It's the oldest trick in Washington - when presented with a policy solution you don't like, characterize it as the bogeyman.
Can policy be both wise and aggressively partisan? Ask any Republican worth his salt and the answer will be an unequivocal yes. Ask a Democrat of the respectable Beltway variety and he will twist himself into a pretzel denying it.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time.
I thought that conclusion that we leaped to right after the election, that has been disproven statistically so many times, I don't know why Republicans would advocate that advocating for comprehensive immigration reform is somehow a political solution for the Republicans losing a percentage of Hispanics. I probably have less appetite for this than either the Senate or colleagues in the House, certainly the Democrats and most likely members of the Republican Conference. They are still wrestling with trying to get their education up to a level where they can actually advocate for policy.
Ronald Reagan cut taxes to raise the deficit to stop liberals in future years from increasing spending. Obama will raise spending to raise the deficit to stop conservatives in future years from cutting taxes. As he funds every liberal dream - from alternative energy production to infrastructure renovation to more federal revenue sharing - he will force a massive expansion in the size of government for a decade to come.
The Democrats have traded an intellectually weakened liberal who acquiesced to everything progressives wanted for a full-on progressive who can be counted on to promote everything progressives want: Medicare for all, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, the abolition of cash bail, and much more.
Swaim speaking about the Democrat Party nomination of Kamala Harris for president.
Republicans use think tanks to come up with a lot of their messages. The think tanks are the single worst, most undisciplined example of communication I've ever seen.
Republicans stalled Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court because they could, and 136 years of American history recommended it as politically advantageous.
As someone who is on the more liberal side of things, I personally think this side needs to be a little less open. I know that's part of what it means to be on the more liberal side of things, but that trait can no longer really be a part of our makeup. The simple reason for this is that the opposing side uses our openness to their full advantage.