Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Five dozen bright-eyed Democrats rode an electoral wave into the House nearly two years ago on a promise to shake up Congress and enact ambitious social reform on health care, climate policy and immigration. They were younger, more female, less wealthy and less white than any previous freshman class.

And although these first-term representatives were noticeably more outspoken and defiant than their predecessors culminating in President Donald Trump's impeachment they face reelection with no major legislative achievement to their credit. The 116th Congress is on pace to enact the fewest number of laws in recent history.

"Our mark is more institutional than it is legislative," said Rep. Katie Porter, one of seven Democrats from California elected in 2018. She said the impact of the 2018 class had yet to be fully seen. "Changing the institution to make it work better will ultimately produce better legislation."

Though some freshman lawmakers succeeded in pushing through narrow bills that helped their constituents, several acknowledged their frustration at the lack of any major legislative wins.

"Results speak for themselves, and it's pretty clear there hasn't been enough progress on these issues," said Rep. Josh Harder, another first-term Democrat from California. "Obviously it's hard when you control one half of one branch of government."

At the same time, however, these new lawmakers helped reshape and redefine the traditional role of a first-term House member. They have generally been more active on social media and more engaged with their constituents than their elder statesmen. Several quickly established national profiles by speaking out on issues at hearings and in public or pushed narrow bills that helped their constituents.

Though they've largely eschewed corporate PAC money, several became mammoth fundraisers by focusing on small-dollar donors. And when the pandemic hit, they led the calls for Zoom hearings and remote voting. Harder hosted a drive-thru town hall.

"C-SPAN has never been more popular," quipped Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., who was elected by her colleagues to act as co-president of the 2018 freshman class.

First-term House members also point to their defense of the Affordable Care Act and efforts to hold Trump accountable as important parts of their legacy.

The 2018 Democratic takeover of the House ended GOP efforts to repeal the 2010 health care law, although it is under threat of elimination in a lawsuit set to be taken up by the Supreme Court in November.

Late last year, the House impeached the president for soliciting Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election and obstructing Congress' investigation.

But outside of legislation to address the coronavirus pandemic and keep the government funded, this Congress has enacted 175 bills so far, according to GovTrack.

That figure will certainly rise by the end of 2020, but there is little chance the 116th Congress will surpass the last record low in recent history 284 bills passed during the 112th Congress that ended in 2012, when tea party conservatives and Republicans controlled the House during the Obama administration.

"They struck me as freshman lawmakers learning the ropes," said Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. "I didn't see a revolution or unique freshman class fingerprints on congressional operation."

Though stymied by the GOP-led Senate from realizing major reforms, House Democrats on their own approved several largely symbolic bills to address prescription drug prices, immigration, climate change, gun policy, LGBTQ equality and voting rights.

There was no real negotiation between Republicans and Democrats Trump and Pelosi have an almost nonexistent relationship except in the most dire situations, such as funding the government and enacting coronavirus relief measures. Even those have been exceedingly difficult.

"There would be compromise if we agreed on the goals," said Rep. TJ Cox, a California Democrat. "We don't agree on the goals."

Voters appear to be nonplussed about the lack of major legislative wins by the new House Democratic majority. Polls show that even many of the freshman who were elected in Republican-leaning districts and were once thought to be vulnerable are expected to win reelection. Democrats could even expand their majority in the House.

Of the seven Democrats from California elected for the first time in 2018, only three Cox, Rep. Gil Cisneros and Rep. Harley Rouda are facing hotly competitive races. (One of the seven, Rep. Katie Hill, left office in 2019 amid the release of nude photos without her consent and allegations that she had a relationship with a congressional staffer. Republican Rep. Mike Garcia was elected to the seat.)

If Democrats take control of the White House and Senate this fall, the next two years will be the real test of House Democrats' effectiveness in enacting legislation and their political longevity, particularly after two years dominated by a historic government shutdown, impeachment, a pandemic and a national reckoning on race.

Democrats will be eager to quickly capitalize on their majority to move on major legislation. But the political fissures that emerged this year between the moderate and progressive ends of the House Democratic caucus are likely to grow when legislation becomes more realistic. Many of the major policy bills the House passed this year such as those addressing gun control, immigration and prescription drug reform were messaging bills because the House knew the GOP-controlled Senate would never take them up.

"It's easier to vote along party lines if it's not going anywhere," Rouda said, adding he might have voted differently on some of them had they had a chance of becoming law.

Several first-year lawmakers took an outsize public role over the last two years, becoming some of the most well-known members of Congress outside of leadership. Four young female members of color Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar became known as "the squad." They drew rebukes from Trump and were among the freshmen most willing to buck Democratic leadership in public votes or private meetings.

Another group of lawmakers with national security experience, including Cisneros, wrote a Washington Post op-ed article detailing why the House should impeach the president, a pivotal moment in the Democrats' decision to go forward with impeachment.

Porter, with her now-trademark whiteboard, became known as one of the most successful questioners in Congress for putting corporate executives or government officials, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director, Robert Redfield, through a public grilling.

"There a lot of members of the freshman class that don't hold anything back," Cisneros said.

But while much of the public attention focused on the progressive newcomers, behind the scenes Pelosi and Democratic leaders worked to protect the more moderate freshmen, who rode dissatisfaction with Trump in the midterm to wrest away formerly GOP districts. These more politically vulnerable members had perhaps even more of an influence on the direction of House Democrats in the last two years.

Although progressives were eager to move articles of impeachment sooner, Pelosi didn't move forward until the more moderate Democrats were on board. The House hasn't had a floor vote on the Green New Deal or "Medicare for All" measures that progressives want to advance but that would put moderate Democrats in a tough squeeze.

Many of the moderates, dubbed "front-liners," were set up by Democratic leadership to succeed by putting them on high-profile committees or having them chair subcommittees. Several front-line freshman members got at least one minor bill signed into law an important accomplishment to tout at home.

Rep. Mike Levin, a California Democrat and chairman of a subcommittee on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has focused away from the high-profile fights and drilled down instead on bipartisan bills to reform veteran housing vouchers and training programs.

"If you just kind of look at the national narrative of what happens here," he said, "I wouldn't blame you for thinking that we're not getting much done and that the whole place is overrun by gridlock."

Harder spent months on a bill to help California eradicate nutria semi-aquatic rodents that destroy wetlands and can damage water infrastructure, as they did in the Central Valley. He even carried a taxidermic swamp rat around the Capitol as a prop. The bill is now waiting for Trump to sign it into law.

Said Harder: "You really can do a lot of good, if you focus on issues that are important but no one else is leading the charge on."

(c)2020 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

PHOTOS (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194): CONGRESS-2018-CLASS

To see what else is happening in Gallatin County subscribe to the online paper.

Original post:
Young, outspoken and diverse, the 2018 House class began with high hopes. Did it deliver? - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Senate Democrats were stuck.

There was never much they could do to sidetrack the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court.

They could complain about the process, contending Republicans went back on their word.

They could blame their favorite foil.

(Senate Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell is angry. Why? Because we Democrats have exposed that he has defiled the Senate as an institution, more than any other person in this generation, thundered Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

LISA MURKOWSKI ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR AMY CONEY BARRETT DURING RARE SATURDAY SENATE SESSION

They could invoke the ghost of Merrick Garland.

Democrats could cite Senate precedent.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett Oct. 21, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool via AP)

They could talk aboutlooming Supreme Court cases on Obamacare and Roe v. Wade.

But sometimes in politics, you just cant tip the field in your direction. The odds simply arent in your favor.

Such was the case with Barrett.

Barretts confirmation hearing came and went. Nothing nefarious arose about her past.

MCCONNELL TEES UP FLOOR VOTE ON AMY CONEY BARRETT NOMINATION AFTER SCHUMER ATTEMPTS DELAY TACTIC

Thats notable. Not because its Barrett. But just because thats the way things just seem to go down on Capitol Hill.

Weve had other charges arise just after a Supreme Court confirmation hearing concludes. Consider the allegations leveled by law professor Anita Hill at Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. That came after Thomass hearings wrapped up.

An eerily similar scenario unfolded in 2018 with now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Allegations from Christine Blasey Ford also emerged after Kavanaughs hearings were complete.

But Barrett is hurtling toward confirmation.

And theres nothing Democrats can do about it.

There probably never was.

Democrats were hamstrung both by choice and circumstances.

Progressives railed at Democrats. They raged at Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for appearing too deferential toward Barrett. And, way too conciliatory toward Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Grahams locked in a tight battle to hold his seat against Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison. Many Democrats hold particular enmity for Graham lashing out at the left during the Kavanaugh hearing two years ago. Thats to say nothing of Grahams transmogrification from a Never Trumper back in 2015 to the presidents golf buddy.

Thats why some on the left would have preferred a political brawl over Barrett.

Nothing crystallized that left-wing groups viewed as wrong with the Barrett confirmation process. Feinstein hugged Graham perhaps drawing the ire not only from NARAL on political grounds, but from health experts on pandemic grounds.

AMY CONEY BARRETT CONFIRMATION: WHAT TO EXPECT IN THE SENATE OVER THE NEXT FOUR DAYS

This is one of the best sets of hearings that Ive participated in, Feinstein complimented Graham.

Now some liberal groups want to strip Feinstein of her seniority on the committee. If Democrats win the Senate this fall, Feinstein is poised to become the first female chair of the Judiciary panel. But some on the left would prefer replacing her with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., or even Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Leahy used to lead the Judiciary and has the most seniority of any senator.

Its not unheard of for the Senate to sideline senior lawmakers from a chairmanship. But thats usually due to health concerns.

Unseating Feinstein would be messy.

Schumer was terse when asked about Feinsteins future.

Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference after boycotting the vote by the Republican-led panel to advance the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the Supreme Court, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2020, at the Capitol in Washington, as other Democratic committee members look on. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Ive had a long and serious talk with Sen. Feinstein, Schumer said about concerns of her stewardship on the Judiciary panel. Thats all Im going to say about it right now.

Democrats frankly dont want to rock the boat at this stage. Theyre content with their standing in the polls just before the election. Despite a push from the left, Senate Democrats feared Barretts hearings could devolve into a melee. They didnt want anything mirroring the 2018 cage match to confirm Kavanaugh.

They also worried about how a raucous hearing could impact Democratic vice presidential nominee and Judiciary member Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

So Democrats pulled the political and parliamentary levers they had.

LIBERAL GROUP CALLS FOR FEINSTEIN TO STAND DOWN FROM JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROLE AFTER GRAHAM HUG

They boycotted a committee vote to send Barretts nomination to the floor. In place of senators, Democrats left gigantic cardboard cutouts of constituents with health care stories in their seats in the committee room. The Democratic side of the dais resembled the third base mezzanine at Citi Field, adorned with picture cutouts of Mets fans.

The boycott today, frankly, is a stunt to appease the left-wing, activist base thats angry, said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Theyre angry that the Democrats are not able to stop this nomination.

But Cruz was wrong. The Democrats stunts did nothing to mollify the left.

Democrats met opposition from their own side when they attempted to conduct a socially distanced press conference on the Senate steps, explaining their committee absences. Boisterous demonstrators some decked out in scarlet togs from The Handmaids Tale hectored Democrats as they tried to speak.

Should we just go forward? asked Schumer over the din.

I wonder if its going to stop, said Feinstein.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.,tried to reason with the activists but got nowhere.

You showed up and legitimized the process, shouted one protester.

This division is emblematic of problems which could await Democrats should Joe Biden win the White House and Democrats capture the Senate. Theres a growing schism between liberal and moderate Democrats. Democratic wins next month could exacerbate the division as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and others try to lug the party to the left on economic and environmental issues.

This fracture is similar to internecine fights Republicans have wrestled with since the tea party emerged in 2009. These days, mainstream GOPers have to deal with President Trump and QAnon.

But theres some Republican dissent on Barrett as well.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine,immediately expressed concerns about the Senate moving at breakneck speed to confirm any nominee so close to an election. Murkowski Saturday acknowledged she lost the fight to delaythe confirmationand would vote yes on Monday to confirm Barrett on her merits.

I oppose the process that led us to this point, but I do not hold it against her, Murkowski said.

Collins supported Kavanaugh two years ago and took heat for her decision. Collins is locked in a pitched battle for re-election this fall.

AMY CONEY BARRETT HEARINGS LEAVE REPUBLICANS PROUD, DEMOCRATS DECRYING SHAM

Murkowski opposed Kavanaugh but ultimately voted present on the nomination in 2018. That was an effort to offset an absence by Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. Daines supported Kavanaugh. But the vote fell on the same day his daughter was getting married in Montana.

There are 53 Republicans in the Senate. If Collins is a nay, that means Barretts nomination likely has a maximum of 52yeas one vote past the bare minimum necessary for confirmation

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill on Oct. 20, in Washington. (Photo by Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images)

On Friday afternoon, Schumer tried to toss one last monkey wrench into the parliamentary gearboxes. For the first time since 2010, the New York Democrat shifted the Senate into a brief, secret session. Schumer said senators should have a candid discussion about what Republicans were trying to do to confirm Barrett.

The doors to the Senate chamber were closed and locked. Cameras were turned off. Reporters and most aides were shooed out of the gallery and off the floor.

The Senate usually only meets in a secret session to consider grave national security matters or even articles of impeachment although there was no closed session in the impeachment trial of President Trump. The Senate mostly met in secret during the 1790s. Schumers maneuver was reminiscent of a 2005 tactic by then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,slipping the body into a closed session to discuss faulty intelligence which sparked the war in Iraq.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But even Schumers move for a secret session lacked impact. During the closed session, McConnell,R-Ky., simply called a vote to immediately re-open the doors. Which the Senate promptly did.

Democrats were again stuck. Their left flank is crying for more. But theres nothing they can do to derail the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.

Read the original:
Democrats, trying everything, fail to derail Amy Coney Barrett confirmation - Home - WSFX

KeyPoints

Read the PDF.

On March 27, 2020, the House of Representatives passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act via a voice vote. The bill amounted to trillions of dollars in aid for hospitals, businesses, and individuals affected by the coronavirus. An overwhelming majority of membersleft, right, and centersupported the initiative, but it was not unanimous. Rep. Justin Amash (L-MI), a Republican turned Libertarian who opposed the bill, took to Twitter to blast his former GOP colleagues for hypocrisy. Just ten years after the Tea Party movement, he wrote, Republicans in Congress are defending a $500 billion corporate welfare fund for a select group of large companies.1

Thisviewthat Republicans had betrayed their principles by supporting a large,deficit-financed relief packageis hardly the majority opinion on the right,but it is nevertheless worth asking if it is true. Just as there are noatheists in foxholes, are there no economicconservatives in a national crisis?

The answer inevitably depends on how one defines the phrase economic conservatism. As Amash understands it, it implies a commitment to minimal government involvement in the economy, regardless of the circumstances. Amashs view, while no doubt honestly held and certainly worth consideration, has never been the dominant understanding of economic conservatism in the Republican Party. And while conservativism can mean virtually anything to anybody at any point in time, there is a voluminous historical record of speeches, party platforms, and laws that clearly establishes the parameters of Republican orthodoxy on economic conservatism.

Republican economics, as we might understand it, has had a strong and consistent orientation toward business. It sees the success of American business as the key to national unity, domestic prosperity, and international security. In that view, supporting business is an essential government function. The party has never really advocated for a minimalist government but rather a government that supports private industry.

The intellectual origins of this approach stretch back to the period before the Republican Party existed, in the political philosophies of leaders such as Whig Henry Clay and Federalist Alexander Hamilton. After the collapse of the Whig Party following the Compromise of 1850, ex-Whigs in the North combined their economic policies with a free-soil approach that restricted slavery in the territories to form the Republican Party. The triumph of the Union made the free-soil position obsolete, but the party continued its commitment to Whig economics.

While the specifics of Republican policies have often changed since the Civil War, the partys core commitment to supporting business has remained consistent. Indeed, the evolution of many policy positionsfor instance, on the debate over free trade versus protectionismhas closely tracked American business changing needs. While there is no doubt a lot to criticize about the connection between the party and business interests, Republican support of the CARES Act was consistent with its historical beliefs.

Read the full report

Notes

Read more:
'Reasonable encouragement to our home industry': The Republican Party's response to the coronavirus - American Enterprise Institute

A CHARITY which suppors child health and medicine across Moray and Grampian has urged people to come together to support its work.

The ARCHIE Foundation 2020 has had a tought 2020 but insits its specialist support, staff, equipment and facilities the charity funds are too vital to put at risk.

Thats why the charity is calling on supporters to host virtual afternoon tea parties or coffee mornings through the month of November to raise funds for the charity and to increase awareness of the vital support and services it provides for local babies, children and families across the north and north east of Scotland.

The ARCHIE Foundation has been helping sick children for over two decades, funding key roles and projects at Royal Aberdeen Childrens Hospital and also in more recent years at Highland Childrens Unit and Tayside Childrens Hospital.

The charity also supports babies born too sick or too early through its Friends of the Neonatal Unit at Aberdeen Maternity Hospital and through its Grampian Child Bereavement Network the charity provides bereavement support for children who have lost a loved one.

Many families receive support from different parts of the charity at different stages in their lives.

Premature babies who start their journey in the neonatal unit often receive further treatmentand care inRoyal Aberdeen ChildrensHospitaland sadly too many children every year experience the loss of a loved one.

Community fundraising officer Emily Findlay, who herself received support from The ARCHIE Foundation as a youngster, ran her own virtual baking fundraiser during lockdown and is keen to engage the wider community in doing something similar.

I had so much fun baking cakes and even delivering full afternoon teas during lockdown! Im really keen for other people to get a taste of how fulfilling it can be to produce something amazing and through that to raise funds for a much loved local charity.

"As a team were going to host our own event on November 17 to mark World Prematurity Day and we would love to see other people doing the same either on the same date or any day in November that works for them.

If you are interested in running your own virtual afternoon tea go tohttps://archie.org/events/afternoontea/ to download your free fundraising

information pack or email hello@archie.org or call 01224 559559 for more information.

Get a digital copy of the Grampian Group editions delivered straight to your inbox every week and read the full newspaper on your desktop, phone or laptop.

Read more from the original source:
Hold a virtual afternoon tea party to raise funds for the ARCHIE Foundation - Grampian Online

In invoking One Nation, he aimed to turn the Tories rhetoric against them - though Disraeli probably didnt envisage the equal sharing of misery.

Doubly unhelpfully for advocates of Starmers strictly time-limited approach, Nicola Sturgeon has just extended Scotlands two-week circuit breaker another week.

It also didnt help that the PM was on belligerent form, taking every opportunity to kick the Khan down the road. If the Mayor of London had been a punchbag, he would have been battered to a pulp by the end of PMQs. Mr Johnson greeted even glancing references to TfL or the continued closure of Hammersmith Bridge with the gung-ho enthusiasm of Master Rashford facing an open goal.

The whirling haymakers began the moment Catherine West (Labour, Lewisham East) bewailed the prospect of Congestion Tax being forced onto 4 million extra Londoners already facing the Double Whammy of Covid and financial ruin.

The Current Mayor of London had effectively bankrupted TFL before coronavirus had even hit and left a massive black hole in its finances, roared the PM, every inch the defiant general.

Any expansion of the congestion charge is entirely the responsibility of the BANKRUPT current LABOUR Mayor of London.

Any London transport-related question, however disobliging, received the same response. Over 60s deprived of free travel? Barnes residents facing a 15 a day car charge? Its all the fault of that pesky Mayor.

Sadiq-bashing is a favourite blood sport of Londonerseverywhere: played with friends, neighbours, and especially vigorously in black cabs. So these were fatally overpitched deliveries, easily knocked for six even by a batsman with a lacklustre recent average.

From then on, political jargon flooded the chamber. How can we help female grassroots sport build back better? asked one Tory MP. Another praised the PMs "commitment to doubling down on levelling up, surely the result of an office bet to see how much politician-speak could fit into a single sentence.

Was it the language, or simply the lack of any real opposition? Whatever the cause, I was reduced to despair. What should have been a massacre turned out like a tea-party. A plague on both their houses.

See the rest here:
PMQs should have been a bloodbath instead it felt more like a tea party - Telegraph.co.uk