Mediaboss Marketing

The GOP is becoming the party of Andrew Jackson, and some conservatives arent happy about it.

Until recently, Jackson was a bit of a political free agent. Democrats, who once celebrated Jackson as one of their own and championed how he stood up for the common man, have almost entirely purged the seventh president from their list of honored figures. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb appears to be one of the handful of remaining holdouts, however, hes currently little more than a relic within his party.

Jacksons notoriety hit a low after the Treasury unceremoniously announced it would strip his visage from the front of the $20 bill in 2015, with few voices of protest. But Old Hickory has received a remarkable surge in interest since President Donald Trump began adopting Jackson as his model. Trumps Oval Office contains both a portrait and a statue of Jackson, and though Trump rarely demonstrated ideological convictions on the campaign trail, he has wholeheartedly embraced the legacy of the White Houses first Democrat.

So should Republicans and conservatives follow Trump and adopt Jackson as a model president? Not so fast, says National Review Editor-in-Chief Rich Lowry, who wrote in POLITICO that the GOP already has a perfectly acceptablenay, altogether superior19th century champion in the person of Abraham Lincoln.

Lowry noted that Jackson belongs in the pantheon of great Americans, but wrote that he should be left on the political party waiver wire now that Democrats have given him the boot; Lincolns model of personal responsibility and striving is a better fit as the cornerstone creed of the GOP. Jackson has too much baggage, according to Lowry. And besides, Lowry wrote, the Whig ethic was passed into the DNA of the Republican Party, since the partys founding, not Jacksonianism, and politics should stay that way.

Democrats have long wanted ownership of Lincoln, Lowry warned. And now the GOPs hold on the Great Emancipator is getting cross-pressured by [Trump].

While Lowry is correct that Lincoln rightfully has the most honored place in the history of the Republican Party, hes wrong about the need to jettison Jackson. Lincolns political creed could best be described as Hamiltonianafter Founding Father Alexander Hamiltonwhich political scientist Walter Russell Mead defined as being pro-business, for stable markets and promoting trade abroad.

However, both Hamiltonian and Jacksonian ideas were present and essential at the Republican Partys creation. And it so happens that in the modern political landscape they must once again work in tandem to correct each others shortcomings and create a dynamic governing creed.

A more thoroughly Jacksonian party would focus on: Peace through strength and reorienting foreign policy to focus on narrower American interests, better trade deals for the American people, preventing crony capitalism, curtailing the bloated and out-of-control administrative state, and returning policies decisions back to the states.

An infusion of Jacksonian ideas into the party of Lincoln will ultimately be a net positive, especially in a time when populist discontent is roiling the country and the West in general.

Jacksonian Origins of the Grand Old Party

Twitter was aglow with hot takes and pseudo-history after Trump suggested in a recent interview that had Jackson been a little later he could have possibly have prevented the Civil War. The statement brought howls of derision from the media who were quick to remind the American peopleafter a quick Google searchthat Jackson had, in fact, been dead for sixteen years when the war started, and he was a slave owner to boot.

Trump later tweeted that Jackson saw the war coming, was angry about it, and wouldnt let it happen.

Go here to read the rest:
The Republicans Should Be the Party of Lincolnand Jackson - The National Interest Online

Federal authorities on Thursday searched the offices of a political consulting firm in Annapolis that has worked with Republican candidates locally and nationwide and was sued in 2014 on allegations of fraudulent fundraising practices.

Strategic Campaign Group says it supports Republican candidates on a range of services including mail, fundraising and telephone town halls. Its leaders include GOP strategists Kelley Rogers, Chip ONeil and Dennis Whitfield.

The firm has close ties to Republican consultant Scott B. Mackenzie, a treasurer for multiple political action committees that have drawn scrutiny for spending little money on candidates and instead steering donations to consultants, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Rogers said in an interview that he helped lead one of those groups, the Conservative Strike Force.

On Thursday, six FBI agents showed up at the third-floor office of Strategic Campaign Group to gather computer files and documents related to the firms direct mail and fundraising practices, Rogers said. Lindsay Ram, a spokeswoman for the FBI field office in Washington, confirmed that agents were conducting law enforcement activity in Annapolis, off Main Street.

Rogers said agents appeared interested in work the firm did during Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinellis 2013 gubernatorial race. Cuccinelli (R) sued the Strategic Campaign Group and the Conservative Strike Force in 2014, alleging they raised almost $2.2million to support his campaign but steered little of that money to him.

Our suspicion is that this is just a carry-over from that, Rogers said. I think the facts speak for themselves, and we tried to give the agents all the information they could possibly need.

The Conservative Strike Force agreed to pay Cuccinelli $85,000 to settle the lawsuit, and Strategic Campaign Group said it would turn over donor information.

The Conservative Strike Force has paid Strategic Campaign Group at least $493,000 for services since 2011, according to federal records. Strategic Campaign Group also received at least $188,000 in that time period from the Conservative Majority Fund, another political action committee listing Mackenzie as its treasurer. Mackenzie did not return a voice mail seeking comment.

Both groups have spent a small portion of the donations they receive on the candidates they aim to support, according to federal records, and reported high spending on consultants and other firms.

The Federal Election Commission has been struggling for some time with the issue of political action committees that are formed solely to enrich those running them. Unlike nonprofits, which are governed by boards of directors, PACs can be run by a single consultant. And although candidates are prohibited under federal election law from using campaign donations for personal use, traditional political action committees and their super PAC brethren face few limitations on how they spend their funds.

Critics say scam PACs have proliferated in recent years, driven in part by the advent of big-money super PACs in the wake of the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. There has also been a surge in groups chasing small-dollar donors, often with misleading promises of how they plan to use those funds.

The Strategic Campaign Group has ties to Republicans in the Maryland state legislature, and Rogers has raised money for Gov. Larry Hogan (R), although Rogers said Thursday that federal agents did not appear interested in his local work.

In 2016, Strategic Campaign Group was paid by the campaigns of Maryland House Minority Leader Nicholaus R. Kipke (R-Anne Arundel) and GOP Maryland congressional candidates Patrick McDonough and Charles Faddis, state and federal records show. Kipke said Thursday that the state GOP House and Senate political operations would suspend work with the company until the investigation is resolved.

Strategic Campaign Group also worked to support Republican Kathy Szeligas unsuccessful 2016 campaign for a U.S. Senate seat.

Virginia Republicans, mostly state lawmakers, have sent the company more than $500,000 since 2009 for services including polling and robocalls, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

Alice Crites, Peter Hermann, Ann Marimow, Steven Rich, Elise Viebeck and Ovetta Wiggins contributed to this report.

View original post here:
FBI searches Republican political consulting firm in Annapolis - Washington Post

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey sent what was expected to be a relatively sleepy week in the nation's capital into a wild-eyed frenzy.

A succession of reports revealed a White House in chaos, Democratic indignation over Comey's ouster and Republican indignation over that indignation.

But the key concernon many minds is howthe federal government should move forward on an investigation intothe Russian cyberattack on last year's elections in this environment.

On Thursday, the Tribune asked all 38 members of the Texas congressional delegation the same questions we previously posed to them in February:

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

"Is Congress currently performing its appropriate oversight over the relationships between Russia and members of the Trump administration/transition/campaign and the potential ramifications on foreign policy? If not, what should Congress be doing that it currently is not?"

Once again,mostTexas Republicans declined to respond. Most Democrats did and argued that the only way to handle this dilemma is to kick an investigation to an outside special prosecutor or to create an independent commission like the 9/11 Commission that examined the failures of U.S. intelligence leading up to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

At the time of the previous survey, there was debateover whether House and Senate Intelligence Committees were capable of launching adequate investigations or whether the GOP leaders of those committees would even be willing to subpoena key players.

But in the weeks that followed,the congressional investigations did move forward,and the public learned a great deal as a result including that the FBI is investigating whether Trump associates had ties with Russian intelligence.

But even as those investigations picked up steam, there was drama and acknowledgments that the U.S. Congress lacksthe investigative manpower of the executive branch.

As the Comey firing came down on Tuesday afternoon, reports indicated the president believes that federal law enforcement officials at the the Department of Justice should be personally loyal to him,shining an even brighter spotlight on Congress' oversight role over the executive branch.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Several Texas Republicans who did respond to the Tribune's querycounseled to let the congressional committees complete their work, in a vote of confidence for the new lead House GOP investigator, U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway. The Midland Republican has done much to calm the waters with Democrats after U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes of California left that post in a storm of controversy.

But for the most part, Texas Republicans declined to weigh in on the issueconsuming Congress. But it is unlikely that this one will go away.

See more here:
Survey of Texas delegation finds few Republicans weighing in on Russia - Texas Tribune

Reporters question President Trump on Air Force One.

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Since 1985, the Pew Research Center has been asking American adults whether they support a watchdog role for the media. Specifically, its survey asks whether they believe that criticism from news organizations helps to hold political leaders accountable, or keeps our leaders from doing their jobs.

Over the years, respondents across the political spectrum have generally favored a critical press as an important check on politicians power. But the degree of that support has always varied somewhat between Democrats and Republicans, and the two parties stances have flip-flopped several times. These flip-flops are not random: Whichever party holds the presidency tends to hold a less favorable view of media criticism, while the party out of power rediscovers its thirst for hard-hitting investigations. Republicans were all for watchdog journalism during the Bill Clinton years, while Democrats tolerance for it dwindled. Then came George W. Bush, and Republicans lost their taste for media criticism while Democrats couldnt get enough of it.

During the Obama years, interestingly, the trend lines converged at last: A majority of both Republicans and Democrats agreed that a skeptical press was good for the country. As of last February, during the presidential primary campaign, 77 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Democrats held this view.

This week, Pew released its 2017 findings, and the results were strikingly differentand maybe troubling.

Democratic support for oppositional journalism rocketed to 89 percent in the survey conducted this March, breaking the previous record for either party by some 15 percentage points. At the same time, Republican support plummeted to 42 percent, near a record lowresulting in a 47-percentage-point partisan split. Previously, the largest gap between the parties in the surveys history was 28 percent, shortly after the re-election of George W. Bush.

In other words, Democrats and Republicans arent just more divided than ever in terms of where they get their news. Theyre more divided than ever on the fundamental role of the press, with 56 percent of Republicans now feeling that watchdog journalism does more harm than good.

Image courtesy of Pew Research

Since Trumps election, the parties have also grown farther apart on other key indicators, including trust in media and perceptions of media bias.

Image courtesy of Pew Research

Directionally, none of these trends are shocking. Anyone paying attention knows liberals have been devouring critical coverage of the Trump administration, and its understandable that the presidents Republican supporters would have less patience for the media frenzy. You could call either side hypocritical, but that misses the point. Intellectual consistency and tribalism are always in tension, and the latter is not unique to any political party.

Whats noteworthy here is the magnitude of the partisan split relative to the historical context. Its not like the past 32 years have all been smooth political sailing: the 1990s gave us the Clinton crazies, the 2000s Bush Derangement Syndrome. Yet when it comes to how the public viewed the media, those years look positively harmonious compared with the dawn of the Trump era.

The survey cant tell us whats driving the disparity, but two obvious culprits come to mind. First, Trump is a uniquely polarizing figure in presidential history, one whose very election was viewed by Democrats not merely as a defeat but as an unthinkable travesty that threatened the fabric of the republic. Trumps actions so far have done little to dispel that view.

At the same time, theres been a change in the tenor of both liberal and conservative media. Perhaps fueled in part by the race for online traffic and social media shares, partisan outlets that reside outside the mainstream have both grown in stature and become more shrill. Many liberal websites have come to consider themselves part of the anti-Trump resistance. Meanwhile, conservative outlets have taken up Trumps attacks on the media as a wholeremember, Trump and some of his aides consider the Fourth Estate the opposition partyencouraging their audiences to regard even the nations largest journalistic institutions as purveyors of fake news.

Conservative charges of liberal bias in the media arent new, of coursebut theres a real leap between spinning the news and making it up. The more Trump lies, and the more the media call Trump a liar, the harder it becomes to achieve any kind of bipartisan consensus on whats true and what isnt. That undermines the premise on which investigative journalism operatesthe premise that you can build a case for official wrongdoing based on factual evidence, whose fundamental truth must be acknowledged even by those who dislike the political implications.

That hasnt stopped the media from doing investigative journalism in the Trump era, of course. On the contrary, the national political press has shown more watchdog spirit over the past year than it has in a long time. As Politicos Jack Shafer put it: Trump is making journalism great again.

Yet observers have marveled at Trumps apparent imperviousness to an unceasing string of revelations that were widely viewed as potential career-enders. This survey offers a clue as to why that is: The majority of his supporters now view investigative news reports, not as an important check on presidential power, but as just another form of partisan attack.

You can read the full Pew Research report here.

See more here:
Republicans Used to Support a Watchdog Role for the Press. Not Anymore. - Slate Magazine (blog)

President Donald Trumps pick for U.S. trade representative has drawn sharp opposition from his own party, highlighting the Republican schism over free trade that erupted during the election.

Trumps nominee, Robert Lighthizer, argues that modern free trade orthodoxy doesnt have deep roots in the conservative movement, and faults so-called free traders within his party for being too dogmatic.

Those views may endear him with Rust Belt voters who sent Trump to the White House, but they are coming back to haunt him as he awaits confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska announced Wednesday they will not vote for Lighthizer who is a veteran trade lawyer and Reagan-era deputy trade representative in a rare break in party unity over a cabinet nominee.

So far, no other Republicans have said they will oppose Lighthizer, who passed the Senate Finance Committee last month on a unanimous vote. And he is still expected to win confirmation by the full Senate as soon as Thursday in part because many Democrats applaud his support of heavy industry and get-tough approach on China.

Still, the mini-mutiny over his confirmation underscores the split between the Republican establishment and its voters over an issue that was until recently considered party doctrine. And it may be a harbinger of broader revolt among congressional Republicans over Trumps protectionist shift. Trump is going to need congressional approval for any new or renegotiated trade deals unless he just pulls out altogether and farm state Republicans wont support shifts that hurt agricultural exports.

During the campaign, Republican voters support for free trade plummeted as Trump bashed the North American Free Trade Agreement and painted the United States as being outplayed by China and other trade partners.

Last October, just 29percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said free trade agreements have been good for the United States, down from 56percent a year and a half earlier, according to polling by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Support has rebounded somewhat since the election, with 36percent of Republicans viewing trade agreements positively in April, according to Pew.

But Democrats view trade agreements more favorably, with 67percent of Democrats and voters leaning Democratic saying free trade agreements have been good for the United States, up from 59 percent in October.

Regardless of the grassroots abdication of longtime party principles, McCain and Sasse are sticking to their guns. In pushing back against his confirmation, they cited Lighthizers vocal advocacy for protectionist policies and what they termed his failure to reassure lawmakers that he understood the economic benefits of NAFTA.

We fear that you do not have an appreciation for the millions of jobs created by this free trade deal, and that you would not champion agriculture, the senators wrote in a letter to Lighthizer that they released Wednesday.

They raised concerns about the administrations ongoing, incoherent, and inconsistent trade message and said it would be irresponsible to confirm Lighthizer under these circumstances. With its trade negotiator installed, the administration would have legal authority to negotiate trade deals that Congress must consider under accelerated procedures, they said.

Theres also the fact that Lighthizer singled out McCain, who had just won his partys nomination in the presidential race, in a 2008 op-ed published by the New York Times.

McCain, Lighthizer charged, was one of the Republican free traders who rely too often on the notion that we should change the country to suit their trade policy an approach that is not in the best traditions of American conservatism.

That also likely didnt sit well with McCain.

Photo credit: TASOS KATOPODIS/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

See original here:
Republican Opposition to Trump's Trade Pick Underscores GOP Divide Over Free Trade - Foreign Policy (blog)