Mediaboss Marketing

Voldymyr Zelensky is being hailed as latter-day Winston Churchill by both Democrats and Republicans.The Democrats newfound embrace of the former British statesman is interesting, given that it was only a year ago when Joe Biden banished a bust of Mr. Churchill from the confines of the Oval Office.

Biden was following the lead of his former boss, Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaJuan Williams: GOP plays the race card on Ketanji Brown Jackson Lawmakers skeptical of Biden effort to resurrect Iran nuclear deal Relearning our lesson on dealing with extortionists MORE, who didnt think Churchill deserved being honored in such a way.

Winston Churchill once said of one of his political rivals, hes a humble man with much to be humble about.

Churchills quote rings true to me in the sense of what Republicans should be preparing to do once they take the majority this coming November.

My old boss, Denny Hastert, used to have a mantra when he was Speaker of the House about the utility of underpromising and overdelivering.

Republicans often tend to overpromise and underdeliver.

For example, during the tea party years, they frequently promised to balance the budget, reform entitlements and repeal ObamaCare.

Similarly, when George W. Bush won reelection in 2005, he promised to fundamentally reform the Social Security program.

The Contract with America made many bold promises for the 1994 elections, which they published as a supplement to the once popular TV Guide magazine.But you had to read the fine print to really understand what Newt GingrichNewton (Newt) Leroy GingrichMORE and Dick Armey were promising to voters.They werent promising that their radically common-sense agenda would be signed into law. They were promising that it would get a vote on the House floor within the first 100 days of Republican rule in 1995.

Much of what the Newt and his gang promised had nothing to do with a policy agenda.It had everything to do with cleaning up the House itself, which had been used and abused for four decades by a rapacious Democratic majority. And so the Republicans promised crazy stuff like requiring all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress, selecting an independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of the House, cutting the size and the power of the committees by a third, limiting the terms of committee chairmen, banning the casting of proxy votes in committee, and requiring that committee hearings be open to the public.

In the context of today, none of these things seem all that revolutionary. But back in 1995, cleaning out the House of Representatives and bringing power back to the people was seen as truly game changing.

Twenty-seven six later, it is time for the Republicans to channel the revolutionary spirit of the class of 1994, focusing first on fixing the process and then getting to the policy items that differentiate the GOP from the Democrats.

Fixing the process is essential because House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSarah Palin says she'd serve in Don Young's seat 'in a heartbeat' Clyburn files to run for 16th House term House staff turnover highest in 20 years: study MORE (D-Calif.) and House Democrats have completely trashed it ever since they took over in 2018.

First, they have to get rid of proxy voting on the House floor.The purpose of having a Congress in the first place is bringing people together.You cant bring people together if they can work for home.

Second, they have to fix the budget and appropriations process. The president still hasnt submitted his budget for the year and it is almost the end of March.

Third, power needs to flow back to the members and away from the leadership.There needs to be a return to regular order, where the committees are given the opportunity to find solutions to problems and not have their jurisdiction subverted by a power-hungry Speaker.

Fourth, members need to be able to offer amendments to the legislative process.The rights of the minority should be protected.

Finally, no member should be banished from serving on all legislative committees. What Pelosi and the Democrats have done to kick members that they dislike of all committees is despicable. It disenfranchises the hundreds of thousands of constituents who live in the districts of these members.

When Republicans take the House majority, they should be modest in their policy goals but aggressive in fixing a broken process. It wont be easy to get major things done with a closely split Senate and a president of the other party. Cleaning up the House should be far easier and today is far more important.

Feehery is a partner at EFB Advocacy and blogs atwww.thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House SpeakerDennis HastertJohn (Dennis) Dennis HastertFeehery: Traitor to his class Feehery: Biden's weakness on Ukraine invited Russian invasion Feehery: The end of innocence MORE(R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).

Read the rest here:
Feehery: Time for Republicans to channel the revolutionary spirit of the class of 1994 | TheHill - The Hill

Republican lawmakers have spent the last half decade following Donald Trump's lead, even as he moved the party away from long-held party philosophy. But when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, GOP officials are no longer taking their cues from the former president.

Condemnation of Vladimir Putin is a rare unifying force on Capitol Hill. Few Republicans are echoing Trump's description of the Russian president as savvy or smart. Former Vice President Mike Pence said there was no room in the party for "apologists for Putin." Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina even went as far to say that Putin should be assassinated.

And after the years standing by as their party leader questioned the value of NATO and traditional global security alliances, threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for a political favor, and publicly took Putin's word over that of his intelligence agencies, Republicans are now arguing for every possible resource short of U.S. ground troops to help stop the war in Europe.

The "vast majority of the Republican Party writ large, both in Congress and across the country, are totally behind the Ukrainians and urging the president to take these steps quicker, to be bolder,"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saidSunday on "Face the Nation."

"There's been a pretty dramatic division between the traditional post-WWII Republican view of our leadership in the world, which is the one I hold, and those who wanted to follow a policy that was more focused on retreating to thinking that somebody else would fill our role in the world if we didn't," Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri told CBS News. "And I think what's happening at the current moment, most Republicans--and, frankly, most members of the Senate--have shifted to what I would see as a more internationalist view of our responsibilities. And I'm glad to see it."

There can often be a disconnect between party leaders and party voters. But in this case, polling shows support for taking a tougher stance on Russia among the party's rank and file.

CBS News polling finds 76% of Republicans approve of sanctioning Russia's oil and gas (and 62% say so even if it means higher gas prices), 75% say the U.S. should send weapons and supplies to Ukraine, and 61% say the U.S. should send troops to protect NATO allies near Ukraine.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a Trump ally in the Senate, said his constituents are appalled at the Russian invasion and are telling him "we need to do everything we can" to help the Ukrainians.

"They are fighting for their existence. And Russia has aided every enemy of ours for the last 60 years. So I don't feel too bad I know Putin wines that this is escalatory. He's invaded a sovereign nation. So we should arm the Ukrainians and give them every defensive weapon that they want," Hawley told CBS News. "We need to do everything we can do asymmetrically there in Ukraine to help the Ukrainians. And we should do that for the long haul, as long as it takes."

Hawley joined all Senate Republicans, with the exception of Mitt Romney, in exonerating Trump at his impeachment trial in 2019 that centered on his asking Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for military aid. In an interview with 60 Minutes at the time, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said that Trump did nothing in that conversation with Zelenskyy that was impeachable.

Now, McCarthy is trying to keep some members of his conference who are speaking ill of Zelenskyy or echoing Trump's praise of Putin at bay. Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina has come under fire for calling Zelenskyy a "thug" at a town hall.

When asked about the comments last week, McCarthy told reporters that "Madison is wrong. If there's any thug in this world it's Putin." McCarthy then referenced the Russian bombing of a maternity ward and a theater housing children. "This is atrocious, this is wrong, this is the aggressor, this is the one that needs to end this war," he said of Putin. "This is the one that everybody should unite against." (When asked whether he would support Cawthorn's re-election, McCarthy said "yes.")

Republicans are still largely opposed to direct U.S. military involvement in Ukraine, and there is very little appetite on Capitol Hill for the establishment of a no-fly zone, a reflection of the party's shift in the Trump era away from engaging in military conflict overseas. Colin Dueck, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who wrote a book on post-WWII Republican foreign policy, told CBS News that even though Trump tapped into voters' frustrations with traditionally hawkish GOP views, party voters still maintained their support of NATO and opposition to Putin. The invasion reminded them of those views, he says, and there has been a rallying around a hardline against Russia.

"It has often been the case that Trump acts and others react....what's interesting right now is that nobody seems to be deferring to him on this issue," said Dueck. "There is a momentum that is independent of him. And he has had to catch up with it."

In some cases, appearing to share Trump's rhetoric on Putin is becoming a liability for Republican candidates on the campaign trail.

In the North Carolina GOP primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, former Gov. Pat McCrory released an ad accusing his Trump-backed rival Rep. Ted Budd of taking Russia-friendly votes and praising Putin. The ad uses an interview clip in which Budd calls Putin a "very intelligent actor." Club for Growth then released anad supporting Budd and arguing McCrory took the congressman's words out of context, and played clips of the full quote in which he called Putin "evil" and an "international thug."

According to Politifact, McCrory's ad cut out Budd's full quote: "I would say Putin is evil. But that doesn't mean he's not smart. He's a very intelligent actor, although I'd say he's been quite erratic in his approach to the Ukraine."

While Republicans are rallying around a hard line against Russia, they aren't eager to criticize Trump for his past behavior towards Putin. Instead, when asked about Trump's approach to Putin, they insist the policies outweigh the rhetoric.

"I have disagreed with President Trump's rhetoric on Putin, previously. I don't think it was helpful. But on substance, on the actual policies implemented, the Trump administration's policies on Russia were much, much tougher than the Biden administration's policies," Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told CBS News, pointing to the sanctions he authored against Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that Trump signed into law.

"There's probably a lot of mistakes that we could look atI know Trump is criticized for his rhetoric. But I will say, in my view, when the time came to really get tough, to sanction Nord Stream 2 for instance, he was there at the end to do the right thing to be tough on them," Hawley told CBS News when asked if he thought the previous president miscalculated Putin. "But listen, that's in the rear view mirror. Now we have to think about, what are we going to do moving forward?"

Caitlin Huey-Burns is a political reporter for CBS News.

Read the original post:
Republicans are backing an aggressive policy toward Ukraine, breaking with Trump - CBS News

Steve Corbin| Guest opinion

Most citizens dont know that Republican leaders in Iowa, Utah, Kansas and Florida are limiting journalists access to open-to-the-public legislature and gubernatorial sessions.

This begs the question: What issues and policies are GOP elected officials trying to hide?

Furthermore, what is there about the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically freedom of the press Republicans dont understand? Maybe GOPers are demonstrating their anti-democracy intentions, giving favor to control the media as witnessed by fascistcountries such as Russia, China, North Korea and Venezuela.

According to information published by Freedom of the Press Foundation, 72 media access denial incidents occurred in the last four years. Republicans denying or limiting journalists access to government events appears to be retaliatory or done without meaningful justification.

In Florida, the GOP governor blocked multiple journalists from covering the signing of a controversial election bill. Journalists in Iowa, Utah and Kansas were kicked out by Republican leaders of their historic press benches on the senate floor and moved into a gallery. The press bench permitted reporters to observe debate, have immediate access to legislators and report the facts. The new rules allow legislators to duck out and run away from journalists, avoiding being held accountable by their constituents.

Steve Morris, who led the Kansas GOP from 2005-13, wrote in a Kansas Reflector editorial, Placing restrictions on journalists in the Senate chambers suggests there is something to hide or that leadership is taking unwarranted and unnecessary retaliation against reporters.

After Parker Higgins of the Freedom of the Press Foundation spoke with Iowa and Kansas reporters about the restrictions, hesaid, in terms of doing your job quickly and effectively, you cant get that from the public gallery.

Richard Gilbert, press secretary for Iowa Gov. Robert D. Ray (Republican, 1969-1983) wrote an op-ed for Julie Gammacks Potluck.Reflecting on Republicans restricting access to the media, he stated: It is enough to set off alarm bells for anyone who cares about clean and open government at all levels.

Gilbert continued,as Rays press secretary ... my job was not to control access to what went on in state government. It was to make the information accessible.

Gilbert lays it on the line for voters who are witnessing freedom of the press restrictions: which brings me to the obvious question whats the objective of stonewalling or making it more difficult for the reporters covering deliberations of the Iowa (and other states) senate? What dont these elected officials want the people ... to know or see?

Gilberts candor is refreshing: if legislators want to extract petulant payback on the press corps because the coverage of their august body is often embarrassing, then perhaps they should quit doing and/or saying so many stupid things.

Iowa, Utah, Kansas and Floridas elected GOP officials media access restrictions blatantly counterfree press, a cornerstone of democracy. Voters need to confront Republicans as well as Democrats seeking election or reelection and ask their deep-seeded beliefs on freedom of the press.

Whenever Republican leaders restrict press access, it appears their goal is to abandon democracy and adopt dictatorial and totalitarian rule. If the GOPs anti-First Amendment actions are permitted to continue, who knows whats next. Maybe well see something like neo-Nazi banning of books, disinformation about critical race theory, anti-LGBTQ legislation, using public taxpayer funds to support private education, and invoking voter suppression.

Oh, wait! Were already witnessing those draconian measures in GOP-controlled states. The next authoritarian action by Republicans should be of no surprise.

Steve Corbin is an emeritus professor of marketing at theUniversity of Northern Iowa.

Read more:
Opinion: Republicans are curtailing freedom of the press; what's their end game? - Iowa City Press-Citizen

Wisconsin Republicans and Democrats both want credit for a massive tax cut signed into state law last summer.

In a sign of the times, the two parties cant agree on whether the move part of the Republican-written state budget that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers signed into law was a bipartisan one or not.

Republican leadership said no. Evers said yes.

The Wisconsin Initiative, a group whose website says it works to enact progressive policies, hold elected officials accountable and find solutions to issues facing the states working families, says yes, too.

A pro-Evers television ad from the group says the move would help working families with rising costs and declared that Evers "brought Republicans and Democrats together to cut income taxes for the middle class."

But that doesnt exactly describe what happened.

Lets take a look.

How the tax cut plan unfolded

When Evers released his two-year spending plan for the state Feb. 16, 2021, it included a net increase of $1 billion in taxes over the biennium. He aimed to give tax breaks to the lower and middle classes and raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy.

Republicans didnt care for it. They removed his tax increases and breaks and, after learning the state would receive more than $4 billion extra in tax collections over the next three years, proposed a plan to cut more than $2 billion in taxes in their own budget.

That included lowering one tax bracket from 6.27% to 5.3%, covering incomes up to $263,000 for individuals and up to $351,000 for married couples. The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated at the time that about three-quarters of the cuts would go to those making $100,000 or more a year.

When Evers signed that budget, he cheered the tax cut and said it delivered on his promise to cut taxes for middle-class families.

Republicans didnt like that, either.

"Governor Tony Evers deserves NO credit for signing our budget," Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said in a statement at the time, arguing it was not a bipartisan victory but rather that Evers was "boxed into a corner."

Evers said his signature on the Republican-written budget by nature made it a bipartisan effort.

"I signed the budget simple as that. I could have vetoed that," he said at the time.

Evers signed the budget, but the tax cut plan was written by Republicans

When reached by PolitiFact Wisconsin, Morgan Grunow, executive director of the Wisconsin Initiative, pointed to bipartisan support as the Republicans budget moved through the Legislature as well as Evers final signature.

When it passed the state Assembly on June 29, 2021, four Democrats joined Republicans in supporting it. Three Democrats in the state Senate voted for the plan the next day before sending it to Evers desk.

"At the end of the day, Governor Evers introduced the budget, Democrats and Republicans both voted for it, and Evers signed into law," Grunow wrote in an email. "Bipartisan agreement on anything, especially this day and age, seems to align with the idea of bringing people together. The final vote tally speaks for itself."

Its correct that Evers has long pushed for middle-class tax cuts. He campaigned on cutting state income taxes by 10% for Wisconsinites making $100,000 a year or less. (PolitiFact Wisconsin rated that campaign promise as a Compromise last July because hed pledged to do so in his first budget, not his second.)

But it was the Republican-written budget, not his own, that eventually accomplished that goal for him.

And while the budget that was ultimately signed into law received bipartisan support in both legislative chambers, Evers didnt personally spur those Democratic lawmakers to join with their Republican colleagues.

His actions didnt necessarily bring people together the pieces unfolded on their own.

Our ruling

The Wisconsin Initiative claimed Evers "brought Republicans and Democrats together to cut income taxes for the middle class."

The end result of the maneuvering was that both sides Evers and Legislative Republicans signed off on tax cuts. But it was more the result of political maneuvering and budgetary good fortune than bipartisan outreach on the part of Evers.

Our definition of Half True is a statement that is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

That fits here.

Continued here:
Claim that Evers brought Republicans and Democrats together on tax cut doesn't tell full story - PolitiFact

These promises seem to have worked. A recent focus group conducted by a Democratic polling firm showed that education was the top issue cited by Joe Biden supporters who had voted or considered voting for Mr. Youngkin. Participants referred to an array of complaints about education, including a sense that the focus on race and social justice in Virginias schools had gone too far, eclipsing core academic subjects. Similar charges echoed through the San Francisco school board election last month as Asian American voters, furious over changes to the admissions process at a highly selective high school, galvanized a movement to oust three school board members.

How can Democrats claw out of this bind? In the near term, they can remind voters that Republican efforts to limit what kids are taught in school will hurt students, no matter their background. The College Boards Advanced Placement program, for example, recently warned that it will remove the AP designation from courses when required topics are banned. Whatever the limitations of the AP program, students from all class backgrounds still use it to earn college credit and demonstrate engagement in rigorous coursework. Democrats could also take a page from Mr. Youngkins playbook and pledge, as he did, to invest more than has ever been invested in education, an issue that resonates across party lines.

But if Democrats want to stop bleeding working-class votes, they need to begin telling a different story about education and what schools can and cant do. For a generation, Democrats have framed a college degree as the main path to economic mobility, a foolproof way to expand the middle class. But now kids regularly emerge from college burdened with crushing student debt and struggling to find stable jobs. To these graduates and to their parents it is painfully obvious that degrees do not necessarily guarantee success. A generation ago, Mr. Clinton may have been able to make a convincing case that education could solve all peoples problems, but today Democrats risk irrelevance or worse by sticking with that tired mantra.

So, yes, strong schools are essential for the health and well-being of young people: Schools are where they gain confidence in themselves and build relationships with adults and with one another, where they learn about the world and begin to imagine life beyond their neighborhoods. But schools cant level a playing field marred by racial inequality and increasingly sharp class distinctions; to pretend otherwise is both bad policy and bad politics. Moreover, the idea that schools alone can foster equal opportunity is a dangerous form of magical thinking that not only justifies existing inequality but also exacerbates our political differences by pitting the winners in our economy against the losers.

Democrats can reclaim education as a winning issue. They might even be able to carve out some badly needed common ground, bridging the gap between those who have college degrees and those who dont by telling a more compelling story about why we have public education in this country. But that story must go beyond the scramble for social mobility if the party is to win back some of the working people it has lost over the past few decades.

Schools may not be able to solve inequality. But they can give young people a common set of social and civic values, as well as the kind of education that is valuable in its own right and not merely as a means to an end. We dont fund education with our tax dollars to wash our hands of whatever we might owe to the next generation. Instead, we do it to strengthen our communities by preparing students for the wide range of roles they will inevitably play as equal members of a democratic society.

Read more:
Opinion | If You Think Republicans Are Overplaying Schools, You Arent Paying Attention - The New York Times