Mediaboss Marketing

If all press is good press, June was a banner month for James Buchal.

The chairman of the Multnomah County Republican Party grabbed attention June 4 when he recruited new members at a far-right "free speech" rally in downtown Portland. Buchal soon began promoting the idea that his party could use militia groups like the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers as security for future marches and events. And on June 28, the county GOP, under Buchal's leadership, formally authorized bringing in paramilitary organizations as armed guards.

The decision to turn to the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters for security immediately drew backlash on Twitter, Facebook and the county GOP's own website. Some called the decision a move toward martial law.

But Buchal sees it very differently: as a cheap way to keep an outnumbered and reviled party safe in enemy territory.

Only 13 percent of county voters are registered as Republicans. The party's volunteer ranks are even smaller: 179 members. And Portland, never a GOP stronghold, has embraced its fiercest Little Beirut reputation since the November election, with antifascist and anarchist groups marching in the streets to battle self-proclaimed neo-Nazis.

An antifascist protester in Portland on June 30. (William Gagan)

But Buchal claims Republicans are antifa's real target. Since he became chairman in 2015, the county GOP has made jarring changesembracing rhetoric that echoes the talking points of "alt-right" extremist groups emboldened by the election of President Donald Trump.

Buchal spoke with WW in his Sunnyside neighborhood office, discussing why he's leading his party to the political fringes.

WW: The Oath Keepers? What's wrong with regular security guards?

James Buchal: Because we are an all-volunteer organization with no money. So if we are going to get security services, we are going to get them from volunteers. And people who 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, and that it is a reasonable political objective to attempt to rein government in.

Militia member assists the public at a June 4 right-wing rally. (William Gagan)

These are the same groups that helped seize the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. How are they on the side of the rule of law?

Some reporter told me with respect to the Malheur thing that the Oath Keepers down there were keeping the peace. I don't accept the premise of your question that the groups are inherently lawless. And we're talking about people who are locally based here in Portland. Not people who may have come from Arizona or Idaho or someplace because they like to go from place to place participating in situations of conflict. It's members of the local community.

What threat in Portland is so scary that you need to bring in a paramilitary organization?

It's been a sequence of events. The [volunteers] who were at the street fairs reported incidents that made them feel unsafe. And then we got people threatening to drag us out of the Avenue of Roses Parade, and then there were people threatening on Facebook that they were going to stab us to death if we dared to participate, and so on and so forth. So it's been sort of a continuous escalation. It was at that point that this idea began to take on greater sense, in my mind at least.

Right and left-wing protesters spar in Portland on June 30. (William Gagan)

Other than the one anonymous letter before a parade in April, what threats has the Multnomah County Republican Party received? Were you really kicked out of a restaurant?

I think when people call you up and they have this screaming demonic tone in their voice, it gives you some concern. Especially if it's more than one of them. We used to hold our quarterly larger meetings at Mekong Bistro. And when we went to get the one organized for June 26, we were told that we were no longer allowed to do that. Because it was political. I heard about it all secondhand. I inferred that they had come under pressure.

Do you acknowledge that hate speech and neo-Nazi activity has gone up in Portland?

It's a question of how you define your terms. [At the June 4 rally,] I saw two people carrying signs that said "Diversity equals white genocide," and then I saw them get kicked out. I haven't personally seen hate speech or neo-Nazi activity at all, unless these two people carrying the signs counted.

Antifascist protesters chase a counter-protester who stole a flag they were burning on June 30. (William Gagan)

Do you think the so-called alt-right groups are racist?

The left and the right may have a somewhat different definition of racism. I have the impression that many on the left would regard any defense of American exceptionalism as inherently racist. I think it is possible to defend Western culture without being a racist.

Do you see a difference between defending Western culture and defending whiteness?

I look at an idea entirely independent of the identity of the person who is advancing the idea. Meritocracy is color-blind. Equality of opportunity should be color-blind.

Right-wing protester in Portland on June 30. (William Gagan)

You've argued that the alt-right isn't racist. Let's say you're right. What ideology do they stand for other than antagonizing and provoking people?

I see them as standing for a restoration of constitutional government. And some of them, like Patriot Prayer, I think also have a Christian component to them, which would say that, in addition to getting the government under control, we need a rise in public morality.

How do you explain the accused MAX train killer who attended alt-right protests, then?

You don't know who is going to show up at your event. If someone shows up wearing swastikas, the answer to that is going to be, "You're not standing anywhere near us, asshole." What I know about Jeremy Christian is that he was registered as a Libertarian. There's a lot of crap out there on the internet. Who knows what influenced him? But I can guarantee you that it wasn't a Republican Party website. The conclusion I draw from the evidence I've seen is that he was mentally ill. And so I guess I sort of resent the notion that we're called upon to distance ourselves from some nut who as far as I know has never been to a Republican Party meeting.

You're giving speeches next to men dressed as Captain America. Why should Portlanders take you any more seriously than a teenager with a mask and a stink bomb?

I should prefer that they do not dress up in superhero costumes. I would say that this goes back to the ideal of judging an idea on its merits. If you're in the group of people who thinks there is such a thing as objective reality, then when someone says something, then you evaluate the objective merits of what he said. Is what he said true? Not "he's a member of a different identity group, so I'm going to discount or ignore what he says."

An alt-right protester in Portland on June 30. (William Gagan)

Decades ago, California's Republican Party started appealing to far-right groups and white nationalists, which partly led to the party's decline. Do you worry this will happen to you?

One is always concerned when working for a political party to not take steps to shoot oneself in the foot. But in Portland, we must look at the long game. We are unlikely to be electing a [Republican] mayor anytime soon. So I would give you the counter-analogy of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Barry Goldwater was successfully demonized as an extremist, a perception that he fueled by saying that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and he lost. But the defense of these ideals ultimately gained traction and led to the election of Ronald Reagan. So I think the pendulum will swing. As people begin to get a lower and lower opinion of the leftists and the results of their disastrously counterproductive policies, a good honest defense of fundamental principles like the rule of law and limited government will eventually gain adherence. Even if it is unfashionable at the moment.

Here is the original post:
Multnomah County Republican Party Chair Says His Plan to Use Paramilitary Groups for Security Isn't RadicalIt's a ... - Willamette Week

SOMERSET Several dozen locals, organized by theSomerset County Democratic Committee,rallied against the Republican Partys health care plan Wednesday evening on the steps of the Somerset County Courthouse.

In light of the Republican Partys Better Care and Reconciliation Act, Somerset County Democratic Committee volunteer coordinator Todd Holsopple said, and what its looking like thats going to do to the American health care industry and to health care for millions of people across the country, we felt it was really important to show that this area really cares about this issue.

The Better Care and Reconciliation Act of 2017 is the Senates draft version of the Republican-backed bill that would repealthe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often nicknamed Obamacare.

Somerset County Democratic Committee's July 5 rally against the Republican health care plan.

Erin McClelland, the 2016 Democratic nominee to represent Pennsylvanias 12th congressional district, headlined the rally. McClelland, who failed to unseat Rep. Keith Rothfus, R-Sewickley, last November and in 2014, has 20 years ofexperience in the health care industry.

Weve been goingin the wrong direction. The (Affordable Care Act) started moving us in the right direction, covering a lot more people, and now were talking about completely going backwards, McClelland said.

McClelland said she worries that the BCRA will overwhelm the nations emergency rooms with newly uninsured patients who have no other way to get medical treatment.

U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey told a television town hall audience on Wednesday he disagrees with a Congressional Budget Office score that estimated 22 million fewer Americans will have health care by 2026 if the Better Care Reconciliation Act he helped design is enacted.

Those 24 million people who will lose their health care theyre going to go right back into the (emergency room) system, which is the most ineffective, most expensive way to get care, she said.

Our ERs are going to get all plugged up, the people that need triage care arent going to get it, and costs are going to continue to explode.

A Congressional Budget Office report dated June 26 stated thatthe BCRA would increase the number of people who are uninsured by 22 million in 2026 relative to the number under current law. An estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, the CBO said, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year underthe Affordable Care Act.

The health care industry employs 17 percent of all workers in Americas rural counties, according to a statement posted on the website of Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, on June 21. Holsopplecited that figure when he expressed his worries about how the BCRA could affect the local economy.

When you have an industry that employs 17 percent of the jobs in rural areas like this ... its not a way forward that anybody, really, can imagine is going to be positive for the nation and especially for areas just like Somerset County, just like Cambria County, just like Bedford, he said.

The battle over the future of Medicaid in the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has given little attention to how reduced funding will affect military veterans.

Terra Setzler, an advocacy organizer for Planned Parenthood, spoke about thenegative impact she said the Republican health care plan would have on Planned Parenthood and other womens health care providers. The BCRA wouldprevent federal funds from being made available to Planned Parenthood for one year after its enactment, according to the CBO.

Johnstown resident Larry Blalock said he came to the rally to show his support for Planned Parenthood and for the estimated 22 million people who could lose their health insurance under the BCRA. While hesaid heprefers Obamacare to the Republicans plan, he has his sights set on a further-off goal.

I really think the Affordable Care Act needs to turn into a single-payer national health care plan that were not constantly fighting over, he said, or worrying about whether or not were going to have to pay a deductible that we cant afford.

Holsopple urged rally-goers to contact their representatives in Congress and urge them to oppose the Republican health care plan.

Its not right, he said.

Were not going to sit back and let them do it.

Mark Pesto is a reporter for The Tribune-Democrat. Follow him on Twitter at @MarkPesto.

View post:
WATCH VIDEO: Somerset Dems rally against Republican health care plan - TribDem.com

The GOP view towards womens health is a bit confusing.

The Senate bill, Better Care Reconciliation Act cuts funding to Planned Parenthood.

Eighty percent of Planned Parenthoods work is preventing pregnancy. The bill further eliminates protections of essential health benefits which would ensure access to preventive health services including well woman care and contraception as well as maternity care.

Every single medical group agrees that TrumpCare is a disastrous plan. Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) laughed about prenatal care coverage because he cannot have a baby, therefore he does not understand why it should be covered.

We already know that Republicans would like to end all access to abortion. Now it seems they would like to end all access to pregnancy prevention. Worse, it seems they would like to end safe pregnancy care and care for the children that will result from lack of access to pregnancy prevention.

Lack of access to contraception and prenatal care will mean more special needs children. That is a fact. So they are creating a system that will ensure children that will need expensive specialty care and they are taking away coverage for it.

That is quite special.

As far as I can tell every single person alive today got here through a mother for that reason alone we should cover maternity care. It is called a social contract.

We went through these arguments before passage of the Affordable Care Act how quickly the 13 white men who designed the BCRA forgot. If women have access to affordable maternity care, and contraception without cost sharing, it is good for all.

Mr. Olson What if I do not want to pay for your earlier heart attacks, nor your Viagra, nor your prostate disease?The whole idea of insurance is a risk pool. Im sorry I have to explain that to you.

After seven years of hand wringing over Obamacare, to come back with a bill that deconstructs Medicaid and aims its arrows at women lays clear that the war on women never stopped.

Supercharged by a president who hurls insults over Twitter, the Republican party has discarded an allegiance to right to privacy and small government where women are concerned. For us, apparently the decisions over our bodies cannot be a private one between a woman and her physician the one with the training instead it apparently belongs to politicians.

The peril of this path awaits. BCRA will do harm. It is a bill that will kill. Instead we could look to solutions.

The answer to rising premiums and deductibles and out-of-reach prescription drug costs, is not to rip away coverage to the most vulnerable in our society.

For all its faults, ObamaCare was based on RomneyCare the plan in place in Massachusetts at the time.

TrumpCare has no model to base itself after.

This is not American exceptionalism unless it is a race to the bottom.

We could look around the world and see that covering all citizens and reining in costs is achieved by single payer or some sort of government control.

That is achievable.

For many, particularly on the right, a single payer system in not palatable. So what if we were to form a hybrid system?

We know from all the data we have that preventive services save money. That seems like something we want everyone to have access to. It certainly seems appropriate that true emergencies and traumas be covered (since many in Congress seem to think that is how everyone has access to care anyway).

What if we expand Medicare to cover those services for everyone?

That would not raise the Medicare tax dramatically.

For the rest of care insurers could develop existing Medicare A advantage plans, which already sell across state lines. These could be tailored to different levels of need, much as Congress has been pulling their hair over.

There would need to be stipulations to allow insurance to remain affordable as it is in the rest of the world. It would have to go back to being not-for-profit. No more shareholders.

Caps on executive salaries and strict controls over what can be charged. While this may seem a difficult sell, it is better than eliminating care to our most vulnerable or the alternative destroying an entire industry what the two extremes far right and far left propose.

We would need to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices just as governments do in the rest of the world.

If pharmaceutical companies balk tell them to stop spending money on direct to consumer advertising. Why that is allowed is an anathema to me. The myth of high prices to pay for research has been exposed. They have had decades of record profits.

Lastly look at reimbursement appropriately be consistent in imaging costs and ensure that primary care can stay viable given that it is the most cost effective. Stop the unfunded mandates and the plethora of prior authorizations for everything even generic medications.

Given the amount of training involved, why not trust physicians instead of burning them out?

We need consistency in pricing for high end technology and procedures. Families should not fear bankruptcy due to a medical condition.

Allowing Medicare to set a pricing standard will ensure this to occur.

It is time to remember that we can learn from others and yes we can make America great again.

Dr. Cathleen London is physician based in Maine who developed a cost-effective alternative to the standard EpiPen in response to skyrocketing prices. London has been an on-air contributor on Fox News and local television stations around the nation. Her healthcare innovations have been featured in the New York Times.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See more here:
The Republican healthcare plan bad medicine for women and the poor - The Hill (blog)

The basics of Republican health legislation, which havent changed much in different iterations of Trumpcare, are easy to describe: Take health insurance away from tens of millions, make it much worse and far more expensive for millions more, and use the money thus saved to cut taxes on the wealthy.

Donald Trump may not get this reporting by The Times and others, combined with his own tweets, suggests that he has no idea whats in his partys legislation. But everyone in Congress understands what its all about.

The puzzle and it is a puzzle, even for those who have long since concluded that something is terribly wrong with the modern GOP is why the party is pushing this harsh, morally indefensible agenda.

Think about it. Losing health coverage is a nightmare, especially if youre older, have health problems and/or lack the financial resources to cope if illness strikes. And since Americans with those characteristics are precisely the people this legislation effectively targets, tens of millions would soon find themselves living this nightmare.

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 of more than $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 GOP 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 ACA 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 rightwing 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 GOP basically consists of career apparatchiks who live in an intellectual bubble, and those Reaganera 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 GOP 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.

Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times.

See the original post here:
Understanding Republican cruelty - Rutland Herald

Democrat Kanew seeks to challenge Republican Rep. Blackburn Kansas City Star A film writer and producer says he is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee next year. The Tennessean reports that Justin Kanew says he was inspired to run for the heavily Republican 7th ... and more »

Read the original post:
Democrat Kanew seeks to challenge Republican Rep. Blackburn - Kansas City Star