Daily Archives: February 19, 2017

Activists have already circled a number of Senate Democrats who have failed to meet their standards, including vulnerable and increasingly rare red-state Democrats. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters

On the evening Donald Trump announced his supreme court nominee, thousands of protesters gathered outside of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumers Brooklyn apartment. They chanted Just vote no and Obstruct while carrying signs Get a spine, Chuck and a prop skeleton to illustrate their point.

The protesters are part of a sudden swell of liberal activism that has drawn millions to city streets and airport concourses across the US, in a startling show of resistance to Trumps presidency. Emboldened by this groundswell, some progressives have started using the word primary as a verb and as a threat.

For Democrats in Washington, many of whom are still surprised by the scale and furiousness of backlash, the challenge is how to convert this energy into electoral success.

Schumer has significantly slowed the pace of Trumps cabinet confirmations and excoriated many of the presidents nominees. But the activists outside Schumers home on that January night were unimpressed by his votes in favor of Trumps nominees to represent the US in the UN and to lead the Pentagon, CIA and Department of Homeland Security.

Our message to Democrats is simple: fight Trump or well find someone who will, said Waleed Shahid, a co-founder of the progressive group All of Us and a former organizer with the Bernie Sanders campaign. This week, the group launched the political action committee We Will Replace You, the latest in a series of projects to warn Democrats that failures to oppose Trumps agenda will have consequences.

Our message to Democrats is simple: fight Trump or well find someone who will

The group argues that Democrats need exercise the little political power they still have. The activists have a long list of demands: votes against all Trump appointees, opposing his supreme court nominee, using congressional procedures to bring all business to a crawl to block Trumps agenda and demand Steve Bannon be fired. Elected officials, they say, should publicly support impeachment if Trump is found to have broken the law or violated the constitution.

The activists have already circled a number of Senate Democrats who have failed to meet their standards, including vulnerable and increasingly rare red-state Democrats, such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Both Democrats are up for re-election in 2018.

The Democratic party establishment wants the support of the Tea Party of the left but they dont want to earn it, Shahid said, alluding to the 2010 movement that mobilized rightwing activists, confronted moderate Republicans and helped the party take control of the House in a wave.

They say they love the grassroots activism, but they dont want to take the next step and challenge the Democratic leadership.

Their demands puts leaders such as Schumer in a bind. Shut out of power in Washington, public shows of support are arguably his partys most powerful weapon, but he must also worry about the lawmakers in his caucus facing elections in states where Trump won.

Democrats must defend 23 Senate seats in the 2018 election cycle, 10 from states that Trump won in November. Already, outside groups have targeted these vulnerable red-state Democrats to try to soften their opposition to Trumps nominees for the cabinet and supreme court.

Activists threatening to primary Democrats live in a bubble. They have no idea how to win places that arent sky blue

The activists threatening to primary Democratic candidates live in a bubble, said Jim Kessler, a former Schumer aide and co-founder of a centrist thinktank, Third Way. They have no idea how to win in places that arent sky blue already.

Kessler believes the path back to power will require the Big Tent party to grow geographically, and not just move sharply to the left with its demands. In his view, red-state Democrats are an endangered species worth protecting not threatening.

The activists campaign says its goal is not necessarily to primary the candidates and that the threat becomes a tool that successfully pushes Democrats to fight Trump harder.

Blanket obstructionism has proven to be a tall order even for progressive politicians from safely Democratic states. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a progressive favorite from Massachusetts, has already been forced to defend her vote for Ben Carson for secretary of housing and urban development.

A number of activists who support using this tactic agreed that the real test will be the supreme court battle. Senate Democrats have the ability to filibuster Trumps nominee, Neil Gorsuch, meaning that Republicans need to earn support from at least eight Democrats to confirm Gorsuch unless the controlling party changes the rules.

This nominee cannot be allowed to ever take the oath of office. It just cannot be allowed to happen, said Anthony Rogers-Wright, a Seattle-based climate and environmental activist who was a surrogate for the Sanders campaign.

If any Democrat does not take part in a mass filibuster theyre disqualified.

Already, a handful of senators have flatly refused to support Gorsuch, arguing that Republicans stole the seat from Barack Obama when they refused, for a record 293 days, to hold a hearing for his nominee, Merrick Garland. But more have said Gorsuch deserves a fair hearing, and that they will wait to hear more about his views and background before making a decision.

View post:

Liberal voters warn Democratic officials: resist Trump or be replaced - The Guardian

In the introduction to Did You Ever See a Dream Walking?, the anthology of conservative thought he edited for publication in 1970, William F. Buckley memorably declared: Blindfold me, spin me about like a top, and I will walk up to the single liberal in the room without zig or zag and find him even if he is hiding behind a flower pot. Which reminds me.

As a young lawyer new to private practice but fresh from a clerkship on the Eighth Circuit, I was asked to work with South Dakota attorney Larry Piersol as local counsel on an appeal pending for one of Larrys clients in that court. Larry worked in private practice in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and was a South Dakotan through and through.

In late 1981 or early 1982 Larry came to town for the oral argument of the appeal in St. Paul. We had Larry over for dinner and got to talking about matters political. Larry had served in the South Dakota House of Representatives as Democratic minority whip and even for a term as majority leader. His success in politics was no accident; he was both likable and intelligent. Indeed, his legal skills and political service resulted in his appointment to the bench as a district judge by Bill Clinton in 1993. (Judge Piersol took senior status in 2009.)

In the course of our conversation Larry told me that he was an old friend of South Dakota native Tom Brokaw. Brokaw, he confided, is an interesting guy. You really cant get a good handle on his politics, he told me.

I disagreed. Hes a liberal, I asserted.

You really cant tell, Larry responded.

I can tell, I said. Hes a liberal.

How could I tell? I cant remember. Im not bragging; its not hard to tell. Bill Buckley would not have had to exert his great analytical powers to find Brokaw out. You can just tell.

If youve heard any of Brokaws brief commentaries served up in recent years as An American Story, or heard him opining on any of the NBC/MSNBC gabfests, you know hes a liberal, and an earnest one at that.

I love the tagline he uses for his American Story commentaries. This is Tom Brokaw reporting, he says. Hes still deep under cover. Its almost funny.

Reading Brokaws New York Times column yesterday about the opportunity he was offered to serve as President Nixons press secretary in late 1969, I thought back to my conversation with Larry. Brokaw writes in the Times column:

White House press secretary to Richard Nixon? I had been raised in a family of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman Democrats. My parents were skeptical about John F. Kennedy, but my wife and I were generational enthusiasts.

I worked hard at keeping personal beliefs out of my work, but there were limits. My first job, in a deeply conservative Omaha newsroom, was a test. Most of my colleagues thought I was a crazed liberal for supporting Medicare and the voting rights and civil rights bills.

Not a crazed liberal, Tom, just a liberal. A decent liberal, a patriotic liberal, but a liberal nevertheless, of the Democrat variety.

This is Scott Johnson reporting.

Read the original:

Tom Brokaw, liberal Democrat - Power Line (blog)

Forget preference deals with One Nation, it appears both major political parties in WA are planning to woo Pauline Hanson supporters with musicafter both playing AC/DC songs at their campaign launches.

Not only did the Labor and Liberals launch their campaigns at the same time on Sunday, but both parties chose songs from legendary Australian rockers AC/DC.

When Labor leader Mark McGowan walked to the stage to address the party faithful at Perth Arena, AC/DC's classic 1975 hit T.N.T was belting out of the speakers.

Given Mr McGowan's Rockingham roots, I'm sure the Labor leader has heard the odd 'Acca Dacca' song screeching from the windows of hotted-up Commodores as he door-knocked his electorate.

Across town at the University of WA, where the Liberals were waiting for Premier Colin Barnett and his political posse to enter the room, AC/DC's Thunderstruck was blaring out of the speakers.

But what were the Liberals thinking? Surely Barry Manilow's Can't Smile Without Youwould've been more appropriate, given the party could lose its leader if it gets belted at the election.

But then just when you thought no one in the Liberal party had heard of Spotify, Daft Punk's One More Time was played as Mr Barnett walked to the podium.

Subtle.

Knowing Labor, it will probably take the higher ground, saying at least the original singer of AC/DC Bon Scott sang T.N.T, while his replacement Brian Johnson belted out Thunderstruck.

I'm looking forward to Liberal Treasury Mike Nahan and his Labor counterpart Ben Wyatt attacking each other over which song sold more copies.

The party decided to leap into the 21st century and play Shut Up and Dance by American funksters Walk the Moon at the end of the launch which was recommended by the Labor leader's daughter.

If you look at the lyrics, maybe Labor was trying to same something to the Premier.

"Oh don't you dare look back/Just keep your eyes on me / I said you're holding back / She said shut up and dance with me."

Read the original:

Liberal and Labor get 'Acca Dacca' at party campaign launches - WAtoday

Appearing before reporters earlier this week to explain that the Liberal government would be putting its authority behind a Liberal MP's motion calling for a parliamentarycondemnation and study of Islamophobia,Heritage Minister Melanie Joly said a "question of leadership" was at hand.

Shereturned to the theme Thursday as she explainedwhy the Liberals would not support a Conservative counter-proposalthat drops references to Islamophobia in favour of a general focus on religious discrimination.

"Those of us in leadership positions have a social responsibility to take a strong stance on these matters, to be clear, to be courageous, to lead," she said.

There were echoes here of something Justin Trudeau said two weeks ago when he rose inthe House of Commons to addressthe shooting at a mosque in Quebec City that left six men dead.

"I want to remind each and every one of my 337 colleagues that we are all leaders in our communities," the prime ministersaid. "It is at times like these that our communities need our leadership the most."

People attend a vigil on Jan. 30 for victims of the deadly mosque shooting in Quebec City. (Ryan Remiorz/Canadian Press)

So, at a moment of anxiety, the Liberals see a moment to define leadership.

Conservatives, meanwhile, have drawn a line under Islamophobia and want to see the word defined.

But, beyond the semantics of Motion 103, the Conservatives now seem in danger of being defined by theloudest voices of objection in their midst.

M-103was tabledin December, following an e-petition on the same topicposted in June.

Less than two months after Liberal MP Iqra Khalid brought the motion forward, a gunman opened fire during prayers at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre. And in the Houseon Thursday, Joly could cite a list of other hateful acts.

Still, the motion came to the floor of the House for debate this week with loud voices of opposition claiming that an attack on free speech is at hand.

The motion requests that the heritage committee conduct a study ofIslamophobiaand religious discrimination and provide recommendations for how the government could respond to such prejudice. To critics, thisisthe first step toward a prohibition against any criticism of Islamic practice or belief.

Some Conservative MPs allowed the House to unanimously adopt a motioncondemning Islamophobia in October on a quick voice vote. But now Conservatives are concerned thatIslamophobianeeds to be defined: aliteral reading of the word would suggest that criticism ofthe religion, not merely its adherents, is at issue.

During debate on Wednesday, Khalid and the Conservative critic, David Anderson, actually offered similar definitions: "the irrational hatred of Muslims that leads to discrimination" and "hatred against Muslims," respectively.

Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson tabled a counter-proposal to Motion 103 that focuses on all religious discrimination, rather than Islamophobia specifically. (CBC)

ButKhalidhasn't added that to her motion. And the Conservative proposal, tabled by Anderson on Thursday, suggests merely focusing on all religious discrimination instead.

Jolydismissed thatas a"watered down" and "cynical" offer,meant to cover up internal Conservative divisions. She insistedMPs shouldn't be afraid to say the word.

Rising shortly after question period to address the Conservative motion,Khalidread aloud the threats and hateshe has been subjected to.

"lslamophobiais real," she said.

Motion 103 is another opportunity for Trudeau to embrace thelatest flashpoint in the long story of Canadian multiculturalism: the immigration, integration and acceptance of those of the Muslim faith.

As a candidate for leadership of the Liberal Party,Trudeauaddressed an Islamic conferenceand used the opportunity todiscuss Wilfrid Laurier's efforts tounite cultures and religions.

Two years later, in March 2015, he used alongaddress on liberty and diversityto condemnthe Conservative government's attempt to ban the niqab during the swearing of the citizenship oath.

The election campaign that brought Trudeau's Liberals to government was then defined, in part, by the niqab and Conservative proposals tostripcitizenship from dual nationals when convicted of terrorism and to create a hotline for reporting "barbaric cultural practices."

Celebrating his victory on election night,Trudeau recalled his encounter with a Muslim woman in a hijabwho told him of her hope that her child wouldn'tbe a second-class citizen.

Justin Trudeau gives his election victory speech in Montreal on Oct. 19, 2015. (Jim Young/Reuters)

There are philosophical underpinnings toTrudeau's thinking based on the guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an argument that diversity creates strength and an acknowledgement that core values must persist alongside multiculturalism but an outspoken commitment to pluralismhas also become a powerful piece of Trudeau's brand.

All the more so now that Donald Trump, Brexit and tensions in Europe seem to cast doubt on the success of multiculturalism.

Conservative leadership contender Michael Chong has voiced support for Motion 103, but four of his rivalshave touted their opposition in fundraising appeals. Kellie Leitch created a website, with an image from the October 2014 attack on Parliament Hill visible in the background, where those who oppose the motion can sign a petition.

Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch created a website to organize opposition to Motion 103. (Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press)

Speakingin the House on Thursday, Joly took aim at those actions and the appearance offour Conservative leadership candidates at a "freedom rally" organized by a conservative activist to defend free speech and "stand against sharia law in this country."

At that rally on Wednesday night, the organizer, Ezra Levant,warned that the prime minister was pursuing"massive unvetted, un-integrateable Muslim migration."

Any Conservative who believes their party's losses in 2015 werelinked to theniqab, "barbaric cultural practices" and citizenship revocation might see reason to worry in all that.

And the Liberals are pressing the issue.

On Thursday, several Liberal MPs tweeted a link to Trudeau's speech on the niqab. Video of the remarks was then posted to the prime minister's account.

By late in the afternoon, two Liberals had tweeted a graphic touting that "condemning hate is as Canadian as" maple syrup, the charter and Tim Horton's.

"Call your MP and say yes to #M103," it reads."#MakeItAwkward."

The serious matters of justice and dignity are no doubt difficult to separate from the politics of the situation.

In terms of leadership, it is to wonder whether some kind of compromise, perhaps merelyadding a definition to the existing text of Motion 103, might result in a more united expression of support

Link:

Anti-Islamophobia debate might define both Liberals and Conservatives - CBC.ca