Daily Archives: February 16, 2020

Americas two major political parties have collapsed.

The triumph of Donald Trump in 2016 was a sign of many things, but first and foremost it was a rejection of the Republican party by Republican voters. Democratic voters are poised to perform the same exorcism today using Bernie Sanders as their vehicle.

It is difficult to understate how radical these departures are.

The nomination of Trump in 2016 and the potential nomination of Sanders in 2020 would mean that both political parties turned their backs on their most recent two-term presidents. It would mean a wholesale rejection of everything each party had stood for as recently as a few years ago.

This is not normal.

Ronald Reagan is understood as having transformed the Republican party, but in the summer of 1980, he was actively discussing the possibility of having former president Gerald Ford join his ticket as the vice president. (Ford would go on to speak at the 1988 and 1992 Republican conventions.)

When George H.W. Bush ran for president in 1988, Reagan loomed over the entire affair as a promise to America that Bush would continue his legacy. Indeed, Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Ford remained beloved figures in Republican politics: Every four years the party would genuflect before their images at the national convention.

Once in a while a former nominee or president would hang in the background, or participate only by video, or appear as part of a B-roll package. But even when they skipped the convention, as George W. Bush did in 2012, they werent banished. The party embraced every former Republican president and nomineeBob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Right up until 2016.

In 2016 the only living former Republican presidential nominee willing to support Donald Trump was Dole. And Trump clearly wanted no part of them. Republican voters, asked to take sides in this divorce, threw in their lot with Trump. As a matter of style, ideology, and history, it was a complete rejection of Republicanism as it had existed as recently as eightor even fouryears prior. At a primary debate in South Carolina, Trump suggested he was willing to see George W. Bush impeached for the Iraq warand Republican voters sided with the Bad Orange Man.

To take it a step further: It is unlikely that any of the three former Republican presidential nominees alive today will ever be welcomed to speak at another Republican National Convention. Because the party has not just moved on from themit has turned its back.

This state of affairs would merely be an object lesson about the power of demagogues and the fragility of institutionsexcept that its happening again.

Four years ago, Barack Obama was universally beloved by Democrats. He was finishing an eight-year administration that was regarded by the party as hugely successful. There had been no wars; the economy had been steadily improving for nearly the entirety of his term; Obamas term had been decidedly liberal, if not overtly progressive.

Then Obamas hand-picked successor, Hillary Clinton, lost the 2016 election. His vice presidents candidacy in the 2020 election is in deep trouble. And the favorite to win the nomination is a democratic-socialist who didnt even belong to the party until he decided to run against Hillary Clinton and whose campaign is fixed around an explicit rejection of the Obama era.

This is not normal, either.

Take Jimmy Carter. By just about every measure, he was a failed president. Yet the Democratic party never cast him out. Just four years after losing to Reagan, Carter was addressing the DNC from the podium in Chicago. He was welcomed back in 1988 and given a prime-time speaking slot in 1992 even as Bill Clinton was consciously transitioning the party away from Carters brand of 70s liberalism.

Bill Clinton was impeached and disgraced when his vice president, Al Gore, ran for the White House in 2000. Clinton was frustrated that Gore didnt use him more on the campaign trail, but it wasnt like the almost-former president was being disavowed: He delivered a major address at the 2000 convention in Los Angeles, to rapturous applause from the crowd. Then he was back at the 2004 convention. And 2008. And 2012. And 2016. Always the belle of the ball.

Historically, the Democrats have been less worshipful of their losersno one ever asked for Fritz Mondale or Mike Dukakis to come in for curtain calls. But in 2008, John Kerry was up on stage in Denver helping to put Obama over.

And Obama, obviously, did everything he could to help Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Yet here we are, four years later, and Democratic voters are moving toward a candidate who complains that no matter who is elected president, things always stay the same. Who complains about the party on whose ticket he is running. Who promises a revolution.

A serious question: If Bernie Sanders is the nominee, will Obama, or the Clintons, or any former Democratic presidential nominee attend the convention and speak on his behalf? Would Sanders even want them to?

After all, Bernies revolution is, explicitly, a revolution against them and the Democratic party they built.

Having one political party hijacked by an outsider with no ties to the partywho turns every living presidential nominee into a persona non gratawould be strange.

Having two of them hijacked in that manner would be indicative of something quite important.

Having these hijackings occur over a single four-year period should terrify us.

Political parties are mediating institutions. They temper passions within the electorate because they have entrenched, legacy structures of personnel and tradition and ideology. They are, in a sense, part of the democracy of the deadone of the mechanisms by which we give over parts of our agency in the present to the vast numbers of people who came before us, won triumphs, made mistakes, and learned lessons.

The story of our ageif I had a nickel for every time Ive written thisis the failure of our institutions.

But our political parties havent just failed. Theyve collapsed. Almost simultaneously.

Thats not good. But whats really bad is that the parties didnt just implode and disappear, leaving room for new institutions to flower and replace them.

No.

What has happened is that the parties have become zombie institutions, retaining the support personnel and dumb-pipe logistical power they once had, but without any connection to the traditions and ideologies that once anchored them.

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is really even a party anymore. Theyre both ghost ships, floating in the fog, waiting for some new pirate to come aboard and take control every four years so that they can use its abandoned cannons to go marauding.

If America were Sweden, none of this would really matter. But we are a country of 330 million souls, with the most dynamic economy on earth and the most disproportionate military advantage humanity has ever seen.

And we are in the process of knowingly destroying the political parties that make governing this leviathan in a responsible manner marginally possible.

The reason we should be terrifiedand I wish I had a nickel for this, toois not because of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. They are only symptoms.

All they did was ask their fellow Americans whether or not theyd like to destroy their political institutions. Its The People who said yes.

The problem is us. Always.

More here:

The Democratic Party Is Collapsing. Just Like the Republican Party Did. - The Bulwark

Trump, who has made immigration a top priority of his presidency, plans to push an issue that has long confounded Washington as he runs for reelection over the next nine months. With the impeachment trial behind him, Trump will soon determine whether to push for the bill this year or in a potential second term, according to a White House official.

Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser and the plans architect, has privately expressed confidence that the legislation can eventually move, according to half a dozen people familiar with the situation.

Before you go to battle, you have to do preparation, Kushner said in an interview with POLITICO on Friday. We have done the heavy lifting, the hard prep work. So if the Hill develops an appetite to move forward on an immigration deal, we will be ready. Ultimately, the president will consult with the leadership on the Hill and then decide, do we release the plan now, or do we put it out after the election.

But across Washington, immigration is becoming the new infrastructure week, a punchline used to indicate a subject the Trump administration repeatedly and cheerfully resurrects even when everyone knows it will never amount to any policy change.

A White House official said the bill has already garnered the backing of 22 GOP senators, including Mike Lee of Utah and David Perdue of Georgia, and predicts it will end up receiving support of nearly all 53 Republican senators. But others involved with the negotiations dispute those numbers.

Its a super hard problem, but our job is to try and tackle hard problems, Kushner said. Its easy to say what hasnt been done cant be done, and so often the media declare the presidents agenda items to be impossible like it did with [United StatesMexicoCanada Agreement], the China trade deal, criminal justice reform or building a wall. But time and time again the president proves them wrong.

On Friday, Trump met with members of the Border Patrol Council, a labor group, and praised efforts that have reduced the number of immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. And he made a surprise mention of the legislation in his State of the Union address to Congress last week.

We are working on legislation to replace our outdated and randomized immigration system with one based on merit, welcoming those who follow the rules, contribute to our economy, support themselves financially, and uphold our values, Trump said.

Immigrant advocates say Trump is pushing the issue only so he can point to an immigration plan during his reelection campaign. The Supreme Court is also expected to rule this summer on Trumps decision to wind down the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that gave work permits and quasi-legal status to foreigners who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

They want to muddy the waters, said an immigration advocate who is familiar with White House conversations with lawmakers and activists. Its all politics.

Trump made cracking down on immigration the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign, calling for a southern border wall and an end to DACA.

But once in office, Trumps immigration moves have been contradictory. His administration has implemented harsh travel restrictions on numerous majority-Muslim nations and cut refugee caps, but he has also touted plans to increase the number of overall immigrants and offer citizenship to those here illegally, a move most Trump-friendly immigration groups oppose. Trump has also surprised his supporters by discussing the need to treat immigrants with heart.

Trump attempted a major rewrite of the nations immigration laws in 2018. The effort quickly died in Congress amid a backlash from immigration hawks, who blasted it for protecting millions of immigrants in the United States illegally.

The updated plan unveiled in May 2019 was significantly scaled back from that first initiative, though some have still dubbed it comprehensive immigration reform. Trump cant accomplish these goals without Congress, the White House official said.

Weve done everything we can by executive order, the official said. Everything we can do unilaterally we have done.

The proposal would admit more high-skilled, well-educated immigrants while reducing the number of people who enter the U.S. based on family ties or whether their native country has a low rate of immigration. It also includes measures to boost security at the borders, including stricter visa screenings at ports of entry and tighter asylum rules, and expand the implementation of E-verify, an electronic system that allows businesses to check work authorization of employees. It would also restructure the Department of Homeland Security and create an immigration czar.

See the rest here:

Trump struggles to win over Republicans on immigration - POLITICO

Political parties dont seem to agree on much these days, but at least 100 members split among Democrats and Republicans do share one common belief Social Security is in dire need of help and they want Congress to do something about it.

The trust funds that support Social Securitys activities are expected to run out of money by 2035, and if that were to happen, beneficiaries would receive about 80% of what theyre owed. Medicare is in even more imminent danger the Medicare Hospital Insurance fund, which supports inpatient care, is expected to be exhausted in 2026.

The Bipartisan Policy Center and the National Academy of Social Insurance released a letter on Tuesday, with 100 signatures from both political parties, addressing this issue, and one way to go about fixing it.

In the letter, Republicans and Democrats call on Congress to act on pending nominations for the public trustee roles for the boards of Social Security and Medicare, which have been vacant since 2015. These roles are supposed to be filled by two people, one Democrat and one Republican, who will work with the boards of Social Security and Medicare to provide guidance for these programs from an independent, nongovernmental perspective.

See: This word describes Social Security but not everyone agrees

The roles were first established in 1983, and their vacancies are violating the intent of federal law and depriving Congress and the public of key objective insights into the health of the [Social Security and Medicare] Trust Funds, the letter says. The last two public trustees terms expired in 2015 under the Obama administration, and Congress has not prioritized filling the positions since, the Bipartisan Policy Center said.

President Trump nominated James Lockhart III, a Republican and a former chief operating officer of the Social Security Administration, and William Dauster, a Democrat and economist who worked on Senate and White House staffs between 1986 and 2017. It is imperative that the vacancies are filled expeditiously to ensure the proper monitoring and safeguarding of the funds that help provide a secure financial foundation for millions of Americans, the letter says. The Senate must confirm the presidents nominations before they can proceed with a four-year term.

Letter signatories include former members of the Trump, Obama, George W. Bush and Clinton administrations, as well as former members of Congress and former Congressional Budget Office directors.

The fact that its signed by prominent folks from both sides of the aisle 100 former public officials equally split saying its urgent to be acted on speaks volumes about the need to get this done even in the midst of a very partisan environment, said Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Legislators and other policy experts have suggested options for fixing the programs funding issues. Some suggest increasing taxes, while others recommend delaying the full retirement age or raising the cap on payroll taxes imposed on high earners. The Democrats have been more vocal about their proposals for Social Security, but still, even during a volatile presidential candidacy campaign trail, Social Security is rarely discussed on the debate stage.

Also see: What would Americans do if faced with a change to Social Security?

Congress has never let Social Security and Medicare fail, experts said, but action should be taken sooner than the anticipated dates of exhaustion for Medicare and Social Security, Akabas said. We really need to work well in advance of that date, Akabas said. Because at that point, a 20% gap of what is taken in and paid out and closing that overnight is next to impossible.

Appointing the public trustee nominees wouldnt necessarily expedite a solution for fixing the current trajectories of these programs, but they would provide an objective viewpoint, and signal to Americans that the programs are being evaluated fairly for their best interests, Akabas said.

The letter comes one day after the Trump administration unveiled its budget proposal for fiscal year 2021, which would trim funding for Medicare, Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, as well as other programs for older Americans.

Go here to read the rest:

Democrats and Republicans agree on this: Social Security and Medicare need help and soon - MarketWatch

We are products of our times, politically. The ideological intransigence and the complete absence of compromise in the political realm may well result in a foul and disagreeable stalemate.

In 1972, the Democratic primaries spelled apocalypse for the fate of the Democratic Party in their efforts to pitch out one of the least popular GOP presidents, Richard Nixon.

The Democratic National Committee had been floating by endorsement a hack senator from Maine named Edmund Muskie. Nixon was hated by the left, who were galvanized, and Muskie was horrible.

Primary voters who make up a much smaller proportion of the voters who will eventually cast a vote for the party tend to be more ideological than the great unwashed. In the overheated atmosphere of the Vietnam War, Nixon, and a growing culture war, the milquetoast Muskie, and his mainstream heir, Hubert Humphrey, didnt have a chance.

When the dust cleared at the national convention many months later, the Democrats had nominated George McGovern, an anti-war lefty from South Dakota.

The mainstream Democrats abandoned ship, the GOP held firm for Nixon, and McGovern went on to suffer the worst beating any Democrat has ever received in a national contest, losing 49 of 50 states.

The parallels with 2020 are uncanny.

On one hand, if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, hell nail down the radical left but may stand to lose all or at least a significant part of the center of the Democratic Party. Hes also laughably unlikely to bring over any Republican voters or libertarian-style independents.

On the other hand, should someone emerge from the center Mayor Pete or Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., for example, or Mike Bloomberg, whose campaign will not truly be underway until Super Tuesday the crybaby core of Bernie supporters will probably sulk and whine and then sit on their seedy socialist couches at election time.

Either ugly scenario means defeat for the Democrats, without President Donald Trump doing a single thing differently including being crazy.

So, if Trump wins, the GOP wins, right?

Wrong.

For one thing, barring truly bizarre circumstances, there is almost no room for GOP success in the House. The fragility of the few districts up for grabs plays to Democrats, with rare exception.

At best for the GOP, nothing changes, which means four more years of the same static, harrowing trip of having a Trump presidency which can pass (and fund) policy only with the collaboration of the House Democrats.

But it could also turn worse in a hurry. Trumps recent savage and vengeful victory lap following his impeachment acquittal (coupled with the extremely questionable commentary about interfering in judicial processes), The Washington Post observed, could endanger the reelection chances of five senators in competitive races: Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona, as well as [Susan] Collins [Maine] and [Thom] Tillis [N.C.].

Which might mean that if the Democrats are able to hold what they have (though they will likely lose Alabama) and turn at least a few of these seats in the competitive races, the real firewall for the GOP in the U.S. Senate goes down in a ghastly inferno, leaving the Democrats with a slender majority in both chambers.

This would mean the Democrats would have the ability to block presidential appointments to the courts, as well as to create anarchy, chaos and despair for any Republican initiatives anywhere else theyd like to.

And after the past three years theyd like to, thanks. Vengeance cuts both ways.

We are products of our times, politically. The ideological intransigence and the complete absence of compromise in the political realm may well result in a foul and disagreeable stalemate.

We will, in William F. Buckleys famous phrase, have a government that governs the least if it governs at all.

There may be an advantage to this: it may give us four more years to change the way we do the countrys business. We are the reason weve come to this.

If its to change, that, too, will be up to us.

R. Bruce Anderson (randerson2@flsouthern.edu) is the Dr. Sarah D. and L. Kirk McKay Jr. Endowed Chair in American History, Government, and Civics at Florida Southern College in Lakeland.

See the article here:

Anderson: Why the Democrats - and Republicans - are doomed - The Ledger

With Black History Month in full swing and International Womens Day just around the corner in March, conversations centered on the importance of diversity in the workplace are on the rise. Indeed, studies continue to show that companies with more diverse senior leadership teams consistently outperform those with more homogeneous teams. Although there is movement in the right direction with, for example, women occupying an increasingly larger percentage of CEO roles at Fortune 500 companies, there is still much work to be done.

Having fun together

One area of diversity that is less often discussed is one that is also critical in this election year: political diversity. It can sometimes feel like the heated battle between Democrats and Republicans in the United States is only getting hotter. Speakers on one side of the political spectrum continue to be silenced on college campuses by those on the opposite end. What was once healthy disagreement about ideas for how to make the country better has boiled over into vitriol. Surveys conducted over the past 20+ years by the Pew Research Center show that political polarization continues to reach historic levels.

In that case, the last thing in the world one would want would be to place a staunch Republican and an undying Democrat on the same team at work; surely that would be a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, Denise Loyd, formerly of MITs Sloan School of Management and now an Associate Professor of Business Administration at UIUCs Gies College of Business, led a study that tested just this. The authors specifically wanted to see what happens when you tell two peopleone Democrat and one Republicanthat they are about to have a discussion with one another on a topic about which they disagree vehemently. Let the fireworks begin!

But what actually happens is a bit surprising. When Professor Loyd and colleagues ran the experiment in the lab, they actually found that there were many positive effects of such an arrangement. In particular, when a Democrat is told that he or she will meet with a Republican to discuss a problem on which they dont see eye to eye, both parties actually prepare much more carefully for the meetingdigging deeper into the evidence, preparing for more counterarguments, and generally coming to the table more thoroughly prepared. This enhanced preparation, the authors show, actually improves objective decision-making by the partners as well. Diverse groups (juries, in this case) also have been shown to discuss more information, bring up more accurate information, and correct inaccurate information more successfully.

The theorized reason for this improvement in preparation comes down to the mindset with which people enter a meeting or discussion with someone they suspect disagrees with them. Broadly, there are two distinct mindsets with which employees can enter into a work setting: relationship focus or task focus. When focused on relationships, employees have the goal of making friends and building bonds; when focused on tasks, employees instead set their sights on effective task completion. While not always directly at odds with one another (one can indeed have both a high relationship focus as well as a high task focus), people inherently have limited cognitive resources such that an orientation toward a task will naturally come with less proclivity to build relationships, or vice versa.

Friendly relationships with others at work, sometimes even at the expense of the task, are not necessarily a bad thing. Work friends provide social support, which can allow employees to better handle everyday stressors. But friendships also come with risks and costs, one being that when you are meeting with people who are similar to you and with whom you are quite friendly, you may be less inclined to rock the boat by potentially disagreeing with them. When solving difficult problems at work, though, it is imperative that everyonewhether the intern who just started on Monday or the CEO who helped found the companystate their views unambiguously. (McKinsey & Company actually has memorialized this idea in one of its famed values, the obligation to dissent.) In the case of a consulting firm solving a potentially billion dollar problem for its client, the cost of an affiliative mindset can be high, and work teams would do better to put aside their relational concerns and focus on the task, which can be fostered by building diverse teams.

And its just not political diversity either. Although not explicitly tested, Loyd and colleagues theorizing with respect to the benefits of diverse groups extends to any category of diversity, ranging from age or ethnic diversity to less visible diversity on deep-seated attitudes and values. So, although it can feel good to hire people and build teams with those who have similar backgrounds and interests as you, the best bet for your business is to ensure youre truly uncovering the full range of ideas and beliefs about a given topic by building more diverse teams.

See the rest here:

Why Democrats And Republicans May Make The Best Teammates At Work - Forbes

A new video ad by the RepublicanLincoln Project praises the integrity of Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindmanand criticizes President Donald Trumpfor firing him after he testified in the House impeachment hearings.

Lt. Col Vindman upheld his oath to the Constitution; Donald Trump has not, said a statement by the anti-Trump group announcing the new video, titled Telling the Truth.

Trump, who is afraid of those who know the truth and those who comply with the law, is unleashing a tyrannical assault on Lt. Col. Vindman and highly decorated American patriots and service members who stand tall and speak the truth, said a statement by the group. This is another glaring and sad moment in the Trump presidency that shows why he is unfit to serve as commander-in-chief.

The video includes scenes of Vindman testifying in response to a subpoena from the U.S. House last year. Vindman, who listened to the July 25 call that triggered the impeachment inquiry, called it improper for the president to demand that Ukraine launch an investigation into a political opponent, former Vice PresidentJoe Biden. The call threatened to undermine our Ukraine policy and ... our national security, Vindman testified.

After Trump was acquitted by Senate Republicans in the impeachment trial, Vindman was fired from his National Security Councilpost and escorted from the White House last week. Trump has called Vindman insubordinate for testifying and has suggested that the military should investigate him, which the Army has no intention of doing, said a top official.

What have we become? the video asks at the end.

The Lincoln Project was founded last year by a group of Republicans, including George Conway, husband of White House counsel Kellyanne Conway,to defeat Trumps reelection even if it takes a Democrat.

Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain, but our shared fidelity to the Constitution dictates a common effort, said an op-ed by the group, which also includes GOP media consultant Rick Wilson, and Republican strategists Steve Schmidt and John Weaver.

Another Republican group, Republicans for the Rule of Law, also released an ad attacking Trumps retaliation against Vindman last week.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more from the original source:

'What Have We Become?' New Republican Video Rips Trump Revenge On Lt. Col. Vindman - HuffPost

First-time congressional candidate Randi Reed wants to make history this November as the next Republican Jewish woman elected to Congress. To do so shell have to win a nine-way Republican primary and then a general election in a blue-leaning district. Reed recently spoke to Jewish Insider about her bid to unseat Congressman Steven Horsford (D) in Nevadas 4th district.

Details: Reed is one of two Jewish Republican women running for Congress this election cycle, the other being Lisa Scheller, who is running in Pennsylvanias 7th district against first-term Rep. Susan Wild (D). If Reed wins Nevadas June 9th primary, she will go on to challenge Horsford, who represented the district from 2013-2015 and returned in 2018. The seat has bounced between parties in recent years Horsford, a Democrat, was defeated by Republican Cresent Hardy in the 2014 election; Hardy was unseated after one term. A rematch between the two in 2018 saw Horsford beat Hardy by a 52-44 margin. The district is ranked likely D by the Cook Political Report.

Bio: Reed, 40, grew up in a Conservative Jewish household in a suburb of Los Angeles. She moved to Las Vegas at age 22, where she became involved in the local Chabad community. Over the past two decades, she has worked in the development and construction industry and recently started a small business a custom furniture manufacture out of her garage. She has also served as a volunteer lobbyist in Washington, D.C. on issues related to real estate and taxes.

Why now? In a phone interview with Jewish Insider, Reed said that although she never had anypolitical aspirations, she decided to seek public office after the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh. I was walking my then five-year-old to shul where we were joining a community vigil for the Pittsburgh shooting victims, and when we turned the corner after parking our car we saw 14 police cars, SWAT units, K9 units, and at that point I had to explain to my five-year-old what antisemitism was while tears were streaming down my cheek, she recalled. It was that moment that I reached out to a friend of mine Stefanie Tuzman, who is the current CEO of the Jewish Federation in Nevada, and I said, I want to do more, I want to be more involved. So I became a board member. And here I am, Im getting really involved.

Foot soldier: Reed, who would join the two serving Jewish Republicans in Congress if elected, argued that there hasnt been enough action from Jewish House members in response to the rise in antisemitism. Either theyre not talking about it, or were talking about it too much, and theres no action. You continue to see article after article written, but no ones doing anything, she said. And being a female in construction development, Ive been successful in building coalitions, Ive been successful in bringing people to the table of all walks of life and finding consensus, and were not seeing that in todays climate at all. Thats something I want to bring.

Women power: According to Reed, her election would send a clear message, specifically in the Republican party, about female equality. Theres over 80 female Democratic congresswomen currently and there are only 15 if you count the territories female Republicans, she tells JI. So looking at that number, you can tell that the Republican Party has struggled a little bit being diverse and being welcome to women.

Sending a message: The fact that you have now specifically two female Jewish congressional women running in the United States to be elected to be able to have a strong voice for Israel, I think that sends a clear message that times are changing, Reed explained. People who care about Israel, whether theyre Jewish or not, understand how important it is to have a strong voice in support of the U.S.-Israel alliance. If Im going to wear that hat, I will gladly wear that hat if that means bringing more awareness.

Holding hands: Reed said she would gladly join forces with Democratic members of Congress to help combat antisemitism. A bipartisan group of House members recently launched the first-ever congressional caucus on relations between the Jewish and African-American communities. I think that were adult enough to go into a room and discuss issues that are related to Israel, to antisemitism, whatever the topic is going to be, and put your differences aside, she said. I like to say, youre either at the table or youre on the menu. And so if you want these people making these decisions for Jews and for Israel, and youre not at the table, then you have no right to complain.

Continued here:

Meet the Candidate She's aiming to be the next Republican Jewish woman in Congress - Jewish Insider

During his usual flurry of Saturday morning Twitter activity, Donald Trump essentially bragged that following his fake acquittal by the GOP-led Senate, he is a king, not a president who can be held accountable.

In a pair of tweets, the president quoted a recent New York Times article which suggested that the results of the impeachment trial partisan acquittal by complicit Republican lawmakers have emboldened Trump.

The Times article Trump was happy to quote on Saturday read more like a warning about the unshackled and emboldened president that Republicans have now created, but Trump appeared to bask in it.

The full passage via The New York Times:

Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. When you strike at a king, Emerson famously said, you must kill him.

Mr. Trumps foes struck at him but did not take him down.

With the end of the impeachment trial now in sight and acquittal assured, a triumphant Mr. Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.

MSNBCs Joy Reid blasted Republican lawmakers on her program on Saturday after Trump boasted about his new king status.

Everything Donald Trump has said and done since he was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial has made Republican lawmakers look like fools.

Many of the GOP senators who voted to acquit did so on the basis of the completely ludicrous idea that Trump had learned a lesson and would conduct government business differently going forward.

Instead, what weve seen is a president who knows he has the Republican Party by the neck and he can conduct himself as a lawless king instead of an accountable president.

Follow Sean Colarossi onFacebookandTwitter

Sean Colarossi currently resides in Cleveland, Ohio. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and was an organizing fellow for both of President Obamas presidential campaigns. He also worked with Planned Parenthood as an Affordable Care Act Outreach Organizer in 2014, helping northeast Ohio residents obtain health insurance coverage.

Read more here:

Trump Boasts That Republican Lawmakers Have Turned Him Into A King - PoliticusUSA