Mediaboss Marketing

FILE PHOTO: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) speaks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing to discuss police brutality and racial profiling, in Washington, DC, U.S. June 10, 2020. Greg Nash/Pool via REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation on Thursday that would cut federal aid to state and local governments if they do not protect statues, after protesters attacked monuments to people who owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy.

It is wrong to erase our history, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement, criticizing left-wing mobs who have attacked statues across the United States.

Under his bill, introduced with fellow Republican Representatives Jim Jordan and Sam Graves, some federal funds would be withheld if local governments do not restore order or arrest rioters.

During national - and international - protests against racial injustice sparked by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May some demonstrators have taken down or vandalized statues of historical figures such as Robert E. Lee, who led Confederate troops against the United States, and Christopher Columbus.

Republican President Donald Trump, who is campaigning for re-election in November, has harshly criticized such protesters, and criticized U.S. lawmakers who want to remove monuments to those who owned slaves and fought against U.S. forces in the 1860s Civil War.

Trump has threatened decades-long prison terms for those who deface monuments or statues.

McCarthy introduced his bill as Democrats pushed legislation to remove monuments to slave owners and those who supported slavery from the U.S. Capitol in Washington.

On Thursday, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she expected the House would pass such legislation next week or the week after.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; editing by Jonathan Oatis

The rest is here:
Top House Republican threatens to cut funding to states, cities that don't protect statues - Reuters

Its not like a QAnon supporter went down a path where they got into George Bush and then started to read Ronald Reagans speeches, and then bought Milton Friedmans Capitalism and Freedom, and then believed in satanic baby eaters, said Joseph Uscinski, a professor at the University of Miami who studies fringe groups. It doesnt work like that.

Mr. Trump won by saying that he wanted to drain the swamp, Dr. Uscinski said. By doing that, he essentially built a coalition of people with anti-establishment views. Those who believe in QAnon, the professor added, are probably the most extreme part of that coalition.

In Western Colorado late last month, Lauren Boebert, a gun-rights activist who has made approving comments about QAnon, beat a five-term Republican incumbent and will now defend the sprawling district in November. In recent weeks she told the QAnon-aligned web show Steel Truth that everything Ive heard of Q I hope this is real.

In a recent interview, Ms. Boebert said she was not a follower of the group. But, she added, I dont believe thats a radical notion to want to get rid of people trying to undermine the president of the United States.

In Southern California, Mike Cargile, who is challenging an incumbent Democrat for a House seat, includes #WWG1WGA in his Twitter bio, a shortened version of the QAnon motto Where We Go One We Go All. He has repeated many of the groups racist theories about Mr. Obama and Black Americans.

In an emailed response to questions, Mr. Cargile said that he sought only to discover the truth and that Americans needed to resist Marxists efforts to deceive and divide.

He said well see what becomes of the QAnon theories. But, he added, all Americans should be alarmed by the efforts of the presidents opponents in Washington, and even more so when we discover that the saboteurs and propagators are the very men and women tasked with safeguarding our system of Justice.

Here is the original post:
The QAnon Candidates Are Coming. Are Republicans Ready? - The New York Times

Last month, we asked our readers what issues they wanted to hear the candidates running for office address ahead of this summers primary elections. Based on the input we received, we developed a five-item questionnaire for Republican candidates running for seats in the Kansas House and Senate.

Well be publishing the candidates responses to one item per day each day this week. Today were publishing the candidates responses to item four:

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?

Since the very beginning of the outbreak, I have advocated for measured responses. Certainly, some of the actions were appropriate, such as delays on tax payments and the like. I believe that at the outset, the initial two-week lockdown was understandable and appropriate as we got our arms around the problem. However, I become concerned about a prolonged lockdown or other types of one-size fits all statewide mandates and regulations I believe that policy questions are generally best left to local officials. When equipped with reliable information and recommendations, I trust our local businesses and our citizens to make decisions.

It is important that all branches of government work together to address the COVID crisis. We made the correct choice at the start to be cautious, but feel that we delayed a re-opening plan too long. This caused a much larger backlash and opened rapidly faster instead of providing a better slow open starting earlier. I think all levels of government should be playing an important role in addressing this health crisis. One size fits all solutions rarely work well in Kansas and that is especially true here. We delegated more power to county commissions because they are better equipped to make decisions for their community than the state is. The states role should be to support the counties, cities, and school boards as they make the decisions that make most sense for them. What Johnson County needs is very different than Russell County.

We all want Kansans to be safe. Lives and livelihoods across Kansas must be protected. Our state is diverse in its population density, and our businesses. Its not one-size-fits all. Therefore, the role of state government in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic is to inform the public about the virus risks, and educate Kansans about responses. Kansans across the state, when well-informed, should be able to use that information and determine what measures to take. Healthcare professionals, hospitals, restaurants, gyms, hair and nail salons, schools, and industries across the board asked for more local control on the issue, and asked the state legislature for assistance in safely re-opening when we were in Special Session in June. I took a stand and supported them, while my opponent abstained from voting.

State government should not be in the business of deciding which businesses stay open, or how they operate, and which close and ultimately fail. We can all make decisions about risks when well-informed, and therefore, state-wide, across the board mandates generally are not a reasonable response.

The governors stay-at-home order during the initial COVID-19 outbreak was entirely justified and no-doubt prevented Kansas from falling victim to many more cases of the virus. As evidenced by the huge outbreaks in other states without this type of order, cases have multiplied. Current trends indicate that re-opening in states has also been responsible for an increase. The public needs to listen to our doctors at the national and local levels and our local government officials who are knowledgeable about our states situation.

As to the lockdown, and the wide array of executive orders issued at both the state and local levels of governance, my general opinion is that these orders are overbearing. As to the constitutionality of each individual order, I cannot give a definite answer, excluding that of governor Kellys executive order which prohibited churches from gathering. This order is certainly unconstitutional, both at the state and federal level because it infringes on the right to practice religion. Both the Kansas and our national constitution prohibit the government from infringing on the religious beliefs of the individual. Some may say that given the exceptional circumstances, and given that attending a church service could potentially place others in danger of contracting the virus, an exception to both the state and federal constitutions would be constitutionally permissible. This is wrong however, as neither the state nor the federal constitution make any mention of an exception regarding a pandemic. The constitution is very clear on this issue, and to act otherwise is misguided. Imagine if you will, the founding fathers speaking to one another at the signing of the constitution, and one says to the other wait so this doesnt count if they get sick right? Obviously the founding fathers had no intention of making any exception to religious freedom.

Another aspect of the lock down orders I find disturbing, is this notion of an executive order, as if the governor or the mayor were a king of sorts, dictating merely by a simple decree, and without the consent of the legislature, how his or her citizens might behave. I think that these laws designed to protect our health, should at the minimum be crafted and enacted with the consent of the legislature. There doesnt seem to be any effort on the part of governor Kelly, or that of any other executive power at the city or county level, to work with their own legislative bodies, rather, they seem to be dictating these rules at their own whim.

Finally, I am skeptical as to the effectiveness of these measures, this idea that, almost like a light switch, a law can stop the spread of the virus. Surely we are not so foolish as to think that a simple rule will stop this virus right? For that matter, it is difficult to fully enforce these measures in the first place. I see many people on a daily basis who are either wearing their mask improperly, or refusing to wear one entirely. I also dont think we know enough about this virus to make any informed policy decisions to begin with.

Balancing the state budget focus changed with COVID19. now is the time to reduce spending, focus on getting business back open and supporting their efforts in the process. Legislators need to seriously repair the spending within the state by merging workforces, increase efficiency, improve technology while reducing overhead, all noted in the Alverez Marcel 2016 report. While addressing the pandemic, the guidance and recommendations should be from the local Health Departments. Our public health is system is good and effective, a voice their own communitys wellness, disease prevention and health.

Less government involvement in health care+ more health promotion = Healthy Kansas.

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?

The actions taken by the executive branch, including the Kansas Department of Health and Environment were not only justified, but proved to be effective in keeping Kansans safe. We are now seeing a surge in infections because restrictions were lifted too soon and many citizens did not take the pandemic seriously. Had we followed protocol when first called for, our economy would be open and thriving today. Instead, we are back where we started. The economy could be open and thriving if everyone had worn masks, and continue to wear masks. Listen and pay attention to science.

The role of the state is to protect the safety of all citizens. That is why we have public safety organizations such as police and fire departments. The role of the state should be to assure our safety, just as the other protective agencies provide. We should respect health protections just as we do police and fire.

The governors stay-at-home orders during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Kansas sparked a debate about the role of government in working to ensure the publics health. Were the state governments actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 justified? What role do you believe the state should be taking in addressing the pandemic?I believe initially the state governments actions were justified, but as more information became available, the state should have allowed businesses to make the choice whether or not to reopen based on safety measures that were suggested. Small businesses that were shut down during the pandemic could have managed social distancing, etc. as easily as the big box stores.

Tomorrow well publish the candidates responses to item five:

Do you support the entire platform of the Kansas Republican Party that was adopted in 2018? If not, which parts dont you support and why?

Read this article:
Republican Kansas statehouse candidates on the issues: The state's response to COVID-19 - Shawnee Mission Post

WASHINGTON Democrats running for the U.S. House in Texas major swing districts hold a sizable cash advantage over their Republican opponents heading into the second half of the year, underscoring yet again the startling interest in the state as a general election battleground.

In the eight districts most often predicted to be competitive in November, the Democratic candidates collectively stored away more than $13.9 million at the end of June, compared with their GOP opponents $7 million, according to campaign finance reports filed on Wednesday.

The cash on hand tally is, by no means, a flawless oracle of electoral success, particularly since Election Day is a long four months away.

It nevertheless spotlights a dramatic transformation in Texas suburban swaths, which were so reliably Republican just a few years ago that Democrats sometimes struggled in those districts to field candidates, much less ones who could raise millions of dollars.

At this point in 2018, the Democratic candidates for those seats sported war chests totaling $4.3 million about half that of their GOP counterparts. And in the summer of 2016, only one Democrat in those races held any real money, while the rest struggled to bank even a few thousand dollars.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the partys House campaign arm, hailed the standings as proof that the party is on offense.

Democrats are running competitive campaigns across Texas because their message of quality, affordable health care, protecting Texans with preexisting conditions and lowering drug costs is resonating with voters, DCCC spokesman Avery Jaffe said.

But Republicans can also point to areas of promise, even after losing some deep-pocketed incumbents in those districts because of retirements.

Two years after many Republican lawmakers were caught flat-footed by a Democratic surge, some conservatives are stockpiling campaign cash to brace for the challenge. Austin Rep. Michael McCaul, for instance, holds in reserve about triple what he had at this point in 2018.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOPs campaign arm, also brushed aside the Democrats flush financials.

Support for socialist policies like the oil-and-gas killing Green New Deal and socialized medicine may go over well with liberal donors, but theyre toxic to Texas voters, NRCC spokesman Bob Salera said, calling the Democratic slate of candidates unelectable.

The eight consensus battleground districts for the U.S. House span the Lone Star State, clustering around the metropolitan centers of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.

Two sit in North Texas: One is the Dallas-based district represented by Rep. Colin Allred, a freshman Democrat who two years ago flipped a longtime GOP seat. The other is the mid-cities seat being vacated by retiring Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell.

Save for a massive border district thats long been Texas only true swing seat, the octet was utterly uncompetitive just a few years ago.

Then Beto ORourkes Senate campaign in 2018 helped drive Democratic turnout, accelerating demographic shifts already underway in the Texas suburbia. Seven of those suddenly not-so-sleepy seats were decided by 5 points or less. Allreds upset win came by 6.5 points.

Now comes 2020s high-dollar hauls, which have been collected despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic complicating traditional fundraising activity.

The rapid transition has been jarring for many Texas politicos. But doubly so for the likes of Jan McDowell, who struggled to raise money as the Democratic nominee against Marchant the last two cycles, including in 2018 when she came within three points of winning.

Unbelievable? Yes. Frustrating? Yes. I can think of a few other descriptors, too, said McDowell, who ran again this year but didnt advance to the Democratic runoff ultimately won by former school board member Candace Valenzuela.

McDowell recalled how she was considered a nut case when she decided to mount a challenge in 2016. She found that she was eventually able to persuade people that the district could be competitive. But she didnt relish fundraising, and the dollars never arrived in any large amounts.

It wouldve made a huge difference, she said, noting that perception is everything.

These days, Allred and Houston Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, another freshman Democrat, can raise money with the added advantage of incumbency. Other Democratic congressional candidates have also found substantial fundraising success, thanks in part to an influx of online donations.

The result is cash-on-hand totals once unthinkable for Democrats running in these sort of districts. Just ask former Ennis Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican who retired last cycle. No fundraising slouch in his day, he couldnt contain his shock at the size of some Democrats war chests.

Fletchers $3.5 million cash on hand to compete against Republican Wesley Hunt? Good Lord, he said.

Gina Ortiz Jones $3 million for her border district battle against a yet-to-be-determined Republican? Jiminy Cricket, he said.

Wendy Davis $2.9 million to take on Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin? Wow, he said.

That tells me that the DCCC is really targeting Texas, Barton said with a laugh, while adding that he still remains bullish that Texas Republicans, including some of his former colleagues, will be more than able to hold their own at the congressional level in November.

He added: The Democrats are drinking their own Kool-Aid.

National groups are indeed paying Texas unusual attention this cycle, though that focus is hardly limited to the Democratic column. Republicans have sought to ensure that Texas remains a solid firewall, with some GOP officials cautioning that complacency is not an option.

In the eight battlegrounds, the Republicans current collective cash on hand total is lower than it was at this point in 2018. But that partly reflects that some well-funded GOP lawmakers, such as Marchant and San Antonio Rep. Will Hurd, opted to retire.

Barton, who remains close to the delegation, noted that vulnerable incumbents did one of two things: They either got in gear and said, Were going to be prepared. Or they quit.

Among those who got in gear was McCaul, an Austin Republican whos sitting on $1.3 million in his campaign account. His camp made a point to note how much better that balance was than in 2018. His challenger, Mike Siegel, has $165,000 after finishing a tough primary runoff.

Roy, while lagging Davis, sports a sizable $1.7 million cash on hand.

Round Rock Rep. John Carters $922,000 in reserves nearly doubled his total from this point last cycle. The Republicans opponent, Donna Imam, has $42,000 cash on hand after emerging from a Democratic primary runoff.

In some other districts being monitored by political handicappers beyond the consensus eight Texas Republicans are sitting on mounds of cash. Take Houston Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a freshman Republican who currently holds a staggering $4 million in his campaign coffers.

Whats clear is that candidates all over are tracking the dollar signs.

In the border seat being vacated by Hurd, Republicans Tony Gonzales and Raul Reyes are locked in a runoff thats still too close to call for the right to take on Jones. Gonzales has $391,000 in his war chest, while Reyes claims only $24,000. Gonzales team has cited that difference as vital.

Gonzales is the only Republican candidate that can hold #tx23, Gonzales spokesman Matt Mackowiak recently wrote on Twitter, pointing to Jones vast campaign resources.

In North Texas, Allred has $3 million cash on hand, while his Republican opponent, Genevieve Collins holds $1.1 million. The race for Marchants old seat features Republican Beth Van Duyne with $483,000 and Valenzuela, the Democrat, with $111,000.

Some Republicans are practically welcoming the Democratic dollars. Sen. John Cornyn, whos up for reelection, responded to reports that Democrat Joe Bidens White House campaign might spend in Texas by saying hed like to see Ds squander their resources in a losing effort here.

A bulging political pocketbook does not guarantee the necessary votes, either. Just this week in Texas primary runoffs, multiple candidates in both parties lost their races despite carrying cash advantages in some cases, by huge sums over their opponents.

But the stakes are high.

Its expensive to run campaigns in the Texas metropolitan areas where most of the battleground House districts sit, in large part due to the high cost of TV advertising. So a Democratic surge would almost necessitate a GOP response, diverting resources from elsewhere in the U.S.

It takes it in some of these districts to have a play at all, SMU political scientist Rita Kirk said, referring to healthy campaign reserves.

See the original post here:
Democrats hold sizable cash-on-hand edge over Republicans in Texas battleground U.S. House races - The Dallas Morning News

If you've been on Twitter lately, there's a good chance you've seen one of the scathing ads the Lincoln Project has launched against President Donald Trump. Some have been seen millions of times.

The people behind those staunchly anti-Trump ads? They're in his own party.

The Lincoln Project is made up of anti-Trump Republicans like co-founder Jennifer Horn, the former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

"When voters come and see our ads and see our website and listen to our message, they are reminded of just how dangerous this president is," Horn said ahead of Trump's rally in New Hampshire this week, which was eventually postponed. "We are using his own words and his own actions and highlighting them for the American people."

Those ads are sent out to the political action committee's 1 million Twitter followers -- gained since December, when the group was established -- and are meant to get under the president's skin. The Lincoln Project goes after Trump's record in office, saying he's failed to respond to the coronavirus pandemic and reports that Russia paid the Taliban to kill American troops, but also his ego.

New reports say President Donald Trump was briefed months ago about intelligence that Russia offered money to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. soldiers.

For example, in an ad about his Tulsa rally, which brought out far fewer attendees than the Trump campaign expected, the Lincoln Project called the turnout "sad, weak, low-energy -- just like your presidency. Just like you."

The Trump campaign fired back at the Lincoln Project in a statement to NBC News this week that said "Every shred of evidence proves that Republicans enthusiastically support President Trump, so any efforts by disgruntled former Republicans are doomed to fail."

The group has no intention of stopping.

"Every minute that the president spends defending himself against something that we've said, the 25 minutes that he spends at a rally in Oklahoma proving that he really can drink a class of water, that's 25 minutes that he's not spending spewing lies to his supporters," Horn said.

See the original post here:
Meet a NH Republican Behind a Series of Scathing Anti-Trump Ads - NBC10 Boston