Mediaboss Marketing

Forget impeachment. Forget Robert Mueller's investigation. Forget Russia. Well, don't forget them, but put them to the side for a moment. Investigations and impeachments and Senate trials take time, and we don't have time any more. The president has to go now, and it's up to his fellow Republicans to get him to leave.

On Tuesday, the president of the United States said there were good people marching alongside the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

We can't have a president who says good people march with Nazis. We just can't. We have so much work to do on race in this country, so many people who need to understand the depth of systemic racism that pervades every aspect of society. We need dialog and understanding, but right now we're in an emergency, and this guy has to go.

It can't just be up to liberals and leftists to make this call anymore. It's not enough for Republicans like Speaker Paul Ryan to issue generic statements denouncing racism. We have a racist president. Every elected official needs to denounce him by name.

But even that doesn't go far enough. It's time, after nearly 30 weeks with him in office stomping on the Constitution and basic human decency, to demand his resignation. Every time we thought there were no more lines for him to cross, he finds a bright red one and leaps over it.

This can't be a partisan issue any more. At some point all but the most extreme Republicans have to be able to recognize a national emergency when they see one. If not now, when? If this president isn't unfit for the office after what he said Tuesday, who would be?

Will it work? Would Trump go? It's tough to predict, but never forget how sensitive Trump is to criticism. With enough pressure from the entirety of the political structure in this country, including a refusal to work with him, he might dig in but he just might give up and go back to running his real estate empire. Even someone as self-delusional as he is can only face so much pressure to resign before giving in.

Hell, Republicans, you could even come out ahead in the political calculus. Making Trump resign would be a momentary embarrassment for the party, but you'd end up with Mike Pence, a bedrock conservative who will sign your giant tax cuts for the wealthy and not call you names on Twitter.I know you're afraid of your party's primary voters, but sometimes you have to do what's right for the country rather than yourself.

It certainly isn't a difficult moral question. What Donald Trump said in his press conference Tuesday was so awful, so contrary to all notions of basic human decency, that it immediately makes him utterly unfit to be president.

Sure, he's been unfit all along stupid and cruel and corrupt and craven. But this is different, and this is worse. It's unprecedented in the history of the modern presidency. We've had presidents of both parties whose policies disproportionately hurt people of color. We've have presidents who use dog whistles and political strategies to appeal to white voters' racial resentment.

But even these presidents could speak eloquently against hate and extremism when it reared its head. None of them ever looked at a crowd of racists bearing torches, shouting, "Jews will not replace us," and declared there were good people among them.

A good person shouts back. Immediately. Trump took three days to denounce the most extreme marchers, then one day later undid what little good he had done with his reluctant remarks. He stood at a microphone and praised people who stood with neo-Nazis and the KKK.

There's no question what's right for the country. President Trump must resign as soon as possible. And he will not do so without political pressure from the people in his own party. History will look back at this moment, and it will not judge kindly the people who couldn't muster the decency to do the right thing.

Republicans, if you believe in America, if you believe in the decency of our people, then your path is clear. Tell Trump to resign. Make the call so loud and so universal he cannot ignore it.

And if he clings to power in the face of massive pressure from all sides, then you can impeach his ass.

Watch below:Whether Trump eventually will be forced out of office is as much a political question as it is a legal one.

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

See original here:
Republicans Must Tell Trump to Go Now - RollingStone.com

The poll found that the share of Republicans expressing confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin doubled to 34 percent from 17 percent in 2015. | Alexei Druzhinin, Sputnik/Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM

08/16/2017 02:00 PM EDT

Updated 08/16/2017 02:06 PM EDT

Russian President Vladimir Putin is enjoying rising popularity among Republicans according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center.

The poll found that the share of Republicans expressing confidence in Putin doubled to 34 percent from 17 percent in 2015, when Donald Trump launched a campaign for the White House that was seen as friendly toward Moscow.

Story Continued Below

Though most Americans view Russia negatively, Moscow's overall popularity in the United States has risen since 2014, when it plummeted after the country annexed Crimea. Twenty-nine percent of Americans now have a favorable view, compared with 19 percent in 2014, the poll found.

But the partisan gap is stark, as congressional committees and federal investigators scrutinize Russias meddling in the 2016 election, including hacks of Democratic operatives email accounts. The investigations are eyeing any ties between Russia and Trumps campaign, though the president calls the probe a hoax.

Just 13 percent of Democrats have confidence in Putin, the poll found. And while 61 percent of Democrats consider Russia a major national security risk, only 36 percent of Republicans do, the poll of 1,505 adults conducted from Feb. 16 to March 15 found. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The partisan gap is a recent development, said Margaret Vice, a senior researcher at Pew and the lead author on the report.

Weve seen quite a shift on the side of Republicans, with Republicans now being much more favorable toward Russia, Vice said, adding that the shift was "quite significant."

The ideological split exists in other countries as well, she said, with those on the right in Italy, Greece and Australia also holding warmer views toward Putin.

Those who place themselves on the right of the spectrum are much more likely to be confident in Putin as a leader, she said.

But Vice said the American right's recent warmth toward Putin still stood out.

"In most of the 13 countries in which ideology was asked in 2015 and 2017, the ideological split in views toward Russia and Putin have not changed significantly, outside of the U.S.," Vice said.

Still, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the country, with just 14 percent saying Russia respects the personal freedoms of its people.

Russias popularity in the United States used to be substantially higher nearly half of Americans had a favorable view in 2010 but tumbled after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Russian government forces continue to assist Ukrainian separatists. Putins government also has sided with Syrian President Bashar Assad in the civil war there, and it has tried, mostly through influence campaigns, to destabilize democracies from Europe to the United States.

Trump frequently praised Putin during the campaign, and the two spoke at length during a recent G-20 meeting in Hamburg. Improved relations with Russia were a centerpiece of Trump's foreign policy platform, but the revelations of election interference have all but eliminated the possibility of any rekindled friendship in the near future.

Trump recently begrudgingly signed new sanctions on the Russian regime after they were passed by veto-proof majorities in Congress.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Excerpt from:
Poll: Republicans' confidence in Russia's Putin on the rise - Politico

On the eve of talksbetween the United States, Mexico and Canada to renegotiatetheNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Republican San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer is encouragingpolicymakers to look at thesuccess story the pacthas created inhis city.

Free trade works, Faulconer told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Tuesday evening. Weve grown our exports in San Diego by $5 billion since NAFTA. Mexico is our biggest export partner from San Diego.

As mayor of the states second-largest city and throughsheer attrition of Republicanofficeholders Faulconer is seen as a leading figure in Californias GOP. While once again declaring that he is not running for governor in 2018 as some have encouraged, Faulconer laid out his blueprint for the partys return to statewide relevance, which includes support for free trade policies.

President Donald Trump has called NAFTA the worst deal ever made, and argued that talks beginningWednesday should focus on reducing the trade deficit with Mexico, which he says has cost the United States manufacturing jobs.

Faulconer disagrees, and will travel to Washington, D.C. next month in an effort to convince lawmakers that NAFTA has been a job creator at the border.

Im going to tell that story of how free trade works, of how our relationship with Mexico is a strength, of how were creating those good quality jobs, he said. If we dont tell our story of success, nobody is going to tell it for us.

Most of Faulconers remarks on Tuesday night outlined his model of the New California Republican.

The mayor wants his party to takea big-tent approach that encourages inroads into minority communities, focuses on infrastructure development and government reform, and preaches a moderate stance onimmigration and the environment.

Faulconer said those principals have allowed him to win two elections in the Democratic-majority city of San Diego.

I campaigned in communities Republicans wrote off as lost, and Democrats took for granted, he added.

But Faulconerreiterated that he will not run for Governor in 2018, reasoning that theres a lot of unfinished business and I love the job.

He wasnt willing to throw his weightbehind the two Republicans already in the race, Assemblyman Travis Allen, and San Diego businessman John Cox. Instead, it sounded like Faulconer will take on the role of recruiter before next Junes primary.

Im sure were going to have a lot of great candidates come out, he said. Ill be extolling some of my fellow Republicans to jump in.

Guy Marzorati is a producer for The California Report andKQED's California Politics and Government Desk. Guy joined KQED in 2013. He grew up in New York and graduated from Santa Clara University. Email: GMarzorati@KQED.org

See the rest here:
San Diego Mayor Pushes NAFTA and 'New California Republicans' - KQED

Two days after a woman was killed in Charlottesville amid clashes between white nationalists and counterprotesters, President Trump on Aug. 14 condemned racist groups such as the KKK, saying racism "has no place in America." (The Washington Post)

On Monday, after President Trumps grudging denunciation of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released a statement:

The Presidents statement on Saturday was a direct reflection of the fact that his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is an alt-right white supremacist sympathizer and a shameless enforcer of those un-American beliefs. In his long overdue statement today, President Trump called white supremacists repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. If the President is sincere about rejecting white supremacists, he should remove all doubt by firing Steve Bannon and the other alt-right white supremacist sympathizers in the White House.

From the beginning, President Trump has sheltered and encouraged the forces of bigotry and discrimination. President Trumps failure to immediately denounce white supremacy is well in line with the unmistakable conduct of his Administration toward immigrants, Muslims, and communities of color.

She concluded:It shouldnt take the President of the United States two days to summon the basic decency to condemn murder and violence by Nazis and white supremacists.

It is no longer impossible to imagine that Bannon might be forced to step down. When Pelsoi, Rupert Murdoch and conservative anti-Trump writer David French all agree that hes a drag on the president, perhaps he will finally return to Breitbart. French writes:

Theres a good reason that white nationalists rejoice at Steve Bannons proximity to power. Theres a good reason that countless Americans look at that man so close to the Oval Office and fear his influence on their presidents mind and heart. How can Trump look the American people in the face and say that he unequivocally condemns the alt-right when one of the men who did more than anyone else to enhance its influence works down the hall?

Whether it works or not, Republicans should join Pelosi. Republicans need to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: Their party supported and still supports Trump, who feeds the monster of white resentment and who focuses their anger, fear and frustration on minorities.

[Why Trumps poll numbers are still in free fall]

The memes that immigrants are stealing our jobs; Christianity is a persecuted religion in the United States; Mexican immigrants are murderers; and millions of illegal immigrants voted in the election have given white nationalists rhetorical cover to propound their even more extreme racist views. Bannon and company have introduced in the Oval Office the blood and soil definition of nationalism, the suggestion that the mediais the enemy of the people and a nonstop attack on the truth. They refused to abandon a presidential candidate who attacked a federal court judge on the basis of race, for heavens sake.

More than a year ago, the New York Times reported:

In countless collisions of color and creed, Donald J. Trumps name evokes an easily understood message of racial hostility. Defying modern conventions of political civility and language, Mr. Trump has breached the boundaries that have long constrained Americans public discussion of race.

Mr. Trump has attacked Mexicans as criminals. He has called for a ban on Muslim immigrants. He has wondered aloud why the United States is not letting people in from Europe.

His rallies vibrate with grievances that might otherwise be expressed in private: about political correctness, about the ranch house down the street overcrowded with day laborers, and about who is really to blame for the death of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo. In a country where the wealthiest and most influential citizens are still mostly white, Mr. Trump is voicing the bewilderment and anger of whites who do not feel at all powerful or privileged.

Trump and his apologists can deny until the cows come home that their intent was to stoke white racism, but in retrospect its clear that was to be the means by which Trump won the White House. Trump opened the door to assertions of white identity and resentment in a way not seen so broadly in American culture in over half a century, according to those who track patterns of racial tension and antagonism in American life, the Times reported. Dozens of interviews with ardent Trump supporters and curious students, avowed white nationalists, and scholars who study the interplay of race and rhetoric suggest that the passions aroused and channeled by Mr. Trump take many forms, from earnest if muddled rebellion to deeper and more elaborate bigotry.

[Trumps lasting legacy is to embolden an entirely new generation of racists]

This does not mean only racists supported Trump, nor does it mean that some of the positions he has taken have rationales not rooted in racism. But it is no longer deniable that Trumps campaign and presidency havebeen fueled by white resentment toward minorities.And now we have unbridled expressions of white nationalism, something about which Trump was warned:

His slow reaction angered his critics even more as they were in the knowledge that a range of authority figures had warned Trump of the threat that white supremacists posed months before James Alex Fields Jr. plowed his car into counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer. An intelligence bulletin obtained byForeign Policy, entitled White Supremacist Extremism Poses Persistent Threat of Lethal Violence and dated May 10, shows that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security briefed Trump as recently as May, at least indirectly, about the threat of the white supremacist movement and the threat of further attacks by members of this ultra-conservative group.

We assess lone actors and small cells within the white supremacist extremist movement likely will continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the next year, thebulletinreads.

The FBI explicitly says in the briefing that white supremacists are to blame for the majority of domestic extremism. They were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016more than any other domestic extremist movement, the document states.

Not only have the security services warned Trump about the threat of white supremacists, but so too have his Democratic rivals and predecessors.

What did Trump do in response?Did he ignore a domestic terrorism threat because it undercut his political message?

And so we come to the present. Unless and until Trump is impeached, resigns or loses reelection, he and his brand of politics dominate the GOP. The only means to free itself of the yoke of Trump is to discard the personnel and policies that embody his white racial resentment ploy. With a unified voice, Republicanscan denounce the presidents alt-right advisers, the voting fraud commission (which itself is a fraud), the proposed pardon of anti-immigrant hero Joe Arpaio and other symbols of Trumps identification with white grievance. The GOP either rejects Trump or once and for all it sacrifices the Party of Lincoln to a ragtag band of white nationalists some more subtle than others but all an anathema to American democracy.

Read more:
Don't argue with Pelosi on this one, Republicans - Washington Post

The Congressional Budget Office weighed in Tuesday with another of its long-awaited analyses of aspects of repealing or tinkering with the Affordable Care Act. This time the topic is the ACAs cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which reduce deductibles and co-pays for the lowest-income buyers of health coverage on the exchanges.

The CBOs findings are timely because the so-called CSRs are the subsidies that President Trump continually threatens to withhold, as a tool for forcing Obamacare to implode. And, as expected, the CBO finds that canceling the subsidies would be a disaster but for Republicans favoring that approach, not Democrats.

Its conclusion is especially germane to the question of what congressional Democrats should trade in return for a GOP agreement to keep the CSRs funded. Earlier this month, healthcare analyst Avik Roy argued that Republicans should demand lots of concessions, including repeal of the individual mandate and enactment of premium-lowering regulatory reforms. Roy didnt specify these, but Republicans have talked about paring down the ACAs list of essential health benefits, such as maternity, hospitalization and prescription coverage, which are mandated to be offered by any qualified health plan.

The CBOs analysis, however, suggests that Democrats should take Michael Corleones approach from The Godfather, Part II. His line to a corrupt senator overplaying his hand was: My offer is this: nothing.

Obamacare supporters havent fully internalized this reality. The Democratic National Committee responded to the CBO report by quoting the agency as finding that if cost-sharing reduction subsidies were ended, millions of Americans would face skyrocketing premium increases of 20% by 2018 and 25% by 2020. Actually, the CBO didnt say that. The premium increases it cited were gross increases, not factoring in premium subsidies, which would reduce the actual impact in many cases to zero.

Health insurance expert David Anderson of Duke got it exactly right: Democrats have no reason to trade CSR funding for policies that they dont prefer, he observed. Inaction gives them an incredible policy victory. Conservatives are the ones who need to make concessions to fully fund CSR.

The fallout from CSR cancellation already is visible in early rate requests filed by insurers in several states. California insurers are seeking an increase averaging about 12.5% for next year but almost double that if the CSRs are ended. Those rates are pre-subsidy, and Covered California, which manages the states insurance exchange, said that the average buyer could avert all or most of the increases through the subsidy and smart shopping.

The CBO says its analysis is based on the assumption that CSRs would be paid through the end of this year, but not thereafter. If the scenario changes say the payments are cut off in midyear, after insurers already have set their annual premiums and signed up customers, the results could be more dire. In that event, however, Republicans would probably be blamed for the resulting market carnage, since it would be associated directly with GOP action.

Before we get into the counterintuitive details, a quick primer.

Cost-sharing reductions are offered to buyers in the individual market with incomes between 100% and 250% of the federal poverty limit. For a family of four, the eligible income range is $24,600 to $61,500. These subsidies are in addition to the ACAs premium subsidies, which cover those with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level, or $98,400 for a family of four. Unlike the premium assistance, which technically is paid to the policyholder, the CSRs are advanced to the insurers based on the co-pays and deductibles they would otherwise charge. About half of all buyers of ACA plans are eligible for the CSR assistance, and about 90% receive premium subsidies.

The subsidies this year are expected to come to $7 billion, to be paid to insurers covering 7 million customers. The subsidies are authorized under the healthcare act, but House Republicans filed a lawsuit in 2014 asserting that because the money hadnt been specifically appropriated, paying the money is illegal. They won the first round in U.S. District Court last year, but the judge stayed her ruling pending an appeals court decision.

Since his inauguration, Trump has dithered over whether to pay out the subsidies and continue fighting for them in court. On occasion, hes threatened to kill the payments as a bargaining chip to force Democrats to negotiate an Obamacare repeal. Periodically, the plaintiff and government lawyers have to return to the appeals court to ask for a three-month hold in the case; the next scheduled appearance is Aug. 20. Recently, 17 states and the District of Columbia won the right to step in to defend the CSR payments if the Trump administration tries to withdraw from the case.

The CBO found that canceling the CSR subsidies might drive some insurers out of the individual market because of uncertainty about the effects of the policy on average healthcare costs for people purchasing plans. Those facing higher deductibles and co-pays might be less inclined to buy coverage. Regions with about 5% of the U.S. population might end up with no insurers in the individual market next year, the agency said. But by 2020, enough insurers would return to the market that almost no one would be left without insurance availability.

Democrats should follow Michael Corleone's lead, and in return for continuing the cost-sharing subsidies offer Republicans "nothing."

Democrats should follow Michael Corleone's lead, and in return for continuing the cost-sharing subsidies offer Republicans "nothing."

Insurers would, however, raise premiums to compensate for the loss of subsidies for deductibles and co-pays. Its likely that insurers would load these higher premiums onto silver plans, the only plans that provide CSR subsidies. That would drive up gross premiums for silver plans by 20% next year, compared to their expected level without a policy change.

But because premium subsidies are tied to buyers incomes and rise as premiums rise, the subsidies would also increase in fact, more Americans would be eligible. The CBO reckoned that many silver-plan buyers receiving subsidies would pay net premiums similar to what they would pay if the CSR payments were continued. Some buying skimpier, bronze plans, would receive sufficient subsidies to cover premiums and some of their deductibles and co-pays too. The average subsidy would be greater, and more people would receive subsidies in most years.

The federal government, however, would take a hit. Over 10 years, the CBO said, canceling the CSR payments would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion. So much for the fiscally responsible Republican Party.

The picture could be materially different if Trump follows through on his threat to cancel CSRs immediately. Any decision to terminate CSRs after insurers had begun charging premiums based on continued CSR funding, the CBO said, would cause them significant financial losses. Some would leave the marketplace immediately, leaving their enrollees without coverage in the middle of the year and causing a spike in the ranks of the uninsured.

Is Trump prepared to explain the consequences to the public? Its doubtful. Many congressional Republicans know that for Trump to cancel the CSRs in midstream would hand them a poisoned chalice. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, told Roy he favors an affirmation by Trump of the CSRs at least through September, followed by congressional extension of the CSRs for one year. That would provide sufficient stability, Alexander said, to persuade the insurers to lower their rates.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.

Return to Michael Hiltzik's blog.

See original here:
CBO confirms canceling Obamacare's cost-sharing subsidies would be a disaster for Republicans - Los Angeles Times