Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions of Dallas had a long day Wednesday.

He set off a mild firestorm early in the morning in a CNN interview when he conceded his party needed to do a better job selling its replacement to President Obama's 2010health care overhaul and promised Americans they would be able to keep their current insurance plan and doctors. But those remarks were largely forgotten just hours later amid the continuing chaos surrounding the run-up toward a Thursday vote in the U.S. House.By nightfall, Sessions found himself sparring with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi over repeal in a marathon meeting of the House Rules Committee, which he chairs.

In the dawn-to-dusk fight over repealing the law that served as a central campaign issue for Republicans over the past four election cycles, Pelosi's troops were in lockstep behind her all House Democrats oppose repeal.Instead, the fight is among Republicans; allies of House leadership are trying to pass the bill, while hardline conservatives, many of whom are members of a group called the Freedom Caucus, are trying to stymie it.

Many in Congress including at least one Texas Republican House member who asked not to be named predict that if the bill reaches the House floor Thursday, it will fail. Sources tell the Tribune that heading into Thursday, House leaders were working with a deficit of about five votes.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The fight consumed both the White House and the House of Representatives all day Wednesday. President Donald Trump and U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan used every carrot and stick at their disposal to convince Republicans to fall in line with their proposal. Some Republicans suggested the vote could go down to the wire, all the way to the House floor for the kind of in-the-moment arm-twisting that made former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay famous in his day.

As of Wednesday evening, 16 House Republicans from Texas backed the bill, three opposed it and six were either undecided or unclear in their positions.U.S. Rep. Randy Weber of Friendswood, a Freedom Caucus member, announced his opposition to the bill late Wednesday.

The most stunning moment among Texas Republicans came at the hand of a member of the party's House leadership,Homeland Security Committee ChairmanMichael McCaul, who pulled his support for the bill and announced he was undecided.

All the drama in the House may be leading to an anticlimax in the Senate even if the plan passes in its current form, hardly anyone thinks the bill will make it through the upper chamber.Many Republicans doubt repeal will even become law.

The political fallout of failure in the House could set off a conflagration between the two factions of the House GOP, including in Texas. Tea Party types say they are licking their chops to take out Republican incumbents in primaries with charges of selling out in support of "Obamacare lite."

Meanwhile, those in the Republican establishment say they will charge rebels who might fight the bill into failure as essentially siding with Democrats to maintain the status quo of a law the entire party spent seven years campaigning against.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The countdown to a vote has raised several questions, the most prominent of which is: What happens if the bill fails?

The anonymous Texas House Republican forecasted political catastrophe:"I don't know what happens then."

Read more:

Meet Paige: Our new Facebook Messenger bot helps you keep track of the 85th Legislature. Subscribe by messaging HELLO to m.me/texastribune.org. Learn more.

The rest is here:
Texas Republicans divided as health care overhaul hangs in the balance - Texas Tribune

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Democratic senators more aggressively questioned Judge Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday in hopes of drawing him out on his potential independence from President Trump, while Republicans began congratulating him signaling they anticipate his successful confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Senators completed two days of questioning Gorsuch with repeated inquiries about abortion rights, money in politics and a Supreme Court ruling issued on Wednesday that reversed a decision of his appeals court. The hearings will continue Thursday with testimony of those who support and oppose the nomination of the 49-year-old judge on the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

[Supreme Court sets higher bar for education of students with disabilities]

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee became increasingly frustrated by Gorsuchs bland answers. You have been very much able to avoid any specificity like no one I have ever seen before, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When pressed by Sen. Amy Klobacher (D-Minn.) on various noncommittal answers, Gorsuch said it would be wrong for him to be more candid about what he would do on the bench. Its like a campaign promise for office, it seems to me, Gorsuch said.

(Video: Reuters / Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Klobacher responded: We have to figure out what your philosophy is.

Both Democrats and Republicans seemed pretty sure that Gorsuch would be a conservative very much in the mold of the justice he would replace, Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

The politics of the nomination again were at center stage. When Gorsuch said he did not think of judges as Democrats or Republicans, Sen. Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) responded if that were true, the committee would be considering the man President Barack Obama nominated, Judge Merrick Garland. Senate Republicans denied Garland a hearing and a vote on his nomination.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), pressing Gorsuch on the issue of campaign finance, said commentators now describe the Supreme Court as instruments of the Republican Party.

Gorsuch put both hands to his chest and responded he was distressed that you think that judges or the Supreme Court is an organ of a party.

But partisan rancor over Supreme Court nominations is not new, and Republicans were less interested in questioning Gorsuch than congratulating him.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who has participated in 14 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, told Gorsuch, I've seen an awful lot of great people in the law come before this committee. And I haven't seen anybody any better than you.

(Jenny Starrs/Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Why anybody in this body would vote against you, I'll never understand, Hatch said later.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) credited Gorsuch for enduring the marathon hearings and said he was passing the test with flying colors.

Trump again was frequently mentioned.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) questioned Gorsuch onthe Constitutions emoluments clause, which states the president cannot accept gifts from foreign agents without approval from Congress. Given ongoing litigation involving that clause, Gorsuch said, I have to be very careful about expressing any views.

Leahy also noted Gorsuch has strong support from Trump senior counselor Stephen K. Bannon, whom the senator accused of giving a platform to extremists and misogynists and racists. Another senior Trump aide, Reince Priebus, had said Gorsuch could potentially change 40 years of law, Leahy said.

What vision do you share with President Trump? the senator asked.

Respectfully, none of you speaks for me, said Gorsuch. I am a judge. I am independent. I make up my own mind.

At one point, Gorsuch seemed to reject a Feb. 13 comment from senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller that Trumps actions on national security will not be questioned, which some interpreted as a signal that Trump could ignore judicial orders.

You better believe I expect judicial decrees to be obeyed, Gorsuch said.

[How Gorsuchs judicial experience compares with Supreme Court predecessors]

Gorsuch also declined to give his view on Scalias characterization of the Voting Rights Act as a perpetuation of racial entitlement.

I dont speak for Justice Scalia. I speak for myself, he told the committee.

You have been very hesitant to even talk about various Supreme Court precedents, Leahy told Gorsuch, noting that Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito took positions on specific cases during their confirmation hearings.

The latest hearing produced an emotional exchange between Gorsuch and Feinstein on the subject of womens rights.

You are pivotal in this, she told Gorsuch, saying that the originalist interpretation of the Constitution to which he adheres has been used in the past to say that the Constitution does not cover women and gays.

[Gorsuch promises independence from Trump and steals Democrats line of attack]

No one is looking to return us to horse-and-buggy days, Gorsuch responded. Supreme Court precedent has established that the Constitutions Equal Protection Clause is wide enough to encompass those who were not recognized when it was written.

A good judge starts with precedent and doesnt reinvent the wheel, Gorsuch said, adding that it matters not a whit that some who wrote the Constitution were racists or sexists, because they were. What matters, Gorsuch said, were what the words on the page mean.

The two also discussed a book that Gorsuch wrote in which he opposed physician-assisted suicide and said any taking of a human life was wrong.

Feinstein mentioned the death of her father and a close friend, which she said were agonizing. She mentioned Californias recent physician-assisted suicide law.

[Opinion: Good-golly Gorsuch may turn out to be a rascal on the bench]

My heart goes out to you, Gorsuch said, and then appeared to choke up when he mentioned the death of his own father. He said his personal views would have no role in his duties as a judge and noted the Supreme Court has ruled that states may allow laws such as Californias.

Democratic senators also raised questions about a decision that had just been issued across the street from the hearing room at the Supreme Court.

The eight sitting justices decided unanimously on Wednesday to boost the standards of education that public schools provide to learning-disabled students, rejecting an earlier ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit the one that Gorsuch serves on saying that it had set the bar too low for students.Gorsuch had ruled similarly in a different case.

At issue was whether schools must provide disabled children some educational benefit which several lower courts have interpreted to mean just more than trivial progress or whether students legally deserve something more.

In response to questions from Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Gorsuch defended his courts decision, saying that they were applying what the 10th Circuit had decided in a 1996 case, which adopted the standard that the services have to be more than de minimis .

I was bound by circuit precedent, Gorsuch said, saying that ruling against an autistic child and his parents was heartbreaking.

Republicans are hoping to refer Gorsuch to the full Senate by April 3 and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the judge will be confirmed to the Supreme Court before Easter.

[Senate Democrats want more information about Gorsuchs role at DOJ]

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said this week that it would be unseemly for the Senate to confirm Gorsuch while the FBI is investigating whether Trumps presidential campaign was swayed by Russian interference.

But Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.), a key moderate and a member of Schumers leadership team, said on Wednesday that the ongoing FBI investigation shouldnt have any bearing on Gorsuchs confirmation.

I want to get a working court, okay? What they did to Merrick Garland was wrong. I dont want to do the same. Two wrongs dont make a right, Manchin said at a Washington Post Live event on Trumps early weeks in office.

Manchin later visited the Judiciary Committee room to watch the proceedings for a few minutes a notable appearance given that he is one of several moderate Democrats facing reelection next year who are the targets of a multimillion-dollar ad campaign bankrolled by conservative groups in hopes of securing Gorsuch a filibuster-proof vote tally. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), another potential vote for Gorsuch, made a similar visit on Tuesday.

Manchin said at the Post event that he plans to meet again with Gorsuch before deciding how to vote.

If Gorsuch is the right person or not, I cant say that as of yet, he said. Is there 60 votes as of yet, I dont think, I dont see it. Can it happen? Anything can happen.

Read more at PowerPost

Read more:
Democrats continue to press Gorsuch for answers, but Republicans' confidence of confirmation grows - Washington Post

Which Republicans Will Vote No? What 8 News Organizations Are Reporting New York Times Negotiations are moving quickly, and lawmakers may move together in blocs; a handful have already switched their public 'no' statements to 'yes.' We'll update this table as statements change. We last updated this article at 11:33 PM Wednesday.

Follow this link:
Which Republicans Will Vote No? What 8 News Organizations Are Reporting - New York Times

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a Republican from the San Joaquin Valley, took a trip to the White House that made as big a splash as Californias recent torrential rains. Even though he is chairman of the House Intelligence committee that is currently investigating links between Russia and members of Donald Trumps campaign team, Nunes chose to share intelligence reports with the president before he shared them with members of his committee.

Democrats went ballistic saying Nunes had acted improperly, raising serious questions about his ability to lead an independent, bipartisan investigation. Observers with deep ties to the intelligence community said it was unprecedented for someone in the key position Nunes holds to so brashly share sensitive information with a person who is the object of an inquiry.

Another Californian, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff from Burbank, is the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee. Speaking to reporters in his usual calm, ex-prosecutors voice, Schiff said, The chairman will either need to decide if he's leading an investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House. Because he cannot do both.

In comments outside the West Wing after he met with Trump, Nunes said he had told the president that communications from members of his transition team had been inadvertently intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies. Fox News jumped on this as evidence confirming Trumps recent tweet that accused President Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. Despite Foxs quick leap to shill for Trump, Nunes statement actually undercut Trumps charge by making clear that, not only was the surveillance inadvertent, it was also legal.

Unsurprisingly, Fox, the reliable mouthpiece for the GOP, is reflecting the pervasive denial that is making a lot of Republicans look like quaking little boys whistling past a spooky graveyard. They seem quite desperate to pretend there is nothing scary about the FBIs probe into contacts between Trump surrogates and Russian intelligence operatives at a time when the Russians were hacking their way into the American presidential election to do damage to Hillary Clintons campaign.

Earlier this week when FBI director James Comey appeared before the intelligence committee, GOP members arrived at the hearing with an orchestrated series of questions focusing, not on the Russian attack on American democracy, but on leaks from within government agencies that helped expose connections between Trumps people and the Russians. They looked more than a little silly chasing this line of inquiry after Comey dropped a bombshell by acknowledging that his agency is conducting an active investigation into the Trump/Russia links.

Trump apologists are also making themselves look ridiculous by continuing to insist that Paul Manafort, who headed the Trump campaign for a period that included the Republican National Convention, was somehow a marginal figure in Trumps run for the White House. He was far from peripheral and, according to convention delegates on the platform committee, it was he who engineered the removal of a plank in the platform that called for sending arms to Ukraine in support of that countrys fight against Russian military aggression. Wednesday, the story about Manaforts cozy relationship with Russia blew up again with the revelation that Manafort at one time had a multi-million dollar contract with a Russian oligarch who is part of President Vladimir Putins inner circle a deal in which, according to an Associated Press report, Manafort promised to provide services that would greatly benefit the Putin government.

The more Republicans try to protect their president by downplaying the very curious and apparently very frequent contacts between Russians and Trump campaigners, the more it looks as if they are willingly aiding a coverup. They would do well to stop collaborating and start following the lead of their 2008 presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain. McCain is now calling for a select committee to take over the investigation. He sees that as a necessary step toward uncovering the impartial truth.

It will be difficult for other Republicans to argue against McCain now that Nunes has so badly compromised his committees work by trotting off to share secrets with Trump.

David.Horsey@latimes.com

Follow me at @davidhorsey on Twitter

Read the rest here:
Most Republicans are in denial about the probe into Trump/Russia ties - Los Angeles Times

House Republican leaders are putting their health care bill to a vote Thursday evening, but it is at this point not evident that they have the votes theyll need to pass the bill. They can lose up to 22 members, assuming that no Democrats will support the bill. Heres the most current count of the no votes, according to CBS News.

Both conservative and moderate Republicans oppose the bill, though their reasons for their planned votes against the American Healthcare act vary -- these are some of the problems theyve cited:

Conservatives are angry that the measure isnt a full repeal of Obamacare and have dubbed it Obamacare lite. Groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and FreedomWorks have announced that they are key voting against lawmakers who vote in favor of the bill, that is, they will count the votes against those lawmakers in their conservative ratings.

Republicans in Congress promised a full repeal of Obamacare, but the current plan falls far short. It leaves intact some of the most harmful aspects of the law, including burdensome regulations that send insurance costs spiking and federal subsidies rebranded as tax credits, said AFPs Chief Government Affairs Officer Brent Gardner.

In an interview last week with Fox Business Maria Bartiromo, Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said, We dont have the votes for just a full repeal because so many of our members and the president included said repeal and replace. And if we just did a repeal with reconciliation -- meaning 51 votes -- and not replace, then we wouldnt be able to get a replacement passed because they can filibuster a replace.

Under a certain rule within the budget reconciliation process, a full repeal of President Obamas signature healthcare law would be difficult to achieve anyway.

This may be the most oft-cited reason for opposing the GOP bill -- the claim that it will do nothing to lower insurance premiums for most Americans. This is true at least in the short term.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that average premiums for single policy holders would rise 15 to 20 percent under the new law in 2018 and 2019. Its worth noting that the increases would only be for the first few years of the new law: starting in 2020 they will begin to decline, the CBO projects, and would be an estimated 10 percent lower than current premiums by 2026.

However, some Republicans -- including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have said even the short-term increase in premiums is unacceptable. Cruz told CBS Face the Nation on Sunday that he wouldnt vote for the bill as it stands for one main reason: premiums, premiums, premiums.

Ive got to tell you, if Republicans hold a big press conference and pat ourselves on the back that weve repealed Obamacare and everyones premiums keep going up, people will be ready to tar and feather us in the streets, he said. And quite rightly.

Play Video

In the final hours before the House votes on the GOP's Obamacare replacement plan, the White House tried to reach skeptics in an effort to persua...

Also of concern are the premium increases for older Americans. New York Rep. Daniel Donovan is worried about the harmful impact of the bills treatment of age rating, which would allow insurers to charge older Americans up to five times what they charge younger individuals, as opposed to the ACA, which only allows them to be charged three times as much. In an opinion piece in SIlive.com in which he announced his no vote, Donovan pointed out a CBO examplie in which a 64-year old earning $26,500 could pay $14,600 per year for an insurance policy.

Moderates were also alarmed by the substantial increase in uninsured Americans under the Republican plan. CBOs scoring of the bill, which found that 24 million more people would not have health insurance. This is largely because of changes to Medicaid enrollment under the GOP plan. CBO predicts that stopping the expansion of Medicaid and capping the per-enrollee spending will mean that in 2026, some 52 million would be uninsured, compared to the 28 million who would be uninsured if the Affordable Care Act remains in place.

Some House Republicans take a pragmatic view of the vote. New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance told CNN a little over a week ago, I do not want to vote on a bill that has no chance of passing over in the Senate.

Numerous Republican senators have criticized the bill, meaning it would likely have to be changed significantly even it squeezes through the House. But Senate opposition will be particularly tricky to overcome, as the GOP has only a narrow advantage in the chamber, and criticisms of the bill have come from moderates and stalwart conservatives.

Some senators, such as Kentuckys Rand Paul, believe the current bill does not go far enough, and instead advocate for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Others, like Alaskas Lisa Murkowski, worry that the current bill goes too far, and would harm voters in their states. Appeasing both sides in that fight will be enormously difficult, if not impossible, as Republicans can only afford to lose two senators for the bill to pass.

For House members still on the fence about the health care bill, this presents a serious question: Is it worth incurring the wrath of conservative groups that oppose the legislation in order to pass a bill that will probably fail to become law? Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Cotton warned House members against voting for the bill for just this reason. I would say to my friends in the House of Representatives with whom I serve, Do not walk the plank and vote for a bill that cannot pass the Senate and then have to face the consequences of that vote, he told ABC.

Rebecca Shabad and Emily Schultheis contributed to this story

Excerpt from:
GOP health care bill: Why some Republicans are opposing it - CBS News