Mediaboss Marketing

The Society for the Advancement of Judaism, a Reconstructionist synagogue on the Upper West Side with the motto Judaism that Stands for All, has refused to rent space to the Upper West Side Republican Club for an event that would have featured former Bill Clinton advisor and current Donald Trump supporter Dick Morris. The event was scheduled to be televised on C-SPAN in late October.

While SAJ regularly rents space to schools and for private events, Board Chair Janet Brain and Rabbi Lauren Grabelle Herrmann told THE CITY in a joint statement that the Club was no longer welcome.

We were happy to rent our space to the Upper West Side Republican Club for many years, consistent with the communitys commitment towards civility and dialogue, the synagogue leaders said.

This recent request to use SAJs space was the first one by the club since before the Covid-19 pandemic, and the first request to televise their event for a national audience. The climate in our country has changed since the 2020 election and January 6, said synagogue leaders in a statement first reported by the West Side Rag.

We cannot abide any speaker in our sacred space whose words amplify and broadcast the anti-democratic ideas of the January 6 insurrectionists, or who condone or incite violence against our elected representatives, whether today or in a future election, they added.

While the statement did not name Morris, who has said that the 2020 election was absolutely stolen, West Side Republican Club President Marcia Drezon-Tepler told THE CITY that people need to leave Dick Morris name out of this and accused the synagogue of putting out misinformation.

Morris and his speaking agency did not respond to requests for comment.

Republican strategist Dick Morris

Gino Santa Maria/Shutterstock

In a statement on Monday night, Drezon-Tepler who told THE CITY that she was a lifelong Democrat who left the party because of what she said was the antisemitism of Democratic Squad Reps. Illan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tliab said that A Jewish institution more than others should realize what it means to marginalize any group, for thats what the Nazis and others throughout the ages have done to the Jews.

Drezon-Tepler told THE CITY that the synagogues statement was misinformation, while forwarding a September email exchange where its administrative director told her group that the Executive Committee of SAJ has determined that because of recent developments with respect to the Republican Party we are no longer comfortable renting space to the West Side Republican Club. We appreciate the relationship we had until March of 2020. However, it is not one with which we are able to continue moving forward.

In response, a member of the Republican Club wrote that Its very sad that an institution that claims to be open to everyone should be so prejudiced, even racist. I was so heartened that the SAJ had housed us for so long. Now, Im deeply disappointed.

Asked about their earlier email to the West Side Republican Club, SAJ officials said that their statement to THE CITY spoke for itself.

SAJ was founded in 1922 by Dr. Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan, also the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism, who was the first modern Jewish thinker to articulate that Judaism was not just a religion or a culture, rather an evolving religious civilization, according to the history detailed on the synagogues web page.

The page also notes that SAJ began affirming LGBTQ+ members and interfaith families in the 1990s, and stresses its founders conviction that believers should not check our minds at the door.

SAJs decision not to rent to the Republican group comes after the Museum of Jewish Heritage declined to host a conference in May by the Tikvah Fund that included Ron DeSantis as a speaker.

The group eventually moved that event to the Chelsea Piers, where the Florida governor who signed that states Dont Say Gay law gave a speech during Pride Month in June as many local elected Democrats condemned the venue for hosting him.

Many groups are wary of inviting lightning-rod right-wingers, one of those officials, Brad Hoylman, told THE CITY this week when asked about the synagogues decision not to rent to the Republican club for the event with Morris. Understandably, he said.

Marcia Drezon-Tepler said her club is working on finalizing another venue for Morris to speak at, and lamented that SAJ no longer welcomed them.

Their logo says Judaism that stands for all, said Drezon-Tepler. Apparently it stands for all except for Republicans.

Get THE CITY Scoop

Sign up and get the latest stories from THE CITY delivered to you each morning

Thank you for your submission!

Go here to see the original:
UWS Synagogue Refuses to Rent Space to Republican Club for Speech by Election Denier - THE CITY

The growth of the ESG industry has led to some counterintuitive results, as companies have learned to game the metrics: Some private prison companies, for instance, score well on the criteria.

On Thursday, 14 state treasurers issued a joint statement condemning Republican efforts to combat investor advocacy, which has led multiple states, including West Virginia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida, to restrict state treasurers from doing business with funds that deploy ESG screens.

Disclosure, transparency, and accountability make companies more resilient by sharpening how they manage, ensuring that they are appropriately planning for the future. Our work, alongside those of other investors, employees, and customers have caused many companies to evolve their business models and their internal processes, better addressing the long term material risks that threaten their performance, the statement reads. The evolving divide suggests that there will be two kinds of states moving forward: states focused on short term gains and states focused on long term beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders.

The Chamber announced recently it would devote $3 million toward the election of Mehmet Oz who goes by Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania, and funneled it through the Senate Leadership Fund. The move was generally seen as an olive branch to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who is linked to the super PAC. They have so far made no similar contribution to the House Republican super PAC.

Todays GOP war onthe Chamber of Commerce represents a stunning turnaround from just a few years ago, when House Republicans and the Chamber were aligned on just about everything. And it comes in the wake of the collapse of the National Rifle Association, leaving two of the GOPs most powerful outside armies largely disarmed. But as the Republican Party and the Chamber have polarized to opposite sides of the conservative movement, a deeper disagreement between the two dating back to the movement that formed around Barry Goldwater in the 1950s and 60s has been reawakened.

At the height of the New Deal era after World War II, Democrats and liberal Republicans were united in the belief that cooperation between big business, big labor, and government was the secret to the eras economic boom. John Kenneth Galbraith, the nations most famous economist and later President John F. Kennedys adviser, dubbed it The Affluent Society in a 1958 book that was both a cultural and a political sensation.

Arrayed against this coalition was an aggrieved and increasingly well-organized network of small and medium-sized businesses that felt they were getting squeezed by the big guys. What was good for General Motors, they said, was not necessarily good for them.

Big Labor and the New Deal coalition thought that they were living in a time of peace between capital and labor, but capital always knew that they were engaged in a strategic ceasefire, having been crushed by the Depression and unable to compete against the rising strength of the modern government.

But there was no real peace, and big business launched its counterattack on both labor and government in the 1970s, ushering in the neoliberal era. The Chamber, this time allied with small and medium-sized businesses, played a major role in the counterattack, with the heir to the Goldwater movement, Ronald Reagan, enacting a wish list of big business policies, deregulation, and tax cuts.

Jamie Galbraith, who followed his father into the economics profession, served as an aide to the Joint Tax Committee in Congress and recalled the Chamber at the time as an ultra supply-side, ultra Reagan revolution organization with essentially no compromisers. The Chamber was just down-the-line for the lowest possible taxes and most complete deregulation and privatization.

But the Chamber started drifting back to the center in the early part of the Clinton years, endorsing the administrations health care proposal known as Hillarycare,for the first lady.All of a sudden, the Chamber just became something wholly different than whatever I perceived them to be. And I know we were very upset about it, said former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, theNo. 3 Republican at the time.

In the wake of the endorsement, recalled one Republican operative, a member of House Republican leadership asked to meet with the Chambers board. Instead of delivering a standard political speech, he began by asking all the staff to leave the room. He just ripped them a new asshole, said the operative. How could you possibly go down this anti-free enterprise, left-wing trail, the GOP leader demanded. (The operative recalled it was Armey, but Armey said it may have been Tom DeLay.I couldnt track down DeLay in time for this story.)

The dressing down worked. Richard Lesher had run the organization since 1975, but after Republicans took power in 1995 after the Gingrich Revolution in 1995, Lesher was eased out.When we took the majority, of course, they came over, reminding us that we were the best friends we ever had yakety yak, Armey said. When you come into the majority, you have no shortage of newfound friends. The Chamber was a reliable Republican ally for the next roughly 20 years, up until just the last few.

(DeLay later launched what he dubbed the K Street Project, which was an effort to bring all of Washingtons lobbying industry under Republican authority, dictating that firms fire Democratic lobbyists or lose access to the GOP. That was a boneheaded idea, and you can quote me if you like. I mean, who in the hell did he think he was, telling people who they can hire and who they cant? said Armey. I objected to it in a leadership meeting. And my objections were not well received.)

The tensions between big and little businesses never fully subsided, and the same network of smaller businesses that aligned themselves with Goldwater, forming the more conservative wing of the GOP, organizing behind Donald Trump in 2016 and beyond. The small and medium-sized businesses, particularly manufacturers, have also long been opposed to free-trade policies, as they lack the capacity to offshore their own production and cant compete with cheaper products from overseas.

The conservative Republican member of Congress said that he didnt begin as an active opponent of the Chamber, but didnt see them as a natural ally either. Frankly, as a business guy, I couldnt join some of the efforts nationally, because they were at odds with small companies, he said. They were really pushing for a long time this pro-China trade policy, which was great for General Motors, but it was bad for everyone in the supply chain. And it was really gutting domestic manufacturing. And it was the same with NAM the National Association of Manufacturers a lot of their members had had an organization that was working against their interests. And the biggest, biggest members have certainly benefited from a lot of this stuff. And I think thats a big part of why Trump was so well received by the small and medium business community.

The Chamber is among the biggest spenders on lobbying activities in the country, but House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and leading Senate Republicans like John Cornyn of Texas regularly take public shots at them. The Chambers top lobbying job, typically one of Washingtons plummest K Street assignments, sat open for several months until it was filled by two-term, back-bench former Rep. Evan Jenkins, who, like many Republicans from West Virginia, began his career as a Democrat. He was most recently a judge in West Virginia, having left the House to pursue an unsuccessful run for Senate in 2018.

View original post here:
House Republicans Plan to Investigate Chamber of Commerce If They Take the Majority - The Intercept

The increase in women candidates representing the Republican Party (GOP) is a monumental step in increasing representation through all sectors of the political field. The 2018 midterm elections are an example of this increased representation. There are record-breaking numbers of women holding seats in Congress. How are these women running, what is their tactic, and how do they stand against their male counterparts in elections? Republican women have, in large numbers, used tactics that portray traditional masculine characters while also emphasizing being a woman who has it all.

Women running for the Republican Party are making a noteworthy step in achieving equal representation in Congress and beyond, but because of gendered stereotypes enforced by groups of Republican voters they have faced significant obstacles. Their ability to balance family life and leadership is consistently doubted and questioned. The historic lack of womens participation in politics is vital in conceptualizing the tactics modern Republican women candidates have used in order to stand a chance against their incumbents and prove to their voters they can have it all.

The elections of 2020 exemplify the scope of womens representation in the GOP party and what that may mean for the future. More than 200 Republican women candidates filed, 48 of whom were nominees for the U.S. House. However, this story shouldnt be thought of as if they ran and won, but rather, how they ran and won. Women running for the Democratic Partys platform have taken similar approaches, so what is it that differentiates Republican womens campaigning tactics?

Meeting masculine expectations has been an obstacle all Republican and Democratic women candidates have had to face. Senator Victoria Spartz, a Republican nominee in Indianas 5th Congressional District, launched a campaign with an ad that was titled Fighter. She is described as being tough, driven and relentless while running on a treadmill, doing strength workouts, and putting on boxing gloves.

Conservative candidates have used their strong commitment to the Second Amendment as a guiding method of portraying toughness. This has been done primarily through gun imagery in campaign advertisements. Majorie Greene, of Georgias 14th Congressional District, was filmed shooting a high-powered gun at targets that symbolized gun control, the Green New Deal, and socialism. The symbolism of guns is both ideological and gendered, often used to convey conservative bona fides as well as toughness via a tool of brute force, explains Professor Kelly Dittmar.

Another method seen through these campaign tactics was noticeably highlighting their distinct gendered experience. In an ad titled Texas Woman, Genevieve Collins explains that being a Texas woman means you can shoot a gun, clean the house, cook your kill and then be in a board meeting right after.

These few examples epitomize the methods many Republican women have taken during their campaigning trail. They are using masculine-seeming approaches and, for example, emphasizing how the Texas women does it all. Although how has this been perceived among Republican voters?

Stay-at-home mothers are one of the leading voting groups for the Republican Party who are most skeptical of womens ability to balance office-holding positions with their family responsibilities. This has been a historic barrier for women running for the Republican Party, a barrier that is hard to break because of ingrained beliefs of gender roles within society. Moreover, this demographic of voters is thought to be the most reliable Republican voting group, so to have what could be your leading group of supporters questioning your ability as a woman to balance having a family and being a leader is quite demoralizing.

There are more Republican women than ever running for officewhich must be recognized as a step in a direction all parties want to achieve: equal representation in politics for all genders. Republican women have portrayed themselves as traditional masculine characters while also emphasizing a woman who has it all. This has given them some popularity, although has also confronted them with skeptical Republican voters questioning if they really can do it all, or if they should stay home and continue with their traditional duties as a woman. Throughout history, women have been told they must stay home, and that their duty as a woman is to take care of the children and the home. These confined norms have been broken, though large numbers of women, many of which tend to vote conservatively, still believe these gendered roles should be followed, causing them to doubt women who campaign and advertise themselves as being able to be a good mother and a strong leader. What will this mean for the future of women leaders in the Republican Party? How much does a woman have to do to prove to her own party that shes just as well suited to hold a position in Congress as a man?

Read more from the original source:
More women than ever running for the Republican Party, but what does this mean for women in politics? DU Clarion - DU Clarion

The vast collections of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington contain two brown wooden chairs. Their backs have labels explaining that they were used by John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon in the first face-to-face discussion between presidential candidates at the CBS television studio in Chicago in 1960.

In short, the first televised presidential debate. And where America led, the rest of the world followed, copying the model of gladiatorial political combat as the ultimate format to help voters make up their minds.

But heading into the US midterm elections, the debate appears to be in decline, a casualty of fragmented digital media, a deeply polarised political culture and a democracy losing its sense of cohesion.

For many Republicans, ducking debates is a way to express disdain for a national media that former president Donald Trump has derided as fake news and the enemy of the people. Some Democrats have a different motive, refusing to share a platform with Republican election deniers peddling baseless conspiracy theories.

In Arizona, for example, Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Katie Hobbs has declined a debate with Republican Kari Lake, a telegenic Trump supporter who has pushed his big lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

But Republicans are the main objectors. In Nebraska, gubernatorial candidate Jim Pillen has refused to debate Democrat Carol Blood. Pillens campaign manager, Kenny Zoeller, told the Nebraska Examiner that he doesnt do political theater.

In the Pennsylvanias governors race, Republican extremist Doug Mastriano has rejected a televised debate with an independent moderator. Instead he has reserved a hotel ballroom on 22 October and selected a partisan to referee: Mercedes Schlapp, who was strategic communications director in the Trump White House. Democratic rival Josh Shapiro has little incentive to accept.

In North Carolina, Ted Budd, who sat out four Republican primary debates in his Senate race, has said he will not accept an invitation from the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters to debate Democrat Cheri Beasley. Budd said he had accepted a cable debate invitation, but there is no agreement with Beasley about that appearance.

It is a sorry state of affairs for a time-honored tradition that America exported around the world. Even Britain, after decades of resistance, followed suit in 2010 with three leaders debates between prime minister Gordon Brown, Conservative David Cameron and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg.

Believe it or not, I watched all four of the Kennedy-Nixon debates and you could hear a pin drop anywhere you went, said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Everybody was watching. In fact, over 70m watched and the number of votes that year? 70m.

But in the era of 400 channels, when polarization is so intense that the vast majority of voters already know for whom theyre voting, it doesnt matter what happens in a debate or if there is a debate. The costs of not debating are very small.

The format is not quite dead yet.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman has agreed to one contest with Republican nominee Mehmet Oz, while in Georgia, Democrat incumbent Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker (who dodged primary debates) appear to be inching closer to a deal.

In Michigan, after prolonged wrangling, Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer and Republican nominee Tudor Dixon finally agreed to a single debate next month.

Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis is set to debate Democratic challenger Charlie Crist but only once and only on a West Palm Beach TV station. In Texas, Republican governor Greg Abbott has granted a single debate to Democratic challenger Beto ORourke but it will be on a Friday night and competing for eyeballs with the high school American football season.

In each case, the enthusiasm to debate is underwhelming: candidates appear to be looking for an excuse not to do it in a divided America where the sliver of undecided voters offers diminishing returns.

They turn instead towards partisan echo chambers aimed at motivating turnout from their own bases. Republicans, in the particular, have been snubbing the mainstream media in favour of fringe rightwing outlets during the campaign so far. It is one more blow to the idea of communal experience, shared reality and the glue that holds democracy together.

Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said: Its dangerous because these televised debates at all levels have been one of the few good things about democracy in the modern era. People had to stand up there and defend themselves and say what they believed and let the voters take a good look at them.

But Kamarck, who worked in the Clinton White House, remains optimistic that the shift is not permanent. It is driven by a group of Republican candidates who are very inexperienced and ideological and know that they cant do well in a debate because theres so many things that they are for that are either unpopular or indefensible in terms of policy.

What you see here is a Republican party thats gone off the rails led by Donald Trump. It is this years crop of candidates who are not very serious people and cant debate but I do think debates will return when the Republican party starts nominating normally qualified people to run.

The acid test will come in 2024. From Ronald Reagans There you go again tease of Jimmy Carter, to George H W Bushs ill-judged glance at his watch, to Trumps apparent threat to jail Hillary Clinton, presidential debates have provided marquee moments even though, in truth, they may not have changed many minds.

There was an ominous sign earlier this year when the Republican National Committee, which has proved a cheerleader for Trump, voted unanimously to withdraw from the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was founded in 1987 to codify debates as a permanent part of presidential elections.

Aaron Kall, director of debate at the University of Michigan, who attended presidential debates over the past two cycles, said: One of the great things about a debate is seeing a candidate have to deal with a question maybe that they didnt think of or they didnt plan for and, under pressure, how they address that.

When were looking for candidates for these really important positions we want to see how they answer the 3am phone call or deal with something unexpected. Its pretty good on the job training and rehearsal for the actual job over an hour and a half. We have all these different ways in which to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of candidates and its just another one that is going by the wayside.

Go here to see the original:
The end of the debate? Republicans draw the curtain on political theater - The Guardian US

The chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas claims Republicans started targeting them once their brand started growing and more voters began recognizing the party.

DALLAS After several Republicans tried to kick several Libertarians off the November ballot, there is no hiding the bad blood between the two parties.

The chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas claims Republicans started targeting them once their brand started growing and more voters began recognizing the party.

So, once that happened, the Republicans specifically started trying to figure out how to eliminate us in whatever way they can, Whitney Bilyeu said on Yall-itics.

Back in August, Republican officials and even some elected candidates, including Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and eight members of Congress, asked the Texas Supreme Court to remove nearly two dozen Libertarian candidates from the ballot.

The Republicans argued that the Libertarians didnt meet eligibility requirements, specifically failing to pay filing fees.

The chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas, however, says Republicans are just scared.

This time they went after 23 candidates. Looking at the list right now, the vast majority, if not all of them, are in two way races, which means if we were to be kicked off in that particular race, the Republican would be running against no-one, which has happened for far too long in far too many races in Texas, Bilyeu told us.

Listen to the full episode of this week's Y'all-itics here:

The Texas Supreme Court refused to remove the Libertarian candidates, ruling that the Republicans waited too long to challenge in the first place.

This isnt the first time the Texas GOP tried to remove Libertarians from the ballot. They did the same, and lost, in 2020, when the Texas Supreme Court ruled they waited until after the deadline to challenge a candidates eligibility. The thinking is that Libertarians steal votes from Republicans. Democrats feel the same way about Green Party candidates.

As for those filing fees, the Libertarian Party is challenging them in federal court. The party argues the fees are a deliberate GOP roadblock for third-party candidates. State law requires the fees and the amount depends on the office.

Libertarian candidate Kevin Hale, whos running for the 5th Congressional District in Texas, says he paid the fee, but with a catch.

I wanted to make sure that I was a thorn in the side of my incumbent, so I paid the filing fee, but I paid it in one dollar bills, Hale told us. I delivered $3,125 in one-dollar bills to the Secretary of State.

Hale says it took them an hour and 10 minutes to count the bills.

To hear our entire conversation with Hale and Bilyeu, including why these Libertarians are happy to accept protest votes and why theyd be happy if their presence helps a Democrat win, listen to our latest episode of Yall-itics.

Continue reading here:
How the Texas GOP tried to get Libertarian candidates removed from your November ballot - WFAA.com