Why Dems Aren't Winning Against Trump

At U.S. News and World Report, "You Can't Beat Something With Nothing":

The Democrats seem to enjoy gloating about the hot mess that is the Republican Party these days. Former GOP presidents warning the president about the people he surrounds himself with; sitting Republican U.S. senators calling the president unstable and unqualified; and a former GOP speaker of the house saying "there is no Republican Party. The president isn't a Republican." And Democrats' friends in the mainstream media have kindly created an echo chamber that makes them think that they are always right and the Republicans are a bunch of sexist, racist, whack jobs.

So why aren't they winning?

They must be longing for the halcyon days of the Obama election in 2008. They were so eager to lay all of America's troubles entirely at the feet of President George W. Bush: The Iraq War (which most of their party voted to support), Hurricane Katrina response (ignoring any involvement by Democratic local officials) and the financial collapse (which had little to do with Washington – although President Bush and President Barack Obama worked hand in hand to bail the country out of it). They were so full of hope! They were ushering in a new America. A post-racial America where everyone has health care and a good middle-class job. Stories written in the wake of the November election wrote the obituary on the Republican Party (too white, too rich, too old and on top of that, technology morons who can't turn out the vote). The Democrats were here to stay – or so they thought.

That arrogance caused them to nominate Hillary Clinton to be their party's standard bearer. Possibly the only candidate who could lose to Trump. (It's generally accepted that, had Vice President Joe Biden been the nominee, he would have won. And just this week, Trump's pollster posited that Sanders would have beaten Trump, too.) Her major primary opponent was a bit nutty, but that was largely because the Democratic establishment had crowned Clinton early on and crowded everyone else out. She was a fairly strong candidate in the Democratic Party: a well-known former first lady to a very popular president, former U.S. senator, former secretary of state. It was her turn.

Never mind that there is no figure in American politics as guaranteed to unite the GOP base in opposition as the person who coined the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" in an effort to deflect from her husband's misdeeds (which everyone in the country seemed to find plausible, except for her). Never mind her inability to connect with working-class voters in the same folksy way as her husband. Never mind her reputation for refusing to take responsibility for things that happened on her watch (like Benghazi). Everyone should ignore all that. Because it's time for us to shatter that glass ceiling, and no one but Hillary can do it.

The Democrats seemed shocked the race between Clinton and Trump remained relatively close because they seemed to stop talking to the white working-class voters who, for decades, had defined their base.

So when they lost the election, there was a reckoning. The leadership of the Democratic Party was drummed up and new, forward-looking leaders took the reins and offered an alternative to what they saw as the disaster of Donald Trump. Wait, no. That isn't what happened. Instead, they re-elected Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. They elected Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader and completely sold out to the New York and California wings of the Democratic Party.

Instead of talking about middle-class tax cuts, they talked about transgender bathroom access. Instead of talking about fixing Obamacare, which was crushing many in the middle class with high premiums and complicated doctor selections, they walked right into the trap of the alt-right and began tearing down Civil War statues.

In the first big test of party strength: the Virginia governor's race, they have thrown up all over themselves. Virginia should be easy for them. Clinton won it in 2016. Trump's numbers are completely under water. The Republican candidate has awkwardly embraced Trump and some of his controversial positions while trying not to hug him too close. But somehow they ended up with one of the least inspiring Democratic candidates Virginia has seen in a long time. And they backed an ad that seemed to depict Virginians who drive pickup trucks as a bunch of rednecks looking to plow down children of color...

More.

Here the now-pulled Latino Victory Fund ad from the Virginia governor's race. For shame:

President Trump Shows How it's Done

From Jill Lawrence, at USA Today, "Trump shows GOP how it's done: Scrap absolutism, deal with reality" (at Memeorandum):

The Freedom Caucus is the tail that aspires to wag a whole country though it represents just a sliver of Americans. Even within the House it's outnumbered by moderate centrists.

President Trump wrote a book on deals, and so did I. Mine is shorter and didn’t sell quite as many copies, but it was a deep dig into how political agreements are born. The process — slow, plodding, painstaking, strategic, and did I mention slow? — is nothing like what went on with Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Nothing at all.

As a citizen, I’m thrilled by the lightning round between the Republican president and his two Democratic amigos. It feels strange but wonderful to get hurricane aid, keep the government in business and increase the U.S. borrowing limit (sparing the world a financial crisis) — all before we even began to type our traditional angst-ridden headlines about polarization, paralysis and brinksmanship.

As a liberal, I’m also pretty psyched. If Pelosi (the House Democratic leader) and Schumer (her Senate counterpart) are even half the geniuses Republicans seem to think they are, Democrats may be well positioned to help protect undocumented young immigrants in a program Trump just canceled, and to keep a lid on the deliverables to rich people who are anticipating huge tax cuts.

If I were a centrist Republican, I’d be intrigued by this hint of bipartisanship. Could it be that the GOP fever is finally breaking, five long years after Barack Obama predicted it would? If so, all it has taken is Obama’s exit from the stage, absolute Republican power, and a president like Trump.

It turns out that a lot of what Obama did wasn’t so god-awful. The problem was who did it (him) and in some cases how he did it — executive actions or, heaven forbid, party-line votes. Quick, pass the smelling salts.

The latest of many examples is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. In the absence of congressional action on a new immigration law, Obama unilaterally started a permit system so people brought here illegally as children could work and study without fear of deportation. The conservative backlash was ferocious.

But now that Trump has canceled it, with a six-month grace period for Congress to “do your job,” as he put it, a growing number of Republicans — including Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan — are looking for an escape hatch.  Whose idea was it, anyway, to destroy the lives of some 800,000 young people who are working, studying and have never broken the law? Who are engines of our economy, or could be, if we let them stay? It turns out it’s not popular to kick the “dreamers” out of America.

Turns out as well that repealing the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is not popular either — especially when the Congressional Budget Office has found that every variation on a replacement would cost people more, take away consumer protections, and insure far fewer — up to 24 million fewer in one case. Those protesting repeal at town meetings included conservatives and Trump voters as well as liberal Democrats. Those seeking a bipartisan compromise to stabilize markets and improve the law include more than a few Republican senators and governors. Those trying to get Congress to abandon repeal and move on include … Trump. At least as of Friday.

It wasn’t popular to pull America out of the Paris climate agreement, as Trump has done. It wouldn’t be popular to weaken fuel efficiency standards developed by the Obama administration, with consumers or even apparently with the auto industry.

And it won’t be popular if, as expected, the tax “reform” push by Trump and congressional Republicans turns out to be mostly about tax cuts for the rich. Three-quarters of Americans say Trump should not lower taxes on the wealthy and close to that many said a year ago that taxes should be raised on the wealthy.

Buoyed by gerrymandering and cultural shifts, Republicans have had years of success winning elections at every level. They have mistaken that as popular support for free-market health care, trickle-down economics, extensive deregulation and callous social policies. Will months of failure on Obamacare repeal, capped perhaps by a groundswell of support for DACA, finally drive the message home?

The aggressively conservative House Freedom Caucus has been like the tail wagging the GOP and aspiring to wag the whole country. But its three dozen hard-core conservatives don’t represent anything close to a majority of Americans. Even within the House, they may be outnumbered by the moderate centrists of the Tuesday Group, estimated to have as many as 50 members...

Trump needs to get Democrats to bend toward his will, not the other way around.

Bipartisanship is fine, as long as it tilts conservative.

That said, I like how Trump is going rogue. He's amazing sometimes.

More.

Have We Crossed a Line in Media Coverage of the Presidency?

My short answer is no. As soon as a Democrat retakes the White House, we'll be back to fawning, far-left news coverage starring journalists with Democrat bylines.

But see the Los Angeles Times, "Has the Trump presidency permanently changed how the media cover the presidency?":

Here's Kate Bolduan shutting down Corey Stewart: "Stop talking. Stop talking. Stop talking for a second. You are the guest on my show." pic.twitter.com/g1GT8bYsSz

— David Mack (@davidmackau) August 17, 2017

Quick quiz: Name just one press secretary who served under President Obama or George W. Bush.

If you’re Googling for answers, congratulations, and condolences: You’re no different than most Americans.

Now ask yourself the same question about President Trump’s administration. It’s likely you’re rattling off names as spontaneously as a freestyle rapper: Spicer, Scaramucci, Huckabee Sanders.


Drop the mike. Take a victory lap. All those hours of flipping among CNN, MSNBC and Fox, watching wall-to-wall coverage of the Trump White House and everything that touches it, have finally proved useful. Addiction has it rewards.

And make no mistake, watching cable news is no longer just a casual pastime or a way to stay informed. It’s an addiction, an American epidemic that started with a gateway drug known as the Trump presidency.

Checking in with first-name commentator anchors like Anderson, Rachel or Tucker for the latest developments, drama and crises emanating from the White House is now habit, like checking your smartphone for messages, after you just checked it two seconds ago, after you just checked it three seconds before that.

And most of what we’re getting is opinion. The phrase “let’s ask the panel” has become the mantra of the 24-hour news cycle — Trump just tweeted threats to North Korea, let’s ask the panel; the Russia probe is looking into Trump family connections with Moscow, let’s ask the panel.

Pundits may argue that President Trump hasn’t accomplished much in his first six months in office (no Obamacare repeal, no Hillary incarceration, no wall other than the one Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions bangs his head on nightly), but the Showman Trump has turned cable news into a must-see spectacle that’s hard to resist.

His lasting influence could very well be altering the way in which we consume politics and news, turning coverage of how the nation is governed into a talk show about an unhinged reality show. To quote a phrase popular with the president: It seems we’ve “crossed the red line” for how we ingest news, and it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to turn back to simpler times, when Senate hearings were C-Span fodder and press briefings an exercise in protocol.

Americans have come to rely on the continuous feed of wacky, sad and terrifying White House moments for entertainment, even if the ultimate effect jangles nerves and overloads synapses.

When Sean Spicer resigned six months into Trump’s presidency, you could almost hear the collective disappointment — “Awe. Spicey’s out! Who and what are we going to watch next? Will they be as entertaining and outlandish?” Enter Scaramucci. Hooray! Next.

The news machine is hooked on Trump’s superlatives, which are more Barnum & Bailey circus barker (“Like the World Has Never Seen!”), John Wayne (“Locked and Loaded!”) and Cersei Lannister (“They’ll be Met With Fire and Fury”) than presidential.

“What Trump Said” and “Words Matter” were the taglines that flashed on the screen during an hour of panelist prattle devoted to Trump talk last week on prime-time CNN. Everyone from the network’s outspoken star commentator Ana Navarro to former Defense Secretary William Perry to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio deconstructed POTUS’ ultimatums to Kim Jong Un, Trump’s threat of military intervention in Venezuela, his taunting of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (give this to Trump: He’s an equal opportunity mocker; Republicans feel it as much as Democrats).

Absent from broadcasts: Actual reportage on real news, especially if it doesn’t directly concern Trump or the partisan warfare that’s distorted our world view. Even when there is real news — like the horrific violence spurred by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va. — it’s subsumed by angry debates about what the president should have said and the frightening foothold the alt-right has gained in our nation. Lots of sound and fury to be sure, but not much significance.

All Trump talk, all the time, is a ratings bonanza. Cable’s three major news networks saw double-digit ratings growth in the second quarter of this year. MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell” are up 86% in prime-time viewership compared with the same period in 2016.

CNN saw a 39% leap in viewers ages 25 to 54, and that’s after having its most-watched first quarter in 14 years. Even Fox News, which took major hits the last year with the loss of founder Roger Ailes and its star host Bill O’Reilly, saw record numbers for daytime viewership for any cable news network.e highest-rated quarter of total day viewership

So why would they ever go back to old-fashioned “boring” coverage? And would that satisfy the need for our hourly political fix?

The wall-to-wall coverage we’ve come to expect now didn’t start with the inauguration in January. It’s been unprecedented drama all the time for the last two years, ever since Trump threw his hat in the ring for the presidency...

Still more (FWIW).

And, at the video at top, "Watch CNN's Kate Bolduan shut down a Republican Senate candidate for claiming the problem is 'the violent left'."

President Trump's War Against the Elites

I still don't think MSM types are getting it. It's not just President Trump. We're in a new age. A totally new era. Regular folks don't even care if you slam them for rejecting "the experts." Not a whit. The so-called experts are mostly leftists and almost always wrong.

Be that as it may, see Cathleen Decker, at LAT, "Analysis: Trump's war against elites and expertise":

When President Trump campaigned this spring at the Hermitage, the home of Andrew Jackson, one part of his predecessor’s approach got a special endorsement.

“It was during the Revolution that Jackson first confronted and defied an arrogant elite. Does that sound familiar?" Trump asked to laughs from his audience.

When Trump ally and National Rifle Assn. President Wayne LaPierre teed off six weeks later on America’s greatest domestic threats, he cited not homegrown terrorists but what he termed “the three most dangerous voices in America: academic elites, political elites, and media elites.”

The rhetoric against elites came from two men who would seem to be card-carrying members of the club: LaPierre made more than $5 million in 2015, the most recent year for which his compensation was publicly released. Trump lived before his inauguration in a gold-plated home in the sky above New York’s Fifth Avenue, a billionaire’s luxurious domain.

Yet for Trump and his allies, a war on elites has been central to the campaign which put him in the presidency and has maintained the loyalty of his core voters. Trump has taken particular aim at entities that could counter his power, which has helped stoke the ardor of his political backers.

Among his targets so far: the government’s intelligence agencies, the media, foreign allies, the Department of Justice, establishment politicians, scientists and the Congressional Budget Office. The last has played a large role in raising questions about Republican proposals to repeal and replace Obamacare, leading to a furious White House assault on its competence.

Trump has refused to accept the judgment of intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. He has alleged, without proof and contrary to both Democratic and Republican officials in key states, that millions of illegal voters cast ballots last year. He has blamed vaccines for autism, despite the scientific debunking of that notion.

Excoriating elites “is classic populist language,” said Yale historian Beverly Gage. “Trump has taken it to a whole new level by not only attacking clueless elites but the entire idea of expertise.”

To voters listening for them, Trump’s anti-elitism signals have blared. As telling as his political and policy postures is his language — who else but Trump would angrily call his predecessor’s signature program “a big fat ugly lie” — and a perpetual sense of victimization.

“He’s a billionaire, and therefore a member of a certain type of elites,” Gage said. “But he’s also the guy from Queens rebelling against the know-it-all smarty pantses from Manhattan.”

Trump has used both specific insults and the specter of powerful and mysterious external forces — he often describes them as an undefined “they” — arrayed against common Americans, with him as chief defender...

See what I mean? This piece makes some good points, but it's otherwise dripping with disdain.

I don't know if Trump can be reelected again. The left will mount an all-out war on him and everything he stands for in 2020. But whatever happens, we're at the point of no return. Too much has changed. I'd say it's like a cultural cold war, and it's not neatly divided into "left and right." The people vs. the establishment is more like it, and perhaps only Bernie Sanders has the proper sense of it among folks on the Democrat side. The culture war, things like transgenders in the military, also plays large. I mean who else but leftist establishment elites would think this a good idea? And rejection of science? Only leftists reject science to push a degenerate socio-political agenda. It's disgusting.

So, if anyone is ready and willing to stand up to the left's warmongering political onslaught come 2020, it's The Donald.

More at the link, FWIW.

Los Angeles Times Links Priebus' Ouster to #GOP's Failure to Repeal #ObamaCare.

Disingenuous.

See how the placement of these articles implies a close link. Actually, Priebus' ouster and the failure of the health bill aren't closely related, but you'd think it was all of one piece by looking at the cover of this morning's paper.

Here's the article at the top, "Trump ousts Reince Priebus as chief of staff in latest White House shake-up."

And at left, "GOP confronts an inconvenient truth: Americans want a healthcare safety net."

Page placement tells you a lot about the thinking and agenda of the editors at the Times.

Senate Rejects #ObamaCare 'Skinny Repeal', 51-49, in Dramatic Light-Night Vote

I actually really liked "skinny repeal." It would have removed ObamaCare's individual and employer mandates, and it would have rescinded the medical device tax. I've said all along that protections for pre-existing conditions should remain. Plus, since I have a 21-year-old kid, I can see how allowing young people to remain on their parents insurance can be helpful (even though I still shake my head sometimes to think that 26-year-old Americans should be dependent on their parents, but wtf?).

In any case, even the skinny repeal got rejected, owing a lot to Sen. John McCain, who's generated some enormous animosity since last night.

In any case, at the New York Times (FWIW), "Senate Rejects Slimmed-Down Obamacare Repeal as McCain Votes No":

WASHINGTON — The Senate in the early hours of Friday morning rejected a new, scaled-down Republican plan to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, derailing the Republicans’ seven-year campaign to dismantle President Barack Obama’s signature health care law and dealing a huge political setback to President Trump.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, who just this week returned to the Senate after receiving a diagnosis of brain cancer, cast the decisive vote to defeat the proposal, joining two other Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, in opposing it.

The 49-to-51 vote was also a humiliating setback for the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has nurtured his reputation as a master tactician and spent the last three months trying to devise a repeal bill that could win support from members of his caucus.

As the clock ticked toward the final vote, which took place around 1:30 a.m., suspense built on the Senate floor. Mr. McCain was engaged in a lengthy, animated conversation with Vice President Mike Pence, who had come to the Capitol expecting to cast the tiebreaking vote for the bill. A few minutes later, when Mr. McCain ambled over to the Democratic side of the chamber, he was embraced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. A little later Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, put her arm around Mr. McCain.

The roll had yet to be called, but the body language suggested that the Trump administration had failed in its effort to flip the Arizona senator whom President Trump hailed on Tuesday as an “American hero.’’

Many senators announced their votes in booming voices. Mr. McCain quietly signaled his vote with a thumbs-down gesture. He later offered an explanation on Twitter:

Skinny repeal fell short because it fell short of our promise to repeal & replace Obamacare w/ meaningful reform...

After the tally was final, Mr. Trump tweeted:

3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!

The truncated Republican plan that ultimately fell was far less than what Republicans once envisioned. Republican leaders, unable to overcome complaints from both moderate and conservative members of their caucus, said the skeletal plan was just a vehicle to permit negotiations with the House, which passed a much more ambitious repeal bill in early May.

The “skinny repeal” bill, as it became known at the Capitol this week, would still have had broad effects on health care. The bill would have increased the number of people who are uninsured by 15 million next year compared with current law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Premiums for people buying insurance on their own would have increased roughly 20 percent, the budget office said...

More.

Also, at Politico, via Memeorandum, "How McCain tanked Obamacare repeal." And at the Los Angeles Times, "McCain's surprise vote doomed GOP healthcare bill, but did it open the door for Senate bipartisanship?" (No.)

Post-Hillary Democrats

This is good.

From Daniel Henninger, at WSJ, "The Post-Hillary Democrats: How in God’s name, the Democrats wonder, did we ever lose the 2016 election to HIM?":

On climate change, Democrats believe they know to the 10th decimal place that Earth is on the brink of an apocalypse. But by their own admission this week, they don’t have a clue about which way the wind is blowing with the American voter.

On Monday the Democrats released something called “A Better Deal,” a set of policy ideas to win back voters. Think of it as the party laying down the first quarter-mile of blacktop on its road back to power.

The short version of “A Better Deal” is that they would bust up corporate trusts (Teddy Roosevelt, circa 1902), ramp up public-works spending ( FDR, circa the Great Depression) and enact various tax credits (Washington, circa eternity).

The more interesting question here lies in the document’s unspoken subtext: How in God’s name did we lose a presidential election to . . . him?

In a recent Washington Post interview, one of Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers, Jake Sullivan, admits, “I am still losing sleep. I’m still thinking about what I could have done differently.” Who wouldn’t? What happened Nov. 8 was like losing five Super Bowls in one day.

Hillary Clinton has taken to citing one fact: “Remember, I did win more than three million [more] votes than my opponent.” True, notwithstanding the pesky two-centuries-old Electoral College vote, which she lost.

Here’s another fact that still poses a maddening question for many: Donald J. Trump got more than 62 million votes. It wasn’t long before Election Day that many political sophisticates wondered how Donald Trump would get 620 votes, much less 62 million—after the McCain slander, the “Access Hollywood” tape, the generalized ignorance.

A conventional explanation for the loss—and we know this because Chuck Schumer conventionalized it last weekend—is to blame her. “When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity,” said Sen. Schumer, “you don’t blame other things—Comey, Russia—you blame yourself.”

This is rich. It’s almost oxymoronic. The reason Democrats lost to him is that they had an unelectable candidate. But if both parties were running “unelectable” candidates, then a lot of that day’s 138 million voters based their decisions on something more concrete than the personalities of two celebrities.

Hillary Clinton was running as the extension of Barack Obama’s two-term presidency. If the Democrats are now throwing her under the bus, Mr. Obama is down there with her.

The Obama presidency was a watershed for the Democratic Party for reasons having little to do with his historic candidacy. Mr. Obama moved his party significantly to the left, arguably as Ronald Reagan had moved his to the right. But those two buzzwords—left and right—have substantive meaning. In practice, the Obama years constituted an abrupt enhancement of state power. ObamaCare was the tip of the iceberg.

Barack Obama was as smooth as Bill Clinton was slick, and he used his eloquence to soften the hard edges of the many policy coercions by his Justice, Labor and Education departments and the omnipresent EPA.

In 2016, the Clintons, especially the ex-president, recognized the risks of running on this leftward legacy in a general election. Thus Hillary’s efforts to essentially talk and fog her way past that reality.

Still more.

Why Ohio Just Gave Donald Trump a Hero's Welcome

From Salena Zito, at the New York Post:

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — This town was on fire.

By 1 in the afternoon on Tuesday, every main thoroughfare downtown was filled with happy people heading toward the Covelli Centre. Folks dressed in red, white and blue crisscrossed the main grids as vendors sold “Make America Great Again” ball caps, American flags and bottles of water.

Thousands had filled the gravel parking lot to wait until the doors opened at 4, license plates revealing they had traveled from as far as Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to see the president speak directly to them in this Rust Belt city.

Music played on almost every corner as Donald Skowron, a retired Youngstown police officer, drove his green pickup truck up and down Champion Street — in the back, a 6-by-8-foot homemade wooden Trump-Pence sign straddling the bed of the truck, with two large Trump flags flowing from the top.

“I am very happy with the president’s performance so far,” said Skowron. “He has set the exact tone I was looking for, although I’ll be honest, I wish he didn’t tweet all of the time, but that is hardly anything to complain.”

Skowron said he is encouraged by reading about Trump’s constant meetings with industry leaders as well as union and trade members in trying to understand how to create jobs: “We have a president invested in trying to navigate between the people who create jobs and the men and women doing the jobs and how repealing regulations help both.”

Six months after Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, he received a hero’s welcome in this town. The festive scene made a counter-visual to the daily nonstop press reports about investigations into members of his inner circle, Russian interference in last year’s election and the debate over ObamaCare.

Trump’s approval rating, according to Gallup, is 39 percent. Youngstown is the 39 percent.

On Monday, police said the advance ticket request of over 20,000 had exceeded the 6,000-seat capacity of the center, prompting the event coordinators to put a large screen outside the center for the overflow crowd...

Keep reading.

Donald Trump's Boy Scout Speech (VIDEO)

Yawn.

This is an organization that's caved to the leftist homosexual agenda, even after winning at the Supreme Court way back in 2000 (Boy Scouts v. Dale).

Their advocates criticizing the president can suck it.

The full speech is here, "Trump speaks at Boy Scouts gathering (full remarks)."

And at U.S. News, "Former Boy Scouts Condemn Trump Jamboree Speech: Some want a formal apology after the president delivered a politically tinged speech to the Boy Scouts":

A number of former Boy Scouts are blasting President Donald Trump following his speech to nearly 40,000 young members of the organization on Monday, branding the address as classless and nauseating.

President Donald Trump spoke to the 2017 National Scout Jamboree in Glen Jean, West Virginia, and while he opened with a pledge to avoid partisan Washington politics, Trump delivered the crowd a healthy dose.

"By the way, just a question. Did President Obama ever come to a jamboree?" Trump asked of his predecessor at one point.

Former President Barack Obama was not a Boy Scout, but was reportedly a member of the Indonesian Scout Association. He recorded a video message for the jamboree in 2010.

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were Boy Scouts, joining a number of other commanders in chief. Trump was not a member of the organization.

Trump's speech went on to echo his 2016 presidential campaign, criticizing Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton and boasting of his victory.

The Boy Scouts of America released a statement late Monday to a BuzzFeed News reporter asking about the political nature of Trump's speech. The organization, leadership said, is "wholly non-partisan and does not promote any one position, product, service, political candidate or philosophy."

"The sitting U.S. president serves as the BSA's honorary president. It is our long-standing custom to invite the U.S. President to the National Jamboree," the group said.

But Trump's speech broke from a long-standing presidential tradition of delivering remarks tailored to themes of citizenship and service. The teen boys gathered to hear the president, though, did not seem to mind. The group reportedly met Trump with chants and cheers, and the president drew supportive boos from the crowd at his mention of the "fake media" and Obama.

The president's comments, however, did offend some. Current and former Boy Scouts – ranging from lawmakers to concerned parents – condemned Trump's speech on social media, and some went as far as to criticize the organization itself...

More.

Also, at the Hill, via Memeorandum, "Boos for Obama as Trump speaks at Boy Scout jamboree." And at the BBC, "Trump boy scout Jamboree speech angers parents."

Still more, at New York Magazine, "The 14 Most Inappropriate Moments From Trump’s Speech at the Boy Scout Jamboree":

“Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I’m in front of the Boy Scouts?” President Trump asked the 40,000 people gathered in Glen Jean, West Virginia, on Monday for the Boy Scout Jamboree.

The answer is President Trump. The event, which occurs every four years, was attended by about 24,000 boys, ages 12 to 18, but Trump treated it like a raucous campaign rally. During a rambling, 35-minute speech, he playfully threatened a member of his cabinet about getting the votes to repeal Obamacare, recounted his election win in great detail, and attacked President Obama...

I can dig it, lol.

Once Started, Government Programs Are Hard to Kill

That's why you've got to crush these things before they become law.

Once you get a benefit, some constituencies will oppose reform, or elimination. ObamaCare is a disastrous law, but it helped some people while hurting a majority. Those who it helped are barking loudly, and could prove a key vote bloc in some states. Hence, a number of GOP senators are resisting repeal and replace.

It's a nightmare.

A good piece, at NYT, via Memeorandum, "Old Truth Trips Up G.O.P. on Health Law: A Benefit Is Hard to Retract."

Congress Must Pass Health Care Reform to End the Financial Crises of Everyday Americans — BCRA

I've protested the ObamaCare monstrosity since the summer of 2009.

If we can get the Senate bill passed and legislation approved in conference, we might be well on the way to fixing the system and helping millions of Americans.

Forget the leftist fear-mongering. They're not sharing stories like this with us.

From Tom Price, President Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, and an orthopedic physician trained at the University of Michigan Medical School, at the Wall Street Journal, "ObamaCare’s Victims Need Relief Now":

America faces an urgent crisis in its health-care system. Costs are skyrocketing and choices are disappearing on the individual and small-group markets. Many people now confront the real challenge of having no choice in their health coverage.

One of them is Doug Lake, an Iowa radiologist who came to the White House last week to share his story. His daughter, who suffers from a rare cardiac condition, is covered by an insurer that plans to pull out of ObamaCare’s exchange in their state next year. Only one insurer remains in their county, and that company has requested a 43% increase in premiums.

The situation is even worse elsewhere. As of this week, 49 counties across the country do not have a single insurer offering plans on the exchanges next year.

This year more than 1,000 counties had only one insurer in the ObamaCare market, meaning millions of Americans had no meaningful choice. Meanwhile, the insurers that did stay in the market increased premiums for their midlevel plans by an average of 25%. Premiums on the individual market are up about $3,000 since ObamaCare was implemented. Think about what else that money could buy!

It is too early to know how much premiums will rise next year, but reports so far indicate that double-digit increases again will be the norm.

These are not simply numbers on a page: They represent real people with real stories, facing real health-care and financial crises.

Dudley Bostic, a pharmacy owner in Tennessee, can no longer afford to provide health insurance for her employees because of ObamaCare’s mandates. Candace Fowler, a Missouri homemaker who was recently diagnosed with a serious neurological condition, lives in a county where there are slated to be no insurers selling ObamaCare plans next year. Tommie McClain, a student in Clinton, Mo., who suffers from chronic migraines, faces the possibility of zero choices in his county, too.

The good news is that Congress has the chance to help Doug, Dudley, Candace, Tommie and the millions of other Americans suffering under this law by undoing the damage done by ObamaCare and fulfilling the promises President Trump has made.

The bill recently introduced in the Senate would get rid of the individual mandate, which in 2015 alone caused 6.5 million Americans to pay $3 billion in penalties to the IRS because they did not want or could not afford a government-dictated health plan. It would directly repeal some of ObamaCare’s most costly regulations while giving states flexibility to waive others if they develop innovative ways to provide coverage and bring down costs.

The Senate’s plan also would repeal hundreds of billions of dollars in onerous taxes. It would put Medicaid on a sustainable spending path and give states a real chance to reform the program to make it work for the people who rely on it...

More.

America First Policies Pulls Spot Attacking Sen. Dean Heller (VIDEO)

Following-up from the other day, "Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, Target of America First Policies PAC."

At Politico:

Pro-Trump group pulls ads criticizing Heller over Obamacare https://t.co/LgDvwVcI4A pic.twitter.com/agT4rB3et7

— POLITICO (@politico) June 27, 2017

Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, Target of America First Policies PAC

I don't even know this Dean Heller dude. He was the junior senator from Nevada, until Harry Reid retired. Now he's up for reelection in 2018, and extremely vulnerable. A Republican, he's afraid to vote for ObamaCare repeal, as apparently the state's poor have been helped by the law.

Of course, the new Senate-bill is expected to improve healthcare outcomes for lower-income Americans, helping more people afford insurance and get off the decrepit government Medicaid dole. But all the Democrats can do is scream, "PEOPLE WILL FUCKING DIE!"

In any case, at NYT, "Health Law Repeal Leaves Nevada Republican Torn Between Lawmakers" (via Memeorandum):

AMERICA FIRST POLICIES, the pro-Trump/Pence outside group that Pence has been raising for, is preparing a seven-figure ad buy against HELLER

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 23, 2017

WASHINGTON — Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, is the man everyone wants. This has not been a good thing for him.

Brian Sandoval, the governor of Mr. Heller’s home state, is a Republican, but he is counting on Mr. Heller to provide what could be a crucial vote to maintain President Barack Obama’s health care law, which has been a boon for the working poor in Nevada. Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader who this week will be rounding up votes to fulfill his party’s biggest promise of the last decade — repealing the Affordable Care Act — is trying to prevent Mr. Heller from undermining that goal.

Democrats also want Mr. Heller, but in the form of an unemployed senator. As the only Republican who is up for re-election next year in a state that Hillary Clinton won, he may be their only shot at picking up a seat. Democrats and health care interest groups have been unloading on Mr. Heller all spring with no end in sight.

Far-right Republicans in his state — who strongly support President Trump — also have their eyes on Mr. Heller to see if he will abandon the president. Already a group that Vice President Mike Pence has supported is preparing a seven-figure ad campaign against the senator.

On Saturday afternoon, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter, venting about Mr. Heller and other Republicans who are not supporting the Senate bill.

On Friday, Mr. Sandoval acknowledged the obvious. “He’s in the eye of the storm here,” Mr. Sandoval said at a news conference in Nevada as Mr. Heller stood next to him, looking vaguely miserable as Mr. Sandoval announced his opposition to the Senate bill. The legislation could affect 210,000 Nevada residents insured through the health care law’s expansion of Medicaid.

On Friday Mr. Heller said that he, too, was against the bill as it is currently drafted, leaving himself just enough wiggle room to continue his longstanding practice of being the senator in the middle, the man who wants to see the Medicaid program phased out, except when he decides he doesn’t. (Mr. Heller has taken both positions publicly.) He has also voted to take away money from Planned Parenthood, but tells some select audiences that “I have no problems with federal funding for Planned Parenthood.”

Mr. Heller, whose spokeswoman said he was not available for an interview, said at the news conference Friday that “this bill that’s currently in front of the United States Senate is not the answer — it’s simply not the answer.” He said, “It’s going to be very difficult to get me to a yes.”

More.

GOP #ObamaCare Repeal Will Transform American Health Care

From Avik Roy, at Forbes, via Memeorandum, "The New Senate Republican Bill Will Transform American Health Care":

Finished reading the Senate HC bill. Put simply: If it passes, it’ll be the greatest policy achievement by a GOP Congress in my lifetime.

— Avik Roy (@Avik) June 22, 2017

I’m very open to thoughtful critiques of the Senate bill from the left. “MILLIONS WILL DIE” is not it.

— Avik Roy (@Avik) June 23, 2017

The hotly-anticipated Senate Republican health care bill came out on Thursday morning. The airwaves quickly filled up with predictable talking points from both sides. But once the dust settles, it will emerge that the Senate bill will have far-reaching effects on American health care: for the better.

Substantial improvements to the House bill

In March, when House Republicans published their bill to replace Obamacare—the American Health Care Act—I described it in Forbes this way: “GOP’s Obamacare Replacement Will Make Coverage Unaffordable For Millions—Otherwise, It’s Great.” I meant it. There were great things about the House bill, in particular its far-reaching reforms of the Medicaid program.

But Paul Ryan’s bill contained a fatal flaw. Its flat tax credits, which provided identical assistance to the poor and the wealthy, would price millions of near-elderly low-income workers out of the insurance market and trap millions more in poverty.

Fortunately, buried in the House bill was a way out of the morass. Section 202 of the bill contains a transitional schedule of tax credits that was meant to serve as a bridge between the old Obamacare system, ending in 2017, and the new Paul Ryan system, beginning in 2020.

It turns out that if you simply kept that bridge in force, and tossed overboard the Paul Ryan flat tax credit, you’d solve all of these problems with the House bill. By making that change, the near-elderly working poor would be able to afford coverage, and the poverty trap would be eliminated.

And that’s precisely what the Senate bill did! Section 102 of the Senate bill—the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017—closely mirrors Section 202 of the House bill, with age- and means-tested tax credits up to 350 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

Making this change not only solves the problems I described above. It also makes it easier to reform the Medicaid program.

Real Medicaid reforms

The Senate bill includes and refines the best part of the House bill: its reforms of Medicaid, the dysfunctional government-run health care program for the poor whose enrollees have no better health outcomes than the uninsured.

Because the Senate bill’s tax credits are robustly means-tested and available to those below the poverty line, the bill is able to repeal Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion while offering higher-quality coverage to individuals who signed up for Medicaid under the expansion.

The reason that Medicaid’s health outcomes are so poor is because the outdated 1965 Medicaid law places a laundry list of constraints on states’ ability to manage their Medicaid programs. As a result, the main tool states have to keep Medicaid costs under control is to pay doctors and hospitals less and less each year for the same care. Hence, many doctors don’t take Medicaid, and Medicaid enrollees struggle to gain access to care.

The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 addresses these problems in several ways.

First, the bill repeals Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, and replaces it with tax credits so that low-income Americans can buy the coverage of their choice at an affordable price.

Second, the bill gives states a new set of tools to make their Medicaid programs. For example, under Obamacare, states are only allowed to check if someone is eligible for Medicaid once a year, even if that enrollee has moved to a different state, or becomes no longer eligible, or is no longer alive. Jonathan Ingram of the Foundation for Government Accountability, in a recent report, recommended allowing states to redetermine eligibility more frequently and thereby culling their rolls of ineligible individuals.

Third, the bill puts the legacy Medicaid program on a long-term per-capita cap tied to medical inflation through 2025, and conventional inflation (CPI-U) thereafter. This change is important, because Medicaid per-enrollee spending is growing at a slightly slower rate than Medical inflation; hence, making the program sustainable requires the use of CPI-U. The fiscal sustainability of Medicaid is essential to making sure that those who depend on the program can know it will be there for them in the future...

Keep reading.

Conservatives Need Deep Soul-Searching

From Daniel Horowitz, at Conservative Review, "After budget betrayal, conservatives need deep soul-searching":

Thursday, May 4, 2017, will go down as a watershed moment in political history. This day showed us the culmination of all of the vices of our 28-year addiction to the binary idolatry of politics. Under the false dichotomy of binary choices (“but you might get the Democrats”), we are left with a political system that looks like a bad unibrow. If we don’t engage in some serious introspection and forward-looking planning, there is essentially no purpose to continuing this red vs. blue game. We have reached the moment when, just like the Whigs in 1854, after they failed to stand for anything related to the issues of their time, a group of us will have to meet in a schoolhouse and chart a new course.

Speaking of binary choices, I began the day with the choice of watching C-Span 1, where House Republicans sounded like Democrats on health care and were making ObamaCare popular again, or watching C-Span 2 and seeing Senate Republicans extol the virtues of a Democrat budget while having full control over government. For my own blood pressure, I opted for neither.

The events of Thursday – betraying the ultimate promise to save a sixth of our economy and pass a Democrat budget, all with control of all three branches – is the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act moment for the GOP. I am not comparing these issues to slavery, but the political dynamic is identical. At the time, the new Republicans recognized that the Whig Party was completely maladroit and failed to confront the consummate challenge of its time. That is the context from which the Republican Party was born. Yet we have now been keeping a comatose party afloat for 28 years – since the retirement of Reagan – longer than the entire shelf life of the Whig Party.

Too many people will get caught up in the minutiae of the politics, details, and process of the health care and budget bills. The reality is much broader. The party just doesn’t share our values. When a party has principles, it finds a way to win even when it has very little power. Thus the Democrats. When a party has no principles, it finds a way to lose, even with full control of government. Thus the Republicans...

Keep reading.

Who Wins and Who Loses in the Latest G.O.P. Health Care Bill

The House bill would weaken federal mandates, allowing insurers to impose limits on lifetime coverage in employer-sponsored plans, which got a lot of attention yesterday.

Frankly, I'm not quite sure what the bill does exactly. It's going to lift the individual mandate, but charge you extra for initial enrollment if you've been uninsured longer than two months. And it's going to phase out federal ObamaCare subsidies for Medicaid, or something like that.

In any case, maybe this piece will help, at NYT, "Who Wins and Who Loses in the Latest G.O.P. Health Care Bill":

The American Health Care Act, which narrowly won passage in the House on Thursday, could transform the nation’s health insurance system and create a new slate of winners and losers.

While the Senate will probably demand changes, this bill, if it becomes law in its current form, will repeal and replace large portions of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It will change the rules and subsidies for people who buy their own insurance coverage, and make major cuts to the Medicaid program, which funds care for the poor and disabled.

Any sizable change in our complex health care system leaves some people and businesses better or worse off. For some, insurance will become more affordable — or their taxes will be lower. Others will lose out on financial support or health care coverage. You can see how you might be affected in our summary of winners and losers...

Keep reading.

ADDED: Ignoring the dramatic, sky-is-falling headline, and the leftist bent, you get a gist of the major provisions here, at LAT, "All the horrific details of the GOP's new Obamacare repeal bill: A handy guide."

MORE: After reading around, I like the bill --- it's repealing the most reviled elements of ObamaCare, and returning more power to the states. I think we need to keep some protections for the poorest and the elderly, but we don't need the ObamaCare mandates to do that.

See additional analysis, at Heritage, "The House Acts on Obamacare. Time for the Senate to Follow Suit."

Trump's First 100 Days at the Riverside Convention Center (VIDEO)

At the Riverside Press-Enterprise, "Why there were cheers for Donald Trump in Riverside":

Why there were cheers for Donald Trump in Riverside https://t.co/mHOLBfWkr0 pic.twitter.com/4DAtKxyXkx

— The Press-Enterprise (@PEcom_news) May 1, 2017

As they gave President Donald Trump high marks for his first 100 days in office, a trio of conservative radio talk show hosts at a Riverside conference Sunday, April 30 urged congressional Republicans to get their act together and pass the president’s agenda, especially repealing Obamacare.

“It’s OK to disagree. It’s fine to be a divided caucus if at the end of the day, you come together and take 75 percent of what you want and call it a win,” Dennis Prager told an audience of more than 800 at the Fourth Annual Unite IE Conservative Conference.

Republicans “generally do not perceive the threat that the left is to our society,” he added. “This is the Achilles’ heel of the Republican Party … If you do understand it, then any victory is a victory.”

The conference, which took place at the Riverside Convention Center, offered a chance for conservatives to gather, network and be inspired in a state that’s been hostile ground for their beliefs.

This year’s conference focused on the first 100 days of the Trump administration, which hit that mark Saturday. Radio host Hugh Hewitt, who served as a panelist for four debates of GOP presidential hopefuls, gave Trump a “solid B,” saying the Republican real estate mogul and reality TV star needs to fill more judgeships.

Another radio personality, Larry Elder, gave Trump an A+, calling the nomination and confirmation of conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch “far and away” the president’s most important accomplishment.

Prager gave Trump an A- and apologized for resisting Trump’s quest for the GOP presidential nomination.

“I am starting to love this man and I thought I would never say that in my life,” Prager said.

Unlike liberals, Trump doesn’t care if America is loved, Prager said, adding: “The recipe for peace on Earth is not for America to be loved, but feared.”

More.

President Trump's First 100 Days

From Marc Thiessen, at WaPo, "Forget the critics, Mr. President. Your first 100 days have been just fine":

Every 5-4 decision for next 3 decades that goes conservatives’ way is one of Trumps “First 100 Days” accomplishments https://t.co/rJ0m5pEkXX

— Marc Thiessen (@marcthiessen) April 24, 2017

Despite the best efforts of the White House “PR apparatus” to sell the president’s first 100 days as a success, the New York Times declared in an editorial, the new administration has, in fact, been plagued by “many missteps” including a “bungled sales job” on his first major legislative initiative and a “snakebit” confirmation process, all of which have produced “a flurry of articles bemoaning the lack of focus in the White House.” The first 100 days, the Times declared, is a period the president “might prefer to forget.”

The president in question is not Donald Trump. This is how, in April 1993, the Times described the first 100 days of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But not to worry, the Times reassured its readers: “It’s still early, and a hundred days don’t really mean very much.”

The Times is right: The first 100 days really don’t mean very much at all.

Right now, the Trump White House appears to be in a panic over the approaching milestone, looking desperately for last-minute accomplishments. It is pushing the House to vote this week on repealing Obamacare, and it is risking a government shutdown in an effort to make Democrats pay for a border wall with Mexico, instead of just passing a straight extension of current funding levels. And the president announced (to the apparent surprise of his own staff) that he would unveil his tax reform plan on Wednesday, before it is fully baked.

To which I say: Mr. President, slow down. There’s no rush. Ignore the critics. You’re doing just fine.

Trump has accomplished something more significant in his first 100 days than any president in recent memory has done: the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Trump’s predecessors’ early achievements were fleeting. President Barack Obama’s stimulus (with its false promise of “shovel-ready” jobs) is long forgotten. George W. Bush’s tax cuts were not signed until June and were partially repealed by his successor. But Trump’s success in placing the 49-year-old Gorsuch on the Supreme Court will affect the direction of our country for a generation. Indeed, Trump can count every 5-4 decision over the next three decades that goes conservatives’ way as one of his “First 100 Days” accomplishments. No other modern president can claim to have had that kind of lasting impact in so short a time...

More.

PREVIOUSLY: "Donald Trump's First 100 Days" (featuring Salena Zito).

Diagnosing ObamaCare (VIDEO)

ObamaCare's a terrible law, but it is the law, and there are costs to repeal. Lots of voters gave it to congressional incumbents in the ear, from both sides.

Upon defeat, even Paul Ryan conceded that ObamaCare's the law of the land. The administration's now moving on to tax cuts, and let's hope and pray for more success.

Here's Bloomberg's Shannon Pettypiece, at CBS This Morning:

Epic 'Implosion' of GOP's American Health Care Act of 2017

Following-up from yesterday, "'Spectacular Defeat for Trump'."

Here's today's dramatic front-page story at the Los Angeles Times, "GOP dreams of repealing Obamacare collapse as Trump pulls vote on House bill":

Today's LAT front: pic.twitter.com/pJvM5tfu8m

— Lisa Mascaro (@LisaMascaro) March 25, 2017

President Trump, elected on a promise to use his deal-making prowess to get Washington working, blinked Friday in the face of defeat, agreeing to halt a House vote on a GOP healthcare overhaul amid crumbling Republican support.

The move came just hours after the White House insisted the vote would go forward regardless of the outcome, and followed Trump’s extraordinary ultimatum Thursday night, when he told rebellious lawmakers that if they didn’t vote for the bill, he would move on to other priorities.

To avoid an embarrassing vote, Trump asked House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to abandon the effort.

The collapse of the bill — legislation that managed to displease both Republican conservatives and centrists — dashed the party’s immediate hopes of fulfilling a longtime campaign promise to repeal and replace President Obama’s signature healthcare law, also called Obamacare.

Trump made a hard, last-minute push for the GOP bill. His spokesman said Friday that the president "left everything on the field."

In an Oval Office appearance after the vote was pulled, Trump described it as a “very interesting experience.” He praised his fellow Republicans and deflected blame on Democrats — who opposed the bill. He also said he’d learned something about “loyalty,” apparently referring to the GOP defections.

Trump predicted the country would eventually need to revisit the issue, saying, “We will end up with a truly great healthcare bill in the future after this mess that is Obamacare explodes.”

Both Trump and Ryan, however, said the Republican Party had no plan to revive the repeal-and-replace effort anytime soon, so the current healthcare law will remain in place.

The defeat exposed Trump’s limits as negotiator in chief and raised doubts about his administration’s ability to achieve the rest of its conservative agenda, including tax cuts, deregulation and trade reform.

The fallout was also a setback for Ryan. Critics say the legislation was crafted too quickly and without enough input from other lawmakers or consultation with industry and interest groups.

"Hopefully there will be a lesson learned that let’s work together to write the bill instead of writing it in private," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

The failure will only complicate the odd-couple partnership between Ryan and Trump. The president may think twice next time about relying on the speaker to lead legislative campaigns. Though Trump signaled his continued support Friday for Ryan to remain in his post, and many lawmakers were standing by his side, finger-pointing over what went wrong is bound to linger.

Ryan could have afforded to lose no more than about 21 Republican votes to reach the 216 needed for passage. Defections were estimated at one point to be 30 or more.

The conservative House Freedom Caucus wanted Trump and Ryan to go further and faster in unwinding Obamacare rules and taxes. Centrist Republicans were worried the GOP plan would leave too many Americans without health insurance.

“Moving from an opposition party to a governing party comes with growing pains and, well, we’re feeling those growing pains today," Ryan said. "We came up short.”

The GOP defeat marked a victory for a broad coalition of patient advocates, physician groups and hospitals, which had mounted an intense and sustained campaign to highlight the damage they said the bill would do to patients' medical care.

Congressional offices reported a huge influx of calls urging a "no" vote on the bill...

More.