Mediaboss Marketing

Worried about the coronavirus and feeling like not enough people were taking it seriously, Fox News host Tucker Carlson set up a meeting with President Trump earlier this month at his Mar-a-Lago resort in order to tell him to his face that the situation was dire.

Carlson discussed the tte--tte with Vanity Fair's Joe Hagan. He spoke with Trump for two hours, and while he would not spill on what Trump said to him, Carlson did tell Hagan he got across the fact that the COVID-19 coronavirus is an existential threat to both the United States and Trump's re-election.

The first COVID-19 case in the United States was reported in January. Trump said it was "totally under control" and "going to be just fine," but Carlson said he saw how spooked the Chinese government was by the outbreak in its country, and he figured "we should pay attention to it." After researching and reporting on the virus, Carlson felt he had "a moral obligation to be useful in whatever small way I could," and determined that meant setting up a meeting to stress to Trump that the imminent coronavirus pandemic could be disastrous.

Carlson and Trump spoke on March 7, with Carlson telling Hagan he told Trump "exactly what I've said on TV, which is that this could be really bad. My view is that we may have missed the point where we can control it." Carlson believes there are "a lot of people around" Trump, particularly "Republican members on Capitol Hill," who were "determined to pretend this wasn't happening." Now, he thinks the White House is taking the matter "seriously" and "knows that we're not prepared."

The coronavirus pandemic has "scared the hell out of everyone, left and right," Carlson said, and he doesn't have "the faintest idea" if Trump will make it out of the crisis unscathed. "I spent months telling our viewers that Joe Biden would never get a nomination," Carlson said. "So I mean, I have literally no idea." Read more at Vanity Fair. Catherine Garcia

Read more:
Republicans fear Trump being quarantined with 'nothing to watch but the news' - The Week

The Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that more Republicans will die from the coronavirus pandemic than Democrats because of the misinformation spread by President Trump and Fox News.

There is a particular cruelty, irony that it is their core viewers, the Republican older viewers, who are the most at risk, Ms. Rubin, a self-described conservative and former Republican, said during a panel discussion Sunday morning on MSNBCs AM Joy.

Ms. Rubin credited the Democrats with being the first to cancel political rallies in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, whereas Mr. Trump initially bucked the idea before canceling several rallies Wednesday.

So, I hate to put it this way, but there will be less Democrat deaths because there will be less mass gatherings, there will be less opportunities for people to congregate and share this horrible disease, she continued. So it is really a very short-sighted strategy.

Ms. Rubin said the challenge lies in getting Trump supporters back on Planet Earth, because Fox News has been brainwashing them to think the president has been proactive on the issue.

They will contort themselves to kind of get in line and get in sync, she said. And, you know, were always saying but, but, but, pointing to the past. They dont. They simply move with the flow. Every day is a new day. Every day is a new storyline, and theyre gonna stick with it.

I think the problem will be what happens unfortunately if we start to follow that Italian model where we have mass casualties, and our lives are not disrupted for a week or two, but were talking months, she continued. And that is going to be some serious stuff. And I dont know if their brainwashing is so strong as to carry on and make excuses for Trump during that. But this is going to be some serious stuff.

See original here:
Jennifer Rubin: 'There will be less Democrat deaths' from coronavirus than Republican - Washington Times

Republican and Democratic representatives came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the early hours of Saturday morning to provide relief to American workers and families in the face of the growing coronavirus crisis.

If passed by Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, who has expressed support for the bill, the Families First CoronaVirus Response Act would ensure provisions for paid emergency leave for those affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, as well as free testing for those who need it.

But while 363 participating Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of the measure, 40 Republican representatives stood against it, voting "nay" on its passage, while Independent Justin Amash voted "present."

Read more

While representatives from both sides of the aisle have agreed that the coronavirus outbreak demands an urgent response from lawmakers, many Republicans who voted against the package said they did so because they felt they were not afforded sufficient time to review the bill.

In a statement published online, GOP Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona said she was unable to support the bill given the lack of time representatives had been given to review it.

"I could not in good conscience vote for a 100-plus page bill that neither I nor my staff had an opportunity to read or review," she said. "Voting on a multibillion-dollar piece of legislation less than 30 minutes after being introduced is no way to conduct the People's businessespecially after reports that small businesses and hospitals could be negatively impacted."

"The United States Congress should not have to pass a bill to find out what is in it," Lesko said. "We all want to help Americans as we face the spread of coronavirus, but this complete rush job is not the way to do it."

In a separate statement published online and shared with Newsweek, Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama also attributed his refusal to support the bill to being given insufficient time to review it.

"Tonight, I was asked to vote on a 110 page bill that spends billions of dollars and contains numerous mandates on small businesses only 26 minutes after receiving the text," he said. "Although I agree with many of the provisions in this legislation, this is no way to govern.

"We should be sending a message of calm and steady leadership in the face of this crisis, not forcing through bills in the dead of night," the representative said. "While it is critical that we continue to take actions to address the coronavirus, we should do it thoughtfully and responsibly. For that reason, I reluctantly voted no.

"I appreciate the Trump Administration working to greatly improve this bill over what was proposed by Speaker Pelosi," Byrne said. "I hope that the Senate next week will engage in the due diligence that House Democrats were unwilling to do."

The three representatives were not alone in refusing to support the bipartisan bill.

Below is a full list of the 40 representatives, who are all Republican, who voted against the measure:

Read more:
These Are the 40 Republicans Who Voted Against the 'Families First' Coronavirus Response Bill - Newsweek

Dalia Maeroff | Staff Illustrator

I am 20 years old. I wear a lot of denim. I have acrylic pins on my backpack. I love the idea of universal health care and am casting an enthusiastic primary vote for Bernie Sanders. I recently created a Letterboxd account.

All this is to say Im a card-carrying college liberal who never truly questioned the notion that my party would lay claim to the first woman in the White House. However, in the past few weeks, I have become increasingly convinced that the first female president will be a conservative. I do not like this idea, but Im terrified that my own brain may be correct, and I need Democrats to pay attention.

I didnt talk myself into this strange, conservative-female-president train of thought by chance. My brain spiral commenced after Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suspended her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in light of a major failure to pick up a competitive delegate count on Super Tuesday. In doing so, she left the Democratic party in the hands of two men a painfully moderate Joe Biden and a remarkably progressive Bernie Sanders both of whom are in their late 70s.

In the wake of her departure, Elizabeth Warren also left me pondering a couple of key questions. What will it take for a woman to successfully snag the presidency? Furthermore, what will the first successful female-led presidential campaign actually look like?

Due to progressive voters varied responses to the Sanders and Warren campaigns, as well as their hasty willingness to discredit strong female candidates based solely on past missteps, I fear that they may not find their footing quickly enough to nominate and elect a progressive woman to the highest office. From here forward, if we dont give progressive women adequate room to grow and evolve, we may risk being surpassed by a party whose policies most notably those regarding health care, equal pay and criminal justice disproportionately hurt women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and other vulnerable minority groups. This would undermine the exact allure of implementing a female leader in the first place.

From the outset of this election cycle, Warren defined herself as undeniably the most prepared candidate. Not only was her slate of policy proposals on par with Bernies progressivism, but it was easily more detailed and well-reasoned than any other candidates platform. Despite this, though, a large portion of liberal voters focused on her past foray into conservatism, perceiving her as a centrist and questioning whether her progressive platform was genuine.

Many of these questions were not unwarranted any progressive candidate with a spotty background should be adequately assessed and held accountable. Its odd, though, that Sanders didnt receive nearly as much scrutiny and backlash about his flaws. If progressive voters are so concerned about candidates former positions, why did so few take issue with his 1993 vote against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act? Or his more recent hesitation to abolish the Senate filibuster, which too often hinders the passage of progressive legislation?

Answering this question with any statement about ideological evolution and learning from past mistakes only serves my point. No candidate is perfect, and thats alright.

What Im hinting at here is not a new concept, and I compare Sanders and Warren because of their historically progressive platforms. The mere existence of both campaigns is clearly indicative of a widespread desire for progressive policies. However, Warrens failure to receive a more competitive fraction of voters speaks to the harm that results from discrediting genuine progressivism by deeming it less pure. In doing so, voters turned their heads away from a genuinely smart, adept and forward-thinking candidate.

This is the only place in which I believe we can learn something from the other party.

The Democratic and Republican parties are polar opposites in nearly every way, which complicates many comparisons. However, studies show that conservatives care far more about party loyalty than do their liberal counterparts. Because conservatives tend to care far more about tribe than purity, they seem to be far more poised to unite behind any candidate who serves their desired platform. Should a competitive female candidate emerge in their party, I doubt her past decisions would hold nearly as much weight as Warrens. Not to mention, any woman pushing for bold and progressive policies would likely be perceived as less societally palatable than someone whose conservative ideals essentially render them conduits for a white mans vote.

Now, blind tribalism is neither healthy nor constructive, and it has resulted in some deeply troubling conservative political activity. I am in no way suggesting that Democrats should emulate such behavior. I am, however, suggesting that we treat our candidates as people capable of change rather than static actors to be defined solely by their past decisions. If progressives crave electoral victory, we need to be able to take strong, outspoken candidates at face value and trust that theyve evolved. Especially when their policies suggest genuine improvement.

In the end, I worry that the progressive wings tendency to default to moral purity will ultimately mean that no progressive woman will live up to the standards necessary to satisfy voters and snag the presidency. And, while its fully necessary to assess candidates histories and hold them accountable for past wrongdoing, its counterproductive to ignore genuine ideological evolution. Before Warrens dropout, she and Sanders were running two of the most progressive campaigns in the history of the Democratic party. To suggest in any way that she is currently a centrist or conservative is blatantly false, and maintaining such behavior will only set the party back in terms of nominating and electing a progressive woman to the highest office.

And sure, I admit that this entire thought process is the result of my most cynical speculation. I also understand that what were experiencing now is simply the discourse of a primary election. Plus, its bold to assume that a conservative woman would be given a fighting chance at snagging the other partys nomination. However, if we dont work to improve our general discrediting of progressive women, we risk handing a historical presidency to the other party. And what a shame it would be to watch the first female president use her power in ways that dont serve a forward-thinking agenda.

More here:
Opinion | Dont let Republicans snag the first female presidency - University of Pittsburgh The Pitt News

Donald Trump's march to the GOP presidential nomination was all but certain in March 2016, but the Wisconsin Republican Party and its powerful allies in conservative talk radio had other ideas.

Led at the time by U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, Gov. Scott Walkerand Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus, Wisconsin Republicans didn't like Trump, and they were bound and determined to stop him. They had a plan: Rally around Trump's primary opponent, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, and set off a chain reaction in states that vote after Wisconsin.

They were not shy about this. Their plan was widely circulated. They had financial backing from the national Club for Growth, a conservative group whose leader vowed Wisconsin would be a "game changer."

Walker, who had called on the party to rally around a "positive, conservative alternative" to Trump when he ended his own presidential bid in September 2015, endorsed Cruz, and so did other Republicans. They included U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, who compared Trump's behavior to an 8-year-old child.

Leading the charge was conservative talk radio, with hosts in Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay spending hour after hour, day after day criticizing Trump to their thousands of listeners in the Republican grassroots. Cruz, meanwhile, crisscrossed the state with Walker by his side.

Establishment Republicans in other states had failed to crack the code for stopping Trump, but the Wisconsin GOP was a different story. It had been battle-hardened by Walker's victories in the 2012 recall and 2014 re-election campaigns. Trump, who had no roots here, was no match.

By April 5, 2016, the plan was complete. Cruz defeated Trump soundly to win Wisconsin.

But the rest of the plan fizzled: Trump hasn't lost another election since.

"I did think that we were going to be this firewall of rationality," said Charlie Sykes, the longtime conservative talk radio host and self-described "#NeverTrump" conservative who has since left the airwaves at WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. "Instead, we turned out to be this minor speed bump."

Four years later, Wisconsin Republicans have transformed from a party distrustful of Trump, to one that embraces him. His job approval among Wisconsin Republican voters in the latest Marquette University Law School poll was 95 percent.

So what happened?

To fully appreciate how far Wisconsin Republicans have come on Trump, it helps to look back at where they started.

Trump looked very much like an underdog in Wisconsin's 2016 presidential primary. He had no statewide officials supporting him in Wisconsin, and for most of the primary campaign, no state lawmakers either.

Trump's lone Wisconsin surrogate was Van Mobley, the village president of Thiensville, a small community of about 3,100 residents in Milwaukee's northern suburbs.

"At that time I was the only elected official who had endorsed Trump in the state, and when the attention of the nation turned on Wisconsin, we expected that I would get more than my fair share of press," Mobley said. "And I did."

Mobley, a professor at Concordia University with degrees in economics and history, said he was initially drawn to Trump because of his opposition to trade deals, which were widely backed by GOP leaders in 2016. But he thinks there were other reasons Wisconsin Republicans were slow to rally to Trump.

"A big part of it was the GOP establishment in the state and by that I mean Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Reince Priebus they had imagined a lot of futures, and a lot of those futures were with themselves at the center of the Republican Party on the way forward," Mobley said. "And they certainly had not envisioned Donald Trump."

But it wasn't just Ryan, Walker and Priebus who were uneasy with Trump.

While he had been embraced by national conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, Wisconsin's conservative talk radio hosts were roundly opposed to Trump.

"I was not a Trump fan initially because I knew some of his background," said Jay Weber, a conservative talk radio host at WISN-AM in Milwaukee for roughly two decades. "I knew that he's had an abrasive personality and was sort of a hotshot. He just doesn't go with Wisconsin nice. The brash New Yorker doesn't mesh well with Wisconsin nice."

Trump figured this out the hard way. As Wisconsin's primary neared, he made the rounds on Wisconsin's conservative talk radio circuit where Sykes and others grilled him.

Cruz, meanwhile, had the Wisconsin Republican machine on his side.

It's not that he was a natural fit. Most had endorsed Walker's bid for president in July 2015, but that only lasted about two months. The next choice for many Wisconsin Republicans was Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, but his campaign was no match for Trump either.

That left Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich as the last men standing, and Cruz had amassed far more delegates. Wisconsin conservative talkers quickly picked up his cause, and Sykes effectively kicked off Cruz's primary campaign, inviting Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz to one of his annual banquet shows.

"I have a picture up on my wall of Ted Cruz, Heidi Cruz, and me, standing there. And I'm shaking his hand, and I'm telling him we're going to do everything we can to stop Trump here in Wisconsin," Sykes said. "It feels like a postcard from another world."

In a file photo, Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, talks with radio host Charlie Sykes at a campaign stop Wednesday, March 23, 2016, in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. Morry Gash/AP Photo

Whatever political momentum Trump had been building just stopped, albeit momentarily, in Wisconsin. Republicans nationally had been headed his direction, but Wisconsin Republicans turned on a dime and headed the other way.

Sykes and Weber insist this wasn't tightly coordinated or part of a master plan. Wisconsin Republicans, Sykes said, had been through some "political wars" during the Walker years, and his listeners knew how they felt about Trump.

"There were no meetings to discuss it," Sykes said. "It was just ... Donald Trump seemed utterly unfit to be president, and frankly, rather ridiculous."

This was the low point for Trump in Wisconsin. You can see it in a couple sets of numbers.

One came from the ballot box. On primary Election Day, Cruz received about 48 percent of the Republican vote while Trump received 35 percent.

The other came from a Marquette poll released about a week before Election Day. It showed among Republican voters, 51 percent had an unfavorable view of Trump compared to just 36 percent who viewed him favorably.

Trump never led Democrat Hillary Clinton in any Marquette poll from 2016, but Marquette pollster Charles Franklin said the surveys did show people who lean Republican were warming to him as the November election drew near.

Then something happened. Trump became president.

In the first Marquette poll of his presidency, Trump's job approval among Wisconsin Republican voters was 86 percent. It has never dropped below 81 percent. And in Marquette's February 2020 survey, Trump's job approval hit a staggering 95 percent among Republicans.

"It's quite high," said Franklin. "I mean obviously, 95 is about as high as you can go."

To put that in context, it matches the high-water mark for Walker, who hit 95 percent job approval among Republicans once in 2012, the year that he became the first governor in United States history to win a recall election, thrilling the GOP base. Among Republicans that year, Walker was practically a folk hero.

"I think that we saw extreme polarization in the Walker era. We see extreme polarization now," Franklin said. "It is always a vivid demonstration of the power of partisanship that as a party's candidate is converted into their nominee and perhaps then converted into their president, people of the party find reasons to like that candidate better and better."

As GOP voters warmed to Trump, so did most of conservative talk radio.

Sykes has been the most outspoken exception, but Jay Weber said he began to like Trump soon after he was inaugurated and began rolling back many of former President Barack Obama's executive orders.

"It became apparent that this was a guy who stepped out of private industry and was something different, and he intended to keep his promises," Weber said.

View post:
Trump's Last Loss: How Wisconsin Republicans Have Come To Embrace The President Over 4 Years - Wisconsin Public Radio News