Mediaboss Marketing

Leading congressional Democrats have spent the last year relentlessly accusing Donald Trump of being controlled by or treasonously loyal to a hostile foreign power. Over the last several months, they have added to those disloyalty charges a new set of alleged crimes: abusing the powers of the executive branch including the Justice Department and FBI to vindictively punish political opponents while corruptly protecting the serious crimes of his allies, including his own family members and possibly himself.

The inescapable conclusion from all of this, they have relentlessly insisted, is that Trump is a lawless authoritarian of the type the U.S. has not seen in the Oval Office for decades, if ever: a leader who has no regard for constitutional values or legal limits and thus, poses a grave, unique, and existential threat to the institutions of American democracy. Reflecting the severity of these fears, the anti-Trump opposition movementthat has coalesced within Democratic Party politics has appropriated aslogan expressed inthe hashtag form of contemporary online activism that was historically used by those who unite, at allcosts, to defeat domestic tyranny: #Resistance.

One would hope, and expect, that those who genuinely view Trump as a menace of this magnitude and view themselves as #Resistance fighters would do everythingwithintheir ability to impose as many limits and safeguards as possible on the powers he is able to wield. If resistance means anything, at a minimum itshould entail a refusal to trust a dangerous authoritarian to wield vast power with little checks or oversight.

Yesterday in Washington, congressional Democrats were presented with acritical opportunity to do exactly that. Aproposed new amendment was scheduled to be voted onin the House of Representatives that would haveimposed meaningful limits and new safeguards on Trumps ability to exercise one of the most dangerous, invasive, and historically abused presidential powers: spying on the communications of American citizens without warrants.Yesterdays amendment was designed to limit the powers first enacted during the Bush years to legalize the Bush/Cheney domestic warrantless eavesdropping program. The Intercepts Alex Emmons on Wednesday detailed the history and substance of the various bills pending in the House.

Although the Trump White House and a majority of House Republicans (including House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes) favored extension (and even an expansion) of the current lawsspying powers and opposed any real reforms,a substantialminority of GOP lawmakershave long opposed warrantless surveillance of Americansand thus, announced their intention to support new safeguards. Indeed, the primary sponsor and advocate of the amendment to provide new domestic spying safeguards was the conservative Republican from Michigan, Justin Amash, who, in the wake of the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, workedin close partnership with liberal DemocraticRep. John Conyers to try to rein in some of these domestic spying powers.

Despite opposition from GOP House leadership and the Trump White House, Amash was able to secure the commitment of dozens of House Republicans to support his amendments to limit the ability ofTrumps FBI to spy on Americans without warrants. The key provision of his amendment would have required that the FBI first obtain a warrant beforebeing permitted to search and read through the communications of Americans collected by the National Security Agency.

To secure enactment of these safeguards, Amash needed support from a majority of House Democrats. That meant that House Democrats held the power in their hands to decide whether Trump the president they have been vocally vilifying as a lawless tyrant threatening American democracy would be subjected to serious limits and safeguards on how his FBI could spy on the conversations of American citizens.

Debate on the bill and the amendments began on the House floor yesterday afternoon, and it became quickly apparent that leading Democrats intended to side with Trumpand against those within their own party who favored imposing safeguards on the Trump administrations ability to engage in domestic surveillance. The mostbizarre aspect of this spectacle was that the Democrats whomost aggressively defended Trumps version of the surveillance bill the Democrats most eager to preserve Trumps spying powersas virtually limitless were the very same Democratic House members who have become media stars this year by flamboyantly denouncing Trump as a treasonous, lawless despot in front of every television camera they could find.

Leading the charge against reforms of the FBIs domestic spying powers was Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee who, in countless TV appearances, has strongly insinuated, if not outright stated, that Trump is controlled by and loyal to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, just this weekend, in an interview with CNNs Jake Tapper, Schiff accused Trump of corruptly abusing the powers of the DOJ and FBI in order to vindictively punish Hilary Clinton and other political enemies. Referring to Trumps various corrupt acts, Schiff pronounced: We ought to be thinking in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, beyond these three years what damage may be done to the institutions of our democracy.

Yet just two days later, there was the very same Adam Schiff, on the House floor,dismissing the need forreal safeguards on the ability of Trumps FBI to spy on Americans. In demanding rejection ofthe warrant requirement safeguard, Schiff channeled Dick Cheney and the Trump White House in warning that any warrant requirements would constitute a crippling requirement in national security and terrorism cases.

Standing with Schiff in opposing these safeguards was his fellow California Democrat Eric Swalwell, who has devoted his entire congressional term almost exclusively to accusing Trump of being a puppet of the Kremlin, in the process becoming a media darling among the MSNBC set and online #Resistance movement. Yet after spending a full year warning that Trumps real loyalty was to Moscow rather than America, Swalwell echoed Schiff in demanding that no warrant safeguards were needed on the spying power of Trumps FBI.

If one were to invoke the standard mentality and tactics of Schiff andSwalwell namely, impugning the patriotism and loyalty of anyone questioning their Trump/Russiaaccusations one could seriously question their own patriotism in handing these vast, virtually unlimited spying powers to a president whom they say they believe is a corrupt agent of a foreign power.

Joining the pro-surveillance coalition led by Trump, Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Schiff, and Swalwell was the Houses liberal icon and senior Democrat, Nancy Pelosi.The San Francisco Democrat alsostood on the House floor and offered a vigorous defense of the Trump-endorsed bill that would extend to Trumps FBI the power to spy on Americans without warrants, in the process denouncing the minimal warrant safeguardsfavored by many in her own party. Pelosis speech earned praise from GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan: I want to thank [Pelosi] for coming up and speaking against the Amash amendment, and in favor of the underlying bipartisan [bill].

In one sense, Pelosis pro-surveillance stance is not surprising.Back in the summer of 2013, as the Snowden revelations of mass domestic surveillance sparked a global debate about privacy and abuse of spying powers, an extraordinary bipartisan alliance formed in Congress to impose serious limits on the NSAs power to spy on Americans without warrants. Back then,a bill that would haveimposed real limits and safeguards on the NSA, one jointly sponsored by Conyers and Amash, unexpectedly picked up large numbers of supporters from both parties despite opposition from both parties congressional leadership to the point where it looked like it was unstoppably headed for passage.

Official Washington and its national security community began to panic over what looked to be the first rollback of government national security power since the 9/11 attack. Fortunately for the NSA, CIA, and FBI, they found a crucial ally to kill the bill: Nancy Pelosi. Behind the scenes, she had pressured and coerced enough House Democrats to oppose the reform bill, ensuring its narrow defeat. The Conyers/Amash bill which would have severely limited domestic mass surveillance was defeated by the razor-thin margin of 217-205. Foreign Policy magazine correctly identified the key author of its defeat, the person who singlehandedly saved NSA mass surveillance in the U.S.:

For anyone who believes in the basic value of individual privacy and the dangers of mass surveillance, Pelosi deserved all the criticism she received back then for singlehandedly saving the NSAs mass surveillance powers from reform. But at least then, her partisan defenders had a justification they could invoke: At the time, the NSA was under the command of Barack Obama, a president they believed could be trusted to administer these powers responsibly and lawfully.

Now, four years later, Pelosi has reprised her role as keyprotecter of domestic warrantless eavesdropping but this time with the benevolent, magnanimous, noble Democratic president long gone, and with those agencies instead under the leadership of a president who Pelosi and her supporters have long been maligning as an enemy of democracy, a criminal, a despot, and a racist cretin.For anyone (including Pelosi, Schiff, andSwalwell) who genuinely believes anything theyve been saying about Trump over the last year, what conceivable justification can be offered now for Pelosi and her key allies blocking reasonable safeguards and limits on Trumps warrantless domestic spying powers?

Thatleading House Democrats (their minority leader and top Intelligence Committee member)united with Trumpto support this bill and oppose reform amendments,was sufficient to causeenoughDemocrats toside with Trump and ensure passage of the bill. The Trump-favored bill ended up passing by a vote of 256-164.

As the American Civil Liberties Unionput it bluntlyabout the bill supported by Pelosi and Schiff: The House just passed a bill to give the Trump administration greater authority to spy on Americans, immigrants, journalists, dissidents, and everyone else. The privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundationechoed that sentiment: The House just approved the disastrous NSA surveillance extension bill that will allow for continued, unconstitutional surveillance that hurts the American people and violates our Fourth Amendment rights.

While Trump, as president, is the head of the executive branch, the official with the greatest control over the FBI they just empowered is his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. In other words, Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies just voted to vest great, unchecked power in an official the Democrats have (with good reason) long denounced as corrupt and deeply racist. As Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (who has vowed with Rand Paul to filibuster the bill when it reaches the Senate) put it yesterday: This Section 702bill would give AG Jeff Sessions unchecked power to use this information against Americans. This bill prevents his decisions from EVER being challenged in court.

But more significantly, the Amash amendment containing the proposed reforms (including a warrant requirement) was defeated by a much smaller margin: 233-183. While 125 Democratic House members were joined by 58 GOP members in voting forthese reforms, 55 Democrats led byPelosi and Schiff joined with the GOP majority to reject them, ensuring defeat of Amashs amendment by a mere 26 votes.

This means that Trumps bill to ensure his FBIs ongoing power to spy on the communications of Americans without warrants was saved by Pelosi, Schiff, andSwalwell abandoning the large majority of their own Democratic caucus, and instead joining with Ryan and the GOP majority to ensure defeat of all meaningful reforms. Here are the 55 Democrats who not only voted in favor of the Trump-endorsed spying bill, but who also voted against thereform amendment to require a warrant. Beyond Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell, it includes the second most-senior Democrat Steny Hoyer and former Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

One can, of course, reasonably debate the proper balance between privacy, civil liberties, and national security. Questions of how much power to vest law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the name of terrorism are not always simple ones. But if there is any principle that ought to command support across party and ideological lines, its the one long embedded in the Constitution: We do not want our government spying on us unless it can first obtain a warrant to do so the principle that was trampled on yesterday by the unholy alliance of Trump, the GOP congressional leadership, Nancy Pelosi, and Adam Schiff.

Indeed, several of Pelosis own caucus members made all of these pointswith usuallyexplicit rhetoric. Here, for instance, wasRep. Ted Lieu of California who like Schiff andSwalwell has become a media and #Resistance star this year for his unflinching denunciations of Trump as a corrupt Kremlin tool but who, unlike his California colleagues, cast the only vote rationally reconcilable with his yearlong crusade to impose limits on Trumps spying powers.

View post:
The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless ...

When Democrats talk about President Donald Trump and Russia, they usually unload on the White House with both barrels.

But that changed last week, when lawmakerssome of whom have been the most critical of Trump and his Kremlin-friendly actionsoffered effusive praise for his administration after it issued new Russia-related sanctions in close consultation with Congress.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), a possible 2020 presidential contender, told The Daily Beast that the new designations were a good sign and a good step in the right direction.

The overall effort caught many lawmakers by surprise, after months of accusing the administration of stonewalling them over similar sanctions that the White House opposed from the start.

Thats because, despite its stated goal to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations, the administration last week sanctioned five Russian and Chechen individuals under the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law that punishes alleged human rights abusers by freezing their assets and banning them from seeking visas. The sanctions targeted Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, over allegations of corruption and extrajudicial killings. The move drew a rebuke from the Kremlin, which called the U.S. actions illegal and unfriendly and said it further degrades the strained U.S.-Russia relationship.

Putin has condemned the Magnitsky Act and the resulting sanctions since it was passed, and he retaliated for the effort by banning Americans from adopting Russian children. The issue gained an international spotlight recently when it was revealed that Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, met last year at Trump Tower with Russians alleged to have Kremlin ties. The younger Trump initially said the meeting centered around the Russian adoption issue, but it was later revealed that he took the meeting after he was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Throughout Trumps first year in office, lawmakers have noticed a determination on the part of some administration officials to get tougher on Russia in light of its destabilizing actions in eastern Europe and its efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election. But Trump himself, they have argued, is preventing a whole-of-government approach to counter Russian aggression. From his tiptoeing around the issue of Russias election meddling to his slow-walking of a sweeping new Russia sanctions law he was forced to sign in August, his posturing has often conflicted with that of his top officials, who have confronted Russia more directly.

In many ways, the Trump administration is on autopilot on Russia policy despite the commander-in-chief. In addition to the Magnitsky sanctions, the administration has taken steps in recent days aimed at countering Russian aggression. Last week, top officials approved a lethal defensive weapons sale to Ukraine, where the military is fighting Russian-backed separatists. The White House also unveiled its National Security Strategy, in which it names Russia as a revisionist power and suggests the country is an adversary that aims to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests.

These developments run counter to the views expressed by Trump himself throughout his nascent political career. Trump has praised Putin and suggested that he took the Russian leader at his word when he told Trump that Russia had not meddled in the 2016 U.S. electiononly to walk it back later, affirming that he trusts the U.S. intelligence communitys January assessment on the matter.

Lawmakers have noticed a determination on the part of some administration officials to get tougher on Russia. But Trump himself is preventing an approach to counter Russian aggression.

Yuri Chaika, Russias prosecutor general, has worked for years to undermine the Magnitsky Act and is believed to have spearheaded some of Russias meddling efforts in the American election as a way to fight back against the 2012 law. But U.S. sanctions have now hit Chaika personally.

On Friday, the U.S. took further actions under the Global Magnitsky Act, which former President Barack Obama signed into law last December as an extension of the original Magnitsky Act to include human rights abusers worldwidenot just in Russia. But the Trump administration, acting under the Global Magnitsky law for the first time since it was signed, levied sanctions at least against one Russian: Chaikas son, Artem. The State Department alleges that he has leveraged his fathers position and ability to award his subordinates to unfairly win state-owned assets and contracts and put pressure on business competitors.

Last weeks swift and decisive actions left Trumps critics on Capitol Hill stunned. The same administration that was slow-walking new Russia sanctions enacted in August did an about-face by working closely with Congress on the Magnitsky sanctions. The praise heaped upon Trump and his administration has come from unlikely sources: Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

I want to give the administration credit. The process on both Russia-specific and Global Magnitskywe, throughout the process, were engaged with, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told The Daily Beast. I knew how the reviews were being conducted. We had very close relationships. It was treated with the highest degree of priority among the administration. And they acted correctly.

That was not the case for the August sanctions, known as the Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Cardin and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, were left in the dark for weeks when they tried to inquire about why the State Department blew past an Oct. 1 deadline to issue guidance on the sanctions. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) feared it was another example of the administration showing its blind spot when it comes to Russia. But as Congress prepared to leave town for the holidays, Trumps critics had nothing but kind words for the administration on its latest Russia-related actions.

I think its important to recognize positive progress whenever it happens, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told The Daily Beast. Even though I disagree with the administration broadly on what I view as their failure to make human rights a higher priority and to take more decisive action on the sanctions powers that Congresson a very strong bipartisan basisgave them, I do think its an important step forward that the Trump administration has designated under the Magnitsky Act. I hope that will be followed by stronger steps.

The CAATSA sanctionswhich Trump reluctantly signed into law after his administration tried to weaken the sanctions in the face of overwhelming congressional opposition in both chamberswere enacted in retaliation for Russias incursions into eastern Europe and its meddling in the 2016 election, something that Trump often dismisses as an excuse for Hillary Clintons election loss.

Im trying to be as positive as I can about what steps there are by the administration that I think do push back on Russias illegal and unconscionable invasion of and occupation in Crimea and continued meddling in the affairs of Ukraine in the east, and the designation that have happened under the Magnitsky Act, Coons added.

But Coons and his colleagues were unable to explain the differences in how the administration approached the Magnitsky sanctions and the CAATSA sanctions. While there was a slight delay on the Magnitsky actions, the Foreign Relations Committee did not make a fuss over it because administration officials were in constant contact over what they said were technical delays due to legal issues. The committees requests for information about the CAATSA delay were mostly unexplained, according to Sean Bartlett, a spokesman for Cardin, while the administration was more forthcoming about the [Magnitsky] delays, keeping us apprised of progress or issues that came up.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) was willing to look past the belated CAATSA measures due to the laws complexity. Corker told The Daily Beast last week that unlike CAATSAunder which the State Department and Treasury Department must take into consideration U.S. companies that might be caught up in the sanctionsthe Magnitsky format is laid outall youve got to do is name [the individuals] and its done.

The State Department has chalked up its delay on the CAATSA sanctions to much of what Corker explained. But the department has signalled that it also wants to avoid the side effects that result when lawmakers such as Cardin and McCainwho co-authored the Global Magnitsky Actgo public with concerns that theyre being stonewalled by top administration officials.

We are committed to engaging with Congress on their priorities. We welcome and appreciate the information provided by Congress and will continue to consider credible, specific information provided by these key partners, a State Department spokesperson told The Daily Beast. We encourage recommendations to be submitted privately to avoid unintended negative consequences.

That was likely a reference to both McCains and Cardins public threats against the administration after the Oct. 1 delay. McCain, from his powerful perch atop the Armed Services Committee, told The Daily Beast he would continue to block Trumps nominees to key positions, while Cardin suggested holding up defense appropriations bills until the executive branch complies with the law. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also joined the fray, with Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the panels top Democrat, writing to Trump over the baffling and unacceptable delay which sends a terrible message about American leadership on the global stage.

Read this article:
Democrats Are Actually Praising Team Trump for Taking on Russia

DemocratsDemocratas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here:
Democrats (Brazil) - Wikipedia

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

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

By RACHAEL BADE, JOHN BRESNAHAN and SARAH FERRIS

11/29/2017 01:06 PM EST

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

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

Story Continued Below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eliana Johnson contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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