If Democrats run in 2018 like they're running in California, they're in big trouble

Kurt Bardella, Opinion Columnist
Published 3:08 p.m. ET Feb. 28, 2018 | Updated 1:53 p.m. ET March 5, 2018

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

If you’ve been in politics long enough, you’ve heard the phrase, “As goes California, so goes the nation.”

In the case of the 2018 midterm elections, this could spell bad news for Democrats and good news for Republicans.

It wasn’t long ago that Democrats openly and almost giddily mused about a potential 40-seat pickup in the House, nearly double the 24 seats they need to flip in order to retake the majority. However, recent weeks have given Democrats reason to think twice about their lofty expectations.

Their advantage on the generic ballot preference goes up and down and often falls to single digits. Even more troubling for their congressional takeover prospects, however, is the state of the Democratic Party in California.

California Democrats hosted their party convention in San Diego last weekend and made some absolutely puzzling decisions.

In a stunning rebuke of the establishment, the party refused to endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She won only 37% support from convention delegates, far short of the 60% she needed. Progressive challenger and state Senate leader Kevin de Leon also fell short, but he outperformed Feinstein with 54% of the vote.

Feinstein is still the heavy favorite to win re-election in November. But the rejection of Feinstein, a political icon in California, is a potentially important data point in the civil war brewing within the Democratic Party between the base and establishment.

Have the Democrats not learned anything from watching the war within the Republican Party?

What’s even more perplexing is the reality that Feinstein can’t get the party’s endorsement, but a female lawmaker being investigated for sexual misconduct in the state Capitol can get it.

There are other signs that show California Democrats just do not have their act together. For instance, the San Diego-area 49th congressional district was considered one of the top battleground seats in the country. For almost two decades, the district had been represented by my former boss, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa. In January, Issa announced that he'd forgo re-election and retire at the end of his term.

Since then, the situation has deteriorated for Democrats. Now there are fears that under California's jungle primary system, in which the top two vote-getters go on to the general election regardless of party, so many Democrats are running that they'll divide the vote and a Democrat might not even make the top two.

In a completely botched effort to narrow the field, one candidate had prepared to leave the race and run for a different office at the local level, but inexplicably failed to review the residency guidelines and missed the cutoff to qualify for the local election by a single day. Another did drop out, but that leaves four relatively unknown Democrats still running for the congressional seat against a better known Republican lineup that includes a member of the state Board of Equalization, a state assemblyman, a San Diego County supervisor and a local mayor.

The Issa district isn’t an isolated situation, either. Seven Democrats are running in the Orange County district held by retiring Rep. Ed Royce. Four Democrats are challenging Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also in Orange County.

How can a party so divided hope to defeat the Republicans in November?

Complicating matters, Democratic candidates will once again face U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's litmus test. Since 2010, Republicans have likely spent more than $150 million on attack ads tying Democrats to Pelosi — and it has worked every time. Pelosi has gone from a 39% approval rating in 2013 to 29% in 2017. President Trump refers to Pelosi as theGOP’s “secret weapon.”

Clearly, the Democrats are their own worst enemies, but we knew that already having watched the sequence of events that put Donald Trump in the White House.

On paper, Democrats have every reason to be optimistic about their chances to take back the House. History is certainly in their favor. In the postwar midterm era, the median loss for a president’s party has been 22 seats. Since 1962, the president's party has lost 40 seats on average when the president’s approval rating is below 50% — and Trump’s is at 41%.

And yet, an icon like Feinstein can’t even get her state party’s endorsement. With prime pickup opportunities in reach, Democrats can’t even narrow the field in competitive districts and could be left out of the general election entirely. And the leader of congressional Democrats is the weapon of choice for Republicans to use against them.

If, and it might be a big if, Republicans somehow survive the midterms with their majority intact, Democrats will emerge the morning after demoralized and asking themselves: What went wrong?

The answers could very well lie in California.

Kurt Bardella, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is a former  spokesperson for Republican members of Congress and Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter: @kurtbardella

Law Breaking Illegal Cartoons

Advice for Trump: Don't fire Robert Muller -- He will clear you in the end

Opinion by Robert Charles

Will he or won’t he? Rumors continue to swirl and speculation abounds about whether President Trump will order the firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in our 2016 presidential election and alleged misconduct by the Trump campaign and the president.
President Trump is a high-risk, high-reward player and he often wins. He’s a man of action who is impatient with delays. But in this case, he needs patience. He needs to let the Mueller probe finish on its own time, politically and legally, because that’s the only way for the president to shut down all the speculation and be cleared of doing anything wrong.
So firing Mueller should be off the table – something President Trump doesn’t even consider. The president needs to focus on his job, do his best to serve the American people, and just hit pause and stop being preoccupied by the Mueller probe. Talking about it and tweeting about it again and again, day after day, simply creates more news coverage and more public concern about the investigation.
President Trump needs vindication from Mueller to push legislation through Congress, manage international affairs with proper authority, protect America’s national security without distraction, and guide America through these complex times. He also needs vindication to win a second term. So waiting for Mueller to wind up his investigation, even if it goes on for several more months, is in the president’s best interest.
For obvious reasons, the president is frustrated. Who wouldn’t be? The “Russia collusion” story is at a dead end. In terms of what is on the public record, the claims of collusion don’t add up. Indeed, the facts known to the public point toward illegal collusion among top Obama administration officials who apparently aimed to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, or hobble him if he won.
Still, the Mueller probe continues on and on and on.
On the public record, we know that senior FBI and intelligence officials were apoplectic – texting with adolescent anxiety, fear and fury – in their determination to assure that Trump was defeated by Hillary Clinton.
The devotion of these federal employees to Clinton remains peculiar, almost religious. Perhaps it was fed by fear of the inexperienced, conservative, and irreverently tweeting candidate Trump.
While federal employees have First Amendment rights to an opinion, what is now obvious is that some abused their positions and power and engaged in a conspiracy to bend the law to serve their opinions. That is not acceptable or excusable, regardless of whether it is directed against a Democratic or Republican candidate.
What is also obvious is that the conspiracy to undermine President Trump both before and after he took office was undertaken without compunction, with gloves-off zeal and continued into 2017.
Andrew McCabe, former No. 2 official at the FBI, was recently fired for substantive, non-political reasons. His self-defense was breathtaking. He wrapped himself in the American flag and in the FBI’s reputation for integrity. But he failed to rebut nonpartisan infractions detailed by the Justice Department Inspector General’s Office, the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Justice Department leadership.
Distilled from an array of 2016 election-focused investigations – some already completed, some ongoing—here are some key facts:
· The largest cache of Hillary Clinton recovered emails – a topic we are all sick of talking about – cast the Democratic presidential candidate in a very negative light. McCabe and others chose not to release the emails when they were found in September 2016. That is unforgivable.
· The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (ACT) court, meant to protect all Americans from abuse by a politically twisted Justice Department, was tricked. The FBI’s McCabe, Director James Comey and others knowingly sought and gained an invasive warrant to surveil members of the Trump campaign by using information paid for by the Clinton campaign. Without that information, the surveillance warrant – by their own admission – would not have been granted. That is unforgivable.
· Increasingly, it looks like the zealous effort to first stop candidate Trump and then undermine President Trump had appendages. One reason McCabe was summarily let go, without his full pension, is that he was allegedly untruthful under oath multiple times about leaking anti-Trump material to the media.
· Curiously, Comey, who knowingly reverted to calling the Clinton “investigation” a “matter” during the election campaign when directed by Obama’s attorney general, reportedly leaked sensitive law enforcement information to the media.
· Likewise, one reason former British spy Christopher Steele of dossier fame was let go by the FBI, which had mysteriously contracted with him to provide information about Trump, was that Steele had also been briefing the media on anti-Trump material.
These are just some of the holes in the anti-Trump narrative alleging misconduct by the candidate and his campaign. Put it all together and so far – as far as we know from what’s public – and the accusations just don’t add up.
The biggest take-away is this: If collusion is a bad thing – and for undermining the integrity of any federal election it is – the white-hot spotlight belongs elsewhere, and seems to be moving that way.
Why, then, should the Mueller probe continue?
The reason is simple, legal and is why our impatient president and his supporters – including all those unfairly accused, unjustifiably hobbled, and frustratingly made to wait – should take a deep breath, stop being preoccupied by the probe and simply let it finish.
The reports that special counsels and prosecutors typically issue at the end of their inquiries – on average after 22 months of investigation – are usually thorough. Sometimes a prosecutor “colors outside the lines,” nabbing side players for singular acts of obstruction, perjury without a predicate act, or for unrelated misconduct discovered in the course of an investigation. But generally they focus on the mission and don’t go too far afield.
In this case, reams of exculpatory information have found their way into the media, chiefly by way of congressional investigators and private sources, validating President Trump’s contention of innocence.
Additionally, this information shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government is a bad actor – no surprise – and that all Americans, regardless of political party, have a right to be unsettled, indignant, and on guard against Russian meddling in our elections.
But none of this implicates President Trump in any wrongdoing. In fact, Mueller’s probe is helping protect America by ferreting out how pervasive, invasive and invidious the Russian intentions are.
So, in the end, the president and his team have a right to that clean bill of health, whether he answers more questions or lets the record speak for itself. He needs a timely conclusion to the Mueller probe, in order to best serve America’s domestic, international and national interests – to do his job unencumbered by this pasty, perfidious fiction, propagated by misguided former federal officials.
Let Mueller reach that conclusion without interference, and the president and our country will be better off.
Robert Charles is a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush, former naval intelligence officer and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses.  

Take blame for government shutdown? ‘F--- that,’ Trump reportedly told aides

Here is one of the real problems with our government.

President Donald Trump’s remarks after signing a massive $1.3 trillion, 2,232-page spending bill this week made clear he was not happy about doing it.
"It's not right and it's very bad for our country," he told a gathering of reporters.
But the alternative – which some White House aides reportedly said would have included shouldering much of the blame for another government shutdown – didn’t appeal to the president either.
“F--- that,” Trump said when faced with the option, sources told the Wall Street Journal.
In a similar outburst last week, Trump reportedly dispelled any notion of firing national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, describing such rumors as, “Total f---ing bulls---,” the Journal reported.
Nevertheless, McMaster was ousted Thursday and replaced with John Bolton.
The president's profane candor could signal what some observers say is Trump's increasing confidence on the job and growing trust in his instincts after 14 months in the Oval Office.
That could explain the recent personnel changes at the White House -- and reports that Trump may have an even more dramatic shake-up in mind.
The president has floated to outside advisers a plan to do away with the traditional West Wing power structure, including the formal chief of staff role, to create the more free-wheeling atmosphere he relished while running his business and later his presidential campaign at Trump Tower.

Wife who aided illegal immigrant husband in slayings of 2 sheriff's deputies gets 50 years

A Utah woman was sentenced to nearly 50 years in prison Friday for helping her husband as he killed two Northern California sheriff's deputies in 2014.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steve White sentenced Janelle Monroy after jurors last month rejected her argument that she feared her husband Luis Bracamontes would have killed her if she didn't help him.
"Ms. Monroy, you did not start this reign of terror, but you joined in immediately after as an active participant," White said, according to the Sacramento Bee.
Monroy, 41, willingly moved her husband's assault-style rifle from vehicle to stolen vehicle after he killed Sacramento County sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver and before he killed Placer County sheriff's Detective Michael Davis Jr. hours later, prosecutors said.

Sacramento County sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver  (Sacramento County Sheriff's Department )

Monroy is a U.S. citizen while Bracamontes is a Mexican citizen who repeatedly entered the United States illegally. President Donald Trump has cited his case to illustrate problems with the nation's immigration policy.
Bracamontes has repeatedly said in court that he killed the deputies and wished he had killed more.
The deputies were killed shortly after the couple arrived in Sacramento during what
Monroy said was a wandering journey spurred by Bracamontes' drug-infused paranoia.

Placer County sheriff's Detective Michael Davis Jr.  (Placer County Sheriff's Department)

The court also heard victim impact statements from Davis’ family, the report said.
"I feel like my heart has been ripped out of my chest," Debbie McMahon, Davis’ mother, said.
White rejected arguments from defense attorney Pete Kmeto that Monroy was a battered wife and victim of an abusive, threatening husband, who "was armed to the teeth, raving
about killing people" and abused methamphetamine, the Bee reported.

 Janelle Monroy listens in court as she is found guilty of murder in Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 15, 2018.  (Sacramento Bee via Associated Press)

"She's not the person who killed law enforcement officers," Kmeto said, noting that Monroy never pulled a trigger during the crime spree. "This client is not an evil person, this client has been victimized and has had a tough life."
In opposition, Sacramento prosecutor Rod Norgaard told the judge that Monroy knew before the rampage that her husband wanted to kill police officers, the newspaper reported.
"She did not commit a crime with the devil," Norgaard said. "She married him."
Monroy faced a life sentence after she was convicted of 10 charges including murder, attempted murder and carjacking, attempted carjacking and possessing an assault rifle.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Bracamontes, who was convicted by a separate jury. Closing arguments in his case are set for Monday.

President Trump issues order to ban transgender troops from service except in 'limited circumstances'

Capt. Jennifer Peace, a transgender soldier

President Donald Trump on Friday officially authorized the ability of the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from joining the military, with limited exceptions, following through on a pledge he made last year.
"Among other things, the policies set forth by the Secretary of Defense state that transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria -- individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery -- are disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances," a memo released by the White House on Friday night said.
Maj. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, said the announcement of a new policy would have no immediate practical effect on the military because the Pentagon is obliged to continue to recruit and retain transgender people in accordance with current law.
The Department of Justice issued a statement defending the Pentagon:
“After comprehensive study and analysis, the Secretary of Defense concluded that new policies should be adopted regarding individuals with gender dysphoria that are consistent with military effectiveness and lethality, budgetary constraints, and applicable law," the statement reads. "The Department of Justice will continue to defend DOD’s lawful authority to create and implement personnel policies they have determined are necessary to best defend our nation.
"Consistent with this new policy, we are asking the courts to lift all related preliminary injunctions in order to ensure the safety and security of the American people and the best fighting force in the world.”
But criticism came quickly from LGBT advocates and from the leadership of the Democratic Party.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, accused the Trump administration of pushing "anti-transgender prejudices onto the military."
"There is simply no way to spin it, the Trump-Pence Administration is going all in on its discriminatory, unconstitutional and despicable ban on transgender troops," said HRC President Chad Griffin.
The Democratic National Committee released a statement signed by Chairman Tom Perez, DNC LGBT Caucus Chair Earl Fowlkes, and DNC Treasurer Bill Derrough, whom the DNC says was prevented from serving in the military because he is openly gay.
“This decision is an insult to our brave transgender service members and all who wear our nation’s uniform," the statement reads. "Instead of fulfilling his oath to protect the American people, Donald Trump and Mike Pence are putting our nation’s security at risk and shoving real American patriots back in the closet."

  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote, "This latest memorandum is the same cowardly, disgusting ban the President announced last summer. No one with the strength and bravery to serve in the U.S. military should be turned away because of who they are."

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in February sent Trump a memorandum laying out policies that "in the exercise of his independent judgment" should be implemented by the Defense Department. The memo reads, in part:
“Based on the work of the Panel and the Department’s best military judgement, the Department of Defense concludes that there are substantial risks associated with allowing the accession and retention of individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria and require, or have already undertaken, a course of treatment to change their gender.
"Furthermore, the Department also finds that exempting such persons from well-established mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards, which apply to all Service members, including transgender Service members without gender dysphoria, could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden of the military that is mot conductive to military effectiveness and lethality."
In July, Trump tweeted that the federal government "will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military" - reversing a 2016 policy under President Barack Obama. The move caught the Pentagon by surprise.
"Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," the president said at the time.
Trump's push for the ban has been blocked by several legal challenges and the Pentagon began allowing transgender recruits to seek enlistment in January.
A 2016 study by the Rand Corp. estimated that nearly 4,000 transgender troops were on active duty and in the reserves, Politico reported. But LGBT advocacy groups in the military put the figure at around 15,000, the report said.

Liberal Cable News Cartoons

The 'informercial' myth: Trump won the White House despite cable news

Ross Douthat, the consistently provocative New York Times columnist, had a personal reason for being put off by Donald Trump's prowess at dominating television.
Douthat, a conservative who is fiercely anti-Trump, was a CNN contributor during the 2016 campaign. He wrote yesterday that "a network like CNN, which thrives on Team Red vs. Team Blue conflict, felt compelled to turn airtime over to Trump surrogates like Jeffrey Lord and Corey Lewandowski and Kayleigh McEnany because their regular stable of conservative commentators (I was one of them) simply wasn't pro-Trump enough."
He has a point—though those few were greatly outnumbered by never-Trumpers—but harbors some misconceptions when it comes to the president and TV news.
The backdrop for the piece is the scandal at Cambridge Analytica, the data firm that just suspended its CEO (largely over hidden-camera footage showing him and others talking about bribing potential clients with money and hookers.)
Since Cambridge worked for the Trump campaign, the column says that whatever voter data the company improperly mined is much less important than Trump’s "hacking" of television.
Douthat argues that Trump created phony news for years as the host of "The Apprentice," saying many Republican viewers "bought the fake news that his television program and its network sponsors gladly sold them."
No question the show helped cement his image as a celebrity businessman, but come on. People know that what they’re getting with these staged reality shows is hardly the unvarnished truth.
Trump's real sin, says Douthat, "was the use of his celebrity to turn news channels into infomercials for his campaign ... With television news there were actual human beings, charged with exercising news judgment and inclined to posture as civic-minded actors when it suits them, making the decision to hand day after day of free coverage to Donald Trump’s rallies, outrages, feuds and personal attacks."
Here he misses the boat. Trump dominated TV news because he knows how to drive a media agenda, and because he did hundreds and hundreds of interviews.
At a time when it was difficult for shows (including mine) to get many sitdowns with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and especially Jeb Bush—and when they were cautious when they did appear—Trump did all the channels even when he knew he was going to get beat up. He did Sunday shows, morning shows, nighttime shows and cable shows (including on CNN and MSNBC).
And he made news, especially by challenging the anchors and reporters, either in the moment or later on Twitter. What's more, an awful lot of his coverage was negative. And he was often at odds with Fox News then, even blowing off the network's Iowa debate.
Sure, cable news covered too many of his rallies because they were good for ratings. But that was a minor factor in his non-stop media blitz.
Douthat also makes a pretty audacious declaration:
"The depth and breadth of Trump skepticism among right-wing pundits was a pretty solid indicator of his unfitness for high office."
Sorry, but the consensus of National Review, the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Rich Lowry, Steve Hayes and Ross Douthat didn’t ultimately matter, because Trump was able to forge his own connection with Republican voters and disaffected Democrats. He didn’t run as a doctrinaire conservative, which cost him the backing of many conservative pundits and scrambled the usual left-right argument. But in the end that mattered more to elite opinion-makers than the working-class voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty, responding to Douthat, takes a much broader view beyond cable news. He notes that Trump had been on "SNL" and the "Tonight" show, in "Home Alone 2" and even popped up in Bobby Brown music videos:
"Trump had enjoyed the pop-culture and big-media seal of approval for decades!
"Television’s coverage of Donald Trump from the 1980s to early 2015 portrayed Trump as a phenomenal business success, endlessly knowledgeable and fascinating, insightful, shrewd, entertaining, and funny — a larger-than-life character. Why are so many baffled that Trump managed to turn that image into a path to the presidency?"
Two days before the election, Douthat warned that voting for Trump would install "a man who stands well outside the norms of American presidential politics, who has displayed a naked contempt for republican institutions and constitutional constraints, who deliberately injects noxious conspiracy theories into political conversation, who has tiptoed closer to the incitement of political violence than any major politician in my lifetime ..."
Perhaps that’s why the notion that television served as Trump’s infomercial service sounds more like an after-the-fact justification for a victory that that virtually all the pundits insisted would never happen.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

John Bolton to replace H.R. McMaster as White House national security adviser, Trump says

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that former United Nations Amb. John Bolton will replace Gen. H.R. McMaster as his national security adviser effective April 9 -- the latest in a growing list of White House staff shakeups over the past year.
“I am pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job & will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9,” Trump tweeted.
The president’s announcement came after months of speculation over whether McMaster would resign or be fired.
Bolton told Fox News' “The Story” Thursday evening, “I didn't really expect that announcement this afternoon, but it's obviously a great honor. It's always an honor to serve our country and I think particularly in these times internationally, it's a particular honor.”
But on Thursday evening, a White House official said that the president and McMaster “mutually agreed” that he would resign. The two have been discussing this for some time, the official said, noting that the timeline was expedited as they both felt it was important to have a new team in place, instead of constant speculation.
A White House official said the decision was not related to any one moment or incident, but rather the result of ongoing conversations between the two.
The official told Fox News that the move has been contemplated for some time, and was just about the “worst-kept secret” in Washington.
The president took his time to find a replacement for McMaster because he wanted the “right person.”
While Trump spoke to Bolton many times about the job, the deal was cemented in an Oval Office meeting between the two Thursday afternoon.
Bolton told Fox News' Martha MacCallum that the process of his hiring “came to a conclusion this afternoon, but ... there's still a transition. I look forward to working with H.R. and his team and the other senior members of the president's team on national security and I have no doubt there's a lot of work to do.”
Bolton has previously served as a Fox News contributor, as well as in the Republican administrations of presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and served as a Bush lawyer during the 2000 Florida recount.
A strong supporter of the Iraq war and an advocate for aggressive use of American power in foreign policy, Bolton was unable to win Senate confirmation after his nomination to the U.N. post alienated many Democrats and even some Republicans. He resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush “recess appointment,” which allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation. The position of White House national security adviser does not require Senate confirmation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized Bolton's appointment.
“Mr. Bolton’s tendency to try to solve every geopolitical problem with the American military first is a troubling one,” Schumer said. “I hope he will temper his instinct to commit the men and women of our armed forces to conflicts around the globe, when we need to be focused on building the middle class here at home.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted that Bolton “was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now.”
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was “deeply concerned” by Bolton's positions and said he hoped Bolton would “moderate his positions and work closely with our military, diplomatic, intelligence, and development professionals before rushing into armed conflict.”
In a statement, McMaster said he was “thankful to President Donald J. Trump for the opportunity to serve him and our nation as national security adviser. I am grateful for the friendship and support of the members of the National Security Council who worked together to provide the President with the best options to protect and advance our national interests.”
McMaster said he was “especially proud” to have served with National Security Council staff, who he said “established a strong foundation for protecting the American people, promoting American prosperity, achieving peace through strength, and advancing American influence.
“I know that these patriots will continue to serve our President and our nation with distinction,” McMaster said.
White House chief of staff John Kelly said McMaster is “a fine American and Military officer.”
“He has served with distinction and honor throughout his career in the U.S. Army and as the National Security Advisor,” Kelly said Thursday. “He brought and maintained discipline and energy to our vital interagency processes. He helped develop options for the president and ensured that those options were presented fully and fairly. A true solider-scholar, his impact on his country and this government will be felt for years to come.”
Bolton, who served as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006 and as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2001 to 2005, will take over for McMaster next month.
“Thank you to Lieutenant General HR McMaster for your service and loyalty to our country. Your selfless courage and leadership has inspired all of us. Most of all, thank you for your friendship,” current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley tweeted.
A White House official said Bolton is one of the strongest voices and experts on the full range of national security issues and challenges facing the U.S.
McMaster’s retirement comes just one week after the president fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Twitter, and after other high-profile administration departures. Earlier this month, Chief Economic Adviser Gary Cohn resigned amid disagreements over a round of steel and aluminum tariffs, which Trump supported.
McMaster was brought in after Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was dismissed after less than a month in office. White House officials said he was ousted because he did not tell top advisers, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the full extent of his contacts with Russian officials.

Senate passes $1.3 trillion spending bill, averting another government shutdown

In a vote just after midnight Friday, the Senate passed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, averting a government shutdown while paving the way for the next funding fight ahead of the midterm elections.
The House had approved its version Thursday in a bipartisan tally of 256-167. The Senate passed its bill 65-32.
The sweeping deal, which will fund the government until September, increases military and domestic programs, delivering federal funds throughout the country, but exceeds budget caps -- adding about $1 trillion to the national debt.
Several hurdles threatened to derail the legislation vote past the midnight Friday deadline to fund the government, including objections from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who expressed stark opposition for the 2,232-page bill on Thursday.
"Victory for conservatives today is that all of America now knows what a budget-busting bomb this bill is," Paul tweeted. "Hopefully, today’s battle will embolden conservatives to descend on Congress and demand Constitutional government."

The senator later changed his tune after a private discussion Thursday night with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in which Paul said he was given a certain level of “commitment” on allowing more amendments and debate, Politico reported.
"There are never any amendments on anything, and it's a very closed process. The bills are developed behind closed doors with very little input from the rank and file. So I think I got that message across," Paul told reporters. "I hope it will be better."
Paul ultimately voted against the bill, saying “Congress must do better for the American people.”
“Republicans control the government, yet Congress still follows the Democrats' playbook. Time and again, spending skyrockets, and conservatives are expected to fall in line to praise the party for making the big-spending status quo worse,” he said in a statement.
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, also briefly held up the vote in a last-ditch effort to rename a wilderness area in his home state after the late Cecil Andrus, a former Democratic governor of Idaho.
The measure allocates $1.57 billion for work to begin on President Donald Trump's wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, while compromising with Democrats on issues such as the opioid crisis, child care development and funds for road building.
However, a solution for those under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was left out.
While both parties had to concede on certain issues, leaders of the Democratic Party were pleased with the outcome.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said as the minority party in Congress, "We feel darn good."
But Democrats also faced division within their party over different aspects of the bill – particularly with the undetermined fate of Dreamers.
"Anyone who votes for the omnibus is voting for the deportation of Dreamers and other immigrants. You will be voting to take money from law-abiding taxpayers -- some of whom are immigrants -- and give that money to privately-run prisons that will make a profit off of each and every human being our government hands over to them for detention and then deportation," U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said in a statement.
The bill will now head to President Donald Trump for his signature or veto. Trump only reluctantly voiced support for the measure, according to Republican lawmakers and aides.

States take on welfare reform -- with nod from Trump

Missouri lawmakers in Jefferson City are the latest to consider welfare reform legislation.  (Associated Press)

Republicans nationwide are taking a swing at reforming welfare, with the latest initiative approved by the Missouri House last week.
The Show Me State's plan would toughen rules for people who misspend benefit money. If it passes the state Senate and gets the governor's signature, it would ensure that no welfare money is spent on tobacco, alcohol and other prohibited items, or at businesses like strip clubs or liquor stores.
It would also bar the state's welfare recipients from using electronic benefit cards to withdraw money from ATMs.

"We're looking at an effort to give folks an opportunity to correct a series of bad habits."

"We're looking at an effort to give folks an opportunity to correct a series of bad habits," Republican state Rep. Hannah Kelly says. The lawmaker amended the bill to include the increased penalties.
"The overall purpose is to make sure we have the funds we need for those in dire need," she said.

Missouri state Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain Grove  (Missouri House of Representatives)

Not everyone is on board with Missouri's welfare reform plan. The Kansas City Star published a scathing editorial Wednesday, blasting Republicans for “election year posturing” and dictating behaviors “right down to whether someone can drink a cold one on a summer evening.”
“Republicans have bigger fish to fry, don’t they?” the newspaper asked.
Wisconsin overhaul
But elsewhere, such "tough love" measures have been attracting interest.
In Wisconsin, for example, Gov. Scott Walker pushed through last month a sweeping welfare overhaul package.
Among the changes, the reform expands work requirements for welfare benefits and now covers not only able-bodied childless adults but parents with school-aged children as well. It also increases the minimum work or job training hours for both adults and parents from 20 to 30 hours a week.
It also creates mandatory drug testing, screening and treatment requirements to become eligible for public housing. Photo IDs will now be required to participate in the food stamp program.
The approved initiative, however, will have to wait until a federal waiver is granted to ensure its legality. But there is no indication the Trump administration will try to stop it.
“We had a really good discussion about what we need to do,” state Sen. Chris Kapenga told MacIver News Service about a recent meeting at the White House. “It was very encouraging to see the Trump administration fully behind reforming the system as it is because they see it doesn’t work.”
Kentucky reforms
One such waiver was given earlier this month to a welfare reform effort in Kentucky. Lawmakers in Kentucky approved a measure forcing people to either work or volunteer to keep their Medicaid benefits.
Under the legislation, only “able-bodied” adults who receive health benefits through Medicaid – a federal-state health insurance program for the poorest in the country – are required to work, NPR reported. Disabled people, parents, pregnant women and the elderly are not subject to the requirement.
"Kentucky is leading the nation in this reform in ways that are now being replicated all over the nation," Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin said, in announcing the measure’s approval.

Rahm Emanuel Cartoons

President Trump to level new round of tariffs, investment restrictions against China

President Trump is expected to level a new round of “protective” tariffs and “investment restrictions” against China on Thursday, White House officials told Fox News.
Last August, the president instructed U.S. Trade Representative Amb. Robert Lighthizer to consider an investigation of Chinese laws, policies, and practices which may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development.” Lighthizer determined that an investigation was warranted, and it began under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
“Tomorrow the president will announce the actions he has decided to take based on USTR’s 301 investigation into China’s state-led, market-distorting efforts to force, pressure and steal U.S. technologies and intellectual property,” White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said in a statement Wednesday.
An administration official told Fox News on Wednesday that the tariffs, which could amount to $30 billion or more, are not meant to “punish” China, but rather designed to “recover damages” from China’s unfair trade practices.
The investment restrictions, on the other hand, are meant to blunt China’s attempts to “capture the technology businesses of the future.” The official told Fox News that China’s practice of taking over international technology companies—including those in the U.S.—distorts markets, and destroys the innovation cycle.
The 2017 Annual Report of the U.S.-China Committee recommended that the president “prohibit the acquisition of U.S. assets by Chinese state-owned or state-controlled entities, including sovereign wealth funds.”
An official told Fox News that the president is expected to follow along the recommendations of the committee.
A White House official said Wednesday that China has had a long time to address concerns raised by the U.S., dating back to the Clinton administration.
“We have given a great deal of thought to what they might do, and how they might react,” a USTR official said Wednesday. “And what the potential reaction could mean for us…it’s not as simple to say it’s a simple end game.”

GOP's Saccone concedes to Democrat Lamb in Pennsylvania special House race

Beat by the pretty boy.

Republican Rick Saccone conceded defeat to Democrat Conor Lamb in a special U.S. House election in southwestern Pennsylvania Wednesday, eight days after voters went to the polls.
Lamb tweeted that Saccone had "congratulated me [and] graciously conceded last Tuesday's election" and said he was "[r]eady to be sworn in & get to work for the people" of the state's 18th congressional district.
The upset victory means that Democrats must pick up a net of 23 Republicans seats to regain control of the House of Representatives in November's midterm elections.
If there is no GOP challenge to the results, Lamb could be sworn in after April 2, when the last of the four counties in the district expects to finish certifying the result.
With all precincts reporting in the immediate aftermath of the March 13 special election, Lamb led Saccone by 627 votes out of more than 228,000 cast. However, Lamb's lead grew to around 750 votes as election officials in the Pittsburgh-area district counted provisional, military and overseas ballots.
Lamb will succeed Republican Tim Murphy, who resigned in October amid a sex scandal that featured text messages in which the pro-life politician urged his mistress to consider getting an abortion when she believed she was pregnant.
Underscoring Lamb's status as the underdog in the race, President Trump won the 18th district by 20 points in 2016 while Murphy was re-elected to an eighth term without facing a Democratic opponent.
In the race, the 33-year-old Lamb downplayed opposition to Trump, who remains more popular in the district than nationally. He opposed sweeping new gun regulations and supported Trump's steel tariffs, but he is a fierce critic of Republicans' tax cuts and their economic and health care policies.
Saccone, 60, adhered to Republican orthodoxy and openly embraced Trump, who tweeted many times on his behalf and campaigned in person twice, including a raucous rally the Saturday before voters cast ballots.
Outside Republican groups spent more than $10 million -- about seven times as much as outside groups spent for Lamb -- with much of it attacking Lamb as a stooge for national Democrats, particularly House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Lamb, however, distanced himself from Pelosi and held national Democrats at arm's length while he easily outraised Saccone in campaign cash.
Saccone, meanwhile, was hurt by an anti-union voting record in the state Legislature, which had motivated union members in a district with a long history of steel making and coal mining to vote against him.
Lamb and Saccone are expected to run for Congress in separate districts later this year after the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania redrew the state's congressional district map.

GOP posts text of $1.3T spending bill with shutdown deadline days away

Congressional Republican leaders released the final version of a proposed $1.3 trillion spending bill Wednesday evening, approximately 52 hours before the deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown.
The 2,232 page "omnibus" bill was made public hours after House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., dashed through a Washington snowstorm to meet with President Trump at the White House amid concerns that Trump's support for the package was wavering. The White House later said the president backed the legislation, even as some conservative Republicans balked at the size of the spending increases and the rush to pass the bill.
The powerful House Rules Committee was scheduled to meet later Wednesday to prepare the bill for debate in the full House. Leaders have said they hoped to start voting as soon as Thursday, but a stopgap measure may be needed to ensure federal offices remain open at midnight Friday when funding for the government expires.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled his support for the bill that he said "puts workers and families first."
"Every bill takes compromise, and there was plenty here, but at the end of the day we Democrats feel very good because so many of our priorities for the middle class were included," said Schumer.
In contrast, the conservative House Freedom Caucus said all 32 of its members would vote unanimously against the bill.
"The policy proposals outlined in this ... bill are not consistent with what we told the American people we would do when they sent us to Washington. Many of the policies in the bill are in fact the opposite of what we promised," the caucus statement read. "This is an insult to America’s taxpayers, as well as their many rank-and-file representatives who had no say in the omnibus negotiations."
Both sides of the aisle have been keen to avoid a repeat of the shutdown in January, which came after lawmakers clashed over the state of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which gave protection to illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. DACA was set to expire this month, but that expiration has been delayed by court orders.
The bill does not include a DACA provision and also gives limited funding to border security measures that President Trump had pushed for.
Trump had called for $1.6 billion for 74 miles of border wall, with an extra $1.1 billion for technology and other assets. Instead, the omnibus appropriates $1.57 billion for barriers along the border, but none of it for the new prototypes he recently visited in California.
The money would fund about 33 miles of new construction in the San Diego area and the repair of about 60 miles of existing segments, some that double as levees, along the Rio Grande in Texas.
In one win for immigrant advocates, negotiators rejected Trump's plans to hire hundreds of new Border Patrol and immigration enforcement agents.
"We are disappointed that we did not reach agreement on Dreamer protections that were worthy of these patriotic young people," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who vowed that Democrats "will continue to ask the Speaker to give us a vote to protect Dreamers and honor our values."
The Associated Press reported that the bill would include an $80 billion bump for the Pentagon, giving Trump and GOP hawks a major victory as it brings the military budget to over $700 billion.
In a statement, Ryan said the agreement "marks the beginning of a new era for the United States military."
"Our service members are the finest in the world, but the poor state of our military readiness has left them under-equipped and underprepared for the threats they face," Ryan said. "This legislation fulfills our pledge to rebuild the United States military."
"No bill of this size is perfect," Ryan added. "But this legislation addresses important priorities and makes us stronger at home and abroad."
The bill also includes the so-called "Fix NICS" measure meant to strengthen the federal background check system for gun purchases as Congress attempts to respond to respond to the deadly assault on a Florida high school and other shootings.
The measure would provide funding for states to comply with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check system and penalize federal agencies that don't comply. The bipartisan measure was approved in the House, but stalled in the Senate amid concerns by some Republicans about restricting gun rights without due process and complaints by Democrats that it does not go far enough to address gun violence.
"The calls from the American people to address gun violence in our schools and communities have been deafening, and I’m grateful we’ll soon get that chance,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, a driving force behind the bill, said. "Fixing the background check system will help save lives and reduce the likelihood of what occurred in Parkland and Sutherland Springs from happening again."
The spending bill also includes more than $2 billion to train school officials and law enforcement officers how to identify signs of potential violence and intervene early, install metal detectors and take other steps to "harden" schools to prevent violence.
The House approved the STOP School Violence Act earlier this month, but the measure has not been taken up in the Senate.
The bill states that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can do research on gun violence, though not advocacy, an idea Democrats pushed.
The plan also removes a much-debated earmark protecting money for a rail tunnel under the Hudson River, a top priority for Schumer. Trump had vowed to veto the bill over the earmark. However, the project would remain eligible for federal funding, however, and a Schumer aide said it was likely to win well more than half of the $900 million sought for the project this year.
Both parties touted $4.6 billion in total funding to fight the nation's opioid addiction epidemic, a $3 billion increase. Child care and development block grants would receive a huge $2.4 billion increase to $5.2 billion. And an Obama-era transportation grant program known as TIGER would see its budget tripled to $1.5 billion. Head Start for preschoolers would get a $610 million boost, while an additional $2.4 billion would go for child care grants.

Obama's EPA appointees spent as much, or more, on travel than Trump's Pruitt, data show

Former Obama administration EPA directors spent as much or even more on international travel than the agency’s current chief, Scott Pruitt, who is facing widespread criticism for wasteful spending.
The Trump appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency has gotten in hot water after revelations that taxpayers had to foot the bill for Pruitt's $120,000 trip to Italy last summer to attend a meeting of G-7 ministers and a private tour of the Vatican.
EPA POSTPONES PRUITT’S ISRAEL TRIP AMID TRAVEL COST SCRUTINY
Nearly $90,000 was spent on food, hotels, commercial airfare and a military jet used by the EPA director and nine other members of the agency’s staff. More than $30,000 was spent on providing a security detail during the trip.

Around $40,000 in total was also spent for a four-day trip to Morocco in December, where Pruitt promoted American natural gas exports.

But as the media continue to criticize Pruitt and his “luxury” international travel, his expenses are nothing out of the ordinary – or even lower – compared to previous EPA directors under the Obama administration, who avoided the criticism.

Lisa Jackson, who was the EPA director between 2009 and 2013, spent over $332,000 on airfare and security for four international trips, on average $83,000 per trip,  (AP)

"The double standard couldn't be more clear: Under Barack Obama's EPA the media chose not to report on expenditures to protect the EPA administrator for international travel or the costs of their trips," Jahan Wilcox, an EPA spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon.
"But under the Trump administration the costs to protect our government officials is somehow scandalous."

"The double standard couldn't be more clear: Under Barack Obama's EPA the media chose not to report on expenditures ... But under the Trump administration the costs to protect our government officials is somehow scandalous."

Lisa Jackson, who was Obama's EPA director between 2009 and 2013, spent more than $332,000 on airfare and security for four international trips, on average $83,000 per trip, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
She spent $64,963 for trips to Tel Aviv; $59,950 to Rio de Janeiro; $51,436 to Montreal; and $155,764 to Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai.

Gina McCarthy, the agency’s director between 2013 and 2017, embarked in 10 international trips, spending nearly $630,000 on airfare and security, on average $63,000 per trip.  (AP)

Gina McCarthy, the agency’s director between 2013 and 2017, embarked on 10 international trips, spending nearly $630,000 on airfare and security, on average $63,000 per trip.
The documents revealed costs for McCarthy’s journeys to Ghana ($68,382), Peru ($45,140), Tokyo ($74,738), Paris ($41,321), Dubai ($90,368), Tokyo ($67,703), Florence ($56,193), Vancouver ($62,247), Vietnam ($68,268), and Beijing ($55,385).
The figures for previous EPA officials also don’t reflect the full picture – the cost of providing security for Pruitt is significantly higher as he was subjected to a number of credible threats of violence, including death threats, after he took office.
Authorities determined that the threats were real and the EPA inspector general’s office recommended 24/7 security for the director, costing taxpayers roughly $2 million a year, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Cartoons