Just like the tariffs' burden: Cuts to Medicaid harm the voters who supported Donald Trump! Save Medicaid

Echo opinion published in The New York Times by Missouri's Republican Senator Josh Hawley.

(A broken clock award to Senator Hawley for this opinion. Sounds to me like he is listening to his constitutents about protecting Medicaid.) 

Even a broken clock is correct two times a day! 

Trump promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.

This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.

Let’s begin with the facts of the matter. Medicaid is a federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans in partnership with state governments. Today it serves over 70 million Americans, including well over one million residents of Missouri, the state I represent.

As for Missouri, it is one of 40 Medicaid expansion states — because our voters wanted it that way. 

In 2020, the same year Trump carried the Missouri popular vote by a decisive margin, voters mandated that the state expand Medicaid coverage to working-class individuals unable to afford health care elsewhere. Voters went so far as to inscribe that expansion in our state Constitution. Now some 21 percent of Missourians benefit from Medicaid or CHIP, the companion insurance program for lower-income children. And many of our rural hospitals and health providers depend on the funding from these programs to keep their doors open.

All of which means this: If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will be replicated in states across the country.

One of my constituents, a married mother of five, contacted me to explain why Medicaid is vital to her 8-year-old daughter, who depends on a feeding tube to survive. Formula, pump rentals, feeding extensions and other treatments cost $1,500 a month; prescriptions nearly double that cost. These expenses aren’t covered by private insurance. The mother wrote to me, “Without Medicaid, we would lose everything — our home, our vehicles and, eventually, our daughter.”

Congress should be doing everything possible to aid these working families, to make their health care better and more affordable. We should cap prescription drug costs, as I recently proposed. We should give all families in America with children a hefty tax cut. What we should not do is eliminate their health care.

Trump himself has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office, he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Just the other week, he said: “We are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Nothing at all.”

And for good reason. The president understands who his voters are. Recent polling showed that 64 percent of Republicans held a favorable view of Medicaid. About one in six has been on the program. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Americans opposed significant cuts to Medicaid, and over half — half — had a personal or family connection to the Medicaid program.

It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, finally woke up to this fact last week, when he withdrew his support from one of the most aggressive reductions to Medicaid on the table. 

Nevertheless, many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week.

My colleagues have cited the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which has been pushing that line for months, including in a recent editorial that inveighed against my opposition to Medicaid benefit cuts. But following The Journal’s prescriptions would represent the end of any chance of us becoming a working-class party. (Maine Writer- How many Medicaid beneficiaries read The Wall Street Journal?  How many employees who work at The Wall Street Journal receive Medicaid benefits?  How many elderly relatives who have family members who work at The Wall Street Journal have used access to Medicaid for long term care coverage?  Let me answer my own questions:  Medicaid beneficiaries cannot afford a subscription to The Wall Street Journal, people who work at The Wall Street Journal earn wages much higher than the poverty level prescribed in regulations and statute, so they cannot receive the benefit, but on the other hand, I suspect many employees who work for The Wall Street Journal have a relative in their family who have received Medicaid coverage for long term care.)

Republicans, says Senator Josh Hawley, need to open their (aka "our own") 👀 eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs (especially Social Security where we voters contribute to the benefit❗). More than that, our voters depend on those programs. And there’s a reason for this that Republicans would do well to ponder. Our economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their families.

For the better part of 50 years, working wages have been flat in real terms. Working people cannot afford to marry when they want to, have the number of children they want to or raise those children as they want to. These days, they can barely afford to put a roof over their kids’ heads, to say nothing of health care.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans share the blame for this state of economic affairs, which is one big reason Trump got elected. He promised to shake up the status quo. (HELLO❓ Trump also promised to bring down high grocery prices.....but then zapped Americans with the burdens caused by tariffs❗) 

Republicans in Congress must pay attention. Our voters not only want us to protect the social insurance they need to get by; they also want us to fight for a better life — for a better economy with the kinds of jobs and wages that allow working people to marry and start families, to buy homes and have a stake in their towns and neighborhoods.

That’s the promise of American life. If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.

Josh Hawley is a Republican senator from Missouri.

American justice is holding a finger in the dyke of Trumpziism's onslaught of wrong minded calls for judiciary impeachment

Echo opinion column published in the Kansas City Star, Missouri:

By Stephen L. Carter: "Roberts was right to chastise Trump" 

Chief Justice John Roberts had to take the extraordinary step of chiding Donald Trump and his cult cheerleaders for their demands that federal judges who stand in the way of the administration's decrees be impeached. 

But the abhorrent Trump sort of behavior isn't new; the insistence by politicians that judges stand aside and let them have their way has been a depressing feature of our political landscape since the beginning. But in the current moment, with Trump issuing so many orders, no small number of which may be illegal, it's particularly important that we observe the forms of law. Currently in Trump's crosshairs is James Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington. The president is upset because the judge had the temerity to instruct the administration to cease the mass deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members until he decided on the legality of the program. Courts do this all the time - ordering parties in effect to stand still pending argument and decision. But on this occasion, Trump took to social media, calling Boasberg a "Radical Left Lunatic" and "crooked" and demanding his removal. TOP VIDEOS The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard That's outrageous and, from the leader of the free world, inexcusable. The holder of the highest elective office in the land owes the American people the highest regard for our fading democratic norms.

Chief justice pushes back against calls to impeach judges who rule against Trump. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement following President Donald Trump's call for a judge to be impeached for ruling against the administration.

Justice Roberts's response was straightforward and forceful: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Has this sort of thing occurred in the past? Of course, it has, far more often than we might care to admit. Early in the 19th century, believing Justice Samuel Chase to have been biased against them in key cases, the Jeffersonians went after him with a vengeance. (Chase survived his impeachment trial by the narrowest margin.) During the Reconstruction, members of Congress threatened to impeach Supreme Court justices who were considered hostile to their program. Instances abound. The enemies of the Warren Court made no secret that their enmity stemmed from the justices' decisions. Online you can still buy colorful "Impeach Earl Warren" buttons dating back to the era. During the 1960s, an effort to impeach Justice William Douglas picked up sufficient steam that some predicted might succeed.

Prefer a more recent example? Here's the New York Times in March of 1996, describing President Bill Clinton's response to a decision by federal Judge Herbert Baer to suppress evidence in a major drug case: "The White House put a Federal judge on public notice today that if he did not reverse a widely criticized decision throwing out drug evidence, the President might ask for his resignation." 

Jon Newman, then chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, fired back that the criticism reflected "extraordinary intimidation." By that time, Senator Robert Dole, Clinton's opponent-to-be in the approaching presidential election, had called for Baer's impeachment and removal. 

Newman had harsh words for Dole too: "A ruling in a contested case cannot remotely be considered a ground for impeachment."

Examples go on and on. What they have in common is the realization by politicians and activists that judges are cheap and easy targets. 

But when the criticisms suggest punishment, the rule of law begins to flail. Since the Trump administration began ramping up its rhetoric, federal judges have faced rising levels of reported threats. Small wonder the chief justice felt compelled to speak up. But in taking on Trump, Roberts isn't taking sides. He's trying to protect the judicial branch against political assault, just as he did in 2020 after then-Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer launched his dreadful headline-grabbing attack on two justices of the Supreme Court: "You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price." Roberts replied, correctly, that those at "the highest levels of government" had no business threatening judges. 

As a matter of fact, Trump, then in his first term, also weighed in: "There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices."

Exactly. Perhaps Trump II should read Trump I. No, judges shouldn't be free from criticism, and sometimes the criticism will be harsh. That's life in the rough and tumble of government affairs. But there's a world of difference between an online activist calling a judge a nasty name and the President of the United States calling for the judge to be removed from office. Only the second violates democratic norms.

The bipartisan National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, on which I was privileged to serve, addressed this issue in its 1993, final report, writing: "[F]ederal judges should not be impeached for judicial decision-making even if the decision is an erroneous one." Let's not forget that what keeps norms alive is consensus. The more we ignore democratic norms, the weaker they become. I've written before about the way those norms of democracy have been threatened in recent years by the left's assault on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. 

But the right has been laboring in those fields a lot longer. And the recklessness with which the labor is being done by the Trump administration and its supporters - yes, some backbencher has filed actual articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg - is without parallel in our recent history. The norms matter particularly at this moment because the administration's flurry of sweeping orders has been met by a flurry of lawsuits. Maybe most of what the administration is attempting will survive judicial review. Maybe not. The way we find out is by trying the cases. That takes time. Impatience with the pace of law is a commonality of our history, but is, almost always, the enemy of democracy.

Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of law at Yale University and author of "Invisible: The Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster."

Republicans wrongfully support Trumpian mass deportations will put all Americans at risk for deportation

Echo opinion letters published in The New York Times: 

Dear Editor:  Although President Biden has promised a smooth transition for Donald Trump after this election, we Americans should take strong steps, including mass protests and smart political strategies to oppose and stop all efforts of the Trump administration to conduct mass deportations of immigrants.

The New Colossus:  "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breath free", Emma Lazarus

The former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and now Trump’s choice to be “border czar,” Thomas Homan, said that immigrants can avoid the horrific family separation by being deported together. I guess he means that those immigrants who are here legally can choose to leave the U.S. with children and relatives who are being deported.

We Americans who value justice, liberty and morality must oppose and fight against the ruthless and fiendish plans of Mr. Trump and his acolytes, who have little respect for the traditional values of our great nation. The time to fight for justice is now, and powerful and peaceful protests should start now so Mr. Trump knows what he faces when he takes office.

From: J. Gorman in Queens, New York
The writer is a retired New York Police Department lieutenant

To the Editor:  How will government officers find all those undocumented immigrants they plan to round up in the largest mass deportation of immigrants in American history❓

Undocumented immigrants look no different than anyone else walking down the street. Which means that you and I — all 345 million of us in this country — are subject to being stopped and forced to prove we are here legally.

To limit the field, officers may be forced to stop only people who look “foreign.” Of course, many people born here look “foreign.” Many people who are foreign don’t look foreign. Will courts allow profiling based on appearance?

When we are stopped, how will we even prove we are legal so we can stay out of the planned detention camps? We all don’t go around with immigration or naturalization papers. We don’t all have passports. I don’t carry ID unless I’m driving, drinking or using the AARP discount. My only proof is my birth certificate, which I can’t even find.

Even if courts say it is legal to stop anyone for any reason, how long would Americans put up with their own government harassing them?

The government may try to ease the pain by setting up offices in every city and requiring everyone to go there with proof of citizenship. Employees will then issue us cards to carry at all times to show officers. Or the government might force us to get tattoos on our arms or foreheads so we won’t even have to be stopped.

Mass deportation will encroach on our liberty. But the sacrifice will be worth it to rid America of the scourge of “illegals,”, so Trump will tell us. If you are legal, he’ll say, you shouldn’t mind having your rights violated.

From Joe Kollin in Lake Worth, Fla.

To the Editor:  I have some questions for those who favor mass deportation:

Do you grow your own food❓ Do you kill, gut and process the beef cattle, hogs, poultry and fish yourself❓

After the men, women and children, who do these jobs are deported, will you step up❓ Will you❓ (Maine Writer:😔 IDTS)

Food for thought.🍲🥘🥫

From: Florence England in Kansas City, Missouri.

Maine Writer post script:  All Americans who are not Native Americans are here today because we have immigrant ancestors.  Suppose we cannot prove where our parents were born....❓❓❓

Republican party candidates are no longer capable of leadership

An echo opinion letter published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Dear Editor: As a 71-year-old baby boomer, for the first time in my voting experience, in good conscience, my vote can no longer be cast for any local, state or national Republican candidate.

In watching and reading information at all levels, that the Republican party is no longer interested in governing for the good of the people. Rather, it has been infected with MAGA populism.

In the past my vote has been for Democrats, Republicans and third-party candidates. Essentially, I've voted based on who the best candidate for the position may be. No more for the foreseeable future.  Sadly, the existing Republican party cannot be counted on to deliver for the 'good' of the people. I know this sounds harsh, however it is reality.

From David Fink in Chesterfield Missouri

Retro Republicans have short term memory loss

St. Louis Post Dispatch editorial echo: 

Once again, Republicans are threatening to tank the economy to get their way.  This retro brinksmanship is dinosaur thinking.

Regressive Republican irresponsible fiscal obstructionism

Like the hockey-masked villain in some cheesy horror flick, the GOP’s debt-ceiling caucus just keeps coming back. Once again, the party’s more radical members are threatening to hold America’s full faith and credit hostage by refusing to raise the nation’s debt limit. The Treasury hit that $31.4 trillion limit Thursday, meaning it will have to be raised — as it routinely has been over the years, under both parties, to cover expenses incurred by both parties.

The best analogy is refusing to pay a credit card bill. When individuals do that, their credit rating drops and they end up having to pay more interest. If America ever defaulted on its debts, the same thing would happen — except, the effects would be devastating. There would be convulsions in the national and global economy.

Republicans like Missouri Rep. Jason Smith — the newly seated House Ways and Means chairman, who calls the debt-ceiling threat a legitimate “tool” in political negotiations — should recall that the last time their party went to the brink like this, it backfired politically and added to the very deficit they now, suddenly, claim to abhor. The mere threat of it, in 2011, caused the first credit downgrade in the U.S. government’s history and cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in added interest. So much for fiscal responsibility.As the debate unfolds in coming weeks, Republicans will try to present their refusal as a principled stand for fiscal responsibility. It’s not. It is a deliberate threat to America’s fiscal stability in hopes of getting presidential concessions on unrelated issues. 

It’s political terrorism, plain and simple.

The debt ceiling is the statutory limit on what the U.S. can borrow to cover past expenditures. That last part is crucial to remember as Republicans begin sowing misinformation about what they’re doing when they refuse to approve the periodic raises necessary in the debt limit.

Unfortunately, it is not refusal to spend but rather refusal to cover spending already authorized by Congress (including, generally, the same Republicans now declining to pay what’s owed).

Yet, Republicans are now, again, demanding spending cuts to social programs before they’ll allow America to pay its existing bills. This is the same GOP that inflated the deficit by $1.8 trillion with its 2017 tax cuts to the rich — back when a Republican was president and the party couldn’t have cared less about debt. Now they want the poor and the elderly to cover the bill. 

And, even worse, they’re threatening to tank America’s economy if they don’t get their way.

Cutting spending isn’t in itself a bad idea, but the time to debate it is when the spending is being approved, not when the bill comes due. The White House is refusing — as it should — to negotiate with this fiscal gun to its head. Negotiating with terrorists is never wise.

Irresponsible Republicans are silent about the George Santos lies

There appears to be no bottom to the well into which the Republican Party continues to jump.

Truth seems to be something to be challenged or just plain ignored.

Those in power in the party have listened to the 30,000 plus lies told by Donald Trump during and after his presidency and never challenged him. 

They defended the armed mob that stormed the capital on Jan 6, 2021, as a group of tourists, or an exercise in free speech.

The GOP leaders have ignored or endorsed the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. They supported Republican candidates nationwide in the mid-terms regardless of their endorsement of the lie, their complete lack of qualifications or their vows to take total control of the election processes.

And now, echoing down the well is the newly elected U.S. Representative from New York, George Santos, whose credentials seem to be pure fiction, listing schools he never attended and jobs he never held, even lying about his religion and family origins. But has there been any question or comment about this behavior from the Republican leadership of the Congress he is about to join? 

Only thundering silence. 

Suggestions have been raised concerning certain investigations and ethics discussions, but not from the senior leadership whose only interest is in keeping that needed vote. Why should the Congress chose to seat such a person clearly at odds with the ethics and standards that should be in force?

George Santos must resign!

Why would those who voted for him now be willing to accept him?

I admit, I rarely agree with the Republican Party and its leaders, but I have been aware in the past of a certain level of integrity, many members in power recognizing corruption among their own, choosing to speak out and then to do the right thing. Now, there is no moral center, only the desperate attempt to hold on to power at any cost to the country. The rare individuals who have dared to speak truth have been politically doomed.

Can we envision a future in which we will elect people who understand the meaning of public service, and possess the courage to act ethically and responsibly, adhering to proven truths?

We can only hope.
From Gwen Hunt in Webb City, Missouri

Protect home health care from Medicare cuts: Support patients recovery at home

Home Health Care facing Medicare cuts!  This is the place where families want to be during recovery! 

Echo opinion published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

Proposed cuts to Medicare home health services could have a devastating impact on home care providers, as well as the patients and families they work with across the country. 

Without congressional action, these Medicare cuts will be particularly harmful for rural and medically underserved patients. Our elected officials must step in and help.

Medicare — the federal insurance program for individuals 65 and older — has proposed a permanent 7.69% cut to home health care payments — which next year alone would slash $1.33 billion from home health services, translating to an estimated $10 million cut here in Missouri.

On top of that, Medicare is looking to impose an additional $2 billion in cuts as a so-called “clawback” for home health services provided during the height of the pandemic from 2020-2021 as well as another $1 billion for services provided last year. 

Altogether, these cuts would total $18 billion over the next 10 years.

The impact this would have on home health providers and their ability to offer high-quality, comprehensive care in the home setting would be profound. Already in the past few years, the economic outlook for home health organizations has not been positive. Like any other health sector, the home health community was hit hard by the pandemic, with high labor and fuel costs leading to staffing challenges that have caused national home health admission rates to decline by 15% since March 2020, despite a 33% increase in referrals over the same time period.

Imposing these massive cuts to Medicare home health care now would only further exacerbate the issues preventing the home health community from meeting the increased demand for our services. Fortunately, a bipartisan group of legislators in Congress have put forward smart, commonsense legislation that would help avoid the potentially harmful impact these cuts could have on seniors and individuals with disabilities in Missouri and nationwide.

The Preserving Access to Home Health Act of 2022, which has now been introduced in both chambers of Congress, would help protect home health patients as well as providers and clinicians by preventing any proposed cuts to home health from going into effect before 2026. The additional time would give home health providers a little breathing room while ensuring patient access to care remains uninterrupted.

Hopefully, it would also allow Medicare more time to review and refine its budgeting process to avoid threatening the home health community or the older, sick patients we serve.

Home healthcare is exceedingly popular with patients and families alike, which only makes sense given the additional safety and security it provides. According to a recent poll, 91% of seniors in Medicare would prefer to receive their care in their own home as opposed to another healthcare setting. 

Nearly all (97%) of Medicare beneficiaries also said they believe the federal government should maintain Medicare coverage that allows seniors to rehabilitate and recover at home.

If that’s not enough to sway the opinions of lawmakers, then maybe voter opposition to these proposed cuts will. That same poll found that 65% of voters oppose cuts to Medicare home health services and 78% think Congress should pass legislation to block them from going through, including 88% of voters aged 65-years-old or older. With election season underway, members of Congress — including Missouri’s delegation — would do well to keep these considerations in mind when weighing their support for this bill.

Home health providers across Missouri are proud of the nurturing, in-home support and care we offer patients and families. Congress must step in and pass the Preserving Access to Home Health Act to prevent these proposed Medicare cuts from undermining the critical role home health agencies and providers play in keeping Missouri’s seniors and individuals with disabilities healthier and happier in their own homes.

Carol Hudspeth is executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Home Care.

Texas newspapers call for the resignation of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley

Echo opinion reported by Cameron Peters in Vox.com

Hawley and Cruz face mounting calls to resign over push to overturn the 2020 election!

Sen. Josh Hawley says he will “never apologize” for objecting to Biden electors. (Maine Writer- Hawley is a Facist!)

Republican Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz are facing mounting criticism for their role in inciting Wednesday’s deadly riot at the US Capitol, with their Senate colleagues and major newspapers alike calling for their resignation — or expulsion.

Hawley, the junior senator from Missouri, has also been disavowed by a former mentor, and publisher Simon & Schuster has abandoned plans to publish Hawley’s upcoming book. On Thursday, a prominent Hawley donor called for him to be formally censured for his actions.

Both senators helped lead a Republican effort in the Senate to object to the certification of electors from key states President-elect Joe Biden won in the 2020 presidential election — arguing, despite all evidence proving otherwise, that there were irregularities in the vote count which required further investigation. And they continued their efforts Wednesday night, even after pro-Trump insurgents stormed the Capitol earlier the same day.

Ultimately, Biden’s victory — 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232 — was certified over objections by Hawley and Cruz. But their decision to join six other senators in delaying the process with objections to electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania was sharply condemned, even by some Republican colleagues, for sustaining the baseless election fraud narrative that inspired Wednesday’s attack on the Capitol and left at least five people dead.

Hawley in particular has been excoriated for a Wednesday morning photo showing him raising his fist in solidarity with supporters of President Donald Trump, who later stormed the Capitol.

“Sen. Hawley was doing something that was really dumbass,” Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told NPR in an interview Friday. “This was a stunt. It was a terrible, terrible idea. And you don’t lie to the American people. And that’s what’s been going on.”

Former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, an influential Hawley mentor prior to this week, went further, telling the Kansas City Star that Hawley was responsible for the riot and that supporting him was “the biggest mistake I’ve ever made in my life.”

“I don’t know if he was always like this and good at covering it up or if it happened,” Danforth said Thursday. “I just don’t know.”

Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, has also been under fire in his home state.

“Senator, those terrorists wouldn’t have been at the Capitol if you hadn’t staged this absurd challenge to the 2020 results in the first place,” the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle wrote Friday. “So, we call for another consequence, one with growing support across Texas: Resign.”

“We’re done with the drama. Done with the opportunism. Done with the cynical scheming that has now cost American lives,” the editorial concludes. “Resign, Mr. Cruz, and deliver Texas from the shame of calling you our senator.”

Three Senate Democrats — Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware, Patty Murray of Washington state, and Ron Wyden of Oregon, have also called for Hawley and Cruz to resign.

Unsurprisingly, Cruz rebuffed calls for his resignation in an interview Friday, and Hawley likewise has shown no inclination to offer his.

“I will never apologize for giving voice to the millions of Missourians and Americans who have concerns about the integrity of our elections,” Hawley said Thursday, though there is no evidence to support any of his voter fraud allegations.

After Wednesday, Hawley and Cruz face questions over 2024, aspirations

The bipartisan furor over Hawley and Cruz’s decisions to stay the course with their objections, even though the same sentiment driving them helped incite the storming of the Capitol, has also sparked a discussion about their political futures.

Hawley and Cruz are both widely considered to be Republican presidential hopefuls in 2024, assuming Trump himself doesn’t shoulder the rest of the field out of the way in a bid to regain the White House.

Support for Trump was reaffirmed at the highest levels of the Republican Party this week with the unopposed reelection of Ronna McDaniel, a Trump loyalist, to continue serving at the head of the Republican National Committee.

And Trump, for his part, has signaled that he wants to run — but between the outside possibility of his being formally barred from holding elected office again and the extensive legal jeopardy he’ll face when he leaves office in just 11 days, there’s a real chance that the way will be clear for Hawley and Cruz, both of whom will likely be gunning to shore up as much support as possible with Trump’s base.

That part might not be difficult: For now, polling suggests that they both remain popular with the president’s most diehard supporters.

Specifically, according to a new tracking poll from Morning Consult that was taken January 6 and 7, 68 percent of those with a “very favorable” view of Trump also feel favorably toward Cruz, with 37 percent of strong Trump backers feeling favorably about Hawley.

Hawley suffers from substantially lower name recognition than Cruz — 32 percent of respondents who say they hold a “very favorable” view of Trump say they have never heard of Hawley, compared to just 6 percent for Cruz — but only 11 percent of respondents who view Trump very favorably have a negative opinion of Hawley. Slightly more of those respondents hold a negative opinion of Cruz, at 13 percent.

Current support, however, may prove ephemeral by the time 2024, rolls around. One Trump 2016, campaign aide told Politico this week that many Trump supporters “saw through [Hawley’s] blind ambitious act” and didn’t view it as genuine.

“They don’t think he’s a real MAGA supporter,” the aide, Bryan Lanza, said. “He just comes across as insincere.”

Meanwhile, at least one editorial board — that of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — has already deemed Hawley’s presidential hopes dead on arrival.

“Hawley’s presidential aspirations have been flushed down the toilet because of his role in instigating Wednesday’s assault on democracy,” the Post-Dispatch editorial board wrote Thursday. “He should do Missourians and the rest of the country a big favor and resign now.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) also disavowed Hawley, Cruz, and their Republican allies in objecting to the electoral vote certification in a floor speech Wednesday night.

“Those who choose to continue to support [Trump’s] dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy,” Romney said.

Donald Trump is a liar - echo opinion from Missouri

Echo opinion letter published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, in Missouri- identifying "Trump's scum".

Lost in the endless barrage of presidential Trumpzi tweets, there is one that is so outrageous and offensive that we cannot and must not overlook it.

Angered by the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry, Donald Trump recently tweeted that Rep. Adam Schiff (IMO, Representative Schiff is the equivalent of the Eliot Ness, in his relentless exposure of the failed Donald Trump corruption) is (not!) a liar and then tRumph admonished Republicans to “Keep fighting tough, Republicans, you are dealing with human scum.”  (IMO, Donald Trump is the equivalent of political swamp scum.)

Is this what we have come to now, that we accept words like this from our president? That politicians from the opposing party are human scum? They are wrongly labeling, "Our fellow Americans"?*  Who? Is tRump labeling "His fellow Americans"? Why haven’t Republicans objected to these despicable words? Is this the “new normal”, a toxic condition that we are told we are living under?

I fervently hope not! Moreover, I urge everyone to contact their senators and representative and let them know that Trump’s tweets are unacceptable.

Fron Ruth C. Bauer in Kirkwood, Missouri

*First They Came- the poetic form of a prose post-war confession, first made in German in 1946, by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals and certain clergy (including, by his own admission, Niemöller himself) following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent incremental purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Governor Eric Greitens ~ a "cretin" stupid cover up

Blackmail alleged as Missouri Governor Greitens admits to extramarital affair

Missouri governor admits affair, accused of blackmailing woman with photo

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens ~ sexual behavior of a cretin
(Ex-husband reveals a sickly kinky sexual encounter with his former wife)

There's no new news in salacious political headlines involving a politician and an extra-marital affair.  What is "new news" is when the stupid politician ~ namely Missouri Governor Greitens ~ is reported to have attempted blackmail against the woman who revealed the sexual affair. Reported by Lauren Trager and John O'Sullivan.

ST. LOUIS, MO- (KMOV.com) -- Governor Eric Greitens on Wednesday night confirmed to News 4 he had an extramarital affair, an admission a months-long News 4 investigation prompted.

In a recording obtained by News 4, a woman says she had a sexual encounter with Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens and that he tried to blackmail her to keep the encounter quiet.

The details were provided to News 4 by the woman’s ex-husband, claiming the sexual relationship happened between his now ex-wife and Greitens in March 2015. News 4 is not naming the woman and she has not made an on-the-record comment about the story.

According to the ex-husband, the recording was made just days after Greitens’ and the woman’s first sexual encounter. And also that Greitens took a photograph during the encounter to use as “blackmail” according to the ex-husband.

During his campaign and while serving in his first year in office as Missouri’s Governor, Eric Greitens has billed himself a family man. During his campaign announcement, he stated: “I'm Eric Greitens, I'm a Navy SEAL, native Missourian and most importantly, a proud husband and father."

A contrast to the acts the woman accuses Greitens of committing on tape saying his actions were “horrible and disgusting.”

The ex-husband provided details to News 4 of what he claims was a sexual encounter between his now-ex-wife and Greitens back in March of 2015. News 4 has spoken to the woman's attorney who has stated: “No Comment.”

His now ex-wife wife didn't know he was recording their conversation as she confessed intimate details to him.

Recorded Conversation:

Ex-Husband: “Tell me the truth. The truth. Only the truth.
Woman: So, on Saturday morning, before my first client, I did go to his house.
Ex-Husband: For the first time?
Woman: For the first time. Ever. Like I said, nothing, period, had ever happened or taken place until this snowball. This (expletive) tornado just happened. I know I brought this on.”

The woman explains that her interactions with Greitens were sometimes initiated by herself. They met-because she cut his hair.

Woman: "I met Eric a year ago and I instantly had a big crush on him."

She said she felt drawn to talk to him. But when he told her, “I want you to come over" to his house, she first said no. She wanted to meet for coffee.
But Greitens said “I can't, I can't be seen with you. This is wrong."

Woman: "I said, I know. So he said. Just, please come to my house."

She stated she agreed to go to his house to "talk." It's unclear where Greitens' wife or children were at this time.
The woman said that when the sexual encounter began that Saturday and said it was consensual.

Woman: "He said: "I'll make you feel better. I'll make you feel good. Come downstairs. I want to show you how to do a proper pull-up. And I knew he was being sexual and I still let him. And he used some sort of tape, I don't what it was, and taped my hands to these rings and then put a blindfold on me.”

She went on to say that some of his actions-scared her.

Woman: "I didn't even know. I feel like I don't even know. I was just numb. I just stood there and didn't (expletive) know."

She went on, describing what Greitens allegedly did next that made her feel sick.

Woman: “He stepped back, I saw a flash through the blindfold and he said: "you're never going to mention my name, otherwise there will be pictures of me everywhere."

Her now ex-husband said that statement upset him.

“He took a picture of my wife naked as blackmail. There is no worse person,” the ex-husband told News 4. And that is still what upsets him. He told News 4, “I think it's as bad as it gets, It’s as bad as it gets when someone takes advantage of something.”

In the recorded phone conversation, the woman takes on some of the blame and says that Greitens apologized after the encounter-and told her he had deleted the picture.

She claims they had at least one more physical interaction later that day.

After the tearful confession, the man and his wife tried reconciling, but according to the man, Greitens was still in her life.

In October 2015, the woman allegedly sent an email to a Gmail account she told her husband she had previously used to get in touch with Greitens.

It stated "Eric, I am asking you to please consider all who are involved and the circumstances around us. I need you to not book at the salon anymore. This isn't fair to me, nor anyone close to us. Please respect me and my wishes."

As for the motivation of the ex-husband in speaking on-camera, he told News 4 “I am not after anything, I am not a part of politics, I am not a part of anything, I just want to move on with my life.”

The man says he didn't want to speak out before, but says recently, he's been contacted by law enforcement authorities and members of the media. He says he wanted to get in front of a story he believed would come out eventually and he wants to protect his family.

“Something happened, churned this, and had people hounding me, even leaving a voicemail on my daughter's phone - when that happened, everything changed,” said the ex-husband.

The ex-husband’s attorney, Al Watkins confirms, he too has been in contact repeatedly with law enforcement agencies about this.

“My knowledge and my experience leads me to believe that at least, there is an elevated degree of interest in what is going on,” said Watkins.

The man and his wife sought a divorce in March of 2016.

By Election Day in November 2016, he was on social media, calling Greitens-a quote "homewrecker."

He told News 4, “this didn't just destroy our marriage, it destroyed an environment, an ecosystem, this destroyed it all.”

Late Wednesday, James Bennett, an attorney for Gov. Greitens released the following statement:

"The governor has now seen the TV report that ran tonight. The station declined to provide the tape or transcript in advance of running their story, which contained multiple false allegations. The claim that this nearly three-year old story has generated or should generate law enforcement interest is completely false. There was no blackmail and that claim is false. This personal matter has been addressed by the Governor and Mrs. Greitens privately years ago when it happened. The outrageous claims of improper conduct regarding these almost three-year-ago events are false."

When questioned by News 4, Greitens did not address the issue of the photograph but the Governor and his wife did release the following statement:

"A few years ago, before Eric was elected Governor, there was a time when he was unfaithful in our marriage. This was a deeply personal mistake. Eric took responsibility, and we dealt with this together honestly and privately. While we never would have wished for this pain in our marriage, or the pain that this has caused others, with God’s mercy Sheena has forgiven and we have emerged stronger. We understand that there will be some people who cannot forgive – but for those who can find it in your heart, Eric asks for your forgiveness, and we are grateful for your love, your compassion, and your prayers."

Sheena Greitens added:

"We have a loving marriage and an awesome family; anything beyond that is between us and God. I want the media and those who wish to peddle gossip to stay away from me and my children."

MaineWriter~ Certainly, Mrs. Greitens is entitled to privacy for herself and her children.  Governor Eric Greitens, on the other hand, behaved like a *cretin*, a loser, idiot sexual predator, even as he admits to the sexual encounter. His behavior during the encounter and the hypocrisy of pretending to be a "family man", are *cretinous*.