Mediaboss Marketing

Lillie Schechter, the new chairwoman of the Harris County Democratic Party, has watched in recent months as at least seven candidates have come through the doors of the party headquarters to introduce themselves, eager for their shot at U.S. Rep.John Culberson, R-Houston.

That's seven candidates that she can recall, but she may be forgiven for forgetting: Texas' 7th Congressional District is one of several that have already drawn a swarm of Democratic candidates for 2018. The bonanza is unfolding not justin districts like the 7th one of three in Texas that national Democrats are targeting but also in even redder districts, delighting a state party that is not used to so much so interest so early.

"When we have competitive primaries, we get to engage with more Democrats," Schechter said. "I do not see that as a negative thing."

Yet it's just one part of the picture for Democrats at the outset of the 2018 election cycle. While the congressional races are overflowing with candidates, the party remains without a number of statewide contenders a reality that is coming into focus ahead of Republican Gov.Greg Abbott's anticipated announcement Friday that he's running for re-election.Barring any last-minute surprises, Abbott will make his second-term bid official without the presence of a serious Democratic rival.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The state's Democrats are urging patience, saying they are in talks with potential Abbott challengers and other possible statewide candidates.

"I think if you look in past years, traditionally candidates will start filing in the fall, and by the end of the filing deadline, I think we'll have a full slate of strong candidates to run statewide," said U.S. Rep.Joaquin Castroof San Antonio, who himself took a pass on statewide race earlier this year, declining to challenge U.S. Sen.Ted Cruz, R-Texas. "I know there's been a lot of energy across the country and in Texas on the Democratic side, and so many people want to get a move on already, but by the end of year, I'll think you'll see a full slate of strong Democratic candidates."

So far, Democrats have three statewide candidates they see as serious: U.S. Rep.Beto O'Rourkeof El Paso for U.S. Senate, Houston-area accountant Mike Collier for lieutenant governor and Kim Olson, a retired Air Force colonel, for agriculture commissioner. They are without similarly credible contenders for governor, comptroller, land commissioner, railroad commissioner and attorney general a seat considered particularly worth targeting because the GOP incumbent,Ken Paxton, is under indictment.

By far the biggest profile belongs to O'Rourke, who announced his challenge to Cruz in March. As the top of the ticket assuming hewins his party's primary next year he stands a chance of being Texas Democrats' standard-bearer in 2018, regardless of whom they ultimately put up for the other statewide jobs.

In an interview Monday, O'Rourke said he was not worried about the lack of company so far on his party's statewide ticket.

"I can't worry about what I can't control, and so we're just going to focus on our campaign," he said.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

But he also expressed optimism for the party's prospects up and down the ballot in 2018 "as more people become aware of how significantly the dynamics have changed in Texas."

It may be somewhat early, but the lack of a gubernatorial candidate or even a well-known potential contender is particularly glaring. Taking out Abbott would likely be an even steeper climb than usual for Texas Democrats seeking statewide office, as the governor has a massive $34.4 million war chest. It's a number expected to grow by the millions when he discloses his latest fundraising numbers next week.

"Weve had conversations with a handful of folks who are considering a run for governor," said Manny Garcia, deputy executive director of the Texas Democratic Party. "Theyre the kind of people that make us excited. Theyre the kind of people who can raise credible resources, they have a great story to tell and theyre the kind of people who, most importantly, could get the job done.

Of the last four Democratic nominees for governor, none of them announced his or her campaign this early. The closest was 2006 nominee Chris Bell, whose announcement came on July 28, 2005 467 days before Election Day. The 2018 election is currently 481 days away.

Yet previous cycles have typically brought a bit more excitement and buzz leading up to such announcements. There were the months of speculation that came before the launch of South Texas millionaire Tony Sanchez's 2002 bid to become the first Hispanic governor of Texas. In 2014, former state Sen.Wendy Daviskept Democrats waiting until 14 weeks after her anti-abortion filibuster made her a national star.

This time around, such hype is subdued at best. Perhaps the most prominent name to garner some speculation is former state Rep.Trey Martinez Fischerof San Antonio, whorecently toldhis hometown newspaper a potential candidacy is "not a conversation that I'm entertaining at this time."

While there has not been frenzied speculation about the governor's race, Democrats note their talent was on full display earlier this year when two rising stars, O'Rourke and Castro, both seriously considered the Senate race. While Castro ultimately declined to run, there's still another statewide contest that could involve two credible Democrats: former state Rep. Allen Vaught of Dallas is weighing whether to join Collier in the race for lieutenant governor.

In any case, the current state of Democrats' statewide ticket provides acontrast with the congressional map, where several vigorous Democratic primaries are already underway not just in the three districts in the crosshairs of national Democrats but also in a few not on their radar.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

There are at least half a dozen Democratic candidates in the 21st district, which is currently represented byLamar Smith, a San Antonio Republican who drew only two challengers in 2016 and won re-election by more than 20 percentage points. In the 31st district,John Carter, a Round Rock Republican, is up to at least four Democratic foes after just one ran in the primary last time.

Candidate after candidate points to a common denominator in their decision to run.

Knowing what happened on Nov. 8 and knowing that Donald Trump is our president ... its just really galvanized a lot of Democratic support all around the state and locally, and people are stepping up," said Ed Meier, a former Hillary Clinton staffer looking to unseat U.S. Rep.Pete Sessions, R-Dallas.

Early signs indicate some of the races are also drawing big money. In the 32nd district, Meier's campaign says he raised $345,000 in its first two months, while another Democratic hopeful, Colin Allred, took in more than $200,000 over a similar period, according to his team. In the 7th district, Democratic contender Alex Triantaphyllis says he raised over $450,000 in eight weeks, while primary rivalLizzie Pannill Fletcher has announced a haul of more than $365,000 in seven weeks.

With Abbott's announcement looming, though, the spotlight is intensifying on Democrats' statewide recruits. Republicans say they are being anything but complacent as they wait for Democrats to fill out their statewide ticket.

"Texas Democrats have two problems aside from being unable to field a full slate of credible candidates in 2018: We're mobilizing our grassroots as vigorously as if they did have that full slate, and Texas Republicans continue to deliver for Texans," state GOP spokesman Michael Joyce said in a statement.

Harris County, the biggest in Texas, will no doubt be on their radar next year. While Clinton easily won it in the 2016 presidential election, it has a history of being a battleground for both parties and a highly prized ingredient in any recipe for statewide victory.

For all the Democratic enthusiasm in the Trump era, Schechter said she was not too surprised it has not yet translated into a full and robust statewide slate.

"I think Texas is a really big state, and it's a really big challenge," she said, adding that her central focus is the countywide ticket in 2018. "We still need to shore up our votes in a major metropolitan area like Harris County to make it an easier statewide run."

Abby Livingston contributed to this report.

Read related Tribune coverage:

U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke, D-El Paso, is sailing toward a 2018 Senate campaign, an uphill battle that would pit the little-known congressman against one of the state's most prominent Republicans in the unpredictable era of President Donald Trump. [link]

Outside of the presidential race, the 2016 election in Texas is pretty quiet so quiet that a lot of political people are spending their time talking about 2018 and even 2020 as well. [link]

A recent private meeting of some of the Democratic Party's most well-known Texas figures suggests party leaders see glimmers of hope for the midterm electionsthanks to President Donald Trump. [link]

See original here:
As congressional races draw big interest, Democrats still filling out statewide ticket - Texas Tribune

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a new version of a Russia and Iran sanctions bill on Wednesday, hoping to send a message to President Donald Trump to maintain a strong line against Moscow.

Seeking to force Republican House leaders to allow a vote, Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee introduced legislation unchanged from what passed the Senate by 98-2 on June 15 but has been stalled ever since.

While the new bill is identical to what the Senate passed, it will be labeled as House legislation to avoid a procedural issue that prompted House Republican leaders to send the measure back to the Senate.

However, there was no sign of support from Trump's fellow Republicans, who control majorities in both the House and the Senate and control what legislation comes up for a vote.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, dismissed the Democrats' action as "grandstanding."

The measure was introduced by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representatives Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 House Democrat, and Eliot Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Democrats have accused House Republicans of stalling the sanctions package because of Trump administration concern about provisions setting up a process for Congress to approve any effort by the president to ease sanctions on Russia.

Trump's attempts to mend relations with Russia have been hindered by allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 U.S. election and colluded with Trump's campaign. Russia denies meddling and Trump says there was no collusion.

The issue has become even more heated since emails released Tuesday showed that Donald Trump Jr, the president's eldest son, eagerly agreed last year to meet a woman he was told was a Russian government lawyer who might have damaging information about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic rival in the 2016 presidential election.

Lawmakers and aides said news of that meeting, and the failure to disclose it, added new urgency to the push to pass the Russia package.

House Republican leaders said they had not taken up the original Senate bill because it violated a constitutional requirement that all legislation affecting government revenues originate in the House, known as a "blue slip" issue. Democrats and some Republicans who backed the bill scoffed, saying the problem could have been quickly remedied.

"Dilly-dallying around about the blue slip issue was just a ridiculous waste of time. We could have fixed it in five minutes," Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters.

The Senate changed the bill to address that issue, but also tweaked it in a way that Democrats said weakened a provision requiring Congress to approve any effort by the president to ease sanctions on Russia.

The new bill introduced on Wednesday would eliminate that change to allow House Democrats, as well as Republicans, to force a vote on a resolution of disapproval of any effort to ease Russia sanctions.

"I don't believe that having the president's party in a position to protect him from any oversight is good policy for our country," Hoyer told reporters.

Ryan told a news conference he wants to move a strong bill regarding sanctions on Russia as quickly as possible but that the legislation still faced procedural and policy hurdles.

The U.S. energy industry has been lobbying against the bill and some Republican House members, particularly from oil-producing states, have said they might want changes.

The Russia sanctions legislation was written as an amendment to a bill imposing new sanctions on Iran over issues including its ballistic missile program. Besides establishing the review process, it puts into law sanctions previously imposed on Moscow via presidential executive order and introduces new sanctions.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Additional reporting by Amanda Becker and Susan Heavey; Editing by James Dalgleish and Leslie Adler

Excerpt from:
US Democrats introduce new bill on Russia and Iran sanctions - Reuters

We promised the American voters that we would repeal Obamacare, Mr. Paul said. But when youre keeping half the taxes, most of the regulations and creating a brand-new insurance bailout superfund, that to most people just doesnt look like repeal.

Ms. Collins has been a vocal critic of the bill for very different reasons.

If the Medicaid cuts remain the same in the new version of the Senate bill, I will vote no on the motion to proceed, she said Wednesday, referring to the first step required to begin debate.

As Senate Republicans struggled for agreement on the contents of their repeal bill, President Trump exerted pressure. I am sitting in the Oval Office with a pen in hand, waiting for our senators to give it to me, he said in an interview with Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Mr. Trump offered a warning about what would happen if the Senate failed.

Well, I dont even want to talk about it because I think it would be very bad, Mr. Trump said. I will be very angry about it, and a lot of people will be very upset.

Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate and can afford to lose only two of their members on votes to take up and pass the legislation, which is opposed by all the Democrats. Vice President Mike Pence would cast the tiebreaking vote if there is a 50-50 split.

We just have differences that are legitimate about how the health care legislation affects our states, said Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, who said before the Fourth of July recess that he did not support the repeal bill as it had been written. Some people feel strongly one way, and others another way. But were trying to find middle ground.

Mr. McConnell has been considering changes in his bill that would increase insurance subsidies for low-income people and preserve two taxes imposed on high-income people by the Affordable Care Act. The bill is still expected to make huge changes in Medicaid, putting caps on federal payments to states and rolling back the expansion of the program under the Affordable Care Act that has extended insurance to millions of people.

One issue still up in the air is a proposal by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, that would allow insurers to sell less comprehensive plans if they also offered at least one option that complied with federal standards. The stripped-down plans could omit certain types of coverage, such as maternity or mental health care.

Groups representing patients and insurers flooded Senate offices Wednesday with correspondence opposing the proposal. The Cruz proposal would result in higher, not lower, premiums for people with serious and chronic conditions, said a letter from 13 patient advocacy groups including the American Heart Association and the lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society.

Scott P. Serota, the president and chief executive of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, said the Cruz plan would create two sets of rules for health insurance products and could make coverage unaffordable for people with pre-existing conditions.

Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, suggested some kind of regulation to limit the difference in prices for compliant and noncompliant insurance plans, so premiums would not be outrageously high for people with pre-existing conditions.

But that was dismissed by Mr. Paul as a form of price controls.

And Mr. Cruz pushed back against insurers criticism.

Insurance companies have made billions of dollars under Obamacare, Mr. Cruz said, and their focus appears to be on maximizing their own subsidies at the expense of consumer choice.

Democrats may not have the votes to stop the Republican push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they do have Senate rules to help them. Under the procedure that Republicans are using to speed passage of the health care bill, senators can object to a provision if it does not change federal spending or revenue or if the budgetary effects are merely incidental to some policy objective.

Republicans and Democrats are making formal presentations this week to the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who serves as a sort of referee, deciding whether specific provisions of the bill comply.

Democrats are preparing to challenge these provisions, among others:

Planned Parenthood. The bill would cut off federal Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood for one year. The Congressional Budget Office said this would reduce federal spending by $225 million, of which more than one-third would be offset by higher costs for additional births to women covered by Medicaid. Democrats say the policy goal outweighs the budgetary impact.

Age ratios. The bill would let insurers charge older consumers five times as much as young adults. Under the Affordable Care Act, they can charge no more than three times as much. Democrats say the purpose of the change is regulatory, not budgetary.

Waiting period. People who went without insurance for approximately two months or more in the prior year would be required to wait six months before they could start coverage under the Senate bill. Democrats say the purpose is not to save money, but to regulate insurance and to encourage people to obtain coverage without mandating it.

Abortion coverage. The bill would prevent consumers from using federal tax credits to help pay premiums for insurance that includes coverage of abortion. Republicans say this could save money. Democrats say that the Republican goal is to regulate insurance and to reduce abortions, and that the proposal would not affect federal spending.

A version of this article appears in print on July 13, 2017, on Page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: Senate Republicans, Planning to Unveil New Health Bill, Have No Votes to Spare.

Read the rest here:
Senate Republicans, Preparing New Health Bill, Have No Votes to Spare - New York Times

The Louisiana Democratic Party is dropping Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from its yearly fundraising event becoming the latest state party to shift away from honoring the two slave-owning presidents.

The annual "Jefferson-Jackson" dinner, which is scheduled to take place in New Orleans on Aug. 26, will now be called the True Blue Gala.

A spokeswoman from the state Democratic Party said Chairwoman Karen Carter Peterson announced last fall the event would be rebranded "to reflect the progress of the party and the changing times."

"In the past year, we conducted roundtables and surveys, and consulted our local and state committees to ultimately choose the name 'True Blue Gala,'" the state party said in a statement. "We believe this will allow us to not only focus on keynote speakers but also award recipients. Along with the name change, we are adding a more robust media experience and an after party to the event."

+3

One by one, the four Confederate-era monuments came down in New Orleans, removed because of

In an email to supporters Wednesday, Peterson, of New Orleans, wrote that "after talking to over 100 people, sifting through heaps of suggestions we have determined the name of our dinner The True Blue Gala!"

Jefferson and Jackson are historically considered to be the founders of the Democratic Party, but their ownership of slaves and Jackson's treatment of Native Americans has prompted several states, including Georgia, Florida and Arkansas to move away from holding the once iconic "Jefferson-Jackson" dinners. The shift has coincided with an effort among cities and states to distance themselves from symbols honoring the Confederacy and slavery.

WASHINGTON Mayor Mitch Landrieu offered an impassioned defense Friday of his administratio

New Orleans this year removed four monuments honoring the Civil War and white supremacy.

The annual "J-J dinner" typically draws hundreds of Democrats from across the state and is the Louisiana Democratic Party's largest fundraiser. Recent keynote speakers have included high-profile Democrats, including New Jersey U.S. Sen. Cory Booker and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Tickets to the dinner are $175 apiece.

Jason Kander, who is seen as a key rising star in the national Democratic Party despite losing a U.S. Senate race in Missouri last year, will be the featured guest when Louisiana Democrats hold the first True Blue Gala next month.

Kander, a former Army intelligence officer, was Missouri's secretary of state before narrowly losing last year's Senate race against incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt. In recent weeks, Kander, 36, has been the subject of high-profile articles speculating about his future role in national politics.

Were thrilled to have Jason at our dinner this year because we believe he speaks to the next generation of leadership in our country. Jason is exactly the sort of leader we need to progress the party in the South. Hes a young veteran who continues to put his country before himself, Peterson said in a news release about the event. Ive been inspired more than a few times hearing Jason speak at events."

Follow Elizabeth Crisp on Twitter, @elizabethcrisp.

Read the rest here:
Louisiana Democrats, following national trend, drop slave-owning presidents' names from dinner - The Advocate

Democrats have launched a long-overdue debate about what they will stand and fight for. The party is impressively united and its activists mobilized against President Trump and the right-wing Republican agenda. With Trump unpopular and the Republican Congress even less so, Democrats are salivating at the prospect of a wave election next year that would allow them to take back Congress. After they came close but lost this years handful of special elections, there is increasing recognition that were not them is not sufficient. Democrats have to have a more compelling economic agenda and message. Not surprisingly, there is widespread disagreement about what that message should be.

In the New York Times, Mark Penn and Andrew Stein argue that the path back to power for Democrats is to unquestionably move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left, whose policies and ideas have weakened the party. Penn and Stein are deliciously unseemly personifications of the partys money wing. Penn served as chief strategist for Hillary Clintons failed 2008 campaign while continuing as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm with clients such as Blackwater, the shady private mercenary firm; drug companies such as Amgen; and British Petroleum, the company besmirched by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. He was forced to resign from that campaign when it was revealed he had met with Colombian officials about a free-trade agreement that Clinton nominally opposed. The multimillionaire Stein, a former Manhattan Bureau president, was convicted of tax evasion and endorsed Trump in 2016.

Penn and Stein invoke President Bill Clinton as their ideal, arguing that Democrats should be the party of fiscal responsibility, above partisanship, and focused on economic growth and rising wages. They trot out a range of issues that are standard Democratic Party fare infrastructure investment, immigration reform, community policing, protecting workers in the gig economy and holding the line against Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare. Adopting the scabrous rhetoric of the right, they warn that bigger government handouts wont win working-class voters back. Their particular btes noires are identity politics and political correctness, represented by transgender bathroom issues and sanctuary cities.

To make their case, Penn and Stein summon up a fictional account of our political history. Democrats relied on identity politics and a government solution for every problem in the early 1990s, leading to Republicans taking the House in 1994. Democrats came back when Clinton embraced a balanced budget, welfare reform and the crime bill, leading to his reelection in 1996. Under President Barack Obama, they say that Democrats, misled by politicians such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), once more ran to the left, embracing identity politics, class warfare and big government, and thus lost 1,000 legislative seats, the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.

This is fake history. Clinton ran and won in 1992 on a populist economic agenda promising to raise taxes on the rich, launch a jobs program and provide health care for all. He complemented that with purposeful racial signaling rejecting Jesse Jackson in the Sister Souljah incident, calling for ending welfare as we know it and parading in front of black prisoners while touting harsh three strikes criminal sentencing. Upon entering office, Clinton abandoned the populist promises and embraced a budget that he privately termed one of an Eisenhower Republican. The effort to gain bipartisan support for health-care reform was torpedoed by Republican obstruction. Clinton then championed the North American Free Trade Agreement, over the warnings of labor leaders and the opposition of most Democrats. That contributed directly to the Democratic defeat in 1994. In 1996, Clinton came back after the Republican Congress shut down the government and campaigned as the defender of Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment.

Similarly, Democratic losses under Obama did not come from identity politics, class warfare and big government, as Penn and Stein suggest. Rather, Democrats paid a big price for bailing out Wall Street bankers while homeowners were abandoned. Obama passed an inadequate stimulus and then moved to embrace deficit reduction tightening our belts while unemployment was still in double digits. Democrats suffered from the resulting slow recovery and from Republican assaults on Obamacare.

Utterly absent from the Penn and Stein analysis is the terrible cost and utter failure of the neoliberal policies they espouse. Clintons free-trade policies sustained by Obama racked up unprecedented trade deficits, with companies shipping good jobs abroad and driving down wages at home. Clintons fiscal austerity echoed by Obama left U.S. infrastructure decrepit and dangerous, while forgoing needed investments in education, affordable college and housing, and more. Clintons tough-on-crime agenda was catastrophic for African American men and left the United States with the highest prison population in the world.

Penn and Stein speak for a failed political establishment. The energy, ideas and activist base of the party come from the left. Sanders told 4,000 activists assembled at the Peoples Summit last month in Chicago that we have won the battle of ideas. Sanderss calls for a $15 minimum wage, a $1 trillion infrastructure investment, leading the green industrial revolution, fair taxes on the rich and corporations, tuition-free college and an end to the corporate trade regime are slowly becoming staples in the party consensus. Medicare for all is gaining ever more adherents. Even Penn and Stein move to embrace fair trade, without saying that they are abandoning a pillar of Clintons New Democrat agenda.

Sanders and Warren and the activists and movements driving this debate dont just want hollow political victories. They want what is needed to make this economy work for the vast majority, not just the few. That requires fundamental economic reforms and a political revolution, with small donors and volunteer energy challenging and eventually ending the reign of big money. Progressive groups are recruiting populist candidates up and down the ballot. They plan to challenge sitting Republicans everywhere. Conservative or corporate Democrats will increasingly face populist primary challengers.

Old party pros such as Penn and Stein dont get it. They see how unpopular Trump and the Republican Congress are, but their credibility on what to do next is shot. The populist temper of the time is rousing citizens across the country. Politics as usual wont suffice anymore.

Read more from Katrina vanden Heuvels archive or follow her on Twitter.

See original here:
The debate Democrats can't duck - Washington Post