Mediaboss Marketing

By Joshua J. Dyck, Francis T. Talty, Hannah Daly, Patrick Martin and Jasmine Polanco By Joshua J. Dyck, Francis T. Talty, Hannah Daly, Patrick Martin and Jasmine Polanco August 3 at 8:00 AM

Do Americans support basic democratic values? Themajor U.S. political parties have lately beenquestioningeach others commitment to the core principles like freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Whos right? We decided to check.

Heres how we did our research.

We designed a survey to test how much Americans consent to democratic values and tolerance. Democratic values are the fundamental aspects of government that all Americans, in theory, should support. They are those beliefs that support the central parts of constitutional design, including freedom of speech and expression, freedom of the press, judicial independence, separation of powers and checks and balances. Tolerance for the opinions of others has traditionally been defined as the protection of rights and liberties for members of an individuals least-liked group.

[Is democracy on the decline? Not as much as some pundits want you to believe]

The nationally representative survey of 1,000 American adults, supported by the Center for Public Opinionat the University of Massachusettsat Lowell, was conducted from June 27 to July 6 by YouGov.

Most Americans support democratic values, but both Republicans and Democrats doubt the other partys commitment to those values.

We find that overall consent, especially among partisans, is quite high, with a few caveats.But here are two notable findings: Democrats and Republicans arent confident about the others adherence to democratic values. And when we gave them examples, both groups were more likely to support freedom for their own side and less likely to support it for the other side.

Consider the answers to six questions about minority expression of rights, majority voting, free speech for all, due process/legal protections, expression of unpopular opinions and media censorship.

We found widespread majority and bipartisan support for these six values. Partisans whom were defining as those who identify with one party or the other, and those independents who say they lean toward one party or the other more strongly support democratic values than those who are entirely political independent. But then, political independents also tend to be less politically informedand therefore more likely to say dont know to survey questions.

[This survey finds warning signs for American democracy]

Democrats more strongly support two of these values minority expression and majority-rule voting than do Republicans, by 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

We also asked whether Democrats and Republicans would uphold core components of the democratic creed no matter what or whether they were unlikely to defend them if not in their interest.

Large majorities of both groups see members of their own party as defenders of free speech, press, religion, assembly, separation of powers and due process rights and simultaneously say the opposing party wouldnt support democratic values if it would contradict their interests. For instance, on the question of freedom of the press, 80 percent of Democrats say their party will defend that principle no matter what but only 28 percent say the same of Republicans. Meanwhile, 72 percent of Republicans say that others in their partywill defend the freedom of the press no matter what but only 28 percent of them say the same of Democrats.

So do Democrats and Republicans actually support those values equally for those they like and dislike?

We presented a control group with questions about four circumstances: 1) whether colleges should allow controversial speakers to speak on campus; 2) whether a sitting president should openly criticize members of the judicial branch; 3) whether a group that uses derogatory language at a rally should lose the right to protest; and 4) whether elected officials should be able to compel journalists to name their sources.

For another two groups, we varied the wording of each question in two ways. On allowing controversial speakers on college campuses, we asked either about controversial speakers like conservative activist Ann Coulter or liberal activist Michael Moore. On presidential criticism of the judicial branch, we gave an introduction that referred either to Donald Trumps criticism of judges or Barack Obamas criticism of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision. On groups losing their right to protest, we referred to the group as either members of Black Lives Matter or the Alt-Right. And finally, on journalists ability to protect their sources, we asked this question in the context of whether it was the Trump administration or the Obama administration. (You can find our experiment wording and results here.)

[Both Democrats and Republicans care about states rights when it suits them]

We discovered several interesting patterns in these experiments. First, even in the control group, these issues are already clearly politicized. About half of Democrats and Republicans think that there are legitimate reasons colleges might prohibit speeches on campus. On the other three issues,Democrats were more likely than Republicans to saya sitting president should not criticize judges; that there is an absolute right to freedom of assembly; andthat journalists should beabletoprotect theirsources.These differences likely reflect baked-in responses to current events.

In the other two groups, when presented with information cues, partisans react in predictable ways. Identifying Ann Coulter as the controversial speaker on college campuses increased Republicans support for her right to speak by 19 points, when compared to the control group; identifying Michael Moore as the speaker increased Democrats support by 10 points. For presidential criticism of the judicial branch, 74 percent of Democrats said such criticism is appropriate if told Obama was the president criticizing the Citizens United decision, while only 22 percent thought so if Trump were criticizing judges individually; only 30 percent of Republicans supported criticism of the judicial branch if the president mentioned was Obama, while 47 percent did if it was Trump.

Meanwhile,10 percent more Democrats say they support freedom of assembly if the group identified is Black Lives Matter compared to the control, while 11 percent more Republicans say they support freedom of assembly if told the group is the alt-right. Finally, 16 percent more Democrats say they support journalists right to protect anonymous sources if told that Trump is pushing to find out sources, while 29 percent more Republicans support this right if told Obama is forcing journalists to reveal sources.

Supporters of both parties say they recognize the importance of democratic values. But both sides find it easier to support those values when its their side and harder when its the other side under threat.

Joshua J. Dyck is associate professor of political science and co-director of the Center for Public Opinionat the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

Francis T. Talty is assistant dean in the College of Fine Arts, Humanities and Social Science and co-director of the Center for Public Opinionat the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

Hannah Daly, Patrick Martin and Jasmine Polanco are seniors majoring in political science atUniversity of Massachusetts, Lowell.

See more here:
Republicans and Democrats both say they support democratic freedoms but that the other side doesn't - Washington Post

Washington Examiner

Hispanic Republicans see political peril in Trump immigration plan Sacramento Bee But after the White House this week threw its support behind a proposal that would drastically reduce legal immigration, Latino Republicans are warning anew about the political perils of Trump's hardline position for him, and for the rest of the party. Senate Republicans not sure about Trump-backed immigration billWashington Examiner Republicans are trying to have it both ways on immigrationHouston Chronicle President Trump Backs Republican Plan to Curb Legal Immigration With Skills-Based SystemKTLA all 752 news articles »

Original post:
Hispanic Republicans see political peril in Trump immigration plan - Sacramento Bee

President Donald Trumps immigration agenda is finally taking shape, and some Republicans arent too happy with the announced plansafter months of the GOP endorsing the White Houses most controversial proposals, from a border wall to a big increase in detention and deportations.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham warned the president the merit-based immigration plan he supports, which would cut in half legal immigration into the U.S. over the next decade and effectively favor green card applicants who display skills in language and education, would spell disaster for South Carolina.

Related: Heres how Donald Trump could actually be impeached

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

After dealing with this issue for more than a decade, I know that when you restrict legal labor to employers it incentivizes cheating,Graham said in a statement.

The RAISE Act was announced Tuesday afternoon by Trump and the two Republican senators who created the proposal, Tom Cotton and David Perdue. Since then, its received blowback from numerous Democratic lawmakers and a number of Republicans like Graham, who says the bill would put the service industry in peril.

South Carolinas No.1 industry is agriculture, and tourism is No. 2. If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our states economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce,Graham said. South Carolinas agriculture and tourism industry advertise for American workers and want to fill open positions with American workers. Unfortunately, many of these advertised positions go unfilled. Hotels, restaurants, golf courses and farmers will tell you this proposalto cut legal immigration in halfwould put their business in peril.

Senator Tim Scott, another South Carolina Republican, expressed the need to fix our broken illegal immigration problemin a statement following the RAISE Acts introduction but also expressed his support for continuing to encourage the legal process,noting its positive effects on the labor force.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune echoed concerns about a reduction in the labor workforce in an interview with the Washington Examiner Tuesday. If we get on immigration, there will be a lot of different perspectives on that.... We have workforce needs, and some of those are filled by the immigrant labor supply.

Trumps promised rollback of immigration into the U.S., one he made clear on day one of his presidential campaign, was a critical component to his election victory.

The sentiments he expressed along the campaign trailsaying during his campaign announcement, When Mexico sends its people, they arent sending their best,claiming immigrants steal jobs from Americans, when statistics reveal otherwisestruck a nerve among the GOP and its supporters, with polls showing 82 percent of Republicans supported Trumps executive order restricting travel from several Muslim-majority nations.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers,Trump tweeted Tuesday.

Go here to read the rest:
Republicans Tell Trump: Your Immigration Agenda Leads to More Illegal Immigration - Newsweek

**Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.**

On the roster: New Deal Republicans - Ill Tell You What:Together again - Trump told Mexican prez wall was about politics - Inside the McMaster-Bannon war - Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit

NEW DEAL REPUBLICANS President Trumptoday travels to the very heart of his coalition as he heads to Huntington, W. Va.

He is also traveling to the center of one of the poorest regions of the country.

Southern West Virginia, Southeastern Ohio and Eastern Kentucky have had hard times for so long that fighting poverty there has become a fixture of presidential politics.

Trumps promise differs from some of his predecessors in that he is promising to create jobs by aiding employers rather than by offering new government programs, but his political lineage in this trip stretches back almost 90 years.

BeforeBill Clintonoffered hope, beforeLyndon Johnsondeclared war on poverty, beforeJohn Kennedypromised residents of the region help me, and I will help you, this was ground zero forFranklin Roosevelts New Deal.

As Trump heads into Central Appalachia, he is punctuating one of the most remarkable pivots in American politics of the past 50 years: The Republican inheritance of Roosevelts New Deal coalition.

Conservative Republicans have tended to be very unhappy about Trumps policies. He favors activist government in many cases and rejects long-held views on the right about entitlements and welfare.

But it should not surprise members of Trumps adopted party that as they have absorbed the descendants of the longtime Democratic core, the GOP would look different, too.

Trumps critics on the left often marvel that so many people from so many poor regions of the country have embraced Trump. Much of the analysis has suggested that the rich man from New York is exploiting racism and cultural anxiety to convince downscale voters to cast ballots against their own economic self-interest.

When Trump is done rallying his supporters in Huntington, he will set off for an extended vacationat his ritzy country club in New Jersey. Some populist, they will say.

The same tastemakers presumably find nothing so jarring as the idea of patrician Roosevelt summering in his New York estate, wintering in Georgia and living an upper-crust life while his fellow Americans waited in breadlines.

Economists still disagree about whether Roosevelts policies were effective in combating the Great Depression or whether they actually made it worse. One could certainly argue that the residents of central Appalachia who voted four times for FDR were voting against their own economic interests, too.

Historians, on the other hand, are not divided on Roosevelts political accomplishments. Downtrodden voters were drawn to the swagger and confidence of a child of privilege who overcame adversity and convinced his fellow Americans to be brave in the face of economic collapse and then a war that threatened the very existence of the nation.

Now, Trump is no FDR. But it does not take much discernment to see why the grandchildren of Roosevelts voters are now backing Trump with the kind of fervor we have not seen in the region for any candidate in decades.

He promises hope, economic restoration and, most of all, the return of pride for people who have a strong tendency to think even less of themselves than their countrymen do.

It is convenient for people unfamiliar with the region to correlate support for Trump with racism or xenophobia. But that gives too little credit to voters who, after being neglected for so long, finally feel they have a champion.

The reversal of the two major partys coalitions continues, as Republicans become the party of working-class white voters and Democrats seek to expand with more affluent, college-educated suburbanites. And so the politics of both parties will continue to change.

A populist electoral base for Republicans, will produce more populist policies. Maybe it wont happen in this Congress, but it is not unreasonable to think that the party that inherited the New Deal coalition from the Democrats will embrace the same combination of social conservatism and governmental activism that was the core of the Democratic Party for years.

Democrats are wrestling with the question of how willing they are to reach out to voters Republicans are leaving behind in their move to cater to voters in places like Southern West Virginia. It may prove harder for liberal Democrats to reach out to fiscally conservative, socially indifferent suburbanites then it has been for Republicans to raid the neglected former Democratic base.

Whatever shape it takes, however, the political inversion of our era may well end up being just as profound as the one Roosevelt ushered in in 1932.

THE RULEBOOK: PICK YOURSELF UP, DUST YOURSELF OFF Whatever efficacy the union may have had in ordinary cases, it appears that the moment a cause of difference sprang up, capable of trying its strength, it failed. Alexander HamiltonandJames Madison,Federalist No. 19 TIME OUT: TEAM OF RIVALS Paris Review: Once a famous beauty, by the late 1950sDagmar Godowskyfound herself subsisting on caviar, cake, and tales of the past. Typecast as a vamp in the silent-screen era of the early 1920s, she had hissed her way through a thousand scenes. It was her storytelling that luredSandford Dody.A struggling playwright, Dody became witness to Dagmars spiel one night at a party.In a remarkable error of judgment that launched an entire, regrettable career, Dody offered to ghostwrite Dagmars autobiography an endeavor that, he was sure, would be both profitable and easy. It was neither. Published asFirst Person Pluralin 1958, the memoir takes us from the present day into her childhood, and then back, replete with cameos from the Fitzgeralds,Dorothy Parker,Adolf Hitler, EmperorFranz Josef, and just about all of golden-era Hollywood.

Flag on the play? -Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMwith your tips, comments or questions.

SCOREBOARD Trump net job-approval rating:-19.8 points Change from one week ago:down 1.8 points

[President Trumps score is determined by subtracting his average job disapproval rating inthe five most recent, methodologically sound public polls from his average approval rating, calculated in the same fashion.]

ILL TELL YOU WHAT:TOGETHER AGAIN In this edition of I'll Tell You What,Dana PerinoandChris Stirewaltrun through General Kellys first week as White House Chief of Staff, break down the new immigration policy and the duo takes a look at the I'll Tell You What mailbag. Plus, in a shocking turn Dana and Chris find common ground on country music. Yee-haw! LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE HERE

TRUMP TOLD MEXICAN PREZ WALL WAS ABOUT POLITICS WaPo:President Trumpmade building a wall along the southern U.S. border and forcing Mexico to pay for it core pledges of his campaign. But in his first White House call with Mexicos president, Trump described his vow to charge Mexico as a growing political problem, pressuring the Mexican leader to stop saying publicly that his government would never pay. You cannot say that to the press, Trump said repeatedly, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call obtained by The Washington Post. Trump made clear that he realized the funding would have to come from other sources but threatened to cut off contact if Mexican PresidentEnrique Pea Nietocontinued to make defiant statements. He described the wall as the least important thingwe are talking about, but politically this might be the most important. The heated exchange came during back-to-back days of calls that Trump held with foreign leaders a week after taking office. The Post has obtained transcripts of Trumps talks with Pea Nieto and Australian Prime MinisterMalcolm Turnbull.

INSIDE THE MCMASTER-BANNON WAR Weekly Standard: GeneralJohn Kellymay be trying to institute military-style discipline in the West Wing, but that hasnt put a stop to the civil war happening over President Donald Trumps National Security Council. If anything, the dawning of the Kelly era may have accelerated that war. The national security adviser,H.R. McMaster, has removed three NSC aides loyal to Trump aideSteve Bannonin the last three weeks. Bannon allies inside and outside the administration have fired back, starting rumors that McMaster is on his way out the door and documenting the Army generals deviations from President Trump. The latest move against Bannonites came Wednesday when McMaster fired the NSCs senior director for intelligence,Ezra Cohen-Watnick. McMasters previous attempt to remove Cohen-Watnick from the staff had been blocked by Bannon and Trump himself. Meanwhile, Bannons allies outside the White House are trying to put the squeeze on McMaster. On Wednesday, radio hostLaura Ingrahamtweeteda months-old article from theNew York Timesabout McMasters break with the administration on Islam.

Trump reportedly fumed to generals over losing Afghan war -NBC News:President Donald Trump has become increasingly frustrated with his advisers tasked with crafting a new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and recently suggested firing the war's top military commander during a tense meeting at the White House, according to senior administration officials. During the July 19 meeting, Trump repeatedly suggested that Defense SecretaryJames Mattisand Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.Joseph Dunfordreplace Gen.John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. forces inAfghanistan, because he is not winning the war, the officials said. Trump has not met Nicholson, and the Pentagon has been considering extending his time in Afghanistan. Over nearly two hours in the situation room, according to the officials, Trump complained about NATO allies, inquired about the United States getting a piece of Afghans mineral wealth and repeatedly said the top U.S. general there should be fired.

Trump considering Perry for Homeland Security -Bloomberg: Energy Secretary Rick Perryis among the candidates being considered to replaceJohn Kellyat theDepartment of Homeland Security, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. White House officials are considering others for the position, the people said. They asked not to be identified discussing a personnel matter. Its not clear Perry even wants the job. Secretary Perry is focused on the important mission of the Department of Energy. Hes honored to be mentioned, but he loves what hes doing, saidRobert Haus, director of public affairs at the department.

Report: Kelly called Sessions to say job is safe-AP: New White House chief of staff John Kelly, in one of his first acts in his new post, called Attorney GeneralJeff Sessionsto reassure him that his position was safe despite the recent onslaught of criticism he has taken from President Donald Trump. Kelly called Sessions on Saturday to stress that the White House was supportive of his work and wanted him to continue his job, according to two people familiar with the call. The people demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about a private conversation. Kelly, who was appointed to the post the day before, described the president as still miffed at Sessions but did not plan to fire him or hope he would resign.

TRUMP OUTPACES PREDECESSORS ON JUDGES Fox News:President Trump has outpaced his immediate predecessors when it comes to having his choices for federal judgeships confirmed. The Senate this week approved a fifth Trump nominee, placing Trump on a faster pace for approvals than either PresidentBarack Obamaor PresidentGeorge W. Bush. Most recently, Alabama lawyerKevin Christopher Newsomwas confirmed to a seat on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 66-31 vote, with 16 Democrats joining the GOP on the affirmative side,the Washington Times reported. Newsom was the third Trump pick for circuit judge to be approved so far. Combined with one district judge and the Supreme Court appointment ofNeil Gorsuch, the Trump administration and the Republican-led Senate are well ahead of the normal pace for judicial approvals. Obama had no judges confirmed during his first six months at the White House Bush didnt have three picks confirmed until August of his first term.

GOP clash looms over debt ceiling hike-Politico: Republican congressional leaders are quietly preparing to pass a clean debt ceiling increase, according to multiple senior GOP sources setting the stage for a high-risk showdown with rank-and-file Republicans this fall. Trump administration officials, led by Treasury SecretarySteven Mnuchin, are imploring Congress to raise the $19.8 trillion debt limit with no strings attached by the end of September. And Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnelland SpeakerPaul Ryan well aware they need Democrats to pass any debt bill through the Senate are on board, albeit begrudgingly so. But beyond the leadership, there are few Republican takers, at least so far.

Lawyers, lawmakers leave Trump admin in limbo on Obamacare subsidies-Politico: President Donald Trump has told advisers repeatedly he wants to end Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies that are crucial to the marketplaces continuing to work, and he has publicly said it would make sense to blow up the system, put the blame on the Democrats and force a negotiation. But after the inability of Republicans in Congress to repeal and replace the law, the White House is not expected to immediately end the subsidies, officials said, even as Trump stews in the legislative defeat. And they could remain in place indefinitely, some officials said.

TRUMP AGREES WITH MEDVEDEV: ITS CONGRESS FAULT Fox News:President Trump on Thursday accused Congress of bringing relations with Russia to an all-time & very dangerous low after sending him a sanctions bill which he reluctantly signed a day earlier legislation that prompted a furious response from Russias prime minister. Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank Congress, the same people that can't even give us HCare! Trump tweeted. The accusation came after Trump signed the sweeping package of sanctions, which had passed both houses of Congress with a veto-proof majority. In signing the bill, Trump issued a written statement complaining that Congress was overstepping its constitutional bounds and impeding his ability to negotiate with foreign countries. The sanctions were answered with a stinging rebuke by Prime MinisterDmitry Medvedev.He tweeted that the administration had shown total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way.

Bipartisan bill would protect Mueller -CBS News: Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are moving to protect Special CounselRobert Mueller's job, putting forth legislation that aims to ensure the integrity of current and future independent investigations. Republican Sen.Thom Tillisof North Carolina and Democratic Sen.Chris Coonsof Delaware plan to introduce the legislation [today]. The bill would allow any special counsel for the Department of Justice to challenge his or her removal in court, with a review by a three-judge panel within 14 days of the challenge. The Tillis and Coons bill would allow review after the special counsel had been dismissed. If the panel found there was no good cause for the counsel's removal, the person would be immediately reinstated.

The Judges Ruling: Above the law? Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst JudgeAndrew Napolitanoraises questions about the way Congress and the rest of the federal government stretches the Constitution to facilitate mass surveillance: What if a basic principle of constitutional law is that Congress is subject to the Constitution and therefore cannot change its terms or their meanings? Morehere.

PLAY-BY-PLAY Sen. Capitos West Virginia office vandalized-WDTV Former Rep.Michael GrimmR-N.Y. reportedly considering post-scandal comeback-The Hill

2018 map favors Dems on governor races-Center for Politics

AUDIBLE: (it wasnt) I didn't dump the nachos on him or anything, which was an option. Gov.Chris Christiesaidabout confronting the Chicago Cubs fan who heckled him at a game.

FROM THE BLEACHERS I was reading an article today about all of the spending cuts President Trump proposed in his recent budget - followed by notations on how much Congress actually increased spending for many of the departments, regardless of what the President requested. Since all of the department heads are nominated by Trump and I presume serve at his pleasure - what's to stop him from telling them he only wants them to spend the amount he proposed in his budget - and nothing more? I wouldn't think Congress can force department heads to spend what Congress allocates, but since they report to the President I would think he could force them to not spend it? (Otherwise, You're Fired). I'm sure I'm missing something - and you will let me know. Steve Gingras,Orefield, Pa. [Ed. note: Certainly youre quite right, Mr. Gingras. There is no law that says departments must spend all that is allocated to them. But, Congress has more to say about how administrative agencies carry out their duties. Congressional oversight is all about the money. When agencies do not act in accordance with their congressional mandates, lawmakers can do more than just drag department chiefs to the Hill for hearings, they can cut off other money for programs or issue new directives. Yes, the president can veto legislation, but that could end up being politically quite costly and time consuming. When it comes to spending, the legislative branch reigns supreme in our system of separated powers. But it would be fun to see what would happen in your scenario!] Re Trump referring to the White House as a dump, while he may have been facetious it was close to being literally true whenPresident Trumantook office. He once wrote in a letter to his sister: The engineer said that the ceiling in the state dining room only stayed up from force of habit! One summer's day in 1948, a leg on the piano that the Trumans moved into the White House for their daughter Margaret fell through the floor of her room. Such was the disarray that the present White House's entire interior had to be rebuilt and was expanded over four years of the Truman presidency. Bob Foys, Chicago [Ed. note: Great point, Mr. Foys! Trumans remaking of the White House, particularly the addition of the balcony on which we are now so accustomed to seeing presidents and their families smiling and waving, was a big deal indeed. We owe the Palladian design of the building to Irish architectJames Hoban, who got the gig afterGeorge Washingtonsaw his work at the court house in Charleston, S.C. We owe the interior design style to Francophile PresidentJames Monroe. But Truman certainly gets credit for being the one to refashion the building as what it is now: The most important office building in the world, with rooms upstairs for the boss and his family.]

This, I'm sure has no reality to it but it stays in my mind just the same. My fantasy scenario begins with the President calling an old friend. Hey buddy, I need a big favor. Can you spare two weeks of your precious time to come down and shake up the troopsin the West Wing and maybe get rid of some dead woodthat's not performing well? I'll make it worth your while and will even give you a title.Its only for two weeks, tops, promise Manny Lekkas,Winston-Salem, N.C.

[Ed. note: And with that, the Mooch slipped back on his sunglasses and left town]

Can you recommend a good biography on President Coolidge? Bill Hodges,Oakland, Calif.

[Ed. note:That is an easy one, Mr. Hodges!Amity Shlaes 2013 Coolidge is truly wonderful. The book does a fantastic job of dealing with Coolidges presidency and policies, but also fitting that into the life story and character of the man himself. It has taken almost a century for the quiet heroism of the 30thpresident to come into full relief.]

Share your color commentary:Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COMand please make sure to include your name and hometown.

ONCE YOU LEARN TO QUIT, IT BECOMES A HABIT WLUK: The Green Bay middle school named for the most famous Green Bay Packers coach wont offer football this season. I was really looking forward to playing for them this season, saidAlex Coniff, an 8th grade student at Lombardi Middle School. It makes me mad that they don't have them, but I can still play football, so thats good. Coniff estimates Lombardi had about 55 students on its two football teams last season. In a letter to parents, Lombardi principalJim Van Abelwrites the school had been advertising coaching vacancies since last April and have not had anyone apply to the positions. He also writes with the time it takes to hire quality people, interviews, reference, and background checks, the school has simply run out of time. AND NOW, A WORD FROM CHARLES We should be doing what Canada and Australia are doing and cashing in on the fact that the world wants to come in. This is so obvious it's almost amazing we haven't done this. And that I think is the core of the issue. CharlesKrauthammeron Special Report withBretBaier.

Chris Stirewaltis the politics editor for Fox News.Brianna McClellandcontributed to this report. Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign uphere.

Chris Stirewalt joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in July of 2010 and serves as politics editor based in Washington, D.C. Additionally, he authors the daily Fox News Halftime Report political news note and co-hosts the hit podcast, Perino & Stirewalt: I'll Tell You What. He also is the host of Power Play, a feature video series on FoxNews.com. Stirewalt makes frequent appearances on network programs, including Americas Newsroom, Special Report with Bret Baier and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He also provides expert political analysis for FNCs coverage of state, congressional and presidential elections.

See the original post:
New Deal Republicans - Fox News

Photo Credit Linda Huang

Something unusual and important is happening in Congress: Republicans and Democrats are working together to improve the health care system. And theyre doing so in defiance of President Trump, who appears determined to sabotage the Affordable Care Act and the health insurance of millions of people.

This surprising if modest burst of bipartisanship comes just days after the Senate failed to pass a Republican bill to repeal important provisions of the A.C.A., or Obamacare. On Monday 43 members of the House outlined a proposal to strengthen the insurance marketplaces created by the 2010 law. On Tuesday Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said they would hold hearings and introduce a bill to cut premiums and encourage insurers to sell policies on the marketplaces for 2018.

It is, of course, impossible to know if such efforts will succeed. Even if they result in legislation, Republican leaders could refuse to bring it to the floor for a vote. Having treated Obamacare as a political piata for seven years, Republicans might find it hard to actually help the program. Another danger is that Mr. Trump and his health and human services secretary, Tom Price, could try to pre-emptively weaken the marketplaces through administrative measures. Still, its good to see politicians actually doing their jobs. The sight of members of both parties working together in the public interest is uplifting, especially after the long partisan campaign to take insurance away from so many Americans.

Contrary to Mr. Trumps tweets, Obamacare is not collapsing. But it needs work, and some insurance markets are in trouble. Insurers have said they will no longer sell policies in 20 counties in Indiana, Nevada and Ohio, and many are proposing to raise premiums because of the uncertainty created by Mr. Trumps threats. Experts say insurers could withdraw from even more counties, especially in rural and suburban areas, if the president sabotages the law.

The biggest fear, one shared by Mr. Alexander and Ms. Murray, is that Mr. Trump will stop subsidies authorized by the A.C.A. to make health care affordable to low-income people. The government pays these subsidies, about $7 billion this year, to insurance companies every month. In exchange, the companies reduce the deductibles and co-pays for people who earn between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty line, or $12,060 to $30,150 a year for a single person.

Read more here:
Capitol Shocker: Democrats and Republicans Start Working Together on Health Care - New York Times