Dem. Leadership: "We're not gonna demand SCOTUS pick waits until after the election"

[dixiegrrrrl]

instead, they are gonna highlight the threat to abortion rights and health care to try to mobilize opposition to Mr. Trump’s appointment.

This is interesting also:

Former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, elected in the Democratic wave of 1974 and a leader in the effort to reinvent the Democratic Party in the 1980s, said Democrats were approaching an overdue moment of reckoning with their own limitations. The party, he said, had failed for years to define a forward-looking vision. The pressure of the midterm election — heightened, he said, by the Supreme Court vacancy — could create a new moment of definition.

“There almost has to be a generational renewal of belief systems,” said Mr. Hart, a two-time presidential candidate, who is now 81. “When we were in power, under Obama and Clinton, I don’t believe party leaders did what should have been done, and that is come up with a manifesto for the 21st century.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/midterm-elections-democratic-party.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. .

.

[enough]

2. No that would be too scary, Republicans might get mad and say mean things. NT

[Demsrule86]

26. It is about not making it worse. We are unlikely to stop Trump's nominee.

But we could lose as many as 8 or more Democratic seats in the attempt...consider the Senate with 8 or more Republicans. They could end up with 60...we have a shot at the Senate now because Trump is an idiot...so no point in tilting at windmills when we can't afford to lose.

[Trumpocalypse]

29. Good post!

I think that is the problem with some on the left. They want every single Dem to fall on a sword for every issue, not realizing that all that does is alienate moderate swing voters that are needed to win elections.

[OKNancy]

3. They are right you know because

The numbers for the Senate may be even worse after the election.
Several sitting Democrats have a rough road. There will be no Flake,Corker, and possibly McCain.
Democrats can't stop an appointment without a few Republicans.

[maxrandb]

4. No! Democrats

Believed that cooperative, consensus and compromise government is EXACTLY how our country is supposed to function

But... they failed to realize that the Retrumplicans were never honest brokers.

Dems understand that governing as if the minority doesn't exist gets you the fucked up country we currently live in.

Retrumplicans don't fucking care. If their base insisted that all opposition be jailed, THEY WOULD FUCKING DO IT IN A GOD DAMNED SECOND!!!!

This country was never designed to be led by a party that does not even acknowledge that the minority exists.

That's what we've got.

They lost the popular vote by 3 million and Dem votes for the House and Senate were 52-48 IN FAVOR of Democrats... and yet they govern as if they won 90% of the vote.

This country should only function with the consent of the governed. That's NOT what is happening.

To quote Melania; "they really don't care, do you?"

[Amishman]

10. I think you're going a bit far on one item

Retrumplicans don't fucking care. If their base insisted that all opposition be jailed, THEY WOULD FUCKING DO IT IN A GOD DAMNED SECOND!!!!

The Pub base have been screaming for years to lock up Hillary and it hasn't happened, and isn't going to happen.

The Republican base is far more extreme than their leadership, not the other way around

[KPN]

13. So it is up to us then. If I had a clue about how to organize I'd start getting something

going to apply massive public (yes, populist) pressure on Congress right now. If I had a leader mentality and skill, I would step in and get started. I don't. But I'll damn sure volunteer time (and plenty of it -- I'm retired) and whatever skills I have to help grow and exert the peoples' will.

Somebody help me out here. Point me in a direction please; someplace that is about building nationwide popular resistance and protest to any SCOTUS appointment action whatsoever where I can pitch in beside what I'm already doing as a member and PCP in my local Democratic Party organization.

[maxrandb]

22. Understand that I'm NOT criticizing Democrats

Our country should function by compromise, consensus and cooperation. Dems govern the way our constitution envisioned.

Retrumplicans lost their way a long time ago. If anything, Dems showed too much deference to the Retrumplicans when they were in the minority. When one party doesn't, that's when you have blood in the streets and civil war.

You keep hitting your dog in the face with a rolled up newspaper, eventually, he's going to bite you.

[Demsrule86]

27. It is about the midterms...we have many more vulnerable Senators that we can not afford to lose...

unless you want Trump to have two years with 60 votes in the Senate and fighting judges could affect the house as well as many seats we need are in GOP held areas.

[KPN]

5. WTF?! They can press both cases can't they????? You know,

Last edited Sun Jul 1, 2018, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

chew gum and talk at the same time? Geezuz!

[onecaliberal]

6. Geezuz fucking Christ.

[0rganism]

7. no good options

doesn't matter what the Democratic leadership does, either way they look weak because that's the hand Democrats hold right now
hell, it's not clear they could prevent a vote anyway or that things would improve after the election
i could see McConnell deliberately postponing the vote to
1. rally the base for the midterms
2. show everyone watching Fox News that he's not a hypocrite
3. laugh loudly when Republicans hold the senate and force through Trump's next judicial pick anyway
depending on his level of confidence -- which, given the senate electoral map this year, should be fairly high.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. Richard Painter proposed today that there is something we can do:

Have the Senate Judiciary Comm. open an investigation about Kennedy's 2 sons who helped Trump and Kushner avoid financial disaster.
Grassley has been cooperative with investigations and Feinstein carries a lot ofweight.
The investigation would put a halt to the vote for replacement.

[0rganism]

17. that would be interesting indeed

it's definitely something they would do if the shoe were on the other foot...

[Recursion]

19. That wouldn't stop it. Every single plan to stop it involves 1 Republican having shame

To a person, they do not.

[Demsrule86]

28. Grassley won't cooperate on this...this is the majority they have sought for years.

[FBaggins]

34. Painter is starting to look like a nut

How does he propose doing it? He can’t GET such an investigation (so far he doesn’t even have something plausible to investigate)... and such an investigation would in now way “put a halt to” a replacement. If anything it would speed it up.

[Lee-Lee]

38. Why would that halt a nomination?

Under what mechanism does he say the invention into the son of the retiring Justice would halt the nomination of the replacement for that retiring Justice?

[Tatiana]

8. Bull$hit. They'll do what we push them to do.

Gary Hart is speaking the truth. He recognizes that we as individuals and as a party MUST rise to the occasion. Many Dems are: Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, Ted Lieu, Joe Kennedy III are a few examples.

But our leadership is not moving with the base. They're afraid. This is not the time to play it safe or cautious. We gotta put all our cards on the table. This is a time when we will see who the real leaders in our party are.

[Va Lefty]

9. "our leadership is not moving with the base."

Very true. Been that way for quite awhile.

[KPN]

11. They are falling back on their years of experience which:

1) in the current times, is basically irrelevant -- civility, decorum and fairness went out the window years ago with the GOP; and

2) that experience wasn't exactly successful in the first place. You just gotta look where it's got us to realize that (hundreds of lost seats in State legislatures, governorship, WH and the Congress.

We need to raise hell with them!

[Tatiana]

24. You are absolutely correct. Perfect example: Tom Daschle.

Good guy. But Majority Leader? A Majority Leader from South DAKOTA? Not what I really think of "safe seat" territory.

Moderate. Old school. He says he was told by Cheney not to investigate 9/11. And then he got "anthraxed." And I noticed he got a lot less outspoken. More mealymouthed.

Chuck Schumer seems to be cut from that same cloth. He's not what we need right now.

You nailed it when you said that a lot of the experience our current leadership is irrelevant -- at least their experience in political strategy. The Republicans are handing our a$$es to us and its a national embarrassment that a group of high school students who suffered through a mass shooting had to remind us of the heart and soul of our party's values -- taking care of and protecting each other.

[smirkymonkey]

14. This!

What is their problem? Why can't they see they are losing us by their inaction and passivity?

[Demsrule86]

30. If you can be lost with Trump in office over something that Democrats can't stop then...I guess the

Republicans win...the let's do 'something/anything' BS could cost us the Senate and the House in 18...we need at least one/hopefully both...voters left the Democratic leaders with no good options here...blame Stein and those who didn't vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in 16 and then didn't even bother to vote down ticket in order to have some realistic chance to oppose Trump. They gave the GOP the keys to the car- the only set it seems. There is nothing leadership can do, and your post shows why we lose when we could/should win...'losing us', you must obey our every whim or else we take our ball and go home. I am sorry to say that the time for concern over the courts was in November of 16....after that it was too late.

[BeyondGeography]

35. Jayapal: We have to pay attention to our base.

That’s from the article. Seems obvious, but the fact that a well-placed Democrat says it the to NYT kinda suggests to me that the higher ups in the party have not been doing that.

[AtomicKitten]

12. #McResistance

[underthematrix]

15. Trump does't care about Roe v Wade

He cares about saving his own skin. I'm sure he's selecting SCOTUS nominees who will not recuse and who believe a sitting president cannot be indicted indicted.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

Never was a fan of Chuck Schumer until now.

[Bettie]

18. So, the powder will still be dry?

Will it EVER be used.

I hear "we need to wait until we get the majority!".

But when we had that, it was "We need to keep the majority!".

In the meantime, Republicans own everything, they pass whatever they've a mind to, because our leadership insists on allowing them to have whatever they want in what appears to be a futile hope that some of them might some day have a moment of decency.

I'm very frustrated with this. They won't even speak up against what is happening.

[Recursion]

20. We needed to keep the majority. If we had, we could stop the appointment

Since we didn't keep it, we can't.

[Bettie]

21. So, we can never, ever do anything

because we might lose or not get the majority.

So, it seems that it is about getting in the majority and then doing nothing but the bidding of the other side to keep it.

Oh, and castigating any member of the caucus who dares to say "hey what they are doing is wrong" for being "uncivil".

That's what it looks like from here.

[Recursion]

32. What are you talking about? We did a lot when we had the majority

Once we lost it we stopped doing things. That's how this works.

[FBaggins]

36. Indeed

We did plenty when we had the majority... including overriding the objections of the minority by changing the rules of the game to force through judges that we wanted... leaving the next majority to do the same to us.

[Demsrule86]

31. We don't have any powder that is the problem.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. What Kind Negotiating Tactic Is This?

You've already mucked one card folks!
How does the " we play the game differently than them" still carry any weight?

[rockfordfile]

25. And they wonder why they're out of power.

One thing I will say republicans fight tooth and nail for everything. Even when out of power.

If you don't work for it, you don't deserve it.

[Demsrule86]

33. Oh no, I know exactly why we are out of power. And it can only get worse if we don't support

Democrats no matter what.

[still_one]

37. **k the NY Times. Another NY Times piece to push the division and disunity among Democrats. The

same bullshit they pulled in 2016.

A little over a year ago the Times had a front page story saying it was the hubris of President Obama and the Democrats for making republicans against global warming:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."

I suspect they believe in some self-righteous way their false equivalences they are somehow being fair, when in reality they are actually misrepresenting and distorting things.

The Times has been doing this for sometime now:


The hiring of Bret Stephens is a perfect example of that philosophy:, "see how objective we are, we give equal voice to those who have different views, regardless that the Science on the subject has already spoken


In February they reported on a Democratic Member Quiting the Election Commission, and by invoking this so-called "balanced approach, left readers with the impression that both sides do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html

It was a completely distorted picture of what was happening in that committee. The Democrats on that committee were willing to compromise, and work with their republican counterparts, but guess which side would not meet half-way?

The article gave such a distorted picture of what was really occurring, that the Democrat who resigned from that committee followed through with an editorial to present an actual picture of things:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/dysfunction-and-deadlock-at-the-federal-election-commission.html

They do this garbage all the time

The Times is not a shadow of what it used to be

Isn't that right judy miller?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. When did Dem leadership switch on stalling? Last I heard they wanted the SCOTUS

vote delayed as long as possible. Only explanation I heard was to allow time for the people to catch up on issue.

My thought was that we could be in a better position to stop a nutcase appointment before November since we have so many senators in races in Nov. In Jan, could be in a much weaker position. But thinking on that now - what's the difference? If we stop them before Nov and we lose senators - we could lose on someone much worse next year. either way there's pros and cons. Our only hope is for the best of the worst to get in?