Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, warned the majority of the Republican conference will be disappointed and upset if Johnson doesnt do more to fight for the anti-abortion policy riders that conservatives have demanded since last year.

Youre not going to get everything that you want when you have divided government, Good said. But the House majority ought to count for something. We should get at least half of what we want, shouldnt we?

Conservatives cheered the recent rise of Johnson, a longtime abortion opponent, and said they trusted him to deliver wins on abortion that proved elusive under his predecessor. But the Louisiana Republican has met intense pushback from swing district Republicans in his conference and from the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has vowed to block attempts to roll back abortion access. That leaves little room for Johnson to craft a deal that doesnt alienate at least some members of his caucus and isnt dead on arrival in the upper chamber.

Johnson and his allies, hoping to assuage irate conservatives, are arguing that his budget deal with Democrats which punts the fight into March gives House Republicans another opportunity to push for conservative policies in the coming weeks as lawmakers hammer out the details of individual spending bills.

The speaker has put us in a position to at least be able to negotiate, stressed Rep. Mario Daz-Balart (R-Fla.), who chairs the State and Foreign Operations subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. A shutdown will do nothing except waste money and destroy our ability to get conservative wins.

Conservatives viewed the fight over government spending as their best and possibly only vehicle for undoing Biden administration policies expanding access to abortion, and they spent months adding provisions to nearly every appropriations bill. They proposed measures to ban mail delivery of abortion pills, reimpose anti-abortion restrictions on global HIV programs, block the military from funding service members travel across state lines for an abortion, cancel coverage of abortion for veterans, kick Planned Parenthood out of various federal health programs and ban state Medicaid programs from covering abortion.

But Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior appropriator, is tamping down expectations as members wait to see final bill text.

[Johnson] hasnt promised us policy wins, Cole said. Hes promised us that we can fight for policy wins.

Talk of the House GOPs anti-abortion priorities has largely evaporated amid the rollout of Johnsons spending deal with Democrats, with hardliners in an uproar over their spending and immigration demands. Several subcommittee chairs in charge of drafting individual spending bills before March said they have received no guidance from GOP leaders about whether the anti-abortion policies will make it in the final text. And several House lawmakers confirmed to POLITICO that Johnson hasnt mentioned the fate of specific anti-abortion provisions in their closed-door caucus meetings since the spending deal was announced.

Not a thing, one House GOP lawmaker, granted anonymity to discuss internal conference matters, noted after the latest meeting.

Some House Republicans insist theres still an opening to demand these measures as funding deadlines and the possibility of a government shutdown draw near. But others, pointing to the Houses narrow majority, the Senates vow to block the policies and the White Houses threat to veto bills if they are included, are acknowledging the math is not on their side.

I dont think any of this stuff passes without bipartisan support, said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). Its not surviving 60 votes in the Senate. Its just not.

During a press conference Wednesday, amid conservative angst over the fading prospects for restricting abortion through budget riders, Johnson stressed that hes managing the second-narrowest House majority in the countrys history, limiting what they can expect to achieve.

We wont get everything we want, he admitted.

The speaker also pledged to keep fighting for House Republicans conservative agenda, a careful phrase many members say they understand as aspirational at best.

They want to work to get our policies included. But I think we all recognize thatll be tough, one House Republican lawmaker, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, said of Johnsons team and its approach to abortion and a host of other GOP policy riders. The lawmaker expected the final funding bills to reflect a bipartisan compromise similar to the defense bill, which was stripped of anti-abortion policies Democrats deemed poison pills.

Johnson did not respond when asked about the fate of the budget riders Wednesday, and his office declined to comment.

If Johnson doesnt deliver on the riders, Then weve got a problem, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) warned, insisting that the provisions are still a priority for many conservatives.

The fear that House Republicans will likely have few wins to show voters in November on spending, immigration policy or their anti-abortion push is also drawing fire from outside groups.

I understand the numbers, said Tom McClusky, an anti-abortion lobbyist with the organization Catholic Vote, referencing the Houses slim majority. But what I dont understand is that there just doesnt even seem to be a fight. It doesnt even seem to be a factor with House leadership.

The Heritage Foundation which called Johnson the right person for the job in November is also ramping up pressure on House Republicans to include the anti-abortion measures.

Congress has to assert its constitutional authority to push back against these extreme pro-abortion regulations and policies coming out of the administration, and it does that through the power of the purse, said Roger Severino, Heritages vice president of domestic policy who held a prominent agency post in the Trump administration. He added that Congress should say to the executive branch: If you want money to do what youre supposed to do, which is serve our veterans or provide health care, etc., then you do it without the taint of abortion.

Asked whether GOP hardliners will try to hold up key funding bills in the coming weeks if their abortion policy demands are not included, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a Freedom Caucus member, didnt make any commitments. Instead, he said the sanctity of life should be defended at all cost.

Facing pushback from unhappy conservatives who made their dissatisfaction clear by blocking an unrelated bill last week House GOP leaders are now trying to rally GOP members around a pair of stand-alone bills endorsed by anti-abortion groups. One diverts federal funds to crisis pregnancy centers, which dont provide abortions and counsel patients against seeking them. Republicans argue the legislation will support pregnant people and children while avoiding the ire of centrists who oppose new abortion restrictions. The White House has threatened to veto the legislation.

Democratic leaders, meanwhile, have pledged for months to act as a firewall against the anti-abortion riders on spending bills.

Under no circumstances are we going to enact new restrictions on abortion in our spending bills like House Republicans have done in theirs, said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Senate Appropriations chair. If Republicans insist on anti-abortion poison pills, they will only be pushing us closer to shutdown.

Discouraged by the fading prospects for attaching anti-abortion measures to the government spending bills, some members are discussing backup plans, such as hitching them to a possible national security supplemental or end-of-year package. But conservative veterans of funding battles are dismissing those ideas as unrealistic and arguing that Republicans are letting their best chance slip away.

Unless we can figure out a way of getting pro-life legislation on a post office naming, then I dont really know how much will be possible, McClusky said. This is just about the only bicameral opportunity to either get something done or at least fight and show the contrast between Republicans and Democrats.

Read more from the original source:
Republicans fume over lack of anti-abortion policies in funding fight - POLITICO - POLITICO

Senator James Lankford, the Oklahoma Republican and staunch conservative, this week trumpeted the immigration compromise he has been negotiating with Senate Democrats and White House officials as one shaping up to be by far, the most conservative border security bill in four decades.

Speaker Mike Johnson, in contrast, sent out a fund-raising message on Friday denouncing the forthcoming deal as a Democratic con. My answer is NO. Absolutely NOT, his message said, adding, This is the hill Ill die on.

The Republican disconnect explains why, with an elusive bipartisan bargain on immigration seemingly as close as it has been in years on Capitol Hill, the prospects for enactment are grim. It is also why hopes for breaking the logjam over sending more U.S. aid to Ukraine are likely to be dashed by hard-line House Republicans.

The situation encapsulates the divide cleaving the Republican Party. On one side are the right-wing MAGA allies of former President Donald J. Trump, an America First isolationist who instituted draconian immigration policies while in office. On the other is a dwindling group of more mainstream traditionalists who believe the United States should play an assertive role defending democracy on the world stage.

The two wings coalesced last fall around a bit of legislative extortion: They would only agree to President Bidens request to send about $60 billion more to Ukraine for its fight against Russian aggression if he agreed to their demands to clamp down on migration at the United States border with Mexico. But now, they are at odds about how large of a price to demand.

Hard-right House Republicans, who are far more dug in against aid to Ukraine, have argued that the bipartisan border compromise brokered by their counterparts in the Senate is unacceptable. And they bluntly say they do not want to give Mr. Biden the opportunity in an election year to claim credit for cracking down on unauthorized immigration.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in .

Want all of The Times?Subscribe .

Read the original post:
With Deal Close on Border and Ukraine, Republican Rifts Threaten to Kill Both - The New York Times

He said he would absolutely vote for a candidate for the opposing party, depending on who else is on the ballot.

Ive voted for Democrats, Garvey said Wednesday as he made his first statewide tour as a candidate for the seat previously held by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

His apparent willingness to cross party lines and neither endorse Trump nor seek the former presidents support would be heresy for a Republican in much of the country. But it makes sense in California for a general election, where the party now claims only a quarter of the electorate and where a GOP candidate hasnt been elected to a statewide office since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor in 2006.

The strategy also makes sense because of the states primary system, in which the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the runoff in November. Garvey, who is running against three veteran Democratic members of Congress, needs every Republican vote he can get, along with independents and moderates.

His unwillingness to embrace Trump, however, risks alienating passionate supporters of the former president who are expected to turn out for the primary in March.

Republican math is basically impossible in California, so if youre going to break through you have to create a new formula, GOP strategist Rob Stutzman said.

As Stutzman sees it, Garvey pretty much needs every Republican voter, some moderate Democrats and to dominate independents to stand a chance.

Garvey said he was not consciously distancing himself from Trump, noting that he likes some of the former presidents policies but does not always agree with how he gets his message across.

He said he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.

Do I think that the most dangerous disease next to Covid is Trump syndrome? Yes, Garvey added, a reference to the medias coverage of the former president.

At a Thursday meeting with Jewish leaders in the Bay Area city of Pleasanton, Garvey said he was not expecting a Trump endorsement but wouldnt say whether he would accept one either.

Im more concerned about the single most difficult race in America right now for a conservative moderate like myself, Garvey said. I dont have time to worry about him.

While Stutzman says Garvey has the chance to ride his Trump agnosticism through the March 5 primary, hell have to pony up more policy positions and ad money to stand any chance in the general.

He needs to keep a distance from Trump. But he cant vote for Biden. And that could work for the primary, Stutzman said, adding that Garvey needs to spend around $4-6 million in advertising to cushion his chances in March.

Beyond the spring, the road gets rockier. If he can make the runoff, I think itll be very difficult. Theres a lot about Mr. Garvey that we dont know yet. Hes not being specific about issues yet, but will have to be in the general, Stutzman said.

Pressed on the presidential primary, Garvey dodged the question, saying hes only interested in his own race.

Im going to vote for Steve Garvey, he said. The former president is not on my ballot. Joe Biden is not on my ballot.

Garvey will go head-to-head with his Democratic rivals, Reps. Katie Porter, Barbara Lee and Adam Schiff, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday in Los Angeles. The first California Senate debate will air live on FOX 11 in Los Angeles, KTVU FOX 2 in the San Francisco Bay Area and will be livestreamed on POLITICO.

Lara Korte contributed to this report.

More:
Steve Garvey is running for Senate in California as a Republican but don't ask about Trump - POLITICO

By Jim Thompson HCP columnist

It is not Democrat or Republican nor liberal or conservative. It is the elites versus the rest of us.

Back when I was in high school, it was called the in crowd, and there was even a hit song about it. No matter when you were in high school, you remember the crowd that was in the know, and then there was everyone else. In the adult world, it has become the elites versus the rest of us.

There are elite conclaves around the world. Here in the United States, it is Washington, D.C., with minor outposts in each state capital. In Europe, it is the EU. Annually, it is the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, whose annual meeting just concluded this past week.

How can you tell the elites from the rest of us?

They are the ones who do all the things they tell the rest of us not to do. They tell us to walk to save the planet while they take their private jets. The elites control us (if we let them) by selling us hysteria. All the elite schemes have hysteria as the foundation principlethe idea if we dont immediately change our behavior, treasured items will become scarce, the earth will die, something along these lines.

Can I give you examples of this hysteria? Most certainly. The characteristics of all these forms of hysteria is that they have some redeeming elements; yet, when taken to the level the elites push on us, they have no basis in fact.

Things that come to mind include recycling, climate change, DEI (I discussed here a few weeks ago), carbon dioxide, gas powered cars, banning fossil fuels, Covid 19 precautions and on and on. All of these have a noble element to them, but when taken to the extreme, become hysteria. Some would include eating meat, other animal products and other such matters.

These are how the elites control us and separate us, from each other and our money (mantra "we must all must make sacrifices to achieve these vitally important goals).

Another trait of these hysterias is that voices who question such ideas are shouted down and ostracized. The elites are the authorities, the rest of us cant possibly know what we are talking about.

Then, there is the perpetuity of these programs they never end. We never achieve the vital end points of any of the hysterical subjects, they just go on and on and on. Get close to the goal, and the goalposts get moved.

One can always count on new hysterias being developed, too. Again, like high school, there must always be fresh subjects too lord over the masses.

Is there any hope of shedding the shackles of these issues? Yes. The new president of Argentina is a bright spot. So is Elon Musk, who gets it that freedom is more important than socialism. On the populist level, the farmers of the Netherlands and Germany have risen and demanded an end to the onerous dictates being put on them for the sake of climate change. More power to them.

What can you do? Quit automatically believing what you see on television and in the mainstream channels on the internet. Test what you hear against your own street-smart common sense. One of the problems today is that the media comes to us in many varied ways with the assumption of authority just by means of the forum in which they reach us.

Think about the days before radio, television and the internet the elites could not as rapidly disseminate their silly ideas with near the rapidity nor pretense of authority that they use today.

Think for yourself, and challenge everything you hear. You dont have to follow the in crowd.

Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press. He may be reached at jthompson@taii.com.

Read this article:
It is not Democrat or Republican - The Highland County Press

Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the

Donald Trump dominated public-opinion polling before the Republican presidential primary in 2023. Yet his rivals could reasonably argue that the party faithful still had not cast any votes, and the actual results might reveal a greater appetite for an alternative than surveys suggested. Mr Trumps decisive victory in the Iowa caucus on January 15th seems to have put an end to that hopeful theory.

Some Republicans had predicted record attendance at Iowas caucuses this year, but turnout fell by around 40% from the peak in 2016. No doubt many voters opted to stay at home given the sub-zero temperatures and Mr Trumps apparent invincibility. But TV networks also began calling the race for the former president less than an hour after the caucuses began; some caucus-goers were even told that he had won before they had a chance to vote.

Stay up to date with our new daily update, The US in brief, and our Republican primaries poll tracker.

Read more of our coverage of the US elections of 2024 here.

Naming a victor while others are still voting was bad democratic hygiene but unlikely to sway the eventual outcome. Mr Trump won 51% of the vote and half of Iowas 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, took second place with 21% and nine delegates. Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor, fell to third with 19% and eight delegates. Vivek Ramaswamy, a bloviating biotech entrepreneur, finished fourth and dropped out. The first-time candidate, whose speeches were frequently ominous, kept it weird until the very end: Theres no path for me to be the next president absent things that we dont want to see happen in this country.

The only hope for Mr DeSantis and Ms Haley is that a candidate needs 1,215 delegates to become the nominee, and nearly 2,400 are still up for grabs. Both runners-up agree that a head-to-head slog with Mr Trump over the next several months is the only path to victory. The problem is that neither is willing to back down in order to let the other become the former presidents sole challenger.

I can safely say, tonight Iowa made this Republican primary a two-person race, a smiling Ms Haley declared after finishing third. Betsy Ankney, her campaign manager, argued in a memo published after the results came in that the race now moves to less Trump-friendly territory. And the field of candidates is effectively down to two, with only Trump and Nikki Haley having substantial support in both New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Ms Haley, endorsed by New Hampshires Republican governor, is betting that a surprise victory on January 23rd would provide momentum ahead of the South Carolina contest a month later. But if she pulls off an unlikely upset, it will be thanks to support from moderate Republicans, independents and strategically minded Democrats who loathe Mr Trump. That coalition might win a state of 1.4m but isnt fit for purpose in a national Republican primary.

A Haley win in New Hampshire is a long shot. A polling average from FiveThirtyEight, a data-journalism website, shows Mr Trump with 44.4% in New Hampshire compared with Ms Haleys 31.4%. Chris Christie, a former New Jersey governor and Mr Trumps most direct critic, stood at third place before dropping out. He disparaged Ms Haley ahead of his exit and declined to endorse a candidate. Mr DeSantis fares even worse in New Hampshire polling than Mr Ramaswamy did in Iowa.

The DeSantis campaign exudes confidence nevertheless. While it may take a few more weeks to fully get there, this will be a two-person soon enough, says Andrew Romeo, communications director for Mr DeSantis. Despite spending $24m in false negative ads against Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley couldnt buy herself the kill shot she so desperately wanted [in Iowa], and now she will be out of this race after failing to win her home state on February 24. That state is South Carolina, where Mr Trump has nearly 55% of likely primary-goers, according to FiveThirtyEight. Ms Haley trails him by 30 points, while Mr DeSantis is at about 12%.

Ms Haley may think a third-place finish in Iowa was enough to make this a two-person race, and Mr DeSantis that a third-place finish in South Carolina will do the trick for him. Both camps seem to confuse barely surviving with building momentum. Nor is it clear whether they will have the financial wherewithal to sustain an expensive multi-state campaign.

The coming contests in New Hampshire and South Carolina could inject some life into the Haley campaign. Perhaps Mr DeSantis will raise the cash needed to hang on. But Mr Trumps lead in national pollingaround 55 points above Mr DeSantis and Ms Haley, according to The Economists trackermeans that there wouldnt be much of a race even if one of the remaining candidates dropped out. Mr Trumps ongoing legal travails have only helped cement his bond with Republican primary voters.

Mr Trumps campaign called for an end to primary debates and for a focus on beating Joe Biden months ago. The candidate probably wont gain an insurmountable lead until March 5th, Super Tuesday, when more than a third of delegates will be up for grabs. But on the night of the caucuses he clearly had his eyes on November. He called his Republican opponents very smart people, very capable people and declared: Were going to come together. Its going to happen soon.

Stay on top of American politics withChecks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, whichexamines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Continued here:
How did the Iowa result change the Republican primary? - The Economist