Mediaboss Marketing

Elected Democrats could catch up to their base by coalescing around a single, overarching message: Trump's election, and everything he's done since his inauguration, is not normal.

Senate Democrats should call a joint press conference, immediately, and announce that they are going to vote in lockstep against every Trump nominee, and filibuster everything that's subject to the rule, unless and until Trump divests himself of his sprawling business empire and the ongoing probe into FBI Director James Comey's letter regarding Hillary Clinton's emails is complete and an independent investigation of allegations that Russians hacked the DNC is conducted. They should echo Trump's own words when he was pitching his "Muslim ban," and shut everything they can down "until our country's representatives can figure out what the Hell is going on."

At the moment, Congressional Dems are as disconnected from their base as they've ever been. The rank-and-file are terrified. As many as 5.2 million people joined Women's Marches worldwide because they're afraid of losing their health care, among other things. They're furious that the GOP effectively stole a Supreme Court seat that should have shifted the ideological balance of the Court for the first time in 45 years. And most of them at least harbor suspicions that Trump's election was a sort of soft coup, with an assist from Russian intelligence and the FBI. They're talking about fascism and authoritarianism and watching in horror as Steve Bannon tries to engineer a dramatic restructuring of the post-World War II international order.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly worried about "five moderate Democrats representing states that President Trump won who are likely to face the most difficult reelection fights next year." He told the Washington Post, "we have to protect these people. And sometimes we're going to have to do things to help them." Some Senate Democrats say they don't want to mimic the knee-jerk obstructionism that Republicans employed under Obama. Some appear to be gung-ho about filibustering Neil Gorsuch, Trump's pick to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, but others are reportedly worried that doing so would lead Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to go nuclear and eliminate the filibuster, which would diminish their leverage if one of the liberal justices doesn't make it through Trump's presidency.

To be fair, Dems have shown more spine than many progressives recognize. Politico reports that "Senate Democrats the last line of Democratic defense are slow-walking the installation of Trump's Cabinet to a historic degree, so much so that Republicans haven't even started yet on Trump's legislative agenda." Beginning last night, the Democrats have held the Senate floor for 24 hours in opposition to billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos' nomination as Secretary of Education.

The problem is that these efforts have been undertaken within a framework of normal partisan wrangling, and the media have duly reported them as such. Democrats are pointing out that many of Trump's cabinet picks are unqualified and outside the political mainstream, Republicans are calling the Dems out as obstructions, and in turn the Dems say the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. But all of that rhetoric misses the point. What's really going on here is an existential battle over America's institutions, and the norms that have made them more or less functional. Liberal, pluralistic democracy is at stake, and demanding that Trump stop violating the Constitution's Emoluments Clause which can only be done by divesting because of the nature of his business as the price of being recognized as a legitimate president is the best way to make it clear that this is not normal political wrangling. And it would signal to their constituents that they understand the stakes.

At their press conference, Democrats should quote every prominent Republican who's expressed anxiety about where Trump is taking the country. This would frame Democratic resistance as a matter of patriotism and principle rather than partisan animus. There's no legitimate comparison between Republican obstruction of Obama who won 9.5 million more votes than John McCain, was decidedly within the Democratic mainstream and appointed people who were qualified for their offices with Democrats putting a break on Trump's agenda.

Staying united around a message like this would also help them run out the clock. Democrats don't have the numbers to block everything coming down the pike indefinitely, but every day litigating these questions is a day that the Republican Congress isn't privatizing Medicare or repealing Obamacare or provoking a war with Iran.

The filibuster exists for moments like this. Not only do filibusters protect the minority in this case, one that actually represents a majority of Americans but also, as Gregory Koger from the University of Miami points out, "filibusters help members of the majority party when they are pressured to support proposals that they privately believe are bad policy or risky politics." Hill reporters say there are plenty of Republicans who say privately that they're freaked out by Trump's early moves, but won't risk angering their base to say so publicly.The filibuster lets them tell their base that the Democrats blocked Trump's less orthodox moves despite Republicans enjoying unified control of government.

That's one reason why Democrats should call McConnell's bluff on the Gorsuch nomination. There's no guarantee that he can find 51 votes to invoke the nuclear option, and if he does, let him. Democrats have now won the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections, and in the future it's more likely that they'll hold the White House than the Senate, where small red states have the same power as California or New York. Mitch McConnell insisted that the Supreme Court could function with eight justices, and before the election some prominent Republicans said that they wouldn't confirm Hillary Clinton's nominees to the Court if she won. Democrats need to take a page from that playbook and make it clear they won't give up a stolen seat on the Court without a fight.

This is not only the kind of resistance the Democratic base is looking for, but also what much of the world wants to see and what this moment in history demands because nothing that's happened in the first two weeks of Trump's presidency is in any way normal.

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

Continue reading here:
How Democrats Can Show Spine at This Critical Moment - RollingStone.com

History was made Tuesday when Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to confirm Betsy DeVos as secretary of education.

But the necessity of Pences vote reflected another kind of history, too: The decision by all Senate Democrats to reject DeVos marked a new low for the flailing party.

Democrats claim to stand for the poor, immigrants and nonwhites. Yet given a chance to actually support someone who is dedicated to improving education for all Americas children, especially those trapped in failing urban schools, the Dems said no, hell no.

Joined by two Republicans, they stood in the schoolhouse door to block vital change, casting their lot with teachers unions that fear reform the way a vampire fears garlic.

Throw away all the subtexts and subterfuge, a defense of the rotten status quo is the only explanation for the bid to block DeVos. The teachers unions pulled the strings, and the political puppets danced to their masters tune.

DeVos survived because President Trump is determined to deliver a government that shatters the insiders perks and privilege and opens the door to new ways of doing things. In education, that means giving more parents the power of school choice and taking power away from the union establishment.

Millions of children, most poor and many black and Latino, are forced to attend failure factories that rob them of Americas promise. While family breakdown is a prime culprit, the social contract requires society to do its best to compensate.

And there is no question that charter schools, vouchers and other experiments offer the best hope for bringing fresh ideas and progress to educational deserts.

DeVos, a passionate crusader for excellence in the classroom, is just one of the Trump nominees Democrats tried to block in their insane attempts to destroy his presidency before it gets started.

No president has ever had so few cabinet members confirmed at this late date, just as no president has been confronted with such open talk of assassination and impeachment.

Speaking of which, have you heard a single Democrat decry the talk of assassination? Have you heard a single Democrat denounce the violence carried out by so-called protesters?

The answers are no and no because Dems see the riots and threats of violence as legitimate expressions of disapproval and convenient for their purposes. Their contribution to the resistance started when 70 Democrats boycotted Trumps inauguration and many senators boycotted confirmation hearings and votes. Maybe theyll soon throw rocks through windows.

The madness was on full display Monday night when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer boasted in a tweet from outside the Capitol that While the GOP is pushing a vote on Betsy DeVos, the people are rallying outside. Were with them.

Think of that: The Democrats leader walks out on his job to play the role of a man of the people in a staged demonstration. This is a party that has lost its mind, as well as its soul.

It is noteworthy that Schumer started the Trump era by talking about a willingness to work with the new president on infrastructure and other areas of common ground. It was too good to last.

For being relatively reasonable, Schumer was denounced by party radicals and anarchists as a collaborator and got noisy, vulgar demonstrations outside his Brooklyn home.

In a flash, he abandoned any talk of cooperation and jumped on the radical bandwagon, no doubt hoping to keep the minority leader job he just got. Schumer probably also sees going along with the rabble as the only way to raise money for the beleaguered partys candidates in the 2018 midterms.

In any case, the responsibility of leadership eludes him. Democrats created their own problems by blindly agreeing to all of Barack Obamas ultra-liberal policies, and the fed-up response of Republican voters was to nominate Trump.

In their response, Hillary Clinton and her team poured acid on Trump and his followers, thinking they could make him so toxic that he would be disqualified. They were wrong.

Yet even now, they apparently have no idea why they failed because they are following the same script again. They continue to denounce Trump in the most hyperbolic terms, declare his nominees unfit and dangerous and expect a different outcome.

They shouldnt hold their breath. Trump has made rookie errors, but his resolve in picking DeVos and sticking with her proves he is deadly serious about fixing whats broken in American education.

What, pray tell, are Democrats serious about?

NYers vetty hypocritical

Reader Harold Theurer says extreme vetting, despite its name, is rather common and cites a familiar example. He writes:

If opponents serve on a co-op board or live in such a building that has a governing body which reviews, accepts or denies applicants to live among them, can they be against extreme vetting without being total hypocrites?

Blas nears a dread end

Another day, another investigation involving Mayor Bill de Blasio. Make that three more investigations.

The most investigated mayor in history is busy racking up a dubious record that will, hopefully, never be broken. Reports say a deal to subsidize a private bus company is under scrutiny, as is his opposition to Airbnb.

Both probes are said to center on large contributions to de Blasios political slush fund, with investigators wanting to know whether the mayor improperly rewarded the donors with government action.

A third newly reported investigation involves the awarding of a contract to provide police body cameras. The winning bidder is Vievu, of Seattle.

The connection between donors and City Hall actions is the focus of state and federal prosecutors on a slew of fronts. They interviewed scores of donors, lobbyists and others, and the mayor himself met with state prosecutors and says he will soon sit with the feds.

City Hall aides and private consultants caught up in the investigations are said to be worried the mayor will put all the blame on them in a bid to save his own neck.

Thats certainly a possible scenario, but not the only one. We already know de Blasio was personally involved in soliciting some of the suspect contributions, and he alone had the ultimate power to decide what government actions would be taken on all the donors pending business at City Hall. Those facts alone mean it wouldnt be so easy for him to lay all the blame on others.

That is why I draw two conclusions from de Blasios meetings with prosecutors: Were getting close to the end, and he has reason to worry.

Left coast wasteland

Nice work if you can get it.

California will pay the law firm of former Attorney General Eric Holder $40,000 a month to help develop legal strategies against the Trump administration, according to a contract obtained by Judicial Watch.

The payment gets taxpayers 40 hours of legal chitchat. Any real work would be extra, the contract says.

Continue reading here:
The Democratic Party has lost its mind and its soul | New York Post - New York Post

Democratic senators promised to stay up all night debating DeVos early into Tuesday morning and also took to Twitter to urge residents to light up Senate phonelines. But Republicans are still expected to narrowly win her approval, with Vice President Mike Pence set to cast the first the tie-breaking vote in history for a Cabinet appointment.

The DeVos fight has become emblematic of the knock-down brawls that Democrats have set for almost all of Trump's top nominees -- dragging out, but ultimately unable to stop their approval.

"The American people are speaking in one loud voice against this nominee. I've had people come up to me and say 'I voted for Donald Trump, but I want you to vote against this nominee,'" Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday, kicking off the lengthy, final debate over DeVos.

The secretary for the Department of Education might not the most consequential of positions inside the Trump administration, but the decision by two Republicans -- Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine -- to vote against her and a backlash among liberals angry at Democrats who supported other Trump nominees last month jelled over the weekend into the nastiest battle so far.

Senate Republicans already voted last week against a filibuster of DeVos -- setting up a final vote for her Tuesday. But despite the opposition to a filibuster, her nomination could still be spiked if Democrats succeed in winning one more Republican to their side, something Schumer alluded to in his comments.

"I understand the pull of party loyalty. I understand the deference to a new president. But from what we have seen in the first two weeks of this administration, party loyalty is demanding too much of my Republican colleagues," Schumer said.

The DeVos battle is likely just the start for this week in heated nomination fights -- attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions and Health and Human Services pick Tom Price are both awaiting battles in the full Senate. Their formal absence from the White House has been highlighted periodically by Republicans who say they are waiting for a health care plan from the new administration and the continuing battles over the travel ban.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- fresh off his successful strategy of stalling on President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court last year which culminated in conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination last week -- blasted Senate Democrats for stalling on Trump's picks.

"It seems this gridlock and opposition has far less to do with the nominees actually before us than the man who nominated them," McConnell said Monday. "The Democratic leader and his colleagues are under a great deal of pressure from those on the left who simply cannot accept the results of a democratic election. They're calling for Democrats to delay and punt and blockade the serious work of the Senate at any cost."

And Democratic senators themselves -- who avoid direct attacks on their Republican colleagues as a matter of professional decorum inside the Capitol -- stoked the anger of the base with a series of tweets urging people to light up the Senate phones.

Congress has been bombarded with calls from both sides of the debate, but DeVos' nomination in particular appears to have sparked much of the anger. Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, told CNN last week that as many as 1.5 million calls per day have been pouring into the Senate this week about Trump's nominations in general, according to data from Schumer's staff. Multiple offices reported that a bulk of messages haves been related to DeVos.

Democrats, backed by public school groups and teachers' unions, have lambasted her background bankrolling efforts to support opposing ideas like school vouchers. They also latched on to a surprisingly weak performance by DeVos at her confirmation hearing.

For Democratic activists and party leaders still reeling from November, the focus on Trump's Cabinet picks is a better choice than pointing their ire at Gorsuch, which would draw vulnerable Democrats into the line of fire.

Meanwhile, Republican groups supporting Trump continued their on-air battle to push from the other side, in support of the picks.

"President Trump needs a strong team, his team to make America great again. Don't let Washington get in the way," said a narrator for the spot from 45 Committee, a pro-Trump group that has spent $4 million in advertising so far supporting Trump's Cabinet picks.

Democratic senators, meanwhile, planned to take their protests through the morning -- with a possible protest on the Capitol grounds and lawmakers signing up for shifts to talk against DeVos on the Senate floor.

About 250 protesters, many of them teachers, gathered across the street from the Capitol Monday evening and chanted "Just one more!" -- referring to the one more Republican vote they need. Protesters latched onto DeVos' testimony where she suggested guns may be required on some rural campus to fight off bears. The answer became a viral hit on the left -- with one protester dressed in a bear suit Monday and another holding a sign reading, "Betsy DeVos is 'bearly' qualified."

See the original post:
Betsy DeVos vote: Senate Democrats to hold floor over ...

Senate Democrats on Tuesday refused to attend a committee vote on two of President Trumps more controversial nominees, effectively delaying their consideration.

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes to advance Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trumps pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and Steven Mnuchin, his selection to head the Treasury Department. The pair had been among some of the more contentious selections to join Trumps Cabinet.

I cant understand why senators, who know were going to have these two people go through, cant support the committee, said Chairman Orrin HatchOrrin HatchOvernight Healthcare: Republicans say ObamaCare repeal starts this spring Manufacturers call for vote on Treasury nominee Mnuchin Overnight Finance: Dems hit Trump over Dodd-Frank plans | GOP faces decision on ObamaCare taxes | Trump aide talks Fannie, Freddie reform MORE (R-Utah).

Im very disappointed in this kind of crap. Some of this is because they just dont like the president.

This is the most pathetic thing Ive seen in my whole time in the United States Senate, he added.

"I think they ought to stop posturing and acting like idiots."

Hatch told reporters onTuesdayafternoon that he hopes to try to hold a committee voteagainon Wednesday.

"If I can; I'd sure like to," he said.

Asked what could changeby then that could get Democrats to drop their boycott, Hatch said, "Well I'm not going to get into that."

Democrats walked out of the Senate Finance Committee hearing room Tuesday morning, arguing that Mnuchin and Price misled senators in their testimony before the panel, and saying they could not allow a vote to proceed without more information.

"He misled Congress and he misled the American people," Sen. Ron WydenRon WydenTrumps pick for CIA No. 2 prompts Dem fears Liberals should celebrate the Gorsuch nomination Senators to Trump: We support additional Iran sanctions MORE (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the panel, said of Price.

Democrats said they wanted to bring Price and Mnuchin in for further questions, saying some of their statements did not line up with the facts.

"We have great concern that Chairman Hatch is asking us to vote today on two nominees who out and out lied to our committee," said Sen. Sherrod BrownSherrod BrownThe Trump opposition: Hell hath no fury like Democrats' scorn Senate votes to repeal transparency rule for oil companies Nine Dem senators say hiring freeze hurting trade enforcement MORE (D-Ohio).

Updated 2:58 p.m.

See original here:
Dems boycott confirmation votes for Trump nominees | TheHill

There arent many people like Michael Wear in todays Democratic Party. The former director of Barack Obamas 2012 faith-outreach efforts is a theologically conservative evangelical Christian. He is opposed to both abortion and same-sex marriage, although he would argue that those are primarily theological positions, and other issues, including poverty and immigration, are also important to his faith.

During his time working for Obama, Wear was often alone in many of his views, he writes in his new book, Reclaiming Hope. He helped with faith-outreach strategies for Obamas 2008 campaign, but was surprised when some state-level officials decided not to pursue this kind of engagement: Sometimesas I came to understand the more I worked in politicsa persons reaction to religious ideas is not ideological at all, but personal, he writes.

Several years later, he watched battles over abortion funding and contraception requirements in the Affordable Care Act with chagrin: The administration was unnecessarily antagonistic toward religious conservatives in both of those fights, Wear argues, and it eventually lost, anyway. When Louie Giglio, an evangelical pastor, was pressured to withdraw from giving the 2012 inaugural benediction because of his teachings on homosexuality, Wear almost quit.

The Progressive Roots of the Pro-Life Movement

Some of his colleagues also didnt understand his work, he writes. He once drafted a faith-outreach fact sheet describing Obamas views on poverty, titling it Economic Fairness and the Least of These, a reference to a famous teaching from Jesus in the Bible. Another staffer repeatedly deleted the least of these, commenting, Is this a typo? It doesnt make any sense to me. Who/what are these?

I spoke with Wear about how the Democratic Party is and isnt reaching people of faithand what that will mean for its future. Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Emma Green: Many people have noted that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in this election. Why do you think that was?

Michael Wear: It shows not just ineptitude, but the ignorance of Democrats in not even pretending to give these voters a reason to vote for them. We also need to have a robust conversation about the support or allowance for racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia in the evangelical tradition.

Many of those 81 percent are accommodating cultural changes in America that are deeply problematic. Liberals have been trying to convince Americans, and evangelicals in particular, that America is not a Christian nation. The 2016 election was evangelicals saying, Yeah, youre right! We cant expect to have someone who is Christian like us. We cant expect to have someone with a perfect family life. What we can expect is someone who can look out for us, just like every other group in this country is looking for a candidate who will look out for them.

Theres a lot of conversation in Christian circles about Jeremiah 29, which is Jeremiahs letter to the exiles in Babylon. The message Jeremiah had, and that the Lord had, for the exiles is that they should seek the peace and prosperity of the city where theyve been planted, and multiplythey should maintain their convictions for the flourishing of others. The concern I have, and that many others have, is that in this time of cultural transformation in America, youre going to have many evangelicals who just become Babylonians.

Its much easier to make people scared of evangelicals than trying to make an appeal to them.

Green: Why is it, do you think, that some liberalsand specifically the Democratic Partyhave been unwilling to do outreach to people who hold particular kinds of theological points of view?

Wear: They think, in some ways wrongly, but in other ways rightly, that it would put constraints around their policy agenda. So, for instance: You could make a case to evangelicals while trying to repeal the Hyde Amendment, [which prohibits federal funding for abortion in most circumstances,] but thats really difficult. Reaching out to evangelicals doesnt mean you have to become pro-life. It just means you have to not be so in love with how pro-choice you are, and so opposed to how pro-life we are.

The second thing is that theres a religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party. Its tied to the demographics of the country: More 20- and 30-year-olds are taking positions of power in the Democratic Party. They grew up in parts of the country where navigating religion was not important socially and not important to their political careers. This is very different from, like, James Carville in Louisiana in the 80s. James Carville is not the most religious guy, but he gets religious peopleif you didnt get religious people running Democratic campaigns in the South in the 80s, you wouldnt win.

Another reason why they havent reached out to evangelicals in 2016 is that, no matter Clintons slogan of Stronger Together, we have a politics right now that is based on making enemies, and making people afraid. I think were seeing this with the Betsy DeVos nomination: Its much easier to make people scared of evangelicals, and to make evangelicals the enemy, than trying to make an appeal to them.

The Democratic Party used to welcome people who didnt support abortion into the party. We are now so far from that, its insane.

Green: Ive written before about the rare breed that is the pro-life Democrat. Some portion of voters would likely identify as both pro-life and Democrat, but from a party point of view, its basically impossible to be a pro-life Democrat. Why do you think it is that the party has moved in that direction, and what, if anything, do you think it should do differently?

Wear: The spending that womens groups have done is profound. 2012 was a year of historic investment from Planned Parenthood, and the campaign in 2016 topped it.

Number two, were seeing party disaffiliation as a way of signaling moral discomfort. A lot of pro-life Democrats were formerly saying, My presence here doesnt mean I agree with everythingIm going to be an internal force that acts as a constraint or a voice of opposition on abortion. Those people have mostly left the party.

Third, I think Democrats felt like their outreach wouldnt be rewarded. For example: The president went to Notre Dame in May of 2009 and gave a speech about reducing the number of women seeking abortions. It was literally met by protests from the pro-life community. Now, there are reasons for thisI dont mean to say that Obama gave a great speech and the pro-life community should have [acknowledged that]. But I think there was an expectation by Obama and the White House team that there would be more eagerness to find common ground.

Green: One could argue that among most Democratic leaders, theres a lack of willingness to engage with the question of abortion on moral terms. Even Tim Kaine, for examplea guy who, by all accounts, deeply cares about his Catholic faith, and has talked about his personal discomfort with abortionfell into line.

How would you characterize Democrats willingness to engage with the moral question of abortion, and why is it that way?

Wear: There were a lot of things that were surprising about Hillarys answer [to a question about abortion] in the third debate. She didnt advance moral reservations she had in the past about abortion. She also made the exact kind of positive moral argument for abortion that womens groupswho have been calling on people to tell their abortion storieshad been demanding.

The Democratic Party used to welcome people who didnt support abortion into the party. We are now so far from that, its insane. This debate, for both sides, is not just about the abortion rate; its not just about the legality of it. Its a symbolic debate. Its symbolic on the pro-choice side about the autonomy of women and their freedom to do what they want with their bodies. On the pro-life side, they care not just about the regulations around abortion, but whether theres a cultural affirmation of life.

Even the symbolic olive branches have become less acceptable.

Weve allowed politics to take up emotional space in our lives that its not meant to take up.

Green: If you were talking to a secular Democrat who is skeptical about the need to do outreach to conservative evangelicals or make a compromise on language surrounding social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., what would you say?

Wear: Its sad that this is a throwaway response, but its the duty of statesmanship. Its the duty of living in a pluralistic society to make a case to all folks.

The second would be that America is still a profoundly religious nation. There are reports that high-level Democratic leadership was not interested in reaching out to white Catholics. And they sure didnt have a lot of interest in white evangelicals. Thats a huge portion of the electorate to throw out. So if the civic motivation doesnt get you, let me make the practical argument: It doesnt help you win elections if youre openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans lives.

The Democratic Party is effectively broken up into three even thirds right now: religiously unaffiliated people, white Christians who are cultural Christians, and then people of color who are religious.

Green: And religious minorities.

Wear: Well, right, but because of their numbersIm speaking in general terms.

Barack Obama was the perfect transitional president from the old party to the new. He could speak in religious terms in a way that most white, secular liberals were not willing to confront him on. He got away with religious language and outreach that would get other Democratic politicians more robust critiques from the left. He was able to paper over a lot of the religious tensions in the party that other, less skilled politicians will not be able to paper over.

Green: Youre a little bit of a man in the wilderness. You have worked for the Democratic Party, but you have conservative views on social issues, and you are conservative in terms of theology. There just arent a lot of people like you. Does it feel lonely?

Wear: Its not as lonely as it might appear on the outside.

One of the things I found at the White House and since I left is this class of people who arent driving the political decisions right now, and have significant forces against them, but who are not satisfied with the political tribalism that we have right now. I think were actually in a time of intense political isolation across the board. Ive been speaking across the country for the year leading up to the election, and I would be doing these events, and without fail, the last questioner or second-to-last questioner would cry. Ive been doing political events for a long time, and Ive never seen that kind of raw emotion. And out of that, I came to the conclusion that politics was causing a deep spiritual harm in our country. Weve allowed politics to take up emotional space in our lives that its not meant to take up.

Certainly, it would be a lot more comfortable for me professionally if I held the party line on everything. Politically, I definitely feel isolated. But a lot of people feel isolated right now. And personally, I dont feel lonely because I find my community in the church. That has been a great bond.

Original post:
Democrats' Religion Problem - The Atlantic