After Trying Everything Else, Democrats Have Decided To Listen To Their Voters

[babylonsister]

After Trying Everything Else, Democrats Have Decided To Listen To Their Voters
“The more radical the administration is, the more radicalized our base becomes, which just feeds the Breitbart crowd, and who knows where that ends.”
02/01/2017 03:40 pm ET | Updated 5 hours ago

Ryan Grim Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post



WASHINGTON ― Before President Donald Trump appeared before cameras Tuesday night to bestow his Supreme Court rose on Judge Neil Gorsuch, protesters were already gathering outside the Brooklyn office of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D), demanding he take a firm stand against whichever man Trump nominated.

Later that evening, he did just that, announcing that Gorsuch would need 60 votes to get through the Senate, a declaration that Democrats planned to filibuster. The move came not long after he had chided Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) for suggesting that he would filibuster Trump’s pick no matter who it was. Whether Schumer’s decision was specifically driven by the thousands outside his office, who had been organized by the Working Families Party, or the crowds who had gathered at JFK airport, or the millions who had marched across the country the week before is impossible to know for certain.

But there can be no denying that Democratic spines have stiffened noticeably.

On Monday night, Democrats, led by Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, held an impromptu rally outside the Supreme Court. With the audio faltering, Pelosi led the assembled politicians in a rendition of “This Land Is Your Land,” with Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey even trying his hand at a bullhorn.

Democrats couldn’t have looked any more awkward if they tried, and Trump didn’t miss the opportunity to mock them on Twitter. But the next morning, the organized resistance continued, with Senate Democrats boycotting two votes scheduled for Trump nominees who have either lied, misled the committee or withheld information about their financial background. Later that day, they used a rare parliamentary maneuver to force a delay on a vote on the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for attorney general.

The obstruction, defiance and stiff opposition came after a week of progressive outrage at Democratic elected officials, who activists said were too quick to cave to and normalize Trump’s presidency. Progressive activists, of course, have been criticizing elected Democrats for being too weak for decades. But this time the charge is actually landing, and it’s changing the way the party is positioning itself against Trump.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), in an interview with the L.A. Times editorial board, said the energy coming from the base is “different in kind, certainly different in intensity, than I think we’ve ever seen after an election.”

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-progressive-base-trump_us_5892149de4b0c90eff016c9d?

[Me.]

1. Fingers Crossed That It Lasts

Though I am seeing that 14 Dem Senators have voted for all DT nominees so far


KR

[Xipe Totec]

2. The way to stiffen spines is with a lot of backing. nt

[Barack_America]

3. Spines? Must be painful and confusing for them.

I'm sure they'll shake it off and return to their regularly-scheduled capitulation.

"Our assessment is that if we yield to Republicans now...we'll be assured total dominance in 2028...2036 at the absolute latest".

[mn9driver]

4. The Democratic Party needs to understand at least one thing:

The Breitbarters will howl and scream about the left wing elite radicals NO MATTER WHAT. Anyone who is not totally with Trump/Bannon is the enemy. Not American, not opposition, not a different point of view.

The Enemy.

The only hope that we have is to fight like hell against everything that is happening. The base needs to be riled up, stay riled up, and get out to vote in record numbers in 2018. The only way to stop this is to be more pissed off than the right wing crazies and get everyone out there to vote.

[truebluegreen]

5. Yep, the message the voters

and marchers and callers and D meeting attendees have been sending is unequivocal: the base does want change and the "leaders" need to saddle up...or be left in the dust.

[Tatiana]

6. They are responding to the (implicit) threat of being primaried.

Whatever gets them to where we need them to be, I suppose...

[Motown_Johnny]

7. I'm not sure this is the right fight to pick.

I admit that I know almost nothing about Neil Gorsuch or anyone else that Trump might nominate, but by all accounts Gorsuch isn't a RW extremist.

If Gorsuch is more mainstream than other nominees that we can expect from Trump then we may not want to fight this battle.

Lets assume we win and kill this nomination. At that point the (R)s could consider "going nuclear" and changing the rules so they only need 51 votes. Then Trump could nominate the craziest of the crazies for SCOTUS and we would be powerless to stop the confirmation.

The same thing would then repeat for any and all other seats which become open while Trump is in office.

Yes, I know. The seat was stolen from us, but it is gone. I am all for pitchforks and torches when they have a chance at a positive outcome. I don't see this being one of those situations.

We can't expect a nominee that we will like. If Gorsuch is a lesser evil then we should probably accept it. The alternative being a greater evil and I think that is something that should be avoided.

[elmac]

8. Well, the republicans, including mccain

said they would block all of Obamas picks even before the great satan died. I think we should fulfill their and our obligation to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Its always a good time to obstruct.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. I see no path where this doesn't make things worse.

If we do defeat Gorsuch then the (R)s will play the victim and claim that they were forced to change the Senate rules.

Then Trump nominates someone even worse because he knows that he now needs only 51 votes to confirm his nominee. Then the rule stays in place so if another seat becomes open we get another extremist.


If you can see some way for us to end up with someone better than Gorsuch then please explain it to me. I just can't see it.


Fighting just for the sake of fighting seems stupid to me. Especially when there is no hope of making things any better and a near certainty of making things worse.

[truebluegreen]

11. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

Things can't get worse, they are already worse. The Republicans spent the last 8 years opposing everything Obama wanted, even in the face of an economy falling off the cliff and even when it was their idea. Sure, if we oppose Gorsuch they will nuke the filibuster; if they don't do it this time they will do it the next time they are opposed.

The point is not about working with those assholes to minimize the damage (we can't), it is about actively and vocally opposing them to show the base that our "leaders" have their backs. We need to keep up the enthusiasm and the activism so we can throw enough assholes out in 2 years, while demoralizing and splitting Republican ranks along the way. We don't do that by being nice to them...a lesson we all should have learned in the Obama years.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. A more extreme SCOTUS appointment would be worse.

Your post is nonsense. Your arguing to spend political capital to win a Pyrrhic victory is ridiculous.




Things can get worse and if (D)s allow their anger to overcome their reasoning they will.

[truebluegreen]

16. You think this proto-fascist is not extreme?

That's nonsense.

Ds have never--in recent memory--allowed their "hatred to overcome their reasoning" and Look Where We Are. How is that working for us? We've been doing nothing but losing ground for decades--you have been around for that, right? Thinking that being conciliatory / picking our battles / keeping our powder dry will change that is myopic or willful blindness.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. I don't know enough about him to make that choice.

I only know what has been reported and it seems that there are worse possible nominees out there. He was confirmed 98-0 in 2006. If he is such an extremist then why was there no objection to him then?

There are plenty of battles to fight right now. I don't think we should keep our powder dry, although I do think we should pick our battles.

I would argue that (D)s allowed their "hatred to overcome their reasoning" when they turned on LBJ over Vietnam. That led directly to a President Nixon.

From my point of view your approach is myopic or willful blindness. How does this work out better for us? What possible good will it do to fight this battle? Even if we win, what will happen? Do you honestly think we will get a better nominee out of Trump?

If you can't see a reasonable path to a positive outcome then your position needs to change.

[truebluegreen]

18. No, I don't think we will get a better nominee,

particularly not with Bannon lurking. I do think--for once--Ds need to show some spine instead of being all nice and bi-partisany. One would almost think they don't care about losing.

This has gone well beyond being "reasonable". We've been bringing sporks to gun fights for decades, particularly during the last 8 years, and (again!) look where we are. Our losing game is what needs to change. Why is it that Republicans can somehow she shit done even when in the minority but Democrats just can't?.

The Party is way ahead of its so-called leaders at this point; if those leaders want to continue to have a party they need to catch the hell up.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. Republicans tear down, Democrats build up.

The reason they get shit done while in the minority is because you can still tear things down while in the minority. The reason we don't is because of the difficulty involved with building up while in the minority.

Deciding that we should start tearing things down isn't the answer.


There are so many other fights right now. That stupid fucking wall, sanctuary cities, our national parks, EPA, Public Schools, sanctions lifted against Russia, sanctions imposed on Iran, delegitimizing the press while legitimizing fake news..... The list is almost endless.

If you agree that we won't get a better nominee, then why waste our time and energy on this fight?

[truebluegreen]

22. "why waste our time and energy on this fight?"

Because it is better than lying down in the middle of the road and getting run over. Sorry, but "duh."

If we had fought / phoned / demonstrated / shown up / demanded what we voted for etc. in the early days of the Obama presidency we wouldn't have gotten shellacked in 2010 and ever since (yes, he won re-election but as we know, the presidency is not the only race that matters).

I don't get what is so hard to understand. Do you think I am advocating only fighting this battle? Because I am not. The list is endless, the Republicans have to be opposed at every turn, but you seem to think keeping our powder dry is an option. It isn't. The more obvious the opposition, the more obvious Trump's derangement will be and that is what is needed, to turn the country, his voters and even some few elected pukes against him until we can throw the crazies out.

Want to generate enthusiasm? Show some.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. It seems like you are throwing yourself into traffic.

I am not saying we shouldn't fight. I am saying there are fights we might actually win out there.

Fighting with no possibility of improving anything seems foolish to me. It will just make things worse.

Fight against the defunding of sanctuary cities. That is an excellent cause and one we might win.

[truebluegreen]

24. Somebody has to.

And while I think fighting for sanctuary cities is a good fight, it is also exactly the wrong fight if we are only going to pick one. Why? Optics: it will appear to prioritize immigrants over American citizens and play right into RW hands. You have to be familiar with the divide-and-conquer playbook by now.

[babylonsister]

29. I agree with you; things are already worse, so why hold back?

They never did.

[truebluegreen]

34. Yes. Whatever else we can say about them,

their lack of restraint has served them well.

[alarimer]

15. But Trump is as strong now as he ever will be.

He's only going to be more and more of an anchor on Republicans. So he may not be able to nominate an extremist the next time. I also am fairly optimistic that the Democrats will be in a much stronger position after the 2018 election, if they manage to tie Republicans to Trump.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. Agreed, he will get weaker.

It will be harder for them to change the rules to confirm a Supreme Court nominee with only 51 votes when he is weaker.


Wait to have that fight. Right now there is no good outcome for us.

[alarimer]

21. Maybe so.

I admit to being conflicted about this.

[herding cats]

37. 50.

They're about to lose Sessions and the seat will be vacant for a short time. Which normally wouldn't matter much in politics usually, but under Trump... who the hell knows what he'll do?

My point is, strategically blocking this one could work out for us if the Republicans don't remove the filibuster. If Trump drops even lower in public opinion we're in a better position to to get a less extreme nomination. And, this is an extreme nomination. He's Scalia reincarnated. You do remember Scalia, right, the antiquated relic with a 1950's flavor?

If they nix the filibuster for a SCOUTS pick, so be it. That'll eventually bite them in the butt cheeks and they'll regret it down the road. Not that they care about that at the moment since they're drunk on power right now.

Right now it's fight or anger your base, who are in panic mode. Weighing those options, they should fight and then deal with the fallout. Which could potentially be within this 4 year term.

Rock, meet hard place. It's going to be a very long 4 years.

[pangaia]

27. When you are faced with an arrogant bully,

especially one with a tiny dick, the ONLY way to stop him is to beat the living shit out of him.

[Uponthegears]

33. Yep

[Motown_Johnny]

35. Then hit him where he is vulnerable.

To me this looks like insisting on smashing your face into his fist over and over again.

That is no way to win a fight.

If you review this sub-thread you will see that nobody has offered any possible outcome that is an improvement over what will happen if we don't fight on this front.

It would seem that none exists.

I would rather we spent political capital and news cycles on something we can win.

[JTFrog]

13. Mr. "Fascism Forever Club" isn't an RW extremist?

Coulda fooled me.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. As I said in my post, I don't know any more than what was being reported up to that point.

Maybe he is the worst possible nominee. If so then my position is wrong. If he isn't then it isn't.



Edit too add: If he is an extremist then how did he get a 98-0 vote in his last Senate confirmation? (technically confirmed by voice vote without objection)

[socialist_n_TN]

25. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anybody who advocates "Fascism Forever" at ANY time in his adult life is a right wing extremist.

[Motown_Johnny]

36. You know that isn't real... right?

http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/

^snip^

CLAIM: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch founded a 'Fascism Forever' club at Georgetown Prep and made white separatist/anti-Semitic statements.

X FALSE


However, we contacted Georgetown Preparatory School to verify whether a "Fascism Forever" club operated in or around that school in 1985, and director of communications Patrick Coyle told us that “no such club ever existed" there.



In a related rumor, Gorsuch reportedly once said, "our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races ... this goal must include freeing of the American media and Government from subservient Jewish interests." That phrasing originated with the WikiQuote page for Ku Klux Klan member and notorious white separatist David Duke and has not been attributed to Gorsuch by any credible source.

[Blaukraut]

9. I have no patience left at all with them. My Senators and Rep have no excuses! Stand up go home.

Warren, Markey, Moulton. No excuses.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. It is not about listening to us, GOP is going to destroy everything, everything

if they dont stop them

[Turbineguy]

28. What a radical concept!

[drray23]

30. Its the right strategy to oppose gorsuch now

Even if after we fillibuster they go nuclear. By the time 2018 comes around we will have retaken the senate and if they have gone nuclear we will benefit. I suspect some rep senators are envisioning that already and are not so keen about removing the fillibuster.

The problem is that we dems always blink first instead of calling their bluff. We should not this time.

[Uponthegears]

31. I'm sorry your OP

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2017, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Turned into a soapbox for collaborators.

Of course, YOU are correct. NOW is the time to grow a spine.

The "danger" that we will "win" with Gorsuch and then face a worse nominee and no filibuster is ZERO. If the Republicans don't jettison the filibuster now, they never will. If they are willing to jettison the filibuster, they will do it now.

These bullshit scenarios that are being thrown out are excuses for doing what the "middle of the road"-ers think is "smart politics" . . . "proving" to white suburbanites that we are "reasonable."

We did that 3 months ago and those "reasonable" suburbanites OVERWHELMINGLY supported TRUMP, including SUBURBAN WOMEN.

We are the party of the black, the brown, the gay, the poor, the worker, the non-Christian, the women seeking freedom and all the other oppressed and we are the party of the less oppressed but decent people who stand with us. We owe them COURAGE.

We owe the middle of the road NOTHING

[malaise]

32. Yes indeed

It's good to see