Mediaboss Marketing

This story first appeared in the Lede, a digital news publication delivered to our subscribers every morning. Gohereto subscribe.

Five years ago, Alabama native Frank Campus stood up before the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission and spoke out in support of the Sunshine State moving from closed to open primary elections.

When I was in Alabama, on the day of the election, you declare if youre a Democrat or a Republican and you get to vote, Campus said about Alabama, adding that he was shocked to learn in Florida that he needed to be registered with a political party in order to participate in their primary.

Then, to laughter, he added, You all dont let Alabama be a better state than Florida.

Alabama, though, could become like Florida and eight other states in closing its primary elections.

Primary elections are held to determine the nominees a party will send to the general election to face the nominee from the other party. In Alabama primary elections, voters tell the poll workers which ballot they want Republican or Democrat but they cant vote in both. If there is a runoff, voters can only vote in the party in which they cast their ballot during the main primary called crossover voting.

Alabama GOP Chairman John Wahl, in the weeks following the May 24 primary, is pushing for Alabamas Legislature to switch from the current open primary to a closed one.

Legislation is expected to be introduced during next springs session, and a final determination on the future of primary elections will be decided by the supermajority GOP Legislature.

Its something the party has wished to do, said state Rep. Matt Simpson, R-Daphne. If that is the wish of the party, then the Legislature should be able to accommodate that wish.

The current open primary allows any voter, no matter their political affiliation, to declare which partys ballot they want to vote on when they walk into the polling place.

Alabama is one of 15 states in the U.S. that operates its primary in an open setting.

Closing the primary requires the voter to pre-register as a Republican or a Democrat in order to participate in that partys political primary. Independent voters, and those who are not registered before the primary, cannot participate.

Another six states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, allows political parties to decide if unaffiliated voters or those not registered with the political party should be allowed to participate in the nominating contests before each election cycle.

Critics of closed primaries believe the system shuns voters from the process especially in states dominated by one political party, such as Alabama.

Its a mess, said John Opdycke, president of Open Primaries a non-profit based in New York that opposes efforts in states to close primaries to those not registered with that party. Alabama should not do this.

Wahl, though, said the recent GOP primary was rife with Democratic interference.

Aside from complaints about this years primary, Wahl said the states Republican Party has approved resolutions in the past supporting closed primaries.

The Alabama Republican Party is fully supportive of registering voters to a party in closed primaries, said Wahl. Looking at the turmoil in this election cycle, its clear for both Republicans and Democrats, its best to close the primary.

A few incidences have surfaced within the past month that have rankled Republicans.

The most notable include:

Alabama State Senator Chris Elliott, R-Daphne, said the involvement of crossover voters in District 27 race has Republicans concerned. He said that the state has become more staunchly conservative in recent years, and that Democratic voters are crossing over to participate in the GOP primaries because, in many cases, there are few Democratic primary contests on ballots.

I have no doubt, in my mind, that legislation will come up again and that the Republican Party, as a whole, will ask for that legislation, said state Senator Chris Elliott, R-Daphne. If you want to vote in a Republican Party primary, you should be a Republican.

Alabama Republican Party Chairman John Wahl

Alabama joins other states with open primaries Georgia, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Montana, Wyoming, and Missouri where elected officials are contemplating change to close them and require registration as a member with a particular political party before participating.

Within the past decade, only one state Idaho, in 2013 has moved from an open to a closed primary.

Idahos Republicans, who dominated state political office, does not allow unaffiliated voters to participate in the primary, whereas the Democratic Party is more open.

If initiated in Alabama, Wahl envisions the Secretary of States Office administering party registration. He said he was unclear on when the new primary structure could begin, deferring to future legislation that has not yet been written.

We want to look at what other states have done and present an election process that would best fit with (Alabamas) processes, Wahl said.

The move will generate critics, including some Democrats who believe closed primaries are akin to voter suppression.

One recent study presented to the Midwest Political Science Association last year suggested that closed primaries dilute participation among Asian American and Latino voters, who more frequently identify as independent voters than white and Black voters.

State Senator Vivian Figures, D-Mobile, said a closed primary could also lead to voter intimidation, especially in a highly charged political climate where polarization dominates.

If we are talking about Americans actually having that sacred right to vote or having to vote who they want to do and doing so in privacy we need to be going toward that end to make sure people feel more comfortable voting for who they want to rather than tactics being set up to vote in a certain way, she said.

There are states moving in other directions and away from closed primaries.

Maine, last month, approved a semi-open primary structure that allows people who are not registered with either party aka, independent voters to participate in primary voting beginning in 2024. According to published reports, 36% of Maine voters are registered as independents.

Efforts are underway in Nevada and Pennsylvania, also both closed primary states, to move from closed to open primaries.

In Nevada, where 23% of voters are registered as non-partisan, a ballot initiative could take place this year that would adopt open primaries and allow for ranked-choice voting.

Under ranked-choice voting, which is part of Louisianas general elections, voters get to rank their preferred candidates. If someone gets 50% plus one vote after all the first-choice votes are counted, then the election is over and the candidate wins. But if no one gets 50% plus one, its onto another round as ballot counters eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of first-place votes. The eliminated candidates second choice then gets redistributed as votes for the other candidates, and the reallocation of votes continues until someone reaches 50% plus one.

Nevadas state Supreme Court decided last week to allow voters in November the decide if their primaries should be opened.

In Florida, a ballot initiative in 2020, that would move the states primaries from closed to open fell 3 percentage points shy of passage. The initiative needed 60% of the vote, and it ended up getting 57%.

Alabama does not allow citizens initiatives, but voters do get to decide on constitutional amendments approved by the Legislature.

Opdycke, with Open Primaries, said support for closed primaries often comes from party activists or the diehards, such as partisan radio show hosts -- and those in charge of a political party at the state and county levels.

He blames the activists for wanting to shut out votes because they want to control the primary.

Everyone knows that 90% of districts in this country are won in the primary and not in the November (general) election, Opdycke said. Whether you are in New York City where its the Democratic Party or in Alabama where its the Republican Party, (the primary) is the election. There is no general election.

He said in Arkansas, where he said party activists are talking about closing the primaries, 45% of the Legislature does not have an opponent on the ballot in November. Another 45%, Opdycke said, has a token opponent and where the winner is easily predicted.

Voters want to vote in the primary where they can because thats the only election, he said. The party activists want to shut that out because they want to control that primary. Its a real fight.

Richard Winger, owner of Ballot Access News and a Libertarian activist in California, said he does not believe a switch from open to closed will have much impact in Alabama.

Critics of closed primaries, such as those in Idaho, say they lead to more extreme candidates being nominated and winning elected office.

Winger disagrees. The South tends to have the most extreme Republican politicians in the nation, though there are plenty in Arizona and Colorado, he said. The truth is it doesnt make any difference. If Alabama goes to closed primaries, it wont make a lot of difference. Democrats who want to vote in the Republican Party will switch their registration to Republican by the deadline.

Opdycke said one of the arguments against closing primaries is that the taxpayers fund elections. He said that public money should not finance elections that are restricted to certain voters belonging to a political party.

The parties, they want to have their cake and eat it too, he said. They say they are a private organization like an Elks or Rotary Club. But they want the public to fund this and the government to administer this private election. Its un-American and its called taxation without representation.

Winger said Opdyckes argument is not persuasive.

There are all kinds of elections that the government pays for that is not open to all voters, he said. There are some where landowners can vote because they are special districts, like an irrigation district. There is no principle that because a government pays for an election that everyone in a geographic area has to vote on it.

Opdycke said efforts to usher in closed primaries is not solely a Republican or Democratic function, noting that establishment Democrats in Nevada are pushing to maintain the status quo.

But he said Republicans, in recent years following the 2020 presidential election, have been energized to make changes.

This is not conservatives are bad, liberals are good issue, Opdycke said. Its more about people who want control are against (open primaries) and those who want more options and choices are for them.

Most Southern states, while contemplating the switch to a closed primary, have long operated under an open system.

Charles Bullock III, a political science professor at the University of Georgia and a scholar of Southern politics, said that less than 50 years ago, there was only one party in the South, the Democrats.

Once the Republicans became a competitor, no one thought, lets close this, said Bullock.

He said in Georgia, the effort to make the switch is the result of Republican Brad Raffensperger benefitting from crossover Democratic votes to win the partys nomination for Secretary of State.

Raffensperger, a conservative who refused to support former President Donald Trumps calls to overturn the 2020 election, barely cleared the 50% hurdle in May to avoid a runoff election. He defeated a Trump-backed challenger Rep. Jody Hice.

It was 70,000 individuals who voted in the Democratic primary two years ago who voted in the Republican primary this year, said Bullock. Republicans felt that Democrats nominated Raffensperger and created the margin in which he avoided the runoff.

Bullock said he believes the efforts to change the primaries are motivated by a belief unsupported by facts that an election was stolen or dissatisfaction on the outcome of a particular contest.

Thats what drives it rather than a long-standing effort to bring about change, Bullock said.

Elliott, the state senator from Daphne, said that in a close race like the Whatley-Hovey contest the crossover voting allowed in an open primary can be the difference.

But Wahl said that the Senate District 27 contest is not the reason to change the entire electoral system during primaries.

Besides, he said, nothing will stop non-Republicans from registering as a Republican so they can participate in the primaries.

People can still choose which party they would register with, Wahl said. The Alabama Republican Party welcomes the voters to vote Republican. We would expect the vast majority in the state to choose the Republican ballot.

Of course, being a registered Republican or Democrat doesnt affect a voters ability to cast a ballot for either candidate in the November general election.

See original here:
From open to closed: Why Alabama Republicans are pushing to change primary elections - AL.com

Kristi Noem, the Republican governor of South Dakota was grilled on whether she thought child rape victims should be forced to go through with their pregnancy during an interview on CNN's State of the Union."

Talking to Dana Bash, Noem was asked about her thoughts on the reports that a 10-year-old pregnant rape victim was forced, along with her family, to cross state lines in order to access abortion services in Indiana because of Ohio's strict abortion laws.

Asked if South Dakota will, "going forward, force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby," Noem called the story "tragic."

Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

"As much as we can talk about what we can do for that little girl, I think we also need to be addressing those sick individuals that do this to our children," she said.

In response Bash replied: "But our bodies are our bodies, and women are the ones who get pregnant. And, in this case, it wasnt a woman. It was a girl."

Noem added she "couldn't even imagine" herself or her family going through something like this, but then in the same breath said: "Every single life is precious, and noted that abortions in South Dakota are illegal with the exception to save the life of the mother."

"And you would be okay with that? A 10-year-old girl having to have a baby?" Bash pressed further.

"What I would say is, I dont believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. And so theres more that we have got to do to make sure that we really are living a life that says every life is precious," Noem said.

Bash then told Noem she kept thinking about how a 10-year-old girl probably can't carry a baby without being hurt both emotionally and physically and asked the governor if she would consider that to be "the life of a mother at risk."

"I think that's something I think thats something that yes, that situation, the doctor, the family, the individuals closest to that will make the decisions there for that family," Noem replied.

She added: every state will have different laws on the books," and said this is "the way our Constitution intended.

The US Supreme Court recently and controversially overturned Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision from 1973 which gave the constitutional right to abortion.

The decision means individual states can now ban the medical procedure, with 26 states predicted to move to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

One of those states is South Dakota whose "trigger law" automatically banned abortion in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

Read the original post:
Republican says 'every life is precious' after being confronted about 10-year-old pregnant rape victim - indy100

CHEYENNE Many Republican candidates described the future of the party as at a crossroads this past week, citing divisions in what it means to have the letter R beside their name.

From Wyoming GOP Chairman Frank Eathorne telling Fox News his party doesnt embrace former President Ronald Reagans big tent theory, to accusations of longtime incumbent lawmakers identifying as Republican in Name Only, the political atmosphere among Republicans appears contentious to voters.

Residents running for office as Republicans spoke with the Wyoming Tribune Eagle to give insight into their own experience this election cycle, their need to unite against the Democratic Party and whether their party was on a path different than in the Reagan era.

Despite rumblings of divergence, candidates also reaffirmed the values they hope their fellow party members hold.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the right of association the ability to join with other people of similar interests is an important component of free speech, said ex-President Donald Trump-endorsed U.S. House candidate, Harriet Hagman, in a statement. As Wyoming Republicans, we are associated with each other and united by our common belief in smaller government, lower taxes, freedom, and the right of individuals to pursue their own destinies, free of excessive government interference.

She was not alone in this stance. Those seeking election to nearly every level of office reiterated the desire for limited government, a strong military, laws against abortion, Second Amendment protections and taking a fiscally conservative budget approach.

Weve got real divides in our party in the state right now, U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., told WTE. And I think its very important that the party remember the most important thing is to be faithful to the Constitution, and thats got to come before everything else.

Cheney said serving constituents to ensure the states energy and tourism industries are advocated for in the nations Capitol, and that families, communities and schools are represented, is an important aspect of her job in Congress.

Local campaigns

This ideal has trickled down to local government.

Abbie Mildenberger and Bryce Freeman are running for Laramie County commissioner seats as Republicans. Both of them said they wanted to take a fiscal and socially conservative approach. This would follow constitutional values, downsize government reach and conserve property rights.

A sort of litmus test for anybody of any party to run for office in Wyoming is to have deep-seated appreciation for the life that we have in Wyoming, the values that we enjoy, and all the benefits that we have by virtue of being residents of Wyoming, and in particular Laramie County, Freeman said. As a Republican, Im interested in preserving those values.

Although there was consensus from every candidate interviewed on the core values that united many, a line was drawn in how many of them listed the Republican platform that a party member needs to identify with. Some argued a Republican must uphold 80% or more of the platform, and others said they only needed to agree with one principle.

Gov. Mark Gordon said he has participated in Republican conventions since the 1970s, and he appreciates the deep discussions and development of the platform. He believes the positions established by elected representatives, precinct members and others that take part are important, because they inform the way he approaches issues.

I really do appreciate the work that goes into them, which is why I always pay attention to the platform, he said. But in terms of percentages, I dont know who judges that.

Other areas that garnered split responses from candidates was whether the party is at all divided, and what issues have caused Republican infighting. Supporting Trump; investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol; and suspicions the 2020 election was fraudulent are debates many agreed can be divisive.

Eathorne

Attention was brought to the Wyoming GOP and to its chairman.

Our Republican Party right now is led by a man, Frank Eathorne, who is a member of the Oath Keepers, who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, who has advocated for secession. And he has really taken the party apparatus in our state in a very dangerous direction, Cheney said. Thats not who we are in Wyoming. Thats not what we believe.

Distributed Denial of Secrets, a whistleblower organization, distributed a list in 2021 of more than 200 Wyoming citizens that were a part of the Oath Keepers. Eathornes name was included on the document as a member of the far-right anti-government organization, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Cheney said there is division between members of the Republican Party in Wyoming and residents, because their beliefs are not represented by the opinions of the chair and leadership.

Eathorne did not comment.

Cheney

Some place blame on Cheney.

Rep. Liz Cheney has actively worked against our partys interests, teaming up with [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to engage in an illegitimate, Stalinesque show trial of a President they hate, Hageman said in her statement. They are ignoring due process and engaging in unfair tactics that would never be permitted in any courtroom, and are only trying to divert the publics attention away from the disaster that is [President] Joe Biden.

Cheney actually has eroded our right of association by inviting Democrats to change parties for one day to vote for her in our Republican primary. This is a prime example of a politician willing to set aside our conservative Republican ideals in order to remain in office the very definition of the uniparty, Hageman continued.

Rep. Rachel Rodriguez Williams, R-Cody, said she and her family plan to support Hageman, because the Republican Party has publicly expressed that Cheney is not representing the people of Wyoming in the way they wish to be. She said there is unity in the party, and only outsiders such as the U.S. House incumbent are not true Republicans.

Shes essentially left the party and badmouthed the party, Rodriguez-Williams told WTE of Cheney. And the party spoke loud and clear, not only at the county level, but at the state level.

Daniel Singh, candidate for House District 61, said he believes Cheney has put her own personal vendetta against Trump and her pursuit of what is obviously a future presidential bid has overwritten the voice of Wyomingites.

Other state legislators, such as Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, and Rep. Landon Brown, R-Cheyenne, support Cheney. They also said the Cheneys efforts to investigate the actions taken on Jan. 6, and create clarity on the 2020 election, should not split the party.

I dont see the Jan. 6 committee as being divisive, I think the Republican Party screwed up on that by deciding not to play along, Case said. But I am actually impressed with the Jan. 6 committee. Im impressed with Liz Cheney on the committee, and Im impressed with bipartisan efforts on the committee.

Cheney was appointed as the Jan. 6 select congressional committees vice chair in the fall of 2021, and is one of only two Republicans to serve on the committee. She faced censure by the Wyoming GOP months before she took on the responsibility for her vote to impeach then-President Trump after the insurrection at the Capitol.

Case said there are records, sworn testimony, witnesses who are Republicans and exhaustive evidence it was an effort to overthrow the election. He said America is bigger than one individual party. He believes Cheney is exposing the truth, and that she shouldnt be reprimanded.

GOP history

Ive been really disappointed in the turn that the state party has taken, the lack of civility, intolerance for dissent and the really narrow, formulastic solutions to things, said Case. But Im going to change the party. Im going to work to change it, or to get a more moderate approach.

Brown said the divisions in the party didnt start with Trump, or the current U.S. House race. He went back to 2008, when the members left the Republican Party to organize the Tea Party. He said they created their own group, because they said the traditional party was not conservative enough.

Browns view is the Tea Party was disbanded in order to gain the trust of voters, and came back into the GOP fold while still arguing the main party didnt hold the right values. He said Tea Party members accused those who stayed registered as Republican the entire time as being RINOs.

Its absolutely caused a division in the party in multiple facets, Brown said. And were lucky enough to live in an area in a country where were allowed to have those disagreements without repercussions from the government. But unfortunately, it looks like the Republican Party is trying to do everything they can to punish those who dont agree with them.

He no longer considers it the party that was once led by Reagan, which focused on supporting every Republican.

Todays Wyoming Republican Party, specifically Frank Eathrone, says, If you dont agree with us 80% of the time, wed rather have a Democrat in there, Brown said.

Gov. Gordon said he recognizes the clear discord among members as the Wyoming GOP moves away from the big tent ideal. He said he is a supporter of the inclusive theory, because Reagan was able to persuade many people that Republican values were the right values to lead the country, and the party regained momentum during the 80s.

He also stands behind the former presidents mantra, Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.

Our challenge is not Republican between Republican, Gordon said. Our challenge is to get this country back on track.

This is the first story of a two-part series on what constitutes a Republican.

Follow this link:
Witnessing the crossroads of the Wyoming Republican Party | News | wyomingnews.com - Wyoming Tribune

Joy Silver| Special to The Desert Sun

Charles T. Moran, president of Log Cabin Republicans, ended his recent column in The Desert Sun with the line: Our members are conservatives and will keep fighting Democrats however we can. The Log Cabin Republicans website insists they are taking a stand against cancel culture, social shaming, and slander because truth is on their side. They need to examine what passes for truth.

Attention: Log Cabin Republicans, you have already been canceled by being shut out of the Texas Republican convention. You have been socially shamed by having your lifestyle choice deemed abnormal. You have been slandered by being called child groomers and pedophiles.

Log Cabin Republicans must come to terms with being in an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship is defined by one party exerting power and control over the other in a negative way.

Log Cabin Republicans have bonded with their abusers. Emotional bonding with abusers is a familiar story, known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Some characteristics are:

Consider the evidence: Justice Clarence Thomas concurring opinion to the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade is as follows: In future cases, we should reconsider all of this courts substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. The decisions Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex intimacy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) are about LGBT people. Interestingly, Thomas does not include the Loving v. Virginia decision (marrying across racial lines) though it relies on the same 14th Amendment sections.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that any rights that are unenumerated in the U.S. Constitution cant be recognized as a fundamental right unless they are deeply rooted in this nations history and tradition. That will always leave out women, LGBTQ people, and those who are not straight, white men. Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptive use) Skinner v. Oklahoma (ending forced sterilization) are also on the block, as they are based on the same rationale for ending Roe.

Moran says that Texas Republicans dont have to change their values to let us in. We are already here. The Texas party values he claims to share have been activated by Christian white nationalism, and many of its adherents call for legislation, criminalization, even violence, against LGBT people. As the Texas GOP goes, so goes the national party.

Democrats dont always agree with one another, but we will continue to stand up for LGBT peoples right to live, to engage in intimacy, to marry, and to be safe from violence. Log Cabin Republicans, I urge you to join us before its too late.

Joy Silver of Palm Springs is vice president of the Democratic Women of the Desert. Email her atdwofthedesert@gmail.com.

Visit link:
Log Cabin Republicans must come to terms with being in an abusive relationship with GOP - Desert Sun

The post-Trump era has produced a librarys worth of books from people who had access to the rooms where decisions were made but kept quiet about the rotten things they witnessed. The volumes mostly read as after-the-fact justifications for morally debatable behavior spiced up with a few damning anecdotes that feel too-little-too-late.

Tim Millers Why We Did It: A Travelogue from the Republican Road to Hell is not one of those books.

Before he became a committed Never Trump contributor to The Bulwark and MSNBC, before he was even a top aide to Jeb Bush during the 2016 presidential campaign, Miller was a self-described GOP hit man for the Republican National Committee and an opposition research firm he helped start. Along the way he got quite comfortable operating within the trollish zero-sum norms of the Game, inflaming voters who werent in on the joke.

What distinguishes Millers book from many other insider accounts is his willingness to put his own behavior under the microscope, specifically how as a closeted gay man he was able to ignore the sometimes-explicit homophobia of his clients to help push the parts of their agenda he found more palatable. It made him, he says, a championship-level compartmentalizer. But this confessional tone gives the book its distinctive oomph and affords Miller the license to dissect with mordant wit the many varieties of rationalization that his colleagues in the GOP employed to justify their fealty, even servility, to Trump.

The dish he doles out about Lindsey Graham, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, Josh Holmes, Elise Stefanik and more feels less like drive-by scuttlebutt and more face-to-face personal. Because in several cases he did get face-to-face personal. Miller is both confessor and priest, albeit one with an open bar tab. The meeting in Georgetown with Alyssa Farah where the daughter of a longtime boss of a far-right website attempts to explain her evolution from not voting for Trump in 2016 to working in his administration to now vowing to do everything she can to make sure he doesnt return to the White House makes the book worth the read. So, definitely, does the tequila-fueled coda in Santa Monica with Caroline Wren, his good friend turned Trump fundraiser turned VIP Advisor for the rally on Jan. 6, 2021, that led to the ransacking at the Capitol.

Story continues

Caroline was one of me, Miller told me. I felt like we were the same. And for her to go full Trump to such a degree that she was organizing the rally on January 6, and for me to go where I went, I had to understand what happened.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Michael Kruse: America never wouldve gotten into this mess if it werent for me and my friends. Thats the first sentence. Its a great first sentence. For those who have not yet read this book, what do you mean by that?

Tim Miller: I meant that the people in the Republican consulting class, the Republican establishment in the conservative media ecosystem were necessary if not sufficient for Donald Trump to take over the party, for the degradation of our political discourse, and for this very tumultuous political world that we live in. I do not mean it like inflation is our fault, or that any discrete policy outcome was our fault, but the political environment that Donald Trump rose from wouldnt have happened had we not behaved the way we did.

Kruse: So, because of that, did you have to write this book?

Miller: I felt like I had to write the first part of the book, which was: What was my responsibility? There was a temptation to write the kind of book that was the 10 douchiest MAGA grifters, you know? Just a jeremiad against the party. Obviously, Ive had various degrees of distance with the party for five years, six years now, so I just really felt like that would not have addressed the real desire within me to fully account for what my role was, and what my friends roles were, and where we parted ways, and what might have been a counterfactual history where I wouldve been as complicit as them.

As I say in the book, the first half is really kind of a look back at what I did and what people I worked with did to lay the groundwork for Trump, and then kind of the second half is my explanation of why I think most of the people that I worked with stuck around when I bailed. And so I guess in short thats why I had to do a full accounting of my own actions to feel good about writing a book that judged other peoples actions.

Kruse: When did you know you had to engage in this sort of full accounting? As far back as early 2016? After November of 2016?

Miller: It was closer to 2020, honestly. To use a sports cliche, I felt like I left it all on the field in 2016 I did my part, a lot of people I looked up to let me down, the country let me down, and that I fought the good fight. And I kind of pivoted from that into basically a depression after the 2016 election where I didnt know what to do with myself. And that period went on for a little while where I was still kind of doing some [anti-Trump] stuff but also still kind of getting up to my old skullduggery ways and also trying to maybe think about separating from the party. And I moved to California and I started a family. So, after the election, I was really kind of searching for what I felt like I should do in response to what happened in 2016. It wasnt really until we got close to the re-elect in 2020 when I felt like I had this deep need for atonement that the view that I had in 2016 was wrong, that I hadnt left it all on the field, that I needed to do my part to atone for how we had gotten here. And that it wasnt just my obligation to fight Trump politically. It was also my obligation to myself to be honest about how I contributed to his rise.

Kruse: You quote Tara Westover, the author of the memoir Educated vindication has no power over guilt. And you say: That is something that resonated with me while I was writing this. I dont know that Ill ever fully shake my guilt, but I have to admit that little vindications do bring me some pleasure. We can talk about the vindications, but honestly Im more interested in the guilt. What in your estimation is the extent of your guilt for what happened in 2015 and 16? What are you most ashamed about with respect to your role in working to create the toxic sociopolitical environment which were all in right now?

Miller: Theres a lot of therapy themes in here, so Ill define our words. Guilt is feeling bad about something that you did, and shame is feeling like youre bad at the core, right? And navigating through all of that has been something that I have been spending a lot of time thinking about over the last five years. The guilt which I think is the precise word here I feel is not, Oh, there was this one opposition research pitch that I sent out that was a lie or unfair or an exaggeration, or There was this one kind of dog whistle that kind of contributed to the racial inflammation of the country. The thing I feel most guilty about is that my lifes work, frankly, was a net drag on the country and on our society. This whole notion that there should be someone who is a specialist in defaming their political foes in the media is not something I look back on with any pride.

A guy that I barely even know wrote on my Facebook page about how I was degrading the discourse, and all my friends were talking about how big of a jerk he was. This was when I started America Rising, which is an opposition research firm. And I sit here now and look at it, and that guy was exactly right. You cant look at America Rising or any of the affiliated organizations that just specialize in trashing political foes and think that its anything but degrading the discourse. Donald Trump really just supercharged this game of smearing people and bad-faith attacks on opponents and tongue-in-cheek attacks on opponents where the voters and the readers arent in on the joke. I was doing all of that. Just not to the same degree as he was.

My other main guilt I try to deal with in this book is that I dealt with a lot of very unsavory people. And this book is about kind of the gray areas, the humans that are making choices in the gray. This book is not about the sociopaths and the bigots who love the cruel part of Trumpism. There are other people who see the cruel part of Trumpism and go along with it anyway. I look back at my dealings with the Steve Bannons, the Chuck Johnsons of the world, and how I was favor-trading, with a lot of guilt. Because at the time I felt like I was leveraging them. It came to be very obvious that they were leveraging me and that they were corrupting me. And I think that that happened in various degrees to a lot of people over the last six years.

Kruse: Let me play devils advocate. What is actually wrong with oppo [research]? You are working to educate voters about political aspirants who happen to be opponents of the person youre working for.

Miller: Sure, theres nothing inherently wrong with public relations. Theres nothing inherently wrong with doing research about political foes, particularly ones you have genuine disagreements with. But when your whole career and your whole job is centered on smearing people and creating negative news that inflames the passions of the voters, how can you then be surprised when people become very inflamed and come to think of the other side as evil?

Lets say I got a call from one of Andrew Cuomos victims of abuse and I worked with a newspaper to write a story about that. Theres nothing fundamentally wrong about that. But creating an entire organization that is dedicated to smearing Andrew Cuomo for all crimes, real, imagined and exaggerated, without any care or consideration for context or basic fairness or decency I just think that thats a different thing. I dont think that every oppo researcher that reads this interview should say, Im a bad person inside. I just think we should be thinking consciously about the structure of the political game weve created and what the incentives are. I created a lot of incentives that were net harmful and not net educational.

Kruse: You cite This Town by Mark Leibovich. It came out in hardcover in 2013 and paperback in 2014, and Trump, of course, came down the escalator in 2015. You told me the other day in a text that you reread Marks book before writing your book because there are some relevant themes. But you also said, It seemed less amusing on reread. What are those relevant themes? And why was the reread less amusing?

Miller: The notion of politics as this game that the two sides are playing, but theyre really at some level on the same team, because they all are continuing to succeed and rise the meritocratic ladder, and theyre just kind of participating in this sort of blood sport for peoples amusement was a theme of Marks book. I think another theme was how this was getting out of control, and how people were becoming enamored with the celebrity associated with it. I think this really came during my time.

There have always been a handful of political svengalis who are famous, but the kind of fame that came from the movie Game Change to Steve Schmidt and folks, the kind of fame that the Obama staffers got even theres a category difference from that old kind of fame. These people are getting stopped at airports asking for selfies. And that can become intoxicating. I think these two elements were working in concert with each other that the participants were obsessed with winning and the gamesmanship more than they were obsessed with: Is this outcome going to actually help the people that were here to serve? They became caught up in their own niche version of fame not real fame, but Twitter fame. I think it led to a lot of choices that created a disconnect from voters that inflamed voters, that rewarded behavior that was not in service of what people actually wanted. Should we be surprised that a game show host was able to manipulate a system such as this?

Kruse: Right.

Miller: Obviously Donald Trump was going to be better at this than insert dorky political strategist here. Obviously, there are other elements that caused Trumps rise. Nationalism, globalism there have been other books about this but I think wed be kidding ourselves if we did not admit that there was a direct line between kind of the stuff that we mocked, that was mocked in This Town, and Trump. I think Mark did a wonderful job with his book, but I think its telling that a sequel, which hes writing, is going to be very different.

To write that book now would not make any sense because of what has been wrought by it. And so some of the stuff that felt very frivolous and maybe worthy of mockery but also kind of funny and enlightening and invigorating when I first read it when I read it this time was cringe-inducing at best. I kind of wanted to be in This Town. I was kind of sad I wasnt, despite the fact that he was mocking people, and that goes to show you how warped my mindset was in 2013. To be mentioned, to be talked about, was an end unto itself, even if there was a hint of mockery to it. That is a very corrupting culture.

Kruse: I actually went back and looked at how the publisher publicized it. Washington D.C. might be loathed from every corner of the nation, yet these are fun and buzzy days at this nexus of big politics, big money, big media, and big vanity. There are no Democrats and Republicans anymore in the nations capital, just millionaires I mean, thats not even 10 years ago.

Miller: And, by the way, that was how I felt then. I mean, I look at that with judgment on myself, not on that publicist. They were fun and buzzy days. I loved the White House Correspondents Dinner parties in 2013, you know? Youre seeing kind of quasi-celebrities and Im the RNCs hit man and so Im joking with the Obama people and were having kind of this friendly repartee that was all kayfabe. It was all bullshit. It was all just a show. There are plenty of people who care about their specific niche issues, but the campaign set, the people who became famous, there was no deep sense of like, Were doing this in service to some greater good thats going to help people. There was some earnestness about that on the Democratic side. But among the Republican consultant class? Come on.

Kruse: You also mentioned to me that Losers, the lesser-known book by Michael Lewis about presidential candidates in 1996 who didnt win, was maybe even more of an inspiration for you than This Town. How so?

Miller: Losers is a really harsh critique of the political class, in a very Michael Lewis jocular style, of the people who are working these campaigns, who really dont actually care about the impact on voters. And he was critiquing both the Clinton and Dole staffs and how, like, theyre practically interchangeable as far as their beliefs. He called us rented strangers, and talked about these rented strangers who are more impressed with their putative strategies and clever tactics than they are with whats going to actually help the American people. I just thought that he, not being a political reporter, had a clarity of just how debased that culture was that political reporters sometimes give a pass to because theyre a part of it at a certain level.

And if youre not concerned in the least about what your own voters think, youre only concerned about tearing down the other guy, the voters are going to sense that, right? And two things are going to happen. One, theyre going to grow to really hate the other guy, and negative partisanships going to rise, which weve seen, more than they actually care about what positive changes theyre delivering to you; and two, eventually, theyre going to overthrow you.

It was inevitable that this political class was going to get overthrown by a mad electorate whose needs werent being responded to. Its the one area where Im the most sympathetic to the genuine MAGAsthere arent that many of thembut, like, they were right about us. Trump had our number on that. He knew how weak the Republican establishment was as evidenced by how much they ended up going along with him. And they, and he, knew how phony we were. Could there have been a less painful political disruption had, like, the Republican political class actually been responsive to what the voters were saying about Iraq, about globalism, about all these other things, rather than feeding them Ground Zero mosque bullshit and the Clinton death list or whatever?

Kruse: The people who come off the worst in your book are not the genuine MAGAs, as you put it. Its not the red hats. Its not even actually Trump. Its the political class that birthed him. The political class that enabled him.

Miller: My favorite anecdote? The guy and I were on background when he said it to me, so he was anonymous, but the Republican staffer who said he had never voted for a Republican for president in his life.

Kruse: Amazing.

Miller: Thats how phony it is. This is a person thats my age and voted for Obama and Clinton and Biden and is still prominent in the party.

Kruse: In what way did being gay, and specifically having been closeted for as long as you were, make you perhaps particularly able to see and to diagnose what Trump was doing to the Republican Party as he was doing itand why people, your friends and ex-friends, were letting him do it?

Miller: I really tried to get into my own mindset because Im trying to understand their mindset, and so I wanted to look back on my own flaws, and I think being gay impacted my perspective on this in two ways.

This is maybe going to sound self-aggrandizing its not meant to but I think you gain a sense of empathy for other people when you go through something as traumatic as being rejected because of your sexuality or fear that youre going to be rejected by your loved ones because of your sexuality. And so I felt like it gave me a level of empathy, looking towards the people that Trump was being cruel to that maybe some of my peers dismissed, because theyd never been on the receiving end of that. I was an obnoxious, all-boys-school, high-school-Republican, contrarian son-of-a-bitch before I came to terms with my sexuality. And I think it's really easy to look back at 20-year-old me and think that guy kind of wouldve liked the skill with which Trump tears people down, you know? And so I kind of understand that there are people who separate the impact of him from, like, enjoying the show. And there are some characters in the book that fit that description.

Then the other thing that I think that being gay gave me perspective on is I had to really look back and reckon with: Why did I work for people who wanted to deny me the most important things in my life? Like my husband and my daughter. I had multiple candidates, multiple clients, that I worked for that were explicitly in favor of banning gay marriage, banning gay adoption. The most extreme example, Ken Cuccinelli, had said just hateful, derisive things about gays. How did I convince myself that it was OK to work for those people? I knew what I would say to people, which was like, Well, its just one issue, right? And I like him more on taxes and abortion and foreign policy. That was kind of the story I was telling myself to make myself comfortable keeping the job.

If I was able to compartmentalize, like, the most important things in my life, in a little box in this corner of my brain, to work for somebody, then all of a sudden its really easy to imagine how somebody could compartmentalize, you know, evil that does not impact them, or that Trumps policies arent that bad.

Kruse: Is it possible though, that you wouldve gone on with it, you would not have seen Trump for what he was, you would not have responded the way you started to respond, had you not gone through that process of having to stop basically lying to yourself?

Miller: Yeah. Thank God Im gay. I dont have to know the answer to that, but Im really scared that the answer is: Its possible. And this is the part thats always a challenge for me. Trump was so far away from the line. But I might have gotten there for Cruz. The Cruz people knew me. They liked me because I was Never Trump. I was helping him, essentially, in the primary. I wouldve been a diversity hire to a certain degree. Had Cruz become the president, they might have asked me to be White House communications director. I dont think thats totally crazy to imagine that that could have happened.

Kruse: And you might very well have taken that call and you might very well have worked in the Ted Cruz White House.

Miller: I might have. I dont know. I think that my husband might have divorced me. So being gay might have saved me on that. I certainly could imagine the situation where I wouldve done it. And that helps me understand why they did it.

Kruse: Not everybody is faced with these decisions quite so starkly, but everybodys faced with some version of these decisions all the time: What am I willing to put up with, what am I willing to do to get ahead?

Miller: I felt like if this book turned out well that there would be an element of universality to it. I was trying to get at that, that some of these calls were kind of gray, and that we all have this ability to rationalize going along with bad things because, you know, we might be the good one, or because we could nudge it the right direction, or just purely financial. Maybe it will help somebody whos dealing with that kind of decision to re-wire their brain a little bit and think: Well, why am I doing this? And I think that a lot of my colleagues didnt do that self-reflection.

Kruse: Before we even get to that place where people had to actually make those decisions, you essentially described yourself, and many others like you, as basically drug dealers, and the base of the Republican Party as addicts. Whats the drug, and how were you pushing it?

Miller: Rage juice is the drug hate of your perceived enemies and people that arent like you. I think that it is very similar to drug use, especially in the digital age. I talked a lot about like how I was very central in the conservative media ecosystem kind of feeding little doses of rage juice to my friends at various conservative media outlets. Any reader of this who has a family member or friend who has gotten hooked on conservative media will know what Im talking about. You want the latest fix. Every time you open your computer on Facebook, you want to get mad at what those other guys are doing to you, you want to be outraged at how theyre trying to take something away from you that you want. You want to feel righteous about the fact that your evil fellow countrymen are doing something that goes against your worldview, your moral framework.

The incestuous relationship between Republican campaigns, right-wing media sites, Fox news, the emails and texts that get sent to people theres just no way to look at it as a news environment. This is not like, Oh, were trying to provide people with news but just from a more conservative vantage point. Thats the pitch, but thats not what it is. It is a completely interconnected delivery device of rage juice. I wanted to kind of pull back the curtain for people on how that works, to also help explain why I felt complicit in it. Its not just this one little item that I look back on and say, Oh, I shouldnt have sent that to IJ Review, this thing that is a little bigoted or whatever. Its not that. Its that this whole culture was turning people crazy. And I was a central cog in it.

Kruse: Is there any comparable way in which voters on the left also are addicts? Theyre just going to a different set of dealers?

Miller: I hope that Democrats who read this book, and I think therell be a lot of Democrats who read it, see some maybe diet-version parallels. I dont think that there is anything on the left that is an exact replica or even really close, but I think that theres some elements to the culture that got corrupted on the right that have parallels on the left. Anybody who is plugged into resistance Twitter can certainly see this sort of addiction element to it, this fix of wanting to be reminded of their righteousness, to be reminded the other sides evil, not wanting to get information that conflicts with their priors. Over time that can build and create this rage that bubbles over, especially in individuals. A couple weeks ago, there was a guy with a gun at [Justice Brett] Kavanaughs house. But especially now that weve sorted by education, there are a variety of reasons why the Democratic base is fundamentally different from the Republican base. There are some other flaws with liberal media, but if you looked at, for example, liberal magazines, they are much more policy focused and much less clickbait-y. There are obviously examples of bad actors, but if you look at Mother Jones and Slate and the New Republics Twitter feed compared to Breitbarts Twitter feed, there are some clear differences.

Kruse: How do we overcome this tribal trap we seem to be stuck in right now?

Miller: You sound like a publisher. Usually, these books have a last chapter, which is recommendations for going forward. I was, like, That chapters not going to be in this book. Thats not what this book is.

Kruse: Because that chapter cant be written, or because you dont know, or what?

Miller: The solutions offered would seem very minor in the face of the problems that were presented in the previous 17 chapters. Its hard to rewire. Just to beat our drug analogy to death here, rehabs hard. Theres not, like a magic fix or silver bullet for unwiring decades of a brain that has become addicted to something.

I think trying to untangle identity from blue team and red team is really important, because identity is so powerful. This is the other thing that I try to talk about. For gay people, coming out of the closet is hard because of this change of your identity. Its not only how you look at yourself, but how other people look at you. People you love your dad, your high school bestie youre worried that theyre going to now see you differently because your identity is changed in their eyes. And so if the red team becomes like skin color, like sexuality, untangling that is a lifetime of work, and its therapy. And we really should think about it like that. Its not like theres this switch that we can turn thats going to get people to shed something that has become so central to how they view themselves. Untangling that is going to also take decades. Its not going to be 2024.

Kruse: But you are a person whos now done this in some sense twice. You were in the closet and you came out. And then you essentially shifted your identity from a certain kind of Republican operative affiliated with people like Jeb Bush to now Tim Miller of MSNBC and the Bulwark.

Miller: The two best things I ever did in my life were changing those identities coming out of the closet and quitting being a Republican hatchet man are the two best decisions. They allowed me the freedom to be much more honest with myself, to see the world in different ways, in the former instance to meet my husband, to have a child. My message to people is that we dont need to be scared of this, right?

We should embrace the nuance. We should embrace having the old ways we view things being challenged because what comes of it can be good. And I know that a lot of times we feel that were in a time of entropy where everythings getting worse and worse. Thats not really true. There are a lot of ways in which societys changed for the better, and theres some very discrete ways in which they changed for the worse, sort of tied to the very issues that were talking about. I hope more people can embrace that. And I hope that this book in a way will let people see themselves in some of these characters who I think are less happy than me. The Republican consultant types who stayed the course, theyre richer, they have a boat and a beach house, but they seem less happy than me.

Kruse: Even Elise Stefanik?

Miller: No. Maybe not Elise.

One thing Ive learned throughout this process is that there will always be some bad people who get rewarded for doing bad things. That doesnt mean that you should do bad things too. So Elise seems pretty happy, even though she wouldnt talk to me for the book, which was sad because of our former collegiality. She represents the most kind of base justification that politicians have for doing any bad thing, which is just striving for power. The shamelessness with which Elise did it has paid off for her to a level that I truly believe that she will be one of the most likely people to be named vice president if Donald Trump runs again.

Kruse: As we toggle back and forth between notes of optimism and notes of pessimism, this book is an effort to answer a question. You write: Why in the fuck did the vast, vast, vast majority of seemingly normal, decent people whom I worked with go along with the most abnormal, indecent of men? And the answer based on my read, boiled down, is we tell ourselves stories, which is a nice way of saying were fucking liars. We lie to others. But more importantly, we lie to ourselves, to make ourselves OK with the stuff that we do. And so my question is: How are we still lying to ourselves as a country in 2022?

Miller: Boy, thats a huge question. I would say, for starters, its really hard to not lie to yourself, in little ways and big ways, right? We all lie to ourselves. This is not something that is unique to the Republican consulting class of 1996 to 2016.

Kruse: Totally.

Miller: And I acknowledge that some people will probably read it and say, Well, youre still lying yourself to justify just being on a different team. I think about that and grapple with that every day.

Kruse: Im glad you brought that up. Arent you still in the game? Youre just wearing the Bulwark and the MSNBC ball cap now?

Miller: My answer to that question is that the best we can do is look at our choices and ask: Is what Im doing in service of my integrity? Am I being honest with why Im making the choices that I make? At times, you know, politics is still a sport. At times, people are going to answer those questions and say, Yeah, Im acting with my integrity. And I think that the best thing to do is, uh, run this smear ad against my opponent. This is not a book that says, All politics is bad. But I think a lot of people in the Republican consulting class, in positions of power in elite institutions throughout the country, are not even asking themselves those questions. And I think that if they did the world would look a lot different. I dont think thats going to happen overnight.

Kruse: It wont happen overnight, but will it happen before our democracy turns into ... not a democracy?

Miller: Its hard to say yes. By the way, all of these guys are all doing the same things that I wrote about in this book. Nothing, literally nothing, has changed since 2016, or since Michael Lewis for that matter. Since Trump came down the escalator, nothing has changed. Theyre all doing the exact same things, even after the Capitol was stormed. I knew on January 7, when there was all this hopium about how, Oh, this will be the moment that Mitch McConnell sees the light. I knew that they wouldnt that day. And I said on the Bulwark podcast, I was like, Lindsey Graham will be back at Mar-a-Lago golfing by Valentines Day. And I was too optimistic. He was down there by mid-January.

Kruse: What happens if 2024 is a Trump-Biden rematch? What does the country do to itself?

Miller: Are you ready for this?

Kruse: Hit me.

Miller: I actually think its worse than what people imagine. For one, its impossible to imagine a situation where the loser of that election would accept the result. Joe Biden is a man of decency, and so he would accept the result. But the Democratic base? And in this case, you know, for good reason, right? This man had been impeached twice and tried a coup. And obviously we know the Trump base wouldnt accept a loss and that Donald Trump himself wouldnt accept a loss. 2024 is a powder keg.

Visit link:
It Was All Just a Show: Confessions of a Republican Campaign Hit Man