Mediaboss Marketing

Just like Democrats, Connecticut Republican voters will have an opportunity to vote for their preferred presidential candidate on April 28, choosing among President Donald Trump and two challengers.

Unless their own party leaders successfully sue to block them.

For the chance to vote you can thank a Democrat, Secretary of State Denise Merrill. Last week, Merrill announced the GOP primary contestants will include Trump, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld and California real estate developer and perennial gadfly candidate Rocky De La Fuente.

Merrill made her announcement over the objections of J.R. Romano, chairman of Connecticuts Republican Party.

Romano opposes allowing Connecticut GOP voters a choice. Yes, you read that right. Romano wants to dispense with election formalities and simply hand Trump Connecticuts 28 delegates.

The Republican leader told us the outcome is obvious, so why waste the money? There is no one seriously challenging the president, its crazy. Republicans should have control over their own primary, he said.

Romano has said the Republican Party is considering a lawsuit to challenge Merrills decision. That would probably be a waste of money the party could better spend on trying to win elections.

I dont think there should be a primary in Connecticut, Romano said.

Poppycock. Even as Republican legislatures around the country concoct new voter suppression methods, Romanos push to cancel the Connecticut GOP presidential primary entirely strikes us as extreme.

Extreme, perhaps, but not out of the question. Republican leaders in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Virginia have done just that. Primaries there were cancelled, and all delegates pledged to Trump.

This makes no sense. If Trump is the only viable Republican presidential candidate, whats Romano worried about? The New Hampshire GOP primary featured no less than nine presidential candidates. Even in that crowded field, Trump won New Hampshire convincingly with 86% of the vote. Weld finished second with 9.1%. De La Fuente finished last with 146 votes.

The New Hampshire result affirmed Trumps dominance among Granite State Republicans. It also allowed Republican voters who disagree a chance to register their preference.

Under Connecticut law, the secretary of the state determines who is on the presidential primary ballot based on a candidate being seriously advocated or recognized according to reports in the national or state news media. Merrill said Weld and De La Fuente meet the criteria.

Weld has qualified as a candidate in 38 states. He certainly meets the benchmark. De La Fuente not so much, but had he been kept off the ballot he probably would have sued and likely prevailed, given past court decisions.

Romano has a point in criticizing the overly subjective leeway given the secretary of the state in deciding who gets on a presidential primary ballot. Implementing some objective criteria makes sense candidate supporters submitting some reasonable number of petition signatures or proof that a candidate had qualified for the ballot in some number of states, for example.

But the head of the state party is doing Connecticuts Republican voters a disservice by seeking to disenfranchise them in the presidential primary. Perhaps his fear is that too many Republicans will take the opportunity to cast a protest vote against the president. But that should be their right.

Let Republican Party voters have their say.

The Day editorial board meets regularly with political, business and community leaders and convenes weekly to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Tim Dwyer, Editorial Page Editor Paul Choiniere, Managing Editor Tim Cotter, Staff Writer Julia Bergman and retired deputy managing editor Lisa McGinley. However, only the publisher and editorial page editor are responsible for developing the editorial opinions. The board operates independently from the Day newsroom.

More:
New London and southeastern Connecticut News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Video - theday.com

Republican House candidate Danielle Stella iswanted by the law, but that isn't stopping her from trying to take Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) seat in Congress. According to theDaily Beast, she been able to raise almost $84,000 despite being wanted for felony shoplifting. She also has a sizable presence on social media.

Stella's fellow candidates for Omar's seat aren't too thrilled about her presence in the race. According to Republican candidate Lacy Johnson, Stella's negative headlines, along with her apparent belief in the "QAnon" conspiracy theory, could undermine the rest of the candidates.

"Candidates are reflections of the party in a way, and it's not a good reflection of the party in a sense," Johnson told the Daily Beast. "But now, being in politics, you do learn that people do have all kinds of ways of looking at things."

Her dabbling in conspiracies is already having an effect. Police were called to a hotel inOsceola, Wisconsin, after people flooded the hotel with phone calls after a YouTube conspiracy theorist speculated that she was in some sort of unspecified danger at the location. She also got the Twitter account for her campaign suspended for sharing a rumor about Omar being an Iranian government asset and calling for her to be "tried for #treason and hanged."

Stella's campaign is still active online, but Johnson is baffled as to how she plans to move forward, telling the Daily Beast,"I wouldn't even run if I was on the run from the police."

Advertisement:

Read more:
Republican challenger to Rep. Ilhan Omar continues to campaign while on the run from police - Salon

Suppose youre talking to someone who says, sure, they hate Trump personally (the tweets, the rallies, etc.) but they like his policies. So theyre going to vote for Trump unless someone can convince them that his policies are bad or that Democratic policies are better. Lets think about this. What are Trumps major policies?

Its worth noting that almost all of these are just bog standard Republican policies. The two exceptions are the border wall and the tariffs. However, the wall is popular among the Republican base and the tariffs, judging from how theyve been received, were always opposed more in word than deed.

Bottom line: if youve already decided that (a) Trumps bluster isnt enough to turn you off and (b) his corruption is mostly just a bunch of bogus partisan hysterics from Democrats, what is there for an ordinary Republican voter to dislike?

Go here to see the original:
What Is There For Republicans to Dislike About Donald Trump? - Mother Jones

Michael Bloomberg listens as he is introduced to speak in Manchester, N.H, January 29, 2019. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)

The fact that Michael Bloomberg was first elected as a Republican is well-known. The fact that Bloomberg endorsed George W. Bushs reelection in 2004 is generally known, although one wonders if the former mayors rivals will bring that up at Wednesdays debate.

Many people believe Bloomberg registered as a Republican in 2001 because he felt getting elected as a Republican mayor in New York would be easier than winning the mayoral nomination of the Democratic party. That may be the case, but federal election donation records indicate that Bloomberg consistently gave generously to candidates of both parties, all the way up to 2018.

Way back in 1991, Bloomberg donated $1,000 to George Bush, back when there was only one man named George Bush in the headlines. Three years later, he donated to the Senate bid of Fred Thompson in Tennessee. The following year, he donated $1,000 to Lamar Alexander, who was gearing up for a presidential bid and would later become a senator from Tennessee. Bloomberg also donated $1,000 that year to another GOP presidential candidate, Steve Forbes. (Lets face it, Forbes didnt really need the money.) In 1997, Bloomberg donated $4,000 to the New Jersey Republican State Committee, $5,000 to the New York Republican Federal Campaign Committee, and $1,000 to Matt Fong, who was gearing up for a Senate campaign in California against Barbara Boxer.

Bloomberg donated to John McCain several times over the years, and hosted a fundraiser for McCain in January 2000, during the GOP primary against Bush. In 2003, Bloomberg wasnt just a supporter of President Bushs reelection, he was a donor, contributing $2,000. He donated the maximum $4,000 ($2,000 for the primary, $2,000 for the general) to McCain and Richard Shelby of Alabama.

In 2007, he donated $250 to Rudy Giulianis presidential bid a figure that stands out as surprisingly small compared ot the other donations, and because of Bloombergs unique role as Giulianis successor. In 2010, Bloomberg gave $2,400 to Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and $2,400 to Representative Michael Castle, who was preparing for a Senate bid in Delaware that year. In 2011, he donated $2,500 to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and $2,500 to Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. In 2014, he donated $10,000 to the Republican Party of Massachusetts and another $5,200 to Susan Collins of Maine, who is one of the top targets of Democrats this cycle. In 2015, he contributed $2,700 to Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.

Democrats warming up to Bloomberg may dismiss all that as pre-Trump ancient history. But in 2016, Bloomberg contributed $2,700 to Sen. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and another $2,700 to McCain.

In fact, Bloomberg kept giving to a pair of Republicans in the Trump era. He hosted a fundraiser for Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, in June 2018 and also donated $5,400 to Representative Dan Donovan, another New York Republican, who lost his bid for reelection.

While Bloomberg announced he was leaving the Republican Party in 2007, he only announced that he had formally changed his party affiliation to Democrat on October 10, 2018.

Tomorrow night, one of his rivals may want to point out to Democratic primary voters that Bloomberg has been financing the opposition for many, many years.

Go here to see the original:
Mike Bloomberg Gave to a Lot of Republicans Over the Years - National Review

But Romney's tactics drew immediate blowback from the right. Appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), who is up for election this fall, tweeted that Romney "wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @realDonaldTrump during their 15 minutes of fame."

Yet it was inarguable that the mood on Capitol Hill has changed drastically since the White House wrapped up two hours of its opening arguments on Saturday. Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has been saying for weeks he doesn't want to hear from any witnesses, admitted it "could be" useful to hear from Bolton as long as the Bidens and other GOP-requested witnesses are hauled into the Senate trial, too.

We need to figure out whats best for the court of impeachment, whats best for country. And thats something we will have to consider," Graham said. But he doused the idea of only hearing from Bolton with ice water: "If we add to the record, we need to do it completely."

"It may move the needle," said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). "Im not going to deny its going to change the decibel level and probably the intensity with which we talk about witnesses."

A spokesman for McConnell said he did not have "any advance notice" about Bolton's book manuscript.

Romney added the caveat that he would still need to hear from the White House to make a final decision on whether to consider new witnesses, but hes said all along that he wants to hear from Bolton. He also said he could not say that Bolton's testimony would determine whether he ultimately votes to acquit Trump or not.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is a key swing vote on witnesses, maintained his stance: He will make a decision on witnesses after the Senate's 16-hour question-and-answer period. At least four Republicans would need to join with all Democrats to advance the question of whether to seek new evidence and hear from witnesses.

So far, McConnell is prevailing. But after being down on their prospects last week, Democrats are wondering whether he could end up having to consider witnesses after all.

Its going to be hard to hold back. I dont know how they do it," said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Theyd be hard pressed not to have at least four or five of our Republican colleagues and friends that would vote for witnesses.

Senate Republicans discussed the news of Boltons conversation with Trump, reported by the New York Times, at a party lunch on Monday. McConnell reminded senators they don't need to make a decision on witnesses until later in the week, said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Monday afternoon.

As Trump attacked Bolton's credibility, some top Senate Republicans used a variety of arguments to try to downplay the new information from Bolton. Party leaders have been relentlessly arguing that hearing new witnesses could tie up the Senate for weeks if and when Trump exerts executive privilege to block their testimony. Executive privilege generally extends to current staffers, unlike Bolton who Trump fired in September.

We learned nothing new, nothing new," Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the number three Republican, asserted on Monday morning as Senate GOP leaders prepared to meet. "What weve now seen is a selective leak from a book. This is like Kavanaugh all over again.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), another member of the GOP leadership, said calling new witnesses would set an "incredibly dangerous precedent of frequent impeachments litigated by the Senate.

Im still of the view that the Houses job is to put the case together and they didnt do that. But members might decide its now the Senates job, Blunt said.

Democrats have made a consistent push since the start of the trial to subpoena Bolton, along with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Until Sunday evening, however, it seemed that Trump was on a glide path to acquittal by the end of the week.

But now Senate Republicans are sure to face growing pressure from inside and outside their ranks to justify why they dont want to hear from Bolton, who heard directly from Trump on the Ukraine aid issue. Boltons claims undercut a key argument of Trumps defense, which will hold its second day of opening arguments on Monday afternoon.

Trump's national security adviser from April 2018 to Sept. 2019, Bolton was among top administration officials who urged the president to restore aid to Ukraine. And he's long been respected by the Senate GOP. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) questioned the timing of Bolton's new revelations but didn't attack his credibility: "My guess is John Bolton tells the truth."

Bolton was also very critical of Rudy Giuliani's role in shaping Ukraine policy, calling him a "hand grenade" that would blow up on the White House, according to impeachment testimony from Dr. Fiona Hill, a former top NSC aide. Trump said early Monday that he "never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens."

Republicans "can deny and deny and deny. But Bolton has a credibility that surpasses Rudy Giuliani or Donald Trump, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Heather Caygle, Melanie Zanona and Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Bolton upends Republican fight against witnesses - POLITICO