Mediaboss Marketing

The state House of Representatives will vote Wednesday on the controversial issue of gender pay equity, but Democratic leaders said the bill is still not finalized and they don't know how many Republicans will vote in favor.

House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz has been supporting a vote on pay equity after a one-week delay amid concerns about the wording of the bill and partisan squabbling between lawmakers.

While lawmakers have been working on six different versions of the bill, they said the final wording was still not ready for release on Wednesday morning.

The biggest stumbling block to the bill is an ongoing dispute over whether employers should be blocked from asking applicants about their salary history. Democrats want that provision, but employers say they need to be able to ask about salary history to see how much previous employers valued the worker. The 10,000-member Connecticut Business and Industry Association has been lobbying against the bill, saying that the state simply needs to enforce the existing law.

Just minutes before the House session began Wednesday, Aresimowicz said it was still unclear whether the bill's "Section D'' on salary history would be included in the final version.

"It's a game-time decision,'' said Aresimowicz, a longtime football coach.

It is already illegal under federal law for men and women to be paid differently for equal work. But lawmakers say the practice still happens, even when illegal.

"It's hard to enforce, and that's the purpose of this bill - to actually strengthen what's already on the books,'' said Rep. Robyn Porter, a liberal Democrat from New Haven. "We find that it actually occurs more with top earners, as opposed to low-wage earners.''

Porter said the inequity often comes more often with workers such as high-paid nurses, rather than minimum wage workers.

When Democrats sought to bring the legislation up last week, state Rep. Matthew Lesser, a Middletown Democrat, said there were two reasons to vote against the bill, and one of them was bigotry. That prompted a sharp response from House Republican Leader Themis Klarides of Derby, who said passionately that Lesser was describing Republicans as bigots. She blasted Democrats on the measure and said they were guilty of name-calling and bullying.

Lesser later said that his comments at a press conference had been directed at employers and were never meant to refer to Republican legislators.

But Klarides took the remarks as an attack on Republicans and an affront to any legislator who opposed the bill.

"You want to talk about gender?'' Klarides asked Capitol reporters. "I am the first woman leader of the House Republican caucus. I have the highest percentage of women of any caucus in this building. I pay my women staffers more than we pay our men staffers. They can't say that in the House Democrat caucus. ... Don't make this that you're anti-women if you don't like a bill that doesn't solve a problem that you say we have."

CBIA has been opposing two different versions of the bill, saying that "enforcing current law is the answer to eliminating any real or perceived discriminatory practices.''

Aresimowicz and other Democrats said repeatedly that last week's postponement of the bill was not related to the Lesser vs. Klarides dustup and instead came because attorneys could not agree on the final wording of the bill.

Visit link:
Democrats Plan To Vote On Pay Equity Legislation Wednesday - Hartford Courant

WINCHESTER, Va.

If Mudcat Saunders were running things, he would never have approached bringing his beloved Democratic Party together by uninviting one faction of the divided party.

Well, that would not have been my tactics; if your party is divided, well, how do you bring it together if you dont invite all sides? he asks, confounded by the decision.

But that is exactly what they did to Saunders, a legendary Democratic operative with a deep Southern drawl, a commanding presence and a fierce loyalty to his party, despite its sharp turn left beginning along the fringes with Al Gore.

Saunders is the Democrats outspoken liaison between progressive candidates and rural voters in order to help them soften their message to longtime Democratic voters who still like God and guns and find themselves in a church pew every Sunday. He was unceremoniously uninvited to the very event that was supposed to bring rural and progressive Democrats together ahead of the governors races this year.

He said: Like I said, not exactly the way I would have approached it. I think every voice needs to be heard; we are losing rural Democrat support and I think we really need that for this governors race in order to win.

In short, Democrats believe that because of their populous numbers in the urban suburbs in Northern Virginia, they dont need rural voters. And they arent showing any willingness to petition, engage with them or win them over.

Their beef with him involves his unwillingness to vote for Hillary Clinton last year. It doesnt help that he was pretty outspoken about it.

They dont have to. And this is why we are the minority party, said Dane Strother, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic strategist with deep Southern roots. If we remain uninterested in the rural vote we will remain the minority party.

Virginia Democrats are in the midst of a civil war that is only getting worse since the election of Donald J. Trump. Virginia did not go for Trump, but its rural voters, a decent amount of them Democrats, voted decisively for Trump over their partys nominee.

That civil war has escalated as the Democratic primary race for governor moves front and center. Candidates Ralph Northam, an Eastern Shore native, and Tom Perriello, who once represented the 5th Congressional District, both come from rural Virginia.

Mudcat supports Northam. He said: Perriello used to be pro-life, now hes not. Perriello used to be pro-gun, now he is not. He is running away from the moderate Democrats and right into the arms of the left of the party and its disappointing.

Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the de facto leader of the Democratic Partys progressive wing since he effectively harnessed energy among the partys far left during last years primary contest with Clinton, endorsed the former congressman in the governors race.

The former Blue Dog-like Democrat came into the House majority one cycle after the wave of moderate Democrats swept Republicans into the minority.

Northam is the current lieutenant governor of Virginia, a position elected separately from the governors office.

He is moderate and populist and liked by the states Democratic Party. He also voted for George W. Bush for president twice.

One of these guys will soon be the Democratic nominee for governor in Virginia, said Strother: It is one of only two states New Jersey is the other that hold governors races this year. I think this contest in a purple state will show us the direction my party is going. Will they go full progressive? Will they include blue-collar and working-class rural Democrats in a message that they can rally around? I sure hope so, or we are in a world of hurt.

Strother said the decision in Roanoke to disinvite Mudcat was a stupid one: This is a defining race for us. We have to have a developed, authentic message that reaches these voters and stop alienating them or we will remain in the wilderness.

Here in the Shenandoah Valley, those exact types of voters are turned off by progressive politics and the state, despite going blue three presidential elections in a row. The numbers for Democrats have softened in those cycles, not hardened.

The story to watch first is: Where do Democrats go in their primary race this summer? Do they continue to push out moderate voices like Mudcats? Do they find a way to bring them in with a message that appeals to all? Or do they march leftward? And, if so, does that march keep them in the wilderness, or do they find victory in the fall?

It is certainly the race to watch. Why? Well, because the Democrats need the Mudcats of this world in their party not just here but across the country and they need to let them have a voice. If not, they risk remaining the minority party up and down the ballot.

Salena Zito is a CNN political analyst, and a staff reporter and columnist for the Washington Examiner. Contact her at info@creators.com or visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.

2017, Creators Syndicate

The rest is here:
Salena Zito column: Why the Democrats need the Mudcats of their party - Richmond.com

In the first few months of President Trump's term, Senate Democrats have opposed him on nearly everything. And many of them are being rewarded handsomely for it by their liberal base.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) announced Tuesday that he raised an eye-popping $3 million from January through March. That's, like, unheard of for a candidate to raise in non-election year, especially a candidate not expected to face a competitive general election. (Hillary Clinton won Connecticut in November by 15 points.) Murphy's campaign says 97 percent of those contributions were $100 or less, a decent indicator that most of the money came from small donors rather than large, outside groups.

Murphy has made himself something of a national figure over the past year by launching a filibuster on gun control after the Orlando massacre. (He's even received some 2020 presidential buzz.) But other Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2018 are also reporting record fundraising numbers for this time of year in their states:

These fundraising numbers are huge for any candidate to post at this time, when few people are usually paying attention to politics, much less writing a check for a campaign that's not for another year and a half. They're especially politically resonant at this moment. Senate Democrats' big numbers fit into a larger storywe've been watching unfold since Trump was elected: Democrats' base isfired up andactive, and they are manifesting themselves in some unexpected ways.

(A caveat to this: At least one vulnerable Senate Republican, Dean Heller in Nevada, raised $1.4 million in the first quarter, which is a lot considering his entire 2012 reelection campaign raised $4.7 million.)

Back to Democratic momentum. Consider:

Special congressional elections in Kansas on Tuesday and Georgia next Tuesday to fill spots vacated by members of Trump's Cabinet are surprisingly competitive. In Georgia, where a Democrat hasn't held Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price's former seat for some 40 years, Democrat Jon Ossoff raised an insane $8.3 million in the first quarter of 2017 and could force that race into a runoff or even win it outright April 18.

In Kansas, Trump, Vice President Pence and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) are all campaigning in some form or another juuust to make sure that CIA Director Mike Pompeo's former seat in one of the most Republican districts in the nation doesn't go to a virtually unknown Democrat with no legislative experience. (State Treasurer Ron Estes (R) ended up winning by 7 points, 20 points less than Trump won the districtby in November.)

Republicans are facing a tight race in the Kansas 4th District's special election on April 11, to fill CIA Director Mike Pompeo's seat. The race is the first chance for Democrats to challenge Republicans for House seats left vacant by Trump administration officials. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

In a special election for Montana's lone House seat, a folk singer and Sen. Bernie Sanders supporter raised $1.3 millionto try to win a seat that a Democrat hasn't held that since 1996.

And every time Congress breaks from its work here in Washington, we hear stories of GOP lawmakers overwhelmed by hundreds if not thousands of mostly liberal constituentsshowing up to air their grievances. OnMonday night, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) the you lie! congressman was drowned out for some 30 seconds at a town hall by chants of, well, you lie!

If we dig even deeper for signs of Democratic enthusiasm since Trump's election, we can find it. Since November, Democrats have won special elections in state legislatures in Iowa, Virginia, Connecticut and Delaware. In a special election for Delaware's state Senate race in February, the winning Democratic candidate won in a Saturday, off-year special election by 1,000 votes more than the Democratic candidate of that seat earned in the 2014 general.

Anecdotal evidence from partisan and nonpartisan women-in-politics organizations suggests that women-only classes for how to run for office are packed.

So, what does all this momentum on the left actually mean forDemocrats' chance to pick up seats in the 2018 midterm elections?

To that, we have an unsatisfying answer: We just don't know. No matter how much money they raise, it doesn't change that Senate Democrats' caucus is facing a difficult challenge to keep their 48 seats in the Senate, let alone pick off Republicans to pick up the majority. Democrats are defending 25 seats in 2018, 10 in states that Trump won, compared with Republicans' defense of nine, just two in states considered to be competitive.

In the House, Democrats would have to kick out most or all of the two dozen House Republicans who won in districts that voted for Clinton to take back the majority.

But we do know that congressional elections tend to be referendums on the president, and warning signs for the party in power can show up early.Three months in, we're getting a sense of just how much the liberal base despises this president. What everyone is trying to forecast next is how the rest of the country feels.

Read more:
Senate Democrats are making bank off President Trump right now ... - Washington Post

Ad will collapse in seconds CLOSE

With a lot of attention already being focused on the battle for control of the U.S. House in 2018, it is sometimes easy to shirk the midterm Senate contests. That is partly because the horrific Senate landscape for Democrats makes a takeover of that chamber seem like a stretch. For one thing, Democrats are defending 25 seats, while Republicans are only defending 9. But the number that really haunts every donkey is that ten Democratic senators who are up for reelection in 2018 represent states won by Donald Trump last year. Meanwhile, only one Republican running in 2018 is dealing with an electorate who voted for Hillary Clinton.

But as a periodic installment of surveys from Morning Consult shows, the Democrats running in all those 2016 red states are by and large doing better than one might expect when it comes to job-approval ratings from their constituents. And the numbers do not invariably correlate to the presidential strength of the two parties in each state, either.

Only one of the ten Democrats from Trump-voting states hits the lofty 60 percent approval rating level (with 32 percent disapproval), and thats one who may really need it: Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, a state that Trump carried by 35 points. But two others from deep-red states are nearly that popular: Jon Tester (57 approve/32 disapprove) of Montana, which Trump carried by 20 points, and Joe Manchin (57/30) of West Virginia, which Trump won by more than 40.

Two senators from big Trump states are at somewhat weaker, but by no means terrible, popularity levels: Joe Donnelly of Indiana is at 46/26, while Claire McCaskill of Missouri is at 47/39.

Then we come to Democratic senators in states that Trump carried much more narrowly indeed, narrowly enough that the usual midterm pushback against the party controlling the White House might erase any presumed GOP advantage entirely. All are in favorable territory:

Bill Nelson of Florida, at 53/26 Sherrod Brown of Ohio, at 52/30 Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, at 49/29 Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, at 47/38 Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, at 44/38

The one Republican in enemy territory has among the lowest approval numbers in the Senate: Dean Heller of Nevada, at 43/32. Just for the record, the only senator who Morning Consult shows as being actually underwater in approval ratings is the fellow running the upper chamber, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, at 44/47. But McConnell doesnt have to face voters again until 2020.

These numbers are, obviously, just from one pollster and crazy early. Democratic senators in highly adverse territory, such as Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, McCaskill, and Tester, will all get the best shot Republicans can take in terms of candidate recruitment and money. Some could face scary expensive races such as Bill Nelson, who could be challenged by two-term GOP governor and perpetual self-funder Rick Scott.

But all in all, if Trump and the GOP continue to stumble around while motivating Democrats to fight them, and if midterm anti-White House dynamics kick in, the pro-GOP Senate bloodbath a lot of people have expected for 2018 might not happen after all. The Cook Political Reports Jennifer Duffy shows all Democratic incumbents to be favored at present. Its still hard to figure out how Democrats could actually produce the net gain of three seats and win back the Senate, even in the best of circumstances; it might take an unexpected retirement or two, or some senatorial implosion. But the Senate bears watching.

Bill OReilly Is Going on Vacation. Will His Show Return?

Hannah on Girls Could Not Have Gotten That Job

Trump Budget Director Admits Their Goal Is High Inequality, Not Low Deficits

Marvel Was Rocked by a Weird Hidden Koranic Message This Weekend

Ask Polly: Now That Were in Our 30s, My Friends Are Abandoning Me!

Dorothy Mengering, David Lettermans Mom and Late Show Regular, Dead at 95

Nicole Richies Interview High Five Turned Into an Awkward Slap to the Face

Pearl Jam Might Not Be Cool, But That Doesnt Mean They Arent Great

The Reaction to Sean Spicers Latest Screw Up in Two GIFs

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Recap, Reunion Part One: A Drop of Truth

Most Popular Video On Daily Intelligencer

Russian officials had previously said that such a meeting was not on Putins schedule.

Local issues helped make last nights special election competitive. Thats a national problem for the Republican Party.

Its hedging on continuing insurer subsidies needed to keep the program working. Is it a ploy to force Dems to negotiate?

I would never go out and picket or strap myself to a tree or anything like that, but I do consider myself a minimalist by nature.

With a horrific electoral landscape, it was thought Democrats would lose Senate seats even if they did well in the House. But things are looking up.

The magazine reached a confidential settlement over its debunked November 2014 cover story, A Rape on Campus.

Mick Mulvaney says the quiet part loud.

He apologized after arguing that even Adolf Hitler deployed weaponized gas more ethically than Bashar al-Assad.

He said it shows the Clinton/Obama regime was suppressing dissidents, and compared his situation to the monitoring of Martin Luther King Jr.

The offhand remark stirred confusion, since the secretary recently said Russian sanctions would remain in place.

Despite reports of a truce with Jared Kushner, the chief strategist may still be on thin ice.

In a district Trump carried by 27 points, the Republican won by seven, starting what could be a difficult string of elections for Republicans.

James and Rupert Murdoch are debating whether to give the longtime host the boot, Fox sources say.

It is here, on this sliver of land, where we first take our stand against this filth, read the prepared remarks for Sessionss border speech.

The video of a passenger being violently ejected from a plane blew up on social media in China.

If she does, New Englands most racist governor will get to appoint Maines next senator.

In a rare set of nearly identical circumstances, GOP voters have veered from massive opposition to strikes on Syria held during Obamas presidency.

The White House says Putins claim is fake news and they have the intelligence to prove it.

If there was anything that [bombing] Syria did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie.

The special congressional election was supposed to be a GOP cakewalk. But now it could produce a huge upset.

Read the original:
Maybe Senate Democrats Aren't in Such Bad Shape for 2018 - New York Magazine

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

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

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

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

EDITORIAL: Syria after the Airstrikes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE:

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