Mediaboss Marketing

DemocratsDemocratas

The Democrats (Portuguese: Democratas, DEM) is a political party in Brazil, which is considered the main party within the right-wing spectrum. It was founded in 1985 under the name of Liberal Front Party (Partido da Frente Liberal, PFL) from a dissidence of the defunct PDS, successor to the ARENA, the official party during the military dictatorship of 19641985. It changed to its current name in 2007. The original name reflected the party's support of free market policies,[5] rather than the identification with international liberal parties. Instead, the party affiliated itself to the international federations of Christian democratic (CDI) and conservative parties (IDU). The Democrats' identification number is 25 and its colors are green, blue, and white.

On January 24, 1985, DEM's direct predecessor, the Liberal Front Party (Partido da Frente Liberal - PFL), was founded by a dissident faction of the Democratic Social Party (PDS), which had been founded in 1980 as the successor of the National Renewal Alliance (ARENA), the former ruling party during the time of military dictatorship (196579). At the time, Brazil was under the effervescence that put an end to the military regime. In the previous year, a series of rallies known as Diretas J gathered thousands of peoples in the streets of major cities to demand the direct election of the next President, as envisaged in the Dante de Oliveira amendment, which was pending approval in the Congress. On January 10, 1984, PDS rejected supporting this proposition, but a pro-Diretas J faction emerged within the party a few days later. On April 25, 1984, the Congress, besieged by Army officials, voted the amendment. It did not reach the required quorum for approval, due to the absence of 112 deputies from PDS.

After the attempts to have a direct election failed, discussions about the presidential succession turned to the National Congress, which would elect the President indirectly in the following year. The pro-Diretas J faction of PDS formed the Liberal Front, and decided to support PMDB's candidate Tancredo Neves against PDS's Paulo Maluf, the official candidate of the military regime. With the support of Aureliano Chaves, Marco Maciel, Antnio Carlos Magalhes, and Jorge Bornhausen, among other major dissidents from PDS, the Liberal Front named Jos Sarney as Neves' running mate for the 1985 presidential election. On January 15, 1985, the Neves/Sarney presidential ticket got 480 of the 686 votes available in the Congress (70% of the total). Nine days later, on January 24, 1985, the Liberal Front officially disbanded from PDS and formed the Liberal Front Party (PFL). With the death of Tancredo Neves on April 21, 1985, Sarney took office as President. Due to the same electoral law that forbade coalitions, Sarney was forced to join PMDB, of which he is still a member today. PFL, however, was a major ally of his government. His daughter, Roseana, was a member of PFL until 2006, when she was expelled from the party for supporting Luiz Incio Lula da Silva.

In 1989, Aureliano Chaves was chosen as PFL's presidential candidate, but the weakness of his campaign made most leaders of the party to declare their support for National Reconstruction Party (PRN)'s candidate, Fernando Collor, himself a former member of ARENA, PDS, and PMDB. PFL's Senators, however, had masterminded the candidacy of businessman and television presenter Silvio Santos, a maneuver which had been hampered by the Supreme Electoral Court. An ally of Collor in the runoff election against Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, PFL participated in his government, and, even after his impeachment, it participated in the coalition that supported Itamar Franco's government. From 1994 to 1998, PFL supported Fernando Henrique Cardoso and thus secured the post of vice-president with Marco Maciel. Prior to the 2002 election, an operation led by the Federal Police in Maranho undermined the presidential candidacy of Roseana Sarney, leading to a rupture with the government.

In the legislative elections, on October 6, 2002, the party won 84 out of 513 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 14 out of 54 seats in the Senate. After this election, which saw the rise of Lula of the PT as President, PFL became an opposition party for the first time ever since the 1964 coup. The party reorganized its alliance with Cardoso's PSDB in order to form the official opposition in the National Congress.

In the following general elections, held on October 1, 2006, the party won 65 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 6 out of the 27 seats up for election in the Senate, making it the second largest party in the Senate. The party does not usually run presidential candidates, but does run gubernatorial candidates in several states. In the 2006 elections, the party lost several state governorships, but won the governorship of the Federal District. However, this governorship was later lost due to a corruption scandal in which Governor Jos Roberto Arruda was caught on tape receiving bribery from private companies.

In 2007, the party was refounded and adopted its current name.

In the 2010 elections, the party continued to suffer losses in the Parliament, losing 22 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, and 7 seats in the Senate. DEM was able to elect only two Senators that year (Demstentes Torres from Gois, and Jos Agripino Maia from Rio Grande do Norte), for a total of 6, falling from the second largest party in the Senate to the fourth. Its longest-serving member, former Vice President Maciel, which had been first elected to the National Congress in 1966, was not re-elected.[6] On the other hand, DEM won the governorships of the states of Rio Grande do Norte and Santa Catarina, expanding its presence in state administrations.

The party lost over half of its votes when comparing the 2006 and 2010 Senate elections. In 2006, it had 21.6 million votes for the upper house, while in 2010 it had just 10.2 million votes. The decline was less sharp in the Chamber of Deputies elections, as it had 10.1 million votes in 2006, and 7.3 million in 2010. The decrease in DEM's voting was attributed to the rapid growth of the PT and its allies in the Northeast. In 1986, the party had won 36% of the votes for the Chamber in the Northeast, while in 2006 this was reduced to 17%.[7]

As a result of the decline in DEM's popularity, the party has considered merging with another major party, such as the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) or the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB). A possible merge with PMDB, however, has been rejected by most of DEM's leaders due to the fact that it is a member of the Lulista alliance in the National Congress and in most local level administrations. In 2011, it suffered another decline in its membership when So Paulo mayor Kassab founded the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and took prominent DEM members such as Senator Ktia Abreu, Santa Catarina governor Raimundo Colombo, and former vice-presidential candidate Indio da Costa with him. PSD has 52 federal deputies and 2 Senators, most of them former DEM members.

The party is usually considered to be right-wing.[8] In 2006, the party's former president Jorge Bornhausen stated in an interview to Brazil's largest newsmagazine Veja, that the party should be considered centrist and socially liberal.[9] However, other party leaders have classified it as "internationally, closest to Christian democracy".[citation needed]

According to political scientist Jairo Nicolau, the name change was intended to crown a process of modernization inside the party.[10] "DEM was launched to be a modern right-wing party, with a new program, and aimed at the urban middle classes; a kind of Conservative Party of the UK", he says.[10] This, according to him, explains the departure of founding members and the rise of younger leaders.[10] For instance, Jorge Bornhausen, which had been a member of UDN, retired from the presidency of the party to give place to federal deputy Rodrigo Maia, son of Csar Maia.[7] The Santa Catarina section of the party was taken over by Bornhausen's own son, deputy Paulo Bornhausen.[7] In Bahia, ACM Neto took over the legacy of his grandfather, Antnio Carlos Magalhes.[7]

Internationally, the Democrats are affiliated with both the Christian democratic Centrist Democrat International[11] and the conservative International Democrat Union.[12] Its youth organization, Juventude Democratas, and the Rio Grande do Sul section, however, are associated with the Liberal Network for Latin America.

Read more here:
Democrats (Brazil) - Wikipedia

President Donald Trump walks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (right) and Sen. John Barrasso into a meeting with Senate Republicans on Tuesday. | Alex Brandon/AP

Republicans are preparing to advance a short-term spending bill without relief for Dreamers and dare Democrats to vote against it.

By RACHAEL BADE, JOHN BRESNAHAN and SARAH FERRIS

11/29/2017 01:06 PM EST

President Donald Trump and congressional GOP leaders are daring Democrats to shut down the government over immigration rather than back a plan to extend funding into January.

After Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer boycotted a Tuesday afternoon White House negotiating session on government funding, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell began hashing out a plan to pass a short-term spending bill to fund the government into January. The measure would not include a fix for so-called Dreamers, something Democrats have demanded be part of any spending bill.

Story Continued Below

Trump was open to the idea of a short-term continuing resolution during a White House meeting with GOP leaders, according to multiple Hill and White House sources familiar with the meeting.

While the plan hasnt been finalized, the House would move first under this scenario, passing a bill with only Republican votes. The Senate would then try to follow suit, but it would need to pick off at least eight Senate Democrats to clear the chambers higher 60-vote threshold. Republicans believe that Schumer would come under heavy pressure from his own colleagues to avoid being blamed for a shutdown, GOP aides said.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Delaying a broader debate on government funding into 2018 would cheer conservatives, who have been dreading a massive year-end spending package that includes a fix for the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Republicans also want to complete work on a massive $5 trillion tax bill before taking on another fight.

But it also raises the likelihood of an ugly shutdown battle just before the holiday season.

Many Democrats have vowed to withhold their votes from any spending agreement that does not include a fix for the young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as minors. Democratic leadership sources have suggested that Pelosi and Schumer could back a one- or two-week CR. But theyre loath to move the deadline past Jan. 1.

Still, Democrats may come under pressure to avoid a government shutdown over DACA, which does not fully expire until March. One House Appropriations Committee Democratic source said there could be some wiggle room in the partys stance on DACA that could help avert a shutdown. The source speculated that while many Democrats are dead-set against a full-year spending package without an immigration deal, there may be fewer who would object to a CR into January.

There are a lot of questions that would determine how Democrats vote, the source said. "DACA is one, but theres also the question of the supplemental. Theres the question of a [spending] caps deal.

At the same time, Ryan and other GOP leaders have for weeks resisted the idea of a stopgap bill through January.

"This is something the speaker feels strong about," leadership ally Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told POLITICO on Monday night. "A CR and sequester for the military is not a way to begin the New Year.

But that stance is shifting as Dec. 8 when the government runs out of money approaches and the GOP remains laser-focused on its tax bill.

Democratic leaders refusal to show up at the White House for spending talks Tuesday, after Trump insulted them on Twitter, has also solidified a GOP desire to consider a more hard-line strategy.

"Im very disappointed that Democrats abandoned the field with a shutdown looming. I think thats irresponsible, said Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), a longtime spending panel member who often works with Democrats on funding matters. "If the Democrats won't even talk, theyre the ones who are going to cause a shutdown."

Asked about the new strategy, Ryans office downplayed the notion that it has settled on a new GOP-only approach, arguing that everything is still in flux.

No plan has been decided on, said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong. Assuming Democrats are interested in talking with congressional leadership and the White House, talks will continue.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The left is far from alone in its resistance to a CR through January. GOP defense hawks such as House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry of Texas abhor the idea of funding the military on a temporary basis and often complain that the lack of budget certainty cripples the nations readiness.

However, Defense Secretary James Mattis, who also attended the White House meeting Tuesday, plans to talk to defense hawks to try to make them more comfortable with the plan. GOP leadership is also going to try to win over defense hawks by promising more spending for the military if they wait until January, perhaps even higher than the nearly $603 billion currently being considered, according to one House GOP source.

GOP leaders could also encounter resistance from moderate Republicans representing Hispanic-heavy districts. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) on Tuesday said he would vote against any government funding bill past December that doesnt include a solution for Dreamers.

Im announcing today that I will not support any appropriations bill that funds the government beyond Dec. 31 unless we get this DACA issue resolved," Curbelo said at a panel on immigration reform in Florida held by the pro-immigrant business group IMPAC Fund and the University of Miami.

At the same time, a longer stopgap spending bill would be applauded by conservatives. Members of the House Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee have been urging Ryan not to create a new deadline right before Christmas, fearful that it would cripple the GOPs leverage and lead to the right getting steamrolled on immigration.

If we have to do a CR, we prefer January rather than Christmas, Freedom Caucus leader Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Wednesday morning.

The lawmakers who actually have to write spending bills would also prefer a stopgap that stretches into January, as it would give them more time to work on a bigger appropriations package to fund the government.

Eliana Johnson contributed to this report.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Here is the original post:
GOP looks to jam Democrats in shutdown fight - POLITICO

Among registered voters, 56% say they favor a Democrat in their congressional district, while 38% prefer a Republican. That 18-point edge is the widest Democrats have held in CNN polling on the 2018 contests, and the largest at this point in midterm election cycles dating back two decades. The finding follows several other public polls showing large double-digit leads for Democrats on similar questions.

And those Republicans who are still in the electorate are less enthusiastic about voting next year than Democrats. Overall, 49% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress next year, compared with 32% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters who say the same.

The poll was conducted before the passage of Republicans' signature tax reform bill this week, which the GOP hopes will boost their electoral prospects next year. Findings from the same poll released earlier this week found that the bill's unpopularity on the rise, with few expecting tangible benefits for themselves once it becomes law.

The Republican Party itself is viewed less favorably than the Democratic Party. About a third -- 34% -- have a favorable view of the GOP, while 46% say the same about the Democrats, according to the poll. That marks a rebound for Democrats after their favorability ratings sagged earlier this fall and is the highest mark for them since July of 2016. The Republican numbers are also on the rise, but remain below levels reached earlier this year.

The GOP may be further held back by a public displeased and angry with the way the country is being governed under their control. Overall, 68% say they are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, and a matching 68% say they are angry about the way things are going in the country today.

Those numbers are similar to the levels seen in December 2015, ahead of the 2016 presidential election in which voters seeking change propelled Donald Trump to the presidency. But the partisan divides underlying those numbers are now largely reversed.

About two-thirds of Republicans say they're satisfied with the way the nation is being governed now, up from 10% in 2015, when Barack Obama was president and Republicans controlled the Congress. Among Democrats, satisfaction has fallen from 40% to 6%. Independents remain about equally unsatisfied: 25% are now vs. 22% in 2015.

Anger, too, has switched sides, with half of Democrats now saying they are "very angry" about the way things are going in the US, up from 14% in 2015. Among Republicans, deep anger has dipped from 41% in 2015 to 10% now.

And on that change voters were seeking in 2016, most say Trump did bring it: 77% say his presidency has created significant changes in the country, but more say they're for the worse (43%) than for the better (30%). Back in 2009, fewer thought Obama had brought change by November of his first year in office (69%), but by a 40% to 27% margin, they said those changes were for the better rather than the worse.

Trump himself continues to garner deeply negative favorability ratings -- 36% hold a positive view, 60% a negative one -- and his approval rating for handling the economy has reached a new low, despite the White House's frequent touting of the country's economic progress. Overall, 49% disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, the highest level to say so since he took office, while 44% approve.

House Speaker Paul Ryan's favorability ratings have ticked upward from their low point in mid-September, but he remains net negative, 35% favorable to 45% unfavorable, as midterm elections approach. The Speaker does earn net-positive ratings among his own partisans: 66% have a favorable view, 19% unfavorable. But his numbers lag behind Trump's ratings among the Republican laity, 85% of whom have a positive view of the President.

Ryan has been circumspect in discussing his own political future in the face of a pile of daunting poll numbers, saying in an interview this morning on ABC's "Good Morning America" that "It's not even 2018 yet ... (Running for reelection is) something (my wife and I) haven't discussed yet. Something we'll discuss down the road when the appropriate time comes."

Read the original:
Poll: Democrats' 2018 advantage expands - CNNPolitics

What pretty lies Republicans tell, most of all about themselves. And what a gorgeous opportunity they have given Democrats to steal that bogus rhetoric right out from under them.

Try this on for size: Democrats are the party of family values because they promote the creation of more families. They did precisely that with their advocacy of marriage equality, which didnt tug the country away from convention but toward it, by encouraging gay and lesbian Americans to live in the sorts of arrangements that conservatives in fact extol.

Democrats also want to give families the flexibility and security that help keep them afloat and maybe intact. Thats what making the work force more hospitable to women and increasing the number of Americans with health insurance do. And Republicans lag behind Democrats on both fronts.

Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility because they dont pretend that they can afford grand government commitments whether distant wars or domestic programs without collecting the revenue for them.

Democrats are the party of patriotism, because theyre doing something infinitely more urgent and substantive than berating football players who kneel during the national anthem. Theyre recognizing that a hostile foreign power tried to change the course of an American presidential election. Theyre pressing for a full accounting of that. Theyre looking for fixes, so that we can know with confidence that we control our own destiny going forward. The president, meanwhile, plays down the threat, and Republicans prop him up.

Democrats are the party of national security. They dont taunt and get into Twitter wars with the rulers of countries that just might send nuclear warheads our way. They dont alienate longtime allies by flashing contradictory signals about their commitment to NATO. The leader of the Republican Party does all of that and more, denying the G.O.P. any pretense to stewardship of a stable world order.

Democrats are the law-and-order party. While many Republicans and their media mouthpiece, Fox News, labor to delegitimize the F.B.I. and thus inoculate Trump, Democrats put faith in prosecutors, agents and the system.

Democrats are the party of decency and modesty. None of their highest leaders uses the public arena to bully private citizens in the way that the Republican president does. None advances his or her financial interests as brazenly or brags as extravagantly.

Democrats are the party of tradition, if its interpreted and it should be to mean a news media that operates without fear of government interference, an internet to which access isnt tiered, judicial appointees who have a modicum of fluency in trial law.

Under Trumps thumb and spell, the Republican Party is watching the pillars of its brand crumble. Democrats should grab hold of and appropriate them. And theyre starting to, fitfully and imperfectly. Jettisoning Al Franken as the Republican National Committee reteamed with Moore was part of that effort.

Who among us doesnt care about family values, defined justly and embraced honestly? Who doesnt see the good in patriotism, tradition and decency? Theyre neither hokey words nor musty concepts, and thats why Republicans have been using (and misusing) them. But in the age of Trump, they constitute a language that Democrats can more credibly speak.

See the rest here:
Democrats Are the New Republicans - The New York Times

Im starting to think that all too many Democrats believe that private citizens and private corporations dont actually own their private income or their private property.

Otherwise, how can we explain the Democratic insistence, repeated endlessly over the last 24 hours, that Republicans somehow are poised to execute a grand heist by cutting corporate and individual tax rates, granting an estimated 80.4 percent of taxpayers an average tax break of $2,140.

The rhetoric was remarkable, and the hysterics werent confined to fringe figures on the left.

Heres House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi:

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer:

Democratic presidential frontrunners Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders weighed in:

Note the key words. A tax cut is a heist. Its looting the governments money. Youre robbing and ransacking the middle class. Schumer is the most measured, and even he acts like the government is giving people money by granting a tax break.

Yes, part of this is just talking points. Theyre words chosen to win a news cycle. But they also betray a deeper problem. Taken at face value they represent a fundamental redefinition of private property. Its part of the Democratic march towards socialism, and it doesnt just have implications for tax rates, it has grave consequences for civil liberties as well.

The traditional view of private income and private property is clear. You own and control the money you make or the property you possess. By the consent of the governed the state can tax a portion of that money and regulate your use of your property, but the fundamental presumption remains its your property. Its your money.

To put it in legal terms, the government bears the burden of establishing the need for your funds or the necessity for regulation. Indeed, the Constitution establishes the primacy of individual rather than state ownership by noting that the government can take your property only for public use and only after paying just compensation.

Increasingly, however, the American Left is flipping the proposition. Whats yours is the array of government goods and services established by the vast and growing federal bureaucracy. Whats yours is the bundle of bureaucratic and regulatory rights created by an increasingly regulatory state. Thus, private property is in reality a public resource. Private businesses are public accommodations that can easily be commandeered to become instruments of social policy just ask the Christian business owners required to furnish free abortifacients to their employees or to use their artistic talents to celebrate immoral events.

Read through that lens, and you can easily see why Democrats use the rhetoric of theft. In Barney Franks memorable phrase, Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together. Its the core expression of American community and the primary expression of American values. Its the centerpiece of American life.

In other words as with so many other elements of our public debate were back to first principles. Were back to culture war. Red and Blue America are once again like ships passing in the night. A conservative hears the language of theft and laughs. Im not stealing from anyone if Im allowed to keep more of my own cash. The progressive hears the same word and nods. After all, the government must fund our welfare state, and the more money a person has, the greater the governments moral and legal claim on his resources.

Culture wars arent static. The boundaries arent fixed. The gospel of private ownership and personal prosperity can and should win converts, especially when contrasted with the extraordinarily high real-world cost and staggering inefficiency of the Sanders/Warren model of immensely expanded government. But gospels need evangelists, and Republicans need to remember that good ideas still need good advocates. The policy has passed. The sales pitch is just beginning.

READ MORE:NR Editorial: A Solid Accomplishment on TaxesFinal Tax Bill: The Biggest Cuts Are for the Middle ClassMost Americans Believe False Claims about the Tax Bill

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Continued here:
Democrats: Republican Tax Bill Is Theft | National Review