Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump confounded most of his critics and even some of his supporters last week by attacking Syria. Trump came into office promising to stay out of foreign entanglements and advocating outreach to Russia. So the decision to punish Moscows Syrian client shocked those on the right who liked the sound of Trumps America First isolationist rhetoric. For mainstream conservatives who hope that his administration will discard his campaign rhetoric on foreign policy, the decision to strike was a tonic.

For Democrats, Trumps move is particularly painful. It throws a wrench into their efforts to portray the president as a moral imbecile or a puppet who was essentially elected by Russians and is now ruled by them. If Trump is going to act like a commander in chief able to make carefully calibrated decisions that starkly contrast with his predecessors feckless and immoral dithering on Syria, and if he does this while also offending Russia, the Lefts resistance strategy and their truculent anti-Russia tone begin to look less effective.

Deprived of the standard talking points theyve been using to assail Trump since the inauguration, most Democrats are flailing. Some are joining Rand Paul in saying that no president should be able to order a strike without a congressional vote. There is some merit to that argument, but its not one most Democrats like, given that they support such actions whenever their party controls the White House. Plus, few liberals have any real enthusiasm for a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Instead, they are falling back on something they do care about: refugees. Democrats are claiming that Trump may have been right to punish the butcher of Damascus for atrocities that President Obama ignored. But there is a disconnect, they say, between his military action and his immigration policies. According to both Hillary Clinton and MSNBCs Rachel Maddow, anyone who has compassion for the victims of the Syrian regimes nerve-gas attacks as Trump clearly demonstrated must also be willing to let refugees from that country enter the United States.

EDITORIAL: Syria after the Airstrikes

While Trump is often guilty of inconsistency, this is a specious argument. Americas role as the worlds only superpower does obligate it to act when the international order is threatened by atrocities. The leader of the free world can and must send a message to rogue regimes that they cant use weapons of mass destruction with impunity. But this doesnt mean that everyone affected by those governments automatically gets a ticket to enter the United States.

If the U.S. were to admit all refugees from countries where it has fought wars or aided one side or another in a conflict, there would be no limit to those who would have a right to enter the United States. As a matter of law and tradition, the entry of refugees is governed by factors that relate to whether their plight is a special humanitarian concern to Americans, whether there are reasonable alternatives for resettlement, and whether the particular refugees are admissible to the United States. While one may claim that Syrians qualify as a focus of humanitarian concern, they arguably fail under the latter two categories.

The Syrian civil war is one of the greatest human-rights catastrophes of the last half-century. Last year, the United Nations said that 13.5 millions Syrians needed assistance inside their country, including 6 million who had been forced from their homes. In January, the U.N. claimed that more than 4.8 million Syrians had fled their country. Many are eager to leave the Middle East and start new lives in more prosperous lands where there is no war. But its absurd to think that its the Wests responsibility to take in what amounts to close to 22 percent of Syrias pre-war population. The only rational long-term solution for Syrian refugees is to end the war, not to facilitate Bashar al-Assads effort to depopulate his tortured country.

RELATED: The Middle East: Where American Idealism Goes to Die

Nor is there an immediate need to transfer large numbers of Syrian refugees out of the region to the U.S. Most are living in camps in Jordan or Turkey where conditions are not ideal but apparently livable. Large numbers who are able to leave the camps have already fled to Western European nations such as Germany, which have opened the floodgates to Middle Eastern refugees. Whether that policy is wise or without costs is a matter of debate for Europeans. But no matter what one thinks about that question, what the Europeans have done makes it difficult to argue that the United States must follow suit.

Trump was accused, not without some justice, of appealing to prejudice during his campaign when he called for a flat, if temporary, ban on entry into the U.S. of all Muslim immigrants. If religion were the only argument against letting in the Syrians, as Trumps critics assert, the critics would be right. But their effort to ignore the security question is disingenuous. As events in Europe have shown, if you let in large numbers of people from countries where radical Islam has taken hold, it is a given that a certain number of them, even if it is small, will be potential threats.

The notion that refugees pose no threat at all is based on sentiment rather than evidence or common sense. While Assad and his Russian, Iranian, and Lebanese allies as well as ISIS terrorists have victimized the people of Syria, the country has become a hotbed of Islamist extremism. Indeed, the depredations of pro-Assad forces have bolstered support for radical factions such as ISIS. Its also true that Syria has collapsed as a normal country. As a result, its impossible to effectively vet Syrians who wish to come to the U.S.

Democrats who have taken up the argument about opening the door to impossible-to-vet Syrian refugees in the wake of last weeks events that, for once, gave Trump favorable press coverage are simply trying to change the subject. Instead, they should support policies that will actually do something to help the refugees go home to a nation no longer ruled by Assad. Genuine compassion means backing measures to force Assads ouster, something that will, in turn, lessen support for ISIS. Until that happens, the U.S. must be ready to aid the refugees where they are and ready to use force to punish Assad for violating international norms. Trump must also apply diplomatic and economic pressure to send the same message to Assads Russian and Iranian enablers. Anything else said about Trump and Syrian refugees is pure political hypocrisy.

Jonathan S. Tobin is the opinion editor of JNS.org and a contributor to National Review Online.

READ MORE:

See more here:
The Democrats' Weakest Trump Talking Point - National Review

Iowa Democrats starving for a governor of their own have, at least at this infant stage of the process, a buffet of options from which to choose.

There is much at stake for Democrats in 2018: They are trying to win back the governors office for the first time since 2010, and will not have to defeat Terry Branstad in order to do so. The election also presents the first opportunity to break up Republicans complete control of the state Capitol, and their first chance to bounce back after devastating elections in 2014 and 2016.

Given all thats at stake, perhaps it should come as little surprise a long list of Democrats are interested in running for governor in 2018. Were into the double digits now, counting people who are officially running, have indicated they are thinking about running or have not ruled out running.

Perhaps the best news for Democrats is the expansive early field provides a wide array of political and professional backgrounds. This early group is not the least bit monolithic.

There are plenty of candidates with the traditional political pedigree: state legislators like Todd Prichard, Nate Boulton and Chris Hall, former state party leaders in Andy McGuire and John Norris.

But there are also local officials like Mike Carberry, a Johnson County supervisor; Mike Matson, a Davenport alderman; Rich Leopold, a Polk County conservation officer; and Jonathan Neiderbach, a former Des Moines school board president.

The candidates have varied geographical backgrounds as well. Boulton, Leopold and Neiderbach are from central Iowa, Hall is from western Iowa, and Matson and McGuire are eastern Iowa natives. Prichard and Norris are from small, rural towns. Norris is from the same small town as Joni Ernst, the Republican who in 2014 turned Iowas blue U.S. Senate seat red.

Thats a fairly wide array of candidates and experiences from which Iowa Democrats may choose, and our quick analysis here only scratches the surface of their qualifications. Obviously, its highly unlikely all of them will be on the ballot for the primary election in June 2018, but the long and varied list gives Democrats a chance to really think about the kind of candidate they want to run in November of 2018.

For Democrats, the choice is critical. While it technically will be an open-seat race after Branstad leaves to become U.S. ambassador to China, it is possible Democrats will be facing a de facto incumbent in Kim Reynolds, who is poised to serve as governor once Branstad leaves.

Reynolds could face a primary challenge Cedar Rapids mayor Ron Corbett is considering a run but if she is the GOPs nominee she will enter the general election with a running start having served in the office for roughly a year and a half, and she has already proven herself to be a strong fundraiser.

So it wont be the Herculean task of taking down Branstad something the governor is fond of noting has never happened during his political career but it wont be a typical empty-seat election for Democrats, either.

And that makes their primary decision so important.

The good news, for Democrats, is they have plenty of options.

Erin Murphy covers Iowa politics and state government for Lee Enterprises. His email address is erin.murphy@lee.net.

The rest is here:
Many flavors to choose from for Iowa Democrats - Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier

How can Democrats best reply to the Trump agenda?

Since the rise of the tea party, the Democratic response that seems to have resonated most with voters has been to promise more stuff to more people.

You want to slow the growth of Social Security benefits for the upper income? Well increase Social Security. For everybody.

You want to abolish Obamacare? We will push Medicare for all.

Are people having trouble paying off their student loans? We will make college free for everyone, regardless of income.

It makes sense that these big ideas would appeal. You might think that self-styled progressives would target their programs to the needy, but the middle class feels put upon and wants help from government, too.

And when Republicans dont seem to care about deficits certainly, Donald Trump did not during his presidential campaign why should Democrats be the eat-your-spinach party?

Trump won, and Bernie Sanders nearly outflanked Hillary Clinton, with big and bold. No one wants to be caught being incremental or, heaven forbid, responsible.

Heres the problem: Even if More Stuff for More People might prove a winning slogan in 2020, it wont be a viable governing strategy in 2021 or 2022 or 2023 or 2024. As the Congressional Budget Office reiterated recently, the federal budget is on track to be consumed by interest on the debt and by older peoples entitlements, leaving less and less for schools, national parks, scientific research and a lot of other activities that Democrats favor.

So heres a question: Would it be possible to fashion a platform that is progressive in its values, big and bold in its appeal, and not entirely irresponsible?

Jason Furman, who was one of President Barack Obamas top economic advisers, says he worries that the path for the next election will just be lying more that the lesson from this election wont be so much moving left or right, but overpromising.

Thats especially so because much of what government should be doing in response to automation and other forms of economic dislocation are things Obama proposed but the Republican Congress wouldnt support education and training, infrastructure, research. Those arent sexy, but the fact that Obama proposed them year after year doesnt make them any less needed.

Still, I came away from a conversation with a freshman congressman last week with at least some hints that Democrats might be able to craft an appealing platform that does more than promise more benefits. Ro Khanna, an economics teacher and briefly an Obama administration official, was elected from the heart of Silicon Valley last year by defeating a longtime Democratic incumbent, Michael M. Honda.

Khanna supported Sanders in the presidential primary, and he told me he won by responding to peoples distrust of the system he took no PAC money, and has introduced legislation saying no other congressional candidates should either and to their desire for big policy advances. As a result, he said, his polls showed that, in Californias unusual two-Democrat November runoff, he led among both Trump voters and Sanders voters.

He didnt adopt either of their approaches wholesale, though. Where Trumps appeal is muscular and insular, Khanna said, he believes the United States has to remain open to the world to immigration and exchange across borders and to the potential benefits of technological advance.

And he is beginning to explore policy options, big but not pie in the sky, that he thinks could promote a more open America while still letting more people feel included. Where Sanders favored free college tuition for all, Khanna said he supports Robert Reichs plan for debt-free community college and career training. Students would pay no tuition and while in job training programs, theyd get paid. But once college grads went to work, they would repay some tuition with a fixed percentage of their income. In absolute dollars, schoolteachers might end up paying a lot less for their education than Silicon Valley engineers.

Which is only one way Khanna declines to coddle his high-tech constituency. He thinks it crucial that young people in Ohio or West Virginia feel as much chance to make it in the entrepreneurial world as people growing up in Palo Alto, Calif. That will take government programs a massive track of apprenticeship, rethinking education to encourage going in and out of school throughout a career but also deeper involvement from Silicon Valley companies themselves. He favors a vast (but paid-for) $1 trillion expansion of the earned income tax credit a variation on the newly fashionable universal basic income, but one that Khanna would keep tethered to work.

The hunger is still there for a politics of national identity, Khanna said, and he worries that such a vision may still win out. We have to articulate a bold, alternative economic vision, some entrepreneurial vision so people arent afraid of the future.

Maybe it can even be honest, too.

Read more from Fred Hiatts archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Visit link:
How Democrats can be progressive without being irresponsible - Washington Post

The convention, which included Democratic students from Penn State University, Temple Universityand Villanova University, spanned April 7-9.

Penn Democrats has not historically kept a close relationship with the Pennsylvania College Democrats, a statewide body with 45 chapters. But this weekend, the two groups came together to make Penn's predominantly liberal campus even bluer.

The convention, whichincluded Democraticstudents from Penn State University, Temple Universityand Villanova University, spanned April 7-9.

It was a really engaging weekend, said Penn Dems President and College sophomore Rachel Pomerantz about the event, which bore the slogan Be the Future.

On Sunday, April 9,internal elections for the PACDexecutive board were held. No Penn students ran for positions.

Penn is not as close with the state organization, because we dont get any money from them, Penn Dems Political Director and Wharton freshman DylanMilligan explained. We dont get any money from them because we dont follow their bylaws. Their bylaws stipulate that you cant endorse a candidate in a Democratic primary that you have to stay neutral.

Penn Dems has not stayed neutral in recent elections.

The organizationendorsed Hillary Clinton in February 2016 and, according to Milligan, will endorse a candidate for Philadelphia DA at some point next week.

These procedural differencesinspired the club to host the convention.

We wanted to host this convention to reassert the fact that we appreciate [PACD] and we like to get along, Milligan said. But were not involved enough to have people running for their executive board.

Outside of the elections, the conference consisted of panels on topicssuch as managinga college Democrats chapter, jumpstartingpolitical careers and tacklingissues such as the economy, health care and LGBTQ rights.

About 150 students registered for the weekend event.

Student politics weren't the only focus at the convention, which featured a debate for the Democratic candidates running for Philadelphia District Attorney.The debate included five out of the seven candidates running for the nomination.

[The]District Attorney is incredibly important for a lot of issues that Democrats, progressives and a lot of college students care about, Pomerantz said. Mass incarceration that starts with how its prosecuted. Police brutality and community relations that starts with how the DAs office conducts itself with the police. Its easy to forget about these things, cause its not sexy compared to a Senate race.

Milligan said the debate swung his allegiance for the election; he had previously supportedLawrence Krasner but is now torn between John O'Neill and Joe Khan, a Penn Law School lecturer.

Despite the event ostensibly featuring like-minded students, Pomerantz and Milligan agreed that the convention still featured a productive diversity in opinion.

The experience of a Penn Dem who is from the Philadelphia area or a big city is really different from a Democrat who goes to a rural college, the Penn Democrats president added.

It was really promising to hear the dialogue that went on, she said.

View post:
Penn Democrats welcome other chapters across Pa. for weekend convention - The Daily Pennsylvanian

President Trump has become the gift that keeps on giving, according to Avon Township Democrats at their regular meeting in the Round Lake Area Public Library Saturday.

"Our best recruiting tool has been Donald Trump," said Hal Sloan, 59, of Grayslake, chairman of the Avon Township Democrats.

"And I've heard other people say that he's the reason they keep going. We used to have six to 12 people at a meeting, and now we have 20 to 25," he said, with just over 20 people meeting in the activity room of the library on a sunny Saturday morning.

He said after the Women's March in Chicago, he wondered how to keep the momentum going forward.

"When I was there, the energy was phenomenal and I thought, 'How do I keep this going,'" he said.

"It was peaceful and respectful. There were a couple of Trump supporters with signs," he said, but things never turned nasty.

On Saturday, they discussed ways to use social media better, from Google Groups to Facebook and Twitter. They already have a Facebook page, website, http://www.avondems.com, and Twitter account @avontwpdems.

"Someone had suggested that we have a private Facebook page too, but I think it's redundant," he said.

"And remember when you respond in Google Groups, your message goes to everyone in the group," Sloan added.

Under new business, those present discussed having more social gatherings, like once a quarter, said Patrick Duby, 41, of Round Lake, who organized the first social evening recently at Taco El Norte's in Round Lake Beach.

"It's so we can reach out to the community and other townships. We had five other township Democrat organizations show up that night," he said.

"We talked about doing this every quarter and I want to do another one in May at another local venue. It's just a way to socialize and get to know other groups," Duby said.

Another member suggested the group recognize World Autism Month this month by providing more resources for families with autistic children because therapy is expensive and the earlier the little kids get therapy they better they socialize.

"We have a significant amount of families in our community and a lot of action in Springfield is geared toward cutting special education resources," said the woman who did not want to be identified.

Someone else suggested the group post bills on its website to alert people to those bills that would cut special needs funding.

Sloan said another community outreach effort is highway clean-up, where the group plans to pick up trash along Rollins Road, from Cedar Lake Road to Lotus Drive, on May 13

"It's a good workout," he joked, "and there is always the contest to see who finds the craziest thing along the roadway."

At one point, Tyler Sadonis, a field organizer for the Democrat Party, asked members to be volunteers for a telephone calling effort for the special election April 18 in Georgia. He explained they would be calling other Democrats in that state to make sure they go out and vote.

"We can show that the Democrats have momentum and win a congressional seat back," he said as he took out a sign-up sheet for people to use after the meeting.

Duby echoed the chairman's comments about Trump generating more interest.

"Our best recruitment tool has just been people listening to the news. People are more interested and engaged. Our membership tripled," he said.

Floyd John Trexler, 70, of Grayslake, became visibly irritated when the subject of President Donald Trump was brought up after the meeting.

"He hasn't done anything for me. All he's done is take things away," he said.

fabderholden@tribpub.com

Twitter @abderholden

Visit link:
Democrats see Trump's action boosting their membership - Chicago Tribune