Mediaboss Marketing

Cindy Lamoureuxformally announced her bid to become the next leader of the Manitoba Liberals in style on Friday.

"This is something I'm very excited about," Lamoureux said, flanked by supporters moments after shepulledup outside the Manitoba Legislature on a motorcycle. "I love my province, I love my city and the people who live here in Manitoba and I want to be able to continue to work for Manitobans."

The 25-year-old secured one of three seats in the legislature for the Liberals last spring during the provincial election.

She wants to fill the vacancy left by Rana Bokhari. The former party leader lost the Fort Rouge constituency to NDP MLA Wab Kinewin the last provincial election and a month later, Bokhari announced she would step down.

Leadership candidates will have to put up $5,000 in a combination of cash andmembership sales, gather 100 nomination signatures and be vetted by a party committee before officially entering the race.

Cindy Lamoureux credits her father for getting her interested in politics at an early age. (Tyson Koschik/CBC)

She credited her father, Liberal MP and longtime MLA Kevin Lamoureux, with sparking her interest in politics at an early age.

The rookie representative for the Burrows constituency refused to talk politics or reveal details about her platform on Thursday. She instead addressed concerns about her age, andhow the Manitoba Liberals "desperately need" a leader who can take charge and boost fundraising for the party.

"Look, I recognize I am young.I am 25. I'm very transparent about that.I do think that I look younger than I am. That might catch up withme in a career in politics," she said.

"I know that I don't know everything, but I do know that here in Manitoba, we have skilled people, talented and passionate people, and I, as an individual, I am willing to listen. I want to listen. I am eager to learn and I am open-minded and I hope Manitobans will see that."

Lamoureux pointed to former Manitoba premier Edward Schreyer as proof that age doesn't mean everything.

Schreyer went on to serve as Governor General of Canada, but earlier in his career, he was the youngest person ever to be electedin Manitoba. He was 22 when he was voted in as MLA for Brokenheadin 1958.

"That is such an inspiration for me. That is why I am optimistic about this opportunity," Lamoureux said, adding the fact that she was elected is proof she is ready to rise in the Liberals'ranks.

"I think my age is a wonderful asset. I am taking full advantage of it," she said. "People are always saying, 'Young people are the future.' No, young people are today, so allow us that opportunity to shine."

The party will vote for next leader on Oct. 21.

As for the choice to roll up to the cameras on her hog, Lamoureux said was just taking advantage of the nice weather

"I believe in the old saying, 'Work hard, play hard.' I enjoy my summers and part of that is riding my motorcycle," she said, adding she has been dirt biking since she was 10.

Excerpt from:
Cindy Lamoureux makes leadership bid for Manitoba Liberals - CBC.ca

As many environmentalists and scientists worry that the United States is retreating from the fight against global climate change, acclaimed novelist Jonathan Franzen warned Tuesday that preoccupation with the issue is actually diverting attention from more immediate threats to nature.

In a talk at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Franzen said the focus on preventing long-term changes to climate a cause he contends has largely been lost leaves scant resources for saving endangered species and other short-term ecological needs.

When it comes to the environment, climate now has an absolute lock on the liberal imagination, Franzen said. Any attempt to change the subject, even if you are trying to change it to the epic extinction event that human beings are already creating without the help of climate change, is an offense against that religion.

The author of such novels as The Corrections, Freedom, and Purity, as well as several works of nonfiction, Franzen spoke at Gund Hall as part of the Graduate School of Designs Rouse Visiting Artist Lecture Series.

Diane E. Davis, chair of the Schools Department of Urban Planning and Design, introduced Franzen, with whom she shares St. Louis roots, as a quintessentially urban writer, a man concerned not just with the dilemmas of modernity but also deeply cognizant of the power of place, space, and territory in creating the context of human experience.

But it was his passion for the environment and for protecting free speech, as well as his reflections on the current political climate, that occupied Franzen in his lecture.

Franzen, an ardent bird watcher, drew the wrath of fellow environmentalists for committing what he termed offenses against liberal orthodoxy in a 2015 New Yorker article on climate change and the environment. The piece expressed skepticism that the world would take the radical actions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, Franzen said, and argued wed be too late even if we did.

Franzen also took issue with claims by some progressives that the reason the United States cant really get serious about reducing its carbon emissions is that fossil fuel corporations are sponsoring denialists and buying elections. He acknowledged that this behavior occurs, but said that the issue is more complicated.

The problem really is not that democracy is being prevented so much as that democracy is occurring. Its precisely the citizens in the major carbon-emitting democracies who benefit from cheap gasoline and global trade, he said, adding that the cost of that pollution is borne heavily by people in undeveloped nations like Bangladesh.

Franzen said he saw a silver lining for the environment in the election of Trump, noting that such actions as the administrations recent rejection of a petition to ban use of a harmful pesticide could remind people that there are other issues besides climate change that matter right now.

A narrow focus on global warming is also a poor strategy for mobilizing public support for the environment, Franzen said.

Ordinary Americans understand apparently better than the liberal elite does that theres precisely nothing that any individual can do about climate change nothing except feel guilty, he said. And guilt is one of the least effective human motivators.

Franzen took aim at progressives on several other issues, including for actions he said undermine free expression. He cited recent protests mounted at the University of California, Berkeley, and Middlebury College against planned appearances by controversial speakers. Franzen said the actions amounted to suppressing free speech.

He also directed his ire at Americans focused on simply denouncing President Trump instead of trying to understand and maybe win over the swing voters who responded to the Trump message of anti-elitism and anti-global nationalism. The effect, he said, has been to deepen the liberal silo, not see beyond it.

By Clea Simon, Harvard Correspondent | April 19, 2017

Read the original post:
Jonathan Franzen has some choice words for liberals - Harvard Gazette

New York Times

At a 'Unity' Stop in Nebraska, Democrats Find Anything But New York Times Mr. Sanders and the new leadership of the Democratic National Committee touched a party sore spot this week when they took their Unity Tour to Omaha to rally for a mayoral candidate who opposes abortion rights. Mr. Sanders, repurposing the themes of ... Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve all the blame for Democrats' failureCNN Bernie Sanders defends his endorsements of red state Democrats: Can't exclude people who disagree with usSalon The senior Bernie Sanders backs party youth to remake DemocratsThe Spokesman-Review The Root -Washington Post -The Federalist all 415 news articles »

Link:
At a 'Unity' Stop in Nebraska, Democrats Find Anything But - New York Times

The State

Democrats: This could be the time to flip the 5th District The State Before that, however, the 5th District which includes Fairfield, Kershaw, Newberry and Sumter counties in the Midlands was represented by Democrat John Spratt for almost 30 years. And S.C. Democrats are hopeful the district could turn again in ... and more »

Link:
Democrats: This could be the time to flip the 5th District - The State

Mick Mulvaney has an offer Democrats can almost certainly refuse.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

President Trump is apparently trying to add another item to his resume of bumbled hostage-taking efforts this week, by threatening to sabotage the Affordable Care Act unless Democrats vote to fund a border wall with Mexico.

Sound familiar? It was just about two weeks ago that our president was busy threatening to sabotage Obamacare unless Democrats agreed to negotiate a plan to repeal and replace it. Having gotten nowhere with that bit of bluster, it seems Trump has moved on to the wall, which he's trying to secure funding for in the appropriations bill Congress must pass next week to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats have previously threatened to filibuster any legislation that included money for Trump's metastasized stump-speech applause line, so the White House is attempting to play hardball. As budget chief Mick Mulvaney explained in an interview with Bloomberg Friday, the administration is offering $1 of funding for Obamacare's crucial cost-sharing reduction subsidies for every $1 of money Democrats pony up for the wall. Here's the full quote:

The implicit threat here is that, if Democrats reject this deal, the White House will cease making the subsidy payments, and likely bring Obamacare crashing down. It is not especially credible. Democratic leaders are already responding with snark: Before, Mexico was supposed to pay for the border wall. Now, Trump's threatening the health care of millions to get taxpayers to cover it.

For a full rundown of the CSR drama, see my piece on it from last month. But briefly: Trump is currently deciding whether to continue appealing a federal court decision in which a judge ruled that the Obama administration did not have the right to continue making subsidy payments to insurers that were required under Obamacare, because Republicans in the House never appropriated money for them. If the White House decided to drop the case and cut off the flow of subsidies, insurance carriers would likely flee the Affordable Care Act's exchanges, leaving the individual market in rubble.

While this would no doubt be satisfying to some Republicans, it would almost certainly be a disaster for Trump's approval rating. Voters tend to blame the party in power for their personal miseryand in this case, they'd have every right to do so, since the administration would be taking active steps to burn down the health insurance market. Trump has tried to deny this, insisting that Obamacare is failing already and that Democrats own its impending collapse. But if he really believed that, he'd probably still be using the subsidies as a bargaining chip to get his own health care bill passed, instead of repurposing them to enact one of his other gold-plated pipe dreams.

Democrats, for their part, have very little incentive to negotiate here, since they'd be trading a temporary reprieve for Obamacare for a permanent border wall. The Trump administration says its precious barrier should cost up to $21 billion. That would pay for less than three years of the cost-sharing reduction subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office's projections, and giving Trump his wall now would almost certainly encourage him to make more extreme demands the next time the subsidies need more funding.

Trump has made the Democratic party an offer it will most certainly refuse. Maybe one day he'll figure out this whole negotiation thing.

Follow this link:
Trump to Democrats: Pay for My Wall, or Obamacare Gets It! - Slate Magazine (blog)