Mediaboss Marketing

Updated July 22, 2017 17:53:07

Former prime minister Tony Abbott says there is a contest between "factionalists" and "democrats" at play in the New South Wales Liberal Party.

But Mr Abbott argued it was not a brawl involving his hard right conservative allies and the dominant moderate wing of the state Liberals, who back his successor Malcolm Turnbull.

The state branch is debating changes to the party's governance in Sydney this weekend in what has been dubbed as a potentially explosive showdown by party insiders, and as the most important meeting since the Menzies-era by conservatives.

Mr Turnbull told delegates that he supported the principle of giving members a say in preselections, which is at the heart of Mr Abbott's concerns.

"We will be reflecting the procedure that I believe every other division of the Liberal Party adopts in Australia," Mr Turnbull said.

"So it is a very good idea, it's a very good idea, but it is not a new idea."

The issue is what form of member empowerment is adopted at the conference.

Mr Abbott's motion, commonly referred to as the "Warringah motion", would allow party members to vote in preselections after two years of membership.

His proposal has been criticised by some who see it as laying the groundwork for rampant branch stacking that has been seen in the Victorian branch as a result of similar changes.

Liberal MPs Alex Hawke and Julian Leeser have put forward compromises, including requiring a person to have been a member for up to four years before being given voting rights, and passing an "activity test" by showing they have campaigned or handed out how to vote cards for the party.

They will be debated on Sunday.

Mr Abbott argued Mr Turnbull's comments show they are "on the same side".

"This is a contest between factionalists who want to keep power and democrats who want to open up our party. That is the contest," he told reporters outside the conference.

"I am very pleased that the Prime Minister and I are on the same side.

"Listen to his words today. He is an absolutely unequivocal supporter of one member, one vote."

Federal Liberal president and former New South Wales premier Nick Greiner said debate was healthy, but issued a warning.

"We have had a tradition of civility, a tradition of having robust differences in the party or in the wings and we will always have that tradition and that reality," he told delegates.

"But I do notice, it would be hard not to notice, some lack of that civility, some lack of that mutual respect.

"My plea to you tomorrow and going forward is, of course we advocate with passion, of course we argue for our views on what is best for our party or for our nation, but not to do it in our tradition of civility of respect is unfortunate."

Topics: liberals, political-parties, government-and-politics, abbott-tony, turnbull-malcolm, sydney-2000, nsw

First posted July 22, 2017 12:38:36

Read more here:
Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott 'on the same side' in NSW Liberals reform push - ABC Online

President Donald Trumps critics view Republicans in Congress as his enablers. James Fallows, in The Atlantic, describes their behavior as the most discouraging weakness our governing system has shown since Trump took office. He singles out Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse 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 Trumps attacks on MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinskis appearance, Brownstein asked what they intended to do about it. Other Trump foes echoed 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 (Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski) or our intelligence committee needs to interview Donald Trump Jr. (Maine Sen. Susan Collins) can have a fairly direct effect on what happens in Washington.

But its not just words. The Republican Congress held hearings about President Trumps 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 werent. The Republicans could have, for example, not held hearings.

Its 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 theyre falling pitifully short only if the baseline expectation is that they do whatever liberal journalists think its their duty to do.

And some things liberal journalists think its the Republicans duty to do make no sense. Take that 95 percent figure mentioned by Fallows. Was South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham really supposed to vote to keep regulations he considered unwise on the books because he opposes Vladimir Putin? Was Arizona Sen. 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, thats what youre 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.

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 Trumps presidency raises. Members of Congress 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.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist.

Read more from the original source:
Ramesh Ponnuru: Liberals want Republicans to stop being Republicans - Topeka Capital Journal

"Conservatives and libertarians were always portrayed as the shrill and unhappy guys, and the left and liberals were always the people who are having fun," says Greg Gutfeld, host of Fox News' The Greg Gutfeld Show, co-host of The Five, former host of Red Eye, bestselling author, and Reason magazine intern reject.

"What you're seeing now is a lot more fun on the libertarian and right side than you've ever seen on the left."

Gutfeld sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to discuss his "ugly libertarianism," Donald Trump's love of Red Eye, why he was excited about the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and why Trump's comments on the campaign trail were best understood in the context of a Comedy Central roast.

The interview took place on stage at Freedom Fest 2017, an annual gathering for libertarians in Las Vegas.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Audio post-production by Ian Keyser.

See the article here:
Greg Gutfeld: Trump Turned Liberals Into Dean Wormer [Podcast] - Reason (blog)

Democrats are united in their belief that healthcare is a basic human right. Americans should not die because they cant afford insurance.

Until today, Republican legislators appeared united in support of a plan that would eliminate healthcare for millions of Americans. That unity ended hours ago when two republican senators announced they would not support the plan, an announcement that assured defeat of the bill.

President Trump, seemingly unconcerned about his earlier promise to voters of a better healthcare plan, urged republican legislators to get rid of Obamacare immediately and worry about an alternative later. Republican Whip Mitch McConnell agreed, saying an alternative could be arrived at down the road.

When I ran for Congress in 2016, I met a man who had chosen to pay a fine rather than subscribe to Obamacare. Why? It certainly wasnt because he didnt want insurance for himself or his family. It was because he couldnt afford the premiums. Following his decision, the young man lost two fingers in a work-related injury. His medical expenses cost him his life savings and more.

Throughout our country, Democrats and Republicans are uniting in support of a single payer plan that offers affordable healthcare to all Americans. Many refer to this plan as Medicare for All.

If you believe single payer is a good plan, let Congressman Duffy know. Help him understand that Americans, whether democrat or republican, believe affordable healthcare is a basic right for all Americans.

Link:
Democrats and Republicans Unite - Ashland Daily Press

The Democrats, Vice President Mike Pence said recently, have already settled on their agenda, and it can be summed up in one word: resist.

He isnt the only one with that view of Democrats. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 37 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party stands for something, while 52 percent say it just stands against Trump.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the House Democrats campaign arm, seemed to admit as much two weeks ago when it sent supporters an email with the proposed slogan: Democrats 2018: Have you seen the other guys?

Now Democrats are trying to fix that and not a moment too soon.

On Monday, I am told, congressional Democrats in the Senate and the House together will roll out a legislative policy agenda, their de facto 2018 campaign platform. The details, after months of haggling and cat-herding, could yet disappoint, but the broad outlines as described to me are exactly what the doctor ordered.

As important as whats in it is whats not. Democrats jettisoned social and foreign policy issues for this exercise, eschewing the identity politics and box-checking that have plagued Democratic campaigns in the past, most recently Hillary Clintons. This will be purely an economic message.

They also resisted invitations to steer the party toward the center (as pollster Mark Penn advised) or into a more progressive agenda. This is meant to be a populist manifesto that doesnt conform to the left/right debate but instead aims to align Democrats with ordinary, middle-class Americans fighting powerful special interests.

Titled A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages, it is expected to have many Democratic staples tax increases on the rich, affordable college, infrastructure spending, higher wages, job training, paid family leave and the like and a few new ones.

Hashed out over several months by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujn of New Mexico, and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Cheri Bustos of Illinois and David Cicilline of Rhode Island, it will be outlined Monday with a few sample proposals, to be followed in the coming weeks by more proposals, some to be introduced as legislation and some to be offered as Contract With America-style promises that a Democratic Congress would implement. Schumer told me in December that Democrats would have five, six sharp-edged [policies] that can be described in five words, although it sounds as if the plan hasnt come out quite so lean.

The goal is to avoid repeating Clintons problem in 2016. She had so many proposals, and she scratched the itches of so many Democratic constituencies, that she lacked a coherent economic message.

Democrats have been little but the anti-Trump party lately, successfully fighting his legislative agenda and raising a ruckus about the Russia scandal and Trumps other outrages.

The danger is that an impression solidifies among voters that the party has nothing else to say.

As if to illustrate the point, 23 liberal House Democrats announced Wednesday morning that they were filing a resolution of no confidence in Trump. It contains no fewer than 88 whereas clauses (whereas the embassy of Kuwait held its national day celebration at Trump International, and whereas Trump referred to United States Senator Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas). The idea might work if Democrats had a majority and if the United States had a parliamentary system.

A reporter asked Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, sponsor of the no-confidence resolution, if he was focusing too much on Trump over jobs. Bubble-gum chew and walk at the same time, he recommended.

Except Democrats havent been doing both. Some think they dont have to, because polls show that voters prefer a Democratic Congress. But as The Washington Posts Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin point out, more Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (65 percent) say they will definitely vote next year than Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (57 percent). To boost Democratic turnout, the party needs to be more than just anti-Trump.

Even if it doesnt help their electoral prospects, Democrats need a clear agenda so they can govern if they do win. If they win without a sharp agenda, they would end up where congressional Republicans are now: in power but without a popular mandate for their agenda.

On Wednesday, I asked Rep. Linda Snchez of California), the No. 5 Democrat in the House, about the search for a unified agenda, and she bristled. Were not searching for an agenda, she replied. Democrats have always known what we stood for.

They just did a really good job of keeping it under wraps.

Dana Milbank is a political reporter and columnist for The Washington Post.

More Dana Milbank articles

See the original post:
Democrats in Congress set to unwrap agenda - The Register-Guard