Mediaboss Marketing

By Harriet McLeod | NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C.

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. U.S. Senator Tim Scott faced a quandary on Saturday in hosting his town hall: he promised to meet with his South Carolina constituents, but he wanted to avoid the kind of adversarial free-for-all so many Republicans encountered this week.

Scott decided to ban placards from his North Charlestown meeting in hopes of averting the raucousness that erupted at dozens of town halls during the first congressional recess of Donald Trump's month-old presidency.

The senator also required the crowd submit questions in writing ahead of time after other Republican lawmakers faced a wave of anger on issues ranging from Trump's immigration and healthcare policies to the president's ties to Russia.

Despite Scott's precautions, arguments broke out and constituents told one another to shut up, though many in the audience - mostly white and over the age of 50 - said the senator remained respectful and sincere. And it never degenerated into an all-out shouting match.

Scott, the only African-American Republican in the U.S. Senate, began his town hall by pulling slips of paper from a box and reading the questions aloud. But the overflow audience of 300, evenly divided between Trump opponents and supporters, reacted with loud boos and cheers, even before he could begin to answer.

To a question about a rise in hate crimes, Scott said the trend predates the president's campaign.

"We can blame Trump for a lot of things but I don't think we can blame him for this one," he said, following a pattern of distancing himself from Trump without directly criticizing him.

"Some people have come to the conclusion that this president has already failed," Scott said. "I hope that most of us, whether you voted for him or not, hope that he succeeds."

When asked about Trump's repeated denunciations of the media, Scott said he believed the press was more biased than in the past. Even so, he said, "I do not believe the press is an enemy to the American people," a phrase coined by the president.

Still, the meeting's format started to break down almost from the outset, with the audience shouting asides, while others tried to silence them. Scott answered some of the comments, but if he was interrupted, he tried to talk over the offender.

"LET THE MAN ANSWER"

The confrontational tone of this week's town halls is part of a tide of anti-Trump protests, marches and rallies that show little sign of abating just over a month into the new administration.

The anti-Trump energy has prompted talk of a liberal-style Tea Party movement, in reference to the protests in 2009 that helped reshape the Republican Party and arguably laid the groundwork for Trump's surprise electoral victory last year.

At Scott's town hall, the senator did allow a mother to stand up and tell her story. She said one of her two premature children died and the other was 6 years old with medical bills totaling more than $2 million, she said tearfully.

"The Affordable Care Act is imperfect but it is a good law. It saved my family," she said to a standing ovation, referring to the health care program known as Obamacare.

"That's a heartbreaking story," Scott said, pointing out that he chose ACA coverage for himself and his staff. Even so, "Obamacare is not sustainable."

The session almost broke down when a man stood up and faced the crowd as audience members were peppering Scott with loud comments. "Let the man answer the question," the man said on the senator's behalf. "Sit down and shut up."

Two men who wore red "Make America Great Again" hats clapped loudly. Arguments broke out in the crowd.

Eventually, Scott threatened to walk out.

"I know we prefer to blame Trump for our incivility," he said. "Let me ask, if we want to continue this conversation, that we do so in a way that no one feels threatened."

His admonitions appeared to work. Order was eventually restored, and Scott gave up on picking questions from the box and started calling on audience members if they raised their hands. The session ended on a relatively civil note.

(Story corrects paragraph 5 to read "the only African American Republican in the U.S. Senate" instead of "the only African American in the U.S. Senate".)

(Writing by Frank McGurty; Editing by Andrew Hay)

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he would not attend the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner, a high-profile event that draws celebrities, politicians and journalists.

WASHINGTON The Kuwaiti government could pay up to $60,000 to President Donald Trump's hotel in Washington for a party on Saturday that will be an early test of Trump's promise to turn over profits from such events to the U.S. Treasury.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md./WASHINGTON President Donald Trump said he would make a massive budget request for one of the "greatest military buildups in American history" on Friday in a feisty, campaign-style speech extolling robust nationalism to eager conservative activists.

See original here:
South Carolina Republican's town hall starts rowdy, ends peaceably - Reuters

WASHINGTON (AP) - Tensions have emerged at a meeting of the nation's governors over a Republican proposal for a major overhaul to Medicaid.

GOP governors intend to present Congress with a plan that they say would give states more flexibility to administer health coverage for poorer residents while protecting states from absorbing the costs of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Democratic governors accuse their Republican counterparts of being dishonest about the effects of their plan. Washington's Democratic governor, Jay Inslee, says Republicans "want to spend less money on people's health care so they can do tax cuts for the rich."

Major changes to former president Barack Obama's signature health care law appear inevitable with Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. But Inslee says there's still a chance that Democrats can win over GOP lawmakers who've been facing angry constituents at town hall meetings.

The angry rhetoric about health care reform has brought a dose of political reality to the nonpartisan National Governors' Association's winter meeting. Governors usually spend time praising each other and participating in panels on noncontroversial topics, such as early childhood education.

On Monday, the governors will meet with President Donald Trump and congressional leaders.

Link:
Democratic, Republican governors split over healthcare - KTUU.com

Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties expertsare calling an attack on protest rights throughout the states.

From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishmentsfor blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesterswith their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent.The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years,covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump.

Some are introducing bills because they say they're necessary to counter the actions of paid or professional protesters who set out to intimidate or disrupt, a common accusationthat experts agree is largelyoverstated.You now have a situation where you have full-time, quasi-professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder, said Republican state senatorJohn Kavanagh of Arizona in support of a measure there that would bring racketeering charges against some protesters.

Protesters in cities across the nation rallied against President Trump's executive order banning U.S. entry for refugees, migrants and foreign nationals for 120 days. Here's a look at some of the protests that took place in airports and city squares across the U.S. after the order was signed. (Dalton Bennett,Erin Patrick O'Connor,Elyse Samuels,Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

Others, like the sponsors of a bill in Minnesota, say the measures are necessary to protect public safety on highways. Still other bills, in states like Oklahoma and South Dakota, are intended to discourage protesting related to oil pipelines.

Democrats in many of these states are fighting the legislation. They cite existing laws that already make it a crime to block traffic, the possibilityof a chilling effect on protests across the political spectrum, and concerns for protesters safety in the face of aggressive motorists.

None of the proposed legislation has yet been passed into law, and several bills have already been shelved in committee.

Critics doubtwhether manyof the laws would pass Constitutional muster. The Supreme Court has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that streets, sidewalks and public parks are places where [First Amendment]protections are at their most robust, said Lee Rowland, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

This isby no means the first time in American history that widespread protests have inspired a legislative backlash, says Douglas McAdam, a Stanford sociology professor who studies protest movements. For instance, southern legislatures especially in the Deep South responded to the Montgomery Bus Boycott (and the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education) with dozens and dozens of new bills outlawing civil rights groups, limiting the rights of assembly, etc. all in an effort to make civil rights organizing more difficult, he said via email.

Similarly, he added, laws designed to limit or outlaw labor organizing or limit labor rights were common in the late 19th/early 20th century.

The ACLUs Rowland saysthe new bills are not about creating new rules that are necessary because of some gap in the law. She points out, for instance, thatevery single city and county in the United States already has laws on the books against obstructing traffic on busy roads.

Rather, Rowland says the laws intent is increasing the penalties for protest-related activity to the point that it results in self-censorship among protesters who have every intention to obey the law.

Even the accusationsofpaid or professional agitators, which Trump has promoted, have been leveled at protesters before.

This is standard operating procedure for movement opponents, Stanfords McAdamsaid.Civil rights workers were said to be outside agitators, and the tea party was dismissed as an AstroTurf phenomenon funded from on high by the Koch brothers and others rather than a legitimate grass roots movement. In all these cases, including the present, the charges are generally bogus, withthe vast majority of protesters principled individuals motivated by the force of deeply held values and strong emotion.

But now, social media has made it possible to organize larger protests more rapidly than ever before. The older laws are becoming less effectual in dealing with these kind of groups, said Michael Heaney of the University of Michigan, a political sociologist who studies protest movements. On top of that, the courts have said, Look, the people have a right to protest in this way. So on some level the new legislation represents an attemptby lawmakers to catch up with new realities of 21st-century protesting.

Heres a list of laws that have been introduced or voted on since the election.

Arizona

Arizonas bill, introduced this week, would open upprotests to anti-racketeering legislation, targeting protesters with the same laws used to combat organized crime syndicates.It would alsoallow police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. It recently passed the state Senate on a party-line vote and is now before the House.

Colorado

A bill under consideration in Colorado wouldstrengthen penalties for tampering with oil and gas equipment. Itsintended to prevent activists from shutting off pipelines, a tactic thats been used in other states.

Florida

A bill introduced by Republican George Gainer in the Florida Senate this month would provide criminal penalties for protesters obstructing traffic and exempt driversfrom liability if they struck a protester under certain conditions. It was filed this week, and if enacted would take force on July 1.

Georgia

A "Back the Badge" bill recently passed by the Georgia Senate increases penalties for blocking "any highway, street, sidewalk or other public passage." The bill is sponsored by six Republican senators.

Iowa

A bill supportedby nine Republican sponsors would make protesters who intentionally block highways subject to felony charges and up to five years in prison. The bills lead sponsor told the Des Moines Register it was introduced in response to a November incidentin which a protest Trump shut down part of Interstate 80 in Iowa.

Indiana

An Indiana Senate committee recently toned down a bill that would have allowed police to shut down highway protests using any means necessary. The current version allows police to issue fines for such behavior.

Michigan

A Michigan bill voted on late last year would have increased fines for certain mass picketing behavior, and made it easier for courts to shut down such demonstrations.

Minnesota

Bills under consideration in Minnesota would increase fines for protesters blocking highways and airports. A separate measure before the legislature would make it possible for jurisdictions to charge protesters for the costs of policing the protests.

Missouri

A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would make it illegal for protesters to wear masks, robes or other disguises during protests deemed to be illegal.

Mississippi

A bill before the Mississippi legislature would make obstruction of traffic a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.

North Carolina

A North Carolina Republican has pledged to introduce legislation making it a crime to threaten, intimidate or retaliate against current or former state officials, in response to an incident involving the heckling of Gov. Pat McCrory. The Senator proposing the legislation, Dan Bishop, confirmed via email that he still intends to introduce the legislation, perhaps as early as next week, after consulting with potential co-sponsors.

North Dakota

A number of North Dakota bills have been introduced in response to the long-standing protests there against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The measure that drew the most attention was a bill that would have removedpenalties for motorists whostrike protesters with their carin some circumstances.That bill failed to make it out of the House, but a number of other measures increasing penalties for certain types of protest action are advancing through the legislature.

Oklahoma

Inspired by pipeline protests in North Dakota, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would increase penalties for trespassing on certain pieces of critical infrastructure like pipelines and railways.

Oregon

A novel piece of legislation in Oregon would require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.

South Dakota

A Senate panel in South Dakota recently approved a bill that would increase penalties for certain acts of trespassing and blocking highways. Its a response to pipeline protests in North Dakota, and to the potential for similar protests in South Dakota if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built.

Tennessee

A Tennessee Republican wants drivers to be protected from liability if they inadvertently strike a protester who is blocking a roadway.

Virginia

A Virginia bill that would have increased penalties for people who refused to leave the scene of a riot or unlawful protest died in the state Senatelast month. The bill had been requested by law enforcement.

Washington state

Washington lawmakers are considering a bill to increase penalties for people blocking highways and railways, acts that the bill's sponsor has characterized as economic terrorism.

This story has been updated to include information on legislation pending in Georgia.

Read more:
Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 18 states - Washington Post

FiveThirtyEight

The Real Republican Maverick: Maine Sen. Susan Collins FiveThirtyEight When most political followers hear Republican senator and maverick, they probably think of John McCain. He ran as part of a team of mavericks with Sarah Palin in 2008, after all. But whether or not McCain deserves the maverick label in general ... One Republican Would Subpoena Trump's Taxes If Russia Probe Goes ThereHuffington Post U.S. Senator Susan Collins | Maine PublicMaine Public all 106 news articles »

Excerpt from:
The Real Republican Maverick: Maine Sen. Susan Collins - FiveThirtyEight

In 2013, Bannon was something of an outcast at CPAC. This week he spoke at the conference as one of the rights most powerful figures.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BY T. J. KIRKPATRICK / REDUX

On Thursday, Steve Bannon, President Donald Trumps most influential adviser, and Reince Priebus, Trumps frequently embattled chief of staff, spoke together at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual gathering for activists, politicians, and media professionals on the right. Bannon rarely speaks in public, but the two men have been conducting a media tour to tamp down stories about friction between them.

Bannon, who is a large man, was dressed in wrinkled khakis and an open shirt that Priebus teased him about. Priebus was dressed like Alex P. Keaton. Bannon spoke in fiery language, condemning the press and global lites and insisting that Trump would implement the nationalist agenda that he promised in his campaign speeches. This is the other thing that the mainstream media or opposition party never caught, Bannon said. Hes laid out an agenda with those speeches for the promises he made. And our job every day is just to execute on that.

Priebus was milquetoast, and his emphasis was on agenda items that have been free of the controversies that have engulfed Trumps Bannon-inspired plans on immigration and foreign policy. He noted that Trump hit his agenda every single day, whether its T.P.P., whether its deregulation, whether its Neil Gorsuch, Trumps Supreme Court nominee.

If there is a war between the two men to influence Trump, it was clear on Thursday why Bannon is winning. In bureaucratic fights, a White House staffer with strong and clear ideas, even ones that are bad, will beat a rival with no ideas every time.

The Bannon-Priebus appearance was a reminder of how quickly Bannons view of conservatism came to defeat Priebuss. Back in March, 2013, Bannon was something of an outcast at CPAC. In the wake of Mitt Romneys loss in the 2012 Presidential election, conservatives were trying to emphasize their movements diversity and tolerance. The prevailing takeaway from the election was that the right had grown too old, too white, and too intolerantand so CPAC, which often serves as an incubator for ideas emerging on the far right, needed to downplay the fringes of the movement.

The lineup of speakers that year was by no means a collection of squishy Republicans: the two biggest stars were the former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. But the emphasis from the main stage was on a welcoming small-government conservatism, and the energy in the audience came from libertarian activists, who stormed the conference and helped Senator Rand Paul win the meetings Presidential straw poll.

Bannon, who was the head of Breitbart News, roamed the halls as a disgruntled and dishevelled fringe player. Before the conference, he had scanned the schedule and complained that CPACs organizers had cast out the voices representing what he viewed as the real issues on the right: the threat from Islam, illegal immigration, and corporate Americas influence on politics.

He organized an evening of counterprogramming to highlight those issues, which he called the Uninvited. Even at the most conservative gathering in America, Bannon liked to play the role of aggrieved outsider.

On the CPAC sidelines, Bannon described his alternative lineup to an interviewer: A former Attorney General from the Bush Administration talking about jihad and the lites inability to recognize it. Peter Schweizer talking about crony capitalism. Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Nina Shea talking about the global persecution of Christians. These are huge topics. Illegal immigration. These are huge issues. They have to be vetted.

This is a conservative conference, supposedly, the interviewer asked. Why are these voices being silenced, in your opinion? I dont want to speculate, Bannon said.

Geller was viewed by most Republican leaders as an anti-Muslim extremist. In April, 2013, the month after CPAC, shecalled for profiling of Muslims, surveillance of mosques, and an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim-majority population. In 2015, she organized a Draw Muhammad contest, in Garland, Texas, where two men opened fire and were killed by police. Donald Trump, who had not yet surrounded himself with anti-Islam advisers, tweeted, The U.S. has enough problems without publicity seekers going out and openly mocking religion in order to provoke attacks and death. BE SMART. In an interview with Inside Edition he said, I have absolutely no respect for her. Shes putting people at great danger.

Gaffneys views on Islam are so extreme that CPACs board voted to ban him from the event after he accused its leaders of being secret agents for radical Islam and suggested that one CPAC leader was part of an influence operation that is contributing materially to the defeat of our country, supporting a stealthy effort to bring Shariah here.

Two years later, the world view pushed by Geller and Gaffney would become central to Trumps campaign for the Presidency. (Sebastian Gorka, a self-styled expert on Islam and terrorism who now works at the White House, was a regular guest on Gaffneys radio show.)

As for Schweizer, he remains the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit that he co-founded with Bannon, in 2012. The institute incubated Clinton Cash, the book by Schweizer that perhaps did more than anything else during the 2016 campaignto frame the Clintons as corrupt tools of an international donor class.

So what was Priebus, who was then the chairman of the Republican National Committee, doing in 2013 while Bannon was promoting these views at CPAC? On the Monday after the conference, Priebus released a now infamous report about how Republicans could take back the White House. The key insight was that Republicans needed to reach out to nonwhite groups, use more tolerant language, and embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. Priebus wanted the report to serve as a road map for the Partys 2016 Presidential candidate. Trump, of course, ignored it and turned Hispanics and Muslims into the bogeymen of his campaign. He heeded the direction of Bannon, who argued that increasing the G.O.P.s share of the white vote was a surer path to victory.

It was no wonder, then, that Bannon looked so confident onstage on Thursday, while Priebus seemed fidgety and nervous. Acknowledging that his views have taken over the movement, Bannon at one point turned to Matt Schlapp, the president of the American Conservative Union, which hosts the event, and said, I want to thank you for finally inviting me to CPAC.

See the rest here:
How Steve Bannon Conquered CPACand the Republican Party - The New Yorker