Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Leaked Emails: Dem State Leaders Think Obama’s New Organizing Army is ‘Grade A Bullshit’ – Daily Beast

Organizing for America was supposed to complement the Democratic National Committee. Instead, Democratic leaders say, it nearly killed the Democrats.

It is difficult to overstate just how enraged state Democratic activists and leaders are with Organizing for Action (OFA), the political and community-organizing army that grew out of Barack Obamas presidential campaigns.

The nonprofit, which functions as a sort of parallel-Democratic National Committee, was founded to mobilize Democratic voters and supporters in defense of President Obamas, and the Democratic Partys, agenda. Instead, the organization has drawn the intense ire, both public and private, of grassroots organizers and state parties that are convinced that OFA inadvertently helped decimate Democrats at the state and local level, while Republicans cemented historic levels of power and Donald J. Trump actually became leader of the free world.

These intra-party tensions arent going away, especially now that OFA relaunched itself last week to protect the Affordable Care Act, boost turnout at congressional townhalls, and train grassroots organizers gearing up for the Trump era.

This is some GRADE A Bullshit right here, Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party, wrote in a private Democratic-listserv email obtained by The Daily Beast. Handwerk was reacting to news of OFAs post-election retooling, which was shared without comment to the group of state-level Dems by Crystal Kay Perkins, executive director for Texas Democrats.

It also to me seems TONE DEAFwe have lost over 1,000 seats in the past 8 years all because of this crap, Handwerk continued. Lets get through the next two weeksbut then we gotta figure this out and keep the pressure on. WOW.

Others on the thread shared these sentiments.

Yes, it sure is, Katie Mae Simpson, executive director for the Maine Democratic Party, replied. OFA showed up in Maine, organized a press conference on saving [Obamacare], with one of our Dem legislative leaders speaking, all without ever mentioning that they were in state and organizing. They hired someone I know, which is somewhat helpful, but my god, they dont have a very good alliance-building process.

Such grievances, though expressed privately, are nothing new among state Democratic Party leadership.

[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties, Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb told Politico last week.

I love and adore everything about President Obama except for OFA, South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison (who is also running to chair the Democratic National Committee) said at a recent DNC future forum, according to The Washington Post.

President Obama, himself a proud community organizer, had long been credited with leading a savvy, vigorous grassroots campaign to win the White House in 2008. However, it wasnt long after he first stepped into office before state-level Democrats all around the country began sounding the alarm that his formidable grassroots army was being left to wither and rot.

Furthermore, just days after the second inauguration of President Obama, DNC members were still loudly expressing fear that OFA ran the risk of denting the national partys fundraising and (more importantly) diverting much-needed resources and organizing power.

Too many Democrats started seeing OFA as just another boogeyman. For instance, when reached by The Daily Beast for this story, two Democratic operatives independently referred to OFA as The Devil.

If we were having a conversation about state parties, I would say OFA hurt state parties badly, Handwerk told The Daily Beast, elaborating on his leaked email. It certainly had an undercutting effort. And there is a lot of work state parties do that isnt very sexy and that becomes incredibly difficult when budgets are cut in half because people are trying to curry favor with the president and his allies.

Perkins and Simpson did not respond to interview requests for this story.

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

Handwerk, who has worked in the red state for years, says his personal experiences with OFA werent bad, per seits that they were nonexistent.

Supposedly, Louisiana has had, on paper, a state director for OFA who has been in the role for what Im told is multiple yearsnone of us know who she is, he said. She only just followed me on Twitter [four] days ago. Thats how I know who she is.

This OFA state lead is Carolyn Sawyer, who told The Daily Beast that I really have not talked with [Handwerk]. Im sure hes aware of us. Im sure theyre aware of what were doing but there doesnt seem to be an interest to come together on what were working [on].

Sawyer, who says she has been in the position since as early as 2013, contended that we have reached out to the Louisiana Democrat Party [and] would be more than happy to come together to work on issues But [as to] why he doesnt know what were doing, we havent been secret. I cant speak to that.

When asked if she was aware of the tension between the state party and OFA, she said she was not quite aware, but I do know that it exists.

After Obama handily won re-election in 2012, Handwerk says that OFA came to town to present Louisiana Dems with a gameplan. The outside group was purportedly ready to send organizers down south, to help prop up and like-minded people in deep-red areas.

They told us this, so many of us didnt see them as a threat, Handwerk said.

Obamas second term passed, and Louisiana Democrats say they saw promises unfulfilled.

Nothing has really been done here, the executive director lamented. I have not seen any real evidence of OFA doing any real work, certainly not here in Louisiana.

Talk to Democrats across state lines, and you hear similar stories. I was never a fan of OFA, Marcel Groen, chairman for Pennsylvania Democrats said, tersely.

The decimation of the Democratic Party during, and leading up to, the Age of Trump is not, however, any single organizations fault. The DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign raised many times more money than OFA for the 2016 cycle, and that didnt stop President Trump, either.

To the defeated and angry liberal activists and operatives, OFA is just one of several devilsone that is emblematic of large-scale institutional problems.

Weve seen over the last eight-plus years a deterioration of permanent state infrastructure, one red-state Democratic operative, who requested anonymity, said. And OFA built an alternative infrastructure that was very top-down. OFAs actions were wasteful, duplicative, and it made no sense There were these tensions on the ground that we saw that all over the country. Local officials felt tossed aside. A lot of these red states were abandoned. The OFA model was never a 50-state strategyit was about the presidents agenda.

When asked if there was much confidence in the newly rebooted OFA, the operative simply said, Its like seeing an ex-girlfriend show up.

Members of OFA would, of course, strongly disagree with such assessments, and are quick to point to their track record during presidential races.

OFA is focused on investing in grassroots organizing nationwidewere engaging people who have never been involved before, connecting them to others in their communities, and empowering them to realize their own ability to enact change, Jesse Lehrich, OFA communications director, told The Daily Beast in an email. Building this kind of well-trained network of volunteers who can mobilize to win fights on key issues boosts the progressive movement in both the short and long term. Just look at Obamacare: OFA volunteers are organizing with their fellow constituents to ensure lawmakers hear exactly whats at stake for them if the law is repealed, and the tide is rapidly turning.

Also, OFA isnt completely without defenders at the state level. David Pepper, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, told The Daily Beast that the best thing a reeling Democratic Party can do right now is not censure OFA, but learn from its victories.

The president created something that did really good organizingit won states we otherwise would not have won, Pepper said. My attitude is learn everything there is to learn from its incredible successes. For state parties, we should mimic what made it so strong However, the strength of parties has obviously eroded because too much emphasis has been put on building out other organizations. In some ways, I think OFA becomes something of a scapegoat for the erosion of state parties.

And as Democrats struggle to navigate the uncharted, treacherous terrain of the Trump years, Obamas one time grassroots juggernaut will be right there fighting alongside them. Now, its a matter of the group convincing a host of skeptical progressives that it can still be a worthy ally.

I dont know what the mission is with the new OFA, what the purpose is supposed to be, Jaime Harrison told The Daily Beast. There are a lot of these various [outside] groups and if having all these other groups means diminishing the impact of state parties, thats where I have a problem. We need to figure out the best path forward. Now, that doesnt necessarily mean a world without OFA, but we have to focus on rebuilding the party across the board, not just focusing on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Read more:
Leaked Emails: Dem State Leaders Think Obama's New Organizing Army is 'Grade A Bullshit' - Daily Beast

Military Aircraft Delivers Obama Belongings to Chicago – NBC Chicago (blog)

NEWSLETTERS Receive the latest ward-room updates in your inbox

A military C-5 aircraft arrived in Chicago Thursday morning, bringing with it a shipment of former President Barack Obamas belongings.

A source exclusively told NBC 5 the artifacts will be sent to storage and eventually end up in the Obama Presidential Center.

The plane arrived about 9:30 a.m. in Chicago.

The former president visited Chicago on Wednesday, the first time since he left office, and held meetings with community leaders and others involved in the Obama Foundation.

The former president was seen Wednesday in photos on social media in Chicago.

The source said Obama was staying in the city through Thursday, noting the "library is a priority."

Valerie Jarrett told the Chicago Sun-Times the president is eager to hear suggestions from community members to bring opportunities to the area.

Obama also is about to begin a major fundraising effort for the new presidential center and all that will come with it: an event complex, library and museum.

Published 6 hours ago | Updated 4 hours ago

See more here:
Military Aircraft Delivers Obama Belongings to Chicago - NBC Chicago (blog)

Senate votes to undo Obama-era rule that limits gun access – TheBlaze.com

The Senate voted this week toundo an Obama-era rule that conservatives have argued unduly limitstheSecondAmendment right to keep and bear arms.

In December 2016, former President Barack Obamas White House issued a rule requiring the Social Security Administration to report anyone needing third-party assistance to manage their Social Security benefits to be placed intheNational Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would bar them from purchasing a firearm.

A rule, put in place by former President Barack Obama in December 2016, requires the Social Security Administration to report anyone needing assistance to manage their Social Security benefits because ofsubnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease be added to theNational Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which would bar them from purchasing a firearm.

A similar rule was first considered following the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, but the rulewas not actually implemented until the final year of the Obama administration.

It was determined in 2014, according to The New York Times, that shooter Adam Lanza suffered from severe psychiatric ailments that went completely untreated in the years before the shooting because his mother, who was fatally shot during the attack,failed to heed calls from Yale University medical experts about his mental health.

While Democrats have argued the rule is necessary to preventmentally unstable individuals from having access to guns, Republicans argue that the rule is a pretext to restrict SecondAmendment rights.

This regulation unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said this week, according to the Washington Examiner. If the regulation is not repealed, it will allow the agency to very unfairly deprive Social Security recipients of their Second Amendment rights.

This is essentially a national gun ban list, he added.

Grassleyandother Republicans in Congress, have argued that the Obama-era rule is too vague and wrongly preventscertain people from owning or purchasing a gun. And the National Rifle Association supports cutting the controversial rule.

Ina largely party-line vote on Wednesday, the Senate voted 57-43 to nix the rule following a similarly party-line vote 235-180 in the House of Representatives earlier this month, theExaminer reported.

In 2015, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), who voted to overturn the Obama mandate, said in a statement that he was against an SSA ruleongun ownership because it isa blatant infringementon the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Three other Democratic senators North Dakotas Heidi Heitkamp, Indianas Joe Donnelly and Montanas Jon Tester and MaineSen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, voted with the Republicans.

Democrats argued against the vote, noting that the SSA rule allows those who feel theyve been incorrectly placed in NICS to appeal the decision. Anyone who thinks that they have been unfairly affected can appeal, and the likelihood is substantial that they are going to win, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said.

However, given Republicans control both the House and the Senate, the Congressional Review Act made it possible for conservatives to walk backthe last-minute Obama regulation. The Act allows Congress to shoot down recently imposed regulations if majorities in both chambers agree and if the president signs the resolution.

The resolution is now on its way to the White House. Should President Donald Trump sign it, the Obama-era rule will be immediately voided.

Read the original post:
Senate votes to undo Obama-era rule that limits gun access - TheBlaze.com

No NCAA Bracket for Trump, but How Good, Really, Were Obama’s? – New York Times


New York Times
No NCAA Bracket for Trump, but How Good, Really, Were Obama's?
New York Times
After eight years of Barack Obama gamely filling out an N.C.A.A. tournament bracket, President Trump has declined to make picks this year. The president respectfully declined, ESPN said in a statement. Andy Katz of ESPN basketball told The Washington ...
Trump is asked to keep Obama tradition by filling out NCAA Tournament bracket. Here's his reply.TheBlaze.com
Trump ends Obama's 'March Madness' legacy, will not fill out NCAA tournament bracketAOL News
Trump Ends A Recent Tradition Established By ObamaDaily Caller

all 79 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
No NCAA Bracket for Trump, but How Good, Really, Were Obama's? - New York Times

What About Whataboutism? Does It Matter If Obama Did It First? – National Review

Weve heard a lot of Republicans and conservatives respond to criticism of President Trump by pointing to things President Obama did. And the liberal/progressive-pundit buzzword du jour for this is whataboutism i.e., the idea that its illegitimate to cite Obama as a defense to criticisms of Trump, even in arguments with people who defended or praised similar conduct by Obama. Does it matter that Obama did it first?

As a matter of right and wrong, or on a question of constitutional principle, the answer obviously is no. If Obama did something first, that doesnt make it right. Indeed, for those of us who see the Obama presidency as a disaster for national security, small government, religious and economic liberty, separation of powers, and the rule of law, the fact that Obama did something first makes it more likely that it was wrong. For example, Obama claimed the right to effectively legalize millions of illegal immigrants by unilateral executive fiat as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. This was a gravely dangerous incursion of presidential power into lawmaking powers that the Constitution properly gave to Congress. President Trump has no similar power if he has the power to issue things like his executive order on refugees, he needs to identify when and how Congress gave him that authority (which is exactly the argument made for that order, insofar as it is temporary in nature). To pick another example, conservatives rightly blasted Obama for picking economic winners and losers and taking a corporatist view of the economy. Boondoggles like Trumps Carrier deal cant be defended on the grounds that they are Obama-like; thats the problem with them.

But there are a number of other ways in which looking back at the Obama years is quite relevant.

First, some controversies are entirely about what is normal, typical, or unprecedented in the conduct of the president or the federal government. That was especially clear during the transition. For example, there was an enormous hue and cry about Trump taking down sections of the White House website on particular issues; in fact, his team wiped clean all the Obama-era policy content on the site, moving it to an archived site. But thats exactly the same thing Obama did on taking office. Theres no moral or political principle at stake, just the claim that Trump was doing something unprecedented and it turned out he wasnt. What about Obama was the central issue.

Second, there is the question of radicalism. Much of the Resist movement among Democrats and liberals (including the view that Trump should not even be entitled to fill a Cabinet) is premised upon the idea that Trump represents a truly unprecedented break with how our government operates. Certainly, this is true of Trumps biography, his business empire, his use of Twitter, and of a lot of his behavior on the campaign trail. Aspects of his press shops contempt for the media and the truth have also broken new ground.

But many of the supposedly radical and dangerous acts by Trump and the Trump Administration turn out not to be such dramatic breaks with the Obama Administration, for good or ill. As Ive detailed before, critics have overstated how Trumps refugee order differs from Obama-era refugee policies (all the way down to Obamas Administration having singled out the same list of seven countries for heightened scrutiny over terrorist risks under the visa waiver program). Its fair to argue that both have been seriously misguided or that Trump has gone a step too far, but the context of knowing what the existing policy already was is important. Likewise, the argument that Trump is engaging in an unprecedented assault on the independence of the judiciary falls apart when you look at Obamas record of public attacks on the Supreme Court. In that case, both Trump and Obama are in the wrong, but the Rubicon was crossed under the last Administration.

Third, theres the matter of who caused a problem. Traditionally, most every president blames his predecessor for nearly everything when he first arrives in the office, and traditionally, the voters have the patience to accept this excuse for roughly the first year. That tendency goes beyond the presidency or government, as illustrated by the old prepare two envelopes joke. And presidents typically use what we inherited as a bar for measuring accomplishments after that. On the other hand, it becomes a crutch to keep just blaming every failure on the last guy, as Obama tended to do with Bush all the way to the very end. Its fair and appropriate, for now, to notice which problems are not of Trumps own making. But eventually, that will become a lame excuse.

Fourth, theres the question of hypocrisy and media double standards. It is more than fair to note that people outraged at Trump had nothing at all to say about similar actions or statements by Obama, or celebrated them, or mocked his critics (and incumbent on conservatives, as well, to criticize things that we found genuinely troubling about Obama). For example, lots of liberals spent October 2016 lecturing us about how the worst, most un-American thing anyone could do is call into question the result of an election they should not be able to memory-hole that now when doing precisely that. This is just one of a long list of categorical value statements trotted out by liberal pundits over the years that are forgotten as soon as they become inconvenient, from denouncing anyone who questions the patriotism of political opponents to arguing for compartmentalization. An adversarial system of punditry is necessary in order to remind people how little of this stuff is sincere.

A two-party system ensures that the shoe will often be switched to the other foot. Sometimes, its true, switching feet will make you change your mind about what the rules of the road should be, but reminding people where they stood the day before yesterday is a healthy way to encourage long-term consistency and punish nakedly hypocritical opportunism.

Continued here:
What About Whataboutism? Does It Matter If Obama Did It First? - National Review