Mediaboss Marketing

The Liberal government will soontable a defense of its sweeping reforms on drugand alcohol-impaired driving in Canada.

The charter statement will explain why Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould believes the legislation upholds Canadians' constitutional rights. It was scheduledto be tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday afternoon, but has been delayed due to a late change in the minister's schedule.

The bill wastabled last month at the same time as legislation to legalize marijuana, and includes tougher penalties and new powers for police to demand mandatory roadside breath samples. The government has maintained it is charter-proof, but many legal experts say new provisions go too far and violatefundamental rights.

Edmonton-based defence lawyer Steve Smith expects the bill will face a swiftseries of challenges, of which many will be successful. One of the biggest will come to a proposed mandatory roadside breath sample, on the grounds it breaches Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill could ultimately "rise or fall" undera test around Section 1 of the charter, which allows imposed limits toan individual'srights as justified for the public good, Smith said.

Right now, an officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect adriver is impaired before demanding a breathalyzer. Under the bill, anyone could be required to blow after being lawfully stopped in their car.

"They can make a demand for a breath sample without having any reason to believe there is any alcohol in the person's body at all. They can do essentially random roadside tests on drivers," Smithsaid.

The government has said the goal is to nab more people who are now managing to eludedetection, and also to reducelegal action over whether an officer actually had reasonable grounds for suspicion to demand the breathalyzer.

But Smith believes the legislative overhaul will lead to more legal action, adding to theproblem of widespread court delays.

"I find it very interesting that the government, which is apparently so concerned about courts being overburdened and cases being overturned and stayed as a result, has decided to overhaul one of the most frequently litigated and complex areas of the law, which is going to have the effect, at least in the short term, of dramatically increasing litigation in this area."

The federal government plans to make cannabis legal by July 1, 2018. MADD Canada says the problem of drug-impaired driving will become worse when cannabis becomes legal. (Jim Young/Reuters)

To confront drivers impaired by pot or other drugs, thelegislation allows police to demand a driver provide a saliva sampleif they suspect he or she is impaired by drugs.A positive reading could lead tofurther testing, including a blood test.

Smith said there's a potentialchallenge there, if scientific evidence shows having a specified level of TCH in the system may not match to level ofimpairment.

Other challenges could come to some technical elements of the bill, including one about being over the legallimit of alcohol within two hours of stopping a motor vehicle, and an accompanying rule thatputs the onus on the accused to prove what alcohol was consumed since the vehicle was stopped. They could be tested under Section 7 of the charter, which protectsa person's right to life, liberty and security.

Robert Solomon, a law professor at Western University in London, Ont., and the national legal policy director for MADD Canada, said there is no doubt the new legislation will face challenges, including "frivolous" ones. But he believes the bill is on solid constitutional footing.

Canadians are already subject to mandatory searches at airports, courthouses and border crossings, Solomonnoted.

He said many countries already allow mandatory roadside testing because research shows the risk of apprehension is a strong deterrent for drunk drivers.

"It is widely seen as the most effective way of reducing impaired driving deaths," he said.

No matter what provisions or penalties are put in place, Solomon predicts the problem of drug-impaired driving will become worsewhen cannabis becomeslegal.

"It's a huge increase in availability, and invariably there's going to be more stoned drivers on the road," he said.

The government plans to make marijuana legal by July 1, 2018.

Continue reading here:
Liberals to table legal defence of crackdown on impaired driving - CBC.ca

(Elyse Samuels/The Washington Post)

Aftershocks from President Trumps firing of FBI Director James B. Comey roiled Washington on Wednesday, with Republicans divided over the presidents decision and news emerging that Comey sought more resources for a probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia shortly before he was fired.

I understand that there have been additional requests. Thats all I can say, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters. The Justice Department, meanwhile, denied those reports.

Democrats on Capitol Hill slowed committee business in the Senate to protest the lack of an independent investigation into Russias election meddling, and a growing number of Republicans questioned Trumps decision.

Comeys firing is expected to consume Capitol Hills attention until the weekend and potentially through Tuesday of next week, when the former FBI director has been invited to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The panels chairman, who met with Comey on Monday, said the directors dismissal will frustrate bipartisan efforts to investigate Russian interference in the election and any possible ties between the Kremlin and associates of Trump.

[President Trump fires FBI Director Comey]

It creates challenges for the committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told reporters. An interruption in any of the access we have to the documents or the personnel would be harmful to our investigation.

The emergence of yet another Trump-related controversy also threatens to slow Senate Republicans progress on their agenda, including work on a health-care bill that would lay the foundation for tax reform.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), however, downplayed the firing and sought to bring the debate back to friendlier territory.

Obamacare hasnt lived up to its promises, he said Wednesday morning on the Senate floor. Were working to keep our commitment to the American people to move beyond the failures of Obamacare.

Briefly addressing Comeys firing, McConnell accused Democrats of complaining about the removal of an FBI director who they themselves repeatedly and sharply criticized.

McConnells accusations of hypocrisy did little to subdue the controversy on Wednesday. Democrats responded by invoking an obscure rule that prevented committee hearings from continuing past midday an effort to slow the Senates work to increase pressure on Republicans to support an independent investigation.

I cant say its an ongoing strategy, said Feinstein. It certainly is for the day.

Several Democrats confirmed that Comey made a request last week for additional resources for his Russia investigation in a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

Rosenstein is a Trump appointee who assumed office just 10 days ago. He wrote the memo that was used to justify Comeys firing; the memo, issued Tuesday, laid out the directors missteps in handling the FBI investigation into Hillary Clintons private email server.

Im told that as soon as Rosenstein arrived, there was a request for additional resources for the investigation, and a few days afterwards he was sacked, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) outlined several Democratic demands on the Senate floor. He said the Justice Departments highest-ranking career civil servant, rather than Rosenstein, should appoint a special prosecutor to lead the Russia investigation. And he called for both Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to brief the entire Senate on the events that led to Comeys firing.

Schumer also urged Comey to testify next week.

[Comeys removal sparks fears about future of Russia probe]

There are so many unanswered questions that only Mr. Comey can answer. We Democrats hope and expect that he will still come before the Senate in some capacity, he said.

House lawmakers, away on a week-long recess, were not in Washington Wednesday. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has said nothing publicly regarding Comeys dismissal, and he declined to answer shouted questions from reporters while touring a factory outside Columbus, Ohio on Wednesday. Im not doing questions right now, he said.

Democrats in the Senate, meanwhile, could further slow down business in that chamber.

They could refuse to allow consideration of any legislation, or nominees awaiting confirmation votes, until Trump agrees to appoint a special prosecutor.

With dozens of Trump administration nominees awaiting confirmation hearings or up-or-down votes on the Senate floor, such a move would likely hamper executive branch agencies that now lack political leadership.

Some Democrats said they wanted to give Republicans time to form their own response before deciding on next steps.

This is 12 hours old. I think we have to give a little time for Republicans to have a conversation and perhaps rise to the occasion, said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) as he left the meeting.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) recommended that Democrats reach out to Republicans given that a small but powerful bloc of GOP senators has voiced concerns about the Comey firing. A former county prosecutor, McCaskill said Democrats needed to pressure Republicans to join the calls for the appointment of a special counsel.

Its about the integrity of law enforcement, she said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who has been calling for an independent probe since January, said he was powerfully impressed by the unanimity in our caucus behind appointing a special prosecutor, adding that everyone seems very persuaded.

While Democrats were discussing strategy, Republicans were trying to move on a sign of how unwelcome the Comey developments are for their agenda.

At a Wednesday lunch attended by Senate Republicans, Comey barely came up in the group discussion, according to attendees.

We were focused on health care and there might have been 120 seconds devoted to it, said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

No talk when I was there, said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Vice President Pence repeated Trumps claim that Comey informed him several times that he was not under investigation. Pence made the claim, which the White House has not substantiated, during a visit to Capitol Hill.

The simple fact is, Director Comey had lost the confidence of the American people, Pence said, defending Trumps decision.

[The shocking firing of James B. Comey puts new pressure on Trump and his team]

Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) also dismissed the notion that Trump fired Comey to impede the FBIs Russia probe, calling it a phony narrative.

If you assume that, this strikes me as a lousy way to do it, he told reporters. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue.

Among Republicans, only Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime Trump foil, has called for an independent investigation separate from ongoing probes by the House and Senate intelligence panels.

In a sign of his concern about Trumps decision, McCain stunned GOP colleagues on Wednesday by voting with Democrats to block final passage of a bill to repeal federal regulations on methane gas emissions. His vote ended Republican chances of reversing yet another Obama-era rule.

Other senior Republicans cast doubt on the decision to fire Comey, including Corker and Flake, who is up for reelection next year and did not support Trump in November.

I think the White House, after multiple conversations with many people over the last 12 to 14 hours, understand that they created a really difficult situation for themselves, Corker said. To move beyond this in a way that gives the American people faith and Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate faith in future efforts is going to be a really tough and narrow path for them to follow.

Flake tweeted Tuesday night: Ive spent the last several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comeys firing. I just cant do it.

Early Wednesday, as Blumenthal appeared on morning television programs to renew his calls for a special prosecutor, Trump went after him on Twitter for embellishing his Vietnam War record during his 2010 election campaign.

When caught, he cried like a baby and begged for forgiveness and now he is judge & jury. He should be the one who is investigated for his acts, the president wrote in tweets that Murphy later described as unhinged.

Blumenthal said he was unmoved by the attack. His bullying wont silence my call for an independent prosecutor, he said.

Karoun Demirjian and Kelsey Snell contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:
Comey firing roils Washington, prompts calls for independent investigation and divides Republicans - Washington Post

"Obviously no one knows what is going to happen in next year's midterm elections, but analysts who have watched congressional elections for a long time are seeing signs that 2018 could be a wave election that flips control of the House to Democrats."

Whoa.

Even with the caveat that the 2018 election is 545 days away and lots can and will change, that's a bold statement.

So, is it born out? Let's go through the indicators that have foretold past wave elections in the House.

"Since 1946, when presidents are above 50% approval, their party loses an average of 14 seats in the US House in the midterm elections, compared with an average loss of 36 seats when presidents are below that mark."

It's long been true that it's harder to beat an incumbent -- unless that incumbent is horribly damaged by self-inflicted scandal -- than it is to win a seat where no incumbent is running. The more retirements -- or members leaving their seats for other gigs -- the more volatility in the House playing field and the better chance a wave takes out a whole lot of seats.

Several of the pieces -- history, low presidential approval ratings, a generic ballot edge -- are in place for a Democratic wave election. What we don't know: What will the poll numbers for Trump and on the generic ballot look like in October 2018, and just how many Republican House members will head for the exits or run for higher office?

In short: The wave, if it's forming, is still way out in the ocean. But the conditions are right -- right now -- for it to get bigger and bigger.

More here:
Is there a Democratic wave building for 2018? - CNNPolitics.com - CNN

When it comes to trusting the media, Republicans are on Mars and Democrats are on Venus.

Those of us in the business get an increasing level of flak from both sides. The press is less popular now than at any point in my professional lifetime.

But the gap between people who identify as Rs or Ds has become a chasm.

Its not a shock that this is heavily influenced by whos living in the White House, but this is especially true in the Trump era.

With the presidents regular attacks on fake news, his supporters are more convinced than ever that the media are unfair and unbalanced.

Now comes a Pew Research Center survey with some eye-popping numbers on how public opinion has changed. And this goes to the heart of journalisms mission.

On the watchdog role of the press, 89 percent of Democrats say news media criticism keeps leaders in line. Only 42 percent of Republicans see it that way.

Think about that. The study, out today, finds more than twice as many Democrats supportive of the medias core function of holding politicians accountable.

Lets contrast that with the situation in the early weeks of 2016, when the GOP primaries were just getting under way and Trump was one of 17 candidates.

There was an almost even split at the time, with 74 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans supporting the watchdog role. The president at the time: Barack Obama.

Other Pew questions underscore the shift. In 2016, Obamas last year, Republicans were 20 points more likely than Democrats to say that the political press favors one side over the other. With Trump in office, GOPers are now 34 percent more likely than the Dems to see the coverage as one-sided.

On the fundamental question of confidence in the press, Democrats are 23 points more likely than Republicans to have a lot of trust in the information provided by the national media.

One encouraging sign for media types is that interest in national news has jumped, with four in 10 Americans saying they follow it closely, compared to a third at the start of 2016. This, in my view, is primarily due to the Trump effect, as people of all stripes are just more engaged politically. And the hyperactive pace of news, which ramped up during the campaign and hasnt slowed down much, is a major factor.

But even here, Pew found a partisan coloration. The increase is mainly driven by Democrats, whose close engagement with national news jumped from 33 to 49 percent.

My theory is that Democrats opposed to Trump are trying to consume everything they can, especially negative stories about the president, to buttress their resistance, while some Republicans have turned away from the MSM because they view it as consistently anti-Trump.

Its not a pretty picture when trust in the media, and even basic engagement, is so sharply divided along party lines. That should send a chilling message to the news business.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

See the rest here:
Partisan Lens: Why so many Republicans, unlike Democrats, don't trust the media - Fox News

Betsy Hodges is running for re-election as mayor of Minneapolis this year on a fairly progressive record. She's devoted some $40 million to affordable housing, put an emphasis on care for young children and signed an ordinance mandating that employers provide paid sick leave.

Nonetheless, Hodges faces several serious challengers running to her left. Hodges has opened herself up to progressive criticism due to her shifting positions on a prospective minimum-wage increase and handling of a high-profile police shooting.

"Even though she's the most progressive mayor in Minnesota, most of her rivals are to the left of her," says Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. "There's no doubt there's a kind of Robespierre moment in the Democratic Party, where if you're not sufficiently pure, you're suspect."

Robespierre was a leader in revolutionary France who launched a "reign of terror" to enforce political purity. Democrats are not going anywhere near that far. But there's no doubt progressives are challenging party leaders and officeholders not just to oppose President Trump at every turn, but to adhere to liberal positions across the board.

Parties tend to return to their bases after losing the presidency, says Lara Brown, a political scientist at George Washington University. "What opens up is this huge strategic debate about what should we stand for and who should be our leader."

Indeed, contemporary parties that have suffered losses seem to go through a phase where there's an internal argument about identity. Much as the Republican Party became more conservative following the election of President Barack Obama, Democrats now are insisting that their leaders adhere strictly to liberal doctrine, threatening to punish officeholders who break from orthodoxy. New progressive groups such as Our Revolution and Indivisible rose from the ashes of the party's defeat last year, recruiting liberal candidates and holding elected Democrats' feet to the fire.

There was a symbolic fight along these lines immediately after the election, when the Democratic Party picked Tom Perez as its new chair. Because he had served in the Obama administration, Perez was seen as the "establishment" choice over progressive Congressman Keith Ellison, who happens to represent Minneapolis.

The framing of that debate has already colored other party contests.

In Virginia, for instance, former Congressman Tom Perriello is challenging Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam for the gubernatorial nomination in next month's primary, painting himself as the more progressive choice on economic issues. This past weekend, former congressional candidate Kathleen Matthews was selected to chair the Maryland Democratic Party, with her opponent complaining she was an establishment choice who would do things the same old way.

Elected Democrats such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also find themselves castigated from the left, even when they've put a lot of progressive points on the board on issues such as environmental protections, minimum wage and gay rights. "The dynamics within the Democratic Party have created a demand for more progressive governance," says Karen Scharff, executive director of Citizen Action of New York, a liberal advocacy group.

Arguments about party orthodoxy spilled out into the open in yesterday's election for mayor of Omaha. Democrat Heath Mello launched a strong challenge to GOP Mayor Jean Stothert, but he lacked the full backing of his party. Prompted by votes Mello had cast in the Nebraska Legislature against abortion rights, party chair Perez stated that all Democratic candidates had to respect women's reproductive rights.

That stance was too doctrinaire for Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the U.S. House. She said last week that the party shouldn't demand that candidates pass a litmus test on any particular issue.

Now Pelosi herself has drawn a challenge from the left, an environmental attorney named Stephen Jaffe. "Jaffe suggests Pelosi is not liberal enough or, for that matter, even a true liberal, a proposition that would be dismissed as outlandish anywhere other than San Francisco,"notedthe Los Angeles Times.

Jaffe won't give Pelosi a serious scare, but his challenge illustrates two of the main dynamics driving this push for progressive purity.

Democratic voting strength and the party's remnants of power are not exclusively, but mainly limited to the major cities, college towns and the coasts. If you live in a blue enclave, you're more likely to believe that a progressive vision provides not just a winning but a necessary message.

"New York should be a triple-blue state, given our makeup," Scharff says. "It's been true forever that New York could be more of a leading progressive state than it's been, and it's more true than ever now that New York has to play that role, taking the lead in the way other states are leading in a moment when we desperately need state governments to protect us against a right-wing federal government."

A number of progressive candidates who are now lining up, including Jaffe, were energized by the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. Many Democrats now believe Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, could have succeeded against Trump where the more moderate Hillary Clinton failed.

It's the mirror image of Republicans who complained that they lost to Obama because their presidential nominees weren't conservative enough. Some progressive activists have openly compared themselves to the Tea Party, which succeeded in pulling the GOP to the right. "What happens is the loss opens up the fractures [within the party] that had been forming, that get papered over when you have the presidency," says Brown, the George Washington University professor.

It's already clear that progressives aren't going to win every battle they pick. But Michael Quinn Sullivan, who runs a conservative advocacy group called Empower Texans, gives Democrats credit for having the "nerve" to hold a discussion about what their convictions are and how they have to stick to them. "The Democrats are definitely in a state of existential crisis," he says.

His warning for the other side is that, by insisting on orthodoxy among elected officials, progressives risk not only chiding candidates, but putting off potential supporters. "That's going to translate to voters as saying, 'if you have beliefs that are at odds with the party platform, you're not welcome any more,'" Sullivan says.

It's clear from the amount of ongoing protests and striking fundraising numbers being posted by traditional party organizations and the new groups that Democrats have been highly energized by the Trump presidency. Getting their core supporters excited about voting is the first step in returning to power -- and may be enough to propel the party to big victories in the midterm elections next year.

But regaining strength on a national basis requires more than firing up the base. Winning requires building coalitions, an act that by its nature means making peace with individuals and groups who hold different perspectives. Politics is all about creating as big a movement as possible among actors whose beliefs overlap, but don't line up entirely. "This quest for purity at the end of the day is a self-defeating strategy, because you end up narrowing your appeal, not increasing it," Brown says.

Partisans on the left may argue that the presidency was lost because people who shared their ideological beliefs were insufficiently motivated by Clinton's candidacy to turn out to vote. There may be some truth to that, but Brown warns that parties can seldom recover voters whose affections they've lost. "You have to go forward and start pushing into the opposing party's base," he says, "where they have started to ignore their supporters."

See the article here:
As Democrats Seek to Rebuild, Progressives Try a Push to the Left - Governing