Tag: Dem

  • Biden stops the Dem bedwetting … for now

    Biden stops the Dem bedwetting … for now

    [ad_1]

    It wasn’t only that the 80-year-old, gaffe-prone president had avoided any serious misstep. It was that Biden showed he was up for a fight and, frankly, had a few uppercuts left in him.

    “The energy of the speech, particularly the joyful jousting with the Republican hecklers, was a powerful rejoinder to those who question his mental acuity,” said David Axelrod, the former Barack Obama adviser, and someone not prone to hold back on Biden skepticism. “The speech,” he added, gave “Democrats a messaging road map.”

    For months, uneasiness among Democrats about the president had centered on fears that it would be much harder for him to run in 2024 against any younger, less objectionable Republican nominee than Donald Trump.

    But in his sparring with heckling House members Tuesday evening, Biden demonstrated that there was an entire constellation of Republicans beyond the former president whom he could turn into a foil. Doing so had long been the plan of Biden’s advisers, but watching it actually happen in front of one of his largest audiences in recent memory was a different dynamic entirely.

    “It doesn’t have to be Trump being the boorish rude jerk if the rest of them are doing the work for him,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of the center-left group Third Way.

    One day after the State of the Union, Bennett said, “It’s a good day to be a Biden Democrat.”

    That one evening could provide such profound relief and zest is a testament to the psyche of the Democratic Party. By most measures, Biden has proven to be one of the most effective Democrats in modern history: defeating a sitting incumbent, enacting historic legislation and scoring major midterm victories even while his approval rating hovered in the low 40s. And yet, the party — as it is wont to do — laments.

    Members are concerned about Biden’s age. And they note that despite his successes, he is still with major liabilities. Few Americans — just about three in 10 — think the country is heading in the right direction. According to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll this week, just 37 percent of Democrats want Biden to run for re-election.

    That’s hardly a vote of confidence. In a preview of how Republicans will go after him, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in her GOP response to the State of the Union, cast Biden as an aged creature of the “woke” left.

    But it was the GOP’s uprising in the House chamber that offered Biden a contrast that Democrats were still reveling in hours later.

    “If [House Speaker Kevin] McCarthy had better control over his caucus, which he doesn’t, he would have prevented the caucus from walking right into the president’s hands,” said Julie Roginsky, a Democratic strategist and former top adviser to New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy. “But when you have Marjorie Taylor Greene becoming the story of the Republican opposition, much more so than Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who gave the actual rebuttal, that can only benefit the White House.”

    For Biden’s allies, Tuesday evening wasn’t a revelation so much as an affirmation of their long-held belief: that the party worries too much and too often about him and can’t seem to accept that he’s been a success.

    “He’s the master of lowering expectations and then clearing them by a mile,” said one Democrat close to the White House. “Whether that’s the press or Republicans lowering the bar for him, when it matters he just keeps knocking it out of the park. It’s something you can’t teach. You can only claim luck so many times. It’s working. It’s just working for him.”

    Biden’s goading of Republicans on Social Security and Medicare on Tuesday night (getting them to publicly take cuts to the programs off the table) was, for many party allies, the evening’s crowning achievement. It amounted to what Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called a “brilliant master class.” Bennett said Biden “set a trap and the Republicans walked right into it. It was incredible.”

    And yet, even in a moment of triumph, caveats abound. The bar for Biden on Tuesday was extraordinarily low, and the State of the Union is a controlled environment designed to benefit a sitting president. The afterglow, the concern went, may not last very long.

    “These speeches,” Axelrod said, “have a limited half-life, time marches on and the issue of age won’t disappear. He’s going to have to continue to bring it, as he did last night.”

    House Republicans certainly weren’t eager to dwell on the night that was. They moved quickly on Wednesday to hearings on the Hunter Biden laptop incident, hoping to reorient Washington D.C.’s focus. The GOP’s presidential primary, once it begins in earnest, will do more to define the Democrats’ opposition in 2024 than any off-year State of the Union speech.

    Democrats, too, may not remain as sanguine. In a divided Congress, much of Biden’s high-profile legislative agenda is unlikely to pass, and the glow of Tuesday night may soon turn to restlessness.

    Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the Bernie Sanders-aligned group Our Revolution, said the president had missed an opportunity to “up the ante” on Republicans by threatening to govern more on a range of issues by executive action.

    But as a table-setting address for Biden’s likely re-election campaign, Tuesday could hardly have gone better.

    “People continually underestimate Joe Biden,” said Kelly Dietrich, a former Democratic fundraiser and founder of the National Democratic Training Committee, which trains candidates across the country. “I know people worry about him being too old, but he’s crushing this job right now.”

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #stops #Dem #bedwetting
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Klobuchar rising: Leadership path opens for Minnesota Dem

    Klobuchar rising: Leadership path opens for Minnesota Dem

    [ad_1]

    After rising quietly but steadily since dropping out of the White House hunt nearly three years ago to endorse President Joe Biden, Klobuchar now chairs the Senate Rules Committee and, as chief of the Democratic Steering Committee, sits fourth in the leadership hierarchy. The 62-year-old could keep testing how big her internal clout can get within the Democratic caucus.

    Or she could once again test the national stage as a relatively centrist problem-solver in a progressive-heavy field in four years, and vie to succeed Biden as the party’s national standard-bearer. The caucus is already abuzz about who will replace retiring No. 3 Democratic leader Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Klobuchar’s possible ascension to that spot, according to a person briefed on internal conversations.

    Ultimately, the succession plan is mostly up to Schumer. And he praised Klobuchar in a statement for this story without tipping his hand: “Amy has an amazing sense of the confluence of policy, press, and politics.”

    Approached in the Capitol, Klobuchar declined an interview request for this story. Her spokesperson Jane Meyer said in a statement: “There is always a lot of gossip in the hallways of Congress. I can tell you 100 percent that the senator is focused on one and only one thing: her work.”

    Stabenow’s impending departure will offer ambitious, younger Senate Democrats a new opportunity to gain power in the party. Yet if Klobuchar has any designs on running for president again, perhaps in 2028 when the Democratic nomination is expected to be open, she may demur from rising further within Hill leadership.

    One Senate Democrat said Klobuchar has “all the credentials and leadership skills” to continue climbing if she wants to.

    “My view of it would be, which path are you going to choose? My sense is that the legislative leadership path is not consistent with presidential ambition,” the senator said, addressing the matter on condition of anonymity. “I think she does [look at the White House]. That’s just my gut.”

    Klobuchar also has developed a policy profile that stands out in the Democratic Party. She’s championed a stringent tech antitrust bill, though Schumer declined to bring it up under a unified Democratic government the last two years and it faces an uncertain fate under the current divided government.

    Her Rules committee also moved a bipartisan proposal to modernize the 19th-century Electoral Count Act last Congress, a bill that ultimately became the only post-Jan. 6 reform to become law. That legislative success relied on her strong relationship with then-Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), at the time her GOP counterpart. And Klobuchar maintains tight relationships with Republicans; on Monday she introduced a campaign finance enforcement bill with Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.).

    “Sen. Klobuchar is very respected within the caucus for her strategic sense, and for her grasp of how to communicate with Americans … people value that skill set. Her fundraising capacity is maybe underrated a little bit, but it’s definitely there,” said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.). “She brings a lot to the caucus in that way.”

    Klobuchar’s next sequential move in leadership would be ascending to the post currently held by Stabenow, who runs the Democratic Policy and Communications Center. That post, leading the caucus’ central clearinghouse for messaging, served as the springboard for Schumer to become Democratic leader. Stabenow declined to comment on who succeeds her, and said she’s “got two more years of robustly and effectively leading” the center.

    Above Stabenow is Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has been whip since 2005, next faces reelection in 2026 and has faced no challenges in recent years. Durbin declined to address the leadership team’s future in a brief interview, saying only: “Nice try.”

    Leadership’s other positions are more fluid in the hierarchy: Stabenow was the No. 4 leader until Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) left Schumer’s team to join the presidential line of succession as president pro tempore, and became No. 3 leader while maintaining the same DPCC chairmanship.

    Seniority matters more in Congress for Democrats than it does in the GOP, where term limits create more turnover in leadership and in committee chairmanships. And it’s unclear if any of the current Democrats on Schumer’s expanded leadership team would be an heir apparent to the current majority leader, who at 72 could easily try to stay on for years to come.

    That means Klobuchar isn’t the only senator charting a new course since the 2020 primaries nominated Biden and scattered the rest of the party’s rising stars. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) are both running for congressional reelection, with Warren serving as a leading pragmatic progressive and Gillibrand bearing down on her signature issue of military justice.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) now chairs the influential Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and is also weighing whether to run again. And Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), another of Biden’s 2020 primary foes, is the vice chair of Stabenow’s messaging panel.

    In an interview, Booker said he feels “blessed” to be on the leadership team but isn’t thinking about whether he or — someone else like Klobuchar — might succeed Stabenow.

    “It’s two years until we face that question,” he said.

    [ad_2]
    #Klobuchar #rising #Leadership #path #opens #Minnesota #Dem
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • House Dem laments ‘friendly fire’ after losing a plum panel seat

    House Dem laments ‘friendly fire’ after losing a plum panel seat

    [ad_1]

    capitol riot democrats danger 62323

    A Jeffries spokesperson noted that Quigley had already served for four full terms on the Intelligence Committee, but otherwise declined to comment.

    The Intelligence Committee limits members to four terms on the panel, though members can receive waivers. Chairs and ranking members are exempt from the term limit.

    Quigley’s exit also follows that of several other senior Intelligence Committee Democrats due to retirement or election to higher office, such as Reps. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.). That turnover is leading some Democrats to worry about a loss of expertise — among them former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), spotted speaking to Jeffries on the House floor Wednesday evening about the need to maintain institutional knowledge on the panel through its longer-serving members like Quigley.

    Asked Wednesday about Quigley, Pelosi said she “thought there was still an opportunity” for him to serve on the panel.

    Another wrinkle to Quigley’s intelligence panel departure stems from Jeffries’ ascension atop the caucus. Quigley had privately backed Schiff when he was sounding out a potential leadership bid that would have pitted him against Jeffries, prompting some Democrats to theorize that Quigley’s removal from the committee was linked to leadership maneuvering. Schiff ultimately decided against running for leadership in favor of pursuing a Senate bid, and Jeffries ran unopposed for minority leader.

    As the minority party, Democrats’ allotted number of seats on the committee shrank, forcing tough choices about appointments to the sought-after panel. To replace departing members, a half-dozen Democrats were added to the Intelligence Committee, including Reps. Ami Bera of California, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, though several members of the panel who’d served on it in previous Congresses returned, including Reps. Andre Carson of Indiana and Joaquin Castro of Texas.

    [ad_2]
    #House #Dem #laments #friendly #fire #losing #plum #panel #seat
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Omar, now a Dem unifier, faces down her GOP critics

    Omar, now a Dem unifier, faces down her GOP critics

    [ad_1]

    20230131 omar 2 francis 2

    With what she sees as some of her most important work on the Hill under threat, Omar’s fellow Democrats are rallying around her and looking past the previous controversies, including members who once criticized her for remarks on Israel and U.S. foreign policy. No longer a fresh-faced new member, she’s formed alliances with powerful players and groups who are ready to jump to her defense. Asked about her Democratic support in a Tuesday interview with POLITICO, Omar responded with the advice she said her father used to give: “It’s hard to hate up close.”

    It’s clear that Omar sees the Foreign Affairs panel as more than just a committee position. The assignment is personal, given her background as a Black Muslim woman whose family had fled the Somali Civil War. After bearing firsthand witness to the impact of the Cold War on U.S. policy in Africa, she said, she even campaigned on wanting to be on the panel — making her one of the few lawmakers to do so besides a former chair, Eliot Engel.

    After coming to the U.S. admiring the country’s ideals, Omar said, her goal was to “make sure those values and ideals are actually being lived out in the policies that we put forth and the ways in which we carry out those policies, and that they don’t just remain a myth.”

    And the fight to keep her spot has become personal, too. Controversy over her past comments has aimed a deluge of invectives, abuse and even death threats at the high-profile progressive. Just before the interview Tuesday, her office received a phone call unpleasant enough that a staffer politely ended the call within seconds of picking up.

    “This isn’t about reprimand. This isn’t about accountability, because I’ve held myself accountable,” she said.

    Fellow “squad” member Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) attributed the rush to boot Omar to fellow lawmakers making snap judgments based on sound bites or tweets before getting to know her personally, describing an unwillingness to “get the context to understand the person, meet the person and know the person.”

    “But I think that since she’s been here, people have been able to see who she is, and to understand her position better,” Bush said.

    If Republicans do prevail in Wednesday’s vote to remove Omar from her Foreign Affairs perch, she said she worries about it further dividing the panel — injecting more partisan politics into an area that typically requires more cross-party unity on both policy and bipartisan trips abroad.

    Her Republican counterpart on the Africa subpanel, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) has been publicly noncommittal on how he’ll vote on the removal resolution, and she observed that when Democrats eventually retake the House, “I will have the gavel, and they will end up being my ranking, and that changes the dynamic and the relationship.”

    Meanwhile, Democrats have been trying to lobby their Republican colleagues to support Omar. New York Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the party’s top member on the Foreign Affairs panel, said some Republicans had privately indicated to him they wished the whole issue would just “go away” because they didn’t actually want to vote to remove her, though the New Yorker declined to identify whom.

    Omar too said she had been talking with “a few” Republicans about her panel assignment, but she also declined to name the members.

    And she’s not alone in her fight, drawing from strong wells of support both within the Congressional Black Caucus and among previously critical Democrats. She’s been spotted having intense, one-on-one conversations during votes this week with some of Democrats’ strongest Israel proponents, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), and had a long hallway conversation with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who’s long helped lead an annual tour to Israel.

    “I think we’re rallying around her like we would any member,” said Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), who as Black Caucus chair last Congress made a point of building bridges with the group’s more liberal members like Omar.

    Then there’s Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), who’d condemned Omar’s rhetoric in previous rounds of controversy in what he said “now seems like forever ago.” But in this case, he added, “to politicize the committee assignments is something I think either side shouldn’t be doing. It should be based on current actions and current deeds.”

    Republicans, on the other hand, are projecting confidence they’ll be able to round up the votes in the end. And there are some positive signs for GOP leaders — Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), who’d previously opposed removing Omar from Foreign Affairs, signaled on Tuesday she was open to changing her mind. The House Rules Committee took up a resolution to remove Omar from the panel Tuesday evening, with a vote expected on Wednesday.

    The GOP is citing Omar’s previous comments that appeared to lean into antisemitic tropes as the reason it’s moving to force her off the Foreign Affairs Committee. Certain tweets not long after she came to Congress had even enraged some of her fellow Democrats, though she deleted the posts and has apologized.

    She also drew a conservative backlash for comments in 2019 about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which she said Republican critics have taken out of context. She also quickly clarified and apologized two years later for comments on war crimes that appeared to compare the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban.

    And she’s plainly frustrated that Republicans have forcibly compared her with Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), two conservatives Democrats removed from committees last Congress with some GOP support in response to incendiary rhetoric aimed at fellow lawmakers. She’s aggressively made the case that her situation is entirely different.

    “I would love for this to be an actual debate. But it’s a smear, it is an attack, and to me in many ways it feels like it’s McCarthyism that’s being carried out by the new McCarthy,” she said.

    Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.



    [ad_2]
    #Omar #Dem #unifier #faces #GOP #critics
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Rebranding rift guts Blue Dog Dem ranks

    Rebranding rift guts Blue Dog Dem ranks

    [ad_1]

    Those tensions came to a head earlier this month as Blue Dog members met for a lengthy debate over the reboot that culminated in a secret-ballot vote to reject the new name, according to interviews with nearly a dozen people familiar with the situation, on both sides of the dispute. Shortly after that vote, Reps. Ed Case (D-Hawaii); David Scott (D-Ga.); Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.); Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Spanberger and Sherrill all left the group.

    “The Blue Dogs have never prioritized having a large coalition — our members look to have a focused, effective group that can influence the Congress regardless of numbers,” Andy LaVigne, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “With a narrow majority governing the House, even a smaller group of members focused on getting things done for the American people on these issues can and will play a vital role.”

    The group will still have influence in this Congress’ historically small GOP majority, where four Democrats willing to side with Republicans could sway a floor vote. But the Blue Dogs’ shakeup raises glaring questions about their future at a critical time. The centrist coalition sought to increase its sway in recent years, building an increasingly diverse cast of Democrats — several of whom later led the failed push to orient the group away from its socially conservative, geographically limited past.

    Returning Blue Dogs insisted that not all the departures were a result of the private tiff over the proposed name change, citing the effect of factors such as departing members’ potential ambitions for statewide office. In addition, the group’s size has historically always shrunk after a tough election, with its ranks often replenished when Democrats seize back power. Blue Dogs began the 2022 cycle with 19 members, only 13 of whom remain in office after the midterms.

    Yet that very pattern of shrinking partly fueled the group’s debate over rebranding. With some members seeking to prioritize recruitment as the 118th Congress began, the coalition tapped Democratic polling firm Impact Research to convene one-on-one conversations with fellow party moderates about the group’s direction and image.

    The interviews revealed that some felt concerned about the group’s reputation, according to multiple people familiar with the research, which was presented to the Blue Dogs during a meeting earlier this month. Impact found that some lawmakers still held outdated conceptions of the Blue Dogs, whose ranks have included the party’s last lingering opponents of same-sex marriage and abortion rights. It also arose from the vestiges of the so-called Dixiecrats, white southern Democrats who supported segregation.

    Many Blue Dogs have routinely dismissed that criticism, citing an uptick in generational, geographical and racial diversity in recent terms. Of the remaining seven members, four are men of color.

    “It seems like it’s been a pretty diverse group of people over the last four years. I’m not thinking of 30 years ago. I don’t really entertain that type of critique,” said one Blue Dog Democrat who opposed the name change, speaking on condition of anonymity, as did most others interviewed.

    This centrist added that a majority of the remaining members weren’t trying to “change the Blue Dog caucus” by increasing its muscle with more members: “We’re not trying to recruit and become, like, the center of gravity.”

    Internal reformers pushed the name Common Sense Coalition. That included Spanberger and Sherrill, the last two women in the group, who were among those advocating for a rebrand.

    Those opposed included Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) as well as longer-serving members who had first joined the group in the 1990s, like Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). At least one member, Gottheimer, took issue with the lack of quantitative data during the closed-door Impact Research presentation, since its work largely involved one-on-one conversations with members.

    When the vote failed, members began to depart the group. Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.), who replaced retiring Rep. G.K. Butterfield, was expected to join but declined after the group decided not to rebrand, according to two people familiar with the situation. A website for the Blue Dog PAC, the political arm of the coalition, was quietly updated last week to list eight remaining members: Bishop, Thompson, Gottheimer, Golden, Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) and freshman Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.).

    In fact, though Nickel was endorsed by the Blue Dog PAC, he has not decided whether or not he is joining the group, according to two people familiar with his thinking. That leaves seven members to begin the 118th Congress.

    Brutal election cycles tend to decimate the Blue Dogs’ roster because the group is typically composed of swing-seat members. Last cycle alone, redistricting felled former Reps. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.), Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.) and Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.). Meanwhile, Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) lost his primary and former coalition Chair Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) retired.

    Many Blue Dogs left after the midterms are no longer in swing seats, thanks to redistricting and changing demographics. Schneider’s suburban Chicago district, for example, has gone from a battleground to safe Democratic turf. Sherrill, who flipped a tough swing seat in 2018, received a significantly more Democratic district last cycle under New Jersey’s new lines. And Case, who has represented both of Hawaii’s two districts at different times, is now in the more staunchly Democratic Honolulu-based district.

    The Blue Dogs could grow beyond their seven current members if they launch a successful recruitment push in 2023. But its membership is a far cry from its peak of 54 centrist Democrats during the Obama administration — let alone the heyday of 2007, when the group decided to cap its membership to no more than 20 percent of the full Democratic caucus.

    The conservative tea party wave of 2010 toppled more than half of the Blue Dogs. But after a previous all-time low from 2015 to 2017, the group regained strength in the 2018 midterms, when it ushered in a historically diverse freshmen class — including Sherrill and Spanberger.

    Throughout the group’s history, it hasn’t been unusual for some members to leave for various reasons. Progressive Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) once belonged to the Blue Dogs, for instance, as did former Reps. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), both of them former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chiefs.

    Not until this year had their numbers ever dropped below 15 members, according to data maintained by the coalition.

    [ad_2]
    #Rebranding #rift #guts #Blue #Dog #Dem #ranks
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )