Mediaboss Marketing

ALBUQUERQUE Politicians tend to be peppy creatures, but Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (D-N.M.) is an exceptionally upbeat dude, even by the serotonin-rich standards of professional politics.

Lujn, 45, oozes a corny, all-American wholesomeness, with boyish features set beneath a shiny woosh of a haircut its as if a morning zoo radio host ran for Congress. Lujns Hey, how ya doin? is dished out with exuberant regularity. He likes making And how about ... call-outs praising his hard-working staff. His eyes have a tendency to bulge with excitement while he speaks, like a child beholding a ferocious animal at the zoo.Lujns childlike enthusiasm serves him well as he enters his second two-year term as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), tasked with recruiting and supporting Democratic House candidates.

I know Im not the smartest guy in the room, Lujn said with characteristic golly-gee-whiz earnestness during an interview with HuffPost late last month, but Ill listen, and Ill learn and will execute.

Ben Ray Lujn is a nice guy. The thing is, you might come to hate him very soon.

Thanks to Donald Trumps dysfunctional presidency, Democrats are in the strongest position to regain control of the lower chamber since 2006, when disgust over President George W. Bushs mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina relief and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sent the Republican House majority packing.

However, the passions of the present moment make the 2006 election look like a sleepy race for town comptroller. In this stressful Trumpian period, the United States often feels like a nation of 320 million political strategists, with practically everyone proffering an opinion on how to refine the partys message and direction: Go progressive. Go moderate. Shut up and let Trump sabotage himself.

One thing is certain: For many in and around the party, a blue wave wont do. Unless 2018 unleashes a political tsunami, a significant portion of the Democratic Party will likely be displeased with Lujns leadership come Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2018.

At the very least, Lujn recognizes that its a hard job.

We have a big job to do across the country, said Lujn. We have to go back and earn the trust of the American people where it was lost and in all parts of the country.

The DCCC clearly gets that its an opportunity. Its list of flippable Republican districts inclusion on which can make or break a House campaigns fundraising efforts sports a whopping 80 districts, enough to flip the House three times over. Its an aggressive list one, as Slates Jim Newell noted, has an average Cook Partisan Voting Index of just over R+7, which means an unnamed Republican candidate would enjoy a 7-point advantage over an unnamed Democrat in the district.

The assessment that so many seats are up for grabs alone represents a massive attitude shift from the 2016 cycle, when Lujn wasnt even predicting a Democratic takeover of the House.

We have a unique opportunity to flip control of the House of Representatives in 2018, Lujn wrote in a June memo distributed to party officials and the press. This is about much more than one race: The national environment, unprecedented grassroots energy and impressive Democratic candidates stepping up to run deep into the battlefield leave no doubt that Democrats can take back the House next fall.

Astrid Riecken for The Washington Post via Getty Images

While a changing of the guard a year from November is far from certain, Lujn and the Democrats are certainly working with a robust class of candidates. Every DCCC chair has their own platonic ideal of a House candidate mayors, veterans, district attorneys, small-business owners and so forth. This cycle, Lujn and the DCCC have settled, per Politico, on female veterans, ideally ones who run or have run a small business.

At first blush, such a combination feels indulgent as backgrounds go, veteran plus anythingis like the cronut of American politics. Such things are highly sought after and dont necessarily grow on trees. While there are certainly untold numbers of Americans with very appealing stories like female veterans with small business experience candidates that check so many boxes dont always choose to run in a meaningful number of districts.

Yet female veteran candidates with notable non-military experience are already materializing a tribute to a motivated base and the efforts of grassroots organizations like Run for Something and VoteVets. Theres former Air Force engineer Chrissy Houlahan in Pennsylvanias 6th Congressional District (she helped start a nonprofit), former Navy helicopter pilot Mikie Sherrill in New Jerseys 11th District (a former federal prosecutor) and former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath in Kentuckys 6th District (she graduated from the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destructions Program for Emerging Leaders at the National Defense University, which is just a terrifyingly impressive sequence of words).

This year were fortunate that we have candidates of all backgrounds, said Lujn, drawing particular attention to the fact that here are a lot of veterans, people who have served our country in different capacities.

Lujn added that the DCCC was particularly interested in whether candidates had deep roots in their districts. If they dont trust you, theyre not ever going to put their faith in you, he said.

But not everything about the DCCCs recruitment is going smoothly, to put it mildly.

Just this week, The Hill published an interview with Lujn in which he insisted that the candidates it supports arent subject to a litmus test, which includes their stance on hot-button issues like abortion rights. While those remarks jibed with the longstanding policy of both the DCCC and its Senate counterpart, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, it was the first time Lujn was on the record saying as much.

The remarks have prompted a skirmish in progressive circles. Many liberal activists, particularly ones focused on reproductive justice, viewed the continuation of the policy as a disappointment and a missed opportunity to capitalize on the groundswell of progressivism in the Trump era.

Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy, said Mitchell Stille, national campaigns director for the abortion rights advocacy organization NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a statement provided to HuffPost and other news outlets. The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.

On Wednesday, NARAL President Ilyse Hogue and a coalition of progressive advocacy organizations, including Planned Parenthood Action Fund and EMILYs List, published a statement of principles largely in response to the renewed debate over how ideological the DCCC should be. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a strong supporter of reproductive rights, tweeted, We do not have to make compromises on protecting womens health to win back the House or Senate.

Democratic Party officials, who asked to speak anonymously so they could discuss private conversations, expressed frustration and surprise that the DCCC and DSCC were on the defensive over a long-standing policy. Exacerbating these feelings, the officials said, was the involvement of multiple activists whom the officials claimed had previously signaled their willingness to tolerate, if not endorse, anti-abortion Democrats.

In conversations and in statements, DCCC officials have said that, while their organization plays a large role in candidate recruitment, their priority is to support whichever Democrat the primary voters choose.

This is not about impacting the roster of candidates as much as understanding what our mission and ultimate role and goal is, said DCCC Communications Director Meredith Kelly. As always, primary voters and local groups will ask candidates where they stand on the issues and select their own nominees. Our job is to get as many of those nominees elected to Congress as possible.

Officials anticipate that anti-abortion candidates will make up a negligible part of the Democrats crop of 2018 House candidates and that the organizations approach isnt about abandoning the Democratic principles as its adjusting to the political situation in certain districts.

Dan Sena, the DCCCs executive director, reiterated in an interview with HuffPost that there absolutely is no litmus test of a candidates agenda but insisted that policy aberrations are the exception, not the norm.

In Central Valley, California, where you are on water is more important than where you are on guns. In [Californias]Orange County, where you are on fiscal issues is going to matter more than social issues, said Sena. In Tucson, where you on on immigration and health care is probably more important than where you are on the environment. Its really a balance of where we have certain types of profiles.

Darren McCollester via Getty Images

Regardless of where the Democratic House candidates end up on the ideological spectrum, the Republican Party is hoping to make the midterms a referendum on progressive policies, an argument it plans to take to districts where Trump outperformed expectations in the 2016 election.

Democrats have their heads buried in the sand, hoping to ignore the bitter primaries that are destined to tear their party apart in 2018, said the National Republican Congressional Committees spokesman Jesse Hunt. Its going to be a race to the left, with single-payer health care as the ultimate litmus test.

Lujns own remarks fit with a broader push by the party to focus on less politically charged economic issues, such as job creation, combating corporate malfeasance and retirement security. That approach, he said, can unite moderate and progressive Democrats.

I think whats most important this cycle and every cycle after this is that Democratic elected leaders and our party leadership dont ever forget the importance of standing up and fighting for hard-working families across the country, especially when it comes to economic issues, Lujn said. It turns out that whether you live in the smallest community in rural America or if you live in one of the biggest cities in the United States, we all understand the importance of a job [and] the dignity of the paycheck.

Another issue causing consternation among Democratic activists is the DCCCs digital fundraising program. DCCC officials take pride in their fundraising efforts, saying a majority of their 2017 fundraising to date comes from small-dollar donors. The DCCC out-raised its Republican counterpart for the second quarter of 2017 by $5 million ($29.1 million compared with $24.1 million).

However, many observers both within the party and without have criticized the way that those dollars are solicited. Theres a good chance that more people can describe the DCCC by the content of its fundraising appeals than by the organizations actual function in the Democratic Party. You may have seen some of their emails in your inbox:

From: Nancy Pelosi

Subject: Im losing hope

From: FINAL-NOTICE@dccc.org

Subject: AUTO-CONFIRM: [Member Status (07/31/2017)]

From: James Carville

Subject: ELECTION OVER. WE LOST.

Such alarmist clickbait is a great way to increase email open rates if House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is depressed and wants to chat, who are you to ignore her? but many Democrats worry that such hair-on-fire tactics will degrade the Democrats brand and create a cry-wolf effect. The FINAL-NOTICE email contained decidedly scammy language and formatting about the recipient risking losing their party membership if they didnt act. The blast from political strategist James Carville, despite its subject, was actually sent a week and a half before the 2016 election.

Though manipulative fundraising tactics may pale in significance compared with the policy debates underway, the emotions they solicit from party and liberal activists are no less raw. The DCCC, one former Democratic official warned, should seriously weigh the short-term gains of more $3 donations from scared white ladies who see subject lines like doomed against long-term party building.

Lujn and DCCC officials say they understand criticism of the email campaigns, but to crudely summarize their views on the matter: the emails are too damn profitable to stop.

Lujn says that theres been a shift in tone already this cycle, something he attributes to listening to activists across the country. However, he maintains that such behavior is necessary in a dog-eat-dog, post-Citizens United fundraising environment.

Half of what weve raised thus far to date has come from that program, Lujn observed.

I recognize the reputations thing, echoed Sena, who said such criticisms do not fall on deaf ears, but pointed to the digital programs financial success. People are responding to it and joining the fight. Theyre doing that by giving.

One area where the DCCC is changing course is its geographical focus, a correction that party officials admit was long overdue. It has relocated a number of D.C. staff positions to permanent posts in the districts and recruited a number of local organizers whose job, says Sena, is to arm the rebels.

I think all too often there was always an emphasis on training as many people as you could in Washington, D.C., and then youd fly them into different races across America, and after that election cycle theyd all pack up and go back to Washington, D.C., Lujn recalled.

Its a matter of being present, of going and having conversations with people, he elaborated. I think what weve seen in the past is people have made mistakes with a tendency to speak down to people.

The DCCC is also hosting a number of DCCC University sessions, in which its staffers and local political activists train up-and-coming campaign officials in behind-the-scenes skills, such as press engagement, coalition building and get-out-the-vote initiatives.

It was at one of these events in Albuquerque last month that Lujn sat down with HuffPost.

Everyones here for a fun-filled information gathering! a typically revved-up Lujn told the crowd before the training.

The congressmans blandly hip outfit that day jeans and a blazer over a T-shirt stamped with the New Mexico flag served to strengthen his nice guy vibes. In an alternate life, you could see him as a youth pastor who regularly sits backward on chairs to rap with kids about abstinence.

For Lujn, such organizationally minded events are an increasingly central component of the DCCCs work, as its financial reach, though still large, is diluted by all the independent expenditures now in play in a post-Citizens United world.

What were seeing after Citizens United are Republicans having endless amounts of money to attack and attack and attack, so you have to be in a position to defend that, Lujn said. I think its fair to say that, with the candidates that Ive been working with, I have put an emphasis on making sure that youre building a strong campaign and program.

Yet the interview came on the heels of stinging Democratic losses in special elections for House seats in Georgia, Montana, South Carolina and Kansas. The DCCC has absorbed considerable criticism over the loss in Georgias 6th Congressional District, where many saw Democratic nominee Jon Ossoff as overly cautious when it came to criticizing Trump and thought he ran a campaign that was overly focus-grouped, as Jeff Hauser, a House campaign veteran and executive director of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, described it.

There definitely needs to be a message about what a Democratic Congress would do but also how Trump is making Washington worse, Hauser said.

Lujn says he is proud of the campaign Ossoff ran, and, though he resisted providing a postmortem, he did say that the various scandals enveloping the Trump administration should be a part of Democrats messaging going forward.

Could we have made better decisions about leaning in [to the special elections] earlier or later? asked Lujn rhetorically. I think those are all fair questions, and we are getting to the bottom of that.

I see incredible momentum coming out of these special elections. That the National Republican Campaign Committee and the Congressional Leadership Fund had to spend the dollars that they did should worry them.

But Lujn said he doesnt want Democrats to get distracted by Trump: We have to keep our focus on the American people and focus on what we can do to make things better.

The DCCC often serves as a stepping stone to party leadership, and a big win on Nov. 6, 2018,could be Lujns ticket to replacing Pelosi or one of her top deputies, all of whom are in their late 70s. Its talk that DCCC officials notably dont dissuade, and with a number of Lujns potential rivals for those top jobs seeking opportunities elsewhere, theres a good chance that America will become much more familiar with Lujn in the years to come.

The renewed debate over how policy-focused the DCCC should be is just a taste of what Lujn could expect should he rise to higher ranks. Pelosi has had to address similar questions since Trumps election, and one suspects that Lujns current battles will arise again should he decide to seek a promotion.

Right now, however, Lujn can only hope to get back to being the earnest, aw-shucksguy who can talk up the strengths and prospects of this cycles class of Democratic House candidates.

All across America, those middle-class, hard-working families need our help, and thats what Im asking for your help with, Lujn told the assembled campaign staffers and activists during his opening remarks. You willing to get on board with that?

A handful of audience members cheered in acknowledgment.

Oh, cmon! Lujn, exclaimed, dialing his Leave It to Beaver earnestness up to 11.You willing to get on board with that?

Yeahhhh!!! The crowd exclaimed.

It was clear that the Democrats chief congressional cheerleader was in his happy place.

See more here:
Democrats Could Take Back The House. Will They Screw It Up? - HuffPost

(Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Winners, when they reach the end zone, are supposed to act like theyve been there before. So why is President Trump still waging war on Hillary Clinton? Why tweet about missing emails and ties to Ukraine when hes the one inside the White House? Why send press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders before the cameras nearly nine months after the election to read what amounted to a multi-count indictment of Trumps defeated foe?

In this, as he does so often, Trump serves as a magic decoder ring for our seemingly incomprehensible 21st-century politics. With reptilian clarity hopeless on strategy, but instinctively keen he seizes on the binary basics of our endless combat: To survive, one must have a foe.

Down deep, Trump surely knows he owes his presidency to Clinton. His vulnerabilities as a candidate were precisely the spots where Clinton was too weak to land a blow. The murkiness of his finances was offset by the shadiness of the Clinton Foundation. Her outrage at Trumps boorish behavior rang false given her infinite tolerance for her husbands. If Trumps first impulse was always to dodge the truth, well, where had we seen that before? Clinton had to collapse in public before she was willing to admit to a mild case of pneumonia. Her story about her emails had more holes than Trump National Golf Club. As for the empty slogans of his campaign (Build that wall), they were hardly less substantial than hers (Stronger together). His ignorance of policy and history demanded a campaign about nothing. She gave it to him.

So it happened that one of the most unpopular candidates in our history won his narrow victory. Voters in the key states of the electoral college disliked his opponent a little bit more.

Democrats looking ahead to 2018 might want to keep this history in mind. Approval ratings are a mirage. They ask the public to compare the president to some theoretical standard or ideal. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the president is doing his job? Compared to what? Lost in a desert of ballot-box ineptitude, the Democrats are crawling toward the false oasis of Trumps low ratings as though blind to the fact that Trump was never popular to begin with, and still he won.

Or rather, he survived the election, a feat managed by making it a series of head-to-head combats, against Low-Energy Jeb, then Lil Marco, then Lyin Ted and finally Crooked Hillary. Trumps continuing focus on Clinton serves to remind all the people who held their noses while voting for him that elections arent about theoretical standards or ideals. They are about this one or that one. Too often, American voters feel like theyre dining at Hells Caf, where the menu offers two dishes only: boiled work boots or roadkill tartare.

To win next year, Democrats will need to offer something more appetizing than the plate they served up in 2016. But their recently unveiled effort, called A Better Deal, aint it. While the nation is hurtling into the future, theyve rolled out a recipe from the past, yet another deal to go with the Fair, New and Square deals of yesteryear. As for the vapid corporation-bashing at the core of the document, it feels like a ride in the DeLorean with Marty McFly, the timer on the Flux Capacitor set for 1901. What failed for William Jennings Bryan is unlikely to succeed today.

Behind the antique facade lay the same old policies. The $15-an-hour minimum wage, which may already be killing jobs where progressives have started adopting it. The $1 trillion infrastructure pledge that merely echoes Trumps own pie-in-the-sky promise. The vague gesture of concern about rebuilding rural America which Charles E. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi keep tabs on by jetting over it at 38,000 feet. And so on.

If America wanted this agenda, the Democrats would not be out of power from statehouse to White House. You cant beat Trump by coining more vacuous slogans than his, or launching flimsier policy balloons. You cant conquer his straw men with an army of your own. Trumps opponents will only beat him with something new and better than the candidates, tactics and policies of the past.

These wont be found in minority caucus rooms or the studios of MSNBC. To win a head-to-head against Trump, a party of tomorrow must turn its focus from Washington to the country where it is going and how best to get there. Forget about Republicans. Forget, even, about Trump. Have an honest, hopeful conversation with America.

(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Hell never see it coming.

Read more from David Von Drehles archive.

See the original post here:
Trump's continued attacks on Clinton tell us why the Democrats lost - Washington Post

President Donald Trump has been railing against the leaks coming out of his administration for weeks as a stream of unflattering stories has embarrassed the White House. | Alex Brandon/AP

Republicans and Democrats denounced government leaking this week after transcripts of President Donald Trumps calls with foreign leaders was exposed by the Washington Post.

The rejection of leaks comes as Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected Friday to a Justice Department investigation into leaks coming out of the government.

Story Continued Below

Trump has been railing against the leaks coming out of his administration for weeks as a stream of unflattering stories has embarrassed the White House. Some of those stories are based on anonymously sourced but unclassified gossip about infighting among his aides, while others are more serious leaks of information about the ongoing probe into his campaigns relationship with Russia or his dealings with foreign leaders.

Republicans have typically been quick to draw attention to the leak problem throughout the Russia investigation, while Democrats have generally focused on questions about whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russias attempts to meddle in the election last year. But a leak on Thursday prompted lawmakers from both parties to speak out and raise their concern.

The Washington Post published the transcripts of Trumps tense calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia, embarrassing the White House because at times Trump seemed not to grasp policy basics and appeared to downplay his campaign promises.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Friday warned that the disclosure could jeopardize national security.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

What really should concern everyone are these leaks that imperil national security, she said on the Fox News morning program Fox and Friends. Leaking the phone calls between our president and other heads of state is nothing short of a national disgrace.

But the White House is not alone in condemning the leak. While many Trump critics were quick to express their dismay at the content of the exchanges on Thursday, some Democrats joined in to warn that leaking a transcript of conversations between the president and other world leaders is dangerous and a bad precedent.

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Daily Beast on Thursday that Congress should investigate the leak.

A president of the United States, a governor would tell us they've got to be able to have confidential conversations, Warner said. And I think it was disgraceful that those [came out].

David Frum, a former aide in the George W. Bush White House and a consistent Trump critic at The Atlantic, wrote a column decrying the leak as unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous and warned that it will reverberate around the world.

No leader will again speak candidly on the phone to Washington, D.C.at least for the duration of this presidency, and perhaps for longer, Frum wrote. If these calls can be leaked, any call can be leakedand no leader dare say anything to the president of the United States that he or she would not wish to read in the news at home.

Tommy Vietor, a former spokesperson for President Barack Obamas National Security Council, also called the leak absurd.

I wouldve lost my mind if transcripts of Obama's calls to foreign leaders leaked, Vietor, who co-hosts the popular liberal podcast Pod Save America, said on Twitter. He wouldn't have sounded so dumb, but it's still absurd.

Added former Obama adviser David Axelrod: Transcripts of @POTUS calls w/leaders of Mexico; Australia were embarrassing. Yet the leaking of them feels like a terrible precedent.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Read the original post:
Republicans and Democrats condemn leaking Trump's conversation with foreign leaders - Politico

The proposal seemed modest in today's polarized political climate: The head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee suggested his group might help fund candidates who didn't share the party's support for abortion rights.

The backlash from abortion-rights activists and organizations was quick and harsh. The basic message: Don't go there.

A coalition of progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued a " statement of principles " challenging the party to be unwavering in its support for abortion rights. Scores of women who have had abortions made the same point in an open letter to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a staunch abortion-rights supporter who nonetheless says there's room in the party for opposing views.

"The DCCC should not be supporting any politician who does not respect a woman's right to control her body," said Karin Roland, of the women's rights group Ultraviolet. "There is no future of the Democratic Party without women so stop betraying them for a misguided idea of what's needed to win elections."

The latest brush fires were sparked this week by the DCCC chairman, Rep. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, when he told The Hill newspaper that the committee is willing to aid candidates who oppose abortion rights. His core argument: Democrats after a series of dismaying losses in national and state elections will only reclaim power by winning in GOP-leaning districts and states where the liberal base can't deliver victories on its own.

A DCCC official, Meredith Kelly, said Lujan isn't looking specifically for abortion-rights opponents, even in conservative districts. But, she added, "We are working right now to recruit candidates who represent Democratic values and who also fit the districts they are running in."

The current Congress is almost monolithic when it comes to abortion. Only a small handful of Republicans vote in favor of abortion rights; a similarly small number of Democrats support restrictions on abortion.

Some Democratic officials suggest the argument over Lujan's remarks is overblown a handful of outliers won't change the agenda if Democrats reclaim congressional majorities.

Abortion-rights leaders have a different view.

"Every time the Democrats lose an election, they start casting about in ways that are deeply damaging to the base," NARAL president Ilyse Hogue said. "If they go out and start recruiting anti-choice candidates under the Democratic brand, the message is, 'We're willing to sell out women to win,' and politically that's just suicide."

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, said politicians who personally object to abortion should be welcome in the Democratic Party as long as they don't vote to impose that view on others.

Supporting candidates who voted that way, said Laguens, would be comparable to supporting candidates who voted against LGBT-rights.

"These are fundamental issues that Democrats have staked their world view around," she said.

Stephen Schneck, a longtime political science professor at Catholic University and board member with Democrats for Life of America, contends that the Democratic leadership would benefit from more diverse views on abortion.

"Internal tensions are really good for a party," he said, citing polls showing that more than 20 percent of Democratic voters oppose abortion in most cases.

However, Schneck acknowledged that it's hard to find common ground on any abortion-related policies, with the possible exception of boosting support for women who carry babies to term. Advocacy groups on each side of the abortion debate tend to scorn the concept of compromise and to base their fundraising campaigns on vows to be unyielding.

A prominent anti-abortion leader, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports anti-abortion candidates, said she and her allies were proud of working to weaken the influence of abortion-rights supporters in Republican ranks.

"When the roles were reversed 10 years ago, and some within the Republican Party were advocating for a 'big tent' on abortion, we worked very hard at the time to keep the GOP pro-life from the top down," she said in an email.

In some respects, Lujan's remarks don't represent a new stance for the Democrats' campaign apparatus. The Democratic Governors Association in 2015 helped John Bel Edwards, an anti-abortion Catholic, win the Louisiana governors' race, an upset in a Republican-dominated state.

The governors' group is now eyeing the 2018 race for governor in Kansas. The Democratic field includes former legislator and agriculture commissioner Joshua Svaty, who had an anti-abortion record in the Kansas House.

Laura McQuade, who runs Planned Parenthood Great Plains, warns that anti-abortion governors play a very different role from rank-and-file members of Congress getting a chance to weigh in on bills that would restrict abortion access.

McQuade, who is critical of Svaty's candidacy, notes that Kansas' last two-term Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius, supported abortion rights and went on to serve as President Barack Obama's health secretary. Democrats don't have to abandon support for "full gender equity" to win, she said.

Svaty has not made his abortion stance a feature of his campaign, telling journalists it wouldn't be a defining issue of his administration.

Kansas Democratic Chairman Josh Gibson has avoided taking a side, saying, "It's up to primary voters to decide where they want to place their emphasis."

In Louisiana, Democrats embraced Edwards' candidacy, even as he featured his abortion opposition in campaign ads. The heavily Catholic state is accustomed to Democrats who oppose abortion rights, and the Democratic Governors Association had no qualms embracing Edwards over his GOP opponent, then-Sen. David Vitter.

As governor, Edwards has left it to the Republican attorney general to defend previously adopted abortion restrictions in court. He has signed new abortion regulations, though he did not champion the proposals. Among them: a three-day waiting period for women seeking abortions.

"The issue is personal for him," explains Edwards aide Richard Carbo. Edwards and his wife rejected medical advice to abort a baby of theirs who'd been diagnosed with spina bifida. She's now a healthy adult.

Carbo said Edwards called Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez earlier this year when Perez declared it is "not negotiable" that "every Democrat ... should support a woman's right" to abortion services.

"He wants this to be a big tent party on this issue," Carbo said.

Visit link:
Democrats differ: Should party back anti-abortion candidates - ABC News

TED PERLE, LAKE FOREST, CALIF.

The writer is a member of the executive board of the California Democratic Party.

The Real Deal

A Better Deal rests on a case of one-upmanship: What we offer doesnt have to be good, just better. Thats dancing to someone elses tune.

The Real Deal reminds voters that Democrats are serious about governance; it isnt all hyperbole and empty rhetoric. It suggests that Democrats know how to deliver on health care, job growth, banking protections, equality under the law. It showcases reality and the task of finding real solutions to Americas problems. The president will continue to whine about fake news, while doing his best to gaslight the nation. This leaves Democrats with the great opportunity to define themselves as the enemies of unreality: We are the real deal.

DAVID HAVEN BLAKE HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP, N.J.

The writer is the author of Liking Ike: Eisenhower, Advertising, and the Rise of Celebrity Politics.

Make America America Again

This slogan addresses the fact that we have gotten away from the values that make America great inclusiveness, the rule of law, opportunity for everyone, innovation, our can-do attitude, our work ethic and our faith in democracy. The Democrats would do well to inspire us to embrace these values again, and they could show how every program they propose would further these values.

ROBERT W. BAKER MANHASSET, N.Y.

Its My Party, and Ill Cry if I Want To

I think that this slogan sums up my general frustration with the Democrats (with apologies to Lesley Gore).

CARLA RECZEK, OAK PARK, MICH.

Make America Work Again!

I like it because it can refer to jobs and the economy and is also a commentary on the Republican Partys inability to get anything done. It is also a play on President Trumps slogan and can imply that he has not been successful in achieving his goals.

NANCY T. ROCKWELL, BROOKLYN

Stop the Madness

As much as I love my states senior senator, Chuck Schumer, A Better Deal just doesnt do it for me. Democrats, the last nine months have been rough. But stop trying so hard. Speak from the heart, and say what we are all thinking. Stop this reality show. The kids have thrown their party, but now the parents must come home before the house burns down. Stop the madness.

MARK KAPLOWITZ, ALBANY

The Party of Yes

For the entire Obama presidency, the Republicans reveled in being the Party of No. Now that they are the governing party, they continue to be purely negative, accomplishing nothing, excluding nearly everyone. Their only core belief is that government is not the answer, another negative, and to mindlessly cut taxes simply to starve the beast. They do not have a single yes idea, as their failure on health care vividly displayed. Building on the Obama slogan, Yes We Can, the Democrats need to become the Party of Yes with constructive, positive answers to address the concerns of those who have been driven out, left out and left behind.

CLAUDE SHOSTAL, NEW YORK

You Deserve Better

This slogan points out that the public certainly deserves better political representation than it is getting but it also requires the Democrats to admit that they need to do better as well. It is an admission that they somehow managed to miss the anger and anxiety of a large swath of America and, in the process, disaffected millions to the degree that many were willing to look to Donald Trump as an acceptable alternative.

MARILYN J. BELLOCK, NEW YORK

Make America Great Again

How about if the Democrats turn the tables on President Trump and make their new slogan Make America Great Again. Wait, what?

Heres why its genius: 1) It gives Democrats a golden opportunity to highlight Mr. Trumps broken promises and present their better solutions. 2) It will generate plenty of free media exposure. 3) It co-opts Trump followers into being unwitting Democratic proponents. 4) Bonus: It will make Trump supporters heads explode. In guerrilla warfare circles, this is known as a false flag attack.

PAUL KRANTZ URBANDALE, IOWA

Make Reading the Newspaper Relaxing Again

PETER GORDON GREAT NECK, N.Y.

Were By Your Side

This can be easily worked into broader messages. For example: When you need help with your medical bills, were by your side. When youre worrying whether your child can afford to go to college, were by your side. And when youre discriminated against for any reason, were by you side. Not government on your back. Government by your side. The Democrats need a message that shows they care. And they need to drop their we know better (even if it is true) attitude.

JEFF LOWELL, NEW YORK

For the Many, Not the Few

I was going to suggest a slogan along the lines of the British Labour Partys widely popular For the Many, Not the Few, but that would require that the Democrats actually embrace that ethos.

WILLIAM BURSTEIN NEW YORK

The New American Dream

The basic middle-class promise if you work hard, you can have a decent home, a good job, affordable health care, quality education for your kids and a secure retirement has been steadily eroding for decades. Democrats need to embrace a set of policies to bring back these five core elements for anyone willing to work hard not by bringing back the jobs of yesterday but by growing the jobs of tomorrow and extending them to more and more people: millennials, minorities, women and, yes, white working-class men. The American dream still resonates, but in the 21st century its different. Its new.

PETER CUNNINGHAM, CHICAGO

BetterTogether

BetterTogether strikes at the heart of the deep divisions in our country that have inhibited our ability to govern our country effectively, and makes the point that we can do better only if we unite and do it together. This is what the Democratic Party must convey in order to succeed.

MICHAEL D. BUTTERMAN STAMFORD, CONN.

Draw the Circle Wide

I cant claim it as mine. Its part of a hymn: Draw the circle, draw the circle wide. No one stands alone, well stand side by side. I believe it to be a simple statement of what our national attitude and priorities should be, and what it will take to make this country work for everybody.

DIANNE JACKSON RICHMOND, VA.

Justice, Compassion and Jobs!

It speaks to the core values and, in the end, its the economy, stupid!

WYNN SCHWARTZ, BOSTON

Restore Our Dignity!

President Trump has trampled the dignity of the presidency, embarrassed the United States internationally and violated basic human decency by demeaning women, immigrants and minorities. Thats why I suggest Restore Our Dignity! as a slogan for the Democrats. Making America truly great again requires reaffirming and protecting the basic human dignity of all people, a core American value.

ANDREW VOGEL NEWTON CENTER, MASS.

An America That Works

My slogan works on a couple of levels putting Americans back to work (as President Trump has pledged but so far has failed to do), and making government work for all people.

And unlike A Better Deal, with its too-cute-by-half Trump reference, my slogan ignores the current administration entirely, and also eschews the wishy-washiness of better. Were not trying to make a good country better. Were trying to take a broken country and make it work.

JAKE ALRICH, NEW YORK

Integrity. Opportunity. Prosperity.

The first word reminds us how important, and how currently lacking, is the element of trust in our elected officials.

The second word calls to mind the very American ideals of social mobility and the possibility of achieving a better future.

The final word underscores the goal of a higher standard of living and economic growth.

In the end, most Americans arent expecting to build a Utopian paradise. What most of us want is a level playing field and a shot at greatness.

PERRY B. NEWMAN DORCHESTER, MASS.

Together, Wherever We Go!

Because it is inclusive as well as uplifting, I like the title of the song that Ethel Merman belted out in Gypsy. It refers to our past, as it looks to the future.

MICHELLE ROBINSON GERSTEN, MIAMI

Were Listening Now

I think the Democrats should adopt Were Listening Now as their slogan, and then actually do it over two or three months. This slogan addresses much of what people who essentially turned against the party have said that the party became tone-deaf to the things that really matter outside the well-heeled circles of political elites.

To this end, the Democrats could establish listening posts online sites where people could send their ideas and concerns, and receive actual replies rather than form letters. They could also conduct town hall-style meetings where representatives are there only to listen. Then the party should convene to read and discuss all the things their constituents have written and said, and devise a plan that meets the needs and desires of the citizens.

ALISON DIDIER, ST. PAUL

By the People and For the People

No party is perfect. Far from it. But in recent times it has become overwhelmingly apparent that one party represents lobbyist groups and the wealthy. The other party represents what is in the best interests of all people and the environment. The Democratic Party would do well to remind Americans (and itself) of this mission. Therefore, By the People and For the People should be its slogan.

STEVEN SEIGEL, NEW MILFORD, N.J.

Americas Party

What the Democrats need more than a slogan is a strategy. I say this as someone who has spent a career writing slogans. I did some thinking about a new branding strategy last spring and arrived at nearly the same place as Thomas J. Lee, who in his July 31 to the editor suggested Truth, Justice and the American Way. Id go big, stealing all the thunder the Republicans have abandoned. The Democrats are Americas Party.

CARMICHAEL LYNCH MINNEAPOLIS

We are on your side.

But then theyd have to prove it.

DIANNE OLSEN NORTH ADAMS, MASS.

Hope and Change

If a slogan is worth anything, it should endure longer than just the next election. Barack Obamas Hope and Change says it all and could become the mantra for all future political parties.

DANE S. FABER SAUSALITO, CALIF.

No slogan.

Its better because people want action, not slogans.

THOMAS JAVORCIC BERWYN, ILL.

A version of this letter appears in print on August 6, 2017, on Page SR8 of the New York edition with the headline: Democratic Slogan: Your Choices.

Go here to read the rest:
A New Democratic Slogan? Your Choices - New York Times