Mediaboss Marketing

I try to focus on those things that are important today and the issues in my district. If it comes up, I dont shy away from it, Newhouse said of his impeachment vote. But theres a lot of things that are going on. People are trying to tear down our dams; our agricultural industry has a lot of challenges; Inflation prices of everything has gone through the roof.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) faces a primary on Aug. 2.|Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

Another four of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump retired rather than face the voters again, and two had primaries earlier this year. Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) lost, but Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) prevailed.

Rice belongs in one camp of the impeachment-backing Republicans, Valadao in the other. Rice, along with Cheney and Meijer, have all at least somewhat embraced their role as Trump antagonists, hitting the Sunday morning talk shows, participating in long profiles with magazines or taking to Twitter to rehash and relitigate the events of Jan. 6.

Valadaos group, which includes Herrera Beutler and Newhouse, have tried to avoid the spotlight or excessive talk about their vote.

I think she is afraid, Republican Joe Kent said of Herrera Beutler, whom he is challenging in Washingtons all-party primary. She doesnt want to talk about impeachment. She does not.

Cheney is the most stark example of someone who did not shy away from the vote. As the vice chair of the Jan. 6 investigative committee, she has made her support for impeaching Trump a core part of her political identity. She has appeared at least once on all five of the major Sunday talk shows over the past year and a half (including some more than once), and shes also been on 60 Minutes.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) delivers closing remarks during a hearing for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.|Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

As her primary looms, polling has become so bleak that her campaign has begun courting Democratic voters. But Cheney insists she is comfortable with the political ramifications of her outspokenness.

If I have to choose between maintaining a seat in the House of Representatives, or protecting the constitutional republic and ensuring the American people know the truth about Donald Trump, Im going to choose the Constitution and the truth every single day, she said in a Sunday interview on CNNs State of the Union.

Meijer, a freshman from Western Michigan, had the largest media presence after Cheney, joining the talk show circuit throughout 2021 and participating in a long profile in The Atlantic.

But he has grown quieter on impeachment in recent months, and he is facing a surprisingly strong threat from John Gibbs, a former Trump administration official who received an endorsement from the former president. The incumbent outspent Gibbs by a 6-to-1 ratio as of mid-July, but Republicans have grown increasingly worried about Meijers fate in recent weeks.

While Gibbs has barely aired TV ads, a deluge of pro-Meijer spending flooded the district over the past week. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a pro-Meijer super PAC dumped a collective $1.1 million into boosting the incumbent, joining another veterans group that had already spent some $300,000.

Meijers Grand Rapids-based seat tilted to the left when it was redrawn in redistricting last year, and national Democrats hope their candidate will get to run against Gibbs, a staunch Trump supporter who is a fierce proponent of election fraud theories. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took the unusual step of meddling in the primary, placing a $425,000 ad buy meant to lure GOP voters toward Gibbs on Aug. 2 a move that angered some in the party.

Republicans have grown increasingly worried about Rep. Peter Meijers fate in recent weeks.|Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Washington State, home to two of the Republicans who voted to impeach, will also host primaries next Tuesday. But unlike Meijer, Newhouse and Herrera Beutler will each face a slew of challengers in an all-party contest. Trump has endorsed in each race.

Neither incumbent has meaningfully courted any national media. Though Herrera Beutler spoke publicly in early 2021 about a conversation she had with House Minority Kevin McCarthy, in which he told about a phone call he had with Trump on Jan. 6, she has since been quieter.

Shes not a national attention seeker, not running to be a talking head on any cable news network, Herrera Beutler campaign spokesman Craig Wheeler told POLITICO last week.

Her Trump-endorsed opponent, Joe Kent, framed it differently, accusing her of hiding from constituents, refusing to debate him and declining to hold in-person townhalls. The 2020 election, impeachment and Jan. 6 are still very hot button issues with a conservative base, he said. Its not going away. People want these issues dealt with.

Trump won her district by less than 5 points, meaning a Democrat is likely to snag one spot in the general election. But Herrera Beutler is competing with several Republicans who could split the anti-incumbent vote against her. Winning for Women Action Fund, a group that backs GOP women, has spent more than $1.5 million to aid her.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) speaks at an event in Vancouver, Wash.|Taylor Balkom/The Columbian via AP

To the east, Newhouse is competing in a much more Trump-friendly district against several Republicans, including Loren Culp, the 2020 GOP governor nominee who nabbed Trumps backing.

GOP operatives are feeling more confident about Newhouse after a sustained $1.2 million ad blitz from the Republican Main Street Partnerships super PAC. Polling the group commissioned last week indicated the hits were working and that Culp dropped significantly from a previous survey. The group is airing three spots this week.

Newhouse himself has aired nearly $500,000 in ads, and his recent spots went negative on Culp, who has not run any TV ads of his own, according to data from AdImpact, a media tracking firm.

I follow the race and I have not heard once that hes mentioned impeachment, said Sarah Chamberlain, the president of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Inflation, gas prices and food shortages are top of mind for most voters, she noted.

Its one thing to take the vote, its another to keep talking about it, she said. Talk about what youre doing. That vote was a long time ago. Youve got a lot of votes between now and that. What are you doing lately?

That was the tactic adopted by Valadao, who narrowly advanced from his all-party primary in June over a far-right challenger. He kept his focus on water and broadband issues plaguing his rural Central Valley district and he managed to avoid Trump parachuting into his district to back a challenger before finishing in second place and securing a general election spot against Democrat Rudy Salas.

We knew what the most important issues to voters were, and thats what we talked about, said Robert Jones, a GOP operative and adviser to Valadao. The things that matter in D.C. and on cable news are not what matters in the Central Valley all the time usually never.

Valadao, Newhouse and Herrera Beutler also had all party-primaries which could offer more wiggle room to build a winning coalition.

In contrast, Mejier is set to face a chiefly GOP electorate, like Rice did in South Carolina in June. Rices opponent, Russell Fry, cleared 50 percent in the primary, clinching the nomination outright over Rice, without a runoff, in an embarrassing loss for the incumbent.

But Rice remained extremely outspoken about Trump and the perils of Jan. 6, particularly in the final weeks of the race. He sat for an interview with ABCs This Week, called Trump a bully and a tyrant and brought former House Speaker Paul Ryan and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie two Republicans who have also been critical of Trump to the district to campaign with him.

He kept doubling down on it, said Jerry Rovner, the GOP chairman for Rices 7th Congressional District. He started bringing down people that South Carolina people believe are not Republicans.

That was like a slap in the face, he said.

See the original post:
4 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump face their moment of reckoning - POLITICO

Democrats routinely and correctly warn the public that the Trump wing of the Republican Party poses an existential threat to American democracy. It may be surprising then to learn that theyre also spending tremendous sums of money quietly boosting Trumps picks in Republican primaries out of the hope that theyll be easier to beat in the general election. No matter the motive, its a reckless gamble, and it undermines the credibility of the partys message that its base must mobilize against burgeoning authoritarianism.

The DCCCs ad buy is a fantastic deal for Gibbs. For the Democrats, its playing with fire.

According to Politico, Democratic-aligned groups are spending tens of millions of dollars intervening in Republican primaries to help more extreme candidates win and to position them to run against Democrats. And the latest and most surprising example of this arose after an Axios report that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, is spending close to half a million dollars on an ad campaign in Michigans third district to help the Trump-backed candidate, John Gibbs, in his bid to oust Republican incumbent Rep. Peter Meijer in the upcoming primary.

The advertisement masquerades as an attack ad, but it explicitly drives home Gibbs own messaging by linking him to Trump and indicating that hell continue to back Trumps policy agenda in Washington all without landing any substantive criticisms other than to label him too conservative (not a knock against a Republican in a primary). Its hundreds of thousands of dollars of free advertising for Gibbs in the final sprint before the primary next week.

Gibbs is not just an old-school Republican dipping his toes in Trumpy rhetoric to garner extra votes. Hes a Trump die-hard with the exact kinds of background Democrats consider dangerous: He worked in the Trump administration, won Trumps endorsement, backs Trumps 2020 disinformation, and has in the past promoted, according to CNN, an unfounded conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta took part in a Satanic ritual. Hes defended his hardline anti-abortion position, which opposes exceptions for incest and rape, by saying, There are many great Americans all around the country who were actually conceived from rape."

Gibbs target in the primary, Meijer, is in fact one of just 10 Republican members of the House who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection one of those rare Republicans willing to push back against the party's slide toward strongman politics. But with Gibbs, the theory goes, Democrats will have a far better chance of winning in a polarized election.

The DCCCs ad buy is a fantastic deal for Gibbs. But for the Democrats, its playing with fire.

In a best-case scenario under this strategy, Gibbs, with the aid of the Democrats, wins the Republican primary and then loses the general election to the Democratic candidate, Hillary Scholten, in a race that she might have otherwise lost to Meijer. One reason that the DCCC may feel emboldened to use this tactic is that recent redistricting has made Michigans third district significantly more Democratic, turning a once deeply red district to a toss-up race, and potentially making Gibbs politics less competitive in a general election.

But even under this best-case scenario, there is a real cost involved: Dems help Gibbs win a primary, handing Trump another endorsement win and signaling to Republican observers in Michigan that the political winds favor right-wing extremism over Meijer-style moderation. It would also make it more likely that more candidates position themselves in the Trump vein in the 2024 Republican primaries, and also make Republicans nationwide more likely to view maverick pro-democracy votes, like Meijers impeachment vote, as a career killer.

Now in a worst-case scenario, Gibbs wins the primary and the general election, and ends up in Washington next year. This scenario isnt that far-fetched if Republican candidates were felled by promoting laughable conspiracy theories or making offensive remarks, then Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wouldnt have become one of the most high-profile Republicans in Congress in the last couple of years. And keep in mind that between inflation, crime rates, and a general historical disadvantage for incumbent parties in midterm elections, Republicans are poised for a wave election, meaning that even if Gibbs extremism is a turnoff for some Republicans, exceptionally high Republican turnout could be enough to help him win anyway.

This is all to say nothing of the simple fact that the Democrats' money could otherwise be spent directly helping vulnerable Democrats ahead of a potential November bloodbath.

Michigans third district isnt the only place where this risky strategy is being implemented. But the DCCCs intervention in the Meijer race is particularly infuriating to some House Democrats, who, as Politico notes, pay membership dues to the DCCC, and assume it reflects leadership attitudes about political strategy.

Many of them are concerned that the Democrats cant back GOP extremists and say that they pose an existential threat to democracy at the same time. Many of us are facing death threats over our efforts to tell the truth about Jan. 6. To have people boosting candidates telling the very kinds of lies that caused Jan. 6 and continues to put our democracy in danger, is just mind-blowing, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla. told Politico. Shes right.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Politico, and he has also been published in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation and elsewhere.

Follow this link:
Democrats boosting John Gibbs over Peter Meijer is part of a reckless ad strategy - MSNBC

Absentee ballot materials bundled with rubber bands on a table in the former Republican town clerks office waiting for the Democratic party chair to pick them up.

Testimony by a state election investigator that the former town clerk was involved in a ballot fraud scheme.

A still pending investigation of the clerk.

At State Superior Court in Stamford Wednesday, the office of the former town clerk appeared to be on trial as much as the one-time Democratic Party chair charged with forgery and filing false statements in absentee balloting 28 Class D felonies in all.

In the third day of the trial of John Mallozzi, who chaired the Stamford Democratic City Committee and was a member of the Democratic State Central Committee, Judge Kevin Randolph interjected testimony with questions to help untangle the confusing story of how absentee ballots were handled during Stamfords 2015 municipal election.

Mallozzi requested a bench trial, so it will be Randolph who will render a verdict after the testimony and evidence are presented. The trial is expected to end Friday.

The judge had a number of questions for Diane Pesiri, who has worked in the Stamford town clerks office for 22 years.

Pesiri, called as a witness by Assistant States Attorney Laurence Tamaccio, testified that the then-town clerk, Donna Loglisci, a Republican, gave her absentee ballot applications to get ready and that John Mallozzi would pick them up. I processed them and put a rubber band around them and put them on a table in Donnas office.

Mallozzis attorney, Stephan Seeger, questioned how Mallozzis initials, JM, got on absentee ballot materials he is charged with forging.

Pesiri testified that she wrote JM on ballot materials at Logliscis instruction.

The judge wanted clarity.

Donna Loglisci told you Mr. Mallozzi would pick them up? Randolph asked Pesiri.

Yes, Pesiri replied.

You put the initials on the documents before you saw Mr. Mallozzi collect them? the judge asked.

Yes. I was told he would pick them up. Thats why I put his initials there, Pesiri said.

She also testified that she saw Mallozzi pick up actual absentee ballots, not just applications for ballots. Asked whether she ever saw Mallozzi return completed ballots to the town clerks office, Pesiri said, If he brought them back, he would give them to Donna Loglisci.

Seeger extensively cross-examined another witness for the state, Scott Branfuhr, an investigator with the State Elections Enforcement Commission. Branfuhr testified that the commission, which began the investigation, referred the case to the states attorney after it uncovered evidence of several felonies involving Mallozzi.

Seeger grilled Branfuhr about a report Branfuhr prepared for the SEEC when he concluded his investigation.

Didnt you call it a scheme? Seeger asked.

I believe so, Branfuhr replied.

Two people are involved in a scheme, right? You cant do it with one person? Seeger asked.

No, Branfuhr replied.

Seeger asked why Branfuhr made a judgment that, in a plot involving Mallozzi and Loglisci, only Mallozzi was charged.

Isnt your job all about ensuring election integrity? Wasnt Donna Loglisci responsible for the absentee ballot process? Seeger asked.

Yes, Branfuhr said.

Branfuhr said the SEEC legal staff thought Loglisci should be charged with official negligence and fraud because she involved herself in a scheme to accept bogus absentee ballot applications and ballot sets.

Seeger asked, You knew Donna Loglisci broke the law, correct?

Yes, Branfuhr said.

Seeger asked whether Loglisci was not referred to the states attorney because she had agreed to become a witness against Mallozzi.

She cooperated to a certain degree, Branfuhr said. She neglected to tell us there was a quid pro quo.

A quid pro quo would mean Loglisci expected something from Mallozzi in return for giving him the ballots. Branfuhr did not explain what it was, and Seeger didnt ask.

Seeger did ask whether the SEEC investigation will continue. Branfuhr said the commission suspends its investigation while the state is bringing a case.

Do you still have the authority to go after Donna Loglisci? Seeger asked.

Yes, Branfuhr said.

Is that what the commission intends to do? Seeger asked.

That is what the commission intends to do, Branfuhr said.

Seeger has said that he and his client hope the case will publicize the need for more oversight of the absentee ballot system in Connecticut, and that procedures will be tightened to increase election integrity.

The case came to light when a Stamford man was told at his polling place that he could not vote because hed already voted by absentee ballot.

It turned out that a ballot had been taken out in the mans name without his knowledge. Investigators said they traced it to Mallozzi, and later found 13 other ballots that appeared to be forged.

Mallozzi is charged with 14 counts each of forgery in the second degree and filing false statements in absentee balloting. Class D felonies are punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000 per count.

Link:
Court Puts Actions of Former Republican Town Clerk in Spotlight at Trial of Democratic Boss - CT Examiner

Renowned Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson says young people, especially boys, are facing a "demoralization" in the world and he's urging the Christian church to become more involved in reaching the next generation.

In a recent YouTube video titled "Messages to Christian Churches," Peterson explained that when he took a "psychological approach" while talking about the Bible, the majority of his listeners turned out to be young men.

"That is not a phenomenon that can be easily accounted for, but let me try," Dr. Peterson said. "Now in the West, because of the weight of historical guilt that is upon us, a variant of the sense of original sin in a very real sense, and because of a very real attempt by those possessed by what might be described as unhelpful ideas to weaponize that guilt, our young people face a demoralization that is perhaps unparalleled."

"This is particularly true of young men, although anything that devastates young men will eventually do the same to young women," he added while referring to anti-natalism and nihilism.

Quick Start Podcast: The Facts on the Alleged Alzheimers Research Fraud

Peterson continued, "When they are children, boys are hectored for their toy preferences, which often include toy weapons, such as guns, and their more boisterous playing style, as boys require active rough and tumble play even more than girls, for whom it is also a necessity. When in grade school, boys are admonished, shamed and controlled in a very similar manner by those who think that play is unnecessary, particularly if it's competitive, and who value a docile, harmless obedience above all."

He said the indoctrination of such an "extremely damaging ideology" is accomplished with three accusations.

"Number one: human culture, particularly in the West, is best construed as an oppressive patriarchy motivated by the desire, willingness and the ability to use power to attain what are purely selfish and self-serving ends," he explained.

"Accusation number two: human activity, particularly that undertaken in the West, is fundamentally a planet despoiling enterprise. The human race is a threat to the ecological utopia that existed before us and could hypothetically exist after in our absence."

"Accusation number three: the prime contributor both to the tyranny that makes up the oppressive patriarchy and structures all of our social interactions past and present and the unforgivable despoiling of our beloved mother Earth is damnable male ambition, competitive and dominating, power-mad, selfish, exploitative, raping and pillaging," he said.The psychologist explained that people in the West are facing "an all-out assault at the deepest levels."He said young men who are "deeply conscientious, capable of guilt and regret," consider that "in pain, every deep impulse that moves them out into the world for the adventure of their life, even that impulse drawing them to women, is nothing but the manifestation of the spirit that is essentially satanic in nature."

This belief is not only wrong "theologically, morally, psychologically, practically and scientifically," but it is also "anti-true," he noted.

Peterson also pointed out that the Christian church is "there to remind people, especially young men, that they have a woman to find, a garden to walk in, a family to nurture, an ark to build, a land to conquer, a ladder to Heaven to build, and the utter terrible catastrophe of life, to face stalwartly in truth, devoted to love and without fear."

He continued, "Invite the young men back, say, literally, to those young men, 'You are welcome here. If no one else wants what you have to offer, we do. We want to call you to the highest purpose of your life. We want your time and energy and effort and your will and your goodwill. We want to work with you to make things better, to produce life more abundant for you, and for your wife and children and for your community, and your country, and the world.'"

Dr. Peterson then pointed out the problems within the Christian church.

"We are more abundant, sometimes, far too often, corrupt, and sometimes deeply so," he said. "We're outdated, as are all institutions with their roots in the dead but still often wise past."

He shifted attention towards Protestant churches, saying, "You're the worst at the moment." Catholic and Orthodox should also invite young men, Peterson said.

"Put up a billboard saying 'young men are welcome here.' Tell those who have never been in a church exactly what to do, how to dress, when to show up, who to contact and, most importantly, what they can do. Ask more, not less of those you are inviting. Ask more of them than anyone ever has. Remind them who they are in the deepest sense, and help them become that."

Peterson concluded the message by saying, "You're churches for God's sake. Quit fighting for social justice. Quit saving the bloody planet. Attend to some souls. That's what you're supposed to do. That's your holy duty. Do it now, before it's too late. The hour is nigh."

Thousands of viewers commented on the video and some even said they were motivated to go back to church.

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

View original post here:
Psychologist Jordan Peterson Says Society Is Harming Boys, and the Church Must Save Them: 'That's Your Holy Duty' - CBN.com

This weeks announcement that Stan Grant will be permanent host of the ABCs Q&A follows widespread speculation about the future of the program. On some estimates, ratings have fallen by more than 50% from a peak of over 600,000 during its first decade under Tony Jones, who served as host from 2008.

Hamish Macdonald succeeded Jones in November 2019 but resigned in July last year, describinghis 18-month tenure as a bruising experience. Aside from being attacked on Sky News for his far left Green agenda, he was relentlessly trolled on social media, with virulent accusations of bias from both the left and the right.

Curiously, the BBCs Question Time Q&As prototype has followed a parallel trajectory. Its ratings have fallen precipitously, from nearly nine million to just over a million and the decline coincides with the replacement of veteran host David Dimbleby by seasoned BBC personality Fiona Bruce, whose own brand of charisma is no match for the gravitas of her predecessor.

Question Time is something of a cuckoo in the nest. In its 43-year history it has consistently featured leading commentators and parliamentarians; its two most longstanding presenters, Dimbleby and Robin Day, were the equivalent of BBC royalty. But since its takeover by a commercial production company in 1998, the program has crossed the line into terrain more generally associated with tabloid media.

Now its producers prefer guests like Brexiteer Nigel Farage, conservative psychologist Jordan Peterson and John Lydon (alias punk rocker Johnny Rotten), who serve to ratchet up the controversy. Its been claimed that paid audience plants are instructed to ask heavily weighted questions, and that the chairing is biased. And Bruce endures the kind of social media onslaught that drove Macdonald out.

Reports of disastrous ratings may themselves be a form of motivated attack. Audiences now have many more viewing options than the original live transmissions, and the BBC has persistently asserted that audience figures are higher than some surveys suggest.

Q&A is in much the same situation: while Sky claims the lefty lovefest has scored as low as 228,000, the ABC estimates the regular following through 2021 at more than 400,000. But thats still quite a drop-off since the programs heyday.

Are we just jaded with celebrity opinion shows, especially those founded in the leftright dramaturgy? The predictability is at times exhausting.

Macdonalds best episode was his first, in February 2020, when he chaired a session on the bushfires with a panel that included Kirsty McBain, then mayor of Bega, and Andrew Constance, Liberal MP for the area. The panel sat on office chairs in a semi-circle, genuinely sharing what they had all just been through, including Macdonald himself, who had reported from an evacuation centre as the fire front approached.

A few weeks later, though, it was back to business as usual, with the presenter in a glossy suit fielding the play of leftright argy-bargy in the studio.

We dont need this anymore. In many ways, the conventions of robust disagreement and both sides-ism are no longer a positive feature of civil society but rather a threat to it. As Republican Liz Cheney put it in a recent statement to the January 6th Committee, the normal sort of vitriolic, toxic partisanship has got to stop. And we have to recognise what is at stake.

Stan Grant has several times taken the helm as guest host of Q&A since Tony Joness departure. He prompted a furore in March this year when he expelled an audience member who expressed support for Putins invasion of Ukraine, asserting the program was contributing to media bias against Russia. There were calls of propaganda from the audience as the speaker proceeded to claim that Ukraine was responsible for all the violence.

Aired in the second week of the Russian invasion, this episode included speakers and audience members with family in the war zone. We encourage different points of view here, Grant said. But we cant have anyone who is sanctioning, supporting, violence.

Clearly caught off guard by an unscheduled audience intervention, Grant may have missed the essential point: that the statement, intentionally or not, was Russian propaganda. It was a critical moment for many reasons, one of which is that Grants subsequent appointment as host could signal a change in direction for the program.

That moment also raised the question of when we should call foul on claims about the right to express opinion, especially in a media culture increasingly subject to influence from organised, even state-run, propaganda. And what is propaganda? How does it manifest and how should we respond?

This, surely, would be a good focus for a Q&A program. Peter Pomerantsev, who has studied Russian propaganda for decades, would be the perfect guest. These are times in which we need sustained, forensic focus on complex issues. We need insight and analysis from people with knowledge and experience, not extemporised opinion from celebrities.

The Ukraine invasion is the starkest manifestation of the transformed geopolitical environment. With Donald Trump already moving to gather support for another tilt at the presidency, and the US justice department taking its time over the evidence against him, the future of American democracy is in jeopardy. In Australia we have a leader of the opposition who talks openly about war with China.

Jones, Macdonald and Grant have all had extensive experience as foreign correspondents. With domestic politics increasingly dwarfed by the massive geopolitical tensions of our era, those issues should be to the fore. Q&A, which originated as a premier platform for the opinion wars, now has an opportunity to lead the way out of them.

See original here:
Can Q&A lead us out of the opinion wars its helped to fuel? - The Conversation