Excuse me, but just WTH are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer doing?

[Maven]

Why aren't they out there every. single. day. on the airwaves and on social media, attacking Trump's lies about "illegal" voters, pointing out how obviously unstable and delusional he is, calling out the danger to our democracy? Calling out Paul Ryan and Congressional Repubs' plans to dismantle Medicare and SS? Demanding an investigation into Russian interference in our election?

Schumer issued one statement about Medicare. Meanwhile, Pelosi tweets about #SmallBusinessSaturday. WTF?

Do they not understand the existential threat that we are facing? That we have an incoming president whose strategy is to make big lies the norm so that people no longer understand the difference between fact and fiction? That we have an authoritarian RW party which has taken over control of all branches of government and plans to systematically undo all progress made in the last 50+ years?

Do they still think that they can "co-opt" Trump and pick and choose what policies they'll work with him on?

Where are they?

[pbmus]

1. I have been asking this same ? For days...

Wtf are they doing..

[elehhhhna]

10. They are on break from their cushy fucking jobs

[MADem]

62. No they aren't--at least not House members

District work session during Thanksgiving week, regular work week this week:

http://www.house.gov/legislative/

Senate is lazier:
https://www.congress.gov/days-in-session



Of course, all appropriations begin in the House, so...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. Zippo... but, not to worry, Bernie is the One who is always willing to lead in the struggle.

[pbmus]

59. Fcs , is there anyone besides Bernie .???

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. Apparently not... but with Bernie, who else do we need to step up?

[pbmus]

64. How about the ancient aliens..!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. hahaha... yes!!

[Vinca]

2. Chuck's strumming a guitar and Nancy's singing "kumbayah."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. No surprise there.

[Else You Are Mad]

3. It is because...

Democrats tend not to have a big enough backbone to make serious public statements contrary to the GOP. Like it or not, but that is why the tea party/GOP has gained so much power recently -- they don't play nice anymore. Democrats should not play nice anymore.

[vi5]

4. The Washington Generals all star team in action as usual...

....and we wonder why we lose election after election even against clowns like Trump. Or rather some people wonder. I don't.

Please, more and better Democrats. ASAfuckingP.

[Me.]

6. Keeping Their Powder Dry?

UNtil there is an actual fight with the so-called new resident?

[Bettie]

7. My guess is that they are figuring out

how far to the right they can move and how they can appear to be resisting Ryan's agenda without actually doing that.

I would love to believe that they will resist at least the worst of it, but past experience tells me a different story.

[elehhhhna]

8. Keeping their powder dry?

They're doing what they always fucking do, dithering, this is what we do. It's theater, and bed theater at that. We are being played, government by bad cop/worse cop.

Isn't it pretty transparent by now?

[Maven]

14. Examples of Dems who get it: Howard Dean and Joaquin Castro.

Check out their Twitter feeds.

If the so-called leadership doesn't understand that their silence right now is EXACTLY the problem, they need to get out of the way.

[Arazi]

21. And Bernie Sanders. He's on fire @ Trump

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Yup... can always count on Bernie!

[DonCoquixote]

37. and lets not forget

I do wonder what Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing, I do, I really do (sarcasm)

[Greybnk48]

9. Not being baited into shifting the media away from

Crooked Donald's craziness onto themselves so he can fly under the radar.

[heaven05]

12. the media

created this monster. He is still "under the radar".

[Maven]

13. No. We can't ignore this and be above the fray.

We are 100% the underdogs now. We can't pretend we're too good to be "baited".

That won't work. At all. The inmates have taken over the asylum, and their craziness is being projected with presidential authority, in big bold headlines, as truth. The crazy thing would be not to respond.

[heaven05]

11. the leadership

must be in disarray with the ass whipping we took and behind the scenes must be chaotic. The leadership will do what they always do, as a minority Party, look for ways to kiss ass. They understand, they are that smart. They must not know how to deal with this ass whoopin!!!!!!!! I am so disappointed in how the leadership misread the pre-election progress and polls. I went to bed early, "she has this", woke up WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We better let our leadership know they better get their shit together and lead us!!!!!!!!!! Many out here need you. I don't because I have lost all faith in this extremely class driven, money driven electoral system that could allow a pigshit racist who never disavowed David Duke, into our highest office. Don't get me wrong there are still people out here that have the faith and I say more power to them.

[elleng]

17. they better get their shit together and lead us!!!!!!!!!!

[treestar]

15. Th only defense I can think of is

that the M$M is not covering what they say.

Too busy spending hours on every utterance/tweet of the Orange Twit.

[elleng]

16. It's not clear what they understood about this election,

before (primaries,) during, and now, after.

[Txbluedog]

19. Nothing..

They understood nothing....

Our top leaders in Congress are from CA and NY---any wonder why have lost middle America?

[jalan48]

18. Limousine Liberals.

[Recursion]

22. Because "getting out there on the media" is usually a waste of time

When they do it, nobody notices.

[retrowire]

23. In the same place as Hillary!

"Give him a chance"

Remember when Bernie supporters were harangued for talking about these being establishment politicians?

They're politicians. Not heroes. Maybe they once were, but not anymore.

[BainsBane]

45. Of course they're politicians

That's their fucking job.

[Nitram]

24. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. they may be letting out as much rope as...

...it will take for Trump to hogtie and hang himself.

[Maven]

25. Except we tripped over the rope and he slipped the noose.

"Please proceed" doesn't work with Trump. We've proven that. Our party needs to respond and resist, forcefully and in unison.

[cwydro]

26. Well. There's only one thing I can agree with Trump about.

That place is a swamp.

I prefer cesspool actually.

I've spent a lot of time in the Everglades. No comparison to the place these jackals in both parties operate.

[pnwmom]

27. Congress is in session with a budget to pass by Dec. 9.

So they're kinda busy.

[Maven]

31. Paul Ryan tweets something out almost every hour

Responding moment by moment to new developments. Why don't Nancy and Chuck have someone on staff doing the same? New developments are happening just that fast and without responding in the moment it looks like our leadership is asleep at the wheel. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to take the fight to them, directly, or there is no hope of recovery. We all know they are going to make it their business over the next 4 years to keep as many Dems as possible from voting.

[MADem]

57. What would you have them say? Specifically? nt

[madinmaryland]

68. Getting in twitter wars with tRump and Lyin Ryan is not the solution.

More to the point, the dust has to settle. Regroup and come back with a vengeance starting in 2017.

The question that needs to be answered is how does our party start to get access to the media? We have been shut out of the media for over 20 years and it appears to be getting even worse or probably far worse.

[MADem]

28. They're getting out of the way, is what they're doing.

They should NOT be "leading the charge" on this recount business, and that should be the MAIN STORY for the near term.

I'm glad they're standing back. This does not have to have any appearance of being a DNC show--because it isn't.

[Maven]

33. The recount is only one story.

There is also Trump's conflicts of interest making him ineligible for the presidency under the Constitution which is a huge story. As is Trump lying about illegal voters (based on an Infowars fake news item), likely to set up a pretext to disenfranchise more minority voters. And the Russian hacking and fake news propaganda campaign. Another huge story. Where are they on that? LINDSAY GRAHAM had something to say about the Russian interference before they did.

Enough of the platitudes and professionalism. We need people representing the party who can speak plainly and directly on the subjects people are talking about, or we will continue to (1) appear out of touch, and (2) be ignored by the media.

[MADem]

46. How do his conflicts of interest make him "ineligible?"

I missed that piece in the Constitution...? That's muddy waters, right there. He'll be halfway through his term before we sort that out.

He's behaving like an asshole, but the only thing that makes him "ineligible" in my OPINION is that he's batshit crazy, and their is a provision for that. However, I'll need quite a few Electoral College members to share my OPINION on that to make any difference, there.

The time-sensitive story is the recount. No do-overs on that one. And we don't need to eat up airtime with what sounds to unsophisticated ears like partisan gripes. The minute we start griping about that, people will say "Ah HA--it's just the Dems playing a sore loser card" and they'll discount it. As someone else said, keeping one's powder dry is a smart move right now. Those members of the choir that needs to be constantly preached to might want to practice their scales for the short term.

If you want to know what Pelosi and Schumer are saying, you'll have to use the internet:

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/

Pelosi's links are posted downthread.

FWIW, REID is the Majority Leader until the next session:

http://www.reid.senate.gov/

You do realize our party is out of power? The media doesn't want to talk to us unless they can cast us as villains in the political soap opera playing out right now--they want to talk to the new shiny objects who will be taking over the town.

[Maven]

47. Emoluments clause.

Laurence Tribe and other experts on the subject are saying he could be in violation of the Constitution on Day 1 unless he sells all assets and puts the proceeds in a blind trust. We should be demanding he do that before taking office.

I've seen what Pelosi and Schumer are saying and so far it's been unimpressive, with the possible exception of Schumer's Medicare "make our day" statement. Other than that, there's been very little. I completely disagree with you about "griping". Republicans have the chutzpah to complain about legislative inaction THEY CAUSED and they get away with it, and we can't tell the truth about them for fear of being perceived as sore losers? I think that's wrong, and I think the majority who voted for Hillary want to see more pushback, in plain, direct terms, and fast, or they may give up on the party altogether.

[MADem]

52. He "could be." That's not going to be resolved before January 20.

Who's gonna tell him no? The Supremes? Four to four.

What do you do when he responds to these "demands" from amorphous people to put his proceeds in a blind trust with a middle finger?


I hate Forbes on principle, but this article spells it out...

The wealthiest Commander-in-Chief in American history will be exempt from conflict of interest statutes and most prohibitions against gifts (as are all U.S. presidents and vice presidents), so nothing stops Trump from maintaining the status quo and running his business from the White House. He’ll have to file a Federal Elections Committee disclosure document annually, which lists his assets and income. Tax returns, which Trump has steadfastly refused to release, do not have to be made available to the public.

As for the blind trust?

However, that’s not as easy as it sounds. “You typically cannot simply transfer existing assets into a blind trust. As a practical matter it’s likely a complete non-starter,” says Leslie Kiernan, a partner at law firm Akin Gump and a former Deputy White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. For the trust owner to be truly “blind” to his portfolio, the assets typically have to be liquidated first, Kiernan says. The cash can then be funneled into the trust, to be managed by an independent trustee approved by the Office of Government Ethics. Trump would not receive any information on what has been bought or sold with his money, though he could get reports on how much income the portfolio generated as a whole.

This means the New York billionaire would have to sell prized properties like Manhattan’s Trump Tower or Palm Beach’s Mar-a-Lago, and give control of his company to a virtual stranger instead of his children. Moreover, some of his holdings, such as his 30% stake in two office towers majority owned by real estate investment firm Vornado, cannot be sold unless he acquires his partner’s consent.

Trump can solve a few of the potential conflict of interest problems by letting others control his assets through a regular trust, says Kiernan. Allowing his children to run the show, on the other hand, would make it difficult for him to claim he doesn’t mix business with politics, particularly since he has reportedly asked the White House about getting top secret security clearances for his kids. Transferring control also doesn’t change the fact that Trump knows exactly what is in his portfolio, and how certain events may affect his businesses.

Annnnnd the Big Finish:

Trump has so far not shown any inclination of selling off any of his assets. But despite not needing to follow conflict of interest laws, there are incentives for Trump to sort out any potential problems that may arise. “There’s a deep seated principle about not using public office for private gains. The press and the public and the Congress will certainly focus on these issues,” Kiernan pointed out. “There are numerous laws still applicable to the president, including the financial disclosure laws, the bribery laws. He can be impeached.”

Who's gonna do that? His cronies in the House? They will protect him. We'll have to vote THEM out first. He can do a lot of damage in two - plus years...it sucks, but it's the sad reality. Our only hope is this Hail Mary recount, or if he does something so disgusting that even the GOP can't pretend the "Emperor" isn't butt nekkid.

[Maven]

55. I said the Emoluments Clause, which specifically applies to the President

Not conflict of interest laws. Look it up. Tribe and others (including Obama's and W's ethics lawyers) are stating this is a real problem. And I didn't say transfer existing assets. I said SELL assets and put the proceeds in a blind trust.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13715150/donald-trump-emoluments-clause-constitution

Do I think Trump will ever do that? Of course not. The point is to set the standard he must meet in order to legitimately and legally act as president, which he will fail to meet. Remember "pay to play"? Delegitimize him and paint him as corrupt and untrustworthy from day 1. The point is also to go on record as the opposition so that when this all comes crashing down, it can be pinned on complicit Republicans in Congress specifically, and not just "do-nothings" in Congress generally. Remember, Rs benefit when people think both sides are just as bad. That's the game we are not playing properly!

[MADem]

65. I've read Tribe's treatise. He's not going to prevail.

What's he gonna do? Who's he gonna call? Who are "The Deciders?"

If Trump gets the result he wants in a lower court, the Supremes aren't going to touch this mess. And given that there are so many wingnut asses warming benches in federal courts across the land, the odds are good he can judge shop until he gets the guy he wants. And we all know that justice delayed, while it is justice denied, is also business as usual in this country. He'll be finishing his first term before we even get a trial date.

He's not going to sell assets. He doesn't own them--he's got silent partners who sign their names with a Cyrillic lettering system.

Who is going to tell him NO?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Seriously.

[Maven]

70. First of all, it wouldn't be a lawsuit, it would be grounds for impeachment

The president is largely immune from suit while he is in office.

Secondly, you are missing the point. This is not about the legal process, which we are not going to win at this point. It's about the politics and the media narrative setting the stage for 2018 and beyond. Congressional Rs passed legislation umpteen times to repeal Obamacare which of course never went anywhere. But they successfully set the narrative that electing more Rs = getting rid of Obamacare. The message came through loud and clear and people knew that by voting R they were voting to shred Obamacare (even if they didn't understand the ramifications of that due to R propaganda). We need to reframe Rs as the party of corruption, dishonesty, and greed, and distinguish Democrats as the party of accountability and the working class. But we can't do that unless our leaders have a strong consistent message that addresses these issues plainly and directly. We are not going to win against Trump and the modern Republican party (both of which lie with impunity) by clinging to outmoded notions of "decorum" and staying out of the fray.

[MADem]

74. AGAIN....who impeaches?

His crew owns all branches of government. They set the agenda, they determine the legislative schedule, and we have no say or sway.

We're on the outside looking in.

I am not "missing the point."

That IS the point.

[Maven]

75. OMG. Yes, you are completely missing the point.

This is about MEDIA STRATEGY, not winning in the courts or the legislature.

[MADem]

76. Yes, like the great "media strategy" where NBC/CBS/ABC just opened up their

studios to give those of us in the loyal opposition a platform during the Bush regime...?

With all due respect, I don't think I'm the one who is missing the point.

Why book a Pelosi or a Schumer (for more than two minutes, anyway) when a network can get oodles of footage of nuts like Giuliani and Caribou Barbie and Kellyanne Goebbels? Eyes on the train wreck, folks, eyes on the train wreck!

And if they get really lucky, maybe they can get the twittering loon to come to the studio, or call in from his golden throne (flush) in Trump Tower?

[Maven]

80. We have other channels now. We need to use them effectively.

Traditional media takes its cues from whats happening in social media. Reporters like Farenthold, Eichenwald, Maggie Haberman, along with pundits like Joy Reid and Chuck Todd...all are on Twitter as we speak, interacting, sharing information, sniffing out stories. They determine who and what gets coverage and the key messages that get across. That filters through the conventional media outlets and eventually becomes the "conventional wisdom" which is then recycled into more stories, social media trends, and so on.

In other words, the goal should not be to book time on "Meet the Press" and hope that our talking points are aired. The point should be to make our talking points part of the story that pundits are already telling, and then keep reinforcing them with more TV appearances, social media engagement, etc. We can draw on the allies we have in tech, entertainment, and academia to make this happen. And it will require the Dem leadership to emphasize message discipline across the party in a way that they haven't before. But the point is to embed our messages in the storyline and to use the media echo chamber to our benefit. This is what Republicans have been doing effectively and why they are winning even though their policies are horrible for the vast majority of people.

[MADem]

83. Well, we agree on the MTP aspect.

But I think we shouldn't wait to be led out of the wilderness, by elected officials OR 'reporters.'

I think this needs to be a bottom-up/grassroots thing. The groundswell of griping needs to come not from "leaders," but from people who buy cable TV services and subscriptions to newspapers.

Hit them in their coin purses, I say.

It's not for politicians to do this, really--we need a streetfighter who isn't constrained by legislative concerns. Howard Dean is just the guy-he knows were every body is buried and he can name party operatives down to the district level in all fifty states. No one has a better lay of the land than he does.

[Maven]

84. There is a lot the grassroots can do, but coordination takes top-down leadership too.

party leaders convey organizing principles and key messages to the grassroots and keep the grassroots connected to the party organization. In fact I would say that alienation of the grassroots from party leadership is what led to the sharp schism of the 2016 Dem primaries, which never fully resolved and was a significant factor contributing to our loss. Many felt the party leadership (a/k/a the Dem "establishment&quot was disconnected from the issues that were impacting their lives.

I agree with you 100% on Howard Dean. He is a huge asset and the party needs him right now.

[WhiteTara]

78. Actually, Maven, he can be sued while in office

the precedent was set in 1997 when the pukes forced Clinton to testify.

BTW I call on both Democrats and Republicans in office and Democrats are often willing to listen and take direction. So call all the Democrats in which ever state and talk to the staff. It doesn't have to be your state, either.

[Maven]

81. You are correct but the basis for the holding of no immunity in Clinton v. Jones

was the fact that Clinton's alleged actions were done while not in office and were unrelated to the office. Since Trump will only be in violation of the Emoluments Clause once he takes office, Clinton v. Jones wouldn't really apply and Trump would be immune from suit. (Also, I doubt that the Emoluments Clause would be interpreted to give rise to a private cause of action, but that's a separate issue...)

BUT you do raise an interesting point, which is that others Trump wronged as a civilian (e.g. a woman he sexually assaulted) could still come after him after he's president.

[pbmus]

51. I believe the integrity of our election is important.

I have not heard one word about Putin and the Trumpster from our leaders.?

[MADem]

53. Let the recount play out. Again, it's not for the Democrats to take the lead on this.

It looks like a fishing expedition in that case.

Pelosi and Schumer did not run for POTUS. It is the role and choice of CANDIDATES for POTUS to ask for recounts, not every swinging so-and-so with an opinion. We've had two candidates engage in the process (Stein and de la Fuente) and one (Clinton) 'support' the effort.


Let it play out.

[pbmus]

54. I am not asking the leadership to say anything about recounts...

It is about the already admitted hacking by Russia into our elections.

[MADem]

67. That's a job for the candidates requesting that recount/audit.

Unless Pelosi or Schumer ran for POTUS and that escaped our notice, it's not their wheelhouse.

The only way we're going to know what happened where is through an investigation of the vote at the behest of the candidates.

[pbmus]

69. You are stating that Russians hacking involvement

In our political election is only to be addressed by the candidates...!!?!?,?,

I am left speechless. Is that really what you mean?

It must be, that's the only reason I can think why their hasn't been more outrage...

I would like to know who came up with that idea? Did it start at the top? And who was in that meeting....because the American people have a right to know ...

[MADem]

77. The recounts must be requested by candidates. Not you, not me, not anyone else.

Abnormalities will not be uncovered without recounts.

Not sure why you are "left speechless." Those are the rules. It's not an "idea" -- it's the rules of the game. Every state (and even though this is an election for the highest federal office, each state runs their own clusterfuck of an election, as we've learned in places like FL and OH) has their own peculiarities, but the requests need to start with the interested parties, the "affected" individuals, i.e. the candidates.

Why is Jill Stein the one requesting the recount?

Stein has cited "statistical anomalies," the differences between exit polls and actual results, and the possibility that election machines were hacked as the reasons for her recount effort. She says she wants voters to "be sure we have a fair, secure and accurate voting system.”

Why did Stein have to raise money for the recount?

Recounts aren't cheap and each state has its own laws about who and what can trigger them. In Wisconsin, a candidate who loses by more than 0.25% must pay for the cost of the recount, which could amount to as much as $1 million. In Michigan, when the margin in a race is more than 0.5%, the candidate must pay $125 per precinct, which adds up to $787,500. Stein estimates the Pennsylvania recount will cost $500,000. She also assumes $2-3 million in legal fees. So far, she has raised almost $6.3 million of the $7 million she's seeking to cover the total costs for the three recounts.

Could recount requests be rejected?

Yes. Wisconsin has already announced that the recount will begin Thursday if the fees are paid but Tuesday, but the state election commission rejected Stein's request for a hand recount. That leaves it up to each of the state's 72 counties whether to perform the recount by machine or by hand. Stein intends to challenge the ruling in court.

In Michigan, the request goes to the Board of State Canvassers and Trump can challenge the request.

Pennsylvania is more complicated where Stein can't simply file for a recount. She must win a lawsuit and provide evidence of voting irregularities or she must get three voters in each of the state's 9,163 voting precincts to request a recount — although at least one election official says the deadline for a voter-initiated recount has already passed. Even if she overcomes this major hurdle, there's this problem: Pennsylvania relies on electronic voting machines and there is no paper ballot or receipts to look at in a recount.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/28/recount-need-to-know/94547368/

[pbmus]

88. We are talking about two different issues..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512630058

[MADem]

89. Not really. One leads to the other. nt

[Sunlei]

29. here's her government website. she's current on trumps actions.appreciate her small business support

Pelosi Statement on Death of Fidel Castro



Pelosi Statement on Nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education



Pelosi Formally Announces Run for House Democratic Leader



Pelosi Statement on the Passing of Gwen Ifill



Pelosi Statement on Naming of Steve Bannon as White House Chief Strategist

her twitter is here
http://pelosi.house.gov/

[BainsBane]

44. But it's not on the teevee

She's supposed to be entertaining, not legislating.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

30. Similarly, I've been wondering for months

why President Obama wasn't front and center every day calling out the Republicans on not doing anything about his Supreme Court nominee. He simply let them get away with the lie about not confirming a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. Or maybe he was so amazingly confident that Hillary would be elected that he thought it wouldn't matter.

To me it made him look weak.

Pelosi and Schumer have shown themselves as weak for years now.

[maddiemom]

32. I guess "calling them out" is "off the table."

[LakeArenal]

34. Ah, The system is rigged.

[loyalsister]

35. Maybe they have standards

for decorum and evidence. And they know that doing what you suggest would take our government further down into the cess pool of reality tv and conflict driven infotainment.

[Maven]

43. There are respected journalists who've done extensive reporting on these issues

and the specific threats we face from a Trump presidency and R control of both chambers. There is plenty of evidence. There are plenty of people suggesting smart strategies for messaging that Dems can follow. Not taking part in the discussion AT ALL and being ignored by the media (however awful it is in its current state) is a recipe for further marginalization. We are dealing with an unstable person who has a direct line to his followers and a media that amplifies every lie. More "decorum" is exactly what we DON'T need right now. We need leaders who will tell the truth.

[loyalsister]

48. EVIDENCE is now "what this or that journalist said"

There is not pending legislation, only rhetoric at this point.

I'm glad our congressional leadership are not dumb enough to follow Trump into the mud and send out classless tweets based on their first dumb thought in the morning as the original poster suggested.
They are also not dumb enough to alienate any and all republicans in congress. If there is ever a possibility of impeaching Trump they need republicans to lead the charge. They know each other and they know who may waver in their support of him. They are also smart enough to know that if they are to gain any allies they have to act like grown ups. If they don't, they will go from possible strategies to giving GOP all the power because they can cry victim.

It's a shame that even Democrats want to see our government go the way of "the vile personalities who run our government" reality TV style expose. We are a sick sensationalistic culture and Trump may be what we all deserve because of there is a large enough segment of people who watch entertainment and infortainment news media.

[Maven]

49. Journalists report on facts

Trump's foreign business interests causing unavoidable conflicts of interest = fact
Russian interference in our election = fact confirmed by US intelligence
Trump's baseless claims about illegal voting = fact
Trump's connections to the racist, xenophobic 'alt right' = fact

We don't have to stoop to Trump's level but we do need to have a VOICE on the issues people are talking about, or we will get lost in the hurricane of lies that is coming out of the R camp. In case you haven't noticed from 8 years of obstruction, Republicans aren't interested in being our 'allies'. They are not acting in good faith. And now, they have less reason than ever to do so, or to even appear to be doing so. You can complain all you want about our media having no attention span and being fixated on soundbites over substance, but it is the reality we face. We need to use it to our advantage or we are done. And it needs to START with the legislative branch. As a party our focus has been too concentrated on winning the executive alone. That needs to end.

[loyalsister]

50. So, we want these facts investigated on teevee by pundits?

Or, do we want a legitimate investigation? As sensationalized as news is, it looks nothing like evidence if it is being dealt with via tweets and infotainment.

You have no idea what the Rs want now that they have a buffoon at the helm. Unless of course, you have concrete evidence that every single republican congress member is going to operate in full lock step and follow Trump. Things are different now that they have a fool to take responsibility for.

There is no using the media to our advantage when it's only interest is to promote conflict, unless you are advocating legiti9mizing it and turning government into WWF. Arguing pundits becomes arguing citizens and we get nowhere, ever.

Except the public has even less respect for Democrats. Ever wonder why people think govt has no role to play in their lives?

[tableturner]

71. I agree with Maven.....enough of the "rope a dope"!

Look, they come after good and decent people like Obama with totally made up BS trash, and they never stop. It is a constant drumbeat, surrogate after surrogate after surrogate, all with the same vile, false garbage.

Now we will have a person as president who is vile in almost every way, one who is going out of his way to appoint other vile actors, and who is thumbing his nose at the entire country when it comes to financial disclosure and eliminating conflicts of interest. And we are supposed to be our usual cooperative, passive selves?

I say NO! We should have our own constant drumbeat, with all of our Democratic officials and surrogates on TV MAKING HONEST, TRUE OBJECTIONS, all in a coordinated effort to fight the blatantly unacceptable actions and non-actions of Trump. Call it what you want......we need to be making our points over and over and over, and to do so with urgency commensurate with the unprecedented dangers to our society presented by Trump.

We have to tell our story, and we must do so not just with urgency, but at times, we have to do so with a fury equal to the gravity of the situation. We MUST frame the issues instead of just responding after the fact with our usual passive, defensive, flaccid efforts. Enough of this sitting back and having our good and decent leaders taking lying garbage blow after lying garbage blow for years when they are in office, and then laying off this true scumbag! We are in a battle for the minds of America, and we cannot win that battle without a constant full blown effort.

[loyalsister]

72. I would lose all respect for party and officials

One reason to not be a republican is that they act like trashy fools. One thing about Trump that struck me is that he is everything that most people hope their kids do not grow up to be. If Democrats act like that and we are exactly as vile. There needs to be some civility coming from somewhere.

[tableturner]

79. I'm not saying to act trashy like Republicans.

I AM saying that we are in a perpetual fight with the GOP, which is unceasingly in an attack mode, even when the attacks are based on lies or complete fabrications. They win the battle over and over because of their fierce and constant messaging. We need to fight back, not with lies or trashy actions or statements, but with a fierce regard for the truth. As for civility, there IS no civility when the GOP is on the constant attack with lying garbage, regardless of any civil actions by the Democrats. No more rope a dope or allowing ourselves to be pummeled with total BS!!

[loyalsister]

85. Machismo rhetoric and behavior is infantile

and part of the vile media and culture we now live in. The one that elected Trump.

[pbmus]

63. Amen...and amen

[pansypoo53219]

36. teevee gne2wz are gleeful w/ their golden SQUIRREL. democracy? MEH!

[BainsBane]

38. They evidently don't realize their job is to play to the cameras

They probably think it has to do with leading their respective legislative bodies. Everyone can't be a narcissistic, reality TV star.

[FailureToCommunicate]

39. Off to 'do lunch' together perhaps?

[Ilsa]

40. Why weren't they warning everyone about the trump-Ryan agenda

during the campaign. Trump used fear tactics. Hillary used national security fears. Why didn't someone talk about the gop slash-and-burn agenda sooner?

[Skittles]

41. they suck

seriously, we need new blood

THEY SUCK

[GoneOffShore]

42. Getting their last names changed to Quisling?

[usrbs]

73. YES - they have to make their voice heard. Apparently they need to be told to do that

Call their office and tell them to lead. And I don't want to hear excuses about them having no voice or power. That's true but it's their job as leaders to find strategies to overcome that. Or at least try. If they're not going to do so, step aside and give their positions to fighters.

But on our side - we have to raise the heat and make those calls.

[Cobalt Violet]

82. The corporations will be fine. Nothing for them to worry about.

[elfin]

86. They are napping

As talented, experienced, and dedicated as they have been -- they are OLD.

I am old. I know whereof I speak. They have done this forever. It is really hard to be freshly enthusiastic about something you have done that long, even if more urgent.

I like what I see in Tim Ryan, even if not agreeing with him on all issues. I would like to see more of Franken in the Senate. I don't trust Shumer.

[Blaukraut]

87. They're doing what they're used to doing - taking the high road

Personally, I think it's time to go wallow in the mud with the swine and get dirty. Dems have been playing nice and by the rules for too long.