Mediaboss Marketing

[Sun Gazette Newspapersprovides content to, but otherwise is unaffiliated with, InsideNoVa or Rappahannock Media LLC.]

Is it hip to be a Republican in Arlington again?

The Arlington County Republican Committee continues to see a resurgence in membership driven, perhaps counterintuitively, by the results of the 2020 national election.

Were close to 100 members, said Matthew Hurtt, communications chairman for the Arlington County Republican Committee.

Its a major increase since the start of the year, and a testament to excitement and enthusiasm that is happening here in Arlington, Hurtt said.

Being a party member involves paying dues and meeting other obligations. Under rules of the Republican Party of Virginia, the Arlington committee can have a maximum of 163 members, something still down the road but within the realm of possibility.

I dont think weve hit that limit [since sometime before] 1987, Hurtt said.

What happens if Republicans reach that magic number? They will start to have to hold elections to determine who gets to be a party member and who doesnt.

Thats how Scott McGeary entered the Arlington County Republican Committee in the early 1970s. He later rose to chair the committee, and currently serves as secretary of the Arlington Electoral Board.

McGeary said that, under the current leadership of party chair Andrew Loposser, there has been a boost in interest in GOP activities.

Loposser has seen us through a very challenging year, McGeary said, noting that most Republican gatherings since the onset of the pandemic had been forced into a virtual setting.

But not on June 29, when the Arlington GOP held its monthly meeting in person at Crystal City Sports Pub. About 75 people attended.

Order food, take care of your [wait] staff, Loposser exhorted at the start, expressing hope that the restaurant could become the partys meeting place for the next few months.

During the Trump era, the Arlington GOP splintered into factions and saw its share of the vote in Arlington plummet. The former president received less than 18 percent of the county vote in both 2016 and 2020, and his victory that first time energized county Democrats into further dominance in local politics.

The election of Joe Biden seems to have had the same motivating effect on Republicans as that of Trump did on Democrats the party is more cohesive and more focused on getting its message out.

Loposser and other local GOP leaders were even able to recruit contenders to take on Arlingtons four Democratic members in the Virginia House of Delegates, who made their debut at the June 29 meeting.

Weve got a lot of great candidates, Loposser said, although (left unsaid) was they face a decidedly uphill battle in November.

But hope springs eternal.

I dont think we realize how fantastic our message is were in a really good position, said Ed Monroe, the Republican nominee hoping to unseat Del. Rip Sullivan in the 48th District, which spans portions of Arlington and McLean.

More:
Post-Trump Republicans appear to be picking up tailwinds - Inside NoVA

WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) Members of Congress and advocates are pushing for the Biden administration to evacuate more than 18,000 Afghans, to keep a promise many service members made.

Lets show these Afghans, lets show the world, we have their backs, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said.Moulton says the U.S. needs to support Afghans who risked their lives to help Americans.

When guys like me asked Iraqis or Afghans to work for us, we said to them We have your backs,' Moulton said.

Moulton served and fought with Afghan allies. He is calling on the president to evacuate more than 18,000 Afghans, before finishing the military withdrawal.

It takes 800 days to get a special immigrant visa, and were going to be out of Afghanistan in 80 days, Moulton said.

Hussain Kazimi is one of many Afghans who served the troops as a translator. He fears for those still in his home country.

I feel and understand their situation, because the threat is real and they are in danger, Kazimi said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are voicing support for the thousands who say their lives are threatened by the Taliban.

This would be somebody who was beneficial and helpful to our troops. We should look at what we can do to be helpful to them, Rep. Fred Keller (R-Pa.) said.

Republicans like Keller and Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) are calling on the president to take action now.

The idea that we would abandon them would set a terrible precedent for the united states and our military moving forward. We must secure their safety before an entire pullout takes place, Meuser said.

Get the free WAVY News App, available for download in the App Store and Google Play, to stay up to date with all your local news, weather and sports, live newscasts and other live events.

Go here to read the rest:
Republicans and Democrats calling on Biden to save Afghan allies - WAVY.com

Opinion: There are parallels to the attack in Libya and the attack on the Capitol. But the GOP doesn't want an investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Capitol riot commission to study Jan. 6 blocked by Senate Republicans

Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan commission to study the U.S. Capitol riot in January. Partisanship was the reason Republicans opposed it.

Staff Video, USA TODAY

There are lots of similarities between the two horrific events.

Plenty of parallels.

And one glaring disparity: How Republicans in Congress reacted.

Each incident began when an angry, radicalized mob attacked a U.S. government compound.

The first happened in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.

The latest in Washington, D.C., in 2021.

In each instance it became clear right away that security measures at the facility under assault was inadequate.

It also was evident from the beginning that security personnel at both places performed heroically in defense of U.S. officials.

Still, four Americans died at Benghazi.

Likewise, four Americans died during the Capitol insurrection.

Five when you include Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who collapsed hours after having confronted rioters, during which he was sprayed with a chemical. The medical examiner later ruled that Sicknick suffered two strokes that were not caused by any chemical reaction, saying Sicknick died of natural causes but adding, All that transpired played a role in his condition.

Back in 2012 there was an immediate call for a congressional investigation into the Benghazi incident and both Democrats and Republicans agreed, establishing an inquiry under the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

But it wasnt the same for the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Republicans in the Senate actually blocked a bill designed to set up a bipartisan investigation.

With Benghazi, there wound up being at least 10 investigations, the majority conducted by Republicans in the House. They went on for four years, longer than Congressional investigations into 9/11 or the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Its different with the Jan. 6 insurrection. After Republicans in the Senate blocked a bill to investigate, the House decided to investigate on its own.

This time around, however, all but two Republicans in the House Reps. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Liz Cheney of Wyoming voted against setting up a committee to find out what happened onJan. 6.

All of Arizonas Republican representatives voted no.This would include Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar. You may recall that right-wing political activist Ali Alexander claimed that these two Arizona representatives worked with him to plan pro-Trump rallies, including the one that ended with an attack on the Capitol.

That kind of connection to the Capitol riot seems to be what Republicans are worried about. Theyfear the exposure of possiblelinks between the rioters and Republicans, and the implications that may have for former President Donald Trump.

Gladys Sicknick, the mother of Brian Sicknick, said of the Republicans who voted not to investigate the event, I just dont believe anybody could vote no, it doesnt make sense.

Sicknicks partner on the Capitol police, Sandra Garza, wrote an essay about the attack and the aftermath in which she said in part, I saw officers being brutalized and beaten, and protesters defying orders to stay back from entering the Capitol. All the while, I kept thinking, Where is the President? Why is it taking so long for the National Guard to arrive? Where is the cavalry!?

She added, As the months passed, my deep sadness turned to outright rage as I watched Republican members of Congress lie on TV and in remarks to reporters and constituents about what happened that day. Over and over they denied the monstrous acts committed by violent protesters.

For example, when Gosar called the Jan. 6 attackers peaceful patriots.

During the Benghazi hearings, Republicans were laser-focused on trying to place blame on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But after four years of investigations, most of them purely partisan affairs, they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on her part.

Republicans dont want anything close to that type of scrutiny on the Capitol attacks of Jan. 6. In fact, they dont seem to want any scrutiny at all.

Almost as if they know what will be found.

Almost as if I didnt have to use the word almost.

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

For more opinions content, please subscribe.

Original post:
Why Republicans fear an inquiry of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, our homeland Benghazi - The Arizona Republic

The conventional wisdom is that the Senate has to prove that it can work, and the test of its functioning is how much of Bidens spending Republicans endorse.

This is a distorted view of the Senates role, which shouldnt be to get on board a historic spending spree for which Biden won no mandate and which isnt justified by conditions in the country (its not true, for instance, that the nations infrastructure is crumbling).

Besides, if bipartisan spending is the test, the Senate just a few weeks ago passed a $200 billion China competition bill by a 68-32 vote. It used to be that $200 billion constituted a lot of money, but now it doesnt rate, not when theres $6 trillion on the table.

The infrastructure deal lurched from gloriously alive to dead when Biden explicitly linked its passage to the simultaneous passage of a reconciliation bill with the rest of the Democratic Partys spending priorities in it.

Then, it revived again when Biden walked this back, and promised a dual track for the two bills.

The fierce Republican insistence on these two tracks doesnt make much sense and amounts to asking Democrats to allow a decent interval before going ahead with the rest of their spendingDemocrats are going to try to pass a reconciliation whether the bipartisan deal passes or not.

At the end of the day, then, theres only one track: Democrats are going to spend as much money as they possibly can. The bipartisan deal might shave some money off the hard infrastructure priorities (according to Playbook, the White House says it doesnt want to double dip, on say, electric cars or broadband by getting some money for them in the deal and then getting yet more in the reconciliation bill). But the emphasis is going to blow out spending across the board.

The calculation of Republicans supporting the bill is that a significant bipartisan package can take some of the heat off of Sen. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema in their resistance to the filibuster.

A deal that passes and is signed into law will certainly be a feather in their caps, but its hard to believe theyd change their minds on the filibuster if the deal fell apart.

They are both so extensively and adamantly on the record in favor of the filibuster that a climb-down would be politically embarrassing and perilous. They may be sincere in believing that the filibuster is important institutionally to the Senate. But the politics also work by allowing them to brand themselves as a different breed of Democrat.

If they flip-flip on the filibuster, they release the brake on the left-most parts of the Democratic agenda and find themselves taking a lot of tough votes on priorities dear to the Democratic base.

Republicans supporting the deal also think that it will make passing the subsequent reconciliation bill harder. First, the parts of infrastructure that have the widest supportroads and bridgeswill be in the deal and not in the reconciliation bill. Second, the unwelcome tax increases excluded from the bipartisan deal will be in the reconciliation bill.

This isnt a crazy calculation, although its not clearly correct, either. The higher the top-line number is for the reconciliation bill, the harder it is to pass. By allowing Democrats to cleave off some of their spending into a bipartisan deal, the overall number for the reconciliation bill gets smaller. In other words, the bipartisan deal could make the partisan reconciliation easier rather than harder to pass.

If this is true, the deal is bipartisanship in the service of a partisan end.

It not as though Biden is fiscally prudent on all other fronts, except in this one area which he considers a particularly important national investment with unmistakable returns. No, hes universally profligate. His reckless spending on all fronts (except defense) makes it more imperative for Republicans to stake out a position in four-square opposition.

Its not as though the bipartisan bill is exemplary legislation, by the way. It resorts to all the usual Beltway gimmicks to create the pretense that its paid for, when its basically as irresponsible as the rest of the Biden spending.

Bipartisanship has its uses, but so does partisanship. Joe Biden wants to be known for his FDR- and LBJ-like government spending, believing that its the key to political success and to an enduring legacy. Fine. Let him and his party own it.

View original post here:
Opinion | Republicans Shouldnt Sign on to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal - POLITICO

GOP lawmakers want to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to include a voter ID requirement. The Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg is seen here in January. Mark Makela/Getty Images hide caption

GOP lawmakers want to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to include a voter ID requirement. The Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg is seen here in January.

Facing a veto on their sweeping plan to overhaul state election laws, Pennsylvania Republicans have set in motion a plan to circumvent the Democratic governor and create a mandatory voter ID requirement.

They aim to do it via an amendment to the state constitution a process that requires approval from the Legislature and subsequent victory on a statewide ballot measure.

Critics say it's a technique that Republicans appear increasingly willing to use as they clash with Gov. Tom Wolf over highly politicized issues such as voting and the pandemic.

"The Republicans don't want to go through the legislative process for their far-right wacky ideas because they know the governor will veto it," Democratic state Sen. Vincent Hughes said. "So now they're just going to change the constitution."

But GOP supporters of the tactic argue that approval by a majority of Pennsylvania voters would signal that an idea has merit.

"If that's a veto no matter what, that's why we have a constitutional amendment, to let the voters decide," said Republican Jake Corman, the Senate president pro tempore. "And they will ultimately make the final decision on whether there should be voter ID in Pennsylvania."

Still, Democrats see political gamesmanship. Hughes, who voted against the amendment when it passed the state Senate last week on near party lines, has served in the Legislature for decades. He said he has seen a lot of procedural tricks during his time in Harrisburg, but this one strikes him as a new development.

Constitutional amendments are relatively rare in Pennsylvania, in large part because passing them is time-consuming. They have to be approved in identical form by the Legislature in two consecutive two-year sessions, then go to voters for a referendum.

This year, though, the GOP has found success with this strategy. Last month, voters approved two Republican-sponsored amendments that gave lawmakers more authority and led to the end of Wolf's coronavirus emergency orders.

"It's clearly a pattern that has developed in the last year," Hughes said. "And where does it stop? If you take it to its end, is it: 'We want to name some roads and bridges and we're going to pass a constitutional amendment to call I-76 Joe Schmo's Highway'?"

Following the 2020 election, and in the wake of baseless claims of fraud by former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies, many GOP-controlled state legislatures have moved to enact new voter restrictions.

But in states such as Pennsylvania with Republican-led legislatures and Democratic governors the process has often been more combative.

In Michigan, for instance, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said she would veto any Republican proposal that included voting restrictions. In response, GOP leaders raised the possibility of initiating a voter petition drive to evade a veto.

In Pennsylvania, unfounded election fraud claims and top lawmakers' willingness to entertain them led to months of hearings none of which proved there was widespread fraud and resulted in a sweeping bill that would overhaul many aspects of the state's elections.

The measure includes bipartisan provisions, such as in-person early voting, but also others that Democrats maintain would disenfranchise voters, such as tighter deadlines for absentee ballot applications and a requirement that all voters present a form of ID. Wolf has promised to veto the bill, should it pass the Legislature.

So that has Republicans looking toward the constitutional amendment plan.

Republican Jake Corman, the state Senate president pro tempore, says recent polls appear to show that voters are on the same page as Republicans when it comes to voter ID. Matt Rourke/AP hide caption

The proposal's sponsors include top GOP caucus officials and more hard-line conservative members of the party, such as Sen. Doug Mastriano, one of Pennsylvania's loudest voices in favor of baselessly rejecting the 2020 presidential election results.

Corman, the highest-ranking lawmaker in the chamber and a key player in quietly shepherding the voter ID amendment to Senate approval, has his own connections to baseless election fraud claims. He signed a letter that his caucus sent to Congress just before the Jan. 6 election certification, urging a delay until Pennsylvania's vote could be further investigated.

Months later, sitting in his Harrisburg office as the amendment moved toward final Senate passage, he tried to distance himself from speculation about fraud without saying whether he believed there had been any in the 2020 election.

"Obviously you can't have a democracy if people don't believe in the integrity of the vote, and whether the last election was you know, we can argue that forever and I'm not taking a side on that my point is moving forward, we should put all the security in it," he said.

Corman added he believes that if a poll were taken, "You would get a percentage of people who didn't believe the last election came off the way it should. And whether that's accurate or not, having that large of a population not believe it is a problem."

The Senate's amendment is much more targeted than the larger election overhaul bill, concerning only the implementation of voter ID.

But on that issue, it's actually more restrictive. While the omnibus bill would allow several ID options beyond a state-issued driver's license or ID card, the amendment would only permit "valid government-issued identification" or, if a voter isn't casting a ballot in person, "proof" of that identification.

Corman noted that recent polls have appeared to show that voters are on the same page as Republicans when it comes to voter ID. This month, Franklin and Marshall College found that 74% of voters who answered a survey said they support photo identification at the polls.

"It's very popular in Pennsylvania," Corman said.

If both chambers agree to move the amendment and it makes it through all its legislative hurdles, the soonest it could go to voters for a referendum would be 2023.

This isn't Pennsylvania's first foray into voter ID. In 2012, with Republicans controlling the Legislature and the governor's office, they passed a bill requiring voters to present a state-issued driver's license or nondriver ID. It became known as one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country at the time. Then-House Majority Leader Mike Turzai bragged that the bill would secure a victory in Pennsylvania for Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential nominee that year.

The law wasn't in effect long. After being used in a primary election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court temporarily stopped its implementation ahead of the 2012 presidential vote, arguing the burdens it placed on voters could lead to disenfranchisement. To get a state ID, voters had to present a birth certificate, a Social Security card and two forms of documentation of their current residency.

A lower court judge ultimately found the law unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction. Under former GOP Gov. Tom Corbett, the state didn't appeal it.

For Marc Stier, director of the left-leaning Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, the current conversation has felt like dj vu.

As in 2012, he said, "What it will be is something that could make it more difficult for some people to vote."

Stier has a personal example: his mother-in-law, who died recently and had been living in a nursing home.

"She didn't have an ID anymore. She stopped driving a number of years ago. She didn't need a picture ID, so we didn't get one," he said. "She wouldn't be able to vote if she had to have a voter ID, and there are lots of older people like that."

Stier spoke from the Capitol steps recently, where a group rallied for an unrelated reason: pushing for lawmakers to put more federal pandemic relief money into education.

Kari Holmes, a reverend from Allentown who is involved with the interfaith group POWER, said the issues are intertwined.

"It's an old play in a very old playbook," she said. "We're talking about civil rights legislation that makes it so that people's voices can be heard. ... [For Republicans to] then turn around and make it so that that can't happen it makes it unquestionably obvious what you're doing."

A version of this story was first published by WHYY.

Read the rest here:
GOP Wants To Add Voter ID To The Pennsylvania Constitution - NPR