ReportWire

Tag: Republicans

  • Vampires, Werewolves, and Horse Manure: The Latest WTF Comments That Have Come Out of Herschel Walker’s Mouth

    Vampires, Werewolves, and Horse Manure: The Latest WTF Comments That Have Come Out of Herschel Walker’s Mouth

    [ad_1]

    On December 6, Georgia voters will once again head to the polls to choose the next US senator from their state, following a November general election that somehow was too close to call. That Republican Herschel Walker won 48.5% of the vote, compared to incumbent Raphael Warnock’s 49.43%, might suggest that the candidates are of equal “quality” and that both would make fine lawmakers who would do good by Georgia. Of course, that is not at all the case, and to suggest that they are equally good choices would be like asking someone, “What do you want to do tonight? Should we order some takeout and watch that new show everyone’s talking about? Or would you rather I burn your house down?”

    In Warnock, voters have a candidate who believes all people should have rights, be able to make decisions about their own bodies, have access to health care, and not die in a mass shootings. His campaign staff has not told reporters he’s a pathological liar who lies like he‘s breathing, and when he speaks, people don’t think things like, Jesus, this guy makes Donald Trump sound eloquent.

    In Walker, well…we’ll let his recent remarks speak for themselves.

    Take, for instance, his comments from earlier this week, in which he went on an extended tangent about vampires and werewolves, telling people that while he once wanted to be a vampire, he’s changed his mind and would like to be a werewolf:

    Twitter content

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

    Or his incomprehensible aside about Democrats and bikes:

    Twitter content

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

    Or his election night story about horse manure:

    Twitter content

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

    Or…whatever this was:

    Twitter content

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

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Pence Says He Was ‘Angered’ By Trump’s Comments On Jan 6 Which Endangered Him And Everyone At The Capitol

    Pence Says He Was ‘Angered’ By Trump’s Comments On Jan 6 Which Endangered Him And Everyone At The Capitol

    [ad_1]

    Topline

    Former Vice President Mike Pence said the he, his family and everyone at the Capitol’s safety was endangered by former President Donald Trump’s “reckless” comments on January 6 last year, marking his latest public criticism of Trump at a time when some Republicans are beginning to ask if his election denial played a role in the party’s poor midterm performance.

    Key Facts

    In an excerpt of an ABC News interview that aired Sunday evening, Pence said he was “angered” by Trump’s tweet which blamed the former vice president for not having the “courage” to overturn the election results.

    After seeing the tweet Pence said he turned to his daughter and told her that it “doesn’t take courage to break the law” but courage was needed to uphold it.

    Pence also condemned Trump’s “reckless” comments and actions at the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington hours before the capitol riots, adding “it was clear he decided to be part of the problem.”

    Pence is set to release his memoir “So Help Me God” on Tuesday, the same day Trump has promised a “very big announcement”—widely expected to be his formal announcement for a 2024 Presidential Run.

    Crucial Quote

    In his memoir Pence writes after he told Trump he doesn’t have the power under the constitution to choose which votes to accept or reject, to which the former president responded: “You’re too honest…Hundreds and thousands are gonna hate your guts… People are going to think you are stupid.” Pence adds that he said the same thing once again on January 6 to which Trump responded: “You’ll go down as a wimp…If you do that, I made a big mistake five years ago!”

    Key Background

    Speaking at a ‘Stop the Steal’ rally in Washington hours before the Capitol riots Trump called out Pence saying his vice president “is going to have to come through for us.” After Pence did not make an effort to stop the certification, Trump tweeted “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” As thousands of Trump’s supporters stormed into the Capitol premises that day many chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” as he had to be scurried away to a safe location. In the past few days several other Republican leaders have begun to question Trump’s influence on the party amid concerns that his election denialism may have played a key role in the party’s poor midterm performance.

    Further Reading

    Trump’s words on 1/6 ‘endangered me and my family and everyone at the Capitol’ (ABC News)

    [ad_2]

    Siladitya Ray, Forbes Staff

    Source link

  • “There’s No Red Wave in the Data”: The Pollster Who Got the Midterms Right

    “There’s No Red Wave in the Data”: The Pollster Who Got the Midterms Right

    [ad_1]

    Tuesday afternoon, the gloom kept rolling in from smart Democratic operatives. The party would lose its House majority, but also kiss the Democratic Senate majority goodbye. The most optimistic spin was that a red wave would be perversely good news for President Joe Biden. Just look at 1994, when Newt Gingrich rode the Contract With America to the House speakership; two years later President Bill Clinton was reelected. Or the 2010 midterms, when Tea Party Republicans shellacked their way to power; two years later President Barack Obama was reelected. And hey, Biden may be personally unpopular, but he’s passed a bunch of legislation that voters like. So a midterm wipeout was to be expected, but it wouldn’t be the end of the political world for Democrats.

    Get me rewrite, as they say in the old journalism movies.

    Amid all the well-founded pessimism on Tuesday, however, there was one contrary voice. It belonged to Cornell Belcher, a Democratic strategist who worked on both of Obama’s winning White House bids, among many other campaigns. Here is what Belcher said to me yesterday long before polls closed: “I know this is counter to the narrative that the Republicans have been really successfully driving, but the closer we get to a majority of voters turning out, the lower the probability of Republicans being able to garner a majority. There’s no red wave in the data. This is supposed to be a bloodbath. This is supposed to be their wave election. They’ve got all the structural and momentum advantages. If they can’t get to 60 net seats in the House, it’s a monumental failure.”

    Cornell Belcher appears on Meet the Press in Washington, D.C. Sunday, Oct. 23, 2022.

    By William B. Plowman/NBC / Getty Images.

    Plenty of counting remains to be done, but the 2022 midterm turnout numbers look likely to surpass the typical level, which has lately been around 37 to 40% of registered voters. And forget Republicans netting a gain of anything close to 60 House seats: The best they can do appears to be a pickup of about 30. Which would be enough for Republicans to grab a majority and make a lot of noise for the next two years. But it’s a long way short of a wave.

    So how did Democrats defy modern midterm history and 2022 conventional wisdom? It’s worth looking at a few individual contests and one prevailing trend. Pennsylvania’s crucial Senate race showed the value of having a uniquely authentic and compelling candidate who connected with middle-class voters on economic and cultural issues—especially when the Republican opponent is a confection. John Fetterman’s campaign team—led by Brendan McPhillips, Rebecca Katz, and Fetterman’s wife, Gisele—didn’t just endure Fetterman’s emergency three-month campaign-trail absence when he was knocked down by a near-fatal stroke. They filled the void with a sharp, clever social media campaign that defined Mehmet Oz as a fraud and a carpetbagger. Fetterman’s doctors, who got him back into credible fighting shape, deserve credit as well. Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer—who dealt with a life-threatening drama of her own two years ago—relied on a similar genuineness to easily defeat a conservative Republican challenger.

    In multiple races—Hillary Scholten’s for a House seat in Michigan, Wes Moore’s for governor in Maryland, JB Pritzker’s for governor in Illinois, and Josh Shapiro’s for governor in Pennsylvania, to name a few—Democrats placed a risky bet by funding extremist candidates in Republican primaries, the theory being that they would be easier to beat in a general election. Every single one paid off. Drawing stark distinctions was crucial, as California Democratic strategist Sean Clegg told me it would way back in July. “This isn’t the Democratic Party against the Republican Party. It’s the Democratic Party against the antidemocratic party,” Clegg said. “These candidates are the brownshirts of the Trump movement. We are confronting a choice as a country, and we may as well make that stark choice up front.”

    Roe. Dobbs. Abortion rights. Shorthand it however you want, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in June reverberated, consistently, from the defeat of an antiabortion referendum in Kansas in August through the rejection of a similar measure in Kentucky last night. The impact was less direct, but nonetheless clear, in the New York governor’s race as well. The incumbent, Democrat Kathy Hochul, waged a low-key campaign for months that relied on spending millions on TV ads; a major theme of those ads was Hochul’s pledge to protect the right to abortion in her state. She got a lot of help motivating Democratic voters on that front from her opponent, right-wing Republican congressman Lee Zeldin, who cosponsored a House bill to grant full personhood rights to embryos.

    Yet even with an effective last-minute Democratic freakout at the possibility Hochul could lose—Biden flew in to campaign with her, and from the left flank Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suddenly hit the streets with the governor—Hochul’s winning margin will probably end up in the mid-single-digits. Her weakness was reflected in five key New York House races, all of which went to Republicans, which may end up determining control of the House. The most painful loss was by Sean Patrick Maloney, running for a sixth term in a Hudson Valley district north of the city. That district, and many others, was a new one, configured by a special master appointed by a Republican state judge, in response to a proposed redistricting map that would have favored New York Democrats, a map pushed in part by…Maloney, in his role as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Given the surprising results across the country, it appears Maloney did a great job of helping elect Democrats elsewhere and a lousy one of holding onto his own seat: The district where Maloney chose to run would have gone for Biden by 10 points in 2020.

    Speaking of the big picture: Belcher has earned the final word. The larger trend he points to from the midterms is generational. “There really are two electorates,” he says, “one older and one younger, fighting to take this country in very different directions.” For instance: The youngs helped save Fetterman in Pennsylvania, and the olds dominated for Ron DeSantis in Florida. Abortion rights have intense relevance to voters in their 20s and 30s, as does climate change and student loans and threats to democracy and racism. There will be a great deal of turmoil in the next two years that scrambles the dynamic. But in 2024 Joe Biden will be the oldest president to ever run for reelection—and to win, he’ll need to make sure younger Democratic voters keep showing up.

    [ad_2]

    Chris Smith

    Source link

  • Fox News Wins for Worst Midterm Election Take: ‘These Women Just Went Crazy’

    Fox News Wins for Worst Midterm Election Take: ‘These Women Just Went Crazy’

    [ad_1]

    Via Twitter/Kat Abu/Fox News

    Content warning for ableism and misogyny.

    Yesterday’s midterm elections have turned into an overwhelming victory for Democrats across the country. Slavery of the incarcerated was outlawed in four more states including Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont. Abortion referendums overwhelmingly reinforced protections for women and pregnant people’s right to choose. John Fetterman won in a landslide against Dr. Oz.

    This of course, has Republicans scratching their heads about how they could have lost so badly. Could it be because of their out-of-touch policies that are radically more right than the general population? Could it be because of election deniers who act like spoiled children outright denying reality?

    Well, one Fox News correspondent has come up with the worst reason Republicans lost the midterms: “These women just went crazy.”

    Jim Messina, who is a Democrat and a former Obama campaign manager, attributed the democrats winning over Republicans and Independents, due to women ‘going crazy’ over abortion rights. Which is about the most sexist and ableist way he could have put it.

    Women voters are not the Bacchae, they are not ‘crazy’ or ‘hysterical’ or any other sexist term meant to devalue women’s emotions or opinions. They’re rightfully furious or fearful for their safety.

    Even more hilariously, Messina quickly walked back his comments.

    Thankfully, no one is buying his excuses for the sexist language.

    Unfortunately, this does speak to a larger problem in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Instead of seeing these elections as a wake-up call for what voters are demanding, they see this as a fluke. A temporary moment of fervor that will pass.

    But it’s a movement that is picking up momentum, and one that will not go away quietly.

    And honestly, I could see “these women went crazy” being on a shirt at the next abortion rights rally, alongside all the “Nevertheless, she persisted” badges of honor.

    (image: Twitter)

    The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    Kimberly Terasaki

    Source link

  • How Democrats Avoided a Red Wave

    How Democrats Avoided a Red Wave

    [ad_1]

    The coalition of voters who turned out to oppose Donald Trump in 2018 and 2020 largely reassembled yesterday, frustrating Republican expectations of a sweeping red wave.

    Under the pressure of high inflation and widespread disenchantment with President Joe Biden’s job performance, that coalition of young voters, people of color, college-educated white voters, and women eroded at its edges. And because Democrats began the night with so little margin for error in Congress, that erosion—combined with high Republican turnout—seemed likely to allow the GOP to seize control of the House, and possibly the Senate as well.

    But even if the GOP does squeeze out majorities in one or both chambers when the final votes are counted, its margins will be exceedingly narrow, with control of the Senate, once again, possibly turning on another Georgia runoff. Up and down the ballot, Democrats dominated among voters who believe that abortion should remain legal—despite predictions from Republicans and many media analysts that the issue had faded in importance. Democrats held House seats in states including Rhode Island, Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio that Republicans had confidently expected to capture. And with the exception of Georgia, which reelected Governor Brian Kemp, Democrats could win gubernatorial races in each of the five swing states that flipped from Trump to Biden in 2020—a development that would greatly ease Democratic fears of Trump allies trying to rig the vote (and potentially the presidency) in 2024.

    The results largely followed the outline of what I’ve called a “double negative” election. On balance, voter dissatisfaction with Biden’s performance meant that Democrats faced more losses, but the continuing unease about the Republican Party lowered the ceiling on GOP gains well below what the party might have expected.

    These relatively positive results for Democrats were so striking because the findings of the national exit poll conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations, like virtually all preelection polling, showed deeply pessimistic attitudes that typically spell doom for the sitting president’s party. More than three-fourths of voters, Edison found, described the economy as only “fair” or “poor.” Four-fifths of voters said inflation had caused them either severe or moderate hardship. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they disapproved of Biden’s job performance as president. His approval stood even lower in many of the key Senate battleground states: 43 percent in Nevada and Arizona, 42 percent in New Hampshire, just 41 percent in Georgia.

    Exit polls suggested that unhappiness over the economy could doom the most embattled Democratic Senate incumbent, Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, though that race remains on a knife’s edge awaiting the counting of the last mail ballots. Across a wide array of other battleground states, Republicans carried significant majorities of voters who expressed negative views on the economy.

    But Republicans did not win those economically pessimistic voters by quite as big a margin as midterm precedents had suggested. Usually, the party out of power has dominated voters with those views: Democrats, for instance, in 2018 won about 85 percent of those who described the economy as either not so good or poor. This year, Republicans slightly exceeded that result among those who called the economy “poor,” the most negative designation. But among those who gave the equivocal verdict of “not so good,” Republicans won only 62 percent, way down from the Democrats’ total four years ago.

    The relationship between presidential-approval ratings and the midterm vote was similar. Biden’s national job-approval rating in the exit poll (44 percent positive, 55 percent negative) resembled Trump’s in 2018 (45–54). But, compared with Republicans in 2018, Democrats this year carried slightly more of the voters who disapproved of Biden, as well as slightly more of those who approved of him. Particularly noteworthy: Democrats won almost exactly half of voters who said they “somewhat disapproved” of Biden, whereas about two-thirds of voters who “somewhat disapproved” of both Trump in 2018 and Barack Obama in 2010 voted against their party in House races.

    These effects were even more pronounced in several of the battleground states. In 2018, no Republican Senate candidate in a competitive race carried more than 8 percent of the voters who disapproved of Trump, the exit polls found. But Cortez Masto and Raphael Warnock in Georgia carried about 10 percent of them, while Senator Mark Kelly in Arizona and Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman in Pennsylvania reached about 15 percent of support with Biden disapprovers, the exit polls found. In New Hampshire, the exit poll found Senator Maggie Hassan winning a striking one-fifth of voters who disapproved of Biden. Similarly, Warnock won about one-third of voters who described the economy as only fair or poor, while Kelly and Fetterman approached 40 percent with them in the exit polls. All of this may sound like a small difference—but it proved to be the margin between defeat and victory for Democrats in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, and potentially in Arizona and Georgia.

    How did Democrats overperform recent historical trends with voters dissatisfied with the economy or the president? Attitudes about the former president, and the party he has reshaped in his image, may largely explain the difference. In the exit poll, nearly three-fifths of voters said they had an unfavorable view of Trump, and more than three-fourths of them voted Democratic this year. Many of the Republican Senate and gubernatorial candidates he helped propel to their nominations also faced negative assessments from voters. And despite predictions from both Republicans and media analysts that abortion had faded as a galvanizing issue, a clear three-fifths majority of all voters in the national exit poll said they believed that the procedure should remain legal in all or most circumstances—and about three-fourths of them voted Democratic. Democrats also won about three-fourths of the voters who said abortion should remain mostly legal in the key Senate states of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, and two-thirds of them in New Hampshire. In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer won a stunning four-fifths of the voters who said abortion should remain legal.

    These concerns about Trump and abortion rights didn’t completely erase voter discontent over the economy and inflation. Inflation still ranked highest when the exit polls asked voters what issues most concerned them (with abortion a very close second). And Republicans still won most of the voters who expressed the purest “double negative” views—those with unfavorable opinions of both Biden and Trump. But it’s hardly a surprise that the party out of the White House might win most voters who express an unfavorable view of the sitting president, no matter what other attitudes they hold. The notable part was that the exit poll found Democrats holding 40 percent of those double-negative voters—a number that helped them apparently avoid a titanic red wave.

    In the past, when midterms have turned decisively against the sitting president’s party, one reason is a backlash among independent voters, who are the most likely to shift allegiance based on current conditions in the country. Each time the president’s party suffered especially large losses in a midterm since the mid-1980s (a list of electoral calamities that includes 1986, 2006, and 2018 for Republicans and 1994, 2010, and 2014 for Democrats), independents have voted by a double-digit margin for House candidates from the other party, according to exit polls. But yesterday’s exit polls showed the two parties splitting independent voters about evenly on a national basis and Democrats winning among them in the Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania Senate races.

    The other ingredient in decisive midterm losses has been what political strategists call “differential turnout.” Almost always in American history, the party out of the White House has shown more urgency about voting in midterms than the side in power, but when midterms get really bad, that disparity becomes especially pronounced.

    A complete picture of this midterm won’t be available for months. But the early indications are that this year’s electorate leaned more toward the GOP than the past few campaigns. In 2020 and 2018, the exit polls found that self-identified Democrats made up slightly more of the voters than Republicans. But the exit polls yesterday showed Republicans with a slight edge.

    Young people gave Democrats preponderant margins in most races, but likely made up slightly less of the electorate than they did in 2018. Among voters of color, the story was similar—some erosion in support for Democrats, but not a catastrophic decline. The exit polls showed Democrats winning about 60 percent of Latino voters and 85 percent of Black voters. That was down just slightly from their level in 2020, though it represented a bigger fall from the party’s support with those voters in 2018. Republicans in the coming days will likely trumpet the continuing gains—though Democrats can fairly rebut that they have a clear opportunity to rebound if and when the economy recovers.

    Before Election Day, conservative pundits speculated rampantly about a sweeping shift toward the GOP among nonwhite voters without a college degree—what Axios breathlessly declared “a political realignment in real time.” But Democrats nationally carried about two-thirds of those non-college-educated voters of color, almost exactly their share among minorities with degrees; the picture was similar in the heavily diverse states across the Sun Belt, the exit polls found. Among white voters, the familiar educational divides held: The national exit poll showed Democrats slightly underperforming expectations among college-educated whites (winning only about half of them) but still showing much better with them than among non-college-educated whites, who once again broke about two-to-one for the GOP. (College-educated white voters did provide more resounding margins for Kelly, Hassan, and Fetterman, the polls found.)

    The full results won’t be known for days, and control of the Senate may not be settled until another runoff election in Georgia. But the 2024 presidential contest will likely kick into motion almost immediately. Trump has repeatedly hinted that he may announce a 2024 candidacy as soon as next week—and the GOP’s gains, even if less than the party anticipated, will only encourage him.

    Throughout American history, midterm results have had little relationship to the results in the next presidential contest. Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush had relatively good first-term midterm results in 1978 and 1990, and then lost for reelection two years later. Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were all shellacked in their first midterm and then won reelection.

    Could Biden follow those precedents and recover in time for 2024? Much will depend on the economy. Doug Sosnik, a senior White House adviser to President Clinton during his recovery after the 1994 midterm, pointed out that the period from fall of the third year to spring of the fourth year is when voters really lock in their judgment about a first-term president. That doesn’t leave Biden much runway to dispel the economic pessimism that weighed so heavily on Democrats yesterday. Many economists believe that the Federal Reserve Board’s actions will trigger at least a mild recession before squeezing out inflation, potentially by late next year.

    Given the doubts many voters have expressed about Biden’s age, it’s not clear that a rising economic tide would lift his prospects as much as it did for Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Many Republicans (and even some Democrats) believe that the loss of the House, and possibly still the Senate, when all of this year’s votes are counted will increase pressure on Biden to step aside in 2024. In the exit polls, two-thirds of voters said they did not want to see Biden run again.

    Yet the GOP may be saddled with a 2024 nominee carrying even more baggage. Trump will inevitably interpret any GOP gains as a demand for his return. But even in a Republican-leaning electorate, the exit polls still registered enormous resistance to him.

    One of the night’s clearest winners was Trump’s most serious competitor for the next GOP nomination, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, who won a convincing victory that included breakthrough results in heavily Latino Miami-Dade County. His success will likely embolden the Republicans urging the party to turn the page from Trump—though Trump has already signaled his willingness to bludgeon DeSantis to secure the nomination, the way he did Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in 2016.

    For Biden, the situation will likely be more equivocal: The results for Democrats probably won’t prove good enough to completely quiet the chatter about replacing him, but nor will they likely prove so bad as to significantly amplify it. After this double-negative election produced something of a standoff between the parties in 2022, it remains entirely possible that the nation may find itself plunged into the same grueling trench warfare between Trump and Biden again two years from now.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • How a GOP Congress Could Roll Back Nationwide Freedoms

    How a GOP Congress Could Roll Back Nationwide Freedoms

    [ad_1]

    If Republicans win control of one or both congressional chambers this week, they will likely begin a project that could reshape the nation’s political and legal landscape: imposing on blue states the rollback of civil rights and liberties that has rapidly advanced through red states since 2021.

    Over the past two years, the 23 states where Republicans hold unified control of the governorship and state legislature have approved the most aggressive wave of socially conservative legislation in modern times. In highly polarizing battles across the country, GOP-controlled states have passed laws imposing new restrictions on voting, banning or limiting access to abortion, retrenching LGBTQ rights, removing licensing and training requirements for concealed carry of firearms, and censoring how public-school teachers (and in some cases university professors and even private employers) can talk about race, gender, and sexual orientation.

    With much less attention, Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate have introduced legislation to write each of these red-state initiatives into federal law. The practical effect of these proposals would be to require blue states to live under the restrictive social policies that have burned through red states since President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. “I think the days of fealty [to states’ rights] are nearing an end, and we are going to see the national Republicans in Congress adopting maximalist policy approaches,” Peter Ambler, the executive director of Giffords, a group that advocates for stricter gun control, told me.

    None of the proposals to nationalize the red-state social agenda could become law any time soon. Even if Republicans were to win both congressional chambers, they would not have the votes to overcome the inevitable Biden vetoes. Nor would Republicans, even if they controlled both chambers, have any incentive to consider repealing the Senate filibuster to pass this agenda until they know they have a president who would sign the resulting bills into law—something they can’t achieve before the 2024 election.

    But if Republicans triumph this week, the next two years could nonetheless become a crucial period in formulating a strategy to nationalize the red-state social-policy revolution. Particularly if Republicans win the House, they seem certain to explore which of these ideas can attract enough support in their caucus to clear the chamber. And the 2024 Republican presidential candidates are also likely to test GOP primary voters’ appetite for writing conservative social priorities into national law. Embracing such initiatives “may prove irresistible for a lot of folks trying to capture” the party’s socially conservative wing, Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, told me.

    It starts with abortion. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in September introduced a bill that would ban the procedure nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In the House, 167 Republicans have co-sponsored the “Life Begins at Conception Act,” which many legal analysts say would effectively ban all abortions nationwide.

    In elections, Senator Rick Scott of Florida has proposed legislation that would impose for federal elections nationwide many of the voting restrictions that have rapidly diffused across red states, including tougher voter-identification requirements, a ban on both unmonitored drop boxes and the counting of any mail ballots received after Election Day, and a prohibition on same-day and automatic voter registration.

    In education, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has proposed to federalize restrictions on how teachers can talk about race by barring any K–12 school that receives federal money from using “critical race theory” in instruction. Several Republicans (including Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri) have introduced a “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” which would mandate parental access to school curriculum and library materials nationwide—a step toward building pressure for the kind of book bans spreading through conservative states and school districts. Nadine Farid Johnson, the Washington director for PEN America, a free-speech advocacy group, predicts that these GOP proposals “chipping away” at free speech are likely to expand beyond school settings into other areas affecting the general population, such as public libraries or private companies’ training policies. “This is not something that is likely to stop at the current arena, but to go much more broadly,” she told me.

    Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, along with several dozen co-sponsors, recently introduced a federal version of the “Don’t Say Gay” legislation that Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida pushed into law. Johnson’s bill is especially sweeping in its scope. It bars discussion of “sexually-oriented material,” including sexual orientation, with children 10 and younger, not only in educational settings, but in any program funded by the federal government, including through public libraries, hospitals, and national parks. The language is so comprehensive that it might even prevent “any federal law enforcement talking to a kid about a sexual assault or sexual abuse,” David Stacy, the government-affairs director at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, told me.

    Johnson’s bill is only one of several Republican proposals to nationalize red-state actions on LGBTQ issues. During budget debates in both 2021 and 2022, Republican senators offered  amendments to establish a nationwide ban on transgender girls participating in school sports. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has introduced a bill (the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act”) that would set felony penalties for doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Cotton, in a variation on the theme, has proposed to allow any minor who receives gender-affirming surgery to sue the doctor for physical or emotional damages for the next 30 years.

    Meanwhile, Senator Steve Daines and Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina have introduced legislation requiring every state to accept a concealed-carry gun permit issued in any state—a mechanism for overriding blue-state limits on these permits. When Republicans controlled the House, they passed such a bill in 2017, but the implications of this idea have grown even more stark since then because so many red states have passed laws allowing residents to obtain concealed-carry permits without any background checks or training requirements.

    Ambler told me he expects that the NRA and congressional Republicans will eventually seek not only to preempt blue states and city limits on who can carry guns, but also to invalidate their restrictions on where they can do so, such as the New York State law, now facing legal challenge, barring guns from the subway.

    Brown, of the conservative EPPC, said it’s difficult to predict which of these proposals will gather the most momentum if Republicans win back one or both chambers. Some congressional Republicans, he said, may still be constrained by traditional GOP arguments favoring federalism. The strongest case for contravening that principle, he said, is in those instances that involve protecting what he calls “fundamental rights.” Graham’s national 15-week abortion ban can be justified on those grounds because “we are talking about, from my perspective, the life of an unborn baby, so having a federal ceiling on when states can’t encroach on protecting that fetus in the womb in the later stage of pregnancy makes a lot of sense to me.”

    In practice, though, Brown thinks that congressional Republicans may hesitate about passing a nationwide abortion ban, particularly with no hope of Biden signing it into law. He believes they are more likely to coalesce first around proposals to bar transgender girls from participating in sports and to prohibit gender-affirming surgery for minors, in part because those issues have proved “so galvanizing” for cultural conservatives in red states.

    Stacy, from the Human Rights Campaign, said that although Senate Republicans may be less enthusiastic about pursuing legislation restricting transgender rights, he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a GOP-controlled Congress advancing those ideas. “It’s hard to know how far a Republican majority in either chamber would go on these issues,” he told me. “But what we’ve seen again and again in the states is that when they can, they have moved in these directions. Even when you take a look at more moderate states, when they have the power to do these things, they move these things forward.” That precedent eventually may apply not just to LGBTQ issues, but to all the red-state initiatives some Republicans want to inscribe into national law.

    These approaching federal debates reframe the battle raging across the red states during the past few years as just the first act of what’s likely to become an extended struggle.

    This first act has played out largely within the framework of restoring states’ rights and local prerogatives. As I’ve written, the red-state moves on social issues amount to a systematic effort to reverse the “rights revolution” of the past six decades. Over that long period, the Supreme Court, Congress, and a succession of presidents nationalized more rights and reduced states’ leeway to abridge those rights, on issues including civil rights, contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage.

    Now the red states have moved to reverse that long trajectory toward a stronger national floor of rights by setting their own rules on abortion, voting, LGBTQ issues, classroom censorship, and book bans, among other issues. In that cause, they have been crucially abetted by the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority, which has struck down or weakened previously nationally guaranteed rights (including abortion and voting access).

    But the proliferation of these congressional-Republican proposals to write the red-state rules into federal law suggests that this reassertion of states’ rights was just a way station toward restoring common national standards of civil rights and liberties—only in a much more restrictive and conservative direction. “All of these things have been building for years,” Alvin Tillery, the director of the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy at Northwestern University, told me. “It’s just that Mr. Trump gave them the idea they can succeed being more [aggressive] in the advocacy of these policies.”

    Like many students of the red-state social-policy eruption, Tillery believes that Republicans and social conservatives feel enormous urgency to write their cultural priorities into law before liberal-leaning Millennials and Generation Z become the electorate’s dominant force later this decade. “The future ain’t bright for them looking at young people, so they are acting in a much more muscular and authoritarian way now,” he said.

    With Republicans likely to win control of the House, and possibly the Senate, the next two years may become the off-Broadway stage of testing different strategies for imposing the red-state social regime on blue America. The curtain on the main event will rise the next time Republicans hold unified control of the White House and Congress—a day that may seem less a distant possibility if the GOP makes gains as big as those that now seem possible this week.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • The Complete Guide to the GOP Midterm Candidates Who Should Scare the S–t Out of You

    The Complete Guide to the GOP Midterm Candidates Who Should Scare the S–t Out of You

    [ad_1]

    If the mere mention of the phrase “midterm elections” makes you want to book a one-way ticket to another planet, you’re not alone. That Republicans are very likely to retake control of the House—and have a good chance of seizing the Senate as well—is not just scary by virtue of the fact that they have an R next to their names, but because of what that R has come to represent: absolute delusions about who won in 2020, an all-out war on reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ people, an acceptance of neo-Nazis and white nationalism, a complete and total aversion to the truth, an affinity for fascism, and a clear desire to bury democracy in a shallow grave. And it’s not just Congress that’s cause for existential terror; from governorships to secretaries of state to state legislatures, there are a hugely disturbing number of candidates out there who, given the opportunity, will make America a more terrifying place.

    And the following people are the worst of the bunch.

    Blake Masters

    As of July, billionaire Peter Thiel had spent $15 million on Masters’s campaign for US Senate in Arizona, and that’s relevant because, among other things, Thiel believes women getting the right to vote was bad for democracy; was one of Donald Trump’s biggest 2016 donors; and, according to his biographer, has an economic and political philosophy that “border[s] on fascism.”

    But back to Masters. While the Senate candidate’s website previously declared, “I am 100% pro-life,” and, per CNN, mentioned his support for an amendment that “recognizes unborn babies are human beings that may not be killed,” in August he suspiciously backtracked on the most extreme possible position on abortion; now, he says he simply supports Arizona’s law banning the procedure after 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. (Generous!) He has said one of his favorite historical figures is Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, a dictator whose government at one time offered incentives for poor and uneducated people to undergo sterilization and, later, as the country’s senior minister, “sometimes use[d] use defamation suits or the threat of such actions to discourage public criticism,” per the US State Department. Masters has also said that “everybody” should read the 1995 manifesto written by Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a the Unabomber; promoted the racist theory that Democrats want to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants; and blamed gun violence on “Black people.” Not surprisingly, at least one white nationalist website has had nice things to say about him, as has the founder of the Daily Stormer, a site for neo-Nazis.

    Don Bolduc

    It’s hard to know where to start with Bolduc, who, according to the latest poll, is narrowly leading Maggie Hassan for the race to be the next senator from New Hampshire. Perhaps it’s that he has:

    • Promoted the batshit crazy, anti-trans, right-wing conspiracy theory that schools have become so permissive about gender identity that they are catering to kids who identify as cats, saying, according to audio obtained by CNN, “Guess what? We have furries and fuzzies in classrooms. They lick themselves, they’re cats. When they don’t like something, they hiss—people walk down the hallway and jump out. And get this, get this. They’re putting litter boxes [out], right? These are the same people that are concerned about spreading germs. Yet they let children lick themselves and then touch everything. And they’re starting to lick each other”
    • Said that Bill Gates wants to put microchips “inside people”
    • Described the disposal of embryos for in vitro fertilization as “pretty disgusting,” and left the door open for a national ban on the practice that thousands of people rely on each year to have a child

    It almost makes the fact that he was an out-and-out election denier until the day after he won his primary—when he admitted the election wasn’t “stolen,” but then last month said he “can’t say that it was stolen or not”—seem quaint.

    Mehmet Oz

    Supposedly living in New Jersey is pretty much the least objectionable thing about Dr. Oz, who is going up against Pennsylvania lieutenant governor John Fetterman to be the next US Senator from the commonwealth. Much worse than that is:

    That’s right: We’re not even including the crudités video and the one about cousin sex on the list of the worst things about him.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Armed and Masked Vigilantes Are Staking Out Arizona Ballot Boxes With the GOP’s Blessing

    Armed and Masked Vigilantes Are Staking Out Arizona Ballot Boxes With the GOP’s Blessing

    [ad_1]

    With exactly two weeks to go until the midterm elections, Democrats and Republicans are out here making their respective cases re: why voters should allow them to either hold on to their majority in Congress or retake power. One way the two parties have diverged on tactics? Well, the GOP appears to be the only one openly encouraging its base to stake out ballot boxes and intimidate would-be voters. With guns.

    On Monday, Paul Penzone, the sheriff for Arizona’s Maricopa County, said he had to increase security at ballot drop boxes following a number of incidents involving individuals “keeping watch on the boxes and taking video of voters,” according to the Associated Press. On Friday, Penzone’s deputies responded after two people carrying guns and wearing masks and bulletproof vests appeared at a drop box in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa. The following day, per HuffPost, four people, two of whom reportedly also had guns, “got into a confrontation at the same drop box” when another person showed up and attempted to take down their license plate information, which was obstructed. “Every day I’m dedicating a considerable amount of resources just to give people confidence that they can cast a vote safely, and that is absurd,” Penzone said during a news conference. He added that his office had referred two voting-related incidents to prosecutors for possible criminal charges. Last week two Maricopa County officials issued a joint statement saying: “We are deeply concerned about the safety of individuals who are exercising their constitutional right to vote and who are lawfully taking their early ballot to a drop box. Uninformed vigilantes outside Maricopa County’s drop boxes are not increasing election integrity. Instead, they are leading to voter-intimidation complaints.”

    Critics, of course, will claim that we don’t definitively know that the individuals wearing masks, carrying guns, and intimidating voters are Republicans or aligned with the Republican Party—but the evidence sure points in that direction. For one thing, Democrats have long been known to cast their ballots early (and Republicans have been specifically told to wait until Election Day to vote). For another, only one party has been obsessed with baseless allegations of voter fraud for the last two years, or endorsed ridiculous claims that a vast network of “mules” conspired to throw the 2020 election to Joe Biden by smuggling fraudulent votes into drop boxes. There’s also the fact that the right-wing organization Clean Elections USA told Steve Bannon last week that it is “actually making a difference“ and “seeing mules be intimidated from doing their thievery.”

    This kind of electoral vigilantism is not especially new. Back in May, Arizona Republican state senator Kelly Townsend told a conservative group that she was “pleased to hear about all you vigilantes out there that want to camp out at these drop boxes,” as the AZ Mirror reported. “We’re going to have hidden trail cameras. We are going to have people parked out there watching you, and they are going to follow you to your car and get your license plate,” Townsend added. In August, the outlet reported that Arizona Republicans Sonny Borrelli and Mark Finchem took part in a nearly four-hour “election security forum” over the summer, with Borrelli telling attendees: “We need to have people camped on unmanned drop boxes and camp on those and keep an eye on them and take down that data—license plates, pictures, and so on and so forth.” And just last Thursday, Finchem wrote on Twitter, “WATCH ALL DROP BOXES,” adding over the weekend: “[George] Soros does not want people to watch their shenanigans. We must watch all drop boxes because they do not have live cameras on them streaming to the public for people to ensure there is no fraud in the process.”

    On Monday, the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino filed a lawsuit against Clean Elections USA, alleging that the group’s activities violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. That same day, Democratic representative Jim Himes told MSNBC that the US will “need to collectively decide that not only are we going to oppose Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians messing around with our elections, we’re not going to allow the Republican Party to do it either.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Man On Mehmet Oz Panel Says He’s Swayed Away From GOP Candidate

    Man On Mehmet Oz Panel Says He’s Swayed Away From GOP Candidate

    [ad_1]

    A Pennsylvania recovery counselor said that his participation on a recent panel with Mehmet Oz, the state’s Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, was enough to be “swayed away” from voting for him.

    Justyn Patton, a certified recovery specialist for DreamLife Recovery PA, was a member of an Oz “Safer Streets Community Discussion” panel in the City of Johnstown on Tuesday, The Tribune-Democrat reported.

    Johnston is located in Cambria County, which has ranked among the counties in Pennsylvania with the highest per-capita overdose deaths, the newspaper said.

    Oz spoke to the panel – which featured doctors and recovery professionals – about the problem of illegal drugs in the U.S. including the movement of potent, China-sourced synthetic opioid fentanyl coming in from the U.S.–Mexico border, the newspaper reported.

    Cambria County District Attorney Greg Neugebauer, right, talks to Dr. Mehmet Oz, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, on what he deals with as a district attorney dealing with drug related crimes during a Safer Streets Community Discussion on Tuesday.

    Todd Berkey/The Tribune-Democrat via AP

    Oz, who is running against Democratic opponent John Fetterman for a seat in the U.S. Senate, claimed there’s been a dramatic increase in fentanyl coming across the border, adding that law enforcement officials have confiscated more fentanyl than they did two years ago.

    Patton recognized the GOP candidate’s claim about drug trafficking before also pointing to the pharmaceutical industry for its hand in the crisis years before.

    He later told ABC’s senior White House correspondent Mary Bruce that he didn’t hear a plan from Oz and claimed the candidate addressed “the same old” points on detox and securing the border.

    Patton, who said he came into the panel as an undecided voter, said the event changed his mind.

    “You just spent about an hour on a panel with Dr. Oz and that swayed you away from him?” Bruce asked.

    “Absolutely, absolutely,” said Patton, who described himself as “insulted.”

    You can watch a clip from the panel, and Bruce’s interview with Patton, below.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alaska GOP Candidate For Governor Faces Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

    Alaska GOP Candidate For Governor Faces Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A Republican gubernatorial candidate in Alaska faces accusations he sexually harassed a former assistant while he was a borough mayor.

    The lawsuit filed Friday accuses Charlie Pierce of “constant unwanted physical touching, sexual remarks, and sexual advances,” the Anchorage Daily News reported.

    The case did not show up in an online court records system Saturday. The woman’s Anchorage-based attorney, Caitlin Shortell, said in an email to The Associated Press it was filed in the Kenai Superior Court, and she expected a judge to be assigned Monday.

    “When an elected official abuses their power and position to sexually harass public servants, they must be held accountable,” Shortell said.

    The AP does not normally identify alleged victims in sexual harassment cases.

    Pierce is one of four candidates running for governor in Alaska, and all appeared at a forum Saturday morning in Anchorage.

    “I have no comments on future litigation,” Pierce told the AP following the debate.

    He said he also had no plans to end his campaign just a few weeks before the Nov. 8 election. “I’ll be in the race,” he said.

    Charlie Pierce, a Republican running for Alaska governor, is shown prior to a televised debate on Oct. 19 in Anchorage, Alaska.

    The lawsuit also names the Kenai Peninsula Borough south of Anchorage as a defendant in the case, claiming the local government failed to protect the woman. She also claims the borough provided no way to report harassment or discrimination without fear of reprisal.

    An email seeking comment was sent to the borough’s attorney, Sean Kelley.

    According to the lawsuit, the woman was Pierce’s assistant for about 18 months, until June 2022.

    Pierce announced in August he would resign in September to focus on his campaign for governor. The borough assembly later released a statement stating Pierce was asked to consider voluntarily resigning after an employee made what were deemed to be credible claims of harassment against him.

    In the lawsuit, she claims Pierce touched her breast, made sexual remarks, falsely imprisoned her in his private office, kissed her neck and face, asked questions about her sex life and made unwanted and unsolicited embraces and massages.

    The borough has paid two other former employees a combined $267,000 in settlements for separate complaints against Pierce, the Daily News reported.

    In one, the borough paid former human resources director Sandra “Stormy” Brown $150,000 in a settlement after she claimed in a lawsuit that Pierce fired her after she told him she had been diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. She claimed gender discrimination, disability discrimination and creating a hostile work environment.

    The borough also paid $117,000 to settle a complaint from a subsequent human resources director if the employee agreed he would not make “further allegations of ‘illegal acts’ by Mayor Pierce” and rescind his allegations of bullying, the Anchorage newspaper reported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona GOP Candidate Allegedly Wore Blackface, Brownface In Photos

    Arizona GOP Candidate Allegedly Wore Blackface, Brownface In Photos

    [ad_1]

    A set of photos shared on Twitter earlier this week appear to show Mary Ann Mendoza, a Republican candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives, in blackface and brownface, The Copper Courier reported Friday.

    Two photos allegedly show Mendoza, who is running for a seat in Arizona’s 9th Legislative District, wearing blackface makeup along with an apron that reads “Aunt Jemima.”

    The Aunt Jemima name and image, formerly used by Quaker Oats for its pancake mix and syrup brand, can be traced back to racial stereotypes from the 19th century.

    Another photo appears to show the GOP candidate wearing brownface for a costume of historical Native American figure Pocahontas.

    It’s unclear who took the photos, when they were taken or how Twitter user @Tylerhereforfun — who originally shared them in a tweet Monday — obtained them.

    The Copper Courier, which first reported on the photos, wrote that Mendoza had not responded to an inquiry from the local news outlet.

    HuffPost has reached out to Mendoza for comment, as well as to another Republican candidate in the district, Kathy Pearce.

    Lorena Austin and Seth Blattman, their Democratic opponents for two seats in the Arizona House, wrote in a joint statement that the pictures “are a display of violent racism.”

    “These photos are disgusting, hate-filled, and unfortunately part of a pattern for Mary Ann Mendoza,” the statement read, per The Copper Courier.

    “This trend makes Ms. Mendoza unfit to become a legislator and represent the people of LD 9. If these photos are what they appear to be, Ms. Mendoza should withdraw her candidacy.”

    Mendoza — who initially made headlines in 2014 after her son, a police officer, died in a car crash involving a drunk driver who was an immigrant — is no stranger to controversy.

    In 2020, the Republican National Convention removed her from its lineup just hours after she pushed an antisemitic conspiracy theory on Twitter. She later apologized for the tweet.

    “My apologies for not paying attention to the intent of the whole message,” wrote Mendoza, who has appeared alongside former President Donald Trump at several events over the years. “That does not reflect my feelings or personal thoughts whatsoever.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man Says He Got Paid To Help ‘Coordinate’ Ron DeSantis’ Migrant Trips In Texas

    Man Says He Got Paid To Help ‘Coordinate’ Ron DeSantis’ Migrant Trips In Texas

    [ad_1]

    A Venezuelan migrant said he received hundreds of dollars in payments to “help coordinate” flights part of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ migrant plane trip program, the Miami Herald reported on Friday.

    The man’s claim comes more than a month after DeSantis sent roughly 50 migrants, mostly from Venezuela, via planes from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard.

    The man – who identified himself as Emmanuel – told the newspaper that Perla Huerta, the U.S. Army veteran who reportedly lured migrants onto planes for the stunt last month, recruited him to distribute her business cards to migrants in Texas.

    Huerta – who worked for the DeSantis official-linked aviation company that Florida paid over $1.56 million – paid Emmanuel $700 for his work that included haircuts for migrants who were waiting for Martha’s Vineyard flights, the Miami Herald reported.

    Emmanuel’s business card distribution, the newspaper noted, was to gauge migrants’ interest in flights to Illinois and Delaware, a plan that was later called off following news of an investigation into the DeSantis program.

    Emmanuel, who said he does not have a permit to work in the United States, “turned to Huerta to see if she could help him out with a paid gig,” the newspaper reported.

    Huerta’s reported payments to Emmanuel could come in contrast with a Florida state law that requires government contractors and subcontractors to register with and use the federal E-Verify system to verify the work authorization status of all newly hired employees, the law states.

    The law also states that subcontractors who enter into a contract with a contractor must provide contractors with an affidavit that states “the subcontractor does not employ, contract with, or subcontract with an unauthorized alien.”

    The Miami Herald pointed to comments then-gubernatorial candidate DeSantis made in 2018 where he called to require all employers to use E-Verify.

    “Assuring a legal workforce through E-Verify will be good for the rule of law, protect taxpayers, and place an upward pressure on the wages of Floridians who work in blue collar jobs,” DeSantis said during an address to politicians.

    The Florida Legislature eventually passed a measure that would lead to the law that requires public employers, not private, and private contractors to use the system.

    HuffPost has reached out to DeSantis’ office for further comment on the report.


    To stream NBCU shows featured in this piece sign up to Peacock



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden Secures Liberal Priorities With Little Republican Backlash

    Biden Secures Liberal Priorities With Little Republican Backlash

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden has uncorked a series of wins on major liberal policy goals in the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections with little pushback from Republicans. The GOP has mostly ignored Democratic victories in fighting climate change, marijuana reform and student loan forgiveness.

    Republicans have aired just two ads against Democratic candidates attacking Biden’s loan forgiveness plan and are disregarding the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act in television spots. While Biden only rolled out his marijuana reform plans on Thursday, the official organs of the Republican party ignored the announcement entirely.

    The silence from the GOP on crucial issues shows how the American public has moved to the left on key issues since the last time Democrats controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress. It also highlights how the White House has worked to find a middle ground on progressive policy goals while simultaneously defanging the most potent GOP attacks against them.

    “The throughline of these decisions is the president’s belief that the American economy needs to be based on opportunity for hardworking middle-class families, not tilted to wealthy special interests,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, told HuffPost.

    “The American people support student loan relief, reforming marijuana policy, and the historic actions the president and congressional Democrats have taken to fight the climate crisis and generate new manufacturing jobs all over the country at once,” he added.

    There are obvious caveats. Republican advertising on crime and record-high inflation levels has proven effective, so there is little reason for the GOP to broach other topics. But it’s still striking to watch Biden achieve long-standing Democratic goals with little disagreement from a party fiercely devoted to opposing him.

    The White House pointed to Biden’s approach on climate as emblematic of how he managed to avoid provoking a backlash from Republican officeholders and the broader electorate.

    “It’s clear that the politics of climate change have shifted, and Republicans know that they’re on the wrong side of public opinion.”

    – Democratic strategist Jared Leopold

    Compared to the Democrats’ climate push in 2010, which centered around a cap-and-trade system the GOP argued would lift energy costs and hurt business, Biden and the broader climate movement instead emphasized subsidies for clean energy. Discussing the latter would create additional jobs, an argument the public bought.

    In a speech last week in Hagerstown, Maryland, and other public appearances, Biden has touted the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and a bipartisan package supporting the semiconductor industry. He argued the GOP’s plan to repeal the climate package — something House Republicans have promised to push if they win control of the chamber in the midterm elections — would kill a manufacturing revitalization in the cradle.

    “We made a historic government investment in America, and it’s spurring incredible private-sector investment in America,” Biden said in Hagerstown, pointing to announcements of new plants and jobs in New York, Ohio and elsewhere.

    None of the wins have turned around the Democrats’ political fortunes or Biden’s middle standing with the public. Republicans are still favored to win control of the House of Representatives after November, and the Senate remains a toss-up.

    However, they have helped improve Biden’s standing with some critical blocs of the Democratic base, including Black and young voters. Since both groups tend to drop out of the electorate during midterm years, minor improvements could make or break the party’s chances in key states.

    “It’s a safe bet that Biden’s approval will tick upwards again after his marijuana announcement just like it did after the student debt announcement,” said Stephanie Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which worked on student loan forgiveness for years with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) “That’s because when Democrats do popular things, people like it.”

    But the popularity of each move varies. Marijuana reform, up to and including full legalization, is very popular. A Data for Progress poll found roughly two-thirds of the electorate backed pardons for nonviolent marijuana users, the centerpiece of Biden’s announcement on Thursday. (He also directed Attorney General Merrick Garland and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to review the classification of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act.)

    So it’s not surprising that the official organs of the GOP ignored Biden’s announcement rather than start a political war they might be destined to lose. The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee were all silent, as were key congressional leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

    Other polls have shown marijuana reform splitting Republican voters. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey found younger Republicans were almost as likely as their Democratic counterparts to support legalization. But just 27% of Republicans over the age of 65 supported the legalization of cannabis.

    The climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act have also generally proved popular in public surveys. However, disentangling them from the more significant legislation — which raised taxes on corporations and gave Medicare the power to negotiate prescription drug prices — is difficult.

    But compared to the 2010 midterm, when a failed effort to pass climate legislation nonetheless led to a barrage of ads against vulnerable House Democrats, the absence is striking.

    “In 2010, you couldn’t turn on a TV set without seeing a Republican ad attacking the cap-and-trade bill,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist. He worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that cycle and later worked for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate-focused presidential bid. “It’s clear that the politics of climate change have shifted, and Republicans know that they’re on the wrong side of public opinion.”

    One major factor was the lack of an industry campaign against the legislation, compared to the Chamber of Commerce’s barrage of advertising against the Affordable Care Act and climate legislation ahead of the 2010 midterms.

    “Rising education polarization and the unpopularity of Trump mean that the C-suite is more Democratic than it’s ever been,” said Sean McElwee, the executive director of the Democratic polling outfit Data For Progress. “You didn’t have a unified business community backing the Republican Party for ideological reasons.”

    The trickiest proposition remains student loan forgiveness. The policy has always divided the public, with a New York Times/Siena College poll released last month finding 49% of registered voters supporting forgiving $10,000 worth of student debt and 46% opposed.

    But the seemingly simple class politics of the issue, asking an electorate of primarily high school graduates to subsidize the student loans of the educated, led pundits across the political spectrum to predict a fierce backlash. (This analysis ignores that 40% of people with student debt do not have a bachelor’s degree.)

    That backlash never arrived. “The idea that this was going to be some sort of ‘wow, this is favoritism, this is financial recklessness, this is favoritism, this is a handout.’ If it doesn’t affect you, who gives a shit?” said Ben Wessel, the former executive director of NextGen America, which long pushed for student debt relief. “And if it does affect you, it’s awesome.”

    At the same time, the plan’s popularity has held up partly because it is much smaller than progressives originally envisioned. While Warren and others pushed for $50,000 or more forgiveness per borrower, Biden instead forgave $10,000 for most borrowers making less than $125,000 and $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. Biden’s decision to means-test and limit the total amount canceled per borrower lowered the overall cost of the program dramatically. While Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ original proposal to wipe out all student debt would have cost $1.2 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office says Biden’s plan will cost just $379 billion over three decades.

    That approach ensured more benefits flowed to the working and middle classes — 90% of those eligible make less than $75,000 a year — and protected the proposal’s popularity.

    “If we had done a mass cancellation, you would have seen much bigger backlash from Republicans who could say we were helping the wealthy on the backs of working-class voters,” McElwee said. “Targeting relief to working- and middle-class voters made the policy stronger with voters.”

    Republicans, so far, have aired two ads attacking Democrats over debt cancellation. The first is a cheeky ad from a conservative nonprofit pretending to praise Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) for his Biden-friendly stances. It includes student loan forgiveness among a laundry list of other purported progressive stances and achievements.

    The second, from the GOP’s main Senate super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, attacks Democratic senate candidate Cheri Beasley for supporting Biden’s plan using the exact rhetoric one would expect.

    “It’s a question of fairness: Should a waitress pay for a doctor’s student loans? Cheri Beasley thinks so,” a female narrator says in the ad. “She backs student loan bailouts for the rich.”

    The ad, however, only appeared after Beasley’s campaign attacked the Republican nominee, Rep. Ted Budd, for voting against job training and apprenticeship programs.

    “Cheri Beasley gets it,” a worker says in the ad. “She knows that you shouldn’t need to go to college to get a good job.”

    And the journey of student loan forgiveness is far from over. The White House and Department of Education are still working to implement the plan, saying recently they hope to roll out an online application form by the end of October. At the same time, conservative groups and Republican attorneys general are filing lawsuits aiming to stop forgiveness from going into effect.

    “Republican officials from these states are standing with special interests and fighting to stop relief for borrowers buried under mountains of debt,” White House spokesman Abdullah Hasan said.

    And if Republicans have not made a sport of slamming loan forgiveness, Democrats are not necessarily embracing it either. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who pushed Biden to implement the policy, has not mentioned it in his television advertising.

    And Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who is defending a swing seat in suburban Virginia, didn’t exactly jump to embrace it when HuffPost asked her about it last month.

    “A lot of people are gonna be helped significantly,” she said. “The one challenge, which I want to make sure that we in Congress don’t forget, is this still leaves a lot of open-ended questions about college affordability.”

    Still, some Democrats see an opportunity to promote the plan to Black and young voters but said the party needs to do more messaging.

    “What we are finding in focus groups as we talk about student loans is that there are parts of the policy that are more appealing, especially to voters of color, than just a $10,000 forgiveness,” Terrence Woodbury, a Democratic pollster and CEO of HIT Strategies, told reporters during an NAACP press briefing earlier this month. “The way it disproportionately impacts Pell Grant recipients, that it reduces interest rates, that it lowers [income-based repayment rates] from 10% to 5%. There are parts of the policy that gives them a greater opportunity to message here that doesn’t happen just by passing the policy.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Great Senate Stalemate

    The Great Senate Stalemate

    [ad_1]

    The map of competitive Senate elections is shrinking—and not just for November.

    Though Republicans began the year expecting sweeping Senate gains, the party’s top-grade opportunities to capture seats now held by Democrats have dwindled to just two—Nevada and Georgia—and both are, at best, toss-ups for the GOP. And while Democrats, somewhat astoundingly, have emerged from the primaries with at least as many plausible flipping chances as Republicans, Pennsylvania is the only GOP-held seat clearly favored to go blue, and even that isn’t guaranteed. It remains entirely possible that November’s results will leave the Senate divided again at 50–50, something that has not happened in consecutive elections since the Seventeenth Amendment established the direct election of senators more than a century ago.

    This standoff partly reflects the volatile dynamics of the 2022 election, in which Republican advantages on the economy have been largely neutralized by public unease over gun violence, the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, the resurgent visibility of former President Donald Trump, and the GOP’s nomination of weak, Trump-aligned candidates. Yet the possibility of a virtual draw—after a campaign season in which the two sides have already poured more than $850 million into just the 10 most expensive Senate races—reflects larger changes in the electoral competition.

    One of the most powerful trends in modern politics has been for each party to consolidate control of the Senate seats in the states it usually captures in the presidential election. That’s lowered the ceiling on the number of Senate seats each party can win. And that lowered ceiling, in turn, has diminished each side’s ability to maintain control of the Senate majority for any extended period.

    The Senate is therefore frozen in the sense that neither side, in normal times, can seriously contest more than a handful of the seats held by the other party. Paradoxically, it’s unstable in the sense that the shrunken playing field leaves each side clinging to tiny majorities that are vulnerable to small shifts in voter attitudes in the very few states that remain consistently competitive.

    Throughout the 20th century, it was common for one side to build a comfortable majority in which it held at least 55 percent of the Senate’s seats. Republicans hit that level of dominance in 10 of the 15 Congresses from 1901 through 1930. Then, from 1932 to 1980, Democrats regularly reached the 55 percent threshold. (The big exception to this pattern came in the 1950s, when the ideological lines between the parties blurred and neither won more than a two-seat Senate majority through four consecutive Congresses.) Even from 1980 to 2000, one side or the other reached 55 seats seven times. Since 2000, though, the parties have controlled at least 55 seats only three times: Republicans immediately after George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 and Democrats immediately after Barack Obama’s presidential victories in 2008 and 2012.

    Smaller margins have reduced both parties’ ability to defend their majorities for any extended period. Since 1980, neither party has controlled the Senate for more than eight consecutive years. That’s unprecedented: The U.S. has never gone four decades without a Senate majority that survived for more than eight years.

    Both the thin margins and frequent turnover are rooted in a third trend: the growing alignment between states’ votes for president and Senate.

    Especially through the second half of the 20th century, states routinely supported presidential candidates from one party and Senate candidates from the other. After the landslide reelections of Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984, for instance, Democrats still controlled about half of the Senate seats in the states that voted for them both times.

    But as American politics has grown more partisan and parliamentary, those split-ticket senators have virtually gone extinct, which has reduced the number of states each side can realistically contest.

    After the 2020 election, the GOP held 94 percent of the Senate seats in the 25 states that voted for Trump both times while Democrats held 98 percent of the seats in the 20 states that twice voted against him. Democrats have squeezed out their current 50–50 Senate majority by winning eight of the 10 Senate seats in the remaining five swing states that switched from Trump to Joe Biden.

    Last spring, Republicans anticipated a midterm red wave that would break this stalemate, followed by a push toward a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority in 2024.

    Both parties identified Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, Raphael Warnock in Georgia, Mark Kelly in Arizona, and Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire as the most vulnerable Democratic senators. Beyond that, Republicans hoped to seriously challenge Michael Bennet in Colorado and Patty Murray in Washington. The 2022 electoral environment remains unsettled, and it’s possible that continuing discontent over the economy could improve GOP prospects before election day. But for now, with Colorado, Washington, Arizona, and New Hampshire all moving toward the Democrats, it appears that the list of fully plausible GOP Senate targets has fallen to just two: Nevada and Georgia.

    All polls in Georgia show a tight race between Warnock and the Republican nominee, Herschel Walker, the former University of Georgia football star. And with Republican Governor Brian Kemp holding a steady lead over Democrat Stacey Abrams, it remains possible that a Georgia crimson tide (pun intended) might carry Walker to victory. But Walker may be the most obviously unqualified Senate nominee in recent memory, and he’s facing a seemingly endless procession of personal scandals. Walker’s vulnerabilities might allow Warnock to survive even a strong Republican current; indeed all but one of the five most recent public polls have shown Warnock in the lead.

    That leaves Nevada as the best chance for Republicans to capture a seat Democrats hold now. A state with legions of low-wage workers, Nevada has heavily felt the effects of coronavirus shutdowns and inflation. The state also lacks the large pool of college graduates and white-collar professionals heavily motivated by abortion and other social issues lifting Democrats elsewhere. But even with all that boosting them, Republicans can hardly be confident about Nevada: For longer than the past decade, Nevada Democrats, operating the political machine assembled by the late former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have shown a knack for turning out just enough of their voters to win very close races.

    Democrats, unexpectedly, have kept a larger roster of GOP Senate seats in play. The Senate race most likely to change hands between the parties remains Pennsylvania, where Republican Pat Toomey is retiring. Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, although some polls show his margin narrowing, remains favored over Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee. Oz is laboring under strong unfavorable ratings and will likely face an undertow from the governor’s race, where Doug Mastriano, among the most extreme GOP nominees anywhere this year, could face a crushing defeat.

    Polls also show Democrats Mandela Barnes and Tim Ryan locked in margin-of-error races in Wisconsin and Ohio. Barnes and Ryan have given themselves a realistic chance to win against GOP opponents who are also laboring under high unfavorable ratings, Senator Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and J. D. Vance in Ohio. But those are both states where Democrats often struggle to find the last few percentage points of support they need, and this will especially be the case while Biden’s approval rating is depressed among the white non-college voters so plentiful in each.

    In North Carolina, Democrat Cheri Beasley is likewise step for step in polls with Republican Ted Budd—though, since 2008, that state has functioned as a kind of heartbreak hill for Democrats, who have suffered a succession of narrow defeats there. Florida has become an even tougher state for Democrats, but polls have consistently shown Democratic Representative Val Demings remaining closer to Republican Senator Marco Rubio than most analysts initially expected.

    This playing field still leaves Republicans a path to a majority, but one much narrower than they anticipated. If the GOP loses Pennsylvania, which remains likely, its most plausible path to retake the Senate is to win both Nevada and Georgia, while simultaneously holding off the Democrats in both Wisconsin and Ohio, not to mention North Carolina and Florida. Republican upsets in Arizona or New Hampshire, or Oz surging past Fetterman during the final weeks in Pennsylvania, would ease that pressure. But today, none of those outcomes look probable.

    Yet even if Democrats hold the Senate, it will likely be with a very narrow majority, and perhaps with nothing more than another 50–50 tie that Vice President Kamala Harris will step in to break. Democrats would still remain at substantial risk of surrendering their majority in 2024, largely because they will be defending all three of the seats they hold in the states that twice voted for Trump—Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Jon Tester in Montana, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio. That won’t be easy in a presidential-election year.

    Early in Biden’s presidency, some Democratic strategists, such as the data analyst David Shor, ominously warned that the party could face an extended period of Republican dominance in the Senate, largely because of the GOP’s hardening advantage in heavily white interior states. The GOP probably does hold an edge in the long-term battle for Senate control because it is regularly winning slightly more states than Democrats in presidential contests. But the fizzling of the GOP’s Senate opportunities this year shows how difficult it may be for either side to secure a sizable, much less durable, majority.

    Political scientists and strategists alike usually find far more meaning in elections that deliver resounding change than those that reconfirm the status quo. Yet it will send a powerful message if neither party in November can break through the forces that have left the Senate so precariously balanced. It will show that the two sides remain locked in a grinding trench warfare where neither can overwhelm the other’s defenses and the handful of states in the no-man’s-land between them hold decisive power to tilt the national direction. That’s a recipe for more years of bitter but inconclusive conflict between two political coalitions that are now almost identical in size—but utterly antithetical in their vision for America’s future.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • What Comes After the Search Warrant?

    What Comes After the Search Warrant?

    [ad_1]

    If Donald Trump committed crimes on his way out of the White House, he should be subject to the same treatment as any other alleged criminal. The reason for this is simple: Ours is a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams once observed. Nobody, not even a president, is above those laws.

    So why did I feel nauseous yesterday, watching coverage of the FBI executing a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate?

    Because this country is tracking toward a scale of political violence not seen since the Civil War. It’s evident to anyone who spends significant time dwelling in the physical or virtual spaces of the American right. Go to a gun show. Visit a right-wing church. Check out a Trump rally. No matter the venue, the doomsday prophesying is ubiquitous—and scary. Whenever and wherever I’ve heard hypothetical scenarios of imminent conflict articulated, the premise rests on an egregious abuse of power, typically Democrats weaponizing agencies of the state to target their political opponents. I’ve always walked away from these experiences thinking to myself: If America is a powder keg, then one overreach by the government, real or perceived, could light the fuse.

    Think I’m being hysterical? I’ve been accused of that before. But we’ve seen what happens when millions of Americans abandon their faith in the nation’s core institutions. We’ve seen what happens when millions of Americans become convinced that their leaders are illegitimate. We’ve seen what happens when millions of Americans are manipulated into believing that Trump is suffering righteously for their sake; that an attack on him is an attack on them, on their character, on their identity, on their sense of sovereignty. And I fear we’re going to see it again.

    It’s tempting to think of January 6, 2021, as but one day in our nation’s history. It’s comforting to view the events of that day—the president inciting a violent mob to storm the U.S. Capitol and attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election—as the result of unprecedented conditions that happened to converge all at once, conditions that are not our national norm.

    But perhaps we should view January 6 as the beginning of a new chapter.

    It’s worth remembering that Trump, who has long claimed to be a victim of political persecution, threatened to jail his opponent, Hillary Clinton, throughout the 2016 campaign, reveling in chants of “Lock her up!” at rallies nationwide. (Republicans did not cry foul when the FBI announced an investigation into Clinton just days before the election.) It was during that campaign—as I traveled the country talking with Republican voters, hoping to understand the Trump phenomenon—that I began hearing casual talk of civil war. Those conversations were utterly jarring. People spoke matter-of-factly about amassing arms. Many were preparing for a day when, in their view, violence would become unavoidable.

    I remember talking with Lee Stauffacher, a 65-year-old Navy veteran, outside an October Trump rally in Arizona. “I’ve watched this country deteriorate from the law-and-order America I loved into a country where certain people are above the law,” Stauffacher said. “Hillary Clinton is above the law. Illegal immigrants are above the law. Judges have stopped enforcing the laws they don’t agree with.”

    Stauffacher went on about his fondness of firearms and his loathing of the Democratic Party. “They want to turn this into some communist country,” he said. “I say, over my dead body.”

    This sort of rhetoric cooled, for a time, after Trump’s victory. But then came Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and possible collusion. And the subsequent arrests of some of the president’s closest confidants. Then came the first impeachment of Trump himself. By the time his reelection campaign got under way, Trump was fashioning himself a wartime president, portraying himself on the front lines of a pitched battle between decent, patriotic Americans and a “deep state” of government thugs who aim to enforce conformity and silence dissent.

    On December 18, 2019, the day he was impeached for the first time, Trump tweeted a black-and-white photo that showed him pointing into the camera. “THEY’RE NOT AFTER ME … THEY’RE AFTER YOU,” read the caption. “I’M JUST IN THE WAY.”

    As I hit the road again in 2020, crisscrossing the nation to get a read on the Republican base, it was apparent that something had changed. There was plenty of that same bombast, all the usual chesty talk of people taking matters into their own hands. But whereas once the rhetoric had felt scattered—rooted in grievances against the left, or opposition to specific laws, or just general discomfort with a country they no longer recognized—the new threats seemed narrow and targeted. Voter after voter told me there had been a plot to sabotage Trump’s presidency from the start, and now there was a secretive plot to stop him from winning a second term. Everyone in government—public-health officials, low-level bureaucrats, local election administrators—was in on it. The goal wasn’t to steal the election from Trump; it was to steal the election from them.

    “They’ve been trying to cheat us from the beginning,” Deborah Fuqua-Frey told me outside a Ford plant in Michigan that Trump was visiting during the early days of the pandemic. “First it was Mueller, then it was Russia. Isn’t it kind of convenient that as soon as impeachment failed, we’ve suddenly got this virus?”

    I asked her to elaborate.

    “The deep state,” she said. “This was domestic political terrorism from the Democratic Party.”

    This kind of thinking explains why countless individuals would go on to donate their hard-earned money—more than $250 million in total—to an “Election Defense Fund” that didn’t exist. It explains why others swarmed vote-counting centers, intimidated poll workers, signed on to shoddy legal efforts, flocked to fringe voices advocating solutions such as martyrdom and secession from the union, threatened to kill elections officials, boarded buses to Washington, and ultimately stormed the United States Capitol.

    What made January 6 so predictable—the willingness of Republican leaders to prey on the insecurities and outright paranoia of these voters—is what makes August 8 so dangerous.

    “The Obama FBI began spying on President Trump as a candidate,” Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee tweeted this morning. “If they can do this to Trump, they will do it to you!”

    “If they can do it to a former President, imagine what they can do to you,” read a tweet from Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. They followed up: “The IRS is coming for you. The DOJ is coming for you. The FBI is coming for you. No one is safe from political punishment in Joe Biden’s America.”

    “If there was any doubt remaining, we are now living in a post constitutional America where the Justice Department has been weaponized against political threats to the regime, as it would in a banana republic,” the Texas Republican Party tweeted. “It won’t stop with Trump. You are next.”

    It won’t stop with Trump—that much is certain. The House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, all but promised retaliation against the Justice Department should his party retake the majority this fall. Investigations of President Joe Biden and his son Hunter were already more or less guaranteed; the question now becomes how wide of a net congressional Republicans, in their eagerness to exact vengeance on behalf of Trump and appease a fuming base, cast in probing other people close to the president and his administration.

    Assuming that Trump runs in 2024, the stakes are even higher. If Biden—or another Democrat—defeats him, Republicans will have all the more reason to reject the results, given what they see as the Democrats’ politically motivated investigation of the likely Republican nominee. If Trump wins, he and his hard-line loyalists will set about purging the DOJ, the intelligence community, and other vital government departments of careerists deemed insufficiently loyal. There will be no political cost to him for doing so; a Trump victory will be read as a mandate to prosecute his opponents. Indeed, that seems to be exactly where we’re headed.

    “Biden is playing with fire by using a document dispute to get the @TheJusticeDept to persecute a likely future election opponent,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted. “Because one day what goes around is going to come around.”

    And then what? It feels lowest-common-denominator lazy, in such uncertain times, to default to speculation of 1860s-style secession and civil war. But it’s clearly on the minds of Americans. Last year, a poll from the University of Virginia showed that a majority of Trump voters (52 percent) and a strong minority of Biden voters (41 percent) strongly or somewhat agreed that America is so fractured, they would favor red and blue states seceding from the union to form their own countries. Meanwhile, a poll from The Washington Post and the University of Maryland showed that one in three Americans believes violence against the government is justified, and a separate poll by NPR earlier this year showed that one in 10 Americans believes violence is justified “right now.”

    It’s hard to see how any of this gets better. But it’s easy to see how it gets much, much worse.

    We don’t know exactly what the FBI was looking for at Mar-a-Lago. We don’t know what was found. What we must acknowledge—even those of us who believe Trump has committed crimes, in some cases brazenly so, and deserves full prosecution under the law—is that bringing him to justice could have some awful consequences.

    Is that justice worth the associated risks? Yesterday, the nation’s top law-enforcement officers decided it was. We can only hope they were correct.

    [ad_2]

    Tim Alberta

    Source link

  • Bipartisan and Nonpartisan Support Embraces Dr. Norman Quintero

    Bipartisan and Nonpartisan Support Embraces Dr. Norman Quintero

    [ad_1]

    Candidate for Perris Elementary School Board has broken all the rules in his quest to salvage local schools

    Press Release



    updated: Nov 1, 2018

    Too few political campaigns at any level, for any office, offer the unique combination of credentials that can be found in the small community of the Perris Elementary School District in southern California. Unlike the majority of those who will be seeking political offices next week, occasionally there is one whose qualifications are tailor-made to fit the job description. Even more rarely do the education, experience and lifelong commitment reflect the values and circumstance of his constituency. Almost never does a candidate subordinate rhetoric to a specific plan for identifying the root causes of specific problems and offer step-by-step milestones on a Road Map to specific solutions.

    In a tiny, tight-knit, educational system of something less than 6,000 students, Dr. Norman Quintero has addressed fundamental issues behind, and real solutions to, an underperforming PESD. Previously, he has addressed the fundamentals of accountability, resource allocation, absenteeism, increased revenues and after-school programs with a focus on tutorials, recreational activities and social development. Dr. Quintero believes that a school board should support its dedicated teachers and involve its kids’ parents in order to motivate and educate its students.

    “Almost 20 years ago, ‘No child left behind’ was a federal program that sounded good but accomplished little. I am committed to reviving those ideals on a local level. Now that I have received the endorsements from the general public of both major political parties, I will reach out to parents and teachers as well. I am confident that together we can provide individual attention and individual opportunity to every one of our individual students. That is our challenge and our obligation” Dr. Norman Quintero

    Dr. Norman Quintero, Candidate for Perris Elementary School Board, District 5

    Dr. Quintero shares a common culture and background with local families. With a student body to whom English is a second language and whose nutrition is almost entirely subsidized by governmental agencies, he understands and appreciates the value of a responsive public education system in creating students’ successes.

    As a professional educator, counselor and mental health expert, he has devoted his life and career to improving lives. As a social advocate and successful businessman, he has achieved a proven talent for the management, and maximizing the efficiency of, limited budgets.

    As the father of eight children, he fully understands that every child is born with individual challenges, talents and potential – their success in life requires a coordinated effort, on a daily basis, among teachers, parents, administrators and the students themselves. “Every child” certainly includes those who are entitled to a systemic accommodation for “special education” and “special needs.”

    In publishing his fifth of six Road Map landmarks, the candidate has stated, “Almost 20 years ago, ‘No child left behind’ was a federal program that sounded good, but accomplished little. I am committed to reviving those ideals on a local level. Now that I have received the endorsements from the general public of both major political parties, I will reach out to parents and teachers as well. I am confident that together we can provide individual attention and individual opportunity to every one of our individual students. That is our challenge and our obligation.”

    Source: Dr. Norman Quintero

    [ad_2]

    Source link