Daily Archives: March 6, 2017

After rattling Republicans at a host of town halls protesting plans to kill Obamacare, liberal activists are zeroing in on their next target: Neil Gorsuch.

The confirmation battle over President Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee set to heat up ahead of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee starting March 20 is shaping up as a pivotal moment for the burgeoning protest movement.

Story Continued Below

Persuading Senate Democrats to mount a filibuster of Gorsuch would solidify the influence of the anti-Trump grass roots, on the heels of its success in pressuring the 48-member minority to engineer a historic slow-walking of the presidents Cabinet nominees.

The debate over Gorsuch since Trump nominated him last month has been surprising low key. The highly credentialed federal court judge has impressed Democratic senators in private meetings, raising the possibility hell clear the Senate without a bloody filibuster battle.

But significant public pushback against Gorsuch this month would ramp up the pressure on Democrats who right now are more focused on defending Obamacare and investigating Trumps ties to Russia than on the Supreme Court.

Anti-Trump strategists say the Democratic base is prepared to step up the resistance to Gorsuch.

Stopping a Supreme Court nominee means demonstrating to Democrats that their base doesnt want them cooperating with Donald Trump, Ben Wikler, Washington director of MoveOn.org said. That could prove an easier task for liberal activists than, as Wikler put it, convincing Republicans theyre in political danger if they vote to overturn Obamacare.

The level of potential energy for demanding that Democrats do their jobs is off the charts, Wikler added in an interview.

Veteran Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson said the ongoing controversy over Trump aides previously undisclosed contacts with Russian officials, itself a major topic of town-hall protests over last months recess, will help stoke opposition to Gorsuch.

The idea that you could ram this through and no one would notice gets harder when everyones antenna is up because of other personnel decisions hes made about his administration, Ferguson, a former Hillary Clinton aide, said in an interview.

The Democratic bases alarm about Trumps advisers was on stark display throughout last months procedural blockade of multiple Cabinet nominees. During that campaign against what many of Democrats criticize as the presidents swamp Cabinet, Democratic senators often cited the enthusiasm and commitment of the anti-Trump movement.

Democrats couldnt defeat any of Trumps Cabinet nominees on the Senate floor, but they welcomed the chance to speak for the grass roots even on losing battles. During the height of the confirmation debate over Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said he was seeing intense and sustained engagement on the Supreme Court as well as on Trumps Cabinet and Obamacare.

A significant part of that engagement began with Indivisible, a new force for mobilizing local anti-Trump demonstrations that was founded by former Democratic congressional aides. The group crafted a script for local activists to use against Gorsuch a week after Trump tapped him for the high court.

If Democrats truly do oppose this nominee, they should oppose him with everything in their toolbox, Indivisible executive director Ezra Levin said in an interview.

But Levin underscored that the Gorsuch script, like other Indivisible directives on strategies for resisting Trump on other fronts, isnt being pushed out to local Indivisible chapters but offered as a model.

Were not dictating anything in terms of how often the anti-Gorsuch language is used, Levin said. We do not want to be heavy-handed or take control of the movement.

And Indivisibles biggest strength the ability to generate large turnout at local town halls that lawmakers hold during congressional recesses may not be available to use against Gorsuch. The GOP-controlled Senate is setting the stage for a full vote on the Supreme Court nominee before Aprils two-week recess, in part to give the Senate enough time to clear a must-pass government funding bill by April 28.

Neil Gorsuch has impressed Democratic senators in private meetings. | Getty

Its unclear how systematic liberal groups will be in their campaign against Gorsuch, who has been making the rounds in the Senate for weeks as part of a largely successful persuasion campaign. Wikler, of MoveOn.org, acknowledged that Gorsuch has had the stage essentially to himself so far but insisted that thats going to change.

Also unclear is whether a Democratic pressure campaign can stop the Senate from approving Gorsuch. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has predicted his eventual confirmation, either by garnering 60 votes or with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) changing Senate rules to approve Gorsuch with a simple majority.

Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she senses the Democratic base getting increasingly concerned about Gorsuch as the March 20 start of his hearings draws nearer. The Affordable Care Act produced the majority of the energy among protesters during last months congressional recess, Hogue said, but were starting to see the seeds of town-hall energy getting redirected at the Supreme Court fight.

These people are flooding town halls and running for office at unprecedented rates, Hogue said of the newly engaged Democratic grass roots. They want elected officials to do their job, and part of that job is digging really hard at the hearings into his record.

Visit link:

Liberal protesters' next target: Thwarting Gorsuch - POLITICO

Russian hackers are targeting U.S. progressive groups in a new wave of attacks, scouring the organizations emails for embarrassing details and attempting to extract hush money, according to two people familiar with probes being conducted by the FBI and private security firms.

At least a dozen groups have faced extortion attempts since the U.S. presidential election, said the people, who provided broad outlines of the campaign. The ransom demands are accompanied by samples of sensitive data in the hackers possession.

In one case, a non-profit group and a prominent liberal donor discussed how to use grant money to cover some costs for anti-Trump protesters. The identities were not disclosed, and its unclear if the protesters were paid.

At least some groups have paid the ransoms even though there is little guarantee the documents wont be made public anyway. Demands have ranged from about $30,000 to $150,000, payable in untraceable bitcoins, according to one of the people familiar with the probe.

Attribution is notoriously difficult in a computer attack. The hackers have used some of the techniques that security experts consider hallmarks of Cozy Bear, one of the Russian government groups identified as behind last years attack on the Democratic National Committee during the presidential election and which is under continuing investigation. Cozy Bear has not been accused of using extortion in the past, though separating government and criminal actors in Russia can be murky as security experts say some people have a foot in both worlds.

Here's What We Know About Russian Hackers

The Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with strong links to both the Clinton and Obama administrations, and Arabella Advisors, which guides liberal donors who want to invest in progressive causes, have been asked to pay ransoms, according to people familiar with the probes.

The Center for American Progress declined a pre-publication request for comment. "CAP has no evidence we have been hacked, no knowledge of it and no reason to believe it to be true. CAP has never been subject to ransom, Allison Preiss, a spokeswoman for the center, said in a statement Monday morning.

Its unclear whether Arabella is part of the same campaign as the other dozen groups, according to one of the people familiar with the probes, but the tactics and approach are similar.

If the Arabella attack came from a different group, multiple criminals could be lifting a page from Russias hacking of the 2016 campaign, attempting to leverage the reputational damage that could be inflicted on political organizations by exposing their secrets.

Arabella Advisors was affected by cyber crime, said Steve Sampson, a spokesman for the firm, which lists 150 employees operating in four offices. "All facts indicate this was financially motivated.

QuickTake U.S. Probe of Russia Hacking

During the election Russian hackers heavily targeted the personal email accounts of staffers associated with the Clinton campaign. One of the people who described the current campaign said that in some cases, web-based email accounts are also being targeted because of their heavy use among non-profits.

Along with emails, the hackers are stealing documents frompopular web-based applications like SharePoint, which lets people in different locations work on Microsoft Office files, one of the people said.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation declined to comment when asked about the latest hacks. It is continuing to investigate Russias attempts to influence the election and any possible connections to Trump campaign aides. Russian officials have repeatedly denied any attempt to influence the election or any role in related computer break-ins.

I would be cautious concluding that this has any sort of Russian government backing, said John Hultquist, director of cyber espionage analysis at FireEye Inc., after the outline of the attacks was described to him. Russian government hackers have aggressively targeted think tanks, and even masqueraded as ransomware operations, but its always possible it is just another shakedown.

NSA Has Moderate Confidence in Russia Hacking Report

The hackers targeting of left-leaning groups -- and the sifting of emails for sensitive or discrediting information -- has set off alarms that the attacks could constitute a fresh wave of Russian government meddling in the U.S. political system. The attacks could be designed to look like a criminal caper or they could have the tacit support of Russian intelligence agencies, the people said.

Russias intelligence agencies maintain close relationships with criminal hackers in the country, according to several U.S. government investigations.

None of the possible explanations for the attacks are particularly comforting to the victimized groups, few of which are household names but are part of the foundation of liberal politics in the U.S.

Some of the groups are associated with causes now under attack by the Trump administration. Arabellas founder, Eric Kessler, and its senior managing director, Bruce Boyd, worked for national environmental groups early in their careers. Arabella declined to make Kessler or Boyd available for comment.

The Center for American Progress is a fierce critic of the Trump administration and its policies, and has called for a deeper investigation into contacts by Trumps inner circle with Russian officials.

Its unclear if Trump or his top aides have been briefed on the investigation.

The President has accused liberal groups of sending protesters to congressional town halls, mocking his opponents in a tweet on Feb. 21. The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!, Trump tweeted from his personal account.

Regardless of who is behind the latest round of hacks and ransom requests, there is also indication that state-sponsored hackers continue a broader targeting of liberal groups in the U.S.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

The day after the election, the FSB, Russias main intelligence agency, targeted the personal emails of hundreds of people, including national security experts, military officers and former White House officials, according to data provided by cyber security researchers who are tracking the spying and who asked not to be identified because of the risks of retaliation. The list was weighted toward people who have worked in Democratic administrations or who are linked with liberal causes.

Among those targets was Kate Albright-Hanna. She worked for Barack Obama in his first presidential campaign in 2008 and then briefly in the White House Office of Health Care Reform.

That was eight years ago. Since then she has worked on a documentary about corruption in New York and developed a network of investigative journalists and activists, not the most obvious target for Russian espionage.

I have no idea why I would be targeted, said Albright-Hanna, who now lives in New York. Its super weird.

Read the rest here:

Russian Hackers Said to Seek Hush Money From Liberal Groups ... - Bloomberg

MEDFORD One hundred years ago this month, US President Woodrow Wilson was agonizing over whether to enter World War I. Just a few months earlier, Wilson had won re-election partly by campaigning on a policy of neutrality, which he was now preparing to abandon, along with the slogan America first. But now, for the first time in more than 80 years, a US president has taken it up again, to promote a foreign-policy stance that directly controverts the doctrine Wilson embraced.

It was not until 1919, after the war was over, that Wilson defined his foreign-policy vision of liberal internationalism: support for collective security and promotion of open markets among democracies, regulated by a system of multinational institutions ultimately dependent on the United States. Though the US Senate initially rejected Wilsons vision, particularly his support for joining the League of Nations, Franklin D. Roosevelt revived liberal internationalism after 1933. It has helped to shape the foreign policies of most US presidents ever since until Trump.

The America first approach that Trump advocates comprises disdain for NATO, contempt for the European Union, and mockery of Germanys leadership role in Europe. It also includes rejection of economic openness, reflected in Trumps withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and call to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump has also pledged to back out of the Paris climate agreement.

Unlike Wilson, Trump seems to see no value in maintaining and deepening ties with other democracies. Instead, he seems drawn to authoritarian leaders in particular, Russian President Vladimir Putin and often leaves democratic leaders watching from the wings.

To be sure, if Wilson were alive today, he might agree with Trump on some issues, though his proposed solutions would be very different. For example, Wilson would probably concur with Trump that the level of openness in global markets today is excessive. It is indeed problematic that US banks and businesses can export capital, technology, and jobs as they please, with little or no regard for the domestic costs.

But Wilsons solution would likely focus on developing and implementing improved regulations through a multilateral process dominated by democracies. Likewise, he would probably advocate a fiscal policy aimed at advancing the common good, with higher taxes on the wealthiest companies and households funding, say, infrastructure development, quality education, and universal health care.

In short, Wilson would endorse a program more like that of Democratic US Senator Elizabeth Warren or Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, featuring an advanced social-welfare system that enables broad-based prosperity. By contrast, Trump advocates lower taxes for the wealthy, and seems willing to embrace some form of state capitalism if not crony capitalism via protectionist policies and special incentives for companies to manufacture in the US.

Wilson might agree with Trump on another point: we cannot assume that democracy is a universal value with universal appeal. Like Trump, Wilson would probably eschew the idealistic nation- and state-building formulas that animated US foreign policy under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

But here, too, the differences overwhelm the similarities. Trump has decided that the US simply shouldnt bother with the rest of the world, unless it gets something concrete in return. Wilson, by contrast, wanted to spread democracy for the sake of world peace, but in an indirect manner, working through the League of Nations. He believed that international institutions, the rule of law, common values, and an elite possessed of a democratic vision could ensure collective security and peaceful conflict resolution. What would begin as Pax Americana, he believed, would ultimately become a Pax Democratica.

This vision lies at the root of American exceptionalism. The claim is not simply that the US is, as Bill Clinton put it, the indispensable nation, whose global power makes it a party to all major international issues. It is also that the US can expect deference from other states, because it looks beyond its narrow self-interest to sustain an international order that supports peace, cooperation, and prosperity, particularly among the worlds democracies.

Not every US president has followed Wilsons lead. The promise of liberal internationalism was snuffed out for three presidential administrations, from the election of Warren G. Harding in 1920 until FDR took office in 1933. With Trump, it is being snuffed out again. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land, Trump declared at his inauguration. From this day forward, its going to be only America first.

But Wilsons vision may not prove so easy to quash. Back in the twentieth century, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War impelled US policymakers to embrace liberal internationalism. Today, too, a tumultuous world is likely to vindicate its deep and enduring appeal.

Read the rest here:

Is Liberal Internationalism Dead? - Project Syndicate

By Fernando Ramirez, Chron.com / Houston Chronicle

Photo: Wesley Hitt/Getty Images

Click through to see the most conservative and liberal colleges in Texas.

Click through to see the most conservative and liberal colleges in

Dallas Baptist University

Dallas Baptist University

8. Texas Christian University- Most conservative colleges

8. Texas Christian University- Most conservative colleges

7. Abilene Christian University - Most conservative colleges

7. Abilene Christian University - Most conservative colleges

6. University of Mary Hardin-Baylor- Most conservative colleges

6. University of Mary Hardin-Baylor- Most conservative colleges

5. University of Dallas - Most conservative colleges

5. University of Dallas - Most conservative colleges

4. Southern Methodist University- Most conservative colleges

4. Southern Methodist University- Most conservative colleges

3.

3.

2.

2.

1.

1.

Southwestern University

Southwestern University

Saint Edward's University

- Most liberal colleges

Saint Edward's University

- Most liberal colleges

The most liberal, conservative colleges in Texas

Colleges campuses are often thought of as intensely liberal institutions, but in reality, they come in all shapes and sizes.

To get some idea, college data site Niche recently ranked the most liberal and conservative colleges throughout the nation.

FOOTBALL FANATICS:Texas universities that profit the most, least off sports

The rankings were acquired by surveying students on their political leanings, as well as surveying how liberal or conservative they viewed other students on campus.

Three Texas colleges made the list of the top 100 most liberal colleges in America:Southwestern University, Saint Edward's University and Rice University.

On the other hand, 13 Texas colleges made the national list for being conservative.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: The story behind who Texas' most famous colleges are named after

Click through above to see the most liberal and conservative colleges of Texas.

Follow this link:

The most liberal, conservative colleges in Texas - Chron.com

It is clear that today what passes for news is essentially opinion. The left-leaning media (so called liberal) have shown more intolerance than what is essentially called right-wing by them. They hate to lose. And when they do, the savage attacks on the non-liberals show their intolerance.

Take the case of Shazia Ilmi not being allowed to speak at her Alma MaterJamia Millia Islamia on a seminar on Women empowerment. Though she was invited, the invite was withdrawn at the last minute without explanation. General Bakshi and Tarek Fatah were invited to a prestigious club in Kolkata for a seminar and Mamata Banerjee made the institution cancel the event.

None of the liberals had massive rallies against such acts against Freedom of Speech. In fact, most news channels did not even carry this.

Be it the Indian, American or British media all seem to have a markedly liberal point of view that does not allow any dissent. Talk about freedoms. Only the Left it seems has the freedom to speak and rally.

The word intolerance is used all the time when there is a blowback on whatever the liberals say or do. No matter how innocuous the subject, such as spreading yoga worldwide, the liberal left will have something unpleasant to say about it.

The people have pretty much told the liberal media that they dont rule the dialogue and the social media is, thus, thriving. Whether it is the New York Times or the New Yorker, very few read them and many think they are biased towards the extreme left.

Change in spite of the media has happened in India, Britain and USA and will follow in most European countries. One has stopped watching Indian TV news as once again there is little news but a great deal of debate. What passes for news is the opinion of the anchor or the owners of the channels who have their own agendas.

Yesterday, I watched the news briefly and saw an event, that made me think:Arun Purie congratulating his daughter for India Today TV getting the award for best English and Hindi news. To me an award is a self-perpetuating exercise by an organisation where they form a club of sorts and give each other awards. Whether it is the Oscars, Grammys, etc. They form a small cabal who decide who gets an award. Is this the peoples choice? No! The people are not consulted and mostly unaware of how and who chooses these awards.

Newspapers, magazines and such organisations pump up their reader/viewership to garner more advertising revenue, so their own statistics are always suspect. So, are these awards really relevant? Are the best reporters getting awards? Is there even such a thing as investigative reporting left in India?

I saw a portion of The big fight where the issue being debated was Is free speech being curtailed now. Well, in fact no. When the Congress realised that Modi was a potential threat way back in 2004 a sustained campaign was launched to discredit him this is a long story and much has been written on this. The US media did the same for Trump. The people lost trust and switched to social media. And voted Trump as president, in spite the hundreds of negative articles that appeared on him by CNN, New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post and many others. They switched off.

So, I looked up once again at media viewership and came up with this revealing data on TV news viewership.

Top 5 English news channels viewership (BARC data week Feb 2017):

Times Now 798,000 India Today 498,000 CNN-IBN 404,000 NDTV 376,000 BBC 184,000

Hindi News Channels (Feb 2017)

Simply put two million people watch the top five English channels put together. And 485 million people watch the top five Hindi news channels.

The conclusion is most of what we see in the English news channels is really not relevant in the context of forming public opinion. A viewership of just two million in a country of 1.3 billion is too small to be of any significance. Wake up reporters and anchors. Your air- conditioned environment plus huge salaries and popularity are at stake. Beat the streets and start feeling the pulse of all Indians not just the Liberals and their cronies.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Continued here:

The liberals and their false angst on intolerance - Times of India (blog)

LONDON After the annus horribilis that was 2016, most political observers believe that the liberal world order is in serious trouble. But that is where the agreement ends. At the recent Munich Security Conference, debate on the subject among leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demonstrated a lack of consensus even on what the liberal order is. That makes it hard to say what will happen to it.

When the West, and especially the United States, dominated the world, the liberal order was pretty much whatever they said it was. Other countries complained and expounded alternate approaches, but basically went along with the Western-defined rules.

But as global power has shifted from the West to the rest, the liberal world order has become an increasingly contested idea, with rising powers like Russia, China and India increasingly challenging Western perspectives. And, indeed, Merkels criticism in Munich of Russia for invading Crimea and supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad was met with Lavrovs assertions that the West ignored the sovereignty norm in international law by invading Iraq and recognizing Kosovos independence.

This is not to say that the liberal world order is an entirely obscure concept. The original iteration call it Liberal Order 1.0 arose from the ashes of World War II to uphold peace and support global prosperity. It was underpinned by institutions like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as regional security arrangements, such as NATO. It emphasized multilateralism, including through the United Nations, and promoted free trade.

But Liberal Order 1.0 had its limits namely, sovereign borders. Given the ongoing geopolitical struggle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, it could not even quite be called a world order. What countries did at home was basically their business, as long as it didnt affect the superpower rivalry. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a triumphant West expanded the concept of the liberal world order substantially. The result Liberal Order 2.0 penetrated countries borders to consider the rights of those who lived there.

Rather than upholding national sovereignty at all costs, the expanded order sought to pool sovereignty and to establish shared rules to which national governments must adhere. In many ways, Liberal Order 2.0 underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as new norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) sought to shape the world in the Wests image.

But, before too long, sovereignty-obsessed powers like Russia and China halted its implementation. Calamitous mistakes for which Western policymakers were responsible namely, the protracted war in Iraq and the global economic crisis cemented the reversal of Liberal Order 2.0.

But now the West itself is rejecting the order that it created, often using the very same logic of sovereignty that the rising powers used. And it is not just more recent additions like the ICC and R2P that are at risk. With the United Kingdom having rejected the European Union and U.S. President Donald Trump condemning free-trade deals and the Paris climate agreement, the more fundamental Liberal Order 1.0 seems to be under threat.

Some claim that the West overreached in creating Liberal Order 2.0. But even Trumps America still needs Liberal Order 1.0 and the multilateralism that underpins it. Otherwise, it may face a new kind of globalization that combines the technologies of the future with the enmities of the past.

In such a scenario, military interventions will continue, but not in the postmodern form aimed at upholding order (exemplified by Western powers opposition to genocide in Kosovo and Sierra Leone). Instead, modern and pre-modern forms will prevail: support for government repression, like Russia has provided in Syria, or ethno-religious proxy wars, like those that Saudi Arabia and Iran have waged across the Middle East.

The internet, migration, trade and the enforcement of international law will be turned into weapons in new conflicts, rather than governed effectively by global rules. International conflict will be driven primarily by a domestic politics increasingly defined by status anxiety, distrust of institutions and narrow-minded nationalism.

European countries are unsure how to respond to this new global disorder. Three potential coping strategies have emerged.

The first would require a country like Germany, which considers itself a responsible stakeholder and has some international heft, to take over as a main custodian of the liberal world order. In this scenario, Germany would work to uphold Liberal Order 1.0 globally and to preserve Liberal Order 2.0 within Europe.

A second strategy, exemplified today by Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, could be called profit maximization. Turkey isnt trying to overturn the existing order, but it doesnt feel responsible for its upkeep, either. Instead, Turkey seeks to extract as much as possible from Western-led institutions like the EU and NATO, while fostering mutually beneficial relationships with countries, such as Russia, Iran,and China, that often seek to undermine those institutions.

The third strategy is simple hypocrisy: Europe would talk like a responsible stakeholder, but act like a profit maximizer. This is the path that British Prime Minister Theresa May took when she met with Trump in Washington in January. She said all the right things about NATO, the EU and free trade, but pleaded for a special deal with the U.S. outside of those frameworks.

In the months ahead, many leaders will need to make a bet on whether the liberal order will survive and on whether they should invest resources in bringing about that outcome. The West collectively has the power to uphold Liberal Order 1.0. But if the Western powers cant agree on what they want from that order, or what their responsibilities are to maintain it, they are unlikely even to try.

Mark Leonard is the co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Project Syndicate, 2017 http://www.project-syndicate.org

See the original post:

What liberal world order? - The Japan Times

Lauren Leader-Chive, an expert on diversity and womens issues, said progressive women ignored the needs of conservative women and thus set themselves back in 2016 by not uniting on shared policy issues beyond abortion. She acknowledged that many Womens March participants were not welcoming to pro-life women.

Theres no one answer to solve this, said Leader-Chive, author of Crossing the Thinnest Line, and co-founder and CEO of All In Together, during a recent conversation at Salon Talks. I do think that one of the lessons of this election and one of the lessons of basically every time liberal feminism in a sense has lost in a big way and liberal feminism did lose in a big way in this election, and it lost in a big way in the late 70s with the ERA it is often because we and I say we because I am one of them underestimate the power and the passion and the conviction of conservative women who view the feminist agenda as excluding them added Leader-Chive. I think there were a lot of women in this election who were . . . not voting for Donald Trump, but who were voting against Hillary Clinton on the abortion issue as one very core, moral question for them. And does that mean we all are gonna ever agree? No. But I do think the future of a whole bunch of other issues that are not abortion. . .rest on our ability to find some common ground, she concluded.

Leader-Chive also said the millions of women marchers who gathered on January 21, the day after President Trumps inauguration, are a force to be reckoned with. Republicans, she said, would be unwise to ignore the potential groundswell the Womens March could represent in future elections.

There is tremendous collective power, and I think part of what the [Womens] March tapped was that potential collective power that women really do have and should have more of, Leader-Chive said. In any political environment, the opposition is always the most motivated, right? And the most mobilized. So you will see, I think, a disproportionate response from democrats right now. She feels American women are having a sort-of moment of reckoning. It is this sort of moment that I think Americans are realizing. . . if you dont own your democracy, if you dont participate, things may happen that you dont like.

The rest is here:

WATCH: Is liberal feminism the biggest loser? - Salon

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne speaks during a press conference in Toronto on Thursday, March 2, 2017. (Frank Gunn/THE CANADIAN PRESS) Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne speaks during a press conference in Toronto on Thursday, March 2, 2017. (Frank Gunn/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Allison Jones

TORONTOThe Canadian Press

Published Monday, Mar. 06, 2017 7:19AM EST

Last updated Monday, Mar. 06, 2017 12:01PM EST

Ontarios budget watchdog is planning a report examining the Liberal governments plan to lower hydro bills.

Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown has written to the financial accountability office, asking them to investigate the plan with a full costing analysis.

A spokeswoman for the office says theyll take Browns letter under consideration, but they had already been planning to examine the hydro plan.

The recently announced 17-per-cent reduction in hydro bills comes this summer thanks to a move the Liberals say is like refinancing a mortgage over a longer period of time.

Premier Kathleen Wynne has acknowledged it will cost ratepayers more in the long run, but she says savings are needed now because people are struggling.

She has said the extra interest costs related to the plan would amount to $25 billion over 30 years, but the Tories say theyre not clear on how the Liberals arrived at that number.

Wynne defends Ontario hydro rate cut (The Canadian Press)

Discover content from The Globe and Mail that you might otherwise not have come across. Here well provide you with fresh suggestions where we will continue to make even better ones as we get to know you better.

You can let us know if a suggestion is not to your liking by hitting the close button to the right of the headline.

More:

Ontario budget watchdog to examine Liberals' hydro relief plan - The Globe and Mail

A majority of Canadians are supportive of the Liberal governments approach to running deficits, even though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has faced months of criticism from Conservatives for abandoning a promise to balance the books.

A new survey by Nanos Research for the Globe and Mail found 52 per cent of those surveyed supported the view that Ottawa should continue to run deficits as long as the size of the federal debt is declining in relation to the size of the economy, which is the governments current view.

In contrast, 39 per cent agreed with the alternative position that the government should do what it takes to balance the budget before the next election.

Mr. Trudeaus successful 2015 election campaign was centred on a pledge to run short-term deficits of no more than $10-billion a year before returning the federal books to surplus in time for the 2019 election. Finance Minister Bill Morneau has since revised those plans, arguing that economic growth forecasts are weaker than what had been assumed during the election campaign.

Mr. Morneaus Nov. 1, 2016 fiscal update projected a deficit of $25.1-billion in the current fiscal year, followed by a $27.8-billion deficit in 2017-18 and a $25.9-billion deficit in 2018-19. The update said the federal debt as a percentage of GDP would decline from 31.8 per cent this year to 30.4 per cent in 2021-22.

Pollster Nik Nanos said the survey results show the Liberals have succeeded in making the case that deficits are justified in the current economic environment. However, he said the Conservative criticisms could ultimately take hold in the future if federal finances fail to improve.

Canadians are ready at this particular point in time to stay the course, but the Liberals shouldnt think that this is carte blanche to run deficits in perpetuity or even higher deficits because that would probably be a longer-term political risk for them, he said.

Over the past year, Mr. Morneau has repeatedly declined to provide a new timeline for erasing the deficit. Instead, the government argues that it is focusing on the federal debt-to-GDP ratio as its guide, or fiscal anchor. Federal projections show the federal debt-to-GDP ratio is on track to decline slightly over the coming decades, even though annual deficits wont disappear until the 2050s.

The upcoming 2017 budget will be the Liberal governments next opportunity to provide an update on its deficit plans. Some economists, including the Conference Board of Canadas Craig Alexander, have called on Mr. Morneau to provide a clear plan for returning the books to balance in the medium term.

The size of the projected deficits likely mean that Mr. Morneau has little room to announce new spending in the 2017 budget.

David Herle, a Liberal strategist and polling expert with The Gandalf Group, has been analyzing Canadians views on deficits for years. Using polling and focus groups, Mr. Herle advised former Liberal finance minister Paul Martin during the deficit-fighting budgets of the 1990s. He is also a campaign advisor to Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne, who has faced criticism for running deficits but is promising a return to surplus this year.

Mr. Herle said the mid-1990s was a rare moment in political history when Canadians viewed large deficits as the source of pain in the larger economy. The Liberals also faced an emerging opposition force in the form of the Reform Party that pushed aggressively for spending restraint.

Outside of that period, however, Mr. Herle said Canadians tend not to view deficits or GDP figures as having much of an impact on their daily lives. While he said conservative voters are more likely to push for balanced budgets, a federal move toward austerity to balance the books would be highly unpopular given the current state of the economy.

You just have a hard time convincing many people in Canada right now that the governments balance sheet is of greater concern than their own, he said. People are comfortable with the trade-off Any government that tried to extract $30-billion out of its spending right now would be done.

The hybrid phone and online survey of 1,000 Canadians took place between Feb. 25 and Feb. 28, 2017. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb

Read this article:

Majority of Canadians okay with Liberal deficits: survey - The Globe and Mail