.K.) Kenneth ButterfieldDemocrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP CBC 'unequivocally' endorses Shalanda Young for White House budget chief Black Caucus members lobby Biden to tap Shalanda Young for OMB head MORE (D-N.C.). The question is: Do we continue to wait, or do we legislate?

I think the decision is to go forward with legislation.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP | TheHill - The Hill

As the effort to oust Gov. Gavin Newsom from office intensifies, a critical question is whether another Democrat jumps into the race to replace him. No candidate has come forward yet, but many political experts believe it is inevitable.

Democrats wont have any choice, said Dan Schnur, who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley. Its important to present a unified front, but its even more important for them to protect themselves.

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist, said the party must consider the worst-case scenario.

The fundamental point is Democrats really have to think long and hard about not having a good alternative to Gavin on the ballot if he is recalled, he said. Thats just the reality.

Democratic contenders could come from a handful of categories: an impatient progressive frustrated by the logjam for top statewide seats, a candidate with nothing to lose, a rich neophyte or a party pick if Democratic leaders ultimately decide its too risky not to have a backup plan.

Rumors are swirling about potential candidates quietly talking to donors and allies. They include former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ran against Newsom for governor in 2018 but quickly endorsed him after he lost in the primary. He pivoted to the COVID-19 crisis when asked whether he would enter the race.

At a time when weve lost 50,000 Californians in the middle of a pandemic, politics is the last thing we should be talking about, Villaraigosa said.

On Friday, after he tweeted about the detrimental effect of school closures an implicit criticism of Newsoms handling of the pandemic and one of the recall proponents top arguments against him a longtime advisor to the governor lashed out at him.

My old friend Antonio will embarrass himself and forever poison his legacy if he runs, tweeted Sean Clegg, who previously advised Villaraigosa.

Other Democrats have shot down speculation about entering the race or have publicly demonstrated their allegiance to Newsom.

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a wealthy former ambassador, has said she would not run. Rep. Ro Khanna of Fremont, a darling of the progressive left, reached out to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to get him to publicly state his disapproval of the recall and is among the leaders of the anti-recall campaign.

Los Angeles City Councilman Kevin de Len, who challenged fellow Democrat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2018 and is widely believed to be running for mayor in 2022, has been speaking out against the recall on Spanish-language television. Treasurer Fiona Ma and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon have donated $10,000 from their campaign coffers to anti-recall efforts.

Still, some said privately that much depends on what happens in the coming months.

Id be crazy not to look at it, said one well-known California Democrat who would speak candidly only if given anonymity.

Newsoms team is feeling confident about the lack of a Democratic challenger, but conceded that that could change.

The unified support is true. Until its not true anymore, said one person in Newsoms circle who requested anonymity to speak forthrightly.

Schnur said the dilemma Democrats face is reminiscent of Gov. Gray Davis recall in 2003. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante initially said he wouldnt run, but changed his mind.

Having another Democrat in the race takes away from Newsoms strongest talking point that its all a partisan exercise, Schnur said. It also gives progressives who dont like him a reason to vote yes.

Wednesday was the deadline for recall proponents to submit signatures, and the verification process is expected to take weeks. Both sides agree that supporters of the effort appear to have submitted the 1.5 million valid signatures required to put it on the ballot. The election would then be held late this year, possibly November.

Voters will be asked two questions: Do they want to recall Newsom, and regardless of how they answer the first question if he is recalled, who should replace him?

So far, three prominent Republicans have announced they are running former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, former Rep. Doug Ose and businessman John Cox. The deadline to appear on the ballot is 60 days before the election.

Given the relatively low barrier to entry, a $3,916 filing fee or 7,000 voter signatures, scores of candidates are likely to join the race. In the 2003 recall of Davis, 135 people appeared on the ballot, including politicians, actors, activists, porn stars and celebrities notably Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Newsom kicked off his anti-recall campaign by appearing on national news and entertainment shows, pushing his assertion that the endeavor is a GOP power grab backed by the supporters of former President Trump and extremists.

Its a message designed to resonate in a state where Trump is hugely unpopular and one that Newsoms allies Californias top Black, Asian American and LGBTQ elected officials in particular have repeated in recent days as they spoke out against the recall.

Newsletter

The view from Sacramento

For more reporting and exclusive analysis from bureau chief John Myers, get our Essential Politics newsletter.

Enter email address

Sign Me Up

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

This strategy only works if no other notable Democrat runs.

Hell no, we dont want a Democrat on the replacement line. Weve seen this movie before, and we know how it turns out, said Garry South, a former advisor to Davis.

As Davis faced recall, South said, Feinstein grew concerned she had successfully beat a recall attempt as San Francisco mayor. Feinstein persuaded every statewide elected Democrat, including Bustamante, to announce that they backed Davis and would not run to replace him.

Bustamante reneged and got into the race, South said. And it gave credibility to the recall.

Davis focus groups showed that for a number of Democratic voters, especially Latinos frustrated by the then-governors veto of a 2002 bill granting drivers licenses to the undocumented, Bustamantes entry into the race persuaded them to vote for the recall, South said. He estimates that it cost Davis 5 points in the recall vote not enough to swing the election, but enough to have made it closer.

It gave too many Democratic voters a get out of jail free card by voting to recall Davis and placate their conscience by voting for Bustamante, he said.

Ultimately, Democrats tried to have it both ways urging a no vote on the recall and a backup vote for Bustamante in case it was successful. The muddled message as well as Schwarzeneggers name recognition and popularity ousted Davis, who became the first California governor successfully recalled and the second in U.S. history.

But 2021 is not 2003, and Newsom is not Davis. The current governor is more popular than the former, and the states voters have grown more liberal over the last 18 years.

Democratic strategist Katie Merrill said these differences make her believe Democrats can get away without running a backup, though she said the decision is high-stakes poker, no question about it.

Theres not a single person in the state, a Republican, who could put their name on the ballot and approach anything close to the popularity Schwarzenegger had at the time he ran, Merrill said.

Newsoms strategists and the states Democratic leaders have also done a better job of keeping the partys politicians united behind Newsom and off the ballot so far.

Theyve done an excellent job of putting out that fire, said Steve Maviglio, Davis former press secretary. Theyve made it clear whoever would do it would be a pariah in the party for the rest of their lives.

Every statewide elected official has publicly opposed the recall, with the exception of Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who resigned Thursday after he was confirmed to be U.S. Health and Human Services secretary. Weber is the administrator of the state elections; taking a position on the recall could create a perception problem.

The election is many months away, and Schnur said the uncertainty over what could happen over the next several months is why Democrats are almost certain to have a name on the ballot come election day.

There could be another shutdown. There could be an earthquake. There could be another French Laundry dinner, he said. The odds are with Newsom surviving the recall, but all it takes is one thing to call that into question and Democrats would be taking a tremendous risk by not having a fallback option.

See the original post:
Is it inevitable that a Democrat will challenge Newson in the recall? - Los Angeles Times

Theres nothing that ails Joe Bidens agenda, we are supposed to believe, that ending the filibuster wouldnt fix.

President Joe Biden showed a little leg on changing the filibuster in an ABC News interview, while almost every Senate Democrat wants to ditch it. Even Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who still supports the filibuster, said a couple of weeks ago that resorting to it should be more painful.

Senate Democrats probably remain a few votes shy of really being able to trash the filibuster, which would require the support of every Democrat (plus Vice President Kamala Harris as the 51st vote), but they are steadily talking themselves into curtailing or abolishing the filibuster as a political and moral necessity.

This would be a mistake, both for the institution of the Senate and for the narrow partisan interests of the Democrats.

One would think that the experience that the party had the last time it took a hatchet to the filibuster would warn it off any repeat.

In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blew up the filibuster for most presidential nominations. No longer would it take a cloture vote passed with the support of 60 senators to confirm nominees, rather a simple majority. Reid did this against the warnings of then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell because he and the Democrats had worked themselves into a lather to confirm President Barack Obamas nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Its a cliche for senators who support the filibuster to say that control of the body inevitably changes, but its true. Todays triumphant, inflamed majority tempted to ditch the filibuster is tomorrows embattled, desperate minority using it to wield influence that it otherwise wouldnt have.

Three years after Reids move, McConnell was using it to render Democrats bystanders as he transformed the federal judiciary. President Donald Trump got about as many nominees on federal appellate courts in four years as Obama did in eight.

Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, said they regretted what Reid had done, although Schumer has now apparently gotten over it.

If the rules around the filibuster have changed over time, the basic practice dates from the beginning of the Senate. The tactic got its name in the mid-19th century and has remained part of the identity of the Senate ever since.

There is now an effort to brand the filibuster as inherently an instrument of hatred and repression. The filibusters of civil-rights legislation in the mid-20th century are justly notorious, but the tactic has often been used to progressive ends, most recently thwarting as much of Trumps legislative agenda as possible.

Back in 2017, more than 30 Senate Democrats, including Kamala Harris, signed a letter urging the tactic be preserved. Of course, Biden himself has long favored it. As late as last year, he was saying that ending the filibuster would be a very dangerous move.

Democrats have changed their tune now, obviously, because they control the Senate. But the timing still isnt propitious for them. Its not as though the Democrats have a robust majority. They have the slightest advantage, thanks to Harris, in a 50-50 Senate. An unexpected retirement or illness could put their control in jeopardy, and its hardly a guarantee they will hold the majority after 2022.

Even if they ended the filibuster tomorrow, its not clear that their most prized priorities, like the H.R. 1 voting bill, could even get 50 votes to pass.

Biden and Manchin are flirting with the idea of restoring the talking filibuster, which would require senators to hold the floor to keep up a filibuster. This makes even less sense. A return to the talking filibuster would allow Republicans to eat up more of the Senates time and soak up cable TV and social media attention in the bargain.

Despite all of this, Democrats may eventually persuade themselves to move against the filibuster anyway and, once again, experience momentary satisfaction and lasting regret.

Rich Lowry is on Twitter @RichLowry.

Link:
Lowry: Democrats would regret nuking the filibuster | News | aberdeennews.com - AberdeenNews.com