Mediaboss Marketing

As Trump throws wild, flimsy shots at American institutions, who other than Ben Sasse will stand up to him?

The day Donald Trump took office, I wrote a column arguing that what was new and frightening here was that he had no reverence for the civic and governmental institutions of this country. This had never been true of a president before, at least in the modern era. George W. Bushs administration twisted facts to get their war in Iraq. But even Dick Cheney understood that it had to appear as if everything was above board, as if the intelligence agencies were arriving at their conclusions independently.

Trump and the people advising him just dont care. He is interested in our institutions only insofar as they can be used to help Trump. And the flip side was on display this weekend in his reckless Saturday morning tweets about Barack Obama. Hell say anything about anyone without giving the slightest thought to how those words might damage these institutions and demoralize the people within them.

Because not only did he accuse Obama of something terrible and illegal, with no evidence to support the charge, but he also accused the law-enforcement and intelligence communities of colluding with the outgoing president to do something obviously illegal. Only a person with no respect for any of those institutions could make such a charge.

But its time now to focus not only on Trump and his psyche (although just quickly, before I turn away from that topic, I have to note that the most plausible theory I heard all weekend about why Trump did what he did was the hypothesis that he was miffed that the Obamas got that joint $65 million book advance; thats just so Trump in every way).

But lets talk about the Republicans.

When will they stand up to this guy? With one lone exception that I saw, most Republicans responses over the weekend were pathetically weak. Lets start with this especially lame one, from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. After saying he knew of no evidence to support Trumps claim, it must have struck him that someone in the White House might get mad at him, because he added: It doesnt mean that none of these things have happened, just means I havent seen them yet. Ah. Thanks for that, Tom.

Others sounded less pliant but substantively were little better. Lindsey Graham has built up a lot of cred in this department, and understandably so, because hes been a pretty tough Trump critic at times. But this, at a town hall over the weekend, where he obviously didnt want to face a chorus of catcalls, was from weaseltown: Im very worried that our president is suggesting the former president has done something illegal. Id be very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments. Its my job as United States senator to get to the bottom of this.

No, its your job to say that unless he has evidence that he is ready adduce yesterday, a president of the United States has no business saying anything like this.

And heres erstwhile stand-up comic Marco Rubio: Ive never heard that before. And I have no evidence or no ones ever presented anything to me that indicates anything like that But again, the president put that out there, and now the White House will have to answer as to exactly what he was referring to.

The lamest of all was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, who vowed to look into Trumps claims. Yes, this is the same Devin Nunes who said recently that his committee will not look into any claims that Trump may have spoken with former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn about the latters contacts with Russia. Likewise, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said that while hed seen no evidence to support Trumps claim (thats the part of his comments that was more widely picked up), he also added that his committee would take a hard look at Trumps allegations.

The only statement by a Republican that was even somewhat informed by principle was the one issued by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse. He used far sharper rhetoric than any of his colleagues to put the onus on Trump to deliver some proof: The president today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic requires deserve more attention. He demanded that if there was a court order authorizing a wiretap of Trump, the president obtain and copy of it and show it to the public or at least to the Senate.

Sasse is getting plaudits for saying what he said, and yes, comparatively speaking, he was a veritable Cincinnatus here. But its pretty pathetic that his statement stood out. What Trump did here was unbelievable. What will he say next about somebody, on the basis of no evidence? Obama is a former president who has millions of people who adore him and will have his back. But what will happen when Trumpthe president of the United States, the most powerful man in the worldsays something unsubstantiated about a judge, or a civil-liberties or immigration lawyer, or a journalist, or who knows, any citizen who gets on his bad side?

This is what despots do. In the olden days, when a despot said X committed a crime, poor X was usually led away to the stockade. That cant happen here today. We think. Or can it? If Republicans dont take a standnot in defense of Obama, but in defense of our civic institutions and normswe may yet find out.

Continue reading here:
Republicans Just Watch as Donald Trump Goes Wild - Daily Beast

It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Partys leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this countrys political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing.

U.S. intelligence services have stated that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the intention of swinging it to one side. Knowing how cautious the intelligence community is in making such judgments, and given the significance of this particular finding, the evidence must be compelling. At the very least, any reasonable person would have to conclude that there is enough evidence to warrant a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation. Polls suggest that a majority of Americans would like to see such an investigation carried out.

Its important at this time of intense political conflict to remain focused on the most critical issue. Whether certain individuals met with Russian officials, and whether those meetings were significant, is secondary and can eventually be sorted out. The most important question concerns Russias ability to manipulate U.S. elections. That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere in the United States electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers. Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S. elections, it can shake that system to its foundations.

The United States has not been the only victim. The argument by at least one former Obama administration official and others that last years interference was understandable payback for past American policies is undermined by the fact that Russia is also interfering in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italys recent referendum and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions.

The democracies are going to have to figure out how to respond. With U.S. congressional elections just 20 months away, it is essential to get a full picture of what the Russians did do and can do here, and soon. The longer the American people remain in the dark about Russian manipulations, the longer they will remain vulnerable to them. The longer Congress fails to inform itself, the longer it will be before it can take steps to meet the threat. Unfortunately, the present administration cannot be counted on to do so on its own.

Theres no need to ask what Republicans would be doing if the shoe were on the other foot if the Russians had intervened to help elect the Democratic nominee. They would be demanding a bipartisan select committee of Congress, or a congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel of experts and senior statesmen with full subpoena powers to look into the matter. They would be insisting that, for reasons of national security alone, it was essential to determine what happened: what the Russians did, how they did it and how they could be prevented from doing it again. If that investigation found that certain American individuals had somehow participated in or facilitated the Russian operation, they would insist that such information be made public and that appropriate legal proceedings begin. And if the Democrats tried to slow-roll the investigations, to block the creation of select committees or outside panels, or to insist that investigations be confined to the intelligence committees whose inquiries and findings could be kept from the public, Republicans would accuse them of a coverup and of exposing the nation to further attacks. And they would be right.

But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The partys current leader, the president, questions the intelligence communitys findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees. Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations. The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly. The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Partys leadership, both in the White House and Congress.

This approach is not only damaging to U.S. national security but also puts the Republican Party in an untenable position. When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become Russias accomplice after the fact. This is undoubtedly not their intent. No one in the party wants to help Russia harm the United States and its democratic institutions. But Republicans need to face the fact that by slowing down, limiting or otherwise hampering the fullest possible investigation into what happened, that is what they are doing.

Its time for the party to put national security above partisan interest. Republican leaders need to name a bipartisan select committee or create an outside panel, and they need to do so immediately. They must give that committee the mission and all the necessary means for getting to the bottom of what happened last year. And then they must begin to find ways to defend the nation against this new weapon that threatens to weaken American democracy. The stakes are far too high for politics as usual.

See original here:
Republicans are becoming Russia's accomplices - Washington Post

The Associated Presssrecent poll on Americas identity reveals a serious and disturbing trend among Republicans. The poll tells us:

A new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds Republicans are far more likely to cite a culture grounded in Christian beliefs and the traditions of early European immigrants as essential to U.S. identity.

Democrats are more apt to point to the countrys history of mixing of people from around the globe and a tradition of offering refuge to the persecuted.

While theres disagreement on what makes up the American identity, 7 in 10 people regardless of party say the country is losing that identity.

Take that in for a while. Despite the central ethos dating to the countrys founding and real expression after a bloody civil war and the postwar constitutional amendments, Republicans seem to reject the premise that no religion should have primacy over another and no race or ethnicity should have a preferred position. They have become convinced that an essential part of being American is being white and Christian.

[The Trump experiment may come to an early tipping point]

Dress it up however you like, but this is racialism, if not all-out racism. When race and religion are inherent in your definition of American identity, by definition you reject a colorblind society. Republicans used to say that America is not based on who you are, what class or what race, but on the idea that all men are equal before God and endowed with those inalienable rights. Republicans, at least a majority of them, dont embrace that fully.

Republicans seem not to realize that their racialized and sectarian view of America is at odds with some of their other core beliefs. There are some points of resounding agreement among Democrats, Republicans and independents about what makes up the countrys identity. Among them: a fair judicial system and rule of law, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, and the ability to get good jobs and achieve the American dream. Well, of course, implicit in all that is a rejection of racial and religious favoritism. There is some extreme cognitive dissonance going on here.

Members of one of our major parties reject the immigrant experience that has proved essential to American vitality, dynamism and economic growth:

About 65 percent of Democrats said a mix of global cultures was extremely or very important to American identity, compared with 35 percent of Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Democrats saw Christianity as that important, compared with 57 percent of Republicans.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that the ability of people to come to escape violence and persecution is very important, 74 percent to 55 percent. Also, 25 percent of Democrats said the culture of the countrys early European immigrants very important, versus 46 percent of Republicans.

[Why its so hard for the GOP to come up with an Obamacare replacement]

Forget a shining city on the hill; this is the fear of being swamped, overrun and marginalized by people who look and worship differently.

Here's what President Trump said about immigration reform in his joint speech to Congress, Feb. 28. (The Washington Post)

For years opponents of immigration reform have argued they were only against illegal immigration. In the Trump administration and among immigration exclusionists who see the attorney general as their standard bearer, we see clearly that restricting legal immigration has been the goal as well. They are in fact anti-immigrant insofar as they think immigrants mar their idealized version of America. (Republicans overwhelmingly viewed immigrants who arrived in the past decade as having retained their own cultures and values rather than adopting American ones.)They reject the centuries-old adage that anyone can become an American. As the poll finds:

Among the areas seen as the greatest threats to the American way of life, Democrats coalesce around a fear of the countrys political leaders, political polarization and economic inequality. Most Republicans point instead to illegal immigration as a top concern. . . . Democrats appear to be reinforcing their belief that the countrys range of races, religions and backgrounds make the country stronger. About 80 percent made that assessment in the new poll, compared with 68 percent eight months earlier.

There are several troubling takeaways from this.

First, whether Trump heightened the white Christian of cultural and economic primacy or merely saw an opportunity is open to question. The support for Trump (voters on average were wealthier than Clinton voters) and the views reflected in the poll do, however, suggest that more than economic complaints about jobs and wages, Trumps base fears that white Christians are no longer running the show. (This is precisely the premise of The End of White Christian America, a must-read in the era of Trump.)

Second, America already is a racially and religiously diverse society. (The U.S. immigrant population stood at more than 42.4 million, or 13.3 percent, of the total U.S. population of 318.9 million in 2014, according to ACS data. Between 2013 and 2014, the foreign-born population increased by 1 million, or 2.5 percent.Immigrants in the United States and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 81 million people, or 26 percent of the overall U.S. population.) The effort to recreate a whiter, more Christian America is fruitless we are the multicultural nightmare theyve feared.

Third, we dont know if this mind-set is permanent or an attempt to adapt to and defend the mind-set of a president of their own party. If, for example, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) had been the nominee, the Republican responses might have been quite different.

And finally, the inherent conflict in the Republicans belief system defense of white Christian America and reverence for the Constitution isnt sustainable over the long haul. You either see America in racialist terms or you see it as the embodiment of an idea. You either see every immigrant (legal or not) as taking us farther away from the ideal America or you see every immigrant as a vote of confidence in the United States and an affirmation of the American idea.

Americans who hold a pluralistic vision of America and those who dont can, of course, oppose illegal immigration and want lower levels of legal immigration for reasons having nothing to do with national identity. But certainly some Americans the majority of one political party are out to defend threats to white Christian America. As we said, the poll is deeply disturbing.

Visit link:
Republicans reveal how badly they misunderstand America - Washington Post (blog)

Congress is pushing to overturn as early as this week regulations that outline how states must carry out a federal law that holds public schools accountable for serving all students.

Leaders of the Republican majority claim that the rules, written during the Obama administration, represent an executive overreach. Democrats argue that rescinding the rules will open loopholes to hide or ignore schools that fail to adequately serve poor children, minorities, English-language learners and students with disabilities.

The debate comes as Republicans are making a sweeping effort to roll back regulations finalized in the last few months of Barack Obamas presidency. GOP lawmakers say that in this case they are targeting actions under Obamas Education Department that contradict legislative intent when the school accountability law was passed in 2015.

We said to the department, You cant tell states exactly what to do about fixing low-performing schools. Thats their decision. This rule does that, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said in a statement last week. And we said to the department, You cant tell states exactly how to rate the public schools in your state, but this rule does that.

Democrats say President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos appear to be giving states too much deference on education issues.

Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the Education Committee who helped negotiate the 2015 law, said repealing the regulations would be a devastating blow to students across the country and would throw state and district planning into chaos at the very moment when they had started to settle into the new law.

The regulations are meant to outline what states must do to meet their obligations under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the successor to the 2002 No Child Left Behind law. The Republican-led House voted last month to undo the regulations via the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to veto a rule they dont like. But the CRA would also prohibit the Trump administration from issuing a rule that is substantially similar.

The Senate could vote on the measure as early as this week, and it needs only a simply majority to pass. Republicans are confident that they have that majority, according to a GOP aide. But at least one Republican, Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio), has said he plans to oppose the repeal, saying that the regulations provide important protections for students who have too often been forgotten.

If the bill reaches Trumps desk, he is expected to sign it, leaving a regulatory void and injecting uncertainty into state efforts to comply with federal law.

The current law is far less prescriptive than its predecessor and leaves states largely in charge of deciding how to evaluate elementary and secondary schools and what to do when they fail. But the law also includes important civil rights guardrails meant to ensure that subgroups of students such as those with disabilities, or those who are poor dont slip through the cracks.

Obamas regulations sought to provide more detail and clarity than the statutory language. They outline what information must be included on annual school report cards sent to parents and the public, define what it means for a group of students in a school to be consistently underperforming, and lay out a timeline for state interventions at struggling schools.

Republicans say the administration went too far, creating some rules that either had no basis in the law or conflicted directly with it.

We wrote a very specific law saying the states are in charge, said Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), speaking on the House floor after introducing the resolution to roll back the resolutions. Here we have a federal agency inserting itself, not just interpreting law, but actually making law and taking us in the exact opposite direction that all of us intended.

A coalition of civil rights advocates and business leaders, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are urging Congress to leave the regulations in place, saying they provide important clarity and certainty for states.

One of the most-debated parts of the law says that schools must test at least 95 percent of eligible students each year, a provision meant to ensure that schools dont encourage low performers to stay home on test day as a way to inflate average scores.

The ascent of the opt-out movement, in which parents refuse to allow their children to take standardized tests as a way to protest the emphasis on testing, has created politically charged questions about how states should handle schools that dont meet the participation requirement.

Both the law and the regulations allow states to decide what to do about those schools but the regulations specify that the consequence must be severe enough to force schools to come into compliance.

Many Republicans and the nations largest teachers unions argued that the Obama administration created this requirement to punish schools out of thin air. But civil rights advocates said that without meaningful consequences, the 95 percent rule critical for ensuring that schools are held accountable for their students true performance would be meaningless.

There will be districts and schools with a strategic incentive not to have certain kids tested, said Gini Pupo-Walker of Conexin Amricas, a group that advocates for Latino families in Tennessee and is part of a statewide coalition advocating for educational equity.

Many states are deep into designing school-accountability systems based on the regulations. The first wave of applications are due to the Trump administration on April 3, leaving officials little time to retool their applications if Congress revokes the rules.

Chris Minnich, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, said in the absence of regulations, states will need DeVos to quickly and clearly explain what is expected of them.

In the end, whats most important is that the secretary be clear with the states about whats next, Minnich said. States are already planning, they have good plans in place, theyre starting to come together and we cant have this slow them down.

DeVos told states last month that deadlines for submitting applications wont change despite the turmoil. She promised to offer further guidance in the near future. One of my main priorities as Secretary is to ensure that States and local school districts have clarity during the early implementation of the law, she wrote.

Some state education chiefs welcome the overturning of the rules, saying it will give them more flexibility and would not derail the work already underway. But others said they fear that the rollback opens the door for some states to design lax systems that dont help identify and fix poorly performing schools.

I certainly hope that states dont have a blank check here, said Mitchell Chester, commissioner of education in Massachusetts.

The two major teachers unions were both critical of the regulations when they were finalized in November, but have since charted different courses. The National Education Association, the largest, has not taken a position on whether Congress should repeal them. But American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten on Thursday urged senators not to overturn the rules, saying that they struck a decent balance between flexibility for states and protections for equity and financial accountability.

Some conservatives also oppose a wholesale rollback, arguing that some provisions actually provide more flexibility to states than the law itself.

Mike Petrilli of the right-leaning Thomas B. Fordham Institute argued that rather than repealing the regulations, Congress should allow DeVos to determine which rules her department will not enforce. Over time, he suggested, the department could officially revise the rules to exclude those that are particularly offensive, without losing the ones that are helpful.

Senate Republicans have a sledgehammer; Betsy DeVos has a chisel, Petrilli wrote on Fordhams blog. They should let her use it.

Continued here:
Congressional Republicans poised to overturn Obama-era education regulations - Washington Post

Republicans will introduce their much-awaited bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act this week, a senior House Republican aide told NBC News on Sunday.

"We are in a very good place right now," said the aide, who asked not to be identified.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, told NBC News: "We are now at the culmination of a years-long process to keep our promise to the American people."

A draft bill obtained by NBC News would repeal much of the current law, also known as Obamacare, within the next few years and set in place a Republican vision of health care.

The draft legislation would provide expanded tax credits and health savings accounts for individuals while reducing federal spending on tax subsidies and Medicaid and practically eliminating the employer and individual mandates to provide and carry health insurance.

It wasn't clear Sunday night to what extent the draft legislation, dated Feb. 10, may have changed in the last three weeks, but at the time, an aide to a House Republican said: "This is the bones of what's going to happen."

President Donald Trump met with health insurance chief executives at the White House last week to try to win their support for the Republican revamp.

Only 12 percent of Americans said they had a "great deal" or "quite a bit" of confidence in health insurance companies in a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in December. In contrast, 54 percent said they had "very little" or "none at all."

Under the draft bill, Americans who need assistance to buy health care would receive a tax credit with an option to receive it in advance on a monthly basis based on age. A person under 30 would be eligible for a $2,000 tax credit, while a person over 60 would be eligible for a $4,000 credit.

The measure would also create state-based high-risk pools for people who don't have access to insurance. The federal government would start providing $15 billion to help fund the high-risk pools next year, but the funding would decrease to $10 billion by 2020 and beyond.

And the legislation would greatly expand the use of health savings accounts, a tax-deductible way to buy health insurance, which has become a top Republican priority.

The largest funding mechanism would be a tax on the most expensive employer-provided health insurance plans.

The anticipated release of the plan follows a series of town hall meetings across the country during which angry constituents berated Republican lawmakers over health care policy, pouring particular scorn on the idea of tax credits and health savings accounts.

Some Republican senators have already threatened to vote it against it, including Rand Paul of Kentucky, who lambasted the bill-writing process as overly secretive last week.

"The only copy we've seen is from the media," Paul said. "Now we're told it's being classified and the hearing is like a security clearance hearing you have to have security clearance and permission and have to be on the committee to see the bill."

Making good on promises of "repeal and replace" has proven difficult for Republicans, since members of the party are divided on what a replacement should look like and how much it should cost. Republican leaders, meanwhile, have promised not to "pull the rug" out from under people who are covered by current law.

But the senior House aide told NBC News on Sunday that there was a large staff meeting at the White House on Friday to resolve outstanding issues, while heath care committees in Congress worked over the weekend to incorporate technical guidance.

See the rest here:
Republicans to Introduce Health Care Replacement Bill This Week ... - NBCNews.com