Mediaboss Marketing

A man asked whether Republicans or Democrats were on the field moments before the shooting at a congressional baseball practice outside Washington Wednesday morning, according to a congressman on the scene.

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told Fox News that he left the practice minutes before the shooting. But before he did, he had a very, very strange encounter in the parking lot.

As I was getting into the car [with a colleague], there was a guy that walked up to us that was asking whether it was Republicans or Democrats out there. It was just a little odd, he said.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., 2 U.S. Capitol Police officers, one staffer, and the gunman were shot, according to a Capitol Security source.

Scalise has a security detail. Police say the suspect is in custody.

DeSantis said the man he encountered before the shooting was not carrying anything at the time. But he said it was weird that he only asked that question and walked away.

Its just a really, really terrible situation, the congressman said.

Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Before Scalise was shot, man asked if Republicans or Democrats were on field, rep says - Fox News

For that, Northam can thank Perriello, who nationalized the race in ways that should send shudders down the spines of Republicans across the country. While the Virginia press was initially skeptical of Perriellos constant hammering of Trump, Northams campaign eventually took up that mantle. His biggest moment of the campaign was when he referred to the president as a narcissistic maniac.

On policy, Northam followed Perriello on several issues. Once Perriello released his proposal for free community college, the Northam campaign issued its own (much smaller) proposal a week later. A day after Perriello announced his run, Northam appeared at a Fight for $15 rally.

Perriello nationalized the race in other respects. In addition to running on a broad platform centered on the minimum wage and college tuition, Perriello was able to bring a substantial level of national heat, including endorsements from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, and others. He was able to chip away at Northams financial advantage, particularly with the help of George Soros. Message-wise, he pitched himself as a through line between Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, a model for the future of the party: a Democrat who could speak movingly about racial reconciliation while also connecting with blue-collar voters about automation, wages, and the degrading effect of corporate money on politics.

Tom had a major impact on how this race was run, said Prince William County School Board Chairman Ryan Sawyers, the first Virginia elected official to endorse Perriello. He definitely changed the direction, changed the tone of Dr. Northams campaign by nationalizing this race, and I think that has great effectiveness for the party. Caroline Wadhams, a Perriello volunteer who worked with him at the State Department and the Center for American Progress, saw a silver lining to the loss. I think because Northam took on so much of what Tom stands for, I dont actually feel like this discredits at all the message Tom was promoting.

The Northam campaign, however, was able to undercut Perriellos biggest strength: his progressivism. While Perriellos economic message was in line with populist progressive policies, he was hamstrung by his record on reproductive rights and gun control. When he was a member of Congress, he voted for the Stupak amendment, which limited abortion access, and touted a high NRA rating. Northam, in comparison, has a strong record fighting for abortion access, leading the fight against a horrific vaginal ultrasound bill that made its way through Virginias legislature, and has been a staunch and steadfast advocate for gun control. There are blemishes on Northams progressive record, including his ties to Dominion Energy, the states energy monopoly. He also voted for George W. Bush, twice. But the fact that Perriello wasnt able to run entirely to Northams left likely hurt him.

View original post here:
In Virginia, Democrats Win and Republicans Lose - New Republic

Senate Republicanson Tuesdayquickly backed away from a proposal to restrict media access in the Capitol after an angry backlash from reporters and an emergency meeting between the Senate Rules Committee and the media gallery directors.

Senate Rules Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) sent out a statement around lunchtime clarifying that there would not be a rules change, only a discussion about how to ensure safety as the Capitol hallways have become more hectic because of growing crowds of journalists.

Shelby announced in a statement that the committee had made no changes to the existing rules governing press coverage on the Senate side of the Capitol complex.

A Senate official familiar with administrative discussions said, Everything you did before, you can still do.

Democrats seized on the news, linking the new restriction to the GOPs work on healthcare legislation that is being drafted behind closed doors.

Earlier in the day, Senate Sergeant at Arms staff told the directors of the media galleries who represent journalists interests that reporters would not be allowed to film interviews with senators in the Capitol or the Senate office building without first receiving special permission.

Television reporters had been told they could not conduct on-camera interviews in hallways, outside personal offices or outside committee rooms without permission fromthe Senate Rules Committee, the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Senate Radio and TV Gallery, depending on location, according to another Senate official involved in the matter.

Kevin Cirilli, chief Washington correspondent for Bloomberg TV, tweeted that he was informed that he could not stand outside the Senate Budget Committee to interview lawmakers.

The gallery directors were also told that all reporters seeking to speak to senators in the basement of the Capitol, where it is easiest to catch lawmakers on the way to votes and lunches, would have to stand in a special press pen.

The directive appeared to be in effect only brieflyon Tuesday.

Shelby told The Hill that his committee staff had acted without his knowledge after receiving complaints from other senators who sometimes feel hounded by reporters.

He instructed them to stand down and drop efforts to limit reporters activities.

I know some of the staff talked to the people in the gallery and I think the Rules Committee talked to the Sergeant at Arms, not me, Shelby said. When I found out about it, I said stand down."

Were not going to change any rules, not unless we hold committee hearings, he added.

Shelby said he hopes no additional restrictions will be placed on reporters, noting, We all benefit from you, as long as you act civil.

One Senate official said that the Senate Rules Committee insisted laterTuesdaythat it had never ordered the Sergeant at Arms to enforce tougher restrictions on the press and blamed the uproar on a miscommunication.

Shelby told reporterson Tuesdayafternoon that Rules Committee staff had been meeting with the press gallery and Sergeant at Arms.

"I think they had a discussion, I wasn't there, of existing rules because a lot of people complained, not to me, said the press the gets in their way and aggressiveness," Shelby said.

"I said leave it alone, leave it alone, we don't care you know? I don't," Shelby added. "So I told them to stand down."

Sen.Amy Klobuchar(Minn.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, told reporters that Shelby explained the alarm was set off by a staff inquiry and downplayed it as an arbitrary enforcement of a rule that is against common practice.

"He said he would never move forward on some major change without consulting with me. He said it was an inquiry and that we would talk about it. So he seemed to imply that they weren't going to change the policy," Klobuchar told reporters.

She also released a statement that said, "As ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee I call on the majority to allow reporting in the Capitol to proceed as usual.

Members of the media had responded with outrage to the restrictions.

Senate Rules Committee and @SenateSAA trying to SHUT DOWN press access in halls. No more staking out hearings without permission. Not OK, Manu Raju, CNNs senior congressional reporter, tweeted, using the Twitter handle for the Senate Sergeant at Arms.

Several senators from both parties criticized the move.

Sen.Chris Murphy(D-Conn.) tweeted: Maybe not the right moment to lower the secrecy veil on Congress. To whoever is trying to protect Senators wecan fend for ourselves.

"I want you to have access to us, inform your readers, inform your viewers what we're trying to do," Sen.Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.), one of the most media-friendly senators, told reporters in the Senate subway. But "of all the problems in America, y'all are pretty down on the chain."

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) retweeted an NBC News reporter's tweet, adding: "This is a bad idea."

Tensions between the media and Republicans have ratcheted up at the Capitol since President Trump pulled off a major political upset by defeating Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonHow the Obama phenomenon and Trump earthquake happened Gingrich: Sessions 'didn't back down' during Senate testimony Gillespie edges out Trump-aligned candidate in Virginia gov primary MORE in November.

Public interest in Congress and media coverage of lawmakers has skyrocketed since Trumps inauguration and crowds of reporters in the Capitol hallways have hit record sizes.

Last month, the Senate Sergeant at Arms sent a note to media outlets warning about overcrowding as reporters try to pin down lawmakers for interviews in hallways and around the Senate subway system.

Since the beginning of the year, media outlets such as CNN, NBC and Fox News have regularly staked out senators outside of their offices and hearing rooms to ask questions about healthcare reform and the investigations into collusion between the Trump administration and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Updated: 3:39 p.m.

Read the original:
Senate Republicans back off proposed restrictions on media - The Hill

A liberal advocacy group spent a Saturday afternoon knocking on doors to get Howard County residents talking about politics.

Together We Will, a group founded in reaction to Donald Trump's election as president, held a door-to-door "listening campaign" June 10 in Owen Brown to ask residents what political issues mattered most to them. They began knocking on doors around Howard County in March and will continue through 2017, with the next outing in mid-July.

The canvassing effort, called Knock Every Door, draws from a national movement that advocates "deep canvassing," which requires in-depth conversations with voters. Canvassers gather data by asking respondents to rate their preferences on a scale, then getting them to describe those preferences in detail with follow-up questions.

Together We Will co-chair Becca Niburg said the effort is strictly a "listening campaign not an attempt for us to impose views or lecture people.

"Politics has become an exercise of people talking at each other," Niburg said. "Our goal with the campaign is to bridge the divide to truly listen to all points of view."

She said she hopes elected officials will use the data they collect to craft policies that respond to "what real people need."

"Everybody is kind of worried about the same things," said Niburg. "People just want their families to be safe and they want to have a job."

Other local liberal organizations including Red to Blue, Indivisible and Do The Most Good are also participating in the campaign, as is the Howard County Democratic Campaign Committee.

Niburg co-chairs the county's branch of Together We Will with its founder, Chiara D'Amore.

The Howard County chapter of Together We Will began as a chapter of Pantsuit Nation, a private Facebook group of Hillary Clinton supporters that emerged before the election. After Trump was elected, organizers across the country began working to "galvanize" reactions, and D'Amore decided to focus on local issues.

"Politics are highly local," D'Amore said. "I just wanted to do something at the county level where people could get to know each other."

She describes Together We Will as a "progressive solidarity network" whose priorities include fostering inclusive communities, protecting the environment, securing equal rights and amplifying other progressive voices.

The volunteer-driven Howard County group has more than 1,200 members on its private Facebook page, Niburg said. A smaller number, D'Amore said, come to in-person meetings regularly. About 70 percent are women, she estimated, but she said each volunteer has a different drive to show up.

"What I've found is that most people want to do something, they just don't know where to go or what to do," D'Amore said.

One of Together We Will's youngest volunteers is Niburg's daughter, Alyssa. The 8-year-old has helped in Knock Every Door events and said her favorite part is "that I get to hear other people's stories and compare them to some of mine."

One of Alyssa's biggest worries about the next four years is that "more children are gonna have less friends, because their friends are immigrants," she said. "If you go back far enough, everyone's an immigrant. Trump is an immigrant!"

Together We Will Howard County falls under the national group's umbrella, and is also a registered member of the movement Indivisible, recently in headlines for organizing protests at Republican town halls around the U.S. But both D'Amore and Niburg said that their group's focus is local and strictly non-partisan.

Howard County bills that the group has supported include CB-9, , the so-called "sanctuary bill," and CN-30, a bill to create a public finance system for political candidates, Niburg said.

For D'Amore, who said she saw Howard County and Columbia as a "progressive, forward-looking place to be," the presidential election, as well as the Republicans leading the state and county, signified a shift.

On June 10, five volunteers trudged from door to door in the stifling 88-degree heat, knocking on doors, asking residents of Owen Brown what mattered to them.

Armed with scripts and clipboards and sunscreen, the group divvied up neighborhoods and split into two groups. One group approached a quiet block of brick townhouses. It took 10 doors before the volunteers heard the sound of a latch opening.

Later, Hester remarked on the cultural and ethnic diversity of the neighborhood, noting that most people they talked to that day were non-native English speakers. Most residents they spoke to leaned liberal, and none were Republicans.

The first resident they spoke to, Ali Ali, said he approved of Trump despite being a registered Democrat. "He's not a typical politician," Ali said. "That's a good thing." Ali later said one of the most important issues to him was arts education, because "it makes people more tolerant."

Other residents saw Trump in a more negative light. Asked to rate his satisfaction with the president, on a scale of one to 10, Lolu Osoba let out a deep, booming laugh. "Zero," he shouted. "Russia select your president for you!"

Owen Brown resident Michael Ioffe also gave Trump a zero, and when asked to think of words to describe him joked: "Do you really want me to think about him?"

Originally from Nigeria, Osoba told the volunteers that he now votes in every election Hester gave him a fist bump. Ioffe, who came to the U.S. from the Soviet Union, also said he votes regularly. "I came from a country where that wasn't an option," he said.

Nearly every resident named healthcare as a primary issue facing the country; many also named education and the environment.

Though most had strong opinions about national politics, most were stumped when asked about state and local politicians.

One resident said Hogan had "done a lot of beautiful things," but when asked for specifics admitted he did not pay attention to state politics.

Most people, volunteer Jennifer Jones said, didn't like Trump, but were "okay" with Republicans Gov. Larry Hogan and County Executive Allan Kittleman.

Prunier Law, who said Saturday's canvassing event was her first with Knock Every Door, remarked that peoples' political opinions seemed overshadowed by their daily lives. She described asking one rushed resident if they were happy with the election. The resident responded, "Sure not. But I've got to feed my kids."

"I think it's really important that we feel the humanity of people," Prunier Law said.

Read more here:
Progressives launch "listening campaign" in Howard County - Baltimore Sun

The second decade of the 20th century was a heady time for progressives. A Democrat with liberal leanings on most issues, Woodrow Wilson entered the White House. The labor movement was getting stronger, and the suffragettes were taking to the streets. In 1914, Herbert Croly launched The New Republic, which would serve as a flagship for liberalism for the rest of the century. Progressivism had the wind in its sails, and high ideals shaped the political and social landscape.

In 1917, the United States entered World War I, and the whole idea of progress seemed as dead as the millions in the trenches of Flanders. Yet some progressives did not abandon their hopes. They persisted.

In his new book, Young Radicals In the War for American Ideals, Jeremy McCarter looks at this persistent idealism in the lives of five progressives who "didn't surrender their ideals." They are: Walter Lippmann, John Reed, Max Eastman, Alice Paul and Randolph Bourne. "The only way to understand ideals and the people who fight for them is to watch the story on the individual scale, where you can register personal desires, personal choices, and personal consequences," McCarter writes. "The story has to be told in close-up, not panorama."

Full disclosure: I met McCarter when he was an intern at The New Republic more than 20 years ago, and we have remained friends. I have not communicated with him since I received a review copy of this book, as is my practice.

The story begins with Lippmann working for the socialist mayor of Schenectady, New York in 1912, but he quickly grows disillusioned with the tiny steps they manage to take. "The gap between hope and reality brings him quickly to a crisis: Can he condone this sham exercise in socialism, let alone continue to be a part of it? For the first time in his overachieving life, he finds himself in a predicament with no clear way out." He decides to quit and return to New York City, but his idealism is intact. "Their era is 'bursting with new ideas, new plans, and new hopes,' he [Lippmann] writes later that year. 'The world was never so young as it is today, so impatient of old and crusty things.'"

The sentences quoted above not only disclose a lot about Lippmann, and advance the narrative, they illustrate McCarter's gift as a writer: This entire book is fluid and incisive, detailed and universal.

Back in New York City, Lippmann quickly reconnects with a classmate of his from Harvard, Jack Reed. Reed wants to be a writer and enlists Lippmann in a project that results in a 20,000-word unpublishable essay about their time at Harvard and the radicalism they tried to bring to birth. A tour of familial duty back in Oregon when his father dies gives Reed the space he needs to apply his talents to greater effect, and upon returning to New York, he shares in manuscript form an epic poem he has written about life in Greenwich Village, "A Day in Bohemia." It begins to forge his reputation and create a sense of self-identity for the Village, and young people flock to his flat at 42 Washington Square. Here are some lines that give some flavor of the poem, and of the times:

Now with an easy caper of the mind We rectify the Errors of Mankind; Now with a sharpness of a keen-edged jest, Plunge a hot thunder-bolt in Mammon's breast; Impatient Youth, in fine creative rage, With both hands wrests the quenchless torch from Age, Not as the Dilettanti, who explain Why they have failed, -excuse, lament, complain, Condemn real artists to exalt themselves, And credit their misfortune to the elves;- But to Gods of Strength make Offertory,- And pit our young wits in the race for glory!

Some of the best parts of McCarter's book are the many, many quotes from the protagonists' writings, brimming with verve and idealism, at least as the story begins.

Another text that communicates the ambience of Greenwich Village in these years was the statement that ran on the front page of copies of The Masses:

This magazine is owned and published cooperatively by its editors. It has no dividends to pay, and nobody is trying to make money out of it. A revolutionary and not a reform magazine; a magazine with a sense of humor and no respect for the respectable; frank, arrogant, impertinent, searching for the true causes; a magazine directed against rigidity and dogma wherever it is found; printing what is too naked or true for a moneymaking press; a magazine whose final policy is to do as it pleases and conciliate nobody, not even its readers there is a field for this publication in America.

The statement came from the pen of Max Eastman, the editor, who could certainly attest to the fact that no one was making money off the publication. In the summer of 1912, he had received an envelope in the mail that enclosed a torn piece of paper which read "in its entirety" McCarter notes: "You are elected editor of The Masses. No pay." With a job offer like that, who could say no? Eastman would accept the position and go on to become one of the most committed and unflinching of the young radicals.

No one was more unflinching, however, than Alice Paul. In 1913, she had already spent time in a British prison for leading protests on behalf of women's suffrage, where she began a hunger strike and was force-fed. Returning to the U.S., she joined the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), which had been pursuing a strategy focused on winning suffrage at the state level. Paul leads a protest for women's suffrage down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington on the eve of President Wilson's inauguration. The protest turned into a fracas, garnering the publicity Paul knew it would. Fourteen days later, Paul is part of a delegation meeting with President Wilson. He is non-committal. Impatient with both Wilson and the more cautious leadership of the NAWSA, Paul founds the National Women's Party and would agitate for a federal amendment granting women the right to vote.

Randolph Bourne is the final young radical to whom the reader is introduced. The same year Paul is leading her protest in Washington, Bourne is getting ready to graduate from Columbia University. He had delayed college to earn money, and at 27 years old, he is nervous about his future. But Bourne's writing career has already kicked off with a bang: As a sophomore, he sent an essay to The Atlantic Monthly, and they not only published it, they kept publishing additional essays by him. He brings out a book of his essays in his senior year, Youth and Life, but he confesses to a friend that he was "never young, and has only partly lived." Deformed by a childhood illness, Bourne is a hunchback, and he writes of himself that he is "a man cruelly blasted by the powers that brought him into the world, in a way that makes him both impossible to be desired and yet cruel irony that wiseMontaigneknew about doubly endowed with desire."

I shall conclude this review tomorrow.

[Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.]

Go here to read the rest:
'Young Radicals' chronicles last century's US progressives - National Catholic Reporter (blog)