The review of Canadas defence policy took more than a year to assess the potential threats in the world and came back with one real priority: wed better figure out a way to pay for a military.

There are some new things in the Liberal governments blueprint: more drones, surveillance, cyberdefence and special forces.

But the big thing is an admission a rare one that Canada must spend more to have an army, a navy and an air force.

Read more: Ottawa lays out $62-billion in new military spending over 20 years

Its going to be a lot more, $7-billion a year more a decade from now, in 2027, on an accrual-accounting basis. And it wont really buy a bigger or flashier fighting force. Mostly, the extra money is needed because there wasnt enough set aside for the long-planned buys of essential equipment, such as fighter jets and warships.

The policy issued Wednesday was supposed to take stock of the challenges the military will face in the coming world, but the assessment was groundbreaking: The job is still to protect Canadian territory, work with the United States in North America and NORAD and join with allies in global security, either in NATO missions or UN peacekeeping. Theres terrorism and theres cyberthreats. Thats not news.

The real issue was cost. And on that score, the Liberals were refreshingly realistic. They dispensed with some of the perennial flim-flam of Canadian defence policy, which involves underestimating what the military needs and low-balling costs, then shifting budgets around to make do.

This was a Liberal defence policy for the harder realism of 2017, when the Liberals have been forced to face the fact that there isnt enough money set aside for the planes that make the air force an air force and the ships that make the navy a navy. Theres a new U.S. President, Donald Trump, who demands allies bear a greater share of the defence-spending burden. Plus, theres concern, outlined in a speech by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland on Tuesday, that the United States might shrug off the burden of world leadership, requiring other countries to do more.

But it was a long way from the way Justin Trudeaus Liberals talked about defence when they ran for office in 2015, or even last year. This was a good defence policy, but for the Liberals, the snag is that it clashed with so many of the things they said about military matters in the past.

Remember how Mr. Trudeau talked about pulling CF-18s from air strikes in Iraq and Syria, as he suggested a Liberal government would be less combat-minded? He emphasized a return to Pearsonian peacekeeping. Last year, he tasked Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan with preparing a deployment to a UN peacekeeping mission; thats still on hold.

Instead, Mr. Trudeau is proposing to devote the kind of money to defence that his Conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, was unwilling to spend.

Even if the biggest bumps in spending are slated to come five years from now, the increases start this year and will see the defence budget rise from $17.1-billion to $24.6-billion in the 2026-27 fiscal year, in accrual accounting terms.

Is that what Liberal voters expected? A Justin Trudeau government spending billions more on the military? No.

Mr. Sajjan said Canadians want the government to equip the military properly. But the price tag alone means increased defence spending is a new Liberal priority and that will be a surprise to many of those Liberal voters.

In 2015, he promised to save by ordering cheaper fighter jets than the F-35s that Mr. Harpers Conservatives planned to buy. Now, his Liberal government says the military needs 88 fighter jets, not the 65 Mr. Harpers government planned to buy at roughly double the cost estimated by the Tories. Similarly, the Tories promised to buy 12 to 15 warships and now, the Liberals say it will be 15, period but theyll cost $30-billion more.

Give Mr. Sajjan credit for that. It was always widely believed that 65 fighter jets would be too few the last time Canada bought fighters, it ordered 138 CF-18s. The cost estimates for planes and ships were low-balled. Thank goodness Mr. Sajjan did away with that guff.

The Liberals say they were surprised at the extent of the budget shortfall for big equipment buys. In the harder world of 2017, they chose to look past their campaign rhetoric and face the real cost of a military. The political question is still whether Liberal voters of 2015 want to pay it.

Follow Campbell Clark on Twitter: @camrclark

The rest is here:

A Liberal defence policy could cost you - The Globe and Mail

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Liberal hysteria over President Donald Trumps legally impeccable international disengagements has surpassed the hysteria that fueled the Salem Witch Trials. But there is no Arthur Miller among the contemporary glitterati to dramatize the frenzy.

Consider the hyperbolic thunderbolts of the owlish Lawrence Summers, professor and past president of Harvard University, former Secretary of Treasury under President Bill Clinton, and economic adviser to President Barack Obama. Writing in the op-ed pages of The Washington Post (Are we at a historical turning point? June 5, 2017), Professor Summers sirens, It is possible that last week will be remembered as a hinge in historya moment when the United States and the world started moving away from the peace, prosperity and stability that have defined the past 75 years.

But the economics wizard economized on the truth. After 9/11, the United States entered a state of perpetual, global warfare. President Obama inherited three unconstitutional presidential wars from his predecessor, and left nine unconstitutional presidential wars to his successor. Current wars have given birth to a staggering 65 million refugees. The Middle East and South Asia are convulsed from Libya and Egypt to Yemen, Syria, and Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The international terrorist threat is greater today than it was on 9/11 despite the United States expenditure of $10 trillion, killing 3 million to 4 million Muslims and pointlessly sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans in the armed forces.

Peace and stability have not defined the past 75 years. Among other things, that interval has witnessed the Korean War; the United States overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddegh in Iran and President Arbenz in Guatemala; the Bay of Pigs invasion to topple Cubas Fidel Castro; assassination plots against Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, Castro in Cuba and Salvador Allende in Chile; the Vietnam War, including napalm and the My Lai Massacre; the secret war in Laos (1964-1973) featuring 2.5 million tons of cluster bombs which continue to kill and maim Laotians to this very day; the Chinese Cultural Revolution; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the blood-stained disintegration of Yugoslavia; the 1956 British-French-Israel invasion of Egypt, the 1967 Six Days War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War; and protracted civil wars in South Africa and Rhodesia against apartheid.

Professor Summers accuses President Trump of losing an imaginary paradise on earth by withdrawing from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, by seeking to revise NAFTA, by declining to deliver moral encyclicals to the world and by failing unilaterally to commit the United States militarily to defend the borders of all NATO members from external aggression, for instance, a Russian attack on Turkey or Estonia.

Each accusation betrays a delirious mind. The 2015 Paris climate accord was never ratified by the Senate as required by the U.S. Constitutions Treaty Clause. As an executive agreement approved by the president alone, the climate accord never commanded constitutional validity. President Trump simply wrote an official epitaph to a legal corpse. Moreover, everything in the agreement was hortatory. Nothing was binding. Signatory nations simply agreed to do what they would do out of self-interest without the Treaty, a political-environmental dynamic that remains undisturbed.

President Trump has not repudiated one word of NAFTA, a 1700 page agreement signed into law in 1993. He has not withdrawn from NAFTA by giving 6-months notice as was his right under Article 2205. Instead, the President has notified Canada, Mexico and the United States Congress 90 days in advance of contemplated negotiations of his intent to update the 23-year-old agreement in response to seismic changes in our economic landscape. The notification letter signed by United States Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer could not be more measured or reasonable. Among other things, it elaborates:

[W]e note that NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago, and while our economy and businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not. Many chapters are outdated and do not reflect modern standards. For example, digital trade was in its infancy when NAFTA was enacted Our aim is that NAFTA be modernized to include new provisions to address intellectual property rights, regulatory policies, state-owned enterprises, customs procedures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labor, environment, and small and medium enterprises.

Professor Summers fury at President Trumps refusal to deliver moral sermons to the world is particularly fatuous. (Mr. Summers served without protest under a president who played prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner to kill Americans suspected of endangering national security on his say-so alone, based on secret, unsubstantiated information.) Nothing in constitutional law or international relations commends schoolmarm-like preaching from the White House. As British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston taught, nations have no permanent friends or enemies, but only permanent interests. President Woodrow Wilsons moral lectures during World War I facilitated the wretched Treaty of Versaillesthe fuse of World War II. French President Georges Clemenceau acerbically remarked about Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference that while he talked like Jesus Christ he acted like [British Prime Minister] Lloyd George. Has Mr. Summers forgotten that those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make morally arrogant?

Finally, Article 5 of NATO does not and constitutionally could not commit the United States to war to defend the borders of member nations. Article 11 provides: [The provisions of] this Treaty shall becarried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The Declare War Clause of the U.S. Constitution exclusively empowers Congress to take the nation from a state of peace to war. It cannot be done by the president alone or by the president and Senate in making treaties. The U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Reid v. Covert (1957) that treaties are subservient to constitutional limitations.

Now you know why William F. Buckley Jr. declared he should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.

Read the original:

Liberal Trump hysteria, Salem witch trials - Washington Times - Washington Times

Liberal Democracy is a system of governance conditioned not only by political liberties such as free and fair elections, universal suffrage, and rights to run for office, but also by constitutional liberties such as the rule of law, respect for minorities, freedom of speech, religion and assembly, private property rights, and most importantly, a wide separation of powers. The founding pillar of liberal democracy, therefore, is its citizens ability to influence the governments policy formulation through the exercise of the aforementioned political and constitutional liberties. In other words, while a flawless correspondence between government policy formulation and majority preferences is idealistic, government responsiveness to citizens interests and concerns, in the process of policy formulation, is of central importance when evaluating democratic governance.

Ergo, by embracing the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theorys perspective, this paper will illustrate how the U.S. system of governance, while providing constitutional, that is, civil liberties to its citizens, espouses more focused and more powerful interests over more diffused and less powerful interests. This inevitably results in the U.S. political system being a liberal oligarchy rather than liberal democracy as it is presumed by many (see Dahl, 1971, 1985, 2006; Tocqueville, 2000; Monroe, 1979; Key, 1961 and famously Lincoln, 1989).

First, the paper will review the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theory while highlighting some of their most prominent advocates. Next, by briefly reflecting upon the definition of the oligarchs and the elites, the paper will place the concept of political influence that corporate power exerts in context. Subsequently, the paper will survey an eminent empirical study that found a vast discrepancy in the U.S. governments responsiveness to the majority preferences as opposed to the preferences of the elites. Last, the essay will illustrate how studies confirming an ostensibly desirable degree of governments responsiveness to the preferences of average citizens neglect the reflection of those preferences to those of wealthy citizens.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theory

Political theory, The Iron Law of Oligarchy, was first proposed by Robert Michels in his book Political Parties(1999) and laterdeveloped into The Elite Theory by scholars such as C. Wright Mills, Elmer Eric Schattschneider, G. William Domhoff, etc. Opposing pluralism, the theory focuses on the disparity between the political influence exerted by the oligarchs or the elites, actors that control considerable concentrations of wealth, as opposed to that of the average citizen. This school of political thought argues that the U.S. system of governance espouses more focused and more powerful interests over more diffused and less powerful interests. That is, the advocates of the Elite Theory stress that, in the case of the United States government policy formulation, influence is conditioned by affluence. Mills (1959), in his magnum opus, The Power Elite, offered a comprehensive description of how U.S. political, economic, military and social elites have dominated key issues in public policy formulation. Similarly, inThe Semisovereign People, Schattschneider asserted that the realm of the pressure system is actually fairly small:

the range of organized, identifiable, known groups is amazingly narrow; there is nothing remotely universal about it (1960: 30).

Schattschneider continues by arguing that

business or upper-class bias of the pressure system shows up everywhere (ibid: 30), therefore, the notion that the pressure system is automatically representative of the whole community is a myth (ibid: 36).

Instead, Schattschneider posits,

the system is skewed, loaded and unbalanced in favor of a fraction of a minority (ibid: 36).

G. William Domhoff made a significant contributed to the elite theory with his book, Who Rules America: The Triumph of the Corporate Rich. Domhoff (2013) presented a detailed depiction of how operating through various organizations such as think-tanks, opinion shaping apparatus and lobby groups enable elites to control key issues within policy formulation.

Oligarchs and The Elites

credits to the owner of the photo

According to Aristotle (1996), oligarchs are citizens who control and command an extensive concentration of wealth who always happen to be the few. Similarly, people who, due to their strategic positions in powerful organizations, have the ability to influence political outcomes, are classified by most scholars as economic and political elites (Higley, 2006). Therefore, the terms oligarchs and elites are often used interchangeably. These individuals can affect the basic stability of political regimes, the overall arrangements and workings of political institutions, and the key policies of the government (Higley and Burton, 2006: 7). Typically, elites and oligarchs consist of the top directors and executives of the major corporations. Nonetheless, they can belong to other essential sectors of the society such as political, military and administrative (Keller, 1963). By owning a wealth-producing property, these individuals make large-scale investment and, therefore, employment decisions, which ultimately regulates the United States economy (Higley and Pakulski, 2012). Therefore, a large percentage of American economic assets are disproportionally controlled by a rather small number of corporations.

The degree to which such private and totally unaccountable concentration of wealth has the potential to translate into political power is aptly synopsized by a closer look at Fortune 500 companies. For instance, in 2015, the top 500 corporations had a total revenue of $12 trillion, which represented two-thirds of the United States GDP (Fortune 5000, 2015). Therefore, a fairly small number of individuals disproportionally control the economic might of the United States. By obtaining access to influential policy makers, these individuals exercise power through congressional campaigns contributions. Consequently, according to Centre for Responsive Politics (2016), campaign donors spent nearly $3.1 billion in 2016s elections alone. In their study titled Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials, Kalla and Broockman (2015) concluded that superior access to policy makers are indeed obtained through political campaign donations.

Empirical Study

Over time, a variety of diverse actors that seem to have influence on U.S. policy formulation have been identified. Coincidentally, normative concerns that the U.S. political system is vastly influenced by capital driven individuals and groups have been growing. Until recently, however, providing empirical evidence that supported these concerns proved to be very difficult, almost impossible. Nonetheless, several, fairly recent empirical studies have demonstrated that, in the case of the United States, the policy making process is influenced, to a great degree, by more focused and more powerful interests compared to more diffused, less powerful interests (see Gilens and Page, 2014; Winters and Page, 2009; Page, Kalla and Broockman, 2015; Jacobs and Page, 2005; Bartels and Seawright, 2013; etc). However, due to its limited scope, this paper will survey only one of these studies.

By employing an imposing data set drawn from a heterogeneous set of policy initiatives, 1,923 in total, Gilens and Page demonstrated that

economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence (2014: pp. 565).

By comparing policy preferences of American citizens at the 50th income percentile to that of American citizens at the 90th income percentile, Gilens and Page (2014) found that the United States policy formulation is conditioned by the preferences of the latter group far more than it is conditioned by the preferences of the former group. In fact, the influence that the medium voter exerts on the U.S. policy formulation is near zero (Gilens and Page, 2014: pp. 576). By including the data that dates all the way back to 1980 the authors illustrated that such state of affairs has been a long-term trend, making it harder for ordinary citizens to comprehend, let alone reverse. However, ordinary citizens, might often be observed to win, that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes, even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites, with whom they often agree with, actually prevail as policy formulation is not a zero-sum game (Gilens and Page, 2014: pp. 570). Nevertheless, it is crucial to point out that this correlation is erroneous in terms of causal impact and, consequently, provides a false sense of political equality. In other words, the results obtained by the authorsdemonstrate how the relatively high level of governments responsiveness to the preferences ofaverage and low income citizens is nothing more than a reflection of the preferences shared by wealthy citizens. However, by incorporation a multivariate analysis of different test groups, Gilens and Page (2014), illustrated how the influence of average citizens preferences drops rapidly once their preferences differ to that of wealthy citizens.

The ideal of political equality that average American citizens, as well as many scholars, hold dear, stands in stark contrast to the immense representational biases demonstrated by Gilens and Page. While acknowledging that a perfect political equality has a particularly idealistic character, the enormous dichotomy in the systems responsiveness to citizens at different income levels reinforces doubt associated with the presumed liberal democratic character of American society and leads this paper to conclude that the U.S. is, contrary to popular belief, a liberal oligarchy as opposed to liberal democracy.

Conclusion

By embracing the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theorys perspective, this paper illustrated how the U.S. system of governance, while providing constitutional, that is, civil liberties to its citizens, espouses more focused and more powerful interests over more diffused and less powerful interests. This inevitably results in the U.S. political system being a liberal oligarchy rather than liberal democracy as it is presumed by many. First, the paper reviewed the Iron Law of Oligarchy and The Elite Theory and highlighted some of their most prominent advocates. Next, by briefly reflecting upon the definition of the oligarchs and the elites, the paper placed the concept of corporate power and political influence it exerts in context. Subsequently, the paper surveyed an eminent empirical study that found a vast discrepancy in the U.S. governments responsiveness to the majority preferences as opposed to the preferences of the elites. Last, the paper illustrated how studies confirming ostensibly desirable levels of governments responsiveness to the preferences of the average citizen neglect the reflection of those preferences to those of wealthy citizens.

Sources

Aristotle, (1996). The Politics and The Constitution of Athens. Ed. Stephen Everson, Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Center for Responsive Politics. 2013. The Money Behind the Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ [Accessed 13 April 2017].

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1985), A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (2006), On Political Equality. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press, p. 4.

Domhoff, G. W. (2013), Who Rules America: The Triumph of the Corporate Rich. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fortune. 2015. Fortune 500. http://beta.fortune.com/fortune500/. [Accessed 19 April 2017].

Higley, J. (2006), Elite Theory in Political Sociology. University of Texas Austin. Retrieved from http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_4036.pdf on 11/04/2017.

Higley, J., Burton, M. (2006), Elite Foundation of Liberal Democracy. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.

Higley, J., Pakulski, J. (2012), Elites, elitism and elite theory: unending confusion?. Paper prepared for Research Committee on Political Elites (RC02), panel Elite Dilemmas and Democracys Future, World Congress of the International Political Science Association. Madrid: School of Journalism.

Hotelling, H. (1929), Stability in Competition. Economic Journal, 39: 41-57.

Kalla, J. L., Broockman, D. E. (2015), Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 0: 1-14.

Lincoln, A. (1989), Address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. In Speeches and Writings 1859 1865. New York: Library of America.

Keller, S. (1963), Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society. New York: Random House.

Mills, C. W. (1959), The Power Elite. Galaxy edition, New York: Oxford University Press.

Michels, R. (1999), Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Mullen, A., Klaehn, J. (2010), The Herman- Chomsky Propaganda Model: A Critical Approach to Analyzing Mass Media Behaviour. Sociology Compass, 4(4), pp. 215-229.

Monroe, A. (1979), Consistency between Public Preferences and National Policy Decisions. American Politics Quarterly, 7: 3-18.

Gilens, M., Page, I. B. (2014), Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3): 56481.

Page, B. I., Bartels, L. M. and Seawright, J. (2013), Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans, Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), pp. 5173.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960), The Semisovereign People: A Realists View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Tocqueville, A. D. (2000), Democracy in America. Translated and edited by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Winters, J. A., Page, B. I. (2009). Oligarchy in the United States? Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 73151.

Petar Djolic is currently in his final year of Masters of International Relations at University of Sydney, Australia.

Featured image: credits to the owner

Excerpt from:

The United States of America: Liberal Democracy or Liberal Oligarchy? - Center for Research on Globalization

Conservatives say signatories to an open letter last week from prominent members of the francophone community in support of Madeleine Meilleur's candidacy for languages commissioner include many Liberal partisans with a vested interest in seeing a fellow Liberal take the top job.

Canadian Heritage MinisterMlanieJolytwicecited the letter in questionperiod this week as evidence the government's nominee enjoys support within thefrancophonecommunity.

"We believe the selection committee made the right choice," the 94 signatories said in the letter. "Throughout her different careers, [Meilleur] has demonstrated professionalism, judgment and especially, integrity."

But the Conservatives said many of the letter's signatories have made donations to the Liberal Party of Canada and thus it is little surprise they would backMeilleur.

Ontario Conservative MP JohnBrassardsaid it is a further sign thatMeilleur'snomination has been tainted by Liberal partypolitics.

"It just deepens the partisan aspect of this appointment," Brassardsaid. "There shouldn't even be any semblance or sense that this is partisan."

CBC News found that 42 of the 94 names on the letter appear to be donors to the federal Liberals, according to analysis of Elections Canada data.

The signatories and donors include not only several prominent Franco-Ontarian leaders in the areas of business, law and culture, but also people who have worked for the federal orOntario Liberal parties. They include Pierre Cyr, the Ontario Liberal Party's operational vice-president of organization, and Noble Chummar, who previouslyworked for formerOntario Liberal premier DaltonMcGuinty andformer Liberal prime ministerPaul Martin.

"I'm not surprised the minister is holding up letters signed by Liberal donors,"Brassardtold CBC News in an interview. "Ms.Meilleurwas a Liberal donor herself."

Since 2009,Meilleurhas donated more than $3,000 to the federal Liberal Party, its local campaigns, and Justin Trudeau's2013 leadership race, according to analysis of Elections Canada data.

Ontario Conservative MP John Brassard says Madeleine Meilleur's nomination as official languages commissioner has been tainted by partisanship. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

The appointment process has become too political forMeilleurto take up the position with any credibility, Brassard said.

"It's one thing to wave a letter of support in the House of Commons," Brassard said. "But the reality is that not everybody within the francophone, the Acadian and even the anglophone community is supporting this appointment."

Several organizations representing official language minority communities initially congratulatedMeilleuron her nomination, but have since withdrawn their support in light of the debate as to whether the process was above board.

Earlier this week, theSocitdel'Acadiedu Nouveau-Brunswick a group that defends the rights ofAcadiansin New Brunswick announced itwill seek a judicial reviewof the appointment process.

Ronald Caza, the Ottawa lawyer who rallied Meilleur's supporters to write the open letter to Joly, said he's surprised by the backlash against her nomination.

"All of those people, they signed because they believe in Madeleine Meilleur," Caza said."We just wanted the [Canadian heritage] minister to know that Madeleine does have all this support in the francophone community and that we're all very happy she's been nominated to play this role."

Caza, who has previously served as counsel to former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, said he wanted to give voice to those in the francophone community who know Meilleur personally andbelieve she's best placed to advance the interests of official language minority communities.

"Everyone who signed that letter that's what they want," he said. "Whether they're Liberals or not is irrelevant."

Heritage Minister Mlanie Joly is defending the process that led to Meilleur's nomination as open, rigorous and merit-based. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

A spokesperson for Joly, Pierre-Olivier Herbert, said "the experience, expertise and integrity of Ms. Meilleur has been recognized by many in the official languages community across Canada."

SinceMeilleur'snomination was announcedon May 15, the government has had to fend accusations from the opposition thatMeilleurbenefited from herties to officials in both the Prime Minister's Office and Joly's office.

Joly told the House of Commons last Wednesday that Gerald Butts and Katie Telford two of the prime minister's top advisers never discussed with Meilleur her nomination as official languages commissioner.

Joly has also said that none of her employees who previously worked with Meilleur or had contact with her were involved in the selection process.

Meilleurtestified before a special sitting of the Senate Monday evening, defending her record and promising to put the languages post ahead of party politics.Underthe Official Languages Act, a language commissioner must be approved by a vote in both the House of Commons and Senate before he or she can start the job.

A vote in the Senate will be held at a later date.

Read the original post:

Letter backing bilingualism watchdog nominee signed by key Liberals, Conservatives say - CBC.ca

ESPN this week downplayed the results of a new study that said most people who think the sports channel is biased believe it leans to the left.

A survey conducted by ESPN and Langer Research Associates found that 30 percent of those asked think ESPN is biased. Within that group, 63 percent think the channel has a liberal bias, and 30 percent think it has a conservative bias.

But in a Monday story on the survey, ESPN only mentioned the 30 percent who think the channel has a conservative bent, and made no mention of the 63 percent who think it's liberal. When asked why the 63 percent figure wasn't included in the ESPN story, a spokesman for ESPN said in an email to the Washington Examiner it was "implied."

The study was released on the heels of a decline in subscribers to ESPN, which many said was due to perceptions of political bias. The network lost more than 10 million subscribers over the last few years, according to the New York Times.

Charges of the network's political bias escalated after ESPN was forced to lay off roughly 100 journalists, on-air talent, analysts and production staffers.

The study, which was conducted from May 3 to May 7, also found that 64 percent of ESPN fans believe the network is "getting it right" with its coverage of sports news and political issues.

In its post online, ESPN said there was "no doubt" that some Americans disagreed with how different issues were discussed on ESPN platforms. However, the network said those opinions didn't affect their viewing behavior "in any material way."

Original post:

ESPN downplays study revealing perceptions of liberal bias - Washington Examiner

Liberal Democrats leader Tim Farron (C) speaks as Nick Clegg MP (R) and Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park Sarah Olney look on during a rally at the Shiraz Mirza Community Hall on June 1, 2017 in Kingston upon Thames, England. Leon NealGetty Images

Its a cold evening in April, and a loud bang has just stopped a huddle of political canvassers in South London. He shut the door in my face, says Richard Phillips, a 62-year-old retired advertising executive campaigning for the Liberal Democrats party in the constituency of Vauxhall. I suppose they wont be voting for us, he says to George Turner, the Liberal Democrats candidate for Vauxhall who is attempting to take the seat from the local MP. The group moves on, to bang on more doors and hand out more leaflets.

Doors have been slamming across the U.K. over the past six weeks as voters are presented with yet another set of political pitches on their stoops before the snap general election on June 8, called by Prime Minister Theresa May a little less than two months ago. It's the third vote in three years here, after the general election of 2015 that delivered David Cameron a parliamentary majority and last year's 'Brexit' referendum that forced his resignation.

May launched the election as a bid to boost her mandate in the upcoming negotiations to leave the E.U., and many expected Britain's future outside the political and economic bloc to be the focus of the race. On the face of it, this seemed like good news for the Liberal Democrats Britain's third party, created in 1988 as a center-left alternative to the two largest parties. Having been all but wiped out in the 2015 election, the "Lib Dems" plotted a comeback built on the support of anti-Brexit voters. The "Lib Dems" launched a manifesto calling for a second referendum on the final Brexit deal, where voters can either accept the deal or choose to remain in the E.U. something both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and May's Conservative Party, or "Tories," have ruled out.

Promising a do-over on "Brexit" should logically have been a popular pitch the 16 million Remainers number five million more than the Tories total vote share in 2015, and nearly 7 million more than Labours. A vast center-ground remains unaccounted for as the countrys biggest parties become more polarized, tilting their messages further left and right on the political spectrum. The election was called because of Brexit, would-be MP George Turner tells TIME. In many ways this is a single issue vote."

But polls suggest the Liberal Democrats will gain barely any seats at all on June 8. Analysts predict that they will struggle to win back its seats in rural, Euroskeptic areas, especially in South West England. [The result] is going to be patchy, Tony Travers, an elections expert at the London School of Economics, tells TIME. The Liberal Democrats set their stall so strongly against Brexit and in favor of another referendum, have got virtually nowhere with it. Betting on Brexit is looking like a bust.

Two years ago, it looked as if the Lib Dems had hit rock bottom. The party went from holding 48 parliamentary seats to just eight after the 2015 election, as younger and left-leaning voters punished the party for the five years it spent in coalition government with the Conservative Party. The Lib Dems were seen to have reneged on key promises, most infamously a pledge to stand in the way of tuition fees for higher education that was dropped under pressure by their Conservative partners.

The party was enthusiastically anti-Brexit in the referendum campaign, and defeat appeared to galvanize it in opposition. Under new leader Tim Farron, the party rode an anti-Brexit strategy to success in December in a local election in the London constituency of Richmond. More than 100,000 people joined the party in the wake of the referendum, among them Rachel Johnson, a prominent journalist and sister of vocal Leave campaigner Boris Johnson , now Foreign Minister. Speaking to a Brexit convention on May 12 in London, Johnson said, to loud cheers from the Remain-leaning audience, she became a Liberal Democrat because the party was offering voters a second look at whatever deal there is.

Some 600 pro-European candidates also flocked to the Lib Dem ranks; people like George Turner. His key rival in Vauxhall an urban constituency of about 73,000 people is Kate Hoey, a former Labour Party cabinet minister who was among the most vocal Brexiteers. Hoey even joined former far-right leader Nigel Farage on the campaign trail. Turner, by contrast is a British-Croatian national who voted to remain in the E.U. Almost 8 in 10 of his potential constituents did, too one of the highest shares against Brexit in the country.

And yet the polls have consistently given the Liberal Democrats between 7 and 10% of the vote which will likely give them roughly the same result as last time around.

In many ways, it's not their fault. A handful of political upsets, which includes a terrorist attack in Manchester and another assault at London's Borough Market five days before the vote, has tilted a one-issue vote into a traditional race focused more on domestic issues such as social services, security, austerity and the countrys creaking health provider, the National Health Service (NHS). Prime Minister May, who was initially predicted to win in a landslide, saw her unassailable 20-point lead against Labour narrow to around five points at the end of May due to a pledge to make people pay more of the costs of social care, which was branded the 'dementia tax.' Some are predicting a hung Parliament or a small majority for the Tories.

But the apparent shift in voting intentions has not translated to votes for the Liberal Democrats. Those who have Brexit buyers remorse seem more likely to vote for Labour who, unlike the Liberal Democrats, have a better chance of winning and have positioned themselves as slightly less pro-Brexit than the Tories. Some say there just isnt room for a third party to make much difference. The Tories are getting 30% of Remain voters and will win about two thirds of leave voters, while the plurality of Remain voters will go for Labour, Philip Cowley, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University in London tells TIME.

Even the most senior Liberal Democrats concede that many Brits feel the Brexit question has been answered, no matter how they voted in 2016. Much as I'd like to think there's an army of 48% of the British electorate ready to rise up as one and say that they're all Liberal Democrats now, former leader Nick Clegg tells TIME, the truth of course is there are many people who, in keeping with a very sort of pragmatic British spirit, are saying oh well, we must now move on and make the best of it.

Theres also a sense that two years is not quite enough to spend in the wilderness, especially among younger voters who feel the Lib Dems did not do enough to resist the Tory agenda while in government. According to a Y ou Gov poll for the Sunday Times , nearly three-quarters of people between the ages of 18 to 24 will vote Labour no doubt buoyed by the partys popular policy pledges of increased taxes on companies and the abolishment of college fees. The damage done to the Liberal Democrats by the years in the coalition are going to take more than one Parliament to repair, Travers says.

The object for Liberal Democrats, then, is to use this election to build a platform for the future not just on Brexit, but on other campaign pledges pitched at young, metropolitan voters, like marijuana legalization and cleaner air standards. This isnt an election when the Liberal Democrats will be sweeping to power, Lib Dems strategist Mark Pack says. It is important to play the long game in some sense.

But some see more radical changes coming, once this election is over. One senior party figure, who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely, told TIME that a new movement needs to rise from the ashes of the snap election, much like the En Marche! movement which Emmanuel Macron rode to the French presidency. "I am not saying electoral packs; I'm not saying progressive alliances," says the senior figure. "They will be minor and on the edges, but something which brings those who hold broadly progressive views together and which above all, appeals to those beyond the political parties."

First, though, comes this election. The Liberal Democrats are still hoping to spring a surprise in Vauxhall, where Turner is campaigning hard to overturn Hoey's majority of 12,000. Bookmakers don't favor a shock, though Hoey is 1/7 to retain the seat, according to local media .

If she does, it will be because of voters like Georgie Darroch. The 31-year-old conservationist voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2010, and to Remain in 2016, but is now leaning towards voting Labour in Thursday's vote. The referendum has polarized the country, she says, and she wants to vote for a party that will foster national unity. I dont necessarily think going back on the [referendum] vote is going to be the best. I think we should be pushing for meaningful change.

Here is the original post:

The Liberal Democrats Bet on a Brexit Election. It Hasn't Paid Off - TIME

Conscious of all the hot takes about its alleged liberal bias, ESPN contracted a research firm last month to survey its audience about any political tilt in its programming. The results from the study should be considered a win for the sports channel.

Approximately two-thirds (64%) of respondents who took the survey indicated that ESPN had found the right chemistrybetweensports news and political issues, while only 30% claimed to have detected a political bias.

Of those who sawa bias, 30% percent actually believed that ESPN expressed a conservative viewpoint.

Viewers who identified themselves as strong conservatives ranked ESPN at 7.2 using a 1-10 scale, according to the survey. Liberals gave ESPN a 7.0 ranking. A score of 8.0 was considered highly rated.

In a press release touting the results of the survey, ESPNs vice president of consumer insights Bary Blyn neglected to mention that of the viewers who saw a bias, 63% said that the sports channel swung too far to the left.

These answers certainly do not determinethat a good portionof ESPNs audience senses a liberal bias, as sportingnews.com suggested. Sporting News Michael McCarthy, who astutely noted that ESPNs press release omitted the liberal bias statistic, was quick to write that the survey in fact showed asubset of respondents, by a 2-to-1 margin, believe the network leans to the left politically. Buried later in McCarthys piece, the sports writer acknowledges that this subset of respondents only made up less than 2out of 10 surveyed a mere 19% percent of the total.

For all the histrionicsover ESPNs alleged liberal bias, the sports channels main audience doesnt seem to mind.

Visit link:

Actually, most ESPN viewers don't think it has a liberal bias - Salon ... - Salon

Vox's home for compelling, provocative narrative essays.

Evergreen State College descended into chaos last month after Bret Weinstein, a professor there, objected to a planned Day of Absence event where white students and faculty were encouraged to leave campus. The protests against Weinstein for his alleged racism were so vociferous that campus police told him they could not ensure his safety on campus. In addition, threats have forced the cancellation of classes at Evergreen State on several occasions over the past week.

Earlier this year, Charles Murray, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannopoulos were unable to speak at Middlebury College and the University of California Berkeley after violence erupted in response to their planned appearances on those campuses.

By now, youve probably seen news accounts of the Weinstein, Murray, Coulter, and Yiannopoulos incidents. But heres a story youre far less likely to have heard of: Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a Princeton professor, gave a speech late last month at Hampshire College in which she was highly critical of President Donald Trump. After the content of her speech hit national news outlets, Taylor received threats that led her to cancel several other speaking engagements, including one on a college campus, out of concern for her own safety.

And yet theres been little of the news coverage or outrage from free speech advocates that these other incidents received.

Why? There are several possible reasons, which I will discuss in greater detail below. But among other things, there may be a double standard at work: Many of the conservative media outlets that extensively covered the Murray, Coulter, and Yiannopoulos controversies suddenly seem a whole lot quieter when the attacks on free speech are coming from the right.

This apparent double standard is unacceptable. Support for free speech should not be a partisan issue. We all depend on the right to free speech to express our views whatever those views may be, and wherever we may fall on the political spectrum. Too often, however, support for free speech breaks down along political lines, with people expressing outrage when one of their own is silenced while remaining conspicuously silent when the shoe is on the other foot.

At a time when our collective willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints seems to be at a nadir, it is more critical than ever that all of us speak out against censorship and intimidation regardless of the identity of the speakers or the censors.

On May 20, professor Taylor gave the commencement address at Hampshire College in Massachusetts. In it, she exhorted Hampshires graduating class to fight injustice, discussing many of her concerns with American society and referring to President Trump as a racist and sexist megalomaniac.

Several conservative media outlets, including Campus Reform and Fox News, reported on Taylors speech.

According to a statement released through her publisher on May 31, after the Fox report aired, Taylor received more than fifty hate-filled and threatening emails, some containing specific threats of violence, including murder. In Taylors own words:

I have been repeatedly called nigger, bitch, cunt, dyke, she-male, and coon a clear reminder that racial violence is closely aligned with gender and sexual violence. I have been threatened with lynching and having the bullet from a .44 Magnum put in my head.

As a result, Taylor canceled two planned appearances at Seattle Town Hall and the University of California San Diego for fear of my safety and my familys safety.

Sadly, Taylors case is just the latest in a string of incidents that paint a bleak picture of the state of free speech on college campuses and beyond. Rather than engage constructively with people who express controversial political or social views, the modus operandi today seems to be to react with threats of violence and protests so disruptive that they actually prevent the speaker from speaking a phenomenon known as the hecklers veto.

But as the New Republics Sarah Jones pointed out, there seems to be much less coverage of Taylors story than the stories of Weinstein, Murray, and others.

There are several possible explanations for this, none of which are mutually exclusive.

First, unlike the other incidents, the threats against Taylor appear to have come not from on campus but from the kind of internet trolls to whom we have all become perhaps too inured. People seem to be more surprised when the threats and vitriol come from within an institution of higher education, where one would theoretically expect people to support the expression of a wide range of ideas, and to respond with ad rem rather than ad hominem arguments.

Second, as Jones noted, Taylor canceled the speaking engagements herself, rather than being disinvited or prevented from speaking in the same way as Murray et al. placing this incident outside of the disinvitation season phenomenon that has garnered media attention over the past few years.

But finally, we cannot discount the possibility that there is also a double standard at play.

Much of the recent intolerance of campus speech has come from the left, and has been widely covered by conservative media outlets under the guise of a concern for the state of free speech on campus. Why, then, do these same outlets remain comparatively quiet when the intolerance for speech is coming from the right? Free speech is free speech, and if you believe that the right to openly express controversial political opinions is important, you should be as concerned about Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylors right to free speech as you were about Charles Murrays or Ann Coulters and vice versa.

I have worked as a free speech advocate for more than 12 years now. In that time, it seems as if the extent to which we insulate ourselves from opposing viewpoints, and demonize the people who hold them, has increased dramatically. Admittedly, this is just my sense of things, but it is a sense I have heard echoed repeatedly by colleagues, friends, family, and virtually anyone with whom I discuss the work I do. It feels as though we have reached a point where many of us, from across the political spectrum, recognize that this is a problem but it feels insurmountable, and we dont quite know what to do about it.

If you feel this way, start being a role model now. If you disagree with professor Taylors remarks about President Trump but are horrified by the threats made against her, send her a note of support. Share one of the few reports about her story with friends who might not otherwise see it, and let them know what you think. Similarly, if you disagree with Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College but are appalled that police cant ensure his safety on campus simply because he expressed his views, send him a note of support. Be a vocal supporter of the right to free speech not only when you agree with the speaker, but also especially when you disagree with the speaker.

Beyond that, be a model of constructive engagement. One of my favorite sayings, from a book of Jewish ethical teachings called Pirkei Avot, says, Who is wise? The one who learns from every person. Talk to people with whom you disagree. Ask them about what they believe. Really listen to what they have to say. Tell them about what you believe. In my experience, many people are hungry for these kinds of thoughtful encounters but have ceased to believe they are possible. Show them otherwise.

Samantha Harris is vice president of policy research for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

First Person is Vox's home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our submission guidelines, and pitch us at firstperson@vox.com.

Follow this link:

Charles Murray gets attacked? Outrage! A liberal professor gets threatened? Silence. - Vox

Sacramento Bee

California too liberal? Here's a solution: Move to Texas | The ... Sacramento Bee Conservative Move, a company started by U.S. congressional candidate Paul Chabot, aims to get more conservatives to move to Texas. California too liberal of a state for you? 'Conservative Move' takes ...The San Diego Union-Tribune all 2 news articles »

Excerpt from:

California too liberal? Here's a solution: Move to Texas | The ... - Sacramento Bee

ESPN has cleared itself of not growing too liberal. But for the conservatives who dont buy that, heres Hank Williams Jr.!

In purportedly unrelated announcements, the Worldwide Leader announced on Monday that 1) an ESPN-commissioned research group found that ESPN is getting it right in mixing political and sports coverage, in addition to finding the proportion of people who see a political slant in ESPNs coverage is not growing, and 2) the network is rehiring Williams, the conservative firebrand.

Well start with item 2. Williams is bringing All His Rowdy Friends back to Monday Night Football for the first time since 2011. The country singer had participated in the Monday night broadcasts since 1989, playing versions of a song that would always feature, Are you ready for some football?

ESPN pulled the broadcast staple six years ago, after he went on Fox News to compare a meeting of then-President Obama and then-Rep. House Speaker John Boehner to a meeting between Adolf Hitler andIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In response to ESPN pulling the song for one week, Williams was enraged: After reading hundreds of emails, I have made MY decision, he wrote on Oct. 6, 2011. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. Its been a great run.

Six years, a new White House regime and a rumbling that ESPN is too liberal later, the two sides are finding common ground. Williams is back in the spotlight with a company that is trying to disprove that liberal politics have anything to do with declining ratings and subsequent layoffs.

Beyond rehiring a polarizing personality, ESPN composed a public relations piece Monday that highlighted findings from a May 3-7 survey that studied a perceived liberal bias. The full survey results from Langer Research Associates of New York were not made available, but ESPN promoted the discovery that 64 percent of respondents think Bristol is getting it right in walking the politics/sports tightrope. Ten percent had no opinion, while 8 percent wanted more politics in broadcasts.

A network that fired noted conservative meme-purveyor Curt Schilling emphasized italics and all that 30 percent actually believe ESPN expresses a conservative viewpoint.

The most important takeaway for ESPN, though, is that both Republicans and Democrats rated the network highly. On a scale to 10, Republicans gave the Worldwide Leader a 7.1 (up .5 from October) and Democrats rated ESPN as a 7.0.

Read more:

ESPN going all-out to prove it's not actually liberal - New York Post

The federal contractor, who was charged by the Department of Justice for stealing classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) and leaking it to a media outlet, is apro-Iran liberal activist who believes being white is terrorism.

According to the resurfaced social media accounts of Reality Leigh Winner,who was arrested on Saturday over leaking classified information to The Interceptand reportedly confessed the wrongdoing, the 25-year-old didnt hide her contempt for President Trump or her country, and repeated far-left talking points.

On Twitter,she tweeted at rapper Kanye West suggesting he should make a shirtstating that being white is terrorism, despite being a white woman herself.

Just like other far-left Twitter warriors, Winner had a habit of replying to Trumps tweets and trying to mock him. She called the President the orange fascist.

The most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the white house, she wrote, in reply to Trumps tweet about the travel ban.

In another shocking revelation, the NSA leakerexpressed support for Iran, saying she would support the Islamic country if the President, who she described as Tangerine in Chief, declares war.

According to the FBI warrant, Winner was an active duty member of the U.S. Air Force and held a Top Secret clearance.

There are many Americans protesting US govt aggression towards Iran. If our Tangerine in Chief declares war, we stand with you! Winner tweeted at Javad Zarif, the Foreign Minister of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Winner was arrested by the FBI on Saturday after she printed out classified information containing national defense information from an intelligence community agency and then unlawfully transmitted by mail the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet, according to the DOJ.

As a federal contractor with Pluribus International Corporation, the leakerhad top security clearance that allowed her to access classified information.

The leaked information was allegedly the basis for a June 5 article on The Interceptshowing Russian hacking attempts into U.S. voting software leading up to the election.

Following herarrest, Winnerconfessed to printing the classified documents and sendingthem over to the media outlet.

In other posts on Twitter and Facebook, Winner ticked all the relevant boxes when it comes to being a left-wing activist, showing her support for Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, fighting against climate change, and accusing Trump of colliding with Russia.

Continue reading here:

Revealed: NSA Leaker Is Pro-Iran Liberal Activist Who Says 'Being White Is Terrorism' - Heat Street

After a bruising three months marked by the property assessment scandal, Premier Brian Gallant's Liberal government holds a seemingly comfortable lead over the opposition Progressive Conservatives, according to a new poll.

Corporate Research Associates' quarterly survey found 46 per cent of decided respondents would vote for the Liberals, while 33 per cent said they would vote PC.

But CRA pollster Don Mills said that lead masks some troubling trends for the Liberal Party.

Liberal support has been gradually shrinking over the last year and PC support has been inching up.

The gap between the two parties has narrowed from 27 points in the May 2016 poll to 13 points in May 2017.

"That is getting tighter, there's no doubt about it," Mills said.

"The trend line is not that good for the Liberals if it were to continue, and pretty good for the Tories if it were to continue."

Liberal support is down from 51 per cent in the last CRA poll three months ago, a five-point drop that is outside the sample's margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Liberal Party president Joel Reed attributed the dip to the scandal over botched property tax assessments. (LinkedIn)

PC support didn't shift outside that margin from 30 to 33 per cent but it's been growing steadily for a year.

The NDP was chosen by 11 per cent of those surveyed, the Green Party by six, and the People's Alliance by three. Those numbers were among decided voters only. Thirty-six per cent of respondents were undecided.

Liberal Party president Joel Reed said the poll is just a snapshot of opinion from last month, but "that being said, we're relatively pleased with these numbers."

He attributed the Liberal apparent dip in support to the scandal over botched property tax assessments.

"There's no question that with the volume of coverage of the property assessment issue, it's had an impact on the polling numbers," Reed said.

But he said the level of Liberal support is still higher than what it was in the 2014 election, when the party won a majority of seats.

He also pointed to the satisfaction level with the government 53 per cent, which is statistically unchanged from the 55 per cent in the last poll, taken before the property assessment scandal began dominating political debate.

Dissatisfaction was at 41 per cent. The margin of error for those numbers is 3.5 points.

However, Mills said the overall provincial number has regional breakdowns that should worry the Liberals.

The satisfaction rate was 67 per cent among francophones and only 44 per cent among anglophones.

Corporate Research Associates' quarterly survey found 46 per cent of decided respondents would vote Liberal, while 33 per cent would vote PC. (CRA)

In the 2014 election, the Liberals won huge majorities in most francophone ridings.

That's why despite an eight-point margin in the popular vote over the PCs 42.7 per cent to 34.7 per cent they won only a narrow majority of seats, some of them by fewer than 100 votes.

Another trouble sign for the Liberals is that only 31 per cent of respondents preferred Gallant as premier, down from 35 per cent in the last poll, another shift that is outside that sample's margin of error of 3.5 points.

PC leader Blaine Higgs was the preferred premier for 23 per cent of respondents, 11 per cent chose Green Party Leader David Coon, five per cent chose interim NDP Leader Rosaire L'Italien, and five per cent chose People's Alliance Leader Kris Austin.

CRA sampled 804 New Brunswickers between May 3 and 31.

View post:

NB Liberals hold lead, but Tories narrowing the gap, poll suggests - CBC.ca

Does anybody here remember Blanche Lincoln? She was a two-term senator from Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who prospered in a red state by defying liberal power brokers like big labor.

The unions and ultra-left pressure groups went after her big-time in 2010, backing a primary challenge by Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. She survived the primary barely but suffered mortal wounds in the process, and lost badly in the fall to Republican John Boozman.

We thought of Lincoln as the purist wing of the Democratic Party re-emerged this spring and threatened to run primary opponents next year against senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Their sin: daring to support President Trumps nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

As one of those purist pressure groups, We Will Replace You, said in their manifesto: The next crucial step is escalating our demands, and demonstrating that we wont accept anything less than full opposition by showing Democrats just how many people are willing to back primary challenges to Democratic collaborators and enablers of Trump.

This harassment is beyond stupid. Its suicidal.

Democrats are struggling to win elections and have lost control of both Congress and the White House. Trump won West Virginia by 67 percent, North Dakota by 62 percent and Indiana by 56 percent.

The only Democrats who could possibly hold Senate seats in those states are ones like Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly: moderates who separate themselves from the rigid tenets of liberal theology. Lincolnizing them, purging them as heretics, would have only one result: making it easier for Trump and his congressional allies to retain power.

Look at the facts. Yes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million, but thats a highly misleading figure, based entirely on huge Democratic margins in a few coastal and urban enclaves. In California alone, Clinton rolled up a lead of 4.3 million; in New York, it was 1.7 million. Take away those two states and Trumps national margin was above 3 million.

Trump won about 84 percent of the counties in America; Clinton, 16 percent. Only 26 percent of voters identified as liberals in Election Day exit polls, with 39 percent calling themselves moderates and 35 percent conservatives.

Add the nature of the American system: House members represent individual districts that are often gerrymandered to protect the party in power; each state gets two senators, no matter its size; and the Electoral College determines the president, not the popular vote.

The math is undeniable and unrelenting: Democrats cannot take back the White House or Congress simply by building up large majorities in Brooklyn and Boston. Politics is always about addition, not subtraction. Condemning moderates as collaborators and enablers will condemn the party to permanent minority status.

Groups like We Will Replace You are directly connected to Bernism, the mass mania that infected liberals during the Democratic primaries. They deluded themselves into believing that a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, mouthing totally unrealistic slogans like free college tuition, could actually win.

Sure, Sanders backed Clinton after the conventions, but he stayed in the primaries far too long and convinced far too many of his followers that she was a flawed candidate not worth voting for. Yes, Clinton was a poor candidate, but without a doubt, Sanders helped elect Trump. He Lincolnized Clinton.

The fallout from Bernism is not just bad for the Democrats; its bad for the country. Moderates like Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly are an essential part of a functioning Senate. They are the dealmakers, the conciliators, the lubricators who make the legislative machinery run. Their shrinking numbers help explain why the Senate is imploding over Gorsuchs nomination to the high court.

In 2005, a group called the Gang of 14 seven Democrats, seven Republicans brokered a pact over judicial nominations that avoided a partisan showdown. Only three of those 14 Senators, all Republicans, remain in office. All the Democrats are gone, including four moderates from red states: Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

There was no deal this year, comparable to the one forged 12 years ago, because there are so few dealmakers left.

If the Democrats forget Blanche Lincoln, if they insist on purging anyone who strays from liberal orthodoxy, they will misread once again the nature of the American electorate. And they will weaken, not strengthen, their ability to resist Trump.

Steve and Cokie Roberts can be contacted by email at stevecokie@gmail.com.

Follow this link:

The deadly liberal delusion - Weatherford Democrat

When the official election campaign kicks off Tuesday it will have been 5,810 days since the BC Liberals first took power in 2001.

Gordon Campbell's victory 16 years ago launchedthe current dynasty, one of the longest lasting political regimes in Canada, which makes the premise of the 2017 election campaign simple: Do you want change or are you fine with how things have been going?

"Inevitably we have a government that has been in power since 2001, it is almost cliche to say it's time for change," said University of Victoria political scientist Norman Ruff.

"Even a government thatis doing well, it's good to have a circulation of change. It's part of the general atmosphere that is surrounding the election and clearly the NDP will focus on 'things can be better.' "

B.C Premier Christy Clark speaks to a crowd at an anti-bullying event in Burnaby, B.C., on Wednesday, February 22, 2017. (The Canadian Press / Ben Nelms)

At the helm for the B.C. Liberals is one of the province's most familiar faces:party leader and B.C. Premier Christy Clark is looking for a second mandate.

The Liberals have had some high profile problems. The premier has been dogged by questions about 'cash-for-access' fundraisersin which donors who paid hundreds of dollars for tickets received face time with Clark.

There was also criticism that Clark received a $50,000 stipend as party leader, a practice she recently ended.The premier has also faced questions about why she falsely accusedNDP Leader JohnHorganof hacking theB.C Liberalwebsite.

And her government also came under fire for a practice of triple-deleting emails.

Finally, the government hasacknowledged that it will fall short on one of its key election promises from the 2013 provincial campaign to havethree Liquefied Natural Gas plants up and running by 2020.

Still, Clark is in a much different position than she was four years ago. The province boasts thecountry's strongest economy and is leading in job growth.

"I think the most important thing a government can do to help people is help create jobs," said Clark. "I really believe, a job changes lives."

John Horgan surrounded by members of the B.C. NDP caucus on the last day of the 2017 legislative session. (Mike McArthur/CBC News)

Horganis the third NDP leader that has tried to stop the Liberal run. LikeCaroleJames and Adrian Dix before him,Horganhas been a fixture in the party for a long time.

The three-term MLA was first elected in 2005 in the riding ofMalahat-JuandeFuca.Horganis working to define himself, while attacks come at him from both third-party groups and the B.C. Liberals.

The NDP leader has faced criticismfrom the B.C. Liberals that he'san angry person with a bad temper. Others have called himindecisive on issues likethe Site C Dam construction.

Through all this,Horganis trying to define himself.

"When people call me angry, I say I am passionate," saidHorgan. "Who wouldn't be angry with the highest child poverty rate in the country?Who wouldn't be angry at a government who takes bus passes away from people with disabilities?"

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver is looking to add to his caucus that currently only includes him. (Rafferty Baker/CBC)

Trying to break into the conversation is the BC GreensLeader Andrew Weaver, who is presenting a platform that hisparty believes offers far more than climate change policies.

"Look at the trends. Two parties are trending down, one party is trending up. We are leading according to polls on Vancouver Island," said Weaver.

"When you see the depth and rigour of our platform I think you are going to see heads turn."

Weaver may be counting on regional polling,but the 2013 election is proof of how badly the pollsters did. At this point four years ago, Clark was trailing by 20 points.

This time it is a much closerrace in the public's eyes and as the B.C. Liberals proved last time: once the campaign starts anything can happen.

Read the rest here:

NDP try to snap losing streak in bid to end BC Liberal political dynasty - CBC.ca

Anyonewho supportsthese missile strikes has to account for what comes next.

CNN host Fareed Zakaria speaks about President Donald Trumps missile strikes on Syria during an Anderson Cooper 360 segment. (Screengrab / CNN)

It shouldnt be surprising, but it is to me nonetheless: Plenty of liberals whove long criticized Donald Trump as unfit to be president are praising his strike on Syrian airfields.

On CNNs New Day Thursday, global analystFareed Zakariadeclared, I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night. To his credit, Zakaria has previously called Trump a bullshit artist and said, He has gotten the presidency by bullshitting. But Zakaria apparently thinks firing missiles make one presidential. On MSNBC, Nicholas Kristof, an aggressive Trump critic, said he did the right thing by bombing Syria. Anchor Brian Williams, whose 11thHour has regularly been critical of Trump, repeatedly called the missiles beautiful, to a noisy backlash on Twitter.

While TheNew York Times posted several skeptical, even critical stories, it gave us this piece of propaganda: an article initially titled On Syria attack, Trumps heart came first, buying the presidents line that his opposition to anti-Assad military action was reversed by seeing the heartrending photos of children struggling to breathe after a chemical attack.

Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack, Trumpdeclared. No child of God should ever suffer such horror. (No word how he felt about ugly babies.) The piece also failed to even mention that Trump is keeping refugees from the Syrian war, even children, out of the United States. Victims of chemical weapons are beautiful babies; children trying to flee such violence require extreme vetting and an indefinite refugee ban. After a public outcry, the Times changed the headline.

Even some Obama administration veterans praised Trumps action. President Donald J. Trump was right to strike at the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using a weapon of mass destruction, the nerve agent sarin, against its own people, Antony Blinken, a deputy secretary of state under Obama,wrote in The New York Times. Blinken went on to say, correctly in theory, that what must come next is smart diplomacy. But he knows that Trump has shown himself incapable of doing anything smart, especially diplomacy.

Remember just last week, phantom Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in Turkey: I think thelonger-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people. The Kremlin-funded Russia Today described that as a U-turn from Washingtons long-held policy that Assad must go. Six days later, Tillerson was telling reporters,There is no doubt in our minds, and the information we have supports, that the Syrian regime under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad are responsible for this attack. It is very important that the Russian government consider carefully their support for Bashar al-Assad,because steps are underway to muster international support for a strike. Russia Today seemed disappointed that the United States believes Assad is behind the gassing of his people, arguing that the source is the international rescue group White Helmets, which RT shockingly calls al-Qaida affiliated.

Any liberal who praises these missile strikes has to account for what comes next. Obviously, Trump cares little about diplomacy, leaving Tillerson out of key meetings and slashing the State Departments budget. On Wednesday night, the White House released a photo of his team receiving a briefing on the Syria attack. At the table were Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross; Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin; Goldman Sachs alum Dina Powell, deputy national-security adviser; along with Jared Kushner; Steve Bannon; and Bannons sidekick Steven Miller. Why are the Commerce and Treasury secretaries there? What explains why Tillerson, who was in Palm Beach with the president, was not?

The noisiest outrage against the Syrian attack isnt coming from the left, but the rightparticularly the alt-right. Trumps noninterventionism and his friendliness to Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin were big selling points to white nationalists. Now that he seems to be challenging both men, his former acolytes are enraged. On Twitter, alt-right white supremacist Richard Spencer called it a total betrayal; the white nationalists at VDARE blamed it on the boomercucks in the administration. Ann Coulter went apoplectic:

It was disappointing to see Hillary Clinton say Wednesday afternoon that she thought air strikes on Syrian airfields were an appropriate response to the chemical-weapon attack. She was always more hawkish than I wished, and that shows it. But its wrong to insist shed have done the same thing as Trump. Clintons secretary of state wouldnt likely have told Assad we were no longer concerned about removing him; if she did fire missiles at Syrian airfields, she would have done so with a clearer notion of what comes next. Trump appears to be clueless.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

Senator Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, didnt quite oppose the Syrian strike, calling Assad a war criminal and lamenting his murder of civilians with chemical weapons. But noting that its that its easier to get into a war than get out of one, Sanders demanded that Trump must explain to the American people exactly what this military escalation in Syria is intended to achieve, and how it fits into the broader goal of a political solution, which is the only way Syrias devastating civil war ends.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand sounded closer to Sanders than Clinton on the airstrikes, decrying Trumps unilateral military action by the US in a Middle East conflict as well as the absence of any long-term plan or strategy to address any consequences from such unilateral action. Like Sanders, she demanded that Trump seek authorization of military force from Congress. By contrast, her New York colleague Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Trumps move the right thing to do. Schumer may find that many constituents think it was the wrong thing.

There remains the possibility that some of this is theater. It should be said: Some observers, besides RT, say its unproven that the chemical weapons attack came from Assad; rebels could be behind it. Theres also the possibility of a kabuki performance from Trump, Putin, and Assad. We already know the United States warned Putin of the coming missiles, and that Putin warned Assad, whose military moved airplanes and other military equipment away from the intended target. Trump, plummeting in the polls, his domestic health-care and tax plans on the rocks, the investigation into Russian election meddling closing in on his team, really needed a boost; maybe they gave it to him. Trumps sudden about-face on Syria makes it hard to judge.

However, according to Syrian state media, nine civilians, including four children, were killed in the air strikes. That is not kabuki. Trump has said nothing about those beautiful babies, nor will he. Liberals have to sober up and stop being besotted by beautiful missiles and presidential cruelty. Trump is the same Trump he was Tuesday, and that should scare all of us.

Continued here:

Too Many of Trump's Liberal Critics Are Praising His Strike on Syria - The Nation.

Its Americas money shot, declared the host on Real Time Friday night.

Late Thursday, President Trump ordered the U.S. military to fire 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat air base outside Homs, Syria. The offensive came in response to an horrific chemical weapons attack in the Syrian province of Idlib. The planes carrying sarin had reportedly taken off from Shayrat.

On Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack, Trump announced Thursday evening.

It was apparently nothing more than a show of strength, given that the Trump administration reportedly warned both Russia and Syria prior to the strike, and Syrian planes were said to be taking off from Shayrat less than 24 hours after the bombing, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If that werent enough, Trump oversaw the attack from his vacation home at Mar-a-Lago while hosting Chinese president Xi Jinpingperhaps sending a message to China about how to handle North Korea.

On Friday night, Bill Maher addressed the bombing on his HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher. And he was skeptical, to say the leastpointing out how, in the wake of the Assad regimes 2013 chemical weapons attack on Ghouta, Syria, which claimed approximately 1,429 lives, a Republican-controlled Congress didnt even put President Obamas request to authorize military force against Assad to a vote. President Trump, on the other hand, bypassed Congress.

American cruise missiles blew up an airfield last night in Syria because the dictator there was using chemical weaponswhich he has done many times, said Maher. In 2013, 98 Republicans signed a letter saying bombing Syria in response to a chemical attack was unconstitutional without congressional authorization. But this is different, because Obama was president then. That would have involved bombing while black.

Complicating matters, of course, is the fact that Putins Russia, which Trump cant seem to say a bad word about, is firmly backing the Assad regime.

This is very tricky for Donald Trump, because the Syrian regime is propped up by Russia, and Russia does not want us bombing there, said Maher. If Trump does the wrong thing, Putin might not re-elect him. But the temptation to use his new toys was too much.

Maher then criticized cable news reaction to the strike, that saw even lefty newsmen like MSNBCs Brian Williams and CNNs Fareed Zakaria salivate over it. Williams, in true cringeworthy fashion, called images of the airstrikes beautiful, while Zakaria recycled a line from his colleague Van Jones in declaring that Trump became president of the United States that night.

In America, youre not really president until you bomb something, you know? said Maher. Even the liberals were all over this last night. Everybody loves this fuckin thing. Cable news loves it when they show footage of destroyers firing cruise missiles at night. Its Americas money shot.

View original post here:

Bill Maher Mocks Liberal Cable News Hosts for Salivating Over Syria Strike - Daily Beast

For euphemism, dissimulation and outright hypocrisy, there is nothing quite as entertaining as the periodic Senate dust-ups over Supreme Court appointments and the filibuster. The arguments for and against the filibuster are so well-known to both parties as to be practically memorized. Both nonetheless argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides and scripts depending on the ideology of the nominee.

Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power. When Democrat Harry Reid had the majority in the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, he abolished the filibuster in 2013 for sub-Supreme Court judicial appointments in order to pack three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bad karma, bad precedent, he was warned. Republicans would one day be in charge. That day is here and Republicans have just stopped a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch by extending the Reid Rule to the Supreme Court.

To be sure, there are reasoned arguments to be offered on both sides of the filibuster question. It is true that the need for a supermajority does encourage compromise and coalition building. But given the contemporary state of hyperpolarization the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats of 40 years ago are long gone the supermajority requirement today merely guarantees inaction, which, in turn, amplifies the current popular disgust with politics in general and Congress in particular. In my view, that makes paring back the vastly overused filibuster, on balance, a good thing.

Moreover, killing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations (the so-called nuclear option) yields two gratifications: It allows a superb young conservative jurist to ascend to the seat once held by Antonin Scalia. And it constitutes condign punishment for the reckless arrogance of Reid and his erstwhile Democratic majority.

A major reason these fights over Supreme Court nominations have become so bitter and unseemly is the stakes the political stakes. The Supreme Court has become more than ever a superlegislature. From abortion to gay marriage, it has appropriated to itself the final word. It rules and the normal democratic impulses, expressed through the elected branches, are henceforth stifled.

Why have we had almost half a century of massive street demonstrations over abortion? Because the ballot box is not available. The court has spoken, and the question is supposedly settled for all time.

This transfer of legislative authority has suited American liberalism rather well. When you command the allegiance of 20 to 25 percent of the population (as measured by Gallup), you know that whatever control you will have of the elected branches will be fleeting (2009-2010, for example). So how do you turn the political order in your direction? Capture the courts.

They are what banks were to Willie Sutton. They are where you go for the right political outcomes. Note how practically every argument at the Gorsuch hearings was about political outcomes. Where would he come out on abortion? Gay marriage? The Democrats pretended this was about principle, e.g. the sanctity of precedent. But everyone knows which precedents they selectively cherish: Roe v. Wade and, more recently, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Liberalism does not want to admit that the court has become its last reliable instrument for achieving its political objectives. So liberals have created a great philosophical superstructure to justify their freewheeling, freestyle constitutional interpretation. They present themselves as defenders of a "living Constitution" under which the role of the court is to reflect the evolving norms of society. With its finger on the pulse of the people, the court turns contemporary culture into constitutional law.

But this is nonsense. In a democracy, what better embodiment of evolving norms can there be than elected representatives? By what logic are the norms of a vast and variegated people better reflected in nine appointed lawyers produced by exactly three law schools?

If anything, the purpose of a constitutional court such as ours is to enforce old norms that have preserved both our vitality and our liberty for 230 years. How? By providing a rugged reliable frame within which the political churnings of each generation take place.

The Gorsuch nomination is a bitter setback to the liberal project of using the courts to ratchet leftward the law and society. However, Gorsuch's appointment simply preserves the court's ideological balance of power. Wait for the next nomination. Having gratuitously forfeited the filibuster, Democrats will be facing the loss of the court for a generation.

Condign punishment indeed.

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated writer in Washington. His email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Here is the original post:

Charles Krauthammer: Gorsuch Confirmation Ending Liberal Ploy - Hartford Courant

The Liberal Party narrowly claimed victory in two key pieces of its heartland in Sydney's north after voters delivered thumping swings away from the party in three byelections on Saturday.

The state government prevailed on the unmarked preferences of minor party voters after a nail-biting contest for the blue-ribbon Liberal seat of North Shore and was expected to survive an even larger voter backlash in Manly.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

Byelections in Gosford, North Shore and Manly on April 8 will see the new Berejiklian Government put to the test. Sean Nicholls comments.

Play Video Don't Play

The Liberal byelection candidate, who admitted she signed a statutory declaration with incorrect information about her residential history, is stilll the favourite to retain the seat of North Shore. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.

Play Video Don't Play

A 15-year-old and 16-year-old arrested over Friday's fatal crime spree across Queanbeyan have been extradited to NSW. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.

Play Video Don't Play

Counter-terrorism police are investigating links to terrorism in the stabbing death of a man in Queanbeyan, New South Wales. (Courtesy ABC News)

Play Video Don't Play

Murray Wilkinson talks about his cattle dogs, at this years Easter Show.

Play Video Don't Play

Two teenagers allegedly stabbed a service station attendant to death at Queanbeyan before taking off with the station's cash register and several other stolen items.

Play Video Don't Play

Police and volunteers search the route taken by missing jogger Rhys Sutton, 26, in the Emu Plains area.

Play Video Don't Play

The Nine Network has suspended A Current Affair's Ben McCormack after the veteran reporter was arrested and charged for allegedly sending child abuse material.

Byelections in Gosford, North Shore and Manly on April 8 will see the new Berejiklian Government put to the test. Sean Nicholls comments.

Labor comfortably retained and extended its lead on the Central Coast.

"Our scrutineers tell us we can reclaim the seat of North Shore," Premier Gladys Berejiklian told a small band of supporters in Cammeray on Saturday night.

"I always said North Shore would come down to the wire.

"[Voters] put their faith in me, they put their faith in [candidate Felicity Wilson] and we won't let them down."

With more than half the votes counted, the swing against the Liberal Party on first preferences reached more than 17 per cent in North Shore.

But the collusion of independent and minor party candidates to preference the Liberal Party last had less impact than predicted.

Marking preferences is optional in NSW elections and the rate at which minor party voters marked, or did not mark, second and third preferences gave the Liberals confidence to declare victory.

The Premier had claimed victory in Manly earlier on Saturday. In former premier Mike Baird's seat Liberal candidate James Griffin was projected to win despite being down by almost 25 per cent on first preference votes and the findings of a liquidator a company he ran may have traded while insolvent.

"Let me assure the men and women of [Manly] you will have in James an outstanding local member," Ms Berejiklian said.

Liberals chalked up the major denting of their vote in party heartland to scandals involving their candidates and anger at council amalgamation among the party's most loyal voters, especially in Mosman, the suburb which was home to the first ever branch of the Liberal Party, set up by Robert Menzies.

Locals in North Shore and in Manly have been vocal in their opposition to the state government's plan to forcibly merge the council with its neighbours, which had resulted in legal action against the state government by Mosman, Lane Cove and North Sydney Councils.

Ms Berejiklian cancelled planned mergers of several rural councils that had brought action against the government soon after taking power and negotiating with a new leader of her Coalition partner the Nationals. But she declined to do the same for councils in urban areas, potentially inviting political backlash.

Volunteers from the Save Our Councils coalition flooded polling booths in North Shore and Manly from all around NSW.

"I'm going to be a strong local voice," said government relations and media adviser Felicity Wilson, who prevailed despite revelations she had signed an incorrect statutory declaration that told party preselectors she had lived in the electorate for 10 years.

The average loss of first preferences by a sitting government in NSW byelections since 1988 is about 9 per cent, with the National Party's thrashing in the seat of Orange last year setting the high benchmark at 34 per cent.

Labor, which is not contesting either seat in Sydney's north, was set to retain and extend its lead in a third seat, Gosford on the NSW Central Coast.

The ALP candidate, Liesl Tesch, a Paralympian wheelchair basketball gold medallist, attracted a swing of about 10 per cent on first preferences.

Labor MP Kathy Smith claimed the seat backfrom the Liberals by about 200 votes last election. She has retired from Parliament following a cancer diagnosis.

Two Liberal veterans, Mr Baird and former health minister Jillian Skinner, represented Manly and North Shore and caused byelections following their retirement from politics.

Go here to read the rest:

North Sydney and Manly byelection: Liberals scrape home to retain heartland seats - The Sydney Morning Herald

Many things went the way of the Hays High School girls soccer team in its Western Athletic Conference opener against Liberal on Thursday on the Indians home field. The final score wasnt one of them, however.

Despite feeling like the Indians had the advantage in possession and scoring opportunities, Liberal made the most of its few chances, scoring the games only goal in the 65th minute for a 1-0 win.

Following the contest, the Indians sat circled around first-year coach Silas Hibbs well into the first half of the junior varsity contest. His message was simple.

I told the girls we can focus on the one negative thing that happened, which was the outcome of a win or a loss or we could focus on the 100 things we did well today, Hibbs said. I know we got substantially better today.

The Indians owned a majority of the better scoring opportunities in the first 30 minutes of the contest, including a number of set pieces, but shots failed to challenge the Liberal goalkeeper.

Isabel Robben, the Indians freshman goalkeeper, was tested for the first time in the 29th minute. Moments later, she kept the visitors scoreless, stopping a Liberal breakthrough and conceding a corner kick that the Indian defense cleared.

Hays Highs best opportunity in the first half came minutes before halftime, as CJ Norris shot bounced off the crossbar and back into play. A scramble for the loose ball followed, and Liberal defenders blocked a pair of Indian shots.

The Indians earned a corner kick in the final seconds of the half but rushed to get the ball into play, as the second half started without a goal

That appeared destined to change as Maddie Keller came just a touch away from redirecting a Savannah Schneider cross into an open Liberal goal in the 42nd minute, but the Indians failed to capitalize.

After a series of near misses, Liberal notched the games only goal when Sabrina Pacheco converted on a counterattack in the 65th minute. His teams defense in the critical juncture didnt bother the Hays High coach.

We actually had two players marking that person on the backside, Hibbs said. You hear it basketball, you hear it in soccer, sometimes the ball doesnt bounce your way.

It was just one of those situations. Credit to Liberal for being in the right spot at the right time.

Hays High senior Tressa Becker nearly equalized with a powerful shot later in the half but saw it saved for an Indian corner kick.

The Indians next best opportunity came in the final seconds when Schneider played a dangerous ball into the box. No teammate reached it before it was cleared as time expired, dropping the Indians to 2-3 on the season and 0-1 in WAC play.

Sometimes all it takes is one little counterattack to fall behind, Hibbs said. Even though the outcome wasnt what we wanted, I was very proud of our girls because we dominated probably 75 to 80 percent of the possession, and we probably out-shot them 10-1.

According to the Indians statistics, Hays High owned an 11-3 advantage in shots on goal and earned eight corner kicks to Liberals two.

Robben was credited with three saves on the day, while her counterpart tallied eight.

The Indians are scheduled to return to action at home Monday against Junction City.

Here is the original post:

Goals evade Indians in loss to Liberal | Sports | hdnews.net - Hays Daily News

The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, says the Liberal partys preference deal with One Nation was intended to minimise losses in the Western Australian election. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

One of the architects of the Liberal partys preference deal with One Nation in Western Australia, the federal finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has defended the controversial arrangement, and he has refused to rule out a future preference deal at the federal level.

Cormann told the ABCs Insiders program on Sunday the preference deal, which put One Nation ahead of the National party in some areas, was negotiated in an attempt to put a floor under the Liberal partys declining primary vote, which he said was as low as 29% in internal party polling.

The strategy failed to deliver the desired result and Labor has swept to power in WA courtesy of the weekend election, with Mark McGowans new government currently tipped to pick up 40 seats in the state parliament.

The latest count in WA puts the negative swing against the Liberal party at 15.7% and the positive swing to Labor at 9.7%. One Nation, which had been polling in the double digits according to published surveys, polled under 5% in the final state wide count.

Cormann on Sunday defended the controversial preference arrangement with One Nation, arguing it would make a positive difference for the Liberals in a couple of seats and was justified on the evidence before the partys state executive at the time they made the decision.

Anticipating backbiting and bloodletting in his home state, Cormann noted the state executive had approved the deal unanimously.

If we wanted to minimise losses, maximise our chances of holding on to seats, we needed to be able to source preferences and, clearly, these werent going to come from Labor and the Greens, the finance minister told the ABC on Sunday morning.

He refused to rule out further cooperation at the national level, saying these are judgements that will be made at the right time.

Cormann said the Liberal party would assess the factors behind the weekend rout in WA.

I am personally very comfortable that Labor and the Greens obviously should always be towards the bottom of our ballot paper, Cormann said.

But the deputy prime minister and Nationals leader, Barnaby Joyce, was unequivocal in his negative assessment of the preference deal, which he categorised on Sunday as a mistake.

He said the preference deal had two problems: the Liberals had overestimated One Nations electoral support and had confused their constituency.

Its in the Liberal partys interest to be close to the National party and its in the National partys interest to be close to the Liberal party, and its in both our interests not to confuse anybody else, Joyce told ABC radio.

I think the Liberal party should preference the Liberal party and the Nationals should preference the Liberal party.

They are separate parties, they talk to different constituencies, but people see them as a team and we should stick to that idea.

It hasnt been a good day in the office and there are a lot of questions that need to be asked.

You rate your preferences in the order of people you would like to run the country.

Joyce noted the One Nation campaign had been a bit of a shocker but the Nationals had done well in farming regions and would likely hold their at-risk seats in the mining regions.

The One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was also walking away from the preference arrangement on Saturday night.

Doing the deal with the Libs has done damage to us, in all honesty. It was a mistake, Hanson said. We are really going to have to have a good look at this because all I heard all day leading up to this election was why are you sending your preferences to the Liberal party?

Hanson suggested the problem stemmed from doing a deal with a major party leader past his use by date. It wasnt One Nation. I think it was Colin Barnett people did not want Colin Barnett.

Its like when youve got milk in your fridge and its starting to go sour, you throw it out, and thats what they should have done.

Cormann was asked about criticism from the National veteran Ron Boswell last week that the Liberal party was being too accommodating to Hanson since her return to the federal scene last year.

He rejected the Boswell critique, saying the government had no choice other than to develop a positive relationship.

In the Senate, if we want to get important legislation through for our country, in our national interests, we have to deal with the people that have been elected by the Australian people into the Senate, Cormann said Sunday.

We have to work with One Nation senators as we have to work with Nick Xenophon Team senators, as we have to work with the Liberal Democrats and Cory Bernardi and others represented in the Senate.

That is our duty and responsibility to do that.

Cormann also played down local controversy about WAs share of the GST as a factor in the result.

This was a big issue in the lead-up to the last federal election and we won 11 out of 16 seats, and 54.7% of the two-party preferred vote, the finance minister said.

This is an issue in WA, no doubt about it. By the same token, we have to be realistic on what a national government can do in relation to these sorts of issues and the timetable is determined by what happens with the GST sharing arrangements moving forward.

There is a flow-through effect, principally from the prices for iron ore and the royalty revenue that is generated on the back of iron ore exports.

That will play out over the next few years and there is an expectation in the not too distant future, WAs share of the GST will start increasing again and, if and when that happens, there are certain options available where the floor can be established without actually taking money away from any other state.

That is the way it should happen.

Federal Labor argued there were substantial federal implications from the result, with frontbenchers arguing the recent Fair Work Commission decision on penalty rates had hurt the Liberals and One Nation both supporters of the proposed cut.

Bill Shorten took to Twitter to deliver his verdict and to criticise Cormann for failing to rule out future preference deals with One Nation.

Read more:

Liberal party defends preference deal with One Nation after WA election loss - The Guardian