Mediaboss Marketing

Immigration Minister AhmedHussensaid the federal government is clamping down on marriage fraud even as it scraps atwo-year co-habitation requirement for newcomers sponsored by their spouses.

Hussen said the conditional permanent residency, which was brought in by the Conservatives in 2012, wasleaving some women in harmful domestic situations.

"We're doing away with a measure that could potentially result in people choosing reluctantly to remain in abusive relationships as opposed to moving out and getting out of those abusive relationships," he said at a news conference in Toronto Friday.

The Conservative measure requirednewcomers to live in a conjugal relationship with their sponsoring spouse for two years or face deportation.

When the Conservatives enacted it, then immigration minister Jason Kenney said the change targeted con artistswho dupe Canadians into marriage then dump them once they get to Canada. Itwas also designed to deal with "marriages of convenience," where two persons pretend to be in love for one to gain entry to Canada, often in exchange formoney.

ButHussensaid the policy did not achieve itsintended outcomes, and that reversing course reflects the government's commitment to eradicating gender-based violence.

Rescinding the conditional permanent residency is also a recognition that the vast majority of marriages are genuine.

But Hussen said the government is "doubly committed" to detecting fraudulent marriages.

Frontline immigration officers will carry out stringent screening procedures, Hussen said. And a five-year waiting period will remain for people who have either sponsored a spouse or been sponsored themselves and who want to use the program again.

Continue reading here:
Liberals 'doubly committed' to tackling marriage fraud while ending 2-year spousal residency rule - CBC.ca

Senator John Reagan has introduced an amendment to HB 356 (an unrelated bill that establishes a committee to study education funding and costs). This amendment, 2017-1236s, increases the role of the Commissioner of Education, giving Commissioner Edelblut unprecedented authority over a new plan to completely reorganize the Department of Education, and shifting responsibilities from Division administrators within the Department to the Commissioner.

The amendment changes the bills analysis from one that focuses on education funding and costs to instead read, This bill consolidates the duties of the divisions of the department of education into the office of the commissioner and authorizes the commissioner to transfer appropriations or transfer or reassigning personnel as the commissioner deems necessary.

Just a few of the changes that would result from the passage of amendment 2017-1236:

When is the public hearing on this amendment? The bill to which this amendment is attached has already had its public hearing. Even though this is a non-germane amendment (meaning that it is unrelated to the content of the HB 356), there is NO requirement that a public hearing be held on the amendment. That means that there is NO opportunity for the public to give input at a hearing on this amendment!!

So WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Notable Floor Votes The House is in session on Wednesday and has reserved Thursday for continued session if necessary. The Senate is in session onThursday.

House Votes: HB 1 and HB 2, making appropriations for the expenses of certain departments of the state for fiscal years ending June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2019.

Interested in Testifying at Committee Hearings? Well send you information on how to testify Click HERE to add your name to the list!

Want to write a letter, heres a Sample LETTER Dear Editor,

On March 16th, 2017 the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill to set up education freedom savings accounts that would give public dollars to private school tuition. This week, the same bill will be heard by the NH House Education Committee.

SB 193, one of the most radical school voucher bills we have ever seen in the New Hampshire legislature, would allow taxpayers dollars to go to religious schools and to parents who homeschool their children. It also funnels the funds through various non-profits, which inevitably raises more questions about where taxpayer dollars are going.

For such a horrendous bill, why arent more people talking about it? SB 193 has been drowned out in the press by numerous (also terrible) bills that roll back voting rights and focus on the upcoming budget.

Public schools are the center of our communities where students develop their civic identities and grow into active participants in our society and economy. Investing in public education means that we are telling each and every student in our state that they are valuable. A bill like SB 193 will send the opposite message.

We can not allow our States Republican leadership to play party politics in order to undermine our public schools.

Please email Erin Cotton, ecotton@nhdp.org, for more sample letters orfor suggestions and revisions on your own LTE!

Legislative Recap Week in Review Mar. 27th Mar. 31st Last week, the Senate passed SB 3, a bill aimed at targeting NH voters who are most vulnerable to attacks on voting rights. This bill will makeit more difficult forstudents, the elderly, and people of color to vote. Even worse, SB3 would force domestic abuse victims to seek the approvalof their abuser to be able to vote, by requiring a note from the landlord if they dont have a document with their name on it or, if they voted without identification, then a letter would be mailed to their home address requiring a victim to return to an unsafe environment. The Senate also passed Senate Bill 7, legislation to restrict access to food assistance services in New Hampshire. This bill restricts access to food stamps for those most in need in our state without saving New Hampshire a dime. Finally, the Senate passed HB 103. This billrequires signed parental permission for any course material that could be deemed objectionable directly targeting health courses and limiting comprehensive sex ed for New Hampshire students.

Read the whole newsletter!

Follow this link:
NH Upper Valley Democrats - Home of the NH Upper Valley ...

The 2018 midterm elections are a mere 557 days away, and Democrats are feeling quite confident. There are many reasons to think that we could be headed for a sweep to rival what they accomplished in 2006 when they took back both houses of Congress.

But at least one Democratic pollster is warning his fellow Dems that they could actually be heading for terrible disappointment, and he raises some intriguing questions.

Well get to those in a moment, but first we should acknowledge all the reasons Democrats have to feel good about 2018. The first is the widely accepted historical pattern that the opposition party does well in midterm elections, as voters express their displeasure at the president by turning out to vote. In addition, unless things are going unusually well or some historical anomaly intervenes the way 9/11 affected the 2002 election or Bill Clintons impeachment shaped 1998 voters in the middle often blame the president for whatever theyre dissatisfied with, increasing the ruling partys headwinds.

Today we learned that gross domestic productgrowth in the first quarter of this year was a mere 0.7 percent, and though theres no way to know what it will be a year and a half from now, chances are strong that President Trump wont bring us so much winning well be tired of winning. His elaborate promises will be all but impossible to fulfill, especially given the fact that by most measures the economy was doing quite well when he took office, with incomes rising and unemployment below 5 percent. He might be fortunate enough to see things stay as they are, but even that could wind up looking like failure.

Meanwhile, all of his weakness are on full display, and his approval rating sits at around 40 percent, lower than any of his predecessors in the history of polling at this stage of their presidencies. Perhaps most important, his election has led to an absolute eruption of grass-roots energy and activism on the left, with local Democratic Party organizations being overrun with new volunteers and groups such asIndivisible sprouting up chapters at a fierce clip. While many potentially strong Republican candidates are deciding to sit next years elections out to wait for a more welcoming landscape, Democrats are lining up to run: Emilys List says that while in 2016 it was contacted by 900 women looking for help and advice in running for office, this year 11,000 women have reached out to them already.

So thats the case for Democrats to be optimistic. Whats the other side of the argument? Democratic pollsters Allan and Sheri Rivlin have been going around Washington showing Democrats a PowerPoint presentation to try to convince them that they need to revamp their economic message, which few would take issue with. But more controversially, they assert that the assumption that Democrats will do well because of the midterm curse the notion that the presidents party will inevitably lose seats in the midterm is dangerously naive.

The midterm curse is this years version of the blue wall,' Allan Rivlin told me, referring to the Clinton campaigns belief that their hold on Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin would guarantee their victory in 2016.

The beginning of the Rivlins case for caution is their observation that in recenthistory Democrats have never won 20 or more seats to take back the House in the first midterm of a new Republican president, and this year they need a net gain of 24 seats to do so. Most of the truly enormous midterm waves have favored Republicans, especially those of 1994 (where they gained 54 seats) and 2010 (63 seats), both ata Democratic presidents first midterm.

Democrats do poorly in midterms, Rivlin argues. Republicans are rarely on the losing side of this. Its partly because Republican voters older, whiter, more affluent are more likely to turn out in any election while many Democrats dont bother showing up in midterms. But Rivlin is especially concerned with Democrats lack of a core economic message, since the economy is usually voters most important issue. We think we have an economic message, he says, but we dont.

And this has been a problem for Democrats for some time now. The voters have been expressing more trust in Republicans to get the economy going and create jobs than Democrats, Rivlin notes. This was true in 2010, 2014 and 2016, which is why in all three of those elections I was the biggest pessimist I knew.

What Democrats lack is a message on economics that can pass what he calls the Listerine test. Listerine had what Rivlin describes as a nearly perfect message: Listerine kills the germs that cause bad breath. Eight words that describe the problem, the solution and how it works.

The Republican message on the economy passes this test. Its simple, easy to understand, and explains both every economic problem you could think of and what their solution is: Government is the problem, so if we cut taxes and cut regulations, the economy will blossom.

Democrats look at that message and cry, But it doesnt work! Weve tried it before, and the Trump administration is about to try it again, but we already know how its going to turn out. Prosperity for all is not on its way once we cut taxes and allow more pollution. But heres the problem, according to Rivlin: Democrats have convinced themselves that the Republicans message is bogus, but average voters still respond quite positively to it, no matter how many times the policies fail in the real world.

And what do Democrats say in response? We say we care about jobs and the middle class, and then we list three policies. Rivlin notes that the specific policies Democrats advocate, such asa higher minimum wage, equal pay for women, or infrastructure investments, test very well in polls. But they dont tell a broad, encompassing story about the entire economy. We dont have this overarching answer to the question: Whats your diagnosis of the problem, and whats your solution? We dont share that with an economy of words, and Republicans do.

Id contend that this is a problem Democrats face more in 2020 than in 2018. Whats more important than anything else in midterm elections is which side is riled up and angry, and theres no question where the anger is right now. Yes, Democrats face a natural disadvantage because their base voters dont turn out at the same rates the Republican base does, but their highest priority for 2018 should be about keeping that base motivated and engaged.

That doesnt mean you cant do both things at the same time, however. A hundred percent of our attention is in pointing out Trumps weaknesses, Rivlin says. We need to take some of that attention to addressing our own weakness.

Unfortunately, he doesnt yet have the perfect answer to the what the Democrats Listerine test should be. He does have a collection of ideas he says Democrats need to explore, centered around things such asinnovation, strengthening the middle class and reducing inequality. But his argument is that Democrats need a focused project to work through these ideas and determine which one best describes the large number of policies theyre already advocating and will be most persuasive to the public.

In recent months, Rivlin has given this presentation to dozens of Democrats on Capitol Hill, in think tanks and among party professionals. When I asked him what the response has been, he said that at first everyone enthusiastically agrees. But that doesnt last. Then I lose contact with them, because Trump does something that requires an all-hands-on-deck response, Rivlin says. Everybody gets snapped back into oppose-Donald-Trump mode.

Thats understandable. But eventually if not in the next year then certainly before they mount another presidential campaign its a problem they had better solve.

Here is the original post:
Are Democrats being overconfident about 2018? One pollster says they are. - Washington Post (blog)

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi / Getty Images

BY: Matthew Continetti April 28, 2017 5:00 am

Let's reverse angle. The president's first 100 days in office have been analyzed, dissected, evaluated. Not much left to say about them. What about the opposition? What do the Democrats have to show for these first months of the Trump era?

Little. Trump's defeats have not come at the Democrats' hands. Those setbacks have been self-inflicted (over-the-top tweets, hastily written policies, few sub-cabinet nominations) or have come from the judiciary (the travel ban, the sanctuary cities order) or from Republican infighting (health care). Deregulation, Keystone pipeline, immigration enforcementDemocrats have been powerless to stop them.

Chuck Schumer slow-walked Trump's nominations as best he could. In fact his obstruction was unprecedented. But the cabinet is filling up, the national security team in place. On the Supreme Court, Schumer miscalculated royally. He forced an end to the filibuster for judicial appointments, yet lost anyway. If another appointment opens this summer, and the Republicans hold together, the Democrats will have zero ability to prevent the Court from moving right. No matter what he says in public, Schumer can't possibly think that a success.

The prevalent anti-Trump sentiment obscures the party's institutional degradation. Democratic voters despise the presidenthe enjoys the approval of barely more than 10 percent of themand this anger and vitriol manifests itself in our media and culture. So Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert enjoy a ratings boom, the women's march attracts a massive crowd, the New York Times sells more subscriptions, and Bill Nye leads a rainy-day "march for science." The desire to ostentatiously "resist" Trump leads tobetter-than-expected results for Democratic candidates in congressional special elections. But the candidates don't winor at least they haven't yet.

Democrats feel betrayed. The Electoral College betrayed them by making Trump president. Hillary Clinton betrayed them by running an uninspiringcampaign. James Comey betrayed them by reopening the investigation into Clinton's server 11 days before the election. Facebook betrayed them by circulating fake news. This sense of resentment isn't so different than the sort Democrats attribute to Trump supporters: irritation at a loss of status, vexation at changed circumstances. The despondence of a liberal is alleviated when he sees throngs of protesters, hears Samantha Bee, scrolls through Louise Mensch's tweets.

Makes him feel better. But his party is in tatters, reduced to 16 governors, 30state legislative chambers, a historically low number of state legislative seats, 193 members of the House, 46 senators. The Democrats are leaderless, rudderless, held together only by opposition to Trump. The most popular figure on the left refuses to call himself a Democrat while sitting alongside the newly elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee. That chairman, dirty-talking Tom Perez, represents a professional, technocratic class that supportsWall Street and globalization as long as there is room formulticulturalism and social liberalism. That is a different strategy from both the 50-state approach of Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel, and Schumer that brought Democrats control of Congress in 2006, and the anti-Wall Street, protectionist, single-payer left of Bernie Sanders. Perez fights with Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi over whether there is room for pro-lifers in the partyPerez thinks not. Pelosi enjoys the distinction of being an American political figure less popular than Donald Trump.

What is the Democratic agenda? What does the party have to offer besides disunity, obstruction, incoherence, obsession, and obliviousness? They haven't rallied behind a plan to fix Obamacare or an alternative to the president's tax proposal. They seem dead set against enforcement of immigration laws, they seem opposed to any restrictions on abortion,they seem as eager as ever to regulate firearms and carbon dioxide. It's hard to detect a consensus beyond that. Banks, trade, health care, taxes, free speech, foreign interventionthese issues are undecided, up for grabs.

For eight years President Obama supplied the Democratic message, provided the Democrats answers to public questions. Now Obama himself is under fire for agreeing to deliver a $400,000 speech to Cantor Fitzgerald. He is already a figure of the past: His hair gray, his legacy under siege, his time spent lounging on Richard Branson's yacht or listening desultorily to Chicago undergrads. The energy is with Bernie,with the identity-politics movements, with the paramilitary "antifa" bands, and each one ofthese overlapping sects are outside the party establishment Obama represents.

That establishment is just as befuddled as its Republican counterpart at the current political scene. "I don't know what's happening in the country," Hillary Clinton is said to have told a friend at some point during the recent campaign. This apprehension of distance between herself and the everyday lives of her co-nationals is one of the most perceptive observations Clinton has ever made. Her problem was she never figured out the answer, never came to realize that thevarious guesses she and Obama and other professional Democrats have wagered about "what's happening in the country"racism, sexism, nativism, gerrymandering, Citizens United, Fox News Channel and talk radio, Russiaare insufficient. What the Democratic Party has yet to understand is that its social and cultural agendais irrelevant or inimical to the material and spiritual well being of their former constituents.And until the Democrats recognize this fact, their next 100 days will be no better than their first.

Here is the original post:
The Democrats' First 100 Days - Washington Free Beacon

Democratic Rep. John Delaney's flirtation with next year's governors race has inspired an early shadow primary in the state's westernmost congressional district, where a half dozen prominent Democrats are expressing an interest in his seat.

The wealthy former banker, in his third term representing the Montgomery County-based 6th Congressional District, has said he will make a decision about whether to run for governor in late June. A decision to run would set up a bruising primary for a rare open Maryland congressional seat in 2018.

An open seat would also offer Maryland Republicans their best opportunity to pick up a second seat in the state's congressional delegation next year. State GOP leaders say no candidates have yet emerged, but they expect interest even if Delaney runs for re-election.

The 6th District, which stretches from Potomac to the mountains of Western Maryland, is the most competitive district in the state. Delaney won re-election in the last midterm election by less than 3,000 votes.

Del. Aruna Miller of Darnestown is the second Democrat to announce an interest in running for the seat. The chair of the women's caucus in the General Assembly told The Baltimore Sun that she is "definitely in" if Delaney decides to pursue a campaign for governor.

A civil engineer, Miller got involved in politics after George W. Bush's victory in the 2000 presidential election. She and other Democrats said they are preparing campaigns for the district now out of necessity.

"In order to keep the district Democratic we're going to have to start as early as possible," said Miller, 52. "I'm going at it full-throttle."

Miller's decision comes days after Maryland House Majority Leader C. William "Bill" Frick filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission allowing him to raise money for the seat.

Frick, a 42-year-old attorney from Bethesda, has also said he will run for the seat if Delaney challenges Republican Gov. Larry Hogan next year.

"If Congressman Delaney chooses to take on Larry Hogan, we need a strong Democrat who can hold this seat," Frick said. "I am prepared to be that strong Democrat."

Three other state lawmakers and one prominent businessman told The Sun they will also be interested in the congressional seat if Delaney runs for governor. The number of people publicly stating their interest in a seat held by an incumbent of the same party is unusual, even when the incumbent's future is uncertain.

"People are getting their [butts] kicked out here, and they need someone to stand up for them in Congress," said Democratic state Sen. Roger Manno. "That's why I'm considering it."

When Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Baltimore was considering a run for Senate in 2015, only one other high-profile Democrat announced he was interested in the seat, the Rev. Jamal H. Bryant. The Baltimore pastor ended his nascent campaign eight days later.

Though no Republican candidates have emerged, state GOP chairman Dirk Haire said the 6th District is on his party's radar. Former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino nearly unseated Delaney in 2014 even though national Republicans largely wrote off the district. Delaney has performed far better in presidential election years, when Democratic turnout is generally higher.

"If the seat is open," Haire said, "I expect it to be hotly contested and a very good pick-up opportunity."

Bongino has since moved to Florida, where he ran an unsuccessful House campaign last year.

The early jockeying among Democrats underscores the potential for a feisty primary in a region that has become the party's political center in Maryland. Last year's Democratic primary in the neighboring 8th Congressional District drew nine Democrats and five Republicans and became the most expensive House contest in the nation.

Then-state Sen. Jamie Raskin won that election. One of the other candidates in that race, Kathleen Matthews, is now the interim chair of the Maryland Democratic Party. Another contender, businessman David Trone, has remained visible in political circles. He told The Sun that he, too, would consider running in the 6th District if Delaney didn't.

Trone, Frick, Manno and Miller are scheduled to attend the Western Maryland Democratic summit in Flintstone this weekend an annual event closely watched by state politicos. The event is also expected to draw several potential candidates for governor, including Delaney.

"My focus has been on [running for] county executive under the assumption that John Delaney will continue his exemplary work in Congress," Trone said in a statement. "But if John decides to run for another office, he would have my full and enthusiastic support, and I would consider running for the 6th District seat before making a final decision."

Trone's interest has the potential to change the dynamic. The liquor retailer spent more than $13 million of his own money on his campaign for the 8th District last year, blanketing airwaves in the expensive Washington media market. If Trone appears to be taking a serious look at the 6th District, it would put pressure on other Democrats to begin fund raising now.

But it will be difficult for any of the potential candidates to raise money until Delaney clarifies his plans. Few will want to put money behind a candidate who ultimately may not run.

Frick and Miller said they have spoken with Delaney, and have his blessing to begin laying the groundwork for a campaign. Delaney confirmed those discussions, but warned against reading anything about his own intentions next year into them.

The congressman reiterated that he hasn't made up his mind about next year.

"I said I was fine with them doing it," Delaney said. "I don't think there's any downside to them raising some federal money."

Delaney has shown a willingness to invest his own personal fortune in his campaigns meaning he will not have to scramble to raise early money for a governor's race, and he has to worry less than others about Democratic challengers at home.

Delaney unseated Republican Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett in 2012 after Democrats in Annapolis redrew the boundaries of the district to favor their party. He defeated Republican Amie Hoeber by 16 points during last year's presidential election.

Del. Kirill Reznik of Montgomery County said the seat is "something that I'm looking at." He noted his legislative district lies wholly within the 6th District giving him a possible advantage in name recognition.

Reznik said repeatedly he thought Delaney was "doing a great job," and that "I actually don't want even want him to go."

The possibility of an open seat has also drawn attention from Del. Andrew Platt of Gaithersberg, who has some experience running in the district. Platt worked for former state Sen. Robert Garagiola's congressional campaign in 2012.

The Democrat said he is "taking a serious look at it."

"I think there are going to be enough millionaires and insiders in this primary, and I'm not one of them," he said. "You have to stop sending the same type of people to Washington."

john.fritze@baltsun.com

twitter.com/jfritze

See original here:
Maryland Democrats begin to line up for competitive congressional district just in case - Baltimore Sun