Mediaboss Marketing

For six months now, the Trump administration has been required to notify Congress within 48 hours any time Iran conducts a ballistic missile launch.

That requirement will expire at the end of 2019. But even though that's more than two years away, Democrats are already thinking about extending it for another three years.

Reps. Ruben Kihuen, D-Nev., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass., proposed legislation last week to extend the requirement all the way through 2022. The bill is a sign that even Democrats are worried, like Trump, about Iran's ongoing missile testing.

Members of both parties say those tests are a possible violation of the language related to the Iran nuclear agreement and something that Congress needs to know about as they happen, something Kihuen made clear when his bill came out.

"Despite condemnation from Congress, the administration and the U.N. Security Council, Iran has continued to expand its ballistic missile program, posing a threat to our national security and that of one of our closest [allies] in the region, Israel," he said last week.

But it's also a sign that lawmakers are still wary about President Trump's national security posture. Moulton offered the language last year as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, and believes it's a good idea to extend it now in the midst of a new administration.

"As this provision expires at the end of 2019, Rep. Kihuen's bipartisan bill provides a necessary extension of this requirement at a time when the new administration has yet to release their national security strategy as required by law," he said.

In addition to a few other Democrats, the bill is also cosponsored by two Republicans: Reps. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and Randy Weber of Texas.

The idea of an extension was proposed after several Iranian missile tests, and nearly two years into the implementation of the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The JCPOA itself dealt with Iran's nuclear capability, but the United Nations resolution endorsing that agreement also included language on missile testing.

That language says Iran is "called upon" not to undertake activities related to ballistic missile, a weakening of a 2010 U.N. resolution that says Iran "shall not" participate in those activities.

Iran has since held a series of missile tests since the JCPOA was signed, which has led to complaints from both parties that Iran is trampling over the spirit of the new U.N. resolution.

Those tests, in October and November of 2015, March 2016 and January of this year, have been a constant source of tension among Republicans in particular, who didn't like the deal to begin with.

The Trump administration so far has indicated it will let the agreement stand, although Trump warned as a candidate that he may choose to push Iran hard to implement the agreement strictly. Iran's missile tests could be the issue that eventually tests that pledge, especially if they continue.

In the meantime, Congress, which historically has been quick to act to sanction Iran or hold votes to express its displeasure with Iran, wants to know everything the Trump administration knows.

"Our legislation will help ensure a long-term strategy and aid in deterring Iran's ballistic missile program and simply extends an existing requirement that the president notify Congress on Iranian ballistic missile launches or tests until December 2022," Kihuen said.

Read the rest here:
When Iran launches missiles, Democrats want transparency from Trump - Washington Examiner

Senate Republicans began this year thinking that they had leverage over some Democrats, particularly the 10 up for reelection next year in states that President Trump won in the fall.

Those Democrats, some GOP strategists believed, would want to work with the president to appeal to enough Trump voters to win their states in November 2018.

That didnt happen. Instead, Trumps standing has slipped in many of these states. The president has faced legislative gridlock and a deepening investigation of his campaigns connections to Russia. His focus, in public appearances and on social media, has regularly drifted away from the policy agenda on Capitol Hill.

Thats left Senate Democrats feeling stronger than they expected to be eight months after their highly disappointing showing in 2016, which left them in the minority and heading into 2018 defending 25 seats compared with Republicans eight.

If Trump had spent his first six months increasing or even maintaining his popularity in these states, he might have struck enough political fear in these 2018 Democrats to compel them to support some of his initiatives.

Thats looking more and more like the sort of negotiation that will happen only if Democrats can command a good deal in return.

McConnell says GOP must shore up ACA insurance markets if Senate bill dies

The dynamic is sure to test Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the months ahead, particularly if Republicans fail to muster the votes solely from their side of the aisle to repeal chunks of the Affordable Care Act. McConnell has warned that such an outcome will force him to work with Democrats to shore up imploding insurance markets.

No action is not an alternative, McConnell said Thursday while in Kentucky.

Beyond the health-care fight, McConnell has also made clear that there are many other agenda items that will require the traditional 60-vote threshold to choke off filibusters, meaning he needs at least eight Democrats to move legislation such as annual government funding bills and an increase in the governments borrowing authority.

But the bargaining table is different now.

Take Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), whose state delivered a critical victory for Trump, the first by a GOP presidential nominee since 1984.

A staunch liberal, Baldwin began the year expecting her 2018 reelection bid to be a 50-50 prospect. Her state had voted Republican three straight times for governor and in two of the past three Senate races.

Trump has used the presidential bully pulpit to focus on the Badger State, making three trips there since November. But his visits have done little to boost his standing.

Just 41 percent of Wisconsin voters approved of Trumps job performance in late June, while 51 percent disapproved, according to a poll by Marquette Law School.

On basic popularity, Trump is easily the most disliked politician among Wisconsin voters, with 54 percent holding an unfavorable view of him and 40 percent a favorable one.

Baldwins image is not great, but it is far better in Wisconsins eyes than Trump: 38 percent have a favorable view and 38 percent unfavorable.

Its the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania, both states Trump narrowly won. In Michigan, just 35 percent of voters approved of his job performance in a late May poll conducted by EPIC-MRA, with 61 percent disapproving. In Pennsylvania, 37 percent supported his job performance while 49 percent did not, according to a May poll by Franklin & Marshall University.

The good news for Trump is that his image in Pennsylvania improved a little from earlier in the year. The bad news is that his image in Michigan got a bit worse. The really bad news is that Trumps image is battered enough that neither Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) nor Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) are feeling much pressure to work with Trump in the run-up to their 2018 reelection bids, unless its on their terms on a critical issue for their state.

For senators who hail from states where he is completely underwater, there is no political reason to work with him unless its on an issue where they have something to gain, said Matthew Miller, a former aide to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Infrastructure was Trumps shot at a bipartisan deal, but he left Democrats waiting by the phone

Its not just Trump who is unpopular; so is his partys health-care proposal.

Late last month, two liberal super PACs, Priorities USA Action and Senate Majority PAC, released a poll of the 10 states Trump won where Democrats face reelection next year. It showed that 60 percent of voters in those key battlegrounds want the Senate to start over on a health-care plan, while only 25 percent support its passage.

The super PACs did not release Trump-specific data, but several sources familiar with the poll said that the Democratic groups also privately tested the presidents standing with voters in those 10 states. Only in the most conservative of those states, such as West Virginia and North Dakota, did Trump have a net positive approval rating, but even there his approval was only a handful of points higher than his disapproval.

Trump won West Virginia and North Dakota by 42 and 36 points, respectively. Under normal political circumstances, Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) should be trying at every turn to work with Trump much as Southern Democrats supported Ronald Reagans early agenda when the Republican icon swept that region in 1980.

After initial meetings with Trump during the transition, during which their names were floated as potential Cabinet members, Manchin and Heitkamp have kept a respectful distance from the president on most issues. Unless Trump can regain his strong popularity in these conservative states, the two are unlikely to feel the pressure to support the president, particularly when hes pushing very conservative agenda items.

You have to demonstrate that you respect the office and are willing to work with him, but hold firm to your principles on core issues, Miller said, describing Manchin and Heitkamps approach.

During the spring negotiations over 2017 government funding, Democrats held firm against most of Trumps priorities, including money for a Mexican border wall. Republicans got very few conservative wins.

If Trump isnt careful, this dynamic might start repeating itself for the foreseeable future.

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

The rest is here:
Republicans thought they could force 2018 Democrats to cut deals, but Trump keeps sliding in polls - Washington Post

There are plenty of good issues Democrats should be championing. They need to reject socialist ideas and adopt an agenda of renewed growth, greater protection for American workers and a return to fiscal responsibility. While the old brick-and-mortar economy is being regulated to death, the new tech-driven economy has been given a pass to flout labor laws with unregulated, low-paying gig jobs, to concentrate vast profits and to decimate retailing. Rural areas have been left without adequate broadband and with shrinking opportunities. The opioid crisis has spiraled out of control, killing tens of thousands, while pardons have been given to so-called nonviolent drug offenders. Repairing and expanding infrastructure, a classic Democratic issue, has been hijacked by President Trump meaning Democrats have a chance to reach across the aisle to show they understand that voters like bipartisanship.

Immigration is also ripe for a solution from the center. Washington should restore the sanctity of Americas borders, create a path to work permits and possibly citizenship, and give up on both building walls and defending sanctuary cities. On trade, Democrats should recognize that they can no longer simultaneously try to be the free-trade party and speak for the working class. They need to support fair trade and oppose manufacturing plants moving jobs overseas, by imposing new taxes on such transfers while allowing repatriation of foreign profits. And the party seems to have forgotten that community policing combined with hiring more police officers worked in the 90s and it will work again today. It cant be the party that failed to stop the rising murder rates in cities like Chicago.

Health care is the one area where the Democrats have gained the upper hand and have a coherent message about protecting the working poor from losing coverage. But the Affordable Care Act needs to be adjusted to control costs better, lest employer-sponsored health care become unaffordable. For now, the Democrats are right to hold the line in defending Obamacare in the face of Republican disunity.

Easily lost in todays divided politics is that only a little more than a quarter of Americans consider themselves liberals, while almost three in four are self-identified moderates or conservatives. Yet moderate viewpoints are being given short shrift in the presidential nominating process. So Democrats should change their rules to eliminate all caucuses in favor of primaries. Caucuses are largely undemocratic because they give disproportionate power to left-leaning activists, making thousands of Democrats in Kansas more influential than millions of people in Florida.

Americans are looking for can-do Democrats in the mold of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton leaders who rose above partisanship to unify the country, who defended human rights and equality passionately, and who also encouraged economic growth and rising wages. That is the road back to relevance, and the White House, for the Democrats.

Mark Penn served as pollster and senior adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton from 1995 to 2008. Andrew Stein is a former Manhattan borough president and New York City Council president.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 6, 2017, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Back to the Center, Democrats.

Visit link:
Back to the Center, Democrats - The New York Times

Its beginning to give me a nagging sense of dj vu. Anyone in fashion has been here before.

Indeed, as most apparel brands, high and low, could tell you, the transformation of their customer base from people acting out of allegiance to an inherited group ethos to people acting as individuals motivated by personal desire began taking place almost a decade ago.

Robert Burke, the former fashion director of Bergdorf Goodman and founder of a luxury consultancy, describes it this way: We used to talk about the designer customer or the fast fashion customer or the Cline customer, and if someone fit into those categories, their choices were largely predictable and they did not cross over. Starting in about 2006, 2007 and then after the economic downturn, that completely changed. They became much more independent. Also less predictable.

Consumers of clothing began to make choices dictated not by what was expected of them or what had been prescribed for them from head to toe by a brand whose value system they inherited, but by whatever fit them best whatever felt most tailored to them individually at that moment.

One way to think of this is to compare the wardrobe of Princess Diana, with her early allegiance to Liberty scarves and hunting tweeds, with that of the current Duchess of Cambridge, whose dresses swing from the modestly priced Topshop to the high-fashion Alexander McQueen. Or think about the shift in the closets of Wall Street bankers from a menagerie of animal-print Herms ties to casual-Friday anonymity. Or the rise and fall of J. Crew.

So if it is true that political consumers are following the same broad model of behavior as clothing consumers, would it not make sense to ask whether there is something political parties could learn from the strategic adaptations of clothing brands?

They havent necessarily solved the loyalty problem. But they have definitely been experimenting with a new approach. And their success is measured not every two or four years but every quarter.

The results have altered both the geography of retail and the balance of power, shifting it from a one-way communication highway (the brand spoke; the consumer listened) to a dialogue.

When Saks opened its new store in Brookfield Place in Lower Manhattan, for example, it did so with floors that had been configured so that instead of their having a designer section and a contemporary section, borders between areas had been avoided.

Why should a shopper who wanted cool sneakers to wear with a tuxedo have to go from department to department, or even to different floors, to find what he was looking for, potentially getting bored or irritated in the process and deciding to go elsewhere? Instead, choice was laid at his feet: options stretching out along a single floor as far as the eye could see.

Brands discovered that consumers were confused by the plethora of lines (literal and metaphorical) that industry wisdom had dictated, so they combined them into one that bridged price points and moods and was united by a single identifiable message.

Instead of selling separate outerwear and weekend and high-fashion collections with different names and ad campaigns that appeared on different platforms, fragmenting its audience, Burberry merged them all into one: Its big tent is defined by an overriding vision of British tradition with a mash-up edge that could encompass a rainbow of trench coats or made-to-order capes, silken Bloomsbury-set pajamas suits or sculptural white shirts, all at the same time.

Conglomerates such as LVMH Mot Hennessy Louis Vuitton adopted an approach of semi-radical transparency, and instead of cloaking themselves in their former air of mystery, which turned out to be creating distance instead of intrigue, invited potential consumers into the ateliers to see their artisans in the process of making their products, humanizing themselves along the way.

They transformed their retail temples, formerly hushed chambers with products on pedestals, into lounges where customers could hang out and feel at home. And they began to place as much importance on (and investment in) peer-to-peer and influencer opinion as they have on celebrity endorsement.

Clearly a political party is not a fashion company. And the stakes, for all of us, are much higher in the voting booth than in the fitting room. But before everyone takes umbrage at the idea of ever connecting the two or conflating what is often stereotyped as superficial with what is considered substantive, its worth remembering what caused the epiphany on both the high street and the haute street: the advent of the educated consumer.

Isnt that what we want for the electorate, too?

Vanessa Friedman is the chief fashion critic for The New York Times.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this news analysis appears in print on July 9, 2017, on Page SR5 of the New York edition with the headline: Guccis Guide for Democrats.

Go here to read the rest:
What Gucci Can Teach the Democrats - New York Times

News & Observer

Democrats look to 2020 Census to gain ground News & Observer North Carolina Democrats will take stock of state and national party successes and failures in their annual pep rally dinner program next weekend. Their keynote speaker will be former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is leading a new nationwide ...

Read the original here:
Democrats look to 2020 Census to gain ground - News & Observer