Mediaboss Marketing

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

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

USA Today first reported the existence of the letter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

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

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

Subscribe

Thank You!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued here:
Understanding Republican Cruelty - New York Times

Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno announced her resignation Thursday, another sign of the lack of progress at the Capitol as Illinois teeters toward a third year without a comprehensive spending plan.

The first woman to lead a legislative caucus left little doubt her departure was in part born of frustration over the partisan stalemate that has sent state government finances spiraling downward despite her efforts to reach a compromise that would satisfy a demanding Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and a Democratic-led General Assembly.

"I will say that I feel strongly that the governor has the right agenda, but it's not that easy getting there. We need fundamental change in this building, but we need to compromise in order to get there," said Radogno, 64, of southwest suburban Lemont.

"We have to put aside personalities. We have to prioritize what we want. Nobody gets 100 percent, but what do you absolutely have to have? When you negotiate, you need to understand and get in the skin of the person you're talking to," she said, providing advice for the governor and other legislative leaders.

The 20-year veteran lawmaker had earned plaudits for working with Democrats. Radogno said for months she had been looking for a "natural break" in the legislative schedule to begin her retirement. In what could be viewed as an ominous acknowledgment, Radogno said she chose Saturday, the start of the state's new budget year, to retire because "I'm not sure there's another natural break coming anytime soon."

Radogno's announcement came as the state faced increased warnings of financial doom if it went past Friday's deadline without a spending plan.

Facing a downgrade to "junk" credit status, a federal court ruling that could require increased payments to Medicaid providers, uncertainty for some school openings in the fall, the future of what remains of a frayed social service safety net and the prospect of road construction project shutdowns, Democratic Comptroller Susana Mendoza said the consequences to the state of failing to reach a budget agreement by midnight Friday go from the current "horrific" to "catastrophic."

Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan pledged to open Friday with a House vote on his members' version of a state $36.5 billion spending plan, despite no agreement on items Rauner has made a prerequisite toward signing a budget and tax increase including changes in workers' compensation and a freeze on property taxes.

Rep. Greg Harris, Madigan's top budget negotiator, said that depending on the fate of the spending plan, Democrats would then vote on their tax plan. Filed late Thursday, the proposal would raise the personal income tax rate from the current 3.75 percent to 4.95 percent.

Unlike tax legislation approved earlier by the Senate, it would not be retroactive to Jan. 1 but instead begin with the July 1 start of the budget year. That change is designed to avoid having people pay even more in income taxes the rest of the year to catch up for the past six months. Also out is an expansion of sales taxes to some services. The hike would be permanent, against Rauner's desire to make it temporary.

By calling the budget and tax plan in the House, Madigan will be taking the temperature of House Republicans with Rauner's must-have issues still undecided. Even if all House Democrats vote for measures in this special legislative session, at least four Republican votes are needed for passage.

"We are staring into the abyss," Harris said. "I think everyone who cares about the state of Illinois should support this. This is the chance."

If those measures fail to gain enough support, Harris said Democrats would consider a series of backup bills to spend money in key areas such as social services and education. But those efforts would not come with the needed dollars to actually pay for the programs, meaning they are likely designed to provide political cover to allow Democrats to say they voted in favor of projects important to their districts even if a broader deal isn't reached.

"Those are the contingencies, we don't want to vote on those," Harris said.

Madigan also maintained that he and Democratic Senate President John Cullerton insisted that Rauner sign a Democratic-passed bill to rewrite how the state divvies up money for public schools. Rauner had previously vowed to veto the measure, calling its level of funding for Chicago Public Schools a "bailout."

Madigan also said that any efforts to change the workers' compensation system for people injured on the job must include a rate review of premiums charged by insurers. Democrats contend 2011 changes should provide more savings to businesses, but insurers are increasing their profits instead. Republicans are pushing for further cuts to fees doctors, hospitals and pharmacies receive for treating workers with rates closer to those set under Medicaid.

On property taxes, Democrats have agreed to Rauner's call for a four-year statewide freeze, but are pushing for several exemptions that Republicans contend would result in little relief. They include exemptions for Chicago and troubled school districts such as CPS. The freeze also would not apply to levies that are used to pay debt or pension payments for employees, including police and firefighters.

Madigan declined to detail areas where Democrats may be open to further "adjustments" on their property tax proposal. He also refused to predict if a resolution would come ahead of the start of the new budget year, saying anything is possible if the sides remain "reasonable." That was a dig at Rauner, who he has repeatedly accused of pushing an "extreme" agenda.

"I think I have moved considerably to engage on all of these issues," Madigan said. "I don't see that I am being unreasonable. I am here. I am proposing to vote for things I don't believe in. I don't think the government should be about the business of reducing the benefit level of an injured worker. That's not the right thing to do. But in the spirit of compromise I am prepared to vote for that."

House lawmakers Thursday also approved a new version of an already passed measure that could raise monthly phone fees for 911 services money that Mayor Rahm Emanuel hopes to route toward paying down Chicago's pension debt. Rauner has threatened to veto the initial measure.

The version of the bill that's now on Rauner's desk would extend the Emergency Telephone System Act, which is set to expire Saturday, and would allow Chicago to raise its 911 fee to $5 per month from $3.90, while jurisdictions outside the city would see their monthly rate go from 87 cents to $1.50 per line.

A Rauner aide last week called on lawmakers to pass a new bill that does not include the surcharge hikes but ensures that the Emergency Telephone System Act is extended to provide for local 911 services.

Instead, Republicans and Democrats in the House came together to pass a backup version of the bill that continues the 911 funding stream if the law expires because of a Rauner veto or inaction of the original proposal. The Senate approved the legislation Wednesday.

The idea is that if Rauner vetoes the first bill while lawmakers are out of town, they can send him the second bill without having to make a special trip to Springfield to take a vote.

But the day's news was dominated by word of Radogno's retirement from a leadership post she has held since 2009 when she succeeded Frank Watson of Downstate Greenville, who had suffered a stroke.

Even before her announcement, behind-the-scenes efforts to replace Radogno were being made by state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, who served as her top deputy in the Senate GOP caucus, and by state Sen. Karen McConnaughay, the former Kane County Board chairman from St. Charles.

In a statement, Rauner called Radogno "a consummate professional and public servant, who has championed fiscal responsibility and human services that help our most vulnerable residents."

Talk of Radogno's decision had begun spreading privately during the closing days of June in the aftermath of months of contentiousness with a Democratic legislative majority and a Republican governor who has extensively used his personal wealth to command loyalty among GOP lawmakers.

But Radogno found her members' loyalty to Rauner sometimes created conflict with loyalty to her leadership, some Republicans said privately. That surfaced in working with Cullerton to try to negotiate an end to the impasse known as the "grand bargain."

Rauner eventually contended the so-called bargain did not go far enough to satisfy him, and Democrats accused him of stripping away GOP votes from a version of the package.

Radogno said she was "disappointed" that a bipartisan package failed to materialize in May but told reporters, "If that was my motivation (to resign) I would have been gone then."

Though Radogno has been in the General Assembly for two decades, a decision to step down had been expected as the grind of legislative sessions, particularly serving in the minority, began to take its toll.

Besides the political battles, Radogno also had some personal tragedies during her tenure, including the June 2014 death of her 31-year-old daughter, Lisa, who worked for then-U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk's office in Washington.

"As you may know, my daughter was on the Hill, so politics was really important to her, so knowing (that, I) doubled down my interest in it," Radogno said, tearing up.

"But it did give me the perspective that nothing's forever and I don't want to be squandering my life with my husband and my grandkids and my other daughters," she said. "We only all have a certain amount of time and that experience told me that's for sure."

rap30@aol.com

Twitter @rap30

View original post here:
Illinois Senate Republican leader Radogno steps down - Chicago Tribune

The Fix's Callum Borchers explains the years-long feud between President Trump and the hosts of MSNBC's "Morning Joe." (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

People suffering from Alzheimers often experience something called sundowning, when in the early evening they become particularly disoriented and erratic in their behavior. The president of the United States experiences something we might call mornraging, when at the beginning of the day he tunes in to morning television shows, hears something that makes him mad and fires off tweets that highlight the darkest recesses of his id.

At the precise moment when President Trump is trying to persuade Republican senators not to abandon one of the partys most critical policy initiatives, its almost as though hes trying to give members of his party reasons to get as far from him as possible. That could have continuing consequences for the partys ability to achieve tricky and complex policy and political goals.

Heres what Trump sent this morning:

If Donald Trump were your friend, your uncle or your co-worker, youd feel compelled to say to him, Dude, cmon. Dont be such a jerk. But hes not any of those things. Hes the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world.

And some Republican members of Congress are indeed telling him to stop being such a jerk. This has to stop we all have a job 3 branches of govt and media. We dont have to get along, but we must show respect and civility, tweeted Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Please just stop. This isnt normal and its beneath the dignity of your office., added Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America, said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). The Presidents tweets today dont help our political or national discourse and it does not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue, said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).

This is not okay, said Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.). As a female in politics, I am often criticized for my looks. We should be working to empower women.

But he wont stop. This is who he is. We all know that. Trump is not going to become presidential, hes not going to rein in his worst instincts, and hes not going to stop mornraging. Hes a petty, vindictive, insecure little man with no impulse control. Its who he is and who he will always be.

After President Trump tweeted insults at MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski on June 29, White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump and said Americans "knew what they were getting" when they elected him. (Reuters)

Republicans knew exactly who he was when they all lined up behind him in 2016, even if many harbored the naive hope that he would be changed by the office. But they also assumed that with total control of the government, they would pass a boatload of bills, hed sign them, and his personal weaknesses wouldnt much matter. It turns out, however, that it isnt so simple. As were seeing in the health-care debacle currently underway, when youre trying to accomplish something complex and politically perilous, you need the president. You need him to be a persuasive public advocate for your policy, and you need him to help resolve internal differences and forge consensus.

But Trump fails on both both counts. He cant be a persuasive advocate because he doesnt understand the policies he advocates for, and he has focused so relentlessly on telling his base what they want to hear that people outside that base just dont believe him. When he gives an interview or makes a speech about what Republicans are trying to do, hes likely to say something that contradicts or undermines their case. And internally, hes rapidly losing whatever respect he had from Republicans.

Consider this description from a recent article by some of The Posts political reporters about how Trump is viewed by members of his own party in Congress:

In private conversations on Capitol Hill, Trump is often not taken seriously. Some Republican lawmakers consider some of his promises such as making Mexico pay for a new border wall fantastical. They are exhausted and at times exasperated by his hopscotching from one subject to the next, chronicled in his pithy and provocative tweets. They are quick to point out how little command he demonstrates of policy. And they have come to regard some of his threats as empty, concluding that crossing the president poses little danger.

Republicans are facing some tricky challenges in the months ahead passing a budget, increasing the debt ceiling, tax reform and success can require subtle negotiations. At times, it may be necessary for the president to convince individual members to put aside their own ideas and interests in favor of something that is good for the party but might not be good for them. Who thinks Trump is capable of that?

Now lets be clear about something: Republicans are not a profile in courage on the question of Donald Trumps boorishness. They supported him in 2016 when he was accused by multiple women of harassment, when he made racist attacks on a judge, when he picked a fight with a Gold Star family, when he was caught on tape bragging about his ability to commit sexual assault with impunity and they still support him as long as hes doing what they want. There are precious few of them who stood up and said that they could not in good conscience stand behind such a despicable human being, and history will judge them harshly for their complicity in this disaster of a presidency.

But what Im talking about here are the moments when they arent all in agreement, and Trump would have to exercise leadership to pull them together. If youre a member of Congress, making the decision to overcome your doubts and do what the president asks isnt easy. A lot of factors play into it your fear that he might punish you, the personal relationship youve built with him, your constituents feelings about him, your worries about reelection, your belief in your own independence and so on. Trump has been president for barely five months, and were already seeing that members of Congress dont really fear him, theyre continually amazed by his ignorance about policy, and they think his White House is a bunch of amateurs.

Trump could change that state of affairs, but it would take time, work and an inclination he apparently lacks. Instead, hed rather just say that everything is going great. So he keeps making it worse. If youre in the midst of sensitive negotiations over health care and you desperately need to hold the votes of (among others) Sens. Collins, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), maybe launching puerile sexist tweets at cable news personalities is not going to help.

There are always going to be times when a member of Congress says, Mr. President, I respect and admire you, but I have to say no this time. That happens to every president. But if you convince them that youre not worthy of their respect and admiration, saying No becomes a lot easier.

Read more:
How Trump's disgusting behavior will make Republican disunity more likely - Washington Post (blog)