Mediaboss Marketing

Georgia Republican House candidate Karen Handel, who has been critical of Democrats outside the district supporting her opponent, was caught on an audio recording telling donors that national GOPheavyweightswill be lending a hand to her campaign.

At a meet and greet for Dekalb County Republicans at a private home, Handel is heard speakingabout plans to have Vice President Mike Pence campaign with her.

Handel saysthat she cant give adate yet for the VPs visit, but would when she had it.

Hopefully its going to be both a fundraiser and a rally,she says in the recording. Thats what we're pushing for so that we have as many people as possible.

An attendee at the meet and greet provided the audio toa source, who provided it to Roll Call. Handels campaign has not responded to requests for comment.

In the recording, Handel also touts that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio might come to campaign.

Everyone around the country is really watching things and making sure we have the absolute best possible team and all of the resources to get this job done, Handel is heard saying.

Republicans have criticized Ossoff for his ties to national Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and for getting supportfrom liberal types in Hollywood.

Handel is set to campaignwith House Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Monday.

Pollingshows Handel and Ossoff in a dead heat. A new poll by Gravis Marketing shows Ossoff with a slight lead against Handel, but it also shows that 53 percent of voters who did not vote in the primaryleaning toward Ossoff in the runoff and only 32 percent leaning toward Handel.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Continue reading here:
Handel Touts National Republicans' Contributing to Her Campaign - Roll Call

As voters go to the polls today in Fayette, Westmoreland, Washington and Greene counties, there will be more registered Republicans casting ballots than in the past elections.

According to the local election bureau figures, Republican voter registration numbers continue to climb at a faster pace than their Democratic counterparts throughout the four counties.

Pollster Dr. G. Terry Madonna, Franklin and Marshall College Politics and Public Affairs director, said it is decadelong trend taking place in rural areas, like southwestern Pennsylvania.

Since January, 346 former Democrats have changed their voter registration to Republican in Fayette County, while 145 registered Republicans opted to join the Democratic Party.

In 2016, 2,109 Democratic Fayette County residents switched their party affiliation to Republican, while 216 Republicans changed over to the Democratic Party.

Westmoreland County, too, saw continued party switching among its voters, said Beth Lechman, election bureau director.

A total of 581 voters changed from Democratic to Republican, with 191 Republicans switching to the Democratic Party.

In Washington County, 291 Democratic voters opted to switch party affiliations with 88 Republicans doing likewise.

While the pace has dwindled, Tina Kiger, Greene County Election Bureau director, said 53 Democratic Party registrants moved to the Republican Party with 21 GOP members moving to the Democratic Party.

Last year, 317 Greene County residents opted to sign on with the Democratic Party with 653 people with the Republican Party.

Despite the changes, the four counties sustain their long-standing Democratic majority.

In Fayette County, the margin remains at 44,417-25,996 while in Westmoreland Democrats outnumber Republicans by 112,145 to 104,238 margin, according to state Department of Elections figures.

The margin between registered Democrats and Republicans continue to decrease in Washington County with less than 12,000 voters separating the two parties. Greene County, too, is seeing a narrowing margin between the two parties with state registration figures showing 11,795 Democrats and 7,995 Republican voters.

Beth Melena, Pennsylvania State Democratic Party deputy press secretary, said Democrats remain committed to their party and the candidates that will appear on todays ballot.

Pennsylvania has a Democratic registration edge of more than 815,000 voters thats greater than the entire population of North Dakota, she said. We have an excellent slate of highly qualified men and women running for statewide judicial seats this year who are committed to serving the people of Pennsylvania and who are dedicated to transparency and integrity. Democrats are fired up and talking to their neighbors, their friends, and their communities about their values and what they believe in, and that is the key to ensuring that Democrats go on to electoral victories this year and in the years ahead.

Madonna, meanwhile, attributes the voter registration trend to a growing chasm among those residing in the larger cities to those opting for a more rural lifestyle.

Although evolving over time, the divide between urban and suburban Pennsylvania and rural and small towns in the state was made crystal clear in the fall presidential election, he said.

You had the classic urban and suburban candidate in Hillary Clinton and the rural and small town candidate in Donald Trump, he said. (Trump) carried 56 of the 67 Pennsylvania counties.

He won the northeast and southwest (portions of the state) that put him over the top and gave him the 44,000-vote edge. These are rural and small town pieces of Pennsylvania and voters who are the working class, with high school educations or less, and families that were displaced due to coal mine and steel mill closures that were a part of the great industrial revolution that went away.

The strategy of the Trump campaign to offer support to the typically Democratic rust-belt states like Pennsylvania, resonated with voters, added Madonna.

(Trump) was the first candidate since Bill Clinton, in 1992, that campaigned among them; talked about bringing back manufacturing and talked about bringing back coal and steel, he said.

Democratic voters, like GOP members, too, were responsive to Trumps stance on moving the XL Pipeline project forward, exiting the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Madonna added.

(It was these Democratic voters that became) his core supporters, and that is where we see the Republican voter registration go up, he said.

Turnout is critical in any race, said Madonna, noting that Democrats turned out in large numbers for former President Barack Obama in 2004 and 2008, but did not for Clinton in her presidential bid.

However, both long-time and new Republicans ramped up their efforts to put Trump over the top.

It takes an advantage for one party and a downturn for the other (for success), said Madonna.

Trumps support, too, was likely bolstered by his campaign visits to rural areas that would typically cast their ballot for the Democratic nominee, he added.

As to whether Republicans will see continued success today at the polls will be determined by the voters, said Madonna.

Ill be watching, he said.

Polls will be open until 8 p.m.

Follow this link:
Republicans narrow registration gap with Democrats in advance of primary election - Uniontown Herald Standard

Nothing in the Russiastory will improve the personal economies of working-class Americans. It will not give them good health care. It will not rebuild infrastructure to provide jobs. It will not educate our children. So while working-class America continuesto suffer from subpar wages, while they continue to see their health carecosts rise,they hear a narrative that's anathema to their reality. The liberal intelligentsia, the Democratic establishment,is concentrating on a subject that will do absolutely nothing to make their lives better while at the same time giving President Charlatan an excuse for his inability to accomplish anything for the working class.

No one is asking that we ignore the Russiastory. In fact, taking it off of the front burner as folks build a substantive,evidence-based case would be much more effective. Think of how impactful a breaking story would bebut one thatis well-developed,where the Trump family's financial entanglements and collusion with Russia emerge with clarity.It would be much more effective than the daily Russian repetitiousness which causes everyonebut the political junkiesto switch to the Food Network,Discovery Channel, ESPN, or some other station to break said monotony.

So what should the progressive intelligentsiaexpend its resources on?Education, for startersbutin a manner that is palatable to working-class America. Trumps three mostdisruptive policiesTrumpcare, tax cuts, and immigrationcan be tied into a perfect economic narrative that exposes Republicans for the charlatans that they are.

Instead of spending time repeating the same old Russiastory, journalists should go to every industrialized country and do reports aboutreal people interacting with their health care systems, illustrating pricing and outcomes. Go to highly-taxed industrialized countries and talk to working-class people who can describe the social benefits they receive from their government. Do the mathematical analysis that showswhen Americans include their insurance costs,child care expenses, elderly care costs,and other expensesabsorbed by the state, how much more efficient it is than some invisible source capturing some unearned profit. The shortage of farm workers created by Trump's xenophobic stance will ensure higher prices for our produce and other farm goods.

Most of us in the progressive intelligentsiaknow there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats, since the lattertruly believe in the Democratic platform.The problem is that we are governed within a thin center that minimizes the differences, somany in the working class see a convergence into the establishmentwithlittle distinction between the parties.

Many of us are hesitant to engage those who chose Trump, simplybecause we know how flawed they are. A few weeks ago Iwrote the following, and I hope manymore willheed it.

Many Americans are racists. Some are homophobes. Too many are sexists. A growing number are xenophobic. Misogyny still reigns. Americans are humans with all the frailty humanity brings. We will not fix these defect within our lifetime.

We can break the backs of the Republicans if we stop striving towardan unachievable purity and insteadworkon economic, health, and other commonalities while refusing to allow our human defects to stopall progress. It can be done.

Here is an aside that liberalsshould note: Ivebeen to many Netroots conventionsand a couple of tea partyconferences. This black Caribbean Latino with a Panamanian accent was treated better at the tea partyconference than at Netroots when outside of my Daily Kos clique.In fact, I wrote about oneshocking experience at Netroots Nation 2015 that is worth a read.

Yes, of course thetea partywas likely trying to make a point with me, but that is my point. Like them, we can suppress our bad urges when we want to accomplish agoal.

Liberals will do well to read the Politico piece titled "Why Liberals Arent as Tolerant as They Think,which may open the eyes of those willing to self-examine. It's something we can work on within our local progressive groups.

If we progressivesdon't change our game now, we willhave squandered the opportunity to take over the House and the Senate in 2018 and the White Housein 2020. Republicans care less about losing Trump than we do. They will be happy with President Pence and the semblance of a Republican ultra-conservativerebirth.

And so far, theyresellinga bad product much better than we are able to sell a good one.

Continued here:
Progressives are blowing 2018 by dedicating too many resources to Russia story - Daily Kos

Last month, when House Republicans passed legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare, Democrats broke out in song and dance on the House floor, serenading Republicans for their successful vote with the words from a famous song, Nah Nah Nah Nah, Hey Hey, Goodbye.

Really? Democrats and progressives lost three successive national elections because they passed and obstinately stood with Obamacare, and now Republicans are going to be thrown out for repealing and replacing it?

Obamacare was first enacted into law in March 2010. That fall, Democrats lost a New Deal (in reverse) size landslide when Republicans gained 63 seats in the House. That removed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and replaced her with her intellectual antithesis: policy guru Paul Ryan. Republicans have increased their House majority ever since.

In 2014, Republicans seized control of the Senate, winning 9 seats for a 54 to 45 Republican majority. That Republican control will likely continue for many years, as 25 seats held by Democrats more than half of all remaining Senate Democrats are up for reelection in 2018, 10 in states won by Trump. With only 8 Republican Senate seats up in the next midterms, there is now a greater chance of Republicans winning a filibuster proof majority 60 seats next year, than of Democrats winning a Senate majority, especially given Democrat positions on the issues.

In 2016, Democrats suffered their greatest shock loss of the White House to political newcomer Donald Trump. No one who had never been previously elected to any office had ever won the Presidency, except generals who had led America to victory in major wars (Washington, Grant, Eisenhower).

The silly notion that Senate Republicans are at political risk because they repealed/replaced Obamacare is adamantly echoed by the Democrat Party controlled media. That is all the more ridiculous because the Republican bill actually makes good on all the failed promises Obama Democrats made to win enactment of Obamacare in 2010:

President Obama famously said that under his Obamacare legislation, If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. Period. But even Democrat controlled media labelled that the lie of the year. It turned out that if Obama liked your health plan you could keep your health plan. Millions of Americans lost healthcare plans they were perfectly happy with, because their plans did not include cover all the Obamacare required benefits that Democrats think health insurance should cover. The Republican bill repeals both the individual and employer mandates, liberating workers to choose the health plan they prefer.

Obama promised that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. But as working families lost their health plans, they often lost their doctors too, especially as insurers struggling under all the Obamacare mandates and regulations restricted coverage to narrow networks of doctors and hospitals. Under the Republican plan, by contrast, working families are free to choose a health plan that includes their doctor.

Obama promised that health insurance premiums would decline under Obamacare by $2,500 per year per family. But instead, health premiums have soared by much more than $2,500 per year as a result of all the taxes and regulatory costs Obamacare imposes, nearly doubling in some states. By repealing those taxes, mandates and regulatory costs, the Republican plan will substantially reduce health insurance premiums. So will the insurance market competition the Republican plan engenders.

Obamacare did not even achieve universal coverage, as Obama misled Progressives to think. From the beginning, CBO projected 30 million Americans would remain uninsured 10 years after Obamacare was fully implemented. Most of those who gained coverage under Obamacare did so through expansion of Medicaid, an entitlement program financed entirely by taxpayers.

While CBO has not yet scored the just passed House Republican bill, the score of the initial bill showed that it would reduce federal spending by $1.2 trillion (almost all entitlement spending), cut taxes by $900 billion, and reduce federal deficits by over $300 billion. If you add trillions in reduced regulatory costs, any bill close to that would involve the greatest reduction in government in American history, providing a strong boost to the economy. That would be enormously popular with grassroots Republicans, Independents and even blue collar Democrats.

The sole political risk to Republicans is if they fail to enact a repeal and replace bill, which would cause enormous intraparty strife. Even more danger lurks if Senate Republicans agree to Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumers demand to sit down and negotiate a plan Democrats think would fix Obamacare, rather than replace it with free market solutions such as choice and competition.

The focus among Senate Republicans should be to ignore the instincts of Northeast Senate RINOs to water down the House bill, keeping spending, taxes, deficits, and regulatory costs high enough to undermine any economic recovery, and the future of the American dream. Republicans instead need to follow Speaker Paul Ryans Jack Kemp vision to maximize freedom and prosperity for all Americans.

Lew Uhler is Founder and President of the National Tax Limitation Committee and the National Tax Limitation Foundation (NTLF). He was a contemporary and collaborator of both Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. Peter Ferrara is a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute, and a Senior Policy Advisor to NTLF. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

See original here:
Progressives Do Not Grasp The Politics Of Health Care - The Daily Caller

Let me tell you the story about how many politically progressive Christians came to think they were Anabaptists. (Im mainly talking about post-evangelical progressives rather than traditional mainline progressives.)

To recap, Ive made the argument that many progressive Christians believe they are Anabaptists when, in fact, they are Niebuhrians. This truth was exposed with the election of Donald Trump. The rise of Trump has politically energized progressive Christians in ways that are hard to reconcile with Anabaptist theology and practice. Again, this is no judgment of Anabaptist theology or of all the political activism of progressive Christians. Not at all. This is just a description of the disjoint between political theology and political praxis.

Most progressive Christians want to be politically engaged. Very much so. Especially with Donald Trump in office. But Anabaptist theology doesnt provide great theological scaffolding for much of that political activism. Thus my advice: Seek out and embrace a political theology that provides better theological support. To my eye, I think that theology is Reinhold Niebuhrs Christian realism.

But that raises a different question. Why did so many progressive Christians come to embrace Anabaptist theology in the first place?

Thats the story I want to tell you.

The story starts in 2003, with George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Many progressive Christians mobilized against that war. At the time, social media was just exploding. Blogging was in its Golden Age. Twitter would show up in 2006, just in time for the 2007-2008 Presidential campaign where we debated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, torture and Guantanamo Bay.

As these debates raged on social media, Anabaptist theology, with its criticisms of nationalism and war, became a powerful theological tool in the hands of progressive Christians to level indictments at the Bush administration.

In addition, emergent and post-evangelical expressions of Christianity were going strong. Many disaffected and disillusioned evangelicals were looking around for theological positions that critiqued how evangelicalism had been co-opted by politics. With its strong criticisms of Constantinianism, Anabaptist theology also fit that bill.

And so it was during these years that many progressive Christians, in using Anabaptist theology so effectively to critique the Bush administration and the politicization of evangelicalism, convinced themselves that they were Anabaptists.

But they werent Anabaptists, not really.

Why werent progressives Anabaptists? Two reasons.

First, theres more to Anabaptist theology than its peace witness. Anabaptist theology also espouses a robust ecclesiology, the church as the locus of life and political witness. This aspect of Anabaptist theology doesnt sit well with many progressive Christians, who would rather work as political activists than invest in the daily life of a local church. To be sure, many post-evangelical progressive Christians harbor nostalgia for the local church, memories of hymn sings, youth camps, vacation Bible school and pot luck casseroles. But at the end of the day, progressive Christians tend to think calling Congress, community organizing and marching in protests are the best ways to make the kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.

Second, the robust ecclesiology of Anabaptist thought and practice works with a strong church-vs.-world distinction. This contrast has been famously captured by Stanley Hauerwas: The first task of the church is not to make the world more just but to make the world the world. In Anabaptist thought the church is set apart from the world, its goal to be a witness to the Powers by making a stark contrast between the kingdom of God and Babylon.

That negative view of the world has never sat well with progressives, who, being liberals, tend to have a very favorable view of the world, a view which sits behind their very open, inclusive, cosmopolitan, non-judgmental social ethic. Progressives want to embrace the world, they dont want to create a community that highlights the darkness and depravity of the world. For many post-evangelical progressives, a negative view of the world smacks of the judgmentalism they are fleeing from.

In short: During the Bush years, progressives used parts of Anabaptist theology to great effect. Progressive Christians denounced the evils of war, empire, nationalism and Constantinian Christianity. Progressive Christians were so effective in this critique that they started to think they actually were Anabaptists. But progressive Christians never really were Anabaptists. They were post-evangelicals who became Democrats.

Richard Beck is professor and department chair of psychology at Abilene Christian University. He is the author ofUnclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality and Mortality.Richards area of interest be it research, writing or blogging is on the interface of Christian theology and psychology, with a particular focus on how existential issues affect Christian belief and practice. He blogs atExperimental Theology, where this post originally appeared.

Excerpt from:
How did political progressives think they were Anabaptists? - Mennonite World Review