Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Brandon Bell/Getty Images, Scott Olson/Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump's jabs at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis during a rally in Waco, Texas, on Saturday were met with a muted response from his usually adoring audience.

During his speech, Trump said DeSantis begged him for an endorsement with "tears in his eyes" when running for Florida governor in 2018. Trump first made the unsubstantiated claim about DeSantis in February.

Trump then segued into a comedy bit where he pretended to be a sobbing DeSantis, saying: "Sir if you'll endorse me I'll win, please, please sir, endorse me."

The crowd, which had been cheering up until that point, was subdued when Trump made these comments, per a Fox News livestream and social media videos of the rally seen by Insider. The audience continued to be silent while Trump bragged about helping to get DeSantis elected and railed against the possibility that DeSantis may run against him in 2024.

"I'm not a big fan," Trump said of DeSantis, calling the governor a "disciple" of former Speaker Paul Ryan, a vocal Trump critic.

In contrast, Trump's rally crowd jeered loudly when he trash-talked other people. These included Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who alleges that Trump paid her hush money to keep her quiet about an affair; Trump's former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; and Trump's 2016 rival, former First Lady Hillary Clinton.

Although DeSantis has not officially announced a 2024 presidential bid, he will be Trump's biggest rival if he does choose to run.

Trump's comments come as he is neck-deep in an investigation led by Bragg over his potential involvement in hush money payments to Daniels. Trump could face up to four years in prison if convicted.

Representatives for Trump and DeSantis did not immediately reply to Insider's requests for comment made outside regular business hours.

Follow this link:
Trump's jabs at Ron DeSantis fell flat with his rally crowd in Texas - Business Insider

Semafor has obtained a document showing that the Tucker Carlson-founded conservative outlet Daily Caller has provided donors the opportunity to propose topics for coverage and establish news beats for reporters in exchange for financial contributions. The memo seems to confirm, as we have long suspected, that the Daily Caller had a pay-to-play beat aimed at education issues, in a period when, as we reported at the time, the outlet repeatedly published articles leveling specious attacks against critics for for-profit colleges.

The pitch memo to prospective donors, which Semafor said dates from 2016 or 2017, promised, News or policy beats that you care about can be the focus of a new project. Together, we can decide on a specific area that you want to see covered. The memo added, investors can decide in advance of funding which topics of news coverage that their contribution can support. And, during the project, investors can recommend topics of interest for our editors consideration.

The memo continued: The cost of a journalist is dependent on the scope of the project. For example, we currently have an education reporting program that includes support for one reporter, editors and general operating expenses at a cost of $200,000 per year. According to the memo, One reporter is expected to write 60 stories per month. This quota can be adjusted by working with the editors to decide on an appropriate number of stories for the project at hand.

The memo said the Daily Caller had a similar program on energy issues.

The memo does insist that the Daily Caller maintains complete editorial control over site content.

In the years 2010-11, when the Obama Administration first sought to issue a gainful employment rule aimed at targeting federal money to effective career colleges, and away from schools that were consistently leaving students deep in debt, the Daily Caller, which was founded in 2010, persistently attacked reform advocates, echoing the arguments of for-profit colleges and their lobbyists.

In June 2010 theDaily Callerran apiece by DC lobbyist Lanny Davis defending the performance of for-profit colleges and criticizing Wall Street short-seller Steven Eisman, a persistent critic of the industry, for not disclosing possible financial interests in the issue. Davis soon after signed on to run the Coalition for Educational Success, a for-profit college trade group seeking to derail the gainful employment rule. Similar efforts to attack reforms by linking them to Eisman were then being made by another for-profit college industry trade group and by consultants tied to the industry.

TheDaily Caller also published regular reports by its own staff reporters covering this line of attack. When the advocacy group CREW, which was itself receiving funding tied to the for-profit college industry, called on federal authorities to investigate possible manipulation of the for-profit college market by Eisman, then-Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) responded by claiming that the U.S. Department of Education engaged in very significant inappropriate behavior in tipping hedge funds on short selling private education. He added, Utilization of facts in the Department of Education in advantaging investors in one segment to make significant dollars over something the governments thinking about doing is highly unethical and if proven to be the case, some people ought to be going to jail in the Department of Education. All of this was dutifully reportedby theDaily Caller(and a few times theWall Street Journal), and practically no other outlet.

TheDaily Caller alsoattacked the chief Capitol Hill critic of for-profit colleges, then-Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), claiming his staff might have engaged in witness tampering for a hearing on the industry. The Daily Callerattackedthe well-publicized Government Accountability Office investigation that exposed industry abuses. TheDaily Caller questioned the ethics of the organization I ran at the time, Campus Progress (part of the Center for American Progress), because we horrors both engaged in public advocacy on the issue of for-profit colleges and published advocacy journalism on the same subject. The ethics expert that the publication chose to cite for this charge was then-CREW executive director Melanie Sloan.

When Campus Progress spent $4000 to produce and air briefly on cable TV in Washington an ad to counter the massive television advocacy campaign by the for-profit college industry, a political consultant named Natasha Mayer, writing in theDaily Caller,falsely accused us of taking money from traders like Eisman for a million-dollar campaign on the exact same side of the issue as the wealthy short-sellers. Echoing the arguments of Mayer wasMelanie Sloan,writinginPolitico, who said of the Campus Progress ad, produced by our intern and run a handful of times at cheap rates, major ad campaigns require major donors, with a link there to MayersDaily Callerpiece.

The Daily Callers relentless and sometimes scurrilous attacks on critics of for-profit colleges raised questions at the time about why this publication was so obsessed with these matters at a time when the for-profit college industry was seeking to take the focus off its own ethical and legal problems and avoid reforms that might imperil the torrent of $33 billion a year in taxpayer money into its coffers.

Semafor reports that Daily Caller co-founder and publisher Neil Patel suggested to Semafor that the pitch document was fabricated, but that after Semafor authenticated it, Patel didnt respond to a follow-up request for comment.

The Daily Caller, a popular right-wing site, is operated by a for-profit business, but much of its content has long been produced by a related non-profit organization, The Daily Caller News Foundation, which is the operation that produced the pitch document to donors. The legality of the arrangement, which allows a for-profit business to benefit from a charitable non-profit, has been questioned by tax law experts and advocates.

To be fair, the Daily Caller hasnt always said kind things about for-profit colleges. Casting aside years of defending the schools, the Daily Caller departed from its approach in 2014 with a piece attacking one of the biggest companies in the industry, Laureate Education as seedy, for lowering its admissions standards and making obscene expenditures on advertising. According to this article, bylined by Daily Caller editor Eric Owens, at for-profit colleges, Most students never get a degree. Many drop out within a couple months. The bluntly altered assessment of the industry in the article may have related to the fact that, as it noted, Former President Bill Clinton and presumed 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton have deep ties to Laureate; Bill Clinton was the companys paid honorary chairman and, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, the State Department made Laureate a partner in one of its initiatives.

Tucker Carlson sold his ownership share in the Daily Caller in 2020, leaving Patel as majority owner. Conservative donor Foster Friess was also a major investor; he died in 2021.

Link:
Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller Had Pay-to-Play Education Beat - Republic Report

By Frank MieleRealClearWirehttps://www.realclearwire.com/

The Democrats say that Jan. 6 was the worst attack on American democracy since the Civil War. They call it an insurrection, but if it was indeed the worst since 1865, no one but a fool would dare claim it even remotely approached the scale of the bloody war between the states.

And if you werent a fool, you might conclude that Jan. 6 was nothing like an insurrection. It wasnt violent in the sense of an armed rebellion. It wasnt organized. And it didnt seek to overthrow the government, but to protect the Constitution. In more ways than not, it was a defense of American democracy, not an attack on it.

In every particular, Jan. 6 was a pale shadow compared to the Civil War. To start with, it lasted less than six hours, whereas the Civil War lasted four long years. The war between the North and South cost the lives of 620,000 soldiers and another 50,000 civilians. The Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol, on the other hand, claimed the lives of just two women protesters, Ashli Babbitt and Roseanne Boyland. Among the defenders of the Capitol, police officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering two strokes the next day, but without a direct known connection to the riot. Two other protesters died of natural causes during the siege, and four law officers died by suicide in the months following the attack. If you count all of those as legitimate casualties of Jan. 6, then the total comes to nine compared to a minimum of 670,000 in the Civil War.

It would be impossible to exaggerate the stark differences between Jan. 6 and the Civil War.

Yet somehow, the Democrats (yes, members of the same Democratic Party that instigated the Civil War) were able to use the Jan. 6 incursion of the Capitol as a means to terrorize their political enemies and to punish those who used their rights of free speech and free thought to question the legitimacy of the Biden presidency.

As of March 6, 2023, more than 1,000 people have been charged with crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. But the Biden administration is not done seeking its pound of flesh from Trump supporters. Last week, we learned that the Department of Justice (hereinafter the Department of Retaliation) had sent a letter to the chief judge of the D.C. federal court warning that between 700 and 1,200 more people will be charged with Jan. 6 crimes. More than two years after the fact! That brings the total of citizens likely to be charged to approximately 2,000, and according to the White House these are all domestic terrorists.

Now, to be clear, there was at least one instance of terrorism on Jan. 6, 2021, when pipe bombs were planted at the national headquarters of both the Republican and Democratic parties. But the perpetrator of that failed attack has never been identified, let alone charged. Instead, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the House Jan. 6 select committee and the White House have focused on making examples out of American citizens who believed that a corrupt election had been held in 2020.

By insisting that U.S. elections are always beyond reproach, the Democrats and their allies in the media have de facto criminalized the formerly protected speech of millions of Americans who have lost confidence in the electoral system. And the Justice Department, on behalf of President Biden, has decided to make an example of the Jan. 6 protesters in order to quell dissent among Republicans who might otherwise be tempted to carry a Trump flag to the Capitol.

If you dont think that the prosecution, and accompanying lengthy jail sentences, of 2,000 protesters for entering the Capitol on Jan. 6 is excessive, consider this:

Following the real insurrection, the Civil War, hardly any of the 1 million men who fought on behalf of the Confederacy were charged with any crimes, let alone treason. Thats because President Abraham Lincoln, and President Andrew Johnson after him, recognized the importance of binding the nation together following the tumultuous war years. Instead of seeking retaliation, and humiliation of former enemies, they (and most Northerners) sought reconciliation and understanding. Forgiveness, not punishment, was the watchword.

In a Christmas Day proclamation in 1868, Johnson granted a full pardon and amnesty to all persons engaged in the late rebellion. He wrote, in part:

[A] universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good.

Further, Johnson declared:

unconditionally, and without reservation, to all and to every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.Now compare that to the zealous and unyielding pursuit by Merrick Garlands Department of Justice of the Jan. 6 protesters, the vast majority of whom neither waged war, nor committed treason, but only trespassed in an effort to assure that their grievances were heard. Unbelievably, many of those protesters remain in jail 26 months after the riot without ever having received the speedy trial they are promised by the Constitution, and others once convicted face lengthy prison terms in unfathomable conditions.

What does the DOJ say about its mission? Heres an excerpt from the departments March 6 update:

[T]he investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the attack continues to move forward at an unprecedented speed and scale. The Department of Justices resolve to hold accountable those who committed crimes on January 6, 2021, has not, and will not, wane.

As I said before, its the Department of Retaliation, and theres no reason to think it will end there. The special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trumps possession of classified documents and his actions and words on Jan. 6 represents a new low in American politics. No matter how Merrick Garland or Joe Biden spin it, this is not about justice, but about eliminating the biggest threat to Bidens reelection.

Where is James Comey when you need him? Remember when the former FBI director recited the not insubstantial case against Hillary Clinton for possession of classified information on an illegal server, and then declared no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case? That is exactly how most nonpartisan people feel about the case against Trump, who, unlike Hillary, was president and actually had the power to declassify any documents in his possession.

Even more outrageous is claiming that Trump was guilty of treason or inciting a riot because he asked his supporters to walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol on Jan. 6 to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Thats not incitement; its First Amendment-protected political speech. And when Trump said, We fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore, he wasnt talking about invading the Capitol; he was specifically talking about fighting against election fraud. Any other interpretation is disingenuous.

Yet, the Department of Retaliation continues its relentless assault on Trump supporters like a bureaucratic version of Inspector Javert from Les Miserables. Instead of showing the magnanimity of President Johnson following the Civil War, the Democratic administration of Joe Biden insists on fracturing our society even more than it was at the end of the Trump administration.

Remember Andrew Johnsons words? He said that a pardon will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people. Why cant the Democrats and their sympathizers like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger see that their obdurate persecution of Trump voters will have the opposite effect? Instead of bringing their opponents to heel, they will just foment greater hatred and distrust among those who already feel abandoned and rejected by their government.

Or maybe the Democrats do know exactly what they are doing. Spanish-born and American-educated philosopher George Santayana said, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but maybe even more dangerous are those who distort the past. They condemn the rest of us to a legacy of permanent chaos, lies, and animosity, and of course they expect us to shut up and take it. There was no insurrection on Jan. 6, but that doesnt mean the people will be patient forever.

Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His newest book, What Matters Most: God, Country, Family and Friends, is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA or on Twitter or Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

Continued here:
The real insurrection and the dirty politics of Jan. 6 - The Highland County Press

Toni Collette has described working on new drama series The Power as "cathartic", "empowering" and "important".

Based on Naomi Alderman's hit feminist novel, The Power is set in a world just like our own with one twist of nature teenage girls have developed the power to electrocute people at will.

The Prime Video show, which releases its first three episodes on Friday, 31 March, features different characters and storylines across the globe and Collette stars as Mayor Margot Cleary-Lopez, whose private life and career is transformed by the new power.

Mayor Margot is a progressive politician, who has continually battled misogyny until this point in her career.

Collette said she felt pressure to capture Margot's spirit and do justice to her passionate speeches because everything the character talks about on the show "aligns with reality".

"I felt like, 'don't screw this up!'" Collette told BT TV. "Because what I'm saying is actually really powerful and really meaningful and people will hear it and feel it in a real way."

Talking about the everyday sexism that The Power skewers, she added: "Those moments are alive and well in the real world.

"I play a woman who has an incredible job, so many responsibilities, she acts for many, she has such purpose and responsibility as the mayor of Seattle and yet we have this chief of staff who is focussing on putting the right shoes on me, so Im judged the right way.

"This is the wrong focus people. And that s**t really happens. Female politicians especially are judged by what theyre wearing, their makeup, their hair. Theyre of no significance whatsoever. Focus on the job being done."

The Knives Out star added: "Women have always been objectified and so it continues."

Collette stars opposite John Leguizamo (When They See Us), who plays Margos husband John.

Leguizamo supported Collettes frustration at the treatment of women in politics.

"I've seen it with AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris do they smile too much, do they smile enough, are they likable enough", said Leguizamo.

"A man never has to be judged by those qualities of how they look and what they wear."

Commenting on the differing atmosphere of a show written, directed and produced by women, he added: "I thought it was the best run show Ive ever been on.

"These scenes were so well written, deep and granular and there was an emotional intelligence to the dialogue.

"It felt more like real life than anything Ive ever done, and yet, its about this bigger subject of womens bodies evolving and having a higher power."

Watch episode 1-3 of The Power on Prime Video from Friday, 31 March on Prime Video.

What's new on Prime Video this month

More here:
Toni Collette on cathartic new series The Power | Exclusive - BT.com

The 2024 race for the White House is in motion. Democratic incumbent President Joe Biden said in October 2022 that he intends to seek a second term, even if he stopped short of making an official announcement. But in what is expected to be a crowded Republican field only a few candidates had announced their bids by late March 2023.

Former President Donald Trump, the last Republican to hold the office and party standard-bearer, said in November 2022 that he will seek the partys nomination. And Republican Nikki Haley, one-time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina, announced in February 2023 that she is running.

In the weeks and months ahead, more presidential hopefuls likely will enter the race. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, is expected to jump in after his states legislative session ends in May. And Sen. Tim Scott, of South Carolina, appears ready to announce soon.

Each candidate, along with their campaigns, makes decisions about the right time to jump into the race. But how do they decide?

The Conversation asked Rob Mellen Jr., a political scientist who studies the presidency, to explain five things presidential hopefuls consider before running for the highest office in the land.

The first thing potential presidential candidates consider is whether the incumbent president or, for the party out of office, the standard-bearer, is eligible to seek office.

Candidates who oppose incumbents - and popular past presidents of the same party - face nearly insurmountable obstacles, largely due to incumbent popularity. It offers officeholders seeking reelection a significant advantage. Between 1952 and 2000, for example, incumbent presidents enjoyed a 6 percentage point bonus in the popular vote.

Typically, incumbents have advantages because of their track records, name recognition which affects a candidates level of voter and financial support and their ability to direct federal money to the geographic areas that support them.

While the incumbents advantages typically cause potential challengers to think twice before running for president, there have been exceptions. In 1980, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts unsuccessfully challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy failed, though, and his bid divided the Democratic Party.

Republican Ronald Reagan, a former governor of California, beat Carter in the general election and became the nations 40th president.

Potential candidates also consider the number of opponents they will have to compete against. A crowded field with numerous candidates makes it difficult for more than a three or four to gain traction before the first primary contests, which are usually held in January and February of election year.

If they are not the incumbent, a party standard-bearer or someone with otherwise significant name recognition, candidates with a lot of opponents typically find it tough to get their messages across, especially if they are competing against political stars.

During the 2016 Republican campaign, for example, 17 candidates entered the race, but only Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz stood out. Because of Trumps celebrity status earned from years of marketing himself as a billionaire and through reality television fame Trump got a lot of attention from the media. His bombastic personality also played well with a segment of the Republican base. He drew significant media attention that other candidates could not match. And Cruz gained traction by finishing first in the Iowa caucuses, which allowed him to be competitive in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries that followed.

Candidates have a few ways to identify their likely voters. They can visit early contest states and test their messages, just like Trump, DeSantis, Haley and Scott have been doing in Iowa and South Carolina. Or, they can deliver speeches at major gatherings of party loyalists, such as the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Conducting polls is another way for candidates to figure out how broad, or narrow, their bases of support are.

Most presidential candidates also have to figure out how to finance what could become a lengthy bid for the party nomination. The main question they have to answer for themselves is, where will the money come from for sustained primary battles?

Connecting with wealthy backers who can can contribute large sums to a super PAC that supports the candidate can be the key to a candidates staying power.

Sometimes, committed large donors enable candidates to stay in the race much longer than expected, just as having backing from wealthy supporters and a super PAC prolonged former House Speaker Newt Gingrichs failed presidential bid in 2012.

But, as Gingrichs run proved, having the backing of a super PAC, which is legally prohibited from coordinating efforts with candidates and their campaigns, is not a guarantee of success.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bushs 2016 campaign had the backing of the super PAC Right to Rise with a budget of over US$100 million. But his run for president ended after a disappointing fourth-place finish in the South Carolina primary.

Whether or not potential candidates have access to significant financial support influences their decisions to enter the race. It is extremely expensive to run a competitive campaign because of costs associated with staffing, travel, advertising and more. But candidates who fare well in the early contests tend to raise more money and survive longer in the primary process.

The mood of the electorate also influences potential candidates decisions about whether to run. If the incumbent president is very popular a rarity in modern American politics it may scare off some would-be challengers.

But the public can be fickle. An incumbent may be popular a year before the general election, just as George H.W. Bush was in early 1991, only to see their popularity fade the following year. Bush lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1992.

The political fortunes of unpopular incumbents also can shift. In 1983, Reagans favorability ratings were very weak, but he rebounded by 1984 and beat Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale in a 49-state landslide victory.

During presidential election years when there is no incumbent, as in 2008 and 2016, potential candidates calculations dont have to include incumbent popularity. In 2016, both Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who sought the Democratic nomination, were able to tap into an electorate looking for change by appealing to supporters with populist messages.

Trumps effort successfully secured the Republican nomination, while Sanders effort came up short as the Democratic party favored its first female nominee, former Sen. Hillary Clinton.

From determining whether an incumbent president is vulnerable to a challenge from within the party to the likelihood of defeating an incumbent of the opposite party, a significant amount of strategic planning is involved in any effort to win the presidency. And the planning begins long before the day candidates announce their intention to run.

If so, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.

Get our newsletters

Editor and General Manager

Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go.

Get our newsletter

If you found the article you just read to be insightful, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you.

Subscribe now

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

It helps you go deeper into key political issues and also introduces you to the diversity of research coming out of the continent. It's not about breaking news. It's not about unfounded opinions. The Europe newsletter is evidence-based expertise from European scholars, presented by myself in France, and two of my colleagues in Spain and the UK.

Get our newsletter

Head of English section, France edition

Read more here:
Presidential hopefuls are considering these 5 practical factors before launching their 2024 campaigns - The Conversation