Mediaboss Marketing

Jonathan Rauch in Lawfare writes on Republicans' continued devotion to President Donald Trump:

"Perhaps there are limits to Republicans' tolerance, but if Trump hasn't already triggered them, it is hard to imagine where they are. The firing of a special prosecutor? An indictment? Possibly, but one wonders if it might be literally true that Trump could, as he once boasted, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and retain Republican support.

"The numbers support no predictions, but they offer a hint. Even under a worst-case scenario of presidential malfeasance, removing Trump would be no easy or quick task. It would require a sea-change in Republican partisans' attitude, a change of which there is no sign today. And it would require Republican leaders to take political risks that few have shown any appetite for."

GOP defeats in 2018 might give the Democrats the majority in the House, expediting impeachment, but removing Trump would require a vote of two-thirds of the Senate. Without substantial GOP defections, Trump will be there for the remainder of his four-year term.

Could Trump be forced to resign if, for example, the choice was between resignation and being held in contempt of court for refusal to turn over financial records? Perhaps, but it's far from clear that such a standoff would occur. If it did, Trump and his fleet of lawyers could certainly delay and appeal, in essence running out the clock on his presidency.

Whether in 2020 or before, the only surefire means to protect the country from Trump is to defeat his followers, and eventually him. A third-party candidate, as my colleague Michael Gerson recognizes, could throw the race to the Democrat. My reaction to that possibility is: So? We've made the case here and been proved correct that Trump's flaws as a human being and president surpass matters of policy and put the republic at risk.

While it is true that a primary has never defeated a sitting president in more than 100 years (Lyndon Johnson chose not to run in 1968, Jimmy Carter beat back Ted Kennedy and Gerald Ford held off Ronald Reagan), Trump is helping to rewrite the political playbook. An anti-Trump Republican unsullied by sycophancy and presenting a credible program for uniting the country and addressing policy problems that have befuddled Trump would have a historic opportunity.

In the short term, the most effective way of removing Trump is to defeat again and again lawmakers who refuse to remove him, thereby advancing the prospects for impeachment and putting optimum pressure on Republican senators. (Republicans pledging to vote for impeachment or removal in the Senate based on the facts available at the time might spare themselves.)

With Georgia's special election Tuesday in the 6th Congressional District, we'll get our first inkling of just how vulnerable Republicans might be in 2018. Between now and 2018, Democrats, independents and the small cadre of #NeverTrump Republicans need to pursue two tracks simultaneously keeping the special counselor in place (and assisting in the fact-finding process with open hearings, when possible) and generating momentum to defeat the greatest possible number of Trump protectors. That might entail fielding third-party candidates and primary challenges. Democrats certainly will need to keep their base energized, field an all-star list of candidates and make the case against the extreme Trump agenda while presenting reasonable alternatives of their own.

The only real guarantee, you see, of reversing the debacle of 2016 is to defeat Trump and his minions at the polls. The solution to democracy gone astray is always more democracy.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republicans, beware. The tables will turn.

My application to replace Sean Spicer

Trump's voters were more motivated by nationalism than economic hardship

If Republicans lose the House, Trump will be impeached

Here is the original post:
To stop Donald Trump, defeat the Republicans who enable him - Chicago Tribune

After 21 weeks at the controls of the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress, President Donald Trump and his Republicans have yet to pass major legislation into law and are short on time to do so before Washington's long summer recess.

The House of Representatives reconvened on Tuesday. It will be in session for the next nine weekdays, along with the Senate, which reconvened on Monday. Both chambers will take a break from July 1-9, then return and work July 10-28. After that, Capitol Hill will be quiet through the annual August vacation.

Trump set high expectations as a candidate and early in his presidency, promising to repeal and replace Obamacare, invest in infrastructure and work to cut taxes and regulations. These pledges have helped fuel a powerful stock market rally.

Trump's only big domestic policy win, aside from killing a handful of Obama-era regulations, has been Senate approval 10 weeks ago of a new Supreme Court justice. The White House has not sent Congress a legislative proposal on any major issue.

Trump has been swamped by investigations into possible ties between his campaign and alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

In Congress, the House has approved an Obamacare rollback bill, but it has stalled in the Senate. On Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence predicted a Republican healthcare bill would be enacted by the end of summer.

Competing tax reform plans have divided Republicans in both chambers. No firm infrastructure plan has emerged, and lawmakers have not yet formulated a budget plan for 2018.

Urgent budget deadlines will follow the August break, and later in the year, lawmakers will begin focusing on the 2018 congressional elections.

Here is a look at key dates coming up.

June 20: Special House elections in Georgia and South Carolina.

June 30: Congress starts Independence Day break.

July 7-8: Trump attends G20 summit in Germany, his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

July 28: Congress adjourns for five-week summer recess.

July-August: U.S. Treasury may no longer be able to postpone the federal debt limit, although this may not arrive until late 2017.

Sept. 5: Congress reconvenes.

Sept. 30: End of federal fiscal year 2017. Without congressional action, funding for many programs will expire.

Oct. 1: Start of federal fiscal year 2018. Current federal spending deal expires. Without a new deal, the federal government could shut down.

(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Lisa Von Ahn)

WASHINGTON Legislation to impose new sanctions on Russia and Iran that passed the U.S. Senate nearly unanimously last week has run into a procedural problem that could prevent a quick vote in the House of Representatives, lawmakers said on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON The U.S. Justice Department has launched a 12-city partnership to combat spikes in violent crime as part of President Donald Trump's vow to support law enforcement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Tuesday.

Read more:
Factbox: Time slipping by for Trump, Republicans on domestic goals - Reuters

A bill that slaps new sanctions on Russia, and passed the Senate almost unanimously, has hit a major stumbling block in the House.

Rep. Kevin BradyKevin BradyHouse Republicans block Russia sanctions bill New border adjustment tax would amount to a trillion tax hike on consumers Club for Growth bashes border tax ahead of Ryan speech MORE (R-Texas) said the legislation has been flagged by the House parliamentarian as a "blue slip" violation, referring to the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House.

"The House obviously will actto preserve the Constitution. Or the Senate can take thebillback, make the updates to it, and bring it back and move forward from that direction," Brady told reporterson Tuesday.

Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, pushed back against suggestions that House GOP leadership is trying to delay the bill, stressing that he thought the Senate legislation was "sound policy."

"I am confident working with the Senate and Chairman [Ed] Royce that we can move this legislation forward. So at the end of the day, this isnt a policy issue, its not a partisan issue, it is a Constitutional issue that we will address," he toldreporters.

A spokesperson for Royce didn't immediatelyrespond to request for comment.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanIronworker announces run against Paul Ryan: 'Let's trade places' House Republicans block Russia sanctions bill Overnight Finance: Ryan wants tax reform to be permanent | White House expects tax bill ready by September | Defense spending battle delays budget MORE (R-Wis.)said,"The Senate bill cannot be considered in the House its current form."

"The chair of the Ways and Means Committee, in consultation with the House Parliamentarian, has determined that the Senate sanctions bill as passed is in violation of the origination clause of the Constitution, commonly referred to as a 'blue slip' problem," she said.

She addedthat Ryan strongly supports sanctions and "we will determine the next course of action after speaking with our Senate colleagues."

An aide for Sen. Bob CorkerBob CorkerHouse Republicans block Russia sanctions bill US weighs travel ban on North Korea: report GOP senator: ObamaCare repeal bill coming Thursday MORE (R-Tenn.), who was deeply involved in negotiating the Senatedeal, said that the House has raised "concerns with one of the final provisions" of the bill.

"Now that we fully understand the issue raised today, we are working closely with them to further resolve the matter. We are confident we can find a path forward," the staffer said.

The aide for Corker didn't immediately respond to a question about what the "final provisions" included. Asked specifically what provision of the House bill got flagged as a "blue slip" violation, a spokeswoman for Brady referred back to his comments to reporters.

"The House has always, in a bipartisan way, followed protocol to avoid Origination Clause violations. It's the Constitution. It's pretty straightforward," a senior GOP aide added.

But the decision is soundingalarmbells among Democrats, who are warning that Republicans could be trying to delay the bill amid pushback from the Trump administration.

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles SchumerDems step up attacks on GOP ObamaCare bill Live coverage: Senate Dems hold talkathon to protest GOP health plan GOP exploiting Virginia shooting in Georgia election MORE (D-N.Y.) lambasted the move, arguing they're using the procedural roadblock to cover for Trump, "who has been far too soft on Russia."

"Responding to Russias assault on our democracy should be a bipartisan issue that unites both Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. The House Republicans need to pass this bill as quickly as possible," he said.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, added that Republicans could easilywork aroundthe violation by introducing anindentionHouse bill.

[But] I predict this isn't the last excuse we'll hear for trying to slow this bill's momentum, but make no mistake, anything short of an up-or-down vote on this tough sanctionspackage is an attempt to let Russia off the hook," he said.

Sen. Ben CardinBen CardinDems are limited in their ability to slow ObamaCare vote House Republicans block Russia sanctions bill Overnight Finance: Ryan seeks manufacturing muscle for tax reform | Warren targets Wells Fargo board | Senators raise concerns over Russian takeover of Citgo | Pelosi hits GOP for budget delays MORE (D-Md.) stressed that he didn't think the Senate bill actually had a "blueslip"issue,but echoed Engel noting they it could be "easily corrected" by using a House bill.

"What theHousemany times believes [is] that if there's any fine in thelegislation ... that's a revenue measure, and therefore that comes under the blue slip," he said. "I don't believethat's a part of this bill, but I know the House has raised this in the past."

Headded, "If you take that logic, the Senate could neverinitiate any sanctions legislation."

The Senate passed the legislation last week, marking its most significant check on the Trump administrations foreign policy, which has flirted with lifting sanctions ina bidto entice Moscow into an agreement.

The legislation would impose a range of new sanctions, including on any individuals tied to "malicious cyber activity," supplying weapons to Syrian President Bashar Assad's government or any that are tied to Russia's intelligence and defense sectors.

It would also give Congress 30 days or 60 days around the August recess to review and potentially block Trump from lifting or relaxing Russia sanctions, codify the sanctions on Russia imposed by executive order by the Obama administration and allow the Trump administration to impose new sanctions on sectors of the Russian economy.

It also includes new sanctions targeting Irans ballistic missile development, support for terrorism, transfer of weapons and human rights violations.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared to use a House Foreign Affairs hearing this week to telegraph concerns about the bill, warning lawmakers against undercutting constructive dialogue with Russia.

"I would urge Congress to ensure any legislation allows the president to have the flexibility to adjust sanctions," he told lawmakers.

See the original post here:
House Republicans block Russia sanctions bill - The Hill (blog)

Protesters during the Womens March in Midtown Manhattan on Jan. 21, 2017 in New York City.Joel SheakoskiGetty Images

Flynn is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

By now its clear the Trump era will be cruel to women . The President and Congress have proposed draconian cuts to the nations most effective health, nutrition, education , and disability programs, eviscerating benefits that have kept families afloat for decades. These cuts would impact millions of American women and their families. However, women of color would bear a particularly heavy burden as conservatives fortify the structural racism and sexism that has hurt them for centuries.

While Trump pursues his dystopian vision for America, some progressives want to abandon so-called identity politics. But that would only further marginalize women at greatest risk in the current political environment and who have long been the engine of progressive politics.

As I demonstrate in Justice Doesnt Trickle Down, a report published recently by the Roosevelt Institute and the Ms. Foundation for Women , women of color experience stark inequities. Compared with white women, women of color have higher levels of unemployment and poverty. They face stark wage and wealth gaps. They are more likely to experience the harsher side of the criminal justice system. They are at much higher riskregardless of their incomeof dying from pregnancy-related causes and having their children die in infancy.

Politicians have often led us to believe that if women can simply earn more they can overcome these obstacles. And of course, paying women a fair and equal wage, guaranteeing them paid sick and family leave, and ensuring access to affordable childcare would all go a long way towards building a stronger economy and a more just society.

But for women of color, economic and overall wellbeing is driven by factors deeper and broader than wage and workplace inequities. For these women, structural inequities will prevent progressive economic policies from being the rising tide that lifts all boats.

Conversations about womens economic security too often exclude the role of wealth. But wealth is a critical buffer in times of trouble and enables investments in housing, education, new businesses, and future generations. Women of color are caught in vast race and gender wealth gaps.

As of 2013, black and Latina women had a median net worth of $200 and $100, respectively, compared to the median net worth of $15,640 for white women and $28,900 for white men. Older single black women with college degrees have $11,000 in median wealth compared to $384,400 among single white women at the same education level. Women of color are less likely to own a home and are more likely to carry high-cost mortgages. They have higher annual percentage rates on their credit cards and are more likely to have credit card debt. They are more likely to be saddled with education debt and take longer to pay it off than white women.

This means the majority of women of color have no cushion in times of crises they are disproportionately likely to experience: illness, job or housing loss, or the incarceration of a family member.

Why do women have less wealth? As the National Womens Law Center has reported , the race and gender wage gaps result in significant financial losses over the course of womens careers: $840,040 for Black women, $934,240 for Native women, and more than $1 million for Latina women.

Conversations about womens financial security often focus exclusively on issues deemed economic in nature. But, as reproductive justice advocates have long argued, health and safety are also economic issues for women and their families. Women cant maximize economic opportunities if they arent able to make decisions about the timing and size of their families, if they cant access preventive health care and treat chronic illnesses, if they experience violence at the hands of intimate partners or the criminal justice system, or if they live in fear of being torn from their families.

This is especially true for women of color, who have long experienced high rates of mortality from cancer and pregnancy, sexual assault, violence against trans women of color, incarceration and deportation. The fact that women of color with higher incomes also experience many of these disparities tells us social justice is not an inevitable byproduct of economic progress.

Conservatives are advocating an agenda that will undoubtedly make women less safe, less healthy, and far less economically secure. Progressives must respond by confronting the challenges of those who most directly and disproportionately experience injustice and inequality. By all measures and standards in the United States, these are women of color. Any agenda to effectively tackle inequality must center their experiences, expertise and aspirations. All of our communities will be better off for it.

Read more:
It's Time for Progressives to Fight for Women of Color - TIME

Ben & Jerrys Ice Cream, long the countrys most overtly progressive company, is now no longer progressive enough for progressives.

Over the weekend, scores of activists marched on Ben & Jerrys Vermont factory, demanding that the company push for better wages and working conditions for migrant workers on Vermonts dairy farms. Social justice warrior blogs excoriated the company for failing to live up to its own progressive rhetoric.

Apparently, two years ago, Ben & Jerrys promised to take part in the Milk With Dignity program (weirdly, not Dairy With Dignity, which would have been catchier). The campaign asks major corporations that use milk in their food products to work to ensure migrant workers who help produce the milk are treated fairly.

But because Ben and Jerry are, at heart, dirty capitalists, they began negotiations with the organizations, to structure their commitment in such a way that it protected their bottom line. They also claimed to theWashington Post that they wanted to get real details on farm worker treatment from the migrants themselves, so that the agreement could be realistic.

It has to work for the farmers, the farm owners, and it has to work for the businesses involved and thats the complex piece, a representative of the company told media.

But the Vermont group Migrant Justice says thats just unacceptable. Realism? Who needs it! Profit? Well, thats just disgusting.

Ben & Jerrys sucks up milk from 80 Vermont dairy farms, and thats a lot of workers who arent being paid a living wage.

Weve been negotiating in good faith, said Will Lambek, director of Migrant Justice. Its an unacceptable delay.

To act like Ben & Jerrys is some sort of corporate behemoth looking to exploit the labors of the proletariat so they can roll around in dollar bills is purely insane. Ben & Jerrys most popular flavors are plays on current events, and even engage in ice cream-based activism: Their Australian branch refuses to sell two scoops of the same flavor to customers until same-sex marriage is legalized there, for example.

These kinds of campaigns are rarely sane, however. TheMary Suepoints out, what good is being able to get a gay marriage if you cant even take the time off of work? Farmworkers can be queer, too, the site exclaims. Who will think of the non-binary migrant workers? ClearlynotBen & Jerrys.

Read the original:
Progressives Now Angry at Social Justice Icon Ben & Jerry's Over Workers' Rights - Heat Street