Mediaboss Marketing

None were, though, as each Republican lawmaker on stage grinned ear-to-ear after DeSantis made the comment, some visibly signaling they were not upset. Those who joined DeSantis included Senate President Wilton Simpson (R-Trilby) and incoming GOP Senate leader Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) as well as Speaker Chris Sprowls (R-Palm Harbor).

After DeSantis remarks, a handful gave their own comments replete with praise of DeSantis.

How about Ron DeSantis, Americas governor, said Simpson, echoing the nickname conservatives across the country have bestowed upon Floridas governor.

Simpson, an industrial egg farmer, is currently running for agriculture commissioner and has secured DeSantis endorsement.

DeSantis vetoed several high profile budget items sought by Simpson and top Senate Republicans from the spending plan, which was sent to the governor at $112 billion but will take effect next month at $109 billion. It still remains the biggest spending plan in state history despite the massive vetoes.

DeSantis vetoed $645 million secured by the Senate during final budget negotiations for the Department of Corrections to build a new prison; $350 million for Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage wells that were a Simpson priority; $50 million for a new 6th District Court of Appeals in Lakeland, the home of Senate budget chief Kelli Stargel (R-Lakeland); $50 million to widen a county road in Simpsons district; $20 million for two new state planes that the Senate requested; and $20 million that was a Simpson priority for Moffitt Cancer Center to secure front-end financing so it can begin development of a planned 775-acre life sciences park.

During the March conclusion of the Legislation session, Simpson called the Moffitt project, which is in his district, transformative.

The House was not spared in DeSantis veto carnage.

The governor cut a $1 billion fund proposed by the House to help the state grapple with the cost of inflation. Under the proposal, the $1 billion would have been set aside to help fund increases in material costs for state projects as inflation continues to remain high. As proposed by the House, it would have been called the Budgeting for Inflation that Drives Elevate Needs Fund, or BIDEN fund, a nod to spiking inflation under the Biden administration. Senators did not agree to that name, but did sign off on $1 billion in funding for the program.

Hammering Biden on inflation has been one of DeSantis favorite pastimes in recent months, including during Thursdays budget signing press conference, which he opened up by referring to Biden as Brandon.

You look at what he did in terms of fiscal and monetary policy, printing and printing trillions of dollars, DeSantis said. What did you get for that? Most sustained inflation this nation has seen in over 40 years.

Left unsaid was the more than $10 billion Florida has received from the Biden administration in Covid-19 relief funding over the past two years, including roughly $3.5 billion in the budget DeSantis just signed.

DeSantis also scrapped a House plan to take $200 million from school districts that defied the DeSantis administrations ban on mask mandates. Rep. Randy Fine (R-Palm Bay) wrote the plan, which would have blocked the money from being accessed by 12 counties that put in place school mask mandates against DeSantis order. But the governor blocked that idea freeing up the funding for all districts.

I direct the Department of Education to implement the Florida School Recognition Program consistent with this reading of the language, which is to reward eligible schools for their achievements, as districts actions have no bearing on a schools eligibility, DeSantis wrote in a letter accompanying his veto list.

I am somewhat befuddled by the letter, Fine told POLITICO in a text message. The language in the bill was explicit and clear.

Sprowls also took no issue with the vetoes, focusing his remarks on DeSantis decision to largely keep Floridas economy open during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has bolstered state coffers.

You guys have heard a lot of great news already about this budget, he said. This budget is as good as it is for the people of Florida for one reason and one reason only: and that is because our governor kept our state open.

The massive veto list does come as Florida is flush with cash. The newly signed budget includes more than $20 million in reserves, and just this month state economists revised revenue estimates up by more than $800 million compared with previous forecasts.

DeSantis also vetoed a request by Democratic Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who is running for governor, for 83 positions to process and review concealed carry permits, which is a function overseen by her office. Fried blasted the decision, which comes on the heels of a wave of mass shootings across the country, as reckless and another signal the governor wants open carry, or allowing people to carry firearms without a permit.

Ron DeSantis just vetoed my concealed carry positions because he wants open carry, Fried tweeted. This is so dangerous and a warning to every Floridian, tourist, and business. Do NOT allow him another term.

Andrew Atterbury contributed to this report.

View original post here:
'Just the way it goes': DeSantis axes $3B from Legislature's budget in front of Republican leaders - POLITICO

Even more notable: The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that is aligned with Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, and is devoted to making him speaker, has also jumped in, with even more ads attacking Raths.

The total anti-Raths spending is now around $1 million, according to AdImpact, the ad-tracking service a sign of the importance of the race, for which there has been scant public polling.

Following redistricting, Young Kim has a largely new district and its important voters know that shes the only credible conservative in the race, said Calvin Moore, a spokesman for the Congressional Leadership Fund. Its a must-win race for November, and were going to do all we can to make sure a standout leader like Kim prevails.

After years as a Republican stronghold, Orange County had already been shifting to the left before Donald Trump accelerated the change. In 2016, Kim lost her Orange County seat in the State Assembly to a Democrat.

In that campaign, she faced attacks comparing her to Trump, including an Auto-Tuned music video titled Young Kim Is Like Donald Trump. In 2018, she ran for Congress and fell short. That year, Democrats flipped all seven House seats in Orange County.

After the 2018 blue wave, however, Republicans recovered some of that lost ground. Kim and Michelle Steel, two of the first three Korean American women in Congress, were the only Republicans to flip Orange County seats in 2020.

It says a lot about how the times have changed, Kim, whose campaign declined to make her available for an interview, told The New York Times after she won her 2020 race. Our Republican Party has been very aggressive in recruiting quality candidates who happen to be women.

Read more:
Young Kim and Republicans Aim to Fend Off Rival to Her Right in California House Race - The New York Times

In theory, former Attorney General Bill Barr finds himself in a difficult position. The Republican tapped special counsel John Durham to investigate the investigation into the Russia scandal, and the entire three-year effort is proving to be a fiasco. Durhams failed and misguided prosecution of Michael Sussmann this week was the latest embarrassment, but it doesnt stand alone.

It was against this backdrop that Barr turned to Fox News last night to brag about how very proud he is of the prosecutors work. The former attorney general added:

While he did not succeed in getting a conviction from the D.C. jury, I think he accomplished something far more important.... I think he crystallized the central role played by the Hillary campaign in launching as a dirty trick the whole Russiagate collusion narrative and fanning the flames of it.

In all likelihood, Barr knows better. Donald Trumps Russia scandal wasnt just some narrative, launched as a dirty trick; it was a genuine scandal about a Republican presidential candidate whose political operation sought, embraced, capitalized on, and lied about assistance from a foreign adversary and then took steps to obstruct the investigation into the foreign interference.

Whats more, as the former attorney general also probably knows, Hillary Clinton and her campaign didnt launch the scandal; federal law enforcement began scrutinizing the controversy on its own based on ample evidence.

But putting these relevant details aside, Barrs on-air rhetoric last night was jarring for a reason: The Republican effectively made the case that Durhams pointless prosecution doesnt matter because the politicized special counsel investigation contributed to a partisan smear of Hillary Clinton.

Sure, federal prosecutors obtaining convictions is nice, but for Barr, fueling anti-Clinton theories is far more important.

The former attorney general isnt the only one thinking along such ridiculous lines. Two weeks ago, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal published a bizarre piece with an over-the-top headline Hillary Clinton Did It claiming that the former Democratic candidate approved a plan to plant a false Russia claim with a reporter.

Predictably, the piece was a hit in Republican circles despite being filled with painfully obvious falsehoods.

It might be tempting to think the humiliating demise of Durhams case against a former Clinton attorney might lead conservatives to shift their focus, but theres ample evidence pointing in the opposite direction. On Tuesday night, Sen. Marsha Blackburn published a tweet that read, simply, Investigate Hillary Clinton. The Tennessee Republican a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee didnt say why, exactly, Clinton should be investigated, but its likely that Blackburn and those who retweeted her missive werent overly concerned with sensible rationales.

A day later, former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, a leading Republican Senate hopeful, also called for an investigation into Clinton, suggesting GOP leaders with a backbone should agree with him.

None of this is healthy.

As regular readers probably recall, in Trumps first year as president, the Republican and his party couldnt shake their Clinton preoccupation. The then-president couldnt stop talking and tweeting about his 2016 rival. His aides appeared fixated on Clinton. Congressional Republicans even launched investigations related to Clinton.

By October 2017, the former secretary of state joked, It appears they dont know Im not president.

The conditions persisted. In 2019, when Trump launched his re-election campaign, he excoriated Clinton seven times over the course of 30 minutes in his kickoff speech, apparently indifferent to the fact that she wasnt running. As Election Day 2020 grew closer, the then-president called for Clintons incarceration, pushed then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to uncover and release Clinton emails, and lobbied then-Attorney General Barr to prosecute Clinton for reasons unknown.

She wasnt on the ballot. Trump seemed desperate to run against her anyway.

After Trumps defeat, it seemed plausible that Trump and his followers would finally move on if for no other reason than because they had fresh political targets, in the form a new Democratic president, a new Democratic vice president, a new Democratic Senate majority leader, et al. Clinton left office a decade ago, and it was finally time for obsessive GOP critics to find a new hobby.

And yet, here we are.

In February, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley suggested on Fox News that Clinton should be incarcerated. A month later, Trump filed an anti-Clinton lawsuit for reasons that defied comprehension.

Now, Barr, Blackburn, Greitens, et al. are reminding the political world that Republicans still cant shake their obsession, even when it would be in the GOPs interests to do so.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Follow this link:
Republicans still cant shake their Hillary Clinton obsession - MSNBC

On Saturday, Donald Trump went to Wyoming to campaign against Republican Rep. Liz Cheney. He repeatedly called her a RINO and urged the states voters to elect her challenger, Harriet Hageman. But Trumps speech exposed how the meaning of RINO has changed. It used to refer to people who werent Reagan conservatives. Now it refers to people who are.

The substantive positions for which Trump praised Hagemanon oil drilling, guns, crime, and border enforcementwere no different from Cheneys. In fact, according to the American Conservative Union, Cheneys voting record is far more conservative than the record of Rep. Elise Stefanik, who, at Trumps behest, replaced her last year as chair of the House Republican Conference.

In his speech, Trump called Cheney a lapdog for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But that accusation, too, is bogus: Cheney has voted against Pelosis positions more consistently than have the top three officials in the House Republican Conference.

So Trumps beef with Cheney isnt about conservatism. Unless, that is, he finds her too conservative. And in many respects, he does: On several major issues, Cheney respects longstanding Republican principles, while Trump flouts them.

In Wyoming, Trump excoriated Cheney and Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvaniaanother RINO, according to the former presidenton three issues. One was the use of military force. Trump called Cheney and her father globalists and warmongers. He condemned the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and complained that Liz Cheney had voted no on bringing our troops back home from Syria.

You can disagree with Cheney or her father about their positions on these conflicts. But you cant argue that Trumps position, compared to theirs, is more Republican. For 15 years, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global struggle against terrorism defined the GOP. The 2012 Republican platformthe last platform before Trump seized control of the partyresolved to employ the full range of military and intelligence options to defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The platform opposed troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and pledged that future decisions by a Republican President will never subordinate military necessity to domestic politics or an artificial timetable.

Trump broke that promise. Two years ago, against military advice, he rushed American troops out of Afghanistan, hoping to end the war before the 2020 election.

The 2012 platform was also firm on law and order. It stipulated that strong, well-trained law enforcement is necessary to protect us all, and it called for tough but fair prosecutors and meaningful sentences. Last year, Cheney honored these principles when she agreed to serve on the House January 6th Committee, which is investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump takes a more . . . liberal view of January 6th. He defends the assailantsin fact, he has offered to pardon themand he vilifies the prosecutors and law enforcement. At his rally, he called the investigation a persecution of the January 6th political prisoners. He also accused Cheney of trying to weaponize the national security state and law enforcement against MAGA and MAGA supporters. The former president justified his denunciation of law enforcement by telling the crowd that the people under interrogation about the January 6th violencein contrast to people from Black Lives Matterwere people like you. These are people that represent our interests.

On economics, the 2012 GOP platform declared that Republicans will pursue free market policies. It called for a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets. In Wyoming, Trump derided Toomey for defending free trade. Trump bragged that he had extracted billions of dollars from China through taxes and tariffs, and I gave it to the farmers. He also boasted that he had issued instructions: I told the farmers, You have to do two things: Go out and buy more land, and go out and buy bigger tractors.

Taxes, largesse, and business directives from the president sound like the sort of thing Liz Cheney has often called socialism.

As Trump ranted about these topicsrepudiating not just Cheney but the whole Republican worldview from Reagan to Mitt Romneymy first thought was that the term RINO had been turned inside out. By Reaganite standards, Trump and his acolytes are the RINOs. Theyve abandoned Republican principles, but theyve captured the party.

More broadly, as Bill Kristol points out, the meaning of Republican has changed in every era. Reagan, like Trump, transformed the party. He built a Reaganite establishment. Trump has now replaced that with a MAGA establishment. Anyone who doesnt fit the new establishment gets called a RINO.

And that raises a question about Trumps Republican establishment: What does it stand for? How does Trump decide which candidates to endorse or oppose?

His remarks in Wyoming indicate three guiding principles. The first is personal loyalty to Donald J. Trump. Cheneys cardinal offense, as described by Trump, was going after your president for inciting the January 6th attack. Toomeys offense, similarly, was that he raised his hand to impeach me over the insurrection.

Trumps second principle is defending corruption. In 2009, President George W. Bush refused to pardon Dick Cheneys former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who had been convicted of perjury. Bush concluded that Libby had lied to prosecutors and that it would be wrong to let him off the hook. Trump, who had no such scruples, pardoned Libby nine years later. On Saturday, at the Wyoming rally, Trump scorned Bush for failing to use the pardon power to pay back Libby, whom Trump described as the Bush administrations protector.

Third, Trump doesnt cotton to peoplesuch as Cheneywho oppose Vladimir Putins Russia. Instead he defends candidates such as J.D. Vance, Madison Cawthorn, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who spout Russian propaganda and oppose military aid to Ukraine. At his Wyoming rally, Trump didnt just dismiss the investigation of Russias interference in the 2016 election. He also ridiculed allegationswhich remain unresolvedthat Russia offered the Taliban bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan. And he accused Cheney, a staunch advocate of aid to Ukraine, of trying to get us to go into wars with Russia and other countries.

And it isnt just Russia. Trump also admires Chinas Communist ruler, Xi Jinping. The 2012 Republican platform rebuked China for its religious persecution, its suppression of human rights, and its erosion of democracy in Hong Kong. At his rally, Trump extolled Xi as smartvery brilliant, actually, for running with an iron fist a country of 1.4 billion people.

Trump may well succeed in purging Cheney and other Reagan Republicans from his party. In 2020, he scrapped the drafting of a platform entirely. He could do so again in 2024. Through purges, capitulations, and retirements, he might complete the transformation of the GOP into a party that worships dictators, ignores Russian aggression, tramples the Constitution, scorns the rule of law, and substitutes presidential favoritism for free markets.

That party might manage to gain and hold power for many years. It might even do so by winning elections. But it wouldnt resemble the Republican party any of us have known.

Read the original here:
What Makes a Republican a RINO? - The Bulwark

Political parties are allowed to have "advisory questions" on a primary ballot to help inform possible future legislation.

COLUMBIA, S.C. Republican voters casting their vote in the June 14 primary election may see a series of questions on their ballot. Here's what you need to know before heading to the polls.

These voters will have three yes/no "advisory questions" on the primary ballot this time. In fact, it is not unusual for the Republicans or Democrats to add questions to their primary ballots to feel out the opinion of voters for future legislation.

The first question asks if people should "have the right to register with the political party of their choice when they register to vote."

Currently, South Carolina primaries are open, meaning if you are going to cast a vote in the June 14 election, a voter who hasn't declared a party isn't bound to a particular party's primary.

For example, since South Carolina has no system requiring you to declare or register with your political party of choice, a Republican who hasn't declared their party is free to vote in the Democrat primary -- just as a Democrat can cast their vote in a Republican primary if they have not registered/declared their party affiliation when they initially registered to vote.

This current system allows for individuals in districts where they may be in a political minority to still exercise their right to vote for who they think is the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation.

The second question is, "Should candidates for local school boards be able to run as a candidate of the political party of their choice, just like candidates for other elected offices?"

Right now, school board elections and most city and town council elections in South Carolina are non-partisan. Earlier this year, representatives for the Lancaster County School District put forth an amendment in the South Carolina House (H.4800) that would change the nature of that district's elections from non-partisan to partisan. The bill made it through the House and Senate (R.132) but Governor Henry McMaster vetoed it on March 29, 2022.

The third question is a bit more straightforward and deals with the payment of damages based on fault. The question reads, "In a situation where there is more than one person responsible for damages in a lawsuit, do you support changing South Carolina law so that each person should pay damages based on that person's actual share of fault?"

This refers to the rule of "joint and several liability." An example: If there are multiple defendants in a case, and even though one of those defendants has been determined to be responsible for only 5 percent of the fault, that single defendant might end up paying the entire damage settlement to the plaintiff if the other defendants are found to be insolvent.

The question put forth suggests a scenario where, if you were responsible for 5 percent of the damage, you would only be responsible for 5 percent of the payment/reimbursement to the plaintiff.

The rest is here:
Republican voters in the June 14 primary face three questions on the ballot - WLTX.com