Mediaboss Marketing

The Liberal government is ready to move forward with several reforms to the rules of the House of Commons, with proposed changes covering prorogation and omnibus legislation.

The changes won't include new rules to codify a prime minister's question period, but the Liberals are committing to continue the recent practice of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau taking all questions each Wednesday.

The Liberals backed away from other proposals in April, after the government's release of a discussion paper on reform prompted opposition outrage.

When the Liberals refused to agree that they would only proceed with the consensus of all parties, Conservatives and New Democrats filibustered a Liberal MP's attempt to have the government's proposals studied by a House of Commons committee.

The motion to implement the changes will be put forward after several days of negotiation between the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, but it is not yet clear whether there is all-party agreement to proceed.

The Conservatives had been threatening to trigger more than 200 votes to tie up the House of Commons unless the Liberals compromised.

The new Liberal motion could be debated by MPs next week.

Under the changes proposed by the Liberals, a government minister would be required to table an explanation after every use of prorogation to explain why the government prorogued Parliament. That explanation would then be referred to a House committee.

For omnibus legislation, the Speaker would also be empowered to allow for separate votes and studies for bills "where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked." Budget bills that implement measures outlined in the federal budget would still be permitted.

In addition to prorogation and omnibus bills two issues that became points of controversy in recent years the Liberal motion would change the date on which the government's budgetary requests are tabled in Parliament and codify that parliamentary secretaries can be non-voting members of House committees.

The possibility of codifying a weekly prime minister's question period had raised concerns that a prime minister might use that as an excuse to only appear at one session of question period each week, though the Liberals said that was not Trudeau's intent.

"The prime minister's question period is here to stay under this government," said Mark Kennedy, director of communications for government House leader Bardish Chagger. "And just as it became the convention not something in the standing orders in the United Kingdom, we are confident it will become the convention here."

The rest is here:
Liberals ready to move to change House rules on omnibus bills, prorogation - CBC.ca

A little more than six years ago, after the horrific shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and her constituents, many members of the media embarked on a viciously dishonest anti-conservative smear campaign.

The New York Times editorial board declared that, while it would be facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madmans act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members, it was nonetheless acceptable to blame them at least indirectly for the massacre. Seizing a good opportunity to make some money, Sen. Bernie Sanders fundraised off the tragedy by condemning right-wing reactionaries with their threats and acts of violence.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, meanwhile, who has almost literally gone insane, blamed the Giffords shooting in part on the eliminationist rhetoriccoming, overwhelmingly, from the right. At Media Matters, Eric Boehlert condemned the tide of hateful, insurrectionist rhetoric that too many conservatives refuse to condemn. And Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas simply tweeted: Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.

Well. There was never any evidence that the Tucson shooting had anything to do in the slightest with anything Republicans had ever said. The shooter turned out to be an apolitical madman who was more obsessed with NASA hoaxes than with any real-world political goings-on. Liberals pounced on the event not to moderate our political rhetoric butnow heres a surpriseto cynically use a tragedy in order to bash conservatives.

If proof of such were needed, we need only examine the media reaction to yesterdays shoot-up of a GOP baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia. The shooter, as is now well-known, was an extremely liberal, anti-conservative Sanders supporter who apparently despised Republicans with every fiber of his being.

Now, unlike 2011, there really is hateful, insurrectionist rhetoric flying about. Note, for instance, Madonnas publicly stated desire to blow up the White House, or comedian Kathy Griffins violent fantasy photo shoot wherein she beheaded President Trump, or the Public Theater rendition of Shakespeares Julius Caesar in which a Trump stand-in is assassinated. This is literal eliminationist and insurrectionist rhetoric.

So, after the Alexandria shooting, did the same media that roundly condemned Republicans for allegedly inspiring the Tucson shooting condemn todays hysterical liberal climate that has allowed such toxic rhetoric to flourish?

Of course not. The New York Times, for one, half-heartedly compelled liberals to hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right, without mentioning the violent and wild-eyed liberal rhetoric that has permeated Washington for the past eight months or so. As of this writing, Krugman has been radio silent. Boehlert blamed GOP policy for the shooting. Moulitsas implied that the GOPs chickens were coming home to roost. Sanders distanced himself from the shooter without bringing up the political hysteria to which he has ably contributed.

I wonder what the difference between the two shooters could be to inspire such divergent reactions. Do you wonder? Its a real head-scratcher, isnt it?

In reality, most of us know that the shooter, like virtually all mass shooters, was little more than a crazy, unbalanced lunatic whose politics were almost certainly irrelevant to the crime he eventually committed. Millions of Americans believe very much the same things as did the shooter but wont go shoot up unarmed conservative politicians. Politics, be they liberal or conservative, are generally irrelevant to craziness.

Conservatives tried to explain this in 2011. The Left wasnt hearing it. Now the shoe appears to be on the other foot. So The New York Times is right: liberals should hold themselves to the same standards they ask of the Right. With that in mind, they should accept responsibility for this terrible shooting. It is the Left, after all, that has perpetrated this tide of hateful, insurrectionist rhetoric for months now. They must own it.

The other option, of course, would be for liberals to apologize for their opportunistic seizure of the Giffords shooting six years ago and admit how transparently stupid it was. That would be the preferable choice. But somehow I doubt they will. Republicans are getting what they want, Moulitsas declared. With political instincts like that, who needs apologies?

See the original post:
If Liberals Held Equal Standards For Shootings, They'd Blame Themselves For Alexandria - The Federalist

The Liberty Conservative

Liberals In State Of Confusion The Liberty Conservative Yet, surprisingly, liberals who feel sorrow for Muslims confronted those marching against Sharia Law. The irony is those in opposition were liberals. People of the far left interpreted their resistance as a social justice issue. However, they are ... and more »

Read this article:
Liberals In State Of Confusion - The Liberty Conservative

"It should drive home how health care is personal, not political," Sen. Debbie Stabenow said. | AP Photo

Liberal activists on Wednesday hit pause on their all-out battle to thwart Republicans trying to fast track an Obamacare repeal-and-replace plan through the Senate.

But Democratic lawmakers and outside groups say the mass shooting that wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise cant slow down the overall effort.

Story Continued Below

Indivisible, the liberal organizer behind many of this years emotion-filled town hall demonstrations against GOP lawmakers, postponed a Facebook event scheduled for Wednesday night and is not pushing in-district events for Wednesday and Thursday.

The groups local chapter in the district of Scalise, who remained in critical condition late Wednesday after being shot in the hip, urged its members to forego pressure campaigns in lieu of focusing their day on supporting Scalise and his staff.

We are letting folks know that there is going to be heightened security, and they should be really conscious of the state of mind of members of Congress and their staff, which is totally reasonable, Indivisible executive director Ezra Levin told POLITICO. Theyre being personally affected by this.

MoveOn.org, a leader in organizing against the GOPs Obamacare repeal plans, limited its social media messaging after the shooting to a singular statement that didnt mention President Donald Trump.

Our thoughts are w/those shot at congressional baseball practice, the group tweeted. Gun violence is ongoing crisis. Political violence is never acceptable.

The activists found themselves in a particularly delicate situation given that the gunman, James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Ill., volunteered for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) presidential campaign and espoused far-left beliefs on social media, prompting an outcry from some Trump allies who blamed liberal passions for the shooting.

Get the latest on the health care fight, every weekday morning in your inbox.

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

Sanders swiftly condemned Hodgkinson on Wednesday, lamenting his despicable act and declaring that real change can only come about through nonviolent action.

But even as outside groups pulled back from public events on Wednesday, Democratic lawmakers continued to push the message gingerly that Senate Republicans are playing a dangerous game by trying to gut Obamacare.

I dont know that you can ask people to take the passion out of this issue, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said of the Obamacare battle. We all need to be better about how we treat each other and the language we use, but this is a life-and-death issue.

The shooting "doesn't change the fact that there have been no hearings" on the Senate GOP's Obamacare repeal plan and Democrats as well as the public have "not seen the bill," said Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a member of Democratic leadership.

"Everybody who was hurt today had the opportunity to go to the hospital," Stabenow added, including one victim from her home state. "It should drive home how health care is personal, not political."

One operative involved in the repeal debate, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity, said that "generally, folks in the health care advocacy community are going to take their cue from what Republicans in the Senate are doing."

If tomorrow morning they're holding hearings or sending a bill to [the Congressional Budget Office], you will see groups gear back up for that debate. If the Senate says, 'we're on pause,' I think people will pause."

And although the House canceled its votes on Wednesday and responded to the shooting with notable bipartisan comity, business in the Senate largely proceeded as usual albeit with a strong show of bipartisan support for new sanctions on Russia. The Senate GOP is still pressing to hold a vote on its to-be-released health care plan as soon as this month, before members leave Washington for a week-long July 4 recess.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) agreed that the violent attack on Scalise, which also wounded a staffer, a lobbyist, and two members of Capitol Police, should serve as a reminder to turn down the volume of political rhetoric. But he noted that Republicans are doing their own part to foment division by excluding Democrats entirely from their health care process.

Political sentiment "should never have been turned up starting in 2009 and 2010, the height of the tea party-fueled opposition to the Affordable Care Act, Manchin said. "Its been bad all the way through. Someones got to say, well, enoughs enough. Itd be a lot nicer if theyd just sit down and work with us, and wed get a bill."

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

More here:
Liberals ease up on health care fight for a moment - Politico

Yesterday on our VIP live webcast, we talked briefly about the sources of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), which I argue predates Trump and would likely be present if any other Republican, even mild-mannered Jeb Bush, were in the White House right now. TDS has its roots in thelazypresumption that liberalism represents the side of history, as though History is a self-conscious thing with only one direction. This presumption is, in fact, a secular version of divine Providence. Hence for liberals, when they lose elections, the fault is not theirs or their candidates, but represents some kind of ghastly mistake if not a fraud against history. Cue up Russians, dirty tricks, hanging chads, whatever. A large portion of the left has not accepted the legitimacy of each Republican president starting with Nixon.

If you want to see this at work, I refer you to a book out in March from Ruy Tiexeira of the Center for American Progress, The Optimistic Left: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better Than You Think. Ive met Ruy a couple of times, and unlike many people on the left he is a pleasant human being to know. In fact we once had a long lunch discussing some ideas for a conference we might do together, but both got too busy to follow up. I think Ruy is on to something in this book, namely, that liberalism became a dark and pessimistic creed starting in the 1960s and 1970s, and that this has been debilitating to liberalism. His publisher sent me the advance galleys of the book last fall, which I put in my reading stack and didnt get back to, until I saw Damon Linker of The Week take after Teixeria in a recent column, saying that Because his optimism inspires such complacency, Teixeira is a dangerous man for Democrats to have around.

Well now. I decided to pick up the galleys and have a look. And while I think much of the book is creditable even if mistaken on policy, there were two early sentences that brought me up short, starting with this one on page 1: . . . Democrats have won three straight presidential elections. . . Wait, what the hell is he talking about? Is he talking about FDR in 1940? I thought this book was about current times.

Then, page 3: Barack Obamas two presidential victories were followed by routs in the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014, and new president Hillary Clinton. . . (Emphasis added.) Ahnow I get it. Of course books have to be written with long lead times and anticipate events to some extent, but if youre a liberal and you think History is on your side, and you believe the polls (I did) that Hillary was a lock to beat Donald Trump, then the comedown after losing to Donald Trump must be the psychic equivalent to withdrawals after you run out of heroin.

Once upon a time, liberals like John Stuart Mill understood that the progress of civilization was not necessarily an irreversible process, and todays left is doing its best to prove Mill was right.

The rest is here:
Why Are Liberals Always So Upset? - Power Line (blog)