$2,933 for ‘Girl’s Night’: Medicaid chief’s consulting expenses revealed

When Seema Verma, the Trump administration's top Medicaid official, went to a reporter's home in November 2018 for a "Girl's Night" thrown in her honor, taxpayers footed the bill to organize the event: $2,933.

When Verma wrote an op-ed on Fox News' website that fall, touting President Donald Trump's changes to Obamacare, taxpayers got charged for one consultant's price to place it: $977.

And when consultants spent months promoting Verma to win awards like Washingtonian magazine's "Most Powerful Women in Washington" and appear on high-profile panels, taxpayers got billed for that too: more than $13,000.

The efforts were steered by Pam Stevens, a Republican communications consultant and former Trump administration official working to raise the brand of Verma, who leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The prices were the amount a consulting company billed the government for her services, based on her invoices, which were obtained by congressional Democrats.

They are among the revelations included in a sweeping congressional investigation chronicling how Verma spent more than $3.5 million on a range of GOP-connected consultants, who polished her public profile, wrote her speeches and Twitter posts, brokered meetings with high-profile individuals — and even billed taxpayers for connecting Verma with fellow Republicans in Congress.

The 49-year-old Verma, who advised then-Gov. Mike Pence in Indiana on health policy before joining the Trump administration, has strongly rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing in her consulting practices. In October 2019, she told a House committee that “all the contracts we have at CMS are based on promoting the work of CMS” and the spending was “consistent with how the agency has used resources in the past.”

But the probe — conducted by Democrats across four congressional committees — found that Verma surrounded herself with a rotating cast of at least 15 highly paid communications consultants during her first two years in office, even as she publicly called for fiscal restraint and championed policies like work requirements for Americans on Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income people.

"Verma and her top aides abused the federal contracting process to Administrator Verma’s benefit and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars," the Democrats concluded in a 53-page summary of the investigation, which was shared with POLITICO and will be released later Thursday.

Verma declined to comment through the health department's top spokesperson, Michael Caputo, who described the report as "another reckless drive-by election year hit job."

“The CMS Administrator will continue her unprecedented efforts to transform the American healthcare system to ensure health policy innovation drives public discussion — not purposefully timed political attacks," Caputo said in a statement.

Stevens declined to address the specific line items in her invoices, but said in a statement that a top consulting firm, Porter Novelli, “asked me to put together a plan to educate media about CMS’s work through meetings with the CMS Administrator. I was then asked to facilitate meetings with some of the organizations in the plan as well as with thought leaders. That was the extent of my work.”

A spokesperson for Porter Novelli declined comment until the organization could review the Democrats' report.

The congressional committees’ investigation, which spanned 18 months, found that the consultants worked directly for Verma and her top officials — an unusual arrangement that gave some of them broad power over CMS' daily activities and policy planning and access at times to sensitive nonpublic information. Other contractors, meanwhile, racked up hefty expenses as Verma's personal drivers and press aides; during a two-day trip to New York City in September 2018, contractors filed for almost $8,900 in reimbursements, including stays in a hotel that cost more than $500 per room per night, the report found.

The consultants separately spent eight months refining and implementing a plan intended to "highlight and promote Seema Verma leadership and accomplishment," according to one draft of the plan, which formed the backbone of a concerted effort to secure major interviews, speaking opportunities and awards, at a cost billed to taxpayers that stretched into the tens of thousands of dollars.

While CMS has previously downplayed the "executive visibility" proposal as conceived by contractors and filled with recommendations that were mostly ignored, the congressional committees found that Verma's aides at the health department were regularly briefed on the plan. Meanwhile, consultants pursued its objectives, such as having Verma contend for Glamour Magazine’s “Woman of the Year" award and network with brand-building organizations like Girlboss.

Consultants also charged the health department hundreds of dollars to set up each of Verma's off-record conversations with reporters, pundits and influencers, such as billing taxpayers $837 to arrange Verma's lunch with Marc Siegel, a Fox News contributor, and $209 for a conversation with then-Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.). The consultants also billed taxpayers at least $1,117 for arranging Verma's profile in AARP's magazine and at least $3,400 to coordinate Verma's appearance on POLITICO's "Women Rule" podcast.

Meanwhile, Verma and her aides frequently shared market-sensitive proposals with her hand-picked team of GOP contractors before announcing the information publicly — in one case, about three months before the agency's proposed rules were publicly issued, investigators found. That information, containing key details about Verma's plan to overhaul the $15 billion electronic health record market, was shared with contractors in mid-November 2018 in hopes of pitching CNN's Sanjay Gupta to do a story. Federal officials raised concerns that the information should not be shared, with Verma's top aide warning in an email that she was "fairly concerned about giving this much info prior to a rollout." The rules weren't issued until Feb. 11, 2019.

Verma also prioritized meetings from her publicity experts — including a weekly session with a consultant who was simultaneously awaiting sentencing on a felony conviction for lying to Congress about prior misuse of taxpayer funds — even as federal communications officials and other civil servants were cut out of their conversations, according to the report. Verma's top aide rebuffed a request to include a legislative staff member in a January 2018 meeting on a plan to announce Medicaid work requirements, saying that the conference with Verma needed to be kept "small," although four GOP communications consultants had already been invited.

Taken together, the investigation offers the most detailed window yet into Verma's extensive reliance on outside consultants during her time atop CMS — a practice first reported by POLITICO and which the health department's inspector general found in July broke federal contracting rules.

The report draws on roughly 10,000 pages of documents obtained by congressional staff from the Trump administration's health department, including some of Verma's emails. The Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce, House Oversight, Senate Finance and Senate HELP committees also reviewed extensive billing records and other documents provided by consultants to CMS.

Those documents, Democrats said, demonstrate the degree to which Verma has leaned on expensive outside contractors from her first days as CMS chief — a group that included Marcus Barlow, who previously served as a spokesperson for Verma's health consulting firm, as well as longtime GOP consultant Brett O'Donnell and a public relations firm co-led by Trump's former transition team director, Ken Nahigian.

That firm, Nahigian Strategies, billed for nearly $3 million in taxpayer funds from CMS for aiding Verma, the Democrats found. The contracts were halted in April 2019, after POLITICO's investigation.

“Congress did not intend for taxpayer dollars to be spent on handpicked communications consultants used to promote Administrator Verma’s public profile and personal brand," Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a joint statement. "Administrator Verma has shown reckless disregard for the public’s trust. We believe she should personally reimburse the taxpayers for these inappropriate expenditures."

One of the consultants featured in the report pushed back on its findings. Barlow questioned the Democrats' intentions in conducting the investigation, telling POLITICO that the committees never sought to interview him.

"They didn't talk to me because they weren't interested in the truth," he said. "They were interested in making a political show."

O’Donnell and Nahigian declined to comment.

Announcing Medicaid work requirements

The Democrats' investigation reveals how an effort to plug holes early in the Trump administration swelled into an operation that ran for more than two years, as Verma's aides repeatedly sought out communications experts and then looked for ways to cover their costs.

The Medicaid chief initially turned to consultants like O'Donnell and Barlow as she was settling into her role in early 2017, seeking communications advice and having been blocked by the White House from hiring Barlow as an agency staffer. Over time, those consultants and others became crucial parts of agency operations by helping shape major Trump administration health priorities, with Verma leaning on them to manage policy announcements and craft her messaging, such as her talking points on repealing and replacing Obamacare in 2017.

Barlow, O'Donnell and Nahigian also advised CMS as the agency readied its rollout of new work requirements for Medicaid in early 2018 — a key plank of Trump’s health agenda. In one initiative, the three men helped write an op-ed touting Medicaid work requirements that would ultimately be published in The Washington Post under Verma’s name. Among their duties: incorporating feedback from the White House on a draft of the article and pitching headline ideas, according to emails obtained in the investigation. Nahigian "carried most of the water on this," Barlow wrote in one Sunday night email, as the men and CMS officials deliberated about edits.

Meanwhile, Barlow and Nahigian weighed in on the wording of the CMS press release officially announcing the Medicaid work requirements. And on the day before the agency went public with the policy, a senior CMS official identified O'Donnell to a reporter as "our point person for media" on the topic.

As Verma's reliance on outside communications experts grew, CMS officials searched for contracting vehicles to pay for consultants who had become trusted advisers to Verma. Emails obtained by the committees show top CMS officials repeatedly seeking ways to cover the cost of O'Donnell, such as moving him between contracts with different firms and exploring ways to keep his services after exhausting the funds available under an existing contract.

But Verma's reliance on consultants created confusion inside her agency, with the Democrats identifying emails where staff raised questions or concerns about the strategy. Officials in the Health and Human Services department — which technically oversaw Verma and CMS — also appeared to be caught unawares by Verma's media approach, shaped by her consultants.

The then-HHS chief of staff emailed Verma in August 2017, referencing a New York Times article about an anonymous Trump official who had briefed 20 reporters about the administration's strategy on the Affordable Care Act, with the official referencing her perspective as a "mom" with "two kids." The description fit Verma, and four people with knowledge of the episode told POLITICO that Verma and her communications advisers had organized the media briefing.

"The article below is causing an uproar internally," HHS chief Lance Leggitt wrote to Verma. "Any clue who this [is]?" Verma forwarded the email to O'Donnell with no comment.

O'Donnell himself would be gone from CMS by February 2018, shortly after an episode where he clashed with a reporter for health care publication Modern Healthcare who Verma believed had misrepresented the departure of one of her aides.

In an email to O'Donnell and her aides on Jan. 23, Verma instructed them to “take the strongest action possible with [the reporter’s] editors.” The following day, O'Donnell warned the reporter's editor that "short of fully correcting the piece we will not be able to include your outlet in further press calls with CMS," and the reporter later said he was removed from a Feb. 1 press call.

While the agency at the time denied that the reporter was banned, O'Donnell and CMS officials did strategize to remove him, the Democrats concluded, pointing to emails obtained in their investigation. "Modern Healthcare needs to come off the call list for today," Brady Brookes, Verma's deputy chief of staff at the time, wrote in an email on Feb. 1.

O'Donnell departed the agency just days afterward amid growing scrutiny of his role as an adviser to Verma, with a CMS spokesperson saying that they had decided not to renew his contract.

'A shadow operation'

By mid-2018, Verma's team was again hunting for a specialist to boost her communications strategy — specifically, an expert who could get "more media" for Verma, according to one official's email obtained by the Democrats. Verma's own aides intentionally sought out Stevens, a well-regarded communications expert who specialized in promoting Republican women, and helped initiate the plan to hire her.

“Just remember that people like this are expensive per hour," a senior CMS communications official warned Brookes in a July 24 email, as officials strategized over how to bring on Stevens. The agency would ultimately spend about $115,000 on Stevens' services, as she tried to broker conversations between Verma and well-known Washington reporters, booked media appearances for Verma with conservative outlets and even tried to set up a meeting between Verma and then-White House communications director Bill Shine.

Stevens also adopted novel strategies to boost Verma's profile. Between October and November 2018, she arranged a "Girl's Night" to honor Verma, according to Stevens' billing records obtained by the committee. The off-the-record event was intended for media personalities and prominent women and was hosted at a reporter's home, according to three people with knowledge of the evening. In documents obtained by the committee, Stevens described the event as a networking opportunity for Verma, although the evening carried a pricey tab: Taxpayers were ultimately charged nearly $3,000 to cover Stevens' costs in arranging the event.

But Stevens' tactics confused other consultants and some of the bookings unsettled Verma herself, according to emails uncovered in Democrats' investigation. After Stevens booked Verma on several political radio shows in early December 2018, leading to uncomfortable questions about partisan politics, one consultant recommended to Brookes in an email that Stevens could be used just for “profile pieces and softballs" in the future.

"I think moving forward, we would rather have a small market or station that may be less risky as to not upset the Administrator if things go off topic," a Porter Novelli consultant wrote.

Meanwhile, Verma's other consultants continued to craft pricey media opportunities for Verma, billing the agency for a $13,856 video shoot for a two-minute "eMedicare" video that was published in October 2018 and included a $450 charge for Verma's makeup artist.

Consultants accompanied Verma even when traveling to events where they told Democratic investigators that no media were present, like Verma's October 2018 trip to York, Pa., that featured a driver from Nahigian Strategies and two other consultants, according to an itinerary obtained by Democrats.

“The size of Administrator Verma’s travel entourage appears to be a particularly questionable use of taxpayer dollars given the high rates charged by Nahigian Strategies for logistical tasks such as driving and event labor on these trips," the Democrats' report notes.

By early 2019, Verma's handpicked team of communications consultants had swelled to include multiple consultants who were booking media appearances and strategizing on her remarks, and even three speechwriters — an arrangement that Democrats characterized as "a shadow operation that sidelined CMS’s Office of Communications in favor of the handpicked consultants."

Inside Verma' agency, career officials were finding reasons to complain, too.

"This has been chaos for a number of reasons," Johnathan Monroe, a career civil servant who helped lead the agency's media relations team, wrote to CMS colleagues in January 2019, according to an email obtained by Democrats.

In his message, Monroe detailed how Stevens' independent work had led to duplicated efforts and confusion inside the agency. "The fact that we have managed this much is a testament to how hard [the communications office] has been working to help correct and cope with the chaos," the CMS official lamented.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3bJqSyF
via 400 Since 1619

Trump’s overtures struggle to register with religious voters

He recently renewed his promise to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. He drew bipartisan praise for brokering an agreement that’s expected to boost Israel’s influence in the Middle East. And he released an updated list of Supreme Court nominees on Wednesday.

But so far, President Donald Trump’s overtures to religious voters appear to be falling flat.

Months after worries first exploded inside the Trump campaign over his eroding support among white evangelicals and Roman Catholics, some of the president’s top religious allies are now in a panic — concerned that Joe Biden’s attentiveness to Christian voters, whom Democrats largely ignored in 2016, is having an impact where the president can least afford it.

One prominent evangelical leader close to the White House said Biden’s policy positions on abortion and religious freedom, which would normally spoil how some religious voters view the Democratic presidential nominee, have been overshadowed by the contrast between the former vice president’s palpable faith and Trump’s transactional view of religion. Another chided Trump for his “cold response” to the nationwide reckoning over systemic racism, claiming the president’s law-and-order messaging has given Biden an opening to connect with churchgoing Americans who are accustomed to calls for courage and justice.

Their concerns may be registering, according to a new study of Catholic and evangelical voters that suggests Trump is poised to lose a sizable chunk of his Christian voters in November, raising questions about his path to reelection and the potential value in religious outreach that Biden’s predecessor Hillary Clinton largely eschewed.

The online survey, which was commissioned by the left-leaning group Vote Common Good and conducted by a team of academic pollsters from the University of Southern California, Duke University, University of Maryland College Park and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, predicts an 11 percentage point swing toward Biden among evangelicals and Catholics who backed Trump in 2016, based on input from both demographics across five major 2020 battleground states: Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Other polls have captured similar gains in Biden’s religious support, including an August survey by Fox News that showed the former vice president at 28 percent support among white evangelicals — up 12 percentage points from 2016 exit polls for the Democratic nominee.

“The cumulative effect of the convention and the way that faith has been woven into Biden’s messaging speaks to the kinds of numbers we’re now seeing,” said Michael Wear, who directed faith outreach for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

While Biden’s campaign “hasn’t done everything they could” to reach people of faith, according to Wear, he said Trump’s blunt messaging on coronavirus and race has created an opportunity for the Democratic nominee to “overturn the who-shares-your-values debate that Republicans have been winning.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The “Vice and Virtue” survey by VCG, set to be released Thursday, is based on input from 1,430 self-described evangelicals and Catholics in five swing states who were surveyed from Aug. 11 to Aug. 26. It includes an overall margin of error plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Wendy Wood, a USC psychology professor and one of the pollsters, said the survey not only identified the principles that distinguish evangelicals and Catholics from other voters, but also demonstrated how those principles will “relate to their vote choice” come November.

According to the study, evangelical voters are split over which presidential candidate is more virtuous, while Catholic voters selected Biden over Trump by a 21-point margin. The largest gaps in voter perceptions of Biden and Trump emerged when respondents were asked to weigh each candidate against commonly recognized Christian virtues, including generosity, diligence, chastity, kindness, patience, modesty and humility. Only 22 percent of respondents gave the president a higher rating on his displays of humility and modesty versus Biden’s, while the pollsters cited Trump’s perceived lack of kindness — 44 percent of respondents said Biden is more kind than Trump, while 30 percent said Trump is kinder — as the leading cause of defections among Catholics and evangelicals who supported him in 2016.

“While it was baked in back in 2016 that Donald Trump was bombastic and crude, he always hinted that he would be presidential when he needed to be presidential,” said Doug Pagitt, a Minnesota-based pastor and an executive director of Vote Common Good, adding that some 2016 religious Trump voters have since “woken up to the fact that [Trump] has not changed one bit.”

“People of faith who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton saw her as more corrupt and less kind than Donald Trump, and now some of those same voters see Donald Trump as more corrupt and less kind than Biden,” Pagitt said.

The Trump campaign sees it differently. In its view, most religious voters are less concerned with a candidate’s religiosity or virtuosity than they are with the impact of proposed policies. Biden, campaign officials claim, has adopted unreasonable positions on the issues that matter most to Catholics and evangelicals, including judicial appointments, religious freedom and abortion.

“I don’t think it’s going to work for Biden to say, ‘Don’t look at my policies, just look at the fact that I carry a rosary in my pocket,” said former GOP Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a member of the president’s Catholics for Trump advisory board.

“The idea that Biden is a nice guy with good policies when he picked a very pro-abortion running mate who wants religious Americans to pay for abortion, it’s just not going to work,” he added.

Trump went even further last month when he questioned the depth of Biden’s faith and accused his opponent of being “against God.” During an Aug. 6 appearance in Ohio, the president told his supporters Biden wants to “hurt the Bible [and] hurt God.”

Though the former vice president has outlined a plan for “safe-guarding America’s faith-based communities” on his campaign website, the plan gives outsized attention to protecting the physical safety of Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities from “extremist violence” as opposed to the so-called “conscience” protections — which prohibit certain employers from coercing workers into performing services that violate their religious beliefs — that are at the core of Trump’s platform on religious freedom.

Biden also walked back his support for the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion procedures, early on in the Democratic primary — a development that the Trump campaign and its conservative allies have used to court Catholic voters.

“I do think on both the positive side and the defensive side, the Biden campaign has work to do over the next eight weeks,” said Wear, noting the presidential debates are likely to expose Biden to questions about abortion and religious freedom that he believes Clinton fumbled in 2016. Wear has previously suggested that Clinton’s support for repealing the Hyde Amendment damaged her own appeal with religious voters in 2016.

“If he answers the question like the nominee in 2016 did and lacks any sense of the moral nuance he’s brought these issues his entire career, it could be a big moment against him,” suggested Wear. “On the flip side, there’s a lot he can do to point out the damage Trump’s policies have done to religious services like World Relief, and the causes of racial justice and environmental stewardship.”

One adviser to the Trump campaign said the debates this fall will test the president’s ability to show he understands the importance of the policy promises he’s made to his religious supporters in the wake of comments and photo ops that have raised questions about his ability to relate to the conservative Christians who support him.

A new book by Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen claims the thrice-married New York businessman once remarked to aides after meeting with evangelical leaders in 2016, “Can you believe people believe that bull----?” The president was also roundly criticized earlier this summer for waving a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church near the White House minutes after law enforcement officials tear-gassed protesters to clear the area for his arrival.

“This is a different election for several reasons, but one of them is that the sheer disgust most religious voters felt for Hillary Clinton in 2016 doesn’t exist with Joe Biden,” said the Trump adviser. “If President Trump wants to ensure those voters still view him as the best choice, he needs to show he’s not just a champion of their causes but a believer in the cause himself.”

While it’s unlikely Biden will pull in a majority of Catholic or evangelical voters on Election Day, Trump could find himself in serious jeopardy if the Democratic nominee shaves off even a couple of percentage points in the president’s support among white evangelicals and Catholics. A central question of the president’s reelection strategy is whether he can marginally improve his 2016 levels of support among religious Americans, and black and Hispanic voters, to offset anticipated declines in his support among white women and suburban voters.

Pagitt believes the current environment — with a Covid-19 death toll nearing 200,000 in the U.S. and recent police-involved shootings igniting a nationwide conversation about racism — will preclude Trump from expanding his appeal among religious Americans before the Nov. 3 election, in addition to making it more difficult for him to maintain his grasp on the evangelical and Catholic voters who backed him four years ago.

“Joe Biden is getting support from religious voters who don’t even know what his religious background is,” he said. “This isn’t tribal voting. There’s an enormous amount of religious Americans who didn’t think there were good options in 2016 and voted for Trump, but now see Biden as the superior option.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/35m8Npp
via 400 Since 1619

‘I want to be in the Trump party’: GOP rides voter registration surge in key state

PHILADELPHIA — President Donald Trump has trailed Joe Biden in virtually every poll in Pennsylvania this year.

But there’s a more tangible piece of data in the state that tells a different story: Since 2016, Republicans have netted nearly seven times as many registered voters here than Democrats.

The GOP has added almost 198,000 registered voters to the books compared to this time four years ago, whereas Democrats have gained an extra 29,000. Though Democrats still outnumber Republicans by about 750,000 voters in the state, the GOP has seized on their uptick in party members as a sign that Trump is on track to win this critical Rust Belt swing state a second time.

“It’s one of the reasons why I am very bullish on Donald Trump’s prospects in Pennsylvania. I think he will win again, and I think he will win by more votes than he did in 2016,” said Charlie Gerow, a Harrisburg-based Republican strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns in the state. “Trump is doing what Ronald Reagan did 40 years ago, which is moving a lot of traditional Democrats into the Republican column.”

The GOP has also seen a larger boost in registrations than Democrats in three critical areas across Pennsylvania: Erie, Luzerne and Northampton counties, all of which helped Trump flip the state by backing him after supporting former President Barack Obama in 2012.

Overall, registered Democrats now make up 47 percent of the state’s electorate, down from 49 percent in September 2016. Republicans comprise 39 percent, up from 38 percent four years ago. Many party officials credit Trump himself for narrowing the gap.

“It’s Trump, Trump, Trump,” said Gloria Lee Snover, chair of the Northampton County Republican Party. When she has signed up voters, she added, “They’re like, ‘Oh, I want to be in the Trump party.’ It’s kind of funny. ... I’m like, ‘You mean the Republican Party?’ They’re like, ‘Oh, yeah.’”

In the lead-up to the 2016 election — where Hillary Clinton lost the state by less than one percentage point — Republicans likewise registered more net voters in key areas such as parts of northeastern Pennsylvania. But rather than feeling a sense of déjà vu, many Democrats said they are not concerned about the trend affecting the presidential results.

They view the numbers as a lagging indicator that distracts from other strengths the party has with new voters and independents in the state. The biggest shift in Pennsylvania in recent years, they said, has been Democrats making electoral gains since 2016, particularly in the suburbs.

“It probably means less than meets the eye,” said J.J. Balaban, a Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania. “There’s reason to believe the shift is mostly ‘Democrats’ who haven’t been voting for Democrats for a long time, choosing to re-register as Republican.”

Republicans around the state said that they have benefited in recent months from the fact that the Trump campaign, which has sought to downplay the Covid-19 pandemic, has been knocking on doors and registering voters in person.

Joe Biden’s team has so far refrained from door-knocking in an effort to protect staffers and voters from the virus, though local Democratic groups in the state have held some socially-distanced in-person events to sign up voters.

Some Democrats said that has posed a challenge. The party has also spent significant resources on informing voters how to vote by mail that, in another year, could have been invested in other areas such as voter registration.

“Look, I’ll be real: The pandemic has kind of thrown a wrench into things,” said Jason Henry, executive director of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party. “Our focus has truly been on educating voters on the new vote-by-mail laws.”

Kathy Bozinski, chair of the Luzerne County Democratic Party, said it’s particularly difficult to register college students due to the pandemic.

“There's no question that reaching out to young voters at colleges — I mean, that’s near impossible,” she said. “We’ve had colleges come back in our region and Covid picks up and they go back to virtual after 10 days. It’s really problematic and unfortunate.”

However, the Biden campaign said it has registered voters as part of its general outreach to more than 3.4 million voters in the last three months. Democratic county parties have held some voter registration events outside of churches and community centers. The Trump campaign and state GOP said they have prioritized voter registration, as well encouraging voters to switch parties.

Republicans have made the biggest raw net gains in Westmoreland and Washington counties — both located in the western part of the state where Trump’s support runs deep — as well as Luzerne. While they have lost ground statewide, Democrats have netted more registered voters in the last four years than the GOP in Philadelphia’s suburbs. In fact, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware and Bucks counties, along with the city of Philadelphia, are the top five areas where they have seen a registration boost.

The voter registration trends in Pennsylvania have been a topic of debate between the two major parties. Tom Bonier, CEO of the Democratic data firm TargetSmart, recently sent an email to newsletter subscribers and reporters titled, “GOP Claims About PA Voter Reg Aren’t True. Here’s Why.”

He said in the message that Democrats have signed up almost 415,000 new voters since the 2016 election, compared to about 282,000 by Republicans, according to the company’s analysis of the state’s voter file. However, he said that number does not factor in voters who have switched parties.

Bonier also argued that Democratic-controlled local governments have cleaned their voter files more vigorously than those run by Republicans, and that voters who have registered as unaffiliated are likely to lean Democratic. As for those Democrats or independents who registered as Republicans, he said it is a lagging indicator.

“There are a lot of truths. The undeniable truth, on one hand, is that ... the Democratic voter registration advantage in Pennsylvania has undeniably narrowed,” Bonier said in an interview. “At the same time, undeniably, Democrats have registered more voters over that same time period than Republicans.”

Lawrence Tabas, leader of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said Democrats are making excuses.

“If I were them, I would say that I think voter registration is some sort of a lagging issue. You would, too,” he said. “Having this additional edge of newly registered Republicans from the Democratic base, these are people who are going to vote in November. These people are committed.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2RbvLHr
via 400 Since 1619

Trump Is at War With the Shallow State

For years, President Donald Trump and his allies have warned about his adversaries in the “Deep State.” The phrase evokes images of anonymous officials with hidden motives buried deep in the government.

Recent days have made it clearer than ever that the real hazard to Trump is actually the Shallow State.

The people saying mean things about Trump aren’t lurking in the shadows. They are well-known names whom Trump recruited to work by his side. Their motives aren’t mysterious. They are obvious: A transactional president encourages transactional behavior in his midst. These sources have shocking stories to tell, but no longer any genuinely surprising ones.

The plot is playing out now in familiar ways. Prominent people typically went to work for Trump thinking he seems like a jerk but, hey, he was elected, after all. So they calculated that maybe he’s not so bad and that the compensations in power and status of an important job were worth the trade. They believed the Republic would be better off with their wise counsel helping curb Trump’s worst instincts. Once there, they discovered that the president is more self-absorbed and less tethered to public interest than they had previously imagined. Having been lured into the inner circle to enhance their reputations, they fear—often with good reason—that they are leaving soiled by Trump’s splatter.

So they write books, like former Trump lawyer-fixer Michael Cohen. Or they talk to magazine journalists, like the senior military officers who told damaging tales to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg or dispatched surrogates to do so. Above all, they sit with Washington’s legendary confessor priest, Bob Woodward, for his new book, “Rage.”

The entire notion of the Deep State rests on soil tilled by Hollywood, in decades of movies and television shows in the genre of the paranoid thriller. In these conspiracy dramas, the plot tension flows from a slowly building, creepy realization that Things Are Not What They Seem.

Woodward, based on Wednesday’s barrage of publicity for next week’s official release of “Rage,” has once again delivered the goods with plenty of news-driving revelations. But these scoops are like so many in the Trump years: They reveal that things are pretty much Exactly What They Seem.

It seemed last winter and spring that Trump was prattling on with a lot of happy talk that he couldn’t possibly believe about how the coronavirus wouldn’t be that serious—even as his own government officials were warning that it would be—because he was desperately trying to create reality by proclamation. Months later, Woodward has confirmed that to be true.

What’s more, his source was not a latter-day Deep Throat skulking around garages on behalf of the Deep State. The most damaging source for Woodward is on the record and on tape: Trump himself.

It had previously seemed that Trump, despite his constant attacks on the “Fake News” media, had a compulsive fascination with establishment media figures and the coverage they give him. Now the president has confirmed that to be true, giving 18 (!) interviews to Woodward. Think of him as Shallow Throat.

“Rage,” like The Atlantic piece, also includes material developed through the more conventional way that important people unload their feelings about Trump: On “deep background.” This is the same practice by which we have learned startling accounts about the decision-making and internal battles surrounding previous presidents.

Only this time, the revelations are much more sensational, much more about defects of presidential character than the behind-the-scenes dynamics of policy debates.

The revelations are also much more perishable.

This summer alone there have been a half-dozen—or more? What’s missing?—damning, all-consuming, now-it-can-be-told firestorms about Trump and his governing style, including revelations that would have been monthslong showstoppers in any previous presidency.

It may seem like a year ago, but former national security adviser John Bolton’s devastating book, “The Room Where It Happened,” came out in mid-June. August brought Mary L. Trump’s devastating book, “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.” This month brought Goldberg’s devastating article, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers.’” And also Michael Schmidt’s devastating book, “Donald Trump v. the United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President.” A couple days later brought Cohen’s devastating book, “Disloyal,” which includes allegations of racially bigoted remarks and conniving with the National Enquirer. It is unclear how much publishing oxygen there will be for this or whether it will be sucked up by Woodward’s devastating “Rage.”

Some of the passages from Woodward promoted on Wednesday highlight the nature of the Shallow State’s dealings with Trump. It turns out former Defense Secretary James Mattis regards Trump as “dangerous” and “unfit,” with “no moral compass.” Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats allegedly agrees, and has “deep suspicions” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “had something” damaging on Trump since he saw “no other explanation” for some of Trump’s behavior.

Where does this come from? Possibly the Deep State has bugs in Mattis’ and Coats’ offices or computers, and figured out some way—no fingerprints—to get the material in Woodward’s hands. Or perhaps Mattis and/or Coats told Woodward things they thought and said on condition of “deep background.”

The first question in the spate of new books and articles in which people once in Trump’s orbit tell their stories is whether they are believable. In most cases, the news coverage, citing previous patterns in Trump’s behavior, tends to accept the anecdotes as credible. This raises a secondary question—less important but interesting—what do we think of the people who raise their voices to share critical information or character appraisals of their boss?

Should they be hailed as brave truthtellers? Or do their actions raise uncomfortable questions about their own values, no less than Trump’s?

As a journalist, I certainly have no interest in making censorious judgments about people’s reasons for speaking their truths. But there is no need to assign valorous motives to decisions that often seem to have more prosaic explanations: self-interest, vanity, revenge and so on.

In some cases, one suspects that loathing of Trump is merged with self-loathing for investing hope in Trump or ever believing that joining his circle on his terms would be a worthwhile transaction.

Mary Trump has offered valuable insights into what seems to be the president’s dysfunctional upbringing. But she also makes plain that she was wounded by family disputes over her grandfather’s will.

Jim Mattis joined the Trump administration at the beginning and can plausibly say he thought he was performing a patriotic duty. But John Bolton joined the White House as national security adviser in April 2018—a year after Trump had fired his first FBI director and publicly humiliated his first attorney general, and months after he had warned on Twitter his nuclear button is “much bigger” and “more powerful” than North Korea’s.

Bolton took the job, anyway, without knowing Trump well at the personal level, because it was a position that anyone with his ambitions and career path might reasonably covet. No problem. But, no doubt like many of Woodward’s sources—and like current administration officials whose memoirs we will read in due course—he can’t claim that his subsequent disillusionment came with no warning or context.

It could be that Trump understands the transactional nature of the Shallow State better than the people who aim to take him down.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3m767Su
via 400 Since 1619

Boris Johnson's Brexit maneuver risks blowback from Biden, Democrats

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is trying to shake up the trade talks that are a part of his country's Brexit negotiations. But the latest move by the Conservative government could have the side effect of damaging relations with a new U.S. president before he's even in the White House — and scupper the chances of a U.S.-U.K. trade deal that Britain hopes to ink once it formally leaves the European Union.

Johnson's government is attempting to gain the upper hand amid a stalemate in negotiations over the future trade relationship between an independent U.K. and the European Union, releasing a controversial Internal Market Bill Wednesday that proposes transferring regulatory powers over some sectors from the EU back to various levels of U.K. government. The proposal would go back on a prior agreement reached with the E.U. on Brexit. Not only that, by changing how border checks are conducted, the measure would break a protocol protecting the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998 between Northern Ireland, which remains a part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland.

Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Michelle O'Neill tweeted Sunday that the planned law would represent “a treacherous betrayal” inflicting “irreversible harm.”

Then-President Bill Clinton helped broker the Good Friday Agreement, one of his signature foreign policy accomplishments, which ended a decades-long civil war between those in Northern Ireland who remained loyal to Britain and those who wanted to be part of the independent Ireland. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and other party leaders in the U.S. have already signaled any move to upend the Northern Ireland peace deal would seriously damage the "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K.

Antony Blinken, a foreign policy adviser to Biden and a potential secretary of State in a Biden administration, tweeted Tuesday that the former vice president “is committed to preserving the hard-earned peace and stability in Northern Ireland,” and that any changes to the EU-U.K relationship “must protect the Good Friday Agreement and prevent the return of a hard border,” on the island of Ireland.

Biden, himself, has spoken often of his Irish roots and affinity for Ireland, describing a 2016 visit to Ireland as a “homecoming” and telling a Washington audience that year that, "being Irish, without fear of contradiction, has shaped my entire life."

Brookings Senior Fellow Thomas Wright wrote last month that U.K. interference with the Good Friday Agreement would “destroy hopes of a closer engagement with the U.S.” if, in fact, Biden defeats President Donald Trump this November.

The move also risks a backlash from Democrats in Congress, who have traditionally courted Irish-American voters.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday ruled out a U.K. trade deal if London breaks its Brexit pact with the EU over the Irish border. “The Good Friday Agreement is the bedrock of peace in Northern Ireland,” said Pelosi. “If the U.K. violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing the Congress.”

“I urge both sides to uphold the terms of this joint agreement, particularly with respect to the treatment of Northern Ireland, in accordance with international law,” Democratic Rep. Richard Neal, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees trade, said in a statement Tuesday.

Critics both within the U.K. and outside it warn that Johnson’s move could also blunt efforts by Britain and other democratic governments to pressure China to protect democracy in Hong Kong, and increase pressure for another referendum on Scottish independence from Britain.

Former Finnish prime minister and veteran EU treaty negotiator Alexander Stubb told POLITICO that the U.K. government is “putting ideology before reality,” calling the move “unprecedented.” Brigid Laffan, a governance expert at the European University Institute, went even further, calling the proposal a,“hostile act towards a near neighbor” that would make the U.K. a “rogue state,” if implemented.

Lisa Nandy, the foreign policy spokesperson of the U.K.’s opposition Labour party warned Tuesday that any move to walk back the EU Withdrawal Agreement "undermines our moral authority at a key moment" and "sends a clear signal the U.K. no longer keeps its promises."

As Hong Kong’s former colonial power, for example, Britain is a party to the international agreement which assures Hong Kong independence from direct rule from Beijing until 2047. If London is willing to breach its international commitments to the EU, that opens the way for Beijing to argue it is justified in breaching its commitments to democracy in Hong Kong.

The Internal Market Bill would also deliver a new balance of legal powers between London and the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That’s a point of contention among Scottish nationalists who are agitating for another referendum on independence. Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon — who supports independence — described the draft law as “a full frontal assault on devolution” in a tweet Wednesday morning.

Even members of Boris Johnson’s ruling Conservative party denounced the plan this week, telling Parliament that it would undermine Britain’s reputation as a country committed to rule of law. "How can the government reassure future international partners that the U.K. can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations of the agreements it signs?" asked Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May.

The British government’s chief lawyer, Jonathan Jones, resigned in protest over the proposal.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government argues it is simply trying to advance stalled trade negotiations with the European Union, part of the four-year effort to unwind Britain’s membership in the trade and economic bloc.

Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis, the U.K. minister in charge of the Good Friday Agreement, admitted to Parliament, however, that the bill “does break international law in a very specific and limited way,” by refusing to apply certain EU laws in Northern Ireland.

Lewis’ admission drew immediate backlash from Brussels.

Charles Michel, president of the European Council, which sets the bloc’s strategic direction, said the U.K. Withdrawal Agreement has to be applied in full, adding, “Breaking international law is not acceptable and does not create the confidence we need to build our future relationship.” Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee called for a “moratorium” on trade negotiations with the U.K.

Brexit supporters have long framed the U.K.’s departure from the EU as a way to increase the country’s economic independence. The stalled trade negotiations aren’t yet delivering that independence. As David Frost, the U.K.’s chief negotiator, wrote to Prime Minister Boris Johnson Monday night, “We need to see more realism from the EU about our status as an independent country.” The U.K. will not allow itself to be trapped as a “client state” of the EU, Frost vowed.

For Johnson's government, the proposed law is a negotiating tactic. The U.K. economy is just one-sixth of the size of the remaining 27 EU countries — limiting its leverage in the current negotiations — and if it takes the threat of breaking international law to compensate for Britain’s lack of negotiating heft and change the negotiating dynamic, that’s a gamble the Johnson government appears willing to take.

Graham Lanktree contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2Re91GU
via 400 Since 1619