Category Archives: Liberal

Published on: April 13, 2017 | Last Updated: April 13, 2017 4:09 PM PDT

NDP supporter and retired teacher Bill Wilson (middle) is helped after nearly fainting after confronting Liberal party volunteer Andrew Roberts (left) outside a NDP party rally in Coquitlam on Thursday. Roberts was handing out Liberal party literature at the time. NDP press secretary James Smith (right) helps Roberts steady Wilson. Jason Payne / PNG

A B.C. Liberal volunteer helped steady an upset NDP supporter who nearly fainted during some tense moments in Coquitlam Thursday.

The incident developed just after an NDP-sponsored event when NDP supporter and retired teacher Bill Wilson confronted Liberal Party volunteer Andrew Roberts, who was handing out pro-Liberal Party leaflets outside the event.

Postmedia photographer Jason Payne said the incident happenedwhile he was loading his car after taking photos at the main NDP rally.

(Roberts) started handing out Liberal Party flyers (and) Wilson started laying into the guy about Liberals being bad for teachers. Nothing much happened, but when I turned away (Wilson) almost fainted.

Payne said that Roberts and NDP press secretary James Smith managed to grab Wilson and steady him.

He (Wilson) had overexerted himself. They got him a chair and a glass of water. They called an ambulance, but he seemed OK.

bmorton@postmedia.com

NDP supporter and retired teacher Bill Wilson (left) confronts Liberal party volunteer Andrew Roberts outside a NDP party rally in Coquitlam on Thursday. Jason Payne / PNG

NDP supporter Bill Wilson (left) confronts Liberal party volunteer Andrew Roberts. Jason Payne / PNG

Liberal party volunteer Andrew Roberts (left) and NDP press secretary James Smith (right) help NDP supporter Bill Wilson (middle) after he nearly fainted outside a NDP rally in Coquitlam on Thursday. Jason Payne / PNG

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

Read this article:

Liberal volunteer helps steady NDP supporter after confrontation - Vancouver Sun

A pair of veteran members of Parliament had a spirited exchange Thursday over the integrity of the former Liberal justice minister who advised the government on marijuana legalization.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale even invited his Conservative critic Tony Clement to repeat his accusations outside the House of Commons, where parliamentary privilege shields him from lawsuits.

Conservative MP Tony Clement asks a question in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on April 13, 2017. (Photo: Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Clement rose in question period shortly before the Liberals unveiled their long-awaited bill to legalize cannabis and highlighted a report from The Globe and Mail detailing McLellans links to the marijuana industry.

The Globe wrote that McLellan, who chaired the task force that helped mold the governments approach to pot, is a senior adviser for law firm Bennett Jones LLP, "the go-to advisory firm in the marijuana sector." The report noted a dozen lawyers at the firm have stakes in a company expected to profit from legalization.

"Anne McLellan's firm promotes itself as the go-to advisers to the industry, and at least 12 of its employees stand to make millions from their ownership stake in one of the pot companies," Clement said. "She, herself, is criss-crossing the country, promoting the Liberal policy, and handing out her own business cards.

"How deep in the grass does all this Liberal cronyism go?"

Goodale: 'Good luck'

Goodale was succinct in his defence of his former colleague, with whom he served in previous Liberal cabinets.

If the honourable gentleman wants to attack the integrity of Anne McLellan, good luck, Goodale shot back, sparking laughter and applause from the Liberal benches.

The remark evidently lit a fire under Clement, who said he would do just that when McLellan and her law firm stand to capitalize on Liberal connections.

While she was designing the framework for this new system, her legal colleagues were waiting in the wings to make big pot profits. Is this new legislation merely a smokescreen for Liberal cronies to fill their pockets? Clement bellowed before tossing his question card.

Anne McLellan, leader of the federal task force on marijuana, speaks during a news conference in Ottawa on Dec. 13, 2016. (Photo: Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Goodale said the clear answer is no. He then invited Clement to step outside.

If the honourable gentleman would like to make those suggestions outside the House, I am sure Ms. McLellan will meet him in court, Goodale said.

The Liberal governments pot legislation will, if passed, allow adults over the age of 18 to buy and grow small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Selling the drug to a minor, however, could result in as much as 14 years behind bars.

With a file from The Canadian Press

Subscribe to our podcast Follow us on Facebook

Excerpt from:

Tony Clement, Ralph Goodale Have Feisty Exchange Ahead Of Liberal Pot Bill - Huffington Post Canada

Liberal comedian Chelsea Handler has really put herself out there to support Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff, but shes apparently not even sure when his election is.

Handler has donated a few thousand dollarsto Ossoff, who is running in a special election to represent Georgias 6thCongressional District,replacing Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price in the House of Representatives.

But the comedian got a little bit ahead of herself earlier this week, asking her nearly 7million Twitter followers to head to the polls Tuesday when the election isnt taking place until next week, on April 18.

As it turns out, Handler, who in 2016 told NBCs Matt Lauerthat she associates racism with really like dumb people from the South, isnt the only Hollywood name backing Ossoffs campaign. In fact, 95 percent of the donations to the Democrats campaign have come from sources outside Georgia.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, more than $500,000 has come from California, $400,000 has come from New York, and Massachusetts donors have pitched in around $160,000.

Ossoff has received support from big names such asGeorge Takei, Sam Waterston, Debra Messing, Rosie ODonnell, and Kristen Bell. Actors Alyssa Milano and Christopher Gorham, who were in Georgia for a film project, even offered to drive early voters to the polls tocast their ballotsfor Ossoff in late March.

Republicans have criticized Ossoff for not really being connected to the district hes running to represent, pointing out that he doesnt even live in the area and that much of his financial support is coming from out of the state.

In response, Ossoff said he would move to the district,should he win.

Read more:

Liberal comedian Chelsea Handler sends Georgia voters to the ... - TheBlaze.com

The Trudeau government got little traction with the Canadian public from the big spending economic stimulus measures in its 2016 budget, according to newly released federal focus group data.

Although the focus group participants may not have known a lot about the key measures in that first Liberal budget, their opinions closely aligned with some of the big ticket items outlined a couple of months later in the fall fiscal update and in the Liberals'second budget tabled last month.

Environics Research found that few Canadians considered Ottawa's early moves to enrich monthly child benefits or expand the Canada Pension Plan as something intended to boost the economy.

Environicsconducted a series of 10 focus groups of eight to 10 people each for the Department of Finance between Sept. 19 and 22 to get a sense of people's attitudes about the Canadian economy.

Six months after the government's first budget announced billions in infrastructure spending, the focus group found that "few could recall any specific government of Canada measures in recent months to bolster the economy, aside from some vague recollection of actions related to trade."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shakes hands with Morneau after he delivered the Liberals' second federal budget in the House of Commons on March 22. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

There was also a low level of awareness when it came to the enhanced Canada Pension Plan Ottawa negotiated with the provinces and the Canada child benefit a centrepiece initiative of the Trudeau government's first budget.

"Some indicated that they recalled these initiatives, but they did not consider them measures that were designed specifically to boost the economy," the focus group report states.

When it came to infrastructure projects that would help jolt the economy, on the other hand, focus group participants supported investments in affordable housing, clean energy, roads and public transit.

And the Liberal's second budget, delivered March 22, committed $11.2 billion over 11 years for a national housing strategy.

Focus group members also offered a mixed view on the idea of the government selling off federal assets such as airports to pay for the new infrastructure projects. This was an idea championed by the government's economic advisory council but which ultimately was not included in the spring budget.

Environics says the idea was "received with mixed reviews" by focus groupparticipants, who were concerned about the loss of "future revenue potential" and could not think of many examples where selling off public assets had been successful.

There was also a lot of support for the Liberals' ubiquitous message of helping the "middle class and those working hard to join it."

Environics found that messages directed at the middle class tested well and that "many felt these kinds of messages were directed at people like themselves."

Focus group members also liked messages with a focus on job creation and diversity for their positive tone, according to a report on the findings that was posted online.

The cost of the research, which also included a telephone survey of 2,000 Canadians, was $147,000.

CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content

Go here to read the rest:

Liberals' 1st budget didn't resonate with public, internal focus group suggested - CBC.ca

We are now completing the third month of the Trumpocalypse.

Hes been compared to every madman, every destructive movement, every consequential thing thats happened in this universe since the Big Bang. People who never raised an eyebrow or their voice about Ebola or Isis or MS-13 are now concerned about this guy.

Logic tells you this reaction can only be wrong. In the realm of emotional debate, nothing is ever as evil, or as great, as you want it to be. The truth is almost always situated in some realistic middle thats upsetting to a few and boring to many.

The idea that a businessman, an eager reality show host moving into his eighth decade, might actually be a madman ... Maybe thats plausible to a liberal, but only if you ignore some obvious facts.

This is a man who was born and bred in New York City, where even the conservatives are liberal.

His kids, despite the frenzied fishbowl theyve lived in, appear to be normal.

The assumption that hes anti-gay or hates minorities or women requires a logical disconnect to make not just one leap of faith, but four or five concurrent leaps while juggling six balls of unequal weight.

So feel free to hate the guy. Thats OK. The right did that with President Obama. Its a team sport thing. But it might be as false now as it was then.

For President Trump to fulfill your nightmares, you have to ignore an entire fabric of politically benign living.

The right didnt trust Obama because he lived a unexamined life of romanced, unchallenged progressivism. He was a card-carrying Leftist.

Trump lived a public life of transparent opinion while navigating the most liberal, cosmopolitan city on earth ever.

Think about that when youre losing your crap. Trump was out in the open, for all to see. Unlike most.

So here I offer some soothing reasons why you dont have to worry much. Fact is, libs, Trump is more like you than he is like me, or Mike Pence or Mike Huckabee or anyone who turns your ideological stomach. Heres why:

1. The Syrian strike reveals that Trumps response, even to ghastly attacks, is a firm just enough. I compare it to smacking a dogs nose with a newspaper, or spanking an unruly child in aisle 3 of Walmart. Its not an act of war. Its an act of Yo, were back. Its a message that our diplomacy has more muscle than simply shrugging disapprovingly while checking Tinder. Hillary would do, and wanted to do, the same thing. You can damn Trump for changing his mind, but you would have damned him for doing the opposite.

There are two ways to explain the Syria strike. You can explain what happened: Missiles hit a facility. Or you can explain what it means: This strike is exactly the perfunctory minimum we will perform to maintain a persona of resolute toughness without igniting an actual conflict with people were perhaps on the same side with when fighting ISIS. Thats all it is the comfortable middle ground between the impotence of doing nothing and the hysteria of escalation. Yes, America, you elected a centrist.

2. Pragmatism prevails, as was predicted by many who refuse to give in to apocalyptic notions about Trump. Even an oddball like me knew this: The guy is a non-ideological technocrat who is willing to shift gears to clobber the conspiratorial, transient opinions of his sweatiest ideological henchmen when hard facts enter the room. There are consequences: Principles of yore are obliterated by the bait-and-switch pragmatism that pulls leaders toward the center. But it happens in both parties, in every cycle.

Side note to righties: if you find yourself deceived by Trump and stuck idling in a conservative cul de sac thats your fault. New Yorkers always talk tough, then become flexible. But your naivet is sweet. It beats looking phony after deriding squishies and cucks or whatever self-appointed bouncers of the Right tweet between laundry runs only to defend Trumps centrism later.

3. Economic nationalism will also show itself out, as global deals and coalitions call for cooperation. The worlds top dog, like it or not, should say me first. But me means the whole thirsty world gets a drink, because sooner or later, all bad things make their way to us, as all our good things make their way to them. You cant isolate yourself in a phone booth. Just make your home safer, and then invite friends in.

4. Even perceptions of force are enough. Illegal crossings into our country have dropped dramatically, to a nearly two-decade low. Why is that? Perception. Trump is a metaphorical wall. My analogy: When the local bar fires the guy who used to give you free drinks and replaces him with a co-owner who has skin in the game, the freeloader finds a cheaper venue. People go elsewhere, without trying to get a freebie. Trumps the new bartender.

5.Trumps white nationalist fanboys are deeply wounded. Yes, its finally dawning on these geeks that daddy used them the way the Dems often used their radical minions. The freaks are merely tolerated until the real business gets done. White nationalists are essentially the Republican versions of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers kicked to the curb, where they belong. And their whining is proof that the guy they once liked has no use for them.

6. Trump made it safer for honest people. This point is for liberal entertainers, who happen to be the whiniest, most panicky of the bunch. Trump, to his credit, redefined the literality of language and the context of public conversation. This is both off-putting and freeing. To make an omelet (killing PC culture), Trump broke a few eggs (jokes about Senator McCain, and so on). It wasnt pretty, but it was effective. And comedians should admit this to themselves, or theyre false: Trump helps you.

For years, the left (the comedians default political stance) inevitably devoured their own when it came to violations of sensitive speech. If you crossed the ever-changing line as defined by humorless scolds running campus groups you were damaged goods. Comedians admitted they avoid college campuses for this reason.

By turning the debates into a comedy roast, Trumps ripe ripostes, which would sink most politicians, elevated him.

Sarah Silverman can hate Trump all she wants, but he made her anxiety-ridden life easier. And not just by creating an endless fuzzy-navel fountain of material.

He allows everyone in a public square to be a little more dangerous, a little more free and, yes, more ugly.

He revived the First Amendment. You could hate the stuff he said, but he reminded you that saying it and hating it are compatible.

Comics should be genuflecting before him, rather than condemning him on Twitter, using the same callow tools that will likely be used on them in the future.

In American life, and in this ridiculously enduring republic, no one is as great or as bad as you wish them to be. And demonizing them only clouds your ability to reason.

Ultimately, you fail to engage in an argument when it matters. Yes, it happened with Obama but now, my liberal friends, youre doing the same with Trump.

Lighten up. Give it time. Hes more you than me.

Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel's (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET). He joined the network in 2007 as a contributor. Click here for more information on Greg Gutfeld.

More:

Greg Gutfeld: How to explain Trump to your liberal friends (not that ... - Fox News

A liberal activist group is suing Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette in an attempt to obtain any personal emails he or staff may have used to conduct state business.(Photo: Dale G. Young / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

Lansing A liberal advocacy group is suing Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette in an attempt to obtain any personal emails he or his staff may have used to conduct state business.

Progress Michigan filed a complaint Tuesday with the state Court of Claims, arguing the Republican attorney generals office violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying a public records request the group submitted in September.

Schuette and his staff have routinely used personal email accounts over a long period of time to perform official functions, according to the suit, which cites a series of emails Progress Michigan obtained through previous FOIA requests.

The attorney generals office is reviewing the lawsuit, said Schuette spokeswoman Andrea Bitely, who did not immediately offer further comment.

The complaint filed Tuesday includes a batch of emails sent to or from personal email accounts maintained by Schuette or his staff, including at least two emails Schuette sent from his iPad. Most are innocuous messages about scheduling or meetings.

Team, lets discuss the marijuana statements. May just say let the voters decide, Schuette wrote in a March 2015 email to staff from a Gmail account, referencing a television station question over a petition drive seeking to legalize the drug. Can add to our discussion next week!

Despite that exchange and others, the attorney generals office rejected a broad Progress Michigan request for any personal account emails Schuette or his staff used for state business since 2010, telling the group it does not possess records meeting your description.

The suit argues that Schuettes office clearly used personal emails for state business on multiple occasions and claims the attorney generals office may have violated state law if it failed to preserve public records.

The question before the court is, is the attorney general lying about this or not? Or were they improperly destroyed? said Progress Michigan attorney Mark Brewer, former head of the Michigan Democratic Party.

We have proof they existed at one time, and the law is very clear that when you use your personal email account to conduct government business, that email becomes a public record subject to disclosure under FOIA.

Robin Luce-Hermann, an attorney with the Butzel Long law firm and general counsel for the Michigan Press Association, said she is not aware of any appellate court decisions that have addressed a similar circumstance in Michigan.

While the status of personal emails discussing government business is not established case law here, I certainly think you can make the argument they are public records and subject to FOIA, said Luce-Hermann, who is not involved in the lawsuit.

Schuette in 2015 acknowledged sending a campaign email from his state account, calling it a mistake resulting from his use of a personal iPad linked to multiple email accounts. The email was disclosed in response to a FOIA request from Progress Michigan, which routinely requests public records from various state offices.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday asks the Michigan Court of Claims to declare that emails concerning official government functions are public records even if they are sent through personal email accounts.

The complaint also seeks forced disclosure of emails Progress Michigan originally requested, along with attorney fees and punitive damages for the arbitrary and capricious refusal and/or delay in fulfilling the request.

joosting@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2ooQN7G

Here is the original post:

Liberal group sues Schuette for personal emails - The Detroit News

Republicans won the fight to confirm Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and Democrats lost but both sides walked away happy with how their leaders performed on Capitol Hill, and said theyre ready for the next vacancy.

Im already planning for another opening. Im ready for round two and a potential round three and all of the lower judicial courts, said Mark Lucas, executive director of Concerned Veterans for America, which was part of the conservative backing for Justice Gorsuch. Were ready to engage in other multiple confirmations if those openings do occur.

Republicans, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, had kept the Supreme Court seat vacant for almost all of 2016, refusing to act on President Obamas nomination of Judge Merrick Garland and instead saying the winner of the election should make the pick.

That meant President Trump began his term with a Supreme Court battle, sparking a major fight on Capitol Hill that saw Democrats mount a filibuster and Republicans use the nuclear option to change the rules, curtail the power of the filibuster and install Justice Gorsuch on the court.

Conservative groups said Mr. McConnell handled the fight well throughout.

If you combine what he did on Garland with his support of the nuclear option, and his disinterest in finding some compromise to avoid the nuclear option, his standing now with conservatives is very high, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice.

Mr. McConnell also won unanimous support from Republicans for the nuclear option something the GOP wasnt able to do when it first contemplated the strategy in 2005. But it was Democrats who pulled the trigger in 2013 to bar the use of the filibuster in every other case of presidential appointments, whether to the lower federal courts or the executive branch.

Keeping the Republican senators in line is no small feat, and he accomplished that with one of the most significant issues even for someone with such a long and storied career as his, said Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the Judicial Crisis Network. This is probably one of the most significant things he will have accomplished.

Liberal groups, though, were just as happy with Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the Judiciary Committees ranking Democrat, who managed to rally their party to filibuster the Gorsuch pick, forcing the rules change.

I have to give an enormous, enormous amount of respect to Sen. Schumer, to ranking member Feinstein to really the almost the entire caucus they made clear they were on the side of the American people, said Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the progressive Alliance for Justice.

The liberal groups applied intense pressure on rank-and-file Democrats, demanding they force the nuclear showdown this year. Some Democrats had wanted to preserve the filibuster option for a future nominee, saying Judge Gorsuch who will fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia wasnt worth the fight because he wont tip the court balance.

Mr. Levey said the liberal groups werent strategically successful, despite proving they can capture the ear of Democrats in Congress.

I think the proof is they got the Democratic senators to do something, which is otherwise irrational, he said. I guess if you get somebody to jump off a cliff, thats a lot of influence right there.

The effects of the rules change will be felt over the course of future nominations to the high court, now that the prospect of a partisan filibuster is off the table.

Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way, said she hopes the groundwork her organization did including airing ads in six states helped liberals realize the importance of the Supreme Court. She said she hopes that will carry over to the next nomination fight.

Ms. Baker also said Republicans didnt have to trigger the nuclear option, and said the fact that they did was lawlessness.

It may have some short term successes, but it doesnt prevail in the end, she said.

Presidents change and lawmakers come and go, but The Washington Times is always here, and FREE online. Please support our efforts.

Read more:

Neil Gorsuch confirmation battle fires up liberal, conservative groups - Washington Times

The federal government tabled a wide-ranging budget bill Tuesday that includes legal changes to the powers of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well as a new law that creates the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The opposition says the legislation, at more than 300 pages, amounts to an omnibus bill at the very same time that the governing Liberals are separately proposing changes to the parliamentary rules that would make omnibus bills illegal.

At first glance, opposition MPs say Finance Minister Bill Morneaus latest budget bill appears to be an example of the very thing the Liberals say should be banned.

Opinion: Hidden dangers lie in Liberals proposed parliamentary rule changes

Its hypocritical, said Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen, who added that if the Liberals wanted to end the use of omnibus bills, they could just do so.

The Liberal Party campaigned on a pledge to end so-called omnibus bills based on concern that such large bills force MPs to vote yes or no on a large package of changes even though they might support some parts and not others.

Parliaments spending watchdog is expressing concern that the latest budget bill will limit its ability to hold the government to account.

Mostafa Askari, the assistant PBO, told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that the legislation raises concerns over the PBOs independence. New requirements to have the Speakers of the House of Commons and Senate review and approve an annual PBO work plan and to receive advance copies of any PBO report are the main points of concern.

Currently, the PBO is free to release reports at any time on any relevant topic on its website.

My first impression is that certainly those would be some issues of concern to us, he said.

There are those kind of issues that, to me, are the constraints that may, in practical terms, affect the PBO in a negative way. But there are other aspects in terms of the appointment [of the PBO] and those kinds of things that are certainly improvements.

Proposing an end to "improper" omnibus legislation is part of the package of changes to the rules of the House of Commons that recently caught opposition parties by surprise.

Ms. Bergen said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is using his majority to push through changes to the House rules that should require the support of all parties. She said changes related to the Parliamentary Budget Officer should be removed from the budget bill and studied independently.

NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice agreed that the budget bill is an example of what the Liberals say they want to eliminate.

Its an omnibus bill, from our point of view, he said. The NDP MP argues the bill includes changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Judges Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Food and Drugs Act and a new law called the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act that appear to be the types of measures that should be introduced separately, rather than included in a budget bill.

Daniel Lauzon, a spokesperson for Mr. Morneau, defended the legislation and said all of its measures relate to what was in the March 22 budget.

Our commitment to transparency is real and as far as the size of the bill and its content, its all in the budget plan. So no surprises for anyone, he said in an e-mail. Compare that with the Conservatives long-standing practice of trying to ram through unrelated measures by forcing confidence votes on them. Thats not what were doing.

The new Canada Infrastructure Bank Act gives cabinet the power to appoint a board of directors of between eight and 11 people. The board would then select a chief executive officer.

The purpose of the bank is to invest, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue and that will be in the public interest the legislation states.

The legislation includes criteria for the CEO, including that he or she must be at least 18 years of age, not be bankrupt and not be employed by a federal, provincial or municipal government.

The salary and benefits for the CEO will be set by cabinet on the advice of the board. The legislation gives the Minister of Finance the power to pay the bank up to $35-billion from the consolidated revenue fund.

Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb

Originally posted here:

Opposition MPs cry foul over Liberals' tabling of 300-page bill - The Globe and Mail

New York Post

How today's liberal kids are going to ruin college New York Post The college crackup is coming. That's the message we should get after reading about the two different kinds of kids who were admitted to elite universities this month. Take Martin Altenburg. A senior from Fargo, ND, who was accepted at all eight Ivy ...

Go here to read the rest:

How today's liberal kids are going to ruin college - New York Post

So much has been said recently about the rivalry between the House Freedom Caucus and the so-called Tuesday Group, a collection of largely unnamed moderates in the House. While the leadership of the Tuesday Group is named, and some members willingly speak to reporters about their agenda, only a few have outed themselves as part of the secretive backroom group. So who exactly belongs to this group of 40 to 50 members, and what are they trying to accomplish in Congress?

The Tuesday Group was formed when the Republican Party finally took back the House in 1992, after the famous Contract with America, which was seen as a continuation of Ronald Reagans agenda. Although the contract was described as heavily taken from Ronald Reagans 1985 State of the Union Address, the Tuesday Group declined to take the view of the conservative message that won the House. Instead, they formed a group to water-down and obstruct the legislation and policies promised in the contract, which is what they continue to do today.

During the recent debate over the Obamacare repeal-in-name-only legislation, several so-called centrist Republicans claimed they would not vote for the bill offered by Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., because it would have left some Americans uninsured.

Heres a list of the Tuesday Group leadership and members who have been publicly identified in media reports.

Here is a list of Republican members of Congress that benefitted from The Tuesday Group PAC in 2016 (Open Secrets). Those who received money but couldnt be found named in media reports on actual membership in the Tuesday Group are in bold; (only current representatives are listed):

In addition to supporting liberal Republicans during election cycles, the Tuesday Group has been playing with its branding. Uncomfortable with the label of RINO or liberal, they have previously described themselves as moderates. But the rise of the grassroots during the Obama administration made them shrug off the term, moderate, and members are now calling themselves centrists. Clearly, however, they are more liberal than conservative, and are proud of being so.

These Tuesday groupies claim they fight against ideological divides of the Republican Party. However, given that the nation, due to the Tea Party uprising, gave the Republican Party gains to the tune of 32 state legislatures and 33 governorships, how does this group stand by the idea that more Democratic values are what the people want?

Truly, when liberal Republicans make the claim that the country is not conservative as they have both in the foundation of the Tuesday Group after the massive wins of the 94 legislature and their statements of today, they merely speak of their own belief system. In fact, when challenged by a more conservative candidate, many dug-in liberal Republicans all too often rather than touting their liberal credentials in order to win instead find fault in the conservative and pound them for not being conservative enough, all the while never having to answer to their own conservative inadequacies.

What it comes down to is that the Tuesday Group is indeed ideological, because they have a belief system that is really not in line with why the Republican Party wins. They consistently describe themselves as fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal. When comparing that to many of their demands on the recent RINOcare bill, things like keeping provisions that amounted to keeping the insolvent nature of Obamacare, their ideology is shown to be inconsistent with their own description. Even Donald Trump won on his touting of conservative ideas, strengthening the border with a wall, cracking down on illegal immigration, destroying ISIS, promising a fiscally conservative track, lowering taxes, and so on. It is no surprise that Ted Cruz, R-Texas, won more electoral votes than all the other presidential candidates, 16 in total during 2016, combined less Donald Trump. It is because the Republican Party wins when they tout conservative ideas.

The Tuesday Group has an ideology that the Republican Party wins when they tout their willingness to cross the aisle and work with the people the American people just resoundingly rejected across the board. If the group was correct in their thinking, and not ideologues, John McCain, R-Ariz., would have won in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012, and Jeb Bush or John Kasich in 2016, but that is not the case.

People in D.C. want to blame the House Freedom Caucus for everything, but why? For trying to live up to the reasons the Republican Party won? We were promised a repeal of Obamacare. The Tuesday group does not want a repeal, and therefore it is the Tuesday Group who stands in the way of the peoples voice.

Jen Kuznicki is a contributor to Conservative Review, blue collar, wife, mom, political writer, humorist, conservative activist, a seamstress by trade, and compelled to write. Follow her on Twitter @JenKuznicki.

Originally posted here:

Meet the Freedom Caucus' spineless liberal sibling: The GOP's 'Tuesday Group' - Conservative Review