Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

As confirmation hearings get underway for President Donald Trumps first Supreme Court nominee, Senate Democrats are facing increasing pressure to fight a fight that they have little to no chance of winning.

Opening statements at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch Monday often turned to the unprecedented circumstances under which he came to be the likely replacement for late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Democrats often observed that Gorsuch was receiving the fair consideration that Republicans did not afford to Judge Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obamas nominee for Scalias seat.

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., called the refusal to consider Garland "a historic dereliction of duty, a tactic as cynical as it was irresponsible." Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., described it as an extraordinary blockade.

Republicans occasionally acknowledged the controversy as well. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., claimed the fact that Trump was elected with the expectation that he would nominate Scalias replacement gives Gorsuch a sort of super-legitimacy.

Since Trump won the election in November and it became clear that Republicans had succeeded in preventing Obama from filling the seat, progressive groups have been urging Democrats to practice the same obstructionism for Trumps nominee.

The differences between the Garland and Gorsuch fights are vast, though. Republicans controlled the Senate when Obama nominated Garland, but Democrats in the minority have few procedural options to stall the Gorsuch nomination.

Although Democrats disputed the Republican contention that a Supreme Court nominee should not be considered in an election year, stalling the process works far better in the final 11 months of a presidency than at the beginning.

There are only a few ways this confirmation battle can end, and almost all of them involve Gorsuch eventually being placed on the court.

If at least eight Democrats join Republicans in voting to end debate, Gorsuch can be confirmed. If more than 40 Democrats hold strong and maintain a filibuster, Republicans could implement what is often referred to as the nuclear option, changing Senate rules to allow cloture and confirmation of Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes instead of 60.

The Daily Signal cites another outcome that avoids upending Senate rules and tradition and still gets Gorsuch confirmed by a simple majority. Republicans could invoke the two-speech rule, allowing a vote after each filibustering member gives two floor speeches.

In order to defeat Gorsuch, Democrats would need to sustain a united front against him and convince at least three Republicans to join them in opposition, or at least vote against going nuclear. Given public statements by GOP leaders and rank-and-file members, neither scenario seems likely.

None of this has fazed activists angling for a fight.

When Democrats dither and bend over backwards to appear reasonable in the ways only Washington can define it, they allow Republicans to enact their extremist right-wing agenda, said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, in a statement. Democrats need to do everything possible to stop Trumps extreme pick for the court, up to and including filibustering him.

Chamberlain pointed to massive protests since Inauguration Day, intense confrontations with lawmakers at town halls, and calls jamming the congressional switchboards as evidence that the American people wont accept procedural cop-outs and sorry excuses from their supposed allies in the U.S. Senate.

More than 100 civil and human rights organizations signed a letter delivered to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., Friday urging them to oppose Gorsuch but not explicitly endorsing a filibuster.

Citing concerns about his past rulings on workers rights, immigration, discrimination, voting rights, and many other issues, the groups called on the Senate to carefully review his record and the impact his appointment would have on the rights and freedoms of Americans.

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the coalition that authored the letter, said in a statement Monday that lawmakers must demand answers from Gorsuch on important questions and ensure that he will not just serve as a rubber stamp for Trumps agenda.

Though President Trump may disagree, one of the paramount responsibilities of our judiciary is to serve as an independent check on the executive branch, Henderson said. Given the unprecedented power grab by this administration, it is imperative that the next Supreme Court justice demonstrate an ability to serve as that check.

Some Senate Democrats have signaled a willingness to oblige progressive demands.

If hes out of the mainstream, I will not only vote against him - Ill use every tool at my disposal, including filibuster, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told MSNBC Monday.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has maintained that Democrats will demand Gorsuch get 60 votes to be confirmed, and he has kept the door open to a filibuster.

Others have balked at the proposition, particularly those up for reelection in 2018. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said last month that it would be wrong to filibuster Gorsuch.

"If Republicans did something and now Democrats are going to do something, two wrongs don't make a right," he told CNN.

Conservative groups are already spending millions on advertising in support of Gorsuch in the home states of vulnerable Democrats, including Manchin, with more promised in the weeks ahead. Recent polls have shown more voters support confirming Gorsuch than oppose him, but the vast majority of Democrats want their senators to vote against him.

Prior to Mondays hearing, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., said Democrats should allow Gorsuch the straight up-or-down vote they demanded and were denied for Garland last year.

Filibusters of judges were unheard of really before the George W. Bush administration, he told Sinclair. But our Democratic colleagues got together and they cooked up this idea that instead of 51 votes you needed 60 votes just to get confirmed.

He did not take support for the nuclear option off the table, but he indicated he would prefer if it was simply not needed.

Id like to see us return back to the pre-George W. Bush days and say lets give this judge a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote, and then we dont have to worry about nuclear options, he said.

Even if defeat is certain, Democratic strategist Matt McDermott said it makes sense in the long run for the party to go down swinging.

Not only does it make sense for Senate Democrats to oppose the Gorsuch nomination, their base demands it, he said. Senate Democrats should use any necessary, including the filibuster, to block Trump's nominee. This is about losing the battle to win a war.

After the way Republicans handled the Garland nomination, McDermott argued they are in no position to complain about politicization of the court or senators prioritizing party over country. As the GOP jettisoned tradition to squash Garland, progressives want to see the same conviction from Democrats.

Voters are demanding resistance from the Democratic Party -- they're looking for a party that will stand up and fight back, he said. Frankly, the Democratic base is in no mood to hear about the traditions and courtesies of the Senate.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, is among those in no mood to hear about the traditions and courtesies of the Senate.

We think that this seat should have been Obamas seat [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell essentially just stole this seat, Pica said.

With the ideological balance of the court at stake, this is an issue where Pica believes Democrats backing down would send a strong message to the base that they cannot fight for what matters.

If I were a Democrat in the Senate, I certainly would be fighting like hell for what I believe in and Gorsuch doesnt stand for any of that, he said.

He strongly supports a filibuster, even if it leads Republicans to strip away that power.

If we dont use the filibuster now, then whats the point?

Pica hopes Democrats will use this weeks hearing to demonstrate that Gorsuch is out of the mainstream on many issues and is in some ways even more conservative than Trump. He acknowledged that political pressure may lead some red state Democrats to confirm Trumps nominee, but he suggested that would be a miscalculation.

I understand their fear for reelection is greater than their fear for what Gorsuch will do to the American people, he said. If thats all theyre worried about, then maybe they shouldnt be in office.

Capitulating to Trump on this would make reelection harder, according to Pica, and it could drive progressives to run primary challenges against any senators who vote for Gorsuch.

They cant win with a Republican base and they sure cant win with a Democratic base thats absent because they dont believe in the candidate, he said.

Follow this link:
Gorsuch confirmation hearings begin with Democrats' Garland wounds still fresh - WJLA

Lost in the shuffle of national news last week was the publication of an assessment by Democratic operatives on why my party lost the 2016 presidential campaign.

Their argument? Voters chose President Trump because they had a fear of diversity.

The authors living in New York and San Francisco concluded that Hillary Clintons supporters were upscale and embraced an open society while Trumps were straight, white male Christians in small town America who lacked an appropriate education.

The message was clear: Democrats stood no chance in the face of ignorant bigots.

For Democrats like me in rural America, studies like this are nothing new. We are used to being cast as racist or homophobic Barney Fifes in modern-day minstrel shows. Our role is to serve as devious characters that explain electoral losses or frighten the Democratic Coalition to the ballot box.

But facts are stubborn. And so too are smart Democrats who see through the intellectually bankrupt theories of party hacks.

So why did we lose the election? Exit polling makes it clear.

It was the economy, stupid.

Counties that voted for Clinton represented 64 percent of the American economy. Said differently, most of the nations financial winners the wealthy, the privileged pulled the lever for Democrats.

The remainder of Americas counties measuring only 36 percent of the nations economic output voted for Trump. Tellingly, these counties were also home to the majority of Americas manufacturing industry.

Or whats left of it.

Since the year 2000, America has lost upwards of 5 million manufacturing jobs. How? Automation gets part of the blame, with robots replacing humans on the factory floor. Apparently, Corporate America prefers its labor to be metallic and non-unionized.

Yet the biggest culprits are congressional Republicans and President Bill Clinton. Nearly 20 years ago, these politicians worked hard to secure Chinas entry into the World Trade Organization. It was a decision that slit the economic throats of what would become Trump supporters and their communities.

Meanwhile, Communist China and Clinton counties profited mightily.

How could we have been so foolish? The blame sits squarely with economists. Many had sold our political ruling class on the idea that free trade lifted all boats.

But as it turns out, some boats didnt make it.

Rather than acknowledge this compelling data, partisan Democrats stick firmly to the culprit of skin color. After all, white working class people did vote for Trump in unprecedented numbers. But here again, facts are not on their side.

In rural counties, exit polling shows that Trump outperformed Obama, Clinton, and former Republican nominee Mitt Romney amongst Latinos as well as whites. That includes Hispanic voters in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona.

But how could this be? Did Latinos fear diversity too?

Of course not. They feared unemployment.

Despite what identity politics might say, Latinos are individuals and they think for themselves. Like white people in small town America, rural Latinos have limited education. They cant find good paying jobs.

And theyre often poor.

Sadly, they stay that way, too. Theres good data that shows that when you hit financial rock bottom especially in economically depressed cities youre usually stuck there.

But nevermind all that. For the Democratic authors of this latest study, it was far easier to smear these Latino victims with whiteface and toss them in the electoral dumpster with their unemployed white brethren.

Dropping the race card isnt a new tactic, of course. There is a long line of Republican and Democratic dividers who know how to play this dangerous game.

In my party, its gone all the way to the top.

In 2008, President Barack Obama claimed that small town America was bitter and clinging to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them. At the time, Hillary Clinton correctly slammed him as an elitist. Yet despite his offense, many of these clingy racists and xenophobes pulled the lever for him anyway twice.

Turns out that country folks know how to forgive.

Yet eight years later, my party did it again. Clinton doubled down on Obamas argument with the deplorable slur. (Nevermind that she and her husband along with plenty of Republicans gave these voters their deplorable state following the lopsided trade deal with China.)

For liberal readers bursting with examples of Trumps racial gaffes or Republican xenophobia, let me be clear: Im not interested in defending the man. Im interested in explaining why hes our president.

And that gets to the study of why we lost.

It boils down to this: If voters cant find a job with dignity when they have abandoned hope and settled for opioids why not vote for the guy who blows up the place?

Americas economic orphans had nothing else to lose in 2016. And maybe something to gain.

And that, my liberal friends, explains America and its politics. People in the Rust Belt and Smalltown USA were looking for a disruptor. We gave them a career politician promising more bad trade deals and an assortment of trust issues.

Not surprisingly, my neighbors chose the political newbie with a cranky Twitter account.

Makes sense to me.

All of this leaves my party with a choice. We can double down on the divisiveness of us vs. them or we can find inspiration and a new direction taken from our not-so-distant past.

Leaders like President Kennedy and House Speaker Tom Foley represent a time when Democrats offered something special to the American people. We fought for Main Street, not Wall Street. We bankrupted communist governments, not American industries.

And we extended a hand to Americas workers, not a slap in the face.

For the good of the country, I hope we go back to the future. If Trump implodes or leaves his voters wanting, the country is going to need thoughtful leaders to step up.

We better be ready.

Bryan Dean Wright is a former CIA ops officer and member of the Democratic Party. He contributes on issues of politics, national security, and the economy. Follow him on Twitter @BryanDeanWright.

Continue reading here:
Democrats blind to real reason America elected Trump - Fox News

In their drive to resist President Donald Trump, Democrats so far have put a lot of political eggs into one basket: immigration. Their strident defense of immigrants past, present and future certainly satisfies the base but it's a strategic mistake that can only lead to electoral disappointment.

Let's recall why Trump won in November. He is the first president since 1876 to lose the popular vote by more than 2 percent and still win an Electoral College majority. He did so by winning five swing states Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin with less than 50 percent of the vote. In each case, he attracted large numbers of whites without a college degree who had voted for President Barack Obama twice. Meanwhile, many Republicans who had voted for Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney threw their votes away on write-ins or third-party candidates rather than vote for Hillary Clinton.

If Democrats want to win again, they must do one of two things: Attract back the Obama-Trump voter or win over the Romney-non-Trump voter. Their protestations against border security and the travel ban are not likely to do either.

Surveys show that Obama-Trump blue-collar voters like Trump's anti-immigration stance. These voters are likely to have felt competition from immigrants legal and illegal, and they want that competition to stop. Even though many of these voters agree with Democrats on traditional economic issues like taxes and entitlement spending, their primary concern now is to protect their livelihoods and standard of living by reducing competition from foreigners living at home and abroad.

Loud opposition to Trump's immigration policies reminds those voters every day why they no longer feel at home in today's Democratic Party.

Wavering Romney-McCain Republicans, for their part, may be sympathetic to the plight of economic migrants, but are quite possibly worried about terrorism. By just saying no to Trump's travel bans, the Democrats give nothing to the Republican or GOP-leaning independent who wants a more balanced attitude.

The Democratic Party approach, such as it is, is anything but balanced. In the party's 2016 platform, immigration enforcement is at best an afterthought. The platform emphasizes a path to citizenship, reuniting families and ensuring that as few current immigrants as possible are removed from the country. It also denounces Trump's proposed religious test for immigration as well as what it called his vilification of Muslims.

While a platform is not binding, the party's behavior since Inauguration Day suggests that it accurately expresses Democrats' sentiments. Everything the party and its leaders in Congress have done since the inauguration simply restates these beliefs without modification.

It seems Democrats remain stuck in the rut that led them to electoral disaster in the first place. Firmly convinced that Middle America shared their fear and loathing of Trump, the party ran one of the most issue-free campaigns in modern history. In paid ads, campaign stops and in the debates, Clinton rarely gave people who weren't already committed Democrats or progressives a reason to vote for her. That failure explains the most telling and unexpected result on Election Day: Trump beat Clinton handily among the 18 percent of Americans who told exit pollsters they disliked both candidates.

Democrats are either unwilling to see the truth or unable to acknowledge it: They cannot win back the presidency without attracting people who disagree with some of their views. Doing that does not mean singing the same old songs louder and more clearly.

When it comes to immigration, Democrats need to ask themselves some hard questions. Can they acknowledge that the large number of immigrants in the country illegally, many of whom are relatively unskilled, gives rise to economic competition that harms job and wage prospects for voters who used to be part of their base?

Can they be pro-Muslim immigration without being blind to the fact that the very few Muslim immigrants inclined to terror can undermine public tolerance with just a few fatal attacks?

Can they admit that one can have concerns about either type of migrant without being prejudiced or racist that there might just be some rational reason for Americans to be wary of a lax or overly trusting approach to immigration?

If Democrats can entertain and act on these thoughts, then they can begin the hard work of uniting the anti-Trump majority into a political majority. If they cannot, their resistance will be futile.

Tribune Content Agency

Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of the forthcoming book, The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue Collar Conservatism.

Related articles:

Are immigrants destroying our way of life?

Trump administration releases list of police agencies that didn't help feds with deportations

America's assimilation problem: (Dis)united we stumble

What Trump and Bannon's 'America First' agenda could look like

See more here:
The Democrats' immigration problem - Chicago Tribune

Establishment Democrats aim to adopt the anti-Trump movement News & Observer But it also reflects the effort underway within the Democratic Party, where operatives who have battled Republicans for years are now trying to cooperate with newcomers who have been more successful capturing the energy of anti-Trump Americans than the ... and more »

Read the original post:
Establishment Democrats aim to adopt the anti-Trump movement - News & Observer

The odds of passing a minimum wage hike in the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature are slim.

But with the minimum wage of $7.25 unchanged for many years, House Democrats on Tuesday once again pitched a variety of proposals in hopes of increasing pay for some of the lowest-paid Texans.

If were going to be looking out for working families, we ought to be about the business of seeing to it that they can move themselves above poverty as much as possible and to be able to afford themselves and get off of government assistance like food stamps, CHIP and Medicaid,"state Rep.Senfronia Thompsonof Houston told the House Business and IndustryCommittee in laying out her proposal.

Thompsons proposal would increase the minimum wage incrementally, reaching $10.10 per hour by 2022. A separate measure by state Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie would ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment to set the minimum wage at $10.10.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Some Democrats want to go even higher. The minimum wage would go up to $15 under proposals by state Reps. Roberto Alonzo of Dallas and Ron Reynolds of Missouri City. And another proposal by state Rep. Armando Walle of Houston would also ask voters to approve a hike to $15.

The Democratic bill authors pitched the increases as a way to improve life for low-income Texans and to reduce the number of people enrolled in government assistance programs. An individual is classified as living in poverty if they make less than $12,082 a year. A Texas resident working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage would make just about $3,000 more than that, but thats still low enough to qualify for some government assistance programs, the Democrats pointed out.

But Republicans on the committee appeared skeptical of the proposals and raised concerns about wage inflation and a possible negative impact on small businesses.

I just worry were going to benefit one group of people to the detriment of another, state Rep. Jason Villalba of Dallas said of the possibility that a higher wage requirement could actually reduce employment.

State Rep. Hugh Shine of Temple said he worried wage inflation would have second- and third-order effects on Texas businesses and ultimately adversely affect the economy. And state Rep. Jonathan Stickland of Bedford pointed out that the business community did not want a minimum wage hike.

Why havent those people self-imposed this if its so obvious that this is a good idea? Stickland said.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Throughout the hearing, Democrats also insisted that many Texans working minimum-wage jobs are heads of households many of whom are working multiple jobs to make ends meet and not teenagers working part-time jobs as opponents claimed.

In 2015, 111,000 of the nearly 6.1 million hourly workers in Texas made $7.25 an hour, while 176,000 were paid less, according the the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A majority of those workers were women.

All they want to do is get paid for the work that they do nothing more or nothing less, Walle told the committee.

For years, Democrats in the Legislature have been unsuccessful in their push for minimum wage increases even as other states 29 as of January 2016 have set minimum wages higher than the federal requirement.

During the previous legislative session, House Democrats filed several proposals to increase the minimum wage, but only one measure made it to the full House for a vote. That proposal would have asked voters to approve a constitutional amendment setting the minimum wage at $10.10, but it was voted down on a mostly party-line vote with only two Republicans supporting the legislation.

Because of the Legislature's historical unwillingness to touch the issue at the state level,advocates for higher minimum wages haveinstead looked to local governments for wage increases. But any hikes at the municipal level are limited to local government employees or private-sector contractors that do business with those municipalities because state law pre-empts local governments from setting a city- or county-wide minimum wage that could require the private sector to increase wages for the lowest-paid employees.

Pitched as efforts to restore local control, two other proposals by House Democrats state Reps. Justin Rodriguez of San Antonio and Lina Ortega of El Paso would essentially reverse that state law.

Ortega told the panel that her proposaldoes not automatically increase the minimum wage, but it does give local government [the power]to doso.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

When Stickland questioned whether local control on this issue meant local governments could set minimum wages lower than the federal requirement,Ortega responded that her bill would only allow for increases.

They cant violate federal law, she said.

Its unclear whether any minimum wage proposal will make it out of committee, which is chaired by a Democrat but made up of three Democrats and four Republicans. The bills were left pending in committee on Monday.

Here is the original post:
House Democrats try again for a minimum wage hike - Texas Tribune