ReportWire

Tag: Mike Lee

  • Meet the Collector: Raphaël Isvy Wants to Rewrite the Rules of Buying and Selling Art

    [ad_1]

    Items from Isvy’s collection in his apartment in Paris’s 16th Arrondissement. Courtesy Raphaël Isvy

    A new generation of collectors is determined to take control and rewrite the rules of an art system they don’t identify with, finding its hierarchies outdated and its codes sluggish compared to the speed at which they now share information, discover artists and shape their own passions. During a frenetic Paris Art Week, Parisian collector Raphaël Isvy opened his collection to Observer, reflecting candidly on what no longer works in the traditional art world and how things could evolve—much as other markets already have.

    Isvy picks us up from the opening of Paris Internationale on his motorcycle—the only sensible way to cut through the week’s gridlocked traffic—and takes us to his apartment in the elegant 16th arrondissement, directly across the river from the Tour d’Eiffel, where his two young daughters greet us at the door. Between the roar of the ride and the quiet of home, he begins not with art but with life: how becoming a father reshaped everything—his outlook, his sense of time and his focus on what truly holds value behind the mirror.

    Born in 1989 and raised in Paris, Raphaël Isvy studied mathematics and statistics, worked in finance and asset management and later consulted for major tech firms. He followed the path laid out by family and convention before discovering art—a revelation that slowly but completely redirected his life toward his passion. He began collecting around 2016 and didn’t know much about art, beyond living in a city surrounded by it. “I didn’t grow up in an art-oriented family—everyone around me was a doctor, either a dentist or an eye doctor—I was the only one who ended up working in finance. I’d studied mathematics and statistics, but I had always been very curious by nature,” Isvy tells me. Curiosity is often enough to start someone down the collecting path, but he was also becoming bored with straight finance. “I loved the idea of owning something that others had tried—and failed—to get. I was drawn to the fact that art could be bought online, and I was good at that. I was fast, quicker than most people.”

    That’s how Isvy ended up buying an Invader print. “When it arrived and I saw it at home, I completely changed my mind about selling it, even though I was getting crazy offers,” he says. It was an early Invader, but there was already a strong market for his work—though at vastly different price levels than today, when unique mosaics (his large “alias” works, one-offs or very limited editions) sell for hundreds of thousands of euros (one piece recently sold for about €480,000) and at auction for as much as US$1.2 million, while prints now trade in the thousands rather than the hundreds Isvy paid at the time.

    A man in a white T-shirt seated on a couch holding a framed painting of a stylized tree with red circular fruits against a muted landscape.A man in a white T-shirt seated on a couch holding a framed painting of a stylized tree with red circular fruits against a muted landscape.
    Raphaël Isvy. From Instagram @raph_is, Courtesy Raphaël Isvy

    What first hooked him was the thrill of opening the tube. “Putting on the white gloves, seeing the number, realizing that this specific number was mine and no one else’s and then framing it,” he recounts. “I even went down the rabbit hole of reading forums about how best to frame it flat. That’s when I realized I was in love with the whole process.”

    Isvy freely admits he began collecting art with little knowledge of the Old Masters or anything related to deceased artists. “I’m lucky to live in a city where there’s everything, but I really didn’t know much at all,” he says. Instead, he represents the new generation of collectors identified in the latest Art Basel and UBS report—those who educate themselves and gather information primarily online through forums and social media.

    “I taught myself—from Instagram, collectors’ accounts, Facebook groups, forums, whatever was available back then,” Isvy explains. “It all started with buying prints and hanging them on my walls, but when people came over and started talking about the pieces—debating them, arguing whether they were too simple, saying things like ‘my kid could do that’—I realized that was exactly what I loved about art: it sparked conversation.”

    From there, Isvy began buying more prints and drawings, learning everything he could online and relying on the only tool he truly trusts—his eyes. “At some point I thought, okay, my wallet can do better than this,” he says as we sit in his living room, where the walls showcase the results of his less-than-decade-long collecting journey: above the fireplace hangs a work on paper by George Condo, paired with a sculpture by Sterling Ruby and a painting by Naotaka Hiro. On the floor, smaller works by once-emerging artists now internationally recognized, such as Sara Anstaiss and Brice Guilbert, sit alongside pieces by established figures like Peter Saul. Hanging in the entryway above a Pierre Paulin sofa is a blue neon by Tracey Emin that reads “Trust Yourself”—a phrase that neatly sums up Isvy’s path into art.

    Greeting us at the entrance are a Tomoo Gokita painting and a hanging sculpture by Hugh Hayden, while elegantly nestled between books in the dining room’s library are smaller gems by rising painters who have quickly gained attention—from an early Eva Pahde (who just opened her debut solo at Thaddaeus Ropac in London) to Adam Alessi, Robert Zehnder, Elsa Rouy, Jean Nipon and Alex Foxton. Even the rooms of his two daughters hold small contemporary treasures, including a painting by Tomokazu Matsuyama and a drawing by Javier Calleja, while beside the couple’s bed stands an elegant surrealist figure—a woman with an octopus on her back by Emily Mae Smith.

    A black sculptural wall piece shaped like a cast-iron pan with a stylized human face at its center, mounted on a white wall beside a stone column.A black sculptural wall piece shaped like a cast-iron pan with a stylized human face at its center, mounted on a white wall beside a stone column.
    Isvy exemplifies that ways younger collectors today are determined to claim agency and rewrite the rules of an art system they no longer identify with. Courtesy Raphaël Isvy

    Before turning to art, Isvy had already collected sneakers and Pokémon cards, though never on a large scale. When he began collecting art, he approached it with a similarly modest budget. “I used to find artists selling directly from their studios, offering small drawings for $500 or $600,” he recalls. One of his first paintings was by mike lee, purchased from Arsham/Fieg Gallery (AFG)—a small gallery on the second floor of the Kith store at 337 Lafayette Street in New York. Opened in 2021 as a collaboration between Ronnie Fieg and artist Daniel Arsham, AFG was a natural extension of Fieg’s brand and its crossover between fashion, design and art—a combination that perfectly matched the taste of Isvy’s generation. “When it arrived—with the crate, the white gloves and the realization that it was a one-of-one—it completely shifted my perspective. I thought: Okay, I want to do this forever.”

    Collecting in a community and growing with it

    From that moment, Isvy began connecting with more people. “I think that’s what really defines me and the way I’ve been collecting. I’m someone who connects,” he says. “I talk to everyone the same way, I react to stories, ask questions and exchange views. Because in the art world, if you’re alone, you’re nothing. Without perspective, without taste, without access—even if you’re a billionaire—you’re still nothing without people.”

    Convinced that community was essential to both access and understanding, he created a Facebook group devoted to prints and drawings. It became a space for collectors to share advice on buying, selling, framing and promoting new releases and studio drops. Over time, it evolved into a global network that brought people together both online and offline.

    “People began organizing meetups in different cities and I remember traveling to Los Angeles to meet fifty collectors, then to New York to meet a hundred and later to Asia to meet hundreds more,” Isvy recalls. His story underscores a growing need for connection and dialogue among young collectors—a desire for shared discovery that drives collectible cultures popular with Gen Z and Millennials but is too often constrained by the rigid hierarchies of the traditional art world. The community he built around him includes collectors aged 18 to 35 who neither identify with nor seek to conform to those old rules. From there, the network grew organically—one introduction leading to another—spanning continents and forming a parallel ecosystem of its own.

    Immersed in this community, Isvy began hearing about artists before they reached broader recognition. “When both Asian and American collectors were mentioning the same names, I knew it was a signal worth paying attention to,” he says. Those insights, combined with his instinct, led him to make early acquisitions that proved remarkably prescient: a large Robert Nava painting bought for $9,000 before gallery representation; an Anna Park piece purchased while she was still an undergraduate for $900; and an Anna Weyant work acquired at NADA in 2019 for $3,000. “People often say I got lucky—but it wasn’t luck. I did my homework. I have a process and I’m meticulous about it.”

    A modern dining room with a travertine table, six wooden chairs, and a brass chandelier with oval glass lights, backed by shelves filled with books and contemporary artworks.A modern dining room with a travertine table, six wooden chairs, and a brass chandelier with oval glass lights, backed by shelves filled with books and contemporary artworks.
    Isvy’s story reveals the deep need for connection, community and shared discovery that drives a new generation of collectors. Courtesy Raphaël Isvy

    When Isvy buys art, it’s never entirely spontaneous—he reads, researches and cross-checks everything. “We see about twenty new artists a day now and most are talented—but the real challenge is spotting the exceptional ones, the ones who will last,” he notes. As seasoned collectors know, that requires more than recognizing talent; it’s about identifying the right combination: an artist with originality, supported by the right gallery, at the right moment. “Those indicators are hard to find, but they form your own recipe—your personal algorithm. That’s what drives me. It’s not luck; it’s preparation meeting opportunity.”

    Collecting with a purpose

    For Isvy, his goal as a collector soon became clear: to own remarkable works. He first drew inspiration from older collectors—the kind he saw in books, magazines and on Instagram—showcasing homes filled with art. “When you start collecting, you get obsessed with the books, the magazines, the collectors you see online,” he says, explaining that what fascinated him was how art, furniture and architecture could merge to form a complete aesthetic statement. “It’s not about showing off; it’s about assembling design furniture, an apartment and artworks in a way that feels balanced. It’s actually really hard.” But that, he says, is what defines true taste. “You can be a billionaire and still ruin everything with bad lighting or the wrong couch. That’s why I wanted white walls, simplicity, space for the works to breathe.”

    Although his collection now includes more than a hundred works (some co-owned with friends) the display in his apartment feels cohesive, with the art integrated naturally into the space, in dialogue with both furniture and architecture. To achieve this, Isvy collaborated with architect Sophie Dries, a close friend, who designed the interiors around the collection rather than the other way around, ensuring it remained a home first—a place where his daughters could live and move freely. The result preserves the apartment’s historic Haussmannian details while infusing it with the lightness and understated elegance of contemporary design.

    Over time, Isvy also began selling some works—but always within his community and with full transparency. “The one rule I’ve stuck to is reaching out to the gallery first. Most of the time, when they couldn’t help me resell, I would wait or find a responsible way to do it,” he explains, showing he understands the rules of the game. He recalls one case involving a painting by Anna Weyant that he bought at NADA in 2019 for $3,500. Two years later, as her market soared, he received offers as high as $400,000 from collectors in Korea. Out of loyalty to the artist and her gallerist, he refused to sell privately. “It was still my early years collecting and I was terrified of being canceled,” he recounts. He asked 56 Henry, where he had purchased the piece, to handle the resale, but they couldn’t, as Weyant had since joined Gagosian. He then consigned it to the mega-gallery, which held it for six months without success. “Later I learned they’d doubled the price—asking nearly $400,000 without even showing it properly. Of course it didn’t sell. They never even brought me an offer. They didn’t care; they had other inventory to push.” He eventually took it to auction because the offer was life-changing. Still, this decision caused backlash with the artist, despite the fact that he had followed every protocol.

    Isvy is openly critical of how written and unwritten rules often constrain the healthy circulation of art and value in the market. “The art world is an economic cycle like any other asset class. If you want it to stay healthy, you can’t break the links. Every time I sold an artwork, it was to buy another one to keep the cycle moving,” he explains. “When collectors reinject liquidity into the market, it benefits everyone. Instead of shaming people for selling, galleries should teach them how to do it properly, how to reinvest in a way that sustains the ecosystem.”

    A light-filled living room with a curved orange sofa, a sculptural wall piece with red fabric forms, a wooden coffee table, and an abstract painting above it.A light-filled living room with a curved orange sofa, a sculptural wall piece with red fabric forms, a wooden coffee table, and an abstract painting above it.
    The aesthetics of living and collecting converge; here, home becomes both gallery and manifesto of a taste grounded in balance and restraint. Courtesy Raphaël Isvy

    Isvy believes when a collector consigns a work back to a gallery—choosing to avoid auction and protect the artist’s market—the gallery should reciprocate that gesture. Offering trade-in credit or discounts toward another piece, for instance, would help sustain mutual trust. “That’s how you build trust and keep the wheel turning,” he says.

    For him, the cause of today’s stagnation is clear. Between 2019 and 2022, everyone was buying, often under restrictive three-year no-resale agreements, and collectors were afraid to act. No one wanted to break those rules, even as the market overheated. “The fear came not from greed, but from the culture of silence that galleries built around selling,” he notes. Now that those agreements have expired, the market is flooded with works—and many aren’t good. “Galleries were taking everything out of studios instead of curating and showing only what was great. During that period, there was no real filter—no accountability. There was too much abundance,” he says. Even when artists asked galleries not to show weaker works or to limit annual price increases to no more than 10 percent, few listened. “Everyone got greedy. Collectors, galleries, artists—we all played a part in pushing things too far. That’s why the market looks the way it does now.”

    When asked if this disillusionment has dulled his enthusiasm, Isvy admits that some of the magic has faded. “When you see how things really work behind the scenes, it’s not as enchanting as you once thought. It’s not disgusting, but it changes your perspective.”

    Still, surrounded by art in every corner of his home, he insists the passion remains. He’s simply more deliberate now—more thoughtful and selective. “I still love the emotion of collecting, that instinctive excitement,” he says. “But now I feel like my role is to help others see what needs to change—to make the system better. I have hope because there’s a new generation that wants to do things differently. When the old dinosaurs are gone, we’ll finally have a chance to rebuild.”

    Isvy’s role in rewriting the rules

    Raphaël Isvy represents a new generation of collectors determined to claim agency by reshaping the system from within. Like many millennials, he sees his role in the art world as deliberately fluid—collector, curator, advisor and connector all at once. “I do deals, I buy, I sell, I help people collect, I introduce them to artists,” he explains. For him, those boundaries are artificial. “In the past, collectors were patrons; today, we can be activators,” he says, recalling how last year he curated a large cultural exhibition in the South of France, set in a vineyard, which received an enthusiastic response. He insists he doesn’t fit neatly into any single label. “I don’t have a defined role. I just love art and people.” Yet, he admits, the traditional art world resists those who refuse to stay in one box. “The truth is, the more dynamic you are, the more everyone benefits; more activity means more liquidity, more buyers, more fairs, more growth.”

    For Isvy, even the distortions that have plagued the market reveal that the system’s old rules no longer fit its global scale and speed. With production volumes far exceeding what the traditional model can absorb, he argues, the only way forward is to broaden the collector base and rethink how art circulates.

    He finds hope in younger galleries already experimenting with new models. “Many organize events that have an actual purpose—not just hanging a Rothko and waiting for the wire to come through. There’s a sense of responsibility and intent that wasn’t there before.”

    If given the chance to introduce concrete reforms, Isvy says he would start with enforceable rules—beginning with banning auction houses from selling works less than three years old. “This rule alone would already make a huge difference,” he argues. “It would bring more stability, discourage speculation and give artists time to grow before being thrown into the market machine.”

    In his view, part of the market’s instability stems from its lack of structure and accountability. Auction houses should face stricter limits—fewer sales per year, fewer lots per sale—to prevent oversaturation. Similarly, mega-galleries should adopt principles borrowed from finance, employing in-house risk managers responsible for ensuring artists are paid consistently and reserves are properly maintained. “Setting aside around 30 percent of income for operational stability, salaries and artist payments would bring the professionalism this sector urgently needs,” he explains. These are not radical reforms, he adds, but necessary corrections.

    A man in a black sweater stands in front of a framed cubist-style portrait, looking at the artwork on a white wall beside sheer curtains.A man in a black sweater stands in front of a framed cubist-style portrait, looking at the artwork on a white wall beside sheer curtains.
    Liquidity, transparency and dialogue are emerging as the values that sustain—not threaten—the collecting ecosystem’s future. Courtesy Raphaël Isvy

    At the same time, transparency remains the art market’s greatest weakness. Coming from a background in risk management, Isvy has seen firsthand how chaos unfolds when an unregulated system operates without rules. He recalls helping a friend sell a large painting that set a world record at Christie’s last October. “Everyone was celebrating, talking about millions of euros. What people don’t know is that the work wasn’t paid for in the end. There’s a huge lack of transparency in this market. No one realizes how many auction sales actually fall through, or how many so-called records are never settled,” he says.

    While auction data are theoretically the only public numbers the market can rely on, prices are often published without verification and used as benchmarks even when deals collapse. “That work eventually sold for a third of the supposed record price—but in the meantime, that inflated figure distorted the entire market,” Isvy notes. To him, as a former finance professional, the outcome is predictable. “Without a serious purge and some structural reforms, I don’t see how the market can restart.”

    He often describes the art market as “an ocean dominated by predators.” “Dealers are the sharks; collectors are the fish,” he says. “It’s almost impossible to navigate without getting eaten along the way. You get layers of intermediaries adding price on top of price and I’ll sometimes get three different offers for the same work, each one higher because it’s passed through multiple hands. It’s absurd. I’ve even had people steal images from my Instagram to pretend they’re selling my pieces.”

    Yet he doesn’t exempt anyone from blame. “We can’t really complain about the market’s current state—we all knew what was happening. But what’s different now is that younger collectors aren’t coming in blind. They research, they cross-check and they know the system before they buy. The old guard was drawn by instinct; they lived in a smaller art world, with a handful of galleries and fairs. For us, information is everywhere—and that changes everything.”

    A more fluid idea of contemporary culture

    For Isvy, the solution begins with greater liquidity and openness. The art market, he argues, must operate as fluidly as other collectible markets, because the old formula of engineered scarcity and opaque pricing—supercharged during the pandemic—has eroded trust.

    He compares the art world to the Pokémon card market, where transparency and liquidity keep everything in motion. “In that world, inventory changes hands every day. Payments can be made through crypto, PayPal, cash or trades—it’s fluid. People post story sales on Instagram, with clear prices and everything sells in minutes,” he explains. “Imagine trying that with art—everyone would freak out, say you’re breaking the rules. But it would work.”

    For Isvy, this kind of openness could reinvigorate the entire ecosystem. “If someone sells a $3,000 work, that person will probably reinvest that money in another artist. The wheel keeps turning. Liquidity creates opportunity—for collectors, for dealers and for artists who can produce new work. That’s how you sustain an ecosystem, not by freezing it.”

    When Isvy brings up this comparison, he leads us to what he calls his “little secret”—a private room that reveals another side of his personality. “The world knows me as a collector, but there’s another part of me. I’m a gamer, a geek. I collect Pokémon cards, NFTs and sneakers. I play PlayStation 5 every night. I love Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Final Fantasy. I couldn’t imagine my home without that side of who I am.”

    When he moved in, he told his designer he needed an office for remote work but also a personal space. Since her aesthetic was more classic, his architect introduced him to a younger, eccentric designer known for creating gaming and YouTuber rooms. “He had orange diamonds on his teeth,” Isvy laughs. “I told him my story and we figured out how to make a small space work as both an office and a world of my own.” Together, they designed the room from scratch. “He called it The Glitch—like a bug in a video game—because it doesn’t fit with the rest of the apartment.”

    A compact home office with grey walls, wooden desk, orange chair, monitors, and shelves displaying graded collectible cards and framed prints.A compact home office with grey walls, wooden desk, orange chair, monitors, and shelves displaying graded collectible cards and framed prints.
    The art market’s rigidity contrasts with the fluid economies that younger collectors are familiar with from gaming paraphernalia, sneakers and cryptocurrency. Courtesy Raphaël Isvy

    Inside, the space feels like a cross between a gaming den and a cabinet of curiosities. There’s a retro bench upholstered in tapestry, a BS Invader console, manga shelves, Pokémon cards, Rubik’s cubes and a miniature painting by Robert Nava—his favorite artist. The walls are covered in wallpaper that mimics the black-and-white static of an old television screen, paired with ceramic terrazzo tiles forming a custom mosaic floor. “It’s vintage, weird and perfect,” Isvy says.

    This hidden office and private room capture the spirit of an entire generation of collectors like Isvy—for whom contemporary art, Pokémon cards, anime and manga, video games and collectible figurines coexist within the same cultural imagination. It’s the universe that shaped their childhood and, ultimately, their identity. For this generation, these objects are not mere toys or décor but artifacts that equally express contemporary culture and their idea of collecting and supporting it.

    For Isvy, the space is more than an ode to nostalgia—it’s a statement. “The contemporary art world still struggles to accept that someone can collect a Condo and also Pokémon cards,” he says. “But that’s going to change. Our generation grew up with gaming and pop culture; it’s part of us. You can’t tell people to shut off that side of themselves. That’s how the next generation of collectors will come in—through openness, not hierarchy.” Gesturing toward the Nava painting behind him, he adds, “If I cared only about money, I would have sold it—I’ve had offers. But I paid $9,000 for it and to me, it’s priceless. He’s one of the most important artists of our generation. This room reminds me why I started collecting in the first place.”

    More art collector profiles

    Meet the Collector: Raphaël Isvy Wants to Rewrite the Rules of Buying and Selling Art

    [ad_2]

    Elisa Carollo

    Source link

  • Turning Point, moving forward without Charlie Kirk, makes first return to Utah since his killing

    [ad_1]

    Turning Point USA’s college tour will return to Utah on Tuesday for its first event in the state since its founder, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated on a college campus earlier this month.The stop, at Utah State University in Logan, is about two hours north of Utah Valley University, where Kirk was killed Sept. 10 by a gunman who fired a single shot through the crowd while Kirk was speaking.The assassination of a top ally of President Donald Trump and one of the most significant figures in his Make America Great Again movement has galvanized conservatives, who have vowed to carry on Kirk’s mission of encouraging young voters to embrace conservatism and moving American politics further right. Kirk himself has been celebrated as a “martyr” by many on the right, and Turning Point USA, the youth organization he founded, has seen a surge of interest across the nation, with tens of thousands of requests to launch new chapters in high schools and on college campuses.Tuesday’s event, which was scheduled before Kirk’s death, will showcase how Turning Point is finding its path forward without its charismatic leader, who headlined many of its events and was instrumental in drawing crowds and attention.The college tour is now being headlined by some of the biggest conservative names, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Glenn Beck. Tuesday’s event will feature conservative podcast host Alex Clark and a panel with Sen. Mike Lee, Rep. Andy Biggs, former Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Gov. Spencer Cox.And it will further a pledge his widow, Erika Kirk, made to continue the campus tour and the work of the organization he founded. She now oversees Turning Point along with a stable of her late husband’s former aides and friends.‘Nothing is changing’Erika Kirk has sought to assure her husband’s followers that she intends to continue to run the operation as her late husband intended, closely following plans he laid out to her and to staff.“We’re not going anywhere. We have the blueprints. We have our marching orders,” she said during an appearance on his podcast last week.That will include, she said, continuing to tape the daily podcast.“My husband’s voice will live on. The show will go on,” she said, announcing plans for a rotating cast of hosts. She said they intended to lean heavily on old clips of her husband, including answering callers’ questions.“We have decades’ worth of my husband’s voice. We have unused material from speeches that he’s had that no one has heard yet,” she said.Erika Kirk, however, made clear that she does not intend to appear on the podcast often, and so far seems to be assuming a more behind-the-scenes role than her husband.Mikey McCoy, Kirk’s former chief of staff, said Erika Kirk is in daily contact with members of the Trump administration, and has described her as “very strategic” and different from her husband.The events have served as tributes to KirkThe events so far have served as tributes to the late Kirk, with a focus on prayer, as well as the question-and-answer sessions that he was known for.At Virginia Tech last week, the state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, urged the crowd to carry Kirk’s legacy forward.“The question that has been asked over and over again is: Who will be the next Charlie? And as I look out in this room and I see thousands of you, I want to repeat the best answer that I have heard: You will be the next Charlie,” he said. “All of you.”He also praised Erika Kirk as an “extraordinary” leader.“Over the course of the last two weeks, Erika Kirk has demonstrated that she not only has the courage of a lion, but she has the heart of a saint. We have grieved with her and her family. We have prayed for her and her family,” he said. “Is there anyone better to lead Turning Point going forward than Erika Kirk?”He then turned the stage over to Kelly, who said Charlie Kirk had asked her to join the tour several months ago. She said she knew appearing onstage carried risk, but felt it was important to be there “to send a message that we will not be silenced by an assassin’s bullet, by a heckler’s veto, by a left-wing, woke professor or anyone who tries to silence us from saying what we really believe,” she said to loud cheers.At another event at the University of Minnesota last week, conservative commentator Michael Knowles gave a solo speech in lieu of the two-man conversation with Kirk that was originally planned. Then he continued Kirk’s tradition of responding to questions from the audience, which ranged from one man quibbling about Catholic doctrine to another arguing that the root of societal problems stems from letting women vote. (To the latter, he responded that women aren’t to blame because “men need to lead women.”)As Knowles spoke, a spotlight shined on a chair left empty for Kirk.Knowles said Kirk was instrumental in keeping together disparate conservative factions, and he worries about the MAGA movement fracturing without Kirk doing the day-to-day work to build bridges between warring groups.“Charlie was the unifying figure for the movement. It’s simply a fact,” he said. “There is no replacing him in that regard.”“The biggest threat right now is that without that single figure that we were all friends with, who could really hold it together, things could spin off in different directions,” Knowles said. “We have to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

    Turning Point USA’s college tour will return to Utah on Tuesday for its first event in the state since its founder, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated on a college campus earlier this month.

    The stop, at Utah State University in Logan, is about two hours north of Utah Valley University, where Kirk was killed Sept. 10 by a gunman who fired a single shot through the crowd while Kirk was speaking.

    The assassination of a top ally of President Donald Trump and one of the most significant figures in his Make America Great Again movement has galvanized conservatives, who have vowed to carry on Kirk’s mission of encouraging young voters to embrace conservatism and moving American politics further right. Kirk himself has been celebrated as a “martyr” by many on the right, and Turning Point USA, the youth organization he founded, has seen a surge of interest across the nation, with tens of thousands of requests to launch new chapters in high schools and on college campuses.

    Tuesday’s event, which was scheduled before Kirk’s death, will showcase how Turning Point is finding its path forward without its charismatic leader, who headlined many of its events and was instrumental in drawing crowds and attention.

    The college tour is now being headlined by some of the biggest conservative names, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Glenn Beck. Tuesday’s event will feature conservative podcast host Alex Clark and a panel with Sen. Mike Lee, Rep. Andy Biggs, former Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Gov. Spencer Cox.

    And it will further a pledge his widow, Erika Kirk, made to continue the campus tour and the work of the organization he founded. She now oversees Turning Point along with a stable of her late husband’s former aides and friends.

    ‘Nothing is changing’

    Erika Kirk has sought to assure her husband’s followers that she intends to continue to run the operation as her late husband intended, closely following plans he laid out to her and to staff.

    “We’re not going anywhere. We have the blueprints. We have our marching orders,” she said during an appearance on his podcast last week.

    That will include, she said, continuing to tape the daily podcast.

    “My husband’s voice will live on. The show will go on,” she said, announcing plans for a rotating cast of hosts. She said they intended to lean heavily on old clips of her husband, including answering callers’ questions.

    “We have decades’ worth of my husband’s voice. We have unused material from speeches that he’s had that no one has heard yet,” she said.

    Erika Kirk, however, made clear that she does not intend to appear on the podcast often, and so far seems to be assuming a more behind-the-scenes role than her husband.

    Mikey McCoy, Kirk’s former chief of staff, said Erika Kirk is in daily contact with members of the Trump administration, and has described her as “very strategic” and different from her husband.

    The events have served as tributes to Kirk

    The events so far have served as tributes to the late Kirk, with a focus on prayer, as well as the question-and-answer sessions that he was known for.

    At Virginia Tech last week, the state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, urged the crowd to carry Kirk’s legacy forward.

    “The question that has been asked over and over again is: Who will be the next Charlie? And as I look out in this room and I see thousands of you, I want to repeat the best answer that I have heard: You will be the next Charlie,” he said. “All of you.”

    He also praised Erika Kirk as an “extraordinary” leader.

    “Over the course of the last two weeks, Erika Kirk has demonstrated that she not only has the courage of a lion, but she has the heart of a saint. We have grieved with her and her family. We have prayed for her and her family,” he said. “Is there anyone better to lead Turning Point going forward than Erika Kirk?”

    He then turned the stage over to Kelly, who said Charlie Kirk had asked her to join the tour several months ago. She said she knew appearing onstage carried risk, but felt it was important to be there “to send a message that we will not be silenced by an assassin’s bullet, by a heckler’s veto, by a left-wing, woke professor or anyone who tries to silence us from saying what we really believe,” she said to loud cheers.

    At another event at the University of Minnesota last week, conservative commentator Michael Knowles gave a solo speech in lieu of the two-man conversation with Kirk that was originally planned. Then he continued Kirk’s tradition of responding to questions from the audience, which ranged from one man quibbling about Catholic doctrine to another arguing that the root of societal problems stems from letting women vote. (To the latter, he responded that women aren’t to blame because “men need to lead women.”)

    As Knowles spoke, a spotlight shined on a chair left empty for Kirk.

    Knowles said Kirk was instrumental in keeping together disparate conservative factions, and he worries about the MAGA movement fracturing without Kirk doing the day-to-day work to build bridges between warring groups.

    “Charlie was the unifying figure for the movement. It’s simply a fact,” he said. “There is no replacing him in that regard.”

    “The biggest threat right now is that without that single figure that we were all friends with, who could really hold it together, things could spin off in different directions,” Knowles said. “We have to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • See reactions to the life and death of President Russell M. Nelson

    [ad_1]

    The news of the death of President Russell M. Nelson prompted immediate reactions from around the world to the life and contributions of the 17th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote on X.com about the lifesaving impact President Nelson had as a pioneering heart doctor who performed open-heart surgery on his grandparents.

    Utah Governor Spencer J. Cox wrote on X about President Nelson’s ability to “built bridges across faith traditions and cultures, serving God’s children throughout the world.”

    The news of President Nelson’s death arrived shortly after BYU beat Colorado in a late-night Big 12 football game in Boulder, Colorado. The Church of Jesus Christ sponsors BYU and President Nelson was chairman of BYU’s board of trustees at the time of his death.

    The timing led to a number of reactions from sports personalities.

    The BYU Cougars account referenced the hymn “God Be With You Till We Meet Again” in a message of gratitude.

    BYU football coach Kalani Sitake spoke with KSL NewsRadio’s voice of the Cougars, Greg Wrubell, about President Nelson’s legacy and his belief in the afterlife as a fellow Latter-day Saint.

    “Just sad that he’s gone, but we all know where he’s at and just really grateful that I was able to see him as our leader and as our prophet,” Sitake said.

    The football coach shared the team’s condolences, thoughts and prayers with the Nelson family. He also said the church president did “a great job of serving here on earth” and said he would continue to use the leaders’ words with his players.

    Sitake said President Nelson’s conference talks provided insights about peacemaking and doing things differently that were beneficial to BYU football.

    The entire exchange between Sitake, Wrubell and Wrubell’s broadcast partner Hans Olsen is on the Deseret News YouTube page.

    Olsen also shared a message, calling President Nelson “an amazing leader.”

    Mark Durrant, Wrubell’s partner on BYU men’s basketball broadcasts, also honored President Nelson.

    Former BYU basketball player Jonathan Tavernari expressed his love for the man Latter-day Saints revered as a prophet.

    The Deseret News published a new short video, “A Man of Heart,” with clips of President Nelson ministering around the world and audio of him speaking as a new apostle and as the church’s prophet.

    Other Latter-day Saints also shared their feelings and testimonies of President Nelson’s calling.

    Mike Mower, senior advisor to Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox for community outreach and intergovernmental affairs, referenced another hymn in his remembrance, “We Thank Thee, O God, for A Prophet.”

    Utah House Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Salt Lake and a Latter-day Saint, said he was “grateful to have lived in a time guided” by President Nelson.

    Some who reacted noted that President Nelson died exactly a week before the church’s 195th semiannual general conference is scheduled to begin.

    Robert Hill pointed people to the church leader’s recent essay in Time Magazine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate unanimously passes Mike Lee’s resolution condemning Charlie Kirk’s death

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Senate unanimously approved a resolution by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to condemn the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a voice vote on Tuesday.

    Lee introduced the resolution shortly after Kirk’s death last week, calling on his colleagues to condemn his assassination “in the strongest possible terms” while also honoring his life and “commitment to the constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate between all people in the United States regardless of political affiliation.” The resolution passed in a unanimous voice vote when it was brought to the Senate floor for consideration.

    “This is just a flag, planted on a hill,” Lee said of his resolution. “What matters is where we carry it next.”

    The resolution was filed in conjunction with the House by Utah Rep. Mike Kennedy, who represents the district where Utah Valley University, the site of Kirk’s death, is located. That version has not yet been scheduled for a vote.

    The resolution comes just days before Kirk’s family will hold a memorial service for the conservative activist in his home state of Arizona, which is expected to attract a large number of high-profile politicians and celebrities.

    Both President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance will be in attendance and are expected to deliver remarks.

    Other speakers include White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP Senator Mike Lee faces backlash for Charlie Kirk assassination response

    [ad_1]

    Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee has faced criticism for his sharply different responses to the assassinations of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, and former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman in June.

    In the hours following the killing of Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University, Lee issued an impassioned tribute, calling the incident “a cowardly act of violence” and hailing Kirk as an “American patriot” who inspired “countless young people.” Lee added on X: “The terrorists will not win. Charlie will. Please join me in praying for his wife Erika and their children. May justice be swift.”

    However, less than three months earlier, Lee’s response to the double assassination of Democratic lawmaker Hortman and her husband was widely criticized. Instead of mourning the victims, Lee initially mocked the event on social media.

    Newsweek has contacted Lee’s office for comment via email.

    Mike Lee speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, November 17, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington.

    Hannah McKay/Pool/AP

    Why It Matters

    The disparate reactions from a sitting U.S. senator highlight the extent to which responses to political violence can diverge based on party affiliation of the victims. Critics argue that Lee’s response to the Hortman killings—promoting misinformation and making partisan jabs—undermined attempts to build a bipartisan consensus against political violence.

    What To Know

    Kirk, 31, the founder of right-wing youth organization Turning Point USA and a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, was delivering a speech under a tent to a large crowd on campus at Utah Valley University in Orem, when a single gunshot struck him in the neck. He collapsed, was rushed to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.

    The shooter wore dark clothing and fired from a building roof some distance away to the courtyard where the event at which Kirk was speaking took place. Authorities have said there is no evidence that anyone else was involved in the attack.

    On June 14, 2025, Hortman and her husband, Mark, were fatally shot at their home in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, in what law enforcement and Democratic Governor Tim Walz described as a politically motivated assassination. The suspect, Vance Luther Boelter, allegedly disguised himself as a police officer, wearing body armor and driving a vehicle that appeared to be law enforcement. Boelter also shot state Senator John Hoffman and his wife in a related attack. They both survived.

    Lee offered a prayerful message following Wednesday’s shooting, and extended condolences to Kirk’s wife and children while calling for swift justice.

    But the Republican struck a far less gracious tone in June, including a post on X that said: “Nightmare on Waltz Street,” a jab referencing Walz. Another post falsely stated: “This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way,” while including an image of Boelter, who friends and public records described as politically right-leaning, having once registered as a Republican in Oklahoma.

    Lee deleted his mocking posts only after facing backlash.

    Minnesota Democratic U.S. Senator Tina Smith personally confronted Lee two days after his posts about the Hortman shootings. She told CNN that Lee’s behavior was “brutal and cruel” and later said publicly: “He should think about the implications of what he’s saying and doing.”

    Now, those posts are the subject of renewed criticism.

    “When Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated, Senator Mike Lee mocked their murders online,” said author Shannon Watts on X, in response to one of Lee’s tributes to Kirk.

    Another X user wrote that Lee “showed no respect for those murdered in MN, in fact he got a kick out of their murders. He’s a bad person.”

    “F*** you Mike Lee. You’re a disgusting piece of excrement,” read one blunt response on the same social media platform.

    Prominent MAGA-aligned figures have responded to the assassination of Kirk with combative and incendiary rhetoric, framing the killing as a politically motivated attack and casting it as a call to fight back.

    Elon Musk saw it as an attack tied to “the left” and free speech. “If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die,” he said.

    Trump issued an Oval Office video tribute, calling Kirk’s death a “dark moment” and blaming “radical left” rhetoric. Far-right activist Laura Loomer also blamed “lunatic leftists.”

    “We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all. The Left is a national security threat,” she wrote on X.

    Infowars host Alex Jones escalated the rhetoric further, framing the assassination as a call to “war,” while influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate called for “civil war.”

    The shooter’s motive and political ideology remain unknown.

    Amid the reaction, some have called for an end to political division and violence, including Utah’s Republican Governor Spencer Cox.

    “Our nation is broken,” he said, pleading that “all of us will try to find a way to stop hating our fellow Americans.”

    Kirk himself was a polarizing figure known for his youth outreach and alignment with Trump. He took hardline stances on gun rights, one saying: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal.”

    He also urged armed public carry in certain states, and promoted conspiracy theories and misleading claims on COVID-19 vaccines and mandates.

    What Happens Next

    Federal, state and local authorities were still searching for an unidentified shooter early on Thursday and working what they called “multiple active crime scenes.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Shooting of Charlie Kirk was ‘political assassination,’ Utah governor says

    [ad_1]

    Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday, a shocking act of political violence that brought widespread condemnation.

    The gunman is believed to have killed Kirk from at least 200 feet away using some type of sniper rifle, law enforcement sources told The Times.

    Police briefly detained two suspects, but both were determined to be unconnected to the attack and released. The manhunt for the shooter continued Wednesday night.

    Videos shared on social media show Kirk sitting under a white canopy, speaking to hundreds of people through a microphone, when a loud pop is heard; he suddenly falls back, blood gushing from his neck.

    Before he was shot, he was asked about mass shootings.

    • Share via

    “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?” an audience member asks.

    “Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk responds.

    Almost immediately, Kirk is shot in the neck. One video shows blood pouring from the wound. As the crowd realizes what has taken place, people are heard screaming and running away.

    A source familiar with the investigation told The Times that a bullet struck Kirk’s carotid artery.

    Charlie Kirk speaks to an audience, seated next to stacks of hats reading "47."

    Charlie Kirk speaks before his fatal shooting Wednesday at Utah Valley University.

    (Tess Crowley / Deseret News )

    The killing was captured on videos in graphic detail from several angles. The videos were widely shared across the internet. Beau Mason, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said authorities were analyzing campus security video that showed a suspect in dark clothing who may have shot at Kirk from a roof.

    The shooting comes a year after a would-be assassin wounded President Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania and amid an era of increasing political divisions.

    Trump said Wednesday that “radical left political violence” had hurt too many innocent people, grouping the Utah shooting together with the Pennsylvania assassination attempt, the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and the killing of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson.

    He said the rhetoric of the radical left is “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.” He did not mention recent acts of political violence against Democratic lawmakers.

    Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, called Wednesday’s attack a political assassination and warned that authorities would find the person responsible and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

    “I just want to remind people that we still have the death penalty here,” Cox said at a news conference.

    He decried recent acts of political violence — including the attempted assassination attempts on Trump and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro — and called on Americans to come together to repair a broken country.

    • Share via

    “We desperately need our country,” he said. “We desperately need leaders in our country, but more than the leaders, we just need every single person in this country to think about where we are and where we want to be and to ask ourselves — is this it?”

    Kirk, a conservative political activist, was in Utah for his American Comeback Tour, which was holding its first stop at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.

    Jeffrey Long, chief of the university’s Police Department, said that six of the force’s officers, including some plainclothes officers, were working with members of Kirk’s personal security team to manage safety at the public outdoor event, which drew a crowd of more than 3,000 people.

    “You try to get your bases covered,” Long said at a news conference. “And unfortunately today we didn’t, and because of that we have this tragic incident.”

    Shortly after the shooting, police took an initial suspect, George Zinn, into custody. However, Zinn did not match the identity of the shooting suspect, Mason said. Zinn was later released after being booked by Utah Valley University police on suspicion of obstruction of justice.

    A few hours later, police took a second suspect, Zachariah Qureshi, into custody and released him after interrogation, according to the state Department of Public Safety.

    At this time, authorities believe only one person was involved in the attack, Cox said.

    Law enforcement was continuing to examine the crime scene at the university and the locations where Kirk traveled, according to the Public Safety Department. No further information on the current suspect was shared.

    The tour, as with many of Kirk’s events, had drawn both supporters and protesters. Kirk’s wife and children were at the university when he was shot, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin posted on X.

    Kirk, 31, was one of the Republican Party’s most influential power brokers.

    The founder of the influential conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, Kirk had a vast online reach: 1.6 million followers on Rumble, 3.8 million subscribers on YouTube, 5.2 million followers on X and 7.3 million followers on TikTok.

    During the 2024 election, he rallied his online followers to support Trump, prompting conservative podcast host Megyn Kelly to say: “It’s not an understatement to say that this man is responsible for helping the Republicans win back the White House and the U.S. Senate.”

    Just after Trump was elected for a second time to the presidency in November, Kirk frequently posted to social media from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where he had firsthand influence over which MAGA loyalists Trump named to his Cabinet.

    Kirk was known for melding his conservative politics, nationalism and evangelical faith, casting the current political climate as a state of spiritual warfare between a righteous right wing and so-called godless liberals.

    At a Turning Point event on the Salt Lake City campus of Awaken Church in 2023, he said that gun violence was worth the price of upholding the right to bear arms.

    “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” he said. “That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

    He also previously declared that God was on the side of American conservatives and that there was “no separation of church and state.” In a speech to Trump supporters in Georgia last year, he said that “the Democrat Party supports everything that God hates” and that “there is a spiritual battle happening all around us.”

    Kirk was also known for his memes and college campus speaking tours meant to “own the libs.” Videos of his debates with liberal college students have racked up tens of millions of views.

    The shooting drew immediate words of support and calls for prayers for Kirk from America’s leading conservative politicians.

    “Say a prayer for Charlie Kirk, a genuinely good guy and a young father,” Vice President JD Vance posted on X.

    Audience members scramble away after the shooting.

    Crowd members react after Charlie Kirk’s shooting at Utah Valley University.

    (Tess Crowley / Deseret News / AP)

    Leading Democrats also moved swiftly to condemn the attack.

    “The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X. “In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.”

    Gabrielle Giffords, a former Arizona congresswoman who survived a political assassination attempt in 2011 and is a gun violence prevention advocate, said on X that she was horrified to hear that Kirk was shot.

    “Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence,” she wrote.

    Matthew Boedy, a professor of rhetoric and composition at the University of North Georgia, has written a forthcoming book about Christian nationalism that prominently features Kirk and his influence. The book, “The Seven Mountains Mandate,” comes out Sept. 30.

    “Today is a tragedy,” Boedy said in an interview with The Times on Wednesday. “It is a red flag for our nation.”

    Boedy said the shooting — following the two assassination attempts against Trump on the campaign trail last year — was a tragic reminder of “just how divisive we have become.”

    In June, a man posing as a police officer fatally shot Minnesota state House Democratic leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, at their home in an incident that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called “a politically motivated assassination.”

    Another Democratic lawmaker, state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, were also injured at their residence less than 10 miles away.

    In April, a shooter set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, forcing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family to flee during the Jewish holiday of Passover.

    In July 2024, Trump survived a hail of bullets, one of which grazed his ear, at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa. Two months later, a man with a rifle was arrested by Secret Service agents after he was spotted amid shrubs near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course.

    Kirk’s presence at the Utah campus was preceded by petitions and protests. But, Boedy noted, that was typical with his appearances.

    “Charlie Kirk is, I would say, the most influential person who doesn’t work in the White House,” he said.

    Kirk reached a vast array of demographics, Boedy said, through his radio show and social media accounts and was “in conversation with President Trump a lot.”

    He had said his melding in recent years of faith and politics was influenced by Rob McCoy, the pastor of Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Newbury Park in Ventura County. Kirk called McCoy, who often spoke at his events, his personal pastor.

    Boedy said McCoy turned Kirk toward Christian nationalism, specifically the Seven Mountains Mandate — the idea that Christians should try to hold sway over the seven pillars of cultural influence: arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media and religion.

    Kirk “turned Turning Point USA into an arm of Christian nationalism,” Boedy said. “There’s a strategy called the Seven Mountains Mandate, and he has put his TPUSA money into each of those.”

    Kirk was a vocal 2nd Amendment supporter, and Boedy said that the shooting probably would further the desire among his conservative followers who tout the idea of having good guys with guns “to have more guns everywhere, which is sad.”

    Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Ruben Vives, Richard Winton, Hailey Branson-Potts, Jenny Jarvie, Clara Harter

    Source link

  • The feds own half the western U.S.—and can’t take care of it

    [ad_1]

    The federal government owns about a third of America.

    Since we’re on a path to bankruptcy, it would be smart to sell some unused property.

    President Donald Trump’s Interior Secretary says it may be worth as much as $200 trillion. Selling just a fraction of it would reduce our enormous debt.

    Not just that—since government doesn’t manage things well, selling or leasing some would leave it in better condition.

    Federal bureaucrats have been slow to do controlled burns and remove deadwood that becomes fuel for fires.

    “Fires on federal lands accounted for more than half of the acres burned,” says the Congressional Budget Office.

    But whenever a politician suggests selling any land, environmental activists freak out.

    Jennifer Mamola of The John Muir Project says the government must hold on to every bit of land it owns “to solve our biodiversity crisis.”

    “What is a biodiversity crisis?” I ask her in my new video.

    “Human fingerprints are on the scale, and we are out-tipping it!”

    Like many activists, she’s not knowledgeable about science.

    “We are in very tumultuous weather times,” she tells me. “The fact that Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina is just unprecedented!”

    No, it’s not. Hurricanes hit North Carolina all the time.

    “I guess I mean the travel trajectory, right?…[Helene] started in the Gulf and then it went all the way up. Seems pretty unprecedented—going inland.”

    Actually, lots of hurricanes go inland. Floyd caused catastrophic flooding; almost every river basin in eastern North Carolina surpassed 500-year flood levels. Matthew brought record flooding. Florence caused about $17 billion in damages.

    Still, Mamola sees weather changes. “It’s really not that predictable anymore because we have our thumb on the scale….In the nearly 40 years I’ve been alive, we’re definitely seeing a shift!…D.C., I’ve lived there 10 years. We had a drought last summer!”

    But drought isn’t more common. The Environmental Protection Agency says the last 50 years have actually been wetter than average.

    If government sells any land, Mamola says, loggers and mining companies will destroy it.

    Climate media company The YEARS Project peddles a deceitful video that says, “Imagine the Grand Canyon filled with oil rigs. That’s the world Pendley wants to live in.”

    “Pendley” is William Pendley, who ran the government’s Bureau of Land Management during Trump’s first term.

    I confront him with what the activists say:

    “Picture Yellowstone being strip mined for coal. These are the kinds of policies he advocates for.”

    “Absolutely not!” he replies. “We’re not going to do parks. They made it up!”

    He wants to sell, as Congress has done for decades, “multiple-use” land: “It’s supposed to be used [for] oil and gas, mining, grazing.”

    He says private lease holders would manage it better.

    Also, says Pendley, “The best forest managers are tribes and states because they’ve got skin in the game.”

    The governors of Utah and Nevada agree. They, too, want the feds to release some land.

    Most of Utah is federally owned. Utah sued the feds for the right to buy some of it. But so far, no success.

    In Nevada, 80 percent of land is federally owned and controlled. Gov. Joe Lombardo wants “immediate and systematic release of federal land.”

    “Why should it be controlled by the federal government?” I ask Mamola. “What if Utah or Nevada say they can do it better?”

    Mamola replies, “They’re not going to be able to maintain it.”

    But the feds don’t maintain it! The Park Service is $23 billion behind on repairs.

    Despite the incompetence of federal management, Mamola wants the feds to buy even more land.

    “They own 50 percent of the West. Isn’t that enough?” I ask. “What would be enough?”

    “I’m happy to give up some of the East Coast,” she replies.

    Yikes.

    But the silly people win. They’ve convinced voters that no land should ever be sold. Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) saw which way the political winds were blowing. He withdrew his proposal to sell public lands.

    Too bad. We’re deep in debt. The feds should at least lease unused land.

    Washington bureaucrats don’t need to control half the West.

    COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

    [ad_2]

    John Stossel

    Source link

  • Phoenix punk band Mike and the Molotovs are blowing up big time

    Phoenix punk band Mike and the Molotovs are blowing up big time

    [ad_1]

    We live in unprecedented times. While many artists have expertly distilled the socio-political quagmire called daily life, few do it with as much grit and bravado as Mike and the Molotovs…

    [ad_2]

    Chris Coplan

    Source link

  • Utah GOP convention picks Trump-backed mayor Trent Staggs as nominee to replace Sen. Mitt Romney

    Utah GOP convention picks Trump-backed mayor Trent Staggs as nominee to replace Sen. Mitt Romney

    [ad_1]

    SALT LAKE CITY – Mayor Trent Staggs of Riverton, Utah, was selected Saturday as the state Republican Party’s nominee to replace Mitt Romney in the U.S. Senate, hours after the local official received former President Donald Trump’s endorsement.

    While the endorsement carried Staggs, 49, through the convention, his party support may not translate to success at the ballot box. He still must face other top contenders, including U.S. Rep. John Curtis and former Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson, in the June 25 GOP primary. Curtis, who is more moderate, and Wilson, a Trump supporter, already have qualified for the primary by gathering signatures.

    The mayor from just south of Salt Lake City built his base by calling delegates personally and courting the endorsements of Trump and many of his allies nationwide. Staggs was the first candidate to enter the Senate race, even before Romney announced he wasn’t seeking reelection.

    Delegates applauded Staggs for choosing not to collect signatures — an action many say circumvents the convention process. His status as a “convention-only” candidate, paired with his eleventh-hour endorsement from the former president, gained him the respect of delegates, who tend to be more conservative.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — State Rep. Phil Lyman was selected as the Utah Republican gubernatorial nominee at the party’s convention Saturday, though political observers say incumbent Gov. Spencer Cox remains the likely favorite in the upcoming primary.

    Lyman, a former county commissioner turned legislator who is best known for organizing an illegal ATV ride in protest of a federal land decision, won about two-thirds of votes from the nearly 4,000 delegates, who tend to skew to the right.

    Utah GOP voters generally prefer moderates in statewide elections, however, so the more moderate Cox, who took office in 2021, is seen as well positioned for the June 25 primary. He has gathered enough signatures to qualify for that ballot despite not getting the nod from the convention, and would advance to the November general election if he wins in June.

    Delegates were also set to vote later in the marquee race to succeed U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, the state’s best-known centrist Republican, who often made waves for opposing former President Donald Trump and other leaders of the party.

    The pool of nearly a dozen Republicans vying to replace Romney includes a congressman, a Trump-backed mayor, a former state legislative leader and the lawyer son of Utah’s longest-serving U.S. senator. While some have sought to align themselves with farther-right figures such as Trump and Utah’s other senator, Mike Lee, others distanced themselves in an effort to appeal to the widest swath of voters.

    “This seat gets to be sort of a flashpoint between the two major factions of the party in the state,” Utah State University political scientist James Curry said. “On one hand you have the more moderate faction that Romney really embodied, not just here but nationwide, versus the more pro-Trump faction that often hasn’t been as successful with Utah voters when there’s been a viable moderate option.”

    Trump made a last-minute endorsement in the Senate contest for Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs, writing Saturday morning on his Truth Social platform that Staggs is a “100% MAGA” candidate who knows how to create jobs, stop inflation, grow the economy and secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Trump’s endorsement could carry Staggs, 49, through the convention but may not translate to success at the ballot box. Republican Party nominations historically have had little bearing on who Utah voters choose to represent them.

    Staggs supporter Eric Buckley, a Davis County delegate, celebrated the endorsement and said he’s confident it will be well received by Utah voters. Buckley said he already had vetted the Senate contenders months before and chosen to back Staggs — the first to enter the race even before Romney announced he wasn’t seeking reelection.

    “It was his stance on the corruption in D.C. that exists and his promise to stand up against the moderate Republicans and the Democrats pushing through their agenda without any type of resistance,” Buckley said of his support for Staggs.

    Even some GOP delegates who support other top contenders — former state House Speaker Brad Wilson and U.S. Rep. John Curtis — said they may vote for Staggs as the party nominee because he is a convention-only candidate, meaning he has not collected signatures to guarantee his spot on the primary ballot.

    Both Wilson and Curtis already have collected enough signatures to qualify for the primary regardless of Saturday’s outcome. Staggs and other convention-only candidates must earn at least 40% of votes Saturday to advance. The Republican primary winner will face Democrat Caroline Gleich, a mountaineer and environmental activist who earned her party’s nomination earlier Saturday, in November.

    Tim Lindsay, a Cache County delegate who attended the convention wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, said although he supports Trump, the former president’s endorsement will have little impact on how he votes. His vote will go to “the most conservative candidate” who has not collected signatures.

    “That’s a cheap way out,” Lindsay said of signature gathering. “I respect a candidate who respects the convention process.”

    Wilson, 55, has endorsed Trump’s reelection bid and promises to be a “conservative fighter” on Capitol Hill. His elaborate expo booth in the convention hall featured a tractor plowing through a pile of cinder blocks labeled the “Biden Agenda.”

    Curtis, 63, who is seen as the more moderate of the two frontrunners, has been compared to Romney for pushing back against hardliners in his party, particularly on climate change. He is expected to have broad appeal among primary voters.

    Davis County delegate Jonathan Miller, who donned a “Team Mitt” baseball cap, said Curtis is his pick to replace the retiring senator because he already has proven himself in Congress as someone who works across the aisle to get things done.

    Delegates booed moderates such as Cox as they took the stage. “I love you guys,” the governor responded, adding that many great leaders before him also were booed at past conventions but won at the polls.

    The 2014 protest ride organized by Lyman, his competitor in the upcoming primary, came after federal officials closed a southeast Utah canyon to motorized vehicles to protect Native American cliff dwellings, artifacts and burials. Lyman argued that the closure constituted overreach by the federal government.

    A judge in 2015 sentenced Lyman to 10 days in jail and three years of probation after a jury that year found him guilty of misdemeanor illegal use of ATVs and conspiracy.

    He reminded delegates of his short sentence just before the vote and pledged to continue fighting federal overreach if elected.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Schoenbaum, Associated Press

    Source link

  • PROTECT Act could require removal of all existing porn online

    PROTECT Act could require removal of all existing porn online

    [ad_1]

    Is Congress really trying to outlaw all sex work? That’s what some people fear the Preventing Rampant Online Technological Exploitation and Criminal Trafficking (PROTECT) Act would mean.

    The bill defines “coerced consent” to include consent obtained by leveraging “economic circumstances”—which sure sounds like a good starting point for declaring all sex work “coercive” and all consent to it invalid. (Under that definition, in fact, most jobs could be considered nonconsensual.)

    Looking at the bill as a whole, I don’t think this is its intent, nor is it likely be enforced that way. It’s mainly about targeting tech platforms and people who post porn online that they don’t have a right to post.

    But should the PROTECT Act become law, its definition of consent could be used in other measures that do seek to target sex work broadly. And even without banning sex work, it could still wreak major havoc on sex workers, tech companies, and free speech and internet freedom more widely.

    There are myriad ways it would do this. Let’s start by looking at how it could make all existing online porn against the law.

    How the PROTECT Act Would Make All Existing Online Porn Illegal 

    The PROTECT Act doesn’t directly declare all existing web porn illegal. Its sponsor—Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah)—at least seems to know that the First Amendment wouldn’t allow that. Nonetheless, under the PROTECT Act, platforms that failed to take down existing porn (defined broadly to include “any intimate visual depiction” or any “visual depiction of actual or feigned sexually explicit activity”) would open themselves up to major fines and lawsuits.

    In order to stay on the right side of PROTECT Act requirements, tech companies would have to collect statements of consent from anyone depicted in intimate or sexually explicit content. These statements would have to be submitted on yet-to-be-developed forms created or approved by the U.S. Attorney General.

    And the law would “apply to any pornographic image uploaded to a covered platform before, on, or after that effective date” (emphasis mine).

    Since no existing image has been accompanied by forms that don’t yet exist, every existing pornographic image (or image that could potentially be classified as “intimate”) would be a liability for tech companies.

    How the PROTECT Act Would Chill Legal Speech

    Let’s back up for a moment and look at what the PROTECT Act purports to do and how it would go about this. According to Lee’s office, it is aimed at addressing “online sexual exploitation” and “responds to a disturbing trend wherein survivors of sexual abuse are repeatedly victimized through the widespread distribution of non-consensual images of themselves on social media platform.”

    Taking or sharing intimate images of someone without their consent is wrong, of course. Presumably most people would like to stop this and think there should be consequences for those who knowingly and maliciously do so.

    But Lee’s plan strikes much further than this, targeting companies that serve as conduits for any sort of intimate imagery. The PROTECT Act would subject them to so much bureaucracy and liability that they may reasonably decide to ban any imagery with racy undertones or too much flesh showing.

    This would seriously chill sexual expression online—not just for sex workers, but for anyone who wants to share a slightly risque image of themselves, for those whose art or activism includes any erotic imagery, and so on. Whether or not the government intends to go after such material, the mere fact that it could will incentivize online platforms to crack down on anything that a person or algorithm might construe at a glance as a violation: everything from a photo of a mother breastfeeding to a painting that includes nudity.

    And it’s not just at the content moderation end that this would chill speech. The PROTECT Act could also make users hesitant to upload erotic content, since they would have to attach their real identities to it and submit a bunch of paperwork to do so.

    How the PROTECT Act Would Invade Privacy 

    Under the PROTECT Act, all sorts of sex workers—people who appear in professional porn videos produced by others, people who create and post their own content, pinup models, strippers and escorts who post sexy images online to advertise offline services, etc.—would have to turn over proof of their real identities to any platform where they posted content. Sex workers and amateur porn producers would have their real identities tied to any online account where they post.

    This would leave them vulnerable to hackers, snoops, stalkers, and anyone in the government who wanted to know who they were.

    And it doesn’t stop at sex workers (these things never do) or amateur porn producers. The PROTECT Act’s broad definition of porn could encompass boudoir photos, partial nudity in an artwork or performance, perhaps even someone wearing a revealing bathing suit in a vacation pic.

    To show just how ridiculous this could get, consider that the bill defines pornography to include any images where a person is identifiable and “the naked genitals, anus, pubic area, or post-pubescent female nipple of the individual depicted are visible.”

    If your friend’s nipple is visible through her t-shirt in a group shot, you may have to get a consent form from her before posting it and to show your driver’s license and hers when you do. Or just be prepared to be banned from posting that picture entirely, if the platform decides it’s too risky to allow any nipples at all.

    Here’s What the PROTECT Act Says 

    Think I’m exaggerating? Let’s look directly at the PROTECT Act’s text.

    First, it prohibits any “interactive computer service” from allowing intimate images or “sexually explicit” depictions to be posted without verifying the age and identity of the person posting it.

    Second, it requires platforms to verify the age and identity of anyone pictured, using government-issued identification documents.

    Third, it requires platforms to ascertain that any person depicted has “provided explicit written evidence of consent for each sex act in which the individual engaged during the creation of the pornographic image; and…explicit written consent for the distribution” of the image. To verify consent, companies would have to collect “a consent form created or approved by the Attorney General” that includes the real name, date of birth, and signature of anyone depicted, as well as statements specifying “the geographic area and medium…for which the individual provides consent to distribution,” the duration of that consent to distribute, a list of the specific sex acts that the person agreed to engage in, and “a statement that explains coerced consent and that the individual has the right to withdraw the individual’s consent at any time.”

    Platforms would also have to create a process for people to request removal of pornographic images, prominently display this process, and remove images within 72 hours of an eligible party requesting they be taken down.

    The penalties for failure to follow these requirements would be quite harsh for people posting or hosting content.

    Someone who uploaded an intimate depiction of someone “with knowledge of or reckless disregard for (1) the lack of consent of the individual to the publication; and (2) the reasonable expectation of the individual that the depiction would not be published” could be guilty of a federal crime punishable by fines and up to five years in prison. They could also be sued by “any person aggrieved by the violation” and face damages including $10,000 per image per day.

    Platforms that failed to verify the ages and identities of people posting pornographic images could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per image, levied by the attorney general. Failure to verify the identities, ages, and consent status of anyone in a pornographic image could open companies up to civil lawsuits and huge payouts for damages. Tech companies could also face fines and lawsuits for failing to create a process for removal, to prominently display this process, or to designate an employee to field requests. And of course, failure to remove requested images would open a company up to civil lawsuits, as would failure to block re-uploads of an offending image or any  “altered or edited” version of it.

    Amazingly, the bill states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect section 230 of the Communications Act.” Section 230 protects digital platforms and other third parties online from some liability for the speech of people who use their tools or services, and yet this whole bill is based on punishing platforms for things that users post. It just tries to hide it by putting insane regulatory requirements on these platforms and then saying it’s not about them allowing user speech, it’s about them failing to secure the proper paperwork to allow that user speech.

    An Insanely Unworkable Standard

    Under the PROTECT Act, companies would have to start moderating to meet the sensibilities of a Puritan or else subject themselves to an array of time-consuming, technologically challenging, and often impossible feats of bureaucratic compliance.

    The bill mandates bunches of paperwork for tech platforms to collect, store, and manage. It doesn’t just require a one-time age verification or a one-time collection of general consent forms—no, it requires these for every separate sexual image or video posted.

    Then it requires viewing the content in its entirety to make sure it matches the specific consent areas listed. (Is a blow job listed on that form? What about bondage?)

    Then it requires keeping track of variable consent revocation dates—a person could consent to have the video posted in perpetuity, for five years, or for some completely random number of days—and removing content on this schedule.

    This is, of course, all after the company ascertains that a depiction is pornographic. That first step alone would be a monumental task for platforms with large amounts of user-uploaded content, requiring them to screen all images before they go up or patrol constantly for posted images that might need to be taken down.

    And when companies received takedown requests, they would have just 72 hours to determine if the person making it really was someone with a valid case as opposed to, say, someone with a personal vendetta against the person depicted, or an some anti-porn zealot trying to cleanse the internet. It would be understandable if companies in this situation choose to err on the side of taking down any flagged content.

    The PROTECT Act would also mean a lot of paperwork for people posting content. Sure, professional porn companies already document a lot of this stuff. But now we’re talking anyone who appears nude on OnlyFans having to submit this paperwork with every single piece of content uploaded.

    And in all cases, we’re left with this broad and vague definition of consent as a guiding principle. The bill states that consent “does not include coerced consent” and defines “coerced consent” to include not just any consent obtained through “fraud, duress, misrepresentation, undue influence, or nondisclosure” or consent from someone who “lacks capacity” (i.e., a minor) but also consent obtained “though exploiting or leveraging the person’s immigration status; pregnancy; disability; addiction; juvenile status; or economic circumstances.”

    With such broad parameters of coercion, all you may have to say is “I only did this because I was poor” or “I only did this because I was addicted to drugs” and your consent could be ruled invalid—entitling you to collect tens of thousands of dollars from anyone who distributed the content or a tech platform that didn’t remove it quickly enough. Even if the tech company or porn distributor or individual uploader ultimately prevailed in such lawsuits, that would only come after suffering the time and expense of fending the suits off.

    For someone like Lee—who has proposed multiple measures to crack down on online sexual content—the unworkability of all of this might look like a feature, not a bug. It would be reasonable for a tech company looking at these risks to conclude that allowing any sort of sexy imagery is not worth it and/or that taking down any image upon any request was a good idea.

    A measure like the PROTECT Act might help stop the spread of nonconsensual porn on mainstream, U.S.-based platforms (though such images could still spread freely through private communication channels and underground platforms). But it would do this at the cost of a ton of protected speech and consensual creations.

    Today’s Image

    Performance art or pornography? (Bushwick/2013) (ENB/Reason)



    [ad_2]

    Elizabeth Nolan Brown

    Source link

  • GOP Senator Goes All In On ‘Nutball’ Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theories

    GOP Senator Goes All In On ‘Nutball’ Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theories

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON ― Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) over the weekend promoted false conspiracy theories about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, after House Republicans released hours of raw footage from that day.

    Lee said he couldn’t wait to ask FBI Director Chris Wray about an image of a man who was convicted of storming the Capitol and entering the office of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calf.). The image was shared by another Jan. 6 skeptic who suggested the man was an undercover federal agent posing as a supporter of Donald Trump.

    “I predict that, as always, his answers will be 97% information-free,” Lee said of Wray in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday.

    But the image of the man was actually of Kevin Lyons, a Chicago man who was convicted of six federal charges relating to the insurrection, per NBC News’ Ryan Reilly. And Lyons wasn’t flashing a police badge, as the post had suggested, but rather a vaping device.

    In another post, commenting on a video of Trump supporters attacking police, Lee asked: “How many of these guys are feds?”

    There have always been Republicans who lied about what happened on Jan. 6, falsely claiming that the rioters were peaceful, that they were secretly leftists, or that they were undercover FBI agents. But Lee’s statements on social media were remarkable, given his efforts to depict himself as an intellectual defender of the U.S. Constitution and his apparent unwillingness to make any effort to check his facts.

    Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who helped lead the House committee that investigated the attack on the Capitol, said that a “nutball conspiracy theorist appears to be posting” from Lee’s account. In a follow-up, she reminded Lee that he voted in favor of certifying the election on Jan. 6.

    “You’re a lawyer, Mike. You’re capable of understanding the scores of J6 verdicts & rulings in our federal courts,” Cheney wrote on social media. “You didn’t object to electors on J6 because you knew what Trump was doing was unconstitutional & you know what you’re doing now is wrong.”

    Lee’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Even though he didn’t vote to throw out Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, Lee was initially supportive of the Trump White House’s efforts to contest the 2020 presidential results, helping push legally dubious schemes from John Eastman, a right-wing attorney who authored “coup memos” for Trump. Just a few days before the Jan. 6 riot, Lee shifted course and backed off.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Friday ordered the House administration committee to begin publicly releasing thousands of hours of footage from security cameras inside the Capitol complex. The footage had previously been available for viewing only to reporters and criminal defendants, though its broader public dissemination had been requested by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and others.

    In a statement on Friday, Johnson suggested that people who correctly understand the events of Jan. 6 ― that it was a riot by Trump supporters angry that he lost the 2020 election ― have been duped by a government-imposed “interpretation” of the day’s events. Releasing the footage, Johnson claimed, would reveal what actually happened.

    Gaetz, who falsely claimed on Jan. 6, 2021, that some of the rioters “were members of the violent terrorist group ‘antifa,’” amplified social media posts over the weekend claiming that the entire riot had been a setup.

    Court cases have revealed that paid FBI informants did tag along with certain groups of rioters at the Capitol, though defense attorneys have not alleged their clients attacked the Capitol because they’d been manipulated.

    A former special agent in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office told lawmakers earlier this year that the FBI did not deploy undercover agents or confidential informants into the crowd at the Capitol, but that some informants came to Washington on their own.

    Before Lee and others homed in on Lyons, Republicans’ top suspected “fed” was an Arizona man named Ray Epps, arbitrarily singled out from video footage for supposedly acting suspicious. Lawmakers like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) refused to withdraw their accusation even after Epps said under penalty of perjury that he had no affiliation with any federal agency, and even after he was charged with a crime this year for being on restricted Capitol grounds.

    Last week, before Johnson released the video footage, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) invented a new conspiracy theory that the FBI had brought busloads of agents dressed as Trump supporters to Washington.

    “I’ve turned a lot of this evidence over to the appropriate authorities, and we’ll see what happens,” Higgins told HuffPost. “When we get Trump back in the White House, these guys are in a bind.”

    Wray, for his part, has repeatedly told Republicans that FBI agents and informants did not orchestrate the ransacking of the Capitol.

    “If somebody is asking or suggesting whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or FBI agents or both, the answer is emphatically not,” Wray said last week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Mike Lee Skewered Over Fake Shock When Biden Accuses GOP Of Targeting Social Security

    Sen. Mike Lee Skewered Over Fake Shock When Biden Accuses GOP Of Targeting Social Security

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is becoming a Twitter poster boy thanks to his feigned look of utter disbelief when President Joe Biden accused the Republicans of aiming to destroy Social Security during his State of the Union address.

    The fake faces Lee cranked out were a particular tour de force given that he has also been captured on video flatly vowing to destroy Social Security — and Medicare and Medicaid. He has declared it’s his “objective” as senator to “pull” Social Security “up from the roots and get rid” of it.

    Progressive PAC MeidasTouch posted juxtaposed scenes of Lee’s pretend reaction and his earlier speech, which drew a flood of attacks. Followers loved the “gotcha” grab.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McMullin loss in Utah raises independent candidacy questions

    McMullin loss in Utah raises independent candidacy questions

    [ad_1]

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah Democrats’ decision to back an independent rather than nominate a member of their own party to take on Republican Mike Lee transformed the state’s U.S. Senate race from foregone conclusion to closely watched slugfest.

    Independent Evan McMullin, an anti-Trump former Republican best known for his longshot 2016 presidential bid, attracted millions in outside spending in his campaign against Lee. He forced the second-term Republican to engage with voters more than in prior elections and emphasize an independent streak and willingness to buck leaders of his own party.

    Ultimately, though, it wasn’t even close. Lee is on his way to a double-digit win.

    That’s spurring a debate: Did Democrats’ strategy create a blueprint to make Republicans campaign hard, compete for moderates and expend resources in future races? Or does the sizeable loss prove that Republicans’ vice grip is impenetrable in the short term, no matter the strategy?

    The answers could contain lessons for both red and blue states unaccustomed to competitive elections.

    Some Democrats say supporting McMullin was worth it — it shifted the political conversation, made the race competitive and forced Lee to spend almost double what he spent in his 2016 campaign. But other Democrats say the strategy hurt down-ballot candidates who didn’t have a strong top-of-the-ticket contender to help boost them.

    “Building my bench in that sense is going to be so much harder. How do I convince candidates, going forward, that the Democratic Party will support them?” said Katie Adams-Anderton, Democratic Party chair in Utah’s second largest county.

    Utah is among the fastest growing states, and Democrats hope they will be able to compete as the electorate becomes younger and more urban. Yet Republicans currently hold both Senate seats and all four congressional seats, occupy every statewide office, and this week expanded their supermajorities in the Legislature.

    Four years after running for U.S. Senate herself, Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson supported Democrats’ decision to back McMullin. She credits it with making Lee sweat. Though McMullin lost, she said, coalescing behind an independent benefited voters by making the race competitive. She hopes putting Lee on his heels will influence how he governs and votes in the U.S. Senate.

    “This was a unique moment, and I actually do think we’ve lost an opportunity by not electing Evan to help break up some of the hardened partisanship,” she said, noting that whether backing an independent was a good strategy depended largely on circumstances.

    Votes remain to be counted, but Lee is on track to defeat McMullin by double digits. That’s a narrower margin than his 41 percentage-point victory in 2016 over grocery store clerk Misty Snow but wider than McMullin’s team anticipated.

    McMullin won 100,000 more votes than Utah Democrats’ four congressional candidates did collectively, but preliminary results don’t suggest his campaigning against the two-party system energized voters enough to substantially buoy turnout.

    Independents have won Senate races in Vermont and Maine, yet in deeply red states like Utah, party politics remain entrenched and important to voters.

    To put together a fragile coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents, McMullin focused closely on threats to democracy. Rather than campaign on traditional midterm election issues, he attacked Lee’s November 2020 text messages to Trump’s White House chief of staff about ways to challenge President Joe Biden’s victory.

    Both Lee and Democrats skeptical of his candidacy criticized McMullin for being unclear on issues such as abortion or infrastructure spending.

    “You say you want to put country over party. I respect that,” Lee said at an October debate, addressing McMullin. “But parties are an important proxy for ideas. You see, because it’s ideas more than parties that tell the people how you will vote.”

    Kael Weston, the Democrat Senate candidate who lost the party’s backing when it lined up behind McMullin, acknowledged it would have been difficult for a Democrat to defeat Lee. But he said McMullin’s focus came at the expense of local concerns, such as water or the closure of rural post offices. Focusing on those kinds of issues is the path to making elections competitive in red states, not becoming “Republican lite,” he said.

    Though outside spending from Democratic-donor funded PACs and conservative groups like Club for Growth reflect how the race was more competitive than usual, Weston said, McMullin’s attempts to distance himself from Biden and Democrats hurt Democrats who were lower on the ballot.

    “If all you see for three months is, Joe Biden is evil and Democrat is a four-letter word, that has an effect,” he said, noting the anti-McMullin television ads might have hurt Democratic candidates for statehouse seats.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Mike Lee insists in Utah debate he’s not always loyal to Trump

    Sen. Mike Lee insists in Utah debate he’s not always loyal to Trump

    [ad_1]

    Orem, Utah — Fending off attacks from his independent challenger, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah worked to distinguish himself from former President Donald Trump in a contentious debate Monday evening.

    “I stood against my party time and time again to oppose reckless spending. I will do it again and again and again. We need people who say no,” the second-term Republican said.

    Lee repeatedly pointed to his voting record and twice told the audience at Utah Valley University that he voted less in line with Trump than all but two Republican senators – Rand Paul and Susan Collins.

    “To suggest that I’m beholden to either party, that I’ve been a bootlicker for either party is folly. And it’s contradicted by the plain facts,” Lee said.

    Lee faces a challenge from Evan McMullin, a former Republican known most for his long-shot bid for president six years ago, when as an independent he won 21.5% of voters in Utah, including Lee. McMullin has remained a pillar of the anti-Trump movement, attacking the former president as an authoritarian who poses a threat to democracy.

    Election 2022 Senate Utah
    Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, right, and his independent challenger Evan McMullin pose for photographs before their televised debate on Oct. 17, 2022, in Orem, Utah, three weeks before Election Day. 

    Rick Bowmer / AP


    Lee’s attempts to draw a distinction from Trump reflect the peculiar dynamics emerging in Utah this election cycle. In the red state’s marquee race, one candidate is running as an independent and the other is attempting to emphasize his independent streak.

    The race has taken shape as one of the nation’s many referendums on the direction Trump has taken the GOP. McMullin is attempting to harness anti-Trump sentiment that has distinguished Utah from other Republican strongholds. Lee’s last minute efforts to put space between his voting record and Trump’s stances depart from his past messaging as Election Day nears.

    “I don’t think he’s trying to distance himself from Trump. What I think he’s trying to do is draw that contrast,’” Utah Republican Party Chair Carson Jorgensen said.

    “No, he’s stood up for what he believed every time, even when it came to Trump,” he added.

    Utah is a reliably Republican state, but its religion-infused politics are idiosyncratic. The majority of residents belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which places a high value on manners and eschews alcohol and foul language. Members of the faith lean Republican, yet polling has shown Trump commands less robust support among them than other prominent GOP politicians.

    Trump failed to win support from a majority of Utah voters in 2016 and Joe Biden performed better with Utah voters in 2020 than any Democrat since 1964.

    Lee’s emphasis on his willingness to stray from Trump comes as McMullin attempts to paint him as one of the former president’s most loyal disciples. McMullin recently released an attack ad based on Lee’s 2020 remarks comparing Trump to Captain Moroni, a scriptural hero in the Book of Mormon.

    Monday’s debate was McMullin’s first chance to directly confront Lee about the text messages he sent to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the lead-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which he’s made a centerpiece of his campaign.

    The texts show Lee asking for advice on how to contribute to efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. Lee has defended his actions by saying he merely intended to look into the legal arguments and rumors about swing states putting forth slates of fake electors, noting that he ultimately voted to certify the results.

    On Monday, Lee demanded an apology from McMullin and said his version of events exhibited a “cavalier, reckless disregard for the truth.”

    Though the messages suggest Lee researched the legality of alternate elector slates in the lead-up to Jan. 6, Lee said they showed no evidence that he would have supported such a scheme.

    A raucous crowd made up mostly of Lee supporters jeered and booed when McMullin called Lee’s actions “a travesty.”

    “Senator Lee, that was the most egregious betrayal of our nation’s Constitution in its history by a U.S. Senator. I believe it will be your legacy,” McMullin said, wagging his finger at Lee.

    [ad_2]

    Source link