Mediaboss Marketing

Last month, we asked our readers what issues they wanted to hear the candidates running for office address ahead of this summers primary elections. Based on the input we received, we developed a five-item questionnaire for Republican candidates running for seats in the Kansas House and Senate.

Well be publishing the candidates responses to one item per day each day this week. Today were publishing the candidates responses to item four:

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?

Since the very beginning of the outbreak, I have advocated for measured responses. Certainly, some of the actions were appropriate, such as delays on tax payments and the like. I believe that at the outset, the initial two-week lockdown was understandable and appropriate as we got our arms around the problem. However, I become concerned about a prolonged lockdown or other types of one-size fits all statewide mandates and regulations I believe that policy questions are generally best left to local officials. When equipped with reliable information and recommendations, I trust our local businesses and our citizens to make decisions.

It is important that all branches of government work together to address the COVID crisis. We made the correct choice at the start to be cautious, but feel that we delayed a re-opening plan too long. This caused a much larger backlash and opened rapidly faster instead of providing a better slow open starting earlier. I think all levels of government should be playing an important role in addressing this health crisis. One size fits all solutions rarely work well in Kansas and that is especially true here. We delegated more power to county commissions because they are better equipped to make decisions for their community than the state is. The states role should be to support the counties, cities, and school boards as they make the decisions that make most sense for them. What Johnson County needs is very different than Russell County.

We all want Kansans to be safe. Lives and livelihoods across Kansas must be protected. Our state is diverse in its population density, and our businesses. Its not one-size-fits all. Therefore, the role of state government in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic is to inform the public about the virus risks, and educate Kansans about responses. Kansans across the state, when well-informed, should be able to use that information and determine what measures to take. Healthcare professionals, hospitals, restaurants, gyms, hair and nail salons, schools, and industries across the board asked for more local control on the issue, and asked the state legislature for assistance in safely re-opening when we were in Special Session in June. I took a stand and supported them, while my opponent abstained from voting.

State government should not be in the business of deciding which businesses stay open, or how they operate, and which close and ultimately fail. We can all make decisions about risks when well-informed, and therefore, state-wide, across the board mandates generally are not a reasonable response.

The governors stay-at-home order during the initial COVID-19 outbreak was entirely justified and no-doubt prevented Kansas from falling victim to many more cases of the virus. As evidenced by the huge outbreaks in other states without this type of order, cases have multiplied. Current trends indicate that re-opening in states has also been responsible for an increase. The public needs to listen to our doctors at the national and local levels and our local government officials who are knowledgeable about our states situation.

As to the lockdown, and the wide array of executive orders issued at both the state and local levels of governance, my general opinion is that these orders are overbearing. As to the constitutionality of each individual order, I cannot give a definite answer, excluding that of governor Kellys executive order which prohibited churches from gathering. This order is certainly unconstitutional, both at the state and federal level because it infringes on the right to practice religion. Both the Kansas and our national constitution prohibit the government from infringing on the religious beliefs of the individual. Some may say that given the exceptional circumstances, and given that attending a church service could potentially place others in danger of contracting the virus, an exception to both the state and federal constitutions would be constitutionally permissible. This is wrong however, as neither the state nor the federal constitution make any mention of an exception regarding a pandemic. The constitution is very clear on this issue, and to act otherwise is misguided. Imagine if you will, the founding fathers speaking to one another at the signing of the constitution, and one says to the other wait so this doesnt count if they get sick right? Obviously the founding fathers had no intention of making any exception to religious freedom.

Another aspect of the lock down orders I find disturbing, is this notion of an executive order, as if the governor or the mayor were a king of sorts, dictating merely by a simple decree, and without the consent of the legislature, how his or her citizens might behave. I think that these laws designed to protect our health, should at the minimum be crafted and enacted with the consent of the legislature. There doesnt seem to be any effort on the part of governor Kelly, or that of any other executive power at the city or county level, to work with their own legislative bodies, rather, they seem to be dictating these rules at their own whim.

Finally, I am skeptical as to the effectiveness of these measures, this idea that, almost like a light switch, a law can stop the spread of the virus. Surely we are not so foolish as to think that a simple rule will stop this virus right? For that matter, it is difficult to fully enforce these measures in the first place. I see many people on a daily basis who are either wearing their mask improperly, or refusing to wear one entirely. I also dont think we know enough about this virus to make any informed policy decisions to begin with.

Balancing the state budget focus changed with COVID19. now is the time to reduce spending, focus on getting business back open and supporting their efforts in the process. Legislators need to seriously repair the spending within the state by merging workforces, increase efficiency, improve technology while reducing overhead, all noted in the Alverez Marcel 2016 report. While addressing the pandemic, the guidance and recommendations should be from the local Health Departments. Our public health is system is good and effective, a voice their own communitys wellness, disease prevention and health.

Less government involvement in health care+ more health promotion = Healthy Kansas.

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?

The actions taken by the executive branch, including the Kansas Department of Health and Environment were not only justified, but proved to be effective in keeping Kansans safe. We are now seeing a surge in infections because restrictions were lifted too soon and many citizens did not take the pandemic seriously. Had we followed protocol when first called for, our economy would be open and thriving today. Instead, we are back where we started. The economy could be open and thriving if everyone had worn masks, and continue to wear masks. Listen and pay attention to science.

The role of the state is to protect the safety of all citizens. That is why we have public safety organizations such as police and fire departments. The role of the state should be to assure our safety, just as the other protective agencies provide. We should respect health protections just as we do police and fire.

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?I believe initially the state governments actions were justified, but as more information became available, the state should have allowed businesses to make the choice whether or not to reopen based on safety measures that were suggested. Small businesses that were shut down during the pandemic could have managed social distancing, etc. as easily as the big box stores.

Tomorrow well publish the candidates responses to item five:

Do you support the entire platform of the Kansas Republican Party that was adopted in 2018? If not, which parts dont you support and why?

Read this article:
Republican Kansas statehouse candidates on the issues: The state's response to COVID-19 - Shawnee Mission Post

WASHINGTON Democrats running for the U.S. House in Texas major swing districts hold a sizable cash advantage over their Republican opponents heading into the second half of the year, underscoring yet again the startling interest in the state as a general election battleground.

In the eight districts most often predicted to be competitive in November, the Democratic candidates collectively stored away more than $13.9 million at the end of June, compared with their GOP opponents $7 million, according to campaign finance reports filed on Wednesday.

The cash on hand tally is, by no means, a flawless oracle of electoral success, particularly since Election Day is a long four months away.

It nevertheless spotlights a dramatic transformation in Texas suburban swaths, which were so reliably Republican just a few years ago that Democrats sometimes struggled in those districts to field candidates, much less ones who could raise millions of dollars.

At this point in 2018, the Democratic candidates for those seats sported war chests totaling $4.3 million about half that of their GOP counterparts. And in the summer of 2016, only one Democrat in those races held any real money, while the rest struggled to bank even a few thousand dollars.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the partys House campaign arm, hailed the standings as proof that the party is on offense.

Democrats are running competitive campaigns across Texas because their message of quality, affordable health care, protecting Texans with preexisting conditions and lowering drug costs is resonating with voters, DCCC spokesman Avery Jaffe said.

But Republicans can also point to areas of promise, even after losing some deep-pocketed incumbents in those districts because of retirements.

Two years after many Republican lawmakers were caught flat-footed by a Democratic surge, some conservatives are stockpiling campaign cash to brace for the challenge. Austin Rep. Michael McCaul, for instance, holds in reserve about triple what he had at this point in 2018.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOPs campaign arm, also brushed aside the Democrats flush financials.

Support for socialist policies like the oil-and-gas killing Green New Deal and socialized medicine may go over well with liberal donors, but theyre toxic to Texas voters, NRCC spokesman Bob Salera said, calling the Democratic slate of candidates unelectable.

The eight consensus battleground districts for the U.S. House span the Lone Star State, clustering around the metropolitan centers of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.

Two sit in North Texas: One is the Dallas-based district represented by Rep. Colin Allred, a freshman Democrat who two years ago flipped a longtime GOP seat. The other is the mid-cities seat being vacated by retiring Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell.

Save for a massive border district thats long been Texas only true swing seat, the octet was utterly uncompetitive just a few years ago.

Then Beto ORourkes Senate campaign in 2018 helped drive Democratic turnout, accelerating demographic shifts already underway in the Texas suburbia. Seven of those suddenly not-so-sleepy seats were decided by 5 points or less. Allreds upset win came by 6.5 points.

Now comes 2020s high-dollar hauls, which have been collected despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic complicating traditional fundraising activity.

The rapid transition has been jarring for many Texas politicos. But doubly so for the likes of Jan McDowell, who struggled to raise money as the Democratic nominee against Marchant the last two cycles, including in 2018 when she came within three points of winning.

Unbelievable? Yes. Frustrating? Yes. I can think of a few other descriptors, too, said McDowell, who ran again this year but didnt advance to the Democratic runoff ultimately won by former school board member Candace Valenzuela.

McDowell recalled how she was considered a nut case when she decided to mount a challenge in 2016. She found that she was eventually able to persuade people that the district could be competitive. But she didnt relish fundraising, and the dollars never arrived in any large amounts.

It wouldve made a huge difference, she said, noting that perception is everything.

These days, Allred and Houston Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, another freshman Democrat, can raise money with the added advantage of incumbency. Other Democratic congressional candidates have also found substantial fundraising success, thanks in part to an influx of online donations.

The result is cash-on-hand totals once unthinkable for Democrats running in these sort of districts. Just ask former Ennis Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican who retired last cycle. No fundraising slouch in his day, he couldnt contain his shock at the size of some Democrats war chests.

Fletchers $3.5 million cash on hand to compete against Republican Wesley Hunt? Good Lord, he said.

Gina Ortiz Jones $3 million for her border district battle against a yet-to-be-determined Republican? Jiminy Cricket, he said.

Wendy Davis $2.9 million to take on Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin? Wow, he said.

That tells me that the DCCC is really targeting Texas, Barton said with a laugh, while adding that he still remains bullish that Texas Republicans, including some of his former colleagues, will be more than able to hold their own at the congressional level in November.

He added: The Democrats are drinking their own Kool-Aid.

National groups are indeed paying Texas unusual attention this cycle, though that focus is hardly limited to the Democratic column. Republicans have sought to ensure that Texas remains a solid firewall, with some GOP officials cautioning that complacency is not an option.

In the eight battlegrounds, the Republicans current collective cash on hand total is lower than it was at this point in 2018. But that partly reflects that some well-funded GOP lawmakers, such as Marchant and San Antonio Rep. Will Hurd, opted to retire.

Barton, who remains close to the delegation, noted that vulnerable incumbents did one of two things: They either got in gear and said, Were going to be prepared. Or they quit.

Among those who got in gear was McCaul, an Austin Republican whos sitting on $1.3 million in his campaign account. His camp made a point to note how much better that balance was than in 2018. His challenger, Mike Siegel, has $165,000 after finishing a tough primary runoff.

Roy, while lagging Davis, sports a sizable $1.7 million cash on hand.

Round Rock Rep. John Carters $922,000 in reserves nearly doubled his total from this point last cycle. The Republicans opponent, Donna Imam, has $42,000 cash on hand after emerging from a Democratic primary runoff.

In some other districts being monitored by political handicappers beyond the consensus eight Texas Republicans are sitting on mounds of cash. Take Houston Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a freshman Republican who currently holds a staggering $4 million in his campaign coffers.

Whats clear is that candidates all over are tracking the dollar signs.

In the border seat being vacated by Hurd, Republicans Tony Gonzales and Raul Reyes are locked in a runoff thats still too close to call for the right to take on Jones. Gonzales has $391,000 in his war chest, while Reyes claims only $24,000. Gonzales team has cited that difference as vital.

Gonzales is the only Republican candidate that can hold #tx23, Gonzales spokesman Matt Mackowiak recently wrote on Twitter, pointing to Jones vast campaign resources.

In North Texas, Allred has $3 million cash on hand, while his Republican opponent, Genevieve Collins holds $1.1 million. The race for Marchants old seat features Republican Beth Van Duyne with $483,000 and Valenzuela, the Democrat, with $111,000.

Some Republicans are practically welcoming the Democratic dollars. Sen. John Cornyn, whos up for reelection, responded to reports that Democrat Joe Bidens White House campaign might spend in Texas by saying hed like to see Ds squander their resources in a losing effort here.

A bulging political pocketbook does not guarantee the necessary votes, either. Just this week in Texas primary runoffs, multiple candidates in both parties lost their races despite carrying cash advantages in some cases, by huge sums over their opponents.

But the stakes are high.

Its expensive to run campaigns in the Texas metropolitan areas where most of the battleground House districts sit, in large part due to the high cost of TV advertising. So a Democratic surge would almost necessitate a GOP response, diverting resources from elsewhere in the U.S.

It takes it in some of these districts to have a play at all, SMU political scientist Rita Kirk said, referring to healthy campaign reserves.

See the original post here:
Democrats hold sizable cash-on-hand edge over Republicans in Texas battleground U.S. House races - The Dallas Morning News

If you've been on Twitter lately, there's a good chance you've seen one of the scathing ads the Lincoln Project has launched against President Donald Trump. Some have been seen millions of times.

The people behind those staunchly anti-Trump ads? They're in his own party.

The Lincoln Project is made up of anti-Trump Republicans like co-founder Jennifer Horn, the former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

"When voters come and see our ads and see our website and listen to our message, they are reminded of just how dangerous this president is," Horn said ahead of Trump's rally in New Hampshire this week, which was eventually postponed. "We are using his own words and his own actions and highlighting them for the American people."

Those ads are sent out to the political action committee's 1 million Twitter followers -- gained since December, when the group was established -- and are meant to get under the president's skin. The Lincoln Project goes after Trump's record in office, saying he's failed to respond to the coronavirus pandemic and reports that Russia paid the Taliban to kill American troops, but also his ego.

New reports say President Donald Trump was briefed months ago about intelligence that Russia offered money to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. soldiers.

For example, in an ad about his Tulsa rally, which brought out far fewer attendees than the Trump campaign expected, the Lincoln Project called the turnout "sad, weak, low-energy -- just like your presidency. Just like you."

The Trump campaign fired back at the Lincoln Project in a statement to NBC News this week that said "Every shred of evidence proves that Republicans enthusiastically support President Trump, so any efforts by disgruntled former Republicans are doomed to fail."

The group has no intention of stopping.

"Every minute that the president spends defending himself against something that we've said, the 25 minutes that he spends at a rally in Oklahoma proving that he really can drink a class of water, that's 25 minutes that he's not spending spewing lies to his supporters," Horn said.

See the original post here:
Meet a NH Republican Behind a Series of Scathing Anti-Trump Ads - NBC10 Boston

Last month, we asked our readers what issues they wanted to hear the candidates running for office address ahead of this summers primary elections. Based on the input we received, we developed a five-item questionnaire for Republican candidates running for the United States Senate seat.

Well be publishing the candidates responses to one item per day each day this week. Today were publishing the candidates responses item three:

Are you satisfied with the federal governments response to the COVID-19 pandemic? Why or why not?

When we are faced with unprecedented times, as we have been with the COVID-19 pandemic, there will always be criticism on how we respond. Overall I am happy with the Trump administrations response and commend President Trump on closing the borders early to stop the spread. I am disappointed with Democrats in Congress who are using the covid outbreak to push their socialist agenda.

President Trump was exactly right when he shut down travel from China and then from Europe to the United States. In times of pandemic, borders matter. If you cant control who gets into our country, you cant protect our country.

His administration was also correct in issuing federal guidelines for dealing with the pandemic, because a onesize-fits-all approach doesnt work for a country as large and diverse as the United States. The COVID response in Manhattan, New York, for example, should be much different than the response in Manhattan, Kansas.

There are, however, still important lessons to be learned from the pandemic. First, we cant protect the country by shutting the front door if the back door is wide open. A secure border is essential in our defense against not only crime and terrorism, but also pandemics. We need to build the wall.

Second, this crisis has illustrated how dependent we are on China for essential pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics. That has to change. Yesterday. We must immediately act to bring those supply chains back to America.

I was the first member of congress to talk about the COVID-19 Pandemic way back in January. My experience as a physician made it clear that China was lying, and this virus was a serious threat. I sounded the alarm early. President Trump made the right decision when he closed our borders from the Chinese, while Nancy Pelosi scheduled a vote to repeal this travel ban and jeopardize millions of American lives. Ultimately, President Trumps swift actions saved lives.

Since the beginning of this pandemic Ive been working to protect your familys health. I have successfully secured thousands of tests for the state of Kansas with President Trumps assistance. Every call Ive made to the White House has been answered, and my requests have been granted.

Im pleased with the federal governments immediate action to save our economy from collapse, including the $1200 stimulus checks, and the Paycheck Protection Program. These policies have helped everyday Americans, and allowed small businesses to remain open. Im so proud of our local hospitals and their incredible doctors and nurses. They have been at the forefront of this virus providing quality care to patients by utilizing the lifesaving treatments weve helped accelerate.

I have a mixed level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the governments response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regarding the economy: let me give credit where credit is dueconsider the differences between this stimulus and those of the Global Financial Crisis. Almost all of the aid for the GFC went to bail out banks and corporations while average Americans suffered and faced foreclosures and joblessness. This stimulus has had considerably more money and attention given to average working class folks and small businesses. This is a testament to the widespread fury and activism by the populace in response to the handling of the GFC. That said, the stimulus was insufficient and the partisan fighting over it makes me pessimistic about what a second round of stimulus will look like.

Overall our government has not done enough. We should have used our crisis plan (which was ignored). This crisis showed from the start the weaknesses of our healthcare system that does not encourage people to use services and stay healthy- from the start everything should have been covered. We should have mobilized much more quickly to provide testing, better economic stimulus so that people didnt feel they had to choose between survival and health/safety, rationing and price fixing of essentials to make sure there was enough to go around. Honestly, the results speak for themselves in terms of containment and treatment- we are far and away the worst country for cases of COVID and for quickly and efficiently dealing with the problem. The only countries that could rival us are in extreme poverty with crowded living spaces and nowhere near the healthcare infrastructure. We could have done much better on almost every front.

The crisis has highlighted how deep the economic challenges most Americans face are that they see the only option is to let the pandemic terrorize their communities without precautions. It highlights the deep partisanship where even in the wake of a global pandemic we have no shared narrative or sense of shared purpose. Conspiracy theories and misinformation abound, and every aspect of the pandemic is politicized. It shows how our politicians are more concerned with gaining power and being rulers than public servants.

We cant change how we have dealt with the crisis up to this point, but I hope we can learn from it.

Did not respond.

Did not respond.

Did not respond.

Did not respond.

Did not respond.

Did not respond.

Did not respond.

Tomorrow well publish the candidates responses to item four:

In response to the national protests following the killing of George Floyd, President Trump has signed an executive order addressing police reforms. The order calls for improved credentialing of police departments, better tracking of complaints about officers who use excessive force, and better services to address issues like homelessness, mental health and drug addiction. Will this adequately address concerns about police brutality? If not, what other steps should be taken?

Go here to see the original:
Republican US Senate candidates on the issues: The federal government's response to COVID-19 - Shawnee Mission Post

Rick Wilson has worked to elect Republicans for 30 years, but he will no longer use those skills to serve the party I once loved. That party is gone.

He has not become a Democrat, but Wilson is adamantly anti-Trump. His book, Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America From Trump and Democrats from Themselves, is a rant against President Donald Trump as the worst president in history. The explosion of Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the United States this past month and the surging popularity of Wilsons Lincoln Project PAC indicates that he is not alone in frustration with the countrys direction.

Wilsons message is serious, but his delivery is hilarious, with over-the-top snarky comments and profanity. Its a fun book to read, but the bottom line is that the Democrats must stop Trump from winning a second term. Wilson sees Congress as unable to respond other than sending Trump a strongly worded letter.

Wilsons example of Trumps corruption is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocking bipartisan efforts to stop Russian election interference in the 2020 election. It occurred right after a Russian oligarch announced that he would build a new aluminum plant in Kentucky, where McConnell is unpopular and faces a close reelection.

According to Wilson, Democrats must not focus on the national vote. Instead they must remember to run 15 disciplined state campaigns; it is absolutely necessary to win in the targeted swing states. Their messaging and strategies cannot rely on miracles. Nor should they waste energy releasing anger, even though [Trump] deserves it.

He advises that Democrats must stop insisting on picking candidates based on what policies they love, versus what wins, and to him, that means Do not scare the [crap] out of the Republican squish voters, as in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona. They cannot afford to choose a candidatewho strokes their ideological happy place.

Wilson drapes his strategy with a string of poll findings. A January 2019 Pew survey asked Democrats if they wanted their party to become more moderate or more liberal. While 40% wanted a more liberal approach, 53% said they wanted a more moderate approach. Data shows socialism may not frighten the populace like communism did in the 1950s, but in the swing Electoral College states for 2020, it could stop the Democrats from attracting the key voters that flipped the House from Republican to Democrat control. For instance, according to a February 2019 Public Opinion Strategies poll, 54% of the voters in 11 of those swing states oppose socialism, as did 57% of suburban women and 56% of independents.

From his prior experience leading Republican campaigns, Wilson believes Trumps advisers want to make this election about a core package of issues, NOT a referendum on Trumps personality, leadership and accomplishments.Consequently, if Democrats run on detailed policies, they will be appealing to the brain and will lose; instead, Wilson argues, they need to appeal to the heart by focusing on Trumps faults.

In brief, Wilson is saying Trump is a flawed president, but a clever one who has brilliantly exploitedthe grievance culture of everyone is coming to get you. They are the immigrants, Black Lives Matter, antifa, Muslims, women.

Running Against the Devil, with dry, cutting humor on every page, will probably not persuade many Republicans to vote against Trump. And Wilsons advice to the Democrats runs directly counter to the progressive drift of the party, which often pushes a progressive agenda to the front lines, no matter what surveys say about its effectiveness in getting votes.

Wilson may convince Democrats that Bidens victory is not about a popular vote. Hillary Clinton got that and still lost. Trump made the election about her, not her policies. Wilson knows how that was done, and he is doing it now to Trump. He has co-founded the Lincoln Project with other well-known Republicans to produce and run attack ads against the president. By provoking anxiety and fear about Trump, they hope to persuade enough disaffected conservatives, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in swing states to abandon him and perhaps even vote for Biden.

Whether Wilsons predictions and advice hold water remains to be seen. But as November approaches, Running Against the Devil is a fitting primer for the true start of the race.

_____

Running Against the Devil by Rick Wilson, Crown Forum, 352 pp., $28

Nick Licata served on the Seattle City Council for 18 years until his retirement in December 2015.

Read the rest here:
Longtime Republican strategist Rick Wilson lays out his road map for the 2020 election in Running Against the Devil - Seattle Times