Mediaboss Marketing

Indias prime minister Narendra Modi met President Trump for the first time last week.

Modi and Trump are similar in many ways: both are populist nationalists who draw large crowds, and both are dedicated to putting their countries first, economically and strategically. Yet while Modi is wildly popular among the Hindu-American community in the United States, Trump did not even get a tenth of its vote. Why it is that Hindu-Americans, a group so favorably disposed toward a right-wing Indian leader, voted overwhelmingly against the candidate from the right in the United States?

Hindu-Americans are a high-income, family-values oriented group, yet vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. This paradox can be explained by the nature of Hinduism as a religion, Indias historical social, cultural, and agricultural patterns, and Indias experience with British colonialismall factors that influence Hindu-Americans to vote for the Democratic Party.

While Hindu-Americans are one of the largest religious groups in the United States, they do not yet have the clout, influence, or even general public recognition that other large religious groups in the country have, such as Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, though there are advocacy groups such as the non-partisan Hindu American Foundation (HAF).

Perhaps this is because they have been taken for granted as a Democratic Party voting bloc. According to data from the Washington Post, fewer than 7 percent of Hindus are likely to have voted for Trump. Only a slightly larger percentage of Hindus voted for Mitt Romney. Hindus strongly favor the Democratic party over the Republican partymore so than almost any other ethnic or religious group in the United States.

According to data collected by Pew in 2015, there are now 2.23 million Hindus in the United States, making them the fourth largest religious group in the country after Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Hinduism belongs to a family of religions known as Indic or dharmic religions. Hinduism is the largest dharmic tradition in the United States. Two other dharmic religions also have large populations in the United States: Sikhism, with around 500,000 individuals, and Jainism, with around 180,000 adherents. There are also large populations of Muslims and Christians from the Indian subcontinent in the United States. Approximately 16 percent of Muslims in the United States are from South Asia (around 600,000 people). Additionally, there are smaller populations of Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) from South Asia in the United States.

Hindu-Americans have the highest retention of any religion in the United States, with a full 80 percent of those raised Hindu still identifying with Hinduism as adults. In comparison, the rate among mainline Protestants is only 45 percent. This is not surprising due to the nature of Hinduism, whose philosophical and cultural traditions encompass several religious viewpoints including monism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, monotheism, polytheism, and atheism. Most Hindus are either immigrants or the children of immigrants from India, Nepal, Guyana, and Suriname, although there are some from non-desi (South Asian) backgrounds.

Given this diversity, how can we explain the fact that Hindu-Americans political preferences and social norms generally point them in the direction of liberal politics in the United States? After all, as The American Conservatives executive editor Pratik Chougule has pointed out, Indian-American (including Hindu-American) economic interests, merit-based educational aspirations, and family-values are much more aligned with the Republican Party.

There are several factors that explain Hindu-Americans mentality, political patterns and views on economic and social issues.

There is the nature of Hinduism itself. The worldview of Hinduism is different from the Judeo-Christian tradition that often informs the right in the West, though it has many more commonalities with the Greco-Roman pagan tradition. Hinduism advocates a live and let live attitude toward theological viewpoints. Its plethora of customs, philosophical systems, and regional traditions embrace diverse ways of understanding the divine, as well as ordering life in this world. Hinduism is the collective wisdom of sages, seekers, gods, and kings accumulated over several thousands of years. In short, it is not monolithic. Hinduism says that people take multiple spiritual paths and reach the same goal: the paths of knowledge, action, devotional worship, and meditation. The Rig Veda, composed over 4,000 years ago, states:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varua, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmn.

To what is One, sages call by many names they call it Agni, Yama, Mtarivan.

(Rig Veda 1.164.46)

This can be reworked for the modern world and would still be valid under the Hindu perspective: They call him Bhagavan, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and he is heavenly, shining Krishna. To what is One, sages give many a title Ohrmazd, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, Amaterasu. This means:

In the Indian belief, no one religion can have a monopoly on truth. A common Indian metaphor, about blind men and an elephant, tells of how some blind men touch different parts of an elephant, and then compare notes to find that they are in complete disagreement about the shape of the elephant. The analogy, which is with religion, argues that only by putting together the experiences of all the blind men (individual religions) will gain us an approximate understanding of the whole (truth).

In the realm of earthly action, the duty of humans is defined by dharma, a word that is difficult to translate but whose shades of meaning include righteousness, duty, calling, and order. The Mahabharata tells us that dharma is subtle, and as such, doing the right thing in a certain situation is often circumstantial. However, the concept is usually linked to duty. To do ones dharma is to do ones duty to the utmost, which is why suggestions by some Republicans that Hinduism doesnt align with the constitutional foundation of the U.S. government, or that Hinduism is a false faith with false gods, are deeply problematic to the Hindu community. Observant Hindus dont necessarily agree with the secular, materialistic worldview that characterizes many on the left, but they see the Democratic Party as less hostile to the Hindu tradition than the Republican Party.

Two prominent Indian-Americans, Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana, and Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, are both converts from their respective religions (Hinduism and Sikhism) to Christianity and are thus not really strong advocates for Indian religions. Bobby Jindal in particular has acquired a reputation for trying to disassociate himself from his roots. Because of the nature of Hinduism, it is difficult for many Hindus to understand why someone would want to leave the religion. Most Hindus do not appreciate Christian evangelization because Indian identity is strongly linked to religion (relative to say, Chinese identity, which is more ethnic and linguistic).

On the other hand, there are four Hindus in Congress, all of whom are Democrats. Hindu-Americans have an especially strong advocate in U.S. Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). She was the first Hindu-American elected to Congress, and has since been a staunch champion and advocate of Hindu causes. She was instrumental in bringing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the United States.

Hinduism is already an eclectic tradition; American Hinduism is even more so. Many young second or third generation Hindus also identify primarily as Hindu, although in a different way than first generation immigrants. Older Hindus are more ritualistic and temple-oriented. Younger Hindus, particularly those born in the United States, either see their Hinduism as more of a tribal badge and are cultural Hindus or are more interested in Hinduism as a philosophy, or a collection of metaphorical lessonsan interest they often discover through their own study of ancient Hindu texts with universal application, including the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, and Mahabharata. This newer Hinduism is in contrast to a more traditional and conservative Hinduism, which is often a reflection of factors specific to pre-modern Indian culture and history, and more influenced by later Hindu literature, the shastras (codebooks relating to rules and conduct) and puranas (traditional lore and myths). This individualistic, non-institutional approach resembles the spiritual but not religious approach toward religion often adopted by individuals less in tune with their religious traditions; in other words, people who are non-conservative in their attitude toward religion.

If religious issues are taken out of the picture, it would seem that Hindu-Americans potentially have a lot in common with a more conservative worldview. Affirmative action and higher taxes both hurt Hindu-American communities. Most Hindu-Americans are well-educated, legal immigrants who have waited their turn to enter the United States. Additionally, some Hindu-Americans are not favorably disposed toward Muslim immigration due to centuries-old tensions between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia. Yet Hindu-Americans lean toward Democrats on many non-religious issues as well.

On the topics of immigration and civil rights, because most Hindu-Americans are Indian-Americansa minority in the United States whose descendants were once subject to British colonialismcombating racism (real or perceived) is particularly important to Hindu-Americans. Hindus and Muslims are, so to say, on the same side in the United States, as they might not be distinguishable to the European-American population. This predisposition for racial grievance among Indians can be taken to absurd lengths by second-generation Hindus (and Indians), many of whom drinkup the more extreme kool-aid of identity politics on college campuses. Because of the perception that the Democratic Party is more friendly toward immigrants, civil rights, and non-Western cultures, many Hindus support the party en masse in a tribalistic manner. On a related note, Hindu-Americans also want more legal, educated immigration for their kinfolk back in India; any scheme to curb H-1B visas is met with hostility on the part of the Hindu-American community, particularly because they contend that allowing more Indians into the country would be to the advantage of the United States.

The support of most Hindu-Americans for the Democratic Party in the United States is not necessarily tied to support for left-wing or right-wing politics in the American sense. Many Hindu Democratic voters in the United States are also strong supporters of the right-wing, Hindu-nationalist party currently in power in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The partys name means the Indian Peoples Party. Yet conservatism in the Indian sense is not particularly related to the American classical liberal tradition of individualism and small-government, although the right in India is generally more business-friendly than the left. The guiding philosophy of the BJP is Integral Humanism, an ideology that sees humans as both spiritual and material beings and seeks a compromise between capitalism and socialism. This philosophy resembles theories of Catholic economics and the One-Nation conservatism found in Britain that views society as organic and values paternalism and pragmatism; in the United States, some Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower had similar views. Very few Hindu-Americans, including business-friendly and socially conservative ones, identity with the Republican orthodoxy that emphasizes cutting taxes and services and reducing the size of government. It is an alien ideology to the Indian tradition, despite Indians being the single wealthiest Asian-American group in the United States in terms of median income.

In the Indian tradition, it has long been assumed that the well-off must assist with uplifting the poor, who would otherwise be incapable of doing so on their own. Perhaps this is because Indian society was inherently biased against individuals working their way up. According to the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, one of the prime duties of kings is government-sanctioned charity. More communitarian views of society (reflected by governance) are common in Asian cultures relative to Western societies. India has traditionally functioned as an interconnected society of villagers and peasants. Rice agriculture is an intensely cooperative activity. According to research in Science magazine, rice-growing societies are less likely be individualistic. As Thomas Talhelm, who led the study, explained: Families have to flood and drain their field at the same timeSo there are punishments for being too individualistic. He also noted that rice paddies require irrigation systems: That cost falls on the village, not just one familyso villages have to figure out a way to coordinate and pay for and maintain this system. It makes people cooperate. As such, an individuals or a familys self-interest has limited relevance in understanding Hindu-American political leanings.

Just as in the United Kingdom, the Conservatives recently beat Labour among Hindu and Sikh voters, Hindu-Americans current leanings toward the Democratic Party could change in the coming decades. The Republican party is becoming more economically populist and may become more influenced by Catholic notions of distributism. These trends could make the Republican Party more like the British Tories. In this scenario, more minorities might embrace the Republican Party.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative. He also writes for The National Interest and The Diplomat. He is part of the Hindu-American community.

View original post here:
Hindu-Americans Don't Vote Republican - The American Conservative

For the six years they ran the House before President Donald Trump arrived on the scene, Republicans voted repeatedly -- more than 50 times -- to either fully repeal, defund or in some way undermine Obamacare. On Capitol Hill or back home, they railed against the law, pledging to gut it -- if voters would only hand them the fillet knife.

And then, after some convincing, voters did.

The simple promise, launched years ago, to "repeal Obamacare" was the first, crucial error. Not because it wasn't a winning message, but because it was, in a way, too good. It was simple and clear. But there was no open reckoning with the downside and little apparent planning for the day it became possible. Clawing back welfare programs is never politically popular. For those who insist on trying, common sense says plowing ahead without a stress-tested alternative will only complicate matters.

A look back at recent comments from Republican officials on the front lines of the fight offers some telling suggestions. At the root is a very simple matter of conservative orthodoxy and the possibility that Republicans, newly empowered by Trump's election, appear to have read into his win a broader mandate than voters actually offered. That shouldn't come as a shock. Both parties tend to make too much of their presidential fortunes.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill set to work in 2017 with little more than a series of talking points -- the kind that seemed more in line with Reagan-style convervatism than Trumpism. Right off the bat, the idea of providing better access to medical care, which would be shifted back in the direction of the open market, emerged as a central theme of their pitch.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, during his confirmation hearings in January, telegraphed the strategy. Skirting skeptical Democrats' cross-examinations, he promised to work with Congress to assure "every single American has access to affordable coverage." During an earlier round he said all Americans should "have the opportunity to gain access" to it.

But access does not equal coverage. Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" how many people might lose coverage under the House plan, Speaker Paul Ryan said the number of uninsured would likely rise, but sought to frame it as a symptom of well-exercised "individual freedom."

Facing pressure from both moderates jolted by a fierce opposition and hardliners who still preferred full repeal, Ryan pulled the initial bill. A tweaked version designed to convert Republican holdouts would pass, narrowly, about a month later.

Over time, Republicans began to back off the "access" proposition, but never seemed to agree on a new direction.

Senate Republicans promptly trashed the House legislation and set about writing their own.

But there was another problem brewing. Congressional GOP messaging about what the final product would deliver ran up most rudely not against Democrats' objections, or protesters at town hall meetings, but the most powerful Republican of them all: the President. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised, vaguely but consistently, that his health care plan would cover more people and -- crucially now -- not mess with Medicaid.

"That ought to be the goal -- repair, replace, whatever the words are people use today," he said. "The question is, (is) there something that can be done, and I await that conclusion."

Continue reading here:
Why the Republican health care message is floundering - CNN International

Miami Herald

In Cuban-majority House district, Republican rivalry spills into court Miami Herald The Republican primary for a Cuban-majority Miami House district has turned into a political slugfest more bitter than the strongest cafecito. It's a race marked by allegations of dishonesty and attacks on the candidates' Cuban ties. The contenders ...

Read the rest here:
In Cuban-majority House district, Republican rivalry spills into court - Miami Herald

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller speaks at a town hall inside the Reno-Sparks Convention Center on April 17 in Reno. Heller says he opposes the health care proposal put forth by Senate GOP leaders. David Calvert/Getty Images hide caption

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller speaks at a town hall inside the Reno-Sparks Convention Center on April 17 in Reno. Heller says he opposes the health care proposal put forth by Senate GOP leaders.

When senators come back to Washington on Monday, a handful of Republicans will help decide the fate of legislation that could reshape health care in America.

One of them is Nevada Republican Dean Heller.

Sen. Heller is one of a small bunch of Republicans who have said they will not support the latest draft proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Republican leadership can only lose the support of two of its own senators and still pass such a bill.

The Republican senators who say they'll vote no on the latest health care plan fall into two camps. Members of the party's right wing think this proposal is too timid and doesn't go far enough to undo the Affordable Care Act. More moderate Republicans, like Heller, think it is harsh and goes too far.

"I'm telling you right now, I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes away insurance away from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans," he said.

Nevada's popular governor, Brian Sandoval, was the first Republican governor in the country to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. More than 200,000 uninsured people got coverage after the expansion.

With that expansion of coverage, many people here are watching the fate of this bill to learn whether they'll be able to keep going to the doctor.

Heller's position has prompted advocacy groups and constituents on both sides of the issue to flood his office with calls.

For weeks, protesters have been showing up outside the senator's Las Vegas office urging him to oppose any changes to the health care system that would roll back provisions like the Medicaid expansion or funding for Planned Parenthood.

Opponents of the Republican health care proposal protest outside Republican Sen. Dean Heller's office in Nevada. Ari Shapiro/NPR hide caption

Opponents of the Republican health care proposal protest outside Republican Sen. Dean Heller's office in Nevada.

Cyndy Hernandez, who helped organize the most recent protest, says Heller's opposition to the bill GOP leadership is crafting isn't necessarily a done deal "not until he marks that button on his desk in the Senate chamber."

Patients at FirstMed clinic, where 80 percent of the patients are on Medicaid, voice their concern on a daily basis, nurse Maria Vital says. Administrators say the clinic would be forced to close without the funding it gets through the Affordable Care Act. Many of these patients went years without seeing a doctor for easily treatable conditions before the clinic opened, Vital says.

"They're very scared," she says. "They're asking us what will happen to them, and I tell them we will try to be here as long as we can for them."

Maria Vital is a nurse at FirstMed Clinic, where a majority of the patients are on Medicaid. Sam Gringlas/NPR hide caption

Maria Vital is a nurse at FirstMed Clinic, where a majority of the patients are on Medicaid.

Across town in Henderson, Taylor Lewis lives with her 7-year-old daughter Riley in a modest condo, with a couple of dogs and a large collection of plastic toy dinosaurs. Riley whispers their names as she pulls each one out of a big paper bag: stegosaurus, pterodactyl, Tyrannosaurus rex.

Ten days after Riley was born, a helicopter rushed her to the hospital for emergency heart surgery. When Taylor got over the shock of her daughter's near-death, she got another shock. The helivac bill totaled $20,000.

On top of being a single mom, Taylor has been working part time and studying part time she just finished her master's in public health.

Until she finds a full-time job, she depends on Medicaid to cover all of her daughter's medical costs.

She sometimes thinks about what her life would be like if Nevada had not expanded Medicaid coverage.

"I mean, I'd be without anything. I'd be without a car, a house," Taylor says.

Taylor Lewis sits with her 7-year-old daughter Riley. Until Taylor finds a full-time job, she says she depends on Medicaid to cover all of her daughter's medical costs. Ari Shapiro/NPR hide caption

Taylor Lewis sits with her 7-year-old daughter Riley. Until Taylor finds a full-time job, she says she depends on Medicaid to cover all of her daughter's medical costs.

For people on both sides of this debate, the stakes seem far higher than a typical piece of legislation.

People like Taylor feel that what has been proposed puts their lives on the line; Republicans who support the bill see a chance for lawmakers like Heller to keep a promise that Republicans have made in every campaign for nearly a decade.

Conservative talk radio host Wayne Allyn Root says nearly every caller now talks about voting Heller out of office because of his opposition to the draft proposal that Republicans floated in recent weeks.

"If Heller votes no on the repeal he's got to go, you gotta primary him," he says.

Root broadcasts out of his home studio for three hours each day. He has piles of framed photographs, including images of him with President Trump, Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan.

Root says his listeners are aghast that a Republican senator from their own state could be responsible for helping to kill this bill.

Wayne Allyn Root hosts a conservative talk radio show from his home studio. Sam Gringlas/NPR hide caption

Wayne Allyn Root hosts a conservative talk radio show from his home studio.

National groups on both sides have put millions of dollars into TV ads trying to sway Heller. The senator is home for the July Fourth recess this week, but he isn't spending that time holding town halls.

In the small town of Ely, he rode a horse in the July Fourth parade. He watched the fireworks in Elko, another town in rural northern Nevada. Even there, some people heckled him.

Heller declined the Republican Party's invitation to march in the town of Pahrump, which has the same spectrum of Republican views that's dividing the Senate.

Local party chairman Joe Burdzinski thinks the bill is too timid. He'd stand with senators like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, holding out for a full repeal.

"The Republican Party has said for the last eight years we're gonna repeal and get rid of Obamacare. That's what Donald Trump said he wanted to do, that's what other Republicans running for office have said. Now they have to live up to that commitment to the American people because ... the American people voted for that," he says.

Leo Blundo, another official with the Nye County Republican Central Committee, has more sympathy for Sen. Heller, but doesn't quite believe Republican leaders who say this is the only train leaving the station.

Leo Blundo (left) and Joe Burdzinski are officials with the Nye County Republican Central Committee. Sam Gringlas/NPR hide caption

Leo Blundo (left) and Joe Burdzinski are officials with the Nye County Republican Central Committee.

"It's public knowledge we got both houses [of Congress]," he says. "Get some business done. ... Quit mickey-mousing around and get some work done."

For Heller, the considerations about Medicaid expansion and repeal promises might all take a back seat to a more pressing reality. He's up for re-election next year a Republican in a state that has gone blue for the last three presidential elections.

Whatever position he takes on the final bill, that race will be far from an easy win.

The rest is here:
Nevada Voters, Divided Over Health Care, Put Moderate Republican In Tough Spot - NPR

Good luck with that. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The Republican drive to repeal Obamacare is not yet dead, but its state of distress is sufficient to set off recriminations on the right on its presumed failure. The most popular explanation emerging on the right is that Republicans erred by promising Americans too much coverage. The problem for Republicans, argues Peter Suderman, is that they have not yet backed away from universal coverage rhetorically. Philip Klein laments a fatal concession made to liberals: the decision to take Obamacares approach to pre-existing conditions. They argue that the party should instead have designed a stingier program, with catastrophic coverage, rather than make commitments they couldnt carry out. Whats missing from the arguments is any serious analysis of why Republican rhetoric fudged the universal coverage question.

Since Obamacare passed Congress in 2010, Republicans have had two presidential elections to sell America on their alternative vision. When Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, thus closing out the Republican Partys only opportunity to repeal Obamacare before its coverage expansion took effect, conservatives theorized that Romneys history prevented him from making the necessary full-throated denunciation of the hated law. (To wit, Erick Erickson: He did not articulate strong fiscal conservatism and he never repudiated Romneycare, thereby failing to make any credible attacks on Obamacare.)

Four years later, Trump ran as an opponent of Obamacare, but he hardly embraced an authentic conservative stance. Instead he made extravagant promises of more generous coverage, like I am going to take care of everybody Everybodys going to be taken care of much better than theyre taken care of now.

It is not merely bad luck that deprived conservatives of a committed champion of their health-care vision. Republican candidates responded to what they public has demanded. Indeed, Romneys experience creating the precursor to Obamacare, far from hurting him, provided the foundation for his best moment in the entire campaign. It came in the first presidential debate, when he cited his history as a guide to how he would act as president. (I do have a plan that deals with people with preexisting conditions. Thats part of my health-care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state.)

Conservatives cannot point to any real-world examples of a country or even a state that has successfully implemented the sort of health-care system they desire. (Some of them mistakenly cite Singapore, whose health-care system relies on massive state intervention American conservatives could never accept.) Thats because theres no electorate in any industrialized country that would tolerate it.

Is that because a conservative health-care plan with catastrophic coverage and high deductibles is technically impossible to design? No, its because such a plan is politically impossible to sustain. People dont want insurance coverage that only protects them against rare disasters. They want to be able to go to the doctor and get treated. In the English vernacular, comprehensive coverage is called good insurance and high-deductible insurance is called bad insurance.

Suppose we lived in a world in which Trump had decided to implement a true conservative health-care plan, and he persuaded Republicans in Congress to take the massive hit to their standing by passing one. What would happen next? Well, once it happened, and tens of millions of people were thrown into the individual market where they could only afford bad insurance, Democrats would start promising to give them good insurance instead. Eventually they would win and give it to them.

The Republican Partys fanatical struggle against Obamacare gave conservative intellectuals a great deal of false hope. By pressuring members of Congress to withhold support in Congress, the Supreme Court to make the Medicaid expansion optional, governors to sabotage state exchanges and turn down the Medicaid expansion, and imposing uncertainty on insurers, they generated an atmosphere of maximum chaos and controversy around the law. They managed to create the impression that Obamacare was a dirty piece of business, and that it was responsible for every bad thing in the health-care system. But they never sold the public on the idea that Americans should not have access to basic medical care.

The nine nations that possess nuclear weapons did not participate in the treaty negotiations.

Congressman Mike Conaways family bought stock in UnitedHealth the same day that a bill repealing Obamacares taxes on insurers advanced in committee.

A viral moment from the G20 summit.

An op-ed co-authored by Clinton strategist Mark Penn tells Democrats to emulate a 1996 strategy the actual candidates did not pursue.

The First Lady was sent in to interrupt them during the G20 summit.

One Democrat in Trenton wants to make sure Beachgate stays in the news.

Rioters mixed with peaceful protesters as world leaders gathered in the German city.

At a meeting than ran 90 minutes longer than expected, Trump and Putin discussed Russian interference in U.S. elections, the secretary of State says.

The definition of the Supreme Courts bona fide relationship is the new battleground.

The vice-president ignored some very large instructions on NASA equipment labeled Do Not Touch.

Competitors in 43 sports from 80 countries have gathered in Tel Aviv for the Maccabiah Games.

At a meeting with Enrique Pea Nieto, Trump returns to the topic that drove a wedge between the two leaders.

The German chancellors husband is shady.

In June, there were an impressive 222,000 new jobs created. How much does Trumps agenda have to do with it?

They may be looking for ways to disrupt the U.S. electric grid, but DHS and the FBI said there is no indication of a threat to public safety.

There were no injuries, but the minor derailment caused more even delays at the troubled station.

Doctors said the congressman, who was shot last month, tolerated the procedure well.

See original here:
Why Didn't Republicans Promise a Conservative Health-Care Plan? Because They're Not Idiots. - New York Magazine