Mediaboss Marketing

On the surface, it would be appear to be the easy component of President Trump's infrastructure plan for Republicans to agree upon: a wonky, bureaucratic reform that could be done cheaply.

Yet, Trump's promotion of a long-held Republican idea privatizing the nation's government-run air traffic control system landed with a thud in Congress, failing to attract sufficient support at even the committee level in the Senate.

Late last month, a GOP-controlled Senate committee chose to ignore the proposal, approving a long-term aviation bill that maintains air traffic control as it is.

But the idea is receiving a far different reception in the House.

In the lower chamber, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advanced a plan championed by Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., that transfers air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration to a nonprofit corporation.

Lawmakers and advocates concede the GOP disagreement over the issue highlights the uncertain prospects for fulfilling the kind of big-spending, transformative infrastructure investment that Trump described on the campaign trail.

"I am very interested in helping the administration move forward with infrastructure," said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., who is on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the panel with jurisdiction over the FAA that chose to not pursue air traffic control privatization.

"I agree with the president that we have underinvested in infrastructure, and the country's economy can be greatly enhanced by improving it," Moran told the Washington Examiner. "But I think fighting over this part of the infrastructure program [air traffic control] slows down progress we can make in getting a larger infrastructure plan in place."

Moran, like other Republican senators serving rural states, opposes privatizing the air traffic control system because he worries that smaller airports and general aviation, such as private pilots and business jets, will lose under a nonprofit governed by a board composed of industry players.

These critics are listening to warnings expressed by groups such as the Alliance for Aviation Across America, which represents general aviation airports and farmers, that argue a nonprofit system funded by user fees would favor major revenue generators airlines at busy, urban airports.

In Kansas, Moran is especially beholden to the interests of the general aviation industry. Cessna, Beechcraft and Bombardier Learjet all manufacture jets and aviation products in the state, with those companies accounting for about 43 percent of private aircraft manufactured in the U.S., according to the Kansas Chamber of Commerce.

"My general concern of privatization is if there is to be a benefit to air traffic control, it will accrue only to the largest cities in the county," Moran said. "Counties that are not the largest will find less satisfactory service."

Moran predicts privatization will meet the same fate as it has in the past. Shuster saw his proposal to privatize air traffic control fail to make it the House floor last year.

"Even with Trump, I don't see we are in any different position this year," Moran said.

Shuster sees things differently. He began selling his plan to Trump in 2014, before Trump was a presidential candidate, as the means for making America's air traffic control modernized and efficient, moving from ground-based radar to satellite-based GPS. That shift is already occurring with a technology known as NextGen, but Shuster says it will be done faster and cheaper with privatization.

Britain, Canada and New Zealand, among others, have already successfully switched to independently controlled air traffic control systems, in some form a potent pitch to a president who views America as losing ground.

Shuster's latest privatization plan passed his committee late last month as the cornerstone of an FAA reauthorization bill, mostly along party lines.

He says this year's legislation contains new provisions meant to appease holdouts, such as the one that requires providers to continue to offer flight service to places that receive it now, meaning rural areas should not be ignored.

The 13-member board governing the proposed nonprofit, Shuster says, would have broad representation, including members from passenger airlines, cargo airlines, regional airlines, general aviation, business jets, controllers, airports and commercial pilots.

Shuster says he guesses the bill will pass the full House this time, as Speaker Paul Ryan supports privatization. He says that even if the Senate passes its own bill without the air traffic control reforms, the two chambers will negotiate a solution in conference, a tough sell under a tight deadline, as the FAA's legal authority expires at the end of September.

"If the Senate passes its own bill, with or without the transformational reforms included in the committee's bill, then we'll go to conference and continue to work on this important bill," Shuster said in a statement.

Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla,. who voted for the privatization plan in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, predicts that Trump's advocacy of the issue will push Republicans to come around to it.

"Trump matters," Webster told the Washington Examiner. "He's got a veto pen, he's got influence and he will be working that issue. He worked the healthcare bill in the House, and it ended up passing."

Still, Webster contends if Trump and supportive lawmakers fail to implement air traffic control privatization, it wouldn't doom the rest of the president's infrastructure agenda.

Trump has sparsely outlined his broader infrastructure proposal, offering $200 billion in direct federal spending over 10 years. The plan would use tax breaks to incentivize private business to spend more money on infrastructure projects. With state and local contributions, total spending would equal $1 trillion.

"This [air traffic control privatization] is a tiny piece I don't think it bleeds into the overall infrastructure issue," Webster said. "The huge, deciding portion of the infrastructure debate will be the money. How do we pay for it, can we pay for it. That's the giant elephant in the room."

Robert Poole, a transportation expert with the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank that backs Shuster's proposal, says the fate of air traffic control privatization in Congress will be telling.

"This will certainly be a test for the White House to see how much sway the Trump administration has over infrastructure issues," Poole told the Washington Examiner. "We will see how they decide to deal with this and see how serious they are. This is the one thing they can do before they get over the hurdle of tax reform and health care, because the FAA reauthorization process is already underway and should be done this year. This is supposed to be the leading edge of their infrastructure initiative."

Go here to read the rest:
Republican air traffic control disagreement could be trouble for Trump infrastructure plan - Washington Examiner

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