Latest news with #Libs
Yahoo
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump eats his own: President appears to relish flaying Republican senators in the public square amid Epstein pressure
'You always hurt the one you love.' A Brooklyn-born songwriter named Allan Roberts wrote those lyrics and (with music by Doris Fisher) the Mills Brothers were the first of a litany of performers who turned it into an American standard. Lately, it seems to be a Donald Trump standard as well. Take, for instance, the case of Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. Few Republicans have been bigger allies to Trump — on Jan. 6, 2021, the Yale Law graduate-turned-populist warrior famously pumped his fist to Trump supporters as he objected to the election results. When the Capitol cleared out after the riot, Hawley continued his objection. But this week, Hawley learned a bitter truth: no matter how MAGA someone is, Trump demands absolute loyalty — and even a perceived slight can leave you on the outside looking in. Hawley's crime? Trying to pass a bill he sponsored that would ban lawmakers from trading stocks. It seemed like a great way to 'Own the Libs,' since Hawley named it the PELOSI Act, a riff off of the former House Speaker Nanacy Pelosi's stock trading outperforming the market. But he faced significant opposition in committee — and every other Republican opposed it. It only passed thanks to support from Democrats. Sure as shooting, Trump lashed out at Hawley on Truth Social, criticizing him for not supporting an effort to launch an official investigation of Pelosi's stock trading. Trump ended his rant by calling Hawley a 'second-tier' senator. When The Independent caught up with Hawley, he laughed it off and said that he and Trump had a 'nice visit.' He later told Business Insider that he walked Trump through the bill and that, contrary to what some of Hawley's enemies in the GOP had said, it would not force the president to sell Mar-a-Lago. Trump said, 'You're exonerated,' according to Hawley. On the surface, the whole affair is a bit of a laugh and shows how fickle Trump can be. But it also shows that as Trump faces increased scrutiny for his handling of the Israel-Gaza war, an inability to bring an end to the war in Ukraine despite promising he'd handle Vladimir Putin, a labor and stock market battered by his tariff news, and – perhaps most gratingly – the fallout from his and his White House's mismanagement of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, the pressure is getting to him. And, six months into an administration that has control of both houses of Congress as well as a friendly majority on the Supreme Court, blaming Democrats simply won't serve as a release. Hawley is not the only Republican Trump has aimed his fire at. On Thursday evening, his ire turned to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). 'Republicans, when in doubt, vote the exact opposite of Senator Susan Collins. Generally speaking, you can't go wrong,' Trump posted. Of course, Trump being angry at Collins is not entirely implausible under the best of conditions. Despite liberals being angry about Collins constantly saying she's 'concerned' with the latest Trump shenanigan and then voting his way anyway, she did vote to convict him after January 6, endorsed Nikki Haley against Trump in 2024 and, most recently, voted against Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' But as a senator from Maine, Collins is probably the only Republican who could win in New England. As The Independent wrote last month, that popularity has created a chilling effect where many promising young Democrats don't want to challenge her. And that makes her a kind of safe target for Trump rage. If anything, it's a surprise that Trump didn't turn his fire on her earlier. (Still, Trump's salvos could make life more difficult because of the fact she leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, which means she controls the federal budget.) Of course, Trump has already tamed Collins' partner in moderation, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Murkowski famously agonized over the vote for the One Big, Beautiful Bill before deciding to support it in the hopes the House would change it. Which it didn't. Later, the Trump administration went behind her back and issued executive orders to curb renewable energy projects she wanted to preserve. She told The Anchorage Daily News she felt 'cheated.' But when The Independent asked her whether that made it harder to work with Trump, Murkowski said 'no.' Pressed why that is, she said 'because we have an understanding.' 'Just generally,' she said. 'He knows that I'm going to advocate for my interests. I know that he's going to advocate for his.' The only Republican senator who has seemed to learn there is no way to win with Trump is Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). Tillis came out in opposition to Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' in June, which caused Trump to attack him. This came despite the fact Tillis had voted for most of Trump's nominees and had consistently defended him. Shortly after, Tillis announced his decision not to seek re-election. 'I respect President Trump, I support the majority of his agenda, but I don't bow to anybody when the people of North Carolina are at risk and this bill puts them at risk,' Tillis told The Independent at the time. Now, Democrats have their dream candidate vying for his seat as former governor Roy Cooper, who won statewide the same year Trump won North Carolina in 2016 and again in 2020, announced his candidacy. Cooper is expected to raise gobs of money and have a decent advantage in the polls. Trump's decision to attack strategic allies shows that his increasing unpopularity has caused him to be more insular. And while it's unclear if Hawley's trading bill will become law, many Republican senators might cash out their stock in Trump.
Sydney Morning Herald
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
In the current climate, the Coalition looks cooked
'We are in that situation with the Liberals,' with the electoral changeover to new generations of Australian voters, says Samaras. 'The Libs are extra vulnerable to takeover at the ballot box. If the teals can form a network or coalition or whatever you want to call it, they could be it. They could push the Liberals completely off the electoral map.' While there are fewer than 10 Liberal-held seats in the cities available for possible teal takeover, there are country seats that could be open to challenge by community independents like Helen Haines, who represents the predominantly rural Victorian seat of Indi. Rather than rage against climate realities and renewables investment, Haines is preoccupied with making the transition work for her constituents. She's proposed a 20 per cent share in the profits from big renewable projects for regional communities, for instance. Climate wasn't always a losing argument for the Coalition. It won some of the critical early battles of the climate wars. Barnaby Joyce was the original Coalition climate warrior. From the Nationals backbench, he illuminated the political pathway for Tony Abbott to follow. Climate scepticism worked for Tony 'climate change is crap' Abbott. It worked for Scott 'lump of coal' Morrison, until it did not. It did not work for Peter 'nuke 'em' Dutton. And it won't work for Sussan 'moderniser' Ley. If she goes there. But, thanks to the Nationals, it might not much matter. Because Barnaby, once again, is leading the Coalition into the rejection of climate change policy in all its manifestations. His current campaign is to abolish the Nationals' commitment to net zero. Which seems odd. Because he was the party's leader who signed on to net zero in a deal with then-prime minister Scott Morrison only four years ago. Even 'lump of coal' Morrison could see that Australia would be marooned, missing out on the global $US200 trillion ($311 trillion) renewables investment boom, unless it could commit to the bare minimum of plausible climate policy – net zero emissions by 2050. Such national responsibilities mean nothing to the rabble-rousing Joyce and company. The populist obscurantists in the Nats are more interested in incendiaries than investments. They only agreed to Morrison's net zero plan because he bribed them with some $30 billion in government spending promises plus an extra seat in the cabinet. But today there are no bribes on offer. Opposition parties have no access to the Treasury or seats in the cabinet. So Joyce is unchecked. He's been joined by his former rival for the Nationals leadership, Michael McCormack. They have enough internal support and momentum to succeed. The man supposed to be leading them, David Littleproud, is meekly following them. Not formally, not yet, but it seems inevitable that he will. His job is on the line otherwise. 'The Nats will be great,' says Samaras. 'They're not losing anything out of this. Their rural constituencies are older and their seats are safe.' Joyce & Co are fomenting a country-versus-city resentment – the countryside is being destroyed by toxic solar farms and fascist new power lines so that rich city investors can make money from them. But the Liberals? What do they do? They don't have a formal position at the moment. It's under review, and the party is divided. One argument is that they adopted net zero and lost anyway. So why not ditch it? The counter is that they didn't lose because of net zero, that it was overshadowed by an unpopular nuclear reactor plan. And that a party that aspires to government must have a credible climate and energy policy as a prerequisite to power. Loading But the Liberals face a wicked dilemma. With their junior Coalition partner exuberantly trampling climate change for the next three years, the Libs will have three options. One, join the Nats and suffer more electoral damage. The Liberals were all but driven out of the cities in the May election. Of the 88 seats classified by the Electoral Commission as metropolitan, Labor holds 71. The Liberals hold just nine. They can't aspire to government without a recovery in the cities. And if they embrace Barnaby's climate policy, they can pretty much forget about that. Two, the Libs can outline a separate policy and spend three years arguing with the Nats over it, which would be divisive and ugly. And how do you take two conflicting policies to an election? Three, the Libs can terminate the Coalition and go solo, much as Littleproud did by splitting with the Libs in the Eight-Day War in May. But that would be likely to mean being sentenced to permanent opposition – or oblivion – for both. The Libs don't have enough seats in their own right, and the Nationals don't have enough votes and rely on Liberal preferences. When Barnaby first launched the climate wars over a dozen years ago, they were directed against Labor. Today, the Nats' climate war is waged against the Liberals just as much. A war against the enemy has turned into a war against the supposed ally. It's not that Labor's renewables plan is rolling out smoothly. One of the gurus, Ross Garnaut, gave a damning speech this week calling the energy transition 'sick'. The entire national enterprise was 'on a path to comprehensive failure'. There is a big and rich political fight to be had. Not in raging against the reality of climate change or the advantages of energy transition, but in interrogating the government's execution of it. The smart course for the Coalition is not to attack Labor's goals but its incompetence in reaching them. A colleague of Kos Samaras, fellow Redbridge director and former Liberal campaign chief Tony Barry, sees the opportunity cost of the Nats' climate crusade: 'There are massive problems with the rollout for [Minister for Climate Change and Energy] Chris Bowen, and if Barnaby Joyce retired tomorrow he'd be beside himself. Barnaby keeps giving him a 'get out of jail' card.' Loading As the pollster for this masthead, Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic, puts it: 'The public debate about climate change is largely over, but the conversation about what to do about it, how urgently and at what cost still rages.' But a Coalition lost in delusion and distraction can't prosecute these real problems while it's caught up in ideological and irrelevant ones. 'The Liberals,' concludes Samaras, 'are in the killing zone'. It's just that, like the Black Knight, the Coalition seems unable to grasp the reality of its situation. As the victorious Arthur goes on his way, the Black Knight, now legless as well as armless, demands that the king come back and keep fighting. 'What are you going to do, bleed on me?' retorts Arthur.
The Age
01-08-2025
- Politics
- The Age
In the current climate, the Coalition looks cooked
'We are in that situation with the Liberals,' with the electoral changeover to new generations of Australian voters, says Samaras. 'The Libs are extra vulnerable to takeover at the ballot box. If the teals can form a network or coalition or whatever you want to call it, they could be it. They could push the Liberals completely off the electoral map.' While there are fewer than 10 Liberal-held seats in the cities available for possible teal takeover, there are country seats that could be open to challenge by community independents like Helen Haines, who represents the predominantly rural Victorian seat of Indi. Rather than rage against climate realities and renewables investment, Haines is preoccupied with making the transition work for her constituents. She's proposed a 20 per cent share in the profits from big renewable projects for regional communities, for instance. Climate wasn't always a losing argument for the Coalition. It won some of the critical early battles of the climate wars. Barnaby Joyce was the original Coalition climate warrior. From the Nationals backbench, he illuminated the political pathway for Tony Abbott to follow. Climate scepticism worked for Tony 'climate change is crap' Abbott. It worked for Scott 'lump of coal' Morrison, until it did not. It did not work for Peter 'nuke 'em' Dutton. And it won't work for Sussan 'moderniser' Ley. If she goes there. But, thanks to the Nationals, it might not much matter. Because Barnaby, once again, is leading the Coalition into the rejection of climate change policy in all its manifestations. His current campaign is to abolish the Nationals' commitment to net zero. Which seems odd. Because he was the party's leader who signed on to net zero in a deal with then-prime minister Scott Morrison only four years ago. Even 'lump of coal' Morrison could see that Australia would be marooned, missing out on the global $US200 trillion ($311 trillion) renewables investment boom, unless it could commit to the bare minimum of plausible climate policy – net zero emissions by 2050. Such national responsibilities mean nothing to the rabble-rousing Joyce and company. The populist obscurantists in the Nats are more interested in incendiaries than investments. They only agreed to Morrison's net zero plan because he bribed them with some $30 billion in government spending promises plus an extra seat in the cabinet. But today there are no bribes on offer. Opposition parties have no access to the Treasury or seats in the cabinet. So Joyce is unchecked. He's been joined by his former rival for the Nationals leadership, Michael McCormack. They have enough internal support and momentum to succeed. The man supposed to be leading them, David Littleproud, is meekly following them. Not formally, not yet, but it seems inevitable that he will. His job is on the line otherwise. 'The Nats will be great,' says Samaras. 'They're not losing anything out of this. Their rural constituencies are older and their seats are safe.' Joyce & Co are fomenting a country-versus-city resentment – the countryside is being destroyed by toxic solar farms and fascist new power lines so that rich city investors can make money from them. But the Liberals? What do they do? They don't have a formal position at the moment. It's under review, and the party is divided. One argument is that they adopted net zero and lost anyway. So why not ditch it? The counter is that they didn't lose because of net zero, that it was overshadowed by an unpopular nuclear reactor plan. And that a party that aspires to government must have a credible climate and energy policy as a prerequisite to power. Loading But the Liberals face a wicked dilemma. With their junior Coalition partner exuberantly trampling climate change for the next three years, the Libs will have three options. One, join the Nats and suffer more electoral damage. The Liberals were all but driven out of the cities in the May election. Of the 88 seats classified by the Electoral Commission as metropolitan, Labor holds 71. The Liberals hold just nine. They can't aspire to government without a recovery in the cities. And if they embrace Barnaby's climate policy, they can pretty much forget about that. Two, the Libs can outline a separate policy and spend three years arguing with the Nats over it, which would be divisive and ugly. And how do you take two conflicting policies to an election? Three, the Libs can terminate the Coalition and go solo, much as Littleproud did by splitting with the Libs in the Eight-Day War in May. But that would be likely to mean being sentenced to permanent opposition – or oblivion – for both. The Libs don't have enough seats in their own right, and the Nationals don't have enough votes and rely on Liberal preferences. When Barnaby first launched the climate wars over a dozen years ago, they were directed against Labor. Today, the Nats' climate war is waged against the Liberals just as much. A war against the enemy has turned into a war against the supposed ally. It's not that Labor's renewables plan is rolling out smoothly. One of the gurus, Ross Garnaut, gave a damning speech this week calling the energy transition 'sick'. The entire national enterprise was 'on a path to comprehensive failure'. There is a big and rich political fight to be had. Not in raging against the reality of climate change or the advantages of energy transition, but in interrogating the government's execution of it. The smart course for the Coalition is not to attack Labor's goals but its incompetence in reaching them. A colleague of Kos Samaras, fellow Redbridge director and former Liberal campaign chief Tony Barry, sees the opportunity cost of the Nats' climate crusade: 'There are massive problems with the rollout for [Minister for Climate Change and Energy] Chris Bowen, and if Barnaby Joyce retired tomorrow he'd be beside himself. Barnaby keeps giving him a 'get out of jail' card.' Loading As the pollster for this masthead, Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic, puts it: 'The public debate about climate change is largely over, but the conversation about what to do about it, how urgently and at what cost still rages.' But a Coalition lost in delusion and distraction can't prosecute these real problems while it's caught up in ideological and irrelevant ones. 'The Liberals,' concludes Samaras, 'are in the killing zone'. It's just that, like the Black Knight, the Coalition seems unable to grasp the reality of its situation. As the victorious Arthur goes on his way, the Black Knight, now legless as well as armless, demands that the king come back and keep fighting. 'What are you going to do, bleed on me?' retorts Arthur.
Perth Now
23-07-2025
- Business
- Perth Now
‘Fiery': Excuse for comments dividing Nats
Nationals senator Ross Cadell says his party wasn't consulted before Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack publicly undermined party leader David Littleproud. Mr Littleproud has faced mounting leadership pressure from within his party since he briefly divorced the Nationals from their long-time Liberal partners back in May over four demands that newly elected Opposition Leader Sussan ley could not promise would be met. Coalition leaders David Littleproud and Sussan Ley have trodden along rocky ground over the past three months. Supplied Credit: NewsWire Mr Littleproud demanded the Libs maintain their support for nuclear energy and a $20bn regional future fund, force the divestiture of supermarkets, and ensure mobile phone coverage was reliable across regional Australia. The Nationals and Libs eventually made up just seven days later in a move that was internally described at the time by a party source as a 'train wreck'. Since then, the Nationals have been battling to maintain an image that resembles party solidarity – but comments by once-bitter rivals Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack in The Australian have reopened the party's barely healed wounds just in time for parliament's first sitting week. David Littleproud is facing a crisis of confidence from his backbenchers as parliament resumes. NewsWire / Gary Ramage Credit: News Corp Australia Mr McCormack and Mr Joyce directed most of their frustration towards Mr Littleproud over his choice to relegate them to the backbench – a move they feel gives them less sway in conversations around energy policy. The member for New England said it was not uncommon for him to 'lose his sh*t' over wind farm developments, and Mr McCormack believes renewables companies are 'dividing families' by trying to attract local support for large-scale wind and solar projects. Mr Joyce also drummed up support for Mr McCormack to replace Mr Littleproud as leader after the Coalition's election disaster. Mr McCormack has not ruled out running for the job in future. According to The Australian, Mr McCormack said Mr Littleproud was 'the leader, and I'm ambitious for him' – a line that was infamously deployed by Scott Morrison barely 24 hours before he usurped Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister in 2018 and one that Mr McCormack has directed towards his embattled party leader once before. Senator Ross Cadell was asked whether Mr McCormack and Mr Joyce were 'throwing a bucket' on Mr Littleproud's leadership while speaking from Canberra on Wednesday 'Ah, we're Nats, we're a bit fiery, it all happens. I'd prefer it didn't happen, but that's the way they want to do it,' he said. Michael McCormack believes the week-long Coalition split was 'madness'. NewsWire / Gary Ramage Credit: News Corp Australia 'If they want to go out and (say) those things publicly, they can. Internally, we've had a party room, it didn't come up there. I think it was more a public facing thing than an internal problem.' Despite the apparent chaos, Senator Cadell was still enthusiastic about 'going through the process' of figuring out the best path forward for net zero – a commitment that Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack both wish to abandon. Barnaby Joyce said 'could understand why' he was booted to the backbench. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'We're going to take a slower process, get through it … there's a lot of people out there who want to grab headlines (and) there's people out there who want to do the work; each to their own,' he told ABC News Breakfast. 'I want to go through the process, I am open to looking at the evidence.' Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack were 'good at speaking up for themselves,' and she would 'let them do that'. 'Nobody is getting under my skin … all my colleagues are valued. I have friendships across the aisle,' she said. 'We know that between the aisle we can form that strong opposition that holds the government to account, and that's the most important thing for all of us.'
Toronto Sun
12-07-2025
- Business
- Toronto Sun
GUNTER: If Trump forces end of Canadian supply management, good riddance
Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump pose during a group photo at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on Monday, June 16, 2025. Photo by Mark Schiefelbein / AP Remember when the Liberals were adamant they would never give up their digital services tax (DST)? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account They were all 'elbows up.' They huffed they would never give in to the Trump White House. Besides, they were sure there were votes to be had in making 'rich' American streaming services pay more than $2 billion a year. That was on a Friday. By late that Sunday, the Libs had folded. Completely. What changed in 48 hours is that U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to cut off all trade talks with Canada if the Liberals didn't jettison the DST. The Liberals did the right thing. The DST was a bad idea. Canadians would have suffered higher subscription costs, higher prices for delivered goods and fewer viewing choices. But the way the government went about doing away with the DST made Prime Minister Mark Carney look weak. So weak, it's only a matter of time before Trump comes back looking for more. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The safe bet is supply-managed agriculture will be next. Canadians should be grateful. In Canada, all but the smallest, artisanal agri-food businesses are controlled by government-backed marketing boards that decide who can produce — and more importantly sell — milk, cream, butter, cheese, yogurt and other dairy products. Eggs, chicken and turkey are included, too. Price controls and import restrictions are also part of supply management. Some dairy products, for instance, are protected against imports from the States and EU by tariffs as high as 300 per cent. It's a good deal for supply-managed producers. It protects them from competition and ensures they received stable prices without much risk. But it's a bad deal for consumers. Economists estimate the average Canadian family pays $400 a year more for dairy alone. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. There's another problem, too. Milk supply is heavily skewed toward drinkable milk. That makes the price of milk for producers of, say, special yogurts, too expensive. So consumers have fewer choices. Supporters of supply management claim it protects farmers' incomes, making it unnecessary for governments to subsidize their livelihoods, as they often do in the U.S. But that only means that Canadians are subsidizing farmers as consumers, rather than as taxpayers. (They shouldn't have to do either.) For decades, Canadian politicians of all stripes have been afraid to significantly modify supply management. The farm lobby is more vocal than the consumer lobby. And supply management is heavily concentrated in vote-rich Ontario and Quebec. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. It's no coincidence that the first motion passed by Parliament after April's election was a unanimous resolution, introduced by the Bloc, to exempt supply management from any future trade talks. It won't be as easy for the Liberals to crater on supply management as it was on the DST. The digital tax had few supporters. Supply management has vehement defenders in parts of the country the Liberals count on to keep them in power. For instance, while the farm receipts from supply-managed operations account for less than 10 per cent of total farm income on the Prairies, they can be more than three times that much in Ontario and Quebec. And all across the country, diary quotas in particular can cost millions for new farmers to buy from older ones. That is a 'stranded cost' that would have to be paid for by any government wanting to disband supply management. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The cost could be well over $20 billion to buy out supply-managed farmers. But Australia ended supply managed dairy during the 1990s. Their consumers now enjoy lower prices while their farmers enjoy revenues more than 50 per cent greater after inflation. When the Harper government sought to get rid of the Wheat Board monopoly over Prairie grains in 2012, there was no end of fearmongering over the devastation it would rain on farmers. But that never materialized. There are very few wheat farmers who would go back to old way. Provided the stranded costs are fairly handled, a decade from now few farmers would miss supply management, either. World Relationships World Toronto Blue Jays MLB
