Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats are confident they will be able to hammer home their newly unveiled economic agenda, even as health care and Washington drama dominate the news. And theyre planning to use the upcoming August recess to do just that.

Im branding our entire Augustdistrict work period as A better deal for theheartland, Rep. Cheri Bustossaid.

The Illinois Democrat, who last month was named chairwoman of heartland engagement for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said all of her events fromeconomic roundtables andmeetingswith local editorial boardsto her Cheri on Shift initiatives, in which she shadows people working different jobs will be framed around the Democratic economic agenda.

Bustos push signifies a broader challengefor Democrats: keeping the focus on their platformand connecting their plan toconstituents, some of whom voted forPresident Donald Trump last fall.

The goalis for members to come back after August and reassess what resonated with constituents, Bustos said.

Were asking all of our members to come back and let us know, how did it work? Are people nodding theirheads when youre talking about this, or are they looking like theyre confused? Or are there areas of it that resonate and are there parts that dont? shesaid.There will likely be a series of meetings on the topic in September, she added.

After some soul searching following Trumps victory, Democrats decided they needed to focus on an economic agenda to connectwith Americans who are feelingleft behind.

Months of meetings and discussions ledto the Better Deal economic platform, which Democrats unveiled Monday in Berryville, Virginia. The rollout garnered significant media attention, including live cable news coverage.

But one day later, attention shifted to the Senate health care votes, Trumps berating of his attorney general, and the ongoingRussia investigation.

Democrats say they were well-aware that those other issueswould take over the news cycle but their rollout was timed so members would have an economic agenda to take home in August.

Every day in Washington theres some kind of distraction, whether its Jared Kushner having to testify in front of the Senate or whether its having Donald Trump tweeting something at midnight, Bustos said. The point is weve got 190 plus members of the U.S. House of Representatives who will be going home and talking about a better deal that we are offering to the people who we serve.

House Democrats will be given toolkits on the Better Deal platform, which is typical for an August recess. The toolkits include talking points, sample op-eds, and digital media suggestions, a senior House Democratic aide said.

That is the whole point of the August recess push, for members to go out and talk about this agenda and take it to the people, the aide said.

We wanted people to be able to go home and say, This is what were fighting for as Democrats, that were all singing from the same song sheet, Bustos said.

Bustossaidthe message could resonate in a rangeofdistricts, including liberal-leaning onesand more moderatedistricts like her own.Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzalesrates Bustos northwest Illinoisdistrict as SolidlyDemocratic, but Trump carriedit by less than apoint in November.

Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, whose downstateNew York district also supported Trump, called the platform a step in the right direction.

Maloney, who has also conducted a reviewof theDemocrats campaign arm following last years election,said Democrats would be able to relay their message to voters amid ongoing investigations and policy fights in D.C.

I dont think its a challenge at all, hesaid. I think its getting back to basics. Its always been part of our message but its important that we all get on the same page and talk about things that matter around the kitchen table to working families.

Democrats are expected torelease additional policy proposals under theBetter Deal framework in the fall, which could also focus someattention on their agenda. The Democratic aide said input from constituentsover August could help determine which policy proposals are unveiled first.

This is not a one day announcement, said Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen. Were going to be sticking with this, week in and week out.

Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,said Democrats will have to be disciplined in talking about their economic agenda.

Sen. Tim Kaineknows well the challenge of penetrating a news cycle dominatedby Trump. The Virginia Democrat ran as Hillary Clintons vice presidential nominee last year, and is running for re-election in 2018 in a race that Inside Elections rates Likely Democratic.

The difference between 2016 and 2018 for me is I just have to run in one state, Kaine said. Its a state that Im very familiar with. And its frankly a state whose own experience on economic issues is very consistent with the [Democratic] message.

Kaine, notinghis experience as the Old Dominionsgovernor, dismissed questions about whether Democrats could maintain attention on their economic platform.

These are the kinds of things that Ive talked about in virtually every race Ive run in Virginia,he said. So Im not overly worried about: Will we be able to keep this issue front and center for folks? We will be able to in Virginia.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

See the original post here:
Democrats Plan to Push 'Better Deal' Over August Recess - Roll Call

With Trump as president, it is easy to forget how utterly hopeless many Congressional Democrats are, including many who look like progressives.

The best indicator of Democratic corruption is its slavishness toward the lobby that is to them what the National Rifle Association is to the GOP: the Israel lobby (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its satellite organizations).

The latest evidence of that slavishness comes in the form of growing support among Democrats in both Houses for legislation sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and co-sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, commonly known as BDS. Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

According to the ACLU, the Cardin legislation would bar U.S. persons from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories (emphasis mine) conducted by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union. It would also... include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison....This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies.

Pretty amazing. Why would anyone support such a law? Yes, lots of people (including me) oppose boycotting Israel (although I certainly support boycotting the settlements) but how is it even possible to criminalize simply supporting a boycott to protest the occupation? After all, we boycott states and municipalities here at home to protest discrimination based on race, sexual identity or anything else. Most recently, the state of North Carolina was faced with a boycott to protest its policy against allowing transgender people to use public bathrooms. How can it be legal to refuse to do business with North Carolina but illegal to refuse to do business with Israeli settlements?

The answer is simple: AIPAC, which is the lobby few Democrats (let alone Republicans) are willing to cross. Here is its Call to Action sent to every member of the House and Senate telling them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cardin bill is a top priority of the lobby. As for Cardin, it is no surprise that he is the lead sponsor of the bill (1) because he never, if ever, deviates from doing what the Israeli government wants and (2) he is one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from AIPAC officers and associated donors. The same can be said of Schumer who has always carried water for the lobby. (Both senators opposed President Obamas bill to end sanctions on Iran in exchange for its terminating its nuclear weapons program.)

Am I being unfair to ascribe such venal motives to those Democrats who support this bill? (I dont mention Republicans because their support for it comports completely with their worldviews which is not the case with the Democrats). I dont think so because every single Democrat supporting this anti-free speech bill consistently opposes limits on free speech. Their support for this bill represents the only time they promoted legislation to curtail free speech. I cannot imagine any reason for this egregious offense against the First Amendment except to please AIPAC and their AIPAC associated donors.

Fortunately, this legislation can still be stopped. Here are lists of the Senate and House Democrats who are co-sponsoring this abominable bill. Let them know of your opposition. Just as important, if your legislator is not yet a co-sponsor, let him or her know that he or she better not become one.

Many years ago, the #2 man at AIPAC, Steve Rosen (later indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 wrote me the following about AIPACs activities: A lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.

The same applies to those in Congress who, disregarding their constituents, take their marching orders from AIPAC. Its time to shine some sunlight on them.

The First Amendment does not include an exception stating does not apply to speech about Israel or its settlements. We cant allow a lobby and its Congressional cutouts to insert one. But, believe me, that is their goal and going after BDS supporters is just the beginning.

The rest is here:
Democrats Join Republicans In Bill Criminalizing Speech Critical Of Israel - HuffPost

Turning to a single-payer system, instead of trying to improve the Affordable Care Act, maybe with a public option, is a loser on the politics and policy

Democrats relish the Republicans inability to pass even a pathetic alternative to Obamacare.

For 7 years, Republicans have campaigned and voted to replace the Affordable Health Care Act. When given a real chance at success, with governing control, they were impeded by a president whos ignorant on the issue. Then, after Republican senators slipped behind closed doors to come up with their own plans, they provided products that voters, even some Trump supporters, overwhelmingly spotted as frauds.

As justified as the Democrats ridicule is of this, its also creating a trap for them: They overreach if they think they can now push for a single-payer, government-run system. Such a course threatens to be a problem in the 2018 midterm election cycle and certainly would be in 2020.

Turning to a single-payer system, instead of trying to improve the Affordable Care Act, maybe with a public option, is a loser on the politics and policy a fools errand, says Ezekiel Emanuel, a leading Democratic health care expert who helped craft Obamacare.

The pressure on Democrats is building, as conversations with several members of Congress suggest. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, leaders of the influential left wing, are pushing a single-payer system. In the House, 115 members have sponsored this initiative, and more state and county Democratic Party committees are embracing it.

On single payer, says Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minnesota, rank-and-file Democrats are energized in a way I have not witnessed in a long, long time. Hes a veteran liberal who wins in the populist Iron Range district of Minnesota that Donald Trump also carried.

But this wont play out well for Democrats. If the United States were starting anew on health care, perhaps it would have been better to enact something like the systems in Canada or Australia, praised by Trump. But to try a radical overhaul, throwing out the entire system with a new one funded by federal taxes, would be a humongous jolt.

Changing one-sixth of the American economy would be traumatic for the system and the public. Look at the fallout from the far milder Obamacare changes or the agony the Republicans are currently enduring.

A public option for those people in the federal exchanges would be resisted by the insurance industry and most all Republicans. But its far less radical, and potentially more feasible, than a single-payer system that nationalizes coverage for everyone.

To their dismay, Republicans now own health care, whether they try to repeal and/or replace the Affordable Care Act or let the issue wither away. Obamacare today is far more popular with voters than any alternative Congress has suggested.

But Republicans could lighten the load of their albatross if Democrats also propose to repeal Obamacare and instead spend trillions of federal tax dollars on a government-run system. That debate might energize a depressed Republican electorate and turn off a lot of swing voters.

Its worth reprising the wisdom of one of Americas great pollsters, the late Bob Teeter, a Republican, who two decades ago foresaw that the political party that owns health care will suffer.

Al Hunt is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the executive editor of Bloomberg News, before which he was a reporter, bureau chief and executive Washington editor at the Wall Street Journal.

Read the original:
COMMENTARY: Democrats would make a big blunder by pushing socialized medicine - Las Vegas Review-Journal

Top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva said Ryan Zinke had crossed the line. | Robyn Beck/Getty Images

Democrats and their allies off the Hill pushed back hard at the Trump administration on Thursday after a report that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke threatened projects important to Alaska in retribution for Sen. Lisa Murkowski's vote against health care legislation.

House Democrats vowed to seek an investigation into Zinke's call to Murkowski and fellow Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan on Wednesday a day after Murkowski voted against taking up Obamacare repeal to warn them that the administration's support for energy projects in the state are now at risk. And a conservation group that often works with Democrats sought internal documents on Zinke's calls as well as to any others that he may have made to other GOP swing votes on health care.

Story Continued Below

The Freedom of Information Act request filed by the group, the Western Values Project, seeks records of any contact Zinke made with the Alaskan senators as well as Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), according to a copy shared with POLITICO.

The group plans to sue Interior to force the release of any relevant information that it doesn't receive by the time its legal window closes, Executive Director Chris Saeger said.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee plan later Thursday to seek an investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office or Interior's independent inspector general, according to a spokesman.

Murkowski confirmed to reporters Thursday that the call with Zinke took place, as well as a second call she received from President Donald Trump on Tuesday, the day she voted with Collins against taking up the GOP's Obamacare repeal bill.

She denied any suggestion that she had used her power as chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over Zinke's department, to hit back by postponing a committee meeting that would have included votes on three Interior nominees.

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.

In addition to her energy panel gavel, Murkowski chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee in charge of deciding how much money Interior has to spend each year.

Zinke holds ample sway over the state of Alaska, where the federal government controls 61 percent of the land in the state. Interior is reviewing a multitude of projects tied to Alaska energy development, including a possible opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling and allowing offshore oil drilling in currently off-limits Arctic waters.

Sullivan touted that potential to develop more of the state's resources in urging that his senior senator and the Trump administration return to harmony.

"[T]hat cooperation has been very useful and very important in the last six months, reversing what the previous administration did to Alaska," Sullivan told reporters. "So, from my perspective, the sooner we can get back to that kind of cooperation between the administration and the chairman of the [energy] committee, the better for Alaska and the better for the country.

Asked if he had any advice for Murkowski, Sullivan demurred: Im not telling Sen. Murkowski anything. I work super closely with Sen. Murkowski, but thats my statement.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) offered advice of his own to the Trump administration on the matter. "I've been doing this for a long time and Ive seldom seen threats to be very effective," Blunt said.

Arizona's Raul Grijalva, the House Natural Resources panel's top Democrat, said Zinke had crossed the line.

Running a department of the federal government means you serve the American people as a protector of their rights and freedoms, Grijalva said in a statement. It doesnt mean you serve the president as a bag man for his political vendettas. Threatening to punish your rivals as political blackmail is something wed see from the Kremlin."

Beyond its stewardship over oil and gas resources, Interior also has the final say over whether to allow a road through Alaskas Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to take residents of an isolated village reach a nearby hospital, something Murkowski has pushed for years.

Even if this road provides health care access to hundreds, which is very much in doubt, Secretary Zinke thinks the price to build it is a vote to deny health care access to millions, Grijalva said.

Zinke's phone call, first reported by the Alaska Dispatch News, came after Trump tweeted his displeasure with Murkowski's vote. But Murkowski is unlikely to face serious political consequences in the near term. She will not be up for reelection until 2022, and she has previously proved her political mettle in the state winning a rare write-in victory to be reelected in 2010 after she lost the GOP primary to a Tea Party challenger.

House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop on Thursday defended Zinke's call to Murkowski.

"That is not unprecedented, [he] has a right to do that," Bishop told reporters in the Capitol. Bishop said former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell would call him "complaining about some things that we were doing."

Spokespeople for the Interior Department, Murkowski and Sullivan did not respond to requests for comment.

Alaska Oil & Gas Association President Kara Moriarty called the threats unfortunate.

As the secretary has said, they want to have American energy dominance, and the only way to do that is through Alaska, Moriarty told POLITICO. When the time comes when Alaskan energy projects are in front of Congress, I hope they are considered on their merits and not used as a political chits.

Environmentalists were unsparing in their assessment.

Ryan Zinke is revealing himself as Trumps hitman. Hes now threatening to hold public lands and energy policy hostage over a health care bill. This is the U.S. government, not the Corleone family," Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement.

Zinke is not the first member of Trump's Cabinet without a health care portfolio to insert himself into the debate over the Senate's effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. The Energy Department earlier this week posted, then deleted, a tweet saying it was time to "discard" the law, with a link to an op-ed on the subject from DOE Secretary Rick Perry.

Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) asked GAO Wednesday to investigate whether Perry or others at DOE violated federal laws relating to lobbying and influencing the public.

Meanwhile, some Republicans back in Alaska said Murkowskis vote was stirring up trouble for her at home, with state GOP Chairman Tuckerman Babcock saying his party is in full revolt.

I think among Republicans it is causing tremendous damage, Babcock said in a phone interview Thursday, citing a grass-roots swell of comments on Facebook pages for the party, Murkowski and Sullivan. Its evident to me that the Republicans [in Alaska] are in full revolt over the idea that these promises arent going to be kept.

He added that Interiors ownership of so much of Alaska raises the stakes of any clash with Zinke.

What the secretary of Interior does will have a major impact on Alaska. Hes absolutely vital to moving forward with the development of the coastal plain at ANWR, National Petroleum Reserve on the Western North Slope, building the road from King Cove, the land exchange that Congressman [Don] Young has gotten through the House of Representatives, Babcock said.

Im just hitting the tip of the iceberg on how important a cooperative relationship is with that department.

Seung Min Kim, Esther Whieldon and Jake Lahut contributed to this report.

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

Continued here:
Democrats vow investigation, lawsuit over 'political blackmail' against Murkowski - Politico

But President Donald Trump is -- and has always been -- a culture warrior.

And he made an aggressive move to elevate those issues to the political forefront Wednesday by announcing via Twitter that he is banning transgender Americans from serving in the military.

This time, though, top Democrats say they don't fear that a political debate over transgender rights will damage them in the Rust Belt. And some Democratic senators running for re-election in red states were sharply critical of Trump's move.

"Democrats need to show -- and can show -- that they can simultaneously fight for a society that is both more fair and more prosperous -- and drive home the fact that Trump is delivering neither," long-time Democratic strategist Ron Klain said in an email.

Democrats seen as prospects for the party's presidential nomination in 2020 immediately lambasted Trump's move. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vowed to introduce legislation to overturn it. California Sen. Kamala Harris called it "discriminatory, wrong, and un-American." Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted that "patriotic American who is qualified to serve in our military should be able to serve."

The Democrats Trump is really seeking to put in an uncomfortable position, though, are the 10 senators up for re-election in states he won -- all of which have more white, Christian voters who polls show are more likely to oppose transgender rights.

Some of those senators also attacked Trump's decision.

"If a service member can do the job and is willing, they should be able to serve -- and they should be able to be open about who they are," said North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, among the Democrats facing the toughest re-election battles in 2018.

"Decisions about military force posture and readiness are matters of life and death that should be among the most seriously considered by a president, and motivated by the best military judgment of the armed forces -- not by politics," Heitkamp said.

Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly cited Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby's criticism of Trump's transgender military service ban.

"When the stakes are as high as the safety and security of the United States, we should always have an open door for the best, most talented patriots," Donnelly said in a statement. "Military service should be about abilities, integrity, and performance, and I agree with my Republican colleague Sen. Shelby that everybody should be treated fairly and given a chance to serve."

"The decision announced by the administration today will prevent highly qualified, patriotic Americans from serving in our military," said Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown sounded a similar note, saying: "We should not turn away anyone who is willing and able to serve this country and help keep American safe."

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, tweeted: "A ban against any patriotic American who wants to serve our country is wrong."

Democrats have at least two major recent data points that suggest the political tide has shifted on LGBT issues.

In Wisconsin -- one of the states Trump won that is holding a Senate contest in 2018 -- Baldwin, who became the first openly gay senator when she won the seat in 2012, is running for re-election.

And in North Carolina, the economic backlash against Republicans' transgender bathroom bill played a central role in GOP Gov. Pat McCrory's loss in his re-election bid in 2016.

Trump himself had campaigned on a promise to protect LGBT Americans -- although it was always through the lens of defending them from "radical Islam," rather than civil rights.

"This will become the latest example for voters that the GOP agenda is about keeping their most extreme base happy to protect Trump, not about delivering on the things people care about so we protect the middle class," said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson.

"If they think voters will reward them for an agenda that discriminates against people by firing thousands of them who want to protect our country instead of getting results on health care and the economy, they're tragically misreading America," he said.

In a sign that the politics of the issue might not be in Trump's favor, Republicans in purple states, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, criticized his broad tweets that left unanswered questions about whether thousands of transgender people currently serving in the military will be kicked out.

Other Republicans in swing states who are on the ballot in 2020 also criticized Trump's decision. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said he agrees with McCain. "Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity," said Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, a veteran. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, told reporters, "I think anybody who wants to serve in the military should serve in the military."

Read more from the original source:
Democrats say they're ready for a culture war as Trump bans transgender people from military service - CNN