Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Do Republicans Have A Death Wish? – Forbes


Forbes
Do Republicans Have A Death Wish?
Forbes
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get better for the Republican party, a startling thought is cropping up on Capitol Hill and on K Street. It's being reinforced by the ugly reception Republicans are getting at town hall meetings around the ...
Robert Reich: The Real Reason Republicans Want to Repeal ObamacareAlterNet
Are Republicans in Congress About to Betray Pro-Lifers While Fixing Obamacare?Townhall
During Visits to Districts, Austin's Republican Congressmen Are Forgoing Town HallsKUT
Care2.com
all 35 news articles »

View original post here:
Do Republicans Have A Death Wish? - Forbes

Congressional Republicans have finally come up with a strategy to deal with Trump. It won’t work. – Washington Post

Congressional Republicans have developed a foolproof two-step plan to deal with President Trump in the White House. Step one: Have their cake. Step two: Eat it too.

Here's how Jonathan Martin and Matt Flegenheimer described that strategy in the New York Times on Monday:

After three weeks in the White House, Mr. Trump has made clear that he is going to continue promulgating conspiracy theories, flinging personal insults and saying things that are plainly untrue. And the Republican-controlled House and Senate seem to have made a collective decision: They will accommodate not confront his conduct as long as he signs their long-stalled conservative proposals on taxes, regulations and health care into law.

That reflects something similar to what Speaker Paul Ryan told PBS's Judy Woodruff in an interview earlier this month. "I reject the premise of this notion that the head of the legislative branch of government should just reject the duly elected head of the executive branch of government," said Ryan. "That makes no sense to me."

Down this road lies real danger for Republicans. Here's why.

At the core of this strategy is the idea that the average voter will differentiate between Trump and congressional Republicans. Or, even more unlikely, that people will separate Trump's words from their actions.

If the last two midterm elections 2010 and 2014 have taught us anything, it's that the president's party goes as the president goes. In 2010, Democrats lost 63 House seats; four years later they lost 23. In each of those elections, Democratic House members did everything they could to run from Obama and some of his less popular policies like the Affordable Care Act.

Now consider that Trump is, at least according to early polling, one of the most divisive and unpopular presidents in modern history. And that the Democratic base has been activated by the early days of the Trump presidency.

Given that, it's very hard to imagine that (a) the election will be anything but a referendum on Trump's first two years in office and (b) voters will separate their feelings about Trump from their feelings about congressional Republicans.

Imagine it's the fall of 2018. An endangered Republican say, California's Darrell Issa goes on TV with ads touting the accomplishments of the Republican Congress, making no mention of Trump. His Democratic opponent responds with ads highlighting all of the various controversial things Trump has said in the first two years of his presidency.

The idea that voters would distinguish between Issa's accomplishments as part of a Republican-led Congress and their view of Trump is nonsensical. The average voter will make no such distinction. If Trump is popular or not that unpopular then the likes of Issa can win. If Trump is unpopular, Issa likely loses.

This is a strategy built of necessity for congressional Republicans. Confronted with the prospect of President Trump, they had only two options: Turn against him each time he says something outlandish/untrue or try to ignore most of what he says and stay focused on the policies he can help get enacted.

They chose the latter. Which keeps them from being blasted day in and day out by the head of their party, who is also sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What it doesn't do no matter what they think today is allow them to effectively distance themselves or run away from Trump at the ballot box in November 2018.

The 2018 election will be a referendum on Trump. Period. Congressional Republicans just have to hope what he accomplishes outweighs what he says in voters' minds. It's a very risky gamble.

View post:
Congressional Republicans have finally come up with a strategy to deal with Trump. It won't work. - Washington Post

Republicans railed against Clinton’s ‘extremely careless’ behavior. Now they’ve got a Trump problem. – Washington Post

Update: At least one Republican is now speaking out against Trump's handling of sensitive information -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Republicans got religion on information security during the 2016 campaign. But will they apply the same scrutiny to President Trump as they did to candidate Hillary Clinton and her email server?

As The Post's Philip Bump notes, there are now several examples of Trump playing fast-and-loose with potentially sensitive information the latest being the open-air situation room he conducted with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at a Mar-a-Lago on Saturday night, which David Fahrenthold details here. Trump has also left a key to classified information out in a secured bag as people without the proper security clearance were in the Oval Office. And then there's the viewing of documents at Mar-a-Lago usingcellphone flashlights, which Bump notes can be used like portable television satellite trucks when they are compromised.

The Post's David A. Fahrenthold looks at how President Trump's approach to national security compares with his campaign rhetoric. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

It's not clear whether any of it actually provided sensitive or classified information to people who shouldn't have seen or heard it, but there does seem to be a pretty casual attitude toward this stuff and at least a case to be made that this behavior is negligent. And that's pretty much exactly what Republicans warned against with Clinton.

At the time, Republicans highlighted FBI Director James B. Comey's statement that Clinton's handling of sensitive information was extremely careless.Though Comey recommended against criminal charges, he said individuals who did what she did would often be subject to security or administrative sanctions.

Republicans pounced, with some arguing that Clinton shouldn't be provided the intelligence briefings usually given to presidential nominees.

Leading that charge was House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who wrote in The Washington Post in July:

The consequences for the safety of our nation are grave. Clintons actions may have allowed our enemies to access intelligence vital to our national security. The FBI found that hostile actors could very well have gained access to classified information sent and received by Clinton, her staff and their contacts.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said it's impossible to see how Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. can believe Clinton or any of her implicated staffers should ever again be provided access to classified information.

The most outspoken critics of Clinton included Trump's now-CIA director, Mike Pompeo, who was then a congressman from Kansas. We can't run the risk of more intelligence that puts Americans at risk of being exposed, Pompeo said on his Facebook page. (The post and a tweet to that effecthave been deleted by Pompeo, though it's not clear when.)

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) also focused on Clinton's reckless behavior. It is already outrageous that our secretary of state was extremely careless with classified information during her service and recklessly put our national security at risk, he said. It is equally shameful and dangerous that this individual is now seeking to occupy the world's most powerful office, the American presidency.

No two situations are completely analogous. We know, for instance, that classified information did cross Clinton's server. It's not so clear that classified information was discussed out in the open at Mar-a-Lago or that classified documents were illuminated by those cellphone flashlights.

Republicans would also point out that Clinton took great pains to set up her email server in a certain way. Ryan said at the time that her actions do not seem careless at all. In fact, Clintons actions seem quite careful careful to place her own interests before our national security. There is no such evidence of deliberateness when it comes to what Trump's doing.

And then there's the matter of Trump being the president. You can't really call for a president to be deprived of his intelligence briefings. Ryan said in his op-ed thatClinton should be deprived of the briefings absent the voting publics explicit permission in November. Trump was given that explicit permission Nov. 8.

But there is still no evidence that Clinton's email server ever resulted in classified documents falling into the wrong hands. It was always an argument based upon negligence and the possibility of what might have happened.

Which seems to be at least somewhat applicable to what we've seen in recent days with Trump.

Read the original here:
Republicans railed against Clinton's 'extremely careless' behavior. Now they've got a Trump problem. - Washington Post

Congressional Republicans divided on whether to support Flynn – Washington Post

Republicans in Congress were divided Monday about whether to continue backing President Trumps embattled national security adviser, Michael Flynn, as the controversy around him grows.

At least one Republican House member Colorados Mike Coffman called for Flynn to resign if it is proven that the retired army general intentionally misled the president.

Coffman, a retired Marine officer who is targeted by Democrats in his House releection races, said it was Flynns duty to be fully transparent and forthright in his actionsanything less is unacceptable.

He added: If in fact he purposely misled the President, he should step down immediately.

The Republican lawmakers statement came as concerns on Capitol Hill mount over whether Flynn discussed sanctions on Russia in a call with that countrys ambassador to the United States before Trump was sworn-in as president. The Post reported Monday night that the acting attorney general warned the Trump White House that Flynn could be susceptible to blackmail from the Russians because he had misled senior administration officials about his communications with the Russian ambassador.

The White House sent conflicting signalson how it was handling the situation, with top aide Kellyanne Conway signaling earlier in the day that Flynn enjoys Trumps full confidence and spokesman Sean Spicer later indicating the president was evaluating the situation.

At least one top Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) dismissed accusations against Flynn as baseless, calling him one of the best intelligence officers of his generation.

Hes being attacked maliciously by the press, which is not uncommon in this town, Nunes said in an interview on the Fox News show Your World with Neil Cavuto. I think what General Flynn is realizing is that being a general is much different than being in politics and hes just got to work his way through it.

Nunes and Trump ally Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) were among a small group of lawmakers to offer a full-throated defense of Flynns actions as the controversy swirled on Monday. Collins told reporters that Flynn should absolutely stay on in his current position and downplayed the seriousness of the accusations against him.

I think some people are trying to blow this up, you know, make a mountain out of a mole hill, Collins said. I dont know what was said or not but theres nothing wrong with the national security adviser-elect, so to speak, speaking with world leaders.

The vast majority of Republicans on Capitol Hill remained silent about the burgeoning controversy, perhaps unsure about where the president and his administration stood.The Washington Post reported that Flynn discussed sanctions against Russia with that countrys ambassador to the United States in the month before Trump was installed as president.

Neither House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) weighed in on the issue. But some key Republicans with seats on intelligence and defense-related panels did.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the top Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that Flynns contact with the Russian ambassador will be a part of the ongoing bipartisan investigation into alleged Russian interference into the 2016 election.

This and anything else that involves the Russians, Rubio said. Were going to go wherever the truth leads us.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he personally has confidence in Flynn. But the senator, often a Trump critic, said he does not have enough information to make a judgment about how Flynn handled his conversations with Russia.

I dont know enough about this particular situation to make a comment, McCain said.

Some said Trumps was the only opinion that mattered.

Whats important is if the president has confidence in the National Security Adviser, said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

Burrs committee is leading the Senate probe into Russian activities in 2016, including an intelligence community assessment that the country was attempting to tilt the election to Trump.

[Congressional investigations into Russia start with no end in sight]

In a telephone interview with The Post on Monday, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) declined to say whether Flynn should step down, saying he does not know what transpired beyond what he has seen in media reports.

Thats for the administration to sort out if he was untruthful, Dent said. I simply dont know and I cant speak to what he said.

The centrist Republican lawmaker said he was more worried about the contours of Trumps emerging Russia policy, which he said appears too conciliatory.

Im less concerned about Michael Flynn having conversations with the Russian ambassador than the substance of the Russian policy, Dent said.

Flynns troubles are complicated by the fact that Vice President Pence made public statements supporting Flynns earlier claim that he did not speak with the Russian envoy.

Hes speaking to Vice President Pence relative to the conversation the Vice President had with Gen. Flynn and also speaking to various other people about what he considers the single most important subject there is: our national security, Spicer said.

Flynn has been under fire since The Washington Post report revealed that he discussed sanctions with Sergey Kislyak, Russias ambassador to the United States, shortly before Trumps inauguration. Flynn denied that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak both publicly and in private conversations with senior White House aides.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) talked about the issues during a news conference with reporters in his home state.

Graham on Monday said the situation has created an issue that Flynn must address with Trump.

He has a problem that he needs to fix with this president, Graham told reporters. [The national security adviser] needs to be somebody that the president trusts and it needs to be someone that America trusts.

Graham said that he personally likes and respects Flynn but that the issue needs to be resolved quickly.

If that conversation was misrepresented by Gen. Flynn, that needs to be corrected, Graham said. Im going to leave it up to the president whether or not he believes Gen. Flynn can still serve him capably.

For their part, Democrats have been quick to call for Flynn to either be fired or lose his security clearance. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Monday for Flynn to be let go.

We have a National Security Advisor who cannot be trusted not to put Putin before America, Pelosi said in a statement. National security demands that General Flynn be fired immediately.

Pelosi previously called for Flynn to lose his security clearance, a move endorsed by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I think thats an appropriate action, Cummings said in an interview with ABCs This Week.

Cummings said there are many unanswered questions about Flynns conversations with Kislyak and what, if any, security issues those conversations have created.

Did the president instruct General Flynn to talk to the ambassador? Cummings asked. And did he know about it? If he knew about this conversation, when did he know it? That, to me, that is the key question. And we need to find out what that answer is.

Sean Sullivan contributed to this report.

Visit link:
Congressional Republicans divided on whether to support Flynn - Washington Post

This Is How the Republican Party Plans to Destroy the Federal Government – The Nation.

The Overthrow Project existed before Trump, but it may not survive his presidency.

Republican vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence, House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, Speaker Paul Ryan, and House majority whip Steve Scalise share a laugh when a reporter Ryan called on began to ask Pence a question about his criticism of Donald Trump during a joint news conference on September 13, 2016. (Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call)

Before moderate Republicans became virtually extinct, the party advocated limited government. Today, however, President Trump is pursuing a radical shrinkage of the federal government that comes close to overthrowing it entirely. The goal of this project: to leave the country with a minuscule government that is basically an appendage to private enterprise. Call it the Overthrow Project.

The essence of the Overthrow Project is familiar: to reduce taxes on the very rich, free the business community from taxes and regulations that interfere with its money-making, and subsidize that community with public funds. In addition, the Overthrow Project aims to privatize as many governmental activities as possible. Left for government is the maintenance of the remaining public infrastructure that enables private enterprise to operate efficiently and safely, as well as the assurance of public safety through ever-higher funding of the military, the homeland-security apparatus, the police, and other forces of so called law and order.

Unlike conventional attempts by political parties to remain in power, the Overthrow Project also aims to obtain permanent control over all branches of the federal and state governments. That goal is pursued with an increasingly aggressive and norm-violating form of hardball politics only rarely seen in recent times.

The Overthrow Project also aims to obtain permanent control over all branches of the federal and state governments.

Whether the project is a thought-out strategy or the skillful use of every opportunity to implement its far-right ideology will have to be determined by future historians. Either way, much of the Republican program and strategy originated in the many right-wing think tanks created and supported by the donor class and the business community.

Understanding the GOPs various activities as a single project makes it possible to see the unstated purposes of these activities and how they are connected.

Donald Trump campaigned as a populist outsider and frequently attacked the Republican establishment. Nonetheless, he has always supported its Overthrow Project, adopting its goals and its hardball methods. In fact, Stephen Bannon, President Trumps most senior adviser, has been quoted as saying, Lenin wanted to destroy the state and thats my goal too.

Now that Trump occupies the Oval Office, he will do all he can to lower taxes, deregulate the business community, and privatize a large number of governmental activities. Like other Republicans, he is eager to make life yet more difficult for Americas economically and otherwise vulnerable citizens. In addition, he has announced his intent to significantly beef up the military.

Even though Trump promised to bring back the jobs lost by the white working-class members of his base, his actual job-creation proposals appear to be limited to those infrastructure projects that would create profits for the business community.

The deregulation programs will, as always, increase the profits and stock prices of deregulated enterprises in many parts of the economy. The emasculation of the Clean Air Act, for example, will benefit the suppliers of coal, oil, and gas, even though it will require even Republicans to breathe polluted air.

The total or partial privatization projects now being implemented will target public education and the Veterans Affairs department, as well as Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. Another attempt to divert part of Social Security to Wall Street can be expected. The further privatization of public lands, including in the national parks, is already being discussed.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

Existing privatized institutions, such as prisons and the military will undoubtedly be expanded. Private contractors have already taken over many of the militarys support functions. The possible elimination of cabinet departments and other federal agencies would generate additional privatization to replace some of the goods and services these have provided. A number of Trumps cabinet secretaries and other top officials were chosen because they are intent on privatizing major government programs in the agencies they are to lead. Several have clearly been picked in order to decimate and perhaps eliminate their agencies.

The donor class has already gone far to privatize election campaigns, and a number of elected officials have always been at the beck and call of private enterprise.

Should the Overthrow Project be successful, governments role would be limited to enforcing the rules and regulations for the newly privatized enterprises. Presumably, lawyers working for these enterprises will supply government with many of these rules and regulations and government would mainly protect money making and prevent unfair competition.

The business community would probably have government subsidize privatized public functions that supply what were once public goods. In fact, GOP ideology, which treats the market to as Americas dominant institution, suggests that additional institutions supplying public goods are eligible for eventual privatization.

A central part of the Overthrow Project seeks to enable the Republicans to obtain long-term political control of the federal and state governments. The systematic gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts has played a crucial role in the control effort, enabling the Republicans to put far more elected officials in office than the size of their majorities would justify. The various voter suppression, limitation, and discouragement schemes have helped to further increase the Republican vote in many places.

Partly as a result, nearly two-thirds of the state legislatures are now controlled by the GOP, almost enough to propose amendments to the Constitution. A handful more election victories would enable three-fourths of the states to approve the amendments after the Republican majorities in the Congress had passed them.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression often allow elected officials to disregard the wishes and opinions of all but a narrow base of their constituencies. The resulting autonomy frees them to advance party control as well as policies that are favored by only a small part of the population.

Other methods of advancing the partys control over government are more indirect. These include cutting back funds for the Bureau of the Census and other federal data-gathering programs that implicitly but clearly criticize Republican policies. In years past, members of Congress have already proposed such informational cutbacks, notably those reporting the increases in racial, economic, and other inequalities that could hurt the party politically.

Further initiatives for party control include the intimidation of critics and the barring of access to critical news media. Presidential tweets can distract attention from important events and facts that could interfere with the pursuit of party control. Fake news can have a similar effect, for example by encouraging yet more distrust of the news media and influential political institutions. The recourse to alternative facts that seem to legitimize Republican ideology can threaten the countrys reliance on actual facts.

The attempt to achieve long-term party control is accompanied by the rejection of long-held political norms.

The attempt to achieve long-term party control is accompanied by new forms of hardball politics that include the rejection of long-held political norms. A significant example was the Republican-controlled Senates refusal to hold hearings on then-President Obamas Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, thus preventing the Democrats from attaining a liberal majority on the Court. Or consider the post-2016 election vote by North Carolinas GOP legislators to reduce the powers of the newly elected Democratic governor. That coup is likely to be imitated in other states and could encourage conservative think tanks to invent yet other control schemes.

Yet the most dramatic example of the GOPs norm violations may turn out to be President Trumps refusal to sell his properties and financial holdings and put his monies into a blind trust. Since he will continue to collect profits from the businesses he owns, he is in effect telling the country that governing can coexist with, and perhaps be used for, money-making.

All of these actions support the Republicans attacks on the foundations of democratic government and thereby advance its overthrow.

Although the Overthrow Project may be revolutionary in the changes it could bring to the country, it will probably not include violence. Instead, its primary effects may include the normalization of the various party-control schemes, the constant violation of traditional norms, the toleration of nepotism, corruption, and the injection of alternative realities into the countrys political life.

Unless the currently widespread protest by large numbers of citizens, the media, and other cultural institutions continues, initiatives of the Overthrow Project and its various effects could become part of the mainstream culture. Even anti-democratic politics and authoritarian decision-making may then seem less and less abnormal.

Donald Trumps belief that he has the power to implement his proposals by himself, his support of foreign dictators as well as his tolerance of the anti-democratic tendencies of the domestic and global far right all suggest that he may be ready to try some dictatorial methods himself if he cannot get his way by democratic means.

The Democrats may share the GOPs aim to control all branches of government, but so far they have done little to achieve it. Although they have resorted to some of the same strategies and tactics as the Republicansgerrymandering, for examplethey have never gone about it as systematically as the Republicans.

While a handful of Democrats may support some of the GOPs tax reform, deregulation, and other policies, the party is not interested in overthrowing the governmentor private enterprise. Instead, it seeks to increase the well-being of the economically vulnerable population, particularly with a stronger safety net and an enlarged welfare state.

Yet the Democrats have not been as energetic and determined as the Republicans. Nor have they enforced party discipline. They have never received the level of strategic and tactical guidance the Republicans have obtained from their think tanks.

The Democrats have also eschewed the coup-like initiatives of the Republicans. They have not even figured out how to counter the GOPs hardball politics, but then they have rarely resorted to its strategic guile and its anti-democratic actions.

Still, the Democrats could halt the Overthrow Project with a single landslide election, and end it if they obtained control of all branches of the federal government for several consecutive presidential and midterm elections.

Actually, the Overthrow Project could even be upset by Donald Trumps failure to keep his promises to the so-called white working class. If its labor-market troubles and those of other citizens in red states continue, their voters could become politically more activeand in ways that could hurt the Republican Party.

Sooner or later, Republicans will find that decimating the government results in a mass of unintended consequences.

Although some may move further toward the totalitarian right, others might join the now ongoing liberal-left protest movements. However, these movements must transform themselves into a nationwide set of relatively like-minded local and state organizations before they can recruit enough disenchanted Republicans and independents to join them.

Above all, these organizations need to figure out how to persuade enough of the politically passive citizenry, particularly whites, to vote, and to vote Democratic, in the next election.

In order for their message and their proposed policies to be persuasive, significant ideological and class differences would have to be overcome or set aside. At election time, they would have to create a ground game that can also persuade disenchanted votersand non-votersto support them.

These tasks may be made a little easier by some systemic and self-destructive obstacles the Overthrow Project will face in the future. For one thing, many Democratic programs cannot be fully eliminated, and the federal government usually continues to grow regardless of which party is in power. In addition, the business community will realize that it cannot flourish or even survive without help from even the most hated federal agencies.

Sooner or later, the Republicans should discover that decimating the government will likely result in a mass of unintended consequences. For example, redistributing tax funds to the rich from the large number of middle- and working-class Americans could seriously damage the consumer economy on which the rest of the economy depends. Defunding programs that enable the poor and the working class to survive will further increase family breakups, domestic violence, drug addiction, suicide, and other human tragedies that even the Overthrow Project cannot totally ignore.

If the global economy continues to stifle the countrys economic growth, Trumps protectionist fantasies notwithstanding, politics could become yet more adversarial. The resulting spread of governmental paralysis to state and local governments would also affect the Overthrow Project.

As always, much depends on the voters. If they continue to blame government for the decline in their standard of living, the Overthrow Project may muddle through. If, however, enough of the voters decide that private enterprise is making their lives miserable, they might realize that politics can help them. These voters could demand a governmental safety net that is securely anchored with entitlement, job creation, income support, and other programs that benefit them instead of the business community.

If the Republicans want to avoid the possibility of a long-term Democratic takeover of the government, they might not only have to call off the Overthrow Project but even participate in creating that safety net.

The rest is here:
This Is How the Republican Party Plans to Destroy the Federal Government - The Nation.