Josh Kraushaar/National journal (free article):
House GOP Fears Wave in 2018 as Money Woes Grow
The odds of Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker again are rising as Republican donors show frustration over the party’s stalled agenda on Capitol Hill.
Of the 53 House Republicans facing competitive races, according to Cook Political Report ratings, a whopping 21 have been outraised by at least one Democratic opponent in the just-completed fundraising quarter. That’s a stunningly high number this early in the cycle, one that illustrates just how favorable the political environment is for House Democrats….
The odds of a Democratic House takeover in 2018 have never looked greater this election cycle. One plugged-in House Democratic strategist, who has previously been circumspect about the party’s chances to win control of the lower chamber, put the chances of Nancy Pelosi again becoming speaker at a 7 (with 10 being the most likely). The strategist’s outlook is bolstered by a growing pile of empirical evidence, like eye-popping fundraising from the party’s top challengers, suggesting that next November is poised to be a wave election for the Democrats
See also Democrats’ early money haul stuns GOP
Politico:
DNC reeling financially after brutal 2016
Party officials face a daunting rebuilding effort and worries about the committee's cash flow after years of atrophy
The financial challenges reflect a broader struggle at a committee led by a chairman who is new to party politics — and on a steep learning curve at a time national Democrats are still searching for an identity after a historic loss. And it's not just donors who are staying away as the Perez-led group promises an expansive set of new investments and innovations. The party's old leaders, led by former president Barack Obama, have kept their involvement to a minimum, as well.
So with 2018's midterms presenting a clear opportunity for Democrats to leap forward, the worry is that they simply may not be prepared in time. While the House and Senate Democratic campaign arms — and individual candidates — are having no problem raising funds, the comparatively anemic cash flow at the central committee and state branches could affect organizing efforts on the ground across the country.
These stories don’t match. DNC doesn’t do House races (but, then again, it doesn’t decide who the nominee is). But/so there’s still lingering bad feelings, and a weird juxtaposition of story lines, nonetheless.
Eric Lipton/NY times:
Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots
A scientist who worked for the chemical industry now shapes policy on hazardous chemicals. Within the E.P.A., there is fear that public health is at risk.
The changes directed by Dr. Beck may result in an “underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment” caused by PFOA and other so-called legacy chemicals no longer sold on the market, the Office of Water’s top official warned in a confidential internal memo obtained by The New York Times.
Public health? How many divisions does public health have?
Business Insider:
On Monday, when President Donald Trump was doubling down on his false claim that President Barack Obama didn't call families of slain soldiers, he said a line that caught the attention of the military community.
"President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes, and maybe sometimes he didn't, that's what I was told. All I can do is ask my generals," Trump said.
At issue was the phrase "my generals," the wording of which some critics said suggested a misguided sense of ownership over the military.
"The US military belongs to the nation, not the president. We're not his," former US Army Officer Mark Hertling told Business Insider.
Hertling called Trump's comments "extremely offensive."
US Naval College professor Tom Nichols said the line was "contrary to the American spirit" and not "in the tradition of modern American civil-military relations."
NY Times:
Inside the West Wing, Mr. Kelly’s colleagues cheered, and some even cried, during his surprise appearance on Thursday in the press briefing room, initially seeing it as a powerful message of loss that might bring an end to the political bickering.
But if that was his intention, Mr. Kelly failed. By attacking Ms. Wilson, Mr. Kelly amplified the controversy. And by citing past events that turned out to be false, Mr. Kelly invited news media scrutiny and criticism even from his former military colleagues.
James A. Marks, a retired Army major general who served with Mr. Kelly, said the chief of staff had missed a chance to lower the temperature, and had instead raised it.
“He has a platform. Suddenly, the dais is his and he commands it. There is no one in the room that has more respect and authority than John Kelly,” Mr. Marks, who is known as “Spider,” said of Mr. Kelly’s appearance at the White House lectern. “He chose that moment to slam a congresswoman. It becomes a personal attack, and John’s the chief of staff of the president.”
In another White House, a chief of staff might have followed up with an apology of his own, or at least an attempt to correct the record. But Mr. Trump’s aides know the president is watching what they say. And they follow his lead.
Two points:
1. All the reporters immediately rushing to laud Gen. Kelly after his speech look kinda dumb now.
2. Trump is poison to everyone and everything.
Philip Bump/WaPo:
The cascade of missteps that turned one White House error into a messy week
Trump’s incorrect (and rapidly debunked) assertion that he was doing something that past presidents hadn’t was like dropping a snowball at the top of a mountain. As the week went on — and as Trump and his team kept making more and more mistakes and misstatements — the snowball grew and grew, consuming five days of media attention.
Loren DeJong Schulman/Atlantic:
The Necessity of Questioning the Military
Honoring the sacrifice of service members requires understanding why they were put at risk, and demanding that those who did so hold themselves to account.
By focusing on keeping the sacrifice of a Gold Star family sacred, I think Kelly missed the point of this last week’s distress. There is literally nothing a president can say or do to salve the grief of a parent or spouse who has lost a loved one serving their country. Nothing can rightly acknowledge or even measure the hole in their lives—no phone call or letter, not the benefits or life insurance provided by the Department of Defense, not even a personal $25,000 check offered to a grieving father. We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking there is a “right” way mitigate to their loss, though that shouldn’t stop us from trying.
The commander in chief and his key advisers have a duty to these men and women in uniform. The practice is complicated, but at heart it is simple: to do their utmost to define missions that will entail risks, but which have a purpose that the people in these positions own. When the worst happens, their job is to take on the pain grieving families as an accounting for the decisions they made that cost the lives of young Americans….
I worry that Kelly and Mattis, by making the loss of troops so sacred it dissuades hard questions about the objective of the risks they took, are themselves widening the divide they so often lament between those who serve and those totally disconnected with the military. That would be ironic and sad, given that they are better positioned than almost anyone else to aid in closing this gap. Kelly’s decision to only accept questions from reporters who know Gold Star families was unsettling, later explained by a White House official: “What he wanted to convey … is that this was a serious time, and attacks were being lobbed that were not factual or fair—from people unqualified to make them and who had not suffered.” Did he make a point? Yes. But placing restrictions on the ability to ask questions about the rationale for a service member’s mission that cost his life makes that loss less sacred, not more.
Health Affairs:
The Insufficiency Of Medicaid Block Grants: The Example Of Puerto Rico
The impact of recent devastating storms shines a spotlight on the insufficiency of Congress’ Medicaid block grant to Puerto Rico.
We speak from experience. In 2016, we worked at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where we tried to help the Commonwealth address the urgent threat caused by the Zika virus. Throughout the year, we and other local and federal officials nervously tracked the spread of the disease. But as Zika spread to more mothers, and babies continued to be born with microcephaly, Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis grew and the territory came dangerously close to hitting its cap on federal Medicaid funding and cutting people off of coverage.
The island’s Medicaid program struggled to keep up even with its pre-Zika health care needs. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program support health care for more than 1.5 million US citizens, about half of Puerto Rico’s population. Puerto Rican government officials were not able, as block grant advocates hope, to stay home and manage within their block grant of federal dollars to meet their residents’ health needs, particularly in the face of Zika. In fact, they flew back and forth to Washington frequently to meet with HHS to seek help in managing a growing crisis.
Peter Wehner/NY Times:
Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters, who get their news from Breitbart and Alex Jones, from conservative talk radio and Fox News, want a revolution, not accommodation. I’m acquainted with some of these individuals and I hear from them all the time. Their rage at the establishment is off the charts. They want to burn the village down. Until now all the energy has been with them, and it is laughable to think that passing tax cuts will satiate them.
That’s why, for many of the lifelong Republican conservatives who never boarded the Trump train, it is particularly disappointing that the Republican leaders we know who have deep disagreements with Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon are for the most part unwilling to make the counter-case in a forceful and comprehensive fashion. Nor are his private critics rushing to go public with their often mordant analyses of Mr. Trump’s movement.
They each have their reasons, and some are more understandable than others. Still, I can’t help but feel that they are badly underestimating the gravity of the moment. They are willfully ignoring the danger Trumpism and Bannonism pose to many of the principles they claim to hold dear, and they are deluding themselves into believing that a rapprochement is possible with those who are determined to destroy them.
NY Times:
They rose to positions of power around the same time and used their big, bullying voices to secure for themselves leading roles in American culture. Both men worked in industries that put up with gross behavior from male executives for decades, and both now stand accused of lording their status over women who have stepped forward to say that the men sexually harassed or otherwise abused them.
Mr. O’Reilly, late of Fox News, and Mr. Weinstein, late of the Weinstein Company, share something else. They kept their alleged misconduct under wraps with the help of the nondisclosure agreements included as part of the numerous out-of-court settlements that allowed them to admit to no wrongdoing.
The sums they paid their accusers bought them silence. A full, public airing did not come to be until those meddling reporters came along.
The report in The New York Times this weekend that Mr. O’Reilly paid $32 million in a single settlement with the former Fox News analyst Lis Wiehl in January brings to $45 million the amount that has been paid to six women who accused him of harassment.