Mediaboss Marketing

At a forum by abortion rights groups in New Hampshire on Saturday, Bernie Sanders urged the Democratic Party to take a note from Republicans with regards to nominating federal judges. Sanders said that conservatives have been successful at securing judges because they cultivate them from the ground up and liberals should too.

When asked why Democrats aren't as successful as Republicans in nominating federal judges, Sanders pointed to the Federalist Society. The powerful right-wing legal organization has long-championed conservative judges, and was utilized by President Trump to nominate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh's confirmation made him the fifth Justice with ties to the Federalist Society, out of just nine seats on the court, according to Politico.

Sanders said Mr. Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were "ready to go on day one" with Federalist Society-approved "right-wing" judges.

"They have thought this through," he said of Republicans.

Sanders asked the audience, "You know what we do every day in the Senate?" then answered his own question: "We nominate right-wing judges."

"You got the Federalist Society, an extremely well-funded right wing group who works with young lawyers, nurtures them, takes them along, nominates them and gets them to the Supreme Court and to the circuit courts and the district court," Sanders said.

The Federalist Society began as a student group at Yale University in 1982. A 2018 Politico article titled, "The Weekend at Yale That Changed American Politics," catalogs how three young law students created arguably the most influential conservative legal group in the country. Politico reporter Michael Krusetold CBS Newsin 2018 that the liberal equivalent, The American Constitution Society, founded in 2001, has never gained the same extent of influence.

Sanders on Saturday said Democrats have to start "taking a look at good young legal minds all over this country and cultivating them to the courts."

"We can learn some lessons from what the right wing is doing in this country," he said. "Republicans have been effective in politicizing the judiciary in a way Democrats have not."

Sanders also elaborated on concepts he's spoken about before regarding the highest court in the country. He said he's against packing the Supreme Court, and supports the idea of having a rotation of judges.

"What the Supreme Court says is that a federal judge has a lifetime appointment. Doesn't say that that lifetime appointment has got to be on the Supreme Court, it has to be on a federal court," Sanders said. "And there are some minds out there, legal scholars, who think you can rotate judges out of the Supreme Court to the circuit courts or the district courts, that is something I certainly will look at."

At Friday's Democratic debate, Sanders said he would have a litmus test on abortion for his Supreme Court picks.

"I will never nominate any person to the Supreme Court or the federal courts in general who is not 100% pro-Roe v. Wade,"he said.

Saturday's forum was sponsored by abortion rights groups National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Demand Justice, Center for Reproductive Rights, and the All Above All Action Fund.

Visit link:
Sanders says Democrats should do the "same thing" as right-wing Federalist Society in nominating federal judges - CBS News

On December 11, 1999, about eight weeks before the New Hampshire primary, then-President Bill Clinton endorsed Vice President Al Gore as his preferred successor.

At the time, Gore was running for the nomination against Sen. Bill Bradley, the former New York Knick turned senator from New Jersey.

Clinton didnt bash Bradley. But he also made a clear choice. After all, he had selected Gore for a role that presupposes he could be president in the middle of a giant national crisis. The move probably wasnt as obvious as it seems now the personal relationship between the two was somewhat strained at the time because Gore had distanced himself from Clinton in the wake of his impeachment but Clinton was effusive in his praise of Gore, calling him the most effective and influential vice president who has ever served.

Bradley wasnt a profound ideological challenge to the party establishment as Sanders is today, but nonetheless, there was a distinct closing of the ranks around Gore. By the time Clinton endorsed him, the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate had already backed him. Major donors marshaled their resources behind him.

Nothing like it is happening in the 2020 cycle. Instead, mainstream Democrats openly wring their hands about the prospect of a Bernie Sanders nomination. Though Sanders supporters are borderline paranoid about anti-Sanders sentiment, theres virtually no actual anti-Sanders organizing.

Meanwhile, the rival campaigns still number in the double digits. Several of them have many passionate followers, and one of them might beat Sanders. But their sheer multiplicity and key leaders refusal to decide among them is a sign that anti-Sanders zeal, though real, is also quite limited.

Definitively stopping Sanders would require a clear choice, yet party leaders have clearly decided they cant be bothered.

To see how Biden is faring compared with Gore, just look at his list of endorsements.

He is, of course, the unquestioned endorsement leader if you follow the FiveThirtyEight endorsement tracker. They include Cindy Axne, the first-year House member from Iowa; Leroy Garcia, the president of the Colorado state Senate; Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan; Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont; and Alabama Sen. Doug Jones. My colleague Laura McGann points out hes the favorite choice of frontline House Democrats who need to win in tough races. But Bidens endorsers are mostly people nobodys heard of.

We live in a nationalized media environment where politically engaged citizens have emotional and intellectual relationships with nationally known political figures. Gore had figures like that behind his campaign Clinton, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt but today, Biden doesnt have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi.

Obama hasnt endorsed his own VP pick, even though Obama likes me is central to Bidens pitch. Clinton, who clearly has a problem with Sanders, hasnt endorsed his biggest rival either, even though she could help shore up support with college-educated women currently backing Elizabeth Warren. Chuck Schumer and Pelosi havent endorsed. Nor has former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Gore himself. John Kerry is backing Biden but then was overheard seemingly musing his own run, undermining the Biden effort.

Solid backing for Biden from high-profile Democrats wouldnt make Sanderss factional support dry up. But it would deliver a clear and unambiguous signal to Democrats to rally behind Biden instead of fracturing across three or four candidates.

And, of course, it would help with money.

Sanders has created a fundraising juggernaut grounded in a huge national base of small donors.

But as great as small donors are, rich large donors have a lot more money and should be able to ensure a solid cash advantage. Instead of helping the former vice president match Sanders in fundraising, though, Democrats traditional bundlers and large donors have largely rallied to the banner of the former mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana making Pete Buttigieg the No. 2 fundraiser in the race.

Buttigieg seems like a nice guy, a smart guy, and a good politician who I think would do a fine job as president. But as a coordination point for a party elite thats supposedly trying to close ranks and stop a socialist insurgent, hes a frankly bizarre choice, starting with his thin rsum and his issue gaining support from black voters.

Its much easier to imagine Biden, whom many black voters like, beating Sanders in a head-to-head matchup than it is to imagine Buttigieg doing so. And if Buttigiegs money had gone to Biden, Biden could use that money to help beat Sanders. But instead, donor money is going to help Buttigieg poach white moderate votes from Biden, creating a fragmented field that could let Sanders win purely by consolidating progressives.

To make matters worse, Democrats have two separate ego-fueled billionaire vanity campaigns in the field.

Because Mike Bloomberg is ridiculously rich, he keeps putting ads on TV in random places.

Theyre good ads, well-targeted at the views of Democrats who think that Donald Trump is extremely bad. Bloombergs actual record both in business and in politics from sexual harassment to stop-and-frisk to endorsing George W. Bush is complicated, and theres plenty for normie Democrats to dislike. But the ads are good. Theyd also be great ads for Joe Biden if Bloomberg wanted to generously finance a pro-Biden Super PAC.

Right now in the polling averages, Sanders is just below 25 percent while Biden is just below 30 percent. To beat him handily, all Biden needs to do is consolidate the bulk of the non-Bernie vote. Bloombergs ads and money could be very helpful in doing that. But instead, Bloomberg is spending the money on himself, rising to 8.3 percent in the polls not nearly enough to win but enough to cut Bidens lead over Sanders.

Then, absurdly, Tom Steyer, who is both less rich than Bloomberg and much less qualified for the presidency, is also dumping tens of millions of dollars on a pointless quest to further divide the field.

Many Sanders fans I know seem to experience this cavalcade of wild ideas Maybe well promote an underqualified mayor! Maybe well run two billionaires simultaneously! as a sign of how desperate the donor class is to defeat Sanders. But in its practical impact, its precisely the opposite. The financial fragmentation thats left Biden outspent by both Sanders and three moderate rivals is overcomplicating any effort to stop the red tide.

One possible interpretation of all this is that top Democrats have profound doubts about Biden that they didnt have about Al Gore.

If thats the issue, then the failure to coordinate and convey that opinion to the public in a clear way is an even bigger bungle. Most Americans like to think of themselves as independent-minded people, which is one reason endorsements often dont seem to matter that much. But if Obama had said that he thought Biden was too old and Democrats should go in another direction or if hed said that Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced then rank-and-file Democrats surely would have listened.

Instead, party leaders allowed the well-known and well-liked Biden to get left out in the cold and for enormous sums of money to be spent on fragmenting the anti-Sanders vote.

Whats more, all efforts to take down Sanders are counterproductive. Clinton, for starters, cant seem to restrain herself from venting bitterly about Sanders. And Obamas heavy-handed intervention into the Democratic National Committee chair race several years ago, similarly, did an enormous amount to poison the well. But while these kinds of moves do annoy Sanderss biggest boosters, they dont actually hurt Sanderss campaign.

What would hurt Sanderss campaign would be elite coordination toward a single candidate. That hasnt happened.

View original post here:
Obama, Clinton, and other top Democrats arent stopping Sanders - Vox.com

Acronym was able to drum up eye-popping donations from very wealthy people, such as billionaire Seth Klarman and venture capitalist Michael Moritz, because it adopted the vernacular of startup culture, promising to disruptand innovate inthe formerly staid world of political advertising. As an Outline story revealed, though, it doesnt seem to do much innovating; it basically just gives a roomful of millennials no other direction or strategy than to create anti-Trump content. They call it a startup environment as an explanation for why no one knows whats happening, one staffer said. Acronym apparently told donors that it would create content, which would gin up a lot of impressions on social media, and that this, far more than any traditional advertising strategy, was a better investmentbut to date, Acronym, according to the Daily Beast, has not managed to spend very much of the money it promised to devote to taking down Trump.

So where is that money going, exactly? Acronyms principal is a political operative named Tara McGowan, who had worked for Priorities USA, the main super PAC supporting Hillary Clintons 2016 presidential campaign. She is also the owner (and apparently the sole employee) of Lockwood Strategies, a for-profit digital consulting company that, as it happens, received $1 million from Acronym in the fall of 2018. In other words, almost immediately after she failed to win the most important election she had ever worked on, McGowan managed to convince some of the wealthiest liberals in the country to shower her with money to produce ineffective trash. This is called disruption, and it now powers the American economy.

Most galling of all, McGowan has promised to raise $25 million for Courier Newsroom, a liberal news network, or perhaps more precisely, a sketchy network of content mills producing newslike content in various swing states, overseen not by anyone who has ever worked for a newspaper but by a former Vice editor andmore to the pointmarketing and communications professional who was once recognized by Ad Age for her role in creating one of the 10 Best Branded Content Partnerships of 2017. The idea was to create content and pay Facebook to place it high up on peoples news feeds; in reality, Acronym is asking donors for money by promising both to beat the right-wing disinformation network and to save that precious commodity rich people know the United States needs more of but dont feel much like subsidizing: local news.

Twenty-five million dollars could support an enormous amount of actual news, just as it could be put to much more potent political messaging purposes. But because of the deeply broken state of our money-choked and mostly unregulated election machinery, those funds go instead to people like McGowan, who wield power within the party because they are able to raise money, not because they have shown any real ability to spend it in ways that help Democrats win elections. This machine is designed to extract cash from people with too much of it and distribute it to insiders in the permanent campaign. If an election gets won here or there, its mostly incidental.

Excerpt from:
Democrats Embrace the Grift - The New Republic

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg holds a campaign rally on February 4, 2020 in Detroit, Michigan.

Bill Pugliano | Getty Images

Mike Bloomberg is the only Democrat to top President Donald Trump in a Gallup poll of small business owners.

Fifty-two percent said they favored the former New York mayor in a hypothetical race against Trump,according to the pollby Gallup and payments-tech firm Square.

The poll, released Monday, was conducted Jan. 15 to 24, before the Iowa caucuses.

The survey asked respondents to indicate how Trump stacks up against seven top Democratic candidates: Bloomberg, former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Biden and Trump tied at 50%. Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Yang were at 49% against Trump's 51%, while Warren and Sanders got 48% vs. Trump's 52%.

Biden was the top choice for the Democratic nomination among survey participants who planned to vote in the primaries: 22% backed the former vice president.

Bloomberg was next with 17%, while Sanders and Warren had 14% and 13%, respectively. But 13% of respondents said they were undecided on their top choice among the seven Democrats.

Trump enjoys high approval ratings among small business owners. Sixty percent of those surveyed said they approved the job he was doing. A RealClearPolitics polling average pegs Trump's general approval rating at 45.5%.

In the Gallup poll, 52% said their business would be better off if Trump won in November versus 41% for a Democratic victory.

Some small business owners in swing states interviewed by CNBC echoed the positive view of Trump.

Thomas Skiffington, owner of real estate firm Re/Max 440 in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, said Trump "has been extremely positive" for his business.

Trump's administration "lightened up the regulations so people are spending more money, so they're buying houses," Skiffinton told CNBC. "They're feeling comfortable with the housing market. In fact, if anything right now, there's a storage of inventory; there's more people who want to buy than houses on the market."

Bill Jones, CEO of Solar Manufacturing in Sellersville, Pennsylvania, said Trump's tax cuts were "marginally successful" for his business. He cited the investment tax credit as his "biggest advantage." Jones' company specializes in metallurgical heat treating and has 365 employees across five plants.

There are more than 30 million small businesses in the United States, according to a 2018 report from the U.S. Small Business Administration. Gallup said the poll's respondents own a small business with annual revenue of $50,000 to $25 million.

The poll, which surveyed 1,234 small business owners over the web, found that 97% will likely vote in the 2020 election.

Read more:
Mike Bloomberg is the only Democrat to top Trump in Gallup poll of small business owners - CNBC

Democratswereexasperatedover what they called a raucous campaign-style speech from President TrumpDonald John TrumpBrad Pitt quips he has more time to give Oscars speech than John Bolton had to testify Trump under pressure to renew last nuke treaty with Russia Trump to request 6 percent domestic cuts in .8 trillion budget MORE on Tuesday night as the president made his case for reelection duringthe annual State of the Union address.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOutgoing lawmaker laments 'way more hate in this business' Sunday shows - 2020 Democrats make closing arguments in New Hampshire America's bitter divide is the true existential threat MORE (D-Calif.) appeared disgusted during much of Trumps third State of the Union address. By the end of it, she ripped up his speech and set it aside while her political nemesis was still standing on the House dais.

I tore it up, Pelosi replied when asked by reporters what she thought of the speech.

Pelosi addedthat it was "the courteous thing to do given the alternatives."

In many ways, Trumps 80-minute speechrepresented a starting gun for his reelection campaign. It was short on bipartisan policy proposals and included plenty of red meat for his base that he will need to turn out at the polls in order to propel him to a second term in November.

Trump took credit for the economic recovery and contended he had reversed American decline a line Democrats saw as a not-so-veiled shot at President Obamas eight years of growth. He also railed against "sanctuary cities" for undocumented immigrants and bragged that he was building hundred of miles of new wall along the Mexico border.

And Trump used his national platform to present the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a man loathed by the left: conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who just announced he has lung cancer.

If I wanted to attend a MAGA rally, I would attend a MAGA rally, fumed Sen. Chris Van HollenChristopher (Chris) Van HollenTrump under pressure to renew last nuke treaty with Russia Celebrating and expanding upon five years of the ABLE Act Trump's best week ever? MORE (D-Md.), a former House member and close Pelosi ally. The president never misses an opportunity to further divide the country. It was a disgraceful performance."

The only good moments were recognizing some of the great Americans in the balcony, but the president really turned this into a circus performance, Van Hollen said. Ive never seen a president disgrace the House of Representatives in the chamber the way President Trump did tonight.

The night started on a sour note. Trump appeared to snub Pelosi when she reached out to shake his hand.

It was downhill from there.

Trumps Republican allies in Congress cheered almost every line he delivered, kicking off the night by chanting: Four more years! Four more years!

Democrats sat on their hands for most of the night, and when they couldnt restrain themselves they groaned and yelled no and shook their heads.

Several, including Reps. Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibTlaib says she held Omar's hand during 'triggering' moments at Trump's State of the Union speech Tlaib: DNC rules committee members working on Bloomberg campaign is a 'conflict of interest' Tlaib says mention of Kavanaugh was 'trigger' to walk out of Trump speech MORE (D-Mich.), Ilhan OmarIlhan OmarTlaib says she held Omar's hand during 'triggering' moments at Trump's State of the Union speech Key House Democrat says Perez must go: 'He doesn't lead on anything' Democratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' MORE (D-Minn.) and Bill PascrellWilliam (Bill) James PascrellOn The Money: Economy adds 225K jobs in January, topping expectations | Appeals court tosses Dems' lawsuit over emoluments | Democrats decide against bringing back earmarks Democrat hits Mnuchin for giving Hunter Biden docs to Republicans Actress who voices Lisa Simpson character knocks Pompeo tweet: 'F--- you for co-opting my character' MORE (D-N.J.), stormed out midway through the speech in disgust.

I just walked out of the #StateOfTheUnion. Ive had enough. Its like watching professional wrestling. Its all fake, tweeted Rep. Tim RyanTimothy (Tim) RyanDemocratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' Democrats walk out of Trump's address: 'It's like watching professional wrestling' Trump set to confront his impeachment foes MORE (D-Ohio), a former 2020 presidential candidate.

Tuesday's address was expected to include tense moments, with Trump entering the sameHouse of Representatives that had impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of justice only seven weeks earlier.

Though Trump never uttered a word about impeachment, sitting before him were all of the characters of the impeachment investigation and trial that have consumed Washington for the past four months.

Pelosi, who led the Democrats into the effort, was seated just above Trumps left shoulder. To his side, occupying an entire row, were the seven Democratic impeachment managers, including House Intelligence Chairman Committee Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffHouse intelligence briefing on worldwide threat assessment delayed Republicans sense momentum after impeachment win The betrayal of Democratic voters: Many 'liberals' need Trump to win MORE (D-Calif.), the lead prosecutor who had investigated the presidents Ukraine dealings for months, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerAmerica's bitter divide is the true existential threat The betrayal of Democratic voters: Many 'liberals' need Trump to win Nadler says it's 'likely' House will subpoena Bolton MORE (D-N.Y.), who had his hand on his chin for most of the night.

All the presidents men were seated on the House floor as well: acting White House chief of staff Mick MulvaneyJohn (Mick) Michael MulvaneyGroup of GOP senators tried to stop Trump from Sondland ouster: report Bill Maher to Steve Bannon: 'I wish we had someone on our side as evil as you' Trump says Mulvaney will stay on as chief of staff MORE, Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoPompeo: Competition with China 'not just a federal issue' Overnight Defense: Impeachment witness Vindman escorted from White House | Esper says Pentagon protects service members from retribution | Trump ousts EU envoy Sondland Trump ousts impeachment witness Gordon Sondland MORE and budget chief Russell Vought members of the administration who all played a role in the impeachment inquiry but never testified before the House or the Senate.

In the front row: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who has had many late nights presiding over Trumps Senate impeachment trial for the last two weeks. That trial will wrap up at 4 p.m. Wednesday when Republican senators mostof whomattended the speech will vote to acquit Trump of both charges.

Great job, great job, a grinning Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellImpeachment fallout threatens to upend battle for Senate Why the PRO Act is a victory for workers and our democracy Buttigieg: 'We're screwed' if Democrats don't get majorities in Congress in 2020 MORE (R-Ky.) told Trump as he stepped down from the elevated dais after the speech.

The night showcased a few moments of bipartisanship, however.

Democrats and Republicans in the Problem Solvers Caucus including Reps. Dean PhillipsDean PhillipsDemocratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' Democrats gear up for State of the Union protests as impeachment lingers Biden leads 2020 pack in congressional endorsements MORE (D-Minn.), Josh GottheimerJoshua (Josh) GottheimerDemocratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' The Hill's 12:30 Report: Pelosi plans to send impeachment articles next week The lawmakers who bucked their parties on the war powers resolution MORE (D-N.J.), Tom ReedThomas (Tom) W. ReedCuccinelli: New York reintroduced 'the main problem' that allowed 9/11 New Yorkers blocked from Global Entry program over immigrant license law Democratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' MORE (R-N.Y.) and Paul MitchellPaul MitchellOvernight Health Care Presented by Partnership for America's Health Care Future House to condemn Trump plan for Medicaid block grants | Chinese doctor who warned of coronavirus dies | CDC ships coronavirus tests GOP lawmaker shreds Democratic resolution on House floor Democratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' MORE (R-Mich.) all sat together and sported purple ties. And Trump got a handful of bipartisan standing ovations, including when he touted a boost to military spending.

To safeguard American liberty, we have invested a record-breaking $2.2 trillion in the United States military, Trump said.

More visible than the men in purple ties were the women all decked out in white. Before the address, dozens of House Democratic women all sporting suffragist white packed onto a stairway in the Capitol for their annual State of the Union photo.

Several of the Democrats, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezRush Limbaugh medal an insult to Latinos, immigrants Tlaib says she held Omar's hand during 'triggering' moments at Trump's State of the Union speech The betrayal of Democratic voters: Many 'liberals' need Trump to win MORE (N.Y.), Ayanna PressleyAyanna PressleyTlaib says she held Omar's hand during 'triggering' moments at Trump's State of the Union speech Pressley slams trolls over alopecia comments Pramila Jayapal endorses Democrat Henry Cuellar's primary challenger MORE (Mass.) and Frederica WilsonFrederica Patricia WilsonDemocratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' Clinton advises checking your voter registration during Trump's State of the Union Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley to boycott State of the Union MORE (Fla.), were absent this year, boycotting Trumps speech altogether.

But Tlaib, one of two Muslim women in Congress, said she wanted to be on hand to show the diversity of todays Democratic caucus. Tlaib is also part of the squad, the four progressive freshman women of color who were attacked by Trump last year.

For me, it really was about trying to represent my district and be seen, Tlaib said after posing for the photo with Pelosi and other female colleagues. I think me being in the audience says volumes, especially to a president that told me to go back where I came from. Well, Im coming back to the United States House floor. ... This is the most diverse class Ive ever seen.

After Trumps stem-winder, Democrats retreated to Statuary Hall, which was packed with TV cameras and reporters and turned into a post-speech spin room. It was there that Democrats unloaded on Trump.

House Oversightand Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn MaloneyCarolyn Bosher MaloneyHouse to vote next week on bill to create women's history museum Parkland victim's father apologizes to friends, family after disrupting Trump address Democratstear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' MORE (D-N.Y.) ripped the speech as a lot of reality TV," while House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerHouse to vote next week on bill to create women's history museum McCarthy to submit copy of Trump's SOTU address to House Clerk for archives Pelosi-Trump relationship takes turn for the terrible MORE (D-Md.) said its rally-like tone was extremely inappropriate.

"That's not what the State of the Union's supposed to be about. It's not a political rally with some of his supporters in one of these places he goes all over the country and whips up these crowds, Hoyer lamented.

"The speech was to whip up his base, and brought up very divisive issues on which there is disagreement. So it didn't set the table for bipartisan agreement."

Mike Lillis, Cristina Marcos and Juliegrace Brufke contributed to this report, which was updated at 7:40 a.m.

Excerpt from:
Democrats tear into Trump's speech: It was a 'MAGA rally' | TheHill - The Hill