Steve Schmidt on Morning Joe: "Democrats keep bringing a butter knife to a gun fight."

[madaboutharry]

That is the major problem. What is wrong with these mealy mouth democrats?

Joe Scarborough, like a broken clock that is right twice a day, is 100% correct in saying that the democrats on the Judiciary Committee should boycott the Kavanaugh hearing and hold a press conference exposing the bogus process that the republicans are pursuing.

Until democrats get a spine we are always going to come out the loser.

[Ilsa]

1. I tend to agree. I don't think playing the victim

to republican dirty tricks will help in elections. There are aggressive things that can be done, like releasing the documents for review by lawyers, also.

[OnDoutside]

13. There's a balance, where I think Democrats do not want to end up becoming what the Repugs are but

I agree that they are too far away from where they should be on this.

[Magoo48]

18. Yup

We dems spend so much time bemoaning what we can’t do that we have little energy or will to pursue the creative direct actions which we could participate in. This is why we might be better served encouraging younger more aggressive party members into leadership positions while persuading our more stagnant members to step back.

[TeamPooka]

109. Politically, Democrats need to fight Republicans the way Republicans fight Democrats.

[CousinIT]

2. Sorry to say, one reason I like that Avenatti guy...

...he's a bulldog, not afraid of a dirty street fight.

[madaboutharry]

3. I feel the same about Avenatti.

He gets my respect for calling it the way it is.

[tonyt53]

51. The guy is a lawyer. Most lawyers are the same way. It is called courtroom showmanship.

[jrthin]

63. I agree w/you!

[Meadowoak]

4. Bill Maher sasys, Democrats don't even bring a knife to a gun fight, they bring a covered dish.

[pangaia]

8. LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Roy Rolling]

34. I'm gonna steal that one

[pangaia]

95. I can't stand Maher and haven't watched him in years,

but I gotta say, he or his writers came up with a winner this time...

[tblue37]

122. My own version is that they bring a pool noodle to a gunfight. (I just find pool noodles

inherently funny.)

[radical noodle]

123. Hey! Watch it!

[Trust Buster]

5. Let us not pretend that we didn't know what we were getting with Chuck Schumer.

[JaneQPublic]

15. It's a wonder why Nobody talks of replacing Schumer like so many do Pelosi.

Time and again, Schumer folds like a cheap lawn chair.

What happened to standing firm on DACA, even it meant shutting down the government (longer than over the weekend)?

What was this business about agreeing to quickly approving a pile a of judges before the Labor Day Weekend, to get... what?

It's a shame we now have a Senate Dem Leader who makes Harry Reid look like a flame-thrower.

[JHan]

39. Schumer does not "fold like a cheap lawn chair"

[GeorgeGist]

119. How does he fold?

[JHan]

120. okay I lol'd.

[JHan]

6. Right, boycott the hearing. Allowing republicans to just throw softball questions at Kav.

While there's no Democrat in sight to challenge their bullshit. So the hearings will just be a love fest for Kav And you can bet that coverage of the hearings will take precedence over a Dem press conference.

Is Joe really saying this can all be avoided with a press conference?

.....

[Bettie]

7. My husband keeps saying

they bring a casserole to a gun fight...just so those poor guys can have a snack after they destroy another section of our Republic.

I still don't get how, when Democrats are the majority, any Republican can bring just about anything to a complete halt with a secret hold or some other maneuver, but our side can't even slow things down.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. +100x

amazing, isn't it?

[ehrnst]

59. Because the Senate isn't about majority of voters.

Each state, no matter the population, get the same amount of say in the Senate.

This is why large states with large populations have less say per voter in the Senate than small population states - many which are rural, and Red.

[Bettie]

65. Even if you will lose in the end

it is worth it to fight for what is right. Even a losing battle is worth it, if nothing else, it shows that you are not complicit.

[ehrnst]

66. Depends on the situation.

A lot of people got very angry that Gore stopped the legal challenge after SCOTUS handed down the ruling that the Florida vote recount would not be validated.

They felt he owed them more fight, but as a lawyer, he knew that there was no appeal past SCOTUS.

The Kavanaugh nomination will go forward, either sooner or later, but before the Midterms, and Kavanaugh will be approved without a needing a single Democratic Senator. Short of Kavanaugh having a stroke, anyway.

The midterms, however are still in play. Sitting in DC when they could be back in their home states working on midterms is a much, much better use of Democratic Senators' time and energy.

[Bengus81]

69. Gore folded his tent before all the votes were in or shortly after.........

And THEN calls Bush and concedes the election when the vote count was so close a hair barely separated the count. They saw first hand right then what Dems would do in a real fight. Concede and go home.

[ehrnst]

70. Actually, no, Gore fought it all the way to SCOTUS.

Look it up:

The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification to stand, as made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, for George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 to win the Electoral College, and the defeat of Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a "faithless elector" from the District of Columbia abstained).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

There is no court higher than SCOTUS. To have continued to fight it would have been a waste of money, and resources.

Independent recounts continued.

[George II]

106. Gore didn't formally concede until December 13, 2000

[Bengus81]

111. Nope....first time on Nov 8th

If he didn't concede then there was no reason to call Bush back to retract something you never did. Doesn't matter if it was formal or not,fact is he conceded when a Bush victory was so razor thin it would have been ridiculous for ANYONE to do so.


WASHINGTON –– Vice President Al Gore conceded the presidential race in a telephone call to George W. Bush on Wednesday morning – then took it back. A senior adviser with the Gore campaign confirmed that the vice president made the two calls, one to concede and the other to retract.

"He called an hour ago to concede. He just called us back to retract that concession," said Karen Hughes, communications director for Bush. "It's unbelievable."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001108/aponline040549_000.htm

[George II]

115. I know what happened. That wasn't a "traditional" or formal concession.

[Bengus81]

117. Don't care about the title,fact is Gore called his opponent and conceded.....

with a win margin so small for Bush it was ridiculous. Then when everything is FULLY counted he had Bush beat by 500k+ votes.

Gore never wanted that Pres run,never included Clinton in his campaign. Hell,he just wanted it over with.

[stopbush]

96. Because Ds respect the rules of the Senate while Rs don't.

It’s like asking why the police don’t use the same tactics as career criminals.

[beachbum bob]

9. boycott or no boycott...unless a few GOP senators grow spine, there is zero democrats can do,

the real focus should be on GOP, not democrats.....

[Bettie]

23. They may not be able to stop it

but they should fight tooth and nail to slow it down, to buy time for maybe one of those assholes to grow a spine.

Yeah, it may not happen, but fighting, even in futility, is better than rolling over.

[ehrnst]

75. You think that a GOP Senator is going to grow a spine?

And perhaps you have not seen efforts this morning by Schumer to delay the hearings due to the new batch of documents.

And you know what's worse than fighting a doomed battle - taking away resources from another winnable battle.

The midterms.

But the GOP is quite happy to see Dems eat their own leaders because they let Senators go home to work on the midterms, rather than stay in DC and prolong the inevitable, and still get eaten by their base for not doing the impossible - convincing a GOP senator by their noble example to go against their own party. Collins has already stated she will back Kavannaugh.

[Bettie]

78. Fighting even a doomed battle shows midterm voters

that our party's leaders don't just lie down and give up when the odds are against them.

It isn't about purity, it is about being WILLING to fight the battle.

No, I don't think any Republican will be a decent human being. Ever.

However, just throwing our collective hands in the air and saying "Well, I guess we should just accept the end of civil rights, women's rights, etc." isn't a good answer either.

I have seen the efforts to slow things this morning and I applaud them. Now, if we could get ZERO Democrats to vote for this piece of excrement, that would also be good, but they'll end up being able to say it was 'bipartisan' when two or three (or god forbid more) Dems vote for him.

[ehrnst]

88. Even when it prevents our Senators from getting back to their home states

to fight a winnable battle?

However, just throwing our collective hands in the air and saying "Well, I guess we should just accept the end of civil rights, women's rights, etc." isn't a good answer either.

Strawman, much? If you have to make up something to disagree with, you're not helping your credibility.

Now, if we could get ZERO Democrats to vote for this piece of excrement, that would also be good, but they'll end up being able to say it was 'bipartisan' when two or three (or god forbid more) Dems vote for him

.

Unless there is a GOP Senator who suddenly has a traumatic brain injury, and forgets they are in the GOP, Kavanaugh will be confirmed. Just like Gore was not going to be able to win the election after SCOTUS ruled that the Florida count stood, and Dem leaders forged ahead with trying to contain the damage of a Bush administration. Pointless rage at our own Dem leaders and Gore for "just giving up!" when there is no court higher than SCOTUS didn't help anything either.

I think that Dems going home over the last week to their home state and work on something winnable, and not supporting the the main GOP talking point (Dems will obstruct everything Trump does if they take the house!!! They will impeach!!!) was a good decision, and the GOP is toasting to Democrats fuming.

[Bettie]

102. Well, I guess you should get on the phone

and tell Dems who ARE resisting this to knock it off.

They are making noise, they are resisting. That is what I want to see, that is what some other voters want to see: some spirit, a willingness to push back.

[ehrnst]

108. What are you talking about?

Are you confusing me with someone else you are arguing with who thinks they should boycott the hearings?

And I think you might be surprised at this thing called the internet....where I'm learning all about how they are making noise now and have been for weeks.

Check it out sometime if you get tired of complaining about Democratic leaders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-hearing-trumps-nominee-will-pledge-to-be-a-neutral-and-impartial-arbiter/2018/09/04/5fbaec1a-b035-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-begin-protest-democrats/story?id=57590456

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-raise-alarm-white-house-decision-withhold-kavanaugh/story?id=57563344

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-urge-delay-kavanaugh-hearing_us_5b7d8989e4b0cd327df8f46a

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-senators-seek-delay-kavanaugh-20180830-story.html

Link to tweet

[bucolic_frolic]

10. It creates a precedent

We always lose. With nothing to lose here but precedent that will be used against us in the future, what should we do?

Go for it? I don't know. Precedent is irreversible.

I really don't know. Someone said sue them! For breach of Constitutional duties. Would be interesting.

One thing I would do is ask "What would Mitch McConnell do?" Somehow he managed throughout the Obama administration to exert incredible influence on the direction of the Senate, even when he was the Minority Leader! Obstruction, stonewalling, delays, public utterences. Mitch Bitched about everything.

[zentrum]

12. If the shoe

Last edited Wed Sep 5, 2018, 07:35 AM - Edit history (1)

...was on the other foot, the Repugs would never go ahead with this hearing.

When the Democrats lose, it's not just "us" who loses---it's the country itself. The Repugs are eating the country alive ant the Democrats are tsk-tsking.

The idea of a hearing boycott is right on target. They Must Never Go Ahead With This Hearing as if it's business as usual.

[mountain grammy]

37. +1

[KPN]

64. Exactly ... "tsk tsking" perfectly characterizes Schumer's hardball.

Grow some backbone Democrats! Take some risk! The frigging nation and democracy are at risk for God’s sake! Who cares if a boycott doesn’t work if it builds party morale and support! What the hell are we afraid of?!

[awesomerwb1]

76. That's a very funny way of describing this:

"tsk-tsking".

It's funny and sad. I am tired of us not being more proactive/aggressive.
Not gonna say anything about the leadership, because at times, they're not worthy of my time.

[namahage]

125. Which is why they all boycotted Sotomayor's and Kagan's confirmation hearing, right? nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. Starting to think you may be right... drastic times calls for drastic measures.

[zentrum]

130. That's it exactly.

[Recursion]

133. When have Republicans ever boycotted a hearing?

We'd love it if they did that: only softball questions for the nominee.

[DownriverDem]

14. repubs

control it all. repubs have 51 votes to confirm kavanaugh. I would appreciate someone telling me how the Dems can win this fight? They lack the votes. They lack the power. Help me out.

[RecoveringJournalist]

20. Not 51

Unless I'm mistaken they have only 50 votes with DIS-Pence being 51. Doesn't McCain's passing play a part in this?

[gratuitous]

24. Bookmarking

Because I'm not seeing it, either. None of the Senate Republicans, even the ones retiring (Flake, Corker), is going to go against party for the good of the country. Each and every one of them will march in lock-step with the party. Against that, the Democrats can holler, and yell, and shake their fists in the air. The Republicans will ignore them or ridicule them, and go right on with what they're doing. They may stop momentarily to mouth some crapulence about how divisive the Democrats are. If Democrats really get rolling, though, there's always Frank Bruni and the Washington Post editorial page standing by, to scold them for being uncivil, and that will be the end of that.

[rusty quoin]

16. A spine comes from the left, not the middle.

Ted Kennedy spoke out against the Iraq war with great passion. Most other Democrats spoke out with like parlor room conversation.

A voice like John L Lewis makes a difference. It’s kind of like professional wrestling. We hate it, but you gotta yell to make a difference.

[NewJeffCT]

17. Back in the 80s or 90s, liberal Republican Lowell Weicker of Connecticut

was asked why, if he agreed with the Democrats on most issues, did he not become a Democrat?

I think his response was "Because Democrats have no balls" or something like that - or, maybe it was "no guts", but I'm pretty sure I remember the news having to bleep the answer.

And, yes, Weicker was a liberal Republican, who lost to Joe Lieberman when Lieberman ran to his right as a Democrat. The then young Weicker had also made a name for himself with his sharp questioning of Nixon administration officials during some Watergate hearings.

(I live in CT and have looked for the actual quote several times in past years, but not found it)

[FakeNoose]

21. Yes I remember Weicker in the days of Watergate

He was a pretty good guy in those days, and he helped bring Nixon down. I wasn't aware that he lost his seat to Joe Lieberman, but Weicker would have made a good Democrat. Too bad!

[NewJeffCT]

28. After he lost to Lieberman in 1988

he resigned from the Republican Party and became independent because he already saw that the GOP was swinging too far to the right. As an independent, he ran for governor of Connecticut in 1990 and won, edging out conservative Republican John Rowland 41-37% with Democrat Bruce Morrison a distant third at 21%

He changed CT by implementing a personal income tax and lowering the high sales tax, giving the state a more predictable revenue stream versus the swingy sales tax. However, he did not run for re-election because the income tax made him very unpopular statewide.

Weicker's LT Governor, Eunice Groark, lost in 1994 to Rowland and Democrat Bill Curry. I think it was Rowland 36%, Curry 32% and Groark at 19% and an anti-income tax Republican turned independent had the rest.

[CentralMass]

30. Weicker talking about the sunset of the Republican psrty.

http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-weicker-republicans-self-destructed-0515-20160513-story.html

[NewJeffCT]

32. too bad he was wrong

in his prediction.

[FakeNoose]

36. Weicker wasn't complicit with Putin, and he didn't know the GOP was

Don't forget that in May 2016 we were all predicting a win for Hillary and Dems. Even many Republicans thought she would win in November because Trump seemed so vulnerable. Chalk it up to the Russian meddling and the GOP's willingness to cheat any way they can to win.

[NewJeffCT]

52. Not to mention the media

which mostly played the "both sides" angle where the Hillary email scandal was equivalent to Trump's scores of huge scandals that would have tanked any other candidate.

[maddiemom]

62. Not to mention the Electoral College. Otherwise the rest didn't matter.

[FakeNoose]

98. Maybe you're referring to gerrymandering?

The Electoral College has been built into the system since the Constitution was written. So the Electoral College hinders as well as helps both parties. But the GOP has managed to gerrymander so many districts in so many states in the last 10 years that it has made a real difference in our Congress.

Why did the Democratic Party ignore the GOP's gerrymandering efforts for so long? This I'll never know. I can't deny that in the past the Dems have also been guilty of gerrymandering - it's wrong no matter who does it. It helps nobody except the incumbent candidate.

[maddiemom]

118. RESULTS of gerrymandering do have that effect.

Less than two decades into the 21st century, the Electoral College has helped the Republican presidential candidate TWICE, now. The Democrats? Not so much. What's so hard about honoring the popular vote? Trump is EXACTLY what the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, if solely up to us, poor, deluded citizens. I was in old PA District 9, which seemed mostly to isolate a presumably liberal county. It's new district 15, which makes more sense.

[mountain grammy]

48. I remember well.. my sister was so stubborn.

We had a huge argument over her support of Lieberman. She threw the "mom would always vote for the Democrat" card at me. Mom died the end of October, 1988, four days after I gave birth to my daughter. I was able to be there in Aug to the middle of Sept and mom told me she would vote for Weicker, her first vote for a Republican in over 20 years. He's a liberal, she said, Lieberman isn't.

I'm sure if early voting existed in 1988, mom would have voted as soon as she could. She knew she wouldn't make it to the election. but she tried. She had Lieberman pegged from the get go.

[NewJeffCT]

54. Connecticut still does not have early voting

unless you do it via absentee ballot.

[mountain grammy]

56. Sad, my mom was robbed of her last vote.

[NewJeffCT]

61. I'm sorry to hear that

however, that makes me want to contact the Secretary of State or the Governor and ask why doesn't CT have early voting like so many other states. (i'm guessing because so many polling locations are in school gymnasiums?)

[sinkingfeeling]

22. Boycotting the hearings is the worst thing the Democrats could do.

Unless they just want to raise a white flag and let the GOP just swear Kavanaugh in.

[Honeycombe8]

26. Yes, that's the double-edged sword. They should flood the airwaves, though.

They should at least flood the airwaves and take it to the people. NOW and over the next couple of days.

I expect to see anger, straight talk, strong language, as they take this matter to the people. If they don't, many people who are busy working and caring for kids, will never know this happened and what it means.

The Dems can't DO anything substantive. Taking it to the people is one of the few things they can do.

Oh, wait...I see Schumer on tv talking with strong, straight language about this. LOL. That's a joke, of course.

I imagine some will send out some tweets.

[elmac]

29. the corporate media ignores all Democratic talking points

they can talk, protest all they want and the media refuses to air it. The fascist talking points get priority.

[Honeycombe8]

31. I disagree. Morning Joe presents Democratic talking points every day for 1 1/2 hours.

And is the 2nd most watched morning program in the country.

MSNBC is media and presents Dem talking points. Maddow is the #1 prime time political program.

CNN has Democrats on for interviews.

It's up to the DEMOCRATS to flood the airwaves and take it to the people. The media will repeat at times what the Dems said, This is the way it works for all politicians.

But the Dems have to SAY something worthrepeating. Feinstein gave a statement just now. I doubt it gets repeated. It was soft, using the regular language, didn't show she was upset or concerned about anything, and concluded with saying they are attending the hearing under protest. This was an expected, standard response, like so many responses in the past. Media may or may not refer to it, since the statement isn't important and didn't say much of anything.

The Democratic leadership needs to learn how to use the media in the modern age, and speak straight and let it all hang out. These are not normal times. The govt is not a legitimate one. They HAVE to make he wrongdoings clear, so that even a 4 year old understands what happened, it's outrageous, and it HARMS the people. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[JHan]

47. thank you. ++++++

[Honeycombe8]

25. Yes. And I'm getting tired of it. I think new leadership would help.

The leadership doesn't seem to realize what they're dealing with. They aren't dealing with a legitimate govt any more.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

129. Something needs to change.

[Honeycombe8]

131. +1. nt

[qazplm135]

27. Boycotting does what exactly?

It stops or slows things down how?

[BeyondGeography]

35. Motivates the base

Raises Kavanaugh’s negatives. Reminds them how we got screwed out of a seat and how this Court has been hijacked to wingnutville. Gets a few more people to show up in November. We’re going to lose this one anyway, might as well get something out of it.

But, don’t worry, we’ll show up. And there will be some really neat YouTube moments that will have a fraction of the political benefits of a boycott.

[qazplm135]

41. if the base needs pointless displays

to be motivated, we're screwed.

[BeyondGeography]

42. What's pointless about putting a spotlight on Republican thievery?

[qazplm135]

83. seems like they are doing that as we type

no boycott necessary.

[JHan]

46. There's no evidence as far as I can tell that the base is motivated by pointless theatrics.

which is what boycotting the hearings surmounts to..

Giving Republicans free reign to softball Kavanaugh is a terrible idea. There will not be a single Democrat in the hearing to challenge him to his face if there's a boycott.

When Kamala Harris went after Jeff Sessions it was glorious. When Liz Warren challenged John Stumpf it was glorious - Clips of their interrogations went viral. Kavanaugh needs to be challenged *to his face* in these hearings and the challenges need to be on the congressional record.

[BeyondGeography]

49. Based on the outcomes there, those "theatrics" were pointless as well

Let’s keep doing what we’re doing. It’s working great!

[JHan]

53. that doesn't address what I put to you.

How is a boycott of the hearing better than challenging Kavanaugh to his face.

Are you watching what Dems are doing right now?

[BeyondGeography]

55. Disruption is wonderful...perfect lead-in to a boycott

[qazplm135]

84. so you really don't have an answer then

it's just "boycotts rule!"

[BeyondGeography]

91. Better than sitting there and giving Orrin Hatch credibility

Much better, actually.

The Republicans have wrecked the Senate, like everything else they get their hands on. They have also hijacked the Supreme Court. You think a few Youtube moments for Booker and Harris will make that point better than a boycott? Fine.

Leahy just called the hearing a sham. It is a sham so why participate? Come back when Kavanaugh meets the Kagan standard for full disclosure, ie the Committee gets to review 99 percent of all relevant documents.

[qazplm135]

94. lol

I've been watching all morning, no objective person thinks Hatch is being "given credibility."

Why participate? Because you have two and only two options:

Option 1: He gets confirmed after a series of softball questions.

Option 2: He gets confirmed after tough questioning.

Option 2 is clearly preferable.

[JHan]

100. Democrats in that room are the only voices of reason..

This is why them directly challenging him was important. Their presence emphasizes the farce of the hearings. Anyone making up the base of the Democratic party, or even "independents", cannot look on at what is going on without being sufficiently outraged - outraged enough to turn out for midterms.

And let's be real.

These hearings were always going to be farcical.

Kavanaugh is a rubber stamped pick. "Elections are about consequences"

[Recursion]

134. The outcome was determined with the 2016 election

There's not a way to stop this. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you stop making pointless calls for "spine" in situations where it isn't relevant.

[RandySF]

127. Boycotting gives the Republicans all the television time and opportunity to throw softball questions

Showing up makes Kavanaugh answer tough questions. Not showing up never motivates anyone.

[NewJeffCT]

67. Then Republicans continue the hearing

ask a few softballs, get a few canned answers and send Kavanaugh to the full Senate with a unanimous vote while the Democrats are marching out. And, no Democrat would have asked a question.

[jberryhill]

33. It's too bad President McCain didn't appoint Steve to a cabinet position

[CrispyQ]

38. A little more fight from the Democratic Party over the last 35 years

& maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

[tonyt53]

77. A little more voting for the Democratic Party candidates and we WOULD NOT be in this mess.

I'm sick of people blaming the Party, when the people are the Party. Vote and this mess doesn't happen.

[CrispyQ]

89. They've let the GOP control the narrative for 35 years now.

What has the response been to hate radio? Crickets. Now it infests our universities & has spawned Fox news. That's why you see guys wearing tee shirts that say they'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat. They've had 35 years of Rush Limbaugh & his ilk vilifying the dems, blaming us for all the problems middle America is facing. The dems may be good at policy, but they suck at politics. Losing 900 state seats during the Obama administration was like passing the ball to the other team & thanks to gerrymandering we lost the House for a decade, if we don't win it back in Nov. Trump's not even half way through his term. If we don't gain control of at least one Chamber of Congress this fall, it's game over for our republic. BTW, I always vote so I feel I have the right to complain.

[tonyt53]

97. I've never missed a vote sine I was in the first 18 y/o's that got to vote in '72.

I hear complaining, but no answers. To accept your statement that "They'e let the GOP control the narrative for 35 years now", is just something that I, as a lifelong Democrat, will never do. Maybe you prefer loud-mouthed guys like some prostitutes lawyer do your talking. You know, a person that loves to be on TV. I don't. i prefer someone that has the frame of mind to legislate on the behalf of the country and conduct themselves with dignity.

[CrispyQ]

99. How's that boot on your neck feel? -nt

[CrispyQ]

112. I'm not getting my ass kicked. The country is getting its ass kicked.

I've been voting dem since I volunteered for the Gary Hart for Senate campaign. I have every right to complain about the state of the party.

[tonyt53]

113. You aren't complaining, you are trying to tear it down.

[Mike Nelson]

40. Nice quote by Steve Schmidt, but...

… that all the Democratic Senators have... a butter knife. That said, I would wield it like an axe.

[brooklynite]

43. Schmidt also said we should have the courage to challenge Bannon rather than boycott him.....

[stonecutter357]

44. If we are lucky maybe Schmidt will find us a Sarah Palin !

[watoos]

45. No one who has been given a platform

has trashed Donald Trump more than Steve Schmidt.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[Cary]

50. We don't always "come out a loser."

But I am sure "conservatives" appreciate your sentiment on that.

Why don't you run, if you think it's so easy?

[tonyt53]

57. I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense. Until people vote for Democrats we are going to lose.

It is as simple as that. People on here falling for the flavor of the month, like Avenatti. Until he represented a prostitute, you never heard of the guy. Boycott the hearing??????? Republicans win without firing a shot. Same as how the KGB said it would defeat the US. Same as how Putin and his minions fooled so many Americans, including many on here, about Hillary. Boycott the hearing???? Yeah, that's like challenging the bully to a fight out behind the school and then not showing up and at least trying to kick their ass.

[SunSeeker]

71. THIS

[ProfessorPlum]

116. being, acting, and talking strongly brings more votes

it's a cycle - the weaker they act, the fewer people want to support them, and the weaker they become.

they need to get started on a virtuous cycle, where the stronger they act, the more people vote for them, and the stronger they become.

[The Liberal Lion]

58. I appreciate all the service the Democratic leadership had done up until the point trump ileagally

entered the White House. But After he did they became, for lack of a better term, worthless. Not one inch should they have been willing to move, yet they, especially Schummer, and to a lesser degree Pelosi, seem only too willing to negotiate with trump and his nazi party (FKA the GOP). This is war, and they don't seem to know how to conduct it. Resistance doesn't mean negotiate, it means resist, and both Chuck and Nancy are failing at that. They should be out leading the charge, instead they seem to be cowering in the rear. Although I still subscribe to the progressive agenda, we liberals, we progressives must be ready to make this fight real, as our so called leadership knows not the feeling of straightening one's knees and fortifying one's back with steel in order to face down the enemy and win.

[bucolic_frolic]

60. Unless you're posting specific Tactics on what Senate Democrats should do

it's just hot air

"get a spine" is not a tactic

[KPN]

68. What have our tactics done for us lately? Get real. We are the majority by a long shot --

our leaders should lead in using that majority with direct actions like a boycott, with calls for civil disobedience to protest the illegitimacy of ANY SCOTUS nomination by an administration under investigation for conspiring with a foreign enemy to rig our national election.

[ehrnst]

72. Perfect way to get Trumps' base out for the midterms...

And yes, it has been pointed out by many Democrats and legal experts that any SCOTUS nomination by this administration "SHOULD" be null until the investigation is over, but there is no Constitutional remedy for it, and no matter how mad you get, it's not going to magically appear, the GOP is not going to suddenly agree to it, and the only hope we have to do anything is to win the midterms.

If we boycott the hearings, they will proceed with only the GOP and it will be over in 48 hours, so that's not really a wise move, you think?

Futile symbolic gestures may feel satisfying to you, however resources are needed for the midterms.

[KPN]

73. You are kidding right? You think his base isn't already going to come

out for him?

[ehrnst]

79. No, I'm not. His approval rating is at an all time low

He and the GOP are salivating for Dem leaders to threaten impeachment, because that's what they're promising will happen if Dems win the midterms. It's their

I absolutely agree with Dem leaders not handing them their #1 campaign talking point. The only thing that would have made them happier about Obama is if he had said, "I'm coming for your guns."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/why-gop-not-dems-wants-midterms-to-be-about-impeachment.html

The Democratic midterm strategy is to have candidates focus on issues in their district, rather than railing against Trump’s latest outrages. Some, like progressive billionaire donor Tom Steyer, think that’s a huge mistake. But the assumption is that the Democratic base is already plenty fired up about Trump; talk of impeachment will only alienate independents who want Congress to make progress on issues they care about rather than wallowing in D.C. scandals.

https://www.newsweek.com/pence-trump-will-be-impeached-if-democrats-take-house-1098433

Pence said he believed the Democrats when they said they would begin hearings against the president following comments from House members such as Al Green, who warned Trump that the “countdown to impeachment has already started.”

"They're all talking about it and so, you know, I take them at their word, even though some of them have decided to not talk about that quite so much," Pence told CBN News.

But the GOP is LOVING that Dem leaders not talking about it gets them excoriated by Democrats who don't get what they are doing.

[ismnotwasm]

74. If I was the OP starting type

I am really curious what certain members of DU think our elected public servants do, vs what they are allowed to do or should do.

My Democrats are fighting. I don’t know what other people Democrats are doing

[BeyondGeography]

82. Sorry, but that is so weak

We're not going to reason our way back into power. When Democratic leaders rediscover the power of righteous anger they'll start winning more elections.

[ehrnst]

85. Right, Schumer's not angry at all....

Link to tweet

And angry futile gestures that take time, energy and resources away from what we CAN win - the Midterms - is something I can get behind.

In the meantime, the GOP is PRAYING Dem leaders to go on the warpath and validate their big campaign talking point to energize the Trumphumpers:

Republicans are hoping that playing up the threat of impeachment will inspire Trump’s base to come to his aid on November 6. Earlier this week, Republican operatives told Axios they’re worried that Trump has actually made his voters too complacent by assuring them that a “red wave” is coming.

“You have Trump-MAGA loyalists, and their friends on Fox, who have reached a point of not believing polls and media people telling them things are going wrong, that I believe is actually causing the Republicans problems,” said one strategist.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/why-gop-not-dems-wants-midterms-to-be-about-impeachment.html



He and the GOP are salivating for Dem leaders to threaten impeachment, because that's what they're promising will happen if Dems win the midterms. It's their

I absolutely agree with Dem leaders not handing them their #1 campaign talking point. The only thing that would have made them happier about Obama is if he had said, "I'm coming for your guns."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/why-gop-not-dems-wants-midterms-to-be-about-impeachment.html

The Democratic midterm strategy is to have candidates focus on issues in their district, rather than railing against Trump’s latest outrages. Some, like progressive billionaire donor Tom Steyer, think that’s a huge mistake. But the assumption is that the Democratic base is already plenty fired up about Trump; talk of impeachment will only alienate independents who want Congress to make progress on issues they care about rather than wallowing in D.C. scandals.

https://www.newsweek.com/pence-trump-will-be-impeached-if-democrats-take-house-1098433

Pence said he believed the Democrats when they said they would begin hearings against the president following comments from House members such as Al Green, who warned Trump that the “countdown to impeachment has already started.”

"They're all talking about it and so, you know, I take them at their word, even though some of them have decided to not talk about that quite so much," Pence told CBN News.

But Dems attacking their leaders when they don't support the GOP campaign message is just gravy for them, I'm sure.

[BeyondGeography]

87. They're not the sleeping giant, we are

They’ve won the PV once in the last seven general elections. Our policies routinely outpoll theirs. And yet we play defense and they’re the ones we’re supposed to worry about firing up.

When will we learn? Never?

[ehrnst]

90. When do people learn that banging your head against a brick wall

doesn't put a dent in the wall, and keeps you from finding a door?

Again... they have overrepresentation in the Senate, because Red states with lower populations have the same voice in the Senate that the large population blue states do...

I don't want our reps banging their heads against a brick wall (symbolic, futile gestures that take time and resources from Dem Senators working on the midterms in their home states) when they could stop, and work on that door - which is the midterms.

I don't need validation for my anger seeing them bang their heads on bricks for display - I don't want them wasting time. Schumer is no fool, and no, he's not sitting in his office figuring out ways to help the GOP or get home for a vacation.

Screaming that he is, because we have feels that they could stop Kavanaugh if they just acted way madder, does nothing but help the GOP make the case to the maga hats that they will crucify DT the minute they take the House.

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/395568-rnc-spokesperson-warns-dems-will-impeach-trump-if-they-win-house

[DeminPennswoods]

80. Here's a suggestion for Schmidt and other ideas

You worked in the GW Bush WH.
You were there when Kavanaugh was nominated for the federal court.
You know the reasons why.
You know what Kavanaugh believes and how he operates.
You need to ask to testify at the hearings and to divulge everything you know that makes Kavanaugh unfit for the federal bench, let alone the supreme court.

Here are a couple other suggestions for Dems, Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham both took campaign contributions that were laundered money via Russia. Both ultimately could be impacted by the Mueller investigation. They have a vested interest in seeing Kavanaugh confirmed. They should be called on every day to recuse themselves from voting on this nominee because of that conflict of interest.

Dems in Nevada need to put maximum pressure on Heller not to vote yes.

Dems in AZ need to work to ensure Ducey does not nominate a sure "yes" vote to fill McCain's remaining term.

[jalan48]

81. How about no more reaching across the fucking aisle when we retake the House?

That would be a start.

[ehrnst]

92. Can you give recent examples of this? Are you talking about McCain's funeral?

FIRST STEP Act?

Department of Energy Science and Innovation Act?

ARPA-E Act?

Can you specify what about those you oppose?

[Tursiops]

86. How about live thread discussing what dems are doing right now?

At the hearing that is.

[Corktown]

93. I'm with you on this....

Sen. Patrick Leahy just gave a brilliant extended statement about just how problematic the hearings are, given the gross restrictions to accessing the background information needed to properly assess Kavanaugh's nomination.

He noted that 99% of the Justice Kagan's White House records were accessible during her confirmation, yet the Senate has only been able to see 7% of Kavanaugh's records for his White House tenure.

He asked, "What is being withheld, and why?"

Indeed....

[Blue_true]

103. The time to stop him from being approved was 11/8/2016.

Anything else is meaningless for a minority party. Republicans have one vote to spare. My guess is all of them will fall in line and vote for him. They may try to panic a couple red state democrats into voting for him as window dressing.

The time to stop his appointment and that of Gorsuch was November 8, 2016. Some of the people that are pissing their shorts about him getting seated chose to stay home, write in Bernie, or vote for Jill Stein. That is the bottom line.

[KPN]

105. Oh cut with the living in, moaning and blaming others about the past crap. This blame game is

tiresome and doesn't accomplish one useful thing.

[Blue_true]

107. Facts are facts. What I mentioned cost several key states that would have made Hillary President.

I won't say I am sorry that I offended you, because I plan to get into clueless 2016 voters' faces as much as I can, not saying that you personally was among the group in 2016.

[KPN]

114. Belabored facts are belabored facts. About

as useful as a broken record. How about looking forward rather than back?

[Blue_true]

121. Why do some look back?

Well, some of the same type of people blew up our chances in 2000, 2004, 2016 Presidential elections and cost us Congress in 2010 and 2014. Why do some people look back, maybe it is to say to those people that they are prone to make dumbassed mistakes that hurt their own supposed causes over and over.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

104. It's all across the board respectfully. I agree w what you say.

But, even here when folks get angry or somehow "feeling more militant" about the next round of action, we get stomped on by a handful of the same people saying..."all we can do is vote", or..."call your Senators and Congressmen." Et.al. when the day like this comes, we should've been already in a head-on position regarding our line in the sand. Instead, here we are, everyone panicing and angry,... NOW?. We need to act everyday as Democrats. Everyday. Unless we want our whole way of life to change. If you think it can't, I direct your attention to the last 2 years.
Voting boxes are compromised, and congress doesn't listen to their calls. Those two things as answers are wishful thinking at best. Yes of course to both, but, that's just....not...enough, and they can render both insignificant, while maintaining "peace". Glad to hear protesters got in, but, at this point they can be called out as being disruptive etc. The dems need to call for adjournments pending looking into every square scrap of whatever he dithers on answer-wise.
So pissed this even came to a hearing. We need to kick it up several notches or we are going to be fighting in the streets, with our neighbors, and family.

[ehrnst]

110. I actually see the opposite

And I don't know how a "handful of folks" can "stomp down" all the anger at Democratic leaders here on DU - which is a lot.

The dems need to call for adjournments pending looking into every square scrap of whatever he dithers on answer-wise.

You do know they are not in charge of the proceedings, don't you?

So pissed this even came to a hearing.

Pissed at who? Democrats? Who don't have the power to override the GOP? I mean if you need a target for your anger, why not the GOP?

[SoCalDem]

124. More like a feather duster..

[RandySF]

126. We boycott, they conduct the hearing anyway.

We show up, we make them bleed. I don't give a shit what two Republicans say. Why does everyone on DU complain without offering any suggestions?

[Recursion]

132. What does boycotting the meeting do? And what's wrong with the current press conferences?

Why would a press conference in the context of a boycott be any better?