Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump's pugnacious and divisive inaugural address confirmed that there are going to be many, many things to fear over the next four years. But hisfiredoglake via Foter.com choice of Betsy DeVos for secretary of education is not one of them.

Despite what you may have heard from hyperventilating liberals, DeVos is among Trump's more sober Cabinet choices. She never joined his cheerleading squad like Housing and Urban Development nominee Ben Carson. And she was certainly not part of his inner circle hatching plans to court white voters by demonizing immigrants and minorities, like Jeff Sessions, Trump's pick for attorney general. In fact, she declared relatively early that Trump did not "represent the Republican Party" and never retracted that statement.

Yet Democrats are treating her nomination like the ultimate scandal simply because she is an ardent proponent of school choice. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) seemingly avoided even shaking her hand. But if Democrats can't do business with DeVos, then is there any intellectual opponent with whom they can?

Now, to be sure, DeVos did not distinguish herself during her confirmation hearing with her knowledge of the finer points of education policy (she didn't seem to know about the debate between proficiency and growth metrics to measure student performance, for one thing). She was often tongue-tied and crumbled under questioning. But that's at least partly because Democratic senators came turbo-charged to play gotcha.

DeVos' final confirmation vote has been delayed to Jan. 31 pending a full ethics review. However, it is highly unlikely that she won't get confirmed given that she needs only a simple majority in the Senate. So Democrats should have used this occasion to understand and engage her views honestly. Instead they decided to grandstand.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) demanded to know if she had advocated conversion therapy for gays. She hasn't so what was the point of this question except to portray her as a religious zealot hell-bent on bringing her "overtly Christian agenda to Washington" as per a 20-page screed by Politico and besmirch her passion for school choice as a ploy to turn over schools to Christian churches? Evidently, it did not occur to Sen. Franken that her voucher plan would empower secular, Muslim, and Buddhist parents really, parents of every religious persuasion just as much as Christian ones.

Likewise, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) all but accused DeVos of buying her way to the secretary's position. "Do you think that if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family had not made hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, that you would be sitting here today?," he asked as if her advocacy of school choice was just a ruse to buy political influence rather than the other way around.

Not to be outdone, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) asked her if guns should be allowed in schools never mind that a gun ban within 1,000 feet of a school has existed since 1996 and yet couldn't prevent the Newton massacre in his state. It was a pointless question given that an education secretary can't unilaterally overturn the ban and isn't responsible for enforcing it. DeVos' answer that the matter is probably best left to local schools able to make individualized assessment of threat levels was essentially correct, even if her grizzly bear example was somewhat clumsy. But why did Murphy feel the need to ask this question at all? No doubt to indulge his own anti-gun hobbyhorse! But, hey, DeVos is the ideologue.

And then there was Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who demanded that DeVos pledge that she wouldn't "cut a penny from public education" or use her perch at the department to privatize public schools. DeVos assured her that she would support all great schools, including public ones which implied that failing ones may be shut down. This, too, was a perfectly sensible response that should be cheered by anyone interested in children instead of teachers' unions. But not Murray, who also wasn't placated by DeVos' guarantee that she wouldn't force states to adopt voucher programs either through federal regulations or legislation. Instead, DeVos said, states should get to decide whether they want to embrace private school choice. Murray's response? A pout: "I take that as not be willing to commit to not privatizing public schools or cutting money from education."

What was most galling about the confirmation charade was the conceit of Murray and her gang that their positions are based on hard evidence and science while DeVos' are simply a reflection of her ideological fanaticism. But the fact of the matter is that there are two education paradigms in this country the old one that favors public accountability via the political process and the new one that favors parental accountability via the market process. Democrats are wedded to the first one for ideological reasons despite its 200-year history of failing poor kids and simply won't give the second a chance. That's why they also declared war on DeVos for shielding Detroit's charter schools from being taken over by politicians. Incidentally, these charters, while far from perfect, have shown much better results than comparable public schools, as three independent studies, including by Stanford's CREDO, have shown.

If the DeVos confirmation hearing exposed anything at all, it is that the Democratic Party is now the Dogmatic Party. And that will not position it to fight the genuine threats to vulnerable minorities that the Trump presidency will almost certainly bring.

This column originally appearead in The Week

Read more:
Democrats' Crusade Against Betsy DeVos Only Discredits Them - Reason (blog)

The Trump administration is circulating a memo ordering federal employees not to communicate with Congress, a demand that Democrats are calling an illegal gag order.

The Trump administration has issued restrictions at multiple agencies on employee communications, including, in some instances, communications with Congress, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., wrote in a letter Wednesday to new White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II. These directives appear to violate a host of federal laws.

Cummings letter cited a memo -- dated Jan. 20 -- circulating at the Department of Health and Human Services from Acting Secretary Norris Cochran the acting secretary that tells agency division heads that no correspondence to public officials (e.g., members of Congress, governors) ... unless specifically authorized by me or my designee, shall be sent between now and Feb. 3.

Within the last two days, Cochran, in a follow-up message to staff that was provided to ABC News by an agency spokesperson, sought to clarify his earlier memo, telling employees the memorandum should not be interpreted or implemented in any way that would preclude or in any way interfere with our HHS staff addressing their concerns to their elected representatives in person or in writing.

He said that the language in his memo was simply intended to coordinate the Departments policy positions with the appropriate policy staff on agency business.

Staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency earlier in the week told The Los Angeles Times that their new bosses ordered a media blackout, quoting one directive as telling them, Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.

Cummings accused the administration of imposing a widespread ban on agency communication.

White House aides did not immediately respond to request for comment about alleged efforts to block employees from communicating with Congress, broadly, or about the latest in a series of letters from Cummings about the way they are handling the transition. The Associated Press reported that White House press secretary Sean Spicer said no directives to silence communication from agencies came from the White House.

A call and an email to HHS requesting comment was not immediately returned.

Cummings, the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, refers to a memo circulating in the federal health agency that appears aimed at halting any effort to finish work on regulations that began during the prior administration. It is in that context that the acting agency head prohibited employees from talking with Congress.

Cummings and co-signer Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., cite a series of laws meant to protect open communication between federal employees and members of Congress, including one that ties agency funding to the free flow of information.

That provision, Cummings wrote, specifically prohibits agencies from issuing any order that threatens to prohibit or prevent any other officer or employee of the federal government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any member, committee or subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to include additional information.

Go here to see the original:
New Trump Agency Memo Gags Staff Communications, Democrats Say - ABC News

New York Times

Breakaway Democratic Group in State Senate Adds to Its Ranks New York Times ALBANY The Independent Democratic Conference, whose collaboration with Republicans in the State Senate has allowed that party to control the chamber despite being outnumbered by Democrats, added an eighth member on Wednesday. By recruiting ... Rift among NY Democrats grows againRochester Democrat and Chronicle Queens State Senator Peralta Joins Independent Democratic ConferenceNY1 Another Democrat bolts from main Senate Democratic conferenceBuffalo News DNAinfo -Olean Times Herald all 13 news articles »

See original here:
Breakaway Democratic Group in State Senate Adds to Its Ranks - New York Times

New York Times

Democrats, With Garland on Mind, Mobilize for Supreme Court Fight New York Times WASHINGTON Senate Democrats have one particular judge's name in mind as they await the identity of President Trump's Supreme Court nominee: Merrick B. Garland. Democrats and their allies remain furious that Senate Republicans refused to even ... Democrats Want To Pick Their Battles With Trump. Their Base Wants All-Out War.Huffington Post Democrats pitch $1T infrastructure plan - will Trump get on board?Fox News Senate Democrats Propose $1 Trillion Infrastructure PlanNBCNews.com TIME -Reuters -Washington Post all 368 news articles »

Read the original:
Democrats, With Garland on Mind, Mobilize for Supreme Court Fight - New York Times

People gather for the Women's March in Washington on Jan. 21. Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

In the weeks leading up the marches, many professional Democrats quietly lowered expectations in case they were not successful, given real concerns about the organization behind the events.

"At first there was reluctance to embrace from a lot of progressive organizations because it was not something that we were pulling together ourselves. Do we embrace or just let it happen?" said one official at a progressive group granted anonymity to speak candidly. "Quite frankly, it probably was successful because it wasn't organized by such and such Democratic group."

Turning that energy into a sustained, organized movement remains a challenge. But enthusiasm is often more valuable than infrastructure, as the 2016 election showed.

"The infrastructure does exist. It's just a question of plugging people in who are coming, perhaps for the first time this weekend, to understand what they can do," said Marcy Stech of Emily's List, the Democratic Women's group that hosted a training for 500 potential candidates after the march in Washington, D.C.

What's unclear is how many of those people will be funneled into the Democratic Party itself.

"People are looking for creative ways to take action and not necessarily wait to take marching orders," said Vicky Kaplan, the organizing director for MoveOn.org. "The Tea Party was very successful in getting people in their own party to choose sides."

The Tea Party movement sprung up organically after a defeat at the ballot box, then became more institutionalized by large "grass-tops" organizations like FreedomWorks and the Koch Brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity.

But it was always a double-edged sword for Republicans, as it fought a two-front war against both the Obama administration and the GOP establishment.

The Tea Party's leaderless independence was a source of its strength and credibility, said Leah Greenberg, a co-founder of "The Indivisible," a guide for progressive resistance to Trump, which looks at the conservative movement as a model. "You have to have some faith in people once they've been activated to figure out their own next steps," she said.

But that independence also made it impossible for the Republican Party to control, especially during contentious primary campaigns.

Tresa Undem, a pollster who has worked for reproductive rights and LGBT rights groups, said what's driving people to the streets is Trump and Republicans in Congress so the Democratic Party can only steer things so much.

"I'm not sure how much influence the Democratic party or progressive groups will have with controlling the momentum," she said. "They can tap into it, but I think the momentum has started and will end organically," she said.

This weekend's marches were far less confrontational or ideological than the Tea Party. But both were born and incubated outside the top professional ranks of their ideological movements.

The Tea Party was inspired by a rant from a TV commentator, while the march was sparked by a Facebook post from a grandmother in Hawaii and carried to fruition by a group of organizers with only limited affiliation to the Democratic establishment.

"This outpouring today is extraordinary and inspiring. But if all this energy isn't channeled into sustained pol action, it will mean little," former Obama advisor David Axelrod

In the end, major Democratic groups like Planned Parenthood did get onboard. And many members of Congress, governors, and other leaders proudly marched in Washington or their districts.

Now, many Democrats agree the party needs to let the marchers take the lead.

"Anyone who hopes to lead in either party needs to be listening to folks who turned out on Saturday...not capturing that energy but listening to it," said Ilyse Hogue, the President of NARAL Pro Choice, one of the sponsors of the event.

Despite Rep. Keith Ellison and former Labor Sec. Tom Perez, the two leading candidates for DNC Chair, echoed the point point, even though they missed the march.

"This weekend's marches showed us who really holds the power - the people," Ellison said. "And it proves to so many, including my own niece who invested so much during the election, that the Democratic Party must support and partner with the energetic activists we saw."

Perez said the party, "must keep up this energy and organize, organize, organize around our shared values of decency and equality while addressing the structural turnaround our party needs to support those efforts."

But it will be at least another month before either, or any of the other candidates, will have a chance to do that, as the national party waits until its next chair is elected in late February.

Read the original here:
Analysis: Did Democrats Miss the Boat on the Women's March? - NBCNews.com