Category Archives: Liberal

After weeks of publicly complaining that Senate Democrats were going easy on Neil Gorsuch, liberal activists are close to securing a successful filibuster of President Donald Trumps Supreme Court pick. But theyre not stopping there.

Activists are now vowing to make Republicans pay a political price if they decide to rip up Senate rules to push Gorsuch through with a simple majority vote. And if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does kill the Supreme Court filibuster to confirm Gorsuch, liberals say theyll still come out on top having further emboldened a base that wants Democrats to brook no compromise with Trump.

Story Continued Below

Democrats showing they can unify [against Gorsuch] helps energize the grass roots, MoveOn.org Washington director Ben Wikler said in an interview. If Republicans decide to go nuclear, that will further energize the resistance movement. The only bad path here is for Democrats to flee the fight.

Simply getting to this point is a victory for the left, which began the Supreme Court battle frustrated with Senate Democrats and bluntly urging them to "do better" as Gorsuch appeared on track for easy confirmation. But over the past two weeks, as liberals kept nudging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's caucus to push back harder, Democrats have abandoned their reluctance to commit to a filibuster.

The shift can be largely credited to the aggressive campaign from liberal groups, though a number of Democrats also became inclined to favor a filibuster after they found Gorsuch's answers far too noncommittal during his marathon confirmation hearing.

Most GOP senators have signaled theyre ready to back McConnell on a critical vote to unilaterally change Senate rules. But a handful have remained skeptical enough to fuel speculation among Gorsuch foes that the Kentucky Republican may be short of the votes.

Amid continuing talk of a last-minute deal to preserve the filibuster for Supreme Court picks, liberals are starting to publicly prod Republicans to explain why they would change the Senate rules.

I dont always see eye to eye with these folks, but some of them are expressing caution about changing the norms of the Senate, said Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America. So well see. I dont know that they have 51 votes yet but thats on them to prove, not me.

As the Senate drew closer to a possible "nuclear option" scheduled for the end of next week, few Republicans were optimistic about defusing the tension.

The Democrats, they know better, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters. But their base, you understand, wont allow them to do the right thing.

Corker referenced liberal protesters gathering outside Schumers Brooklyn apartment earlier this year as a reason that hes making these arguments about [Gorsuch] being extreme. We all know thats not true.

Senate Democrats don't share some liberal activists' skepticism that McConnell will muscle through a rules change that promises to further poison relations in the polarized Senate and which could spark blowback for his party when the GOP next loses the White House.

But Democrats do agree with one strategic move by their base: They're starting to press Republicans to own their decision to end filibusters for Supreme Court nominees, not just talk about it.

Everybodys talking about whether Gorsuch gets confirmed and thats essential and right in front of us, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said in an interview. But the broader question, in the sweep of history is: What happens to the Senate? And thats in the hands of just a handful of Republicans, not us.

"There are enormous implications of changing the rules of the Senate in order to force an unpopular Supreme Court justice through," adds Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "I hope Republicans think about the consequences of what theyre thinking about doing."

For the moment, Democrats' progress towards a viable filibuster is attracting outsized attention on Capitol Hill. Politico's count stood at 36 Senate Democrats ready to block Gorsuch after Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri made a pivotal announcement of her opposition on Friday. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia are the only Democrats in the yes column.

On Monday, left-leaning groups, including Sen. Bernie Sanders' Our Revolution, plan to send a message to Democrats who are considering joining Heitkamp and Manchin. They have organized a petition publicly imploring the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to withhold support from any Democratic senator who backs Gorsuch.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Once Schumer's caucus gets to 41 confirmed votes to block Gorsuch, the focus will shift to Republicans who remain less than publicly committed to supporting the so-called nuclear option to change the rules including Corker and Sens Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.

Liberal activist groups are pushing as hard as possible to move scrutiny to the GOP whip count, touting a poll they commissioned that shows 69 percent of all voters and even four in 10 Trump backers oppose Republican changes to Senate filibuster rules.

"McConnell has very cunningly kept all the attention off his conference for this whole arc," said one liberal strategist working on the Gorsuch nomination, describing moderate Republicans as "leaning into it, bluffing" on where they stand. "He does an excellent job of giving the impression that getting the votes to change the rules isnt a problem."

McConnell, for his part, is well aware of the pressure Democrats are facing from liberal groups opposed to Gorsuch.

"This isnt about the nominee at all," McConnell said on the floor earlier this week. "Its about a few on the left whose priority is to obstruct this Senate and this president, whenever and wherever they can. Months after the election, theyre still in campaign mode calling for Senate Democrats to obstruct and resist."

But with McConnell's guarantee that Gorsuch will be confirmed by April 7, liberals are warning Republicans of the potential midterm-election ramifications of jamming Gorsuch onto the court.

Hogue, of NARAL, said anti-Gorsuch rallies spearheaded by her group on Saturday would be aimed as much at Republicans as at Democrats.

"Its really important for people to remember that if this judge is confirmed, especially if Republicans change the rules to get Trumps guys in, it wont be theory in 2018," Hogue said. "This guy will have ruled. It will be a Gorsuch court and it most likely will have ruled on some of Trumps agenda."

See more here:

Liberals taste victory no matter Gorsuch outcome - Politico

5565782

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau isnt talking about how his close friend Tom Pitfield got the job of managing the Liberal Partys database.

Asked on Thursday in Brampton, Ontario why Pitfields firm, Data Sciences, got the contract over what the party calls its Liberalist database, Trudeau chose to expatiate on how the Liberal Party reaches out to Canadians through a pan-communication strategy that incorporates old and new media.

The Liberal Party of Canada reached out to more Canadians than had ever been reached out to in the past, Trudeau said.

Through a multiple of ways digital, social media, advertising, door-to-door connections we were more effective than any other political party has ever been at gathering people into a movement that engaged them in the political process, that used the cutting-edge tools to build that kind of conversation and dialogue.

CTV News reported Wednesday that Trudeau crony Pitfield will head up the Liberalist database that connects the Liberals with voters.

Pitfield and his wife, Anna Gainey, both carry heavy Liberal Partybonafides.

Gainey is the president of the Liberal Party but says she has recused herself from any business dealings with her husbands company.

Pitfield also works for Liberal causes through Training For Progress, a program that he established in 2015 for the express purpose of training students in the arts of progressive political activism.

Pitfield no longer has an active role on the organizations board according to a Training For Progress spokesman, Meghan Mcachern. But the online curriculum uses the Liberalist program to teach students how to track the names and contact information of supporters and potential converts.

The programs we do are open to volunteers and campaigners of all stripes, from all levels of politics and government and a variety of not-for-profit groups. We also work with a number of different platforms and tools that help connect with Canadians, Mcachern told CTV News.

Pitfield also runs Canada2020, a liberal think-tank that hosts policy conferences featuring Liberal government cabinet ministers.

None of this is lost on Canadas Conservative official opposition.

Canadians will look at this overall and see a common thread here, quite frankly, that the prime ministers friends seem well oiled and taken care of, said Conservative MP Alex Nuttall.

Follow David on Twitter

See the article here:

Trudeau Crony Hired To Manage Liberal Party 'Liberalist' Database - Daily Caller

A coalition of liberal groups is putting pressure on the Democratic Party not to help centrist Democrats running for reelection next year if they vote for President Trumps Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Liberal activist leaders plan to deliver a petition Monday to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) urging party leaders not to give campaign funds to any senator who votes for Gorsuch or strikes a deal to advance his nomination.

Democrats can filibuster Gorsuchs nomination if 41 senators vote against ending debate. Republicans have warned they will go nuclear and change the Senate's rules to force through the Gorsuch confirmation if Democrats block a nominee they say is fully qualified for the court.

The activists heading to DSCC headquarters Monday at noon include Claire Sandberg, co-founder of #AllofUs and WeWillReplaceYou.org; Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action; Kurt Walters, director or of Demand Progress; Shaunna Thomas, co-founder of Ultraviolet Action; and Sabrina Williams of #VoteProChoice.

See the original post:

Liberal groups press party to abandon Dems who back Gorsuch ... - The Hill

The Hindu

Signifier of liberal ethos The Hindu As the sun skewers citizens, inside the Pahadi Shareef Dargah atop a hillock on the outskirts of the city it is cool with the overpowering fragrance of agarbatti, ittar and the smoking lamp wick that has just gone off. At a distance, the sonic boom of ...

Originally posted here:

Signifier of liberal ethos - The Hindu

Premier Philippe Couillard says a former Liberal fundraiser who is banned for life from the federal Liberal party had no involvement in his 2013 leadership campaign.

Couillard was forced to answer questions about his linkto Marc-Yvan Ct after a story in theFrench-language Journal de Montralalleged Ct played a role in his campaign for the Quebec Liberal Party's top job.

"We had heard that he wanted to play a role. That's why I decided immediately, even before I started the campaign, to meet him and tell him don't do this, I don't want you to play a role," Couillard told reporters.

These days Ct is seen as toxic in political circles. Last year he was arrested by the province's anti-corruption squad and faces multiple charges related to illegal campaign financing.

Former Prime Minister Paul Martin banned him from the federal Liberals for life because ofhis involvement in the federal sponsorship scandal.

The Journal de Montralobtaineda series of e-mails between provincial Liberalorganizers and Ct.

Marc-Yvan Ct, who served as Liberal MNA for 14 years, was banned for life from the federal Liberal Party because of his involvement in the sponsorship scandal. (Radio-Canada)

In one message, the husband of a former Liberal candidate, Yves Goudreau, asks Ct for the names of delegates from the Charlevoix riding association in order to get them to backCouillardin the leadership vote.

A longtime Liberal party organizer also emailed Ct after Couillard won the leadership in 2013. Lise Grondin wrote, "Even if you were in the shadows, kudos to you for always being there ... again and again.... Stay with us. We're going to need it. In friendship. XX."

The premier says Grondin had nothing to do with his leadership campaign.

In another e-mail, dated after Couillard was elected leader, Ct's assistant wrote, "Jose Lvesque from Philippe Couillard's office" needed to speak with him. Lvesque was theorganizer on Couillard's leadership campaignresponsible for eastern Quebec, and she now works in the office of the party whip.

Couillard saidLvesque told him the subject "had nothing to do with political organization, whether it's at the party level or from the leadership race." He would not say why Lvesque contacted Ct.

The opposition parties believe there are sufficient questions about Ct's possible involvement to warrant legislative hearings.

"We need some answers from Philippe Couillard," saidCoalition Avenir Qubec leader Franois Legault.

Couillard said such an exercise would turn into a political circus.

Parti Qubcois leader Jean-Franois Lise saidthe latest revelations raise questions about the Liberal Party and its ethics.

"We feel the only remedy to this bad series of ethical lapses is that the Liberals will be put out of their misery in the next election and pushed way back in opposition," Lise said.

Continued here:

Premier denies disgraced Liberal bagman involved in 2013 leadership campaign - CBC.ca

Charlotte Observer

NC's HB2 compromise called 'fake repeal,' angers liberals and conservatives alike Charlotte Observer Opponents both liberal and conservative lined up quickly Thursday to lambaste North Carolina lawmakers for repealing the state's controversial bathroom bill House Bill 2. The compromise re-set bathroom access for transgender people back to pre ... and more »

More here:

NC's HB2 compromise called 'fake repeal,' angers liberals and conservatives alike - Charlotte Observer

The dream burns bright in countless liberal hearts and minds: President Donald Trump embraces one too many fever-swamp conspiracy theories, tweets one too many palpable falsehoods, threatens a nuclear attack on Mexico for not paying for the wall. A terrified Cabinet meets in Vice President Mike Pences home at the Naval Observatory, and, in a written declaration to the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate, that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

And just like that, Trump is dispatched to Trump Tower, or Mar-a-Lago, and Pence becomes acting president of the United States. Right?

Story Continued Below

Yesassuming its a movie or a TV series or a Netflix or Amazon offering. This process, set down in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, has been one of Hollywoods favorite plot devices to spice up a political melodrama. As a real-life possibility, it requires a leap away from reality into a realm even Trump has delivered us; at least, not yet.

***

To understand why this particular liberal fantasy is so misguided, lets take a walk down memory lane. The core purpose of the 50-year-old 25th Amendment was not aimed at presidential incapacity at all; rather, it was to cure a constitutional defect that America had experienced repeatedly through much of its history: When a president died, and the vice president moved to the Oval Office, there was no mechanism to replace the second-in-commandwho, after all, is elected, rather than appointed. (All the Constitution says, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, is this: [T]he Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President.)

Often, that vacancy lasted for years. William Henry Harrison and Abraham Lincoln each died a month into their terms (Harrisons first; Lincolns second); James Garfield was assassinated less than a year into his term; William McKinley was killed months into his second. Harry Truman served all but three months of FDRs fourth. (After the 1946 midterms, that vacancy meant that, had anything happened to Truman, the presidency would be assumed by House Speaker Joseph Martina Republican.)

But it was the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 that spotlighted the need for a fixin stark, almost morbid terms. When Lyndon B. Johnson took the rostrum in the House of Representatives on Nov. 27 to reassure a shaken nation, viewers were treated to distinctly unsettling sight. There was Johnson, who had barely survived a 1955 heart attack. Behind him sat John McCormack, the speaker of the Housea frail, almost sepulchral 71-year-old who was next in line. Next to him was President Pro Temp Carl Hayden, an 88-year-old who appeared incapable of independent motion.

This was powerful visual evidence that the vice presidency should not be left vacant. Senator Birch Bayh and Rep. Emanuel Celler went to work drafting a constitutional amendment establishing a new process for selecting a veep.

But they realized there was a second issue to be dealt with. What if JFK had survived the shooting, but was left in a coma? What if LBJ had a second heart attack that left him comatose? What if he, or a future president, suffered a severe stroke, as Woodrow Wilson had in September 1919, leaving his wife Edith, in the words of one historian, to shield Woodrow from interlopers and embark on a bedside government that essentially excluded Wilsons staff, the Cabinet and the Congress. Andmost problematicwhat if a president decided that he or she had recoveredbut others in the administration thought otherwise?

To meet such a crisis, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment set up a mechanism. If a majority of the Cabinet and the vice president thought the president unable to perform his duties (yes, the amendment was gender-specific), they would so advise the congressional leaders. If the president disagreed, the two houses of Congress would convene within 48 hours and debate the issue over the next three weeks. Unless a two-thirds majority of both houses agreed that the president was indeed incapacitatedthe same supermajority required to overturn a veto or to convict an impeached president in the Senatehe would resume the office.

In the 50 years since the 25th Amendment was ratified, its been used twice to fill a vice presidential vacancy: when Gerald Ford replaced the disgraced Spiro Agnew in October 1973, and when Nelson Rockefeller replaced Ford in 1974. And on six occasions, the president has invoked the 25th Amendment to (very temporarily) designate his veep as acting president, always during routine medical procedures like a colonoscopy. But its never been invoked when the president himself was non compos, most notably when Ronald Reagan was in surgery after the 1982 assassination attempt. When Howard Baker became Reagans chief of staff in 1987, according to the historian Edmund Morris, some of the presidents aides warned Baker that the 25th Amendment might be needed, given Reagans alleged mental fuzziness. When Baker and his staff met with Reagan, he showed no such signs, and the matter was dropped.

***

So where have the more melodramatic implications of the 25th Amendment seen the light of day? Just where melodrama is most appropriate: in fiction. For writers, the constitutionally plausible possibility of backroom machinations, double-and-triple-crosses, the powerful mix of high principle and naked ambition, has been irresistible for the better part of four decades.

William Safire, Nixon speechwriter and New York Times columnist, was the first to use the device in his 1977 novel, Full Disclosure. After President Sven Erikson is blinded in an assassination attempt, disloyal Treasury Secretary T. Roy Bannerman attempts to use the 25th Amendment to force him from office and replace him with a feckless vice president who would be Bannermans puppet. But in more recent times, as political settings have taken a prominent place on the screen, the venerable 25th has become almost as familiar as the Lincoln Memorial.

In the season four finale of The West Wing, President Josiah Bartlets daughter Zoey is kidnapped. Realizing that he is too distraught to focus on the demands of the office, he invokes the 25th Amendment; since his vice president has quit in a sex scandal, it means the office will be filled by the Republican Speaker of the House, who ends the episodeand the seasonby telling the president, You are relieved. (Bartlet gets the office back at the start of season five; the speaker has no intention of pulling off a coup.)

That was a nuanced, one-off use of the amendment. In the long-running series 24, the 25th almost became a cast member. President David Palmers vice president and cabinet forced him from office because he would not retaliate against the alleged perpetrators of a terrorist plot. Then they learned the allegation was false, so the acting president turned the office back over to Palmer who was laid low a few hours later by a biological attack, so the amendment was invoked again. The next president, John Keeler, was wounded when the bad guys shot up Air Force One, so the presidency fell to the traitorous Charles Logan. A few twists and turns later, David Palmers brother Wayne was elected president. Three months later, he was the victim of another terrorist attack, leaving him comatose. This plot line goes to Defcon 1literallywhen the acting veep orders a nuclear hit on another suspected terrorist site; a loyal Palmer aide then wakes Palmer up from his coma, who immediately tells Congress hes fit to serve. The Cabinet deadlocks, undeadlocks, Palmer gets the post back and then drops dead at a news conference.

The 25th was also a featured player in season two of Scandal, when President Fitzgerald Grant is shot while arriving for his 50th birthday party. When his vice president, Sally Langston, tries to assume power, shes thrown into a bunker by White House chief of staff Cyrus Beene, but Langston somehow manages to gather the Cabinet and invoke Section 4. (Over the course of the season, the constitutional controversy tends to be outweighed by forgeries, plots, counterplots, traitorous moles and a lot of heavy breathing.)

***

So now let us return to Planet Earth. It is highly unlikely that we will see Reince Priebus locking Mike Pence in the Situation Room anytime soon, or that Nikki Haley and Rick Perry will be squaring off against each other for that crucial tie-breaking vote, or that Trump will decide, you know, I need a couple of months off to get my groove back, so Im invoking Section 4; best of luck, Mike. The notion that Pence and a Cabinet majority will look at Trumps next tweets or telephonic fulminations and decide hes not fit for the job is beyond absurdity.

To see how just how unlikely such a move is, look at this recent piece by Jack Farrell in Politico Magazine about President Richard M. Nixons behavior in 1970. In the midst of a shooting war in Vietnam, and a Cold War on constant simmer, Nixon was often abusing alcohol and prescription drugs, leading to stretches of incoherence and irrationality. No one around him even raised the specter of invoking the 25th Amendment. And while the plot lines of 24 and Scandal are bizarre, they do illustrate why the 25th Amendment demands a supermajority of Congress if the president insists hes able: It is insurance against a coup.

The mechanism, in short, is an In Case of Emergency, Break Glass provision. If a president showed up one morning unable to communicate, or curled up in a fugue state, the Constitution gives his vice president and Cabinet the power to avoid a crisis. Absent such a disaster, any thought of invoking it is best left to the writers room somewhere around Sunset and Vine.

Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.

View post:

A Liberal Fantasy Ripped from a Hollywood Script - POLITICO Magazine

Along with film dissection (though the two certainly arent mutually exclusive), the Bret Easton Ellis Podcast has been keenly interested in the changing face of the Left and increasing mono-ideology of the collective discourse on social media.

It was odd then, when, after returning from a hiatus, it did not really look at the election of Donald Trump, which seemed in many ways to be a symptom of the alienation that this delete your account style of communication caused.

That changed this week, with the author delivering a 35-minute monologue about the recent election and the responses to it in Hollywood and among his liberal friends.

Some of my friends and acquaintances, as well as my millennial boyfriend Ive been living with for the past seven years, are now undergoing the last spasms, the death throes, hopefully, of a kind of new liberal psychosis that was is/afflicting many members of the Left, he told listeners. The building that inhabited the old school, identity-politics obsessed, neoliberal elitists was/is being deconstructed by - actually - both sides."

Discussing the disruptive nature of Trump, who Ellis does not support, and his campaign, he noted that it had: levelled the press and made them look like some kind of old school anachronism unable to understand the new playbook that the disrupters had devised, and that the press was now trying to deal with, flailing about and hectoring and, yes, wasting everybodys time by taking everything so damned literally, while the anarchists in the shadows smiled to themselves, awaiting their turn."

Liberalism used to be about freedom, but now its about a kind of warped moral authority that is actually part of the moral superiority movement, he continued.

This faction of the Left is touchingly now known as The Resistance. Oh yes, The Resistance - what is this resistance? There are posters all around my neighbourhood in West Hollywood urging me to Resist. Resist. Resist.

Some of us, who did not vote for Trump and located exactly who he was decades ago - I wrote about this in American Psycho [in which Trump is serial killer Patrick Batemans hero] - some of us had been wondering, 'resist what exactly? And whos telling us to resist whatever? The people who voted for the candidate who lost? Im supposed to listen to them? What am I supposed to be resisting?'

Well Im certainly resisting the childish meltdowns Ive been witnessing at dinners and on social media and on late night TV and too many times in my own home in the aftermath of Donald Trumps victory last November [] In fact, many of these people I knew who were disappointed in the Trump victory and moved on, were also appalled by the childlike liberal disbelief of their own party that was manifesting itself in embarrassing ways, with so many morning-after posts titled hysterically What am I going to tell my daughter?!

You can listen to the podcast in full here.

View post:

Bret Easton Ellis: 'Liberalism used to be about freedom, now it's about warped moral authority' - The Independent

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau avoided a question today about why the Liberal Party hired his close friend Tom Pitfield to train people to use the party's database.

CTV News reported Wednesday that the Liberals hired Pitfield's company, Data Sciences, to help campaigns use the database, known as Liberalist -- including provincial Liberal campaigns.

Speaking at an event in Brampton, Ont., Trudeau was asked how he responds to allegations of cronyism over the contract for Data Sciences. Rather than answering directly, he talked about the Liberals' outreach in the 2015 election campaign.

"The Liberal Party of Canada reached out to more Canadians than had ever been reached out to in the past," Trudeau said.

"Through a multiple of ways -- digital, social media, advertising, door-to-door connections -- we were more effective than any other political party has ever been at gathering people into a movement that engaged them in the political process, that used the cutting-edge tools to build that kind of conversation and dialogue.

Some of that engagement involves Pitfield training candidates to use the party's sophisticated voter-tracking software.

Pitfield's wife, Anna Gainey, is the Liberal Party's president. The party says she recused herself from any decisions involving Pitfield's company.

And Pitfield said he was hired not through his connections but because his company is a world leader in digital engagement.

Data Sciences isn't Pitfield's only political venture. In 2015, Pitfield helped start Training For Progress. The program is intended to teach students how to organize progressive political campaigns.

Pitfield left the organization's board in mid-2015, a spokeswoman for Training For Progress said in an email to CTV News.

"The organization is a not-for-profit, volunteer-run initiative. No salaries, fees or payments are or were paid to any directors," Meghan Mcachern said.

"We don't have staff -- it's purely run as a volunteer initiative."

Participants are charged a fee "to recoup our costs (room rental, projector, etc.)," she added.

The online curriculum shows the school taught students how to the use Liberalist, though Mcachern says Training For Progress runs "a variety of sessions to a variety of audiences."

"The programs we do are open to volunteers and campaigners of all stripes, from all levels of politics and government and a variety of not-for-profit groups. We also work with a number of different platforms and tools that help connect with Canadians," she said.

Pitfield also continues to run Data Sciences and Canada 2020, a think tank that puts on policy conferences, often featuring government cabinet ministers.

Canada2020 is already a source of Opposition concern.

Canadians will look at this overall and see a common thread here, quite frankly, that the prime ministers friends seem well oiled and taken care of, said Conservative MP Alex Nuttall.

New Democrat MP Don Davies shared his criticism.

"That kind of insider business dealing, when it happens inside the Liberal Party, doesn't give Canadians confidence that the same kind of approach won't be taken with their public tax dollars," he said.

With a report from CTVs Glen McGregor in Ottawa

View original post here:

PM won't clarify business ties between friend, Liberal Party - CTV News

More than 90 political scientists have signed an open letter calling for the blacklisting of studies done by Virginia professors who estimated that thousands, and perhaps millions, of noncitizens register to vote and vote illegally in U.S. elections.

Political science professor Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk is one of three academics who have produced research on noncitizen voting. The research has irked liberal professors who contend that their surveys show that zero of some 20 million noncitizens vote in the U.S.

The anti-Richman study professors circulated an open letter that states: The scholarly political science community has generally rejected the findings in the Richman et al. study and we believe it should not be cited or used in any debate over fraudulent voting.

Mr. Richman discussed the open letter in his ODU blog entry, titled Why I would sign the open letter if it were true.

Im not signing it because it contains several critical distortions and mistakes, Mr. Richman wrote.

President Trump contends that millions voted illegally in the 2016 election, and most backed Democrat Hillary Clinton. He says he plans to appoint a task force to investigate.

Mr. Richman has accused the Trump team of misconstruing his studies, and says there was not enough noncitizen voting to change Mrs. Clintons popular vote success. But he stands by his teams basic finding that a significant number of noncitizens illegally register to vote.

Conservative activists are driving the anti-fraud vote movement, without much help from establishment Republicans.

Mr. Richman and his associates relied heavily on the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), spearheaded by Harvard professor Stephen Ansolabehere, other scholars and the polling firm You.Gov. The biennial study on voters and their views is produced by a consortium of 28 universities. Its lengthy questionnaire inquires about voters citizenship status, and a significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted.

The most frequent journalistic synopsis of Mr. Richmans studies is that 38,000 to as many as 2.8 million noncitizens voted in the 2008 presidential election.

I agree with the authors of the letter that the upper end of this interval may have played an unfortunate role in the presidents rhetoric, Mr. Richman wrote. I have, as noted above, attempted to push back against this. I will continue to do so as I think it is important that people not get fooled by an extreme upper end estimate that is almost certainly way way way too high.

Mr. Ansolabehere and others wrote in a 2015 rebuttal to Mr. Richman and his fellow researchers that the CCES sample size of people who said they were noncitizens was too small, and that respondents in some cases had changed their status from noncitizen to citizen. Mr. Ansolabehere did not sign the open letter.

Mr. Richman responded to the rebuttal: These critical tests lack statistical power. He has published a point-by-point explanation for why he and his colleagues work is basically sound.

We show that even if their response error argument is correct, there is still significant evidence of non-citizen participation in the U.S. electoral system, Mr. Richman wrote.

Separate from the CCES study, a 2013 National Hispanic Survey found that 13 percent of noncitizen Hispanics said they were registered to vote. Within the margin of error, that percentage could mean that 800,000 to 2.2 million noncitizen Hispanics are registered, based on U.S. Census Bureau statistics for that demographic, a nonprofit research group told The Washington Times.

There are firm examples of noncitizen voting.

The Times earlier this month reported on a civil lawsuit filed by voters against Frederick County, Maryland.

The plaintiffs acquired documents and could compare lists of disqualified noncitizens for jury duty with voter registration rolls. The research found that nearly 180 noncitizens were registered to vote in 2007, 2008 and 2009, and that 63 actually voted. What a more comprehensive analysis of voter rolls would show is unknown since Maryland does not do such cross-checking.

In Virginia, the Public Interest Legal Foundation discovered that 1,000 noncitizens registered to vote in six countries and two cities. Of them, 200 voted.

Mr. Richman ended his blog post by saying that academics should debate all studies rather than boycott them.

Ultimately, I believe that the debate over fraudulent voting can best advance through a thoughtful exchange of views rather than an attempt to discourage citation or consideration of any study, he said.

Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, whichoperates an anti-voter fraud unit, backed Mr. Richmans findings.

The Left is desperate to preserve the ability to steal elections, so a blacklist of inconvenient but valid research would be par for the course, Mr. Fitton said in an email. Judicial Watch has analyzed the study and believe it to be solid research.

Read this article:

Noncitizens voting research irks liberal professors - Washington Times