Mediaboss Marketing

They're pro-science, pro-empiricism guardians of truth and facts in an age of Lyin' Donald, you'll recall, except when they're not. Because 'Literally Hitler' and his band of deplorables deserve it, or whatever. A Democratic pollster posted a tweet on Easter Sunday, comparing and contrasting the supposedchurchgoing records of President Obama and President Trump -- neither of whom is, shall we say, particularlyrenowned for his overt religiosity. It's racked up tens of thousands of retweets and likes, with screenshots and similar memes buzzing around Facebook and Instagram. Obama was a God-fearing Christian, unlike that pagan Trump; these so-called Christian Republican voters are such hypocrites! Problem: It's an inaccurate tweet. But hey,spreading fake news that affirms your partisan biases feels good. And who can resist the sweet, sweet nectar of lots of retweets and new followers?

Conservatives and some mainstream and liberal media figuresswiftly debunked the premise of the tweet. Oops:

The original tweeter has been defending himself and refusing to delete the false post, uncorking a slew of justifications, most of which are some variation of "fake but accurate" or "it's Trump's fault." He also claimed that his facts werecorrect at the time that he fired off the tweet because Trump hadn't gone to church yet, or something. But the premise of the framing was that Obama was a faithful Easter churchgoer, unlike that heathen Trump. Fun fact:Theimage embedded at the top of this postis of Trump...arriving at church on Easter. In fairness, this allcould have started as an honest, hasty mistake,but once it became clear that the message was flat-out wrong, the obviouslycorrect move wasto take it down, not concoct desperateex post facto rationalizations. To err is to be human, butto allow arrogance and expedience to perpetuate the propagation of a knownfalsehood is a deliberate act of dishonesty (a lesson thatthis president would be wiseto heed). And hey, we're all human. Even certainDemocratic pollsters:

See? Deleting content that makes you look silly in retrospect isn't so hard, is it?

Read more here:
Fake News: Liberals Can't Stop Sharing This False Meme About Trump, Obama, and Church - Townhall

Organized labor and its allies in the Democratic Party are bracing for a major hit to union power now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has a seat on the Supreme Court, fearing that he will tip the balance of the court toward overturning key legal precedents that benefit labor.

"This justice is poised to cast the fifth vote to make it next to impossible for public-sector labor unions to organize," said Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former secretary of labor, in a speech Tuesday to the United Steelworkers union.

The two main cases on the court's horizon that unions are worried about are Yohn v. California Teachers Association and Janus v. AFSCME. Both could overturn a 1979 precedent called Abood that said public-sector workers could be forced to join a union or support one financially as a condition of employment.

Such requirements called "security clauses" in union parlance are a common feature of public-sector union contracts. They are a key source of the unions' strength since they boost both membership and dues revenue.

Terry Pell, executive director of the Center for Individual Rights, a legal nonprofit representing the plaintiffs in Yohn, believes they have a good chance of reaching the Supreme Court later this year.

"We are arguing that we are raising concerns that can only be answered by the Supreme Court," Pell told the Washington Examiner. They did it once before in a case the Supreme Court heard last year called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.

Friedrichs' argued that the state's security clause violated the teachers' rights because it forced them to subsidize the union's political activities even when they disagree with the labor group's agenda.

A majority of the justices appeared to be on the verge of overturning Abood, but Justice Antonin Scalia's death just one month after oral arguments meant that they deadlocked 4-4. That meant that the lower court opinion upholding Abood stood.

"But for the death of Justice Scalia that case would already be decided," Perez said.

Because the Supreme Court technically never reached a judgment on the issue, nothing prevents it from taking up the same question again.

"We are currently before the same district court judge we were in the Friedrichs case," Pell said. The issue at question in Yohn is basically the same as in the prior case, so Pell expects a similar ruling that will enable the case to reach Supreme Court.

The Janus v. AFSCME case, which has been in the 7th Court of Appeals, raises similar issues. The National Right to Work Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center, two free-market nonprofit groups, filed the case on behalf of two Illinois health department employees.

"We're at the point now where the next step is to file for cert with the Supreme Court," said foundation spokesman Pat Semmens, referring to the procedure for asking the justices to take up their case.

Unions who believe they caught a break when the court split on Friedrichs are eyeing both cases nervously. They were cited in a resolution passed by NYSUT, a 6000,000-member federation of New York teachers and school employees, after Gorsuch was confirmed April 10.

The resolution warned that the cases could tip the court toward "invalidat[ing] of the collection of fair share fees by public-sector unions." That would "deliver a crippling blow to the labor movement and to public-sector unions in particular."

A spokesman for the Service Employees International Union told the Washington Post Friday that the union had trimmed its budget by as much as 30 percent this year in expectation that it soon will face a much tougher organizing climate.

"These particular budget cuts are our way of enacting financial efficiencies to deal with the realities posed by extremist right-wing labor policy in all branches of the federal government," Sahar Wali told the Post.

SEIU in particular has reason to be worried, as it has a suffered series of defeats at the court in recent years.

In 2014's Harris v. Quinn, the court ruled 5-4 that state-funded Illinois home healthcare workers were not state employees eligible for unionization. That was a blow to the SEIU, which represented them.

In 2012's Knox v. SEIU, a 7-2 majority ruled that the union could not force members to pay a special assessment fee the union imposed on the workers without giving them the opportunity to opt out first. SEIU had made the assessment to raise funds to defeat state ballot initiatives it opposed.

Pell cautioned that it is not clear how Gorsuch, though a conservative, would vote on labor issues since he has little record on the subject. "It's never a good idea to take any [Supreme Court] vote for granted."

Semmens echoed that assessment, saying, "The only thing we know for certain is that he will be the deciding vote."

View original post here:
Gorsuch will tip Supreme Court on key labor issue, liberals fear - Washington Examiner

Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez are working together to build a party that puts economic populism at the top of the agenda.

Senator Bernie Sanders. (AP Photo / John Locher)

It is easy to dismiss the Come Together and Fight Back Tour that this week will take Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez to eight cities in eight states this week as mere political theater. But this tour has the potential to finally begin redefininga Democratic Party that is still struggling with its identity after the disastrous 2014 and 2016 election cycles. Thats a big deal, not just for a party that lacks focus but for an American political process that will alter dramaticallyfor better or for worsein the months and years to come.

Political parties change identities over time, as anyone who has watched the sorry trajectory of the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower can certainly attest. Sometimes, parties evolve. Sometimes, parties respond to moral and political demands that can no longer be denied. That was certainly the case for Democrats in the late 1940s and 50s, when wise members of the partybegan to recognize the necessity of a clean break with the Southern segregationists who had historically been central figures in the Democratic coalition.

Though many Democrats still do not fully recognize the fact, their party is again at a moment where it must change.

The party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman began veering in the 1970s toward more centrist economic approaches. By the 1990s, it was swamped by so-called Third Way thinking that embraced free-trade fabulism, deregulation of banking and Wall Street, and the cruel lie that there can be some sort of win-win compromise between crony capitalism and the common good. It was never true that all Democrats favored centrist economics, but too many leaders constrained the partys identity with a perceived need to keep on the right side of Wall Street.

Democrats cannot simply say no to Donald Trump; they must provide a coherent alternative to billionaire populism.

Then came the 2016 primary race, which drew clear lines of distinction. The Sanders campaign, with its urgent advocacy for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, fair trade, single-payer health care, taxes on the rich, necessary regulation of big banks, and profound political reform, excited millions of voterparticularly frustrated Democrats, progressive independents, and, above all, the young voters who will decide whether the Democratic Party has a future. And although Sanders did not win the nomination, he won the debate. The party platform reflected his campaigns progressive values. And Hillary Clintonembraced much of his agenda in her fall campaign.

Although Tom Perez did not back Sanders in 2016, he has a long track record of positioning himself on the left onlabor rights and a host of other issues.That helped him when he faced off againsta key Sanders backer, RepresentativeKeith Ellison of Minnesota, ina closely contestedrace for DNC chair.

The Perez-Ellison race was often portrayed as a contest between the party establishment and the Sanders camp, but there was more to it than that. Many 2016 Clinton backers, including Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and the heads of several major unions, supported Ellison in 2017. And Perez went out of his way to emphasize his belief that the party needed to change.

The party does need to change. It must become dramatically more militant on economic issues. Democrats cannot simply say no to Donald Trump; they must provide a clear and coherent progressive populist alternative to the billionaire populism of a president who never wasand never will becommitted to advancing the interests of workers, farmers, small business owners, students, and retirees.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

Democrats must also provide a clear and coherent alternative to the Third Way politics that weakens the message, and the appeal, of their party. The era of the so-called New Democrats and the old DLC (officially the Democratic Leadership Council but, in reality, as Jesse Jackson explained, Democrats for the Leisure Class) must be finishedonce and for all.

That is, however, easier said than done. Real change is hard. It must be conscious and it must take place in the open. Thats where the Sanders-Perez tour comes in.

The senator and the party chair are working together to send a clear signal about where the Democratic Party stands. That signal will have to get even clearer; but having Sanders and Perez on the same page is important.

Theyre saying the right things,announcing that their tour will speak out for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, pay equity for women, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, combating climate change, making public colleges and universities tuition-free, criminal justice reform, comprehensive immigration reform and tax reform which demands that the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes.

Democrats need to recognize that real change is hard. It must be conscious and it must take place in the open.

And theyre traveling to the right placesMaine, Kentucky, Florida, Nevada, Utah, and Arizonaacknowledging the need for a 50-state strategy. Theyre inviting the right people, including Ellison (who will appear midweek in Texas and Nebraska with Sanders) and Planned Parenthood Action Fund president Cecile Richards (who will close the week off with Sanders and Perez in Las Vegas).

No one should imagine that this is the end of a process, however. It is only a beginning. But it is the right beginning.

It matters that, in their joint statement announcing the tour, Sanders and Perez correctly assessed the challenging moment in which the party must define not just its agenda but its mission. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality and a shrinking middle class, we need a government which represents all Americans, not just Wall Street, multinational corporations and the top 1percent, they said. Regardless of where they live or their political affiliations, most people understand that it is absurd for Republicans in Congress to support huge tax breaks for billionaires while pushing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They understand that the recent Republican health-care proposal thatwould have thrown 24 million Americans off of their health insurance, substantially raised premiums for older workers, and defunded Planned Parenthood while, at the same time, providing almost $300 billion in tax breaks to the top two percent is a disgraceful idea.

Now Sanders and Perez and millions of grassroots Democrats must push forward. They must build a different Democratic Party. It cannot be a party that merely opposes Trump and Trumpism. What Sanders and Perez and Democratic activists must forge is a Democratic Party that, with its embrace of economic and social justice, can present itself as the absolute antithesis of Trump and Trumpism.

Here is the original post:
The Democratic Party Must Finally Abandon Centrism - The Nation.

President Trump took to Twitter on Monday morning to recommendsome reading: a book that suggests Democrats have no ideas.

The book, by Michael J. Knowles,is titled Reasons to Vote for Democrats. The cover promises a comprehensive guide, and the table of contents includes chapters on Foreign Policy, Civil Rights and Homeland Security. The following 260 pages are blank.

A great book for your reading enjoyment: REASONS TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS by Michael J. Knowles, Trump wrote on Twitter.

The endorsement of the book, an Amazon bestseller published on Feb. 8, comes as Trump has suggested he might reach out to Democrats for help with health care and other priorities stuck on Capitol Hill.

[Reasons to Vote for Democrats jumps to the top of Amazons bestseller list. But its pages are blank.]

It also comes after some members of Trumps team, including counselor Kellyanne Conway, have faced criticism for crossing ethical lines by using the White House to promote commercial products. Conway plugged the clothing line of Trumps daughter Ivanka Trump in February.

The promotion of Knowles's book, which has a list price of$9.99, was just one of a handful of early morning Trump tweets on Monday, including another in which he took another swipe at the media.

The Fake Media (not Real Media) has gotten even worse since the election, Trump wrote. Every story is badly slanted. We have to hold them to the truth!

Trumpthen weighed in on a special congressional election being held in Georgia, taking aim at the Democratic frontrunner, Jon Ossoff, whom the president called a "super Liberal" and accused of wanting to "protect criminals, allow illegal immigration and raise taxes!

More:
Trump plugs 'Reasons to Vote for Democrats' book filled with blank pages - Washington Post

From Supreme Court nominations to healthcare, it doesnt take a high IQ to figure out that nobody, in what is supposed to be our nations most deliberative body, got the memo the American people sent in November. Do your job.

Today, Neil Gorsuch sat on the high court for his first day hearing cases as a justice of the Supreme Court, despite the petty politics going on in the Capitol.

The Democrats recent decision to filibuster an eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee and force Republicans to employ the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch is a perfect example of what can best be described as playground politics at its lowest, and if President Trump and the new Republican-controlled Congress are going to deliver on their ambitious agenda then they should know there wont be any help from Democrats theyve taken their marbles and gone home.

On the Rachel Maddow show in January, Rachel asked Senate Minority Leader Chuck SchumerCharles SchumerCotton booed over Trump's tax returns Democrats' playground politics trample on the will of voters Five hurdles to avoiding a government shutdown MORE (D-NY) if there will be consequences for Republicans stealing a Supreme Court seat because they failed to consider Merrick Garland, whom President Obama nominated in March of 2016.

Its hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald TrumpDonald TrumpOregon man dies 'peacefully' after told Trump was impeached White nationalist argues Trump should be liable for inciting violence at rally Warren on Trump administration: 'God, it's like dog years' MORE would choose that would get Republican support that we could support. So youre right, he responded. And so you will do your best to hold the seat open? asked Maddow. Absolutely, Schumer said.

This is the same Sen. Schumer who in July 2007 said that no Supreme Court nominee from President Bush should be approved 19 months before the inauguration of a new president. We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," said Schumer.

Its baffling why Gorsuch is the battle they would pick, forcing the nuclear option to be invoked when, as early as this summer, there could be a second vacancy on the court. A vacancy that could actually shift the dynamic of the court, unlike the Gorsuch seat.

Playground politics.

The American people sent a clear message that what they care about is the hit their wallets are taking due to increased taxes over the last eight years, premium increases of 25 percent this year under ObamaCare, our national security, and the tremendous overreach into our freedoms and religious liberties under the last administration.

One out five general election voters told exit polls the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their vote for president, and 57 percent of those voters went for Trump. Understanding the next president would likely be responsible for appointing two, and possibly three, Supreme Court justices is what made conservatives, particularly evangelical conservatives who were uncomfortable with candidate Trump, comfortable enough to make him President Trump.

According to the Pew Research Center, 81 percent of white evangelical Christians voted for President Trump, and 58 percent of protestant/other Christians voted for President Trump. Thats more than a Republican presidential nominee received since George W. Bush in 2004, when he garnered 59 percent of the protestant/other Christian vote, but only 78 percent of the white evangelical Christian vote.

If his first selection of Gorsuch is any guide, the next Supreme Court nominee under Trump will likely be a well-qualified individual who takes an originalist view of the Constitution and wont seek to rewrite it. Its unlikely theyll continue the severe overreach of the last eight years, but will work to protect constitutional rights such as our religious freedom instead of stripping it away.

But all signs point to Schumer continuing his playground pattern, now inexplicably tying needed reform to Trump releasing his tax returns. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

As for the Republicans, it appears they dont fully grasp that this election was different, either. They ran on repealing ObamaCare, as the program is literally in danger of collapsing, and the American people handed them the Senate, House, and White House. That, combined with having six years to figure out an affordable replacement and they still arent able to get the job done.

Continuing to live in their little bubble and go about business as usual and engage in their own version of playground politics will no longer work. For many Americans the stakes have never been higher. Excuses and rhetoric no longer stand a chance. If Republicans fail to get to work they will find themselves out of work in the next election cycle.

People are tired of having their freedoms trampled on and their wallets hijacked. They want their elected officials in Washington to stop whining, get off the playground and do their job.

Lauren DeBellis Appell was a press assistant for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and deputy press secretary for his successful 2000 re-election campaign, as well as assistant communications director for the Senate Republican Policy Committee (2001-2003).

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats' playground politics trample on the will of voters - The Hill (blog)