Ross Cameron embraces Kirralie Smith after speaking at her fundraiser for the Australian Liberty Alliance held at North Ryde RSL.

Former Liberal MP Ross Cameron who said the NSW division of the party was "basically a gay club" looks likely to be banished from the party for up to five years, potentially turning him into a free-speech martyr.

But Mr Cameron received support from an unexpected figure, former High Court judge Michael Kirby, who said gay people had learnt that being unfairly punished reinforced feelings of exclusion and social stigma.

The NSW Liberal Party state executive is scheduled to decide next Friday if Mr Cameron should be suspended for saying on television last year that NSW Premier Mike Baird was threatened with his job if he supported internal voting changes that would undermine the power of the Liberal's dominant left faction.

The disciplinary hearing isn't directly related to Mr Cameron's recent public comments about homosexuality, when he joked that the Roman emperor Hadrian had a homosexual lover who probably used cocaine.

But those comments, including the "gay club" jibe, made it unlikely he would escape a suspension, two Liberal sources said, which would be a major snub for the former parliamentary secretary to Treasurer Peter Costello and well-known Sydney political identity.

Liberal free-speech advocates haven't rallied behind Mr Cameron, who has developed a reputation for pushing the boundaries of political and social commentary in appearances on Sky News and elsewhere.

Those who have declined to support him include Human Rights Commissioner turned Liberal MP Tim Wilson; left-baiting columnist and Liberal Party think tank director Nick Cater; Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher, who is Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's representative on the NSW Liberal state executive; former leader Tony Abbott; and Walter Villatora, Mr Abbott's campaign manager who is trying to win Mr Baird's old seat in the NSW Parliament.

At a meeting last year of the 21-member executive which considered whether to discipline Mr Cameron, only one person spoke in his defence, according to someone present. Alex Dore, the 24-year-old nephew of the editor of The Daily Telegraph, Chris Dore, said it wasn't the party's role to police the public comments of its members, the source said.

Under the NSW Liberal Party's strict rules, penalties for speaking publicly about internal matters are imposed about once a month. Last year they ranged from a three-year suspension to verbal request not to do it again, another party source said.

The executive is controlled by the left faction. Mr Cameron's views are associated with the party's right.

Mr Cameron, who has compared himself in private to the Greek philosopher Socrates, will be allowed to defend himself. The meeting will be run by party president Kent Johns, who last week said that Mr Cameron's remarks about gay people were highly offensive and he was becoming "nothing more than a circus act".

Asked if he had prejudged Mr Cameron, Mr Johns said: "I'm not prepared to discuss internal party matters."

It could be possible the comments would be protected under a High Court ruling that found there was implied right to free speech in the constitution, according to Mr Kirby, who was part of the decision and made history as the first openly gay High Court judge in 1996.

"There may be a constitutional question as to whether opinions expressed by Mr Cameron in the context of political meetings are not protected by the constitutional implied right of free speech which the High Court of Australia has held exists in Australia for speech about political questions," Mr Kirby said in an email.

"I was a party to one such decision of the High Court in the unanimous opinion in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520. I adhere to what the court said there. In a representative Parliamentary democracy as provided by our constitution there is a need for active and energetic debate whatever might be appropriate in other circumstances.

"LGBTIQ (gay) people learn in their lives that the problems they face often come about through the overreach of criminal and punitive laws. Such overreach tends to reinforce social stigma and attitudes of denigration and religious feelings of exclusion of others and self-righteousness. So I do not favour punishment in such circumstances."

See the article here:

Liberal ex-MP who called party a 'gay club' likely to be kicked out - The Australian Financial Review

A new progressive Political Action Committee plans to recruit and fund primary opponents to Democratic members of Congress that it feels are not aggressive enough in fighting President Donald Trump.

WeWillReplaceYou.org was formed by a group of progressive activists with backgrounds in the Bernie Sanders campaign, the environmental movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the DREAMer movement of young undocumented immigrants.

It's a project of #AllofUs, a new millennial progressive organization that has protested Democratic members of the Senate, urging them to draw a harder line against Trump's cabinet nominees and policy agenda.

While many liberals, including filmmaker Michael Moore, have issued nominal threats of left-wing challenges to Democratic lawmakers, WeWillReplaceYou.org appears to be the first organized effort to explicitly turn those threats into a reality. That will likely put it on a collision course with Democratic efforts to protect incumbents.

"Other groups are probably expecting to primary Democrats, but we think that it's important to make the threat clear now because so many Democrats are not fighting Trump forcefully enough and we need to communicate that we're serious," Claire Sandberg, a former Sanders staffer and one of the group's founders, told NBC News. "Our message to Democrats is pretty straightforward: Fight Trump or we'll find someone who will."

The objective is not necessarily to replace Democratic incumbents, but to pressure them, Sandberg said, adding that the group is holding off on releasing any targets at the moment.

"We want to leave the door open for Democrats to improve and be stronger in their opposition to Trump," said Sandberg. "We're only a few weeks into the Trump administration. Our goal is not primary every single Democratic member of Congress. It's to push Democrats who are there to do better."

WeWillReplaceYou.org will decide which Democrats to target based on where it can have an impact and through surveys of its members. There may be a handful of "litmus tests," the group suggested, such as voting against Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

The group welcomes comparisons to the Tea Party, and it's certain to attract familiar criticism from Democratic officials worried that primary challenges will undermine the party's ability to retain seats.

Ten Democratic senators are up for reelection next year in states Trump won. Republicans now hold 52 seats and the Senate, and if they were to pick off 8 of those ten Democrats, the GOP would win a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority -- an outcome many Democrats would view as Armageddon.

Sandberg rejected the criticism that primary challenges to those Democrats would imperil the party's effort to hold those seats. Demoralizing the base with tepid opposition to Trump, Sandberg said, should be Democrats' bigger fear.

"The same base that supports those primary challenges will propel them to victory in general elections," she said.

But in places like West Virginia, where Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin is facing a tough reelection battle, Democrats will almost certainly need more than base voters alone to prevail. Trump won the state by over 40 percentage points.

Either way, primary challenges seem inevitable after an election loss that galvanized the left and nurtured doubts about party leadership.

"The 53 Senators, including Democrat Joe Manchin, who voted to put millions of jobs at risk by putting another Wall Street banker in charge of the Treasury Department shouldn't expect to keep theirs," Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of the liberal group Democracy for America said after Manchin joined Republicans in voting to confirm Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin Monday.

WeWillReplaceYou.org plans to raise money and organize volunteer efforts online, so the scale of its operations and the number of races it gets involved in will depend on how much support it receive.

But it hopes to operate on the cheap. The group plans to eschew expensive TV advertising in favor of some digital ads to support its main focus on distributed organizing, which leverages technology to generate phone calls, door knocks, and other volunteer efforts without the overhead of paid staff required by more traditional field programs.

As a hybrid PAC, the group can coordinate directly with campaigns in addition to fund independent expenditures.

In addition to Sandberg, who was the director of digital organizing on Sanders' campaign, advisors to the new group include include Kenneth Pennington, Sanders' former digital director, Rafael Navar, the national political director of the Communications Worker of America, May Boeve, the executive director of the environmental group 350 Action, Taj James, the executive director of Movement Strategy Center, former andra Flores-Quilty, the president of the United States Student Association and Carolina Canizales, a former United We Dream official.

All are working in their personal capacity, not on behalf of their groups.

Another advisor, Jessica Pierce, who once ran the NAACP's field training program, said Democrats' current leadership has taken support from communities of color for granted.

"Even now our elected leaders are still failing us," she said. "As someone who has run national election campaigns in every election cycle since 2006 , but who has also been a part of the momentum of the Movement for Black Lives -- I know that it is going to take all of, working strategically to make the change that people need. We must resist at every level-- from the streets to the Senate."

The rest is here:

New Liberal PAC Targets Democrats for Primaries - NBCNews.com

John Howard confronted by One Nation supporters on a visit to the NSW central coast in 2001. The then PM responded to the threat of One Nation to the Liberal partys electoral fortunes by refusing to preference them Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

The Western Australian Liberal deal with Pauline Hansons One Nation has been given the blessing of the former prime minister John Howard, despite his 2001 edict it must be placed last on his partys how-to-vote cards.

Adding star power to the Liberal election campaign in Perth on Thursday, the nations second-longest-serving prime minister said the WA division made a very sensible, pragmatic decision to cut a deal with the rightwing party.

I fully understand why the WA Liberal party has taken the decision, he told reporters at a shopping centre in the seat of Southern River on Thursday, when he received almost entirely positive responses from voters and children.

Howard said One Nation had morphed into a different beast since his 2001 instructions, although he still didnt agree with everything it espoused.

Everyone changes in 16 years, he said. Trying to understand that decision and decisions that were taken by various iterations of the Liberal party 15 or 16 years ago is ridiculous.

Everyone changes in 16 years ... I think its entirely sensible

This is a different set of circumstances. I think its entirely sensible that the party has done whats its done.

The Greens were the only ones who hadnt changed, he said, and advocating dismantling the US alliance illustrated the partys continuing extremism.

The idea that people would see the current One Nation party as more extreme than the Greens is ridiculous, Howard said. And whos playing footsie with the Greens the Australian Labor party.

His comments came after the WA premier, Colin Barnett, refused to be drawn on whether the Liberals were morally wrong to seal the deal, snubbing alliance partners the Nationals, which retaliated with its preferences.

Barnett admitted some of the headline-grabbing views of candidates were abhorrent but said it was a numbers game and he had an election to win.

The latest comments from One Nation hopefuls dogging the party reportedly came from the now-deactivated Twitter account of Richard Eldridge, who is contesting an upper house seat in Perths South Metropolitan region.

In the posts, Eldridge, a real estate agent, advocated killing Indonesian journalists and also attacked the gay community, black people and Muslims.

Old social media posts are also haunting Michelle Myers, who was nominated for the newly-created seat of Bateman.

On Facebook last year, she said the gay community used Nazi-style mind control to get people to support same-sex marriage and has recently been protesting against abortion outside a reproductive health clinic in Midland, where women also get fertility treatment.

In absolutely no way do I endorse the policies or candidates of One Nation, Barnett told reporters. I find some of those comments absolutely abhorrent.

Im not going to be defending One Nation go and talk to Pauline.

Read more:

John Howard backs Liberal preference deal with One Nation in WA - The Guardian

New York Times

Liberal Activists Join Forces Against a Common Foe: Trump New York Times Within days of the election, Mr. Boyan began volunteering for the Working Families Party, a liberal political organization focused on income inequality, and attended almost weekly protests to voice his dismay. He traveled to the Women's March on ...

Read the original here:

Liberal Activists Join Forces Against a Common Foe: Trump - New York Times

What's a Liberal to Do When His Spouse Is a Trump Zealot? New York Times She now says she hates all liberals, all Democrats and, particularly, Barack Obama. I am weary and frightened of her diatribes and no longer bring up any Trump-related topic. But she frequently does. Is it ethical for me to remain silent when ...

Read the rest here:

What's a Liberal to Do When His Spouse Is a Trump Zealot? - New York Times

5483218

President Donald Trump lashedout at his intelligence agencies for behaving like Russia and leaking conspiracy theories to biased liberal media outlets in a tweet storm Wednesday morning.

Trump suggested that the FBI or NSA might be behind the leaks and accused several mainstream media outlets of spreading fake news and going crazy with blind hatred. He also pointed out claims that his administration hasquestionable ties to Russia are complete nonsense.

Trumps latest tweets follow unconfirmed reports by CNN and other outlets that members of his team was in contact with Russia throughout the campaign.

Leaks are becoming a serious problem for the new administration.

Some White House leaks have been harmless, such as reports Trump enjoys watching television alone in his bathrobe, which turned out to be incorrect. Other leaks, like the presidents phone calls with the leaders of Australia, Mexico, and Russia, are more disconcerting. Some, such as those surrounding former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, have been career ending.

After Flynn steppeddown, Trumpsaid the real news story was not Flynns resignation but the leaks.

Flynns fall appears to be a concerted political effort to remove him from office.

There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, who chairs the House select intelligence committee, told Bloomberg. From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern.

Trump previously accused Obama people of leaking information, intentionally undermining his administration.

Its a disgrace that they leaked because its very much against our country, he told Fox News, Its a very dangerous thing for this country.

Follow Ryan on Twitter

Send tips to ryan@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Continued here:

Trump Says Liberal Media 'Going Crazy With Blind Hatred' - Daily Caller

This argument is caricatured by cutting-edge Radio 4 comedians as belonging to red-faced buffers from the shires blustering: Theyll be saying I can marry my labrador next! But thats plain silly. The point of the incest analogy is to demonstrate that loving commitment isnt a sufficiency for marriage. Unless gay campaigners are saying it should be confined to people who can legally have sex. But that would mean that marriage is only about sexual union, which it isnt (again, see above).

What were considering is what we start to unravel once we make marriage something it hasnt been before. This was not a thought that detained David Cameron, who as prime minister allowed gay marriage as a means of burnishing his socially liberal credentials. Cameron did this, he explained, because he was a Conservative. Thats a matter for the Tories and we shouldnt intrude on private grief. Butthe General Synod has to decide what to do about it.

Its a shame that the Church finds itself at such odds with what a secular state has decided marriage now is. Had we had a new liturgy for blessing civil partnerships in church as we should, if were in the business of blessing Gods love wherever we find it we might have avoided this.

That said, the Church, not for the first time, has an opportunity as well as a responsibility to clear up the mess left after the wedding party by lazy politicians.

George Pitcher is Rector of the parish of Waldron in East Sussex

Read this article:

I'm a bleeding-heart liberal cleric but the Church of England must not accept gay marriage - Telegraph.co.uk

MADISON, Wis. Liberals and the mainstream media have called Republican Gov. Scott Walker a lot of things over his two and a half terms in office.

Now the Wisconsin lefts Public Enemy No. 1 is being described with a pejorative that no conservative could easily abide: Walker is suddenly a liberal.

Or at least his budget proposal is.

CONSERVATIVELY CONFIDENT: Of the many names the left has called Gov. Scott Walker, liberal isnt one of them. At least until now. Conservative budget watchers say an AP headline declaring Walkers budget surprisingly liberal is an odd descriptor for a budget replete with so many conservative initiatives.

How low can the left go?

An Associated Press story last week, headlined Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker proposes surprisingly liberal budget, noted the 2017-19 spending plan includes a huge boost in funding for schools, sizable cuts for college students and increased tax breaks for the working poor.

While budget hawks arent thrilled with some of the spending increases included in the $76.098 billion biennial budget, no one is about to confuse Walker with California left-winger Gov. Jerry Brown, or Walkers liberal colleague to the more immediate west, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton.

Brett Healy, president of the MacIver Institute, a Madison-based free-market think tank, said theres a lot for conservatives to like in Walkers budget proposal. Not the least of which is nearly $600 million in tax and fee relief, including the elimination of the state portion of the property tax levy.

Think about it. When is the last time a politician proposed eliminating a tax? It just never happens, Healy told Wisconsin Watchdog on Monday on the Vicki McKenna Show, on NewsTalk 1130 WISN in Milwaukee.

The biggest concern when you are a conservative in the Legislature is, if you start a new tax or fee, its never going to go away, Healy added. Here we have a situation where Gov. Walker has actually stepped up and he proposes eliminating the forestry tax on everyones property tax bill. Thats huge.

To accomplish this tax exorcism, Walkers plan provides more than $180 million in fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19 to ensure continued state funding for forestry programs covered by local property taxpayers. The administration says the state forestry account in the conservation fund will be unaffected through this tax relief action.

This tax, which had gone up each time a propertys value increased, will no longer be imposed on Wisconsin property owners, states aDepartment of Administration budget analysis.

RELATED: Walker budget plan boasts tax cuts, reserve concerns

Eric Bott, Wisconsin state director of Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation, said Walkers latest budget plan again sets the pace in limiting the size and scope of government.

The proposal calls for phasing out the prevailing wage mandate for state-funded construction projects. Prevailing wage, a Great Depression-era relic that artificially fixes wages based on trade and geographical location of the state, can substantially increase costs for government construction projects. Bott calls it protectionism at its worst. Unions and their Democratic allies fought ferociouslyto keep prevailing wage reform at bay in the last session. They failed. Walker wants to go deeper this time.

The budget also includes some of the strongest welfare reform initiatives in the nation.

Bott is especially excited about the inclusion of a state version of the REINS Act in the Walker budget plan. The REINS (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) proposal would require state agencies to get legislative approval for any regulation with an economic impact at certain thresholds.

Rep.Adam Neylon, R-Pewaukee,and Sen.Devin Lemahieu, R-Oostburg,earlier this year reintroduced a similar bill that would hold the economic impact threshold at $10 million.

If there is a compliance estimate above $10 million, then Im very comfortable throwing a wrench into it, grinding it to a halt, and forcing the legislature to then approve it, Neylon told Wisconsin Watchdog. Because that is the best way to hold people accountable, to let their elected officials be the ones to decide on big spending items.

Bott said Wisconsin would be among the first states to adopt a REINS Act. There is similar legislation pending in Congress.

Healy said that behind the scenes MacIver is hearing from budget hawks concerned about the spending increases, particularly the nearly $650 million marked for K-12 public education.

I think going forward that will certainly be something the Legislature looks at, if they want to dial back spending in certain areas, he said. That certainly would make this strong budget even stronger.

To Walkers credit, Bott said, the governor isnt just throwing money at problems. Hes specifically delineating dollars for priorities. That includes approximately $55 million for rural schools districts, $25 million in local transportation aid, and funding for STEM education that works hand-in-hand with Walkers expectation that the University of Wisconsin System better-prepare students for the demands of the new economy.

If youre part of the government and you want to be part of the solution, great. Hes going to provide the resources, Bott said on the Vicki McKenna Show. Those that dont want to be part of the solution, such as the Madison Metropolitan School District and its open rebellion against implementing state collective bargaining reforms, will lose out on the increased spending.

Some of the biggest budget battles are coming from inside the GOP. Walker has made it clear that he is not interested in tax increases, or revenue enhancers as some like to call them. That means no to a gas tax increase and vehicle registration fee hikes. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and his leadership lieutenants in the Assembly have pushed gas tax and fee increases as potential solutions to transportation budget shortfalls. It is, at least for now, a rhetorical line in the sand.

Healy said that line is subject to change, and he predicts Vos will end up on the other side of it.

Right now you have to bet that Gov. Walker is going to win that battle, he said. (Senate Majority Leader Scott) Fitzgerald is on his side. When you have two of the three players in the Capitol on one side of the argument, generally they win out.

The rhetoric so far has been pitched, with supporters of revenue enhancers attacking Walkers budget for transportation borrowing and for not offering sustainable funding to keep several Wisconsin highway projects moving forward.

Bott notes that Walker has proposed $6.1 billion for the Department of Transportation, with the highest level of transportation general aids ever. While he agrees that there is too much borrowing in the transportation budget, Bott noted that bonding for highway construction is down 41 percent, the lowest level since the 2001-03 budget.

And a recent audit found waste and incompetence in the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to be incredibly costly to taxpayers. A total of 363 DOT contracts between 2006 and 2015 about 16 percent of the total received only one bid each, according to the review. That accounts for $1.1 billion in projects.

And we know that when theres no competition, it drives up the price dramatically, Bott said.

Despite its spending increases, Bott said the Walker budget plan could be a model budget for the nation.

The governor has laid out a vision with conservative victories, Healy said. Hopefully the Legislature, instead of being bogged down in gas tax and registration fee increases, can make some improvements to the governors budget and we can have this thing done in June.

Read more here:

Conservatives: Walker's budget plan is anything but 'liberal' - Watchdog.org

WA premier Colin Barnett and deputy premier Liza Harvey earlier this month at Government House in Perth on the day the state election was called. Photograph: Danella Bevis/AAP

A resurgent One Nation is looking to the Western Australian state election, on 11 March, as its first opportunity to demonstrate its growing support since last Julys federal election. Recent polling suggests One Nation is on track to win numerous seats in Western Australias upper house, and could even break through in the lower house.

One Nations prospects were given a further boost at the weekend when the Liberal party announced a preference swap with the minor party: Liberal preferences will favour One Nation in the upper house, while One Nation will give the Liberals a boost in lower house marginal seats.

The Liberal/National government in WA is facing an uphill battle to win a third term in office, and One Nation preferences will give them a boost. When One Nation first broke through in the late 1990s, they took a hefty chunk out of the Coalition vote, and that vote often did not return as preferences.

Recent polls have put One Nation on as high a vote as 13% in Western Australia. In contrast, the party polled just over 4% in the Western Australian Senate race in 2016. Last week on my blog I analysed where One Nation did best in that Senate election, and what the One Nation vote could look like if it jumped to 13%.

One Nations vote is strongly concentrated in regional areas, with a much lower vote in Perth. This reflects how One Nation performed in the 2001 Western Australian state election, where they won three upper house seats in regional areas.

Conveniently for One Nation, the Western Australian upper house is severely biased in favour of country voters. Approximately three-quarters of the states population lives in the Perth metropolitan area, but Perth voters only elect half of the states upper house. These regional voters overwhelmingly favour parties on the right, and this has helped give the current government a sizeable majority in the upper house.

If One Nation was to poll 13%, they would easily poll over a quota in the Agricultural, Mining and Pastoral, and South West regions, and could do reasonably well in the East Metropolitan region, giving them four seats in the upper house. This is made easier thanks to those Liberal preferences.

One Nation could well be a threat to Nationals seats in the lower house, too, but they wont benefit from Liberal preferences in those races. Liberal preferences to One Nation in the lower house could have had a devastating effect on the Nationals, wiping out quite a few of their MPs and making it much harder for the Liberal party to form government. In the upper house, on the other hand, One Nation are likely to win multiple seats with or without Liberal assistance, and a re-elected Liberal government would have an interest in working with a One Nation bloc in the balance of power.

There is a four-way contest for conservative votes in regional Western Australia. The Liberals and Nationals will be competing against each other for seats in both houses, alongside One Nation and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party, who hold two seats in the upper house.

Upper house preferences were formally lodged on Monday, and we saw some unusual decisions motivated by the Liberal-One Nation deal. The Nationals have decided to favour the Greens over their Liberal coalition partners, while the Shooters have gained preferences from many parties, including the Nationals.

The Liberal-National governments chances of re-election will be boosted thanks to One Nation preferences, but only if the deal can hold. Upper house preferences in Western Australia are required to be lodged ahead of time, and they will flow regardless of whether a party can find the volunteers to distribute how-to-vote cards at polling place, thanks to the group voting ticket system (the same system which was used for the Senate prior to law changes in 2016).

In contrast, One Nation preferences in the lower house are only as good as the partys capacity to hand out how-to-votes making the recommendation. One Nation voters have traditionally been happy to follow their partys recommendations, but there are signs that some One Nation candidates are not willing to go along with their partys deal. If candidates in key seats refuse to go along with the deal, the Liberal party could be left empty-handed, after giving away something quite valuable.

Continued here:

One Nation could gain more than the Liberals from Western Australia seats deal - The Guardian

BALTIMORE They werent ready for Hillary, and now theyre definitely not ready for her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

The activists who fueled Sen. Bernard Sanders presidential bid last year and who have become the raging heart of the party as it seeks to rebuild itself, shudder at the thought of the 36-year-old daughter of the former president and secretary of state searching for a race of her own.

Chelsea needs to go away, said Guinevere Boyd, a 49-year-old from Alaska who attended a Democratic National Committee forum this weekend. She has nothing to offer. She has said some horrible clueless things about progressives and progressive issues.

For decades the sideshow to her parents, the younger Ms. Clinton has stepped out of their shadow in the months since her mothers loss to Donald Trump in the presidential race.

On Twitter, she has been mixing gripes against Mr. Trump with praise for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, and a plea to the public to let the presidents youngest son, Barron, have the chance every child does to be a kid.

Late last week, the heavy political bent of her tweets prompted speculation that she was eyeing the seat of Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York Democrat, if it opens.

Ms. Clinton flatly ruled out that notion over the weekend and told reporters that Ms. Gillibrand is running for re-election anyway.

But the former first daughter has previously said that seeking public office is absolutely a possibility.

Attendees at the DNC forum predicted that she would have a tough time ditching the family baggage.

The country does not have any more appetite for any Clintons, said Mike Bender, 61, of Baltimore. Enough is enough, and frankly I think the Clinton policies, going back to Bill, are what took the Democrats to the center and the right, and you can see what kind of enthusiasm that inspired.

Still, some of the activists at the DNC forum didnt rule out Ms. Clinton entirely.

They said she should wait at least a decade for the anti-Clinton sentiment to burn off or that they would judge her on her own merits if she runs for office.

I dont know, said Ali Khawar, of the District of Columbia. I think if she decided to run, that is her right as a citizen, and I will judge her on her merits and to the extent that voters think her familial relationship are good or bad, that is something for them to judge her on.

Ms. Clinton serves as vice chairwoman of the Clinton Foundation and is featured in a photograph with her father, former President Bill Clinton, on the groups website.

The foundation is still coming to grips with a loss that has tarnished the Clinton brand.

The loss also left Mr. Clinton in a leadership post he was planning to vacate had his wife won.

The New York Times reported this month that the foundation is regrouping amid lingering questions over what roles the Clinton family will play.

The foundation has raised $2 billion since its beginning in 1997 and remains a force. But fundraising dropped off during the election campaign as it came under withering attacks from Mr. Trump, who accused the Clintons of offering special access at the State Department to foundation donors.

Mrs. Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing.

Also, hacked emails released by WikiLeaks toward the tail end of the campaign unearthed turmoil between Ms. Clinton and longtime family confidant Doug Band, who helped launch the Clinton Foundation. He called her a spoiled brat and said she used foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade.

Ms. Clinton, meanwhile, said she suspected Mr. Band was leveraging his role at the foundation and the family name to line his pockets and help launch his own company. Mr. Band defended himself in a 12-page memo to, among others, Bill and Chelsea Clinton, explaining how his company, Teneo Holdings, raised money for the Clinton Foundation.

In response to an email, The Clinton Foundation dismissed the idea that Ms. Clinton is viewing a more active role in politics to promote the Clinton Foundation and to bring the fundraising from which Mr. Band suggested she personally benefited back to where it was before the presidential campaign.

The press office said the idea is based off false assumptions. It pointed to a Washington Post fact-checker that found there is no evidence that the foundation picked up the tab for Ms. Clintons wedding and a Politifact analysis that said, The Clintons do not take any sort of paycheck, bonus or fees from the Clinton Foundation.

Ms. Clinton, meanwhile, also has political scars from the primary campaign, where she served as a top surrogate for her mother and warned voters that Mr. Sanders health care plan would empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid, to take away health insurance for low-income and middle-income working Americans.

Independent fact checkers have said that Ms. Clinton mischaracterized the Vermonts independents position, and activists are still fuming.

It was a big lie, Ms. Boyd said. If she is going to be like that, who needs her? She doesnt get it. She always had money. She is very out of touch with the American people. I dont think she has really circulated with the American people since she was maybe 4 [years old] or something.

View original post here:

Chelsea Clinton future run for political shunned by liberal activists ... - Washington Times

CNSNews.com

Liberal Frenzy: 'Impeach' Trump; 'Traitor! Resign by Morning' CNSNews.com (CNSNews.com) - Liberal activists, stung by their election loss, have been angling to get rid of President Trump since the day he took office. Some of them are now seizing on the resignation of National Security Director Michael Flynn as the scandal ... Justice Department warned White House that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials sayWashington Post all 1,661 news articles »

The rest is here:

Liberal Frenzy: 'Impeach' Trump; 'Traitor! Resign by Morning' - CNSNews.com

New York Times

At Ole Miss, a Liberal Agitator's Education New York Times Allen Coon, 21, a junior at the University of Mississippi. He helped lead the movement to take down the state flag from the university's flagpole. I can't go through a day without obsessively thinking about race, he said. Credit Bob Miller for The ...

Link:

At Ole Miss, a Liberal Agitator's Education - New York Times

Melissa McCarthys Saturday Night Live impersonation of Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, has gone viral. And Alec Baldwins rendering of Donald Trump on the same US show is so good that the president despises it, which was surely the goal. As Michael Moore noted: Trumps skin is so thin we can discombobulate him with satire. So is the political comedy boom spreading to Britain? Private Eyes sales are at their highest ever, and the comedian Bridget Christie is on a 35-date tour of Because You Demanded It, a show devoted to Brexit.

The trouble with satire, though, is that we all love it when it is directed at our enemies and at those who are objectively ludicrous. Just when you thought Trumps real-life entourage had become beyond parody, McCarthy squeezes an extra bit of ridicule out of the spectacle with her depiction of Spicer, the angriest press secretary in the history of press briefings, foaming at the gum-stuffed mouth while he hurls a Moana doll (immigrant) into a cardboard box (Guantnamo) to illustrate extreme vetting.

The real test of satire, though, is if we still laugh when it is directed at our friends. Or at ourselves. Plus, as the editor of Private Eye Ian Hislop has hinted, theres a flipside to the popularity of satire in difficult times. He likes to quote Peter Cooks dry reference to the thriving 1930s Berlin cabaret scene, which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler.

That doesnt mean satire isnt a vital safety valve. Hislop employs that quote only to show that he doesnt take himself or his magazine too seriously: he is satirising himself. But already his warning is being taken literally on social media, where theres an idea springing up that the whole Trump-Brexit thing is just not funny any more, and maybe its somehow borderline treacherous to be making jokes when you should be resisting or marching or doing something really useful like sending a lot of earnest tweets.

This attitude is why liberal America will tie itself up in knots wondering if its morally acceptable to laugh at Trump. (If you really are wondering this, no one can help you. Or possibly ever make you laugh at anything.) And its why in the UK we wont get the thing we should have, which is our own Saturday Night Live.

Its strange in a way because SNL is almost a telly version of Private Eye. With one important caveat: Private Eyes target is anyone and anything. SNLs favourite target certainly currently is always the right. But if the Eyes humour works for us in print, why dont we have anything like it on British television?

The most obvious difference is audience size. Even an unsuccessful topical late-night show in the US is going to have huge viewing figures compared with the UK. Plus US satire has international resonance and an afterlife on YouTube and social media. We flatter ourselves in Britain that our political narrative is as interesting as Trump. But you dont see screenshots of Private Eyes Brexit covers (however brilliant) going viral globally.

But we could hold our own politicians to account via ridicule on TV, couldnt we? And yet we dont. That is largely due to the BBCs public service remit. The BBC has the knowhow and the track record to broadcast something like this. But how would they do it? In a world where statistically more of the audience for Have I Got News for You must be Daily Mail or Telegraph readers rather than Guardian fans, it is amazing that it has survived. Imagine designing a political satire show that appeals equally to those two demographics. Its impossible.

Spitting Image hit the widest range of targets at a time when politics was a broader church and voters were less touchy. The brilliant Yes, Minister got away with a lot by never stating Jim Hackers political affiliation. Later, The Thick of It employed the same trick. The point was: it could just as easily be about any party, because they could all be idiots. The show cut through the partisan.

This is the best kind of satire: one that gets through to everyone regardless of political leanings. Otherwise were just laughing at what we already we agree with in our own cosy bubbles. The real challenge for satire would be to do on British (or American) television what Private Eye manages to do in print: attack everyone evenhandedly and with the self-awareness to occasionally attack yourself.

The main thing in the way of mainstream satire, of course, is the collapse of the centre. In the UK and the US we saw the same trend last year. Half the population is indifferent or hostile to politics and doesnt vote. The other half is split almost down the middle, with the winning side gaining its victory by a couple of percentage points. So half the country doesnt care or is disillusioned; one quarter is insecure in victory; and the other quarter is insecure in defeat. In Britain this does not make for a scenario where you can pull in a national TV audience and get them all to laugh at the same thing.

Still, lets see someone try. Worst case, its an entertaining public crucifixion and what better way to draw us together, Monty Python-style? Satires golden age will truly be upon us when a Saturday Night Live clip mercilessly dissecting liberal angst gets as much traction as the wonder that is Sean-Spicer-as-a-woman dry-humping a desk. I cant see it happening any time soon. Enjoy the bubble.

Originally posted here:

A new satire must emerge one that breaks out of the liberal bubble - The Guardian

New York Post

A liberal Tea Party, the pope helps spring a terrorist and other notable commentary New York Post The Washington Post's Paul Kane suggests the tide of anti-Trump protests may be the germ of a new, liberal tea party that Democrats hope will do for them what the populist Tea Party did for Republicans. But he also warns that grass-roots movements can ...

The rest is here:

A liberal Tea Party, the pope helps spring a terrorist and other notable commentary - New York Post

India's liberal bubble has shrunk to irrelevance in the age of Narendra Modi Quartz I am a liberal bubble. I am made in India and, like most of my kind, I am full of rhetoric. Shakespeare was referring to the likes of me when he wrote of lives full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Originally I was a British-American make, tough ...

Read this article:

India's liberal bubble has shrunk to irrelevance in the age of Narendra Modi - Quartz

But a now series of scandals -- and a new neighbor in the White House -- have ushered in a good dose of gloom.

The afterglow burned for months. Then came Elbowgate.

It was a jaw-dropping counterpoint to Trudeau's carefully cultivated image of calm. And it was all caught on camera.

He apologized, twice, and the negative attention was mostly limited to Canada.

No such luck for Trudeau's next misstep.

Even before that ruckus could die down, Trudeau found himself in the middle of yet another scandal. His office confirmed that the Prime Minister spent his winter holiday on the private island of the Aga Khan -- and used the billionaire religious leader's private helicopter to get there. An ethics investigation is underway.

He got grilled, heckled and yelled at.

But some commentators saw it as a successful act of contrition after several weeks of damaging missteps.

"He's authentic," said Oliver, who has known Trudeau since childhood. "He has real good instincts about people and about politics."

As he works to dig out of his domestic rut, Trudeau faces new threats to his progressive politics. There's still a strain of nationalist populism that runs deep in Canada.

Oh, and then there's Donald Trump.

"The world's going to spend a lot of time looking to you, Prime Minister, as we see more and more challenges to the liberal international order since the end of World War II," Biden said.

But is Trudeau up to the task?

"There are things that we hold dear that the Americans haven't prioritized," he said at a town hall event. "And I'm never going to shy away from standing up for what I believe in -- whether it's proclaiming loudly to the world that I am a feminist, whether it's understanding that immigration is a source of strength for us and Muslim-Canadians are an essential part of the success of our country today and into the future."

"Almost everything that Trump represents, Trudeau resents," Oliver said.

As Trudeau preps for his meeting with Trump, some say he should remember the words of his late father, who in the 1960s said that living next to the United States was like "sleeping with an elephant" -- every "twitch and grunt" affects you.

"Agitating the President of the United States is not a good strategy especially when the President is Donald Trump because he has such a thin skin," pollster Nanos said.

"There's just so much riding on it," Oliver said. "You know, 75% of Canada's goods are sold in the United States. That border has to stay open for business."

For his part, Trudeau said as much last week during a public appearance ahead of his White House visit.

"We both got elected on commitments to strengthen the middle class and support those working hard to join it," the Prime Minister said. "And that's exactly what we're gonna be focused on in these meetings -- making sure that the millions of good, middle-class jobs on both side of our borders that are dependent on the smooth flow of goods and services and people back and forth across our border are reinforcing the deep connections and friendship between Canada and the United States."

Excerpt from:

Liberal superhero Justin Trudeau is not immune to the forces of Trump - CNN

Rich, Liberal Celebrities Lecture and Claim to Stand for 'We the People' at the 2017 Grammys NewsBusters (blog) The 59th Annual Grammy Awards wouldn't have been an awards show unless somebody went political. A Tribe called Quest led the predictable, tiresome left-wing takes, while singer Joy Villa went the surprising route at the Staples Center in Los Angeles ... and more »

The rest is here:

Rich, Liberal Celebrities Lecture and Claim to Stand for 'We the People' at the 2017 Grammys - NewsBusters (blog)

Updated February 13, 2017 19:25:31

Several WA One Nation candidates say they will refuse to preference the Liberal Party, contrary to a statewide deal announced on the weekend.

The WA Liberals will preference One Nation above the Nationals in the Upper House in regional areas, with One Nation preferencing the Liberals in all Lower House seats in return.

High-profile One Nation candidate Margaret Dodd, who is contesting the Liberal-held seat of Scarborough for One Nation and is the mother of murdered teenager Hayley Dodd, today condemned the decision and accused the party of bullying its candidates.

Speaking outside a Perth court where her daughter's alleged murderer, Francis Wark, appeared today, Ms Dodd said she had "not been informed of any [preference] deal whatsoever, and I'm sure all the candidates haven't".

"I will make my own choices on who I will give my preferences to, and it certainly will not be the Liberal party," she said.

"The Liberal party will be at the bottom on the how to vote card."

Last month Ms Dodd backed Labor's "no body, no parole" promise to enact legislation where convicted murderers would not be eligible for parole unless they had cooperated with police to locate their victims' remains.

She had long campaigned for the law change, and said she was backing the Labor pledge because she felt the Liberal Government treated victims of crime as "second-class citizens".

"I was told by One Nation they support no body, no parole. We all know that Liberals don't," an angry Ms Dodd said today.

"We all know that Liberals want to sell off Western Power. One Nation doesn't, so what the hell is going on?

"I encourage other members of One Nation to stand up, do not be bullied and do not be dictated to.

"I will not be part of a dictatorship."

One Nation Upper House candidate Charles Smith is also refusing to preference the Liberals.

In a post titled "Re Preferences" on his official Facebook page, Mr Smith urged voters to put the Liberals last.

"If you do not like the Liberals as I don't mark them last!" the post reads

One Nation's Moore candidate Jim Kelly and South Metropolitan candidate Philip Scott also used their Facebook pages to urge voters to choose their own preferences.

Meanwhile, Premier Colin Barnett declared he was not a racist, and denied the preference deal would effectively hand Pauline Hanson's party control of WA's Upper House.

"I am anything but a racist and I will be judged on my values and my standards as will the Liberal Party, that's my accountability, I'm not accountable for One Nation," he told ABC Radio Perth.

But political consultant and so-called "preference whisperer" Glenn Druery said the deal was a "very bad" one for the Liberals and showed they were "desperate to cling onto government".

He said most Australians found One Nation's racist views abhorrent, and the deal would lead to Liberal voters abandoning the party.

"This was a ridiculous, a silly desperate deal by a Liberal party that is no doubt about to lose government and this deal will just stick another torpedo into the side of an already sinking ship," he told ABC Radio Perth.

However, it was a good deal for One Nation, Mr Druery said, and could lead to the party picking up six to nine Upper House seats and gain the balance of power.

Labor has confirmed it will preference One Nation last in all seats in both houses of Parliament, with state secretary Patrick Gorman describing the Liberals' deal as "sneaky and desperate".

"This is a deal, hammered out behind closed doors, that is all about tricking One Nation voters into re-electing Colin Barnett," he said in a statement.

"Make no mistake: a vote for One Nation is a vote for the Liberal Party."

Topics: elections, political-parties, minor-parties, wa

First posted February 13, 2017 12:50:58

Originally posted here:

WA One Nation candidates refuse to preference Liberals - ABC Online

So far in 2017, so conservative. Cory Bernardi, Pauline Hanson, Tony Abbott, all dominating political coverage, despite one being Australia's worst former prime minister since Kevin Rudd.

Why should conservatives get all the notice? Granted it's far easier for someone on the hard right to provoke his way to an easy headline, with an attack on Islam here, a backbencher dig at the "current" prime minister there.

Throwing bombs, even those you don't believe in, is the straightforward route to national headlines. No strategy for winning attention beats inciting anger. There's a reason the tabloids prefer shouty upper-case font on their front pages.

But the news devoted to Bernardi, the delusional hard-right deserter, won for swindling those voters of South Australia who thought they were electing a Liberal rather than a rat, perfectly illustrates why political bomb-throwers do what they do.

The ultimate in ego-driven attention-seeking is to leave the party that gave you a political career to set up your own "movement" with scant regard for the damage done in the process.

And scant regard for reality. Bernardi uttered this sentence in the Senate, apparently without shame: "It is not in the interests of our nation to yield to the temptation of personality politics, which shrink the debate to the opinion of the few whilst compromising the good sense and values of the many."

How remarkable to utter those words and have the self-regard to think they apply to you.

It must be so liberating to claim to speak for the majority when your fearful, hard-hearted constituency is both small and already well served both by One Nation and the right fringe of the coalition Bernardi just deserted. That reality is likely to strike him hard in the face at the end of his term, five-and-half years and $1.1 million in parliamentary salary payments from now.

In the meantime, the race to the right within the government or at least the fear of doing anything to antagonise the internal haters from Eric Abetz in the south to George Christensen in the north puts the small-l liberal voter in an ever-more difficult position.

Where to turn if you're liberal on both social and economic issues? Which party to pick if you both favour marriage equality, and want attention devoted to attacking the return of the anti-trade brigade, the rise of a disturbing neo-protectionism?

Labor? The Coalition? The Greens?

No option is even merely adequate, let alone perfect. The Liberals are in permanent thrall to the protectionist Nationals who make up the coalition numbers, some of whom have social positions which to describe as antiquated is insulting to antiques.

Labor might have progressive social policies, and a far more sensible position on climate change, but Bill Shorten's rhetoric on trade is appalling.

The leader of the Greens is charismatic, many of its social policies are attractively pragmatic, but its protectionist outlook and secondary consideration for matters economic put many small-l liberal voters entirely off. As does its internal war between the hard left and those devoted environmentalists who live in the real economic world.

No political home for the centrist liberal is comfortable in Australia right now. It's tempting to suggest a break-away party for the centre. Not the pragmatic centre of the deal-making, compromising Nick Xenophon Team, but a principled liberal party, one that is actually liberal free in trade and life rather than the one held hostage by conservatives but still masquerading under the name. One that is reasonable in the exercise of its principles, one that doesn't suffer from delusions that the market is never wrong, or that income tax is theft. A reasonable liberal party in the centre of Australian politics.

What do we want? Reasonable middle-of-the-road policies. When do we want them? Introduced at an incremental pace.

The obvious problem with that idea is few people pay attention to the reasonable person in public debate, even if they agree with the reasonable position espoused. And even if they did, break-away parties usually decline to be mere flotsam on the political sea.

The depressing likelihood is that the turmoil of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Abbott-Turnbull era will end only as soon as one of the major parties lives by the cardinal rule of stable political dominance. Keep the middle.

See the article here:

Small-l liberal voters have been abandoned in the race to the right - The Sydney Morning Herald

Even though Alex Reinoso is a proud liberal, he felt more frustrated than ever after attending local rallies protesting Trumps travel ban.

Its been an echo chamber everything is one-sided, the advertising executive, 33, told The Post. [Liberals and conservatives] are divided on so many levels. But we dont talk to each other, and we dont know our neighbors. Weve lost this middle ground.

We asked about each others different points of view. Even though our politics are different, we have fundamental values that align

Ive had enough of that. Its time to talk to one another.

The only problem? He doesnt know any conservative New Yorkers.

So Reinoso, who lives in Greenpoint, posted more than 150 flyers around Midtown and the Financial District. Those areas have high foot traffic and commuters from different [areas], he said.

All my friends are liberal. My newsfeed is one-sided, the flyers read. Are you a conservative dealing with the same issue? If so Id like to talk . . . The first round is on me.

Since then, hes received more than 100 e-mails and texts. And although some people have trolled Reinoso with essay-long messages supporting the travel ban, he has begun to make genuine connections.

Last week, he met up with a middle-aged Republican man over beers in Midtown, where they talked about their views. They were both against the nomination of education secretary Betsy DeVos and the immigration ban.

It was very adult there was no debate, Reinoso said. We asked about each others different points of view. Even though our politics are different, we have fundamental values that align.

Reinoso has another chat set up, and he hopes to meet more than 30 people in the next few months.

Itd be great to make friends out of this, he said. I love encounters with strangers and being able to talk about anything. Thats the New York I fell in love with.

Go here to see the original:

This liberal Brooklynite is on the hunt for conservative friends - New York Post