Mediaboss Marketing

LM Otero / AP

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Dallas, Aug. 4,2022

Saturday, May 6, 2023 | 2 a.m.

How many times do Republicans need to say the quiet part out loud before the American people acknowledge that much of the GOP has devolved into a party of hate-filled fascists who care more about guns than they do about children or families?

Less than a week ago, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott demonstrated his compassionate conservative values by implying that the immigration status of the five victims of a mass shooting north of Houston should dictate how seriously we regard these crimes.

At a press conference Sunday night announcing a reward for information leading to the arrest of the shooter, Abbott went out of his way to describe the victims as five illegal immigrants. He later posted a similar statement to Twitter.

The statement is not only false, as one of the five victims was in fact a legal permanent resident of the United States, but its also callous and heartless.

Remember, Abbott made that statement in response to the vicious murder of four young adults and a 9-year-old child. The shooting began after a group of families gathered for a quiet evening together asked a neighbor to stop shooting his AR-15 in his yard because a baby was trying to sleep. The neighbors response to that simple request was to walk to the home where the families were gathered and hunt them.

Two of the victims were shot in the back of the head while lying on top of their surviving children. Those women quite literally sacrificed themselves by using their bodies as shields to protect their children from harm. After executing five people, the oldest of whom was only 31, the shooter left the home and escaped the area before law enforcement arrived.

When Abbott took the stage almost two days later, the murderer was still at large, and the public was still in danger. Yet instead of focusing on the need to find an armed and dangerous murderer before he could kill again, or the tragedy and senselessness of such a wanton act of violence or the heroic actions taken by the victims to save their children, Abbott focused on the victims immigration status, essentially shrugging off the killings because the victims were undocumented.

What he was suggesting is appalling: that some peoples lives are worth less than others.

Its also worth noting that Abbotts policies have resulted in the deaths of countless illegal immigrants, so perhaps hes really revealing the lies he tells himself so he can sleep at night.

Abbott issued a correction the next day, his spokesperson saying weve since learned that at least one of the victims may have been in the United States legally. We regret if the information was incorrect and detracted from the important goal of finding and arresting the criminal.

Note that Abbott didnt apologize for distracting from the manhunt by focusing on the victims immigration status, he only apologized for getting the immigration status incorrect. Spoken like a true hatemonger.

Yet he wasnt alone among GOP lawmakers this week.

On the same day Abbott issued his correction, Florida state Rep. Jeff Holcomb was on the floor of the Florida House arguing in support of a bill asking Congress to ban LGBTQ+ people from the military.

Despite a decade of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly without any evidence of harm to unit cohesion or readiness, Holcomb gave a nonsensical speech insisting that allowing LGBTQ+ Americans in the military is about liberal wokeness rather than about gay people wanting the opportunity to serve their country.

As he approached the end of his rambling monologue, Holcomb declared that discrimination and homophobia against LGBTQ+ people cant exist in the U.S. because, unlike in the Middle East, the U.S. doesnt throw gays off of buildings or murder them the way the Taliban or ISIS do.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to Holcomb, discrimination can only exist if you throw people from a rooftop or otherwise murder them.

If that werent enough, he concluded his speech by openly admitting that he and his Republican colleagues in the Florida Legislature hate gay people. Our terrorist enemies hate homosexuals more than we do, he said.

Wed like to believe that at least this statement was honest but recent GOP assaults on LGBTQ+ rights and liberties make us question whether Republicans actually hate LGBTQ+ people less than ISIS or the Taliban does, or if GOP politicians are just too cowardly to be honest about their beliefs. Their radical and repressive policies are most certainly leading to the deaths of some gay and trans people especially teens who feel they cant live in this world and face the pressure of being themselves in this culture.

Anyone who still thinks that the leaders of the Republican Party are engaged in anything other than a campaign of abject hate isnt paying attention. Republican leaders are only barely masking it themselves. After all, if you have a party in which a governor defines himself by an obsessive hatred of Mickey Mouse, academic freedom and free speech, you know they wont abide people of color or gays.

It is possible that there are Republicans who exist who do not subscribe to this type of callous disregard for the lives and rights of immigrants and LGBTQ+ people (not to mention women and non-white people). However, the evidence increasingly points toward a disturbing truth that those who choose to align themselves with the GOP subscribe to the hatred and violence espoused by the partys leaders. Nearly all moderate Republicans appear to be drifting toward being independents, because they cant align themselves with the radicalism of the new GOP.

Visit link:
Republicans unmasking themselves by saying the quiet part out loud - Las Vegas Sun

I surveyed half a dozen Democrats since the vote, asking how important this would be for these Republicans and which of them was the most vulnerable. The strategists I talked with, many of them specialists on House campaigns or alumni of the Democrats congressional campaign arm, were hesitant to pick just one or two of these races as standouts. Instead, most agreed that any of these Republicans, from California or New York especially, were on notice. That would be John Duarte (Californias 13th district), Valadao, Mike Garcia (Californias 27th), Young Kim (Californias 40th), Michelle Steele (Californias 45th), Nick LaLota (New Yorks 1st district), George Santos (New Yorks 3rd, who of course has a whole other set of problems), DEsposito, Lawler, Brandon Williams (New Yorks 22nd), and Marc Molinaro (New Yorks 19th). If one were to simply go by Bidens margin of victory in these 18 districts, youd add Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon to that list. Biden won her 5th district by nearly double digits.

Trying to defend this bill in swing districts is nearly impossible for these Republican incumbents, said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. Theyve positioned themselves as both pro-default and against the middle class at the same time. Its quite a feat. Theres a story for Democrats to tell about how Republicans refused to pass a bill that would just avoid default and instead passed a bill that gutted the middle class.

Democrats had already been hammering these Biden-district Republicans on aspects of the cuts in the debt limit proposal. The Democratic-aligned advocacy group House Majority Forward has run TV ads hitting Republicans for being prepared to let America default. Democratic campaign committees, allied super PACs as well as outside consultants and strategists, expect these attacks to continue. And Democrats have polling to show they are effective. According to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted for House Majority Forward, 60 percent of those surveyed strongly disapprove when asked their opinion of the cuts.

Link:
How 18 Republicans Just Made Democratic Recapture of the House ... - The New Republic

Dire warning: This column is about politics. Yikes!

I spent my last 25 years of active journalism working on the opinion pages of this newspaper. In that role, I met and interviewed just about every politician and political aspirant from this region as well as statewide office seekers and incumbents including a couple vice presidents of the United States. You know the names of those two Minnesotans.

Jim Heffernan

This is not to boast about all the important people Ive met governors, U.S. senators, Congress members, legislative leaders, city leaders, dog catchers but rather to illustrate that Ive spent a considerable amount of time around politicians from both major parties (and a few from minor parties, including one who shares a given name with Jesse James).

You pick up on certain traits in people who seek public office, some of whom succeed. After the successful ones have been in office for a while, they all, regardless of party, seem to have read the same playbook about how to be a politician.

For example, when speaking publicly, they never refer to this country simply as the "United States"; they always thunder United States of America in case there is any confusion about which United States they mean.

And they say the people they serve are always hardworking Americans who roll up their sleeves a lot. I have known many Americans I wouldnt consider hardworking, not excluding myself. I roll up my sleeves for a COVID-19 shot. They are also very quick with thoughts and prayers when the occasion suggests it.

Incumbents above a certain level never appear on TV or before a gathering of constituents without American flags (Old Glory) behind them, preferably several, in case there was any doubt about their patriotism.

Some things have changed, though, in recent years since I left active journalism, mainly the widening gap between the two major parties. Once opponents were referred to as worthy when referenced, and their party the loyal opposition. No more.

Thus, I have compiled a list of ways I see how Democrats and Republicans differ these days on major, and some minor, issues. I am not favoring one side over another here, although I obviously have a political ideology. These are just things I notice as I observe the political divisions play themselves out today, especially in Washington. Here goes:

So here we are a country divided against itself. How long can it stand?Finally, I suppose there are committed politicians who will resent some of these observations of the differences between the two parties. Thats fine. I believe more politicians should be committed. Pick your asylum.

Jim Heffernan is a former Duluth News Tribune news and opinion writer and columnist. He maintains a blog at jimheffernan.org and can be reached by email at jimheffernan@jimheffernan.org.

More here:
Jim Heffernan column: Republicans, Democrats differ on everything - Duluth News Tribune

LONDON (AP) On his way to be crowned this week,King Charles IIIwill travel by gilded coach through streets swathed in red, white and blue Union flags and past a warning from history.

At Trafalgar Square stands a large bronze statue of King Charles I, the 17th-century monarch deposed by Parliament and executed in 1649. On Saturday, more than 1,500 protesters, dressed in yellow for maximum visibility, plan to gather beside it to chant "Not my king" as the royal procession goes by.

"We'll try and keep the atmosphere light, but our aim is to make it impossible to ignore," said Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchist group Republic.

The coronation, he said, is "a celebration of a corrupt institution. And it is a celebration of one man taking a job that he has not earned."

Republican activists have long struggled to build momentum to dislodge Britain's 1,000-year-old monarchy. But they see the coronation as a moment of opportunity.

READ MORE: What to know about calls for reparations for Britain's legacy of slavery in the Caribbean

Queen Elizabeth II, who died in September after 70 years on the throne, was widely respected because of her longevity and sense of duty. Charles is another matter, a 74-year-old whose family feuds and firm opinions on everything from architecture to the environment have been headline fodder for decades.

Opinion polls suggest opposition and apathy to the monarchy are both growing. In a recent study by the National Center for Social Research, just 29 percent of respondents thought the monarchy was "very important" the lowest level in the center's 40 years of research on the subject. Opposition was highest among the young.

"I think it's definitely shifting," said Smith, whose group wants to replace the monarch with an elected head of state. "People are quite happy to criticize Charles in a way they weren't willing to necessarily in public about the queen."

Millions in Britain will watch broadcasts whenCharles is crowned in Westminster Abbey. Tens of thousands will line the streets, and neighborhoods across the country will hold parties.

But millions more will ignore the ceremonies. Some will attend alternative events, including a gig in Glasgow by tribute band the Scottish Sex Pistols, recapturing the spirit of punks who sang "God save the queen, the fascist regime" during the late queen's 1977 silver jubilee.

London's Newington Green Meeting House, a gathering place for religious dissenters and radicals for 300 years, is holding an "alternative community party," complete with food, drink and "radical and republican" music.

General manager Nick Toner said that the event is for people who "don't want to sit through hours of footage of ceremonies, carriages and endless Union Jacks, perhaps because they think it's a waste of taxpayers' money or even just plain old boring."

WATCH: Death of Queen Elizabeth draws mixed reactions from former British colonies in Africa

While the BBC, Britain's publicly owned national broadcaster, will offer wall-to-wall coronation coverage on Saturday, rival Channel 4 offers an alternative schedule including a musical about disgraced royal Prince Andrew, irreverent sitcom "The Windsors" and documentary "Farewell to the Monarchy."

Some argue that it's grotesque to spend millions on pomp and pageantry amid a cost-of-living crisis that has brought 10 percent inflation, driven thousands to food banks and triggered months of strikes by nurses, teachers and other workers seeking higher pay.

Even Charles' slimmed-down ceremony with about 2,000 guests instead of the 8,000 who attended the queen's coronation in 1953 carries a big price tag for British taxpayers. The full cost won't be known until afterward, butElizabeth's 1953 coronationcost 912,000 pounds, the equivalent of 20.5 million pounds ($26 million) today.

Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden, who helps oversee coronation arrangements, has argued that "people would not want a dour scrimping and scraping" at such a "marvelous moment in our history." Coronation supporters argue that the celebrations will be a boost for brand Britain, attracting tourists and stimulating sales.

Not everyone is convinced.

"I disagree with it," said Philippa Higgins, a 24-year-old receptionist in London. "I just think it seems a bit silly when we've got so many people struggling, to have something so extravagant right now. But some people argue tradition, I suppose."

Opposition to the lavish coronation is especially strong in Scotland and Wales, where some pro-independence nationalists see the monarchy as part of the U.K. state they want to leave.

Some Scottish nationalists object to the Stone of Destiny a 275-pound (125-kilogram) chunk of sandstone linked to both Scottish and English monarchs being sent from Edinburgh to London to take its traditional place under the coronation chair. The iconic rock, a symbol of Scottish nationhood seized by an English king in the 13th century and not returned until 1996, had to be moved to Westminster Abbey in secrecy and amid tight security.

Charles is keen to be seen as a modern monarch, and Buckingham Palace has adapted some of the coronation's ancient traditions for the 21st century. His coronation will be the first to feature contributions fromBuddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders, and the first to include female bishops.

Still, a suggestion from the Church of England that people watching the coronation on TV might want to swear allegiance to the king from their sofas has struck a sour note with some.

Charles is monarch of 14 former British colonies as well as the U.K., and the king has tentatively addressed thelegacy of empire. He supports research into the monarchy's links to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and last year expressed "personal sorrow" at the suffering caused by slavery though he stopped short of saying sorry.

The number of Charles' realms is likely to dwindle during his reign. Barbados became a republic in 2021 and Jamaica plans to do the same.New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkinssaid this week he wants his country to jettison the crown, though he added that it's not an "urgent priority."

Craig Prescott, a constitutional law expert at Bangor University in Wales, says that in the U.K., the monarchy is probably safe for now because of Britain's tendency to "muddle through" and gradually adapt its politics and constitution to changing times.

"Clearly, if you were going to start from scratch, you would probably never choose one family and say, 'They're going to provide a head of state forever,'" he said. But the arrangement mostly works, and abolishing the crown "isn't on the horizon of any political party."

Still, he sees danger ahead if a young generation that has endured years of austerity, pandemic and economic pinch continues to struggle.

"If the monarchy stands for the status quo, the status quo isn't necessarily great, in generational terms, for a certain section," Prescott said. "If that continues, then that may be a problem for a lot of national institutions in 20 or 30 years' time."

Associated Press videojournalist Kwiyeon Ha contributed to this story.

See the original post here:
UK Republicans call for Saturdays coronation to be the last - PBS NewsHour

WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - Half of U.S. Republicans think a federal court was motivated by politics when it ordered the suspension of government approval for a widely used abortion pill, a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Wednesday found.

Fifty-one percent of self-identified Republicans in the poll said they agreed that the ruling last week - which would essentially make sales of the abortion pill mifepristone illegal - was politically motivated. Only 28% of Republicans disagreed, and the rest said they weren't sure.

A federal appeals court late on Wednesday put the ruling partly on hold, allowing mifepristone to remain available for now but with significant restrictions, while the case proceeds.

Fifty-six percent of overall respondents, including 67% of Democrats, said the decision was politically motivated.

The poll's results point to deepening doubts about the impartiality of the U.S. justice system, and to potential trouble for Republicans in coming elections, including next year's presidential contest.

Many Republicans have campaigned on promises to ban abortion or severely restrict access to it, but a substantial slice of Republican voters support some form of abortion rights.

During his four years in office, Republican former President Donald Trump nominated many federal judges associated with anti-abortion views, including three Supreme Court justices and U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, the judge who suspended approval of mifepristone.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which now leans conservative 6-3, last year struck down women's constitutional right to abortion in a landmark case that is widely seen as a key factor in Republicans' underperforming expectations in last year's congressional elections.

Fifty-one percent of Republicans in the poll, and 73% of Democrats, opposed state-level restrictions on access to abortion pills. Forty-three percent of Republicans said they were less likely to vote for a politician who supports limiting access to abortion.

Doubts in the impartiality of the U.S. legal system have simmered in recent years. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last month found about half of Americans, including one-third of Democrats, believe a New York investigation into whether Trump paid hush money to a porn star is politically motivated.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 995 adults nationwide, including 433 self-described Democrats and 379 Republicans. The poll had a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 4-6 percentage points in either direction.

Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Leslie Adler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Go here to see the original:
Half of Republicans say politics drove US abortion-pill court ruling, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows - Reuters