Mediaboss Marketing

James Hohmann/WaPo;

THE BIG IDEA: The biggest news out of Donald Trumps Thursday interview with NBC was his confession that the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired FBI Director James Comey.Undercutting 48 hours of denials by his aides, the president said: In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story; its an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.

But what may ultimately get Trump into bigger trouble is his story about Comey assuring him he was not under investigation during a one-on-one dinner at the White House.Lester Holt askedthe president to elaborate on his claim, made in the letter firing Comey, that hed been told three times he was not under federal investigation. He wanted to stay at the FBI, and I said Ill, you know, consider and see what happens,Trump said. But we had a very nice dinner, and at that time he told me, You are not under investigation.

David A. Hopkins/Honest Graft:

Why Congressional Republicans Won't Abandon Trump Over Comey

To McConnell, Republican support for any Democratic calls to investigate Trump would only signal to voters that Trump had indeed done something wrong, further reducing the president's public support and thus giving the Democrats even more of an advantage. Converting every Trump-related controversy into a partisan food fight instead allows Republicans to summon their base to rally behind them in yet another polarizing battle against the left. Since Democratic supporters are already likely to be highly motivated to turn out against Trump in the next two elections, Republicans are concerned about whether their own side will match their opponents' level of engagement.

Of course, this approach carries certain risks. The most obvious danger is that congressional Republicans could wind up chaining themselves more tightly to Trump just as he plummets off a political cliff. The lack of a meaningful difference between Trump and the rest of the Republican Party gives anti-Trump voters good reason to replace even personally popular Republican incumbents with Democratic challengers. Unless Trump finds a way to bolster his national popularity in the future, even a relatively energized Republican base may not be enough to protect the party against a wider popular backlash among Democrats and independents.

It's also quite possible that Ryan and McConnell would be better served in the long run by buzzing a warning pitch or two under Trump's chin at this stage of his presidency. Automatic party support for his various antics in office may only reinforce bad behavior on Trump's part, making future Comey-scale debacles all the more likely and dragging the entire party into an inescapable political morass. Occasional demonstrations of independence by congressional Republicans might have a constraining effect on a president with flawed knowledge, instincts, and judgment, encouraging him to consult with a wider array of interlocutors and steering him away from the most disastrous courses of action. Normally, party leaders' interests are not well-served by greater intra-party tension. But we are, at the moment, a fair ways off fromnormalcy.

Vann Newkirk II/Atlantic:

How Unprecedented Is James Comey's Firing?

A Q&A with historian Beverly Gage about the history of conflicts between FBI directors and the executive branch

Vann R. Newkirk II: Ill start with the big question. Is James Comeys firing by Donald Trump an unprecedented clash between president and FBI?

Beverly Gage: The answer is yes and no. It is unprecedented in its extremenessno president before this moment has fired an FBI director who was engaged in conducting an ongoing and politically sensitive investigation of his own campaign. On the other hand, this sort of conflict between the FBI and the executive branch is not itself totally anomalous. It's something that we've seen over the course of American history. During J. Edgar Hoover's day, he had repeated conflicts with presidents, and he had a kind of autonomous power that allowed to withstand and sometimes win those conflicts, for better or worse. Since then, most presidents have been cautious about this kind of direct confrontation.

Amanda Taub/NY Times:

Comeys Firing Tests Strength of the Guardrails of Democracy

Norms about political behavior and power serve as soft guardrails for democracy, said Steven Levitsky, a professor at Harvard who studies authoritarianism.

In a healthy democratic system, when politicians violate important norms, other institutions push back, ensuring that the violators pay a hefty price and the guardrails are preserved for another day.

But in collapsing democracies, the opposite happens. Instead of banding together to protect democratic norms, warring parties take violations by their opponents as justification for breaking other norms in response. Its a process of escalation that often begins with minor stuff and ends with coups, Mr. Levitsky said.

Dave Weigel/WaPo:

Republicans misstate, again and again on TV and at town halls, whats in their health-care bill

That means these lawmakers face two potential backlashes: one if opponents of Obamacare perceive the bill does not go far enough, and another from Americans worried that the bill would eliminate their coverage.

The result has been a confused sales effort and a series of flat misstatements and contradictions about whats actually in the bill.

Its a risky strategy especially in front of the skeptical crowds and interviewers Republicans have been speaking to in recent days. On Wednesday, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) spent nearly five hours answering questions from a disgruntled audience of constituents, some of whom spoke at length about what Medicaid meant in their communities. MacArthur was blown back by laughter when he argued, as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has, that caps on per capita Medicaid funding would leave the system stronger.

I am trying to save a system so it continues to help you, he said. I am trying to make sure Medicaid is strong enough to continue.

Later, MacArthur argued that the tax cuts in the bill were for everybody but when a constituent calculated that MacArthurs own savings would amount to $37,000 if the bill was passed, the congressman agreed that the bills large investment tax cut was not going to benefit everyone equally.

Paul Krugman/NY Times:

So its nave to expect Republicans to join forces with Democrats to get to the bottom of the Russia scandal even if that scandal may strike at the very roots of our national security. Todays Republicans just dont cooperate with Democrats, period. Theyd rather work with Vladimir Putin.

In fact, some of them probably did.

Now, maybe Im being too pessimistic. Maybe there are enough Republicans with a conscience or, failing that, sufficiently frightened of an electoral backlash that the attempt to kill the Russia probe will fail. One can only hope so.

But its time to face up to the scary reality here. Most people now realize, I think, that Donald Trump holds basic American political values in contempt. What we need to realize is that much of his party shares that contempt.

Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen/USA Today:

Whether the presidents clumsy and seemingly ill-thought-out steps will backfire is impossible to predict. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had promised to recuse himself from all Justice Department matters involving Russian interference with our election, but waded right into the middle of the decision to discharge Comey. Perhaps Sessions will step aside while Rosenstein attempts to redeem himself for his role in the pretense that Comey was fired overmissteps in the Clinton email probe. The deputy attorney general could do it by appointing an independent special counsel.

But the constraints under which such a special counsel would have to operate under current law, and the constitutional subservience of any such counsel to the president as head of the executive branch, are a prescription for a replay of an ugly drama: President Nixonfired two attorneys generalbefore finding someone (Robert Bork) willing to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox only to be pressured into appointing another special prosecutor,Leon Jaworski, who ended up being as determined and unshakable as Cox.

Peter Beinart/Atlantic:

L'Etat, C'est Trump

The president and his advisors believe loyalty to the country and loyalty to him are the same thing.

Its not just that Trump has never worked in government. Hes never worked in a job devoted to a cause larger than self-enrichment or self-aggrandizement. Hes spent virtually his entire professional life in a family business where he sets the rules and where people answer to him. Note how promiscuously Trumps uses the first person possessive: my generals, my African-American. Last spring, when journalists asked him who his Israeli advisors were, hewheeledout his Jewish lawyers. He sends his children on diplomatic missions, where they also hawk his products. He doesnt really distinguish between public and private interest, between obeying the law and obeying him.

See the original post:
Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Republican cowards and enablers buckle but don't act - Daily Kos

WASHINGTON A commencement address by the No. 2 Senate Republican was canceled Friday after opposition from students at the historically black university where he was scheduled to speak.

The cancellation of Sen. John Cornyn's planned Saturday address at Texas Southern University came just days after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was booed and heckled as she delivered a commencement speech at a different historically black university, Bethune-Cookman University in Florida.

Students at Texas Southern University in Houston had circulated a petition demanding the Texas senator be withdrawn as a commencement speaker, citing various stances he has taken. These included his confirmation votes in favor of DeVos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his opposition to funding for so-called sanctuary cities that protect immigrants and his support for photo IDs for voting. The petition also cited Cornyn's low rating by the NAACP.

"Having a politician such as him speak at our institution is an insult to the students, to TSU, and to all (historically black colleges and universities)," said the petition on the change.org site. "This is our graduation. We have the right to decide if we want to refuse to sit and listen to the words of a politician who chooses to use his political power in ways that continually harm marginalized and oppressed people."

Senator John Cornyn of Texas walks to the Senate chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014. J. Scott Applewhite / AP

The university released a statement saying that, "Every consideration is made to ensure that our students' graduation day is a celebratory occasion and one they will remember positively for years to come. We asked Sen. Cornyn to instead visit with our students again at a future date in order to keep the focus on graduates and their families. We, along with Sen. Cornyn, agree that the primary focus of commencement should be a celebration of academic achievement."

Cornyn's spokesman said, "Sen. Cornyn was honored to be invited to address TSU's graduates, but he respects the administration's decision and looks forward to continuing to engage with the university in the future."

The development comes amid a nationwide debate over free speech on college campuses, in the wake of two high-profile incidents at Berkeley where planned speeches by conservatives ended up getting canceled amid fears of violent student protests.

More:
Commencement Speech by No. 2 Senate Republican Canceled After Students Protest - NBCNews.com

Our constitution opens with the words that India is both a republic and a democracy. We are making an important claim: is it true?

Republic is a Roman word. A republican state is one in which power rests with the citizens. Democracy is a Greek word. It means a state in which leaders are chosen from among the general population, and not the aristocracy. Republic and democracy dont mean the same thing, and even democracy has many interpretations. Athenian democracy was actually a psephocracy. For instance, in Athens all (adult male) citizens were equal and therefore leaders and jurors were chosen by lot, meaning by turn. Socrates had total contempt for this democracy and throughout Platos works his refrain is: In a storm, would you choose a ships captain by lot?

After the Middle Ages, Europe was inspired by Greece in art, philosophy and science and culture, but by Rome in government. In the US constitution, the word democracy in fact does not appear, though republic does. Many of Americas founding fathers were classicists who favoured Rome. The Federalist Papers, which is Americas version of our Constituent Assembly debates, were written by figures like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison under the pseudonym Publius, referencing a Roman who helped set up the republic. A story, probably apocryphal, tells of Benjamin Franklin exiting the constitutional convention of 1787. A man in the crowd asks him what sort of government America has been given. Franklin replies: A republic, if you can keep it.

Republics are not easy to keep because we are naturally attracted to the heroic saviour who will sort out our problems with his genius. The historian Livy tells us that Rome was a republic for some four centuries. It was, like democracy, different from the republic we know. Suffrage was even more restricted than in Athens, and Rome had an aristocracy (the Senate is a Roman institution) and slavery and colonialism, but it did not bow to one man. The heroic saviour Julius Caesar ended the republic.

The UK is a democracy but not a republic, because executive power flows from a monarch. The resistance to this structure is referred to as republicanism. What about India?

It is obvious that we are a democracy, because our leaders are chosen by voters. But are we a republic? Does real power rest with the citizens of India? The outside observer will notice that this is not the case. The interest of the state and its organs is put above the interest of Indias people. There is a background to this: Nehru inherited an aggressively expansionist imperial state with tentative borders. Its relationship with the citizen focused on taxation and law and order. This continued after 1947. Even today, where the state feels threatened by citizens demanding rights, it will not hesitate to put them down with lethal force.

This story was reported on October 1, 2016: Four people were left dead and as many as 40 were injured after police opened fire on a protest this morning, according to sources in the Chirudih village near Hazaribagh in Jharkhand. Residents have been protesting the acquisition of land by the National Thermal Power Corporation for their coal mines.

This, the murder of citizens by the state, is actually a regular occurrence in India, in the adivasi belt, the northeast and Kashmir. It is not a national issue because the killed are not like us. Also, their resistance hinders our development and our version of nationalism. We refer to their questioning of our consensus as anti-national behaviour.

We reduce Indian citizens to categories which can be despised: Terrorist, Maoist, Islamist, Separatist, Jihadist and so on. This makes it easier for our armies and paramilitaries to kill them, though as Hazaribagh and thousands of such incidents show, we also have zero regard for the poor. I used the example of the murder of helpless individuals faced with loss of their land, because in India today it is not possible to elicit sympathy for most categories of protestors. In such a place, a media organ that puts the armys interest above the citizens can align itself to the name republic. This is done without irony and perhaps without even understanding of what the word republic means. The armys interests can be supreme in a martial law state like Pakistan, not in constitutionally republican India.

When can we, wholly and in full measure, claim to be a republic? Only when the rights and liberties of Indian citizens are respected by the state, without exception. Not steamrolled over regularly, to applause from the media.

And when the violation happens, as it can happen anywhere, it is addressed meaningfully and ended. Till that happens, it would be fair to say that India is a democracy. But it is not really a republic.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Read more:
Yes, India is a democracy but it's not really a republic - Times of India (blog)

New York Times

Comey's Firing Tests Strength of the 'Guardrails of Democracy' New York Times Political scientists who study democracy and authoritarianism know the answers will be long debated. The true significance of Mr. Comey's firing, they say, is that it presents a kind of stress test for American democratic institutions. In unhealthy ... Trump's war on American democracyHerald Scotland Perez: Firing of Comey Affront to DemocracyWJCL News Opinion: After Comey's firing, how can we save our constitutional democracy?MarketWatch The New Yorker -San Francisco Chronicle -ThinkProgress all 17,276 news articles »

See the article here:
Comey's Firing Tests Strength of the 'Guardrails of Democracy' - New York Times

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that U.S.-led interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia were not about spreading democracy, but about addressing regional security issues.

Rice, who served in former President George W. Bush's administration asnational security advisor from 2001 through 2005 and as secretary of state from 2005 to 2009, made the revelation during an interview at the Brooking Institute. Rice played a key role in the Bush cabinet during the post-9/11 years that saw the U.S. launch two large-scale invasions against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. In addition to the regional threat of the Al-Qaeda-allied Taliban government in Afghanistan and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, later disproved, the White House defended its military action by touting a U.S.-led campaign to spread democracy to the region. In remarks referencing her latest book, however, Rice said otherwise.

Related: War in Iraq: Islamic State Collapses As Military Kills ISIS Commander in West Mosul

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

"We didn't go toIraq tobring democracy toIraq, we went toIraq tooverthrow Saddam Hussein, who we thought was reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction and who we knew had been a threat in the region. It was a security problem," Rice said. "We didn't overthrow the Talibanto bring democracy to Afghanistan, we overthrewthem because they were harboring Al-Qaeda in a safehaven after 9/11."

Then President George W. Bush delivers a speech celebrating what he deemed a victory in the Iraq War to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. Bush's former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has since said U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were about tackling security problems, not defending or spreading democracy. Larry Downing/Reuters

She compared the U.S.'s motives to that of World War Two when the nation intervened to defend European and Asian allies from the spread of Axis powers Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. She also said she regretted the notion that the U.S.'s first major military engagements of the 21st century were mixed up with the "freedom agenda" and emphasized that U.S.'s missions in Afghanistan, codenamed Operation Enduring Freedom, and in Iraq, codenamed Operation Iraqi Freedom, were strictly concerned with taking out U.S. foes. She claimed she would never have asked Bush tobring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan by military force, which she said was a "dramatic" example of democracy promotion.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered from ongoing conflicts since the U.S.'s intervention. In Iraq, the toppling of Hussein, a member of the country's Sunni Muslim minority, exacerbated long-standing sectarian tensions between Sunni Muslims and the Shiite Muslim majority. Ultraconservative Sunni Muslim groups, some of which were former members of Hussein's government and military, formed Al-Qaeda's franchise in Iraq, which took advantage of the post-war chaos to target U.S. soldiers and Shiite Muslims, further threatening the stability of the U.S.-installed government. Al-Qaeda in Iraq united with other jihadist groups to form the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006, which ultimately rebranded itself into the Islamic State militant group (ISIS). After mostly withdrawing from Iraq in 2011, the U.S. was forced to return in 2014, albeit in smaller numbers, to assist an Iraqi-led campaign against ISIS.

A member of the Army writes a note at a military base southwest of Mosul, Iraq, April 28, 2017. This year marked 14th consecutive year of U.S. military presence in Iraq. Suhaib Salem/Reuters

Since toppling the Taliban's government in Afghanistan, the U.S. continues to battle the insurgents, which have recently begun a new offensive after taking new swathes of territory across the nation. Most U.S. troops had left by 2016, but advisers of President Donald Trump have suggested another increase in U.S. forces on the ground after the Taliban's resurgence and the rise of an ISIS syndicate attempting to rival the Taliban's hold on the nation. Last month, the Taliban conducted its deadliest attack of the conflict yet when the group killed as many as 140 Afghan soldiers after infiltrating a military base.

Rice's comments on democracy and war echoed claims she made her in most recent book,Democracy: The Long Road to Freedom. In the book, which was released last week, Rice reflects on democracy movements and the transition to democracy in nations around the world, from the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. to post-war Iraq and Afghanistan. Since leaving the State Department at the end of Bush's last term, Rice returned to academia and joined the Council of Foreign Relations.

Visit link:
U.S. Wars in the Middle East Were Not Supposed to Bring ... - Newsweek