"The Republicans succeeded in 2010 because they nationalized the election around Obama and Obamacare". For several cycles it was Dixiecrats; then it was Blue Dog Democrats.
Senate Democrats are planning a second consecutive late-night session Tuesday to highlight their opposition to another one of President Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees.
One more factor that's buoying Democrats' hopes: the enthusiasm of the anti-Trump demonstrators who have poured into the streets in recent weeks. They'll simply blame Democrats for filibustering the REINS Act. Over former President Barack Obama's two terms, his nominees received a total of 406 "no" votes, but eight of his choices were confirmed without a formal roll call vote.
Instead, Senate Democrats are seeking heavy investments by the government, including $210 billion to rebuild roads and bridges, $110 billion for water and sewage projects, $180 billion for rail and bus systems and $75 billion to rebuild schools.
Republicans were furious throughout much of Obama's presidency regarding his massive amounts of executive overreach and his bypassing of the U.S. Congress. Someone has a responsibility to look for the duplicity under every rock.
But before Obama came along, that distinction belonged to Republican George W. Bush.
Republicans have spent years obstructing and opposing and being the party of no as then-President Obama and congressional Democrats tried to get the nation out of economic crisis and implement a generally popular agenda. Is there political peril in that?
Brady's Patriots stage historic rally to win Super Bowl
The fourth rookie starter, linebacker De'Vondre Campbell, could play a key role on Sunday against tight end Martellus Bennett . But there was a holding call on Jake Matthews to push Atlanta back another 10 yards, and Matt Ryan came up short on the re-do.
All of this ignores the depth and breadth of electoral losses by Democrats - not just in this last election cycle, and at every political level. "The rule affects an estimated 75,000 beneficiaries who could not work because of the severity of their mental disorder and needed a representative to manage their benefits". With few exceptions, each new president has been more "polarizing" than the last one. Hillary won among voters who make less than $50,000 a year; and in the Rust Belt, she won among voters for whom the economy was the most pressing issue. In this increased politicization, Congress found more reason to push back on the executive branch. I don't think the president owns a bathrobe. But as Trump takes his seat in the oval office, will he stay true to his promise of giving power "back to the people", as he said in his inaugural address? The lesson that has to be learned is that inclusion means an end to demonizing 2nd Amendment rights advocates and Right-to-Lifers.
Sen. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton, said at a community forum over the weekend she resisted constituents who wanted to talk about Trump, not CT issues. I don't agree with everything he has done, although I strongly agree with most of it. Other students are calling for an all-out resistance to Trump, making it hard for University Democrats to find middle ground.
The problem is that these efforts have been undertaken within a framework of normal partisan wrangling, and the media have duly reported them as such.
However, in our eagerness for such a scenario, we should take care to not let the ease of imagining it distract us from the potential threats to achieving it.
But Republicans don't need Democrats.
They continually woo celebrities to scold voters about latent bigotry (and take freaky shots at the National Football League and Mixed Martial Arts contests) rather than find messengers who can help Democrats craft an agenda that speaks to everyone equally. It's proof that they're serious about restoring the balance of powers between the three branches of government and Democrats aren't.