Mediaboss Marketing

WA LIBERALS are set to debate proposals to smash the influence of factional powerbrokers at preselections.

Sources confirmed constitutional amendments were being prepared for debate at the partys State conference in September.

If adopted, they would pave the way for changes to rules that govern the local selection of candidates for elections.

Changes included the introduction of a plebiscite system, whereby every member of a branch gets a vote on preselections, or increasing the number of delegates to selection committees.

Liberals said a major concern was that the party appeared to have learnt little from its March 11 defeat, and powerbrokers still had a major say on preselections.

It is essential for the future of the Liberal Party that quality candidates based on merit are preselected for future parliamentary positions, a Liberal insider said.

There has been interference and influence to appoint people that merely vote in accordance with a powerbroker, both in the party room and in the party itself to suit vested interests.

Some Liberals support the Victorian model, introduced in 2008, which allows party members of two years standing to vote in Lower House preselections in their electorates.

But opponents to a plebiscite system argued there was no evidence to suggest that such a model would improve the current preselection system.

One Liberal insider said the party should be focused on preparing policies to return it back to government.

Debating the rules of the party is a very obvious sign that Liberal MPs are not focused on our re-election efforts, they said.

More here:
WA Liberals target factional powerbrokers - Perth Now

Toronto Sun

Liberals punted on 1st down with $10.5M Omar Khadr settlement Toronto Sun As Harper wrote on his Facebook page within hours of word leaking out first about the settlement, and secondly about the $10.5 million payout the secret deal was simply wrong and brokered quickly by the Liberals to ensure Khadr got his money ... and more »

View post:
Liberals punted on 1st down with $10.5M Omar Khadr settlement - Toronto Sun

The four on the left are, yes, Republicans.

President Donald Trump's critics view Republican congressmen as his enablers. James Fallows describes their behavior as the most discouraging weakness our governing system has shown since Trump took office. He singles out Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska for scorn, because "he leads all senators in his thoughtful, scholarly 'concern' about the norms Donald Trump is breaking -- and then lines up and votes with Trump 95 percent of the time."

Another journalist, Ron Brownstein, has written similarly. When various Republican senators objected to Trump's attacks on MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski's appearance, Brownstein asked what they intended to do about it. Other Trump foesechoed this critique: The Republicans' stern words were empty.

Most of this criticism is unreasonable.

It fails, for one thing, to account for what the Republicans have done. That includes "mere" criticism, since words matter in politics. Some of those words -- such as "we need to look to an independent commission or special prosecutor," or "our intelligence committee needs to interview" Donald Trump Jr. -- can have a fairly direct effect on what happens in Washington.

But it's not just words. The Republican Congress held hearings about President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey. Most Republicans have supported sanctions on Russia the president opposes.

For the Republicans' critics, these steps were the least they could do. But they weren't. The Republicans could have, for example, not held hearings.

It's unusual for senators to hold hearings into possible misconduct by 1) a president of their party 2) who is still fairly new in office and 3) supported by the vast majority of their voters. Perhaps the Republicans should have taken even more extraordinary action. But they're falling pitifully short only if the baseline expectation is that they do whatever liberal journalists think it's their duty to do.

And some things liberal journalists think it's the Republicans' duty to do make no sense. Take that 95 percent figure mentioned by Fallows. Was Senator Lindsey Graham really supposed to vote to keep regulations he considered unwise on the books because he opposes Vladimir Putin? Was Senator John McCain really supposed to vote against confirming Alex Acosta as labor secretary because the president tweets like a maladjusted 12-year-old?

When you complain about how often the senators vote with the president, that's what you're saying. Perhaps this is why the complaint is usually made by liberals, who would not want senators to be voting with President Marco Rubio or President John Kasich either.

Besides voting left, what would the Republicans' critics have them do? Impeach the president? Not even Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, supports that.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

"As evidence piles up pointing to the possibility that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, Republican lawmakers have largely ignored Democrats' calls for urgent action and continued about their day jobs,"writes McKay Coppins. The urgent actions he mentions: holding more press conferences about investigations into Trump; voting with Democrats on some anti-Trump resolutions they devised last week; and "issuing subpoenas more aggressively."

Maybe Republicans should subpoena some people they have not, although some specificity on who should get these subpoenas would be reassuring. I suspect that if the Republicans did issue more of them, the goalposts would just shift. The subpoenas, like the Comey hearings, would turn out not to count as "urgent action."

None of this means that Republicans are doing all they can and should do to address the concerns that Trump's presidency raises. Congressmen should, for example, be looking for ways to compel presidents to disclose their tax records, such disclosure being a useful norm that Trump has flouted.

But making a focused and reasonable demand and then building support for it is different from expecting congressional Republicans to sound like the opposition party.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Ramesh Ponnuru at rponnuru@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

The rest is here:
Liberals Want Republicans to Stop Being Republicans - Bloomberg

I quite enjoyed James Fergussons exploration of British Islam Al-Britannia, My Country. If it is done intelligently, I approve of someone accentuating the positive, reminding us that the majority of British Muslims have successfully integrated to a large extent, and that optimism is warranted.

But I have a couple of quibbles. He spends much time arguing that it is dangerously wrong to conflate conservative Islam with extremism the alleged sin of the Prevent programme. We should tolerate those who disparage gay rights or feminism, rather than accuse them of extremism, which will drive them underground.

Fair point, but I feel his argument misses a central issue. If conservative Islam disparages pluralism, and the secular nature of our politics, and idealises theocracy, then it surely overlaps with extremism. You could say that an extremist is a conservative who wants to put his ideas into practice.

At one point he discusses an imam called Suliman Gani. Like all imams, he believes in and prays for the global establishment of an Islamic state. But this is an almost abstract ambition for some unspecified time in the future; it is part and parcel of being a Muslim

The question is: is such a belief compatible with affirming liberal values? It is unhelpful for liberals like Fergusson to shout Of course! How dare you doubt it? The question must be carefully explored, which means admitting Islams traditional gravitation to theocracy. And Fergusson doesnt really go there.

My other quibble is hard to express. Fergusson, a vague cultural Christian or post-Christian, finds Islam spiritually enriching, dynamic, authentic whereas church worship often feels dead. In mosques, it was impossible not to notice the youthful energy on display, the vibrant sense of belonging to something bigger than the sum of their selves. And the call to prayer still puts the hairs up on the back of my neck in a way I have seldom experienced in church.

Hmm. Islam has an exotic community vibe that underlines the weakness of our own traditional religion; it feels more mysterious, more holy. This conclusion is very suitable to the agnostic mind. Religion is most compelling in the form which ones liberalism precludes one from, confirming the virtue of ones agnosticism. A more serious inquirer would ask whether religion can be both ideologically defensible and emotionally and aesthetically vital.

Go here to read the rest:
How tolerant should liberals be of Islamic theocracy? - Spectator.co.uk (blog)

Would you go to war against your fellow Americans to show your support for President Donald Trump? For the last several months, thats exactly what broadcaster Alex Jonesa favorite of the presidenthas been calling for.

In his radio show, on YouTube and on his Infowars website, Joneswho never met a conspiracy theory he didnt likeand who has pushed the notion that Sandy Hook was fakedhas been announcing that the United States is on the verge of a bloody second civil war. Like the radio DJs in Rwanda, Jones has been egging on his conservative listeners and viewersan estimated 2.7 million people monthlyto kill more liberal fellow citizens over their political differences.

Jones is hardly alone in promoting this scary, emerging narrative on the right. The theme gained momentum after the shooting at the congressional baseball game last month. The day before the attack, on June 13, right wing broadcaster Michael Savage, host of syndicated show The Savage Nation, warned that theres going to be a civil war because of what this left-wing is becoming in this country. After the baseball field shooting the next day, he said that he know[s] whats coming, and its going to get worse. Savage also said of the shooting that this blood is on [Democrats] hands.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

After the shooting, Newt Gingrich opined on Fox that we are in a clear-cut cultural civil war. Former GOP speechwriter Pat Buchanan wrote that the appointment of a special prosecutor and political street clashes presage a deep state media coup and that the nation is approaching something of a civil war, and its time for Trump to burn down the Bastille.

But few commentators can match the relentless hysteria and reach of Jones. His recent YouTube video titles telegraph the tone: Get Ready For CIVIL WAR! and First Shots Fired in Second US Civil War! What Will You Do? and Will Trump Stop Democrats' Plan for Violent Civil War?

Joness followers have already turned broadcaster words into violent action. Last year, Edgar Maddison Welch drove from North Carolina to Washington, D.C., to fire on a pizza restaurant Jones had been saying was a front for Democratic pedophiles and Satanists. Court records indicate he had been talking to his friends about Joness theories before he went on his mission. In 2014, a right-wing couple, self-described Infowars fans Jerad and Amanda Miller from Indiana, killed two police officers after posting screeds on Infowars. Jones later theorized that the shooting was a false flag intended to discredit the right.

Media Matters for America (MMA), a progressive research organization, has staff assigned to track Jones Infowars shows daily. According to spokesman Nate Evans, right-wing media has been advocating violence more since Trump was elected, but Jones has been particularly crazy about it.

Among the statements MMA has culled from his broadcasts in recent months are the following:

On June 23, he accused the left of starting civil war and offered to personally execute convicted traitors because, he said, Im not going to sit here and just call for stuff without actually being part of it. In the same broadcast he said, I dont need some coming-of-age deal to kill a bunch of liberals, but we have to start getting ready for insurrection and civil war because theyre really pushing it.

On June 15, he warned you kick off Civil War 2, baby, youll think Lexington and Concord was a cakewalk. The day before, he implicated himself and his listeners: Youre trying to start a civil war with people. Youre taking our kindness for weakness. Do you understand the American people will kill all of you? You understand? We are killing machines, you fools. But I can shoot bulls-eye at 400 yards, dumbass. I mean, they have no idea who theyre messing with."

In a May 13 broadcast, he warned that "leftists want a war," so cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.

Jones has also called for extrajudicially arresting former FBI DIrector James Comey and Hillary Clinton and has encouraged Trump to use the military against dissenters. "I'd support the president right now moving against these people physically, he said in a June 13 broadcast. I mean, let's be honest. We're in a war. I would support the president making a military move on them right now."

This is not the first time Jones has attracted attention by advocating violence against federal officials. In April, he let loose with a rant on California Democrat Adam Schiff, the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee looking into Trumps Russian connections. The profanity laced transcript was also homophobic and included an explicit threat of bodily harm.

Im not against gay people. OK. I love them, theyre great folks. But Schiff looks like the archetypal cocksucker with those little deer-in-the-headlight eyes and all his stuff, Jones said. And theres something about this fairy, hopping around, bossing everybody around, trying to intimidate people like me and you, I want to tell Congressman Schiff and all the rest of them, Hey, listen, asshole, quit saying Roger and Iand Ive never used cussing in 22 years, but the gloves are offlisten, you son of a bitch, what the fucks your problem? You want to sit here and say that Im a goddamn, fucking Russian. You get in my face with that, Ill beat your goddamn ass, you son of a bitch. You piece of shit. You fucking goddamn fucker. Listen, fuckhead, you have fucking crossed a line. Get that through your goddamn fucking head. Stop pushing your shit. Youre the people that have fucked this country over and gangraped the shit out of it and lost an election. So stop shooting your mouth off claiming Im the enemy. You got that you goddamn son of a bitch? Fill your hand. Im sorry, but Im done. You start calling me a foreign agent, those are fucking fighting words. Excuse me.

Tim Johnson, a Media Matters for America Research Fellow, who tracks Jones says that the civil war theme is a new one, and probably related to the fact that Barack Obama is no longer president, offering a clear, single enemy. He needs something new, and so its that criticism of Trump equals civil war, Johnson said.

An attorney with expertise in federal law told Newsweek at the time that Joness threats at Schiff appeared to break a federal law, U.S. Code Title 18, Section 115, which makes it illegal to threaten to assault a U.S. official and provides a penalty of up to six years in prison.

After Newsweek published that legal analysis, Jones publicly pulled back, and posted a video attempting to clarify his remarks as clearly tongue-in-cheek and basically art performance.

Federal officials are not known to have contacted him or looked into the matter.

See the original post:
Alex Jones and Other Conservatives Call for Civil War Against Liberals - Newsweek