ReportWire

Tag: Republicans

  • “The Florida of Today Is the America of Tomorrow”: Ron DeSantis’s New College Takeover Is Just the Beginning of the Right’s Higher Ed Crusade

    “The Florida of Today Is the America of Tomorrow”: Ron DeSantis’s New College Takeover Is Just the Beginning of the Right’s Higher Ed Crusade

    [ad_1]

    But that sort of lament has largely left the new trustees unmoved. When a current LGBTQ+ student told reporters about her grief, Rufo quoted her comments on Twitter, adding a laughing-crying emoji. 

    The invocation of Hillsdale College, a 1,500-student private Christian school in rural Michigan, might seem a surprising model for overhauling a public Florida institution, but it shouldn’t. The college, sometimes called “the citadel of conservatism,” has long had an outsized political influence in movement conservatism. Right-wing politicians and advocates vie for slots in its speaking program, the speeches of which are then distributed to a claimed audience of 6 million through a monthly Hillsdale publication. Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist who sought to overturn the 2020 election, and who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, facilitated the launch of Hillsdale’s Capitol Hill campus in Washington. This magazine called Hillsdale a “feeder school” for the Trump administration. 

    Hillsdale has also spent the last 12 years proselytizing its Western civilization-focused model of “classical education” through a nationwide charter school-planting network, a bundle of freely-licensed right-wing K–12 curricula (including its ahistorical post-Trump “1776 Curriculum”), and its extensive connections with conservative state leaders. It’s largely thanks to Hillsdale that the idea of “classical education”—despite its varied forms and perspectives—has become right-wing shorthand for anti-“woke” American exceptionalism and an antidote to critical race theory. Last year, Tennessee’s Governor Bill Lee announced plans to open 50 Hillsdale charters across the state; the year before, Hillsdale president Larry Arnn, who is also the former president of the Claremont Institute, claimed that South Dakota governor Kristi Noem offered to build him an entire campus. (Noem’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) 

    But in Florida, Hillsdale’s footprint is uniquely large. The state boasts the highest number of Hillsdale-affiliated K–12 publicly-funded charter schools, several launched or directed by spouses of prominent state Republicans, including Corcoran and Republican congressman Byron Donalds. Hillsdale was instrumental in helping DeSantis overhaul the state’s K–12 civics standards along more “patriotic” lines. Last year the state hired a Hillsdale duo—one staffer, one undergraduate—to assess whether math textbooks Florida teachers submitted for approval contained prohibited concepts like critical race theory. And a number of prominent Florida officials, including Corcoran and DeSantis himself, have addressed gatherings hosted by the college, where Arnn praised both men as among the most important people in America today. 

    Rufo has addressed Hillsdale audiences too: once in early 2021, where he laid out what quickly became Republican talking points about critical race theory, and again last spring, in a speech entitled “Laying Siege to the Institutions,” which he recently described as his “theory of action.” In the latter address, delivered while Rufo was teaching a journalism course for the college, he called on state legislators to use their budgetary power to reshape public institutions, including higher education. 

    “We have to get out of this idea that somehow a public university system is a totally independent entity that practices academic freedom—a total fraud, that’s just a false statement, fundamentally false—and that you can’t touch it or else you’re impinging on the rights of the gender studies department to follow their dreams,” he said. Instead, conservatives must have the guts to say, “‘What the public giveth, the public can taketh away.’ And so we get in there, we defund things we don’t like, we fund things we do like.” 

    In terms of the former, he elaborated, states should defund diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and find creative ways to undermine university departments perceived as too liberal, like changing state teacher accreditation laws as a means of rendering teachers colleges irrelevant. Both suggestions have become common conservative talking points over the last year. As The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this week, South Carolina legislators have requested information from its state’s 33 public colleges and universities regarding training around race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, following similar moves in Florida and Oklahoma.

    In terms of what the right does like, Rufo advised state legislators to fund the creation of new, independently-governed “conservative centers” within flagship public universities to attract conservative professors, create new academic tracks, and serve as a “separate patronage system” for the right. 

    “Some people don’t like thinking about it that way,” Rufo said. “But guess what? The public universities, the DEI departments, the public school bureaucracies are, at the end of the day, patronage systems for left-wing activists. And as long as there’s going to be a patronage system, wouldn’t it be good to have some people who are representing the public within them?” 

    In many ways, that’s an old idea. Big-money donors on the right like the Olin and Koch foundations have been establishing “beachhead” academic centers in universities across the country since the 1970s, as a means of shoring up academic arguments for right-wing policies, creating a pipeline of conservative talent, and endowing professorships for right-wing scholars—some of whom, more moderate academics suggest, are unemployable on their own merits. (Of possible note here: Corcoran’s appointment to New College follows his failed bid to become Florida State University’s president in 2021, when he was passed over, apparently, in part for lack of qualifications.) 

    But these days, the model has been adapted, so that funds for such programs and institutes are increasingly coming from state legislatures directly, as numerous red states have passed bills establishing new “classical” and “civics” institutes with barely-disguised agendas. In Arizona, the legislature effectively replaced private donations from the Koch foundations with taxpayer funds in order to create a new School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State, to address a claimed lack of ideological diversity. In Texas, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has sought to establish a free-market think tank at University of Texas Austin, partly as a response to critical race theory. In Tennessee, Governor Lee paired his proposal to create dozens of Hillsdale charters with a call to build a $6 million, Hillsdale-inspired civics institute at University of Tennessee Knoxville to combat “anti-American thought.”

    Florida already has several, including a politics institute at Florida State; the Adam Smith Center for the Study of Economic Freedom at Florida International University; and the University of Florida’s freshly-approved Hamilton Center for Classical and Civics Education, dedicated to “the ideas, traditions, and texts that form the foundations of western and American civilization,” and tasked with helping create anti-communist content for Florida’s new K–12 civics curricula. 

    Last spring, this track record prompted another Florida school, St. Augustine’s private Flagler College, to worry that it was being, well, groomed to become “the Hillsdale of the South.” The legislature was considering a multimillion dollar grant for the school to establish its own “Institute for Classical Education”—money that was certainly needed and might also be used to shore up existing programs, but which faculty feared would come with intolerable strings. Professors there brought a resolution to the faculty council, declaring that, if the funding came through, faculty would retain control over how it was used for hiring and curriculum creation. In Flagler’s case, the administration readily agreed. 

    [ad_2]

    Kathryn Joyce

    Source link

  • Missouri Republicans Vote to Affirm Toddlers’ Rights to Carry Firearms in the Streets

    Missouri Republicans Vote to Affirm Toddlers’ Rights to Carry Firearms in the Streets

    [ad_1]

    In the year 2023, no one expects Republicans to have a reasonable take on gun violence (like that it’s a problem), or to do something about it (like pass meaningful gun control legislation). Still, you might think that conservatives wouldn’t be so thoroughly detached from reality that they would approve of—nay, fight for the rights of—small children being able to openly carry firearms in public places. Because that would just be, to use an official legislative term, f–king insane. Can you guess where we’re going with this?

    In a turn of events that absolutely defies logic, the Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to reject an amendment that would have banned minors from being allowed to openly carry guns on public land without adult supervision. Which, thanks to a 2017 law, they are currently free to do. (That law, which was vetoed by then governor Jay Nixon and overridden by the Missouri House, also allows Missouri residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, safety training, or criminal-background check. As Sgt. Charles Wall, spokesman for the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “under current state law, there is no minimum age to lawfully possess a firearm.”) To be clear: The proposal rejected this week was not seeking to ban minors from openly carrying weapons on public land, period, but simply from doing so without an adult supervising them. But apparently even that was too much for the state’s conservatives, who quite literally believe it’s fine for actual kids to walk down the street carrying guns. The proposal was defeated by 104-39, with just a single Republican voting in favor of the ban.

    State representative Donna Baringer, a Democrat who represents St. Louis, said she decided to sponsor the amendment after police in her district asked for stronger regulations to stop “14-year-olds walking down the middle of the street in the city of St. Louis carrying AR-15s.” With the proposal officially blocked, said 14-year-olds, and kids half their age and younger, “have been emboldened [to carry AR-15s], and they are walking around with them,” she said. Representative Lane Roberts, apparently the only Republican with any sense in the Missouri House of Representatives, had said prior to the vote: “This is about people who don’t have the life experience to make a decision about the consequences of having that gun in their possession. Why is an 8-year-old carrying a sidearm in the street?”

    A great question! And one that his fellow GOP lawmakers obviously did not have any good answers for because if you’re a sane person, there is none. In a ridiculous attempt to justify that scenario, Republican state representative Bill Hardwick argued that he “just [has] a different approach for addressing public safety that doesn’t deprive people, who have done nothing to any other person, who will commit no violence, from their freedom.” As a reminder the people Hardwick is arguing must have the freedom to carry firearms on their person, are children, some of whom cannot even buy a ticket for a PG-13 movie.

    In a bit of equally absurd “logic,” state representative Tony Lovasco told The Washington Post: “Government should prohibit acts that directly cause measurable harm to others, not activities we simply suspect might escalate. Few would support banning unaccompanied kids in public places, yet one could argue such a bad policy might be effective.” Right, yes, except one small thing: A kid hanging out in public without an adult is a much smaller risk to themself and others than a kid hanging out in public without an adult and carrying a gun. Someone—not us of course, definitely not us, but someone—might suggest this is the argument of a total moron.

    Of course, all of this is happening less than a month after news of a Virginia six-year-old shooting their teacher and a viral surveillance video from Indiana that captured a diaper-wearing toddler carrying a handgun and firing it.

    Meanwhile, as state representative Peter Merideth noted, conservative lawmakers in the state who think kids bearing arms is fine and dandy, are currently trying to pass a bill that would make drag performances on public property or seen by minors class A misdemeanors. “Kids carrying guns on the street or in a park is a matter of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Kids seeing a drag queen read a children’s book or sing a song is a danger the government must ban,” Merideth tweeted. “Do I have that right MO GOP?”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Democrats Win Control Of Pennsylvania House, End GOP Rule

    Democrats Win Control Of Pennsylvania House, End GOP Rule

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Democrats won control of the Pennsylvania House in special elections Tuesday, wresting partial power from Republicans for the first time in a dozen years in the competitive swing state.

    Democrats won all three vacant Pittsburgh-area House seats to claim a slim edge over Republicans, finally securing a majority they first appeared to have won in last November’s General Election. Republicans still hold the Senate, creating a political division that could make it difficult for lawmakers to send priority bills to new Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro.

    The special elections capped several months of electoral drama.

    Republicans held a comfortable 113-90 House majority last year. But once-a-decade redistricting and strong performance in statewide races helped Democrats flip just enough seats in the fall election to win a 102-101 majority in the House. Or so it seemed. Three of those Democratic seats quickly became vacant, casting uncertainty over who actually controlled the chamber.

    Rep. Tony DeLuca died of cancer in October, shortly before winning reelection, Rep. Summer Lee resigned after also winning a congressional election and Rep. Austin Davis quit before being sworn in as lieutenant governor.

    That left Republicans with more people in the House than Democrats and led to a political impasse. The chamber elected Democratic Rep. Mark Rozzi as speaker as the new session began on Jan. 3, but only after Republican leaders and a few other GOP members joined with all Democrats on the vote.

    The House has been frozen since Rozzi took over and has not passed internal operating rules, assigned members to committees or approved any legislation. Rozzi said last week he wants to retain the speakership when Democrats convene with their newly elected members.

    At a news conference in Pittsburgh late Tuesday the Democratic floor leader, Rep. Joanna McClinton, said the three Democratic candidates had been “tossed into the mixer really quickly” to compete in the special elections.

    She noted Democrats have been in the House minority for 24 of the past 28 years.

    McClinton wants the speakership but said she did not want to “get ahead of the days to come” as the election results are fully tabulated the certified, asking people to “please stay tuned to see what the will of this body will be” when the House returns to voting session.

    A few minutes after McClinton was done speaking, the clerk’s office sent out an email with notice of House floor sessions to resume in two weeks.

    Democrats had been expected to win Tuesday’s special elections, because they had easily won the same seats last fall.

    DeLuca’s former seat was won by Democrat Joe McAndrew, 32, a business owner who is a former state House Democratic staffer and the former executive director of Allegheny County’s Democratic committee. Lee’s former seat was won by Abigail Salisbury, 40, a lawyer and Democratic member of the Swissvale Borough Council. Matthew Gergely, a Democrat who works for the McKeesport city government, was elected to succeed Davis.

    The special elections occurred only after the courts rejected an attempt by the House Republican floor leader, Rep. Bryan Cutler, to prevent two of the contests from being decided on Tuesday.

    When the newly elected lawmakers take office, the House may still be one member short of its full complement. That’s because Republican Rep. Lynda Schlegel Culver won a special election Jan. 31 to fill a vacant state Senate seat.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • George Santos “Shouldn’t Be There”: Republican Infighting Spills Over at Joe Biden’s State of the Union

    George Santos “Shouldn’t Be There”: Republican Infighting Spills Over at Joe Biden’s State of the Union

    [ad_1]

    Kevin McCarthy pledged that he and Republicans would not engage in “childish games” Tuesday night. He would not be ripping up the copy of Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech, he said, taking a shot across Nancy Pelosi’s bow who tore the pages of Donald Trump’s speech three years ago. McCarthy and Republican leaders reportedly reminded the party that the “cameras are on” and “mics are hot.” “We’re members of Congress. We have a code of ethics of how we should portray ourselves,” McCarthy added in a CNN interview. McCarthy, finally Speaker of the House after a protracted and painful election in early January, however, sat at the lectern next to Vice President Kamala Harris, watching over a Republican party that had a very different idea of how Tuesday would play out.

    Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, an ally of McCarthy, spent much of the day walking around the Capitol complex with a large white balloon in hand, a jab at the Biden Administration’s handling of the suspected Chinese surveillance balloon in United States’ airspace earlier this week. The balloon didn’t join Greene in the House chamber, where the Georgia firebrand sat in the back of the room, notably apart from Colorado’s Lauren Boebert, who took a swipe at her balloon antics earlier in the day when asked if she was preparing any forms of protest Tuesday. “Well, I won’t be bringing a white helium balloon, if that’s what you’re asking,” Boebert told The Hill

    That kind of GOP infighting defined the start of the evening, particularly when reporters noticed a tense exchange between Utah Republican senator Mitt Romney and George Santos, who apparently got to the chamber early to save a seat by the main aisle where Biden entered the chamber. “He is a sick puppy,” Romney said of Santos after the speech. “He shouldn’t be there,” he said, noting his disappointment in how McCarthy has handled the New York Republican who has been caught in a litany of lies

    “Given the fact that he’s under ethics investigation he should be sitting in the back row and being quiet instead of parading in front of the president,” Romney added. When asked if he was disappointed that Speaker McCarthy had not called on Santos to resign, the Utah Senator bluntly responded, “Yes.” 

    Just after 9:07 PM on Tuesday night, Biden took the lectern to applause. For weeks, Biden toiled away with a number of his top aides—Mike DonilonBruce ReedSteve RicchettiAnita DunnVinay Reddy, being the most influential—crafting the president’s address. The group spent this past weekend cloistered at Camp David, to finetune and polish the prose, according to a White House official. Throughout his roughly hour-long speech, Biden pulled from the same pantry of rhetorical staples that have contoured his political career — the importance of bipartisanship, his working class roots — and sought to highlight the accomplishments of his administration. 

     McCarthy sat aloof behind him, largely expressionless. He clapped at the obvious areas of agreement. He even laughed at some of Biden’s jokes. For much of Biden’s speech, Republicans responded civilly—until they didn’t. Biden’s declaration that some Republicans were intent on cutting Social Security and Medicare, prompted boos from members of the party. McCarthy shook his head as Biden doubled down, seemingly enjoying pushing Republicans deeper in a corner against the very entitlement cuts that conservatives have long called for. But when one Republican was heard shouting “liar” at the president, McCarthy appeared to shush his own.

    McCarthy’s subtle signal to his ranks to simmer down was soon lost. When Biden boasted of his administration’s efforts to curb China’s influence, Greene shouted, “China is spying on us!” in between laughs. Minutes later, Greene invoked China again when the president noted that 700,000 Americans die from Fentanyl overdoses each year. “It is coming from China,” she said. At this point, other Republicans shouted, “Close the border.” And one Republican sunk even lower, heard saying, “It is your fault!” 

    China was something of a theme of the night. Greene’s balloon aside, McCarthy invited former NBA player turned activist Enes Kanter Freedom, who has been an outspoken critic of human rights abuses in Turkey and China. “I have so much respect for the speaker as both a leader, and a friend. His support for me doesn’t go unappreciated for even a moment, and I hope he can lead by example to others to stand for what is right,” Freedom told Vanity Fair. 

    To be sure, Democrats also made political statements with their guests. Pelosi invited Sergeant Aquilino Gonnell who served as a Capitol Police officer during the January 6, 2021 insurrection and her husband Paul Pelosi, who had become the subject of right-wing conspiracies after being brutally attacked in his own home. Freshman Democrat Maxwell Frost, a longtime gun activist before he ran for Congress, invited Manuel Oliver, father of Parkland shooting victim Joaquin Oliver.

    But the Republicans’ performance Tuesday night was something of a roadmap for the next two years. Grappling with a silver of a majority in the House, McCarthy will have a difficult time wrangling his own fractious caucus, let alone shepherd legislation that survives the House, the Democrat-controlled Senate and Biden’s veto. Meanwhile, as early as this week House Republicans are poised to launch a series of investigations into everything from the border, to the Chinese spy balloon, to Hunter Biden’s laptop and foreign business dealings. And then there’s Santos, who is now officially under investigation by the House’s ethics committee — and is certainly good at taking up a lot of oxygen in the room.

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy

    Source link

  • Gun-Nut GOP Lawmakers Commemorate Gun Violence Survivors’ Awareness Week With AR-15 Paraphernalia

    Gun-Nut GOP Lawmakers Commemorate Gun Violence Survivors’ Awareness Week With AR-15 Paraphernalia

    [ad_1]

    Something you’ve probably heard by now is that America has a very tragic problem with guns and thus, gun violence and mass shootings. In 2022, there were 647 mass shootings, or roughly 1.77 every single day. In 2023, which began less than 34 full days ago, there have been 54 mass shootings, including one that left 12 people dead. Gun violence in the US is significantly higher than most other countries in the world; compared to other wealthy nations, the US blows the competition out of the water, and not in a good way. Obviously, this is no way to live, and if you’re a person who would like to avoid being killed in a mass shooting at the grocery store or anywhere else, you’d probably like elected officials to do something about all of this. Unfortunately, Republicans have made it abundantly clear that preventing mass shootings is not one of their priorities, and for some, it’s apparently a downright joke.

    Throughout the week—which happens to be Gun Violence Survivors’ Awareness Week—various far-right lawmakers, including the newly elected representatives George Santos and Anna Paulina Luna, have shown up in Congress sporting AR-15 pins on their lapels, in the place where congresspeople usually display American flags. Why? To own the libs, or something. After days of questions re: who was passing these offensive pieces of paraphernalia out, Representative Andrew Clyde, who was also seen wearing one on Wednesday while criticizing gun restrictions, revealed himself, saying: “I’m Congressman Andrew Clyde for Georgia’s 9th District. I hear that this little pin I’ve been giving out on the House floor has been triggering some of my Democrat colleagues. I give it out to remind people of the Second Amendment of the Constitution and how important it is in preserving our liberties. If I missed you on the House floor, please stop by my office in Cannon, I have plenty more to give out.”

    As Business Insider revealed last year, Clyde owns a firearms store in Athens, Georgia, that is ranked fourth on Yelp. So the stunt may not have simply been an offensive insult to gun-violence victims and their families, but some free advertising.

    In response to Clyde’s tweet, Representative Barry Moore responded, “Save a pin for me!” Earlier in the day, proud gun-nut Lauren Boebert declared on the House floor that what this country needs is more guns:

    Republicans have blamed basically everything other than guns as the things that cause mass shootings. A short in no way comprehensive list of these excuses include: too many doorsnot enough Godsingle momsunarmed teachers; schools being designed without “trip wires” and “man traps”; and women having rights

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • A Gang Execution, Pleading the 5th, Justice for a Dead Dog: Against All Odds, the George Santos Story Has Gotten Even More Bizarre

    A Gang Execution, Pleading the 5th, Justice for a Dead Dog: Against All Odds, the George Santos Story Has Gotten Even More Bizarre

    [ad_1]

    Less than two months after first learning that newly elected congressman George Santos lied about, conservatively, 97% of his biography, it’s basically become a full-time job to keep up with the twists, turns, investigations, and insane revelations concerning the GOP lawmaker. Last week alone, for instance, it emerged that he’d baselessly:

    • Claimed to have been the target of an assassination attempt
    • Claimed to have been mugged in broad daylight on the corner of Fifth Avenue and 55th Street
    • Told a roommate he was a male model who’d be appearing in Vogue
    • Told the same roommate that as a result of his work during Fashion Week, he’d palled around with Victoria’s Secret models
    • Told would-be investors in the firm he worked at—which was accused by the SEC of operating a Ponzi scheme—that he did deals with some of the richest and most powerful people in finance

    Again, all of this came to light just last week! And that’s on top of the unearthed lies that came before, including the ones about having grandparents who fled the Holocaust and having been a star player on the Baruch College volleyball team!

    So you’d think, given all we know, that there’d be very little left to come out about the guy, or few new avenues to probe. And yet, apparently, you’d think wrong.

    Here’s what’s emerged in just the last few days.

    The alleged scamming of a disabled veteran and his dying service dog is getting the FBI treatment

    On Wednesday, Politico reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had launched a probe of an alleged GoFundMe scheme by Santos. That scheme, according to disabled veteran Richard Osthoff, involved Santos setting up a GoFundMe to solicit money to pay for surgery for Osthoff’s service dog, Sapphire, raising $3,000, and then absconding with the cash. Sapphire died in 2017, and Osthoff says he contemplated suicide over the experience with Santos. According to the veteran, he was contacted this week by two agents on behalf of the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. And it’s possible the case could result in criminal charges for Santos sooner rather than later.

    Per Politico:

    Joshua Schiller, a senior trial lawyer who has practiced in the Eastern District, said the veteran’s encounter with Santos could offer prosecutors a quick way to hit the Republican congressman with criminal charges even though they’re also investigating heftier possible financial crimes. “I think there is an urgency here because Santos is currently in a position to make laws,” Schiller said. “I can think of examples where the government used a lesser indictment to seize assets and try to cause the defendant to plea to a deal before bringing a second or third indictment on more serious charges, and I bet that is the case here.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • George Santos Is Pausing His Committee Assignments to Spend More Time Curing Cancer

    George Santos Is Pausing His Committee Assignments to Spend More Time Curing Cancer

    [ad_1]

    Since it first emerged last month that newly elected representative George Santos is a serial liar who fabricated large parts of his campaign biography—and that’s to say nothing of the lies he’s told to journalists, boyfriends, and roommates alike—the New York Republican has steadfastly refused to resign, effectively telling his legion of critics to f–k off. On Tuesday, though, the GOP lawmaker decided, quite uncharacteristically, to back away from the limelight, a move that suggests…well, a lot of things, but we’ll get to those later.

    After meeting privately with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Monday night, Santos told colleagues the next morning that he would temporarily remove himself from his assignments on the House’s small business and science, space, and technology committees. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, McCarthy said that the decision to step down was made by Santos. Why the sudden about-face? Considering whom we are dealing with here, it’s very difficult to know what to believe—but we do have a few theories.

    He thinks he’s going to find a way to “clear” his name

    This isn’t so much a theory; rather, it’s apparently what Santos has said. According to McCarthy, Santos will sit out the committee assignments “until he [can] clear everything up.” This makes perfect sense given the many lies he’s already admitted to as well as the even greater number of lies the media has comprehensively disproved.

    He thinks recusing himself from the committee assignments will take the heat off of the various investigations into his lies

    Santos is under investigation by multiple offices, including those of the Nassau County and Queens County district attorneys, federal prosecutors in New York, and the New York attorney general. (There’s also a call for an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, among other things.) The probes are looking into not only lies about his résumé, like that he worked at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, but also potential campaign finance violations. “No one is above the law, and if a crime was committed in this county, we will prosecute it,” Nassau County district attorney Anne Donnelly previously said in a statement. It’s not at all unreasonable to think that Santos believes he can get prosecutors and other investigators to back off by stepping back.

    He’s aware that something even more damning than all the stuff we already know is about to come out

    We’ve only known that Santos is a pathological liar for a little over a month, but he has presumably been spinning a web of lies for many years. It’s safe to assume that many, many more falsehoods will surface, and it’s possible they could be even worse than the ones we already know about. Maybe they have to do with the Ponzi scheme. Maybe, similar to how he said his maternal grandparents fled Hitler, he told people his paternal grandparents fled a North Korean prison camp—and that, oh yeah, he’s Korean. The potential list is truly endless, and maybe he thinks people will lose interest in revealing these lies if he takes a lower profile.

    He’s grown tired of the drama

    Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said of Santos: “He just felt like there was so much drama, really, over the situation.”

    Unfortunately, there is absolutely no indication that Santos isn’t loving all of this; in fact, it seems that he most certainly is (see: leaving coffee and doughnuts for reporters outside his office).

    McCarthy told him he had to do it

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Republicans Are Only Getting Sneakier With Their Antiabortion Proposals

    Republicans Are Only Getting Sneakier With Their Antiabortion Proposals

    [ad_1]

    Kansans may have resoundingly rejected an antiabortion referendum last year, by a striking double-digit margin, to ensure reproductive rights remain enshrined in the state constitution, but that wasn’t deterrence enough for the state’s Republican legislators. Nor was, apparently, the Republican Party’s relatively poor performance this past midterm cycle—one largely defined by the fall of Roe v. Wade. “I’m hearing a lot from my constituents who believe we should continue to do more to help the unborn,” Wichita state senator Chase Blasi told reporters earlier this month, proposing a law that would allow cities and counties to regulate abortions, in spite of state protections.

    These first few weeks of 2023 suggest it’s not that Republican lawmakers missed the abortion memo—they simply don’t seem to care. In Washington, a newly empowered Republican House passed an antiabortion bill during its first full week in the majority. And across the country, Republican state lawmakers continue the crusade against reproductive rights, attempting to find ways to circumvent popular opinion, and even statutory protections. 

    “We knew all along that they weren’t going to be satisfied with overturning Roe v. Wade,” Abby Ledoux, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, says of antiabortion lawmakers and activists in an interview with Vanity Fair. Reflecting on the slew of legislation that has been introduced in state houses across the country so far this year, Ledoux adds, “They’re not done and they’re coming for more rights.” 

    Since the start of the year, across 27 states, more than 105 bills that would restrict abortion have been filed or prefiled—(meaning, not all of them have been formally introduced), according to Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Many of these bills would ban abortion—some at fertilization; six bills—filed in Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Texas, Wyoming, and West Virginia—would specifically target medication abortions, according to the fund; others would impose harsh criminal penalties for doctors and abortion-seekers. Of course, not all of these bills are expected to pass, but they do lay bare the ever changing legal and political landscape in post-Roe America. 

    It isn’t just the overt attempts at restricting abortion access that concern reproductive rights activists. But also what Ledoux refers to as “underhanded attempts” and “work-arounds” that have the potential to “subvert democracy, to thwart the will of the people, and to really rig the game” in pursuit of unpopular political agendas. For instance, in Ohio, Republican lawmakers introduced a bill that would require a supermajority threshold of 60%, as opposed to a simple majority of voters, to pass ballot measures to amend the state constitution. Similar legislation was also introduced in Arizona. 

    “We continue to see a wide gulf between how voters are expressing their desires and how many extremist legislatures are acting,” Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project, an advocacy group that backs progressive ballot measures, says. 

    “Ballot measures are never anyone’s first path. They are always a response to a dysfunctional legislative system,” Hall says. But, she adds, “Ballot measures remain a really key strategy for circumventing legislatures that are not listening to us. And because of that, those same legislatures are also trying to tighten their grip on their own power and make it harder for voters to participate in direct democracy and use ballot measures.” During the midterms, reproductive rights activists claimed victory on five of the five abortion-related referendums on the ballot

    But it is not just ballot measures that Republicans are targeting. House Republicans in North Carolina seek to change the rules to make it easier to override a governor’s veto. In West Virginia, lawmakers got rid of the process altogether; bills can speed through the process without going through committee, hearings, or debates. The Utah state legislature is currently voting on a bill that would change the threshold for parties to obtain a judicial injunction—like the one that blocked the initial abortion ban in the state. Lawmakers in Kansas, similarly, want to make it easier to impeach judges. 

    These attempts don’t only have really grave implications for abortion rights, but, as Ledoux points out, “a whole range of other rights that we know are also threatened and under attack in many of these states.” 

    Republican lawmakers continue to signal that they aren’t walking away with having just unraveled federal protections. “As many of us suspected, this issue will keep coming back and keep coming back,” state Senator Cindy Holscher, a Kansas Democrat, said after her Republican colleague proposed moving abortion regulations to the local level. “General citizens feel like, Okay, that issue’s been settled.” But even though the dust has barely settled from the 2022 midterms, Democrats are already bracing for another election cycle about abortion rights.

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy

    Source link

  • Republicans’ 2024 Magical Thinking

    Republicans’ 2024 Magical Thinking

    [ad_1]

    Press them hard enough, and most Republican officials—even the ones with MAGA hats in their closets and Mar-a-Lago selfies in their Twitter avatar—will privately admit that Donald Trump has become a problem. He’s presided over three abysmal election cycles since he took office, he is more unstable than ever, and yet he returned to the campaign trail this past weekend, declaring that he is “angry” and determined to win the  GOP presidential nomination again in 2024. Aside from his most blinkered loyalists, virtually everyone in the party agrees: It’s time to move on from Trump.

    But ask them how they plan to do that, and the discussion quickly veers into the realm of hopeful hypotheticals. Maybe he’ll get indicted and his legal problems will overwhelm him. Maybe he’ll flame out early in the primaries, or just get bored with politics and wander away. Maybe the situation will resolve itself naturally: He’s old, after all—how many years can he have left?

    This magical thinking pervaded my recent conversations with more than a dozen current and former elected GOP officials and party strategists. Faced with the prospect of another election cycle dominated by Trump and uncertain that he can actually be beaten in the primaries, many Republicans are quietly rooting for something to happen that will make him go away. And they would strongly prefer not to make it happen themselves.

    “There is a desire for deus ex machina,” said one GOP consultant, who, like others I interviewed, requested anonymity to characterize private conversations taking place inside the party. “It’s like 2016 all over again, only more fatalistic.”

    The scenarios Republicans find themselves fantasizing about range from the far-fetched to the morbid. In his recent book Thank You for Your Servitude, my colleague Mark Leibovich quoted a former Republican representative who bluntly summarized his party’s plan for dealing with Trump: “We’re just waiting for him to die.” As it turns out, this is not an uncommon sentiment. In my conversations with Republicans, I heard repeatedly that the least disruptive path to getting rid of Trump, grim as it sounds, might be to wait for his expiration.

    Their rationale was straightforward: The former president is 76 years old, overweight, appears to maintain the diet of a college freshman, and believes, contrary to all known science, that exercise is bad for you. Why risk alienating his supporters when nature will take its course sooner or later? Peter Meijer, a former Republican representative who left office this month, termed this strategy actuarial arbitrage.

    “You have a lot of folks who are just wishing for [Trump’s] mortal demise,” Meijer told me. “I want to be clear: I’m not in that camp. But I’ve heard from a lot of people who will go onstage and put on the red hat, and then give me a call the next day and say, ‘I can’t wait until this guy dies.’ And it’s like, Good Lord.” (Trump’s mother died at 88 and his father at 93, so this strategy isn’t exactly foolproof.)

    Some Republicans are clinging to the hope that Trump might finally be undone by his legal troubles. He is currently the subject of multiple criminal investigations, and his detractors dream of an indictment that would derail his campaign. But most of the people I talked with seemed resigned to the likelihood that an indictment would only boost him with the party’s base. Michael Cohen, who served for years as Trump’s personal attorney and now hosts a podcast atoning for that sin titled Mea Culpa, grudgingly told me that his former boss would easily weaponize any criminal charges brought against him. The deep-state Democrats are at it again—the campaign emails write themselves. “Donald will use the indictment to continue his fundraising grift,” Cohen told me.

    Others imagine a coordinated donor revolt that sidelines Trump for good. The GOP consultant told me about a private dinner in New York City that he attended in the fall of 2021, when he saw a Republican billionaire give an impassioned speech about the need to keep Trump from returning to the Oval Office. The man said he would devote large sums of money to defeating the former president and urged his peers to join the cause. The others in the room—including several prominent donors and a handful of Republican senators—reacted enthusiastically that night. But when the consultant saw some of the same people a year later, their commitment had waned. The indignant donors, he said, had retreated to a cautious “wait and see” stance.

    This plague of self-deception among party elites contains obvious echoes of Trump’s early rise to power. In the run-up to the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, a fractured field of feckless candidates spent time and money attacking one another, convinced that the front-runner would eventually collapse. It was widely believed within the political class that such a ridiculous figure could simply never win a major party nomination, much less the presidency. Of course, by the time Trump’s many doubters realized they were wrong, it was too late.

    Terry Sullivan, who ran Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, told me that Trump’s rivals failed to beat him that year in large part because they were “always convinced that his self-inflicted demise was imminent.”

    “There is an old quote that has been attributed to Lee Atwater: ‘When your enemy is in the process of drowning, throw him a brick,’” Sullivan told me. “None of Donald Trump’s opponents ever have the balls to throw him the damn brick. They just hope someone else will. Hope isn’t a winning strategy.”

    For conservatives who want to prevent a similar fiasco in 2024, the emerging field of GOP presidential prospects might seem like cause to celebrate. After all, the healthiest way to rid their party of Trump would be to simply beat him. But a sprawling cast of challengers could just as easily end up splitting the anti-Trump electorate, as it did in 2016, and allow Trump to win primaries with a plurality of voters. It would also make coalescing around an alternative harder for party leaders.

    One current Republican representative told me that although most of his colleagues might quietly hope for a new nominee, few would be willing to endorse a non-Trump candidate early enough in the primary calendar to make a difference. They would instead “keep their powder dry” and “see what those first states do.” For all of Trump’s supposedly diminished political clout, he remains a strong favorite in primary polls, where he leads his nearest rival by about 15 points. And few of the other top figures in the party—Ron DeSantis, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley—have demonstrated an ability to take on Trump directly and look stronger for it.

    Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump after January 6 and went on to lose his 2022 primary to a far-right Trump loyalist, attributes Republican leaders’ current skittishness about confronting Trump to the party’s “ideological rootlessness.” The GOP’s defenestration of long-held conservative ideals in favor of an ad hoc personality cult left Republicans without a clear post-Trump identity. Combine that with what Meijer calls “the generalized cowardice of political figures writ large,” and you have a party in paralysis: “There’s no capacity [to say], ‘All right, let’s clean the slate and figure out what we stand for and build from there.’”

    Even if another Republican manages to capture the nomination, there’s no guarantee that Trump—who is not known for his grace in defeat—will go away. Last month, Trump caused a minor panic in GOP circles when he shared an article on Truth Social suggesting that he might run an independent spoiler campaign if his party refuses to back him in 2024. The Republicans I talked with said such a schism would be politically catastrophic for their party. No one had any ideas about how to prevent it.

    Meanwhile, the most enduring of GOP delusions—that Trump will transform into an entirely different person—somehow persists.

    When I asked Rob Portman about his party’s Trump problem, the recently retired Ohio senator confidently predicted that it would all sort itself out soon. The former president, he believed, would study the polling data, realize that other Republicans had a better shot at winning, and graciously bow out of 2024 contention.

    “I think at the end of the day,” Portman told me, “he’s unlikely to want to put himself in that position when he could be more of a Republican senior statesman who talks about the policies that were enacted in his administration.”

    I let out an involuntary laugh.

    “Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part,” Portman conceded.

    [ad_2]

    McKay Coppins

    Source link

  • Several Of George Santos Campaign Contributors Don’t Appear To Exist: Report

    Several Of George Santos Campaign Contributors Don’t Appear To Exist: Report

    [ad_1]

    For more than a dozen contributors listed as having donated significant amounts of money to the campaign of Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), the finance documents could not be confirmed, Mother Jones discovered in an investigation of the records.

    Donors identified as Victoria and Jonathan Regor, for example, purportedly each contributed the maximum amount allowed — $2,800 — for Santos’s first bid for a House seat in New York in 2020, which he lost, the magazine noted.

    Despite a search of databases, no one named Victoria or Jonathan Regor could be located anywhere in the U.S., Mother Jones reported Friday. Additionally, the outlet added that their listed address — 45 New Mexico Street, Jackson Township, New Jersey — does not exist.

    Santos’ 2020 campaign finance reports also list a “Stephen Berger” at an address on Brandt Road in Brawley, California, donating $2,500. But a spokesperson for rancher and Republican donor William Brandt told Mother Jones he has lived at the Brandt Road address for at least 20 years and “neither he or his wife have made any donations to George Santos.” Brandt has no idea who “Stephen Berger” might be.

    Separately, the documents point to another $2,800 campaign donation attributed to a friend of Santos who denied to Mother Jones that he contributed.

    Such “questionable donations” account for more than $30,000 of the $338,000 the Santos campaign raised from individual donors in 2020, according to the magazine.

    Santos’ campaign documents are beginning to appear as fib-riddled as the lawmaker’s stories about his life. He has lied about his heritage, family, education, and work experience. Yet Santos has ignored calls for his resignation and has claimed he merely “embellished” his résumé.

    Amendments this week to finance forms for his latest campaign indicate that a $700,000 donation to his latest campaign in Long Island that the lawmaker had claimed was a loan from him did not come from Santos after all. That leaves a significant mystery about the source of the funds.

    Santos had said he made $55,000 a year before launching the Devolder Organization in 2021. However, the funding for starting up the mysterious company — which had no website and was dissolved shortly after it was launched — is murky.

    He claimed that the company, suddenly allegedly worth millions, rocketed his salary to $750,000. That supposedly helped him finance his campaign — which has now been contradicted by the changes to the campaign finance filing. On Wednesday, an agitated Santos insisted to reporters he wasn’t personally involved in amending the campaign finance reports.

    Santos’ campaign committee also told federal regulators on Wednesday that it had hired a new treasurer — but the man it named said he had not accepted the job.

    The Washington Post reported Friday that the Department of Justice had told the Federal Election Commission to hold off on any civil enforcement action regarding possible Santos campaign violations. It’s the clearest signal yet that the Justice Department has already launched its own criminal investigation into Santos’ campaign finances, the Post noted.

    Santos could not be reached for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Obama Legacy Shaping Biden’s Most Important Decision

    The Obama Legacy Shaping Biden’s Most Important Decision

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden has already made the most important domestic-policy decision he’ll likely face this year. Biden and his top advisers have repeatedly indicated that they will reject demands from the new GOP majority in the House of Representatives to link increasing the debt ceiling with cutting federal spending. Instead, Biden is insisting that Congress pass a clean debt-ceiling increase, with no conditions attached.

    Biden’s refusal to negotiate with Republicans now is rooted in the Obama administration’s experiences in 2011–15 of trying to navigate increases in the debt ceiling through the same political configuration present today: a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. While Biden says he won’t negotiate a budget deal tied to a debt-ceiling increase, then-President Obama did just that in 2011. Those negotiations not only failed but proved so disruptive to financial markets, and so personally scarring, that Obama and his team emerged from the ordeal determined never to repeat it. And when House Republicans came back in 2013 asking for more concessions in exchange for raising the debt ceiling again, Obama declined to negotiate with them; eventually the GOP raised the debt ceiling without conditions.

    To understand the choices Obama made about debt-ceiling negotiations, and how they are shaping Biden’s approach today, I spoke with multiple officials from the Obama era: several Cabinet secretaries, as well as top aides from the White House, executive-branch departments, and Capitol Hill. Most chose to speak without attribution to candidly discuss Obama’s deliberations. What’s clear from these conversations is that almost none of the conditions that led Obama to negotiate in 2011 are present today. This helps explain why Biden is rejecting Republican demands, but also why the risk of a cataclysmic default is even greater now than it was then.

    When Congress raises the debt ceiling it does not authorize any new spending; it permits the Treasury to pay the debts the U.S. has incurred from earlier fiscal-policy decisions. A failure to raise the debt ceiling would lead to the federal government defaulting, something that has never happened, and which could crater the stock market, spike interest rates, and disrupt payments to the millions of Americans who rely on federal checks.

    In some ways, Biden’s staunch refusal to link fiscal negotiations to a debt-ceiling increase is out of character for a politician who spent nearly four decades in the Senate and has prided himself on his ability to reach agreements across party lines. Even now, administration officials make clear that Biden is not precluding negotiations with House Republicans over fiscal policy. What Biden is saying is that he won’t allow Republicans to link fiscal negotiations to the threat of not raising the debt ceiling. That resolve flows directly from the   Obama administration’s experiences.

    The dynamics that prompted Obama to negotiate with Republicans in 2011 had started coalescing before the GOP won control of the House in the 2010 midterm election. After taking office in 2009, Obama’s first major legislative victory was the passage of a roughly $800 billion stimulus plan to help the economy recover from the 2008 financial collapse. Obama devoted the rest of 2009 to steering the landmark Affordable Care Act through Congress.

    After Congress approved those expensive initiatives, Obama faced pressure from not only congressional Republicans but also a core of centrist Senate Democrats (including Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad of North Dakota) to develop some plan for reducing the federal deficit. Under prodding from Conrad, in February 2010 Obama appointed the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission to recommend a deficit-reduction plan. Throughout that year, “there was an awful lot of ‘grand bargain, let’s have a historic compromise’ in the air” in Washington, Jason Furman, the then– deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told me.

    Before the House changed hands in December 2010, Obama agreed with congressional Republicans on a major package to extend the tax cuts that had been passed under George W. Bush and to also temporarily reduce payroll taxes. Then, in April 2011, the Obama administration and Representative John Boehner, the new Republican House speaker, settled on a plan to fund the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year.

    So when Boehner and other Republicans put forward their demands to tie any debt-ceiling increase to cuts in federal spending, the Obama administration did not initially view the prospect of negotiations with horror, multiple former officials told me. Obama shared the belief that a “grand bargain” to control the long-term debt was a worthwhile goal. Furman said the former president considered it an “exciting opportunity.”

    Jack Lew, who served as Obama’s director of the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) during the 2011 confrontation and as Treasury secretary in 2013, told me about another factor that contributed to the Obama administration’s willingness to engage: Negotiations that previous presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had had with Congress about the debt ceiling had not proved that disruptive. Debt-ceiling negotiations “up until 2011 had a different character than after 2011,” said Lew, who served as House Democratic aide in the 1980s and in the OMB for Clinton in the 1990s.

    Armed with these convictions, the Obama team didn’t blanch, even when the new speaker went to New York in May 2011 to lay down what became known as the “Boehner Rule”: Republicans would demand one dollar in spending cuts for each dollar increase in the debt limit that they authorized. The two sides launched fiscal negotiations in talks led by Biden for the administration and Representative Eric Cantor for the House GOP.

    As these negotiations unfolded, Boehner framed the talks as the Republicans and Obama equally benefiting from the stipulations. But the White House, including Biden, never saw things that way. The White House didn’t view the debt-ceiling increase primarily as a bargaining chip—they viewed it as the eventual legislative vehicle for moving through Congress whatever agreement the fiscal negotiation produced.

    Even with that difference, the talks were serious and, for a while, productive. Biden praised Cantor and Cantor reciprocated. But in late June, the effort collapsed when it hit a familiar rock: The Republicans involved refused to consider raising taxes and Democrats would not agree to spending cuts unless they did.

    Over the next few weeks, the speaker and the president, joined by only a few aides, then met for a series of secret negotiations to pursue a “grand bargain” on the deficit. The two men came close to an agreement. But their negotiations ultimately foundered when Obama and Boehner could not agree on the balance between tax increases and spending cuts. Like the Biden-Cantor talks earlier, the Obama-Boehner talks crashed in late July.

    Only days before August 2, when the nation would face an unprecedented default, Obama, Biden and the congressional leaders in both parties gathered in the White House for a frantic final weekend of negotiations. The two sides were trying to avoid calamity in an environment of “pure acrimony,” Furman told me. “I think if you look at the photographs that [the White House photographer] Pete Souza took over the course of that weekend, you can look at our faces and you don’t need to hear any words,” Lew said. “If you ask President Obama about the two or three most gut-wrenching moments as president I have no doubt this would be on the list.”

    Pete Souza / The White House

    Even though the “grand bargain” evaporated, the two sides (with Biden and Mitch McConnell at the center of the negotiations) reached a complex deal over that weekend. In the first stage, Obama got an $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling coupled with $900 billion in spending cuts. The deal linked up to another $1.5 trillion increase in debt to the creation of a congressional “super committee” that would be guaranteed a floor vote on a plan to cut the deficit an equivalent amount. If the committee deadlocked, automatic spending cuts in defense and non-defense discretionary spending—what became known as sequestration—would be triggered. Though default was averted, months of these talks had led to a nearly universal recoil among the Obama team. There was no single meeting or moment when the president and his top advisers said, “Never again.” Instead, participants told me that that conclusion emerged organically. “I think the team around Obama really had a bad taste in their mouth after the 2011 episode and they really wanted to change the terms and dynamics of the debate, and that’s why they all embraced the idea that we can’t do this anymore,” Mark Patterson, the chief of staff at the time for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, told me.

    The White House frustration deepened in November 2011. The deficit reduction “super committee” was created in July but deadlocked on the same issue that had stymied previous bipartisan negotiation: the unwillingness of enough Republicans to accept tax increases that Democrats considered sufficient to justify big cuts in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. That stalemate triggered the severe sequestration reductions in discretionary spending—a squeeze that left Democrats fuming over the domestic cuts and Republicans incensed about the defense reductions.

    All of that was the backdrop when House Republicans returned in 2013 with a new set of demands for raising the debt ceiling, which included unraveling Obama’s greatest legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. This time Obama declined to talk with Republicans. “In 2013, it was a very fresh memory that we got closer than anyone had ever come to defaulting,” Lew, who had by then become Treasury secretary, told me. From Obama on down, he said, there was a very strong sense that “we can’t ever be in [that] position again.”

    House Republicans eventually conceded, passing an increase in the debt ceiling without any conditions in October 2013 and again the following year. In October 2015, Boehner, as his final act after announcing his intent to resign from Congress and vacate the speakership, engineered another extension that raised the debt ceiling through the remainder of Obama’s presidency while also loosening the sequestration cuts on both defense and domestic spending. Those three votes represented a sweeping victory for Obama’s new no-conditions approach to the debt ceiling.

    Though Biden was among the most enthusiastic proponents of negotiations during Obama’s first term, no former officials recall him dissenting from the general rejection of that approach in Obama’s second. Notably, then–Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (who died in 2021) took no chances: As the 2013 debt-ceiling fight approached, he personally told Obama to sideline Biden from any talks, because he considered the vice president too willing to make concessions to his frequent negotiating partner, McConnell.

    On every front, most experts consider the environment even less hospitable today than it was during Obama’s presidency for the kind of budget deal that House Republicans are now demanding in order to raise the debt ceiling. Although Obama’s team and many congressional Democrats genuinely believed that a big long-term deficit-reduction plan was both good politics and good economics, Biden, as well as most congressional Democrats today, are much more skeptical of that proposition. And though Republicans could at least formulate specific spending-cut demands back then, they are far less likely to reach consensus today on a meaningful deficit-reduction plan. That’s largely because more of them have come to recognize that their political base, centered on older white voters, is just fine with government spending targeted toward them—particularly Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicaid and the ACA, which Republicans in the Obama era considered the bull’s-eye for their deficit-reduction plans. Moreover, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has less control over his fractious conference than Boehner did, and McCarthy is even less willing than his predecessor to cross his most conservative membersBut though these factors argue against a big deficit deal, especially one linked to a debt-ceiling increase, Biden must find some way to authorize more debt. He’s already facing calls from Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia to establish another special deficit-reduction committee.

    For now, the White House, while indicating that Biden is open to talking with Republicans about the budget on other tracks, is digging in against linking anything to the debt ceiling. A former Obama official familiar with the Biden team’s strategy told me the White House believes that approach “is a matter of principle.”

    Biden and his team have taken from the Obama years the lesson that if they don’t negotiate against the debt limit, a sufficient number of Republicans will eventually back down because the economic consequences of default would be so catastrophic. Biden may expect, for instance, that enough House Republicans will join House Democrats in advancing a “discharge petition” that would allow an increase to pass the House without support from the GOP leadership. Biden may be right in that calculation. But Obama’s no-negotiating posture on the debt ceiling worked mostly because enough congressional Republicans back then were unwilling to plunge over the cliff into default. The White House and financial markets around the world are certain to face many white-knuckled moments before they learn whether that is still true today.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • How Moderate Republicans Became an Endangered Species

    How Moderate Republicans Became an Endangered Species

    [ad_1]

    Early this summer, the federal government will, in all likelihood, exhaust the “extraordinary measures” it is now employing to keep paying the nation’s bills. As the country careens toward that fiscal abyss, Congress will face a now-familiar stalemate: Republicans will refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats agree to cut spending. Democrats will balk. Markets will slide—perhaps precipitously—and the economy will swiftly turn south.

    When that moment arrives, the most important people in Washington won’t be those who work in the White House, or even the party leaders who occupy the Capitol’s most palatial offices. They will be the House Republicans who sit closest to the political center: the so-called moderates. The GOP’s majority is narrow enough that any five Republicans could dash Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s plan to demand a ransom for the debt ceiling. They will have to decide whether to stand with him or join with Democrats to avert a first-ever default on the nation’s debt.

    “Those guys will be called on to save the day,” says former Representative Charlie Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican who, until his retirement in 2018, was one of the House’s most prominent moderates.

    Dent is talking about Republicans such as Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, whose Omaha district voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump in 2020. Bacon is a leader of the faction of Republicans hoping to serve as a counterweight to the House Freedom Caucus and the far-right hard-liners who extracted all manner of concessions from McCarthy earlier this month in exchange for allowing him to become speaker. During the four days of voting that McCarthy endured, Bacon regularly held court with reporters outside the House chamber, castigating the holdouts as the “chaos caucus” and comparing them to the Taliban.

    Bacon, a 59-year-old former Air Force commander first elected in 2016, styles himself as a pragmatist and a realist, and he is keenly aware of the sway that he and other like-minded Republicans could have. Indeed, he and his allies have already blocked two bills backed by some on the far right—including a measure to replace the federal income tax with a 30 percent sales tax—from coming up for a vote. But don’t call him a moderate. “I’d rather be called a conservative who gets things done,” Bacon told me.

    In rejecting the moderate label, Bacon is no different than the other 221 Republicans now serving in the House, virtually all of whom describe themselves as some version of conservative. As the party has moved to the right, so, too, has its leftmost flank. The decline of the GOP moderate is a story more than two decades in the making, but it carries particular significance at a moment when centrist lawmakers could wield so much power. If they choose to use it. If they exist at all anymore.


    Two years ago, Bacon picked up the discarded flag of a dormant GOP group called the Main Street Caucus. The caucus is the House extension of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a political organization founded 25 years ago by then-Representative Amo Houghton of New York. The original Main Street Partnership was explicitly, and proudly, moderate; Houghton called himself a “militant moderate,” and the group’s aim was to “serve as a voice for centrist Republicans,” as well as to soften the GOP’s harsh rhetoric and policies on abortion, gay rights, and the environment, among other issues.

    The Partnership remains active—it spent $25 million in support of Republican candidates last year—but it has rebranded itself to stay relevant in today’s GOP. Searching through its website history on the Internet Archive, I found that the Partnership dropped the words moderate and centrist from its mission statement sometime in the fall of 2011, shortly after the last new Republican House majority forced a confrontation over the debt ceiling with a Democratic president. They’ve since been replaced by more generic descriptors, such as common sense and pragmatic.

    “We used to be called moderate. We are not moderate,” says Sarah Chamberlain, the Partnership’s CEO and a former aide to Houghton (who retired from Congress in 2004 and died in 2020). Its members now identify as “pragmatic conservatives.” “The entity from day one has the same name, but it looks very different,” Chamberlain told me.

    The Main Street Caucus isn’t the only congressional group whose members once might have identified as moderate. Others include the Republican Governance Group (formerly known as the Tuesday Group) and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. A couple dozen Republicans, including Bacon, are members of all three groups. But they each eschew the word, in part, Bacon explained to me, because in primaries “it’s used as a cudgel.”

    Another reason is they are simply more conservative than their predecessors. As Republicans who embraced the moderate label, including Dent, have left Congress over the past 20 years, the Republicans replacing them have moved ever further from the political center. Many of the original members of the Tuesday Group and the Main Street Partnership, for example, backed abortion rights; Dent, who left the House five years ago, told me he believed he was either the last, or one of the last, House Republicans to hold that position.

    Earlier this month, the Main Street Caucus—the largest of the three groups, with about 60 members—elected as its chair a Republican even more conservative than Bacon, Representative Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. When I spoke with him by phone, Johnson eagerly volunteered that both he and the group’s new vice chair, Representative Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma, earned higher ratings than the average House Republican on the scorecard kept by Heritage Action, the conservative activist group that has warred with GOP moderates for years. “We are members who overwhelmingly want to deliver policy wins—conservative policy wins,” Johnson told me.


    The big question now is whether the GOP’s self-identified pragmatists will stand up to—or simply behind—the party leadership in the fiscal battles to come. During the speakership fight, Johnson, Bacon, and other pragmatists served as McCarthy’s protective guard, staring down the GOP holdouts by declaring that they would vote for no one other than McCarthy. Yet, with only a few complaints, they largely blessed the concessions the new speaker made to empower the far right at his own expense.

    Bacon assured me that he and his fellow pragmatists will use the leverage they have, noting the two bills that they had already prevented from coming for a vote. On the debt-ceiling debate, however, many of the deal-seeking Republicans are sounding like McCarthy, who has said the president must endorse spending cuts in order to lift the borrowing limit. “We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling until we have some additional fiscal responsibility returned to spending in this town,” Johnson told me. He put the onus on Biden and the Democrats to negotiate, equating their refusal to do so with “choosing the path of legislative terrorism.” Other members of the Main Street Caucus struck a slightly more malleable tone. “We have to be aggressive on spending, and it’s something I ran for Congress on, so I’m comfortable with that,” Representative Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota told me. “But we also have to continue to be able to govern.”

    The primary mechanism that the pragmatic Republicans could use to bypass McCarthy is a discharge petition, which would force a vote on increasing the debt limit. Given the GOP’s narrow lead in the House, only five Republicans would need to join Democrats to get the requisite support. (One GOP leader of the Problem Solvers Caucus, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, mentioned this as a possibility when the hard-liners were blocking McCarthy’s path to speaker.) “It would be very difficult for me to sign a discharge petition against leadership,” Armstrong told me. “I would never say never, but I would be very, very skeptical that I would ever sign that.” Yet in the next breath, Armstrong suggested that if the stock market were crashing, that could change his mind: “I’m not cratering every senior in my district’s 401(k). I’m not doing it.”

    A discharge petition is an imperfect vehicle for resolving a debt-ceiling crisis; because of the House’s procedural rules, gathering signatures would have to begin weeks or even months in advance. In 2015, Dent helped lead a bipartisan coalition in using a discharge petition to go around the GOP leadership to pass legislation reviving the Export-Import Bank, a federal credit agency that conservatives wanted to let die. Then-Speaker John Boehner had already announced his departure, having been ushered into retirement by a far-right revolt. “Ordinarily, the speaker would be pretty upset about it. I can assure you he was not,” Dent recalled.

    A dozen years ago, it was Boehner leading a House GOP majority bent on securing spending cuts in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling. After several rounds of negotiations failed—including an attempted “grand bargain” on taxes and entitlement programs with then-President Barack Obama—Congress agreed to form a “super committee” to put in place budget caps that became known as sequestration. (Congress would later prevent many of these caps from being put in place.)

    Dent predicted that Republicans would win few if any concessions from Democrats for raising the borrowing limit this time around. “You’re going to get something close to a clean debt-ceiling bill,” he told me. Perhaps Biden will agree to form a fiscal commission to propose possible spending cuts, Washington’s favorite face-saving punt. A fig leaf, in other words. Bacon told me he’s hoping for something more, such as a commitment to keep increases in federal spending below inflation. “I’d like to see more than a fig leaf. I’d like to at least see some underwear on.”

    What’s all but certain is that a significant chunk of the House Republican conference won’t go for that kind of deal. Republicans told me that they doubt the party could pass any debt-ceiling increase on its own, and many conservatives might reject any deal that McCarthy could get Democrats to endorse, if he can get Democrats to negotiate at all. That will put the pressure once again on the GOP’s pragmatists, the Republicans who pass for moderate in 2023 but won’t dare use that word. If and when the debt crisis comes, they could well be the ones deciding between, well, moderation and default.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Don’t Eat Before Reading: The Stomach-Churning Story of How Kevin McCarthy and Marjorie Taylor Greene Became BFFs

    Don’t Eat Before Reading: The Stomach-Churning Story of How Kevin McCarthy and Marjorie Taylor Greene Became BFFs

    [ad_1]

    One of the main subplots in Kevin McCarthy’s drawn-out attempt to become Speaker of the House—which involved losing a humiliating 14 votes before he ultimately eked out a win—was Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s decision to break with the Freedom Caucus to support his leadership bid. Greene’s backing of McCarthy was surprisingly not only due to her fringe-right bona fides but because of her willingness to fight with her pals on the far right, including representatives Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert, whom she dubbed as “destructionists,” and quarrel with Boebert in the Congressional bathrooms. Her ability to wield actual political influence was also a record-scratch moment given that less than two years prior, we’d learned that “MTG” was a QAnon proponent who’d endorsed the executions of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi; claimed school shootings were false flag operations; insisted there is no evidence a plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11; and blamed the California wildfires on Jewish laser beams. Following his leadership win, McCarthy rewarded Greene—who thinks Hillary Clinton had JFK Jr. killed because he was competition for her New York Senate seat—with plum assignments on the House Oversight and Homeland Security committees.

    That someone with such unhinged ideas would have any type of power whatsoever is obviously extremely disturbing. But if you’re hungry for something just as stomach-churning, consider the inside story of how Greene and McCarthy have spent the last two years becoming the absolute tightest of pals.

    According to a report from The New York Times, the pair’s relationship during Greene’s first year in office followed a predictable pattern. “A controversy would erupt over an outrageous comment Ms. Greene had made, then Mr. McCarthy would summon her to deal with the matter privately” (for instance, the fact that she’d endorsed violent death threats against members of the opposing party). Greene, The Times notes, would joke to friends that she’d “been called to the principal’s office.” But while the congresswoman from Georgia initially believed that McCarthy wasn’t in her corner, and that he’d indirectly helped Democrats strip her of her committee assignments, it quickly became clear that that was not the case.

    Per The Times:

    …even as she continued to traffic in offensive conspiracy theories and spoke at a white nationalist rally, Mr. McCarthy refused to punish her and often refrained from even criticizing her comments until pressed by reporters…And by early 2022, Ms. Greene had begun to believe that Mr. McCarthy was willing to go to bat for her. When her personal Twitter account was shut down for violating coronavirus misinformation policies, Ms. Greene raced to Mr. McCarthy’s office in the Capitol and demanded that he get the social media platform to reinstate her account, according to a person familiar with the exchange.

    And he did! According to The Times, “instead of telling Ms. Greene that he had no power to order a private company to change its content moderation policies, Mr. McCarthy directed his general counsel, Machalagh Carr, to appeal to Twitter executives. Over the next two months, Ms. Carr would spend hours on the phone with them arguing Ms. Greene’s case, and even helped draft a formal appeal on her behalf.” While the attempt was unsuccessful, the whole thing apparently “impressed Ms. Greene and revealed how far Mr. McCarthy was prepared to go to defend her.” And remember: This is a woman whose electoral debut involved conspiracy theories about Jewish laser beams.

    Later, Greene would reportedly learn from former representative Devin Nunes that McCarthy had yelled at Democrat Steny Hoyer for the party’s decision to kick her off her committees and threatened to respond in kind when the GOP returned to power. That really ingratiated McCarthy to Greene, and after that, it was all bosom buddies, all the time.

    Here’s The Times again:

    From then on, the two settled into a kind of symbiotic relationship, both feeding off what the other could provide. Ms. Greene began regularly visiting Mr. McCarthy, frequently dropping by his office, and he began inviting her to high-level policy discussions attended by senior Republicans and praising her contributions.

    He was impressed not only by Ms. Greene’s seemingly innate understanding of the impulses of the party’s hard-right voters, but also by her prowess at building her own brand. He once remarked to allies with wonder at how Ms. Greene, as a freshman, was already known by a three-letter monogram: M.T.G. “She knows what she’s doing,” Mr. McCarthy marveled privately. “You’ve got A.O.C. and M.T.G.”

    As The Times notes, Greene’s ability to get news outlets to shorten her name wowed McCarthy so much that he has basically given her free rein to dictate GOP policy. The lawmaker from California has adopted her opposition to vaccine mandates and Ukraine funding and heeded her call to investigate “the other side“ of January 6. In return, she was “unflinching in her support” of his Speaker bid, “personally whipping votes on the House floor and strategizing on calls with [Donald] Trump.

    And if you thought this friendship was gross before that, now’s the time to pull out your barf bag:

    Days after he won his gavel in a protracted fight with hard-right Republicans, Speaker Kevin McCarthy gushed to a friend about the ironclad bond he had developed with an unlikely ally in his battle for political survival, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

    “I will never leave that woman,” Mr. McCarthy, a California Republican, told the friend, who described the private conversation on the condition of anonymity. “I will always take care of her.”

    In a subsequent interview with The Times, McCarthy added: “If you’re going to be in a fight, you want Marjorie in your foxhole. When she picks a fight, she’s going to fight until the fight’s over. She reminds me of my friends from high school, that we’re going to stick together all the way through.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • “We Are Getting Into Position”: The Jockeying to Replace George Santos Has Already Begun

    “We Are Getting Into Position”: The Jockeying to Replace George Santos Has Already Begun

    [ad_1]

    The Democratic strategist was right about George Santos. He just didn’t realize how right. Back in early November, one week before the midterms, I asked him to assess the contest between Santos, the Republican nominee, and Robert Zimmerman, the Democrat, in New York’s Third Congressional District. “It’s a race where the national Republican Party should be investing, and it isn’t,” he said, sounding puzzled. “The only thing I can determine is that Santos is truly a nut.”

    That has hardly been disqualifying in recent American politics—and Santos went on to beat Zimmerman by eight points. It wasn’t until a mid-December New York Times story, however, that Santos’s nuttiness and lies were extensively documented. Since then, the revelations and allegations have unspooled almost daily: from the Seinfeld-ian (“I never claimed to be Jewish.… I said I was ‘Jew-ish,’” he told the New York Post) to the academic and athletic (Santos lied about graduating from Baruch College and starring on its volleyball team) to his employment history (Santos never worked, as he claimed, for either Goldman Sachs or Citigroup) to the possibly criminal (a 2008 fraud charge in Brazil, a multitude of $199.99 charges to his congressional campaign account) to the highly offensive (asserting, falsely, that his mother was in the 9/11 attacks and that his grandparents fled the Holocaust). Bruce Blakeman, a Republican who is the Nassau County executive, has gone from being somewhat wary of Santos last year to being appalled now. “He came out of nowhere, and he had this story about his life,” Blakeman says. “To conjure up a tale about his family and the Holocaust, to me, is diabolical. We’re talking about somebody who needs professional help. He’s not normal.” Santos has admitted only to “embellishing” his résumé, and his congressional office says it does not comment on campaign or personal matters.

    Now, though, federal and local prosecutors are circling Santos. The state’s mainstream Republicans continue to try to isolate him, with the latest salvo a Times op-ed by former congressman Peter King, who is calling on Republicans to make clear they want Santos gone. A close ally of Kevin McCarthy is said to have been worried that Santos would be exposed as a fraud during the 2022 campaign, and the House Speaker has recently claimed that he “always had a few questions” about Santos’s résumé, but McCarthy has refused to call for Santos’s ouster. Next week a progressive Democratic group, Courage for America, will try to turn up the heat by distributing, in the congressional district and on Capitol Hill, an “annotated résumé” detailing Santos’s falsehoods. The congressman has insisted he won’t resign, but New York pols in both parties talk as if Santos is already gone. The maneuvering to prepare for another battle over the seat—either in a special election later this year or in 2024, on the standard cycle—is well underway. “There will be a long line of qualified and competent and trustworthy candidates we will have to run,” says Blakeman, the Long Island Republican leader. “I’m not concerned about holding the seat.” Among the names in the mix are Jack Martins, a state senator, and Alison Esposito, a former Republican candidate for lieutenant governor. 

    “We are getting into position,” says Jay Jacobs, the chairman of New York’s Democratic Party. “There’s talk, but we’re not ready to begin vetting candidates.” Zimmerman says his focus is only on assembling a bipartisan coalition to remove Santos. Other players aren’t waiting. David Greenfield, a former New York City councilman, has tried to stake out some early ground for an ally, Dan Rosenthal, by floating the 31-year-old state assemblyman’s name on Twitter. “He is a true moderate who voted against bail reform and congestion pricing, which polling shows are two of the most critical issues on Long Island,” Greenfield tells me. Tom Suozzi represented much of the district in Congress for three terms (and beat Santos soundly in 2020) before leaving to run for New York governor in 2022. “I think there will be a lot of pressure on Suozzi to run,” a Long Island Democratic consultant says, “especially if Santos resigns and there is a special.”

    Special elections in New York play by peculiar rules. There are no primaries. Leaders of the two major parties each select a candidate. For the Democrats, Governor Kathy Hochul would essentially do the choosing; the governor also gets to pick the date of the election, with some restrictions. “It’s very strange because you’re running, essentially, an inside-outside race,” a New York Democratic hand says. “You’ve got to convince the insiders they should appoint you their party’s candidate, then win actual voters.” Special elections are typically low-turnout, weirdly unpredictable affairs. Local concerns like crime and tolls would still be issues, but the narrow partisan balance of the House would nationalize the dynamic, attracting massive amounts of outside campaign money. “Special elections are bad! We don’t want a special election!” a top New York Democratic strategist says. “We want an election on Election Day in a presidential year. That’s easier to win. I hope Santos doesn’t quit.”

    [ad_2]

    Chris Smith

    Source link

  • Why Kevin McCarthy Can’t Lose George Santos

    Why Kevin McCarthy Can’t Lose George Santos

    [ad_1]

    The Republican Party has had no better friend than Nassau County in the past few years.

    Of America’s largest counties, few have turned more sharply toward the GOP than New York City’s neighbor to the east. This collection of Long Island suburbs swept Democrats out of local office in 2021, and last fall, Nassau County voted resoundingly Republican in New York’s gubernatorial race. Most important for the national GOP, the county helped elect three Republicans to Congress, including two candidates who flipped Democratic seats in districts that President Joe Biden had carried in 2020.

    Representative George Santos was one of those recent winners, and now Nassau County Republicans are worried that his abrupt fall from grace will cost the GOP far more than the seat that his lies helped the party pick up in November. They want Santos to step down, even though that means his seat would be vacant until a special election later this year, which the Democrats would aggressively contest. Local Republicans are flummoxed that national party leaders, starting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, haven’t joined their united call for Santos to resign. And they see McCarthy’s continued tolerance of Santos as an attempt to hold on to a Republican vote in the near term without enough consideration for whether he’d lose it—and cause Republicans to lose many others—in the longer term.

    “It’s the right thing to do morally, ethically, and politically,” former Representative Peter King, a Long Island Republican who represented the district next to Santos’s in the House for 28 years, told me about trying to oust Santos. “If you want to keep controlling the Congress, you can’t just have the short-sighted view that you need his vote next week or next month. You’re gonna lose all the votes in two years when you’re no longer in the majority.”

    With 2024 in mind, and as the list of Santos’s biographical fabrications grows (seemingly by the day), Nassau County’s GOP machine has treated the congressman-for-now as a boil to be lanced.

    “As far as I’m concerned, he’s nonexistent. I will not deal with him. I will not deal with his office,” Bruce Blakeman, the Republican who was elected Nassau County executive in 2021, told me. Last week, Blakeman joined a group of local GOP leaders, including county Republican Party Chairman Joseph Cairo and Representative Anthony Garbarino, in demanding that Santos resign.

    Yet for the moment, the political imperatives of Long Island Republicans no longer align with those of McCarthy, who plainly cannot afford to lose Santos’s vote with such a narrow margin in the House. Santos backed McCarthy in all 15 ballots for speaker earlier this month, and McCarthy’s allies rewarded him with a pair of committee assignments earlier this week. The new speaker said that Santos has “a long way to go to earn trust” but has made no move to sanction him.

    “The voters of his district have elected him. He is seated. He is part of the Republican conference,” McCarthy told reporters last week.

    Democrats have already filed a complaint about Santos with the House Ethics Committee, and he is under investigation by federal and local prosecutors in New York who are reportedly looking into whether he committed financial crimes or violated federal campaign-disclosure laws.

    Santos has defied calls to resign, and McCarthy might need his vote even more should another House Republican, Representative Greg Steube of Florida, miss an extended period of time after he sustained serious injuries from a 25-foot fall off a ladder earlier this week.

    McCarthy’s office did not respond to requests for comment. The National Republican Congressional Committee, which traditionally backs GOP incumbents, echoed McCarthy’s ambivalence toward Santos. “Voters in New York will have the final say on who represents them,” NRCC spokesperson Jack Pandol told me by email. “Rep. Santos will have to earn back their trust as he serves them in Congress.”

    King and others in Nassau County are trying to impress upon McCarthy that the longer he stands by Santos, the more damage he will do to a Republican brand that has been on the rise. “The only reason Kevin McCarthy has the majority is because of the very close marginal seats that Republicans won in New York,” King said. “We can lose all of them in the next election.”

    Even if McCarthy wanted to force Santos out, however, there’s not much he can do. He could try to expel him, but that would take the support of two-thirds of the House, and members of both parties might be leery of setting precedent by kicking out a member who has not been charged, much less convicted, of a crime. King suggested that McCarthy insist on an expedited investigation by the Ethics Committee—the panel’s probes tend to drag on for months—but there’s little history of that either.

    Election to the House “is an unshakable contract for two years,” Doug Heye, a former House GOP leadership aide who has advised lawmakers ensnarled in ethics investigations, told me. “Unless two-thirds of the House say, ‘Get out of here,’ or you give it up yourself, nothing happens.”

    Santos has almost no incentive to leave of his own accord anytime soon, especially now that Long Island Republicans have all but foreclosed the possibility of his winning renomination to his seat. “He’s not going to have a career. He’s not going to have a public life, and he’s going to be ostracized in his own community,” Blakeman told me. Santos was wealthy enough to lend his campaign $700,000. But his present personal finances are, like so much else about his life, a mystery, so he may need the paychecks that come with a $174,000 annual salary. And his seat could be a crucial bit of leverage in potential negotiations with prosecutors, Heye noted; resigning his seat, in that scenario, could help him avoid other penalties, including prison time.

    As his struggle just to get the speakership demonstrated, McCarthy doesn’t exactly have an ironclad grip on his conference. The Republicans from Nassau County seem to realize that the new speaker has limited sway over Santos. But McCarthy’s decision to protect and even validate Santos’s standing inside Congress is at odds with a party clinging both to its House majority and to its precarious stronghold on Long Island. “I’ve dealt with people with all sorts of issues,” Blakeman told me,” and enabling them is not a good thing.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • A Literal Shit Show: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert’s Bathroom Brawl Nicely Sums Up the State of the GOP

    A Literal Shit Show: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert’s Bathroom Brawl Nicely Sums Up the State of the GOP

    [ad_1]

    Is there anything more emblematic of the state of the Republican Party in 2023 than two of its worst—and most prominent—members getting into a fight in a venue expressly designed for people to expel their bowels? We submit there is not, short of Kevin McCarthy and Co. being chauffeured to the Capitol in a literal clown car. And even then, that probably wouldn’t top the symbolism of the former.

    Yes, as The Daily Beast reported Tuesday, on the first day of Congress this year, representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, who were on very different sides of the House leadership battle, exchanged fighting words in a bathroom “just off the House floor.” According to the outlet, the congresswoman from Georgia “was in a stall and, upon coming out, confronted Boebert about taking money from McCarthy for her reelection and then turning against McCarthy when it came time to vote.” A source familiar with the fight told The Daily Beast that Greene “questioned Boebert’s loyalty to McCarthy, and after a few words were exchanged, Boebert stormed out.” Another person with knowledge of the situation said Greene asked, “You were okay taking millions of dollars from McCarthy but you refuse to vote for him for Speaker, Lauren?” At that point, according to the first source, Lauren told her colleague, “Don’t be ugly,” and then “ran out like a little schoolgirl.”

    In an interview, Representative Debbie Dingell, who was reportedly present for the exchange, “seemed to acknowledge that something happened between Greene and Boebert,” according to reporters Ursula Perano and Zachary Petrizzo, but said she would not talk about it “in any way, shape, or form.” She added, “What happens in the ladies room stays in the ladies room.” Neither Boebert nor Greene responded to The Daily Beast’s request for comment.

    Nevertheless, it’s not at all difficult to believe that this scene went down exactly as reported, given that the two people involved have repeatedly made it clear they’re more equipped for a bottle-smashing bar brawl over who cut the bathroom line than serious policy making. There’s also the fact that, days prior, Greene basically tweeted exactly what she is alleged to have said to Boebert’s face, writing: “I’ve supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. President [Donald] Trump has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. Kevin McCarthy has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. She just barely came through by 500 votes. She gladly takes our $$$ but…Lauren refuses to endorse President Trump, she refuses to support Kevin McCarthy, and she childishly threw me under the bus for a cheap sound bite.” (In an interview, Boebert had mocked Greene’s belief in Jewish space lasers.) And on January 3, the day of the alleged bathroom brawl, Greene went after the members of the Freedom Caucus, of which Boebert is a member, who’d indicated they would not be voting for McCarthy for Speaker.

    McCarthy, of course, would go on to lose the Speaker vote a whopping 14 times before eking out a win, after making major concessions to Boebert et al.

    Anyway, the saddest thing about all of this is the fact that both of these people have actual political power.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • George Santos, One Week Away From Claiming to Be Ronald Reagan’s Biological Son, Says He “Will NOT Resign!”

    George Santos, One Week Away From Claiming to Be Ronald Reagan’s Biological Son, Says He “Will NOT Resign!”

    [ad_1]

    Republicans have long been known for tolerating all kinds of shameful behavior from their members—including but not limited to creating a video depicting their Democratic colleague’s murder and inciting a literal insurrection. So it was little surprise when the revelation that newly elected representative George Santos had fabricated large swaths of his biography—and potentially broke campaign finance laws while running for office—was met with both shrugs and actual defenses of his lies. And while GOP leadership has suggested it won’t be doing a thing about any of this short of a private talking-to, New York Republicans have other ideas.

    In a major plot twist given the GOP’s long history of heartily welcoming the worst of the worst to its ranks, the Nassau County Republican Committee demanded Santos’s “immediate resignation” on Wednesday, citing his “campaign of deceit, lies, and fabrication.” Speaking from party headquarters, chairman Joseph Cairo that Santos “deceived” the voters, members of the Nassau County Republican Committee, elected officials, some of the media, and his opponents. “He has no place in the Nassau County Republican Committee, nor should he serve in public service nor as an elected official,” Cairo said. “He’s not welcome here at Republican headquarters for meetings or at any of our events. As I said, he’s disgraced the House of Representatives, and we do not consider him one of our congresspeople.”

    Naturally, given Santos’s capacity for shame, which is pretty much a prerequisite for being able to make up large portions of your résumé—as well as falsely claim your grandparents fled the Holocaust and that your mother died because of 9/11, among other things—he has met the calls for his resignation with total defiance.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Later on Twitter, he doubled down, writing “I will NOT resign!” and that “I was elected to serve the people of #NY03 not the party & politicians.” Though, as some have pointed out, he was elected by people who thought he was an entirely different person.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    On Wednesday, while calling for Santos to quit, Nassau County’s Cairo revealed that the newly sworn-in congressman had also told him he was the star volleyball player at a college he did not even attend.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    So, y’know, add that to the lie count. (And investigations.)

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Republicans, Having Learned Nothing, Are Coming for Abortion Post-Midterms-Flop

    Republicans, Having Learned Nothing, Are Coming for Abortion Post-Midterms-Flop

    [ad_1]

    Ahead of the 2022 midterms, Republicans had predicted that a “red wave” would help them take the Senate and hold a huge majority in the House. Obviously, that did not come to pass, and one major factor in the red wave becoming a light coral trickle—wherein Democrats retained the Senate and Republicans gained an extremely thin majority in the House—was abortion. Galvanized by the Supreme Court overturning 50 years of precedent in June and having no interest in putting people in power who wanted to further obliterate a pregnant person’s right to choose, voters came out in droves to make it clear that reproductive rights actually matter. Having had the last two months to reflect on the situation, has the GOP decided to listen?

    No! Of course not! Instead, the party that spent last week underscoring that it is every bit the shit show people think it is has decided to use its first full week in power to vote on two antiabortion measures.

    The first one, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, was reintroduced on Monday. What would the passage of this strangely named piece of legislation do? Imprison doctors for up to five years if they fail to resuscitate babies “born alive” after an attempted abortion, regardless of whether the procedure was performed due to fatal fetal abnormalities. As HuffPost notes, “the bill is chock-full of misinformation,” including the fact that, as actual doctors have pointed out, “it’s nearly impossible for infants to be born alive during abortions later in pregnancy.” Proponents of the Born-Alive act also fail to acknowledge that such a bill is entirely unnecessary for other reasons, like the fact that the rights of infants are already protected by a law passed more than 20 years ago. Also, as it happens, murder is illegal in the United States, so despite what antiabortion advocates may tell you, doctors aren’t going around killing newborns.

    The second vote is on a resolution to formally condemn attacks on “pro-life facilities.” As Jezebel notes, it‘s not clear if there will also be a vote to condemn “actual violence at abortion clinics, including the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller and multiple more recent high-profile incidents of arson.” And by not clear, we obviously mean this will never happen.

    Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace said of her colleagues: “We learned nothing from the midterms if this is how we’re going to operate in the first week. Millions of women across the board were angry over overturning Roe v. Wade. What we’re doing this week is paying lip service to life. Nothing that we’re doing this week on protecting life is ever going to make it through the Senate.” She added that she’d like to see her party move in a more “centrist direction” on the issue of abortion, which is another thing that’s unlikely to happen in this lifetime, given the hundreds of Republicans who don’t even want to guarantee the right to birth control.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    In yet further—and arguably even more disturbing—abortion news, Alabama attorney general Steve Marshall said Tuesday that women in his state could be prosecuted for using abortion pills to end pregnancies. Asked by AL.com how this squares with Alabama’s Human Life Protection Act, which criminalizes abortion providers but specifically exempts people receiving abortions from criminal charges, he responded: “The Human Life Protection Act targets abortion providers, exempting women ‘upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed’ from liability under the law. It does not provide an across-the-board exemption from all criminal laws, including the chemical-endangerment law—which the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed protects unborn children.”

    As AL.com notes, the state’s chemical endangerment law, passed in 2006, was created to “protect small children from fumes and chemicals from home-based meth labs” and was almost immediately used against women who took various types of drugs during pregnancy (including in cases in which the drugs they had taken were prescribed by doctors). As a result, people were being sent to prison after having miscarriages and stillbirths. Last week, the Justice Department said the US Postal Service can continue to deliver abortion pills anywhere in the country, regardless of the laws in the state where they are entering.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson Throws Ridiculous Shit Fit Over the Prospect of Losing Gas Stove

    GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson Throws Ridiculous Shit Fit Over the Prospect of Losing Gas Stove

    [ad_1]

    Earlier this week, Bloomberg News reported that a federal ban on gas stoves is “on the table amid rising concern about harmful indoor air pollutants emitted by the appliances.” Is a ban actually going to happen? Maybe! Is it possibly not going to happen? Considering that “on the table” suggests nothing has been decided, and Richard Trumka Jr., the commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is mulling the ban, told Bloomberg that the group could alternatively implement emissions standards, maybe not! If the risk to one’s health is as bad as the agency says it is, would a potential ban not actually be a terrible thing? Perhaps!

    One person not willing to consider any of the above, but rather lose his mind before hearing more? Former White House doctor and all-out Trump stooge Ronny Jackson, who took took to Twitter Tuesday morning to declare:

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Yes, his cold! Dead! Hands!

    Jackson’s tirade was reminiscent of the meltdown Republicans had after the fake news that Joe Biden was going to take away their red meat circulated. That, obviously, did not come to pass, and while this situation is slightly different, in that a member of the administration has actually said it is a possibility, the response—total hysteria—is the same.

    Jackson, of course, is not entirely known for his sharp, nuanced takes. In 2018, he rose to national prominence after he declared, in his capacity as White House doctor, that then president Donald Trump had “incredibly good genes” and, if he had a slightly better diet, could “live to be 200 years old.” According to a 2021 report from the Department of Defense’s inspector general, Jackson also made “sexual and denigrating” comments about a female underling, violated policy concerning drinking on a presidential trip, and took prescription-strength sleeping drugs that caused concern from his coworkers about his ability to do his job. (In response, Jackson said in a statement at the time: “Democrats are using this report to repeat and rehash untrue attacks on my integrity,” adding, “I take my professional responsibility with respect to prescription drug practices seriously; and I flat-out reject any allegation that I consumed alcohol while on duty.” He did not address allegations re: commenting on a female subordinate’s “tits” and “ass,” or demanding that a staffer come to his hotel room.)

    In other conservative batshittery…

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Donald Trump’s longtime CFO is going away for a while

    Per NBC News:

    Allen Weisselberg, former chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, was sentenced Tuesday to five months behind bars for his role in the company’s sweeping 15-year tax fraud scheme. Weisselberg, 75, was sentenced in accordance with his guilty plea during an appearance before acting justice Juan Merchan in New York criminal court and was taken to New York’s notorious Rikers Island jail immediately after the proceeding. When taking into account the typical amount of time off for good behavior, Weisselberg is likely to serve about 100 days. He also paid over $2 million in taxes and penalties and will receive five years of probation.

    As part of his deal with prosecutors, Weisselberg could have faced added time behind bars if he did not testify truthfully at trial, which ended with the Trump Organization being convicted of all counts.… Weisselberg was the star witness for the prosecution in the case against former president Donald Trump’s company, describing how top executives and the company evaded paying taxes they rightfully owed.

    Weisselberg’s lawyer had asked for the judge to further reduce his client’s sentence. Not only did that not happen, the judge said, “I believe a stiffer sentence might be appropriate having heard the evidence,” before noting that he would stick to the original agreement.

    Elsewhere!

    Ron DeSantis Allies Plot the Hostile Takeover of a Liberal College (NYT)

    Biden classified docs vs. Trump classified docs: What’s the difference? (NBC News)

    Supreme Court rejects Utah brothers’ lawsuit seeking to return Donald Trump to the White House (Salt Lake Tribune)

    House GOP’s IRS Vote Is Just the First of Many Dumb Gestures (Intelligencer)

    The Right-Wing Media’s Coverage of Brazil’s Insurrection Is a Rerun of January 6 (VF)

    Trump’s recent smears against rape accuser brought up as he tries to fend off White House–era defamation suit (CNN)

    Janet Yellen to stay on as Biden’s Treasury chief as debt fight looms (Politico)

    Wait, There’s More to the Story of Prince Harry’s Frostbitten Groin (VF)

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Dr. Dre Tells Marjorie Taylor Greene to Keep His Name Out of Her Mouth

    Dr. Dre Tells Marjorie Taylor Greene to Keep His Name Out of Her Mouth

    [ad_1]

    From Ronald Reagan and Bruce Springsteen to Donald Trump and Neil Young (and Tom Petty, and Elton John, and Adele, and Prince, and Aerosmith, and Guns N Roses, and REM, and Rihanna), Republican politicians have a long history of incorporating popular music into their campaign bids and being promptly ordered by the owner of said music to cease doing so. While some artists simply object to the use of their songs without proper licensing, many are diametrically opposed to being associated with what these conservative politicians stand for, and would rather die than have people think they subscribe to such ideas. In rare cases, a Democrat will hear from an unhappy musician, but by and large, the trend involves Republicans and their longtime inability to read the room. A trend that, not surprisingly, Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has gotten in on.

    Following the interminable process of getting Kevin McCarthy elected as Speaker of the House, Greene posted a deeply cringeworthy video of her walking through the halls of Congress that was apparently meant to demonstrate her power and ability to get shit done. The backdrop of the clip, which includes her presumably taking a call from Trump, features Dr. Dre’s 1999 “Still D.R.E.” Or at least it did, until her people seemingly heard from his people.

    “I don’t license my music to politicians, especially someone as divisive and hateful as this one,” Dre told TMZ of Greene, who has made a name for herself as one of the worst people in Congress in her two short years in Washington.

    Anyway, Greene’s team will need to find new music to accompany her videos moving forward, and while something off of Green Day’s American Idiot would seem like the perfect accompaniment, she’d probably run into similar issues there too.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link