ReportWire

Tag: president biden

  • Trump Says if Jesus ‘Came Down’ He’d Win the Blues States in Unhinged Iowa Speech

    Trump Says if Jesus ‘Came Down’ He’d Win the Blues States in Unhinged Iowa Speech

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump was in Iowa on Saturday for two campaign stops, the first in Ankeny, followed by a stop in Cedar Rapids. And his obsession with the 2020 election continues to be a subject he seems to think is crucial as he campaigns to win the Republican presidential nomination, despite his position being unsubstantiated time and again. His fixation appeared to be a strategy to sow doubt should the 2024 election not go his way.

    During his “Commit to Caucus” speech in Ankeny, he went over similar tropes he’s been touting throughout his campaign, calling media “fake news” and reiterating his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen when President Biden was rightfully declared president. “The one thing they don’t want to talk about is the [2020] election. They are guilty as hell, they cheated like hell,” Trump claimed, presumably of everyone who correctly recognized and validated the actual election results. “They know it, and you’ll never find out all the ways. But we don’t need all the ways because, you know, it was, I think 22,000 votes separated it, and we have millions and millions of votes. It’s a very sad thing.”

    He then appeared to encourage the crowd to pursue voter intimidation and election interference while comparing the United States to a third world country: “So the most important part of what’s coming up is to guard the vote. And you should go into Detroit and you should go into Philadelphia and you should go into some of these places, Atlanta —  and you should go into some of these places, and we got to watch those votes when they come in, when they’re being, you know, shoved around in wheelbarrows and dumped on the floor and everyone’s saying what’s going on? We’re like a third world nation, a third world nation. And we can’t let it happen.”

    At his Cedar Rapids event dubbed his “Save America” rally that followed, Trump homed in on attacking “crooked” President Biden while continuing to harp on his unsubstantiated claim that the 2020 election was rigged and even further, that Jesus and God would declare him a winner now. “I think if you had a real election and Jesus came down and God came down and said, ‘I’m gonna be the scorekeeper here,’ I think we’d win there, I think would win in Illinois, and I think it we’d win in New York.”

    “I got indicted four times because I’m questioning a crooked election,” Trump later added per his own assessment of his alleged crimes. “But we’re not questioning it. We know the results, we know. And when we go through courts — if we ever even have to do it because you have presidential privilege. And also, if we ever, we should never have to do that, but if we do, we want to redo the election — only from the standpoint we want that election, we want to look at it very carefully. We have so much information. There was so much corruption in that election.”

    He also claimed that he invented the word “caravan” again, for some reason, and also inexplicably claimed that he saved Obamacare. He concluded by saying that his was “one of the great presidencies,” and claiming that even his opponents have said so.

    In the ultimate irony, Trump early on accused his opponents of “waging an all-out war on American democracy.”

    “You look at what they’ve been doing, and becoming more and more extreme and repressive. They have just waged an all-out war with each passing day,” the man who has torn the country apart claimed.

    While Trump stumped in Iowa, so did Ron DeSantis, where he appeared in Sioux City. DeSantis, once thought to be Trump’s biggest challenger continues to lag in the polls with a widening gap between him and poll-leading Trump in the last few weeks before the caucuses. DeSantis has been endorsed by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats.

    More from Rolling Stone

    Best of Rolling Stone

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top tickets for first Biden Hollywood fundraiser since end of strikes approach $1 million

    Top tickets for first Biden Hollywood fundraiser since end of strikes approach $1 million

    [ad_1]

    Next week’s Hollywood fundraiser for President Biden, his first in-person soiree here since the end of the entertainment-industry strikes dried up the traditional wellspring of campaign money, is expected to draw big-names donors spending as much as nearly $930,000 each in support of the Democratic leader’s bid for reelection.

    Biden, First Lady Jill Biden and House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi will address the gathering of the glitterati whose hosts include directors Steven Spielberg and Rob Reiner, producers Shonda Rhimes and Peter Chernin and former studio chief Jim Gianopulos on the evening of Dec. 8, according to an invitation obtained by The Times.

    In addition to Hollywood elites, other luminaries who are leading the effort includes billionaire businessman and unsuccessful Los Angeles mayoral candidate Rick Caruso, former ambassadors, tech leaders, corporate honchos and prominent attorneys.

    “No one’s leaving anything to chance in this election cycle,” said veteran Democratic consultant Sue Burnside. “People were trying to be respectful to the workers and not undermine their efforts to get a living wage. … But now that the strikes have been resolved, they see an opportunity to put some of that studio money to good use getting Democrats elected.”

    California and the entertainment industry have been a financial bedrock for both parties, but more so for Democrats, who received nearly two-thirds of the $43.7 million that television, movie and music industry employees donated to presidential campaigns and outside groups in 2020, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data conducted for The Times by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Open Secrets, which tracks electoral finances.

    The Hollywood work stoppage hobbled one of Los Angeles’ premier industries and left thousands without work, and had ripple effects that hurt businesses throughout the region, from dry cleaners and florists to restaurants and newspapers. Writers struck for 148 days and actors for 118 days this year over disputes about pay, benefits, streaming revenue and the use of artificial intelligence.

    The strikes also had a major effect on political fundraising. Donors in these industries contributed $5.4 million to federal campaigns in the first nine months of 2023, according to Open Secrets’ analysis. Four years prior, in the same time period in a presidential election cycle, they had contributed $24.6 million.

    Democrats including Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other party leaders avoided raising money from their longtime Hollywood boosters for multiple reasons. They would have almost certainly had to cross a picket line, anathema to liberal voters. Also the big-dollar donors couldn’t be seen writing large checks during negotiations with the unions.

    Next Friday’s event is taking place at an undisclosed location in Los Angeles, part of a multi-day Biden swing in Southern California. It may be reminiscent of the star-studded fundraiser where then-President Obama raised nearly $15 million at a Wolfgang Puck-catered reception at actor George Clooney’s house in 2012.

    Donors can contribute up to $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that metes out contributions to the president’s reelection campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties, according to the invitation.

    One bit of political intrigue at the event is Caruso’s role as a co-host. The longtime Republican-turned independent-turned Democrat unsuccessfully ran for Los Angeles mayor last year, losing to Karen Bass.

    While wealthy media mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg is not listed as a host of Biden’s fundraiser on the invitation, he is a co-chair of the president’s reelection campaign and deeply involved in his Los Angeles visit as well as his broader effort to win another term in the White House.

    Katzenberg spent $2 million supporting Bass in the mayoral race. The animosity between the media mogul and Caruso is palpable — after Caruso lost, Katzenberg was quoted in Vanity Fair bristling at the businessman continuing to give tours of homeless encampments to reporters.

    “Caruso, you have $5 billion, why do you keep taking people to Skid Row?” Katzenberg said, according to the magazine. “You just pissed away $104 million on a failed campaign, why don’t you put that toward the homeless on Skid Row?”

    So their shared support of Biden is notable. It also helps Caruso burnish his relatively new Democratic credentials.

    “I think this is a smart move on Caruso’s part to show in his political journey, he is landing firmly in the camp of being a Democrat and proving that with how he spends his money is the best way to do it,” said Bill Burton, a Democratic strategist who worked on Bass’ campaign. He also said men uniting in their support of Biden is prompted by the “existential threat” former President Trump poses if he wins the White House next year.

    Other hosts of the fundraiser include Bob Tuttle, a Republican who served as then-President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Kingdom; John Emerson, Obama’s ambassador to Germany; James Costas, Obama’s ambassador to Spain and Andorra, and his partner Michael Smith, who redecorated the White House for the Obamas; Wendy Schmidt, the wife of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt; StubHub cofounder Eric Baker; former City National Bank CEO Russell Goldsmith; Hyatt hotel heir Matthew Pritzker; and Bui Simon, 1998’s Miss Universe.

    Times staff writer Courtney Subramanian contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Rosalynn Carter funeral: Watch live as Jimmy Carter and all 5 living first ladies attend service

    Rosalynn Carter funeral: Watch live as Jimmy Carter and all 5 living first ladies attend service

    [ad_1]

    A memorial service for former first lady Rosalynn Carter is underway in Atlanta, where former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, President Biden and first lady Jill Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and all five living current and former first ladies — Jill Biden, Melania Trump, Michelle Obama, Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton — have gathered at what is being billed as a “tribute service” at Glenn Memorial United Methodist Church on the Emory University campus.

    The last time all of the living first ladies attended an event together was in 2018 at the funeral of former President George H.W. Bush at the Washington National Cathedral. All living current and former presidents and first ladies, including Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and the Trumps, attended the service.

    The casket of former first lady Rosalynn Carter is seen during a memorial service at Glenn Memorial Church in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

    The casket of former first lady Rosalynn Carter is seen during a memorial service at Glenn Memorial Church in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

    Before that, in 2007, all current and former presidents and first ladies at that time, including George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush, the Carters and Nancy Reagan, attended the funeral of former President Gerald Ford in Washington.

    Rosalynn Carter died last week at 96. She had entered home hospice care in Plains, Ga., after being diagnosed with dementia.

    Jimmy Carter, the 39th and longest-living president in American history, turned 99 on Oct. 1. In February, he decided to forgo further medical treatment for an undisclosed illness and entered hospice care at his home.

    Former President Jimmy Carter arrives at a tribute service for former first lady Rosalynn Carter at Glenn Memorial Church in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)Former President Jimmy Carter arrives at a tribute service for former first lady Rosalynn Carter at Glenn Memorial Church in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

    Former President Jimmy Carter arrives at a tribute service for former first lady Rosalynn Carter at Glenn Memorial Church in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

    The Carters made their last public appearance in September, when they attended the Plains Peanut Festival a week before Jimmy Carter’s 99th birthday. The couple waved to parade attendees from the back of an SUV.

    Following Tuesday’s memorial service in Atlanta, Rosalynn Carter will be taken back to Plains for a private funeral on Wednesday at Maranatha Baptist Church, the couple’s home church. From there the casket will then be transferred to a hearse and depart for private interment at the Carter family residence. Jimmy Carter plans to be buried next to her.

    A military honor guard carries the casket of Rosalynn Carter in Atlanta ahead of a memorial service Tuesday. (Erik S. Lesser/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)A military honor guard carries the casket of Rosalynn Carter in Atlanta ahead of a memorial service Tuesday. (Erik S. Lesser/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

    A military honor guard carries the casket of Rosalynn Carter in Atlanta ahead of a memorial service Tuesday. (Erik S. Lesser/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

    Recommended reading

    A guest looks at the program prior to a tribute service for former first lady Rosalynn Carter at Glenn Memorial Church on the campus of Emory University in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Brynn Anderson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
A guest looks at the program prior to a tribute service for former first lady Rosalynn Carter at Glenn Memorial Church on the campus of Emory University in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Brynn Anderson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

    A guest looks at the program prior to a tribute service for former first lady Rosalynn Carter at Glenn Memorial Church on the campus of Emory University in Atlanta on Tuesday. (Brynn Anderson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: California’s majestic desert must be preserved. This proposal can help

    Opinion: California’s majestic desert must be preserved. This proposal can help

    [ad_1]

    As the former superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park — and a 38-year career employee for the National Park Service — I have seen the undeniable benefits that come with conserving our public lands. Nowhere has this become more clear than in the California desert, where conservation efforts have nurtured a growing and sustainable outdoor recreation community and economy. A new proposal to establish the Chuckwalla National Monument and protect public lands adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park is the next step in continuing these endeavors.

    Proposed by Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Palm Desert), the Chuckwalla National Monument and Joshua Tree National Park extension would encompass roughly 660,000 acres of public land in the California desert. The designation would help ensure more equitable access to nature for residents of the Eastern Coachella Valley, Blythe and other local communities. Already, these lands are beloved for outdoor activities such as hiking, picnicking, stargazing and recreational off-highway vehicle use. Elsewhere in the California desert, public lands conservation that supports similar activities has led to visitor spending that directly benefits the economies of nearby communities.

    The proposed monument would also help safeguard the ecologically rich but vulnerable Colorado Desert bioregion. Conserving this area will protect important wildlife and plant habitats, including those necessary to support the desert tortoise, desert bighorn sheep and the Mecca aster, among others. The monument would also conserve critical wildlife corridors between Joshua Tree National Park and other protected areas such as the Palen/McCoy Wilderness. Additionally, the region’s undisturbed desert lands are increasingly valued for their important role in sequestering atmospheric carbon, a key contributor to global climate change.

    The lands proposed for protection include the homelands of the Iviatim, Nüwü, Pipa Aha Macav, Kwatsáan and Maara’yam peoples (Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Mojave, Quechan and Serrano nations). The proposed monument would preserve this cultural landscape by protecting important heritage values, sacred sites and objects, traditional cultural places, plants and wildlife.

    The timing for this effort could not be better, as support for public land conservation is steadily growing throughout the West in general. The 2023 Colorado College Conservation in the West Poll shows that more than 80% of voters across eight Western states support the “30×30” goal of protecting 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. Additionally, the proposed national monument would help advance California’s own “30×30” goals.

    At a time when conserving nature and meeting renewable energy goals are critical, a Chuckwalla National Monument would accomplish both. It is complementary to the goals of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, a multi-year collaborative process that identifies areas suitable for renewable energy development and lands important for conservation. The proposed monument avoids lands suitable for energy projects and it protects areas that are important to conserve for their biological, cultural and historic values.

    President Biden is on track to protect more land than any other first-term president in modern American history. To date, he has responded to calls to safeguard public lands near the Grand Canyon, in southern Nevada and elsewhere. Biden should continue this work and designate Chuckwalla National Monument and protect lands adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park, helping to preserve some of California’s desert treasures.

    Mark Butler is the former superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park and a 38-year career employee of the National Park Service.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Butler

    Source link

  • Letters to the Editor: Biden is a great president. He should serve the country by stepping aside

    Letters to the Editor: Biden is a great president. He should serve the country by stepping aside

    [ad_1]

    To the editor: President Biden’s winning strategy would be for him to step aside and allow others to take over the Democratic mantle. (“Biden says he’s an optimist. But his dire warnings about Trump are central to his campaign,” Nov. 19)

    He has achieved a lot for the American people during the last three years as president, and he should be justifiably proud of his record. For him to give up the wish voluntarily for a second term would not be a blemish on his outstanding career and service to the country.

    Americans love their leaders to exude confidence and vigor. Biden does not fit that mold.

    He claims he wants to finish the job with a second term. He can rest assured that any of the younger Democrats waiting in the wings will do that for him against the onslaught by the reactionary Republicans who have given up any pretense to being a party of law and order.

    Biden should do the country a huge favor by giving up on his personal ambition to serve two terms as president.

    Charles Blankson, Menifee

    ..

    To the editor: The upcoming presidential election is about much more than just Biden vs. former President Trump. It’s about the people they surround themselves with.

    As he has demonstrated, Trump will lean on friends, family and business associates whose main interests are themselves and Trump, not what’s best for the country. Not only is Trump unfit for office, but the people he hires are unfit as well.

    On the other hand, Biden has and will continue to appoint competent people who believe in taking action to improve the country. You can quibble about Biden’s age if you like, but he has good people around him who live in reality, believe in science and respect the laws of the country.

    In short, Biden wants to strengthen democracy, not undermine it.

    Dave Courdy, Huntington Beach

    This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden-Harris reelection campaign ramps up political fundraising in Hollywood

    Biden-Harris reelection campaign ramps up political fundraising in Hollywood

    [ad_1]

    Raising campaign money from Hollywood after a long hiatus during industry strikes, Vice President Kamala Harris sounded confident as she told supporters Monday that President Biden will win the 2024 election.

    “It will not be easy,” she said. “There are powerful forces in our country right now that are trying to divide our nation. And it will be incumbent on us to hold it together for the sake of the strength of our nation and our future.”

    Harris delivered the remarks at a glitzy fundraiser held at the Los Angeles home of Hollywood philanthropists and lawyers Leslie and Cliff Gilbert-Lurie. The event showed how Democrats are intensifying efforts to attract political donations from Hollywood now that the entertainment industry strikes have ended. It also revealed some of the challenges Democrats confront as the party splinters over the Israel-Hamas war, with protesters staging a small demonstration outside the fundraiser.

    Harris and Biden have been largely absent from the political fundraising circuit in Los Angeles this year as Hollywood was hobbled by striking actors and screenwriters pushing for better pay and benefits. The heightened tension between Hollywood workers and studio executives made tapping into donations from the entertainment industry politically fraught. Candidates didn’t want to risk crossing picket lines, and executives didn’t want to be seen cutting big checks to politicians while negotiating with workers.

    But with actors reaching a deal to end their strike earlier this month, following the conclusion of the writers’ strike in September, Hollywood is resuming its role as a major source of campaign cash for national Democrats.

    Monday’s fundraiser included more than 140 guests and raised close to $500,000, Leslie Gilbert-Lurie told the crowd gathered at her home’s poolside lounge with lights strung around trees in the yard. Inside the modern home adorned with art, people sipped wine and nibbled on crostinis with squash and truffle walnut hummus with pomegranates.

    The fundraiser also attracted about two dozen protesters opposed to the Israel-Hamas war who yelled “Free Palestine!” and “Shame on you!” as people entered the home. Before Harris arrived, they threw fake blood in front of the Gilbert-Luries’ house and placed red handprints on the ground. About a dozen police officers stood in front of the home.

    Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, who is the first Jewish spouse of a president or vice president, spoke to the group about his work to combat antisemitism and hate.

    “You saw it outside walking in here today,” he said, referencing the protesters. “This is the times that we’re living in right now.”

    Before Harris delivered her remarks standing between two American flags, a woman in the audience called for a cease-fire. Security led her out of the home.

    Harris told the audience to “take a minute” before she continued speaking, noting that Americans have to continue their fight against antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hate.

    “This is a very critical moment in the history of our country and the history of the world, and so much of what we have each fought for and believed in our entire lives is at stake in this election and in this moment,” she said.

    While politicians have avoided fundraising during the Hollywood strikes, Biden’s campaign has been picking up donations in the Bay Area. Throughout this year, Biden has held fundraisers in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, tapping into the region’s tech-industry wealth. Last week, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, Biden and Harris attended a Democratic National Committee fundraiser while hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters opposed to the Israel-Hamas war chanted outside the the Merchants Exchange Building.

    In October, Biden’s campaign said it raised more than $71 million in the third quarter, surpassing fundraising by former President Trump and GOP primary candidates.

    [ad_2]

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • President Biden Pardons National Thanksgiving Turkeys On His 81st Birthday

    President Biden Pardons National Thanksgiving Turkeys On His 81st Birthday

    [ad_1]

    Turkeys Liberty and Bell have a new appreciation for the phrase, “Let freedom ring.” The Thanksgiving birds played their part Monday in the annual White House tradition: a president issuing a pardon and sparing them from becoming someone’s holiday dinner.

    This year, the event coincided with President Joe Biden’s 81st birthday. First, Biden — the oldest president in U.S. history — wanted to make light of his age.

    “By the way, it’s my birthday today,” the president said, noting that guests with him in the Oval Office before the event sang “Happy Birthday.” “I just want you to know, it’s difficult turning 60. Difficult.”

    He also noted that the presentation of a National Thanksgiving Turkey to the White House has been a tradition for more than seven decades.

    “This is the 76th anniversary of this event, and I want you to know I wasn’t there .. for the first one,” Biden said.

    Biden Pardons National Thanksgiving Turkeys On His 81st B-Day
    WASHINGTON DC, UNITED STATES – NOVEMBER 20: United States President Joe Biden (R) attends the National Thanksgiving Turkey Ceremony at the White House in Washington DC, United States on November 20, 2023. (Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

    Biden Says The Turkeys Overcame “Tough Odds”

    Before issuing the pardons, Biden said Liberty and Bell were Minnesota natives. However, they are named for the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

    “These birds have a new appreciation of the word, ‘let freedom ring,’” he said, adding that they love Honeycrisp apples, ice hockey, a thousand lakes, and the Mall of America — all things the Midwest state is famous for.

    They overcame “some tough odds” to make it to the White House, Biden continued, saying, “They had to work hard to show patience and be willing to travel over a thousand miles.”

    Hundreds of guests, including Cabinet secretaries and White House staff who brought children, watched from the South Lawn as Biden kicked off the unofficial start of Washington’s holiday season. His granddaughter, Maisy Biden, watched from the sidelines with her half-brother, Beau Biden. After the ceremony, Beau was led over to pet one of the turkeys.

    Steve Lykken, chairman of the National Turkey Federation and president of the Jennie-O Turkey Store, told The Associated Press in an interview last week that the pardons are a “great way to kick off the holiday season and really, really a fun honor.”

    Lykken introduced Liberty and Bell on Sunday at the Willard Intercontinental, a luxury hotel near the White House. The gobblers checked into a suite there on Saturday following their red-carpet arrival in the U.S. capital. The trip from Minnesota in a black Cadillac Escalade took a couple of days.

    “They were raised like all of our turkeys, protected, of course, from weather extremes and predators, free to walk about with constant access to water and feed,” Lykken said Sunday as Liberty and Bell strutted around the Willard’s newly renovated Crystal Room on plastic sheeting laid over the carpet.

    The male turkeys, both about 20 weeks old and about 42 pounds (19 kilograms), hatched in July in Willmar, Minnesota. Jennie-O has its headquarters there. The turkeys were part of the “presidential flock,” Lykken said. They listened to music and other sounds to prepare them for Monday’s hoopla at the White House.

    “They listened to all kinds of music to get ready for the crowds and people along the way. I can confirm they are, in fact, Swifties, and they do enjoy some Prince,” Lykken said, meaning Liberty and Bell are fans of Taylor Swift. “I think they’re absolutely ready for prime time.”

    More On The Thanksgiving Tradition

    The tradition dates to 1947 when the National Turkey Federation first presented a National Thanksgiving Turkey to President Harry Truman. Back then, and even earlier, the gobbler was given for the first family’s holiday consumption.

    But by the late 1980s, the tradition had evolved into an often humorous ceremony in which the birds are given a second chance at life.

    Liberty and Bell will now be cared for by the University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences.

    President Biden Pardons National Thanksgiving Turkeys On His 81st BirthdayPresident Biden Pardons National Thanksgiving Turkeys On His 81st Birthday
    Turkeys Liberty and Bell (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
    RELATED: Sketchy Seafood! Texas Man Passes Away After Contracting Flesh-Eating Bacteria From Raw Oysters

    [ad_2]

    Cassandra S

    Source link

  • Outrage against Univision grows after Trump interview

    Outrage against Univision grows after Trump interview

    [ad_1]

    Univision has found itself at the center of a growing controversy after a recent interview with former President Trump that critics have blasted as too friendly.

    The interview that aired Nov. 9 was noticeably warm, and Trump received little pushback as he gave false or misleading statements on border security and immigration policies he instituted as president.

    Backlash from certain corners of the Latino community was swift, including calls for more balanced reporting and an outright boycott of the television network ahead of the 2024 election.

    Latinos are considered a crucial voting bloc — and largely up for grabs — in next year’s election, likely to be a rematch between Trump and President Biden. Although Latino voters have historically favored Democrats, the Republican Party in recent years has made significant progress in courting their votes.

    The exclusive interview with Trump therefore raised significant alarms within the Democratic Party and its allies that the leading Republican candidate was making unchecked claims to important swing voters.

    Actor John Leguizamo posted a video to his 1 million Instagram followers Thursday criticizing the Spanish-language media company for “softballing Trump” and reportedly canceling ads for Biden. He said the television network has become “MAGA-vision.”

    He implored fellow entertainers, athletes, activists and politicians to join him in boycotting the network until it reinstated “parity, and equality and equity” between the presidential candidates. The television network has also requested an interview with Biden, according to the Washington Post.

    The more-than-hourlong interview with Trump was conducted by Enrique Acevedo, an anchor from Mexican network Televisa who is not a Univision journalist. The two media groups merged last year. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly helped organize the interview.

    “All you have to do is look at the owners of Univision,” Trump said in the first few minutes of the interview when asked about Latino voters and recent polls showing him defeating Biden in 2024. “They’re unbelievable entrepreneurial people, and they like me.”

    “They want to see security,” Trump added. “They want to have a border.”

    During the interview, Trump made questionable claims that the partial wall built along the southern border was made possible by Mexico providing thousands of soldiers “free of charge,” and that former President Obama laid the groundwork for the controversial policy at the border to deter illegal crossings that became known as the family-separation crisis. Acevedo did not push back on either claim.

    “It wasn’t just a friendly interview. It was an embarrassing 1-hour puff-piece with lots of smiles and no pushback with a guy who relished in attacking, belittling and otherizing Latinos and Latin American immigrants,” Ana Navarro-Cárdenas, a prominent Nicaraguan American political strategist and commentator, said on the platform X, the company formerly known as Twitter.

    León Krauze, a veteran news anchor for Univision, has since resigned from the network. He did not provide a reason for his departure.

    State Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), a member of the California Latino Legislative Caucus who is running for Congress, said she knew many other Latino leaders who were “personally upset” about the interview.

    Rubio said she was “appalled” at how the former president “was allowed to just continue to spew lies and go unchecked” during the conversation. She called the interview “an insult to our entire Latino community.”

    The network is “absolutely influential” in households like hers, she said, describing it as a news source she and her Spanish-speaking parents view as trusted and unbiased.

    “Our community relies on this information to be truthful. They rely on this source that has been trusted by the Latino community for many, many generations,” she said. “They should have done a better job of making sure that our community is not lied to.”

    The Congressional Hispanic Caucus plans to send a letter to the television network requesting a meeting with its chief executive, Wade Davis, and calling for stronger guardrails against disinformation, according to a draft copy of the letter reviewed by The Times.

    More than 70 organizations — including prominent Latino groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, America’s Voice and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights — signed an open letter to Davis and other TelevisaUnivision executives, sharply criticizing the interview.

    The letter, first reported by the Post, asks that the network “conduct a thorough internal review, take corrective measures, and reaffirm its commitment to unbiased reporting and to keeping the Latino community informed and up-to-date with facts and truth,” according to a copy reviewed by The Times.

    The controversy is more complicated than what it seems, said Mike Madrid, a GOP political consultant who has a forthcoming book called “The Latino Century: How America’s Largest Minority is Shaping Our Democracy.”

    Madrid, who is a vocal critic of Trump, said the objections to the interview are reflective of how the Democratic Party and other left-leaning organizations have taken Latino voters for granted — and relied on the television network to promote their candidates and policies for decades.

    Since the late 1980s, Democrats have banked on Latino voters to win elections, Madrid said. But over the last decade, Democrats have begun “hemorrhaging” second- and third-generation Latino voters who are U.S.-born and English-dominant speakers.

    Madrid doesn’t dispute that the interview with Trump may have been biased or too cozy, but he said it demonstrates the media company’s shift toward the middle and, therefore, a new Latino audience.

    “Where were they for the past 30 years when the Democratic Party was getting softball interviews? The Democrats have taken this base vote for granted. They assumed it was there and Univision would always be in their corner, would always be championing them and advocating for their candidates and policies,” he said. “When you’ve been the beneficiary of media bias, objectivity sounds like betrayal. That’s what’s going on.”

    Instead of promoting a boycott of the network, which Madrid called “absolute madness,” Democrats should adjust their strategy and start courting Latino voters on a variety of issues, such as the economy and jobs, rather than just immigration.

    “The Democrats have to figure this out very quick that going to war is not in their best interest,” he said. “They are going to have to learn to fight for this vote, when they haven’t for decades. … And they have less than a year to figure this out.”

    Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Wiley, Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Big checks and political galas: Hollywood donations expected to spike due to strike ending

    Big checks and political galas: Hollywood donations expected to spike due to strike ending

    [ad_1]

    Hollywood political donations, sharply stymied by this year’s drawn-out entertainment-industry strikes, are expected to spike now that the Screen Actors Guild has reached a tentative deal with the studios.

    President Biden is widely expected to raise money in Los Angeles in the coming weeks, along with a slew of Senate and congressional candidates who have largely avoided the region because of the writers’ and actors’ strikes.

    Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, a Californian with longtime relationships with entertainment-industry leaders, have been largely unable to publicly tap these donors this year. Harris in May even pulled out of her first public appearance in her home state after she and Biden announced their reelection campaign — an MTV mental health awareness event in Carson — because of the Writers Guild of America strike.

    Attending a glitzy industry fundraiser would have been even more fraught — Biden or Harris would have almost certainly had to cross a union picket line — an anathema in Democratic politics, where support from organized labor is essential. Additionally, studio executives didn’t want to host fancy donor gatherings or write big checks while they were pleading poverty during bargaining with actors and writers.

    Biden and Harris have by no means suffered because of the decline in the number of Los Angeles fundraisers. They have raised more than $70 million in each of the last two fiscal quarters, and their campaign and the Democratic National Committee have $91 million cash on hand, the most ever by a Democratic White House ticket at this point in the electoral cycle.

    Still, campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodriguez said the president and vice president purposefully avoided Hollywood because of the strikes.

    “We have been very respectful [and] mindful of the environment that people in the industry are feeling and facing,” she said in an interview shortly before the actors’ strike was resolved. “I hope we get a chance to get out there before the end of the year, the end of the fourth quarter, because it is a really important base of support for us to be able to connect with before the clock starts over.”

    Biden on Thursday lauded the tentative agreement.

    “Collective bargaining works,” he said in a statement. “When both sides come to the table to negotiate in earnest they can make businesses stronger and allow workers to secure pay and benefits that help them raise families and retire with dignity.”

    The entertainment industry has been a historic treasure trove of political dollars for both parties, but mostly Democrats. In 2020, people who reported working in television, movie and music jobs donated $43.7 million to presidential campaigns and outside groups.

    Democrats received nearly three-quarters of the money, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks electoral finances.

    Political contributions from donors who work in the television, movie and music industries plummeted this year, according to an analysis by the center conducted for The Times.

    In the first nine months of 2023, donors in these industries contributed $5.4 million to federal campaigns, according to the center’s analysis. During the same time period in prior presidential elections, these donors contributed much more: $24.6 million in 2019, $21.1 million in 2015 and $15.5 million in 2011.

    One of the most famous Hollywood fundraisers took place in 2012 on the basketball court of actor George Clooney’s house in Studio City, when then-President Obama raised nearly $15 million for his reelection effort, believed to be the largest one-night campaign haul ever at that time. The dinner party, catered by Wolfgang Puck and attended by Robert Downey Jr., Diane Von Furstenberg, Barbra Streisand, James Brolin, Tobey Maguire, Billy Crystal and others, took place one day after Obama announced his support for gay marriage.

    Such star-spangled events were few and far between in summer. The tempo has started to pick up slightly in recent months, though it’s still slower than the typical slate of political galas, fetes and dinners the year before a presidential election, several people said. In addition to providing an opportunity to publicly tout one’s political views, such events are a cornerstone of the Hollywood social scene.

    “Fundraising in Hollywood is the ultimate networking,” said Donna Bojarsky, a longtime Democratic political consultant and co-founder of a nonprofit dedicated to building civic engagement in L.A. “You go to a Hollywood fundraiser and you see everyone you know.”

    However, some are skeptical about whether entertainment-industry fundraising will return to its prior apex.

    Lara Bergthold, a communications consultant who has long operated at the nexus of Hollywood and politics, identified a wider issue than the labor stalemate and ensuing financial losses.

    “Looking at the broader landscape of progressive organizations and candidates, fundraising is down for them compared to this time four years ago — it’s not just Los Angeles, it’s not just the strike, it’s kind of all over the place,” she said, citing donor burnout, exhaustion and wide-ranging economic worries.

    Still, there was a class of major donors who’d largely abstained this year because writing five- or six-figure checks “felt flashy and showy at a time when it was really much more appropriate to be holding back,“ she said recently. Bergthold expected that giving to resume in full force soon after the SAG-AFTRA strike ended.

    The writers’ strike ended in late September after 148 days, and the actors’ union’s negotiating committee approved a tentative deal with the major studios on Wednesday after a nearly four-month strike that hobbled the industry and left thousands without work. The ratification vote is expected to take place this week.

    Speaking last week before the SAG-AFTRA strike ended, Jay Sures, the politically powerful co-president of Hollywood’s United Talent Agency, said he was uncertain about how fundraising would play out in coming months.

    “I think it’s going to be a mixed bag,” Sures said. “You’ll see super mega donors who are just going to give no matter what, and you’ll see other donors who will say, ‘Maybe it’s time to just hold off for one beat and see where the world takes us.’”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has benefited greatly from Hollywood donors, said he expects it may take a little time for fundraisers to ramp up because of the roller-coaster many have been through recently.

    “I think everyone takes a deep breath. It’s been a tough three years for all of us, with COVID, social unrest, macroeconomic uncertainty, issues of geopolitical uncertainty. And now you have these strikes,” Newsom said this month. That said, he added, “the economy has done very well for a lot of those folks — Bidenomics has been good to them. I would expect that largesse to show up in subsequent quarters, undoubtedly.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Dean Phillips Has a Warning for Democrats

    Dean Phillips Has a Warning for Democrats

    [ad_1]

    This article was featured in One Story to Read Today, a newsletter in which our editors recommend a single must-read from The Atlantic, Monday through Friday. Sign up for it here.

    To spend time around Dean Phillips, as I have since his first campaign for Congress in 2018, is to encounter someone so earnest as to be utterly suspicious. He speaks constantly of joy and beauty and inspiration, beaming at the prospect of entertaining some new perspective. He allows himself to be interrupted often—by friends, family, staffers—but rarely interrupts them, listening patiently with a politeness that almost feels aggravating. With the practiced manners of one raised with great privilege—boasting a net worth he estimates at $50 million—the gentleman from Minnesota is exactly that.

    But that courtly disposition cracks, I’ve noticed, when he’s convinced that someone is lying. Maybe it’s because at six months old he lost his father in a helicopter crash that his family believes the military covered up, in a war in Vietnam that was sold to the public with tricks and subterfuge. I can hear the anger in his voice as he talks about the treachery that led to January 6, recalling his frantic search for some sort of weapon—he found only a sharpened pencil—with which to defend himself against the violent masses who were sacking the U.S. Capitol. I can see it in his eyes when Phillips, who is Jewish, remarks that some of his Democratic colleagues have recently spread falsehoods about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and others in the party have refused to condemn blatant anti-Semitism.

    Deception is a part of politics. Phillips acknowledges that. But some deceptions are more insidious than others. On the third Saturday of October, as we sat inside the small, sun-drenched living room of his rural-Virginia farmhouse, Phillips told me he was about to do something out of character: He was going to upset some people. He was going to upset some people because he was going to run for president. And he was going to run for president, Phillips explained, because there is one deception he can no longer perpetuate.

    “My grave concern,” the congressman said, “is I just don’t think President Biden will beat Donald Trump next November.”

    This isn’t some fringe viewpoint within the Democratic Party. In a year’s worth of conversations with other party leaders, Phillips told me, “everybody, without exception,” shares his fear about Joe Biden’s fragility—political and otherwise—as he seeks a second term. This might be hyperbole, but not by much: In my own recent conversations with party officials, it was hard to find anyone who wasn’t jittery about Biden. Phillips’s problem is that they refuse to say so on the record. Democrats claim to view Trump as a singular threat to the republic, the congressman complains, but for reasons of protocol and self-preservation they have been unwilling to go public with their concerns about Biden, making it all the more likely, in Phillips’s view, that the former president will return to office.

    Phillips spent the past 15 months trying to head off such a calamity. He has noisily implored Biden, who turns 81 next month—and would be 86 at the end of a second term—to “pass the torch,” while openly attempting to recruit prominent young Democrats to challenge the president in 2024. He name-dropped some Democratic governors on television and made personal calls to others, urging someone, anyone, to jump into the Democratic race. What he encountered, he thought, was a dangerous dissonance: Some of the president’s allies would tell him, in private conversations, to keep agitating, to keep recruiting, that Biden had no business running in 2024—but that they weren’t in a position to do anything about it.

    What made this duplicity especially maddening to Phillips, he told me, is that Democrats have seen its pernicious effects on the other side of the political aisle. For four years during Trump’s presidency, Democrats watched their Republican colleagues belittle Trump behind closed doors, then praise him to their base, creating a mirage of support that ultimately made them captives to the cult of Trumpism. Phillips stresses that there is no equivalence between Trump and Biden. Still, having been elected in 2018 alongside a class of idealistic young Democrats—“the Watergate babies of the Trump era,” Phillips said—he always took great encouragement in the belief that his party would never fall into the trap of elevating people over principles.

    “We don’t have time to make this about any one individual. This is about a mission to stop Donald Trump,” Phillips, who is 54, told me. “I’m just so frustrated—I’m growing appalled—by the silence from people whose job it is to be loud.”

    Phillips tried to make peace with this. As recently as eight weeks ago, he had quietly resigned himself to Biden’s nomination. The difference now, he said—the reason for his own buzzer-beating run for the presidency—is that Biden’s numbers have gone from bad to awful. Surveys taken since late summer show the president’s approval ratings hovering at or below 40 percent, Trump pulling ahead in the horse race, and sizable majorities of voters, including Democratic voters, wishing the president would step aside. These findings are apparent in district-level survey data collected by Phillips’s colleagues in the House, and have been the source of frenzied intraparty discussion since the August recess. And yet Democrats’ reaction to them, Phillips said, has been to grimace, shrug, and say it’s too late for anything to be done.

    “There’s no such thing as too late,” Phillips told me, “until Donald Trump is in the White House again.”

    In recent weeks, Phillips has reached out to a wide assortment of party elders. He did this, in part, as a check on his own sanity. He was becoming panicked at the prospect of Trump’s probable return to office. He halfway hoped to be told that he was losing his grip on reality, that Trump Derangement Syndrome had gotten to him. He wanted someone to tell him that everything was going to be fine. Instead, in phone call after phone call, his fears were only exacerbated.

    “I’m looking at polling data, and I’m looking at all of it. The president’s numbers are just not good—and they’re not getting any better,” James Carville, the Democratic strategist, told me, summarizing his recent conversations with Phillips. “I talk to a lot of people who do a lot of congressional-level polling and state polling, and they’re all saying the same thing. There’s not an outlier; there’s not another opinion … The question is, has the country made up its mind?”

    Jim Messina, who ran Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, told me the answer is no. “This is exactly where we were at this stage of that election cycle,” Messina said. He pointed to the November 6, 2011, issue of The New York Times Magazine, the cover of which read, “So, Is Obama Toast?” Messina called the current situation just another case of bedwetting. “If there was real concern, then you’d have real politicians running,” he said. “I’d never heard of Dean Phillips until a few weeks ago.”

    The bottom line, Messina said, is that “Biden’s already beaten Trump once. He’s the one guy who can beat him again.”

    Carville struggles with this logic. The White House, he said, “operates with what I call this doctrine of strategic certainty,” arguing that Biden is on the same slow-but-steady trajectory he followed in 2020. “Joe Biden has been counted out by the Beltway insiders, pundits, DC media, and anonymous Washington sources time and time again,” the Biden campaign wrote in a statement. “Time and time again, they have been wrong.” The problem is that 2024 bears little resemblance to 2020: Biden is even older, there is a proliferation of third-party and independent candidates, and the Democratic base, which turned out in record numbers in the last presidential election, appears deflated. (“The most under-covered story in contemporary American politics,” Carville said, “is that Black turnout has been miserable everywhere since 2020.”) Carville added that in his own discussions with leading Democrats, when he argues that Biden’s prospects for reelection have grown bleak, “Nobody is saying, ‘James, you’re wrong,’” he told me. “They’re saying, ‘James, you can’t say that.’”

    Hence his fondness for Phillips. “Remember when the Roman Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy for saying that the Earth moves around the sun? He said, ‘And yet, it still moves,’” Carville told me, cackling in his Cajun drawl. The truth is, Carville said, Biden’s numbers aren’t moving—and whoever points that out is bound to be treated like a heretic in Democratic circles.

    Phillips knows that he’s making a permanent enemy of the party establishment. He realizes that he’s likely throwing away a promising career in Congress; already, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota has announced a primary challenge and enlisted the help of leading firms in the St. Paul area to take Phillips out. He told me how, after the news of his impending launch leaked to the press, “a colleague from New Hampshire”—the congressman grinned, as that description narrowed it down to just two people—told him that his candidacy was “not serious” and “offensive” to the state’s voters. In the run-up to his launch, Phillips tried to speak with the president—to convey his respect before entering the race. On Thursday night, he said, the White House got back to him: Biden would not be talking to Phillips.

    Cedric Richmond, the onetime Louisiana congressman who is now co-chair of Biden’s reelection campaign, told me Phillips doesn’t “give a crap” about the party and is pursuing “a vanity project” that could result in another Trump presidency. “History tells us when the sitting president faces a primary challenge, it weakens him for the general election,” Richmond said. “No party has ever survived that.”

    But Phillips insists—and his friends, even those who think he’s making a crushing mistake, attest—that he is doing this out of genuine conviction. Standing up and leaning across a coffee table inside his living room, Phillips pulled out his phone and recited data from recent surveys. One showed 70 percent of Democrats under 35 wanting a different nominee; another showed swing-state voters siding with Trump over Biden on a majority of policy issues, and independents roundly rejecting “Bidenomics,” the White House branding for the president’s handling of the economy. “These are not numbers that you can massage,” Phillips said. “Look, just because he’s old, that’s not a disqualifier. But being old, in decline, and having numbers that are clearly moving in the wrong direction? It’s getting to red-alert kind of stuff.”

    Phillips sat back down. “Someone had to do this,” the congressman told me. “It just was so self-evident.”

    If the need to challenge the president is so self-evident, I asked, then why is a third-term congressman from Minnesota the only one willing to do it?

    “I think about that every day,” Phillips replied, shaking his head. “If the data is correct, over 50 percent of Democrats want a different nominee—and yet there’s only one out of 260 Democrats in the Congress saying the same thing?”

    Phillips no longer wonders whether there’s something wrong with him. He believes there’s something wrong with the Democratic Party—a “disease” that discourages competition and shuts down dialogue and crushes dissent. Phillips said his campaign for president won’t simply be about the “generational schism” that pits clinging-to-power Baby Boomers against the rest of the country.  If he’s running, the congressman said, he’s running on all the schisms that divide the Democrats: cultural and ideological, economic and geographic. He intends to tell some “hard truths” about a party that, in its attempt to turn the page on Trump, he argued, has done things to help move him back into the Oval Office. He sounded at times less like a man who wants to win the presidency, and more like someone who wants to draw attention to the decaying state of our body politic.

    Over the course of a weekend on Phillips’s farm, we spent hours discussing the twisted incentive structures of America’s governing institutions. He talked about loyalties and blind spots, about how truth takes a back seat to narrative, about how we tell ourselves stories to ignore uncomfortable realities. Time and again, I pressed Phillips on the most uncomfortable reality of all: By running against Biden—by litigating the president’s age and fitness for office in months of town-hall meetings across New Hampshire—isn’t he likely to make a weak incumbent that much weaker, thereby making another Trump presidency all the more likely?

    “I want to strengthen him. If it’s not me, I want to strengthen him. I won’t quit until I strengthen him. I mean it,” Phillips said of Biden. “I do not intend to undermine him, demean him, diminish him, attack him, or embarrass him.”

    Phillips’s friends tell me his intentions are pure. But they fear that what makes him special—his guileless, romantic approach to politics—could in this case be ruinous for the country. They have warned him about the primary campaigns against George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, both of whom lost in the general election.

    Phillips insisted to me that he wouldn’t be running against Biden. Rather, he would be campaigning for the future of the Democratic Party. There was no scenario, he said, in which his candidacy would result in Trump winning back the White House.

    And in that moment, it was Dean Phillips who was telling himself a story.

    He didn’t see the question coming—but he didn’t try to duck it, either.

    It was July of last year. Phillips was doing a regular spot on WCCO radio, a news-talk station in his district, when host Chad Hartman asked the congressman if he wanted Biden to run for reelection in 2024. “No. I don’t,” Phillips replied, while making sure to voice his admiration for the president. “I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up.”

    Phillips didn’t think much about the comment. After all, he’d run for Congress in 2018 promising not to vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House (though he ultimately did support her as part of a deal that codified the end of her time in leadership). While he has been a reliable vote in the Democratic caucus—almost always siding with Biden on the House floor—Phillips has simultaneously been a squeaky wheel. He’s a centrist unhappy with what he sees as the party’s coddling of the far left. He’s a Gen Xer convinced that the party’s aging leadership is out of step with the country. He’s an industrialist worried about the party’s hostility toward Big Business. (When he was 3 years old, his mother married the heir of a distilling empire; Phillips took it over in his early 30s, then made his own fortune with the gelato company Talenti.)

    When the blowback to the radio interview arrived—party donors, activists, and officials in both Minnesota and Washington rebuked him as disloyal—Phillips was puzzled. Hadn’t Biden himself said, while campaigning in 2020, that he would be a “bridge” to the future of the Democratic Party? Hadn’t he made that remark flanked by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer on one side and future Vice President Kamala Harris on the other? Hadn’t he all but promised that his campaign was about removing Trump from power, not staying in power himself?

    Phillips had never seriously entertained the notion that Biden would seek reelection. Neither had many of his Democratic colleagues. In fact, several House Democrats told me—on the condition of anonymity, as not one of them would speak on the record for this article—that in their conversations with Biden’s inner circle throughout the summer and fall of 2022, the question was never if the president would announce his decision to forgo a second term, but when he would make that announcement.

    Figuring that he’d dealt with the worst of the recoil—and still very much certain that Biden would ultimately step aside—Phillips grew more vocal. He spent the balance of 2022, while campaigning for his own reelection, arguing that both Biden and Pelosi should make way for younger Democratic leaders to emerge. He was relieved when, after Republicans recaptured the House of Representatives that fall, Pelosi allowed Hakeem Jeffries, a friend of Phillips’s, to succeed her atop the caucus.

    But that relief soon gave way to worry: As the calendar turned to 2023, there were rumblings coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that Biden might run for reelection after all. In February, Phillips irked his colleagues on Capitol Hill when he gave an extensive interview to the Politico columnist Jonathan Martin shaming Democrats for suppressing their concerns about Biden. At that point, his friends in the caucus still believed that Phillips was picking a fight for no reason. When Biden announced his candidacy two months later, several people recalled to me, some congressional Democrats were stunned.

    “Many actually felt, I think, personally offended,” Phillips said. “They felt he had made a promise—either implicitly, if not explicitly.”

    Around the time Biden was launching his reelection campaign, Phillips was returning to the United States from an emotional journey to Vietnam. He had traveled to the country, for the first time, in search of the place where his father and seven other Americans died in a 1969 helicopter crash. (Military officials initially told his mother that the Huey was shot down; only later, Phillips says, did they admit that the accident was weather related.) After a local man volunteered to lead Phillips to the crash site, the congressman broke down in tears, running his hands over the ground where his father perished, reflecting, he told me, on “the magnificence and the consequence of the power of the American presidency.”

    Phillips left Vietnam with renewed certainty of his mission—not to seek the White House himself, but to recruit a Democrat who stood a better chance than Biden of defeating Donald Trump.

    Back in Washington, Phillips began asking House Democratic colleagues for the personal phone numbers of governors in their states. Some obliged him; others ignored the request or refused it. Phillips tried repeatedly to get in touch with these governors. Only two got back to him—Whitmer in Michigan, and J. B. Pritzker in Illinois—but neither one would speak to the congressman directly. “They had their staff take the call,” Phillips told me. “They wouldn’t take the call.”

    With a wry grin, he added: “Gretchen Whitmer’s aide was very thoughtful … J. B. Pritzker’s delegate was somewhat unfriendly.”

    By this point, Phillips was getting impatient. Trump’s numbers were improving. One third-party candidate, Cornel West, was already siphoning support away from Biden, and Phillips suspected that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had declared his candidacy as a Democrat, would eventually switch to run as an independent. (That suspicion proved correct earlier this month.) As a member of the elected House Democratic leadership, Phillips could sense the anxiety mounting within the upper echelons of the party. He and other Democratic officials wondered what, exactly, the White House would do to counter the obvious loss of momentum. The answer: Biden’s super PAC dropped eight figures on an advertising blitz around Bidenomics, a branding exercise that Phillips told me was viewed as “a joke” within the House Democratic caucus.

    “Completely disconnected from what we were hearing,” Phillips said of the slogan, “which is people getting frustrated that the administration was telling them that everything is great.”

    Everything was not great—but it didn’t seem terrible, either. The RealClearPolitics average of polls, as of late spring, showed Biden and Trump running virtually even. As the summer wore on, however, there were signs of trouble. When Phillips and certain purple-district colleagues would compare notes on happenings back home, the readouts were the same. Polling indicated that more and more independents were drifting from the Democratic ranks. Field operations confirmed that young people and minorities were dangerously disengaged. Town-hall questions and donor meetings began and ended with questions about Biden’s fitness to run against Trump.

    Phillips decided that he needed to push even harder. Before embarking on a new, more aggressive phase of his mission—he began booking national-TV appearances with the explicit purpose of lobbying a contender to join the Democratic race—he spoke to Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, to share his plans. He also said he called the White House and spoke to Biden’s chief of staff, Jeff Zients, to offer a heads-up. Phillips wanted both men to know that he would be proceeding with respect—but proceeding all the same.

    In August, as Phillips dialed up the pressure, he suddenly began to feel the pressure himself. He had spent portions of the previous year cultivating relationships with powerful donors, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, who had offered their assistance in recruiting a challenger to Biden. Now, with those efforts seemingly doomed, the donors began asking Phillips if he would consider running. He laughed off the question at first. Phillips knew that it would take someone with greater name identification, and a far larger campaign infrastructure, to vie for the party’s presidential nomination. Besides, the folks he’d met with wanted someone like Whitmer or California Governor Gavin Newsom or Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, not a barely known congressman from the Minneapolis suburbs.

    In fact, Phillips had already considered—and rejected—the idea of running. After speaking to a packed D.C.-area ballroom of Gold Star families earlier this year, and receiving an ovation for his appeals to brotherhood and bipartisanship, he talked with his wife and his mother about the prospect of doing what no other Democrat was willing to do. But he concluded, quickly, that it was a nonstarter. He didn’t have the experience to run a national campaign, let alone a strategy of any sort.

    Phillips told his suitors he wasn’t their guy. Flying back to Washington after the summer recess, he resolved to keep his head down. The congressman didn’t regret his efforts, but he knew they had estranged him from the party. Now, with primary filing deadlines approaching and no serious challengers to the president in sight, he would fall in line and do everything possible to help Biden keep Trump from reclaiming the White House.

    No sooner had Phillips taken this vow than two things happened. First, as Congress reconvened during the first week of September, Phillips was blitzed by Democratic colleagues who shared the grim tidings from their districts around the country. He had long been viewed as the caucus outcast for his public defiance of the White House; now he was the party’s unofficial release valve, the member whom everyone sought out to vent their fears and frustrations. That same week, several major polls dropped, the collective upshot of which proved more worrisome than anything Phillips had witnessed to date. One survey, from The Wall Street Journal, showed Trump and Biden essentially tied, but reported that 73 percent of registered voters considered Biden “too old” to run for president, with only 47 percent saying the same about Trump, who is just three and a half years younger. Another poll, conducted for CNN, showed that 67 percent of Democratic voters wanted someone other than Biden as the party’s nominee.

    Phillips felt helpless. He made a few last-ditch phone calls, pleading and praying that someone might step forward. No one did. After a weekend of nail-biting, Phillips logged on to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday, September 11, to write a remembrance on the anniversary of America coming under attack. That’s when he noticed a direct message. It was from a man he’d never met but whose name he knew well: Steve Schmidt.

    “Some of the greatest acts of cowardice in the history of this country have played out in the last 10 years,” Schmidt told me, picking at a piece of coconut cream pie.

    “Agreed,” Phillips said, nodding his head. “Agreed.”

    The three of us, plus the congressman’s wife, Annalise, were talking late into the night around a long, rustic table in the farmhouse dining room. Never, not even in the juicy, adapted-to-TV novels about presidential campaigns, has there been a stranger pairing than Dean Phillips and Steve Schmidt. One is a genteel, carefully groomed midwesterner who trafficks in dad jokes and neighborly aphorisms, the other a swaggering, bald-headed, battle-hardened product of New Jersey who specializes in ad hominem takedowns. What unites them is a near-manic obsession with keeping Trump out of the White House—and a conviction that Biden cannot beat him next November.

    “The modern era of political campaigning began in 1896,” Schmidt told us, holding forth a bit on William McKinley’s defeat of William Jennings Bryan. “There has never been a bigger off-the-line mistake by any presidential campaign—ever—than labeling this economy ‘Bidenomics.’ The result of that is going to be to reelect Donald Trump, which will be catastrophic.”

    Schmidt added: “A fair reading of the polls is that if the election were tomorrow, Donald Trump would be the 47th president of the United States.”

    Schmidt, who is perhaps most famous for his work leading John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign—and, specifically, for recommending Sarah Palin as a surprise vice-presidential pick—likes to claim some credit for stopping Trump in the last election. The super PAC he co-founded in 2019, the Lincoln Project, combined quick-twitch instincts with devastating viral content, hounding Trump with over-the-top ads about everything from his business acumen to his mental stability. Schmidt became something of a cult hero to the left, a onetime conservative brawler who had mastered the art and science of exposing Republican duplicity in the Trump era. Before long, however, the Lincoln Project imploded due to cascading scandals. Schmidt resigned, apologizing for his missteps and swearing to himself that he was done with politics for good.

    He couldn’t have imagined that inviting Phillips onto his podcast, via direct message, would result in the near-overnight upending of both of their lives. After taping the podcast on September 22, Schmidt told Phillips how impressed he was by his sincerity and conviction. Two days later, Schmidt called Phillips to tell him that he’d shared the audio of their conversation with some trusted political friends, and the response was unanimous: This guy needs to run for president. Before Phillips could respond, Schmidt advised the congressman to talk with his family about it. It happened to be the eve of Yom Kippur: Phillips spent the next several days with his wife and his adult daughters, who expressed enthusiasm about the idea. Phillips called Schmidt back and told him that, despite his family’s support, he had no idea how to run a presidential campaign—much less one that would have to launch within weeks, given filing deadlines in key states.

    “Listen,” Schmidt told him, “if you’re willing to jump in, then I’m willing to jump in with you.”

    Phillips needed some time to think—and to assess Schmidt. Politics is a tough business, but even by that standard his would-be partner had made lots of enemies. The more the two men talked, however, the more Phillips came to view Schmidt as a kindred spirit. They shared not just a singular adversary in Trump but also a common revulsion at the conformist tactics of a political class that refuses to level with the public. (“People talk about misinformation on Twitter, misinformation in the media,” Schmidt told me. “But how is it not misinformation when our political leaders have one conversation with each other, then turn around and tell the American people exactly the opposite?”) Schmidt had relished working for heterodox dissenters like McCain and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Listening to Schmidt narrate his struggles to prevent the Republican Party’s demise, Phillips felt a strange parallel to his own situation.

    Back on January 6, 2021, as he’d crawled for cover inside the House gallery—listening to the sounds of broken glass and the gunshot that killed the Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, overhearing his weeping colleagues make goodbye calls to loved ones—Phillips believed that he was going to die. Later that night, reflecting on his survival, the congressman vowed that he would give every last measure to the cause of opposing Trump. And now, just a couple of years later, with Trump’s recapturing of power appearing more likely by the day, he was supposed to do nothing—just to keep the Democratic Party honchos happy?

    “My colleagues, we all endured that, and you’d think that we would be very intentional and objective and resolute about the singular objective to ensure he does not return to the White House,” Phillips said. “We need to recognize the consequences of this silence.”

    On the first weekend of October, Phillips welcomed Schmidt to his D.C. townhome. They were joined by six others: the congressman’s wife and sister; his campaign manager and one of her daughters; Bill Fletcher, a Tennessee-based consultant; and a Democratic strategist whom I later met at the Virginia farm—one whose identity I agreed to keep off the record because he said his career would be over if he was found to be helping Phillips. Commanding the room with a whiteboard and marker, Schmidt outlined his approach. There would be no org chart, no job titles—only three groups with overlapping responsibilities. The first group, “Headquarters,” would deal with day-to-day operations. The second, “Maneuver,” would handle the mobile logistics of the campaign. The third, “Content,” would be prolific in its production of advertisements, web videos, and social-media posts. This last group would be essential to Phillips’s effort, Schmidt explained: They would contract talent to work across six time zones, from Manhattan to Honolulu, seizing on every opening in the news cycle and putting Biden’s campaign on the defensive all day, every day.

    When the weekend wrapped, Phillips sat alone with his thoughts. The idea of challenging his party’s leader suddenly felt real. He knew the arguments being made by his Democratic friends and did his best to consider them without prejudice. Was it likely, Phillips asked himself, that his candidacy might achieve exactly the outcome he wanted to avoid—electing Trump president?

    Phillips decided the answer was no.

    Running in the Democratic primary carried some risk of hurting the party in 2024, Phillips figured, but not as much risk as letting Biden and his campaign sleepwalk into next summer, only to discover in the fall how disengaged and disaffected millions of Democratic voters truly are.

    “If it’s not gonna be me, and this is a way to elevate the need to listen to people who are struggling and connect it to people in Washington, that to me is a blessing for the eventual nominee,” Phillips said. “If it’s Joe Biden—if he kicks my tuchus in the opening states—he looks strong, and that makes him stronger.”

    It sounds fine in theory, I told Phillips. But that’s not usually how primary campaigns work.

    He let out an exaggerated sigh. “I understand why conventional wisdom says that’s threatening,” Phillips said. “But my gosh, if it’s threatening to go out and listen to people and talk publicly about what’s on people’s minds, and that’s something we should be protecting against, we have bigger problems than I ever thought.”

    It was two weeks after that meeting in D.C. that Phillips welcomed me to his Virginia farmhouse. He’d been staying there, a 90-minute drive from the Capitol, since far-right rebels deposed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, sparking a furious three-week search for his replacement. The irony, Phillips explained as he showed me around the 38-acre parcel of pastureland, is that he and Schmidt couldn’t possibly have organized a campaign during this season had Congress been doing its job. The GOP’s dysfunctional detour provided an unexpected opportunity, and Phillips determined that it was his destiny to take advantage.

    With Congress adjourned for the weekend as Republicans sought a reset in their leadership scramble, Phillips reconvened the kitchen cabinet from his D.C. summit, plus a Tulsa-based film production crew. Content was the chief priority. Phillips would launch his campaign on Friday, October 27—the deadline for making the New Hampshire ballot—at the state capitol in Concord. From there, he would embark on a series of 120 planned town-hall meetings, breaking McCain’s long-standing Granite State record, touring in a massive DEAN-stamped bus wrapped with a slogan sure to infuriate the White House: “Make America Affordable Again.”

    The strategy, Schmidt explained as we watched his candidate ad-lib for the roving cameras—shooting all manner of unscripted, stream-of-consciousness, turn-up-the-authenticity footage that would dovetail with the campaign’s policy of no polling or focus grouping—was to win New Hampshire outright. The president had made a massive tactical error, Schmidt said, by siding with the Democratic National Committee over New Hampshire in a procedural squabble that will leave the first-in-the-nation primary winner with zero delegates. Biden had declined to file his candidacy there, instead counting on loyal Democratic voters to write him onto the primary ballot. But now Phillips was preparing to spend the next three months blanketing the state, drawing an unflattering juxtaposition with the absentee president and maybe, just maybe, earning enough votes to defeat him. If that happens, Schmidt said, the media narrative will be what matters—not the delegate math. Americans would wake up to the news of two winners in the nation’s first primary elections: Trump on the Republican side, and Dean Phillips—wait, who?—yes, Dean Phillips on the Democratic side. The slingshot of coverage would be forceful enough to make Phillips competitive in South Carolina, then Michigan. By the time the campaign reached Super Tuesday, Schmidt said, Phillips would have worn the incumbent down—and won over the millions of Democrats who’ve been begging for an alternative.

    At least, that’s the strategy. Fanciful? Yes. The mechanical hurdles alone, starting with collecting enough signatures to qualify for key primary ballots, could prove insurmountable. (He has already missed the deadline in Nevada.) That said, in an age of asymmetrical political disruption, Phillips might not be the million-to-one candidate some will dismiss him as. He’s seeding the campaign with enough money to build out a legitimate operation, and has influential donors poised to enter the fray on his behalf. (One tech mogul, who spoke with Phillips throughout the week preceding the launch, was readying to endorse him on Friday.) He has high-profile friends—such as the actor Woody Harrelson—whom he’ll enlist to hit the trail with him and help draw a crowd. Perhaps most consequentially, his campaign is being helped by Billy Shaheen, a longtime kingmaker in New Hampshire presidential politics and the husband of the state’s senior U.S. senator, Jeanne Shaheen. “I think the people here deserve to hear what Dean has to say,” Billy Shaheen told me. If nothing else, with Schmidt at the helm, Phillips’s campaign will be energetic and highly entertaining.

    Yet the more time I spent with him at the farm, the less energized Phillips seemed by the idea of dethroning Biden. He insisted that his first ad-making session focus on saluting the president, singing his opponent’s praises into the cameras in ways that defy all known methods of campaigning. He told me, unsolicited, that his “red line” is March 6, the day after Super Tuesday, at which point he will “wrap it up” and “get behind the president in a very big way” if his candidacy fails to gain traction. He repeatedly drifted back to the notion that he might unwittingly assist Trump’s victory next fall.

    Whereas he once spoke with absolute certainty on the subject—shrugging off the comparisons to Pat Buchanan in 1992 or Ted Kennedy in 1980—I could sense by the end of our time together that it was weighing on him. Understandably so: During the course of our interviews—perhaps five or six hours spent on the record—Phillips had directly criticized Biden for what he described as a detachment from the country’s economic concerns, his recent in-person visit to Israel (unnecessarily provocative to Arab nations, Phillips said), and his lack of concrete initiatives to help heal the country the way he promised in 2020. Phillips also ripped Hunter Biden’s “appalling” behavior and argued that the president—who was acting “heroically” by showing such devotion to his troubled son—was now perceived by the public to be just as corrupt as Trump.

    All of this from a few hours of conversation. If you’re running the Biden campaign, it’s fair to worry: What will come of Phillips taking thousands of questions across scores of town-hall meetings in New Hampshire?

    At one point, under the dimmed lights at his dinner table, Phillips told me he possessed no fear of undermining the eventual Democratic nominee. Then, seconds later, he told me he was worried about the legacy he’d be leaving for his two daughters.

    “Because of pundits attaching that to me—” Phillips suddenly paused. “If, for some circumstance, Trump still won …” He trailed off.

    Schmidt had spent the weekend talking about Dean Phillips making history. And yet, in this moment, the gentleman from Minnesota—the soon-to-be Democratic candidate for president in 2024—seemed eager to avoid the history books altogether.

    “In other words, if you’re remembered for helping Trump get elected—” I began.

    He nodded slowly. “There are two paths.”

    Phillips knows what path some Democrats think he’s following: that he’s selfish, maybe even insane, recklessly doing something that might result in another Trump presidency. The way Phillips sees it, he’s on exactly the opposite path: He is the last sane man in the Democratic Party, acting selflessly to ensure that Trump cannot reclaim the White House.

    “Two paths,” Phillips repeated. “There’s nothing in the middle.”

    [ad_2]

    Tim Alberta

    Source link

  • Can President Biden’s executive order help American women get better birth control?

    Can President Biden’s executive order help American women get better birth control?

    [ad_1]

    It can still be incredibly difficult for U.S. women to get access to the right birth control—but last week, President Biden issued an executive order that could finally make a difference.

    Biden issued the wide-ranging order, which includes several directives to protect and expand access to contraception, almost exactly one year after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. As part of his mandates, the president instructed federal agencies to address widespread insurance-industry practices that prevent women from accessing their preferred birth control. The order was issued two months after Fortune published an investigation into those problems.

    Private insurance companies regularly refuse to fully cover some contraceptives, despite being required to do so by the Affordable Care Act, Fortune’s April investigation found. As a result, many women are unable to afford the birth control they want (and their medical providers prescribe), while the companies that develop and sell new kinds of contraceptives have struggled to stay in business.

    On Friday, Biden specifically ordered federal agencies to address these problems, by considering issuing “new guidance” to ensure that private insurers fully cover women’s contraception. Such guidance could also “streamline the process for obtaining care women need and want,” the White House said. (White House advisers also acknowledged “some of the reports out there about [insurers’] failure to comply” with the Affordable Care Act, Stat News reported on Friday.)

    These pervasive insurance coverage problems have contributed to a worsening reproductive health crisis: Almost half of all U.S. pregnancies are unplanned, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, millions of women with such unintended pregnancies no longer have access to abortions and adequate reproductive health care.

    Biden’s executive order did not discuss a specific deadline for federal agencies to take new action. But reproductive-health advocates and industry executives alike celebrated the White House’s action, calling it a promising step in the right direction.

    “I’m really hopeful,” Mara Gandal-Powers, director of birth control access and senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, tells Fortune. “It certainly indicates that this is really high priority for the President—and I do think that the agencies listen when these kinds of things come out.”

    Executives at Agile Therapeutics, which makes a new kind of contraceptive patch called Twirla, also said they were heartened by the president’s order. They hope the federal agencies will release new guidance as soon as this summer, in what they call a best-case scenario—or, in a worst-case scenario, sometime next year.

    Agile spent more than a decade, and invested about $250 million, to get regulatory approval for Twirla—at a time when many larger and better-funded pharmaceutical companies have stopped investing in women’s health. But after the company launched its product in 2020, it discovered that insurance providers would routinely reject doctors’ prescriptions for it. In 2022, insurers refused to fully cover 55% of the prescriptions doctors wrote for Twirla, according to Agile—which lost more than $25 million last year.

    In the past few months, Agile has raised money and continued to increase sales, but it’s still fighting insurers to get its product covered. (The company reported a net loss of $5.4 million for the first quarter of 2023.) Now CEO Al Altomari is hoping that the White House’s intervention will help him get back to his core business of selling birth control, without all the expensive insurance wrangling.

    “My company’s fighting for its life right now. A couple of us are,” Altomari says. “I wanted it last year—but this could be really good.”

    [ad_2]

    Maria Aspan

    Source link

  • Florida’s Governor Escalates a Yearslong Fight With College Accreditors

    Florida’s Governor Escalates a Yearslong Fight With College Accreditors

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Florida Republican running to be the party’s presidential nominee in 2024, has made no secret of his disdain for college-accreditation agencies. Last month he likened them to “cartels.”

    This week he took those frustrations to new heights, with a lawsuit alleging the federal government has “ceded unchecked power” to the agencies.

    “We refuse to bow to unaccountable accreditors who think they should run Florida’s public universities,” he said in a statement on Thursday.

    The suit, filed in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, seeks to block federal officials from enforcing the standards that accreditors set for colleges to receive billions of dollars in student aid. In the complaint, Florida’s Republican attorney general, Ashley Moody, and other state lawyers accuse the Biden administration of being hostile toward GOP-led efforts in Florida to curtail the agencies’ longstanding authority.

    The new lawsuit reflects that college accreditation has become a key battlefront for Republican politicians across the country who want to reshape higher education in their image, particularly as accreditors have come to favorably view diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Last month, DeSantis signed legislation outlawing diversity spending across his state’s public colleges; Texas’ Republican governor signed a similar bill into law last weekend.

    “Overreach by state legislators is contrary to academic freedom,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, in an email responding to the suit.

    In a statement to The Chronicle, the White House’s assistant press secretary, Abdullah Hasan, said the administration will fight to preserve accreditors’ ability to hold colleges accountable.

    “Governor DeSantis is now bringing his culture wars, like book bans, to the long-standing system that helps ensure students receive a quality college education,” he said. “This administration won’t allow it.”

    Teeing off DeSantis’s anti-accreditation push was a law he signed last year requiring many of Florida’s public colleges to change accreditors over the course of the next two years. The law, which also explicitly gave colleges the ability to sue their accreditors, came after the former education secretary, Betsy DeVos, approved easing accreditation requirements in 2019 under the Trump administration. Critics said the requirements would add to colleges’ bureaucratic burdens.

    “It’s a little bit like allowing restaurants to sue the health inspector for giving them a failing grade,” said Edward Conroy, a senior advisor who focuses on education policy at the think tank New America.

    Before the Florida legislation was enacted, James Kvaal, the U.S. under secretary for education, sent a letter to DeSantis urging the state to “consider the unintended consequences” of the law. Fast-tracking the painstaking accreditation process — which typically happens every seven to 10 years — could “lead to increased institutional burden and costs that may be passed down to students and families,” he wrote in March 2022.

    The U.S. Education Department responded by putting in place a new standard requiring colleges to show “reasonable cause” for seeking new accreditors. In the lawsuit, Florida officials called that guidance unconstitutional, too.

    DeSantis is biting from a “big legal apple” here, said Neal Hutchens, a professor at the University of Kentucky who specializes in law and policy issues in higher education. For one thing, his team will have to address the fact that even though accreditation is required to receive certain types of federal dollars, it’s a voluntary system. That consideration could undermine some of their legal arguments. For another, the litigation is mired in politics.

    “This is going to be a pretty uphill battle,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Zachary Schermele

    Source link

  • This Debt Crisis Is Not Like 2011’s. It’s Worse.

    This Debt Crisis Is Not Like 2011’s. It’s Worse.

    [ad_1]

    On its surface, the unfolding debt-ceiling crisis looks a lot like the confrontation in 2011 between congressional Republicans and then-President Barack Obama. Once again, a new GOP majority in the House is using the threat of a national default as leverage to force a first-term Democratic president to agree to spending cuts in exchange for lifting the federal borrowing limit. A first-ever default could crash the markets and trigger a recession. But, as in 2011, the two parties remain far apart, with a deadline to act approaching rapidly.

    Eric Cantor knows the feeling well. Twelve years ago, he was the House majority leader deputized by then-Speaker John Boehner to negotiate an agreement with Joe Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time. Cantor left Congress in 2014 after a stunning primary defeat that presaged the GOP’s anti-establishment, anti-immigration lurch toward Donald Trump two years later. He’s now a senior executive at a Wall Street investment bank.

    I called him up this week to ask what he had learned from the 2011 negotiations and how he sees today’s fight going. He warned that the risks of failure—and with it, economic calamity—are significantly greater this time around.

    Cantor and Biden failed to strike a deal on their own in 2011; that task ultimately fell to Biden and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell. But Cantor told me he was impressed with Biden’s willingness to bargain: “He was very much in the mode of negotiating, compromising.”

    Not this time—Biden has rebuffed pleas from Speaker Kevin McCarthy for one-on-one negotiations. “President Biden is not the same person as Vice President Biden was,” Cantor said, a bit ruefully. Nor has Biden empowered anyone in his administration to bargain at all.

    “They’ve not negotiated a darn thing,” Cantor said.

    In 2011, Obama engaged with Republicans months in advance of the fiscal deadline, and the talks between Cantor and Biden, along with separate negotiations between Obama and Boehner, helped set parameters for the agreement that materialized when the nation was on the brink of default.

    The present lack of negotiations is likely a direct result of how things went back in 2011. Though both sides came to an agreement eventually, the near miss still caused a stock-market slide and the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating. When the U.S. bumped up against the debt ceiling again later in the Obama presidency, the administration was less inclined to negotiate—and a chastened GOP allowed the limit to be lifted without a fight. The lesson Democrats drew from that experience was never again to concede to the Republican premise that increasing the borrowing limit should be subject to legislative haggling.

    Biden’s no-negotiation stance, however, might not be sustainable. On Monday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen informed congressional leaders that the country would run out of fiscal wiggle room—afforded by the use of “extraordinary measures” that stretch federal funds—as soon as June 1. That deadline is earlier than many people in Washington expected, and Yellen’s warning injected fresh urgency into the effort to find a way out of the crisis. In response, Biden summoned McCarthy, McConnell, and their Democratic counterparts to a White House meeting next week.

    In 2011, McCarthy was one rung beneath Cantor in the House GOP hierarchy. Now, as speaker, he’s operating with a much thinner margin than Boehner and Cantor, who had more than 20 votes to spare. The GOP’s five-vote majority has less leverage, but it is more dug-in against the Democrats, and the speakership that McCarthy fought so hard to secure could be at risk if he were to allow the debt ceiling to be raised without extracting sufficient budget cuts or other concessions. The moderate dealmakers in the House Republican Conference have all but vanished. Boehner was ultimately forced out in 2015 by a conservative revolt, but he did not face the threat of an ouster that now hangs over McCarthy.

    Although McCarthy was able to muster enough votes last week to pass an opening bid through the House—“a huge victory,” Cantor told me—he’s unlikely to secure the same level of budget cuts that Republicans did in 2011. Obama and Boehner had traded proposals for entitlement cuts and tax increases, and the deal Congress eventually passed triggered $1.2 trillion in spending reductions over a 10-year period. Under pressure from former President Donald Trump, McCarthy isn’t even pushing this time for cuts to Medicare or Social Security. The likeliest solution, according to potential congressional dealmakers, is an agreement that would merely slow the growth of federal spending, not reverse it. “You’re just not going to move the needle as far,” Cantor said.

    Cantor remains in touch with McCarthy; the two, along with the Republican who succeeded Boehner as speaker, Paul Ryan, were once a conservative triumvirate known as the “Young Guns” (they were already in their 40s, but this is Congress), who rose quickly in the House GOP. When I asked him whether it was possible for McCarthy to emerge victorious in the eyes of his party, Cantor seemed doubtful. “Look, he’s got a very, very slim majority,” he said. “And given where conservative media and social media is on the issue, it’s just hard to be able to create a situation where you can declare a win and have everyone go along with it.”

    For now, Cantor said, McCarthy is doing what he needs to do to give himself space to negotiate. “Kevin has demonstrated a will to fight, and I think that’s the most important thing right now for members to see—he’s willing to go to bat for them and fight,” he said. “So he comes into this with a fair amount of capital to work with.”

    Biden is also in fighting mode at the moment, in contrast to his bargaining mode in 2011. Cantor argued that “ironically,” Biden had more authority to hammer out a deal when he was Obama’s lieutenant than he does now. “He’s captive of the extreme left and the progressives in his party,” he said.

    This is mostly spin from a Republican who remains, even in his political retirement, a party loyalist. And Biden would surely dispute the suggestion that he would cut a deal with Republicans if left to his own devices; he came away from the 2011 experience with the same determination as others in his party not to negotiate again over the debt ceiling. But Cantor’s point is that because progressives are more ascendant now than they were then, Biden has less room to maneuver, especially as he launches a reelection bid for which he’ll need the left’s enthusiastic support.

    Cantor offered a couple of scenarios for how Biden and McCarthy could avert a default. The most likely involves Washington’s favorite fallback, the punt: Republicans would agree to a short-term increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for Biden committing to serious fiscal negotiations later in the year, when both sides would face a harder deadline. They could also reach a broader agreement in the next few weeks, but Cantor did not sound particularly hopeful. “I still don’t think we go into default,” the veteran of congressional brinkmanship told me, “but I think the path is certainly narrower, and the options available to either side are narrower.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • President Biden And First Lady Earned $579,514, Tax Returns Show

    President Biden And First Lady Earned $579,514, Tax Returns Show

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, made $579,514 last year and paid $137,658 in federal income taxes. That works out to a 23.8% tax rate, more than the average of roughly 14% for all U.S. households.

    The Bidens’ earnings have trended slightly downward over the past three years, after averaging more than $600,000 in 2020 and 2021. The median U.S. household income was $69,717 in 2021, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

    The White House on Tuesday released the tax returns of the Bidens and Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff. This once routine rite of passage for presidents and aspirants to the Oval Office became a source of controversy under Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who declined to release his taxes and ultimately had six years’ worth of returns released last year by a House committee.

    The Bidens’ income has dropped since 2019, when they earned nearly $1 million, primarily from book sales, speeches and their teaching positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Northern Virginia Community College. The former vice president and Delaware senator often notes in speeches that he was once the poorest lawmaker in the Senate, so much so that he could not afford a home in Washington and had to commute by Amtrak.

    In a Rose Garden speech about child care Tuesday, Biden said he couldn’t keep a home in Delaware and also afford a home for his family in Washington during his 36 years as a senator.

    As president, Biden earned a salary of $400,000. His wife, Jill, was paid $82,335 for her job teaching at Northern Virginia Community College. They paid state taxes of $29,023 in Delaware and $3,129 in Virginia.

    The Bidens gave $20,180 to 20 different charities. The largest gift was $5,000 to the Beau Biden Foundation, a nonprofit that works to combat child abuse and is named for their son Beau, who died of brain cancer in 2015 at age 46. They gave $1,680 to St. Joseph on the Brandywine, the church in Delaware that the president attends. The Bidens also donated $2,000 to the Fraternal Order of Police Foundation.

    The tax filings of the vice president and her husband showed them earning $456,918. They paid $93,570 in federal income tax for a rate of 20.5%. They also paid $17,612 in California income tax, while Harris’ husband paid $9,697 in District of Columbia income tax for his work at Georgetown University’s law school. They contributed $23,000 to charity.

    Biden campaigned on the transparency of his personal finances, releasing 22 years of tax filings ahead of the 2020 election. It was a direct challenge to Trump, who argued for years that an audit prevented him from releasing his taxes — though the IRS had mandated for four-plus decades that the tax returns of sitting presidents and vice presidents be audited.

    Tuesday was the deadline for paying federal taxes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Lab Leak Will Haunt Us Forever

    The Lab Leak Will Haunt Us Forever

    [ad_1]

    The lab-leak theory lives! Or better put: It never dies. In response to new but unspecified intelligence, the U.S. Department of Energy has changed its assessment of COVID-19’s origins: The agency, which had previously been undecided on the matter, now rates a laboratory mishap ahead of a natural spillover event as the suspected starting point. That conclusion, first reported over the weekend by The Wall Street Journal, matches up with findings from the FBI, and also a Senate Minority report out last fall that called the pandemic, “more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident.”

    Then again, the new assessment does not match up with findings from elsewhere in the federal government. In mid-2021, when President Biden asked the U.S. intelligence community for a 90-day review of the pandemic’s origins, the response came back divided: Four agencies, plus the National Intelligence Council, guessed that COVID started (as nearly all pandemics do) with a natural exposure to an infected animal; three agencies couldn’t decide on an answer; and one blamed a laboratory accident. DOE’s revision, revealed this week, means that a single undecided vote has flipped into the lab-leak camp. If you’re keeping count—and, really, what else can one do?—the matter still appears to be decided in favor of a zoonotic origin, by an updated score of 5 to 2. The lab-leak theory remains the outlier position.

    Are we done? No, we aren’t done. None of these assessments carries much conviction: Only one, from the FBI, was made with “moderate” confidence; the rest are rated “low,” as in, hmm we’re not so sure. This lack of confidence—as compared with the overbearing certainty of the scientists and journalists who rejected the possibility of a lab leak in 2020—will now be fodder for what could be months of Congressional hearings, as House Republicans pursue evidence of a possible “cover-up.” But for all the Sturm und Drang that’s sure to come, the fundamental state of knowledge on COVID’s origins remains more or less unchanged from where it was a year ago. The story of a market origin matches up with recent history and an array of well-established facts. But the lab-leak theory also fits in certain ways, and—at least for now—it cannot be ruled out. Putting all of this another way: ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

    That’s not to say that it’s a toss-up. All of the agencies agree, for instance, that SARS-CoV-2 was not devised on purpose, as a weapon. And several bits of evidence have come to light since Biden ordered his review—most notably, a careful plot of early cases from Wuhan, China, that stamps the city’s Huanan market complex as the outbreak’s epicenter. Many scientists with relevant knowledge believe that COVID started in that market—but their certainty can waver. In that sense, the consensus on COVID’s origins feels somewhat different from the one on humans’ role in global warming, though the two have been pointedly compared. Climate experts almost all agree, and they also feel quite sure of their position.

    The central ambiguity, such as it is, of COVID’s origin remains intact and perched atop a pair of improbable-seeming coincidences: One concerns the Huanan market, and the other has to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where Chinese researchers have specialized in the study of bat coronaviruses. If COVID really started in the lab, one position holds, then it would have to be a pretty amazing coincidence that so many of the earliest infections happened to emerge in and around a venue for the sale of live, wild animals … which happens to be the exact sort of place where the first SARS-coronavirus pandemic may have started 20 years ago. But also: If COVID really started in a live-animal market, then it would have to be a similarly amazing coincidence that the market in question happened to be across the river from the laboratory of the world’s leading bat-coronavirus researcher … who happened to be running experiments that could, in theory, make coronaviruses more dangerous.

    One might argue over which of these coincidences is really more surprising; indeed, that’s been the major substance of this debate since 2020, and the source of endless rancor. In theory, further studies and investigations would help resolve some of this uncertainty—but these may never end up happening. A formal inquiry into the pandemic’s origin, set up by the World Health Organization, had intended to revisit its claim from early 2021 that a laboratory source was “extremely unlikely.” Now that project has been shelved in the face of Chinese opposition, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology has long since stopped responding to requests for information from its U.S.-based research partners and the NIH, according to an inspector general’s report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    In the meantime, the smattering of facts that have been introduced into the lab-leak debates over the past two years, have been, at times, maddeningly opaque—like the unnamed, “new intelligence” that swayed the Department of Energy. (For the record, The New York Times reports that each of the agencies investigating the pandemic’s origin had access to this same intelligence; only DOE changed its assessment to favor the lab-leak explanation as a result.) We’re only told that certain fresh and classified information has changed the minds of some (but only some) unnamed analysts who now believe (with limited assurance) that a laboratory origin is most likely. Well, great, I guess that settles it.

    When more specific information does crop up, it tends to vary in the telling over time; or else it’s promptly pulverized by its partisan opponents. The Journal’s reporting, for instance, mentions a finding by U.S. intelligence that three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology became ill in November 2019, in what could have been the initial cluster of infection. But how much is really known about those sickened scientists? The specifics vary with the source. In one telling, a researcher’s wife was sickened, too, and died from the infection. Another adds the seemingly important fact that the researchers were “connected with gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.” But the unnamed current and former U.S. officials who pass along this sort of information can’t even seem to settle on its credibility.

    Or consider the reporting, published last October by ProPublica and Vanity Fair, on a flurry of Chinese Community Party communications from the fall of 2019. These were interpreted by Senate researcher Toy Reid to mean that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had undergone a major biosafety crisis that November—just when the COVID outbreak would have been emerging. Critics ridiculed the story, calling it a “train wreck” premised on a bad translation. In response ProPublica asked three more translators to verify Reid’s reading, and claimed they “all agreed that his version was a plausible way to represent the passage,” and that the wording was ambiguous.

    Maybe this is just what happens when you’re trapped inside an information vacuum: Any scrap of data that happens to float by will push you off in new directions.

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • Watch: Chinese President Xi confront Canada’s Trudeau over media leaks at G20 summit

    Watch: Chinese President Xi confront Canada’s Trudeau over media leaks at G20 summit

    [ad_1]

    Watch: Chinese President Xi confronts Canada’s Justin Trudeau over media leaks at G20 summit

    Chinese President Xi Jinping, on Wednesday, criticised Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in person over alleged leaks of their closed-door meeting at the G20 summit.

    In video footage published by Canadian broadcasters, both Xi and Trudeau can be seen standing close to each other and conversing via a translator. The video, which Canadian broadcasters called a rare public display of annoyance by the Chinese leader, captured a candid moment of Xi, whose image is carefully curated by Chinese state media.

    In the video, Xi can be heard saying in Mandarin: “That is not appropriate, and we didn’t do it that way.” The Chinese president added, “If there is sincerity, we can communicate well with mutual respect, otherwise the outcome will not be easy to tell.”

    His displeasure was likely a reference to media reports that Trudeau brought up “serious concerns” about alleged espionage and Chinese “interference” in the Canadian elections when meeting with Xi on Tuesday, his first talks with the Chinese leader in more than three years.

    However, it should also be noted that Canada never released an official readout of the meeting.

    A translator for Xi can be heard in the video telling Trudeau that “everything we discussed was leaked to the paper(s), that’s not appropriate”.

    Trudeau, while responding to Xi’s initial criticism, said: “In Canada, we believe in free and open and frank dialogue and that is what we will continue to have, we will continue to look to work constructively together but there will be things we disagree on.”

    However, Chinese President Xi, before finishing speaking, looked slightly exasperated and emphatically said “create the conditions, create the conditions, OK”  before smiling, shaking Trudeau’s hand, and walking off.

    Neither the Chinese foreign ministry nor state media published anything on the talks between Xi and Trudeau. The two held an informal meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit on Tuesday, Reuters reported citing sources.  

    According to the Chinese foreign ministry website, Xi has held nine formal bilateral meetings with other heads of state while at the summit.

    Earlier this month, Canada ordered three Chinese companies to divest their investments in Canadian critical minerals, citing national security.

    (With input from Reuters)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Faith Leaders From Across the Country Join Together in Washington D.C. This Week to Proclaim, ‘My Vote is Sacred’

    Faith Leaders From Across the Country Join Together in Washington D.C. This Week to Proclaim, ‘My Vote is Sacred’

    [ad_1]

    Event Plans for Two Days of Prayer, Rallies, And Advocacy to Showcase Voting Rights

    Press Release



    updated: Jun 14, 2021

    In response to a domino effect that first began in the State of Georgia earlier this year, faith leaders from around the country will join together in Washington, D.C., this week for a series of events promoting the need for voting rights legislation. African Methodist Episcopal Church announces that the “My Vote is Sacred” events will occur on Tuesday, June 15 through Thursday, June 17, and include worship services, rallies, legislative briefings, and advocacy meetings with congressional officials.

    “My Vote is Sacred” was first anchored and organized by a contingent of Georgia faith leaders, including AME Georgia Bishop Reginald Jackson; Rev. Dr. Cynthia Hale, founder and Senior Pastor of the Ray of Hope Christian Church; Rev. Dr. Bernice King, CEO, The King Center; Reverend Timothy McDonald III, Senior Pastor of the First Iconium Baptist Church, founder of the African American Ministers Leadership Council, and President of the African American Ministers In Action of People for the American Way; Dr. Jamal Bryant, Senior Pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church; and Reverend Lee May, Lead Pastor at Transforming Faith Church. Earlier this year, Republican Governor Brian Kemp made Georgia the first state in the country to sign into law legislation explicitly aimed at making it less likely for people of color to vote. In the weeks that have followed, Republican-elected leaders from around the country have proposed or passed voter suppression bills in forty-seven states.

    This week events in Washington, D.C., will include faith leaders from around the country, and buses of parishioners and activists will be traveling to participate.

    TUESDAY, JUNE 15 – “MY VOTE IS SACRED” EVENING WORSHIP SERVICE

    7:00 p.m. at the Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20036

    An evening service of worship and prayer will welcome parishioners and voting activists. In addition to the Georgia Faith Leaders, others confirmed include Dr. William Lamar, Metropolitan AME Church; D.C.; Dr. George Holmes, First Rising Mt. Zion Baptist Church; Rev. Dr. Leslie Copeland Tune, CEO National Council of Churches; Dr. Deborah Taylor King, International President, Women’s Missionary Society, AME Church; Dr. Yolanda Pierce, Dean Howard Divinity School; and Rev. DeLisha Davis, People for the American Way.

    WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16 – “MY VOTE IS SACRED” MORNING RALLY

    10:00 a.m. at the Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20036

    A day of events that will include strategy sessions, meetings with congressional offices, and legislative briefings will begin with an all-participant rally supporting voting rights. The rally will be led by faith leaders from around the country and will also include Members of the Congressional Black Caucus; Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, Co-Convener, National African American Clergy Network; Mr. Jim Winkler, President, National Council of Churches; Rev. DeLisha Davis, People For the American Way; and Sherrilyn Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Southern Poverty Law Center. Immediately following the rally, faith leaders and those in attendance will march in unity from the Mayflower Hotel to the White House gates for a Kneel in Protest Prayer.

    IMPORTANT LOGISTICAL EVENT INFORMATION:

    All events are open to the media. Media with questions or wishing to speak to faith leaders may contact Matthew Frankel, Matthew@MDFStrategies.com, or (917) 617.7914. 

    #. #. #

    Source: AME

    [ad_2]

    Source link