Mediaboss Marketing

We are in that festive period between Thanksgiving and Christmas, but do you remember how you spent National Impeach Obama Week? That was the period in 2014 when the Coalition to Impeach Obama Now sought the removal of President Obama by staging national protests. The plan was to unfurl impeachment banners at road intersections and bridges across America. Among the impeachable offenses broadcast included bizarre and erratic behavior which implies psychological pathology and governing by dictatorial fiat with lawless executive order.

But where are they now? Why no protest of lawless executive orders when President TrumpDonald John TrumpTop Democrat: 'Obstruction of justice' is 'too clear not to include' in impeachment probe Former US intel official says Trump would often push back in briefings Schiff says investigators seeking to identify who Giuliani spoke to on unlisted '-1' number MORE has signed more than Obama? What about when Trump declares he has an Article Two with the right to do whatever he wants as president? Where are concerns of bizarre and erratic behavior when the president refers to himself as a very stable genius and the chosen one who has great and unmatched wisdom? Where is the outrage at governing by dictatorial fiat when Trump seeks to bribe a foreign leader to help himself win an election and stay in power?

The political hypocrisy over the years is not limited to a fringe group draping their spray painted Impeach Obama bedsheets from highway overpasses. Many Republican leaders at the state and national levels are demonstrating a kind of ziplock ability to unfasten themselves from past impeachment standards in order to seal their loyalty with Trump.

Take Republican Representative Michael Burgess of Texas. When he spoke at a Tea Party gathering in his district in 2011, he advocated impeaching Obama. But when he voted last month against the impeachment inquiry into Trump, Burgess called the process a sham and a shame and an exercise in futility. Speaking of futility, he has also devoted himself to defunding the Energy Department efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs. Glaciers may be melting, Venice is flooding, and wildfires are burning, but he will make the world safe for conventional light bulbs.

Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma alleged a coverup in the Obama investigation of the attack in Benghazi in 2013. People may be starting to use the i word before too long, he said during an interview, referring to impeachment. Today, the i word is inconsistent. Inhofe called the current investigation full of smear tactics used by Democratic lawmakers who are desperate and singularly focused on discrediting and delegitimizing President Trump, no matter what, in spite of his successes with the economy, military, and judges. Evidently, there is a constitutional exemption from impeachment based on stock market performance.

When Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa was asked earlier this month whether it is acceptable for a sitting president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival, she refused to answer. Instead of addressing claims against Trump, her defense has been to argue that impeachment distracts from more pressing issues. Five years ago, Ernst was not worried that impeachment might divert policy discussion. In 2014, she said that Obama was absolutely overstepping his bounds and should face those repercussions whether it be removal from office or impeachment.

Let us also not forget the South Dakota Republican Party, which voted in 2014 to demand the impeachment of Obama when he exchanged five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo for former Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who had been captured in Afghanistan. A few weeks ago, the executive board of the South Dakota Republican Party passed a resolution in full support of Trump and castigated Democrats for trying to do through this impeachment fiasco what they cannot achieve at the ballot box.

Finally, there is the eloquent hypocrisy of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who frothingly defends Trump today. However, when President Clinton was being impeached back in 1999, Graham said, You do not even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing of the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

Are you listening, Lindsey? If so, which Lindsey are you listening to?

Steve IsraelSteven (Steve) J. IsraelElise Stefanik tests impeachment waters for moderates in Congress The Hill's Campaign Report: Impeachment looms large over Democratic debate Is Mayor Pete the man to beat? MORE represented New York in Congress for 16 years and served as the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. He is now the director of the Institute of Politics and Global Affairs at Cornell University. You can find him on Twitter @RepSteveIsrael.

Originally posted here:
Republicans need to face reality with hypocrisy on impeachment | TheHill - The Hill

Then-Republican candidate for Governor Ron DeSantis holds a rally in Orlando, Fla., November 5, 2018. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)

A new St. Leos poll in Florida shows Governor Ron DeSantis sporting an approval rating of 68 percent (with a disapproval of 20 percent). Whats most impressive about these numbers is that in every demographic that matters, DeSantis is polling above 50 percent with both sexes, Hispanic (67 percent approval) and black voters (63), and among both parties.

When it comes to governorships, Florida isnt an outlier. The last time the Morning Consult poll tabulated a list of the most popular governors, the top 14 and 18 of the top 20 were Republicans. These Republicans govern in states that have highly diverse electorates, from Alabama to Vermont.

Which is weird, because this very week, progressives at the New York Times and the Atlantic were assuring us that the GOP was so reviled nationally and its agenda so toxic to the average American that the party has been compelled to hide from democratic accountability.

Naturally, Charlie Baker cant support the same policies in Massachusetts that Mark Gordon can in Wyoming. And some of these governors have their agendas tempered by Democratic legislatures, while others do not. But, like DeSantis, all of them tend to govern with a conservative disposition, and most of them openly advocate a conservative agenda.

How many progressive governors do you see near the top of the list? Kate Brown of Oregon, perhaps the most progressive governor in the country, is also one of its least popular. Gavin Newsom, whos pushed a slate of left-wing policies, owns an approval rating in heavily liberal California thats on par with Donald Trumps national numbers. Rational, pragmatic, progressive J. B. Pritzkers polls are horrible. Andrew Cuomos numbers are brutal. The only Democrats in the top 20 are Steve Bullock and John Carney, two of the most moderate liberal governors in the country.

Nothing is static in politics, and there are an array of factors that drive a politicians approval. (Heres a deeper dive by John McCormack on why Republicans are succeeding.) But its a bit difficult to ignore the striking skew of this list.

It seems to me that voters have a far more personal, less ideological stake in their governors than they do in the politicians they send to Washington as proxies in broader philosophical battles. Congress, thankfully, does little real policy work. Governors are far more likely to be judged on nuts-and-bolts governance, stability, and competence. In this regard, its pretty clear that Republicans are figuring out ways to stay relevant and popular in lots of areas of the country. Its also pretty clear that voters are able to compartmentalize their local and national votes. Pundits who treat Trumps approval rating as the ultimate indicator of the GOPs political fortunes are doing their readers a disservice.

See original here:
If the Republican Party Is Dying, Why Are Their Governors So Popular? - National Review

Having been boxed in by the overwhelming evidence of Donald Trump's guilt on the Ukraine extortion campaign, on collusion with a Russian conspiracy to influence the 2016 election and on subsequent efforts to cover it up Republicans have given up trying to carve out rational-sounding defenses for his criminal behavior. Instead, they've moved into the territory of simply denying reality, with little seeming interest in trying to make their lies sound plausible at all.

Republican members on the House Intelligence Committee just released what amounts to a "pre-buttal" of the truth, expected in the upcoming Democratic report. There is no attempt to engage with the actual evidence against Trump, just more spewing of conspiracy theories and lies meant to distract Trump's followers. The document shows, according to Stephen Collinson of CNN, that Republicans have fully embraced the Trumpian stratey of calling "on supporters to ignore the evidence of their own eyes."

Similarly, reports suggest that Attorney General Bill Barr is back to his old tricks of running cover for Trump's collusion with Russian intelligence and obstruction of justice.According to the Washington Post,Barr "disagrees with the Justice Departments inspector generalon one of the key findings in an upcoming report," which is that the FBI had ample reason to look into the Trump campaign's extensive Russian connections.

As with the GOP report from House Intelligence, this amounts to nothing more than a laughable assurance that the sky is not blue because it suits Trump to believe the sky is red.

What Republicans hope to accomplish with all this blatant lying in the short term is obvious: just enough excuses for Trump voters to repeat their grotesque transgression against decency in the voting booth in 2020. There appears to be no thought involved, beyond doing whatever it takes to keep power in November.

But that does raise the question of how conservatives imagine this playing out in the long term, particularly with regard to how the history books will think of this moment and the role Republicans are playing in it.

The overwhelming evidence against Trump is such that even some of the more cowardly mainstream media outlets are moving away from the "some say bears are bears while others say bears are sheep, and there's no way to know the difference" coverage and towards more substantive "yep, he did it" coverage.

Historians, we must hope, will have even less incentive to shy away from drawing the straightforward conclusion that Trump is super-duper guilty (of the Ukraine extortion and many other things). The upcoming failure to convict him in the Senate is an inarguable demonstration that the entire Republican Party has abandoned their duties to the rule of law. Trump's guilt and Republican complicity will be regarded as historical facts, at least in the traditional academic sense of the term.

But, as anyone who has dealt with conservatives before is aware, just because something is a historical fact doesn't mean it will be accepted as such by the right. On the contrary, there's a long-standing tendency in American conservatism of trying to erase, distort or otherwise confuse people about history, usually for the purpose of making their historical counterparts look better, or to make their current viewpoints seem less toxic.

One of the oldest and most egregious examples of this is the decades spent by conservatives seeding the myth that the Civil War was about an abstract debate over "states' rights," when, in fact, the Confederacy clearly and undeniably sought to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery. It's a lie that is up there with Holocaust denialism, in terms of its immorality. Sadly, it has had far more mainstream acceptance, and even more of a widespread social and political impact, than Holocaust denialism.

The ongoing fights over the Confederate war memorials largely erected in the 20th century to intimidate black people, but justified with the same "states' rights" nonsense is a testament to the way that a politically convenient lie can persist for decades, even in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting it. Which raises a real concern that even after Trump is gone, conservatives unwilling to admit that they made a mistake, and perhaps eager to double down on the politics of Trumpism will move to rewrite history in the same way they are trying to rewrite the present, casting Trump as a hero and those who tried to stop his crimes as the villains.

It's an open question. There's plenty of right-wing blights on history right-wingers being a major source of historical blight that modern day Republicans don't try to erase from the record. There's no big push in the modern right to revise the history of Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal, for instance.And while some conservatives have tried to shift historical understandings by claiming that Joe McCarthy was right about the commies or minimizing the gains of feminism, mostly these efforts mostly haven't caught fire.

But some conservative efforts to revise history away from the facts have been disturbingly successful. The realities of lynching, race riots, and the successful campaign to deprive black Americans of property and wealth have been mostly erased from mainstream history. Only recently, under pressure from historians, activists and black journalists, has this forgotten history been revitalized in public. The civil rights movement and the segregationist policies it opposed have been harder to hide, so conservatives have tried to appropriate that history, claiming falsely to be the true heirs of the civil rights legacy and falsely accusing current anti-racists of opposing the vision of Martin Luther King Jr. and other social justice pioneers.

Notably, the parts of our history where conservatives have focused most of their energy, and have been most successful at distorting reality tend to be about race, although they have also waged counterattacks on labor, women's rights and environmentalism. Even now, conservatives are having a multi-month meltdown over the New York Times publishing a series of pieces about the legacy of slavery and racism, with an intensity they'd never bring to, say, a discussion of violent strike-breaking in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

All that makes the question of whether or not Republicans will eventually drop the "Trump is innocent" act an especially interesting one. On one hand, Trump's crimes are about corruption, the sort of thing Republicans often don't bother denying once it's drifted from the newspaper to the history books. We're seeing this happen presently with George W. Bush, where the same people who used to adamantly deny that he lied about WMDs in Iraq are largely though not completely giving up the ghost. It's easy to imagine a world where, once Trump is gone, Republicans move on and pretend they weren't all crazy about the guy and willing to tell any outrageous and ridiculous lie to protect him.

On the other hand, Trump's popularity on the right is due mostly to his racism. The lies Republicans tell may be about his corruption, but their purpose in telling them is to protect the white grievance politics that Trump peddles. He might end up being a figure somewhat like the Confederate generals, Klansmen and segregationists of old, whom conservatives trying to paint as noble heroes standing up for a valiant "lost cause." Even Ronald Reagan gets some glow from that, as the corruption of Iran-Contra is largely forgotten while conservatives exalt Reagan, who ran an ugly race-baiting campaign, as a legendary American hero.

Nixon was also a racist, but maybe not as overtly and ferociously so as Reagan, so Nixon doesn't get much of a fierce defense from the modern-day right. Also, Nixon resigned in disgrace while Reagan served two full terms, making it a lot easier for conservatives to play dumb about Reagan's likely corruption.

Where will Trump land on this scale of conservative historical revisionism? Will he be lauded as a hero? Will the evidence against him be denied by conservatives for generations to come? Or will they give up trying to defend the indefensible once the immediate political need for it comes to an end? It's genuinely hard to predict, but whatever direction they choose to go will say a lot about what conservatism in a post-Trump world will look like.

Original post:
Will Republicans be able to wipe Trump's crimes from the history books? - Salon

This is an open letter to all of you privately disgusted Republicans.

Its prompted by the fact that in the last few days, two of your colleagues have come forward to share with us your angst.

One was actually an ex-colleague, former Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. He told CNN that you continue to support Donald Trump because pressure from the base the almighty base forces you to. But theres no question, he added, having spoken to many of them privately, theyre absolutely disgusted and exhausted by the presidents behavior. Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York seconded that emotion. If you talk to my Republican colleagues off the record, theyre all very concerned, he said, also on CNN.

Its not that we havent heard similar sentiments before. On the contrary, they have surfaced repeatedly over the last four years. But ladies and gentlemen, your lament has reached the point and breached the point of sheer tiresomeness.

As the scope of Trumps abuse of power grows ever more obvious, as his contempt for the rule of law grows ever more plain, as leaders of your party offer ever-more-threadbare justifications and rationalizations for that which is neither justifiable nor rational, we receive word that you folks are privately disgusted?

As Rick Perry and others claim Trump as Gods chosen one, as a new Economist/YouGov poll finds that most Republicans rank him a better leader than Lincoln himself, as the party grows ever more indistinguishable from a cult, with Trump as he who must not be questioned, he whose wisdom is beyond mere mortal ken, we hear that off the record, you lot are very concerned?

One struggles for adjectives to convey how little that means, how insignificant is the comfort it offers.

Sixty years ago, Martin Luther King issued a warning: If you fail to act now, history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.

King was addressing white racial moderates, but it is remarkable and disheartening how well his warning fits you, who have prioritized your own political backsides above truth, above honor, above national interest. As the country lurches toward a precipice from which it will not recover, you count votes. In a time that demands every good man and woman raise their voices, you embrace the appalling silence instead.

War criminals are set free. And appalling silence.

A Russian attack unanswered. And appalling silence.

Children dying in our care. And appalling silence.

Except we are given to understand that in private, you grumble from time to time. And Lord, what are we supposed to do with that information? Are we expected to sympathize with your dilemma? Please.

We are posing for history here, ladies and gentlemen. One day we will be judged by what we said and did not say, the stands we took and did not take, in this moment of peril. And you, the party of Reagan and Eisenhower, T.R. and the apparently overrated Lincoln, are coming up well short. Where is your courage? Who broke your moral compass?

Enough with your private disgust and off-the-record concern. The times are calling. They demand you stand up like American women and American men stand up like John McCain would long ago have done and speak what you know to be true, what we all know to be true.

Or else, at the very least, please shut up completely. Let the rest of us mourn our country in peace.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for The Miami Herald. He can be contacted at:

[emailprotected]

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Read more here:
Leonard Pitts: Republicans who are that disgusted with Trump should go public with it - Press Herald

One lesson from this delightful period in American political history is that none of the stories they told you in schoolabout those Checks and Balances, or the Separation of Powers, or the idea we are a Nation of Lawswere real. To the extent that they ever fully applied to the United States of America in practice, the Trump Era has exposed them as malleable at best.

You see, the laws and the norms and the ethics rules are only real if people in positions of power enforce them. If they ignore them, or are too weak to exercise the powers granted to the offices they hold to stop others ignoring them, these magical forces of democracy cease to functionally exist. The president violates the Constitution's Emoluments Clause on a near-daily basis, but it doesn't seem to matter. He tried to seize funds not appropriated by Congress for his Big, Beautiful Wall, and reportedly offered pardons to people who break the law to get it built. Impeachment is a process expressly laid out in the Constitution, but the president's senior adviser just dismissed it as "unconstitutional." If you have no shame, and your opponents are too feckless to stop you, you can do anything.

That's particularly true because, as we've also learned, a significant section of the public is not particularly concerned with all these machinations of a democratic republic. It's slow, it's intricate, and to the extent people know about Checks and Balances, a growing share have stopped particularly caring about them. Perhaps, under the Obama administration, the Democratic base grew so tired of Mitch McConnell-led Republican obstructionism that they would have accepted dramatic expansions of executive power at the expense of Congress and the courts. We don't have the data for that, but we can say, thanks to an August poll by the Pew Research Center which resurfaced on my Twitter feed today, that support among Republicans for ceding powers from other institutions to the president is growing quite rapidly.

Pew Research Center

The percentage of Republicans who think it would be too risky to give presidents more power has sunk from 70 to 51 percent in a year. Since 2016, that number has fallen 31 points. The share of people polled who say presidents could operate more "effectively" if he did not have to worry about Congress or the courts is up 16 percent in a single year, to 43 percent. This poll is from this summer, before the impeachment inquiry began in earnest. Where are the numbers now? In a poll last week, 53 percent of Republicans said Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln.

It's hard to deny what's happening here: the support for concentrating federal power in one person is building. Some people don't seem too concerned about checks and balances. There is a partisan fluctuation at play: under Obama in 2016, the first year listed in this particular study, 66 percent of Democrats thought granting the president more power was too risky. 82 percent think so now. But among the president's base, right now, the hunger is growing for a slide towards dictatorshipsomething for which there's been anecdotal evidence for some time.

In February of 2017, Esquire sent a reporter to a Trump rally in Florida, and one die-hard MAGA-type in attendance explained, simply and with no little pride, that he would embrace a Trumpian dictatorship: "I don't care what he does," Bill Moro told Jeb Lund. "I'm behind him 100 percent. Put it this way: If he became a dictator, and they said, 'We want him in forever,' he's my man. He's in. I'll never vote against him ... I love his power ... It's the power that does something to me."

That last part speaks to a whole other side of this, one that seems inseparable from the growing embrace of Russian interference in American elections for Republican benefit. For the party's base, the shrinking white majority is Real America, and anything that maintains their grip on power is justifiable. Anything that keeps The Others out of power can be explained away.

SOPA ImagesGetty Images

Presidents from both parties have continually expanded executive power for decades, and President Obama was a prime example. He increasingly turned to executive orders in response to Rep. McConnell's scorched-earth tactics in the Senate, which in many cases served to thwart the popular will for the benefit of the narrow donor constituency McConnell truly serves. As a former professor of constitutional law, Obama was perhaps best placed to grasp there would be ramifications to this. Many men throughout history have convinced themselves they are justified in running roughshod over the institutions of democracy because they are seeking to realize the popular will or establish justice. When you've got four or eight years to cement your life's legacy, it must be near impossible to sit idly by while your entire agenda is cynically sunk.

In Trump's case, it's unlikely he even thinks in those terms. He does what he needs to do to survive and grift a little more cash. His transgressions against democratic norms and the Constitution dwarf Obama's by many orders of magnitude. In the process, he has trampled so much of what we took for granted in our democracy that it will be hard to dig it all out of the mud and hose it off before someone else comes along to trample it all some more. One lesson of the Roman republic's fall is that politicians learn from what previous politicians did. They saw what they could get away with, and how they could do it smarter. What will the next guy have learned from what Donald Trump was able to get away with? And how primed will their supporters be by then for a new order of things, where The Leader makes policy and everyone else follows it?

Here is the original post:
The President's Fans Think He'd 'Operate More Effectively' Without Congress or the Courts - Esquire