Mediaboss Marketing

In the summer of 2001, the late Sen. Jim Jeffords from Vermont left the Republican Party, declared himself an independent and caucused with the Democrats, giving the Dems a 51-seat majority in the upper chamber. Jeffords, a lifelong Republican who had served seven terms in the House before winning three Senate races, told supporters that he had struggled with "the changing nature of the national party" and that "in order to best represent my state of Vermont, my own conscience and principles that I have stood for my whole life," he would leave it.

Today, the proximate causes of Jeffords' break with the GOP seem downright quaint. He strongly opposed what he saw as the fiscal recklessness of President Bush's mammoth tax cuts, and was appalled when Senate Republicans refused to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which he had supported as a member of the House back in 1975.

Sixteen years later, many Republicans privately express deep concerns over Donald Trump's temperament, lack of experience and propensity for sparking diplomatic crises with impromptu rants on Twitter. Some are as concerned as their Democratic counterparts about signals that the administration is bent on undermining the Atlantic security alliance and forming closer ties with Russia. Others are alarmed by his attacks on the judiciary, and the perception that he's a thin-skinned, self-obsessed authoritarian.

Some have come forward to offer public statements condemning Trump's travel ban or some of his more inflammatory tweets, but the usual political incentives keep them from going further than that. While Trump's the least popular newly elected president in the history of polling, nearly nine in ten Republicans either "approve" or "strongly approve" of the job he's done so far, according to the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll. As long as the base remains behind the president, Republican officeholders can grumble, but they're constrained from voting against his less qualified nominees or otherwise standing up to his agenda. This is true for the party as a whole; as long as they have unified control of the federal government, and the base is behind Trump, aggressive oversight of the administration will prove elusive.

But this is a moment in history that provides some unusual incentives. If just three GOP Senators had the courage to cross the aisle and caucus with Democrats, they would find themselves in a position to defend our institutions and the norms that have made them more or less functional for more than 200 years, protect the international alliances that have served American interests well in the post-World War II era and assure that our federal agencies are headed by competent, qualified people. (It must have been somewhat embarrassing to confirm Ben Carson to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development only eight weeks after Carson said through a spokesperson that he was unqualified for the job.)

Just three individuals could restore the checks and balances that are clearly so necessary with an administration headed by a reality-TV star who seems to have little knowledge of, or interest in, public policy. The resignation of Michael Flynn, Trump's erstwhile National Security Advisor, for discussing U.S. sanctions with Russia before the president was sworn in, only highlights the vital need for independent oversight of this White House. Important questions remain, but the chairmen of both the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees indicated that they have little interest in investigating the matter, and Politico reported that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a Republican, "largely responded to Flynn's resignation by highlighting the retired lieutenant general's record of public service and offering deference to Trump."

A Senate controlled by Democrats wouldn't reflexively defer to Trump. It would investigate Trump's alleged conflicts of interests and assure that he isn't violating the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. It would check those items on Trump's agenda that fall outside the mainstream. At the same time, as "independent Republicans," lawmakers who were to cross the aisle could still join their GOP colleagues in supporting traditional Republican priorities. In the 107th Congress, Democratic leaders released Jim Jeffords to vote as he wished.

John McCain would be an obvious candidate to flip. The traditional foreign policy realist already enjoys the "maverick" brand. His feuds with Trump are well-documented. Last October, he renounced his support for his party's nominee following the release of Trump's recorded comments about grabbing women by their genitals, saying, "It's not pleasant for me. But I have daughters. I have friends. ... They cannot be degraded and demeaned in that fashion." Or Lindsey Graham, who responded to Republicans' embrace of Trump by calling him "the most dishonest person in America," and lamenting that his party had "gone batshit crazy." What about Susan Collins, who refused to vote for Trump because she was so worried that his "lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so"? Or Lisa Murkowski, who overcame a primary loss to a Tea Party challenger to win re-election as a write-in. She resigned a leadership position in the state party because she couldn't stomach supporting Trump.

These are only a few of the GOP senators who have expressed deep misgivings about where the country is headed, and the majority of Americans who don't support Donald Trump or the movement he leads need at least three of them to put country before party and stand up to the administration. At a minimum, one would hope that a handful of Republican Senators are thinking hard about what Trump would have to do to force their hand.

Jim Jeffords was the first senator in history to change the balance of power in the upper chamber, but it's not unprecedented in state capitals. Eight New York state senators who were elected as Democrats currently caucus with the Republicans, giving the Grand Old Party a veto on policy that the solidly blue state's electorate never voted for.

It would take guts to do the same in D.C.'s hyper-polarized environment. Many Republicans would see it as treason. When Jeffords retired after three decades on Capitol Hill, only one of his former colleagues took the floor to praise him in keeping with the tradition in the upper chamber.

But today, some Republicans who are skeptical of Trump would understand and even applaud the move. And of course they would become heroes to millions of Americans who fear for their futures under this president. It's also very likely that in the future, history would look back kindly on their courage in defense of the republic.

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

See more here:
Wanted: Three Principled Republicans to Save America From Trump - RollingStone.com

WASHINGTON One month into his presidency, Donald Trumps popularity has begun tanking with every constituency, save one.

GOP voters remain loyal to the president. And not by small margins. While just 39 percent of all respondentsin a recent Pew poll said they approved of the job Trump was doing, 84 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said they felt that way. GOP support for Trump surpasses that for George W. Bush, his father, and Ronald Reagan at similar points in their presidencies.

These numbers have fed the perception that Trump is a sui generis type of political figure one whose avid base will stick by him regardless of foible or misstep. Its a perception that Trump himself has pushed, famously declaring that he could stand in the Middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any votes.

The reality, of course, is far more complicated. And it was readily apparent at this weeks Conservative Political Action Conference. The gathering of students, activists and operatives featured a number of die-hard Trump supporters, including those able to rationalize a principled support of the president,even after such a hypothetical shooting.

Id stand behind him until he is impeached, said Eric Finch of West Virginia. Because he is my president and I respect the office and the process. Id probably go out and call for his impeachment if he shot someone. But there has to be a process. And I imagine there would be a story. Maybe the guy attacked him, or Secret Service wasnt there.

But Trumps hold on the crowd had as much to do with party as personality. People at CPAC approved of Trumpism as much as, if not more than, Trump himself. And their loyalty to the party was, perhaps, supreme.

After eight years of Barack Obama and tax-and-spend economics, a Republican who doesnt do a very good job would have to do a really bad job to anger the movement, said Cody Leach, of Maryland. We have to be a faithful party because we are faithful servants. We have to lead him [Trump] to the light.

CPAC has never been ideal turf for Trump. Though the gathering helped legitimize him among conservatives when he first appeared in 2011, he skipped the conference in 2016, out of fear that the crowd would walk out of his speech in protest. His address on Friday sparked no such act of defiance. It was, instead, a fairly well received, if not meandering, attack on the press, and a review of campaign promises.

Overall, however, the mood was notably more subdued than past gatherings. After eight years out of power in the White House, attendees seemed thrilled to have finally reached the mountaintop. But, as even the organizers conceded, they still didnt know what to make of the sherpa.

There is a good healthy skepticism with most people, said CPACs organizer, Matt Schlapp. Conservatives have felt like theyve taken the bait before. ... Voters get told, Oh yeah. We will do this. And then they get into power and sometimes dont do so much because those issues are controversial. The one thing about Donald Trump is what hes showing conservatives, is that he doesnt seem to care that much if something is controversial. If it is something he said he was going to do, he is a bulldog about getting it done.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

For Trumps true believers, it is precisely that bulldog nature that makes him such a draw. Standing outside the hotel where the conference was held, Nigel Farage the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, Brexit champion and closest approximation to Trump that England can offer scoffed at a query about what Trump might do to possibly disappoint.

Its a ridiculous question, Farage said, in between drags from his cigarette. Its a ludicrous question. I dont know. ... What youve seen in the first few days is his full intention to carry out his campaign promises. How refreshing.

Several attendees standing nearby were delighted, one gleefully declaring that Farage had gone full beast mode

Inside the sliding-glass doors of the hotel, others were similarly passionate. Kira Innis, 30, of Los Angeles, who claimed to have wanted Trump to run for president since she was 13, said the only thing that would force her to question her support would be if Trump sanded down his infamously rough edges.

The only thing he could do to piss me off is to stop being Trump, said Innis, arguing that, with an immense sense of brilliance and strategy Trump picked Mike Pence as his vice president precisely for those who wanted political vanilla. If [Trump] isnt that non-nonsense pit bull that he is, then I would be upset. Then Id be like, Ummm. We dont want THAT.

But at CPAC, these types of comments, even from those proudly toting Trump paraphernalia, were the minority. Most attendees said that while they were uncomfortable with Trumps warts, they were able to overlook look them because he was a vessel for their policies.

Dakota Workman, 22, from West Virginia, said the White House was not operating, as Trump insisted, like a fine-tuned machine, though he noted that no administration is this early on. But he appreciated the new coal regulations, the ban on lobbying and Trumps Supreme Court pick even more. If the president backpedaled on Obamacare repeal, he said, hed be upset with Congress and start thinking about ditching Trump. I sucked up my pride and voted for him more because it was about beating Hillary Clinton, Workman explained.

Matthew Edward, 23, came to CPAC from Illinois. Trump was his third choice for president, after Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. But on Thursday, he roamed the halls in a MAGA hat, perfectly content with how the administration was operating.

If campaign season starts up in 2020 and there is no bricks in the [Mexico] wall, I would have to say, at that point, O.K., whats going on? Edward eventually conceded.

As Trump navigates his first year in office, his challenge will be keeping these types of voters in the fold as he confronts the tough realities of actual governance. A border wall wont be built quickly, and the repeal of Obamacare may never occur. The question is whether Workman, Edward and many others can forgive a lack of progress as quickly as they forgive Trumps idiosyncratic politics.

So far, he has been given a fair amount of leeway.

If he told the same lies that Hillary Clinton was caught in using a private email server for public business I couldnt vote for him then, said Andrew Pace, 19, of Florida, who wore a Make America Great Again hat signed by conservative media provocateur James OKeefe as he walked the hotel halls. But even then, Id vote for another Republican candidate. Either that or [Rep.] Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). I love Tulsi.

Want more updates from Sam Stein? Sign up for his newsletter, Spam Stein, here.

Read more:
Trump's Support Is Unwavering Among Republicans. But It's Not Why You Think. - Huffington Post

The Republicans Who Will Stop Trump Forbes A month into the embryonic Presidency, the Trump locomotive is struggling to gain speed. Dealt the great fortune of a unified governmenta Republican controlled Congress and a soon to be restored conservative majority in the high courtthe president ...

Read this article:
The Republicans Who Will Stop Trump - Forbes

Feb. 24, 2017, 3:40 p.m.

It was a cool and rainy day when elders of the Republican tribe recently gathered to honor one of their own.

The honoree, Stuart K. Spencer, was unmistakable in his white duck pants and a lime-green sport coat so bright it almost hurt to see. A reformed chain-smoker, he snapped merrily away on a wad of chewing gum.

The event marked Spencer's 90th birthday, but the mood beneath the surface conviviality was unsettled and gray, like the clouds fringing the mountains outside.

If the occasion was intended as a personal celebration, it also had the feel of a wake for a time in politics long passed.

Along with former Vice President Dick Cheney and former California Gov. Pete Wilson, veterans of the Reagan years turned out in force. It was Spencer, more than anyone, who took a political long shot and washed-up B-movie actor and helped transform him into the Reagan of legend.

Here is the original post:
The Republicans who made Reagan president mourn the party they once knew - Los Angeles Times

We are going to massively lower taxes on the middle class, reduce taxes on American business and make our tax code more simple and much more fair for everyone including the people and the business, said Donald Trump in his speech at CPAC today, with characteristic eloquence.

He didnt say much more on the topic, perhaps because the administration still hasnt figured out exactly what kind of tax reform it wants to pass. But there are two things you can count on.

First, Trump and his senior officials will repeat the words middle class over and over whenever they talk about it. And second, the vast majority of the tax cuts are going to go to the wealthy.Simply put, there is no higher priority for this or any Republican government than cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Back in November, future Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin made a bizarre promise: Any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. This demonstrated Mnuchins lack of political experience. A more practiced Republican figure would have known that youre supposed to imply that the benefits of GOP tax cuts wont accrue mostly to the rich, then quickly change the subject. Its much more dangerous to make a concrete promise you have no intention of keeping.

Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs banker and Hollywood financier, is President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for treasury secretary. He spoke at Trump Tower Nov. 30. (The Washington Post)

Yesterday, Mnuchin was at it again, only with language that gave him a little more wiggle room: Look, as Ive said before, were primarily focused on a middle-income tax cut and simplification for business. Andon the high end, if there are tax cuts, that they are offset with reduction of deductions and other things. Yes indeed, the collection of billionaires and Goldman Sachs alumni populating the Trump administration thinks of little apart from the interests of the middle class. Thats where theyre primarily focused.

We dont know exactly what the administration and congressional Republicans will produce, but we can get a pretty good idea from the plans theyve already floated. During the campaign, Trump put out a tax plan; heres what the Tax Policy Center concluded when they analyzed it:

The highest-income taxpayers (0.1 percent of the population, or those with incomes over $3.7 million in 2016 dollars) would experience an average tax cut of nearly $1.1 million, over 14 percent of after-tax income. Households in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of $1,010, or 1.8 percent of after-tax income, while the poorest fifth of households would see their taxes go down an average of $110, or 0.8 percent of their after-tax income.

Theres that focus on the middle class for you. Of course, any tax reform has to go through Congress, and there are already plans there waiting. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has a plan, and the gifts it showers on the wealthy put even Trumps plan to shame. Heres the Tax Policy Centers analysis:

The top quintile or fifth of the distribution would receive an average tax cut of about $11,800 (4.6 percent of after-tax income). Three-quarters of total tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent, who would receive an average cut of nearly $213,000, or 13.4 percent of after-tax income. The top 0.1 percent would receive an average tax cut of about $1.3 million (16.9 percent of after-tax income). In contrast, the average tax cut for the lowest-income households would be just $50, 0.4 percent of after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $260, about the same relative to after-tax income 0.5 percent as for the lowest-income households.

And in 2025, a remarkable 99.6 percent of the benefits of the Ryan tax cuts would go to the top one percent. When Ryan gets asked about this, he says that even discussing the way his tax cut helps the rich is ridiculous, because People dont think like that.

So how can Republicans claim that theyre focused on the middle class? Its going to work the same way it did when George W. Bush passed two rounds of massive tax cuts, which youll recall supercharged the American economy just as Republicans predicted, leading to a period of unprecedented growth in GDP and wages. (Oh, thats not how you remember the Bush years? Strange.) First, they cut income tax rates across the board, which means that the middle class gets something, even if its only a couple hundred bucks. Most Americans actually pay more in payroll taxes (which fund the Social Security and Medicare systems) than they do in federal income taxes, but Republicans arent interested in cutting payroll taxes. The ones hit hard by income taxes are mostly the wealthy, and each percentage point you cut their taxes represents a much bigger giveaway.

Second, Republicans push a series of cuts to other taxes that are paid almost entirely by the wealthy, like the inheritance tax and the capital gains tax. Add them together, and the rich end up making out big league. But the fact that middle class people get some kind of cut becomes the centerpiece of the PR campaign to win support for the cuts.

Bush was particularly good at this. During his 2000 campaign hed pull up people he called tax families on stage, a waitress or plumber who he said would get a $500 or $1000 tax break under his plan, and everyone would cheer. He didnt mention the CEO whod be getting $1 million.

Then, in an absolutely brilliant move, once the first tax cut was signed, the Bush administration sent a letter to every taxpaying household in America, saying, We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxesAs part of the immediate tax relief, you will be receiving a check in the amount of Then not long after, everyone got an actual check in the mail.

Later, when the Obama administration cut taxes, it decided not to do so in the same splashy way, because research indicated that a check like the one Bush sent was likely to be saved, while a few extra dollars in everyones weekly paycheck were more likely to be spent, having a greater effect on the economy. So the Obama administration got no public relations benefit out of their tax cut.

But Republican administrations arent really worried about maximizing the economic impact of their tax cuts. Their concern is fundamentally a moral one: they view wealthy people as more deserving and upper-end taxes as inherently evil. It would be perfectly fine if cutting them helps the economy, but if it doesnt (and it doesnt), then thats okay, too, because tax cuts for the wealthy are an end in themselves.

So when the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress start talking about how concerned they are about the middle class, look at the actual numbers. Thats where youll find the truth.

Link:
Republicans claim their tax cuts will mostly help the middle class. It's a lie. - Washington Post (blog)