Mediaboss Marketing

Since before he became president, Joe Biden has told crowds, Folks, this is not your fathers Republican Party. As a political reporter, Id been hearing that lament since the late 1990s, from far better sources those Republican fathers sons and daughters.

The radicalization of the Republican Party has been the biggest story of my career. Ive been watching it from the start, from the time I arrived in then-Democratic Texas just out of college in 1978 to my years as a reporter in Washington through four revolutions Ronald Reagans, Newt Gingrichs, the tea partys and Donald Trumps each of which took the party farther right.

From this perspective, it seems clear that the antidemocratic drift of the GOP will continue, regardless of Trumps role. He didnt cause its crackup, he accelerated it. He took ownership of the partys base, and gave license to its racists, conspiracists, zealots and even self-styled paramilitaries, but that base had been calling the shots in the Republican Party for some years, spurred by conservative media. Now, emboldened, its activists will carry on with or without him.

The first elections I covered in 1978, at the midterm of Jimmy Carters presidency, marked the beginning of the Republican Partys reemergence from its Watergate ruins and the shift of its base from the north to the south. In a poll a year earlier, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans had identified as Republicans. Texas was a Democratic bastion. But many Democrats I met there were more conservative than Republicans I knew up north; they often bucked the national party, yet remained yellow dog Democrats in state and local elections so loyal, the saying went, that theyd vote for a yellow dog over a Republican, just like voters elsewhere in the South.

Republicans revived nationally in the late 70s largely because of the governing Democrats misfortunes a global energy crisis, double-digit inflation, a stagnant economy, party infighting.

Evangelicals threw off their longtime aversion to earthly politics and took over local party organizations, becoming culture warriors. By mid-1978, the property tax revolt in California kindled an anti-tax movement nationwide. With both moderate establishment Republicans and insurgent conservatives seeing the possibility of retaking the White House in 1980, the two camps intensified their decades-long war to define the party.

Its clear now that the norms-abiding moderates never had a chance. As right-wing activist Paul Weyrich warned, We are different from previous generations of conservatives. We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure in the country. That could stand as conservatives mission statement today.

That November, my election-night story for the Abilene Reporter-News included mention of the defeat of a young George W. Bush for a House seat representing Midland and Odessa.

Yet he and other Republicans across the South did better than expected. Some actually won, including third-time candidate Newt Gingrich in suburban Atlanta. Texans elected the first Republican governor since Reconstruction. It all signaled the wave Reagan would ride two years later, carrying other Republicans in his wake. The Democrats who won congressional races across the south, replacing some New Deal liberals who retired, were more conservative and allies-in-waiting for Reagan, many of them future defectors to his party.

By 1984, Id moved to Washington to cover Congress and got to know Gingrich. While he was a backbencher in House Republicans seemingly permanent minority, he led a maverick faction calling itself the Conservative Opportunity Society (Gingrich himself was more opportunist than truly conservative, his lieutenants grumbled to me).

After he read stories Id written about the ethics scrapes of some Democrats in Congress, Gingrich would have an aide in his congressional office contact me with dirt on others, often just allegations culled from the lawmakers local newspapers.

That was just one sign that he was a new breed of Republican, more interested in ruthless partisanship than in passing laws and representing constituents. His goal was nothing short of ending Democrats decades-long lock on the House majority and leading the next Republican revolution.

In 1990, Gingrich by then the second-highest ranking House Republican leader made a prediction that I found unbelievable: Republicans would win a House majority in the 1994 midterm elections. He explained to me that if George H.W. Bush lost reelection in 1992, with a Democrat in the White House the Republicans could benefit from the midterm jinx for a presidents party, and win enough seats to take control.

Gingrich did his part to weaken Bush. Most famously, he led a conservative mutiny against a bipartisan deficit-reduction deal the president had negotiated, assailing him for violating his no new taxes campaign promise.

With Bushs loss to Bill Clinton, Gingrich immediately looked toward 1994. Since the late 1980s, he had mobilized a nationwide network of right-wing talk-radio hosts emerging in local markets. They echoed his talking points daily.

On election day 1994, Gingrich was confident of big gains if not a House majority and certain that conservative media had helped. I think one of the great changes in the last couple of years was the rise of talk radio, which gives you an alternative validating mechanism, separate from the mainstream media, he told me. In fact, he was about to be interviewed by a new local host a young guy named Sean Hannity.

The Republicans triumphed beyond even Gingrichs messianic dreams, winning House and Senate majorities for the first time since 1952. As the new speaker whod taken the party to the promised land, Gingrich led a cult of personality presaging Trumps.

Be nasty, hed tell followers, and he kept conservatives perpetually angry at Democrats and at government generally, with the aid of his right-wing media megaphone.

On the first day of the new Republican-controlled Congress in January 1995, Gingrich had set up Radio Row in a Capitol corridor table after table of talk-show hosts interviewing Republicans for conservative audiences back home. Rush Limbaugh, the king of them all, was declared an honorary House Republican. Collectively, these local celebrities became a power center within the party.

Gingrich would find governing harder and less popular than campaigning, however. He overreached to please the base, shutting down the government in a doomed bid to force deep cuts in domestic programs, and then impeaching Clinton. Within four years, after election losses and scandals, he resigned.

Back in Texas, then-Gov. George W. Bush positioned himself as the un-Gingrich for mainstream voters a compassionate conservative while telling those on the right he was different from his father: that Jesus Christ was his personal savior, hed slash taxes, and his foreign policy would eschew interventionist nation-building. (Hed break that last promise big time in Iraq.)

But even as Bush sought to soften his partys hard lines to win election, the GOPs nationalistic, protectionist and even nativist populism ran deep. As president, Bush had hoped to build a broader party for example, by giving millions of undocumented, longtime residents a path to citizenship. But the growing xenophobia among the partys increasingly white, older and rural base foiled him.

Trump didnt unleash those forces 16 years later. He simply harnessed and amplified them.

By the end of Bushs presidency, conservatives were rebellious against both Bush, for his immigration proposals, Mideast wars and rising debt, and the Republican majority in Congress for its overspending and corruption.

After the near-collapse of the financial system and its bailout by the Bush administration, in 2008, Barack Obama became the first Black American elected president. Almost immediately, the third Republican revolution took shape, this one a headless movement from the bottom up: the tea party.

Republican Party leaders sought to unite with tea party activists against their common enemy Obama. In the midterm elections of Obamas two terms, Republicans regained control of the House in 2010 and then the Senate in 2014.

Yet just as Gingrich found with Clinton, sharing responsibility for governing requires occasional compromise with the Democratic president on must-pass bills. And compromise infuriated the Republican base and conservative media. They dont give a damn about governing, former Rep. Tom Latham, an Iowa Republican, told me in 2015. Latham, who was first elected in the 1994 Gingrich revolution, had just left Congress in frustration after 20 years.

A year later, against a field of establishment Republicans vying for the presidential nomination, Trump quickly rose to the top, speaking a language of aggrievement that resonated with the mostly white, less educated voters living in rural America and long-struggling industrial areas like my Ohio hometown.

They jumped on the Trump train and stayed on even after hed lost reelection and the GOPs control of Congress. As Donald Trump Jr. said of other Republican officials on Jan. 6, just before the attack on the Capitol, This isnt their Republican Party anymore. This is Donald Trumps Republican Party.

It was a straight line from Gingrichs uncompromising, smash-mouth politics to the tea party and then to Trump.

Should Trump remain exiled at Mar-a-Lago, his MAGA army will soldier on, forcing party officials and 2024 presidential aspirants to fall in line. And if Republicans lose in 2022 or 2024, many seem poised to reject the result, turn to force or countenance those who do Trump or no Trump.

Jackie Calmes is the White House editor for the Los Angeles Times. This article is adapted from her book Dissent: The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture of the Court, which will be published June 15.

See the rest here:
Op-Ed: My front row seat to the radicalization of the Republican Party - Los Angeles Times

Iowa Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson appeared on the House floor Monday to press for legislation that would bar Vice President Harris from taxpayer-funded international travel until she visits the southern border first.

Harris, whom President Biden deputized to lead efforts in Central America to eradicate the "root causes" of the massive waves of illegal immigrants heading from there to the U.S. border, has faced strong Republican criticism for not bothering to experience firsthand the crisis she's playing a role in ending.

"This crisis is worsening by the day. Yet, the vice president has refused to go to the border herself and talk to the brave law enforcement officers, the men and women who are fighting this on the frontlines. This out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach is a disgrace," Hinson said on the House floor.

"Shes been to yarn shops, shes been to bakeries, and she just flew right over the crisis at our southern border to meet with foreign countries with the taxpayers checkbook in hand. When asked why she hasnt visited the border, she laughed. She laughed, and this is no laughing matter. The border crisis impacts the safety and security of every Iowan, of every American. Every state is a border state right now."

HARRIS FALSELY CLAIMS WEVE BEEN TO THE BORDER' WHEN PRESSED ON HER LACK OF VISIT

Hinson asked for immediate consideration of her measure, but Democrats rebuffed her. House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., rejected the proposal as unserious and said it was not worth discussing any further.

The White House repeatedly has made the point that Harris was put in charge of addressing the reasons why migrants are leaving their homes, not border security itself.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But, amid escalating pressure from Republicans, Harris recently said she would visit the border, though she declined to say when.

The vice president flew to Guatemala and Mexico last week to address issues like corruption and economic reform as part of the administration's effort to eliminate the causes of migration. Nevertheless, Harris was repeatedly forced during the trip to focus instead on questions about why she had not visited the border.

See the original post here:
House Republican presses bill to prevent Harris from traveling overseas before visiting the border - Fox News

Shes been an honest broker, Id say that. Thats the greatest compliment around here. Shes kept her word, shes committed to something, Portman said in an interview. He acknowledged "differences of opinion," adding: She would want to spend more I would want to spend less. We have to find a way to get to the middle.

The group holed up for hours on Tuesday night after the Capito talks collapsed. Sinema ordered pizza and forced the group to cast their floor votes together before immediately returning to the basement hideaway where they were chatting to keep talks efficient. They had no time to waste.

Sinemas talks are operating on an accelerated timeline, with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders impatient to make progress in the coming weeks before pursuing a unilateral approach that's been resisted by Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). For Biden, the key question is whether he will bend on asking for changes to GOP tax cuts or the overall scope of the bill after yielding nearly $1 trillion to Capito but still asking for $1 trillion in new spending.

She's a 44-year-old Senate newcomer, but Sinema has spent her first 2 years in office forging close relationships with Republicans that rival Manchin's bipartisan entreaties. And the next few days will test whether that can translate to 60 votes for a big bill that the president will sign.

In a statement for this story, Sinema acknowledged that forging an agreement, with her leadership, between Biden and at least 10 Republicans will be difficult" but would help show everyday Americans that we can work together to modernize and make our infrastructure resilient, and expand economic opportunities.

On Wednesday, deal-seeking Republicans gathered at lunchtime to present their fluid plans for spending several hundred billion dollars above current levels on infrastructure to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican said that hes only in listening mode on Wednesday, a shift from his explicit blessing of Capitos negotiations with Biden.

Sinema cant count on Capitos help at this point. The West Virginia Republican said in an interview shes stopped attending the bipartisan 20-senator meetings she had joined earlier this year and isnt getting involved in Sinema and Portmans cohort.

She did offer some advice: Make sure you actually agree on what the definition of infrastructure is and how you would pay for it. Those tips seem basic enough, but disagreement on those terms brought down Capitos negotiations with Biden before the duo ever got close to a deal.

Im really not participating in the other group I cant negotiate on two tracks, Capito said in an interview. Theyre working their own tracks. I wish them luck. Just gotta make sure what the president tells you is what matches the reality of what they really want.

Sinema has had two telephone conversations on infrastructure with Biden: one Tuesday in the wake of the collapse of the Capito-Biden talks and an in-person meeting in May centered on the issue. Shes also spoken to top White House aides including legislative director Louisa Terrell, Biden counselor Steve Ricchetti and chief of staff Ron Klain recently about the issue. But she purposely didn't upstage Capito, a close friend and ally, by keeping the talks with Portman low-key and on the back burner.

The Sinema-Portman group is also working with a bipartisan House group called the Problem Solvers Caucus, made up of 58 members divided evenly on party lines who helped the bipartisan Senate group resuscitate Covid relief talks at the end of former President Donald Trump's administration. Since then, they've convened every other week at Manchins bipartisan lunch meeting.

When the Problem Solvers Caucus released its version of an infrastructure bill on Wednesday, some of its members privately said it had buy-in from the bipartisan group of deal-seeking senators. As centrists in an increasingly partisan body, many Problem Solvers members already had close ties to Sinema, who previously served in the House.

Sinema also enjoys a better relationship with McConnell than most Democrats, who are deeply skeptical of him and whether he would allow 10 or more of his members to do anything that could boost Biden. McConnell on Wednesday defended Capito and chastised Biden pointedly, claiming he is unwilling to let go of some of the most radical promises he made to the left wing of his party.

McConnell wants Biden to fail, said Sen.Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). There arent even 10 Republicans who are even willing to talk to us about compromise. And if we get 10 Republicans you probably lose some Democrats if its too squishy, middle-of-the-road minimalist.

Sen.Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican member of the Sinema-Portman group, said that those trade-offs are a secondary issue. She wants to see more flexibility from the president, who is currently overseas.

The bigger question is, can the White House accept a more reasonable bill that is focused just on infrastructure and broadband and acceptable pay-fors? Collins asked.

Still, the distrust of McConnell has Democrats openly pressing to abandon the bipartisan approach or at least have a party-line back-up plan ready if talks fail. Brown and Schumer are among the Democrats bracing for the deployment of the so-called budget reconciliation process to evade a GOP filibuster and pass a second huge spending bill this year after the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill passed on party lines in March.

The Democrats' go-it-alone chorus is growing louder by the day, but they will need Sinema and Manchin to join in. Controlling only 50 Senate seats means Biden and his party need total unity if they try and pass a bill without Republicans.

Now that Manchin and Sinema are knee-deep in arbitrating infrastructure talks with Biden and Senate Republicans, the pair will soon have an answer on whether their bipartisan aspirations harmonize with the presidents vision of spending trillions on clean energy, roads and bridges and paid family leave.

Its a good test. Because this is not deep policy. Its not particularly partisan, said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). If we cant make it on this, its a bad sign.

Still, Democrats have made it clear they have essentially zero patience left after the Capito talks with Biden dragged out for about six weeks. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), a member of the larger bipartisan group, said he expected it to meet on Thursday again.

His hope was that by the time senators headed to their home states Thursday afternoon, they would know whether a bipartisan agreement would materialize: If we dont get a deal pretty damn quick, we aint gonna have a deal.

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Kyrsten Sinema gets her make-or-break moment with Republicans - POLITICO

For the national Republican Party, this issue gives us the chance to do some good, win back millions of voters weve alienated, and move on to other important areas where we still have the moral high ground.

Some Republican operatives think theyre better off continuing to fight on this front of the culture war, and plenty of Democratic operatives think the same. The partisan vote in the House reflects an unwillingnesson both sidesto negotiate. But gay and trans rights are no longer the wedge issue they were in the early aughts. Times have changed, and Republicans best bet now is to reach a negotiated peace with the other side.

Democrats know the current version of the Equality Act could never pass in the Senate in its current form. And it might seem that in the current environment, common ground is out of reach. But senators of both parties have no chance of portraying themselves as reasonable unless they make a good-faith effort to reach a deal. Democrats cannot clear this hurdle unless they deal fairly with Republicans like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, as well as conservative Democrat Joe Manchin. As for Republicans, they need to be willing to back an alternative rather than just saying no.

For religious conservatives, and by extension the Republicans who represent many of them, the problem with the current bill is that it appears to threaten their religious freedom and fails to adequately grapple with First Amendment concerns. They cannot support legislation that would imperil their operations, including the vital social services they provide in underserved communities around the country.

Several states have enacted laws similar to the Equality Act in recent years, but always with religious liberty protections. For instance, Rhode Island has a robust anti-discrimination law with reasonable protections for religious groups. These protections ensure that Catholic Social Servicesand any other religious groupscan continue to provide valuable services in the state.

Similarly, Utahs success in passing anti-discrimination legislation offers a path forward. Although its state government is controlled by Republicans at every level, Utah has some of the strongest protections for gay and trans people in the nation. In 2015, with the support of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and state LGBTQ leaders, Utahs Republican legislature passed a comprehensive non-discrimination bill with reasonable protections for religious organizations.

I worked on the campaign to pass it, and found that Republicans were far more open to gay rights if a bill simply respected these protections, and Democrats were able to get behind it as well. It was a fair outcome that both sides liked. As a result, the law has enjoyed widespread support among the public. The people of Utah are tied with Vermont for the second-highest rates of support for LGBTQ non-discrimination protections.

In Congress, instead of working toward such a deal, many Democrats grandstand and posture, insistingwronglythat they can pass the Equality Act as currently written. Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, for instance, has never complained about the religious exemptions in his own states anti-discrimination laws, yet for some reason he draws a line in the sand at the federal level, denouncing any effort to provide similar exemptions in the Equality Act. Meanwhile, most Republicans complain about these missing provisions without offering their support for a bill that included such guarantees.

Utah should serve as a blueprint for both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. The Fairness for All Act, an alternative version of the Equality Act, draws from the popular Utah law. Senate Republicans should introduce this bill and use its language to amend the Equality Act.

Support by Republican lawmakers for these types of changes would deliver a broader win to religious conservatives as well: Perhaps surprisingly, the best and possibly only way to achieve robust religious-freedom protections nationwide is by agreeing to LGBTQ non-discrimination protections, codifying an expansion of civil rights for religion alongside protections for sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.

This move would also help Republicans gain back some of the ground they lost with voters over the past several years. Public opinion polling shows that support for LGBTQ civil rights continues to climb, particularly in more educated, suburban districts.

With public support at sky-high levels, a version of the Equality Act will pass eventually. The question is: Which version? And will Republicans take the opportunity to shape it?

Religious conservatives should seize this chance now to influence the process before the culture shifts even more decidedly against them on LGBTQ issues. By making peace on this issue, religious conservatives could get the legal protections they want while also showing themselves to be decent and reasonable peoplewinning them political goodwill for any future disagreements that might emerge, and allowing lawmakers to move on to pressing issues like the crushing federal debt, defeating coronavirus, unaccompanied minors at the border, human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Party, crumbling infrastructure and energy independence.

Responsible legislation is within reach, but you cant win if you dont play. Reaching a settlement on these issues is better for people of faith, better for LGBTQ people, and better for the country. Republicans should sit down with Democrats and insist on a deal that works for both sides. Common ground is possible.

Original post:
Opinion | The Republican Case for Federal LGBT Rights - POLITICO

Americans should be worried that the Republican party is willing to embrace a way of thinking about our democracy that would be unrecognisable and unacceptable even five years ago, Barack Obama said on Monday.

The former president warned Americans to recognise that the path towards an undemocratic America is not gonna happen in just one bang but will instead come in a series of steps, as seen under authoritarian leaders in Hungary and Poland.

Obama was speaking to CNN the night before two Senate committees released a report on the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January.

Five people died after supporters of Donald Trump stormed the building in service of Trumps lie that his conclusive defeat by Joe Biden in the electoral college and the popular vote was caused by electoral fraud.

Trump was impeached a second time, with support from 10 House Republicans. But Republicans in the Senate acquitted him of inciting an insurrection. He remains free to run for office and has returned to public speaking and hinted about plans for running for the White House again in 2024.

Last month, Republicans blocked the formation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol attack. The Senate report released on Tuesday did not address political questions.

Away from Washington, in states including Texas, Florida and Georgia, Republicans are pursuing laws to restrict ballot access in constituencies likely to vote Democratic, and to make it easier to overturn election results.

In Washington, opposition from centrist Democrats such as the West Virginia senator Joe Manchin is blocking federal voting rights protections.

Obama told CNN large portions of an elected Congress [are] going along with the falsehood that there were problems with the election.

Some Republicans did speak up against Trumps lie after 6 January, Obama said, praising officials like Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Georgia secretary of state who resisted pressure to overturn Bidens win there, as very brave.

But then, Obama said, poof, suddenly everybody was back in line. Now, the reason for that is because the base believed it and the base believed it because this had been told to them not just by the president, but by the media that they watch.

My hope is that the tides will turn. But that does require each of us to understand that this experiment in democracy is not self-executing. It doesnt happen just automatically.

Obama, the first black president, has considered his impact on the American right at length, particularly in his memoir, A Promised Land, which was published after the 2020 election.

He told CNN the rightwing media, most prominently Fox News, was a particular driver of deepening division. Republicans and Democrats, he said, occupy different worlds. And it becomes that much more difficult for us to hear each other, see each other.

We have more economic stratification and segregation. You combine that with racial stratification and the siloing of the media, so you dont have just Walter Cronkite delivering the news, but you have 1,000 different venues. All that has contributed to that sense that we dont have anything in common.

Asking how do we start once again being able to tell a common story about where this country goes?, Obama said Americans on either side of the divide needed to meet and talk more often.

The question now becomes how do we create meeting places, he said. Because right now, we dont have them and were seeing the consequences of that.

See original here:
Barack Obama warns Republicans will kill US democracy in series of steps - The Guardian