The Rushmore Report: Three Democrats Who May Run for President in 2020 – Who You’ve Never Heard Of

With the 2016 election just 11 months old, the 2020 election is already making news. President Trump filed re-election paperwork on Inauguration Day. And now several Democrats are making noise about running, as well. With Trump’s approval ratings mired in the 30s, there will be almost no limit to the number of Democrats who will jump into the race. There will be the usual suspects: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and yes, Hillary Clinton. But let’s consider some others who may surprise. Here are three Democrats who may run for president – who you’ve probably never heard of.

1. John Delaney

At this point, Rep. John Delaney of Maryland is the only serious declared Democratic candidate for office. Elected to Congress in 2012, Delaney announced his intent to run for president in July. For most outside his district or immediate family, they had not heard of Mr. Delaney. His district stretches from the D.C. suburbs to western Maryland, which is a more conservative area of the state. In announcing his candidacy, Delaney said, “To do this work with the commitment it deserves, I will not be running for re-election to the House of Representatives. No games, no cat-and-mouse, no backup plan at the 11th hour if a focus group goes badly.”

2. Eric Garcetti

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is another contender whose name has been floated for both California governor and U.S. president. His term doesn’t end until 2022, but in an interview with the Los Angeles Times last week, he didn’t rule out the possibility of running for either. He said only that he is “committed to the people of Los Angeles.”

3. Seth Moulton

Just 38 years of age, Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts would be the youngest Democratic candidate. He would be 41 on Inauguration Day of 2021. A former Marine Corps officer and graduate of Harvard Business School, Moulton serves on the House Budget Committee and is a ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Moulton has said he wants to see new Democratic leadership before the 2018 elections. While some insiders have already approached him about running, he says he probably won’t run. Which means he probably will run.

The Rushmore Report: Democratic Congressmen Site Problem with Party – Themselves

Last Friday, Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to reiterate what his Michigan colleague, Debbie Dingell, has been saying, which is that the Democratic Party has to listen to voters again. The wounds of the 2016 campaign are being re-opened, thanks to Hillary Clinton’s book, What Happened, in which the former First Lady offers her account of the election.

She also takes swipes at Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, the media, Barack Obama, James Comey, and sexism for torpedoing her presidential hopes. It’s something the Democrats don’t need right now, but alas – it happened. The divisions between the establishment and progressive wings of the party have been rehashed.

During the show, Moulton said that he feels the Democratic Party hasn’t learned anything from 2016, and that a true self-evaluation is still absent. He knows the game: The GOP controls the White House, Congress, two-thirds of the governorships, and 69/99 state legislatures. The party is in its worst shape since the 1920s. It’s not a national party. It’s not in a position to become a governing party. Moreover, he said that his party didn’t just lose 2016, but several elections before that.

“If we don’t realize that we are partly to blame for that; that we’ve lost touch with a lot of American voters; we’ve lost touch with a lot of voters who used to be on our side – then, we’re not going to be able to move forward,” he said.

Rep. Dingell has also said that to a certain degree, especially when it comes to the white working class bloc that killed Clinton in the general election. Dingell said that Michigan was in play – her party thought she was nuts. Trump would go on to win the state. She knows these workers and she saw how Trump resonated with them. They’re concerned about jobs, not Russia. She also lamented how identity politics has hijacked her party, which has widened the gap between the Democratic Party and everyone else. She also said she gets mad when people say that Trump supporters are racist. She knows better; they’re not.

Moulton and Dingell may have the right ideas on how to get their party back on track. The issue is whether the rest of the Democratic Party wants to follow because this involves reaching out to Trump voters and other slices of the white working class demographic. The people who feel left behind. The people who voted for Obama twice and then flipped for Trump. There’s the insufferable urban-based professional wing of the Democratic Party that hates these people, doesn’t care about them, and thinks they’re relics of an older world, and yes – racist. In reality, they’re just hard-working Americans looking for ways to provide for their families.

My guess is that the vast majority of liberals don’t think they’re out of touch; it’s just that the rest of us are wrong. That’s fine. They’ll keep losing. There’s also an empathy gap with Democrats. And yes, until they recognize it – and much else – they’ll remain constrained to their urban strongholds, which isn’t enough to win national elections.

About the Author

Matt Vespa writes for Townhall.

The Rushmore Report: Look Who the President Invited to Dinner

The President of the United States can pretty much pick anyone he wants to invite over to dinner. There aren’t a lot of us who would not be willing to rearrange our schedule to dine at the White House. Sure, there are some who stay away to make a political point. (If you are reading, Mr. President, I’m not one of them. I’m available for the next 3.3 years, maybe more.) So while most of us would come to dinner at the White House, we are still waiting for that elusive invitation. Except for five interesting citizens. Guess who’s coming to dinner at the White House these days? These five names may surprise you.

Tuesday night, Mr. Trump hosted a bipartisan group of senators for dinner. Yes, you read that correctly – “bipartisan.” The agenda was to discuss tax reform, but that’s not important. Well, it is important, but it’s really not that important. It was three specific senators on the RSVP list that make the dinner important, not the topic, nor the menu.

Then, Trump surprised the next day. Last night, he hosted two more politicians for dinner. Again, it was not the topic nor menu that mattered, but the names of his dinner guests.

Are you ready for the names? There were the five men and women who came to dinner the last two nights. And notice what they all have in common – a “D” after their name.

  1. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
  2. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
  3. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
  4. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
  5. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly were the only three Democratic senators who did not sign a letter to Trump that rejected any cooperation with him on a tax plan that included a cut for the top one percent. Schumer and Pelosi, as leaders of the minority, represent any chance of bipartisan – there’s that word again – cooperation with the White House.

Donnelly said, “I had another good conversation with President Trump about my proposal to address the outsourcing of American jobs.”

Heitkamp said, “Any chance to talk with the president about issues important to North Dakota is an opportunity I welcome. Tonight, we had a good conversation.”

This sudden foray into bipartisanship follows Trump’s agreement with Schumer and Pelosi from last week that secured a raise of the federal debt ceiling and funding of the government for the next three months, along with funding for Hurricane Harvey relief.

Republicans don’t quite know what to think of this. Some have criticized the bipartisan effort. Others, such as popular blogger Ben Shapiro, have redefined the president. Shapiro says, “Trump is our first independent president; he is not a Republican.”

So what are we to make of this new outreach to the other side of the aisle? I mean, we haven’t seen this kind of effort to work with the other side since way back in the days of President George W. Bush. Ah, remember the days when a different Clinton of a different era worked with the Speaker of the House from a different political party to balance the federal budget? And remember when President Reagan worked with a Democrat named Tip O’Neil, who was also House Speaker from the opposing party?

Those were the days, my friend. At the time, I thought they’d never end. But end they did. We have become accustomed to presidents passing laws with zero outreach to the other party. Both sides have been doing it.

So now, here comes that genteel man of all things reasonable and calm – President Donald J. Trump – to still the waters, unify the nation, and build bridges rather than walls.

What does this mean, exactly? Will the president be content to simply stick his toes into the pool of bipartisanship, or will he dive in all the way? And if he does dive in, will he even know how to swim in such unfamiliar waters? Where he now sees cute dolphins, he will find sharks. Where he now sees the inviting calm of still waters, he will find storms ahead. And the boat in which he seeks refuge may well have a leak.

But I say it’s worth the effort. What we’ve been doing for the past nine years hasn’t worked. Whether the president’s efforts turn out to be more than a couple of nice dinners is still to be seen. I gave up predicting his next move several moves back. But this could be the dawn of something new.

For now, we’ll just have to wait . . . and pray.

The Rushmore Report: Democrats Who Were for the Border Wall – Until Trump Was for It

Today’s Democratic Party screams “Racism!” at the mere mention of a border wall. They ignore a few poignant points. First, dozens of countries around the world have border walls; this isn’t something new. Second, many prominent Democrats were for the border wall – until the unthinkable happened. Donald Trump was elected President. If he is for something, by definition, the Democratic Party is against it.

In 2006, several Democrats supported the wall, including a certain Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. A leaked internal memo from his 2008 presidential campaign confirmed his support for fencing, in order to cut down on illegal immigration.

One of Obama’s “core goals,” according to the memo: “Preserve the integrity of our borders to reduce illegal immigration.”

Obama’s position was confirmed in the following words: “Securing our borders will not solve the illegal immigration problem in isolation, but combined with an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented and new legal alternatives to unauthorized entry, some additional fencing could help get the border under control.”

A section titled “Fencing” says Obama “supports physical fencing along the border under very specific  circumstances, where it makes sense as a matter of security and to act as a deterrent to unsafe undocumented entry.”

So, judged by today’s Democratic definition, Mr. Obama was a racist. (They are clear – anyone who supported border security is racist.)

The Washington Free Beacon has found clips of other Democratic leaders who were for the border wall – until they were against it. These include Hillary Clinton, former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

So, playing politics with border security is in the Democrats’ playbook. They were for border security until they found out President Trump was for it – so now, naturally, they are against it.

The Rushmore Report: Dems Pledge to Come Up with a Message – At Last

As polling shows that more Americans today think the Democratic Party “just stands against” President Donald Trump instead of promoting its own message, leading liberals are calling for the party to unify its base by refocusing its attention on an economic alternative. A Washington Post poll last week found that only 37 percent of Americans believe that the Democratic Party actually “stands for something.”

Another 52 percent say the party “just stands against Trump.” With focus now on the 2018 midterm elections, that same poll found that only 24 percent of registered voters plan to vote based on their opposition to Trump in the midterm elections. Meanwhile, 20 percent of registered voters will vote based on their support of Trump. And 51 percent said Trump will not be a factor in their midterm votes.

Now, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has unveiled a legislative agenda called “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.” According to Schumer, the agenda has three prongs that will focus on creating more job-training opportunities, lowering costs of everyday expenses, and raising wages.

Schumer was asked why Democrats didn’t release this type of economic agenda during the 2016 campaign. He responded, “Well, I don’t know why it didn’t happen in the campaign. We all take blame, not any one person.” He added, the new agenda “is not going to be left or right.”

He continued, “It will unify the Democratic Party, because we are united on economic issues. And a bold, sharp-edged message, platform, policy, that talks about working people and how the system is rigged against them is going to resonate. And this is the first time we’re going to have it, and our party is going to be unified.”

There you have it. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer says of his party: “This is the first time we’re going to have it.”

America is waiting. The Democratic Party says it actually has a message – at last.

About the Author

Samuel Smith is a reporter for The Christian Post.

The Rushmore Report: Dems on Pace to Clear Trump Nominees – In Just 11 Years

Dozens of President Trump’s nominees are waiting for their confirmations to move forward as Democrats embark on historic obstructionism, according to several Republican lawmakers. Yet, the GOP isn’t the only one to have noticed the maddening delays. The New York Times is now reporting on the brand new “delaying tactic” the Democrats are employing to deny Trump his nominees. Here is what is happening.

Democrats are requiring that Republicans check all the procedural boxes on most nominees, even those they intend to eventually support. That requires the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to request a former “cloture” vote to move forward.

An “intervening day” is then required to allow the cloture request to “ripen.” Next is a vote to impose cloture followed by 30 hours of “post-cloture” debate before a final vote. Democrats have refused to shorten the debate time – to “yield back,” in the parlance of the Senate – though in most cases there is little to debate.

In the end, many Democrats end up voting for the nominee, as each of them did last week on a federal appeals court judge from Idaho.

The process is being delayed to an “excruciating degree,” the Times concludes.

In some instances, top Democrats have apparently admitted that their obstructionism was political at its core. One case in point is the Democrats’ treatment of deputy defense secretary nominee Patrick Shanahan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer refused to hold a vote on him – twice – before noting that “once things change a little bit in healthcare” they can consider the nominee.

If the Democrats continue to delay, Trump’s nominees will be waiting in the wings long after he has left office.

Republicans calculate that at the current rate, it will take 11 years and four months to fill all possible Trump administration spots at the current average of three and a half days spent considering each nominee.

About the Author

Cortney O’Brien writes for Townhall.

The Rushmore Report: Nancy Pelosi Says Pro-Life Stance ‘Dishonors God’

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water, the House Minority Leader has said something outrageous about Christians who are crazy enough to defend the lives of the unborn. Such a position, taken by political leaders, “dishonors the God who made us,” said Pelosi. The California Democrat is a strong supporter of abortion rights and Planned Parenthood.

Recently, in comments about the proposed GOP healthcare bill which aims to repeal the Affordable Care Act and defund the biggest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood, Pelosi seemed to equate caring for God’s creation with support for the organization.

“I know my colleagues are people of faith,” she said. “They tell us that all the time. So, this is God’s creation, we have a real responsibility to it . . . to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.”

She also called on Republican legislators to “examine their consciences and look into their hearts” before they vote so they can “make a decision in favor of what is right.”

Guy Benson, of Townhall, offered a response to Pelosi’s comments. “This condemnation on behalf of ‘God’s creation’ comes from a woman who, as a professed Catholic, has amassed a 100 percent pro-abortion rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood,” writes Benson. “She has opposed virtually every conceivable limitation on abortion, over her political career, including measures to ban the barbaric procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Read up on the grisly details of what that entails, then circle back to this lecture from Nancy Pelosi about faith, conscience examination, moral responsibility, and honoring God.”

It really is remarkable that the highest elected Democrat in America can call out those who support birth over barbarism as “dishonoring God.” And still, many left-leaning Christians question why it is so hard for Bible-believing believers, supporters of the rights of the unborn, to support Democrats.

The Rushmore Report: President Trump’s Choice to Lead the Democratic Party

Since Donald Trump was inaugurated, there have been four special congressional elections to fill vacated seats in the House. Democrats are 0-4 in these contests. This has led to fresh introspection within the Democratic Party. What is clear is that the party lacks a unified vision for America. What is equally clear is that the party needs one leader around whom they can rally. Not surprisingly, President Trump has weighed in. He has thrown his support behind one experienced politician to lead Democrats as they seek to regain a majority in both houses of Congress in 2018.

And President Trump’s choice is . . .

Nancy Pelosi

Trump is now on record. He hopes Democrats keep Rep. Nancy Pelosi in her role as House Minority Leader. In a tweet, Trump offered his “endorsement” of Ms. Pelosi. “I certainly hope the Democrats do not force Nancy P out. That would be very bad for the Republican Party – and please let Cryin’ Chuck stay!” (“Cryin’ Chuck” is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.)

Trump’s tweet comes at a time when some Democrats are questioning if Pelosi is the right person to continue to lead the party in the House of Representatives.

“We need leadership change,” New York Democrat Rep. Kathleen Rice recently told CNN. “It’s time for Nancy Pelosi to go, and the entire leadership team.”

Criticism of Pelosi increased after Democrats lost in the special race in Georgia last week, with Republican Karen Handel’s win over Jon Ossoff.

For her part, Pelosi has made it clear that she isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Though Democrats have lost over 1100 seats to Republicans – House seats, Senate seats, Governor seats, and state congressional seats – since Pelosi rose to leadership, most in her party seem content with their current direction.

Count President Trump among her biggest supporters.

The Rushmore Report: Democratic Chief – The 48% We Don’t Want in Our Party

The Democratic Party has just staked out unchartered territory. They have gone where no political party has gone before. The Democratic National Committee Chairman, Tom Perez, just dropped a bombshell that only the most liberal and divisive of the party faithful can possibly applaud. Perez told Huffington Post there is no room in the Democratic Party for 48 percent of the American electorate.

Democrats can disagree on guns, national debt, the economy, and national defense. But there is one issue that, in the chairman’s own words, “is not negotiable.” What is that issue that now defines all Democrats?


Perez: “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is non-negotiable.”

It didn’t take long for a pro-life response. Marjorie Dannenfelser, a top pro-life advisor to President Trump, fired back. “Never has it been so clear: on abortion, there is no room for dissent or exceptions among Democrats; only support for the party’s radical platform, which calls for abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayer dollars.”

The National Right to Life’s president also blasted the DNC chairman’s abortion stance.

“Dating back to the ouster of (pro-life) Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey from their 1992 convention, Democrats have become increasingly intolerant of pro-life Americans within their own ranks. By forcing all Democrats to pledge fealty to the abortion industry’s extreme agenda, Tom Perez has completed the party’s transformation and sent the message that pro-life Democrats are no longer welcome in their party,” said NRL President Carol Tobias.

Indeed, Perez is attacking more than one-fourth of his own party, and nearly half of all Americans. A recent Pew Research poll confirmed that 28 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Meanwhile, a Gallup poll found that 48 percent of all Americans consider themselves “pro-life.”

So, to be clear, the man selected by the Democratic Party to represent their views is now on record. To be a Democrat, one must take the position that taking the life of the unborn child, right up to the point of birth, is not only acceptable – to believe otherwise is simply “nonnegotiable.”

One can be a Democrat and disagree with most of the party platform – but not the issue of life.

Is it still possible for a person to be a Bible-believing, God-loving Democrat? Yes. I know several who are. But in the face of this radical pro-abortion “non-negotiable” position of the Democratic Party, at the very highest level of party leadership, it’s not as easy as it used to be.


The Rushmore Report: California Democratic Platform – Gays, Guns, Grass, and Government

Thanks to Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat last fall, Democrats face a quandary they weren’t expecting until the next decade. What does their party embody in a post-Clinton universe? One place to go seeking answers: California and an open gubernatorial seat in 2018 that’s a window into modern-day progressivism – or, at least the Left Coast version of it. Democrats are embracing four themes: gays, guns, grass, and government.

One recent poll has Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom well ahead of his rivals. What does Newsom owe to his popularity among fellow Democrats? Newsom has embraced the four “G”s. And this says a whole lot about where the Democratic Party now stands on popular issues in the country’s most Democratic state.

1. Gays

Newsom sparked a political and legal firestorm as mayor of San Francisco. In 2004 he issued 4,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This was eight years before his own party embraced gay marriage. The man most likely to be the next governor of California has made same-sex marriage a cornerstone of his political career.

2. Guns

Newsom was a sponsor of Proposition 63 in 2016, which outlawed the possession of high-capacity magazines and requires background checks for buying ammunition. The bill also outlaws magazines with more than ten rounds. Gun control is way down the list of priorities for most Americans – but not Democrats, at least in California.

3. Grass

Newsom has also sponsored legislation to legalize recreational use of marijuana for adults age 21 and over. He has hailed the bill as a “game changer.” Clearly, the legalization of pot is another cornerstone of the platform California Democrats are openly embracing.

4. Government

For Newsom and other Democrats, they just can’t get enough of big government. In their world, it is up to government – not capitalism, the church, or the individual – to provide healthcare, as well as just about anything else the citizenry desires.

About the Author

Bill Whalen writes for