Mediaboss Marketing

CHEYENNE, Wyo. It was just over a month before her primary, but Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming was nowhere near the voters weighing her future.

Ms. Cheney was instead huddled with fellow lawmakers and aides in the Capitol complex, bucking up her allies in a cause she believes is more important than her House seat: ridding American politics of former President Donald J. Trump and his influence.

The nine of us have done more to prevent Trump from ever regaining power than any group to date, she said to fellow members of the panel investigating Mr. Trumps involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. We cant let up.

The most closely watched primary of 2022 has not become much of a race at all. Polls show Ms. Cheney losing badly to her rival, Harriet Hageman, Mr. Trumps vehicle for revenge, and the congresswoman has been all but driven out of her Trump-loving state, in part because of death threats, her office says.

Yet for Ms. Cheney, the race stopped being about political survival months ago. Instead, she has used the Aug. 16 contest as a sort of high-profile stage for her martyrdom and a proving ground for her new crusade. She used the only debate to tell voters to vote for somebody else if they wanted a politician who would violate their oath of office. Last week, she enlisted her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, to cut an ad calling Mr. Trump a coward who represents the greatest threat to America in the history of the republic.

In a state where Mr. Trump won 70 percent of the vote two years ago, Ms. Cheney might as well be asking ranchers to go vegan.

If the cost of standing up for the Constitution is losing the House seat, then thats a price Im willing to pay, she said in an interview last week in the conference room of a Cheyenne bank.

The 56-year-old daughter of a politician who once had visions of rising to the top of the House leadership but landed as vice president instead has become arguably the most consequential rank-and-file member of Congress in modern times. Few others have so aggressively used the levers of the office to seek to reroute the course of American politics but, in doing so, she has effectively sacrificed her own future in the institution she grew up to revere.

Ms. Cheneys relentless focus on Mr. Trump has driven speculation even among longtime family friends that she is preparing to run for president. She has done little to dissuade such talk.

At a house party Thursday night in Cheyenne, with the former vice president happily looking on under a pair of mounted leather chaps, the host introduced Ms. Cheney by recalling how another Republican woman, Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, confronted Senator Joseph McCarthy when doing so was unpopular and went on to become the first female candidate for president from a major party.

The attendees applauded at the parallel, as Ms. Cheney smiled.

In the interview, she said she was focused on her primary and her work on the committee. But its far from clear that she could be a viable candidate in the current Republican Party, or whether she has interest in the donor-class schemes about a third-party bid, in part because she knows it may just siphon votes from a Democrat opposing Mr. Trump.

Ms. Cheney said she had no interest in changing parties: Im a Republican. But when asked if the G.O.P. she was raised in was even salvageable in the short term, she said: It may not be and called her party very sick.

The party, she said, is continuing to drive itself in a ditch and I think its going to take several cycles if it can be healed.

Ms. Cheney suggested she was animated as much by Trumpism as by Mr. Trump himself. She could support a Republican for president in 2024, she said, but her red line is a refusal to state clearly that Mr. Trump lost a legitimate election in 2020.

Asked if the ranks of off-limits candidates included Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, whom many Republicans have latched onto as a Trump alternative, she said she would find it very difficult to support Mr. DeSantis in a general election.

I think that Ron DeSantis has lined himself up almost entirely with Donald Trump, and I think thats very dangerous, Ms. Cheney said.

Its easy to hear other soundings of a White House bid in Ms. Cheneys rhetoric.

In Cheyenne, she channeled the worries of moms and what she described as their hunger for somebody whos competent. Having once largely scorned identity politics Ms. Cheney was the only female lawmaker who wouldnt pose for a picture of the women of Congress after 2018 she now freely discusses gender and her perspective as a mother.

These days, for the most part, men are running the world, and it is really not going that well, she said in June when she spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

In a sign that Ms. Cheneys political awakening goes beyond her contempt for Mr. Trump, she said she prefers the ranks of Democratic women with national security backgrounds to her partys right flank.

I would much rather serve with Mikie Sherrill and Chrissy Houlahan and Elissa Slotkin than Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, even though on substance certainly I have big disagreements with the Democratic women I just mentioned, Ms. Cheney said in the interview. But they love this country, they do their homework and they are people that are trying to do the right thing for the country.

Ms. Cheney is surer of her diagnosis for what ails the G.O.P. than she is of her prescription for reform.

She has no post-Congress political organization in waiting and has benefited from Democratic donors, whose affections may be fleeting. To the frustration of some allies, she has not expanded her inner circle beyond family and a handful of close advisers. Never much of a schmoozer, she said she longed for what she recalled as her fathers era of policy-centric politics.

What the country needs are serious people who are willing to engage in debates about policy, Ms. Cheney said.

Its all a far cry from the Liz Cheney of a decade ago, who had a contract to appear regularly on Fox News and would use her perch as a guest host for Sean Hannity to present her unswerving conservative views and savage former President Barack Obama and Democrats.

Today, Ms. Cheney doesnt concede specific regrets about helping to create the atmosphere that gave rise to Mr. Trumps takeover of her party. She did, however, acknowledge a reflexive partisanship that I have been guilty of and noted that Jan. 6 demonstrated how dangerous that is.

Few lawmakers today face those dangers as regularly as Ms. Cheney, who has had a full-time Capitol Police security detail for nearly a year because of the threats against her protection few rank-and-file lawmakers are assigned. She no longer provides advance notice about her Wyoming travel and, not welcome at most county and state Republican events, has turned her campaign into a series of invite-only House parties.

Whats more puzzling than her schedule is why Ms. Cheney, who has raised over $13 million, has not poured more money into the race, especially early on when she had an opportunity to define Ms. Hageman. Ms. Cheney had spent roughly half her war chest as of the start of July, spurring speculation that she was saving money for future efforts against Mr. Trump.

Ms. Cheney long ago stopped attending meetings of House Republicans. When at the Capitol, she spends much of her time with the Democrats on the Jan. 6 panel and often heads to the Lindy Boggs Room, the reception room for female lawmakers, rather than the House floor with the male-dominated House G.O.P. conference. Some members of the Jan. 6 panel have been struck by how often her Zoom background is her suburban Virginia home.

In Washington, even some Republicans who are also eager to move on from Mr. Trump question Ms. Cheneys decision to wage open war against her own party. Shes limiting her future influence, they argue.

It depends on if you want to go out in a blaze of glory and be ineffective or if you want to try to be effective, said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who has his own future leadership aspirations. I respect her but I wouldnt have made the same choice.

Responding to Mr. Cornyn, a spokesman for Ms. Cheney, Jeremy Adler, said she was not focused on politics but rather the former president: And obviously nothing the senators have done has effectively addressed this threat.

Ms. Cheney is mindful that the Jan. 6 inquiry, with its prime-time hearings, is viewed by critics as an attention-seeking opportunity. She has turned down some opportunities that could have been helpful to her ambitions, most notably proposals from documentary filmmakers.

Still, to Ms. Cheneys skeptics at home, her attacks on Mr. Trump have resurrected dormant questions about her ties to the state and raised fears that she has gone Washington and taken up with the opposition, dismissing the political views of the voters who gave her and her father their starts in electoral politics.

At a parade in Casper last month, held while Ms. Cheney was in Washington preparing for a hearing, Ms. Hageman received frequent applause from voters who said the incumbent had lost her way.

Her voting record is not bad, said Julie Hitt, a Casper resident. But so much of her focus is on Jan 6.

Shes so in bed with the Democrats, with Pelosi and with all them people, Bruce Hitt, Ms. Hitts husband, interjected.

Notably, no voters interviewed at the parade brought up Ms. Cheneys support for the gun control bill the House passed just weeks earlier the sort of apostasy that would have infuriated Wyoming Republicans in an era more dominated by policy than one mans persona.

Her vote on the gun bill hardly got any publicity whatsoever, Mike Sullivan, a former Democratic governor of Wyoming who intends to vote for Ms. Cheney in the primary, said, puzzled. (Ms. Cheney is pushing independents and Democrats to re-register as Republicans, as least long enough to vote for her in the primary.)

For Ms. Cheney, any sense of bafflement about this moment a Cheney, Republican royalty, being effectively read out of the party has faded in the year and a half since the Capitol attack.

When she attended the funeral last year for Mike Enzi, the former Wyoming senator, Ms. Cheney welcomed a visiting delegation of G.O.P. senators. As she greeted them one by one, several praised her bravery and told her to keep up the fight against Mr. Trump, she recalled.

She did not miss the opportunity to pointedly remind them: They, too, could join her.

There have been so many moments like that, she said at the bank, a touch of weariness in her voice.

Go here to read the rest:
Liz Cheney Risks Primary Over Jan. 6 and Trump Investigation - The New York Times

Dwight Weidman| Guest columnist

Mastriano wins Pennsylvania GOP governor race

State Sen. Doug Mastriano won the Republican nomination for Pennsylvanias open governors office on Tuesday. (May 17)

AP

Most voters dont pay much attention to elections until after Labor Day, so it might be premature to make any forecasts regarding the upcoming November general election. Keeping that in mind, the early signs arent good for our two main Republican standard bearers, U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz and candidate for governor Doug Mastriano.

With the Joe Biden albatross hanging around the necks of Democrat candidates, both the Pennsylvania governorship and the seat in the U.S. Senate should easily be classified as leaning Republican, but Pennsylvania Republicans, with their unique inability to get out of their own way, are now facing two races that are rated by most polling services as toss-up or leaning Democrat. How did we get here? More importantly, can the GOP turn things around?

Lets take a look at each of the two big races. Well start with the contest to replace U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, who is retiring.

The Senate race is a textbook example of how not to win in Pennsylvania, or anywhere else. The Republican nominee, Dr. Mehmet Oz, might be great at selling miracle cures, but he has been a disaster from day one as a candidate. He has built-in disadvantages such as basically being a resident of New Jersey and a dual citizen of Turkey, in a state where nativist instincts are strong. His past pronouncements, backed by a wealth of video evidence, have shown him as liberal on many issues. His recent statement that he would vote for the Democrat Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify same-sex marriage, only confirmed conservative fears that Oz isnt one of them.

The biggest problem with the Oz candidacy is the turmoil that it caused right before the primary election. In a questionable decision, former President Trump had endorsed Oz, partially because of urging from people such as the most annoying man on television, Sean Hannity, and when Oz started underperforming in the primary polls, Hannity, and his fellow-polemicist on Newsmax, Greg Kelly, conducted a smear campaign against conservative Oz opponent Kathy Barnette, who was surging in the race. To this day, Barnette has not come out in support of Oz, and many of her conservative supporters are still sitting on the sidelines.

Trumps endorsement of Oz and the subsequent negative attacks on his opponents might have put the good doctor barely over-the-top in the primary, as many uninformed Trump supporters pulled the lever for him, but they also created division in the Republican ranks that has resulted in low enthusiasm, poor fundraising and polls that put the New Jersey doctor anywhere from 6 to 11 points behind a very beatable Democrat, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman.

The campaign for Pennsylvania governor started with a lot of promise, at least in early polls, showing Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano and Democrat Attorney General Josh Shapiro in a statistical tie, but a new poll shows Mastriano slipping to a deficit of 10 points (Fox News, July 22-26). Even worse for Mastriano, the Fox News poll and some other surveys show Josh Shapiro at or near the magic number of 50%.

This race is another case of Republicans shooting themselves in the foot during the primary process. The hands-off approach by the state GOP led to a scramble by nine candidates, most of whom had zero chance of winning. This split the mainstream conservative vote allowing Mastriano, who many view as too far-right, to win with 43.8%. Mastrianos final primary tally was padded by a last-minute endorsement from Donald Trump, to claim another endorsement win. This also led many to question Trumps loyalty as he failed to support and endorse eventual second-place candidate Lou Barletta, who was one of the first major Pennsylvania figures to support Trump in 2016.

Mastriano, despite having a large grassroots following, lacks fundraising capability. His pre-primary disdain for his fellow Republicans and refusal to pledge loyalty to the partys nominee if it wasnt him isnt translating well to his pleas for unity now. He also lacks an experienced and capable staff, which will inevitably lead to many mistakes along the way. Weve already seen one major error in his campaign finance reporting earlier this year, and he recently and abruptly dropped his association with the social platform GAB after paying it $5,000 for advertising. Jewish groups have criticized Mastriano over his association with Gab CEO Andrew Torba, who supposedly has made anti-Semitic comments. Erratic, knee-jerk moves like this arent the hallmark of a competent campaign.

Anything can happen in the next three months, but current trends arent looking good for Republicans here. Unless these trends are halted and reversed by mid-September, it could be all over in Pennsylvania.

Dwight Weidman is a resident of Greene Township and is a graduate of Shepherd University. He is retired from the United States Department of Defense, where his career included assignments In Europe, Asia and Central America. He has been in leadership roles for the Republican Party in two states, most recently serving two terms as Chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party. Involved in web publishing since 1996, he is the publisher of The Franklin County Journal. He has been an Amateur Radio Operator since 1988, getting his first license in Germany, and is a past volunteer with both Navy and Army MARS, Military Auxiliary Radio Service, and is also an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Continued here:
Pennsylvania Republican candidates might be in trouble this November - Public Opinion

Republican candidates, facing a stark reality check from Kansas voters, are softening their once-uncompromising stands against abortion as they move toward the general election, recognizing that strict bans are unpopular and that the issue may be a major driver in the fall campaigns.

In swing states and even conservative corners of the country, several Republicans have shifted their talk on abortion bans, newly emphasizing support for exceptions. Some have noticeably stopped discussing details at all. Pitched battles in Republican-dominated state legislatures have broken out now that the Supreme Court has made what has long been a theoretical argument a reality.

In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, the Republicans ardently anti-abortion candidate for governor, has lately taken to saying the people of Pennsylvania will decide what abortion looks like in the state, not the governor. In Minnesota, Scott Jensen, a family physician who said in March that he would try to ban abortion as governor, said in a video released before the Kansas vote that he does support some exceptions: If Ive been unclear previously, I want to be clear now.

Republican consultants for Senate and House campaigns said Thursday that while they still believe inflation and the economy will drive voters to the G.O.P., candidates are going to have to talk about abortion to blunt Democratic attacks that the partys position is extreme. They have started advising Republicans to endorse bans that allow exceptions for pregnancies from rape or incest or those that threaten the life of the mother. They have told candidates to emphasize care for women during and after their pregnancies.

If we are going to ban abortion, there are things weve got to do to make sure the need for abortion is reduced, and that women are not endangered, said Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, who won an exemption for rape and incest in her states abortion law as a state representative. Now, she says Republicans need to press to expand access to gynecological and obstetrics care, contraception, including emergency contraception, and even protect the right of women to leave their states to get an abortion without fear of prosecution.

Messaging alone will not free the G.O.P. from accusations that it is out of step with voters. Several Republican-led states have passed abortion bans that do not include allowances for victims of rape or incest, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana and Texas. While all bans allow an exception to save the life of the woman, those in some states do not also cite protection of her health.

On Friday, after a prolonged debate, the Indiana House approved a ban that included exceptions for rape, incest and the life and physical health of the mother.

Republican are also contending with drumbeat of news after the Supreme Courts decision, including the story of a 10-year-old rape victim in Indiana who crossed state lines to receive an abortion, and headlines about women who confronted serious health problems under new, far-reaching restrictions or bans.

On Thursday, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has recently avoided talking about abortion, suspended a state attorney from Hillsborough County who refused to prosecute people who try to provide abortions prohibited by the states new 15-week ban, prompting angry recriminations from Democrats.

The recalibration for some began before voters of deeply Republican Kansas voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday against removing abortion rights from the states constitution. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, retracting the constitutional right to the procedure, many Republicans were slow to detail what would come next. As they rush to enact long-promised laws, Republican-led legislatures have learned how difficult banning abortion can be.

Not just the pro-choice movement but the pro-life movement was caught by surprise by the Supreme Court, said Brandon Steele, a West Virginia delegate who pressed for an abortion ban without exceptions in a special session of the legislature that ended this week with the Republican supermajority stymied. Without having the talking points, without being told what to do, legislators had to start saying what they were actually going to do. You could see the confusion in the room.

Were finding out who is really pro-life and who is pro-life only to get elected, not just in West Virginia but across the country, Mr. Steele said.

In Indiana, the special session of the state legislature to consider a ban has included brutal debates over whether to include exemptions and how far those exemptions should go.

For some its very black and white: if youre pro-life with no exceptions or if youre pro-choice with no restrictions, said State Senator Kyle Walker, an Indiana Republican who said abortion should be legal during at least the first trimester of pregnancy. When you are in the gray area, you are forced to reconcile in your own mind where your own limits are.

For months, Republicans have maintained that abortion rights would be a footnote in a midterm campaign driven by the worst inflation in 40 years, crime, immigration and a Democratic president whose approval ratings are mired around 40 percent.

That is still the public line, even after the Kansas referendum, where voters faced a single issue, not the multiplicity of factors they will be considering in November.

But the reality on the campaign trail is different. Sarah Longwell, a Republican pollster, said in her focus groups that swing voters do bring up inflation and the economy when asked what issues are on their minds. But when prompted to discuss abortion, real passion flares. That indicates that if Democrats can prosecute a campaign to keep the issue front and center, they will find an audience, she said.

Ms. Mace agreed, saying that abortion is rising fast and that Republicans have to respond.

In Minnesota, Dr. Jensen, the Republican candidate expected to take on Gov. Tim Walz, suggested it was interactions with voters after the fall of Roe that, he said, prompted him to clarify his position on abortion.

Once the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, we told Minnesota, and basically told everybody that we would engage in a conversation, he said. During that conversation, I learned of the need for me to elaborate on my position.

That elaboration included embracing a family and maternity leave program, promoting a $2,500-per-child adoption tax credit, and improving access to birth control, including providing oral contraceptives over the counter with a price ceiling. And, like Adam Laxalt, the G.O.P. Senate nominee in Nevada, Dr. Jensen pointed to abortion protections already in place in Minnesota to cast the matter as settled rather than on the ballot this year.

Mr. Walz said he would stay on offense, and not accept any softening of the Republican line.

I take them at their first word, he said of Dr. Jensen and his running mate, Matt Birk, a former N.F.L. player and anti-abortion rights advocate. If they get the opportunity they will criminalize this while were trying to protect it. So its become a central theme, obviously, I think that flip on their part was in response to that.

The Kansas vote implies that around 65 percent of voters nationwide would reject rolling back abortion rights, including a majority in more than 40 of the 50 states, according to a New York Times analysis.

Republicans believe their party can grab the mantle of moderation from Democrats, in part by conveying empathy toward pregnant women and offering exemptions to abortion bans, and casting Democrats as the extremists when it comes to regulating abortion. If Democrats insist on making abortion the centerpiece of their campaigns, they argue, they risk looking out of touch with voters in an uncertain economy.

But Republicans who moderate their views must still contend with a core base of support that remains staunchly anti-abortion. Abortion opponents said Thursday that Republican candidates should not read too much into the Kansas vote, a single-issue referendum with language that was criticized by voters on both sides as confusing.

Regardless of what the consultant class is telling the candidates, they would be wise to recognize that the right-to-life community is an important constituency and an important demographic of voters, warned Penny Nance, chief executive and president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative organization that opposes abortion rights.

After the Kansas vote, Democrats stepped up efforts to squeeze their opponents between a conservative base eager for quick action to ban all abortions and a broader electorate that wants no such thing. Representative Elaine Luria, a moderate Democrat running in a Republican-leaning district in southeastern Virginia, released a new advertisement against her Republican opponent, Jen Kiggans, painting her as too extreme on abortion. Ms. Luria had initially said she would campaign on her work for the district and her support for the Navy, a big force in the region, but the landscape has shifted. Ms. Kigganss campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

A group aligned with the Democratic Governors Association is already advertising off abortion-related remarks made by Tudor Dixon of Michigan, who won the Republican nomination for governor this week.

If you take Tudor Dixon at her word when it comes to outlawing abortion, shes told us exactly who she is, the spot, titled No Exceptions, intones, featuring clips of Ms. Dixon highlighting her opposition to a range of abortion-related exceptions. Ms. Dixon was unambiguous about her position earlier this summer, writing on Twitter, My only exception is to protect the LIFE of the mother.

In a lengthy statement that highlighted her opposition to an expected ballot measure in Michigan intended to protect abortion rights, Ms. Dixon also insisted that her race would be defined by jobs, schools, crime and being able to afford your gas and groceries.

For Republicans, one problem might be the extensive trail on the issue they left during the primary season.

In May, Mr. Mastriano was unequivocal in Pennsylvania as he courted Republican primary voters: That baby deserves a right to life whether it is conceived in incest or rape or there are concerns otherwise for the mom.

Last month, he said it was not up to him. You decide on exceptions. You decide on how early. And thats in the hands of the people, he said on Philadelphia talk radio. Thats a fact. Thats not a dodge.

Mitch Smith, Trip Gabriel and Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

See the article here:
Republicans Begin Adjusting to a Fierce Abortion Backlash - The New York Times

Former President Trump will hold a rally in Wisconsin later Friday to boost his endorsed candidates, a visit that comes as the Republican Party faces challenges in the battleground state.

Trump will stump for his preferred gubernatorial candidate, Tim Michels (R), not long after former Vice President Mike Pence paid a visit to the Badger State to support former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R) in yet another example of the ongoing proxy battle between the pair.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson (R), a high-profile Trump ally, will be noticeably absent. The senator said in a statement last month he was forgoing the rally because he didnt want to weigh in on a contested primary.

The timing of the rally also comes as Johnson faces a competitive Senate reelection bid, most likely against Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes (D).

Republicans remain optimistic these races will go their way in November, though some acknowledge hurdles the party faces ahead of its primary next week particularly with Trump and Pence again on opposite sides.

GOP strategist Bill McCoshen said theres some nervousness now about how negative the gubernatorial primary has gotten.

Theres five days left to go, and folks are getting concerned about whether well be able to put the party back together next Wednesday, he said.

Several people that spoke to The Hill said that it was the first time they had seen a former president and former vice president endorsing opposing candidates in a primary in Wisconsin.

A GOP operative with ties to the state didnt seem convinced that the differing endorsements signaled a divergence in the Republican Party, however.

I dont know if I would attribute the Trump-Pence thing to a divergence in the party. I think the divergence in the party would be Pence and Trump on one side, and then, you know, you got, your [Rep. Adam] Kinzingers on the other side, the operative said.

GOP strategist Mark Graul believed that the endorsements didnt raise questions about the direction of the party, saying that the candidates have been focused on touting their own personal records.

Its really much more about that for most Wisconsinites, than this is about a, you know, are-you-with-Trump-or-are-you-with-Pence kind of situation here, he said.

But some experts believe otherwise.

I think it does, especially on the question of whether the 2020 election was legitimate or not, said Barry Burden, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the director of the schools Elections Research Center, when asked if the different endorsements raised questions about the direction of the party.

That is Trumps hobbyhorse. It seems to be how he is selecting the kinds of people he wants to endorse, he said. Rebecca Kleefisch did not initially make statements that were skeptical enough about the 2020 election for Trumps tastes, and so he went with someone else. It ended up being Michels.

Christina Amestoy, a spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association, said the endorsements of Pence and Trump represented the same Republican Party, but she said the different endorsements spoke to the disarray and the division that were seeing within the GOP.

Still, Trump has drawn his own line in the sand among Republicans whom he believes have been sympathetic to his false views that the 2020 election was stolen, and those who have become critics of his or refused to engage in efforts to overturn the election.

Earlier this week, Trump endorsed candidate Adam Steen to take on Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) in the 63rd Assembly District race, calling Steen a rising patriotic candidate while slamming Vos as a RINO, or Republican in name only, after Vos resisted attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

Some Republicans suggested that Trumps endorsement of Steen was misguided.

I think what it says is that, you know, former President Trump, in all due respect, doesnt understand whats been happening in Wisconsin the last 12 years or so, Graul said.

I mean, Speaker Vos has been integral, first to helping pass the conservative reforms that passed under Governor [Scott] Walker, you know, everything from the collective bargaining reforms to mapping, you know, huge tax cuts, things of that nature.

Brandon Scholz, a retired Republican strategist, called it laughable.

Robin Vos has done more for Republicans as Speaker and in his career in a legislature than a lot of people have. And Vos put a lot of legislation through. The notion that, you know, Trump name-calling him is just laughable. I mean, its one of those things like its just a totally ignorant observation of politics in Wisconsin, he said.

Steen pushed back on Republicans assessment of Trumps endorsement.

So I believe they have absolutely no idea what theyre talking about, he told The Hill when asked about Republican disagreements with Trumps endorsement of him.

So my opponent, as Ive said multiple times, is not as conservative, but hes not following the party platform either. The party platform is very clear on life. Its very clear on the Constitution. And he is simply ignoring what the Constitution says, and I believe its time for conservatives to actually stand up and follow the Constitution and tell the left that they have to sue us if they want to break the Constitution, he added.

Some believe Vos will prevail, but Trumps endorsement still sends a signal that the former president is unafraid of going after what he considers are political opponents of his.

Meanwhile, Johnson himself is gearing up for one of the competitive Senate races this November, which Cook Political Reportratesas a toss-up.

Polling in June by the Marquette Law SchoolsuggestedJohnson was in for a tight race against several challengers, including Barnes. The poll, conducted between June 14 and June 20, showed Barnes receiving 46 percent in a hypothetical matchup with Johnson compared to the senators 44 percent, numbers that were within the margin of error.

Ron Johnsons not a politician, and thats something that voters in Wisconsin really appreciate, is hes somebody that is going to give it to them straight and hes not going to play political games. Mandela Barnes has been a career political activist, Ben Voelkel, a campaign spokesperson for Johnson, said of the senator.

A spokesperson for the Senate Republicans campaign arm claimed Barnes hasnt done much to kind of help the struggles that families are faced with and said Johnson has proven himself in Washington as someone who always fights for the state.

But Johnson has been embroiled in several controversies, including being name-checked by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot over his offices alleged involvement in a fake elector scheme.

Johnson, who has denied any wrongdoing, said during an interview in June that Rep. Mike Kellys (R-Pa.) office was the original source for an alternative slate of electors to be delivered to Pence. Kelly has denied any personal involvement.

More recently Johnsonsuggestedthat Medicare and Social Security should be annually approved, drawing the ire of Democrats who believed Johnson wanted those programs cut.

My chief of staff contacted the vice presidents staff and said, Do you want this? They said no and we didnt deliver it, and thats the end of story, Johnson told reporters following the committee revelations.

A Democratic source familiar with Senate races called Johnsons comments about Medicare and Social Security deeply out of touch and out of step with the entirety of the state.

Wisconsinites are going to face a clear choice in this election between Mandela Barnes a product of a working family, has stood up for working Wisconsinites his whole life, fought to help and provide for all Wisconsinites sign, no matter where they live, no matter what zip code. Versus Ron Johnson, who has gone to D.C., the source said. Hes changed, hes now out of touch.

Graul argued that voters were more concerned about the economy and inflation than the Jan. 6 committee investigation and claimed Johnsons comments were speaking to fiscal challenges facing the country.

You know, some of the positions hes taken might be unsettling for Republicans, Burden said. Yet he is probably the most unifying Republican figure in the state. Theres really no one else that has such unanimous backing from Republican activists.

More:
Trump rallies in Wisconsin, where Republicans are embattled - The Hill

PAUL RATJE/ AFP / GETTY IMAGES

This past spring, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott captured headlines for his plan to bus migrants to Washington, D.C. He said he was concerned that there would be an influx of migrants crossing the states border with Mexico in light of President Bidens decision to cease a public-health order from 2020 authorizing federal officials to turn away migrants at the border even those seeking asylum.

Many, including the Biden administration, chalked up Abbotts actions to a publicity stunt. After all, illegal immigration is something that has long motivated Republican voters, especially when a Democrat is in the White House. The fact, though, that so much attention is paid to illegal immigration misses how the debate on immigration policy is changing in the U.S. namely, Republican politicians are increasingly blurring the lines between illegal and legal immigration and targeting not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration too.

Over the past two decades, support for increasing legal immigration has climbed steadily overall, although Democrats have primarily driven that uptick, as the chart below shows. In fact, per 2019 polling from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Republicans are not only less likely to support increasing legal immigration but also more likely to support reducing legal immigration. Almost half of Republicans (47 percent) said legal immigration should be decreased, compared with just 16 percent of Democrats.

The distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration is often not clear-cut, though. Consider that only a minority of unauthorized immigrants, 38 percent, entered the country without proper documentation in 2016, according to research conducted by the Center for Migration Studies. Instead, the majority of unauthorized immigrants who entered the U.S. that year, 62 percent, overstayed their temporary visas, meaning they initially arrived in the U.S. legally but proceeded to remain illegally with expired paperwork. Moreover, the Pew Research Center looked at 2017 data from the Department of Homeland Security and found that almost 90 percent of those who overstayed their visas were from neither Mexico nor Central America.

Regardless, this doesnt change the fact that a lot of media attention remains focused on illegal immigration, especially in the context of the southern border. Republicans are also still probably more concerned over illegal immigration than over legal immigration. When Gallup asked Americans in March how personally worried they were about illegal immigration, 68 percent of Republicans said a great deal 27 percentage points higher than the overall share of Americans who said they were worried a great deal and 50 points higher than the share of Democrats who said the same.

And its this overwhelming concern around illegal immigration regardless of its accuracy that helps explain why Republican politicians still give the topic so much oxygen in their campaign materials. They know illegal immigration is a huge flash point for their voters at the very least, this is something Ive found in researching the platforms of various Republican primary candidates running for state and federal office. And yet, Ive also found that when you look at the actual immigration policies Republican politicians have successfully enacted, efforts to curb legal immigration have been much more successful than policies meant to restrict illegal immigration.

Take former President Donald Trump. While illegal immigration was a central pillar of his campaign, especially in 2016, his administration proved much more adept at implementing policies that limited legal immigration than illegal immigration. A week after he took office, he notoriously signed an executive order that initially limited immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries. Moreover, throughout his four years in office, Trump also pursued a number of measures to uproot the process for asylum seekers, from banning certain situations in which people were eligible for asylum to introducing new protocols that made the asylum process longer. And later, the coronavirus pandemic unleashed a series of travel restrictions from the Trump administration in early 2020 that contributed to an 18 percent decrease in the average number of monthly green cards and a 28 percent decrease in non-immigrant visas compared with President Barack Obamas second term. Meanwhile, Trumps early campaign promises to collect and deport all undocumented immigrants never panned out, and his infamous wall at least how he envisioned it has yet to be built.

Trumps policies may present obvious examples, but the former president is not the only one proposing policies that limit legal immigration. Republicans in Congress have also started to take up legislation that whittles down such pathways. For instance, when Republicans controlled the Senate in 2019, Sens. Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley and then-Sen. David Perdue reintroduced the RAISE Act, which proposed restricting family-based immigration policies in addition to instituting a host of other caps. (An earlier version, which specifically outlined halving the number of green cards issued annually, had previously failed to come to a vote in 2017, when Cotton and Perdue first proposed it.)

The bill also explicitly linked legal immigration to the economy with its focus on highly skilled immigrants, which it defined as immigrants who could help with improving the fiscal health of the United States without jeopardizing jobs that could otherwise be held by American citizens or as protecting or increasing the wages of working Americans.

Mark Hugo Lopez, the director of race and ethnicity research at Pew, told me that Americas immigrant population has changed significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, which in turn, has influenced immigration policy debates. Lopez said that for a long time, immigration policy focused on security at the border and illegal immigration but that now its also about employers, student visas [and] attracting certain workers in agriculture or tech.

Though the three senators legislation had Trumps backing, the bill did not pass. But notably, evidence suggests that at least some parts of the idea were popular among Republicans. For instance, 42 percent of Republicans, including those who lean Republican, told Pew in a 2020 survey that immigrants living legally in the U.S. mostly fill jobs that U.S. citizens would want to take on, which was 10 points higher than the share of Americans overall who said the same.

Eli Hiller / Bloomberg / Getty Images

Looking ahead to the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election, both legal and illegal immigration continue to be important Republican talking points with a number of high-profile GOP figures from Abbott to GOP Senate nominees like J.D. Vance and 2024 aspirants like former Vice President Mike Pence doubling down on immigration in their campaign rhetoric and platforms. And its once again a blurring of messages, with legal and illegal immigration often used interchangeably and Mexico blamed as the source of all illegal immigration.

For instance, Vance, Trumps endorsee for Ohios open Senate seat, buckets all of his immigration policy legal and illegal under Solve Southern Border Crisis on his campaign website. He also has leaned into especially inflammatory rhetoric, running an ad ahead of his primary in which he asked voters: Are you a racist? Do you hate Mexicans? as a way to suggest it is the media responsible for such perceptions although in the same ad, Vance said immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border were primarily responsible for illegal drugs pouring into the country.

Meanwhile, Katie Britt, another Trump endorsee who won the Republican nomination for Alabamas Senate race, splits up legal and illegal immigration in her campaign materials at least more so than Vance, but she still often muddles the two by suggesting, for example, that all visa issues fall under legal immigration reform and by treating Mexico as the primary source for illegal immigration in the U.S. Moreover, Britt also calls for reducing legal immigration and blames a major immigration bill from 1965 that ended discriminatory practices, like regional immigration preferences and quotas, as responsible for driving down the wages of Alabamians. This is notable, because it marks a huge shift in how GOP politicians have historically talked about legal immigration.

Pence, who has not-so-secret 2024 ambitions, has also talked about immigration in recent speeches. Notably, too, despite having had a fraught relationship with Trump since the end of their term, Pence recently said in a speech in Arizona that he supported curbing family-based migration or the legal framework that allows American citizens to sponsor visas for extended family members while also championing a crackdown on illegal immigration at the southern border. Other presidential hopefuls who, similar to Pence, arent fully in Trumps inner circle have also made immigration a part of their pitch, like former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. While those more squarely in Trumps orbit, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, continue to lean into the illegal immigration rhetoric.

As The Washington Posts David Byler noted on Wednesday, how Republicans talk about immigration has changed dramatically post-Trump, and thats made it harder to distinguish the differences between legal and illegal immigration, which, in turn, has obscured the nuances of immigration issues. As Lopez told me, the immigrant population in the U.S. is just really diverse, with a lot of different components comprising legal immigration versus illegal immigration. These broad umbrellas are helpful in some ways to think about broad categories, he said. But theres so much diversity within each one that they end up masking a lot of what is happening around immigration policy, as well as the experiences of people who come to the U.S. as immigrants navigating either one of these pathways.

Read more from the original source:
When Republicans Talk About Immigration, They Dont Just Mean Illegal Immigration - FiveThirtyEight