Connect with us

News

Chuck Schumer has one job right now — and he’s botching it

Published

on

Trump’s Cabinet choices are dreadful. Why are so many Democrats in Congress quiet?

The response from Senate Democrats — who will have votes and a voice in the confirmation process — has been remarkably muted.

Donald Trump’s nominees are without an iota of doubt the most appalling collection of choices any president has made to lead federal government departments. Multiple Trump picks have already withdrawn, and more may soon follow. Yet the response from Senate Democrats — who will have votes and a voice in the confirmation process — has been remarkably muted. Ask a Senate Democrat about the nominees, and you’re more likely to hear “I have some serious concerns” than the far more appropriate “My God, is Trump insane? These are the worst nominees in history!”

Many of these Democrats would consider such a response uncivil and undignified; if Trump won’t adhere to norms of propriety, at least they will. Worse, they believe that it is politically clever for them to show voters that they seek bipartisanship, even if that desire turns out to be unrequited. “As I have long said, our preference is to secure bipartisan solutions wherever possible and look for ways to collaborate with our Republican colleagues to help working families,” Chuck Schumer, leader of Senate Democrats, said on social media. “However, our Republican colleagues should make no mistake about it, we will always stand up for our values.”

Republicans are no doubt quivering in the face of such a blistering assault.

This is a miscalculation born of a misunderstanding. Democrats need to grasp that during Trump’s second term, the electorate won’t be evaluating them either as individuals or as a party, based on whether they acted in good faith and sought areas of agreement with the GOP. The truth is: Voters don’t care about bipartisanship. They might tell pollsters they’d prefer it if everyone in Washington got along, and they may sincerely mean it. But when it comes time to vote, that’s not how they act.

Opposition isn’t about how voters judge the opposition party; it’s about how they judge the party in power. The only evaluation from voters that matters for the next four years (and especially the next two years until the midterm elections) is that of Trump, his government and the Republicans who run Congress. In this situation, Democrats are not the alternative; their role is to oppose, loudly and unceasingly, and call attention to Republicans’ worst excesses. They need to disseminate the most cutting and critical messages and force the news media to address stories of the administration’s worst misdeeds. 

Let’s consider some relevant recent history. In the 2008 election, Democrats won 365 electoral votes, 251 House seats and 59 Senate seats — the most sweeping victory for one party in decades. Republicans could have decided that they needed to show the public they were committed to moderation and bipartisanship. They did just the opposite. On the very night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, GOP leaders gathered for dinner and planned to “show united and unyielding opposition” to the new president and his policies. A week later, House Republicans held a retreat where they committed themselves to all-out war against Obama; they cheered their recent unified vote against Obama’s recovery bill, and then-Rep. Mike Pence played a clip from the movie “Patton” of George C. Scott, as Gen. George S. Patton, rallying troops to fight the Nazis.

In the Senate, Republican leader Mitch McConnell believed that bipartisanship had to be avoided at all costs, since it might legitimate Obama’s actions. Any tactic was justified in pursuit of opposition, up to and including refusing to allow a vote on the president’s Supreme Court nominee.

The strategy was an extraordinary success: Republicans flipped 63 seats to take back the House in 2010 — the biggest switch in over 60 years. The Senate went to the GOP in 2014 and the White House in 2016, after which Republicans also secured a majority on the Supreme Court. The voters never punished them for being too partisan.

Ask President Joe Biden how politically effective the search for bipartisanship is.

It’s not that Democrats haven’t been capable of united and vigorous resistance. They implemented a similar strategy of opposition after George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, and as a result, they took control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterms. Their leaders at the time — Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House — understood that their job was not to look for areas of agreement but to fight with every tool at their disposal. Which they did, and it worked.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Trump Nominates Conservative Lawyer Harmeet Dhillon To Lead DOJ Civil Rights Division

Published

on

By

Harmeet Dhillon was chosen by the president-elect to replace Kristen Clarke on the Justice Department’s civil rights efforts.

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Monday that he plans to nominate a conservative California attorney to lead a critical division of the Department of Justice.

Harmeet Dhillon, a former vice chairwoman of the California GOP and a national committeewoman for the Republican National Committee, was selected by Trump to serve as assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department. She would replace Kristen Clarke, who became the first woman and first Black woman to run the division in 2021.

Trump, who described Dhillon as one of the “top Election lawyers” in the country in his Truth Social announcement, said that she would have a large role in voting rights enforcement.

“Throughout her career, Harmeet has stood up consistently to protect our cherished Civil Liberties, including taking on Big Tech for censoring our Free Speech, representing Christians who were prevented from praying together during COVID, and suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers,” he wrote.

Dhillon combated stay-at-home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. She filed several lawsuits against government-level regulations, arguing there was overreach. The lawsuits Dhillon filed came after Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom became the first governor to issue statewide stay-at-home orders to shut down nonessential activities and interests to combat the spread of the coronavirus.

In 2018, Dhillon founded the conservative nonprofit The Center for American Liberty, which has filed lawsuits challenging vaccine requirements and trans-inclusive school policies. Most notably, Dhillon currently represents Chloe Cole, a young activist who sued Kaiser Permanente in California after she detransitioned from male to female. Cole has rallied alongside Republican politicians and conservative media figures, and has testified in support of dozens of state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care for trans youth.

Dhillon is highly critical of blue states that aim to uphold and protect rights for transgender people in light of ongoing legislative attacks. She said Maine’s “shield” law, which protects reproductive health care providers and trans people, is “unconstitutional” and expressed concerns about future protections in California.

A staunch opponent of abortion herself, the attorney also unsuccessfully represented anti-abortion activist David Daleiden, who in 2016 used a fake driver’s license to pose as a biomedical company executive and tried to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, in an effort to accuse the health care provider of selling tissue for profit.

Dhillon, who was born in India and is a practicing Sikh, has faced pushback from fellow Republicans due to questions of her faith. After she announced in 2022 that she would challenge RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel for her position, several members of the RNC circulated a video of Dhillon opening a 2016 Republican National Convention with a Sikh prayer. In a letter to Alabama Republicans in 2023 responding to the incident, Dhillon addressed concerns about her faith and slammed McDaniel’s leadership. Alabama Republican Chris Horn questioned how Dhillon’s religion would impact policy to NBC. McDaniel condemned attacks on religion but told Politico her allies questioned how Dhillon’s faith would impact the party.

Last year, former Fox News host and conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson hired Dhillon to represent him in a gender discrimination lawsuit by his former producer, Abby Grossberg. The ensuing settlement resulted in Fox paying Grossberg $12 million.

“I’m extremely honored by President Trump’s nomination to assist with our nation’s civil rights agenda,” Dhillon said in a post on X (formerly known as Twitter). “It has been my dream to be able to serve our great country, and I am so excited to be part of an incredible team of lawyers led by @PamBondi. I cannot wait to get to work!”

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s Utterly Absurd Take On Birthright Citizenship Involves Walking Infants

Published

on

By

The president-elect appeared very confused about how American citizenship is conferred.

In a freewheeling interview with NBC News Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump offered a head-scratching explanation for his plan to wage an attack on birthright citizenship.

“Did you know, if somebody sets a foot — just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two — on our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America,” Trump said, when discussing birthright citizenship.

“Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous,” he added.

Trump appeared to describe a hypothetical scenario in which a woman would give birth to an infant who — either capable of walking at birth or helped along by someone eager to win a bet — would set one foot on American soil and the other in either Mexico or Canada.

It is also possible Trump was imagining an infant hopping or standing on one leg. Neither scenario is plausible.

Trump also repeatedly asked whether the interviewer, Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press,” knew that the United States was the only country that conferred citizenship by birthright.

“We’re the only country that has it, you know,” Trump said. “You know we’re the only country that has it.”

Birthright citizenship is commonly recognized in the Americas, including in Canada and Mexico. Also known by its Latin legal term as “jus soli,” it is the concept of conferring citizenship by birth in a given country. Most countries instead recognize “jus sanguinis,” which instead confers citizenship based on the nationality of a person’s parents.

Welker did not challenge Trump’s utterly wrong description of how birthright citizenship works or that the United States is not alone in recognizing it. But she asked whether Trump intended to enact his proposed change through executive action.

“Well, if we can, through executive action,” Trump said. “I was going to do it through executive action, but then we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you.”

Birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The president cannot use executive action to overturn a constitutional amendment, though legal experts expect the Trump administration to challenge the long-settled legal interpretation through the courts.

Trump has spent significant time in southern Florida, which is home to a large Cuban-American community.

He likely came up with this weird description of birthright citizenship by free-associating the issue with the now-defunct policy of allowing Cuban migrants to stay within the United States and pursue citizenship upon touching American soil. The policy was known as “wet-foot, dry-foot.”

During this year’s presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly described immigrants as coming from jails and mental institutions. He was likely resurrecting assertions he heard during the era of the Mariel boatlift four decades ago.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Trolls Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Stirs Controversy

Published

on

By

Trump mocks the United States’ northern ally
In a post just after midnight on Truth Social, Trump took aim at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with a mocking reference, calling him “Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada.”

The comment, a throwback to Trump’s past suggestion that Canada might become the 51st U.S. state if they can’t handle his tariffs, is an insult to both Trudeau and Canada.

Trump recently posted an AI image of himself looking into Canada as if to annex it. Trump’s midnight post, claiming to look forward to future discussions on tariffs and trade with “Governor Trudeau,” further stoked tensions with a key ally and makes one question his diplomatic judgment.

Trump’s post undermines the United States’ relationship with Canada. Calling the Canadian leader a “Governor” belittles the sovereignty of a close neighbor and trading partner, and further feeds into the narrative of disrespect that Trump has often displayed toward foreign leaders. 

The United States and Canada share deep economic, cultural, and geopolitical ties, and statements like this can jeopardize decades of cooperation. Trump is proving once again he will be an embarrassment to the United States.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.