Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTONA longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort.

The activist, Peter W. Smith, named the officials in a section of the document marked Trump Campaign. The document was dated Sept. 7, 2016. That was around the time Smith said he started his search for 33,000 emails Clinton deleted from the private server she used for official business while secretary of state. She said the deleted emails concerned personal matters. She turned over tens of thousands of other emails to the State Department.

As reported Thursday by the Wall Street Journal, Smith and people he recruited to his effort theorized the deleted emails might have been stolen by hackers and might contain matters that were politically damaging. He and his associates said they were in touch with several groups of hackers, including two from Russia they suspected were tied to the Moscow government, in a bid to find any stolen emails and potentially hurt Clintons prospects.

Dont miss: White House: Where the top economic adviser is paid $30,000 a year and the chief calligrapher pulls down $102K

Smiths purpose in listing the officials isnt clear. There is no indication in the document that he sought or received any coordination from the campaign officials or the campaign in general.

An expanded version of this report appears at WSJ.com.

Trending on WSJ.com:

James Freeman opinion piece: Could Trump really be draining the swamp?

GOP operative sought Clinton emails from hackers, implied a connection to Trump adviser Michael Flynn

See the rest here:
Republican activist referenced current Trump aides in his campaign to obtain Clinton emails - MarketWatch

The Multnomah County Republican Party voted this week to use far-right milita groups as private security at events.

The resolution is the brainchild of party chairman James Buchal, who last month suggested to The Guardian that the GOP could use Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, two paramilitary groups, as security guards to protect them from antifascist protesters, or antifa.

UPDATE, 1:15 pm: "We are an all-volunteer organization with no money," Buchal tells WW. "So if we are going to get security services, we are going to get them from volunteers. And people who are going to volunteer to provide security services to Republicans are generally going to be people who share the view that the government has developed an unconstitutional overreach of power."

Buchal says he and the Multnomah County GOP won't be attending tonight's far-right "free speech" protest near the Waterfront Blues Festival, unless he is personally invited. (He hasn't been.)

WW reported last week that Buchal has been fundraising by warning of "threats of Leftist violence" making it difficult for Republicans to hold events in Portland.

The approved resolution reads as follows:

"Proposed Resolution of Chairman Buchal: Resolve that the MCRP may utilize volunteers from the Oregon Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, and other security groups. To provide security where such volunteers are certified to provide private security service by the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. Kay Bridges moved and Janice Dysinger seconded. Resolution passed."

More here:
Multnomah County Republican Party Approves Oath Keepers and Three Percenters as Private Security - Willamette Week

More than 60 Republican lawmakers want Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reaffirm to them that the Justice Department will not administer a religious test for people to work in government.

The letter written to Sessions by 64 Republicans was inspired by questions asked by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to Russell Vought, President Trump's nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, at his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

USA Today first reported the existence of the letter.

"Questions were asked during a recent Senate Budget Committee hearing about an executive branch nominee's adherence to the Christian faith, suggesting that such beliefs disqualified the nominee from service," the lawmakers wrote.

The lawmakers, including Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., asked Sessions to "make clear" that "no religious test will ever be required to serve in the government of the United States."

During the hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Sanders mentioned a 2016 post Vought wrote for the Resurgent, the conservative blog.

"Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, his Son, and they stand condemned," Vought wrote.

Sanders read the post aloud and asked whether Vought believed it was Islamophobic. Vought replied: "Absolutely not, senator. I'm a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith."

"This nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about," Sanders responded.

Religious liberty advocates criticized Sanders' questioning. Lankford accused Sanders of coming "dangerously close to crossing a clear constitutional line."

See the article here:
Republican lawmakers ask Jeff Sessions to ensure no religious test for government jobs - Washington Examiner

You have known her for 30 years. She was in your wedding. She is smart and has a big heart. The day you realized she voted for Trump you were thunderstruck. Who is this stranger? you thought. Literally, your entire understanding of her crumbles. She feels your judgment and resents it. The dynamic of this relationship changes. It may evolve, but it will not be the same.

I may be able to help explain this communication and understanding gap and how to bridge it. I am a Democrat who speaks fluent Republican.

My parents were largely apolitical. My best friend in elementary school, however, had a father who was one of the few Republican legislators in the Democrat-dominated Georgia House of Representatives. While other little girls were at sleepovers or watching Disney movies, we were attending rallies and community forums or standing in parking lots handing out fliers. I became well steeped in Republican principles.

In college, I was the three-time president of the College Republicans, volunteered on Capitol Hill for Republican Senator John Warner, and was on the payroll of Reagan-Bush 1984 as the only female member of Youth for Reagan. I witnessed the Reagan Revolution first hand.

It was at the Morton Blackwell Leadership Institute for Republican campaign training in Washington, D.C., that a seed of doubt was first sown in the heart and mind of this young woman interested in the proper role and function of government. The Republican objective seemed more about using government for power than service. That impression turned out to be accurate.

By 1990, I had jumped the fence and never looked back. Republican principles had become hollow. Many had proven ineffective, while others were applied in shockingly cynical or hypocritical ways. I have since been associated with Democratic progressive principles and have twice been elected to the non-partisan position of mayor of the Columbus, Georgia Consolidated Government.

So, here is why your friend voted for Trump. She was voting for the perceived Republican Brand, not for Trump.

The Republicans have done an excellent job of defining their party in terms of class and social status. This status is primal and tribal. It is not easily shaken. Here are four components that underlie Republican Party affiliation:

1. Perceived AffluenceIf you were born into wealth, Republicanism is a family tradition and, frankly, an obligation. If you werent, voting Republican suggests an economic class status that is free to obtain.

2. Power AssociationIf you are a Republican, you need no one. The brand conveys that you are quite capable of going it alone and succeeding. The feeling of strength that comes with that is intoxicating, even if it is not remotely true.

3. Economic JusticeRepublicans are convinced that Democrats want to take taxpayers hard-earned resources and give them to the undeserving out of misguided sympathy. The favor in this perceived redistribution effort is intolerable to Republicans.

4. Faith FortificationThe Republican Brand is seen as an imprimatur of the faithful. It is a stamp of Christian fidelity, regardless of any actual ascription to Christian principles.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

On the other hand, for 30-plus years, the Democratic Brand has been wrongly cast as being weak and catering to those in need of a disproportionate amount of government services. Of all the social and class stigmas out there, being perceived as weak or needy is about the worst. And that is the threshold many voters have been unwilling to cross, even if it means they have to vote for the likes of Donald Trump.

Take this case in point. In 2004, I was the southwest Georgia chairwoman of the Women for John Kerry presidential campaign. That was the year Republicans came up with the political strategy of placing the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments on the ballot in over a dozen states, including Georgia. It would gin up the evangelical vote, depress the African-American faith-based vote, and generally be a boon to the struggling George W. Bush re-election effort.

One evening, I casually mentioned to a gay male friend and his longtime partner that I was working for the Kerry campaignyou know, fighting for the cause. Stunned, they both looked at me and said: Youre a Democrat? Equally as stunned, I exclaimed: Youre not? The deadpan response: Honey, Id rather be a gay Republican than a Democrat. In 2004, that was saying something. Clear in his retort was the fact that there was only so much stigma a person could take, and being associated with the Democrat Brand was a bridge too far.

Recently, however, the Republican Brand has lost some luster, and the Democratic Brand is strengthening. In the four recent special elections, we saw the Republican congressional victors underperform their predecessors by eight points (Kansas), six points (Montana), 10 points (Georgia), and eight points (South Carolina). Each of these previously solid Republican districts is now purple. This is a Herculean feat for Democrats, particularly when you understand that these gains were made in districts where the Republican Brand is worn like a family coat of arms.

The margins will be bettered in 2018, if Democratic messaging will stop relying solely on moralistic arguments of how the strong should help the weak. The messaging needs to explain that the voters self-interest and the body politic as a whole are improved through Democratic policies. In other words, learn to speak some Republican.

Take the AHCA debate, for instance. Beginning and ending a discussion about the AHCA by noting that it benefits the wealthiest Americans and harms those on Medicaid is not broadly persuasive. A more persuasive argument includes the fact that the AHCA also threatens the affluence of Americans who do not believe they need any assistance with health care. Increasing the number of uninsured, as the AHCA will do, will create exorbitant debt for hospitals and increase local property taxes in order to fund public hospitals. It will increase health care costs, thereby increasing private insurance premiums. It will eliminate jobs in the relatively high-paying medical profession, and it will hamper workforce quality and economic growth. Without pointing out the economic impact to all, too many voters fail to see the negative affect the AHCA has on their self-interest. A purely moralistic justification for fighting the AHCA sounds sanctimonious to some, ends the conversation, and unnecessarily excludes powerful facts.

Communicating with people in their own language is an earnest gesture of meeting them in a familiar and comfortable space. It is highly effective at persuading, or at least tempering, an opposing view. It also comes in handy while rebuilding longtime friendships. It may even persuade that friend not to vote Trump next time.

See original here:
Why the Republican Brand Is So Strong Where I Live - Daily Beast

Meanwhile, taxes that fall mainly on a tiny, wealthy minority would be reduced or eliminated. These cuts would be big in dollar terms, but because the rich are already so rich, the savings would make very little difference to their lives.

More than 40 percent of the Senate bills tax cuts would go to people with annual incomes over $1 million but even these lucky few would see their after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.

So its vast suffering including, according to the best estimates, around 200,000 preventable deaths imposed on many of our fellow citizens in order to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to some extra pocket change. And the public hates the idea: Polling shows overwhelming popular opposition, even though many voters dont realize just how cruel the bill really is. For example, only a minority of voters are aware of the plan to make savage cuts to Medicaid.

In fact, my guess is that the bill has low approval even among those who would get a significant tax cut. Warren Buffett has denounced the Senate bill as the Relief for the Rich Act, and hes surely not the only billionaire who feels that way.

Which brings me back to my question: Why would anyone want to do this?

I wont pretend to have a full answer, but I think there are two big drivers actually, two big lies behind Republican cruelty on health care and beyond.

First, the evils of the G.O.P. plan are the flip side of the virtues of Obamacare. Because Republicans spent almost the entire Obama administration railing against the imaginary horrors of the Affordable Care Act death panels! repealing Obamacare was bound to be their first priority.

Once the prospect of repeal became real, however, Republicans had to face the fact that Obamacare, far from being the failure they portrayed, has done what it was supposed to do: It used higher taxes on the rich to pay for a vast expansion of health coverage. Correspondingly, trying to reverse the A.C.A. means taking away health care from people who desperately need it in order to cut taxes on the rich.

So one way to understand this ugly health plan is that Republicans, through their political opportunism and dishonesty, boxed themselves into a position that makes them seem cruel and immoral because they are.

Yet thats surely not the whole story, because Obamacare isnt the only social insurance program that does great good yet faces incessant right-wing attack. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability benefits all get the same treatment. Why?

As with Obamacare, this story began with a politically convenient lie the pretense, going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, that social safety net programs just reward lazy people who dont want to work. And we all know which people in particular were supposed to be on the take.

Now, this was never true, and in an era of rising inequality and declining traditional industries, some of the biggest beneficiaries of these safety net programs are members of the Trump-supporting white working class. But the modern G.O.P. basically consists of career apparatchiks who live in an intellectual bubble, and those Reagan-era stereotypes still dominate their picture of struggling Americans.

Or to put it another way, Republicans start from a sort of baseline of cruelty toward the less fortunate, of hostility toward anything that protects families against catastrophe.

In this sense theres nothing new about their health plan. What it does punish the poor and working class, cut taxes on the rich is what every major G.O.P. policy proposal does. The only difference is that this time its all out in the open.

So what will happen to this monstrous bill? I have no idea. Whether it passes or not, however, remember this moment. For this is what modern Republicans do; this is who they are.

Continued here:
Understanding Republican Cruelty - New York Times