Mediaboss Marketing

Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Trump would need a war authorization to bomb Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Like the Obama administration, the Trump administration has launched airstrikes against ISIS using legal justification from the 2001 war authorization that passed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But that would not cover Assad, Cardin argued.

"If we decide to do military in Syria, he really needs to come to Congress," Cardin said. "In regards to an attack against the Assad government, there is no authorization."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has pushed for a war authorization against ISIS, also argued Trump would not have the authority to attack the Assad regime.

"Dropping bombs inside a civil war was a bad idea in 2013, it's a worse idea in 2017," Murphy said. "It will make some Americans feel better, but it will make that battle space more chaotic and end up with more people getting killed, not less. And again, he doesn't have the authorization from Congress to do this."

Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN's Erin Burnett that Congress should evaluate and decide on a war in Syria before Trump moved in on his own.

"I think if we are going to put boots on the ground, we have to authorize the use of force," Speier said. "That should be something debated by the Armed Services Committee and by the full House. We must engage in wars first by evaluating them and Congress taking action, not by allowing the President to act independently, which has been going on now for two decades."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said in the short-term, the President has the authority to take action without getting congressional approval first.

"The prudent course of action would be for him to go to Congress and consult, discuss privately what he is going to do," Corker said. "I'm sure they will take that course of action, or at least I hope they would. So, they have the authority without that, but my sense is that they will come to us."

When Obama tried to get authorization to strike Assad, Republicans were reluctant to get on board to vote for it, Cardin said.

This time, he added, there could be an easier path, especially if it's tailored specifically to respond to the chemical attack.

"Certainly if it's well tailored toward the chemical weapons violations, you might be able to do it," he said.

It's not just Democrats who want Trump to come to Congress. Sen. Rand Paul, known for his libertarian ideology, told Fox News Radio, "Short of Congress voting on it, I'm opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars."

"The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution," Paul said on "Kilmeade and Friends."

At the same time, the situation on the ground in Syria is more complicated for Trump now than it was back in 2013, as Russia has gotten involved militarily to bolster the Assad regime.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he was most concerned about a large US ground force deploying to Syria, but noted that Russia makes even trying to ground Syria's air force difficult.

"It gets complicated because it's not only Assad's air force, it's Russia's air force," King said.

CNN's Ted Barrett, Eli Watkins and Dana Bash contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Democrats: Trump 'really needs to come to Congress' to approve strikes on Assad - CNN

Does anybody here remember Blanche Lincoln? She was a two-term senator from Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who prospered in a red state by defying liberal power brokers like big labor.

The unions and ultra-left pressure groups went after her big-time in 2010, backing a primary challenge by Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. She survived the primary -- barely -- but suffered mortal wounds in the process, and lost badly in the fall to Republican John Boozman.

We thought of Lincoln as the purist wing of the Democratic Party re-emerged this spring and threatened to run primary opponents next year against senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Their sin: daring to support President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

As one of those purist pressure groups, We Will Replace You, said in their manifesto: "The next crucial step is escalating our demands, and demonstrating that we won't accept anything less than full opposition -- by showing Democrats just how many people are willing to back primary challenges to Democratic collaborators and enablers of Trump."

This harassment is beyond stupid. It's suicidal.

Democrats are struggling to win elections and have lost control of both Congress and the White House. Trump won West Virginia by 67 percent, North Dakota by 62 percent and Indiana by 56 percent.

The only Democrats who could possibly hold Senate seats in those states are ones like Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly: moderates who separate themselves from the rigid tenets of liberal theology. Lincolnizing them, purging them as heretics, would have only one result: making it easier for Trump and his congressional allies to retain power.

Look at the facts. Yes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million, but that's a highly misleading figure, based entirely on huge Democratic margins in a few coastal and urban enclaves. In California alone, Clinton rolled up a lead of 4.3 million; in New York, it was 1.7 million. Take away those two states and Trump's national margin was above 3 million.

Trump won about 84 percent of the counties in America; Clinton, 16 percent. Only 26 percent of voters identified as liberals in Election Day exit polls, with 39 percent calling themselves moderates and 35 percent conservatives.

Add the nature of the American system: House members represent individual districts that are often gerrymandered to protect the party in power; each state gets two senators, no matter its size; and the Electoral College determines the president, not the popular vote.

The math is undeniable and unrelenting: Democrats cannot take back the White House or Congress simply by building up large majorities in Brooklyn and Boston. Politics is always about addition, not subtraction. Condemning moderates as "collaborators" and "enablers" will condemn the party to permanent minority status.

Groups like We Will Replace You are directly connected to Bernism, the mass mania that infected liberals during the Democratic primaries. They deluded themselves into believing that a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, mouthing totally unrealistic slogans like "free college tuition," could actually win.

Sure, Sanders backed Clinton after the conventions, but he stayed in the primaries far too long and convinced far too many of his followers that she was a flawed candidate not worth voting for. Yes, Clinton was a poor candidate, but without a doubt, Sanders helped elect Trump. He Lincolnized Clinton.

The fallout from Bernism is not just bad for the Democrats; it's bad for the country. Moderates like Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly are an essential part of a functioning Senate. They are the dealmakers, the conciliators, the lubricators who make the legislative machinery run. Their shrinking numbers help explain why the Senate is imploding over Gorsuch's nomination to the high court.

In 2005, a group called the Gang of 14 -- seven Democrats, seven Republicans -- brokered a pact over judicial nominations that avoided a partisan showdown. Only three of those 14 Senators, all Republicans, remain in office. All the Democrats are gone, including four moderates from red states: Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

There was no deal this year, comparable to the one forged 12 years ago, because there are so few dealmakers left.

If the Democrats forget Blanche Lincoln, if they insist on purging anyone who strays from liberal orthodoxy, they will misread -- once again -- the nature of the American electorate. And they will weaken, not strengthen, their ability to resist Trump.

View original post here:
Liberal purges last thing Democrats need - Arizona Daily Sun

New York Times

Democrats Are Bad at Midterm Turnout. That Seems Ready to Change. New York Times Donald J. Trump's low approval ratings and the palpable enthusiasm of progressives nationwide have Democrats dreaming of a big win in next year's midterm elections. But to pull that off, they'll need to overcome one of their biggest challenges of the ...

See the rest here:
Democrats Are Bad at Midterm Turnout. That Seems Ready to Change. - New York Times

WASHINGTON-- Its a rare and momentous decision - one by one, seated at desks centuries old, senators will stand and cast their votes for a Supreme Court nominee.

Its a difficult political call in the modern era, especially for the 10 Democrats facing tough re-election next year in states that President Donald Trump won.

Resist is the rallying cry for the Democratic Partys liberal base, and that applies to all Trump nominees, even Neil Gorsuch, a mild-mannered jurist who won unanimous Senate backing to the appellate court in 2006. Democratic voters have flooded lawmakers offices with calls, protested outside state offices and tweeted vulgarities if senators even hint at being conciliatory with Trump and the GOP.

I come from a state that no matter how I vote, 50 percent of the people are mad, says Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, who will oppose Gorsuch. So Im kind of used to this. The only difference is that the ones who are happy are really happy.

Already in the minority, Democrats face tough political odds in next years midterms, defending 25 seats for caucus members to the GOPs eight. The looming question for the 10 Democrats is whether a Supreme Court vote will still resonate with voters in 19 months or whether Trumps standing, the economy, jobs or health care would be a greater concern.

Trump won McCaskills state by almost 20 percentage points and conservative groups are running ads against her. But liberals are also fired up.

The January evening Gorsuch was nominated, McCaskill tweeted that there should be a hearing and vote on ANY nominee - a reference to last years Republican blockade of former President Barack Obamas nominee for the same seat, Merrick Garland. She got more than 700 replies, some using curse words and threatening a primary.

Montana Sen. Jon Tester also will oppose Gorsuch, even though his state similarly supported Trump by 20 points. Tester said hes concerned about how Gorsuch would rule on privacy issues and womens health, and whether hed support working people over corporations.

I think that Montanans have always expected me to have a reason for why I voted, and I have plenty of them on Judge Gorsuch, Tester said.

Marlene Johnson, 65, of Helena, said she hopes Testers opposition will hurt him politically. She is closely following the debate and called Gorsuch a decent person who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She says Tester is letting Montana down.

Tester has never won more than 50 percent of the vote. But Republicans are lacking a strong challenger, with their best chance, former Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, now serving as Trumps interior secretary.

Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had a different calculus - theyre all supporting Gorsuch. Trump won Indiana by 19 points, North Dakota by 36 points and West Virginia by 42 points.

Still, some Democrats are angry. About 20 protesters marched to Donnellys downtown Indianapolis office Tuesday, chanting: No, no, Joe.

North Dakota Democrat Dan Spiekermeier is more understanding of Heitkamp. The farmer said hes upset that Republicans did not allow a vote on Garland, but said some people among the Democrats need to be centrists, so I think she made the right call.

In swing states where Trump had narrower victories, the decision may have been easier. Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow are all opposing Gorsuch. Trump won those states by a point or less.

Its unclear if their eventual opponents will use the issue against them in 2018 - or if voters will even remember the Supreme Court fight. Florida Gov. Rick Scott, viewed as a likely challenger to Nelson, has so far avoided any direct criticism, though he supports Gorsuch.

In Wisconsin, though, Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who is also up for re-election next year, tweeted to Baldwin in February that pandering to liberal special interests in Washington is more important to you than listening to WI residents.

Others in the state say they are tired of the politics.

Nobody is making any concessions and I think this is going to be the downfall of both parties, said Anna Street, a 56-year-old nurse from West Allis, Wisconsin.

In Ohio, where Trump won by 8 points, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown says he didnt consider the political consequences when he made his decision to oppose Gorsuch the night he was nominated. Most Democrats waited until after his March hearings.

Brown has been the target of a steady stream of attack ads over Gorsuch. And Republican Josh Mandel, making a repeat try at unseating Brown, told supporters in a fundraising email that Browns decision was uninformed, out of touch, knee-jerk politicking.

Brown says he believes Gorsuch will favor corporations over workers and he gets a lot of pushback on both sides on everything.

As for whether voters will still support him, he says: I guess well see, wont we? I think so.

The rest is here:
Democrats in states won by Trump feel pressure ahead of vote on Neil Gorsuch - CBS News

During one of the first big meetings Sen. Kamala Harris attended back in California following her swearing in, she said something many of the progressive activists who look to her as an icon were taken aback to hear.

As the Democratic party tries to claw its way back to control of Congress, she wanted them to at least consider rallying behind some of its most conservative and most vulnerable politicians.

It was a room full of people who did not want to hear that, Harris said Thursday in a meeting with reporters and editors in The Times Washington bureau. They were like, What happened? Why are you saying this?

Amid all the self-reflection and infighting among Democrats about how they find their way out of the wilderness, Harris is emerging as a more nuanced political character than many on either side of the political line expected.

Californias freshman senator, a civil rights crusader whose India-born mother and Jamaica-raised father met during political protests in the Bay Area, is so associated with the identity politics of the left that her Twitter feed was a punchline in a recent Saturday Night Live skit. But as she finds her way in Washington, Harris is embracing an approach somewhat at odds with that image. That became clear as she talked about the path back for Democrats, why she wont unconditionally slam the door on working with Trump, and what her mother told her about people like Supreme Court nominee Neil M. Gorsuch.

The pressure on Harris to unwaveringly fly the flag of the resistance is intense. She recalled the event in Los Angeles where she encouraged supporters not to turn their backs on Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia red-state Democrats some liberal activists would like to purge in their upcoming reelection bids.

We cant afford to be purists, Harris said. You have to ask that question of yourself: Are we going to be purists to this resistance to the point that you let these guys go? Or can you understand that you may not agree with 50% of their policy positions, but I can guarantee you will disagree with 100% of their replacements policy positions. So that is part of the question. What do we have to do in this movement to be pragmatic?

Harris hardly aligns herself with the counter-movement inside Democratic ranks that has pushed to reorient the partys focus more exclusively toward white, working-class voters in places like Scranton, Pa., and Lansing, Mich.

There is this conversation that weve got to go back and get him, she said, referring to the prototypical white, male Trump voter. The inference there is that to do that we need to walk away from that Latina or black mom. That is a mistake.

But she suggested the party has too often seized on wedge, identity politics issues that divide voters. What I do know about those two ladies and that guy is when we wake up at 3 in the morning or something is troubling us, it is never through the lens of, am I Democrat or Republican, or on our identity based on what other people have decided is our identity.

Instead, she said, it is economic issues that weigh on people: their bills, their job troubles, their difficulty getting health insurance.

We, as Democrats and progressives, cannot afford to be guilty of putting people in these narrow boxes based on what we have decided is their identity instead of seeing that they have lived full lives. They are full people, as multifaceted as the other people we know.

She pointed to the incident at a bar outside of Kansas City, Kan., in February in which an attacker shot and killed an Indian immigrant he mistakenly believed to be a Muslim. Patrons in the bar risked their lives trying to protect the victim, she said.

I bet you that patrons in that bar voted for Trump, Harris said. But when presented with that situation, at that moment, without reflection, they did the right thing. We cant afford to put people in boxes.

Harris expected to be taking her post in a very different Washington. Up until late on election night, she said, she had been looking forward to pushing a nationwide expansion of the climate-change initiatives that have taken root in California and taking a leadership role in removing restrictions on immigrants. It was during a private family dinner as votes were being counted across the country that what was confronting her became real. She said she saw her 9-year-old nephew in tears at what was intended to be a celebratory event.

That man cant win, the boy cried. Later, in the reception room where she declared her own victory, she saw similar scenes.

But despite pressure from activists on the left, Harris refuses to rule out working with the White House.

Political capital is something that does not gain interest, she said, when asked how she thought Democrats should respond if the White House offers to collaborate on joint priorities, such as federal money to rebuild outdated roads, bridges and airports. When youve got it, youve got to spend it. If the Trump administration puts in place a real, significant and genuine plan for infrastructure, I'll be down with it.

Some things, though, are non-negotiable, Harris said. She is not among the Democrats lamenting that too much political firepower might have been used fighting Gorsuch, whose confirmation moved forward Thursday after Republican leaders made the historic move of changing Senate rules to step around a Democratic filibuster.

If you look at the decisions this guy has written? Harris said. And everyone presents him as a nice guy. My mother had many sayings. One of them was, Just because somebody has good manners, doesnt make them a good person.

evan.halper@latimes.com

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

Trump administration concedes border wall won't be from 'sea to shining sea'

Did Susan Rice act inappropriately when she 'unmasked' names in intelligence reports?

At Trump's EPA, going to work can be an act of defiance

Read more:
Sen. Kamala Harris sees a path out of the wilderness for Democrats but can she sell it to them? - Los Angeles Times