ReportWire

Tag: elise stefanik

  • Stefanik exits New York governor’s race after Trump stays neutral and worries flare about a bitter primary

    [ad_1]

    Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik dropped out of the New York governor’s race Friday, concluding that a potentially fractious GOP primary could hurt Republicans’ chances in an uphill statewide contest, as President Trump signaled he would not make an endorsement at this stage. 

    Stefanik pointed to the risks in a statement to supporters, writing: “While we would have overwhelmingly won this primary, it is not an effective use of our time or your generous resources to spend the first half of next year in an unnecessary and protracted Republican primary, especially in a challenging state like New York.”

    Stefanik’s political future is now unclear, as she said she is not planning to run for re-election in Congress. Stefanik, considered a rising MAGA leader, was initially set to leave Congress after Mr. Trump picked her in November 2024 for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, before her nomination was pulled by the administration in March over concerns about a narrowing Republican majority in the House. 

    Two sources confirmed to CBS News that Stefanik spoke directly with President Trump on Thursday to discuss her decision to leave the gubernatorial race. Their conversation was first reported by The New York Times.

    Mr. Trump later issued a statement following her announcement applauding Stefanik, calling her “a fantastic person and Congresswoman from New York State” and describing her as “a tremendous talent.” He said she would have “great success” in whatever she chooses next and signaled his continued support.

    A Republican member of Congress with direct knowledge of the race told CBS News they believed Stefanik ultimately concluded that a contested Republican primary would be difficult and potentially damaging, even if she were likely to win. The other major candidate is Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, another Trump ally.

    Under New York GOP rules, candidates must secure at least 25% of the weighted vote at the state party’s February convention to qualify for the June primary ballot, or otherwise submit nominating petitions.

    While Stefanik was believed to have early support representing well above that threshold — possibly more than 75% of the weighted vote due to early endorsements from local party officials — New York Republicans told CBS News that a challenge from Blakeman still risked becoming a prolonged intraparty fight.

    The eventual nominee is expected to face off against incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul. New York hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2002, though Hochul won her 2022 race by a single-digit margin of  6.4 percentage points, which spurred renewed interest among Republicans who viewed the result as a sign of potential Democratic vulnerability.

    “My gut tells me this is not the right political time,” Stefanik told New York Magazine in an interview on Friday. “This is not the sort of array of things lining up — which is so difficult in New York, which is incredibly difficult in a picture-perfect year–let alone with a primary and everything else.”

    “We viewed it as a waste of resources,” she said, also citing family considerations. “I have a 4-year old son, and that is a priority for our family.”

    A senior House Republican official also said Stefanik was frustrated that Mr. Trump declined to endorse her early and effectively clear the field for her, a move that Stefanik allies believed could have avoided a divisive primary. 

    Mr. Trump did call Blakeman after he entered the race, according to sources familiar with the phone call. He told the county executive that he did not like seeing “good Republicans” face each other in an electoral battle.

    Asked about the race on Dec. 10, the president repeatedly emphasized his reluctance to publicly intervene, stressing his personal relationships with both candidates and concern about collateral damage from a contested primary. 

    “First of all, he’s a friend. She’s a friend,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House. “These are two great people running. In a way, I hate to see them running against each other. I hope they’re not going to be damaging each other.”  

    Mr. Trump went on to praise both candidates, saying, “Elise is fantastic, and Bruce is. They’re two fantastic people, and I always hate it when two very good friends of mine are running.”

    Pointing to the state GOP convention, Trump said, “I think you’ll know pretty much at the end of February what’s going to happen. And I’ll probably have to, you know, do what I want to do.”

    “We have two very talented people. Either one should win against the Democrats,” he added.

    After Stefanik announced she would end her campaign, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt praised her record, calling her “an incredible advocate” for her Upstate New York district and “a true friend” to Mr. Trump. Leavitt, who previously worked for Stefanik as a top adviser, added that she is “a great leader, and an even better person.”

    Stefanik, a member of House Republican leadership and one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, had been viewed by New York Republicans as a formidable contender given her national profile and fundraising strength — over $12 million raised. 

    But she faced an uphill battle in deep-blue New York, with a recent Siena College poll showing Hochul with a double-digit lead versus both Republicans at this stage of the race. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik ends bid for New York governor, says she won’t seek reelection

    [ad_1]

    Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik said Friday she is suspending her campaign for governor of New York and will not seek reelection to Congress. 

    In a statement, Stefanik — who had just entered the race about seven weeks ago — said in a social media post that “while we would have overwhelmingly won this primary, it is not an effective use of our time or your generous resources to spend the first half of next year in an unnecessary and protracted Republican primary, especially in a challenging state like New York.”

    Stefanik also indicated that the decision was made with her family in mind. 

    “While many know me as Congresswoman, my most important title is Mom,” she added. “I believe that being a parent is life’s greatest gift and greatest responsibility. I have thought deeply about this and I know that as a mother, I will feel profound regret if I don’t further focus on my young son’s safety, growth, and happiness – particularly at his tender age.”

    Stefanik has been a frequent critic of Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who will be running for reelection. 

    Ryan Radulovacki, a spokesperson for Hochul, told CBS News New York in a statement that Stefanik had “finally acknowledged reality: If you run against Governor Kathy Hochul, you are going to lose.”   

    Hochul had previously called Stefanik President Trump’s “number one cheerleader in Congress and his right-hand woman in his war on New York.”  

    State GOP chair pivots to Bruce Blakeman

    The bombshell announcement comes less than two weeks after fellow Republican and Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman said he intended to challenge Stefanik in the upcoming gubernatorial primary

    At the time, a spokesperson for Stefanik blasted Blakeman for entering the race. 

    “Bruce Blakeman is an early Christmas present to Kathy Hochul as he works to blow Republicans’ best chance to win,” the spokesperson said. 

    Now, the state Republican party chair is pivoting to support Blakeman’s bid. 

    “Elise Stefanik will remain a leader in our party and a powerful voice for our principles. We respect her decision and thank her for her efforts,” New York GOP chair Ed Cox said in a statement. “Bruce Blakeman has my endorsement and I urge our State Committee and party leaders to join me.”

    In a statement Friday, Blakeman thanked Stefanik for her “outstanding service” to the people of New York and to all Americans.

    “Throughout her time in public office, Congresswoman Stefanik has been a strong voice for common-sense values, national security, and economic opportunity, and her leadership has earned the respect of people across our state and our country,” the statement said, in part. “I wish Congresswoman Stefanik nothing but success as she pursues her priorities and continues her service to our nation.”

    Stefanik had initially launched her campaign for governor in early November with an army of support, including 34 Assemblymember endorsements, 12 state senators, and former Gov. George Pataki. 

    Stefanik receives message of support from Trump

    Mr. Trump expressed his support for Stefanik after her announcement, writing on Truth Social that she is “a fantastic person.”

    “Elise is a tremendous talent, regardless of what she does,” Mr. Trump wrote. “She will have GREAT success, and I am with her all the way!”  

    In 2014, Stefanik became the youngest woman elected to Congress at the age of 30. She represents New York’s 21st Congressional District upstate and has been reelected five times.   

    In November 2024, Mr. Trump nominated Stefanik to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but withdrew her nomination two months later, saying he wanted her to remain in Congress.

    “Elise Stefanik has been an incredible advocate for the people of her district in Upstate New York, and she will always be a true friend to President Trump,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also wrote on social media. “On a personal note, Elise is my former boss. She is a great leader, and an even better person. We love you.”

    Outgoing Rep. Majorie Taylor-Greene also issued a message of support. 

    “You are making the most wonderful decision. Mom is the best job title there is! Way to go Elise!”, Taylor-Greene posted

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Liebman: The political calculus behind Bruce Blakeman’s exploratory run for governor | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    In Brief:
    • is exploring a run for , drawing attention from business and political communities.
    • He focuses on economy and community safety while touring upstate GOP meetings to build recognition.
    • Blakeman faces potential primary competition from Congresswoman and the influence of NYS GOP leadership.
    • and alliances with President Trump could shape voter engagement and campaign momentum.
    • Long Island GOP county leaders may play a crucial role in the state convention and nomination process.

    There is not a gathering of business leaders this season where the question is not quietly posed: “What do you think of Bruce Blakeman’s chances of becoming governor?”

    The potential of a Long Islander assuming the highest executive office in the State of New York is not an idle scenario and for the business community there needs to be an appreciation that such a victory would have the potential of strategically altering the economic climate of New York at a time when progressive socialism has come into vogue.

    County Executive Blakeman has likely looked at previous campaigns for the purpose of determining what works and what doesn’t. Over the decades, others from the bi-county region have sought to achieve statewide office over the years with mixed results. Tom DiNapoli, with his political roots in Great Neck, remains the much-respected state comptroller. Alfonse D’Amato of Island Park served three terms in the U.S. Senate, winning on the Republican line in what remains a state with far higher Democratic enrollment.

    A political veteran, one suspects that Blakeman is aware and wary of the political odds but Senator D’Amato was supposed to be easily beaten in a by then incumbent Jacob Javits. He wasn’t. And pundits then guaranteed that D’Amato would lose in November of 1980 to his Democratic opponent, Liz Holtzman. He wasn’t. Accordingly, every candidate looks at the D’Amato odds and calculates their own.

    Blakeman is no stranger to New York north of the Harlem River. He has sought statewide office before. Then what makes his exploratory campaign unique? And how would he overcome NYS GOP Chairman Ed Cox who insists he wants upstate Congresswoman Elise Stefanik as the party’s candidate to face Governor Hochul.

    For starters, the traditional political landscape is literally unrecognizable. There is fierce polarization that is nothing less than historic. New York City’s stunning turn to Zohran Mamdani will become a lightning rod in any 2026 campaign. Within these realities Blakeman has engaged in an exploratory road show throughout , recognizing that many upstate Republicans know Stefanik but don’t know him. As he tours, he is addressing the economy and community safety, issues that resonate anywhere within the Empire State.

    Blakeman is also a close and public ally of President Trump as is Blakeman’s potential primary opponent. However, the president recently publicly chastised Stefanik following a comment she made regarding Mamdani so his endorsement in a primary, while crucial, remains a mystery.

    Social media has emerged as a powerful political force in identifying a political base of support. It is capable of energizing supporters to be vocal and engaged, turning these online primary voters into advocates and influencers.  It hasn’t been lost on Blakeman who has been posting daily as he visits upstate GOP meetings.

    Meanwhile, Long Island remains a Republican bastion with county chairmen, Joseph Cairo in Nassau and Jesse Garcia in Suffolk, masters of their realm. Together, they have the means to create a voting block at the New York State Republican convention that will be crucial for the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee. If Cox is seeking a coronation of Congresswoman Stefanik, he will have some interesting conversations with these two gentlemen.

    In the end, the odds of County Executive Blakeman becoming the Republican nominee for governor is dependent on so many variables, it is impossible to make book, but his presence is making for fascinating political dynamics in a state that has repeatedly proven the pundits wrong.

     

    Josh Liebman is partner in the law firm Rosenberg Calica Birney Liebman & Ross, LLP in Garden City.


    [ad_2]

    Opinion

    Source link

  • Rep. Elise Stefanik will announce run for New York governor Friday, sources say

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s note: Stefanik made the announcement to join the governor’s race early Friday morning.

    Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York will announce that she is running for governor Friday, sources told CBS News New York political reporter Marcia Kramer.

    Stefanik, a frequent critic of Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, has been hinting for several months at the possibility of running in the 2026 election.

    In May, President Trump put out what one political expert described as “a loud message” that he wants to clear the Republican field for Stefanik by endorsing both Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman and Rep. Mike Lawler for reelection. Blakeman and Lawler have both previously expressed interest in a gubernatorial run.

    Lawler later announced he intends to run for reelection in 2026. Sources say Blakeman is still considering joining the race.

    On the Democratic side, Hochul is facing a primary challenge from her lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado.

    In 2014, Stefanik, at age 30, became the youngest woman elected to Congress. She represents the 21st Congressional District in upstate New York and has been reelected five times.

    In November 2024, Mr. Trump nominated Stefanik to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for a confirmation hearing in January, but two months later, the president withdrew her nomination, saying he wanted her to remain in Congress.

    “As we advance our America First Agenda, it is essential that we maintain EVERY Republican Seat in Congress,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding, “With a very tight Majority, I don’t want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise’s seat.”

    In an appearance on Fox News in May, Stefanik said she was strongly considering running against Hochul, calling her “the worst governor” in the country. Hochul responded in a separate interview, saying, “I look forward to that fight, no matter who it is. It’s not settled yet, but I say bring it on.”

    A Siena poll released in September looked at the results of a hypothetical race between Hochul and Stefanik, and had the governor leading 52%-27%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. Elise Stefanik announces run for New York governor, challenging Kathy Hochul in 2026 election

    [ad_1]

    Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik announced she is running for governor of New York early Friday morning, after months of hinting that she might challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in the 2026 election.

    Stefanik launched her campaign with a post on social media, calling Hochul “the worst governor in America.”

    “Under her failed leadership, New York is the most unaffordable state in the nation with the highest taxes, highest energy, utilities, rent, and grocery bills. When New Yorkers were looking for leadership from our Governor, she bent the knee to the raging Defund the Police, Tax Hiking Communist causing catastrophe for New York families,” Stefanik wrote. “I am running for Governor to make New York affordable and safe FOR ALL. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents will unify to save our state.”

    Hochul shared a statement of her own, calling the congresswoman President Trump’s “number one cheerleader in Congress and his right-hand woman in his war on New York.”

    “Apparently, screwing over New Yorkers in Congress wasn’t enough – now she’s trying to bring Trump’s chaos and skyrocketing costs to our state,” the governor wrote. “While Stefanik puts Trump first and New York last, Governor Hochul is lowering costs, cutting middle-class taxes, and fighting for the New Yorkers Stefanik abandoned.”

    Rep. Elise Stefanik’s rise

    At age 30, Stefanik became the youngest woman elected to Congress in 2014. She represents New York’s 21st Congressional District upstate and has been reelected five times. 

    In November 2024, Mr. Trump nominated Stefanik to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for a confirmation hearing in January, but the president withdrew her nomination two months later, saying he wanted her to remain in Congress.

    “As we advance our America First Agenda, it is essential that we maintain EVERY Republican Seat in Congress,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time, adding, “With a very tight Majority, I don’t want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise’s seat.”

    President Trump’s apparent pick

    Then in May, Mr. Trump put out what one political expert described as “a loud message” that he wanted to clear the Republican field for Stefanik by endorsing both Rep. Mike Lawler and Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman in their races for reelection. Both had previously expressed interest in a gubernatorial run.

    Lawler later announced he intends to run for reelection in 2026. Sources say Blakeman is still considering joining the governor’s race.

    Meanwhile on the Democratic side, Hochul is facing a primary challenge from her own lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado.  

    Siena poll released in September looked at the results of a hypothetical race between Hochul and Stefanik, and had the governor leading 52%-27%.  

    Check back soon for updates on this developing story. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Grilled Over COVID-19 Nursing Home Deaths

    Former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Grilled Over COVID-19 Nursing Home Deaths

    [ad_1]

    Delta News Hub, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

    By Christian Wade (The Center Square)

    House Republicans grilled former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday over his response to the COVID-19 pandemic amid fresh claims that the Democrat has tried to deflect responsibility for a policy they claim contributed to a high rate of deaths in nursing homes. 

    Members of the Republican-controlled Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic peppered Cuomo with questions for hours about a controversial directive issued by his administration in the early days of the pandemic that required nursing homes and long-term care facilities in New York to admit COVID-19-positive patients. 

    RELATED: FACT CHECK: In Presidential Debate, Harris Deflects on Border Record

    Lawmakers accused Cuomo of ignoring the science on infectious controls in nursing home settings and federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare guidance that conflicted with his directive. 

    “Your directive was not consistent with federal guidance nor consistent with medical doctrine,” Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, committee’s chairman, said in opening remarks. “You do not put highly contagious patients vulnerable with vulnerable patients, subject to infection, or in this case, death.” 

    Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, the panel released a memo claiming it has new evidence from testimony that Cuomo and his team “made a deliberate decision to exclude scientifically significant nursing home-related COVID-19 deaths from mortality rates” and “heavily edited” New York State Department of Health documents “to shift blame away from Mr. Cuomo and his team.”

    Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said the report’s findings show that Cuomo tried to cover up his involvement in a “fatal order” that led to the death of “vulnerable seniors” in nursing homes and got into a heated exchange with the former governor after calling on him to apologize to the families who lost loved ones in nursing homes during the pandemic.

    “This is about the seniors. There are families sitting here today,” she said. “I want you to turn around, look them in the eye and apologize, which you have failed to do. Will you do it?” 

    RELATED: Massie: SAVE Act Won’t Be Signed Into Law

    Other GOP lawmakers criticized Cuomo for showing a lack of empathy about his responsibility for policies that they claimed contributed to a high rate of COVID-19 deaths in long-term care facilities. 

    “You’ve shown no remorse, no responsibility for the actions of your administration,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in remarks. “That’s simply not leadership.” 

    Cuomo, a Democrat who stepped down from office in 2021 amid sexual harassment allegations, defended himself before the House panel and blasted GOP members for conducting a “partisan” investigation. 

    He pointed the blame for the high number of COVID-19 deaths nationwide on then-President Donald Trump, whom he claimed “willfully deceived the American people” during the pandemic. 

    “His lies and denials delayed our response, let the virus spread, and this country never caught up,” Cuomo said in his fiery opening remarks. “And this subcommittee, run by Republicans, repeats the Trump lies and deceptions.”

    Democrats on the committee, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., came to Cuomo’s defense during Tuesday’s overnight grilling and also sought to focus the blame on Trump’s response to the pandemic. 

    The March 25 directive required nursing homes to begin accepting “medically stable” patients recovering from COVID-19 in 2020 as they were discharged from hospitals. It was rescinded after several weeks, but Cuomo was widely criticized for contributing to the high death toll in the state’s long-term care facilities.

    More than 80,000 New Yorkers died of COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic to May 2023, including 15,000 nursing home residents, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

    RELATED: FACT CHECK: Who’s to Blame for High Grocery, Energy, Other Costs?

    Cuomo pointed out that the U.S. Department of Justice investigated whether Cuomo’s policy violated residents’ civil rights in New York’s nursing homes and found no wrongdoing. He also noted a probe by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, which was later abandoned. He said both investigations determined that New York’s directive was in line with federal health policies that were in place at the time.

    “In addition, this report provides no evidence to support President Trump’s main allegations, repeated over three years, that New York’s guidance killed thousands in nursing homes,” he said. “All credible studies now say that Covid came into nursing homes through community spread, not infected hospital admissions or re-admissions. The numbers don’t lie.” 

    Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

    [ad_2]

    The Center Square

    Source link

  • Numbers Don’t Lie: Women Thrived Under Trump, Suffered Under Harris

    Numbers Don’t Lie: Women Thrived Under Trump, Suffered Under Harris

    [ad_1]

    Kamala Harris, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    By Elise Stefanik for RealClearPolitics

    Of the countless lies about Kamala Harris perpetuated by Democrats and their loyal stenographers in the mainstream media, one of the most egregious is that a Kamala Harris presidency will deliver historic economic opportunity for working women.

    Unfortunately for these desperate Democrats attempting to erase publicly available data, numbers tell the exact opposite story. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden saddled women with the largest pay cut, inflation crisis, tax hike, and economic crash so far this century, whereas President Trump delivered the greatest economic boost for American women of any modern day president. 

    RELATED: Illegal Border Crossings Surpass 12.5 Million Since Biden-Harris Took Office

    The median income for women increased every year during the Trump administration, reaching the highest on record in 2020. Real average weekly earnings increased 8.2% under President Trump yet decreased 3.9% under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. 

    The unemployment rate for women overall and for black women in particular reached a record low during President Trump’s term. In 2019, the workforce participation gap between men and women shrank to the narrowest in history. President Trump’s economy made history with the most women in the workforce ever. 

    This wasn’t by accident. Understanding that working women are also balancing families, President Trump delivered a pro-family economic agenda that included doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and expanding eligibility. Nearly 40 million families received an average benefit of $2,200 under his leadership, totaling credits of approximately $88 billion. 

    He then created the first-ever paid family leave tax credit for employees earning $72,000 or less and signed into law 12 weeks of paid parental leave for federal workers. He also signed the largest-ever increase in child care and development block grants – expanding access to quality, affordable childcare for more than 800,000 low-income families. 

    President Trump signed into law a provision that enabled new parents to withdraw up to $5,000 from their retirement accounts without penalty when they give birth to or adopt a child.  

    RELATED: Polls: Majority of Americans Want Troops Sent to Border, Oppose Illegal Immigration

    The oft-asked question about balancing work and family life is: Can women have it all? Under President Trump’s leadership, the answer was a resounding yes. 

    Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not so much. 

    Biden and Harris’ failed economic policies hurt every American but hit women hardest of all. Women are bearing the brunt of Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote for Biden’s comically named “Inflation Reduction Act,” which turbocharged inflation with a glut of ridiculous climate spending. Women are working longer hours and delaying retirement as a result. 

    Talk to any woman in America and there is no question that inflation is a women’s issue. Since Kamala Harris was sworn in as vice president, prices have risen by 19.4% – making it increasingly difficult for women to provide for their families. Women are the majority of grocery shoppers, and grocery bills have skyrocketed, forcing many Americans to cut back on essentials. 

    A single mother of two in Nevada had to sell her car to afford groceries under Biden. A mother of two in Michigan had “to think about putting gasoline prices before buying my kids clothes” because of Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote for Biden’s radical green energy agenda.

    Families now need an extra $12,590 annually just to maintain the same standard of living they enjoyed three years ago, according to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee—and 67% of parents say inflation has impacted their ability to pay for their children’s education, school supplies, and extracurricular activities this past school year. The cost of childcare has increased 32% for the average family since 2019, and nearly two-thirds are spending 20% or more of their annual income on childcare.

    RELATED: ‘We do not support her:’ California Sheriff Pushes Back on Harris Border Claims

    The average price for a pack of disposable diapers has increased 32% since 2019, and 47% of families reported struggling to afford them. In 2022, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ incompetence created a baby formula shortage, causing the price to soar to an all-time high. Some 44 million people were living in food insecure households in 2022, a 31% annual increase and the largest one-year increase since 2008. 

    Women make up the majority of voters in America, so it’s no wonder the Harris propaganda machine is in overdrive attempting to gaslight them into thinking they’ve never had it better. But as much as Democrats may lie, numbers never do. They show that President Trump not only cares deeply about women and all Americans but also knows what it takes to stimulate the economy to create historic opportunities on our behalf.

    Kamala Harris, meanwhile, sees women as a convenient voting block to pander to, deceive, and then abandon in favor of an economically poisonous, radically liberal agenda. 

    To my fellow women voters: Don’t be fooled. 

    Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

    [ad_2]

    RealClearWire

    Source link

  • Elise Stefanik Auditions to Be Trump’s VP at CPAC

    Elise Stefanik Auditions to Be Trump’s VP at CPAC

    [ad_1]

    Stefanik at CPAC on February 23.
    Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

    CPAC is one of the biggest Trumpist gatherings of the year, and on Friday the rockstar was Elise Stefanik, the New York congresswoman and former moderate who has turned herself into a MAGA hero.

    Stefanik got one of the most rapturous receptions of any of the day’s speakers. Her big speech was practically an audition to be Donald Trump’s running mate. Attendees stood and cheered her as she boasted that she had turned a district that Obama won twice into one that was now “Trump and Elise Country.” She always invoked the full name of “President Donald J. Trump” and insisted that the real threat to American democracy came from “the radical left and the Democrats.” She celebrated January 6 as a day where she “stood up for the Constitution and election integrity” (she voted against certifying the 2020 election) and took aim at familiar bugbears like Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney. She also made sure to take credit for ousting two Ivy League presidents after grilling them over antisemitism during a House hearing. Still, she could be somewhat stilted, speaking MAGA fluently but with a slight accent. It is not her native language.

    The crowd didn’t care, offering periodic shouts of “we love you Elise!” And the center-right sins of Stefanik’s past, her ties to the pre-Trump GOP when she worked for George W. Bush and Paul Ryan? They don’t seem to matter to the Trump loyalists either.

    Stefanik has become the model for the ideological transformation of the Republican Party under Trump. Elected to Congress from an upstate district when she was just 30 as the prototype of the Republican Establishment, she has since become one of Trump’s most ardent supporters in Washington, racing to be the first member of Congress to endorse the former president when he announced his candidacy in November 2022.

    Now she’s one of the top figures in the favorite Washington parlor game of trying to pick who Trump will select as vice-president. It’s the last real suspense in American politics in a presidential race where Trump has all but sown up the Republican nomination and incumbent Joe Biden has only faced nominal opposition in his reelection bid.

    After she spoke in the cavernous hotel conference room on Friday, Stefanik was mobbed. Reporters, attendees, everyone wanted to see her, get a quote from her, get a selfie with her. After finishing a Newsmax interview, and she worked her way slowly the talk-show hosts who had camped out at the event. An NBC News reporter’s question about Alabama’s ban on IVF was left unacknowledged in the maelstrom but Stefanik eventually answered it by saying, “Like President Trump, I strongly support IVF.”

    Joe Casais, an attendee from New Jersey, praised Stefanik as a successor to Trump. “I feel like when you want someone who’s gonna step into the role. Are they still gonna fight back the way Trump is going to fight? Or are they just gonna be a pushover and you’re gonna go back to the pre-Trump years?”

    Terry Schilling, the leader of the social-conservative group American Principles Project, gushed over Stefanik as well. “I 100 percent trust Elise Stefanik and will go to the ends of the earth to support her,” said the prominent activist who has played a leading role in pushing state legislatures to ban gender-affirming care for minors.

    For Schilling, despite whatever Stefanik had done in the pre-Trump era, “she has really stepped into her role as a conservative leader for this country, and I think she has a bright future in the Republican Party.”

    The only question now is whether that future will include being Trump’s No. 2.

    [ad_2]

    Ben Jacobs

    Source link

  • Cheney recirculates Stefanik Jan. 6 statement after she reportedly deletes it

    Cheney recirculates Stefanik Jan. 6 statement after she reportedly deletes it

    [ad_1]

    Former No. 3 House Republican Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) recirculated Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-N.Y.) statement on the Jan. 6 Capitol attack after the current House GOP Conference Chair reportedly deleted it off her website.

    On Tuesday, Cheney shared on X, formerly known as Twitter, a link to Stefanik’s now-deleted statement about Jan. 6.

    After sharing Stefanik’s statement, it was deleted from the New York congresswoman’s page, which now only displays the “ERROR” message.

    On Saturday morning, Cheney posted on X that she was informed that Stefanik deleted her statement about Jan. 6 where she called for the Jan. 6 perpetrators to be prosecuted “to the fullest extent of the law.” Cheney also shared the screenshot of Stefanik’s statement.

    In her statement on the Capitol riot, Stefanik characterized the violence as “anti-American” and called it a “tragic.”

    “This is truly a tragic day for America,” Stefanik said in the statement on Jan. 6, 2021. “I fully condemn the dangerous violence and destruction that occurred today at the United States Capitol. Americans have a Constitutional right to protest and freedom of speech, but violence in any form is absolutely unacceptable and anti-American. The perpetrators of this un-American violence and destruction must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

    Stefanik has since changed the way she describes those who stormed the Capitol.

    During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in early January, she stated she had “concerns about the treatment of Jan. 6 hostages.”

    Cheney, who was one of the lawmakers leading the probe into investigating the Capitol attack, recently called Stefanik a “total crackpot.” The former Wyoming congresswoman has been a staunch critic of former President Trump and allies who promoted false claims about the 2020 election that President Biden won.

    She has also called Stefanik’s labeling of Jan. 6 rioters a “disgrace” and “outrageous.”

    For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elise Stefanik’s Trump Audition

    Elise Stefanik’s Trump Audition

    [ad_1]

    Elise Stefanik and I had been speaking for only about a minute when she offered this stark self-assessment: “I have been an exceptional member of Congress.”

    Her confidence reminded me of the many immodest pronouncements of Donald Trump (“I would give myself an A+”), and that’s probably not an accident. Stefanik has been everywhere lately, amassing fans among Trump’s base at a crucial moment—both for the GOP and for her future.

    Stefanik spent October presiding over the leaderless House GOP’s search for a new speaker—a post that Stefanik, the chair of the conference, conspicuously declined to seek for herself. In a congressional hearing last month, she pressed three of America’s most prominent university presidents to say whether they’d allow students to call for Jewish genocide; directly or indirectly, her interrogation brought down two of them. And for the past several weeks, Stefanik has been making an enthusiastic case for Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

    She campaigned with him in New Hampshire last weekend, defending his mental acuity in the face of obvious gaffes (“President Trump has not lost a step,” she insisted) and rejecting a jury’s conclusion that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll. She parrots his baseless claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and that the defendants charged with storming the Capitol to keep him in office are “hostages.” After a GOP congressional candidate was caught on tape mildly criticizing Trump, Stefanik publicly withdrew her endorsement. Barely an hour after the networks declared Trump the winner of the Iowa caucus—before Iowans had even finished voting—she issued a statement calling on his remaining opponents to drop out of the race.

    I spoke with Stefanik about her fierce defense of Trump, which has won her praise from the former president. In New Hampshire, he called her “brilliant” and lauded her questioning of the university presidents as “surgical.” (He did, however, butcher her name.) Just about everyone can see that Stefanik has been mounting an elaborate audition. The 39-year-old clearly didn’t pass up a bid for House speaker because she lacks ambition. On the contrary, she seems to have a bigger promotion in mind: not second in line to the presidency, but first. In our conversation, Stefanik didn’t make much effort to dispel the perception that she wants to be Trump’s running mate. “I’d be honored to serve in any capacity in the Trump administration,” she told me, repeating a line she’s used before.

    Her displays of fealty aside, Stefanik has a lot going for her. She has become, without question, the most powerful Republican in New York, where her prodigious fundraising helped give the GOP a majority. Stefanik’s House GOP colleagues say she is extremely smart, and she still draws compliments for her behind-the-scenes role during last fall’s speakership crisis, when she ran a tense and seemingly endless series of closed-door conference meetings. Whether or not her declining to run for speaker was tied to the vice presidency, it was politically shrewd. “It didn’t work out well for most others,” joked Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, who briefly served as acting speaker and similarly turned down a chance to win the job permanently. “She saw the writing on the wall,” a fellow New York Republican, Representative Andrew Garbarino, told me. “She was smart enough to say, ‘I’m not popping my head up only to get it chopped off.’”

    The fervor that Stefanik brings to her Trump defense has made her a favorite for VP among some of his staunchest allies, including Steve Bannon, who remains a force in MAGA world. “She’s a show horse and a workhorse, and that in and of itself is pretty extraordinary in modern American politics,” Bannon told me. “She’s at, if not the top, very close to the top of the list.”

    Stefanik may not be subtle, but she’s made herself relevant in a party still devoted to Trump. Her future success now depends on his—and whether he rewards her loyalty with the prize she so clearly wants.

    Stefanik routinely boasts that she was the first member of Congress to endorse Trump’s reelection. That’s true as far as 2024 goes, but it neatly obscures the fact that she did not back his primary campaign in 2016. Nor did she show much support for Trump’s movement as it took root in the GOP.

    After graduating from Harvard, Stefanik began her political career in the George W. Bush White House and later served as an aide to Paul Ryan during his vice-presidential run. In 2014, at age 30, she was elected to the House—the youngest woman ever elected to Congress at the time—and carved out a reputation as a moderate in both policy and tone. She made an abrupt turn toward Trumpism during the former president’s first impeachment hearings, in 2019, and eagerly backed his reelection the following year. In 2021, she replaced the ousted Trump critic Representative Liz Cheney as conference chair, making her the fourth-ranking Republican in the House.

    Not one for public introspection, Stefanik has never fully explained her transformation into a Trump devotee beyond saying she was impressed by his policies as president. The simplest answer is that she followed the will of her upstate–New York constituents, who came to embrace Trump after favoring Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. “I reflect, I would say, the voters in my district,” she told me shortly before the 2020 election.

    To say that Stefanik displays the zeal of a convert doesn’t do justice to the phrase. She has become one of Trump’s foremost defenders and enforcers in Congress. At first “it was surprising,” former Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican colleague of Stefanik’s for eight years, told me of her Trump pivot. “Now it’s just gross.”

    Kinzinger and Stefanik had both served as leaders of a group of moderate House Republicans, but they took opposite paths during the Trump years. Kinzinger voted to impeach Trump after January 6 and left Congress two years later. “In her core, she’s a deep opportunist and has put her personal ambition over what she knows is good for the country,” Kinzinger said. Although Stefanik has been in Trump’s corner for more than four years now, Kinzinger said she “has ramped up her sycophancy” as the chances of Trump’s renomination—and the possibility of her serving on the national ticket—have come more fully into view.

    Close allies of Stefanik naturally dispute this characterization; they told me that although they think she’d make an excellent vice president, she has not once brought up the topic with them. “He’s going to have great options, but Elise will be at the top of that list,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise told me. When I asked Stefanik whether she was campaigning to be on Trump’s ticket, she replied: “I’m focused on doing my job.”

    Other contenders frequently mentioned as possible Trump running mates include South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem; Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who served as one of Trump’s White House press secretaries; Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina; and the businessman Vivek Ramaswamy.

    One senior Republican who is friendly with both Stefanik and Trump lauded her leadership skills and political acumen but doubted that Trump would pick her. “She doesn’t have executive experience,” the Republican told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about Stefanik’s chances. A Trump-campaign spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

    Even as they praise her, Stefanik allies occasionally describe her in ways that suggest she lacks authenticity. “She’s a highly intelligent, calculated individual,” Chris Tague, a Republican in the New York legislature, told me. Representative Marc Molinaro, a member of New York’s House delegation, described Stefanik as “a calming force” inside a House Republican conference often marred by infighting. When I noted that this characterization seemed to be at odds with her combative style in public, Molinaro explained that Stefanik’s “outward persona” helps her keep the conference from getting out of hand. “We all know Elise. She’s strong. She’s tough,” he said. “She didn’t need to be that person, because we know she can be that person.”

    Still, Kinzinger said, unlike some Republicans in Congress, Stefanik does not speak differently about Trump in private than she does in public. “I got that wink and nod from a lot of people, not from her,” he said. “She’s smart enough to know that if she says something in private, it could get out.”

    Stefanik is also smart enough, Kinzinger told me, to understand that Trump’s claims about the 2020 election, which she now recites, are not true. “She knows the drill,” he said. “She would say exactly what I would say if she had the freedom to do it, but she’s all in.”

    To interview Stefanik is to strike a sort of deal: access in exchange for browbeating. She answered my questions even as she rebuked me for asking about such trifling matters as election denialism and January 6. “Everyday Americans are sick and tired of the biased media, including you, Russell, and the types of questions you’re asking,” Stefanik told me. I started to ask her about her recent appearance on Meet the Press, where she had casually referred to the January 6 defendants as “hostages”—an unsubtle echo of Trump’s language. The comment prompted a predictable round of shocked-but-not-surprised reactions from Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans. A New York Democrat, Representative Dan Goldman, introduced a resolution to censure Stefanik over the remark.

    Even though Stefanik made a show of protesting my line of inquiry, she beat me to the question. I had barely uttered “Meet the Press … ” before she started speaking over me: “I know—you’re so predictable—what you’re going to ask. You’re going to ask about the January 6 hostages.” Bingo. Without missing a beat, Stefanik proceeded to read aloud snippets from New York Times and NPR reports about poor conditions and alleged mistreatment of inmates charged with January 6 crimes. “The American people are smart. They see through this,” she said. “They know that there is a double standard of justice in this country.”

    Stefanik was trying to argue that these news reports justified her use of a term usually reserved for victims of terrorism. The specifics of the reports weren’t really the point. More than anything, she seemed to want to demonstrate that, like Trump, she wouldn’t back down or apologize. She sounded almost cheerful, like a happy warrior for Trump—his pugnacious defender who would engage with the biased mainstream media without giving in to them, without conceding a single premise or hemming and hawing through an interview.

    Stefanik was riding high in MAGA world when we spoke. Her Meet the Press appearance was “a master class,” Bannon told me. In addition to the “hostages” line, she refused to commit to certifying the 2024 election, generating outrage that only added to the performance. “This is what we’re thinking. This is us. This is who we are,” Susan McNeil, a GOP county chair in Stefanik’s district, told me, referring to Stefanik’s comments about certification. “Do I trust this election right now? No.”

    “For her to stand strong and make those statements? Good. You’re not being bullied,” McNeil continued. “You’re not gonna get pressured to cave in to saying something that you’re not ready to dignify with an answer yet.”

    Stefanik has no interest in appearing humble or self-deprecating. When I brought up the Meet the Press interview, she used the same word that Bannon had to describe her performance. “It was a master class in pushing back” against the media, she told me, “and it has been widely hailed.”

    Cooperating with this story, like appearing on the D.C. establishment’s favorite talk show, seemed to be part of Stefanik’s unofficial, unacknowledged audition for VP. It was a low-risk bet. A positive portrayal might impress the media-conscious Trump. If, on the other hand, she didn’t like how the piece turned out, she could hold it up to Trump supporters as confirmation that the press has it out for them. Stefanik’s team lined up nearly a dozen local and national validators to speak with me, including Bannon, Scalise, and Representative James Comer, who heads the committee leading the Biden-impeachment inquiry.

    Trump clearly prizes loyalty above just about anything else. Mike Pence displayed that quality in spades, until suddenly, at the most climactic moment of Trump’s presidency, he did not. To test whether Stefanik’s allegiance had a limit, I asked whether a Trump conviction for any of the crimes with which he’s been charged would affect her support in any way. “No,” she replied without hesitation. “It’s a witch hunt by the Department of Justice. I believe Joe Biden is the most corrupt president not just in modern history, but in the history of our country.”

    Stefanik was more circumspect when I asked her what she would have done differently from Pence had she been responsible, as vice president, for presiding over the certification of Electoral College ballots on January 6. Trump had pressured Pence to throw out ballots from states where he was contesting the vote. Pence had refused. Given Stefanik’s apparent interest in Pence’s old job, it seemed relevant.

    At first, she dodged the question by claiming that the election was rigged and referring to a speech she delivered on the House floor in the early hours of January 7, when she voted against certifying Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania. But that speech was worded far more carefully than the outright claims of fraud that Stefanik makes today. Back then, she couched her objections as representing the views of her “concerned” constituents. She didn’t say the election was stolen, nor did she say what action Pence should have taken.

    When I pressed her on Pence’s decision not to intervene and what she would have done, Stefanik replied simply, “I disagreed, and I believe it was an unconstitutional election.” She would go no further than that.

    At some point over the next several months, Stefanik’s dual roles as Trump booster and protector of the vanishing House majority could come into conflict. She has made clear that she wants Republicans to unify around Trump, and sooner rather than later. Control of the House, however, might well be determined in her deep-blue state, where the nation’s most vulnerable Republicans represent districts that Trump lost in 2020. Embracing Trump this fall could cost some of them their seats.

    Now the longest-serving Republican in the New York delegation, Stefanik serves as a mentor for several of the state’s more recent arrivals to the House. She has helped get them seats on desired committees, and, during the speaker battle in October, she arranged for the various candidates to sit for interviews with the delegation. But Stefanik has also worked to keep them in line.

    “She’s not afraid to be blunt,” Garbarino said, recalling times when Stefanik chastised him for a public statement she didn’t like. Her message? “We don’t have to do everything publicly,” Garbarino said. “Sometimes it’s better if you say this stuff behind the scenes to somebody instead of smacking them in the face publicly about it.”

    Stefanik has taken the lead in fighting Democratic attempts to gerrymander New York in their favor, part of an effort to reclaim the House majority. (A recent state-court ruling didn’t help her cause.) To that end, she is working to ensure that none of the state’s GOP House members tries to save their own seat at the party’s expense or says anything in public that could undermine a potential Republican legal challenge. “She’s cracking the whip,” one Republican strategist in the state told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

    Stefanik’s toughest task, though, might be getting her colleagues to support Trump. Two swing-district Republicans in New York, Representatives Nick LaLota and Brandon Williams, have endorsed Trump as he easily captured the first two primary states. But others in the delegation have yet to heed Stefanik’s call. In interviews, a few of them seemed hesitant even to utter his name. “I have avoided presidential politics, and Elise has always respected that,” Molinaro told me. As for Trump, he would say only, “I intend to support the presidential nominee.”

    Garbarino used almost exactly the same words when I asked about the presidential race. Two other New York Republicans in districts that Biden won, Representatives Mike Lawler and Anthony D’Esposito, declined interview requests. When I asked Stefanik if they would back Trump, she offered a guarantee: “They’re going to support President Trump, who will be the nominee, as Republicans will across the country.”

    Privately, Stefanik has delivered an additional message to vulnerable Republicans in New York, according to several people I spoke with. “Stefanik has been very clear to not attack President Trump,” the GOP strategist said. “Everyone knows that in New York.” As Stefanik sees it, criticizing Trump would hurt even swing-district Republicans, because the MAGA base is now a sizable constituency in districts that Biden carried. Still, other House leaders haven’t exerted nearly as much public pressure on rank-and-file Republicans. “We all each individually take different approaches to growing our majority,” Scalise told me. “I don’t tell anybody how to manage their politics back home.”

    As Stefanik’s profile has grown, and as her rhetoric has become even Trumpier, Democrats have sought to turn her into a political liability for swing-district Republicans, just as they have the former president. After Stefanik’s “hostages” comment, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who also hails from New York, said that Stefanik “should be ashamed of herself.”

    But then he pivoted to a political angle. “The real question,” Jeffries told reporters, “is why haven’t House Republicans in New York, like Mike Lawler or others, denounced Elise Stefanik, and why do they continue to rely on her fundraising support in order to try to fool the voters in New York and pretend like they believe in moderation?” None of the New York Republicans took the bait, choosing to remain silent rather than cross Stefanik. (“I didn’t see the clip,” Garbarino told me, in one characteristic dodge.)

    Stefanik clearly welcomes these attacks. In the MAGA world she now inhabits, enraging Democrats is the coin of the realm. Taking their fire only pushes her closer to the place she really wants to be: at Trump’s side.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Trump Shuts Down The Idea Of A Vice President Nikki Haley

    Trump Shuts Down The Idea Of A Vice President Nikki Haley

    [ad_1]

    But another Republican woman might be in the running.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harvard President Warns Of A ‘Broader War’ Against ‘Pillars Of American Society’

    Harvard President Warns Of A ‘Broader War’ Against ‘Pillars Of American Society’

    [ad_1]

    Claudine Gay ― the Harvard University president who announced her resignation this week amid a right-wing campaign accusing her of antisemitism and plagiarism ― said Thursday that her ouster is part of a “broader war” to undermine public faith in the “pillars of American society” like academia.

    Gay, who was Harvard’s first Black president and also serves as a professor of government and African American studies, penned an op-ed in The New York Times two days after she sent a letter to the Harvard community announcing she would step down as president and remain part of the faculty.

    “For weeks, both I and the institution to which I’ve devoted my professional life have been under attack,” she wrote in the Times. “My character and intelligence have been impugned. My commitment to fighting antisemitism has been questioned. My inbox has been flooded with invective, including death threats. I’ve been called the N-word more times than I care to count.”

    “My hope is that by stepping down I will deny demagogues the opportunity to further weaponize my presidency in their campaign to undermine the ideals animating Harvard since its founding: excellence, openness, independence, truth,” she continued.

    Claudine Gay of Harvard University testifies before the House education and workforce committee on Dec. 5 in Washington, D.C.

    Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images

    Gay’s resignation came after weeks of pressure on the university to punish the president for not directly answering a question from Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) about whether calls on campus for the genocide of Jewish students ― or even the use of controversial pro-Palestinian expressions like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” ― would violate Harvard’s rules.

    Gay, along with two other university presidents, said in a congressional hearing that the acceptability of any on-campus speech regarding the violence in Gaza would depend on the context. The remarks by the various presidents drew an immediate firestorm of criticism.

    In her op-ed, Gay acknowledged that she has “made mistakes,” citing her initial response to the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas militants against Israel. She wrote that during the congressional hearing, she should have condemned antisemitic behavior more forcefully. The Harvard Corporation, the school’s governing board, supported Gay during the controversy by saying she was defending the university’s academic freedom.

    More recently, Gay ― who was president for less than a year ― came under fire after right-wing voices accused her of plagiarizing other scholars in her own peer-reviewed academic writings on the significance of people from marginalized communities holding office in American politics.

    According to Gay, her research found that “when historically marginalized communities gain a meaningful voice in the halls of power, it signals an open door where before many saw only barriers,” resulting in a strengthened democracy.

    Harvard acknowledged some instances of inadequate citation in Gay’s work, but said that she quickly corrected them. Gay said the process of correcting duplications was “consistent with how I have seen similar faculty cases handled at Harvard.”

    “I have never misrepresented my research findings, nor have I ever claimed credit for the research of others,” she wrote on Thursday. “Moreover, the citation errors should not obscure a fundamental truth: I proudly stand by my work and its impact on the field.”

    The resignation makes Gay’s tenure the shortest of any Harvard president, and comes at a time when academic institutions increasingly face threats of censorship from mostly right-wing figures who seek to stifle speech from people who come from marginalized backgrounds.

    “It is not lost on me that I make an ideal canvas for projecting every anxiety about the generational and demographic changes unfolding on American campuses: a Black woman selected to lead a storied institution,” Gay wrote. She urged the public to be “more skeptical than ever of the loudest and most extreme voices in our culture.”

    The outgoing president also said that the campaign to push her out of her role was “merely a single skirmish in a broader war to unravel public faith in pillars of American society.”

    “Campaigns of this kind often start with attacks on education and expertise, because these are the tools that best equip communities to see through propaganda,” she wrote. “But such campaigns don’t end there. Trusted institutions of all types ― from public health agencies to news organizations ― will continue to fall victim to coordinated attempts to undermine their legitimacy and ruin their leaders’ credibility.”

    You can read Gay’s full op-ed here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Claudine Gay To Stay On As Harvard President Despite Disastrous Congressional Testimony On Anti-Semitism

    Claudine Gay To Stay On As Harvard President Despite Disastrous Congressional Testimony On Anti-Semitism

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Source: CBS Boston YouTube

    Harvard has announced that Claudine Gay will be staying on as president of the university despite her disastrous testimony before Congress last week in which she claimed that calling for the genocide of Jews would only violate her school’s bullying and harassment policies “depending on the context.”

    Harvard Board Stands By Gay

    CNN reported that after deliberating on Monday night, the school’s board known as the Harvard Corporation decided to allow Gay, who has been touted as the school’s first black president, to keep her position despite widespread calls for her removal in the wake of her testimony.

    “As members of the Harvard Corporation, we today reaffirm our support for President Gay’s continued leadership of Harvard University,” read a statement signed by all board members, with the exception of Gay. “Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.”

    “So many people have suffered tremendous damage and pain because of Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack, and the University’s initial statement should have been an immediate, direct, and unequivocal condemnation,” the board continued. “Calls for genocide are despicable and contrary to fundamental human values. President Gay has apologized for how she handled her congressional testimony and has committed to redoubling the University’s fight against antisemitism.”

    Related: Dr. Phil Rips U.S. Colleges As ‘Liberal Woke Hotbeds Fostering’ Antisemitism

    Rep. Elise Stefanik Fires Back

    House GOP Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has already fired back by blasting Harvard’s board for its “complete moral failure” in standing by Gay.

    “There is a reason why the testimony at the Education Workforce Committee garnered 1 billion views worldwide, and it’s because those university presidents made history by putting the most morally bankrupt testimony into the Congressional Record, and the world saw it,” Stefanik said, according to Fox News. “As a Harvard graduate, I’m reminded of Harvard’s motto, Veritas, which goes back – and it’s older than the founding of our country, it goes back to the 1640s. In addition, the motto was Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae – Truth for Christ and the Church.”

    “Larry Summers, who was president of Harvard when I was an undergrad, talked about the meaning of Veritas is divine truth, moral truth. Let me be clear. Veritas does not depend on the context,” Stefanik said. “This is a moral failure of Harvard’s leadership and higher education leadership at the highest levels, and the only change they have made to their code of conduct, where they failed to condemn calls for genocide of the Jewish people, the only update to the code of conduct is to allow a plagiarist as the president of Harvard.”

    New York Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman also blasted Harvard for keeping Gay on as president, arguing that the school is not doing enough to protect its students from the rise of antisemitism on college campuses.

    “If they are unable to enforce their code of conduct, then they either need to get a new code of conduct or they need to get a new president,” Goldman said. “I hope there is a significant change at Harvard if Dr. Gay is going to stay.”

    Related: Virulent Antisemitism And The Rot At Our Universities

    University Of Pennsylvania President Resigns

    Liz Magill, who also testified before Congress last week, resigned as president of the University of Pennsylvania over the weekend after she received similar backlash to Gay.

    “It has been my privilege to serve as President of this remarkable institution. It has been an honor to work with our faculty, students, staff, alumni, and community members to advance Penn’s vital missions,” Magill said in a brief statement, according to NPR.

    “One down. Two to go,” Stefanik wrote on social media afterwards, referring to Gay and MIT President Sally Kornbluth. “In the case of @Harvard, President Gay was asked by me 17x whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s code of conduct. She spoke her truth 17x. And the world heard.”

    Daily Mail reported that in the wake of Gay’s testimony, Harvard has lost a staggering $1 billion in donations. Gay’s school board may be standing by her, but she is facing an uphill battle when it comes to winning back the respect of many members of the Harvard community, given how many calls came in for her firing.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    [ad_2]

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • Hundreds Of Harvard Faculty Defend President After Backlash Over Antisemitism Comments

    Hundreds Of Harvard Faculty Defend President After Backlash Over Antisemitism Comments

    [ad_1]

    Hundreds of faculty at Harvard University have signed a letter showing support for their president, who is facing a potential ouster after she and other college leaders came under fire for their comments during a congressional hearing on antisemitism.

    As of Sunday afternoon, more than 500 faculty members signed the letter to Harvard Corporation urging it to resist calls to remove Claudine Gay from her title as the university’s president. The Corporation, which is Harvard’s top governing body, met on Sunday with the university’s Board of Overseers, according to The Harvard Crimson.

    On Tuesday, Gay joined University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill and Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth to testify at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. During a heated exchange between the presidents and Rep. Elise Stefanik, the New York Republican asked whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their universities’ codes of conduct.

    Whether such calls violate university policies “depends on the context,” Gay answered. “When it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.”

    “I’ve sought to confront hate while preserving free expression,” she said. “This is difficult work, and I know that I have not always gotten it right.”

    (Left to right) Dr. Claudine Gay, president of Harvard University, Liz Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Pamela Nadell, professor of history and Jewish studies at American University, and Dr. Sally Kornbluth, president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testify before the House on Dec. 5.

    Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images

    Magill and Kornbluth gave similar responses to Stefanik, leading the exchange to go viral and cause widespread backlash over the presidents’ soft answers. All three college presidents repeatedly condemned antisemitism during the hearing, but their remarks on whether some pro-Palestinian phrases would qualify as harassment of Jewish people still sparked outrage.

    On Friday, Stefanik released a letter signed by 70 mostly Republican members of Congress that called for the college leaders’ removal. Magill apologized for her comments and stepped down from her position on Saturday.

    MIT’s governing board released a statement on Thursday announcing its “full and unreserved support” for Kornbluth, who the board says “has done excellent work in leading our community, including in addressing antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hate, all of which we reject utterly at MIT.”

    Gay apologized for her testimony on Friday, saying “words matter.”

    “I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures,” she told the Crimson.

    “What I should have had the presence of mind to do in that moment was return to my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community — threats to our Jewish students — have no place at Harvard, and will never go unchallenged.”

    The letter signed by Harvard faculty asks the Corporation to “defend the independence of the university” and “resist political pressures” that don’t align with the college’s commitment to academic freedom.

    “The critical work of defending a culture of free inquiry in our diverse community cannot proceed if we let its shape be dictated by outside forces,” read the letter, obtained by the Crimson and The Boston Globe.

    Stefanik, who previously sponsored legislation to protect freedom of expression on college campuses, tweeted in response to the letter that the signatories made “stunningly selfish claims.”

    “What a truly sad and deplorable state of affairs for the faculty and administration of our most ‘esteemed’ institutions of higher learning when instead of focusing on protecting the safety and security of Jewish students under historic antisemitic attacks with a crystal clear condemning of calls for genocide of Jews, they are instead obsessively focused on their dislike and entitled disdain for those with opposing political beliefs,” the lawmaker continued.

    Jewish, Muslim and Arab Americans are facing heightened tensions amid Israel’s bombardment of Gaza following an Oct. 7 attack by Hamas. Since the attack, the Education Department launched an investigation into several universities — including Harvard, UPenn and MIT — over reports of the rise of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents.

    The Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee said calls for Gay’s ouster are based on the mischaracterization of pro-Palestine students’ views on the violence, and of chants supporting Palestinian liberation. In her questioning during the hearing, Stefanik made clear that she was equating such chants with calls for genocide of Jews.

    “The voices calling for her to resign are the same ones that supported the doxxing, targeting, and harassment of Palestinian, Black, brown, Arab, Muslim, and Jewish community members who speak up about the genocide in Gaza,” the committee told The Globe.

    Jason Furman, an economics professor at Harvard, defended Gay on Twitter while adding that the university needs to do more to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia.

    “I really hope we don’t let donors & politicians dictate who leads our school,” he wrote. “Claudine Gay denounced calling for genocide before the hearing. She denounced it in the hearing. And she denounced it after the hearing.”

    IfNotNow, a Jewish American group that focuses on Palestinian liberation, said on Monday that the hearing “was not a serious discussion about antisemitism” and served as a “political stunt designed” to quell criticism of the Israeli government.

    “It is shocking that members of Congress are choosing to focus hearings, resolutions, and bills on student activists who hold little influence in government rather than holding powerful Israeli officials accountable for over 17,000 civilian deaths in Gaza,” spokesperson Eva Borgwardt said in a statement, adding that Stefanik herself has endorsed the antisemitic “great replacement” theory.

    “The silence from Democrats and university presidents and refusal to offer any context for why students might be angry about the war in Gaza helped Republicans and war hawks in their chief goal,” Borgwardt continued. “To do anything to make Americans look away from the bombs dropping on tens of thousands of civilians — which are being made in the U.S. and funded with our tax dollars.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top University Presidents Face Backlash After Viral Comments On Antisemitism

    Top University Presidents Face Backlash After Viral Comments On Antisemitism

    [ad_1]

    Facing backlash from members of Congress and even the White House, the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania released statements Wednesday clarifying their schools’ positions on the limits of free speech on campus as the war in Gaza continues.

    The day before, a congressional hearing about campus antisemitism had yielded a viral clip of university leaders prevaricating on whether calls for the genocide of Jewish people would violate student conduct codes.

    The conversation was complicated by the fact that some consider certain pro-Palestinian terms and phrases, like “intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” as advocating for the genocide of Jews. However, many academics and Palestinian rights advocates have challenged that argument.

    When pressed on whether such chants would constitute unacceptable bullying and harassment, the presidents of Harvard, UPenn and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said their universities’ responses would depend on the context of the language, including whether it was targeted and pervasive.

    Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) ― who in the past has sponsored legislation to protect freedom of expression on college campuses ― made clear during her questioning of the university leaders that she was referring to such chants. Stefanik pushed back on MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, who said she hadn’t heard calls for the genocide of Jews on campus. “You’ve heard chants for intifada,” Stefanik responded.

    Stefanik also pressed Harvard President Claudine Gay on the term.

    “You understand that this call for intifada is a call to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct?” she asked.

    “That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me,” Gay responded, adding that it was “at odds with the values of Harvard.” But she maintained that “we embrace a commitment to expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful.”

    Outrage ensued ― even though the university leaders condemned antisemitism repeatedly throughout the four-hour hearing, and even though each of the schools has established initiatives against antisemitism in recent weeks.

    “It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: Calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement. And Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) referred to UPenn President Liz Magill’s testimony as a failure of leadership, urging the university’s board to meet and determine whether her remarks “represent the values” of the school.

    Within a day, two of Tuesday’s congressional witnesses had released statements stating they would “clarify” their rules, or that anyone who threatened Jewish students would be held “accountable.”

    “There was a moment during yesterday’s congressional hearing on antisemitism when I was asked if a call for the genocide of Jewish people on our campus would violate our policies,” Magill said in a video message Wednesday.

    “In that moment, I was focused on our University’s longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable,” she went on. “I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It’s evil — plain and simple.”

    Magill said that a call for genocide of Jews would constitute harassment and intimidation in her view, and that Penn’s conduct policies, which for decades have been “guided by the Constitution and the law,” would now “need to be clarified and evaluated.”

    Gay put out a statement on Wednesday as well.

    “There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students,” Gay said. “Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.”

    Kornbluth, MIT’s president, does not appear to have addressed the backlash from this week’s hearing.

    Instances of antisemitism on college campuses, and elsewhere around the country, have increased in the weeks since Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, and Israel’s subsequent air strikes and ground invasion of the Gaza Strip.

    But free speech advocates have warned that the crackdown on speech critical of Israel risks chilling free and open debate on college campuses. Jewish students at Penn are facing potential disciplinary consequences after screening “Israelism” ― a film produced by a Jewish crew that follows Jewish Americans as they reevaluate their relationship to Zionism ― over objections from administrators.

    And pro-Palestinian activists at Harvard told HuffPost that they felt abandoned by university leadership after a pro-Israel group accused them of antisemitism and displayed their names and faces on a billboard box truck that drove around campus.

    Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told The New York Times that the university presidents’ comments at Tuesday’s hearings were “legally correct” and that “it does depend on context.”

    But Creeley said he was frustrated that the presidents appeared to “discover free speech scruples while under fire at a congressional hearing.” (Harvard and Penn ranked worst and second-worst on FIRE’s college rankings this year for “open environments for free speech,” though some students on both campuses objected to parts of the group’s analysis. MIT ranked near the middle of the list.)

    Others criticized what they called the “demagoguery” from Stefanik.

    Jay Michaelson, a rabbi and Daily Beast correspondent, noted the contentious debate over the definition of calls for genocide. “There is no ‘Yes or No’ answer to this question, because the answer depends on the context,” he argued, referring to Stefanik’s line of questioning.

    “What about when someone makes a statement in a classroom or a college lecture? If someone insists, in a classroom discussion, that Israel as a country is an illegitimate colonial outpost and should be ‘wiped off the map’?” Michaelson wrote. “That sounds like a political statement to me, not an act of bullying or intimidation. But if a mob marches into a Shabbat service and shouts the same slogan, then that’s clearly harassment and in violation of the policy. Context matters.”

    Stefanik has called for Magill’s ouster as Penn’s president. Michaelson concluded: “It’s cancel culture when it’s me, but not when it’s thee.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House to take up Israel aid package Thursday

    House to take up Israel aid package Thursday

    [ad_1]

    The House will take up Republicans’ standalone Israel aid bill Thursday afternoon, with Democrats firmly opposed to passing aid for Israel in a measure separate from aid to Ukraine and other national security interests.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said he’ll bring the bill to the floor on Tuesday. The supplemental aid package for Israel would offer $14.3 billion in aid for its fight against Hamas, a sum that would be taken from IRS funding. But the Congressional Budget Office says this would in fact increase the deficit because that IRS funding was designated for enforcement actions against tax cheats.

    “Israel doesn’t need a cease-fire,” Johnson told reporters Thursday. “It needs its allies to cease with the politics and deliver support now. And that’s what we’re doing.” President Biden had said Wednesday he thought there should be a humanitarian “pause” in the Israel-Hamas war, after his campaign speech was interrupted by a protester calling for a cease-fire. “I think we need a pause,” which he said would “give time to get the prisoners out.”

    Meanwhile, House Democratic leaders sent a notice to their caucus Tuesday recommending that members vote “no” on the Israel supplemental bill. 

    They told their caucus that the bill “breaks from longstanding bipartisan precedent by offsetting the appropriated funds by rescinding $14.3 billion previously appropriated by the Inflation Reduction Act to the Internal Revenue Service.”

    Democrats expressed concern that approving the GOP’s bill could set a precedent that would raise “unnecessary barriers to future aid in the event of a security emergency.” 

    Senate Democrats have also been railing against House Republicans’ proposal, and if it passes the House, the measure unlikely to receive a vote in the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has more than once called the House bill a “joke.” 

    “Speaker Johnson and House Republicans released a totally unserious and woefully inadequate package that omitted aid to Ukraine, omitted humanitarian assistance to Gaza, no funding for the Indo-Pacific, and made funding for Israel conditional on hard-right, never-going-to-pass proposals,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Wednesday. 

    President Biden has also threatened to veto the House bill. The White House asked Congress for a $105 billion supplemental aid package that included funding for Israel, Ukraine and other national security-related issues.

    “If the president were presented with this bill, he would veto it,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy.  

    Rep. Elise Stefanik, the GOP conference chair, blasted Mr. Biden over the veto threat. 

    “We proudly stand with Israel instead of Joe Biden’s army of IRS agents and shame on Joe Biden for threatening to veto this critical Israel aid package,” she said Thursday.

    The House is expected to vote late Thursday afternoon. 

    Ellis Kim contributed to this report 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    [ad_1]

    Newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The Onion asked House Republicans why they unanimously selected an election denier as their leader, and this is what they said.

    Rep. ​Ron Estes (R-KS)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “Our two-party system of government works best when one party accepts election results and the other doesn’t.”

    Rep. George Santos (R-NY)

    Rep. George Santos (R-NY)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “Lord knows I’ve been asking my colleagues to overlook some shit.”

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “Why would I abandon the strategy that got me this far?”

    Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “As the representative of a grossly gerrymandered district, I kind of forgot elections were a thing.”

    Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “It seems like he never recovered from his parents’ divorce, so I thought the speakership might cheer him up.”

    Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “That’s not fair. A lot of my colleagues voted for me because of how much I hate gays.”

    Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)

    Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “If America didn’t want us empowering election deniers they would have voted the right way and not forced our hand.”

    Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

    Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “Because I’m going to be raking in seven figures lobbying for Wal-Mart by next year so who gives a fuck.”

    Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “Anything’s better than that cuck Paul Gosar taking charge.”

    Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “He said I could use the speaker’s office when he goes home for the night.”

    Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “He had the little ‘R’ next to his name.”

    Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)

    Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “How are we supposed to deny the results of the next election if we don’t have a speaker?”

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “My entire existence is centered around not making Donald Trump mad.”

    Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “We need to make Mr. Trump feel good. I mean, look at him: He’s mad all the time. Like, all the time! Don’t you just want to do something nice for a big ol’ grinch like that?”

    Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)

    Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “The beautiful thing about elections is that they’re subjective, like a work of art. They’re not determined by who had the most votes, but by which candidate spoke most eloquently to your heart.”

    Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)

    Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “At the end of the day, we all just want what’s best for our wealthiest constituents.”

    Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)

    Image for article titled Republicans Explain Why They Support An Election Denier As House Speaker

    “Because we’re laying groundwork to steal the next election. Was that not clear?”

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Ohio State Wrestler Eviscerates GOP Rep.’s ‘Fighter’ Praise For Jim Jordan

    Ex-Ohio State Wrestler Eviscerates GOP Rep.’s ‘Fighter’ Praise For Jim Jordan

    [ad_1]

    Former Ohio State University wrestler Will Knight on Tuesday tore down the characterization of speaker nominee Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as a “fighter.” (Watch the video below.)

    Fellow Trumper Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) used the term in a speech nominating Jordan before he failed to get enough votes for the speaker’s gavel.

    The glowing reference to his time on the “wrestling mat” drew audible gasps in the House, presumably because Jordan’s stint as an assistant coach at Ohio State included accusations that he overlooked the allegations of sexual abuse of team members by school doctor Richard Strauss.

    Knight was one of the athletes who said he was molested, and he wasn’t impressed by Stefanik’s praise for the Ohio congressman, which CNN’s Abby Phillip replayed for him.

    “The funny thing is that when people always call Jim Jordan a fighter, and I always wonder who he’s fighting for,” Knight said. ”Because he had a real opportunity to fight for us and the people that he coached and the people that he recruited at the Ohio State. And all he’s done is turn his back on us, so I don’t know what the fighter thing is. I know he used to be a fighter, I know he used to be a good wrestler, but he’s not a good fighter for anyone else that I know of.”

    Jordan fell short on the first ballot of his bid to replace Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker amid continued Republican dithering. A second vote has been slated for Wednesday.

    Knight complimented Jordan for believing in him and giving him a chance as a walk-on back in 1992. He said that while Jordan was also a staunch conservative back then, they could agree to disagree.

    But that’s not the man who’s seeking to snag the speakership, he said. “There’s people who believe in the BS that he’s spewing,” Knight added.

    “It’s just disappointing because he still has an opportunity to do right by us,” Knight said, per Mediaite. “He had an opportunity to help us out, to help us remedy this thing with Ohio State. And he chose not to do it with hundreds of athletes that he was associated with, that as a coach, you’re just supposed to help protect and mentor into manhood.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why there are more Republican women in Congress than ever before | CNN Politics

    Why there are more Republican women in Congress than ever before | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lori Chavez-DeRemer sat in the gallery of the House nearly two decades ago with her mom and her twin daughters – tourists peering down at lawmakers on the floor of the chamber.

    “I’d really love to be here someday,” the Oregon Republican recalled telling her mother, who encouraged her to think about a run. She’d recently been elected to her city council, but she had her doubts. “I said, ‘Everybody on the floor there probably has a law degree. I’m a stay-at-home mom.’”

    But Chavez-DeRemer flipped a Democratic seat in November, helping Republicans win a narrow House majority. She is now among a record 42 Republican women in Congress and one of the first two Latino members of Congress from Oregon.

    The trail she has blazed is emblematic of the progress that the Republican Party has made in electing women over the past decade – hard-fought milestones reached only after outside groups began playing a larger role in primaries.

    Still, GOP women are far from reaching parity with Democrats. Thirty-three of them will serve in the House alone this term, compared with 91 Democratic women. Though many women (and men who care about electing them) applaud a recent shift in attitude among GOP leadership and a segment of the donor class – for whom identity politics has often been anathema – long-term hurdles remain.

    Some leaders, including House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik and Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, want to see the party do more.

    That push is not just about statistics. It’s imperative as the party tries to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, including the many suburban women who abandoned the GOP after Donald Trump was elected in 2016.

    “Suburban women and independent women are going to continue to be the X factor in whether we win,” said Annie Dickerson, the founder and chair of Winning for Women, an outside group that helps elect female Republicans.

    When Erin Houchin first ran for the Indiana state Senate in 2014, she urged a few party leaders to support female candidates in primaries – especially in deep-red seats where the primary is the only competitive election.

    “The answer I got was, ‘Well, we don’t get involved in primaries. You should go see if other women will help you,’” Houchin recalled.

    After winning her race, she ran for Congress in 2016 – the only woman in a five-person primary for a safe Republican seat. The party officially stayed out; the National Republican Congressional Committee’s policy is to never take sides in primaries.

    Houchin had support from Republican women, including early backing from Value in Electing Women, or VIEW, PAC, which encouraged female members of Congress to write checks for her.

    Those checks, however, were no match for what Houchin was up against: an opponent who benefited from a big-spending super PAC that likely could have outspent her even if she had more institutional party support. Trey Hollingsworth won that primary and the general election and went on to represent the 9th District for three terms before retiring last year.

    Houchin was once again the only woman in the primary to succeed Hollingsworth out of a field of nine, but this time, she emerged the winner. She easily won the general election for a district that Trump would have carried by 27 points in 2020.

    “There were many more groups this time around that did engage,” Houchin said, praising VIEW PAC, Winning for Women and Stefanik’s leadership PAC, known as Elevate PAC or E-PAC. “That made a difference.”

    Republicans have long viewed supporting diverse candidates differently from Democrats, who were earlier to embrace building coalitions among specific demographics.

    “Some of the Republican men didn’t necessarily think that it ought to be a priority,” GOP strategist Parker Poling, the executive director of the NRCC for the 2020 cycle, said of the party’s prior attitude toward boosting female candidates.

    “I had to sell it very differently in the beginning, back in 2017,” Dickerson recalled. “And it was real work persuading donors that it wasn’t identity politics. It was really about identifying excellence.”

    Stefanik raised the alarm with House GOP leaders after the 2018 election, when, as the first female recruitment chair of the NRCC, she had enlisted more than 100 women to run. Just one of them won.

    Democrats flipped the House that year, buoyed in large part by the success of female candidates, but the number of GOP women in the chamber declined by nearly half. Even if Republican leaders didn’t immediately recognize the problem – then-NRCC Chairman Tom Emmer called Stefanik’s desire to get involved in primaries a “mistake” – they quickly came around in their public support for her mission.

    “I am very proud that our efforts have been pretty much embraced across the board,” Stefanik said last month when asked if leadership now understands the importance of supporting women.

    That commitment to changing those dynamics showed in 2020 – which some have called the “Year of the Republican Woman” – when a record-breaking number of nonincumbent House GOP female candidates won, helping flip several pivotal Democratic seats.

    “There’s an understanding now that Republican women candidates can be very successful in the general election and in many cases are stronger candidates than men,” said Cam Savage, a veteran Republican consultant who worked for Houchin. “It’s been true for a while; it just hasn’t been recognized.”

    McDaniel accepts a shirt from Rep. Michelle Steel at the congresswoman's campaign office in Buena Park, California, in September 2022.

    McDaniel also noted that the tenor of conversations with donors has changed.

    “Our investors – when I started, some of them would say to me candidly, ‘You have young kids. How can you be a mom and do this?’” she said. “I don’t have those conversations anymore. It’s more: ‘What other women candidates can we invest in?’ ‘Where can we support women in our party?’”

    After impressive gains in 2020, Republican women made more nominal progress in 2022. Just one GOP woman, Virginia’s Jen Kiggans, unseated a Democratic incumbent in a swing seat, while several others flipped open seats in Oregon, Florida and Texas.

    There’s excitement, however, about conservative women’s success in red districts and how that could help deepen and extend the longevity of the bench of female Republicans in Congress.

    “You can’t just focus on electing women Republicans in swing seats. That’s why we had, you know, such a historic loss in 2018, as most of our women members were in those swing seats,” Stefanik said.

    Of the seven nonincumbent Republican women elected last year, five represent districts Trump would have carried in 2020.

    “That allows those members to gain seniority over time and also to make investments in other candidates,” added Stefanik.

    In other words, electing women in safe seats means they’re more likely to stay there – although not always. Liz Cheney lost her deep-red Wyoming seat in a primary to another woman backed by Stefanik.

    And those very primaries in deeply conservative districts have sometimes been harder for women to win, even if – based on their policy positions and voting records – they are the most conservative candidates.

    Houchin, for example, said it was important for her to be very clear about where she stood on the issues because “it’s been easier to paint female candidates as more moderate or more liberal. That’s certainly not my profile.”

    Helping women get through primaries in safe red seats could become more difficult after a deal reached between two outside groups as part of the Republican negotiations over the House speaker’s election. Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC backed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, agreed to stay out of open-seat primaries in exchange for the anti-tax Club for Growth’s support for his speakership bid.

    Chavez-DeRemer — one of those Republican women to flip an open seat last year — now calls her self-doubts during that visit to the Capitol silly.

    Chavez-DeRemer is seen in Happy Valley in the Portland suburbs in September 2022.

    “Little did I know that, really, my whole life, I was probably preparing for this,” she said. “I needed to just be me.”

    The former mayor of Happy Valley, in suburban Portland, won a five-way primary in Oregon’s 5th District and went on to win the general election over a Democratic woman, who had defeated the incumbent in her primary.

    Her story speaks to the message pushed by potential White House aspirant Nikki Haley, who has channeled her energies into elevating female Republican candidates through her Stand for America PAC.

    “What we need to do is to tell women, ‘We need you. We need you at the table. We need you making the decisions. We need your experience. We need your ability to talk about families and budgets and crime, and all of those things,” the former South Carolina governor and onetime US ambassador to the United Nations said in a brief interview on the campaign trail in Nevada last year.

    Haley speaks at a campaign event for De La Cruz and Rep. Mayra Flores in McAllen, Texas, in October 2022.

    “Success begets success,” Poling added of female candidates’ track record. “When people see that this helped us win more seats, then they’re more likely to put the time and effort into recruiting and helping female candidates.”

    Party operatives credit strong recruitment – both in 2022 under NRCC recruitment chair Carol Miller of West Virginia and in 2020, under then-Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana.

    “That begins with the acknowledgment that the way you recruit women is different from men,” Savage said. “You don’t have to recruit men. They line up to tell you they’re the best fit.”

    But one of the major lessons from 2018 is the recognition that getting women to run isn’t enough: Helping them through the process is also critical.

    “I don’t look at women as a monolith – they come with different backgrounds and experience – but sometimes fundraising can be a challenge, or life balance,” said McDaniel, who was elected RNC chair in 2017.

    One part of addressing that is female candidates supporting each other. Monica De La Cruz was one of three Republican women running for South Texas swing districts along the southern border last year.

    “We had a support group of women who understood exactly what you were going through at that moment, so it was a very special time,” said De La Cruz, the only one of the three to win.

    And increasingly, there’s recognition that a female perspective can be a strength in the eyes of voters.

    “I had no political background. I’m a small-business owner, single mom of two teenage children. And people could relate to that,” said De La Cruz, who has been tapped to serve on the RNC’s advisory panel to examine how the party can continue broadening its appeal to women and more diverse voters.

    De La Cruz takes a selfie with supporters in McAllen, Texas, in October 2022.

    “They saw me at the Friday night football games, and the Saturday morning volleyball games,” she said. “They saw me in parent-teacher conferences at the school. My community saw themselves in me.”

    The GOP still has a lot of catching up to do. Even with leadership PACs and outside groups committed to boosting women in Republican primaries, the party lacks the firepower of a group like EMILY’s List, which has been helping elect Democratic women who support abortion rights since the mid-1980s.

    Some of the outside groups backing GOP women have diverged in primaries, either not engaging in the same races or even backing different women in the same primaries.

    To expand institutional support, McDaniel pointed to the example of programs such as League of Our Own, a campaign program she worked with in her home state of Michigan that has focused on training female candidates.

    “We talked about things like, ‘How do you raise money? How do you pick a campaign manager?’” McDaniel said. “You’d see these women who were graduates, going on to be state reps or state senators. It’s really, really impactful to see how even just that little bit of campaign school and that little bit of help can go a long way in bringing women into the conversation.”

    Chavez-DeRemer said the party must “keep reaching out” and “make sure that all women are running at a local level.”

    Stefanik echoed that sentiment, pointing to a robust state and local pipeline as a lynchpin to deepening the bench of Republican women in Congress in the years ahead.

    “It’s a long-term strategy,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link