Mediaboss Marketing

More than 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives have said they won't attend Friday's inaugural ceremonies. Here are some of the reasons they are skipping out. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

A growing group of Democratic lawmakers will boycott President-elect Donald Trumps inauguration Friday to protest what they described as his alarming and divisive policies, foreign interference in his election and his criticism of civil rights icon John Lewis, a congressman from Georgia.

There are now more than 60 House Democrats 65, at last count who have declared that they will not attend the inauguration on Capitol Hill this week. The number rose sharply after Trump tweeted Saturday that Lewis (D) is all talk, talk, talk and should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities.

Lewis, who sees Trumps Nov. 8 win as illegitimate because of Russias allegedinterference in the election, is best known for leading civil rights protests in the 1960s, including the 1965 march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., during which state troopers brutally attacked the crowd. Lewis will not attend the inauguration, he told NBC News in an interview for Sundays Meet the Press.

President-elect Donald Trump's team and senators of both parties on Jan. 15 reacted to Trump's feud with Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Heres a list of other lawmakers who will not attend, starting alphabetically with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.):

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.):

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.):

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.):

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.):

Rep. Anthony G. Brown (D-Md.):

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.):

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.):

Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.):

After serious consideration, I have decided that I will not stand with Donald Trump during his ceremonial inauguration ... I feel this decision best represents my family, constituents, and country, Cardenas said in a statement.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.):

Donald Trump has shown an utter lack of respect for so many Americans. His attack on civil rights hero John Lewis is the latest example. I will not attend this years inauguration ceremony, Castro said in a statement.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.):

Rep. Katherine M. Clark (D-Mass.):

Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (D-N.Y.):

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.):

A spokesman told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Clay will be back home in St. Louis speaking to school kids.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.):

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.):

His behavior and harmful words during and after the campaign have left the country I love with open, bleeding wounds. Instead of binding those wounds, he has poured salt on them, Connolly said in a statement.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.):

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.):

DeFazio typically avoids pomp and circumstance events in Washington, he said in a statement to Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.):

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas):

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.):

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.):

Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Pa.):

Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio):

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.):

Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.):

Rep. Ral M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.):

Rep. Luis V. Gutirrez (D-Ill.):

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.):

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.):

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.):

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.):

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.):

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.):

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.):

Will not attend, per the Chicago Tribune.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.):

I acknowledge the fact that he is the incoming president, but Im not in the mood to celebrate that fact, Lofgren told the Los Angeles Times.

Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.):

The President-elect must get the message that his antagonistic and divisive comments are unacceptable. We cannot tolerate attacks on women, minorities or a civil rights icon, Meng said in a statement.

Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.):

I have never seen a campaign that was based so much on hatred. I have never seen a campaign where a foreign power intervened to get one candidate elected and where the candidate did not even acknowledge, let alone condemn this behavior. Im not sure what there is to celebrate.

The continued hatred and insults even long after the campaign is over is unacceptable. He should have begun to bring people together the day after the election, and he has not started yet. I have a train ticket, but unfortunately, it has come to this.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.):

Will not attend, per the Los Angeles Times.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.):

Will not attend, per the Los Angeles Times.

Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-N.J.):

I will not celebrate [Trumps] swearing-in to an office that he has proven unfit to hold, Payne said in a statement.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine):

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.):

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.):

Will not attend, per the Chicago Tribune.

Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.):

I cannot risk my presence at his inauguration being interpreted as any kind of endorsement of the normality of our situation. I will not attend the inauguration, Raskin said in a statement.

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.):

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.):

A real president doesnt attack the press because they ask tough questions, Ruiz told the Desert Sun. A real president doesnt insult and bully celebrities or everyday Americans because they disagree with him.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.):

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.):

Im just not a big Trump fan, Schrader told Oregon Public Broadcasting. He hasnt proved himself to me at all yet, so I respectfully decline to freeze my ass out there in the cold for this particular ceremony.

Rep. Jos E. Serrano (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Terri A. Sewell (D-Ala.)

Upon prayerful deliberation, I have decided not to attend the inauguration of the 45th President. While I have a profound respect for the office of the President, and I accept the results of the election, I simply cannot accept the blatant disrespect shown by President-elect Trump towards American civil rights icon, my colleague, friend and mentor, the Honorable John Lewis. The ongoing attacks against Congressman John Lewis are a direct assault on the sacrifices of those brave men and women in my Alabama district who fought, bled and died for the civil rights and voting rights of all Americans. As always, I stand with my constituents.

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.):

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.):

Will not attend, per the Democrat & Chronicle.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.):

As the House of Representatives is not in session the week of Inauguration, Congressman Smith will spend the District Work Period at home in Washington state meeting with his constituents, a representative for the congressmansaid in a statement to Seattle NBC affiliate KING 5 News.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.):

I am deeply disappointed with Trumps attacks against civil rights hero John Lewis and will not be attending the inauguration as a result, Soto told Orlando ABC affiliate WFTV-Channel 9.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.):

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.):

Will not attend, per the Clarion-Ledger.

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.):

Rep. Nydia M. Velzquez (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.):

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.):

Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.):

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.):

For the last ten weeks, President-elect Trump has continually denigrated the office of the President by using his bully pulpit for insult and ridicule, Yarmuth said in a statement. This is not normal. It is an embarrassment to our country and to the office of the presidency, and we must send the message that this behavior is not acceptable from the leader of our nation. Not attending the Inauguration is one way for me to do that.

Jenna Portnoy contributed to this report.

More:
More than 60 Democratic lawmakers now skipping Trump's inauguration - Washington Post

Democrats joining the puerile food fight Rep. John Lewis started with the President-Elect may soon live to regret it.

Donald TrumpDonald TrumpMcConnell breaks with Trump on NATO Trump makes unannounced stop at his DC hotel Rick Perry misunderstood Energy Secretary job: report MORE has promised a vigorous legislative agenda for his first one-hundred days, and has the majorities in Congress to make good on that promise. Democrats who continue to whine and pout, calling him illegitimate, may soon find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Heres what is likely to occur between now and mid-April:

President Trump will reverse hundreds of Obamas executive orders, shredding big portions of the former Presidents legacy.

Republicans will pass the Obamacare repeal and replace measure.

Republicans will pass a tax reform package that includes middle class tax cuts and a significant reduction of the corporate income tax.

Republicans will fund the border wall, and President Trump will start to open bids from contractors.

And if Donald Trump succeeds in building the border wall (and yes, Mexico will ultimately pay for it through a remittance tax, tariffs, or other measures), he will be re-elected in 2020 with big numbers.

As Mike Huckabee said on Fox Business on Tuesday, Democrats are never going to be happy his election because of their "personal animosity," and that is a huge mistake. Why? Because as the new President succeeds with his policies, American voters will have little patience with such critics.

Im not suggesting that Rep. Lewis is about to lose re-election, given that he represents one of the most consistently Democratic districts in the nation.

But some of the Democrats who have decided to join him in boycotting Fridays inauguration could find themselves facing primary opponents. Among the most vulnerable in this regard is newly-elected Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md).

After his disastrous failure in the Obamacare roll-out as Lieutenant Governor, Brown lost his bid to become Governor in 2014 in heavily-Democrat Maryland. How could that happen? Because members of his own party turned against him and voted for the Republican or just stayed home.

I witnessed Mr. Browns unpopularity when black Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Lollar and I won the endorsement in the 2014 primary of a pre-eminent black pastors and business association in Prince Georges County. (I was Lollars running mate).

I asked the leaders of this group why they were endorsing a Republican ticket over Mr. Brown, and they responded almost unanimously: because Anthony Brown had arrogantly ignored them over the previous eight years as Lieutenant Governor. He was out of touch and took them for granted.

Those same black leaders are going to benefit from lower tax rates, as well as from the reduction in the number of illegal aliens with their drain on public school and public health resources. They are not going to take kindly to politicians who tell them these benefits are somehow illegitimate, because they have a personal beef with the President who brought them about.

Under Obama, Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats in Congress and in state legislatures because of his unpopular policies. For Democrats to continue opposing President Trump when he enacts popular policies is a strong indicator they have suicidal tendencies.

If these suicidal Democrats dont seek treatment, the people will dish it out to them at the ballot box.

They face the same choice Bill ClintonBill ClintonHillary Clinton tweets well-wishes to Bushes Chelsea Clinton: We must keep fighting Lanny Davis: Farewell, President Obama: Your legacy as one of the best presidents is secure MORE faced after the 1994 midterms: embrace success, or go down as a failure.

Three weeks before last Novembers election, Rep. Lewis tweeted out a quote from Walking with the Wind, his memoire of the civil rights movement. We are one people, one family, one house the American house. We must learn to live together as brother & sister or we will perish as fools.

Those are wise and humble words. Rep. Lewis and his fellow boycotters would do well to heed them.

See the original post:
Democrats are committing suicide by joining Lewis boycott - The Hill (blog)

Rep. Linda Sanchez has a plan for how to approach Democrats' upcoming fight with Republicans over healthcare: Keep talking about it.

As Republicans race to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Democrats and supporters of President Obama's signature health care law need to emphasize to Republicans how many people rely on the act and have benefited from it, said Sanchez (D-Whittier).

They need to hear from their constituents what a lifeline it really is, Sanchez said. There seems to be this lack of understanding or appreciation of what real families are living with in terms of their health care needs.

Ahead of Friday's inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, Sanchez sat down with Times' reporters and editors Tuesday afternoon to talk about Trump, and her plans as the newest member of House leadership.

Republicans are hustling to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also called the ACA or Obamacare, soon after Trump takes office, but it isn't clear yet what will be proposed in its place, or when that replacement will presented.

Were gearing up for that fight. California stands to lose a lot if ACA is repealed, she said. We are going to be getting the message out, not just about the individuals who are impacted negatively if it goes away, but the job losses that could occur and the fact that the state of California itself is at risk for losing billions of dollars in funding.

Last month, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) asked top political figures across the countryfor input on how to replace the Affordable Care Act. The response from California Gov. Jerry Brown and state leaders was abundant and grim.

A report released in December from theUC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education shows if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, 5 million Californians could lose health insurance, 200,000 healthcare related jobs could disappear,andMedicaid funding and individual subsidies losses could equal $20.5 billion.

She said as the public learns more about what was in the Affordable Care Act like access tocancer screenings and no copays for checkups or birth control the more frustrated they'll become with the prospect of repeal without a replacement plan.

Republicans are so good as messaging theyve managed to convince everybody that Obamacare is bad, even if they are beneficiaries of it. But, you take it away from folks and suddenly they are going to understand exactly what Obamacare was and meant, she said.

Sanchez also said that while she respects the dozens of members who have decided not to attend the inauguration Friday, including 16 Californians ,she's going to make a point.

My goal is to be front and center, she said. Im going to be the biggest pain in the neck that I can be.

Sanchez said she wants to be the member Trump hates to see because she is constantly hounding him on immigration, healthcare and other priorities for her mostly southeast L.A. County district.

My role in the next four years is to be as vocal an advocate as I can for what my constituents want and need and I will put myself in Donald Trumps path at every turn to confront him about these issues, Sanchez said.

See the original post here:
Here's one way Rep. Linda Sanchez thinks Democrats should fight Obamacare repeal - Los Angeles Times

More than 50 lawmakers all Democrats have said they won't be attending the 2017 inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. Here is why lawmakers say they're boycotting, skipping, or simply out of town.

As an act "of defiance." Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva.

To oppose bigotry and/or demagoguery. Arizona's Rep. Ruben Gallego, Florida's Rep. Alcee Hastings, California's Rep. Lucille Royball-Allard

Because a Twitter poll told them not to. California's Rep. Karen Bass.

Unspecified personal conviction. California's Rep. Mark DeSaulnier. California's Rep. Tony Cardenas

To keep a clear conscience. Texas Rep. G.K. Butterfield, Texas Rep. Al Green

To look his family in the eye. Illinois Rep. Luis Guitierrez.

Because "Respect, like Pennsylvania Avenue, is a two-way street." New York Rep. Lloyd Doggett.

Because "a real president doesn't insult and bully celebrities or everyday Americans because they disagree with him," Rep. Raul Ruiz

To not normalize Trump's presidency. Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree, Kentucky's Rep. John Yarmuth

To not "risk my presencebeing interpreted as any kind of endorsement" Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin

Because he shows "contempt for millions of Americans and then expect those very people to celebrate him." Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro

To spend time in their district. Rep. Jared Huffman. Missouri's Rep. William Lacy Clay, Washington Rep. Adam Smith

Because it would be hypocritical. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer

Because her constituents fear Trump. Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark

Because Russia, conflicts of interest, and John Lewis. Washington Rep. Mark Pocan

"I respectfully decline to freeze my ass out there in the cold for this particular ceremony." Oregon's Rep. Kurt Schrader.

"Trump is a unique threat to the Constitution and our country." Pennsylvania's Rep. Brendan Boyle

#IStandWithJohnLewis California's Rep. Ted Lieu, California's Rep. Judy Chu, Florida's Rep. Darren Sotto Rep. Bennie Thompson, Ohio's Rep. Marcia Fudge, Pennsylvania's Rep. Dwight Evans, Pennsylvania's Rep. Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania's Rep. Bob Brady, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Rep. Darren Soto, California's Rep. Mark Takano, Maryland Rep. Anthony Brown, New York Rep. Yvette Clark

Because they don't consider Trump's election legitimate. Georgia's Rep. John Lewis, Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen.

"THIS is not Dr. King's Dream." New York Rep. Adriano Espaillat

To "prepare for the coming assault." Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

To prepare "for resistance" California Rep. Barbara Lee

"I wouldn't waste my time." California Rep. Maxine Waters

Cannot celebrate Trump. New York Rep. Jose Serrano, New York Rep. Alma Adams, New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne Jr., New York's Rep. Jerry Nadler, Minnesota's Rep. Keith Ellison, California's Rep. Zoe Lofgren

To pray. New Hampshire's Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, New Jersey's Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, California's Rep. Juan Vargas

Because he doesn't like DC "pomp and circumstance." Oregon's Rep. Peter DeFazio

To go to the Women's March, amongst other opposition to Trump. New York's Rep. Nydia Velazquez

Because she has a wedding to attend. Rep. Frederica Wilson.

Unspecified. Rep. Jerry McNerney, Rep. Grace Napolitano, Rep. John Conyers Jr., Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley.

Go here to see the original:
Here's Why Democrats Say They're Skipping Trump's Inauguration - NBCNews.com

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The recent intelligence report on Russian interference in the election concluded that the Russian government was behind the hacking and release of Democratic emails. The assumed purpose of these activities was an effort to support the candidacy of Donald Trump, even though the report acknowledged that the Russian government believed Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election anyway. That seems to be a bit of a stretch, one that invites skepticism. Which brings us to the other controversy that is consuming Washington, the belated release of the so-called dossier on the Russian governments supposed contacts with Mr. Trump.

The only thing that seems certain about the dossier is that it was an effort to spy on the Russian government. After Mr. Trump clinched the Republican nomination, a private firm in Britain began preparing the intelligence reports in the dossier. They contained sensational allegations of ties between Russian government officials and Mr. Trump. Its asserted sources were Russian, including none other than an officer of the Russian FSB, the successor to the KGB. Reportedly, the private British investigators were conducting this intelligence gathering, or spying, under contract to an American private investigations company, which by that time reportedly was working for the Democrats.

It should come as no surprise that the Democratically commissioned dossier is virtually incredible. It makes sloppy, gossipy, unverifiable and occasionally bizarre claims on the basis of what it asserts are extensive contacts with senior Russian officials, including Russian intelligence officers. Reading the dossier leads inexorably to one of two conclusions: Either it was a fabrication by its authors, or Russian intelligence knew all about their activities. Russia is not the kind of country where that kind of stuff happens in any other way, and no other potential explanation for the document seems plausible. If Russian intelligence knew about the investigation, of course, then it could be disinformation or just plain nonsense. Either way, chances are the Russian government knew about the investigation, knew supporters of Mrs. Clinton were behind it, and knew they were trying to dig up information about possible ties between Russian officials and the Republican nominee.

The dossier has been circulating in Washington for months. Major press outlets have been busy patting themselves on the back for not publishing it before the election, on the asserted grounds that its sensational assertions could not be verified. That is a bit unconvincing. Perhaps the real explanation lies in the fact that if they published it, they would invariably have to reveal the identity of its creators, including those who contracted for and disseminated the dossier. Then the nation might have been confronted with a story before the election that Democrats had hired people to spy on Russia to get dirt on Mr. Trump. That could have been an embarrassing, if not worse, tale of dirty tricks. And portraying Democrats as victims of the Russians is a much better headline than the other way around. After all, the politics of victimization at times can appear to be a central platform of the Democratic Party.

The strangest part of this story is that the so-called intelligence community in the United States reportedly got bamboozled into briefing President Obama and President-elect Trump on the dossier, and possibly presenting a summary of it to them. At that point, it became free game for a gullible press, and it was leaked immediately. However, that it most likely was paid for by Democratic interests and was manifestly an effort to spy on the activities of Russian officials seem to have been lost in the debate about its lurid assertions. Some of Washingtons most serious and self-absorbed correspondents have been so busy falling all over themselves with concern about the implications of the dossiers sensational allegations that they have lost the main story about it. That is the fact that the dossier is an exercise in amateur international espionage directed at Russia and apparently commissioned by Democratic political operatives during the campaign.

The real story here is that the perfidious Russians were themselves being spied on. That seems like a pretty dumb thing to do, particularly since the Russians are masters of the art of espionage. The British, on the other hand, are not. Whatever people may think of the fictional George Smiley, the real MI6 has not been known for its success in dealing with its Russian adversaries. History reminds us that the Russian government had MI6 in its pocket for years after the war. And we are not even dealing with MI6 here, but rather a former officer of that agency. Hopefully, the CIA is in a better position to get to the bottom of this. It once was. But it is somewhat surprising that the agency did not know about the spying at the time.

One thing is clear. If Washington really wants to find out what happened, it should examine who commissioned the private effort to collect Russian intelligence on that governments contacts, activities and objectives with Donald Trump, who actually paid for it and with whose money. Espionage is supposed to be a serious business best left to governments. That someone in the Democratic Party apparently did not have the intelligence to understand that lesson may be the only verifiable story in this sorry and sordid episode. And it tends to put Russias own activities in a somewhat different light.

Finally, a note about the Russians. They may well have real dossiers on political figures. That should not be a surprise to anyone. However, it seems doubtful that they would be dumb enough to miss what was really going on here. That, apparently, is the job of the press.

Warren L. Dean Jr. is a lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Read more:
The Democrats' 'dossier' - Washington Times