Mediaboss Marketing

The Clarion-Ledger 5:54 p.m. CT June 18, 2017

President Donald Trump's lawyer said Sunday that the President is not under investigation for possible obstruction of justice despite Trump seemingly confirming that he was in a tweet earlier in the week. Time

Rich Lowry(Photo: Special to The Clarion-Ledger)

Donald Trump, the erstwhile Democrat, independent and member of the Reform Party, finally has a fixed partisan identity.

The president may be besieged, unpopular and prone to lashing out self-destructively, but all of this cements his bond to his party rather than erodes it. Commentators who ask wishfully and plaintively, When will Republicans dump Trump and save themselves? are missing the point: Trumps weakness makes him more Republican than ever before.

It was possible to imagine Trump, with a head of steam after his upset victory in November, cowing swamp-dwelling Republicans and wooing infrastructure-loving, anti-trade Democrats into supporting a populist congressional agenda. Maybe this was always a pipe dream given the instantaneous rise of the #resistance against him. But this scenario would have required a strong, focused president marshaling his popularity and driving Congress.

Weve seen close to the opposite. And, of course, theres the so-called Russia investigation. Russia is a misnomer. The controversy is now shifting from being about supposed Trump-campaign collusion to alleged obstruction of justice and whatever else special counsel Robert Mueller dredges up in what will probably be a free-ranging, yearslong investigation.

So, whatever Trumps true ideological predilections, theres no place for him to go. Make deals with the Democrats? At this point, Democrats are more likely to cooperate with Sergey Kislyak on an infrastructure package than with Donald Trump.

Dump or triangulate away from Republicans? Well, then who would do scandal defense, besides a handful of White House aides and outside media loyalists? Imagine what the Comey or Sessions hearings would have looked like if Republicans had joined Democrats in the pile-on.

The need for support on Capitol Hill could well get more urgent if things go badly the next year and a half. If Democrats take the House, Trump will rely on Republicans for an impeachment defense and, if it comes to that, for the votes in the Senate to block removal.

In one sense, this suits Trump. He may have a questionable partisan pedigree, but he is a natural partisan smash-mouth, heedless of process and norms, willing to make whatever argument suits him at any particular time. There have been many Republicans who have opposed Chuck Schumer before; it took Trump to call him a clown.

As for congressional Republicans, they, too, dont have much choice. Like it or not, whatever they tell reporters privately about their true feelings about Trump, his fate is their fate.

First, a presidents approval rating heavily influences midterm elections. The outcome in the campaign for the House will presumably be much different depending on whether Trump is at 35 or 45 percent. Republicans dumping Trump wouldnt make him any more popular.

Second, such a distancing is not really politically practicable. If Republicans try to skitter away from Trump, their base will roast them. Theres no reason to think that at this point the dynamic would be any different than after the release of the Access Hollywood tape, when Republicans dumping Trump were quickly forced to pick him right back up again.

Third, Republicans want to get some things done legislatively. A poisonous split with the White House wouldnt help. Trump may be a mercurial and frustrating partner, but he is a partner all the same.

Finally, most Republicans quite legitimately think the Russian controversy is a media-driven travesty. If there were a smoking gun, this posture would probably change (obviously, in that circumstance, it shouldchange). But Democrats are in no position to lecture Republicans on cutting loose a president of their own party when they twisted themselves in knots to defend Bill Clinton after he lied under oath over an affair that violated every feminist principle the party professed to hold.

If Trump and Republicans had their druthers, neither would be in quite this position. But this is the reality for everyone. For now, theres no way out, only through, and through it together.

Email Rich Lowry at comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

Read or Share this story: http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/06/18/trump-really-republican-now/407457001/

Read the original post:
Trump really a Republican now - Jackson Clarion Ledger

In a time of historically low voter turnout and a seemingly unbreachable partisan divide, civic engagement recently got a boost from the unlikeliest of sources: the Texas Republican Party. Eliminating straight-ticket voting has received unequivocal support from Republican leadership in the Texas Legislature at a time when they find themselves disagreeing more often than not.

Straight-ticket voting is an option that allows a voter to click a button and choose all candidates of a specific party. Its elimination is brought on by Texas House Bill 25, signed by Gov. Abbott on June 1. The Republican leadership supported this issue due to shifting partisanship in Texas largest cities. Harris County, which contains Houston, shifted majorly Democratic in the 2016 election. This concerned Republican politicians who were afraid they were losing their grasp on one of the last big city GOP strongholds in the state.

What makes this move particularly surprising is how much Republicans have gained from straight-ticket voting over the last 20 years. Without straight-ticket voting, it would have been "extremely unlikely" that Republicans would have won 121 consecutive statewide elections dating back to 1996, said Mark P. Jones, a Rice University political scientist. Seemingly confirming this, straight-ticket ballots made up more than half of the Republican vote in four of Texas five biggest counties in 2014.

There is no better example of rank partisanship taken to its natural end than the current composition of the Texas Legislature. One of the highlights of the 85th Legislature was the Mothers Day Massacre, which was essentially a temper tantrum designed to kill other peoples bills by far-right Freedom Caucus members. On the Senate side, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a former radio host, kept supposedly vital issues like the bathroom bill which discriminates against transgender schoolkids front and center.

The unfortunate caveat to this argument is that Texas Republicans have shown little interest in addressing the underlying problem. Given their recent track record a number of lawsuits and efforts to suppress minority votes at every turn its hard to take the argument that theyre just trying to show that every race matters seriously at all.

What Texas needs is less partisanship and more nuance. Texas already has an example of the type of downballot moderates that could be crafted by this bill, State Rep. Sarah Davis. As the legislatures only pro-choice Republican, Rep. Davis is a unicorn among Texas politicians. She is so removed from her party that when ideological scores were assigned to each representative from the 85th Legislative Session, her score didnt overlap with a single other legislators. This may be why she continues to get re-elected in her Houston-area seat, a district that voted for Hillary Clinton by 15 points.

Though not every elected official can (or should) emulate Rep. Davis. Shes a fascinating case study of what can happen if voters place qualifications over party. Ending straight-ticket voting wont suddenly convince every voter to completely abandon party loyalty, but it provides an opportunity to educate voters about important down ballot races that most directly affect their day-to-day lives. If they know there isnt an easy way out, perhaps they might just listen.

Price is a government sophomore from Austin. Follow him on Twitter @price_zach.

Originally posted here:
A boon to democracy in eliminating straight-ticket voting | The Daily ... - UT The Daily Texan

The electoral systems in four out of five states were hacked during the 2016 election ("Breach of 39 state systems seen as threat," Bloomberg News article, Wednesday's Dispatch). The former FBI director has "no doubt" those attacks came from the highest levels of Russian government. And today, the hottest topic in Congress and the media seems to be whether Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

The election process is the foundation of our democracy; an attack to manipulate our elections is an attack on our nation. Russia is employing 21st century warfare to destroy this and other nations from within. Yet, our president shows outrage only at the Paul Reveres shouting out the alarm.

Would Franklin D. Roosevelt have claimed that Pearl Harbor was "fake news"? Would George W. Bush have discounted 9/11 as "fake news"? But our commander-in-chief sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is disregarding hundreds of attacks on American democracy. President Donald Trump vainly cares more for his sense of legitimacy than he does for the security of America. This isn't just obstruction of justice. This is obstruction of democracy.

Will Kopp

Westerville

Continued here:
Letter: Hacked elections threaten democracy - The Columbus Dispatch

By Graham Peebles

Imagine a country run along truly democratic lines. In such a mythical land, what would be the role of the politician, and the nature of his or her relationship with that amorphous group paraded under the banner of the people?

We in pseudo-democratic countries hear a lot about politicians serving and honouring the will of the people in Britain this nauseating slogan of appeasement has been repeated ad infinitum since the disastrous European referendum vote but from where does the supposed conviction of the masses arise? Does it evolve from independent minds tussling with questions of justice and freedom, debating and discussing pertinent issues over tea and cake, or is it the politicians who construct this perceived will, manipulating the people they claim to serve into believing what they, the politicians, want them to believe. And while on occasions there may be some degree of uncertainty in the success of the project of persuasion the people can sometimes be an annoyingly unpredictable bunch every avenue of propaganda and control is employed to ensure that the ideological intentions of the political class are reflected in the will of the people as and when they place their sacred X on the ballot paper, and exercise their long-fought-for democratic right, which (particularly in first-past-the-post systems) carries little authority and even less autonomy.

The principle tool of inducement is of course the mainstream media: television and radio stations, newspapers and magazines are used to flood the minds of the populous with a certain view of life, particular ideas, values and carefully edited facts. Political and economic slogans are repeated like mantras over the airwaves, until they infect the populous and are repeated parrot-like by apathetic, ill-informed voters. Education systems are designed to support the message, enabling the most malleable minds to be conditioned into, for example, competition and conformity. Organised religion reinforces the pervasive values and imposes its own, often cripplingly repressive doctrine on the faithful. Creative independent thinking the principle quality of enquiry, analysis and response is for the most part lost within the fogs of dogma and stereotype that are wrapped around the minds of the unsuspecting virtually from birth. The world is presented as hostile, competitive, full of pain and difficulties. Material satisfaction and pleasure is sold as happiness, desire constantly fed creating agitated noisy minds, discontent and anxiety, all of which deny or greatly inhibit the possibility of that most democratic quality, free thinking.

Political and economic slogans are repeated like mantras over the airwaves, until they infect the populous and are repeated parrot-like by apathetic, ill-informed voters.

Individuality has been perverted, championed and denied. Within a conformist society where the pressure to think, act, and be a certain way is all-pervasive. True individuality the natural flowering of innate potential within an environment of cooperation, understanding and tolerance, free from fear is restricted and only realised through strength and often brings exclusion. And so the will of individuals, their ability to think beyond the rhetoric, to see the false as the false and the true as the true, becomes constrained at best, easily manipulated and/or non-existent.

Many are awake to this; young and old see the injustices, the pretence and invasion for what they are. They are angry, and long for an alternative way of living. Huge numbers have been marching in cities throughout the world, demanding change and to be listened to. The response of the ruling elite has been fierce resistance, often violent. Ever more repressive policies, austerity and the like have been imposed, wages effectively lowered, costs increased, life made even more difficult, physically exhausting and emotionally draining, insecurity intensified, hope denied. Despite this assault, there is a global movement of solidarity evolving, and with the energy of the time flowing with increasing strength, the citadel of resistance cannot be sustained indefinitely. True democracy, a social construct that we have idealised but not lived, will win the day, greatly changing the role of the politician and the type of people who become public representatives.

without a well educated, engaged population, democracy remains a fantastical construct of the elite, its principles periodically displayed for public appeasement and sustained self-deceit.

Democracy is participation, as are social responsibility, freedom of expression and social justice, tolerance and mutual understanding. All these are inherent in the democratic ideal and constitute its primary colours. Where these are absent, so too is democracy. Likewise, without a well educated, engaged population, democracy remains a fantastical construct of the elite, its principles periodically displayed for public appeasement and sustained self-deceit. In the absence of democracy, politicians, living in a suited bubble of complacency and privilege two interwoven vices of self-deception become ideological enforcers and persuaders. Divorced from the public at large, aligned with corporate interests and consistently duplicitous, trust in governments and politicians is at an all-time low. These men, and women, of power are rightly seen as cynical and ambitious, prepared to say anything to achieve positions of power and to hold on to them.

If complacency is the poison of the political class, then apathy and ignorance are the Achilles heel of the people. Social responsibility and participation sit at the very heart of the matter participation by well-informed people who recognise that we are all individually responsible for society, for the well-being of our neighbours at home and abroad, and the integrity of the natural environment, participation in how the place in which we live and work functions, participation founded on a sense of responsibility leading to and demanding, by dint of commitment and creative participation, influence.

Within such an environment the role of the politician changes dramatically. It becomes one of listening, facilitating, informing and enacting, of representing making known the will of the people to the business community and parliament which is of course what they should do now but on the whole, dont. In this democratic paradigm, self-interest and corporate power begin to weaken and the will of the people to evolve. Democratic decisions about policies and methods, the clarifying of aims, the nature of systems and structures in such a world would be reached through overwhelming consensus not the paltry 51 per cent of perhaps a mere 45 per cent of the population, as is the case now.

When the nature of the will of the people is based on the recognition of humankinds essential unity, together with the acknowledgment that we are responsible for the world and all life within it, then all becomes possible.

Under the existing democratic paradigm the talk is of power and control, duplicitous politicians and leaders and disenfranchised citizens. The rhetoric of political debate is combative and dishonest, ideologies and ideals clash, the economy dominates and business largely dictates government policy. Socio-economic systems have been designed and developed to deny the manifestation of real democracy and to facilitate the perpetuation of the status quo: a state of affairs in which piece by piece the natural environment is being destroyed, half the worlds population is living on less than $5 a day, economic inequality is at unprecedented levels and 65 million people are displaced. That is to name but the most pressing issues facing humanity.

True democracy is an expression of human solidarity. For this to develop and reflect the proclaimed ideal, systemic change and a fundamental shift in attitudes is required, both by politicians and the people who they are supposed to represent. This will not come from the political class they are quite happy with things the way they are and will fight to the last. It will, and must, come from the people. The worldwide protest movement contains within it the evolutionary seeds of lasting change, but as the reactionary forces resist with increasing force, the need for sustained engagement and collective participation grows stronger. As Maitreya has made clear, nothing happens by itself, man must act and implement his will. When the nature of that will the will of the people is based on the recognition of humankinds essential unity, together with the acknowledgment that we are responsible for the world and all life within it, then all becomes possible.

Read more from the original source:
What does it take to move from pseudo-democracy to real participation? - Redress Information & Analysis

An outright majority in Frances parliament for a movement founded just over a year ago is clearly a huge achievement. Emmanuel Macrons fledgling force has captured the imagination of the entire world following yet another exceptional election win on Sunday.

Those left stunned by the blitzkrieg-style success of La Rpublique en Marche! (LREM, or The Republic on the Move!) should not, however, overlook a development that is arguably of far greater significance: the sudden death of Socialist France. That 351 out of 577 MPs will now make up the Macron cohorts in the National Assembly is remarkable, but the fact that a Socialist Party (PS) that was in government until last month will have as few as 29 seats is absolutely astonishing.

Such figures mean that the party of Franois Mitterrand, the longest serving president in the history of the Fifth Republic, is now a relatively powerless minority. Franois Hollande, who began his career as an advisor to Mitterrand, was a PS head of state with a comfortable parliamentary majority but he did not dare seek re-election because he knew wipe-out was coming.

Both Hollande and Mitterrand once represented the triumph of the romantic left one in which apparatchiks inspired by the class struggle and the excesses of capitalism were able to fight for social justice from within the Paris establishment, rather than from the street. The PS galvanised the immense revolutionary spirit of the French people and turned it into a formidable democratic unit. Now it is an anachronism that could only muster 6 per cent of the vote during the May presidential elections which saw Macron enter the Elyse Palace.

Macron says door 'remains open' for Britain to stay in EU

In terms of historical developments, this is on a par with the decline of the British Liberal Party before the First World War. A radical new movement Labour hastened the demise of the Liberals in the UK, and in France LREM is having the same effect on the Socialists.

Hollandes incompetence had a great deal to do with this. Before the start of his five-year tenure in 2012, he said: I dont like the rich. His attempts to introduce atop rate of income tax of 75 per cent led to entrepreneurs leaving France. The result of such initiatives was predictable enough: unemployment rocketed, along with the cost of living, as violent street demonstrations became the norm. Just like under Mitterrand in the early eighties, U-turns were essential so as to prevent economic collapse.

In Hollandes case, this involved appointing financially astute civil servants such as Emmanuel Macron, a former Rothschild banker, to try to bail the country out. Contrary to silly myths, Macron was by no means Hollandes protg. He was not even a member of the PS while an unelected finance minister, and was certainly not brought in to keep the Socialists in power under another name. Macron was solely seen as a bright problem-solver who could get things done.

Instead of using talent like Macron to bolster their overall image, however, the PS split between market-friendly social liberals, and the hard left. Most disastrous of all was the manner in which senior ministers just gave up on their party once it was obvious that Macron would prevail.

It was Hollandes Prime Minister Manuel Valls, a classic PS success story who rose from Spanish immigrant to the second highest office in the French state, who announced that the party was dead and gone, and that he wanted to join LREM. This was within a couple of days of Macrons presidential victory.

French president Emmanuel Macron offers refuge to American climate scientists

Perhaps the most disgraceful and most telling conduct came from Sgolne Royal, another of Hollandes most senior lieutenants who was drawn to LREM in recent weeks. Not only was she a former PS presidential candidate, but the mother of Franois Hollandes four children. Despite failing to win a parliamentary seat in 2012, Royal seemed to believe that entitled dinosaurs like her had a right to govern thanks to nepotism.

Hollande caused outrage when he made the mandate-less Royal his Ecology Minister in 2014. The deeply cynical Royal even expressed anger and surprise towards Macron when he declined to keep her on in the job this month.

Champagne socialists are referred to as la Gauche Caviar (the Caviar Left) in France, and there are plenty of others like Royal: those who owe their pampered, moneyed lifestyles to the PS, but who betray democratic socialism whenever it suits them. There was no question of them standing up for their party in the face of the Macron Miracle. They simply capitulated.

LREM is not aparty in the conventional way that the LR and PS are. It is a voting bloc with Edouard Philippe, an LR veteran as prime minister, and plenty of PS turncoats also in Macrons cabinet. New recruits who will now form the presidential majority in Parliament include scores of ordinary people from civil society, along with other pragmatic (some might say opportunistic) politicians from the left, the right, and the Christian democrat MoDem group. The proportion of women in the National Assembly is close to 40 per cent for the first time.

Yes, turnout was low in the second round of parliamentary elections (almost 43 per cent), and there are already concerns about the possibility of an unrestrained hyper-presidency, but opposition to Macron is, in fact, just as likely to come from within his eclectic coalition as it is from outside. LREM rejects extremism, whether from the far right National Front or the radical leftist La France Insoumise (France Unbowed).

A vital rebooting of French democracy is underway, as a progressive young president tries to halt the march of aggressive populism. Macron is not dictating any ideology, nor indeed any rigid programme. He is a consensus politician, who is prepared to listen, and to compromise.

In such circumstances, the PS had every opportunity to fight for its core objectives. Instead, it displayed a shameful defeatism that belies its important role in the development of modern France.

Excerpt from:
Macron's latest success heralds the death of French socialism and it was socialist defeatism that caused it - The Independent