Mediaboss Marketing

close Video Ned Ryun: This is what's really extreme

American Majority founder and CEO Ned Ryun breaks down two steps Republican lawmakers can take to 'actually represent' the Republican Party on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.'

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

American Majority founder and CEO Ned Ryun weighed in on President Biden's anti-MAGA Republican rhetoric on "Jesse Watters Primetime."

NED RYUN: The first thing is Republicans in D.C. should probably stop despising their base. And then the next step is they should stop being afraid of the corporate propagandists and the semi-senile person in the White House and go on the attack and actually define what is extreme. What is extreme is to actually butcher babies up to the moment of birth.

MCCARTHY SAYS BIDEN VILIFIED AMERICANS, HITS DEMS ON INFLATION, IMMIGRATION AND MORE IN CAMPAIGN SPEECH

What's extreme is to actually allow millions of illegal aliens in, destroying our border and destroying the idea of national sovereignty. What's extreme is to actually let people advance the idea that somehow mutilating underaged children is perfectly normal. What's also extreme is to allow hardened criminals back onto the streets so they can kill again.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

WATCH THE FULL VIEW INTERVIEWS:

This article was written by Fox News staff.

Continue reading here:
Ned Ryun says Republicans need to find a 'backbone' and start 'swinging back' against anti-Trump rhetoric - Fox News

Ever since allies of Donald Trump in Michiganfailedto stall the certification of Joe Bidens win in 2020, they have pursued amethodical purgeof election officials who affirmed the results, replacing them with new canvassers who wanted to overturn the electionand who could thwart the will of voters in the future.

Conservatives put their cards on the table sooner than expected. With Trumps possible comeback bid still two years away, Republican members of Michigans State Board of Canvassers last week blocked two proposed constitutional amendments regarding abortion rights and voting rights. They flouted the usually-decisiverecommendationof the states Bureau of Elections, which had determined that both measures received more than enough signatures to appear on the November ballot.

The state Supreme Court intervened on Thursday in apair of5-2decisionsthat will put both amendments on the Nov. 8 ballot, meaning Michiganders will decide whether to codify the right to access abortionin the state constitutionand whether to expand ballot access by strengthening a slate of voting procedures like mail-in voting.

But this also marks a failure for Michigan Republicans trial balloon for subverting future elections, whether the 2024 presidential race or the midterms. Once again, GOP canvassers weaponized their role in the long chain of custody over election processes, and this time they stayed unified long enough to halt routine procedures. But a majority on the high court did not blink, signaling that they are willing to act as a backstopand could again in the future.

It was dangerous for democracy when Canvassers in Michigan said they would refuse to certify the election results in 2020, Josh Douglas, a University of Kentucky professor specialized in election law, toldBolts. The Michigan Supreme Courts decision on both of these initiatives show that refusing to put these issues on the ballot was the same kind of overreach.

For Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, the sequence of events at least establishes a precedent for how the states high court could intervene after the 2022 or 2024 elections if GOP canvassers similarly attempt to block results.

But that road map would only work if the court stays the same, she added.

Two justices on the Michigan Supreme Court are running for re-election in NovemberDemocrat Richard Bernstein, who voted with the majority on Thursday, and Republican Brian Zahra, one of the dissenters. The GOPwould flip the seven-member courtif it sweeps both seats. On the one hand, that would not have been enough to change Thursdays rulings since Republican Elizabeth Clement voted with the four Democrats. Four of the justices who voted to restore the amendments on Thursdayenough for a majorityhave terms that are meant to last through the end of 2026.

Still, the two rulings were handed down almost along party lines and Clement did not write an opinion in either, leaving some uncertainty over how a higher-profile partisan confrontation over a presidential election would unfold. The next two years could also bring an unforeseen vacancy on the court, which would befilledby whomever wins Novembers governors race between Democratic incumbent Gretchen Whitmer and Republican Tudor Dixon, who is endorsed by Trump and hasfalsely saidthe 2020 election was stolen.

Read this article:
Michigan Republicans Stumble in Dress Rehearsal for Overturning Future Elections - Election Law Blog

Three candidates challenging Gov. Chris Sununu for the Republican nomination for governor shared their thoughts on affordable housing, energy costs and other issues Friday night in the Granite State Debate.Sununu declined to attend the debate, and with a recent poll showing that 60% of Granite Staters approve of the job he's doing, the three candidates on the debate stage sought to show why Republican voters should choose them over the incumbent.>> Read debate participant bios: Acciard | Riley | TestermanVeteran and businessman Julian Acciard, conservative activist Karen Testerman and businessman Thad Riley focused squarely on Sununu and what they called his unconstitutional overreach, rather than on each other in the hourlong debate at St. Anselm College.Each candidate sought to harness conservative discontent with Sununu, who was criticized by some in his own party for what they saw as abusing his powers during the COVID-19 pandemic.>> Gubernatorial candidates on the issues"There are a lot of places where the governor continues to violate people's rights, as well as flip-flopping on many of the decisions that he's written letters to say that he would uphold," Testerman said.RE-WATCH DEBATE VIDEOSSee the full debate at this link, or view the debate by segment here:IntroductionsDebate formatWhy run against Sununu?Should NH defy enforcement of federal laws?Safe drinking waterShould NH take action against polluters?Workforce housingSchool funding fairnessSchool safetyEnergy costsBail reformParental rightsLightning round: Marijuana, immigration, favorite New England neighbor, NH constitutionNH's abortion lawSununu's potential POTUS aspirationsState's liquor monopolyProtecting health systems in a crisisClosing statementsFull videoAcciard took Sununu to task for criticizing Republican legislators."I believe in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: you're not supposed to be shooting out in public against your own party," Acciard said. "But yet the governor goes out and does it every time that he gets in front of a microphone."Riley accused the governor of not looking out for the best interest of New Hampshire residents."The only thing worse than electing a career politician is electing the same career politician," he said. "And Chris Sununu is a career politician. He does things every day that don't make sense to Granite Staters."The candidates were asked for their solutions to some of the toughest problems facing New Hampshire, such as the lack of affordable housing. "We've got to get the bureaucracy out of New Hampshire," Riley said. "These zoning laws are doing more damage day in and day out for business leaders and communities and builders."Acciard agreed that zoning laws are part of the reason why affordable housing is hard to come by. He said cities and towns need to be open to allowing more forms of development."The towns have got to step up and start loosening (zoning laws) and allow for multifamily properties to be built and maybe some manufactured housing so we can actually start to house people, because we're losing our youngest people in the state," Acciard said. "They graduate, and they immediately leave."Testerman said the housing market has been skewed by demand from people outside the state."One of the interesting things about the housing market is that we're building a lot of housing that also is providing housing to the people who are working down in Boston," Testerman said.Each of the candidates said they would sign into law a parental bill of rights if it made it to their desk. Supports of such measures say they allow parents to be more involved with their children's school lives, but opponents say they could make the mental health crisis worse, with schools required to out LGBTQ students to their parents before they're ready.Acciard said that if sensitive topics are involved, parents can be informed without jeopardizing children."Parents should have a say in their kid's education for better or worse," he said. "These are our kids. We don't hand them into government custody and just let things be."Riley said parents increasingly believe that their voices don't matter in their children's schools."Political ideologues have infiltrated New Hampshire public schools," he said. "We need a governor who knows what's going on in our public schools, who's been a part of them for years and can fight back."Testerman said such a measure would help keep government in check in terms of education."It is important that parents be allowed to be involved in their children's education, and government has no right to take this over," she said.On the Democratic side of the race, Dr. Tom Sherman is running unopposed for the nomination.The debate was the final Granite State Debate being held before the primary election. The 1st District debate was held Tuesday, the 2nd District debate was held Wednesday and U.S. Senate Republican candidates debated on Thursday.Programming note: Due to the airing of the debate, ABC's episode of "The Con" will air at 1:36 a.m. Saturday.

Three candidates challenging Gov. Chris Sununu for the Republican nomination for governor shared their thoughts on affordable housing, energy costs and other issues Friday night in the Granite State Debate.

Sununu declined to attend the debate, and with a recent poll showing that 60% of Granite Staters approve of the job he's doing, the three candidates on the debate stage sought to show why Republican voters should choose them over the incumbent.

>> Read debate participant bios: Acciard | Riley | Testerman

Veteran and businessman Julian Acciard, conservative activist Karen Testerman and businessman Thad Riley focused squarely on Sununu and what they called his unconstitutional overreach, rather than on each other in the hourlong debate at St. Anselm College.

Each candidate sought to harness conservative discontent with Sununu, who was criticized by some in his own party for what they saw as abusing his powers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

>> Gubernatorial candidates on the issues

"There are a lot of places where the governor continues to violate people's rights, as well as flip-flopping on many of the decisions that he's written letters to say that he would uphold," Testerman said.

See the full debate at this link, or view the debate by segment here:

Acciard took Sununu to task for criticizing Republican legislators.

"I believe in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: you're not supposed to be shooting out in public against your own party," Acciard said. "But yet the governor goes out and does it every time that he gets in front of a microphone."

Riley accused the governor of not looking out for the best interest of New Hampshire residents.

"The only thing worse than electing a career politician is electing the same career politician," he said. "And Chris Sununu is a career politician. He does things every day that don't make sense to Granite Staters."

The candidates were asked for their solutions to some of the toughest problems facing New Hampshire, such as the lack of affordable housing.

"We've got to get the bureaucracy out of New Hampshire," Riley said. "These zoning laws are doing more damage day in and day out for business leaders and communities and builders."

Acciard agreed that zoning laws are part of the reason why affordable housing is hard to come by. He said cities and towns need to be open to allowing more forms of development.

"The towns have got to step up and start loosening (zoning laws) and allow for multifamily properties to be built and maybe some manufactured housing so we can actually start to house people, because we're losing our youngest people in the state," Acciard said. "They graduate, and they immediately leave."

Testerman said the housing market has been skewed by demand from people outside the state.

"One of the interesting things about the housing market is that we're building a lot of housing that also is providing housing to the people who are working down in Boston," Testerman said.

Each of the candidates said they would sign into law a parental bill of rights if it made it to their desk. Supports of such measures say they allow parents to be more involved with their children's school lives, but opponents say they could make the mental health crisis worse, with schools required to out LGBTQ students to their parents before they're ready.

Acciard said that if sensitive topics are involved, parents can be informed without jeopardizing children.

"Parents should have a say in their kid's education for better or worse," he said. "These are our kids. We don't hand them into government custody and just let things be."

Riley said parents increasingly believe that their voices don't matter in their children's schools.

"Political ideologues have infiltrated New Hampshire public schools," he said. "We need a governor who knows what's going on in our public schools, who's been a part of them for years and can fight back."

Testerman said such a measure would help keep government in check in terms of education.

"It is important that parents be allowed to be involved in their children's education, and government has no right to take this over," she said.

On the Democratic side of the race, Dr. Tom Sherman is running unopposed for the nomination.

The debate was the final Granite State Debate being held before the primary election. The 1st District debate was held Tuesday, the 2nd District debate was held Wednesday and U.S. Senate Republican candidates debated on Thursday.

Programming note: Due to the airing of the debate, ABC's episode of "The Con" will air at 1:36 a.m. Saturday.

Link:
Republicans running for governor pitch themselves as alternatives to Sununu in debate - WMUR Manchester

Political parties, donors and dark-money groups have poured more than $2 million into the battle to control the state Senate, and both sides are focusing on just a handful of races that could determine the states political future.

In the top battleground districts, Democratic candidates have raised about $875,000 in donations, compared to about $749,000 for Republicans.

The highest totals are going to Rep. Dylan Roberts and Rep. Kyle Mullica, who are both running for the Senate and have so far significantly outpaced fundraising by their opponents.

Roberts has raised about $227,000 alone, compared to about $87,000 for Republican Matt Solomon, in a district that covers northwest Colorado. Roberts sum includes support from business groups and hundreds of individual donations.

Id say that shows an extraordinary commitment to fundraising, given the caps that are placed on candidates and how much they can raise, said Rob Witwer, a former Republican lawmaker and political analyst.

Individuals and businesses are limited to contributing $400 directly to a state Senate campaign, including the primary and general elections.

Both Mullica and Roberts are running for Senate seats that are competitive but lean toward Democrats. If both men win, it would likely derail Republicans goal of capturing the majority of the Senate this November.

Theres only a couple of paths for Republicans to take over the state Senate or the state House, and theyre going to be putting a lot of money into those paths, said Democratic campaign finance attorney Scott Martinez. Those paths go straight through Dylan Roberts and Kyle Mullica.

Republicans would have to flip four seats to take over the Senate, as opposed to nine seats in the House. That makes the Senate their best chance to gain some power in the state.

In several of the closer races, Republican campaigns do hold significant fundraising leads including Sen. Dennis Hisey in El Paso County and Sen. Rob Woodrow, whose district includes parts of Boulder and Larimer counties. The pair are running in competitive districts that the party likely must take to at least maintain their current power in the chamber.

These early campaign fundraising numbers are one piece of data about how the campaigns are going.

The money raised is your pulse rate. Its one of the most vital statistics, Martinez said.

But theres also another source of money in the elections: outside groups that independently spend money on the races. Republican groups have spent an estimated $844,000 on the battlegrounds, almost twice the $470,000 spent on the Democratic side.

And some of the biggest money is still to come. The Senate Democrats group has spent relatively little so far, but it had nearly $3 million in reserve on Aug. 31.

The Democrats strong reserves shows they have everything they need to prioritize the most competitive races in the last few weeks of the campaign, and its still a question mark whether Republicans will be able to match that effort, Witwer said.

The Senate Republicans spending group had significantly less in reserve, although it could quickly pull money over from other sources.

All the reports arent in yet what I do see is lots of Republican operatives being very busy on the soft side, where theyre out there raising money and buying up ad times, Martinez said. Theres certainly a lot of activity.

The outside money supporting candidates has been evenly spread across six contested Senate seats. Interestingly, the one race that hasnt attracted any outside spending is Senate District 15, which is one of the most closely divided districts in the state.

Most of the independent money on both sides is coming from groups affiliated with the political parties that generally dont disclose their individual donors. Supporters of the main Republican spending group, the Senate Majority Fund, include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Colorado Action Fund, the GOPAC Election Fund and the Republican State Leadership Committee. Also spending heavily is the conservative group Unite for Colorado.

On the Democratic side, All Together Colorado is the main spending arm of the Senate Democrats. Its money comes from sources like the Colorado Fund for Children & Public Education the political wing of the Colorado Education Association, the state's largest teachers union as well as Education Reform Now Advocacy. Both groups have historically given to Democrats.

Also spending heavily for Democrats is Centennial State Prosperity Action, a group that says its focused on workers and health care.

Much of the outside spending will likely go toward negative ads in the most important races, Martinez said.

If I were Kyle Mullica and Dylan Roberts, Id fasten my seatbelt, Martinez said.

The Senate campaigns are largely focused on seven competitive elections. If Republicans want to retake the majority, they would likely have to win six of those races a potentially difficult task, since Democrats have generally outperformed Republicans in recent years in those districts.

However, Republicans also could have a path to the majority if they fall slightly short of that goal: They could pick up one more seat if a recall election against Sen. Kevin Priola succeeds next year. Priola recently became a Democrat after serving for years as a Republican.

All Together Colorado, the Democratic group, recently spent $9,000 in digital ads supporting Priola at the end of August.

Meanwhile, the financial lines are still being drawn. One new committee, Coloradans for Responsible Leadership, specifically aims to support Mullica and Roberts. That group is associated with Senate Democrats.

See more here:
Dark money and cash reserves: Democrats and Republicans are in a tight financial race for the state senate - Colorado Public Radio

When Florida Sen. Rick Scott unveiled a controversial policy agenda in February, the Republican leader was unrestrained in its ambitions. Scotts far-right fantasy touched on everything from abortion rights to school vouchers, tax hikes on the poor to lies about election administration. Even Social Security and Medicare would be jeopardized by the senators plan.

But Scotts 31-page document left one obvious thing out: The GOP senators blueprint didnt say anything about repealing or replacing the Affordable Care Act.

About a month later, Sen. Ron Johnson briefly suggested he wanted to put ACA repeal back on the table. The Wisconsin Republican is generally proud of his ideas, but in this instance, he scrambled to walk it back.

The developments served as a reminder: The politics of Obamacare have changed dramatically. Indeed, as Axios reported, the GOP is continuing to back off its earlier stances on the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans in tight congressional races are going silent on health care, scrubbing campaign websites of anti-abortion language and in some cases distancing themselves from past criticisms of the Affordable Care Act.... Its a marked contrast to vulnerable Democrats, whove been campaigning nonstop on enshrining abortion rights and the Inflation Reduction Acts health care provisions.

The article highlighted a variety of recent examples, including Nevadas Adam Laxalt: When the Republican ran for state attorney general in 2018, attacking the health care reform law was a central part of his candidacy. Four years later, Laxalt is running for the U.S. Senate; his pitch to voters is silent on the ACA; his website makes no mention of the law; and his spokesperson no longer wants to talk about his position.

There are plenty of things Republicans want to talk about this campaign season. The Affordable Care Act isnt one of them.

In the not-too-distant past, this wouldve been tough to predict. Indeed, for those of us who covered the political fight over the Affordable Care Act closely, this day seemed highly implausible. Before Barack Obama signed the reform package into law, Republicans condemned it as an economy-destroying attack on free enterprise and the American way of life. After the ACA became law, Republicans spent years not only denouncing the reforms, but also voting several dozen times to repeal it.

Now, even many conservative Republicans have moved on in part because Obamacare is working so effectively, and in part because Democrats used the issue to great effect in the 2018 midterms, en route to taking back the House.

But just because GOP officials and candidates have shifted their focus away from the ACA doesnt mean the substantive debate is over. Axios report added that Republicans willingness to distance themselves from their earlier condemnations begs the bigger question of what the GOPs health care agenda will look like if the party flips control of one or both houses of Congress.

Putting aside the misuse of begs the question, the underlying point matters. The Republican Party spent much of the past decade with a single message related to health care policy: Repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The GOP has not only dropped that goal, its also hoping voters forget that the party ever pursued such a regressive policy in the first place.

But the question for the electorate hasnt changed: What exactly would Republicans do on health care policy if put in positions of power?

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read this article:
Why it matters that Republicans are abandoning their ACA attacks - MSNBC