Tag: Wrestle

  • Senate Dems wrestle with Feinstein resignation chatter

    Senate Dems wrestle with Feinstein resignation chatter

    [ad_1]

    2023 0316 durbin francis 1

    “The question is, how long until she goes back? So if it’s three months, I don’t know, that becomes a really difficult question. If it’s a couple of weeks? I’m fine with it,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.). “I’m not going to pressure her one way or the other. But I think, you know, if it’s going to be months and months? My guess is that … she will be her own harshest critic.”

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) blocked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s Tuesday afternoon request for unanimous consent to add Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) temporarily to the Judiciary Committee. In theory, that could tee up a floor vote on the matter, but Democrats don’t have the 10 GOP votes they’d need to move forward.

    “This is about a handful of judges that you can’t get the votes for,” Graham said.

    Indeed, Republicans made clear Monday that they would reject Feinstein’s request to temporarily step down from the Judiciary panel. Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has had to repeatedly delay committee votes on judges since Feinstein’s absence began in late February.

    Now Democrats are largely out of options. And Schumer said little Tuesday, declining to get into any resignation talk whatsoever. Feinstein’s future did not come up at Democrats’ Tuesday lunch meeting, according to multiple senators.

    “She and I are both very hopeful she will return very soon,” said Schumer, who spoke to Feinstein on Friday.

    Unless Feinstein returns or resigns, all Democrats can do is wait. Feinstein’s term ends at the end of 2024, and her office on Tuesday pointed to last week’s statement in which she said she expects to come back.

    It’s not the first time Democrats have wrestled with tough questions about the twilight of the 89-year-old Feinstein’s career. She faced pressure to step down as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee during the presidency of Donald Trump and eventually acceded to those demands. She also passed on the role of Senate pro tempore, which as the most senior senator of the majority party would put her in the line of presidential succession.

    Now, Democrats expect her to make a difficult call about her own health as it threatens to overshadow her rich legacy in politics. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who is now the pro tempore and was elected the same year as Feinstein, said she has “complete confidence that [Feinstein] will make the right decision for her state and her country.”

    “The next step is up to Sen. Feinstein. I hope that means she’ll be returning to us soon,” Durbin said. As to whether she should resign, Durbin added: “This is her decision. She’s had a remarkable career in the Senate. I’m not going to make that decision or even suggest it.”

    Publicly, the White House lined up with other Democrats, saying Feinstein deserves a chance to recover and to make her own decisions on her career.

    “This is a decision for her to make — when it comes to the future, her future,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

    Other Democrats noticeably bristled at the suggestion that Feinstein should be forced out, or that the party would talk about her resignation at all. At least three House Democrats have already stated that Feinstein should step down, though no senators have yet joined them.

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) called the resignation talk among Democrats “very selfish.”

    “Other people have different reasons and concerns that they couldn’t be here,” Manchin said, referring to a spate of health problems that have sidelined other senators recently. “We never asked them to step aside.”

    House Democratic leadership is giving Feinstein similar room to maneuver, with No. 3 Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) saying Tuesday she should set her own timetable. However, he added that as the debt ceiling fight heats up in Congress, “our expectation as House Democrats is that every senator is going to need to participate.”

    Yet with the special Senate responsibility of confirming nominees, the problem is already acute across the Capitol.

    With Feinstein absent and Republicans refusing to help temporarily replace her, the Judiciary Committee is now tied, hamstringing some Democratic nominees. There are 15 judges who have gone through a hearing — which can be conducted without Feinstein — and are awaiting a panel vote, according to numbers tallied by the American Constitution Society.

    Still, there are 18 judges who have already been through the committee and can be brought to a vote on the Senate floor, some of whom may be able to move without the California Democrat.

    There are some questions about whether the GOP would even fill Feinstein’s slot on Judiciary if she did resign, given that restoring Democrats’ majority on the panel effectively allows them to unilaterally confirm nominees. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said that “whether she resigns or not, it isn’t gonna make any difference.”

    But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a Judiciary Committee member and counsel to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said that Republicans may view a Senate vacancy differently than Feinstein’s request to seek a temporary replacement.

    “Traditionally that’s when the resolution has been changed — when somebody is no longer able to serve,” Cornyn said. “There’s never been a precedent for a temporary replacement, it’s my understanding. So if the circumstances were to change, I assume that the precedent would be applied.”

    Feinstein last voted in the Senate on Feb. 16, kicking off a period in which McConnell and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) also missed significant time. McConnell and Fetterman have since returned, adding to the pressure on Feinstein. Of course, that already existed in part because her absence was the only one that meant Democrats couldn’t confirm certain judges, the most significant thing the party can unilaterally accomplish during a divided government.

    Manchin implored Durbin to send judges to the floor that have bipartisan support, which would allow Schumer to move to confirm more nominees but would also isolate a handful of more controversial nominees. Durbin said he hasn’t made the decision to do that at the moment.

    Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #Senate #Dems #wrestle #Feinstein #resignation #chatter
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | Joe Biden’s Missed Opportunity to Wrestle With Fox News

    Opinion | Joe Biden’s Missed Opportunity to Wrestle With Fox News

    [ad_1]

    It’s not that Buttigieg is likely to convince large numbers of Fox viewers to become a cheerleader for Biden. It’s rather that on a network where everything from its biggest stars to its graphics offer unremitting hostility to Biden, a calm voice politely but firmly pushing back on that view is the rhetorical equivalent of chicken soup: “couldn’t hurt.” This approach is in sharp contrast to the idea that there is virtually no point in even attempting to persuade; that the way to win is simply to turn to more of your team than the other side.

    It’s the kind of thinking that the New York Times’ Amy Chozick wrote up just after Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat: “Last year, a prominent group of supporters asked Hillary Clinton to address a prestigious St. Patrick’s Day gathering at the University of Notre Dame, an invitation that previous presidential candidates had jumped on. Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. had each addressed the group, and former President Bill Clinton was eager for his wife to attend. But Mrs. Clinton’s campaign refused, explaining to the organizers that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to spend time reaching out to.”

    Her campaign was convinced that turning out her core voters — Black people, women, the young, the college educated — was the path to victory. Why bother reaching out to voters disinclined to support her in the first place? (It was an approach, Chozick wrote, that Bill Clinton watched with increasing anxiety). In abandoning any real effort to reach these voters, it ensured that even a marginal decline among her supporters would leave her just vulnerable enough for the “blue wall” of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to crumble. Four years later, Biden’s marginal improvement among blue-collar white people was a crucial factor in bringing those states, as well as Georgia, into his column. He wasn’t going to win these constituencies, but he didn’t need to. A slightly better performance among them was enough to turn the tide.

    But there’s something more than political calculation at stake here: It’s the idea that if you are asking the country for the most important job of all, you should be willing to do more than speak to a succession of cheering squads. Two politicians of very different outlooks can serve as an example.

    In 1980, Ronald Reagan, who began his general election campaign with a speech about “states’ rights” in Neshoba County, Miss., later appeared in a very different venue — in New York. As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon wrote in the Washington Post: “Comparing himself to John F. Kennedy attempting to win Protestant votes in 1960, Ronald Reagan today appealed to Black voters not to consider him ‘a caricature conservative’ who is ‘anti-poor, anti-Black and anti-disadvantaged.’” In his speech to the National Urban League, the GOP presidential nominee also “called for the creation of inner-city ‘enterprise zones’ where taxes would be substantially reduced and regulations relaxed to encourage industry and new jobs.” Later, he went to a vacant lot in the South Bronx — a symbol of urban decay — and engaged in a sometimes confrontational, sometimes civil exchange with residents and activists.

    The quick rejoinder to this campaign appearance is that little, if any energy was expended during the Reagan administration in turning these words into deeds. But even if Reagan’s speech fits Voltaire’s quip that “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue,” it was at least a recognition that a potential president owed it to the American people to cross over a normally imposing wall of political separation.

    Twelve years earlier, Robert Kennedy made a similar journey. Just days after announcing his candidacy for president, he spoke at the University of Alabama, where five years earlier the Justice Department he led faced down Gov. George Wallace to enforce the racial integration of the school.

    “I believe that any who seek high office this year must go before all Americans,” he said, “not just those who agree with him but also those who disagree. Recognizing that it is not just our supporters, not just those who vote for us but all Americans who we must lead in the years ahead. So I have come at the outset of my campaign not to New York, not to Chicago, not to Boston, but here to Alabama.”

    Did Kennedy believe that the Alabama delegation would support him at the convention? Of course not. But in making the unlikely visit — and in telling his audience that “racial injustice is a national, not a Southern dilemma” — he was offering a gesture of respect.

    In fairness, Bobby may be a special case: He had an appetite for entering the lion’s den: he debated anti-American radicals in Japan and Communist organizers in Brazil, told small-town Midwestern conservatives of the deprivations of inner-city Black people and American college students that he opposed college deferments.

    But that instinct would be healthy for our potential leaders — and for the country. Indeed, I sometimes wonder what would happen if more politicians had that kind of willingness to engage. Suppose, for example, Hillary Clinton had wangled an invitation from Tony Perkins to address the Family Research Council, a firm if not zealous center of cultural conservatism, and talked to them about her concept of “family values?” (“I believe in family so strongly that when my own marriage was threatened, my husband and I worked hard to preserve it.”) Would it have changed any votes? Probably not — but it might have convinced some in her audience to see her in less malevolent terms, and might have reminded her that she had once talked with sympathy about those with very different views on issues like abortion.

    Of course, meeting with the “other team” runs the risk of angering the most fervent supporters on “your team.” I’ve heard plenty on the left say that even appearing on Fox News gives undeserved respect and legitimacy to a force for evil.

    But Pete Buttigieg regularly refutes that view. And I think if Joe Biden had brought the energy and feistiness of his State of the Union address to that Fox interview, he would have given as good as he got, and might even have picked up a handful of new supporters. The way our elections have been going recently, that could make all the difference. And anyway… “couldn’t hurt.”

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Joe #Bidens #Missed #Opportunity #Wrestle #Fox #News
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )