Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Democrats Under Pressure to Stay Silent on Iran Deal …

As Congress heads into its long August recess, the White House and the American Israel Public Affairs Committeeare lobbying Democrats hard in anticipation of a September vote on the Iran nuclear deal. But both sides have given those Democrats who are set to oppose them a second option; they are asking them to at least delay announcing their decision until they get back.

The calculation for askingDemocratsto delay their announcementsis defensive:Neither side wants the other to establish momentum that would precipitate a cascade of commitments over the coming weeks

President Barack Obama and other top officials have been in near constant communication withHouse and Senate Democrats,through group and one-on-one interactions, to urge them to support the P5+1 deal with Iran and vote against theresolution of disapprovalput forthTuesdayby House Foreign Affairs Committee ChairmanEd Royce.Bob Corker, Royce's opposite number in the Senate, could introduce a companion version of the disapproval measure as early as later this week.

Members of Congressand theirstaffers tell us that the White House has asked Democratswho are expected to oppose the deal to hold off on announcing their positionuntil September, when Congress will be focused on the agreement. On the other side, AIPACand itslobbyists are now asking members who are leaning toward supporting the agreement to likewise hold off on their announcements until after the recess.

One pro-Israel lobbyist told us that AIPACis asking members who might support the nuclear deal to wait until after the Congressional recess for more information. Between now and Labor Day, Congress may learn much more aboutthe side agreementsreached between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iranover how inspectors will gain access to suspected sites andverify information about the history of Iran's nuclear program.

There are about two dozen Congressional Democrats who are being targeted heavily by both sides -- either party leaders orprominent figuresin the pro-Israel community who thought to have influence over other the thinking of their colleagues. Chief among them are Senator Charles Schumer of New York, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland, and Jewish Democratic lawmakers such as SenatorRichard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

In an interview, Blumenthal declined to talk about his private conversations with the Obama administration or AIPAC, but he told ushe wont be swayed by either the White Houses political pressure or the $40 million lobbying campaign sponsored by AIPAC and other groups opposed to the deal.

Im going to be spending all of August talking to my constituents because I want to understand what they are thinking, he said. My overriding and single concern is what is the right thing to do for our nation.

Royce told us he isaskinghis Democratic colleagues to consider a bipartisan letter most of them signed earlier this year that laid out four conditions for a good agreement. Royce said on every single one of those conditions, from resolving outstanding questions about the history of Iran's nuclear issues to calling for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of suspected sites, the deal reached in Vienna last month does not meet the standards.

Royce also told us the second case he is making is to look at Iran's foreign meddlingtoday in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. "As Iran continues with this aggression I think it potentially will impact the decisions of members of the House of Representatives," he said.

Original post:
Democrats Under Pressure to Stay Silent on Iran Deal ...

GOP debate contenders give Democrats reason to worry

The Washington Posts Dan Balz and Karen Tumulty tell us who the real winners and losers are in the first GOP debate. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

CLEVELAND Donald Trump may top the polls in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, but this weeks debate was a reminder that the party has able rivals who eventually could take him down and who also could mount a stiff challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election.

Trump performed in typical style Thursday in the two-hour debate the same style that has helped him blow past the other candidates. But as the campaigns broke camp here Friday morning, the smiles on the faces of other candidates advisers told the fuller story of what happened on the stage at the Quicken Loans Arena.

[Trump roils first debate among GOP contenders]

Everyone came out a winner or so the rivals advisers proclaimed. Some of that bravado was typical post-debate hype, but some of it was grounded in reality. Trump may have been the center of attention, but others performed more effectively overall.

For months, Republican leaders have talked about the breadth, depth and potential strength of their candidates. As a group, the aspiring nominees are certainly more experienced and seemingly more ready for a national campaign than the collection of politicians who sought to deny Mitt Romney the GOP nomination in 2012.

Democrats have enjoyed the summer of Trump and hope it lasts long enough to inflict serious damage on the Republican brand. But they no doubt saw enough Thursday night to begin to worry about what a general election pitting a vulnerable Clinton against one of the non-Trumps could portend.

On Thursday, a national television audience likely a record primary-debate audience got its first real look at candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Even former Florida governor Jeb Bush probably isnt that well known, despite his familiar name.

[Winners and losers from the first Republican presidential debate]

In a field of 17 candidates, Trumps poll numbers are impressive. Hes getting a fifth to a quarter of the GOP vote in national polls. In those polls, his nearest rivals are drawing half or less of his support.

Read more here:
GOP debate contenders give Democrats reason to worry

Liberal Democrats – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Liberal Democrats (often referred to as the Lib Dems) are a social liberal political party in the United Kingdom.[10][11][12][13][14]

The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The two parties had formed the electoral SDPLiberal Alliance for seven years prior. The Liberal Party had been in existence for 129 years and in power under leaders such as Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George. Liberal Reforms led to the creation of the British welfare state. In the 1920s, the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the largest opponent of the Conservative Party. The SDP split from Labour in 1981 because of the latter's move to the left.[15][16]

Nick Clegg was elected leader in 2007. At the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats won 57 seats, making them the third-largest party in the House of Commons behind the Conservatives with 307 and Labour with 258.[17] No party having an overall majority, the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition government with the Conservative Party, with Clegg becoming Deputy Prime Minister and other Liberal Democrats taking up ministerial positions.[18] At the 2015 general election, the party was reduced to eight Members of Parliament and Clegg resigned as leader.[19]Tim Farron won the subsequent leadership election.[20]

The party supports constitutional and electoral reform,[21]progressive taxation,[22]environmentalism,[23]human rights laws,[24]banking reform[25] and civil liberties.[26]

The opening line to the preamble of the Liberal Democrats constitution is "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."[27] Most commentators describe the party as centrist. In 2011 party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said "But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal."[28]

There are two main strands of distinct ideology within the party, social liberals and the economic liberals, more commonly known as Orange Bookers. The social liberals were seen as being the more traditionally centre-left end of the party with Orange Bookers being more towards the centre. The principal difference between the two is that the Orange Bookers tend to support greater choice and competition and as such aiming to increase social mobility through increasing economic freedom and opportunity for those with more disadvantaged backgrounds, whereas the social liberals were more commonly associated with directly aiming to increase equality of outcome through state means. Correspondingly, Orange Bookers tended to favour cutting taxes for the poorest in order to increase opportunity, contrasting with social liberals, who would rather see higher spending on the disadvantaged to reduce income inequality.[29]

Being an Orange Booker and a social liberal within the party are not mutually exclusives. David Laws, one of the most economically liberal MPs in the party, said in Parliament "I am grateful to my Hon. friend for his kind comments about Gladstonian Liberalism. I hope that this is not only Gladstonian Liberalism, but liberalism tinged with the social liberalism about which my party is so passionate."[30] Indeed, the Orange Book, to which the term refers, discusses the need for a more complete liberalism for the party, more fully supporting the liberalism as a whole including social liberalism.

The social liberalism in the party stemmed from the start of the 20th-century when the Liberal party were bringing about many reforms, known as Liberal reforms, which are often viewed as the creation of the modern public welfare system in the UK. A major part of creating the liberal welfare reforms was taken by David Lloyd George, who later went on to become Prime Minister. They were also influenced by William Beveridge, who is credited with drafting further advancements of the welfare state, especially the National Health Service (NHS), and social liberal economist John Maynard Keynes. In February 2009, many social liberals founded the Social Liberal Forum, an internal party pressure group, to pursue social liberal policies within the party.

In a poll of Liberal Democrat members on 30 April 2011, 64% classed themselves as social liberal with 35% counting themselves as economic liberals. Other affiliations high on the list were progressive with 65%, social democrat 34%, 45% centre-left, 60% internationalist, 44% radical, 41% green.[31]

In December 2011, in a speech to the Demos think tank and the Open Society Foundation Clegg put forward his definition of the three main political traditions in Britain, saying:

Read more:
Liberal Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social democracy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about a political ideology. For the social welfare model in Northern Europe commonly described as "social democracy", see Nordic model. For the model of capitalism in Western Europe sometimes conflated with social democracy, see Social market economy.

Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through evolutionary methods. An example of this would be the Swedish Social Democratic Party, whose leader, Stefan Lfven, openly identifies as a "Socialist Democrat," and says he is "proud" to be a socialist. [1] "Social democracy" is often used to refer to the social and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century.[2][3]

Following the split between reformists and revolutionary socialists in the Second International, social democrats have called for a peaceful, evolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. Social Democracy asserts that the only acceptable, constitutional form government is representative democracy under the rule of law. It advocates the promotion of democratic decision-making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stakeholders sufficient rights of co-determination[4] and support for a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism such as inequality, poverty, and oppression of underprivileged groups while rejecting a fully free economy or a fully planned economy. [5] Social democratic policy favors universally-accessible public services such as education, health care, workers' compensation, child care and care for the elderly.[6] Social democracy is strongly connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers.[7]

Social democracy originated in 19th century Germany from the influence of both the reformist socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle, as well as the internationalist revolutionary socialism advanced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[8] The Marxists and Lassallians were in rivalry over political influence in the movement until 18681869 when Marxism became the official basis of Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany.[9] In the Hague Congress of 1872, Marx modified his earlier stance on revolution and declared that in some countries workers would be able to achieve their aims through peaceful means, but said that was not true of all countries. For example, Marx cited Holland, Britain, and the United States as examples of countries where he believed it would.[10] Eduard Bernstein was influenced by the gradualist platform favored by the British Fabian movement, which led him to advocate a similar evolutionary approach to socialist politics. By the early 20th century, social democracy began to reject Marxism and embraced alternative philosophical frameworks including ethical socialism and liberal socialism, particularly through the influence of figures like Carlo Rosselli who sought to disassociate socialism from the legacy of Marxism.[11] The Third Way is a major faction in social democratic parties that developed in the 1990s, which has claimed to be social democratic though others have identified it as being effectively a neoliberal movement.[12] Most social democratic and labor parties are members of the Socialist International.[13]

The origins of social democracy have been traced to the 1860s, with the rise of the first major working-class party in Europe, the General German Workers' Association (ADAV) founded by Ferdinand Lassalle.[14] At the same time the International Workingmen's Association also known as the First International was founded in 1864 brought together socialists of various stances, and initially brought forth a conflict between Karl Marx and the anarchists led by Mikhail Bakunin over the role of the state in socialism, with Bakunin rejecting any role for the state.[10] Another issue at the First International was the role of reformism.[15]

Although Lassalle was not a Marxist, he was influenced by the theories of Marx and Engels, and he accepted the existence and importance of class struggle. However unlike Marx's and Engels' The Communist Manifesto, Lassalle promoted class struggle in a more moderate form.[16] While Marx viewed the state negatively as an instrument of class rule that should only exist temporarily upon the rise to power of the proletariat and then dismantled, Lassalle accepted the state. Lassalle viewed the state as a means through which workers could enhance their interests and even transform the society to create an economy based on worker-run cooperatives. Lassalle's strategy was primarily electoral and reformist, with Lassalleans contending that the working class needed a political party that fought above all for universal adult male suffrage.[14]

The ADAV's party newspaper was called Der Sozialdemokrat ("The Social Democrat"). Marx and Engels responded to the title "Sozialdemocrat" with distaste, Engels once wrote "But what a title: Sozialdemokrat!...Why don't they simply call it The Proletarian." Marx agreed with Engels that "Sozialdemokrat" was a bad title.[16] However the origins of the name "Sozialdemokrat" actually traced back to Marx's German translation in 1848 of the French political party known as "Partie Democrat-Socialist" into "Partei der Sozialdemokratie"; but Marx did not like this French party because he viewed it as dominated by the middle class, and associated the word "Sozialdemokrat" with that party.[17] There was a Marxist faction within the ADAV represented by Wilhelm Liebknecht who became one of the editors of the Die Sozialdemokrat.[16]

Faced with opposition from liberal capitalists to his socialist policies, Lassalle controversially attempted to forge a tactical alliance with the conservative aristocratic Junkers due to their anti-bourgeois attitudes, as well as with Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.[14] Friction in the ADAV arose over Lassalle's policy of a friendly approach to Bismarck that had assumed that Bismarck in turn would be friendly towards them that did not succeed. This approach opposed by the party's Marxists, including Liebknecht.[17] Opposition in the ADAV to Lassalle's friendly approach to Bismarck's government resulted in Liebknecht resigning from his position as editor of Die Sozialdemokrat, and left the ADAV in 1865. In 1869 Liebknecht along with Marxist August Bebel founded the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany (SDAP), that was founded as a merger of three groups: petit-bourgeois Saxon People's Party (SVP), a faction of the ADAV, and members of the League of German Workers Associations (VDA).[17]

Though the SDAP was not officially Marxist, it was the first major working-class organization to be led by Marxists and Marx and Engels had direct association with the party. The party adopted stances similar to those adopted by Marx at the First International. There was intense rivalry and antagonism between the SDAP and the ADAV, with the SDAP being highly hostile to the Prussian government while the ADAV pursued a reformist and more cooperative approach.[18] This rivalry reached its height involving the two parties' stances on the Franco-Prussian War, with the SDAP refusing to support Prussia's war effort by claiming it rejected it as an imperialist war by Bismarck, while the ADAV supported the war.[18]

In the aftermath of the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War, revolution broke out in France, with revolutionary army members along with working-class revolutionaries founding the Paris Commune.[19] The Paris Commune appealed both to the citizens of Paris regardless of class, as well as to the working class who were a major base of support for the government by appealing to them via militant rhetoric. In spite of such militant rhetoric to appeal to the working class, the Commune also received substantial support from the middle-class bourgeoisie of Paris, including shopkeepers and merchants. The Commune, in part due to its sizable number neo-Proudhonians and neo-Jacobins in the Central Committee, declared that the Commune was not opposed to private property, but rather hoped to create the widest distribution of it.[20] The political composition of the Commune included twenty-five neo-Jacobins, fifteen to twenty neo-Proudhonians and protosyndicalists, nine or ten Blanquists, a variety of radical republicans, and a few Internationalists influenced by Marx.[21]

Here is the original post:
Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New York City Democratic Party Meetup Group

This group participates in local as well as national politics. We are interested in supporting candidates who promote a non-interventionist foreign policy, sound monetary policy, an audit of the Federal Reserve and economic policies that provide the greatest value for the majority of people. From time to time we have speakers, debate viewing parties and gatherings to discuss ways to improve the Democratic Party and take action. Prior to a primary we will support particular candidates that champion these policies. We feel getting involved in primary elections of both major parties is one of the best ways to strengthen the Democratic Party.Come join!

Blue Republicans is a project that supports Ron Paul in the GOP primary. Since Democrats will not have a presidential primary in 2012, we encourage those who have not yet registered with the Board of Elections to register as Republican for one year only to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary on April 24, 2012.

Why Ron Paul?

For 30 years, Ron Paul's approach to republican democracy has been consistent, principled and rooted in the U.S. Constitution. He has worked to understand and honor the supreme law of the land and the freedoms it protects for all citizens. He was true to his oath to uphold the Constitution even when doing so was unpopular with his own Party.

Ron Paul's speeches, votes, books and articles demonstrate his commitment to individual liberty, a non-interventionist foreign policy, sound monetary policy, free market capitalism and Constitutional government. His prescient warnings about the dangers of rejecting Constitutional policies can be seen in some of the following speeches/videos --

To learn more about Ron Paul,visit:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com.

--

NY State will be holding its Presidential Primary on April 24, 2012. NY State has closed primaries, therefore, in order to vote in the Republican Primary you must be a registered member of the Republican Party. You can check your voter registration HERE .

NOTE: THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

Original post:
The New York City Democratic Party Meetup Group