Thursday, April 20th, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections
Now that the dust has settled in the GA-6 primary, the choices are very clear as we head into a two month run-off.
On one side is Jon Ossoff, darling of the Left and Hollywood favorite. Not only are his politics out of step with GA-6, he doesn’t actually even live in the district.
Advancing in to the runoff against Ossoff is Karen Handel.
Elected Secretary of State in Georgia in 2006, Handel eventually ran and finished third in the 2014 United States Senate primary. But it was her work and the positions she took during her time at Susan G. Komen for the Cure that showed her mettle.
Hired by Komen in 2011 as senior vice president of public policy, Handel set in motion new policy efforts to change the way Komen made grants to affiliated groups. Her policy on grant making was approved by the board and because of it, Komen’s grants to Planned Parenthood ended. In the media driven backlash that followed, Komen reinstated its old policy and granted funds to Planned Parenthood. In the aftermath, Handel took the principled stand and resigned. That shows us a lot about the character of Karen Handel.
This is not going to be an easy run-off. Democrats nationwide are motivated to get a win before the 2018 election season begins in earnest. This runoff is happening because Ossoff missed winning it outright this past Tuesday by less than two points. This is an all hands on deck situation and we are excited to endorse Karen Handel in this important race!
Friday, April 14th, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues
There is a debate raging in Washington, DC as to why the GOP, holding the trifecta of the White House, the House and the Senate, cannot repeal Obamacare.
Simple answer? They don’t want to.
Or at least a lot of them don’t. The House Freedom Caucus does and is working overtime to make sure they put forward a bill that repeals Obamacare, fulfilling promises made by the GOP for the last three election cycles that if they won the House, Senate and White House, they would repeal Obamacare.
It now turns out that the Tuesday Group, the caucus of Republican liberals parading around as moderates, claims they will lose their seats if they actually vote to repeal Obamacare.
Many of them, led by Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, voted numerous times to repeal Obamacare. In fact, not only did Congressman Dent vote for the 2015 repeal bill (HR 3762) he voted to override President Obama’s veto of the bill. Why does this matter?
Because Charlie Dent and the Tuesday Group knew their votes to repeal Obamacare at the time were just show votes on legislation that would never come into affect. It is the height of duplicity, a political stunt pulled off brazenly in the light of day and the response from them is, “Move along, not a big deal” even as they work to scuttle plans to fully repeal Obamacare. The elitist nature of Dent and the Tuesday Group are what the American voters are fed up with. It’s time for the White House and GOP leadership to turn up the heat on Congressman Dent and others. Time for them to play
Thursday, March 30th, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues
Two pieces of news came out of Washington, DC this morning, neither of them good.
The first is based on a tweet from President Trump and it indicates that he wants to go to war with the House Freedom Caucus. A few thoughts on this. The same voters that elected the House Freedom Caucus Members are the same voters that elected Donald Trump. Both Trump and the Freedom Caucus Members were elected to drain the swamp, repeal Obamacare, bring whole scale change to Washington, DC and get the country back on track.
The simple lesson of, “You gotta dance with the one that brought you” applies here. We don’t know if Donald Trump thinks the Democrats or moderates are his base, but this is a tipping point for he and his Administration.
The second piece of news if from Axios. In a show of good faith, the House Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee and the Tuesday Group (the GOP moderates) agreed to hash out a path forward last night on healthcare reform. We think it is simple: full repeal. But nonetheless, the conservatives in the House came to the table last night and at the 11th hour, the Tuesday Group pulled out. Why? Because they felt it was below them to have to negotiate with the conservatives.
How GOP leadership and the Trump White House respond to these two stories above are indicative of how the next four years will play out. This is a game of high stakes.
Tuesday, March 21st, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues
If you haven’t guessed it by now, House Republicans are slow walking themselves into the lions den. They are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and they are doing so half-knowingly, hoping for a different outcome than what they have to know is coming. House Members who were at the White House a few days ago agreed to principles that they were promised would be in a mangers amendment offered at the Rules Committee. Here’s the problem. The bill that was “agreed to in principle” doesn’t exist.
If you are reading that and thinking, “There’s no way that happened!” think again. Members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) showed up to the White House with a list of concerns, expressed their concerns and were told that they would get those concerns put into the managers amendment. They then agreed they would support that deal. They didn’t even ask to see it in writing first.
There is, however, another major problem. Throughout all of Trump’s campaign, everything
was subject to change. In light of a Politico piece
written this weekend, those who knew this was a bad idea are saying “told ya so.” A bad bill just got really bad.
But why would RSC members agree to anything without first seeing text? It seems like political malpractice to agree to something as significant as changing the American healthcare system (again) without seeing those changes in writing!
Moreover, those who step back can see what’s happening here. House Leadership is jamming conservatives, but not in the most obvious way. They are putting together a bill that moderates will be OK with, center right RSC members will want, and conservatives could be okay with given a couple more substantial changes.
Leadership will get Republican and even a few conservatives votes in support of a new entitlement program with potentially no life protections.
The bill will pass the House with a stamp of approval from liberal Republicans and head to the Senate where the Senate will not consider the bill. They’ll offer a substitute amendment that will pass the Senate and send it back to the House.
At this point, those who voted for the bill that passed the House, will be so sold down the river and the only option they will have is to support what the Senate sent back to them. There will be such ginned up panic to get the Senate passed legislation out of the House, leadership will demand they support it.
If conservatives in the House cannot see this coming, there is little one can do for them. There will be, however, substantial and very real political consequences for supporting a bill that might be an okay Medicaid reform package, but is not a repeal of Obamacare.
Tuesday, March 14th, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues
It’s time for a “try again” on the Republican plan to repeal Obamacare. In reality, it’s very simple.
Fully repeal Obamacare and let marketplaces create incentives for insurers to compete. Competition will drive down healthcare costs.
That’s it. It’s that simple.
And it looks like the party of limited government, the free markets and individual liberty just got its hat handed to it by its base (in other words, the ones that voted them into power) and the Congressional Budget Office, which released its numbers on Ryancare yesterday.
Called “scorching,” the CBO’s scoring prompted reactions like this one.
“Can’t sugarcoat it. Doesn’t look good,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). “The CBO score was, shall we say, an eye-popper.”
And this one from Virginia Rep. Rob Wittmann.
“After reviewing this legislation and receiving the Congressional Budget Office score today, it is clear that this bill is not consistent with the repeal and replace principles for which I stand,” he said in a statement. “I do not think this bill will do what is necessary for the short and long-term best interests of Virginians and therefore, I must oppose it.”
Ryancare is DOA. And that’s a good thing.
Friday, March 10th, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Uncategorized
There is a substantial Budget Committee hurdle for leadership right now in attempting to ram Ryancare through.
We now know that some of the more moderate members, Congressmen Jim Renacci, Jason Smith and John Faso, have a problem with there being no CBO score.
And if they have an issue, there are potentially others.
Second, we believe several House Freedom Caucus Members should be a given “No” in committee. These are Congressmen Mark Sanford, Dave Brat, and Gary Palmer. If you count, for sure, just those three, you just need 2 more to stop this in committee.
Then we have Congressman Glenn Grothman (we know he really hates Medicaid), Congressman Tom McClintock (has made some strong public statements), and Congressman Bruce Westerman (as a State House member, he raged against Medicaid).
Third are the unknown freshman, who were sent to DC “drain the swamp,” not replace Obamacare with RyanCare.
Of these, we feel Congressmen Matt Gaetz and Jodey Arrington are two likely pick-ups.
Can the opposition get to 5 “No” votes in committee against Ryancare?
We are feeling more confident by the hour.
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues, Policy
Those of us who have watched the Republican party (and challenged it) over the last few years had a sneaking suspicion that whatever “repeal” of Obamacare that was going to be put forward by Republican leadership in the House likely wasn’t going to be a repeal bill. It might tweak the edges of it, but it wasn’t going to repeal Obamacare.
It turns out we were wrong.
It’s far worse.
The bill put forward yesterday (among other things) does the following:
*Does not repeal Obamacare.
*Mandates continuous insurance coverage at the risk of a new 30% penalty for people who drop their coverage.
*Creates a new subsidy in the form of tax credits even for those who do not pay income taxes.
*Keeps various Obamacare mandates in place until 2020. In essence, until the next Presidential election.
Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues
The great running coach and physiologist, Dr. Jack Daniels (yes, that’s his real name) has a saying when it comes to training: What is the purpose of this workout? It’s a great question because to become a great runner or athlete, or great at anything, you have to have a purpose. You have to have goals.
Our purpose here at the Madison Project has always been to identify, recruit and fund great conservative candidates. We also challenge the Washington, DC Establishment, holding them accountable for the campaign promises they have made over multiple election cycles and have no intention of fulfilling. The repeal of Obamacare is now at the forefront of these broken GOP promises.
The other day we posted exactly what the GOP Establishment is hoping to do with what is being termed “RINOCare.” Not only is it not a repeal of Obamacare, it locks in the more onerous elements of Obamacare, the very things we as conservatives are hoping to repeal and House leadership is not taking kindly to the pushback they are getting from conservatives in the House.
For instance, this story that ran in Politico yesterday about Congressman Mark Meadows’ wife sending what appears to be an email to friends about how House leadership is attempting to mislead the very voters that gave Trump the White House and the Republicans majorities in the House and Senate.
We know exactly how this went down. A communications staffer in one of the leadership offices got wind of the email and quickly leaked it to the press in hopes of shaming Congressman Meadows and his wife into silence (“How dare the rank and file disagree with us!”).
The reverse has happened. Instead of shaming House conservatives into silence, stories like this one have only emboldened them to continue to do the right thing. They ran and won on the promise to repeal Obamacare. They will work towards that end. Not towards a partial repeal. Or a repeal in name only that only adds more subsidies and more debt to our already massive national debt.
Which brings us to the purpose of the Madison Project. There are a host of great conservative groups out there. We are fans of the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund. They, like us, work tirelessly to look for and elect great conservatives. Where they tactically spend more time on the “air way” with TV and radio ads, we spend more time on the ground with voter ID and Get Out The Vote Work. While working towards a common goal, we all do things a little differently and because we all make decisions independent of each other, we went out on a limb in 2012 and were the first PAC to endorse Mark Meadows in his initial run for Congress. There was just something about him and the way he handled his candidate interview with us. While some tried to label him as a stealth Establishment candidate, we were confident from the start that Mark would be a conservative stalwart in the House and he has been exactly that. Has he been perfect? No. But no elected official ever is. But there’s a reason Mark has scored and continues to score well on the official (and unofficial, behind the scenes) conservative scorecards-because his instincts are conservative.
Our work is clearly not finished. Every election cycle gives us more chances to elect more Mark Meadows, more Jim Bridestines, more Ted Cruzs and Mike Lees.
This is our purpose. This is why we exist and we are glad to see our candidates like Mark Meadows not only fulfill his campaign promises but stand on principle in Washington, DC.
Tuesday, February 28th, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Issues
Republicans are about to blow the easiest election promise-the repeal of Obamacare. Right now all the chatter on Capitol Hill is about “repeal and replace.”
Why is this a problem?
First, it takes the focus off of repeal and puts it on replace. Conservatives and Republicans ran for 3 cycles on repealing Obamacare. Only in the last couple of years have Republicans focused on replace.
We should repeal Obamacare by using the 2015 bill, outright. Period. End of discussion.
Then there should be a 1-2 year transition off the exchanges and off of Medicaid. Once Obamacare is repealed, we can focus on what replace looks like.
Second, the replacement. The replacement the Republicans are talking about right now is focusing on coverage numbers and coverage numbers only. They are going to keep the Medicaid expansion as to not “punish” the states that did not expand Medicaid. The Republican plan wants to provide individuals covered under the expansion with advanced, refundable tax credits.
This is a real problem.
A major difference between the Obamacare subsidies and the the Republican plan is that Obamacare’s subsidies are currently based on income. The more you make, the less in subsidies you get. The Republican plan will likely cost more. The Republican plan moves the subsidy from an income based payment to an age based payment – meaning everyone in an age range will qualify for something.
Those subsidies are going to be costly, but no one knows how costly because the Congressional Budge Office has not scored the bill yet.
Third, there are substantial pro-life concerns. When providing an advanced, refundable tax credit, there will be issues with how those are used to cover “healthcare” expenses. House leadership will say that conscience protections, similar to H.R. 7 passed this year, will be sufficient. That is, however, misleading at best. The House might be able to pass this legislation, but likely will not survive the Senate’s reconciliation process.
Moreover, any conscience protections will apply to current funding and current programs. There are concerns that the Republican’s new program, to provide tax credits, won’t be captured in those conscience protections.
Some conservatives are voicing opposition to the plan. They know this won’t be full repeal and are saying so. They are, unfortunately, a minority. While protecting the most moderate members of the conference, Republican House leadership is going to put a bill on the House floor that codifies some of the worst parts of Obamacare and then call it full repeal.
We cannot let them do this.
At that point, conservatives, while being shut out of all the closed door meetings, will have a choice. They can vote against the repeal & replacement legislation leaving them to explain why the legislation isn’t full repeal.
Or they can vote for the legislation, compromising on entitlements and most likely on the federal funding of abortion.
So please, pick up your phone and call your Members of Congress. The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. If you need to look up who your Members of Congress are, click here for the House and click here for the Senate!
Let Washington, DC hear your voice before it’s too late!
Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 and is filed under Blog, Elections
There’s a lot of discussion these days over “fake news” and for good reason. For years many conservatives have suspected the liberal bent of the mainstream media. Stories and studies have proven this. 80%+ of the media is liberal, both in their giving and voting patterns.
They just don’t want to admit it.
Are they writing fake news? Is there some grand conspiracy?
No. But they are writing news that is heavily influenced by their worldview, the filter through which each of us sees the world around us. In other words, there is no such thing, in the end, as tabula rosa. No one is a blank slate. Each of us approaches a given story or situation with preconceptions, consciously or subconsciously. How we then share that news or story filters through our worldview.
Does that mean that all news written or reported by MSNBC, CNN or other “traditional” or decidedly more liberal outlets is fake? No. But how they write the stories and which headlines announce the news in them is definitely dictated by their worldview.
On the flip side, there are a lot of “news” sites that we have seen posted on conservatives’ social media accounts that more than just raise the eyebrows. They are downright laughable and yet were and are posted and shared without a second thought.
Here is our challenge to all consumers of news.
One, check the source before you read the story. In other words, ask yourself, “Where is this story coming from?” A lot of people made a lot of money this past election season by creating sites that peddled the news many people wanted to hear. See this story for more on that.
Two, who actually wrote the story? What do you know about this reporter of the news or opinion maker? If you don’t know or cannot say, then guess what? You might be a consumer of fake news.
Three, what is the purpose of this story? Is it actually to report news or sensationalize a topic?
Purveyors of fake news have subject lines down to a science. They know what consumers of news are looking for by watching trend lines on search engines like Google. In other words, they are looking for you before you know what you are looking for.
So before we run around calling all news that doesn’t agree with our worldview “fake,” let’s take a step back and run all the news we consume through the simply metric above: the source, who wrote or reported the story and what is the purpose of it.