Mediaboss Marketing

WA LIBERALS are set to debate proposals to smash the influence of factional powerbrokers at preselections.

Sources confirmed constitutional amendments were being prepared for debate at the partys State conference in September.

If adopted, they would pave the way for changes to rules that govern the local selection of candidates for elections.

Changes included the introduction of a plebiscite system, whereby every member of a branch gets a vote on preselections, or increasing the number of delegates to selection committees.

Liberals said a major concern was that the party appeared to have learnt little from its March 11 defeat, and powerbrokers still had a major say on preselections.

It is essential for the future of the Liberal Party that quality candidates based on merit are preselected for future parliamentary positions, a Liberal insider said.

There has been interference and influence to appoint people that merely vote in accordance with a powerbroker, both in the party room and in the party itself to suit vested interests.

Some Liberals support the Victorian model, introduced in 2008, which allows party members of two years standing to vote in Lower House preselections in their electorates.

But opponents to a plebiscite system argued there was no evidence to suggest that such a model would improve the current preselection system.

One Liberal insider said the party should be focused on preparing policies to return it back to government.

Debating the rules of the party is a very obvious sign that Liberal MPs are not focused on our re-election efforts, they said.

More here:
WA Liberals target factional powerbrokers - Perth Now

Toronto Sun

Liberals punted on 1st down with $10.5M Omar Khadr settlement Toronto Sun As Harper wrote on his Facebook page within hours of word leaking out first about the settlement, and secondly about the $10.5 million payout the secret deal was simply wrong and brokered quickly by the Liberals to ensure Khadr got his money ... and more »

View post:
Liberals punted on 1st down with $10.5M Omar Khadr settlement - Toronto Sun

The four on the left are, yes, Republicans.

President Donald Trump's critics view Republican congressmen as his enablers. James Fallows describes their behavior as the most discouraging weakness our governing system has shown since Trump took office. He singles out Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska for scorn, because "he leads all senators in his thoughtful, scholarly 'concern' about the norms Donald Trump is breaking -- and then lines up and votes with Trump 95 percent of the time."

Another journalist, Ron Brownstein, has written similarly. When various Republican senators objected to Trump's attacks on MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski's appearance, Brownstein asked what they intended to do about it. Other Trump foesechoed this critique: The Republicans' stern words were empty.

Most of this criticism is unreasonable.

It fails, for one thing, to account for what the Republicans have done. That includes "mere" criticism, since words matter in politics. Some of those words -- such as "we need to look to an independent commission or special prosecutor," or "our intelligence committee needs to interview" Donald Trump Jr. -- can have a fairly direct effect on what happens in Washington.

But it's not just words. The Republican Congress held hearings about President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey. Most Republicans have supported sanctions on Russia the president opposes.

For the Republicans' critics, these steps were the least they could do. But they weren't. The Republicans could have, for example, not held hearings.

It's unusual for senators to hold hearings into possible misconduct by 1) a president of their party 2) who is still fairly new in office and 3) supported by the vast majority of their voters. Perhaps the Republicans should have taken even more extraordinary action. But they're falling pitifully short only if the baseline expectation is that they do whatever liberal journalists think it's their duty to do.

And some things liberal journalists think it's the Republicans' duty to do make no sense. Take that 95 percent figure mentioned by Fallows. Was Senator Lindsey Graham really supposed to vote to keep regulations he considered unwise on the books because he opposes Vladimir Putin? Was Senator John McCain really supposed to vote against confirming Alex Acosta as labor secretary because the president tweets like a maladjusted 12-year-old?

When you complain about how often the senators vote with the president, that's what you're saying. Perhaps this is why the complaint is usually made by liberals, who would not want senators to be voting with President Marco Rubio or President John Kasich either.

Besides voting left, what would the Republicans' critics have them do? Impeach the president? Not even Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, supports that.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

"As evidence piles up pointing to the possibility that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, Republican lawmakers have largely ignored Democrats' calls for urgent action and continued about their day jobs,"writes McKay Coppins. The urgent actions he mentions: holding more press conferences about investigations into Trump; voting with Democrats on some anti-Trump resolutions they devised last week; and "issuing subpoenas more aggressively."

Maybe Republicans should subpoena some people they have not, although some specificity on who should get these subpoenas would be reassuring. I suspect that if the Republicans did issue more of them, the goalposts would just shift. The subpoenas, like the Comey hearings, would turn out not to count as "urgent action."

None of this means that Republicans are doing all they can and should do to address the concerns that Trump's presidency raises. Congressmen should, for example, be looking for ways to compel presidents to disclose their tax records, such disclosure being a useful norm that Trump has flouted.

But making a focused and reasonable demand and then building support for it is different from expecting congressional Republicans to sound like the opposition party.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Ramesh Ponnuru at rponnuru@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

The rest is here:
Liberals Want Republicans to Stop Being Republicans - Bloomberg

The President's approval rating has fallen 6 percentage points to the lowest at the six-month mark of any president since the dawn of modern public opinion polling, according to this week's ABC News/Washington Post poll.

And Democrats lead Republicans when Americans are asked who they would vote for on a generic congressional ballot for 2018.

But it's certainly not all positive news for the party opposing the White House. While history points to likely Democratic victories in the upcoming midterm elections, the numbers show a few Achilles' heels that threaten the opportunity.

Here are five poll numbers from this week that should make Democrats a little uneasy about their current situation.

3. Midterm numbers show a potential soft spot for Democrats. There's a lot of time left before the 2018 midterms roll around, but poll questions used to estimate voter turnout aren't a slam dunk for Democrats at this point. The difference between people who say they are casting their midterm ballot to oppose Trump and people casting their midterm ballot to support Trump is 4 points -- compared to 10 points opposing former President Barack Obama in 2014 and 14 points opposing former President George W. Bush in 2006, according to the ABC/Post poll. And voter enthusiasm is virtually identical for both pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces.

Read the original:
Five poll numbers that should make Democrats uneasy - CNN

A view through a construction fence shows the Kremlin towers and St. Basils Cathedral in central Moscow, Russia, July 1, 2016. This week a bipartisan group of House and Senate negotiators have reached an agreement on a sweeping Russia sanctions package to punish Moscow. Photo By Maxim Zmeyev/Reuters.

WASHINGTON Congressional Democrats announced Saturday that a bipartisan group of House and Senate negotiators have reached an agreement on a sweeping Russia sanctions package to punish Moscow for meddling in the presidential election and its military aggression in Ukraine and Syria.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said lawmakers had settled lingering issues with the bill, which also includes stiff economic penalties against Iran and North Korea. The sanctions targeting Russia, however, have drawn the most attention due to President Donald Trumps persistent push for warmer relations with President Vladimir Putin and ongoing investigations into Russias interference in the 2016 campaign.

Passage of the bill, which could occur before Congress breaks for the August recess, puts Congress on possible collision course with Trump. The White House had objected to a key section of the bill that would mandate a congressional review if Trump attempted to ease or end the sanctions against Moscow. But if Trump were to veto the bill, he risks sparking an outcry from Republicans and Democrats and having his decision overturned. The sanctions review was included in the bill because of wariness among lawmakers from both parties over Trumps affinity for Putin.

The precise mechanics of how involved House Democrats would be in the review process had been a key sticking point, but Hoyer said he was pleased with the outcome.

The legislation ensures that both the majority and minority are able to exercise our oversight role over the administrations implementation of sanctions, Hoyer said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the sanctions legislation strong and he expected the legislation to be passed promptly.

Given the many transgressions of Russia, and President Trumps seeming inability to deal with them, a strong sanctions bill such as the one Democrats and Republicans have just agreed to is essential, Schumer said.

222369222379222379Inside Putin's RussiaCorrespondent Nick Schifrin and producer Zach Fannin take us inside Vladimir Putin's Russia, with an in-depth look at the resurgent national identity, the government's propaganda machine, the risk of being a Kremlin critic and much more.2017-07-21 02:00 pmdisabled3003012654_AkAZIk73F0

Early Saturday morning, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy posted a legislative business schedule that shows the sanctions bill will be considered Tuesday. McCarthy had pushed to add the North Korea sanctions to the package. The House had overwhelmingly passed legislation in May to hit Pyongyang with additional economic sanctions, but the Senate had yet to take up the bill.

The Senate last month passed sanctions legislation that targeted only Russia and Iran. Congressional aides said there may be resistance among Senate Republicans to adding the North Korea penalties, but it remained unclear whether those concerns would further stall the legislation. The aides were not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

A nearly united Congress is poised to send President Putin a clear message on behalf of the American people and our allies, and we need President Trump to help us deliver that message, said Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the top ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The House and Senate negotiators addressed concerns voiced by American oil and natural gas companies that sanctions specific to Russias energy sector could backfire on them to Moscows benefit. The bill raises the threshold for when U.S. firms would be prohibited from being part of energy projects that also included Russian businesses.

Although there is widespread support for the legislation, the bill stalled after it cleared the Senate over constitutional questions and bickering over technical details. In particular, House Democrats charged that GOP leaders had cut them out of the congressional review that would be triggered if Trump proposed to terminate or suspend the Russia sanctions. But Republicans rejected the complaint and blamed Democrats for holding the bill up.

The review requirement in the sanctions bill is styled after 2015 legislation pushed by Republicans and approved in the Senate that gave Congress a vote on whether then-President Barack Obama could lift sanctions against Iran. That measure reflected Republican complaints that Obama had overstepped the power of the presidency and needed to be checked by Congress.

According to the bill, Trump is required to send Congress a report explaining why he wants to suspend or terminate a particular set of sanctions. Lawmakers would then have 30 days to decide whether to allow the move or reject it.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats herald agreement on sweeping Russia sanctions bill - PBS NewsHour