ReportWire

Tag: Republicans

  • Trump Ally and Sexual Harassment Dismisser Accused of Groping GOP Staffer’s Crotch

    Trump Ally and Sexual Harassment Dismisser Accused of Groping GOP Staffer’s Crotch

    [ad_1]

    Herschel Walker’s Senate campaign is long dead, but reports of it being an unmitigated shit show are apparently still coming. On Friday, a 30-something staffer told the Daily Beast that longtime Republican operative and former Walker staffer Matt Schlapp engaged in “sustained and unwanted and unsolicited” sexual contact toward him following an October campaign event in Georgia.

    According to the staffer—whose name has not been revealed at this time but has said he will come forward if Schlapp denies wrongdoing—the inappropriate behavior began on the evening of October 19. The staffer alleged that Schlapp—the chairman of the Conservative Political Action Coalition, a longtime ally of Donald Trump, and the husband of a Trump administration staffer and 2020 campaign adviser—“inappropriately and repeatedly” invaded his personal space at two different bars. While this was happening, the staffer says, Schlapp said that he wanted to talk about the man’s professional prospects; during this time, the staffer told the Daily Beast, the “power dynamic” was front of mind, given that Schlapp is seen as one of the most powerful people in national conservative politics. While not wanting to “embarrass him,” the man believed Schlapp had gotten “the hint“ that he was not interested. But apparently that was not the case—or perhaps it was and Schlapp just didn’t care. Per the the Daily Beast:

    The staffer, in his late thirties, recalled that while he drove Schlapp back to the hotel, Schlapp put his hand on his leg, then reached over and “fondled” his crotch at length while he was frozen in shock, calling it “scarring” and “humiliating.” When they arrived at the hotel, the staffer said Schlapp invited him to his room. The staffer said he declined and left “as quickly as I could.”

    When the staffer got home that night, he received a call from Schlapp—shortly after midnight, according to call records the staffer shared with The Daily Beast—to confirm that the staffer would still chauffeur him to an event in Macon the next day. The staffer described the call as “short and perfunctory,” but after confirming he would drive him, the staffer “broke down.” He then recorded a series of tearful video accounts detailing the evening, which he shared with The Daily Beast as well as with two people close to him, including the staffer’s wife.

    In one video, according to the Daily Beast, the staffer says: “Matt Schlapp of the CPAC grabbed my junk and pummeled it at length, and I’m sitting there thinking what the hell is going on, that this person is literally doing this to me.” He added, “From the bar to the Hilton Garden Inn, he has his hands on me. And I feel so fucking dirty. I feel so fucking dirty. I’m supposed to pick this motherfucker up in the morning and just pretend like nothing happened. This is what I’m dealing with. This is what I got to do.”

    According to the staffer, Schlapp texted the man at 7:26 a.m. the next morning, saying, “I’m in the lobby.” The staffer said he called his supervisor and then spoke with a senior campaign official, who was “immediately horrified,” told him not to drive Schlapp, and to put in writing, to Schlapp, what had happened. After that conversation, he texted Schlapp, writing: “I did want to say I was uncomfortable with what happened last night. The campaign does have a driver who is available to get you to Macon and back to the airport.” Schlapp allegedly replied, “Pls give me a call,” and then rang the staffer three times over the next 20 minutes, according to records seen by the Daily Beast. Later, after the staffer declined to answer any of the calls, Schlapp allegedly texted and said: “If you could see it in your heart to call me at the end of day. I would appreciate it. If not I wish you luck on the campaign and hope you keep up the good work.”

    According to the staffer, he never returned Schlapp’s calls and has not communicated with him since. He told the Daily Beast that he had “nothing but support” from the Walker campaign, and was given “complete autonomy” over how he wanted to respond, including pressing charges. The staffer said he declined to take legal action at the time because he was concerned about the professional blowback on his career. In a statement, Schlapp attorney Charlie Spies told the Daily Beast his client “denies any improper behavior” and called the allegations an “attack.” He added: “This appears to be now the twelfth Daily Beast piece with personal attacks on Matt Schlapp and his family. The attack is false and Mr. Schlapp denies any improper behavior. We are evaluating legal options for response.” (CPAC and Spies did not immediately respond for requests for comment from Vanity Fair.)

    As the Daily Beast notes, Schlapp has defended Republicans accused of sexual misconduct in the past, including Donald Trump and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, both of whom have denied wrongdoing. On the flip side, he’s accused Democrats of engaging in inappropriate behavior. After unsubstantiated allegations from the ’90s regarding Joe Biden surfaced in 2019, Schlapp tweeted: “With 5 daughters I’d prefer Biden to be several doors down, not next door.” A year later, he wrote: “Thinking back on the Senate of the 1990s: was there a way for a female staffer who was a sexual assault victim to get fair treatment from an institution that was geared toward protecting senators of both parties. Biden stressing this event was 27 yrs ago is a bad strategy.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Kevin McCarthy Debases Himself in Hopes of Finally Winning Speaker Vote, Then Loses Again (And Again, And Again)

    Kevin McCarthy Debases Himself in Hopes of Finally Winning Speaker Vote, Then Loses Again (And Again, And Again)

    [ad_1]

    Republican lawmaker Kevin McCarthy is currently trying to become Speaker of the House and failing miserably. On Tuesday, he lost the vote three times. On Wednesday, he recorded another three losses for a total of six. Obviously, all of this is extremely humiliating, but the California lawmaker apparently possesses an endless capacity for being publicly humiliated, and has no intention of throwing in the towel. Also, given that he—quite presumptuously!—already moved his belongings into the Speaker’s office, he may have gamed out the scenarios in his head and decided it would be more embarrassing to admit defeat and have to move his things out than lose another 10, 15, or 20 times before maybe eking out a very sad win.

    Of course, whether or not a win will ever actually come is very much up in the air, as the holdouts seem to have no intention of caving without extracting assurances from McCarthy that would render him entirely beholden to them. And while just giving them everything they want would (1) not be a great negotiating tactic and (2) still not ensure he finally scores those crucial votes, it appears McCarthy intends to go down that road.

    CNN reports that on Wednesday, after losing the vote half a dozen times, McCarthy “proposed more key concessions in his push to get 218 votes—including agreeing to propose a rules change that would allow just one member to call for a vote to oust a sitting Speaker,” according to two people familiar with the matter. In two further concessions, McCarthy reportedly also agreed to allow for more Freedom Caucus members—the ultraconservative faction of the House GOP—to serve on the House Rules Committee, the powerful group that decides how bills come up for a vote, and promised votes on specific bills prioritized by this group—including term limits for Congress and a border-security plan. Sources also said that “in one sign of a breakthrough, a McCarthy-aligned super PAC agreed to not play in open Republican primaries in safe seats—one of the big demands that conservatives had asked for but that McCarthy had resisted until this point.“

    And yet…going into Thursday it still wasn’t enough to put the California lawmaker out of his misery. Early Thursday afternoon, McCarthy lost again, and again.

    Twitter content

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

    To mix things up, and perhaps further demonstrate the GOP is a joke, at one point Thursday, Rep. Matt Gaetz nominated Donald Trump to serve as Speaker of the House. Spoiler alert, the former guy didn’t win this election either.

    Twitter content

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

    For his part, Trump demanded on Wednesday that Republicans “VOTE FOR KEVIN, CLOSE THE DEAL, TAKE THE VICTORY,” which they promptly refused to do. Later, holdout Lauren Boebert called on Trump to sit McCarthy down and explain to him “you do not have the votes and it’s time to withdraw.” That also, obviously, has not happened.

    Somehow, against all odds, McCarthy still insists there’s a path forward for him as Speaker; whether or not that path involves literally taking orders from Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, and the other Freedom Caucus holdouts remains to be seen, but it’s certainly looking like that’ll be the case.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • House adjourns until Thursday as new rounds of voting keep failing to elect speaker

    House adjourns until Thursday as new rounds of voting keep failing to elect speaker

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday night to adjourn until 12:30 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, with the move coming as lawmakers have been unable to elect a new speaker for a second day in a row.

    That vote came after House Republicans briefly reconvened at 8 p.m. Eastern following a flurry of meetings that attempted to find room for compromise.

    Top House Republican Kevin McCarthy keeps hitting resistance in his push to become speaker, falling short of a majority in three rounds of voting on Wednesday afternoon and three earlier rounds of voting on Tuesday.

    CNN and Axios reported Wednesday night that McCarthy offered significant concessions to the defecting Republicans but it was unclear if that would be enough to sway enough of their votes. “No deal yet,” McCarthy said after a closed-door meeting Wednesday night, according to the Associated Press, “But a lot of progress.”

    The House must kick off the new congressional session with the election of a speaker, and it’s required to keep voting until one is chosen. There hasn’t been a need for multiple votes for a speaker’s election since 1923, when nine rounds of voting were required. 

    McCarthy can handle no more than four GOP defections given his party’s 222-212 majority, but more than that number have repeatedly opposed the California congressman.

    In all three rounds of voting on Wednesday, 20 Republicans opposed him and voted instead for Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida, while Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana voted “present” after backing McCarthy on Tuesday.

    In Tuesday’s third vote, the number of Republican lawmakers voting against McCarthy rose to 20, up from 19 in the first two rounds. Those 20 backed GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio on Tuesday, even as Jordan gave a speech in support of McCarthy and didn’t vote for himself.

    Analysts have been warning that the tensions over what’s typically a ceremonial election could signal that the GOP-run House will be dysfunctional throughout 2023 —and that might affect markets eventually.

    “If the House deadlock continues for weeks — or longer — the markets may have to worry about fiscal policy uncertainty,” said Greg Valliere, chief U.S. policy strategist at AGF Investments, in a note.

    “If House Republicans can’t even elect a leader, how will they respond when a debt default crisis looms later this year?”

    Former President Donald Trump offered support for McCarthy in a post on Wednesday morning on Truth Social, his social network.

    “It’s now time for all of our GREAT Republican House Members to VOTE FOR KEVIN, CLOSE THE DEAL, TAKE THE VICTORY,” Trump wrote.

    “DO NOT TURN A GREAT TRIUMPH INTO A GIANT & EMBARRASSING DEFEAT. IT’S TIME TO CELEBRATE, YOU DESERVE IT. Kevin McCarthy will do a good job, and maybe even a GREAT JOB — JUST WATCH!”

    Betting market PredictIt on Wednesday evening was giving McCarthy around a 42% chance of becoming speaker, while No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise’s chances were around 38%.

    Related: How betting markets got the midterms wrong, and why Biden’s a ‘great bet’ for 2024

    Republicans have taken control of the House thanks to wins in November’s midterm elections, returning to power in that chamber after four years in the minority.

    But the GOP’s hopes for a strong red wave two years into President Joe Biden’s term were dashed, as the party has claimed just a small House majority and Democrats have maintained their grip on the Senate.

    McCarthy has been drawing opposition from about 10% of his fellow House Republicans in large part because he’s viewed as not having done enough to oppose Democrats — as well as being part of the Washington establishment.

    From MarketWatch’s archives (November 2022): McCarthy’s House speaker bid may be in trouble due to Republican objections: ‘He’s not a true conservative’

    GOP Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who heads the House Freedom Caucus, described voting against McCarthy as a vote against business as usual in Washington.

    “Everybody came here because they said to their constituents, “This town is broken, and I want to fix it,’” Perry said, as he gave a speech Wednesday on the House floor.

    “Well, how are you going to fix it, if you come to this town and just step right in line and keep doing the same things that everybody has done before?”

    The Freedom Caucus, known for helping to bring about former Speaker John Boehner’s departure from his post in 2015, is made up of several dozen of the chamber’s most conservative Republicans.

    U.S. stocks 
    SPX,
    +0.75%

     
    DJIA,
    +0.40%

    closed with gains on Wednesday. The main equity gauges finished lower on Tuesday in 2023’s first session, after the S&P 500 benchmark fell 19% in 2022, hit by the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate hikes as the central bank tries to rein in inflation.

    Now read: Isolated and humiliated, Russia is biggest geopolitical threat of 2023, analysts say

    Plus: Brace yourself: Your tax refund could shrink in 2023. Here’s why.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Humiliation of Kevin McCarthy

    The Humiliation of Kevin McCarthy

    [ad_1]

    Shortly before 4 p.m.yesterday, Kevin McCarthy, the man who desperately wanted to be House speaker, had just suffered two brutally public rejections in a row. For some reason, he was unbowed. “We’re staying until we win,” McCarthy assured a crush of reporters waiting for him outside a bathroom in the Capitol.

    Moments earlier, McCarthy had sat and watched as a small but dug-in right-wing faction of his party twice defied his pleas for unity and ensured the 57-year-old Californian’s ignominious place in congressional history. Trying to avoid the first failed speaker vote in 100 years, McCarthy could afford to lose only four Republicans in the crucial party-line tally that opens each new Congress and allows the majority party to govern. McCarthy lost 19. The clerk called the roll again, and once again 19 Republicans voted for someone other than McCarthy. By the hyperpolarized standards of the modern Capitol, this was a rout.

    Outside the bathroom, McCarthy explained how the votes would wear down his opposition, how they’d come to see that there was no viable alternative to him. He pointed out that the Republican whom all 19 of his detractors had backed on the second ballot, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, didn’t even want the speaker’s job and was supporting him. “It’ll change eventually,” McCarthy said.

    He walked back to the floor and watched as the House rejected him a third time, now with 20 Republicans casting their votes for Jordan. When the chamber adjourned for the day at about 5:30 p.m., McCarthy had already left the floor, his latest bid for speaker thwarted at least momentarily, and perhaps for good.

    As the first day of the new congressional term began, McCarthy made a final defiant plea to Republicans inside a private meeting, the culmination of two months’ of negotiating and concessions. The pitch rallied McCarthy’s allies; Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri told me she had never seen him so fiery. But it also “emboldened the other side,” Representative Pete Sessions of Texas told reporters before the votes.

    Expected or not, the failed votes amounted to a stunning humiliation for McCarthy, who in recent days had been projecting confidence not only in word but in deed. More than measuring the speaker’s drapes, he had begun using them: McCarthy had already moved into the speaker’s suite of offices in the Capitol. If the House elects someone besides him in the coming days or weeks, he’ll have to move right back out.

    But yesterday was a broader embarrassment for a Republican Party that, at least in the House, has squandered most of the chances that voters have given it to govern over the past dozen years. A day of putative triumph had turned decidedly sour—a reality that many GOP lawmakers, particularly McCarthy supporters, made little effort to disguise. “This costs us prestige,” Sessions lamented after the House had adjourned. “The world is watching.”

    What the world saw probably left many viewers confused. Democrats, the party that voters had relegated to the minority, were giddy and celebratory. “Let the show begin!” one exclaimed after the House formally convened. Representative Ted Lieu of California posed outside his office with a bag of popcorn. During the three rounds of ballots, Democrats flaunted their unity, casting with gusto their unanimous votes for the incoming minority leader, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York. “Jeffries, Jeffries, Jeffries!” now-former Speaker Nancy Pelosi exclaimed in the fourth hour of voting.

    By that point, the House chamber had lost most of its energy. Lawmakers who had brought their children to witness their swearing-in as members of Congress had sent most of them away; there would be no swearing-in, because that, too, must wait for the election of a speaker. As the third ballot dragged on, a few Republicans seemed on the verge of nodding off, and others grew chippy. “Because I’m interested in governing: Kevin McCarthy,” Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan snapped when it was his turn to vote again.

    McCarthy’s strategy entering the day had been to keep members on the floor, voting again and again, in hopes that his opponents would grow tired, or buckle under pressure from the House Republicans backing him. But when Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a McCarthy ally, made a motion to adjourn before the fourth vote could be taken, no one put up a fight. “We were at an impasse,” Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, whose defection to Jordan after voting twice for McCarthy might have helped prompt the adjournment, told reporters afterward. “Right now it’s clear Kevin doesn’t have the votes. So what are we going to do? Go down the same road we already saw with [the initial] ballots? It doesn’t make sense.”

    After the adjournment, members left for meetings that many hoped would break the stalemate in time for the House to reconvene today at noon. McCarthy was still gunning for the gavel, but his position seemed more precarious than ever. Republicans who had stuck with him for three ballots were openly discussing alternatives. Could Jordan, a fighter even more conservative than McCarthy and closer to Donald Trump, win over GOP moderates? Was Representative Steve Scalise, McCarthy’s deputy, an acceptable alternative? And while some Republicans still proclaimed themselves “Only Kevin,” others suggested that they might be open to someone else. “I’ve learned in leadership roles, never say what you’re never going to do,” Wagner told me before the voting began.

    If there was a consensus among Republicans last night, it was that few if any of them had any idea whom they could elect as speaker, or when that would happen. “I think everybody goes in their corner and talks,” Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, a conservative who voted for McCarthy, told reporters. I asked him if there was a scenario in which McCarthy, having lost three votes in a row, could still win. “Oh, absolutely,” he replied. Was that the likeliest scenario? Buck answered just as quickly: “No.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Greene, Boebert, Gaetz: The Worst People You Know Are Having a Fight

    Greene, Boebert, Gaetz: The Worst People You Know Are Having a Fight

    [ad_1]

    When (repeated) public humiliations make you smile

    Twitter content

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

    What’s the most annoying sound in the world?

    The sound of more Don Jr. in 2023. Per Axios:

    Donald Trump Jr. has inked a multiyear podcast deal with Rumble Inc., the user-generated video platform that serves as a conservative alternative to YouTube, Axios has learned…. With the deal, Rumble will exclusively host a new Trump Jr. podcast called Triggered With Don Jr.—homage to the title of his 2019 book. The live show will air twice per week beginning the week of January 23rd, with the possibility of expanding its cadence in the future. Trump Jr. joined Rumble in early 2021. He has since amassed over 1 million subscribers, giving him one of the platform’s largest followings. Like his current Rumble videos, the podcast will continue to mostly feature Trump Jr.’s riffs on news of the day. He also plans to bring on guests for interviews.

    Junior’s 2019 book, the full name of which is Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us, was a long list of complaints about how mean the left was to him and his family. He also wrote that the presidency was incredibly difficult on the Trumps for other reasons, namely that they couldn’t do any foreign deals while the big guy was in office; in one passage Jr. explained that this “sacrifice” was similar to the sacrifices made by US soldiers who’ve died on the field of battle. Recalling a visit to Arlington National Cemetery the day before Trump Senior’s inauguration, Junior wrote: “I rarely get emotional, if ever. I guess you’d call me hyper-rational, stoic. Yet as we drove past the rows of white grave markers, in the gravity of the moment, I had a deep sense of the importance of the presidency and a love of our country…In that moment, I also thought of all the attacks we’d already suffered as a family, and about all the sacrifices we’d have to make to help my father succeed—voluntarily giving up a huge chunk of our business and all international deals to avoid the appearance that we were ‘profiting off of the office.’” He added: “Frankly, it was a big sacrifice, costing us millions and millions of dollars annually…Of course, we didn’t get any credit whatsoever from the mainstream media, which now does not surprise me at all.”

    Elsewhere!

    GOP Rep. Bob Good says McCarthy opponents will “never cave” (CNN)

    Who could be the next House speaker if McCarthy falls short (CNN)

    Why House Republicans Keep Eating Their Own (Intelligencer)

    Hope Hicks, former Trump aide, on Jan. 6: ‘We all look like domestic terrorists now’ (NBC News)

    Sam Bankman-Fried Pleads Not Guilty to Fraud and Other Charges (NYT)

    Elon Musk cuts Twitter expenses by falling behind on bills (AP)

    Donald Trump’s Final Campaign (New York)

    Bolsonaro takes his dying democracy vibes to Florida (MSNBC)

    Cops: Driver Said He Hit 120 MPH After “a Good Song Came on His Stereo” (TSG)

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Whoops: New Rep. George Santos Is About to Be Re-Charged With Fraud in Brazil

    Whoops: New Rep. George Santos Is About to Be Re-Charged With Fraud in Brazil

    [ad_1]

    By now you’ve heard the news that of the 74 individuals being sworn in as new members of the House of Representatives this week, at least one of them fictionalized large parts of his résumé while running for office and is also under investigation for allegedly spending campaign funds on himself.

    We speak, of course, of George Santos, who The New York Times revealed last month had lied about, among other things, graduating from Baruch College and working at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. (An ex-boyfriend additionally told the Times that Santos “never ever actually went to work,” surprised him with tickets to Hawaii that didn’t exist, and stole his cell phone.) Subsequent questions have been raised about claims Santos has made regarding his mother’s death, attending the private school Horace Mann, being mugged on his way to deliver a rent check, founding an animal-rescue charity, having grandparents who fled the Holocaust, and being Jewish.  (“I never claimed to be Jewish,” the New York Republican insisted in an interview with the New York Post. “I said I was ‘Jew-ish’.”) Also curious: campaign payments linked to a home where Santos and his husband are said to be living, and, per the Times, dozens of campaign expenses that all conveniently cost $199.99, i.e. exactly one cent below the amount at which federal law requires one to keep receipts.

    All in all, not a great way to kick off a new job! And as it turns out, Santos—who insists his only “sin” is “embellishing” his résumé—will have at least one other thing distracting him from serving his constituents: the fraud charges he’s about to be hit with in Brazil.

    The Times reports that prosecutors in Brazil will re-charge him with fraud at the end of the week, after originally doing so in 2008. At the time, Santos was indicted for stealing a checkbook and then spending the money under a false name, a crime which he admitted to in 2009 to the owner of a store where he spent the money and 2010 to the police. Then, he moved to the United States and reportedly stopped responding to authorities, who didn’t know his whereabouts. Now they do, and apparently are not interested in letting bygones be bygones.

    Per the Times:

    A spokeswoman for the Rio de Janeiro prosecutor’s office said that with Mr. Santos’s whereabouts identified, a formal request will be made to the U.S. Justice Department to notify him of the charges, a necessary step after which the case will proceed with or without him…. The next step for Brazilian prosecutors is to file a petition when the courts reopen at the end of the week requesting that Mr. Santos respond to the charges against him. A judge would then share the request, called a rogatory letter, with the federal Justice Ministry in Brazil, which would share it with the U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the Justice Department nor Brazilian authorities can compel Mr. Santos to respond at this point. But Mr. Santos must be officially notified in order for the case to proceed.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Kevin McCarthy Falls Short In First House Speaker Vote

    Kevin McCarthy Falls Short In First House Speaker Vote

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A small group of far-right Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to be the speaker of the House in the new Congress that started Tuesday.

    McCarthy lost 19 Republicans, falling 15 votes short of the 218 he needed to win

    The House can’t function without a speaker, so members will have to cast ballots again. And McCarthy could still prevail in a later vote if his Republican opponents tire of the stalemate they created.

    In a party meeting Tuesday morning, McCarthy told his colleagues that he’d earned the job — and that the House would keep voting until he wins.

    “We may have a battle on the floor, but the battle is for the conference and the country, and that’s fine with me” McCarthy told reporters after the meeting.

    Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) offered himself as an alternative to McCarthy, even though he badly lost an internal election among the House Republican Conference in November. Both sides have suggested that if McCarthy can’t win, then an unknown consensus candidate will step forward.

    Biggs has led the anti-McCarthy faction along with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, plus Reps. Bob Good (R-Va.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), all of whom belong to the caucus.

    Norman told reporters Tuesday morning that he would vote for Biggs on the first ballot, but when asked if he would do the same in a second vote, he said, “We’ll see.”

    Good said Monday that a consensus candidate would emerge on a second ballot but declined to name that person in a Fox News interview. He said the process could last a few hours or days.

    Ostensibly, the Freedom Caucus members have challenged McCarthy because he won’t fight hard enough against President Joe Biden’s administration, and they want to empower rank-and-file lawmakers in a chamber that for years has been dominated by the speaker, who controls when the House votes and what bills reach the floor.

    But the group is better known for causing chaos and openly advocating for government shutdowns. Biggs and Perry sought to help former President Donald Trump subvert the will of the American people when they voted to overturn the 2020 election results. To that same end, Norman wanted the White House to declare “Marshall Law.”

    Though it’s not a permanent setback, McCarthy’s failure to win the speakership on the first vote is historic. The House hasn’t needed more than one ballot to elect a speaker since 1923, according to the Congressional Research Service.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kevin McCarthy’s Reckoning

    Kevin McCarthy’s Reckoning

    [ad_1]

    Republicans today could take control of the House of Representatives, giving them a foothold of power in Washington from which to smother Joe Biden’s agenda and generally make life hell for the president and his family.

    Or they might not.

    It all depends on whether Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the GOP House leader, can lock down the final votes he needs to become speaker. As of this morning, McCarthy was short of the 218 required for a majority. He can afford to lose only four Republicans in the party-line vote if all members are present. So far, at least five and potentially more than a dozen far-right lawmakers remain opposed to McCarthy’s candidacy or are withholding their support.

    Should McCarthy falter on the first vote, to be taken shortly after the 118th Congress gavels into session at noon, the House would remain in a state of limbo. (Democrats and more than a few Republicans might call it purgatory.) Without a speaker, the House can do nothing. It cannot adopt the rules it will use to operate for the next two years; it cannot debate or pass legislation; it cannot form committees and name chairs; it cannot unleash the torrent of subpoenas that Republicans have vowed to send the Biden administration’s way. Without a speaker, in other words, the GOP has no majority.

    So for the moment, the functioning of the legislative branch depends on McCarthy’s ability to wrangle votes. And like any deadlocked negotiation on Capitol Hill, his—and the GOP’s—predicament could be resolved quickly, or it could endure for quite a while. If no candidate receives a majority of votes on the first ballot for speaker this afternoon—the only candidate who has a legitimate chance on that roll call is McCarthy—then the House must keep voting until someone does. McCarthy has said he will not drop out after the first ballot, effectively hoping to wear down his GOP opposition or cut deals that will secure him the votes he needs. (His office did not respond to a request for comment last night.) He has little hope of appealing to Democrats, who neither trust nor respect a Republican leader who has spent the past seven years cozying up to Donald Trump.

    The vote for speaker is the most formal of congressional roll calls and lasts well over an hour. Beginning alphabetically by last name, the clerk calls out the name of each of the 435 members, who then reply verbally with the candidate of their choice. No speaker vote has gone to a second ballot in more than a century, leaving no modern precedent for what happens if McCarthy does not get the support of 218 members. He could strike a quick deal and win on a second ballot by nightfall, or the series of ballots could drag out for days or even weeks, especially if the House recesses so that Republicans can convene privately to figure out what to do.

    McCarthy is known for being affable but has no reputation for tactical or legislative brilliance. He has desperately tried to placate the five most ardent holdouts—a quintet that includes the Trump loyalist Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida—with concessions that would empower individual members at the expense of McCarthy’s sway as speaker. The most contentious of these involves what’s known as the “motion to vacate,” a mechanism by which members can force a vote to depose the speaker.

    Until recent years, the motion to vacate was a rarely used relic of procedural arcana. But in 2015, then-Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina—an ambitious conservative who would go on to greater notoriety as Trump’s final chief of staff—dusted off the motion to vacate and essentially pushed Speaker John Boehner into retirement. When Democrats regained the House majority in 2019, Nancy Pelosi, who’d once again ascended to the speakership, engineered a rules change so that only members of the party leadership could deploy the motion to vacate. McCarthy was hoping to keep that change largely in place, but his GOP opponents have demanded that the House revert to the old rules, which would make it much easier for them to oust the speaker as soon as he antagonized them (say, by going around conservatives to pass legislation with Democrats). Over the weekend, McCarthy told Republicans he’d be willing to create a five-member threshold for forcing a vote on the speaker—a significant move on his part but still not as far as his critics on the right would like.

    Although the speaker vote today could be the most suspenseful in memory, McCarthy himself is not in an unfamiliar position. In 2015, he was the presumed successor to Boehner, but a poorly timed gaffe and mistrust among conservatives forced him to withdraw before the vote. He seems intent on avoiding that fate this time around. Nonetheless, McCarthy’s opponents see him as a stooge of the party establishment that they ran to dismantle; they also just don’t seem to like him very much. As yet, McCarthy has no real challenger. But the hardline holdouts have teased a mystery candidate who could step forward on the second ballot, and McCarthy’s ostensibly loyal second-in-command, Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, could emerge as a potential consensus choice.

    “Governance will be a challenge,” Oklahoma’s Tom Cole, a longtime Republican lawmaker and McCarthy ally, told me a couple months ago. He said it back when Republicans seemed to be on the verge of a resounding midterm victory, one that likely would have smoothed McCarthy’s path to the speakership. Now it sounds like a significant understatement.

    The high likelihood is that eventually, perhaps even today, Republicans will claim the narrow House majority that they won at the polls. But even if McCarthy squeaks by on the first or second ballot, the party’s struggle simply to organize itself behind a leader won’t soon be forgotten. It will stand as a painful reminder of the GOP’s electoral underperformance in November, and, almost certainly, it will serve as a harbinger of a rocky two years to come.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • How a House speaker is elected — and how steep a hill Republican Kevin McCarthy will need to climb

    How a House speaker is elected — and how steep a hill Republican Kevin McCarthy will need to climb

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Kevin McCarthy is set to face a case of déjà vu come Tuesday. The political future of the 57-year-old will once again be at stake as Republican lawmakers decide if he should become House speaker.

    It’s a journey the California lawmaker took once before in 2015, fruitlessly, facing the same opposition from the right flank of the party he is expected to meet this week. His first speakership run came when then–House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, resigned after an internal party battle with members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus.

    More than seven years later, he is the party’s nominee for speaker after leading the Republican Party to a slim majority in the November midterm elections. He secured the support of most of the conference during a closed-door leadership vote shortly after and overcame a challenge from Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona.

    While McCarthy is as of now facing no serious Republican challenger for the constitutionally mandated office, which would make him second in line to the presidency, his ascension to speaker is an open question — even as, according to an MSNBC report, he has already moved into the speaker’s opulent suite of offices. He is facing entrenched opposition from a small number of conservative lawmakers who in a 222-213 majority could well tank his nomination.

    It is believed his candidacy could absorb no more than four defections. Some 14 Republicans, in the wake of a Sunday letter signed by nine House Republicans, have publicly vowed or suggested continued opposition to a McCarthy speakership.

    House Democrat Eric Swalwell suggested those nine letter signers would ultimately return to the McCarthy fold, while the other five holdouts have characterized themselves as “never Kevin” Republicans.

    See: McCarthy’s longtime ambition of becoming House speaker to come to head on Day 1 of new Congress

    Here’s what you need to know about how the House elects a speaker:

    No speaker, no House

    Choosing a speaker will be the first vote the House will take before new and returning lawmakers are even sworn into office on Tuesday. As set out under the Constitution, the session will begin at noon on Jan. 3, with all the lawmakers seated on the House floor and members from both parties joining in the vote for speaker. It is not a secret ballot.

    The chamber cannot organize until it has a speaker since that person effectively serves as the House’s presiding officer and the institution’s administrative head.

    The House can elect a new speaker at any time if the person occupying that role dies, resigns or is removed from office. Barring that, a speaker is normally elected at the start of a new Congress.

    Lawmakers call out the name of their choice for speaker from the floor, a rare and time-consuming roll call that heightens the drama on the floor. Members often liven up the proceedings by shouting or standing when casting their vote.

    Who can be nominated for speaker?

    In the weeks after an election, the Republican conference and the Democratic caucus hold an informal vote among their members to decide who they want to nominate to lead their party in January. McCarthy won the majority of the Republican vote in a closed-door November meeting. Weeks later, Democrats unanimously chose Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, to become their leader as the party transitions into the minority.

    But, once Jan. 3 comes along, members are not obligated to vote for the party’s chosen candidate. While it has been the tradition for the speaker candidate to be a member of the House, it is not required. In past years, President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump and even a senator, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, have received votes for House speaker.

    To be sure, none of them came close to a majority of the vote.

    Let the voting begin

    Once the House is in a quorum — meaning the minimum number of members are present to proceed — the speaker nominee from each party will be read aloud by the respective leaders before a roll call vote to elect a new speaker. The clerk then appoints lawmakers from each party as tellers to tally the votes.

    The candidate to become speaker needs a majority of the votes from House members who are present and voting.

    Historically, the magical number has been 218 out of the 435 members of the House. But many previous speakers, including outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have ascended to the dais with fewer votes than that, as some members voted present instead of calling out a name. Every lawmaker voting “present” lowers the overall tally needed to reach a majority.

    See: Nancy Pelosi portrait unveiling at Capitol reduces John Boehner to tears

    Also: House Democratic caucus confers ‘speaker emerita’ title on Pelosi as Jeffries takes up party leadership reins

    Many are skeptical that McCarthy will reach a majority to become speaker on the first ballot. Should he come up short, it is likely the clerk will repeat the roll call several times until he is able to garner a majority. McCarthy is expected to be making concessions and compromises with the holdouts until the moment he is able to grasp the gavel, telling reporters on Monday at the Capitol that he expected to “have a good day” on Tuesday.

    From the archives (July 2021): Trump and allies work to rebrand Jan. 6 rioters as patriots, heroes and martyrs

    Also (January 2022): Toeing of party line outweighs deliverables for constituents for many of today’s congressional Republicans

    Also (February 2021): Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene removed from House committees; 11 Republicans cross aisle in vote

    Gavel passing

    Once a speaker candidate won a majority of the vote, the clerk will announce the results of the election.

    A bipartisan committee, usually consisting of members from the home state of the chosen candidate, will then escort the speaker-elect to the chair on the dais where the oath of office is administered. The oath is identical to the one new members will take once a speaker is chosen.

    The outgoing speaker will usually join the successor at the speaker’s chair, where they will pass the gavel as a nod to the peaceful transition of power from one party leader to another. This time around, that will be Pelosi, the California Democrat who has held the gavel for the last four years.

    MarketWatch contributed.

    Read on: U.S. Rep.–elect Santos should consider quitting over résumé lies, says veteran House Republican

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP’s George Santos Admits To Campaign Trail Lies: ‘We Do Stupid Things In Life’

    GOP’s George Santos Admits To Campaign Trail Lies: ‘We Do Stupid Things In Life’

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep.-elect George Santos, R-N.Y., admitted Monday that he lied about his job experience and college education during his successful campaign for a seat in the U.S. House.

    In an interview with the New York Post, Santos said: “My sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry.”

    He also told the newspaper: “I campaigned talking about the people’s concerns, not my resume” and added, “I intend to deliver on the promises I made during the campaign.”

    The New York Times raised questions last week about the life story that Santos, 34, had presented during his campaign.

    The Queens resident had said he had obtained a degree from Baruch College in New York, but the school said that couldn’t be confirmed.

    On Monday, Santos acknowledged: “I didn’t graduate from any institution of higher learning. I’m embarrassed and sorry for having embellished my resume.”

    He added: “I own up to that. … We do stupid things in life.”

    FILE – Santos, who won a seat in Congress in the November election, admitted Monday that he lied about his job experience and college education during his successful campaign.

    AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File

    Santos had also said he had worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, but neither company could find any records verifying that.

    Santos told the Post he had “never worked directly” for either financial firm, saying he had used a “poor choice of words.”

    He told the Post that Link Bridge, an investment company where he was a vice president, did business with both.

    Another news outlet, the Jewish American site The Forward, had questioned a claim on Santos’ campaign website that his grandparents “fled Jewish persecution in Ukraine, settled in Belgium, and again fled persecution during WWII.”

    “I never claimed to be Jewish,” Santos told the Post. “I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish.’”

    Santos first ran for Congress in 2020 and lost. He ran again in 2022 and won in the district that includes some Long Island suburbs and a small part of Queens.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House Condemns Greg Abbott Over Yet Another Migrant Stunt

    White House Condemns Greg Abbott Over Yet Another Migrant Stunt

    [ad_1]

    The White House on Sunday blamed Texas Governor Greg Abbott for sending more than 100 migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris’ home on Christmas Eve—the coldest that Washington DC has experienced in decades. “Governor Abbott abandoned children on the side of the road in below freezing temperatures on Christmas Eve without coordinating with any Federal or local authorities,” White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said in a statement, per CNN, calling it “a cruel, dangerous, and shameful stunt.” Hasan reiterated the administration’s willingness to work with both parties on issues such as immigration reform and border security, adding that Abbott’s “political games accomplish nothing and only put lives in danger.”

    Twitter content

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

    Late Saturday night, buses full of migrant families arrived outside the Naval Observatory, where the vice president’s home is located, from Texas. “Volunteers scrambled to meet the asylum seekers after the buses, which were scheduled to arrive in New York on Christmas Day, were rerouted due to the winter weather,” the Washington Post reported. Relief agencies SAMU First Response and the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network were on the ground Saturday evening to help with the arrivals, providing blankets to the migrants—some of whom were “wearing only T-shirts in the freezing weather,” according to CNN—and transporting them to a local church where they were given food and other resources. 

    Texas authorities haven’t confirmed Abbott’s involvement in the bus drop-offs, and multiple outlets reported Sunday morning that the governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment. The Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network “said the buses were sent by the Texas Division of Emergency Management, which follows the directive of Gov. Greg Abbott’s office,” according to the New York Times. It wouldn’t be the first time that Abbott has sent migrants to Harris’ backyard: In September, he transported 50 migrants to DC, calling on the Biden administration to “do its job & secure the border.” Other Republican leaders have also embraced such tactics, including Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who earlier this year sent two planes of migrants from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard—a stunt which reportedly costed more than $600,000.

    [ad_2]

    Charlotte Klein

    Source link

  • Adam Schiff Says One Part Of Jan. 6 Hasn’t Gotten Nearly Enough Attention

    Adam Schiff Says One Part Of Jan. 6 Hasn’t Gotten Nearly Enough Attention

    [ad_1]

    Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) says there has been “one line of effort” to overturn the 2020 presidential election that Americans still haven’t given sufficient attention.

    Schiff, a member of the House Jan. 6 committee, addressed the panel’s final report in a New York Times op-ed on Thursday. The piece focused in particular on the Republican lawmakers in Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election.

    Even after Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police put down the insurrection at great cost to themselves, the majority of Republicans in the House picked up right where they left off, still voting to overturn the results in important states.

    A total of 147 Republican members of Congress voted to overturn the election results — 139 of 221 House Republicans and eight of 51 Senate Republicans.

    The committee on Monday sent four criminal referrals against Trump to the Justice Department. In his op-ed, Schiff urged the DOJ to “ensure a form of accountability that Congress is not empowered to provide”: prosecution.

    “Bringing a former president to justice who even now calls for the ‘termination’ of our Constitution is a perilous endeavor,” Schiff wrote.

    “Not doing so is far more dangerous.”

    In a separate op-ed penned for the Los Angeles Times, Schiff wrote that the Justice Department “must hold itself to the standard it set at the beginning of its investigation” into the deadly riot: “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

    “But there is more needed to protect our democracy,” he continued, “than oversight, accountability and even justice.”

    He called on Congress to take action to prevent “another would-be autocrat from tearing down our democratic institutions” by enacting reforms based on the committee’s findings.

    “The oversight the Jan. 6 committee did was difficult, and the pursuit of justice may be even more so,” Schiff wrote, “but the steps we take to prevent another despot from subverting our democracy in the future may be the most challenging and consequential of all.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Many Republicans Died Because the GOP Turned Against Vaccines?

    How Many Republicans Died Because the GOP Turned Against Vaccines?

    [ad_1]

    No country has a perfect COVID vaccination rate, even this far into the pandemic, but America’s record is particularly dismal. About a third of Americans—more than a hundred million people—have yet to get their initial shots. You can find anti-vaxxers in every corner of the country. But by far the single group of adults most likely to be unvaccinated is Republicans: 37 percent of Republicans are still unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated, compared with 9 percent of Democrats. Fourteen of the 15 states with the lowest vaccination rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. (The other is Georgia.)

    We know that unvaccinated Americans are more likely to be Republican, that Republicans in positions of power led the movement against COVID vaccination, and that hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated Americans have died preventable deaths from the disease. The Republican Party is unquestionably complicit in the premature deaths of many of its own supporters, a phenomenon that may be without precedent in the history of both American democracy and virology.

    Obviously, nothing about being a Republican makes someone inherently anti-vaccine. Many Republicans—in fact, most of them—have gotten their first two shots. But the wildly disproportionate presence of Republicans among the unvaccinated reveals an ugly and counterintuitive aspect of the GOP campaign against vaccination: At every turn, top figures in the party have directly endangered their own constituents. Trump disparaged vaccines while president, even after orchestrating Operation Warp Speed. Other politicians, such as Texas Governor Greg Abbott, made all COVID-vaccine mandates illegal in their state. More recently, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called for a grand jury to investigate the safety of COVID vaccines. The right-wing media have leaned even harder into vaccine skepticism. On his prime-time Fox News show, Tucker Carlson has regularly questioned the safety of vaccines, inviting guests who have called for the shots to be “withdrawn from the market.”

    Breaking down the cost of vaccine hesitancy would be simple if we could draw a causal relationship between Republican leaders’ anti-vaccine messaging and the adoption of those ideas by Americans, and then from those ideas to deaths due to non-vaccination. Unfortunately, we don’t have the data to do so. Individual vaccine skepticism cannot be traced back to a single source, and even if it could, we don’t know exactly who is unvaccinated and what their political affiliations are.

    What we do have is a patchwork of estimations and correlations that, taken together, paint a blurry but nevertheless grim picture of how Republican leaders spread the vaccine hesitancy that has killed so many people. We know that as of April 2022, about 318,000 people had died from COVID because they were unvaccinated, according to research from Brown University. And the close association between Republican vaccine hesitancy and higher death rates has been documented. One study estimated that by the fall of 2021, vaccine uptake accounted for 10 percent of the total difference between Republican and Democratic deaths. But that estimate has changed—and even likely grown—over time.

    Partisanship affected outcomes in the pandemic even before we had vaccines. A recent study found that from October 2020 to February 2021, the death rate in Republican-leaning counties was up to three times higher than that of Democratic-leaning counties, likely because of differences in masking and social distancing. Even when vaccines came around, these differences continued, Mauricio Santillana, an epidemiology expert at Northeastern University and a co-author of the study, told me. Follow-up research published in Lancet Regional Health Americas in October looked at deaths from April 2021 to March 2022 and found a 26 percent higher death rate in areas where voters leaned Republican. “There are subsequent and very serious [partisan] patterns with the Delta and Omicron waves, some of which can be explained by vaccination,” Bill Hanage, a co-author of the paper and an epidemiologist at Harvard, told me in an email.

    But to understand why Republicans have died at higher rates, you can’t look at vaccine status alone. Congressional districts controlled by a trifecta of Republican leaders—state governor, Senate, and House—had an 11 percent higher death rate, according to the Lancet study. A likely explanation, the authors write, could be that in the post-vaccine era, those leaders chose policies and conveyed public-health messages that made their constituents more likely to die. Although we still can’t say these decisions led to higher death rates, the association alone is jarring.

    One of the most compelling studies comes from researchers at Yale, who published their findings as a working paper in November. They link political party and excess-death rate—the percent increase in deaths above pre-COVID levels—among those registered as either Democrats or Republicans, providing a more granular view. They chose to analyze data from Florida and Ohio from before and after vaccines were available. Looking at the period before the vaccine,  researchers found a 1.6 percentage-point difference in excess death rate among Republicans and Democrats, with a higher rate among Republicans. But after vaccines became available, that gap widened dramatically to 10.4 percentage points, again with a higher Republican excess death rate. “When we compare individuals who are of the same age, who live in the same county in the same month of the pandemic, there are differences correlated with your political-party affiliation that emerge after vaccines are available,” Jacob Wallace, an assistant professor of public health at Yale who co-authored the paper, told me. “That’s a statement we can confidently make based on the study and we couldn’t before.”

    Even with this new research, it is difficult to determine just how many people died as a result of their political views. In the “excess death” study, researchers dealt only with rates of excess death, not actual death-toll numbers. Overall, excess deaths represent a small share of deaths. “On the scale of national registration for both parties,” Wallace said, “we’re talking about relatively small numbers and differences in deaths” when you look at excess death rates alone.

    The absolute number of Republican deaths is less important than the fact that they happened needlessly. Vaccines could have saved lives. And yet, the party that describes itself as pro-life campaigned against them. Democrats are not without fault, though. The Biden administration’s COVID blunders are no doubt to blame for some of the nation’s deaths. But on the whole, Democratic leaders have mostly not promoted ideas or enforced policies around COVID that actively chip away at life expectancy. It is a tragedy that the Republican push against basic lifesaving science has cut lives short and continues to do so. The partisan divide in COVID deaths, Hanage said, is just “another example of how the partisan politics of the U.S. has poisoned the well of public health.”

    What’s most concerning about all of this is that partisan disparities in death rates were also apparent before COVID. People living in Republican jurisdictions have been at a health disadvantage for more than 20 years. From 2001 to 2019, the death rate in Democratic counties decreased by 22 percent, according to a recent study; in Republican counties, it declined by only 11 percent. In the same time period, the political gap in death rates increased sixfold.

    Health outcomes have been diverging at the state level since the ’90s, Steven Woolf, an epidemiologist at Virginia Commonwealth University, told me. Woolf’s work suggests that over the decades, state policy decisions on health issues such as Medicaid, gun legislation, tobacco taxes, and, indeed, vaccines have likely had a stronger impact on state health trajectories than other factors. COVID’s high Republican death rates are not an isolated phenomenon but a continuation of this trend. As Republican-led states pushed back on lockdowns, the impact on population death rates was observed within weeks, Woolf said.

    If the issue is indeed systemic, that doesn’t bode well for the future. Other factors could explain the higher death rate in Republican-leaning places—more poverty, less education, worse socioeconomic conditions—, though Woolf said isn’t convinced that those factors aren’t related to bad state health policy too. In any case, the long-term decline of health in red states indicates that there is an ongoing problem at a high level in Republican-led places, and that something has gone awry. “If you happen to live in certain states, your chances for living a long life are going to be much higher than if you’re an American living in a different state,” Woolf said.

    Unfortunately, this trend shows no signs of breaking. The anti-science messaging that fuels such a divide is popular with Republican leaders because it plays so well with their constituents. Far-right crowds cheer for missed vaccine targets and jokes about executing scientific leaders. In an environment where partisanship trumps all—including trying to save people’s lives—such messaging is both politically effective and morally abhorrent. The data, however imperfect, demand a reckoning with the consequences of such a strategy not only during the pandemic but over the past few decades, and in the years to come. But to acknowledge how many Republicans didn’t have to die would mean giving credence to scientific and medical expertise. So long as America remains locked in a poisonous partisan battle in which science is wrongly dismissed as being associated with the left, the death toll will only rise.

    [ad_2]

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • “They Don’t See Us”: Ayanna Pressley Won’t Let Women Be Ignored by the Republican Majority

    “They Don’t See Us”: Ayanna Pressley Won’t Let Women Be Ignored by the Republican Majority

    [ad_1]

    With the GOP gearing up to retake the House majority, the Massechussetts Democrat is angling to protect women’s rights by running for chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus. “This is not a social club,” Pressley told Vanity Fair. “We are all formidable in our own right.”

    When Ayanna Pressley made her debut on the Beltway, Democrats held a double-digit majority in the House of Representatives. Donald Trump was a perfect foil for Pressley and her progressive compatriots. Their influence only expanded with more insurgent progressive wins in 2020. Plus, Democrats won back the Senate and sent Joe Biden to the White House. But now in the twilight of the 117th Congress, “the Squad”—Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, alongside newer recruits like Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush—will soon find themselves in unfamiliar territory: the House minority. This is not lost on Pressley, nor are the stakes. In her words, the House Democratic caucus is at a “critical inflection point” ahead of this shift to come on January 3. Pressley is plotting her next move. 

    After a midterm cycle that showed the power of galvanizing voters who care about women’s reproductive rights, this is where Pressley sees a path forward for progressives. That, and turning attention to the White House. “There’s an opportunity certainly in the next two years to make sure we’re offering a clear affirmation of who Democrats are and part of that is working closely with the White House,” she says in an interview with Vanity Fair. To steward this, Pressley is running to be the chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, with the intent to make it as relevant a voting bloc as groups like the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus—both of which she’s also a member of. And she’s preparing to push back against a Republican House that appears more interested in scoring political points than pushing any kind of policy agenda. “It couldn’t be more clear. The Republican Party of [Kevin] McCarthy and Trump, they don’t have a policy vision—certainly not one that centers women’s families and the most marginalized,” she says. “They don’t see us. They don’t see women,” she continued later in the conversation.

    Pressley pitched herself in a letter to her colleagues at the end of last month. If elected to the chair position, she wrote that she would, “defend women’s issues from the ongoing attacks from those across the aisle,” in the face of the “extremists pose serious threats to the rights of every woman that calls this country home.” She wants the caucus to “be seen as the go-to for women across the board” and to serve as a bulwark against a backlash to women she is bracing for after a historic number were elected to Congress. “It’s always that strange dichotomy,” Pressley said. “[It’s] When we see this wave of women—and none of us are there by magic; we’re there by hard work…. When we see the most coordinated and underlining policy attacks against us.” 

    But Pressley’s bid is part and parcel of progressives, and more broadly, the Democratic Party’s reliance on and recognition of the critical role women—and particularly women of color—play in securing victories up and down the ballot. Her party, Pressley stressed, has to keep serving the interests of this critical voting bloc. “The reason why I’m running is to ensure that our collective voices remain front and center at the policy-making table,” she said. Pressley noted Raphael Warnock’s victory over Herschel Walker in the runoff election for the Georgia Senate seat as evidence of this. “We know the outsized role that Black women continue to play, both as strategy partners and building these coalitions and putting together these winning strategies,” she said the day after Warnock’s victory. “But also in the electorate at the ballot box.”

    “The Squad” moniker can be traced back to a somewhat spontaneous photo taken during new member orientation. The snap of Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Omar tied their political fates together. The group’s outspokenness and the fact that both Pressley and Ocasio-Cortez bested Democratic incumbents in the primaries, put their party’s Old Guard on notice. Their profiles and platforms quickly eclipsed those of the traditional arbiters of political influence in Washington. But the quartet represented something of a sea change within the Democratic Party; they redefined what it meant to be a “progressive” and the résumé required to run for Congress. With their historic victories, the members of “the Squad” paved the way for a new generation of progressives, which only grew this past midterm cycle with the additions of Summer Lee and Maxwell Frost, among others. They shifted the Overton window. In some ways, Pressley was always a bit of an outlier in the group. She largely avoided the type of skirmishes with leadership and rank-and-file members the other three, at various times, found themselves embroiled in. 

    While “the Squad” branding has faded—largely relegated to the right-wing and conservative press—when asked to reflect on those early days of her congressional tenure, in which the group as a collective, became a bigger target of criticism than even Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, Pressley responded: “My priorities haven’t changed. My convictions and my resolve have only been further emboldened and the issues I’ve led on my entire life are the issues that I’ve continued to work on.” Policy is her “love language” and she has “always just followed the work.” But as she positions herself for life in the minority, where chances at policy will be few and far between, Pressley acknowledged that her outsized platform could aid her effort to thrust the caucus into greater relevance. “I do think that the platform that I have  earned and built up over time, would [serve]  in such a way to increase the reach and the impact and the influence of this caucus,” she said. 

    Pressley isn’t the only “Squad” member to set her sights on a leadership post. Last week, Omar was elected deputy chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Speaking on Monday night, Omar reflected on the approaching shift to the minority. “It is going to be an effort to try to block as much progress as Republicans want to make in the house, even in their messaging bills,” the Minnesota congresswoman said. “I know that with a slim majority, it was challenging—even for Speaker Pelosi.” But this time around, every Squad member, including Pressley, is bringing a lot more legislative expertise to the table. “It was clear from pretty early on when she came to Congress that she had a really deep passion for reproductive rights issues, issues facing women—economic issues and care issues,” a former Capitol Hill staffer said of the Massachusetts Democrat. “And I think the idea of having the Democratic Women’s [Caucus] as more of an organized bloc would be a good one.” 

    Pressley was the first woman of color to serve on the Boston City Council, a perch from which she launched the Healthy Women’s Families and Communities Committee. With her election to Congress, she claimed another first as the first woman of color elected to represent Massachusetts. And in her time on Capitol Hill, protecting and promoting women has been a throughline: she is colead of the Women’s Health Protection Act; she serves on the Pro-Choice Caucus; she has been a leader in the fight for paid leave and maternal health justice; and she is the lead co-sponsor in the fight to abolish the Hyde Amendment, to name a few. “The issues of consequence in this moment are issues that I’ve led on,” she pitched. 

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy

    Source link

  • Cochise County’s Bottom-Up Guide to Election Denial

    Cochise County’s Bottom-Up Guide to Election Denial

    [ad_1]

    As millions of Americans returned to their jobs this week after the Thanksgiving holiday, several of the elected leaders of Cochise County, Arizona, opted not to do theirs.

    The board of supervisors in this sparsely populated southeastern chunk of the state refuses to certify the county’s midterm-election results. Of course, nothing actually went wrong in Cochise County’s election. Instead, on Monday, the two Republican members of the Cochise County board outvoted its single Democrat to delay certification of the election, missing the deadline. By refusing to complete the process, these two officials chose instead to make a kind of generalized protest against imagined election fraud in Arizona. Their action could mean that Cochise County voters won’t have their ballots counted in the state’s final results.

    Nullifying the votes of some 47,000 people for no reason is certainly a choice—and a nihilistic one at that. These two board members are engaging in a strategy of bottom-up election obstruction, apparently to clog the gears of democracy with enough sand to spread distrust throughout the entire system. Nationally, the Cochise County supervisors’ strategy may prove inconsequential, at least for now. But it’s a perfect illustration of the state of American democracy—and could be a test run of much greater consequence for 2024.

    Even though prominent election deniers lost big in the November polls, in both Arizona and elsewhere, the election-denial movement is still alive, and even thriving, at the state and local level around the country. The “Stop the Steal” blueprint that Donald Trump drew up is there for anyone to follow, in the next presidential cycle and quite possibly beyond.

    Before the midterms, election experts had their eyes fixed on Arizona, and in particular on Cochise County, 200 miles southeast of Phoenix. There, in the home of the Dragoon Mountains and the old frontier boomtown of Tombstone, suspicion of voting machines runs deep—so much so that county officials were demanding a full hand recount of the votes before the election had even happened. (Although all Arizona postelection audits require a small hand-counted sample, a full hand count of the votes would be illegal and, experts say, extremely prone to error.) In the end, the Arizona Supreme Court had to prevent Cochise County officials from doing it.

    Ultimately, Election Day went smoothly in Cochise, and Republicans cleaned house in the county’s results: The GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and Senate hopeful Blake Masters defeated their Democratic opponents there by 18 and 11 points respectively, even though both lost overall. Still, county GOP leaders wouldn’t take yes for an answer, and they weren’t finished sowing chaos.

    One of the Republican supervisors acknowledged in an interview that delaying the county’s election certification was in fact intended as a protest over the election—not in Cochise, but in Maricopa County, where Republicans claim, without evidence, that machine errors disenfranchised thousands of voters. In other words, the play here is to use local political control in one county to cast doubt on another’s larger and more politically important election—to taint the entire process by contaminating a small piece of it.

    As I reported at the time, Maricopa County did have some technical problems on Election Day. Dozens of tabulation-machine printers weren’t working, despite those machines having been previously tested for accuracy. But voters weren’t turned away from polling sites. Instead, their ballots were dropped in an auxiliary box and taken to the county’s central tabulation center, to be counted along with millions of other ballots. If anyone was disenfranchising Arizonans, it was the state’s GOP leaders demanding that voters not put their ballot in the auxiliary box.

    But all of that is truly beside the point. Certification is not just a formality; the process enables officials to review an election for wrongdoing. Which sometimes happens! Back in 2018, the North Carolina state election board refused to certify the results of a House race, because Republican campaign operatives had engaged in illegal ballot harvesting and tampering.

    But nothing like that went down in Cochise or Maricopa Counties this year. Instead, local GOP officials are choosing to invalidate the votes of their own neighbors in order to express their displeasure with an election outcome. It’s childish. It’s wrong. It seems very illegal. And it’s probably not going to work. On Monday, Secretary of State (and now Governor-elect) Katie Hobbs filed a lawsuit against the board, tweeting that Cochise County “had a statutory duty to certify the results of the 2022 General Election by today.” The judge will hear the suit later today, and may offer a decision as early as this afternoon.

    The most likely outcome is that the judge forces the board to certify the election. “Stop the Steal” zealots have tried the Cochise move before, after all. Earlier this year, commissioners in heavily Republican Otero County, New Mexico, decided not to certify their party primary-election results. That didn’t fly at the state supreme court, which ruled that the commissioners had to do their jobs. (Commissioner Couy Griffin notably still voted no, announcing that his vote was “based on my gut feeling and my own intuition, and that’s all I need.”) But if the court doesn’t force Cochise officials to change their ways, the secretary of state’s office could, in theory, tally the rest of Arizona’s votes without the county’s included. The irony is that, in a purely electoral sense, this would be great news for Democrats, potentially flipping a U.S. House seat from red to blue.

    Something that became very clear in 2020 is that America’s election system relies not on spelled-out rules and regulations, but on human beings acting honestly. Before 2016, the certification process was not used as a weapon to fight back against a disappointing result. “That’s not how healthy democracies function,” Tammy Patrick, the program CEO for the election center at the National Association of Election Officials, told me. And American democracy is only as healthy as its weakest link.

    What happens next in Cochise County may have little significant effect on the rest of the country. But Cochise serves as a reminder that the election-fraud myth persists. And in places where its believers have unchecked power, they will do their utmost to flex it.

    The hope was that, after major midterm losses and continued rebukes from the courts, the election-denial movement would peter out—that Stop the Steal types might simply grow tired of failing. But if Trump is a viable candidate for president in 2024, you can expect him to sing from the same songbook he used in 2016 and 2020. Other candidates will amplify those lies, too, if they can benefit from doing so. Whether election denialism will survive independently of Trump is hard to anticipate. But Republicans “have seen that while it may not be the way to gain office, it is certainly the way to drive donations and fundraising and elevate your stature in the party,” Patrick said.

    Cochise is a useful stress test for America’s electoral system “in terms of demonstrating the continued dangers to our democracy”—and what can be done about them, Rick Hasen, the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA, told me. Congress should pass reforms to the Electoral Count Act, Hasen said. States can also try to prevent what’s happening in Cochise County from recurring in 2024. Colorado passed legislation this year clarifying its rules about certification. But state leaders are similarly well positioned to make the waters of democracy muddier. In 2021, Arizona Republicans tried and failed to pass legislation that would allow the state legislature to reject the results of an election it didn’t support. An upcoming Supreme Court decision on the authority of state legislatures in administering elections will be incredibly consequential to any future election-subversion efforts.

    Over the past six years, millions of people in this country have been encouraged by political leaders on the right to see themselves as the real Americans—the nation’s true rulers—who are in danger of being cheated out of their political inheritance by voter fraud on the left. They’ve been trained to respond to electoral losses with deflection, conspiracy, and dishonesty. They don’t need Trump around to keep doing that.

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link

  • “Fuck Biden,” “Don’t Tread on Me,” and a Wisconsin Death Trip for Our Times

    “Fuck Biden,” “Don’t Tread on Me,” and a Wisconsin Death Trip for Our Times

    [ad_1]

    “The thing to worry about is meanings, not appearances.” —Michael Lesy, Wisconsin Death Trip, 1973

    Cecil, Wisconsin

    I went back twice to find out what the coffin meant, but though cars came and went in the driveway, nobody ever answered the door. Halloween in June, or a sign? Kitsch, or a warning? I’d been driving for a week, since the first night of the January 6 hearings, listening to them on the radio as I counted the flags. Not the American ones but the Trump ones. Trump 2024, two years ahead of time; and the red, white, and blue of the Confederacy, the yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden. There are so many now. There’s new folk art too: handpainted “Fuck Biden” placards, homemade “Let’s Go Brandon” billboards, and DIY “Never Forget Benghazi” banners. The cities and towns still ripple with rainbow pride, their numbers are greater, but on many country roads the ugly emblems tick by like mile markers. 

    What was the coffin though? I was visiting friends in Cecil, Wisconsin, when we drove past it. They let me out to make a picture. “Careful,” they said, and, “We’ll come back for you,” because they didn’t want to linger. They sped away, leaving me in the green light. I made my picture. I waited. I read on my phone, on Twitter, that Wisconsin Republicans had blocked an effort to repeal a dormant 1849 law making any abortion—including for rape or incest—a felony. My friends returned, we fled. The next morning, the ruling came down: Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and Wisconsin became the only “blue” state in which abortion is now effectively illegal.   

    In 1973—the same year the US Supreme Court decided 7–2 that Norma McCorvey, “Jane Roe,” had a constitutional “right to privacy” that included reproductive freedom—tennis champion Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in the televised “Battle of the Sexes.” Richard Nixon declared, “I am not a crook.” Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace Prize. Also in 1973, a book appeared called Wisconsin Death Trip. It began as a staple-bound pamphlet and as a book became an unlikely mirror of its moment, even as it depicted the last 15 years of the previous century. History’s like that, sometimes, our faith in the forward motion of chronology suddenly evaporating. Death Trip was, on the surface, a benign album of seemingly ordinary photographs—portraits, patriotic displays, happy youth—from one small town in Wisconsin, Black River Falls, during the last decade of the 19th century. Interspersed are excerpts from the town newspaper, the Black River Falls Badger State Banner, and whispers from a “town gossip.” In 1973, a year of crises as varied and vast as those of this year, most white Americans still imagined the previous century as an idyll, apart from a brief interruption for civil war, fought for reasons they thought “romantic.” Virtuous country life, bustling urban industry. American greatness. The Banner spoke other truths. Epidemic disease, whole families consumed; diphtheria, the formation in the throat of a “false membrane”; “astonishing bank failure”; “incendiaries,” arsonists who loved to watch things burn; “vigilance committees”; “the private made public”; a woman, once a “model wife and mother,” who roamed the state smashing windows; soul after soul, remanded to the asylum; so many suicides; a woman who died “from a criminal operation performed upon herself” after she failed to find a doctor with the courage to help her. There was beauty in the book too, even in its carefully arranged photographs of dead infants. That’s what you did then, when your baby died. If you had the money, you hired the town photographer to make the infant’s picture, tucked into a little coffin with flowers, eyes tenderly brushed closed.

    By Jeff Sharlet.

    Thirty years ago, the book’s author, Michael Lesy, was my teacher. The book, his first, has followed me ever since. “You can get as philosophical as you want,” Michael said when I told him I was headed to Black River Falls. He mimicked cheap gravitas. “‘From the deep ground grows the tree of life… ’” Then comes the end, yours or worse, that of those you love—“and nobody likes it when it happens to them.” A death trip is a memento mori, is a reminder that everybody dies. If that seems obvious, consider the desperate denial embedded in the phrase “Make America Great Again”; the light-eating vanity of Trump; the delusion of a golden brand that will shine eternally. Consider this gloating post-Roe meme: “A thousand-year White Boy Summer starts today.” But nothing lasts forever, not even white boys. A death trip, meanwhile, summons us to the precarious real. Not the myth of greatness. The pulse of uncertainty. The living, such as we are. 

    I got the news through a Wisconsin man I’d stopped to speak with that morning, who got it by phone from his wife, who heard it from her doctor, to whom she had gone not to end a pregnancy but to prepare for one. “Mary,” who told me her story on the newly necessary condition of anonymity, had been in the stirrups when the ruling came down. She wanted a baby, and this was the next step in the reproductive technology she and her husband had chosen—until suddenly it wasn’t. Following a course of fertility drugs, Mary now possessed three mature eggs. The nurse stepped out to consult the doctor. But when the doctor entered the examination room, she said, “I’m holding back tears.” 

    “I can’t recommend you continue,” the doctor said. Three eggs meant a risk of multiples. Twins Mary could handle. Triplets she could not. Not her finances and not her body. If she went forward, there was a miniscule chance all three eggs could be fertilized. One embryo might have to be removed. And that, as of  9:11 a.m. central time, June 24, in Wisconsin, could be a felony.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Sharlet

    Source link

  • Surprise: A Number of Republicans Don’t Want to Condemn Donald Trump’s Dinner With a Couple of Antisemites

    Surprise: A Number of Republicans Don’t Want to Condemn Donald Trump’s Dinner With a Couple of Antisemites

    [ad_1]

    In the year 2022, the number one thing that unites the Republican Party is bigotry and hate. Hate for Black people. Hate for (non-white) immigrants. Hate for anyone who isn’t Christian. Hate for the LGBTQ+ community. Which is why it should surprise no one who has been paying literally any attention whatsoever that a number of GOP lawmakers apparently don’t want to publicly condemn Donald Trump’s recent dinner with two men who have made names for themselves as virulent antisemites.

    Axios reports that though a handful of Republicans have spoken out against Trump’s dinner with Kanye “death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE” West (a.k.a. “Ye”) and Holocaust-denying white supremacist Nick Fuentes, many members of the party “have largely remained silent,” with spokespeople for almost two dozen House and Senate GOP lawmakers—including “party leaders” and people who are literally “cochairs of caucuses and task forces focused on Judaism or antisemitism”—declining to respond to requests for comment. While the outlet suggests that the lawmakers’ refusal to criticize the dinner speaks to “the stranglehold Trump still has on the Republican Party” despite his poor showing in the midterms, it seems more likely that these people, like Trump, don’t want to upset voters who were actually extremely pleased to see the ex-president and current candidate for office dining with individuals who have expressed such views.

    Among the small group of Republicans who have spoken out against last week’s dinner, the trend appears to be that the only ones who have truly castigated Trump are people who are departing Congress in January (representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) or don’t actually hold positions within the party at this time (former NJ governor Chris Christie). While current GOP lawmaker James Comer, who is likely to be the next chair of the House Oversight Committee, responded to the matter on Meet the Press, his mild criticism left a great deal to be desired; he told the morning show that Trump “needs better judgment in who he dines with.” Among the elected officials who actually offered full-throated condemnation were Rep. Don Bacon, the GOP cochair of the Caucus for the Advancement of Torah Values, who told Axios of the sit-down, “I am appalled,” and Senator Bill Cassidy, who tweeted: “President Trump hosting racist antisemites for dinner encourages other racist antisemites. These attitudes are immoral and should not be entertained.” (He added, obviously falsely, “This is not the Republican Party.”) Late Monday, Senator John Thune said Trump having dinner with Fuentes was a “bad idea on every level” and that the person who planned it should be fired

    For his part, Trump has not felt the need to disavow the viewpoints of either of his dining companions. He also, as of Monday afternoon, has not invoked his having a Jewish daughter and son-in-law as a way to justify having dined with people who openly talk about their hatred for Jews, but it is presumably in the works.

    Oh, but we do!

    Twitter content

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

    The MyPillow guy wants to run the Republican Party

    Twitter content

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

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Donald Trump Drags Kari Lake Into His Latest Conspiracy Spiel

    Donald Trump Drags Kari Lake Into His Latest Conspiracy Spiel

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump looped Arizona Republican Kari Lake into a conspiracy-ridden spiel about the integrity of the state’s election results on Wednesday.

    Lake, however, had disproved one of the former president’s claims just weeks ago.

    Trump claimed on his Truth Social platform that there was a large number of voting machines in Arizona’s “Republican areas” that were “BROKEN” on Election Day, part of a conspiracy theory that Lake peddled on Twitter earlier this week, Mediaite noted.

    The claim comes as the Trump-backed Lake hasn’t conceded in the state’s gubernatorial race despite her Democratic opponent Katie Hobbs’ win earlier this month.

    Trump, later in his post, attempted to sell Lake’s conspiracy theory to his followers by bringing the election-denying candidate into the heart of his unfounded claim.

    ″[Voters] left the voting lines in complete exasperation, unable to return. When ‘mechanics’ went in to fix the machines, they got worse. Kari Lake couldn’t even vote in her own district,” Trump wrote.

    He continued: “Voter fraud – DO THE ELECTION OVER, or declare Kari, Blake [Masters], Abe [Hamadeh] the winners. Act Fast!!!”

    Trump’s claim that Lake couldn’t vote in her district, however, has been debunked by the candidate herself, who has already said she traveled to a different area and had no problems.

    “We switched from a Republican area to vote, we came right down into the heart of liberal Phoenix to vote because we wanted to make sure that we had good machines,” Lake said on Election Day.

    “And guess what? They’ve had zero problems with their machines today. Not one machine spit out a ballot here today, not one in a very liberal area.”

    Voting sites in Arizona’s Maricopa County did experience printing issues which stopped the counting of some ballots, however, those issues were not limited to areas that tend to vote Republican or Democrat, the Associated Press found.

    Voters were able to try another tabulator at sites, cancel and go to another site to vote or put their ballots in a box that would be brought to and counted at Maricopa County’s tabulation center later.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mike Pompeo Names ‘The Most Dangerous Person In The World’ And It’s A Surprise

    Mike Pompeo Names ‘The Most Dangerous Person In The World’ And It’s A Surprise

    [ad_1]

    Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Monday that American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten is “the most dangerous person in the world,” prompting disbelief from the union chief.

    “I tell the story often — I get asked, ‘Who’s the most dangerous person in the world? Is it Chairman Kim, is it Xi Jinping?’ The most dangerous person in the world is Randi Weingarten,” Pompeo told Semafor.

    Pompeo, who served in President Donald Trump’s cabinet, could have said his insurrection-fomenting ex-boss was the most dangerous. He’s been criticizing Trump as he ponders a challenge to him and others in the GOP for a presidential run. Or perhaps he could have said Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has led to thousands dying and a spike in global tension.

    But nooooo… Pompeo went after an educator.

    “It’s not a close call,” he said. “If you ask, ‘Who’s the most likely to take this republic down?’ It would be the teacher’s unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids, and the fact that they don’t know math and reading or writing.”

    Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks during a Republican Jewish Coalition Annual Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas on November 18, 2022.

    WADE VANDERVORT via Getty Images

    Weingarten pushed back hard on Twitter. “I know that Mike Pompeo is running for president, and frankly, I don’t know whether to characterize his characterization … as ridiculous or dangerous,” she wrote.

    Weingarten accused Pompeo of defending “the Middle East’s tyrants,” “undermining Ukraine,” and kowtowing to Trump instead of “fighting 4 freedom.”

    “So Mike, let me make it easy for you,” Weingarten continued in her Twitter thread. “We fight for freedom, democracy, and an economy that works for all. We fight for what kids & communities need. Strong public schools that are safe and welcoming, where kids learn how to think & work with others. That’s the American Dream!”

    American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten speaks at a union event in Washington D.C. in June.
    American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten speaks at a union event in Washington D.C. in June.

    Alex Wong via Getty Images

    Like many of his potential Republican rivals, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Pompeo appears to be casting himself as a soldier in the so-called “anti-woke” culture wars.

    Dozens of states have sought to restrict the teaching of critical race theory, which explores the ramifications of racism in America, according to Education Week.

    And DeSantis, who has emerged as Trump’s most popular foe within the party, caused a stir by backing Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law restricting discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in early primary grades.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Report: Trump Has Told Republicans to Endorse Him “ASAP” or Suffer the Consequences

    Report: Trump Has Told Republicans to Endorse Him “ASAP” or Suffer the Consequences

    [ad_1]

    In the wake of the midterm elections, Donald Trump has become radioactive within the Republican Party. Oh, sure, there are people who always support him and always will, but, lately, a lot of GOP lawmakers, party mega-donors, and Rupert Murdoch-owned publications have made it clear he should get lost, and that they don’t want to be associated with him. Even previously reliable hangers-on are suddenly all, “Sorry, I’m washing my hair that night.” Even his own daughter, the one he actually likes, is all, “Ooo, I’d love to, but I’m all booked.” And in that context, it makes it extra hilarious that the ex-president, now running for office for a third time, is apparently not only telling Republicans that they better endorse him ASAP but that they’re going to rue the day they crossed him when he wins, which he believes he’s going to.

    Rolling Stone reports that in the run-up to last week’s election, Trump “made a series of phone calls to GOP lawmakers and other elected officials, demanding that they endorse him before he announced he’s running—or at least right after, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversations.” He added that he was keeping track of who endorsed him early, and that “those who waited too long” were “not gonna like” the fate that would befall them when he wins. He apparently also said that he was tracking who dumped him for Florida governor Ron DeSantis or other possible 2024 primary opponents, according to sources familiar with the matter. “He said it was ‘not a tough call’ to make and that there was one right move: endorsing him ASAP,” one of the sources told the outlet.

    And while no one likes to be threatened—and especially not by a guy who has a documented history of going after his perceived enemies—it appears that the tough talk has…not had the effect that Trump had hoped. As Rolling Stone notes, “the party’s heavy hitters—even some who have previously been quick to stand behind him—have been hesitant to hop on board,” and when the ex-president kicked off his candidacy at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday night, “Madison Cawthorn, the scandal-ridden outgoing representative from North Carolina, was the only member of Congress who bothered to attend.”

    And the story only gets sadder from there:

    Even some of Trump’s former official surrogates are, right now, noncommittal. Jack Kingston, a former US congressman from Georgia who worked as a Trump surrogate before and during his presidency, once told Trump, “I’m with you and I’ll stick with you until the curtain comes down.” On Wednesday, asked if he is going to be Trump’s surrogate again or if he’s going to endorse Trump 2024, Kingston replied, “I am a free agent right now. Focusing on the Georgia runoff, among other things.” 

    Stephen Moore, another former surrogate and adviser to Trump, was similarly noncommittal when asked about an endorsement: “Not sure yet.” He said, however, “I think if Trump will stay on message about his America First agenda and not obsess about the 2020 elections, then he can be a real force.”

    In the last several weeks alone, billionaire Republicans Stephen Schwarzman, Ken Griffin, and Ronald Lauder have publicly dropped him, while his former secretary of state and previously devoted footstool, Mike Pompeo, tweeted: “We need more seriousness, less noise, and leaders who are looking forward, not staring in the rearview mirror claiming victimhood.” Top party leaders Mitch McConnell, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and Kevin McCarthy won’t say if they support him.  

    In other mob boss behavior, last week Trump told reporters, of DeSantis, “If he did run, I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”

    Nancy Pelosi, who will step down from her leadership position, flips Trump off on her way out the door

    Twitter content

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

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link