ReportWire

Tag: Ronald Reagan

  • Letters: How are these two “old farts” America’s only options?

    Letters: How are these two “old farts” America’s only options?

    [ad_1]

    2024 election is stuck in loop from 2020

    Well, it looks like it’ll come down to the same song and dance this November with Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I’m really angry that both parties couldn’t find stronger, better, younger candidates than these old farts! Don’t these two have lives like normal older people who want to retire and spend time with family, travel, or just relax? Or is it just the egomaniacal want for power that they just keep on (and on and on)?

    I don’t want either one of them again, but I really can’t stand another four years of constant anxiety, dreading reading the daily news and seeing that loud, obnoxious Trump spouting off every single day. And that’s not even to mention his numerous financial litigations and sexual scandals that he is currently in court for!

    What a world we live in.

    Liz Boswell, Denver

    It looks like we’re stuck with the so-called match-up “nobody wants.” The GOP is stuck with “the mouth” and the Dems are stuck with cartoon dummy “Walter” look alike. I still can’t believe that out of the 350 million plus people in this country, we can’t come up with two truly qualified people to run for POTUS. Since these knuckleheads ran against each other back in 2020, we haven’t learned anything.

    Yes, I voted for Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but not because I wanted him; it was because I couldn’t see either of those other two in office.

    If we have the 2020 rematch, I won’t be voting for president at all. I’ll vote for everything else on the ballot. I honestly believe that the leaders of both parties created the “mouth” that Trump has become — granted, he always had a big egotistical mouth. All the top dogs in the GOP, starting with the Bushes, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, wouldn’t support his election. He had to fight for everything with opposition from all corners; it’s no wonder he turned into someone I would no longer support for the next election.

    I also find it hard to believe that after so many times Biden was rejected for the nomination by the Democrats, they couldn’t find a better nominee back then. As far as I’m concerned, neither one of them would make a pimple on Richard Nixon’s butt.

    Peter Beckley, Aurora

    Goody. In 2024, Americans are now facing a repeat of the delightful 2020 presidential election, only this time the Packard with a hole in its muffler will have 810,000 miles on it, and the Edsel that leaks oil everywhere will have 780,000.

    Some choice.

    Craig Marshall Smith, Highlands Ranch

    Who is calling whom “ideological”

    Re: “Which Colorado Republicans will carry Trump’s bromance for Putin to Congress?” March 3 commentary

    It’s laughable to hear liberals like Doug Friednash pining for Ronald Reagan in his approach to Russia and insulting Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, respectively, for their “bromance” and “propaganda” with Putin. I often hear liberals say they want a Republican from years ago, like Reagan or Ike, while not pining for Democrats like Walter Mondale or Jimmy Carter. Are they dishonest, or do they genuinely not realize that times and issues change?

    For Friednash to call Russia “ideological” shows him to be uninformed. Russia isn’t communist, and it’s hard to know what their ideology is other than authoritarianism and social conservatism. That’s the case in most of the non-western world. Russia and China are famously hands-off about the governance in countries they deal with. China is criticized for apathy in Africa, where they have mining concessions. They extract minerals, pay royalties, and don’t give political lectures. Russia’s Wagner group recently replaced French anti-terrorism forces in Niger and Mali, likely due to French political interference regarding corruption. Wagner doesn’t care.

    Ironically, it’s now the U.S. as the ideological actor on the world stage. We fly pride flags at embassies and meddle in LGBTQ, diversity and immigration issues. That’s why we’re finding it hard to recruit allies in the developing world against Russia. Friednash implicitly recognizes this with several references to LGBTQ rights in Russia. That’s what “our democracy” now means and why he hates Putin.

    The reality is that this war could have been prevented if we had merely agreed not to admit Ukraine into NATO. In February of ’22, I remember distinctly U.S. officials making comments about our commitment to a rules based order where countries can choose their allies and security partners. Who’s the ideologue? Making enemies and risking WWIII for pride flags and Drag Queen Story Hour is foolish.

    Jim Hemenway, Niwot

    Editor’s note: Hemenway is a candidate for Colorado’s 7th Congressional District.

    A tale of two classified-documents leakers

    Re: “Pentagon leaker pleads guilty, faces 11-plus years in prison,” March 5 news story

    On Tuesday, there was an article about the Massachusetts Air National Guard member who leaked highly classified documents and shared them with other users on a social media platform. He pled guilty and will serve up to 17 years.

    We have a candidate running for president who removed many boxes of highly classified documents from the White House when he previously served as president. This classified information was available to many people who visited his place of business and residence as it was not kept in a secure area. This man also showed highly classified documents to a foreign citizen and others.

    Why the unfairness in our society? Should he not be in prison as well? Why would anyone vote for a person who jeopardizes the secrets and safety of our country?

    Norma Anderson, Lakewood

    Editor’s note: Anderson is a former state senator.

    A few words on behalf of Oct. 7 victims

    Re: “Local cease-fire resolutions are statements of humanity,” March 3 commentary

    I was struck by the excuses for the lack of decorum at the Denver City Council meeting for the insistence on the council to pass a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. Clearly, the disruptions of these protesters caused the council to feel threatened and bullied. Good for the council to resist these threats as undemocratic. We have had many protests at many city council hearings across the country and all have been similar in nature to what happened in Denver. This strategy of rage and bullying is right out of Hamas’s playbook.

    In fact, while the commentators continue to condemn Israel’s actions, there is often no mention of Oct. 7, nor the loss of lives of women and children, the torture, rape, and brutality by Hamas perpetrated on Israel that fateful day. No mention of the hostages that Hamas kidnapped and is now using as pawns in their game to vilify Israel. Not one.

    If these protesters were interested in a cease-fire, they should rightfully be protesting against Hamas. If Hamas were to release all of the hostages, both dead and alive, and surrender, there would be a cease-fire immediately. In fact, there had been a cease-fire on Oct. 6. Hamas’ bloodthirsty savagery in its attack against the sovereignty of Israel and the massacre of Israeli civilians the following day had more than provoked the Israel Defense Forces (not the “Israel Occupation Forces” as sarcastically noted in the guest commentary).

    We are all concerned about the deaths of the Gazans, well, except for Hamas. This poor excuse for the lack of decorum and protest against Israel’s military actions, etc., is just one more example of what these protests are truly about: Jew hatred.

    ER Miller, Denver

    If Hamas surrenders and releases the hostages, there will be a cease-fire. Instead of telling Israel to stop firing, tell Hamas to stop firing.

    Gary Wachter, Centennial

    Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

    To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

    [ad_2]

    TJ Hutchinson

    Source link

  • Trump keeps making incendiary statements. His campaign says that won’t change.

    Trump keeps making incendiary statements. His campaign says that won’t change.

    [ad_1]

    By JILL COLVIN and BILL BARROW (Associated Press)

    GREENSBORO, N.C. — He’s argued his four criminal indictments and mug shot bolstered his support among Black voters who see him as a victim of discrimination just like them.

    He’s compared himself to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in an Arctic prison imprisoned by Vladimir Putin, and suggested that he is a political dissident, too.

    And in nearly every public appearance, he repeats falsehoods about the election he lost.

    Candidates on the verge of winning their parties’ nominations generally massage their messaging and moderate positions that may energize hardcore primary voters but are less appealing to a broader audience. In political terms, they “pivot.”

    Not Donald Trump. The former president is instead doubling down on often-incendiary rhetoric that offends wide swaths of voters, seeming to be doing little to rein in his most irascible and oftentimes self-defeating instincts. That’s even as some of his most loyal allies have suggested he shift his focus and tone down rhetoric that risks offending independent voters and people outside his base.

    “Donald Trump is Donald Trump. That’s not going to change,” said senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita. “Our job is not to remake Donald Trump.”

    LaCivita and other top campaign officials instead say their role is to provide the organization “to amplify and to force project” Trump’s message.

    The campaign, he said, had already assumed a general election posture before voting began, running ads attacking President Joe Biden before the Iowa caucuses. So while Trump is now talking less about his last remaining GOP rival, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, his campaign is focused on building out a general election infrastructure as it turns its focus from early voting states to November battlegrounds.

    That includes efforts to take over the Republican National Committee, with plans to consolidate the party’s and campaign’s fundraising, political operations, communications and research operations. LaCivita is in line to become the RNC’s chief operating officer while retaining his role on the campaign.

    “The campaign’s pivot,” LaCivita said, “is just a realization that we’ve already secured what we need to win. That manifests itself in not only the messaging but the mechanics.” He said to expect “more of the same” after Trump clinches the nomination, which is expected later this month.

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Fear and loathing in Minnesota, a Super Tuesday state: Democrats angry at Biden back him anyway to stop Trump

    Fear and loathing in Minnesota, a Super Tuesday state: Democrats angry at Biden back him anyway to stop Trump

    [ad_1]

    Aishah Al-Sehaim laments the 30,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, a grim statistic from a war with Israel that she wishes President Joe Biden would try harder to stop.

    But the 38-year-old clinical data scientist, an Arab American from the Democratic-heavy suburb of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, is voting for the Democrat on Tuesday anyway because her top priority is stopping Republican Donald Trump.

    “It’s not even about hope to affect change in the coming years, but simply that things don’t get more screwed up nationally and internationally,” she said.

    TALKING POINTS: Biden, Trump enter Super Tuesday with warning signs for both campaigns

    Biden’s campaign isn’t likely to trumpet endorsements such as Al-Sehaim’s. But they give credence to the reelection effort’s strategy of promoting Biden administration programs but also turning out disaffected Democrats by invoking their fears of Trump.

    For many reluctant Biden voters in suburban Minneapolis and around the country, any potential value of a protest vote in a primary or general election is outweighed by starkly practical considerations about a possible second Trump presidency.

    Biden is still expected to sweep Democratic primaries in Minnesota and 15 other states on Super Tuesday and will likely secure his party’s nomination in the coming weeks.

    While campaign officials note the president’s accomplishments on liberal priorities such as climate change, they are all too aware of concerns about his age and a lack of enthusiasm not just for Biden but about politics at large. Biden’s strongest supporters acknowledge his campaign does not inspire voters the same way that Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan once did.

    “I’m not sure, because of the poison that’s been injected into the system over the last 10 years, if anybody gets that morning-in-America enthusiasm again,” said Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, referring to Reagan’s famous reelection campaign television ad. “It doesn’t surprise me that much that what you’re finding is people who say they’re going to support him, but it’s not an Obama-type new thing.”

    Biden aides argue there is more enthusiasm for the president than the interviews suggest. They point to the 600,000 voters who voted in Michigan’s primary this past week, more than three times the turnout for Obama in 2012.

    One of Biden’s token primary challengers is Rep. Dean Phillips, a three-term congressman representing this very tract of Minneapolis suburbs. Yet among nearly two dozen interviews conducted over three days with Democratic voters in his district, Phillips got barely a mention.

    Beating Trump was the most common theme in interviews with professionals, students and cross section of age, gender and racial and ethnic backgrounds.

    “It frightens me to think about Trump being in office again,” said Audra Robinson.

    The 52-year-old marketing executive from Brooklyn Park says she is specifically troubled by Trump’s praise for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a right-wing nationalist Trump routinely lauds while campaigning, “and whatever his affinity for (Russian President Vladimir) Putin is.”

    Orban is scheduled to meet privately with Trump at the former president’s residence in Florida this coming week, a development that punctuated Robinson’s worry about Trump’s “alignment with dictators and some scary people on this earth.”

    “So for me, it’s voting so that Trump cannot be in office again,” Robinson said. “And that means getting behind the party. So, I guess that’s Biden.”

    James Calderaro of Hopkins knew Phillips was a candidate but dismissed Phillips as “a distraction.”

    Calderaro, a 71-year-old retired fashion photographer, was more upbeat about Biden than were many of those interviewed, crediting him with improvements in the economy. But even Calderaro, like many, raised without prompting Biden’s age as a concern. Biden is 81; Trump is 77.

    “I understand the the age-related stuff. I don’t necessarily like Biden’s age,” Calderaro said. “But what’s the option? Trump? Really? That guy’s an absolute thug. He’s a danger to our way of life.”

    Minnesota has been a progressive bastion, not carried by a Republican presidential candidate since Richard Nixon in 1972, though Trump came within 1.5 percentage points of winning in 2016.

    Observers will watch Tuesday for how many Democrats choose “uncommitted” in Minnesota after a protest effort in Michigan’s primary drew more than 100,000 votes. Minnesota has a significant Somali American population that is predominantly Muslim and may similarly protest the Israel-Hamas war, which Israel launched after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack in which militants killed more than 1,200 people and kidnapped about 250 others.

    In an interview at the governor’s residence in St. Paul, Walz motioned to the street outside and noted that there were often anti-war protesters there.

    “I’m glad to hear people are talking about this,” he said. “This isn’t an unhealthy thing. We like to air these out.”

    Abdifatah Abdi, one of the more than 80,000 Somali immigrants in Minnesota, said he may not vote for Biden out of opposition to what Abdi considers the president’s weak opposition to killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

    “A majority of us have voted for Biden before, but this time I don’t think we should vote for him,” said Abdi.

    The 26-year-old college student, who is Muslim, is weighing supporting Trump instead of Biden, despite Trump’s 2017 ban on immigration from some Muslim-majority countries, including Somalia, and the suggestion that Trump would reprise it if elected again.

    “Trump may be for a ban. But what is worse, a ban or the killing?” Abdi said.

    Tacy Nielson described her support for Biden as “grudging.”

    “I’m concerned about his mental capacity,” the 36-year-old yoga instructor from Eden Prairie said. “And I’m tired of choosing between the lesser evil of two old white guys. “But Biden is the lesser of those two evils.”

    Dan Schultz of Minnetonka joined the refrain.

    “Part of being president is to make a powerful statement and to rally the country. There’s concern he can’t do that. It’s a fair concern and I share it,” Schultz said. “But I’m as anti-Trump as you can be. So what choice do I have?”

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Letters: Denver, get to the bottom of these long lines at DIA

    Letters: Denver, get to the bottom of these long lines at DIA

    [ad_1]

    Get to the bottom of these long lines at DIA

    On Feb. 17 at 9 a.m., we encountered significantly long security lines at Denver International Airport’s west side, leading to delays and frustrations for hundreds if not thousands of passengers. Lines snaked through common areas, adding to the inconvenience. Certainly not an upgraded experience.

    While millions of dollars were supposedly invested in security upgrades, the recent experience suggests further improvements are needed. Are there staffing limitations contributing to the issue?

    I urge the airport authorities and Denver City Council to investigate the root cause of these long lines. The city spent millions of dollars and obviously didn’t improve the security process. This makes our airport look like a third-rate facility. If the City of Denver can’t run the airport, hire professionals to do the job.

    Gregg S. Hayutin, Denver

    Welcome back, Troy Renck

    Re: “Troy Renck returns to The Denver Post as sports columnist,” Feb. 15 news story

    I am filled with gladness at the hiring of Troy Renck as a sports columnist and especially happy with the departure of Mark Kiszla, who was, in my opinion, a journalistic hack, a peddler of negativity, and a troll who unnecessarily attacked and demeaned the character and personality of Denver sports personalities. Most recently, his remarks about Broncos coach Sean Payton were odious, and he was unkind to quarterback Russell Wilson before he ever stepped on the field. This represents a move toward more balanced and positive reporting by The Post and I hope it continues.

    Digby Kirby, Denver

    Hey GOP: What would Reagan do?

    Re: “Aid to Ukraine hinges on House speaker,” Feb. 18 news story

    Republicans in the U.S. House have abandoned the freedom fighters in Ukraine. When Ronald Reagan built the strongest military force in the world and stoutly supported freedom, Ukraine and other states were able to throw off Russian domination. Vladimir Putin is determined to rebuild that “evil empire,” and today’s Republican appeasers are happy to open the door for him.

    Ukraine will not be the last country Putin enslaves. We can stop him now by supplying ammunition, or we can retreat and imperil our future.

    Ray Harlan, Denver

    Ronald Reagan would turn in his grave if he knew Donald Trump’s puppet, House Speaker Mike Johnson, is sitting on Ukraine aid. If Trump’s buddy, Putin, succeeds in ensnaring the Ukrainian people, who is next? We need to help Ukraine for their sake and for our own sake.

    [ad_2]

    DP Opinion

    Source link

  • The Real Difference Between Trump and Biden

    The Real Difference Between Trump and Biden

    [ad_1]

    Listen to this article

    Produced by ElevenLabs and NOA, News Over Audio, using AI narration.

    Americans likely face a choice this fall between two men they don’t want for president. Or they can stay home and get one of the two guys they don’t want for president anyway. The reasons for voter disdain are clear enough: Poll respondents say Joe Biden is too old, an impression reinforced by last week’s special-counsel report, and they have always been troubled by Donald Trump’s judgment and character (though a majority think he’s too old too.)

    Voters have genuine questions about both men. But we’ve seen each occupy the presidency. One thing the two administrations have made clear is that whereas Biden follows an approach to governance that seems to offset some of his weaknesses, Trump’s preferred managerial style seems to amplify his.

    Many people treat elections as a chance to vote a single individual into office; as a result, they tend to focus disproportionately on the personality, character, and temperament of the people running. But voters are also choosing a platform—a set of policies as well as a set of people, chosen by the president, who will shape and implement them. The president is the conductor of an orchestra, not a solo artist. As the past eight years have made very clear, the difference in governance between a Trump administration and a Biden administration is not subtle—for example, on foreign policy, border security, and economics—and voters have plenty of evidence on which to base their decision.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s consider the potential effects of Biden’s failures of memory and Trump’s … well, it’s a little tough to say what exactly is going on with Trump’s mental state. The former president has always had a penchant for saying strange things and acting impulsively, and it’s hard to know whether recent lapses are indications of new troubles or the same deficits that have long been present. His always-dark rhetoric has become more apocalyptic and vengeance-focused, and he frequently seems forgetful or confused about basic facts.

    To what extent would either of their struggles be material in a future presidential term? One key distinction is that Biden and Trump have fundamentally different conceptions of the presidency as an office. Biden’s approach to governance has been more or less in keeping with the traditions of recent decades. Biden’s Cabinet and West Wing are (for better or worse) stocked with longtime political and policy hands who have extensive experience in government. Cabinet secretaries largely run their departments through normal channels. Policy proposals are usually formulated by subject-area experts. The president’s job is to sit atop this apparatus and set broad direction.

    Biden doesn’t always defer to experts, and he has clashed with and overruled advisers on some topics, including, notably, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such occasional clashes are fairly typical—as long as they’re occasional. As my colleague Graeme Wood wrote this week, “The presidency is an endless series of judgment calls, not a four-year math test. In fact, large parts of the executive branch exist, in effect, to do the math problems on the president’s behalf, then present to him all those tough judgment calls with the calculations already factored in.”

    This doesn’t mean that Biden’s readily apparent aging doesn’t bring risks. The presidency requires a great deal of energy, and crises can happen at all hours and on top of one another, testing the stamina of any person. The oldest president before Biden, Ronald Reagan, struggled with acuity in his second term, an administration that produced a huge, appalling scandal of which he claimed to be unaware.

    In contrast to the model of the president as the ultimate decision maker, Trump has approached the presidency less like a Fortune 500 CEO and more like the sole proprietor of a small business. (Though he boasts about his experience running a business empire, the Trump Organization also ran this way—it is a company with a large bottom line but with concentrated and insular management by corporate standards.) As president, Trump had a tendency to micromanage details—the launching system for a new aircraft carrier, the paint scheme on Air Force One—while evincing little interest in major policy questions, such as a long-promised replacement for Obamacare.

    At times, Trump has described his role in practically messianic terms: “I alone can fix it,” he infamously said at the 2016 Republican National Convention. He has claimed to be the world’s foremost expert on a wide variety of subjects, and he often disregarded the views of policy experts in his administration, complaining that they tried to talk him out of ideas (when they didn’t just obstruct him). He and his allies have embarked on a major campaign to ensure that staffers in a second Trump administration would be picked for their ideological and personal loyalty to him. Axios has reported that the speechwriter Stephen Miller could be the next attorney general, even though Miller is not an attorney.

    Perhaps as a result of these different approaches to the job, people who have served under the men have divergent views on them. Whereas Biden can seem bumbling and mild in public, aides’ accounts of his private demeanor depict an engaged, incisive, and sometimes hot-tempered president. That’s also the view that emerges from my colleague Franklin Foer’s book The Last Politician. “He has a kind of mantra: ‘You can never give me too much detail,’” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has said. “The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it, because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented and focused,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said last weekend. (As Jon Stewart noted on Monday night, the public might be more convinced were these moments videotaped, like the gaffes.)

    Former Trump aides are not so complimentary. Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly called Trump “a person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law,” adding, “God help us.” Former Attorney General Bill Barr said that he “shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.” Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper described him as “unfit for office.” Of 44 former Cabinet members queried by NBC, only four said they supported Trump’s return to office. Even allowing for the puffery of politics, the contrast is dramatic.

    None of this is to say that Biden’s memory lapses aren’t worth concern or that he is as vigorous as he was as a younger man. But someone voting for Biden is selecting, above all, a set of policy ideas and promises that he has laid out, with the expectation that the apparatus of the executive branch will implement them.

    Voting for Trump is opting for a charismatic individual who brings to office a set of attitudes rather than a platform. Considering the presidency as a matter of individual mental acuity grants the field to Trump’s own preferred conception of unified personal power, so it’s striking that the comparison makes the dangers posed by Trump’s mentality so stark.

    [ad_2]

    David A. Graham

    Source link

  • DeSantis names president he’d take inspiration from — and it’s not one you’d expect

    DeSantis names president he’d take inspiration from — and it’s not one you’d expect

    [ad_1]

    At the end of the fourth Republican debate, the four candidates were asked to name a president that would serve as an inspiration for their administration.

    A potpourri of some of America’s most popular presidents were listed.

    Chris Christie picked Ronald Reagan, whom he called “a slave to the truth.” Nikki Haley, unable to choose one, named George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. And Vivek Ramaswamy chose Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence and inventor of the swivel chair — for his “founding spirit.”

    But when it was Ron DeSantis’ turn, he named a president who often goes overlooked.

    “One of the guys I’ll take inspiration from is Calvin Coolidge,” DeSantis said to scattered applause.

    “Now people don’t talk about him a lot,” DeSantis, who studied history at Yale University, said. “He’s one of the few presidents that got almost everything right.”

    “Silent Cal” understood the federal government’s role, DeSantis added. “The country was in great shape when he was president of the United States. And we can learn an awful lot from Calvin Coolidge.”

    Who was Calvin Coolidge?

    Coolidge, America’s 30th president, was born in Vermont in 1872. The son of a shopkeeper, he climbed the political ladder to become the governor of Massachusetts.

    He was elected vice president in 1920 alongside Republican President Warren Harding, who died unexpectedly in August 1923.

    Coolidge, who was in Vermont at the time, had his father administer the oath of office early in the morning on Aug. 3 “by the light of a kerosene lamp,” according to the White House.

    Throughout his presidency, he was “distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement,” Democrat Alfred Smith wrote.

    A proponent of small government, Coolidge called on Congress to cut taxes and to avoid foreign entanglements.

    During his six years in office, he balanced the budget every year. He notably detested constant government activity, once saying, “Don’t hurry to legislate,” according to his presidential foundation.

    His “political genius,” according to reporter Walter Lippmann, was his penchant for “effectively doing nothing.”

    “This active inactivity suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably,” Lippmann wrote, according to the White House. “It suits all the business interests which want to be let alone … And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously complicated and top-heavy.”

    Still, he signed into law several major pieces of legislation, including the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, which granted American citizenship to all Native Americans.

    Coolidge left office in 1929, the year the Great Depression began ravaging the American economy and eroding his reputation, according to David Greenberg, a history professor at Rutgers University.

    “Many linked the nation’s economic collapse to Coolidge’s policy decisions,” Greenberg wrote. “His failure to aid the depressed agricultural sector seems shortsighted, as nearly five thousand rural banks in the Midwest and South shut their doors in bankruptcy while many thousands of farmers lost their lands.”

    Before he died in 1933, Coolidge told a friend, “I feel I no longer fit in with these times,” according to the White House.

    In a 2021 ranking by historians, Coolidge placed 24th out of 44 presidents.

    UN chief invokes ‘rarely used’ rule to avert ‘catastrophe’ in Gaza. What does it do?

    Kamala Harris does something no vice president has in nearly 200 years. What to know

    66% of Biden-appointed judges are women, people of color — a record high, report says

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elaine Devry, Actress and Fourth Wife of Mickey Rooney, Dies at 93

    Elaine Devry, Actress and Fourth Wife of Mickey Rooney, Dies at 93

    [ad_1]

    Elaine Devry, an actress who appeared in such films as The Atomic Kid and A Guide for the Married Man and on dozens of TV shows after becoming the fourth of Mickey Rooney’s eight wives, has died. She was 93.

    Devry died Sept. 20 in her home in Grants Pass, Oregon, according to a notice placed on a local funeral home website.

    Devry married Rooney in Las Vegas in November 1952 and made her first onscreen acting appearances the next year in the Rooney-starring comedy film A Slight Case of Larceny and on an episode of the Ronald Reagan-hosted CBS anthology series General Electric Theater.

    In the Republic Pictures sci-fi comedy The Atomic Kid (1954), directed by Leslie H. Martinson, she was introduced as “Elaine Davis (Mrs. Mickey Rooney),” and her character, a nurse, marries her husband’s Barnaby “Blix” Waterberry at the end of the movie.

    In A Guide for the Married Man (1967), directed by Gene Kelly, she portrayed a seductive divorcée who has a rendezvous in a motel room with Walter Matthau’s Paul Manning that doesn’t go off as she’d hoped.

    Over the years, Devry showed up as a guest star on everything from Bourbon Street Beat, Bachelor Father, Perry Mason, Death Valley Days, 77 Sunset Strip and Hawaiian Eye to Bonanza, I Dream of Jeannie, My Three Sons, Family Affair, Marcus Welby, M.D., and Cannon before leaving acting in the late 1970s.

    Elaine Devry and then-husband Mickey Rooney in a promotional photo for 1954’s ‘The Atomic Kid’

    Courtesy Everett Collection

    Thelma Elaine Mahnken was born on Jan. 10, 1930, in Compton, California. She did some modeling while attending Compton High School and Compton Community College, then moved to Butte, Montana, where she wed high school sweetheart Dan Ducich, a standout basketball player, in 1948.

    A year later, Ducich was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to probation, and the couple divorced in 1952. In June 1954, he died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound in a room at the Sahara in Vegas. He was 28.

    Devry returned to California and met Rooney at a driving range in Woodland Hills, and they tied the knot when she was 22 and he was 32. He had already been married to actress Ava Gardner, singer Betty Jane Phillips and actress Martha Vickers.

    In 1956, Edward R. Murrow interviewed the couple from their home on CBS’ Person to Person.

    While separated from Devry, Rooney met actress Barbara Ann Thomason and began a romance with her. He divorced Devry in Mexico in December 1958 — the end of their marriage was not publicly disclosed for several months — and their breakup would prove to be quite contentious.

    Rooney went on to marry Thomason, who was murdered by her lover, Milos Milos, in the Rooneys’ Brentwood home in 1966. After her death, he tied the knot with writer Marge Lane, secretary Carolyn Hockett and actress-singer Jan Chamberlin before dying in April 2014.

    Devry also appeared in such films as China Doll (1958), Man-Trap (1961), The Last Time I Saw Archie (1961), Diary of a Madman (1963), With Six You Get Eggroll (1968), The Cheyenne Social Club (1970), Bless the Beasts & Children (1971), The Boy Who Cried Werewolf (1973) and Herbie Rides Again (1974).

    In 1975, she married actor Will J. White. They first met in 1961 on NBC’s The Dick Powell Theater; their episode, with Powell starring as millionaire investigator Amos Burke, served as the pilot for the ABC series Burke’s Law. (Rooney was on the episode, too.)

    White died in 1992. His sister, actress Suzanne Alexander, died by apparent suicide in 1975 at age 44.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the Republican Debate

    Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the Republican Debate

    [ad_1]

    In their first presidential debate last night, Republicans staged their own version of Tom Stoppard’s classic play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

    Stoppard’s story focuses on the titular two characters, who are minor figures in Hamlet. The playwright recounts the Hamlet story from their peripheral perspective, as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern wait and wander, distant from the real action. For much of the play’s three acts, they strain for even glimpses of the man at the center of the tale, Prince Hamlet.

    The eight GOP candidates onstage last night often seemed like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, with their words largely stripped of meaning by the absence of the central protagonist in their drama.

    The debate had plenty of heat, flashes of genuine anger, and revealing policy disputes. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who has often seemed a secondary player in this race, delivered a forceful performance—particularly in rebutting the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy on policy toward Ukraine—that made her the most vivid figure onstage to many Republicans.

    But all that sound and fury fundamentally lacked relevance to the central story in the GOP race: whether anyone can dent former President Donald Trump’s massive lead over the field. At times, it seemed as if the other candidates had lost sight of the fact that it is Trump, not the motormouthed Ramaswamy, who is 40 points or more ahead of all of them in national polls.

    “Trump is the big winner,” the Republican consultant Alex Conant told me after the debate. “Nobody made an argument about why they would be a better nominee than Donald Trump. They didn’t even begin to make that argument.”

    There were plausible reasons the candidates focused so little on the man they are trying to overtake. The Fox News moderators did not ask specifically about Trump’s legal troubles until an hour into the debate, instead focusing on discussions about the economy, climate change, and abortion. Ramaswamy seemed to be daring the other candidates to smack him down by repeatedly attacking not only their policies but their motivations. “I’m the only person on this stage who isn’t bought and paid for,” he insisted at one point. Loud booing from the audience almost anytime someone criticized Trump may also have discouraged anyone from targeting him too often.

    But it was more than the debate’s immediate circumstances that explained the field’s decision to minimize direct confrontation with Trump. That choice merely extended the strategy most have followed throughout this campaign, which in turn has replicated the deferential approach most of Trump’s rivals took during the 2016 race.

    Haley took the most direct shot at the former president on policy, criticizing him from the right for increasing the national debt so much during his tenure; Florida Governor Ron DeSantis jabbed Trump too—though not by name—for supporting lockdowns early in the pandemic. Yet these exchanges were overshadowed by the refusal of any of the contenders, apart from former Governors Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, to object to Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election or his role in sparking the January 6 insurrection. All of them except Hutchinson and Christie raised their hand to indicate they would support Trump as the GOP presidential nominee even if he is convicted of a crime before the election.

    To Conant, all of this seemed reminiscent of the 2016 campaign, when Trump’s rivals seemed reluctant to attack him in the hope that he would somehow collapse on his own. “Their strategy is wrong,” Conant said. “He’s going to be the nominee unless somebody can capture the support of Republicans who are open to an alternative. And nobody even tried to do that tonight.”

    David Kochel, an Iowa-based Republican consultant, wasn’t as critical. But he agreed that the field displayed little urgency about its biggest imperative: dislodging from Trump some of the voters now swelling his big lead in the polls. “What this race needs is to start focusing in on [the question of] ‘Trump or the future, which is it?’” Kochel told me. “I’m not sure we saw enough of that” last night.

    The failure to more directly address the elephant in the room, or what Bret Baier, a co-moderator, called “the elephant not in the room,” undoubtedly muted the debate’s potential impact on the race. Nonetheless, the evening might provide a tailwind to some of the contenders, and a headwind to others.

    The consensus among Republicans I spoke with after the debate was that Haley made a more compelling impression than the other seven candidates onstage. Her best moment came when she lacerated Ramaswamy for calling to end U.S. support to Ukraine, a move she said would essentially surrender the country to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “You are choosing a murderer over a pro-American country,” she told Ramaswamy. “You have no foreign-policy experience, and it shows.”

    The debate “lifted Nikki Haley as one of the prime alternatives for the people who are worried that Trump carries too much baggage to get elected,” the veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres told me last night. “She gutted Ramaswamy.”

    Ramaswamy forced himself into the center of the conversation for much of the night, making unequivocal conservative declarations such as “The climate agenda is a hoax,” and categorical attacks on the rest of the candidates as corrupt career politicians.

    Yet the evening showed why he may not advance any further than other outsider candidates in earlier GOP races, like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann in 2012. His choice to emulate Trump as an agent of chaos surely thrilled the GOP voters most alienated from the party leadership. But Ramaswamy’s disruptive behavior and tendency toward absolutist positions that he could not effectively defend seemed likely to lower his ultimate ceiling of support. He appeared to simultaneously deepen but narrow his potential audience.

    Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina also had a difficult night, though less by commission than omission. In his first turn on such a big stage, he simply failed to make much of an imprint; the evening underscored the limitations of his campaign message beyond his personal story of rising from poverty. “I forgot he was even there,” Kochel said. “Maybe nice guys finish last; I don’t know. He disappeared.”

    Former Vice President Mike Pence, by contrast, was as animated as he’s been in a public forum. That was true both when he was making the case for an almost pre-Trumpian policy agenda that reprised priorities associated with Ronald Reagan and when he was defending his actions on January 6.

    DeSantis, who seemed slightly overcaffeinated at the outset, didn’t disappear, but he didn’t fill Trump’s shoes as the focal point of the debate either. The other candidates devoted little effort to criticizing or contrasting with him. To Conant, that was a sign they consider him a fading ember: “No reason to risk losing a back-and-forth with a dead man,” Conant said. Others thought that although DeSantis did not stand out, he didn’t make any mistakes and may have succeeded in reminding more conservative voters why they liked him so much before his unsteady first months as a presidential candidate.

    Christie in turn may have connected effectively with the relatively thin slice of GOP voters irrevocably hostile to Trump. That may constitute only 10 to 15 percent of the GOP electorate nationally, but it represents much more than that in New Hampshire, where Christie could prove formidable, Ayres told me.

    But it won’t matter much which candidate slightly improved, or diminished, their position if they all remain so far behind Trump. Ayres believes materially weakening Trump in the GOP race may be beyond the capacity of any of his rivals; the only force that might bring him back within their reach, Ayres told me, is if his trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election commences before the voting advances too far next year and damages his image among more Republican voters.

    In a Republican context, Ayres said, “The only institutions that have the ability to bring him back to Earth are not political institutions; they are judicial institutions.”

    Kochel, who attended the debate, pointed out that the loud disapproval from the crowd at any mention of Trump’s legal troubles accurately reflected the desire of most GOP voters to bury the issue. “A lot of the base right now collectively has their hands up over their ears and are going ‘La-la-la,’” Kochel said. The problem for the party, though, is that while Republican partisans may not want to deal with the electoral implications of nominating a candidate facing 91 criminal charges, “general-election voters are going to deliver a verdict on all of this even if a jury doesn’t.”

    Apart from Christie and Hutchinson, the candidates on the stage seemed no more eager than the audience to address Trump’s actions. While all of them agreed Pence did the right thing on January 6 by refusing Trump’s demands to reject the election results, none except those two and Pence himself suggested Trump did something wrong in pressuring his vice president. Nor did the others find fault in anything else Trump did to subvert the 2020 result.

    The final act of Stoppard’s play finds Rosencrantz and Guildenstern drifting toward a doom that neither understands, nor can summon the will to escape. In their caution and timidity, the Republicans distantly chasing Trump don’t look much different.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Why Biden and Trump need each other in order to win in 2024 | CNN Politics

    Why Biden and Trump need each other in order to win in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Here is an often-repeated claim you’ll hear from reporters and analysts: Former President Donald Trump’s control over the Republican primary field solidified not in spite of, but because of, his four criminal indictments.

    It is a catch-22; the effort to seek accountability for his effort to stay in power despite his 2020 election loss has actually made him more politically powerful in the GOP heading into 2024.

    I went to CNN’s senior data reporter, Harry Enten, for his assessment of whether polling data bears out the claim. Did indicting Trump put him on a glide path to the Republican nomination?

    Enten’s thoughts on that point are below. But my main takeaway from our conversation actually has to do with his compelling argument that in a potential general election rematch, both President Joe Biden and Trump could be so unpopular that they need each other in order to have a chance at winning.

    It’s a symbiotic, needs-based relationship to make most Americans groan on their way to the voting booth. Can’t wait for 2024!

    Our full conversation, conducted by email, is below.

    WOLF: I have heard reporters suggest that Trump’s hold on the Republican nomination was strengthened by his four indictments. Is there data to support that?

    ENTEN: There’s actually been a lot of debate about this in polling, polling analysis and political science circles. What we know is Trump is ahead by more now than he was at the beginning of the year. The question is when exactly did that jump in the polls occur?

    Some polls (such as Fox News) seem to indicate it happened largely before any of the indictments occurred. Others (such as Quinnipiac University) seem to show a large jump post-indictment.

    On the whole, the average of polling indicates Trump did see a small bump (somewhere roughly between 5 and 10 points) in his primary polling after the first indictment in New York.

    To be clear, Trump would likely still be well ahead without any indictment bump. It’s just that he’d be in the mid- to high-40s instead of the low- to mid-50s.

    WOLF: Trump has been indicted four separate times:

    Is there anything to suggest that one or another of these indictments had a larger or smaller effect on his standing?

    ENTEN: You’ll notice in my previous answer I specifically mentioned New York. I haven’t seen any demonstrable evidence that any other indictment except the first one (maybe) gave Trump a boost. It doesn’t appear that any of the other indictments hurt his standing though.

    I will further point out that I’m talking about polling here. There’s been any number of articles written about Trump pulling in more fundraising after the different indictments. That doesn’t seem to have stopped, regardless of the charges.

    WOLF: Trump’s DC trial will get underway on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday. Is there any way for the outcome of these trials to affect the Republican primary?

    ENTEN: Funny enough, I was talking about this the other day with someone. I think the question is almost impossible to answer because this is (pardon me for saying) unprecedented. What we know from the data is that Republicans think the charges are politically motivated and haven’t moved Trump’s polling lead.

    Keep in mind Trump is not reliant on traditional campaigning in the way you might remember some candidates of past years doing retail campaigning. He’s going to dominate the media landscape and going to leave little media oxygen for the other GOP candidates.

    The only thing I can think of really shifting things would be a possible conviction, but I doubt any of the cases will move fast enough for that to happen.

    WOLF: Has a person with a Trump-level polling lead one year before Election Day ever blown it and not won the party’s nomination?

    ENTEN: The answer here is no, as measured by the margin between the leading candidate (Trump) and the candidate in second (Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis). Trump’s up by 40 points or so, which is one of the largest leads ever at this point.

    If you look at Trump’s share of the vote (in the 50s), then you could make the case that Ted Kennedy (who was in the 50s) blew his advantage over incumbent Jimmy Carter at this point.

    The Kennedy-Carter comparison to this year is an interesting one in so far as it involved an incumbent, and Trump, it could be argued, is a quasi-incumbent. Of course, in that case, it was the incumbent who made the comeback.

    WOLF: My impression is that Republican voters have largely come around to agree with Trump, despite the facts, that he won the 2020 election. Is that the kind of perception these trials could change? In other words, is a conviction the kind of thing that could break what seems like an intractable partisan divide?

    ENTEN: Again, we’re in unprecedented times, so I’ll never say never.

    I’ll give you this one, though. A CNN/SSRS poll from earlier this year asked whether Trump should drop out of the race if convicted of a federal crime. The vast majority of his own supporters (88%) said no he shouldn’t. Even most Republicans (58%) said he shouldn’t.

    Any changes to the percentage of Republicans who think he didn’t win in 2020 (even if that is a false belief) would likely be minimal, despite any conviction.

    WOLF: I’ve seen you argue that Trump would be very competitive in a general election matchup with Biden. But I wonder how the indictments have affected the outlook of independent voters?

    ENTEN: Independent voters like neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. They’ll be, at this point, making the choice between the lesser of two evils. The indictments didn’t help Trump amongst this group, but did they hurt?

    If you look at polls conducted by Quinnipiac, Marist and Fox in August, Trump was ahead of Biden by 1 point on average (well within the margin of error).

    If you look at the average of polls conducted by Quinnipiac (the only one of these pollsters in the field) before the first indictment, Trump was ahead of Biden by 1 point on average.

    So I don’t see any real impact (for now) on the metric that I feel is most important in answering your question.

    WOLF: Finally, regarding Joe Biden … there are stories all over the place about how voters think he’s too old, they aren’t excited about him, etc. What does the historical polling data suggest about a president in his position? What tea leaves are you reading about him?

    ENTEN: General election polling at this point has not been predictive. Otherwise, Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan would have been neck and neck in the 1984 election, which Reagan won in a blowout.

    The reason Reagan ran away with the election is because he is one of a number of presidents who saw boosts in their approval ratings from now until the election (Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc.).

    But a president with an approval rating where Biden’s is right now on Election Day is not a president in a strong position. In fact, every president with his approval rating or worse has lost.

    But I’m honestly not sure any of those historical analogies matter because Trump is so unpopular. This is ultimately the great statistical puzzle of the 2024 election. Biden likely can only win going up against a candidate as unpopular as Trump. Trump likely can only win going up against a candidate as unpopular as Biden.

    So who wins that matchup? If you know the answer to that one, you should also tell me who wins this year’s Super Bowl.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pee-wee’s Big Capitulation: As “Weird” As Pee-wee Was, He Was Still A Material Boy of the 80s

    Pee-wee’s Big Capitulation: As “Weird” As Pee-wee Was, He Was Still A Material Boy of the 80s

    [ad_1]

    Perhaps it’s difficult to imagine a world in which “weird” isn’t a sellable commodity. It certainly wasn’t an effortless sell in the Reagan 80s. Not until a then little-known persona by the name of Pee-wee Herman released a movie called Pee-wee’s Big Adventure. The year was 1985, and the director was also then little-known Tim Burton. A man who would, in addition to Pee-wee, go on to make “weird” “his thing.” And in the 80s, it seemed no one (at least not at the executive level) was yet fully aware of the kind of profitability that could signal. Until the surprise hit of Summer 1985 was Pee-wee’s Big Adventure (released the same year as Back to the Future and The Goonies, each with their own product placement machinations). It was to mark Burton’s first feature-length film, and one that he was given the opportunity to direct because Paul Reubens liked what he saw in Burton’s first two short films, Vincent and Frankenweenie

    As it turned out, there was no better man for the job, with the surreal, offbeat tone of the narrative (which takes a page from Vittorio De Sica’s The Bicycle Thief [obviously with a more comedic slant]) perfectly suited to Burton’s already well-established style, complete with musical accompaniments from Danny Elfman. Needless to say, it was a style that would serve a plot like this for the better. Because the more over-the-top and bizarre it was, the easier it became to ignore a lack of “realism” and get invested in the loss of this man-boy’s bike. To feel his pain…and his joy when the red cruiser is at last found again.

    His obsession with it, some might argue, is purely sentimental. And after all, he’s sure to tell his nemesis, Francis (Mark Holton), “I wouldn’t sell my bike for all the money in the world.” This after Francis tries to buy it off him because his father said he could have anything he wanted for his birthday. Pee-wee is the first to burst the rich kid’s bubble, giving him a lesson on how some things aren’t for sale. And yet, more than an emotional attachment to the bike, it’s obvious that he values it because of the status it gives him because it’s so sought-after. It’s about the way it makes him feel. So, for as absurd as the movie might come across, there’s nothing more rooted in realism than that. Perhaps few films of the 80s are able to better embody the importance an object can have to a person. Become a very extension of that person (presaging how phones would do the same thing). Which doesn’t seem coincidental considering the decade it was released. 

    At a time of ramped-up consumerism, “synergy” was becoming an increasing buzz word in the realm of advertising. And in the 80s, cross-promotional items from movies were the name of the game. From Rambo lunchboxes to Slimer from Ghostbusters-themed Hi-C packaging (bless your resilient little guts if you imbibed the “Ecto Cooler”), the only thing better than tie-in products, for corporations anyway, was getting their wares placed in the film itself. With 1982’s E.T., Hershey’s set the trend for the pervasive product placement viewers would barely notice anymore after so many hours spent absorbing media in that fashion. Pee-wee’s Big Adventure would prove no exception to the 80s movie rule. Starting with the Murray bicycle itself, Pee-wee’s odyssey is as much a consumerist one as it is a quest to unearth his bike. 

    The ease with which companies got in bed with movies was, in part, spurred by Reagan’s deregulation policies, which themselves were the brainchild of big business and a collective of nefarious think tanks that banded together in the 1970s to present theories about how newly-enacted environmental and consumer protection laws were serving as nothing more than senseless red tape to slow down economic progress and give more fuel to stagflation. With everything suddenly in favor of “servicing the corporation,” there appeared to be no calling into question the “ethics” of presenting these products so flagrantly. And, after all, weren’t the movies just doing viewers a solid by reflecting the America they lived in right back to them? An endless parade of adverts all shouting the same thing, “Buy me!” Or, to use a subliminal message from They Live, “Obey.” Obey what, exactly? Society, capitalism and the status quo. 

    What’s more, Reubens and Burton are adept in the language of how to make someone appear left out for not having the “right” product. Or at least a product of a similar vein to the “hottest thing.” So it is that, just after Pee-wee’s bike is stolen, he’s forced to wander the strip mall street on foot, like some sort of peasant, while everyone else around him is on a bike. Even the motorized toys. Thus, he’s now been cut down to size, made “lesser than”—when only twenty minutes ago, he was the peacocking bike rider trying to outperform the tricks of the kids around him riding on less cumbersome wheels. The underlying message: you are what you own. Property is the thing—this being why it’s such a standout moment to see that one of the crowning additions to Pee-wee’s bike is an engraved plate that reads, “Property of Pee-wee Herman.” And what’s more essential to capitalistic adherence than owning property? Property that becomes so easy to confuse with “characteristics” of ourselves. So it is that Pee-wee’s identity is as entrenched in the bike as it is in making random, off-color laughing sounds. His refusal to accept any substitutes also speaks to the concept of brand loyalty. Nothing else will compare to or ever be as good as the bike Pee-wee had before. He wants what he wants, and nothing else will do. 

    In 80s America, this type of mentality was at an apex, with “nothing but the best” philosophies at play as a means to further distinguish Western capitalism from Soviet communism (and yes, the Soviets do get accused by Pee-wee of stealing his bike). Pee-wee, for as “different” as he is, still falls prey to that pervasive mentality. The vestiges of which continue to endure to this apocalyptic day. For, as the Pee-wee’s Big Adventure-influenced movie, Barbie, puts it, “Ideas live forever.” And capitalistic ones are all but impossible to deprogram people of. This, in part, is why Pee-wee Herman cannot exactly lay genuine claim to a phrase like, “I’m a loner, Dottie. A rebel.” For, in the end, he capitulates to not only being a slave to an object—his bike—but also to giving in to a monogamous relationship with Dottie. Because, the truth is, even the biggest “weirdos” just want stability and nice things. Surrendering to the warmth (becoming much more literal every day) provided by material trappings.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Drag queens are out, proud and loud in a string of coal towns, from a bingo hall to blue-collar bars

    Drag queens are out, proud and loud in a string of coal towns, from a bingo hall to blue-collar bars

    [ad_1]

    SHAMOKIN, Pa. (AP) — Deep in Pennsylvania coal country, the Daniels drag family is up to some sort of exuberance almost every weekend.

    They’re hosting sold-out bingo fundraisers at the Nescopeck Township Volunteer Fire Co.’s social hall, packed with people of all ages howling with laughter and singing along. Or they’re lighting up local blue-collar bars and restaurants with Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunches for bridal parties, members of the military, families and friends.

    Or they’re reading in gardens to children dressed in their Sunday best — Dolly Parton’s “Coat of Many Colors” is a favorite book for performers and kids alike.

    In a string of towns running along a coal seam, the sparkle of small-town drag queens and kings colors a way of life rooted in soot, family and a conservative understanding of the world.

    Here two very old traditions mingle — and mostly happily, it seems, in contrast to the fierce political winds ripping at drag performances and the broader rights of LGBTQ+ people in red states from Utah and Texas to Tennessee and Florida.

    One tradition is the view of family as mom, dad and kids, plain and simple.

    The other, back to before Shakespearian times, is drag, a loud, proud and seismically flamboyant artistic expression of gender fluidity. Not plain, not simple, but also bedrock, rising above ground only in culturally adventurous cities.

    Yet the Daniels drag family is firmly woven in the fabric of the larger community in this area, where voters went solidly for Donald Trump, a Republican, in the last election. Their trouble is more apt to come from politicians who are increasingly passing laws restricting what they can do.

    Alexus Daniels, the matriarch, was the child of a coal miner and a textile worker who was “born with a female spirit.” She works at the local hospital as an MRI aide tech.


    Jacob Kelley, who performs as drag queen Trixy Valentine, is an LGBTQ+ activist and educator with a master’s in human sexuality.

    Harpy Daniels, Trixy’s twin, is a U.S. Navy sailor who’s had three deployments on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan. Soon that seaman, Petty Officer 1st Class Joshua Kelley, who just reenlisted, moves from a base in Norfolk, Virginia, to one in Spain, with plans to pack a wig “and maybe one or two cute outfits but nothing over the top” for Harpy-style shore leave.

    Apart from the twins, the drag performers in this circle are family by choice, not genes. Theirs is an oasis of belonging.

    “I never had a person like me growing up,” Trixy said, “and now I get to be that for everyone else.

    “There was a curse being a queer person in a rural town — the curse is that we’ll move … because there’s no one like us here, there’s no one that can understand us.

    “And drag now can be a place or a thing to show people like you that you don’t have to go to the cities. It’s here in your backyard.”

    The Associated Press followed the Daniels family for more than a year. Among them:

    Alexus Daniels, drag queen

    Daniels’ first memory is of her great-grandmother’s jewelry box. With Cyndi Lauper and the Pointer Sisters blasting, she would wrap herself in knitted blankets to lip-sync and dance for her family. “I had no idea that it was drag or gay,” she says. “I was just having a day!”

    Alexus hit high school and upped her Halloween game. She soon entered her first drag performance in the small Pennsylvania coal town of Weishample.

    “I still was not out at this point,” Alexus says. “I wasn’t even sure if I was gay. I knew I was attracted to boys and loved all things feminine! I kept this side of me to myself and my best friends growing up, who really didn’t see anything strange about it.”

    Trixy Valentine, aka Jacob Kelley, drag queen

    In their teens, Joshua was the first to turn to drag. Jacob started about six months later, in a white Marilyn Monroe dress at an amateur pageant in 2014.

    Trixy’s drag style is eclectic, but whether silly or fierce, there’s glitter: “I just want to shine when the light hits me.”

    “I came out as non-binary a few years ago because I started learning, like, what do I love so much about drag?” Kelley says. “It’s that femininity, that so-simple touch.”

    “I’m not a man,” Kelley says. “I never will see myself as a man. And I don’t see myself as a woman, either. But I see myself as beyond that.”

    In March, the Daniels drag family hosted bingo at the Nescopeck fire hall, packed with more than 300 people in a fund-raiser for a nearby theater.


    A small group of protesters could be watched on social media from the bingo hall, holding signs and praying the rosary across from the theater. Trixy addressed the bingo crowd.

    “There’s hundreds of us in this room and only nine of them on that street,” Trixy said. “So all I have to say is I don’t care what you believe in. But do not force it down my throat and tell me I shouldn’t be here because you think I’m wrong.

    “The Lord gave birth to me, too.”

    Trixy was in a long blue wig and Morgan Wells catsuit with an overskirt, a raised fist in the colors of the Pride flag on the chest.

    “Alright, let’s call some numbers!” Trixy said. “Let’s play some bingo!” The crowd cheered.

    Harpy Daniels, aka Joshua Kelley, U.S. Navy petty officer first class, drag queen

    Until 2011, the armed forces applied the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which accepted LGBTQ+ people only if they stayed mum about their sexual orientation.

    But after Kelley enlisted in 2016, he encountered the opposite — call it “ask and tell.” A commander asked what pronoun they prefer. Joshua, relieved by the acceptance implied by the question, told him any pronoun will do.


    Now, the sailor is a social media sensation who was named a “digital ambassador” by the Navy, doing outreach to the LGBTQ+ community and others who have been marginalized: “I’m very proud to wear this uniform.”

    Kitty DeVil, aka Emily Poliniak, drag queen

    Kitty, a trans woman, describes her drag style as “punk and a lot of storytelling.” Her inspiration: Adore Delano, a 2014 finalist on “RuPaul’s Drag Race.”

    “She was what I wanted to be — this badass punker chick looking gorgeous without sacrificing her style,” Kitty says.

    Kitty says her performances are high-energy fun but also “a lighthouse.”

    “Because even in our LGBTQ community, there are outcasts and people who don’t feel like they’re like anybody else,” Kitty says. “So I wanted to make a beacon for all those people who feel weird and feel different and can’t really find their place in society.”

    Xander Valentine, aka Gwen Bobbie, drag king

    More than a decade after she was transfixed by seeing her first drag show, Xander was invited by Trixy to join the drag family.

    Xander has an energetic, family-friendly side as well as a sexy, sultry side. Confusing people about gender is intentional, a barrier-breaker.

    “I try to create a consistent theme of masculinity in my performances,” Xander says. “Although I paint my face, wear wigs and adorn myself with rhinestones, I usually perform to songs sung by men and tailor my costumes more toward suits and ties.

    “My personal goal as a king is to have the audience question my off-stage gender identity.”

    Why? It’s to convey the message, Xander says, that “it’s OK to not immediately know how a person identifies or who they are attracted to, and still be kind to them.

    “It’s OK to accept someone as different, even if you don’t fully understand it.”

    Woodward reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Lynn Berry contributed to this report from Washington.

    The audience gives drag queen Trixy Valentine, aka Jacob Kelley, a standing ovation for their drag story mix performance at a "Drag Bingo" fundraiser at the Nescopeck Township Volunteer Fire Company Social Hall, in Nescopeck, Pa., Saturday, March 18, 2023, to raise money for a new roof for the Berwick Theater and Center for Community Arts, in Berwick, Pa. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    Baby Angel, performs a “death drop” during the “Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunch” at the Public House, Sunday, March 5, 2023, in Norfolk, Va. The drag bunch was hosted by Harpy Daniels and Javon Love. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) –

    Carolyn Kaster/AP

    Baby Angel, performs a "death drop" during the "Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunch" at the Public House, Sunday, March 5, 2023, in Norfolk, Va. The drag bunch was hosted by Harpy Daniels and Javon Love. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    Baby Angel, performs a “death drop” during the “Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunch” at the Public House, Sunday, March 5, 2023, in Norfolk, Va. The drag bunch was hosted by Harpy Daniels and Javon Love. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) –

    Carolyn Kaster/AP

    Sweet Pickles performs during the "Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunch" at the Public House, Sunday, March 5, 2023, in Norfolk, Va. The drag bunch was hosted by Harpy Daniels and Javon Love. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    Sweet Pickles performs during the “Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunch” at the Public House, Sunday, March 5, 2023, in Norfolk, Va. The drag bunch was hosted by Harpy Daniels and Javon Love. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) –

    Carolyn Kaster/AP

    Carlos Ova-Dupree performs during the "Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunch" at the Public House, Sunday, March 5, 2023, in Norfolk, Va. The drag bunch was hosted by Harpy Daniels and Javon Love. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    Carlos Ova-Dupree performs during the “Mimosas & Heels Drag Brunch” at the Public House, Sunday, March 5, 2023, in Norfolk, Va. The drag bunch was hosted by Harpy Daniels and Javon Love. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) –

    Carolyn Kaster/AP


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chris Christie Doesn’t Want to Hear the Name Trump

    Chris Christie Doesn’t Want to Hear the Name Trump

    [ad_1]

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

    “How many different ways are you gonna ask the same fucking question, Mark?” Chris Christie asked me. We were seated in the dining room of the Hay-Adams hotel. It’s a nice hotel, five stars. Genteel.

    Christie’s sudden ire was a bit jolting, as I had asked him only a few fairly innocuous questions so far, most of them relating to Donald Trump, the man he might run against in the presidential race. Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, was visiting Washington as part of his recent tour of public deliberations about whether to launch another campaign.

    Color me dubious. It’s unclear what makes Christie think the Republican Party might magically revert to some pre-Trump incarnation. Or, for that matter, what makes him think a campaign would go any better than his did seven years ago, the last time Christie ran, when he won exactly zero delegates and dropped out of the Republican primary after finishing sixth in New Hampshire.

    But still, color me vaguely intrigued too—more so than I am about, say, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson. If Christie runs again in 2024, he could at least serve a compelling purpose: The gladiatorial Garden Stater would be better at poking the orange bear than would potential rivals Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, and Nikki Haley, who so far have offered only the most flaccid of critiques. Over the past few months, Christie has been among the more vocal and willing critics of Trump. Notably, he became the first Republican would-be 2024 candidate to say he would not vote for the former president again in a general election.

    Christie makes for an imperfect kamikaze candidate, to say the least. But he does seem genuine in his desire to retire his doormat act and finally take on his former patron and intermittent friend. Which was why I found myself having breakfast with Christie earlier this week, eager to hear whether he was really going to challenge Trump and how hard he was willing to fight. Strangely, he seemed more eager to fight with me.

    It was a weird breakfast. Shortly after 8 a.m. on Wednesday, Christie strolled through the ornate dining room of the Hay-Adams, where he had spent the previous few nights. He was joined by his longtime aide Maria Comella. We sat near a window, with a view of the White House across Lafayette Square, and about 100 feet from the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, where Trump had staged his ignominious Bible photo op three springs ago.

    I started off by asking Christie about his statement that he would not vote for Trump, even if the former president were the Republican nominee. “I think Trump has disqualified himself from the presidency,” Christie said.

    So what would Christie do, then—vote for Joe Biden? Nope. “The guy is physically and mentally not up to the job,” Christie said.

    Just to be clear, I continued, this hellscape he was currently suffering under in Biden’s America would be as bad as whatever a next-stage Trump presidency would look like?

    “Elections are about choices,” Christie said, as he often does. So whom would he choose in November 2024, if he’s faced with a less-than-ideal choice? “I probably just wouldn’t vote,” he said.

    Interesting choice! I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a politician admit to planning not to vote, but it’s at least preferable to that cutesy “I’m writing in Ronald Reagan” or “I’m writing in my pal Ned” evasion that some do.

    I pressed on, curious to see how committed Christie really was to his recent swivel away from Trump, or whether this was just his latest opportunistic interlude before his inevitable belly flop back into the Mar-a-Lago lagoon. Say Trump secures the nomination, and most of his formal “rivals”—and various other “prominent Republicans”—revert to doormat mode. (“I will support the nominee,” “Biden is senile,” etc.) What’s Christie going to be saying then, vis-à-vis Trump?

    We were exactly seven minutes into our discussion, and my mild dubiousness seemed to set Christie off. His irritation felt a tad performative, as if he might be playing up his Jersey-tough-guy bit.

    “I’m not going to dwell on this, Mark,” Christie said. “You guys drive me crazy. All you want to do is talk about Trump. I’m sorry, I don’t think he’s the only topic to talk about in politics. And I’m not going to waste my hour with you this morning—which is a joy and a gift—on just continuing talking, asking, and answering the Donald Trump question from 18 different angles.”

    I pivoted to DeSantis, mostly in an attempt to un-trigger Christie. Christie has made a persuasive case that DeSantis has been a disaster as an almost-candidate so far, especially with regard to his feud with Disney. But would Christie support DeSantis if he were to somehow defeat Trump and become the nominee?

    “I have to see how he performs as a candidate,” Christie said. “I really don’t know Ron DeSantis all that well … I’m going to be a discerning voter,” Christie added. “I’m going to watch what everybody does, and I’m gonna decide who I’m gonna vote for.” (Reminder: unless it’s Trump or Biden.)

    I had a few more follow-ups. “So, I know you don’t want to talk about Trump …”

    “Here we are, back to Trump again,” Christie said, shaking his head.

    Trump, I mentioned, has been the definitional figure in the Republican Party for the past seven or eight years, and probably will remain so for the next few. Not only that, but Christie’s history with Trump—especially from 2016 to 2021—was pretty much the only thing that made him more relevant than, say, Hutchinson (respectfully!) or any other Republican polling at less than 1 percent.

    This was when Christie lit into me for asking him “the same fucking question.” Look, I said, at least 40 or 50 percent of the GOP remains very much in thrall to Trump, if you believe poll numbers.

    Christie questioned my premise: “No matter what statistics you cite, what polls you cite, that’s a snapshot in the moment, and I don’t think those are static numbers.”

    “It’s been true for about seven years,” I replied. “That’s pretty static.”

    “But he’s been as high as 85 to 90 percent,” Christie said, referring to Trump’s Republican-approval ratings in the past. There will always be variance, he argued, but those approval ratings would be much smaller now. Christie then accused me of being “obsessed” with Trump.

    At this point, Christie was raising his voice rather noticeably again, an agitated wail that brought to mind Wilma Flintstone’s vacuum. I was becoming self-conscious about potentially disturbing other diners in this elegant salle à manger.

    A waiter came over again and asked if we wanted any food. Christie, who was sipping a cup of hot tea, demurred, and I ordered a Diet Coke and a bowl of mixed berries. “What a fascinating combination,” Christie marveled.

    I told Christie that I hoped he would in fact run, if only because he would be better equipped to be pugilistic than the other milksops in the field. Obviously, it would have been better if Christie had taken his best shots at the big-bully front-runner seven years ago instead of largely standing down, quitting the race, and then leading the GOP’s collective bum-rush to Trump. But he has grown a lot and learned a lot since then, Christie assured me.

    “I certainly won’t do the same thing in 2024 that I did in 2016,” Christie said. “You can bank on that.”

    “Well, I would hope not,” I said. This seemed to reignite his pique.

    “What do you mean, I hope?” Christie snapped. He took umbrage that I would question the sincerity of his opposition to Trump: “How about just paying attention to everything I’ve said over the last eight weeks?”

    I told him that I had paid attention to what he said about Trump over the past eight years. Christie nodded and seemed to acknowledge that maybe I had a point, that some skepticism might be warranted.

    I asked Christie if he had any regrets about anything.

    “I have regrets about every part of my life, Mark,” he said.

    Whoa.

    “And anybody who says they don’t is lying.”

    That said, Christie added, he would not change anything about his past dealings and relationship with Trump. He is always reminding people that he and Trump were friends long before 2016; that they went way back, 22 years or so. Christie told me that he and Trump have not spoken in two years. Did he miss Trump?

    “Not particularly,” he said.

    Do you think he misses you?

    “Yes.”

    “Really?”

    “I do,” Christie said.

    “Has he called, or tried to reach out?”

    “No, that wouldn’t be his style,” Christie told me. “That would be too ego-violative.” (I made a mental note that I’d never before heard the term ego-violative.)

    “But I do think he misses me, yeah. I think he misses people who tell him what the truth is. I think he misses that.”

    Christie had another meeting scheduled at nine at the Hay-Adams, this one with Representative John James, a freshman Republican from Michigan. From Washington, he would head to New Hampshire, where he had a full two-day schedule planned—a town hall, a few campaignlike stops, some meetings. He told me he would make a decision in the next few weeks whether to run.

    Before I left the hotel, I asked Christie whether his wife, Mary Pat, thought he should run. “My wife affirmatively wants me to do it, which is different than 2015 and 2016,” Christie told me. “She thinks I’m the only person who can effectively take on Donald Trump.”

    That’s kind of what I think, I told him—that he could at least play the role of a deft agitator. Good, Christie said, but Mary Pat’s vote counted for more than mine. “I sleep with her every night,” he explained. I told him I understood.

    “Have fun in New Hampshire,” I said as Christie shook my hand and pirouetted out of the dining room. He seemed to be no longer mad, if he ever was.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • Historic campaign moments: How George Bush gave Ronald Reagan his big moment

    Historic campaign moments: How George Bush gave Ronald Reagan his big moment

    [ad_1]

    Historic campaign moments: How George Bush gave Ronald Reagan his big moment – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    John Dickerson breaks down the infamous 1980 debate that left four candidates without anywhere to sit.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China sanctions US organizations for hosting Taiwan leader during stopover | CNN

    China sanctions US organizations for hosting Taiwan leader during stopover | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    China has slapped sanctions on two American organizations that hosted Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen during her recent travel in the United States, which Beijing had fiercely condemned.

    China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Friday the Washington-headquartered think tank Hudson Institute and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California would be banned from any cooperation, exchange or transaction with institutions and individuals in China.

    Key leaders of the organizations would also be barred from visiting China, unable to transact or cooperate with organizations or individuals there, and have any assets in the country frozen, the statement said.

    “The Hudson Institute and the Reagan Library have provided a platform and facilitated Tsai’s separatist activities… which seriously undermines China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the ministry said, using a term often used to criticize the actions of Taiwan’s leader.

    The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library was the site of a meeting between Tsai and US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Wednesday – the first time a Taiwan president had met a US Speaker on American soil.

    And last week, the Hudson Institute presented a Global Leadership Award to Tsai in New York City.

    Both occurred during stopovers in the course of the Taiwan President’s 10-day international tour, which included official visits to Central America.

    CNN has reached out for comment to the Hudson Institute and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It’s unclear if either organization or its leaders have assets or cooperation in China that would be impacted.

    China had repeatedly said it would take “resolute and strong measures” in response to Tsai’s meeting with McCarthy.

    China’s Communist Party claims the self-governing democracy of Taiwan as its own despite never having controlled it, and has vowed to take the island, by force if necessary.

    China also imposed sanctions on two Taiwanese organizations, The Prospect Foundation and Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, on Friday, according to the Taiwan Affairs Office.

    A spokesperson accused the groups of promoting Taiwan independence and said they could not cooperate with mainland organizations and individuals. Their directors were also barred from entering the mainland.

    Hsiao Bi-khim, Taiwan representative to the US, was also hit with sanctions on Friday, according to Chinese state media. Hsiao was previously sanctioned by China last August, following a visit from then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the island. On her Twitter account on Friday, Hsiao reacted to the sanctions saying, “Wow, the PRC just sanctions me again, for the second time.”

    Taiwan’s foreign ministry responded later Friday calling China’s decision to impose new sanctions over Tsai’s meeting with McCarthy “irrational and absurd.”

    It was Taiwan’s “fundamental right” to conduct diplomatic activities overseas, and “coercion and suppression” from Beijing would only boost its “insistence on freedom and democracy,” the statement said.

    Beijing’s overall response to the latest meeting has appeared muted so far compared with its actions following Pelosi’s visit.

    Then, Beijing launched extensive military drills around the island following the Speaker’s departure and suspended several lines of communication with Washington.

    This time there has been little clear military response toward the island, which sees regular incursions into its air defense identification zone and patrols in surrounding waters by the Chinese military.

    Ahead of the meeting between Tsai and McCarthy, Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said it had tracked a Chinese aircraft carrier group, led by the carrier Shandong, passing through waters southeast of Taiwan for training in the Western Pacific.

    China’s retaliation against the US organizations comes at a tense time between the two powers, which have struggled to stabilize their relationship amid friction over a range of issues.

    Among those is bolstered American support of Taiwan in the face of increased military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the island democracy from Beijing.

    On Friday, US Republican congressman Michael McCaul, who is currently visiting Taiwan, said that speeding up the delivery of weapons to the island was “critically important” in building deterrence against China.

    The chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee told reporters that “we are doing everything in our power to expedite [weapon delivery],” and that the bipartisan congressional delegation he is leading is “in broad agreement that this absolutely needs to be done, to provide the deterrence for Taiwan to promote peace in the region.”

    McCaul said that potential ways to do so included reprioritizing weapon sales to Taiwan or through third-party sales.

    The US maintains an unofficial relationship with Taiwan and Tsai’s transit in the country was therefore not an official visit in order to keep Washington aligned with its longstanding “One China” policy.

    Under the policy, the US acknowledges China’s position that Taiwan is part of China, but has never officially recognized Beijing’s claim to the island of 23 million.

    Tsai is expected to return to Taiwan Friday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sri Lanka needs institutional changes for long-term debt sustainability, says professor

    Sri Lanka needs institutional changes for long-term debt sustainability, says professor

    [ad_1]

    Mounting frustration over inflation, scarcity and lengthy power cuts brought demonstrators in the Sri Lankan capital Colombo on Monday. Angry protestors called for the resignation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa.

    Buddhika Weerasinghe | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Sri Lanka needs institutional reforms in order to achieve long-term debt sustainability, said Steve Hanke, who played a key role in establishing new currency regimes in emerging markets like Argentina and Montenegro.

    The South Asian country is grappling with its worst financial crisis in decades and needs to unlock a $2.9 billion IMF loan that was agreed to in September, to get its public finances in order.

    “Unless you change the institutions and the rules of the game governing these countries, they’re always going to remain in the same … situation that they’ve been in for a long time,” Hanke, who is now professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Thursday.

    “In fact, most of the personalities involved in Sri Lanka at the high level are exactly the same as they’ve been for years. So nothing has changed.”

    Sri Lanka has struggled with severe shortages of food, medicine, fuel and electricity since last year. This has led to angry protests that forced then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee from the country and resign. The country’s lawmakers chose six-time Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe as president last July as his successor.

    Hanke, who was previously economic advisor to former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, was also skeptical whether the IMF bailouts will help Sri Lanka’s crisis-stricken economy in the long term. He pointed out that the country has gone to the fund several times cap in hand for relief.

    “You have to remember that we have a country that since 1965 has had 16 IMF programs and they’ve all failed,” he said. “You get temporary relief in anticipation of a bailout. But in the long run … none of these IMF programs work.”

    In September, the IMF outlined a series of steps that it wanted Sri Lanka’s government to implement prior to loan approval, which included major tax reforms.

    “Debt relief from Sri Lanka’s creditors and additional financing from multilateral partners will be required to help ensure debt sustainability and close financing gaps,” the fund said at the time.

    The IMF declined to comment to CNBC.

    China support

    On Tuesday, Wickremesinghe said that China has given crucial debt restructuring assurances that could pave the way for final approval of the IMF’s $2.9 billion four-year bailout.

    “We received the letter of financial assurance from Exim Bank of China last night. Accordingly, on the same night, I and the Governor of the Central Bank signed the letter of agreement and forwarded it to the IMF. Now our duties are done,” he told parliament, according to the transcript in local media.

    “I hope that before the end of this month, by the fourth week, the IMF will do its duty.”

    In a follow up tweet, the president said he has spoken with IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on this matter.

    He also mentioned he expects financial assistance from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to start coming soon after the IMF deal is reached.

    In its readout, the U.S. Treasury Department said: “During their meeting, Secretary Yellen expressed support for Sri Lanka’s steps towards an IMF-supported program to advance economic reform and achieve a strong and durable recovery.”

    “The Secretary welcomed Sri Lanka’s commitments to transparency and comparable treatment for all bilateral official and private creditors.”

    How Sri Lanka's economy collapsed

    IMF’s Georgieva also commended Sri Lanka on its progress in resolving its financial situation.

    “I welcome the progress made by Sri Lankan authorities in taking decisive policy actions & obtaining financing assurances from all their major creditors, incl. China, India & the Paris Club,” she wrote in a tweet on Tuesday.

    “Look forward to presenting the IMF-supported program to our Exec. Board on March 20.”

    Still, JHU’s Hanke said IMF programs don’t tend to go down well with the Sri Lankan people.

    “You get the IMF in there trying to manage something,” said Hanke. “The IMF tends to be … very unpopular because they’re going to try to introduce and ram through these old institutions that they have in Sri Lanka all kinds of things that the Sri Lankans won’t like.”

    During his speech Tuesday, Sri Lanka’s president underlined “there is no room for failure in completing every task agreed upon with the IMF, unlike the previous 16 occasions.”

    “The agreement with the IMF is of special importance to restore our economy, and there is no alternative path to be seen at present,” said Wickremesinghe.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and DeSantis stake out sharpest preview yet of possible 2024 showdown | CNN Politics

    Trump and DeSantis stake out sharpest preview yet of possible 2024 showdown | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Ex-President Donald Trump and his most serious potential rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, laid out with unprecedented clarity this weekend how their sharply contrasting personalities and approaches would define the 2024 race for the Republican nomination.

    Trump served up his familiar brew of fury, falsehoods and dishonest braggadocio at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, billing himself as the only man who could save the planet from World War III, girding his adoring supporters for their “final battle” against communists, globalists and the “Deep State,” and declaring: “I am your retribution.”

    “We will beat the Democrats, we will rout the fake news media, we will expose and appropriately deal with the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). We will evict Joe Biden from the White House and we will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all,” Trump told the crowd at a Maryland convention center outside Washington on Saturday.

    DeSantis, who is yet to declare a campaign, used an appearance at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California on Sunday to channel the same conservative anger at what he claims is a left-wing “woke” elite takeover of politics, education, Covid-19 public health policy and big business, tapping into the modern Republican Party’s driving ideological force. Yet he offered a far more specific blueprint than Trump for a disruption of government as Americans know it, strongly implying that after implementing hardline conservatism in the Sunshine State, he could deliver the policy goals that often eluded Trump in his chaotic White House term.

    “I can tell you in four years, you didn’t see our administration leaking like a sieve, you didn’t see a lot of drama or palace intrigue,” said DeSantis, whose punch-by-punch speaking style is far more ordered and methodical than Trump’s wild flights of rhetoric. “What you saw was surgical, precision execution. Day after day after day. And because we did that, we beat the left day after day after day.”

    The back-to-back speeches, which highlighted two Republicans who would be the early favorites if DeSantis gets into the GOP nominating race, came with a slice of irony. The split screen captured their party’s unresolved ideological split that Trump engineered in 2016 when he crushed establishment candidates. CPAC, where Trump spoke, for decades kept alive the flame of the two-term president Reagan, who redefined the conservative movement when he won the 1980 election and left a legacy that dominated the GOP until Trump arrived. Once a rite of passage for potential GOP presidential candidates, CPAC has since become a platform for Trump’s personality cult. DeSantis did not speak there, instead appearing last week at a dueling Club for Growth donor conference to which Trump was not invited.

    Speaking in the shadow of Reagan’s former Air Force One on Sunday, DeSantis appeared to be staking a claim to both the reforming zeal of the 40th president and offering an updated, more targeted – yet still searing – version of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” populism, although stripped of the uproarious distractions typical of the most recent Republican president. He seemed to be trying to build a conservative coalition that would appeal to Republicans who have soured on Trump after his record of two impeachments, a US Capitol insurrection and a disastrous intervention in the 2022 midterm elections, but that might also peel away some Trump supporters who still love their champion but doubt that he has the discipline and appeal needed to win a national election again.

    Still, if DeSantis were to win the Republican nomination, there would likely be questions over whether his own radicalism would hurt him in the same swing state districts where Trump lost the 2020 election – even notwithstanding a public persona that is more disciplined than Trump’s. There’s not much subtlety in his rhetoric about a “woke mind virus”: Much of the Florida governor’s phrasing comes with the implication that anyone who does not share his views is, by definition, a left-wing extremist. And he would essentially be promising Americans one of the most right-wing presidencies of modern history.

    DeSantis was not the only possible alternative to Trump who laid out his case in recent days. Former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who has already launched a campaign, and ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who may do so, both braved the lions’ den at CPAC, and both launched veiled attacks on their former boss.

    “If you’re tired of losing, put your trust in a new generation,” Haley said, playing into criticisms that both Trump, 76, and Biden, 80, should yield to younger leaders.

    Pompeo, who, like his former Cabinet colleague got a fairly tepid reception on the ex-president’s turf, stacked his speech with plausible deniability to avoid taking on Trump directly. But one remark could be read as as much of a criticism of the ex-president as the Democrats he specifically targeted when he said: “We can’t become the left, following celebrity leaders with their own brand of identity politics, those with fragile egos who refuse to acknowledge reality.”

    Another potential Republican candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, was on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday and attacked Trump’s fearsome culture war talk.

    “If you want to heal our land and unite our country together, you don’t do it by appealing to the angry mob,” Hutchinson told Dana Bash.

    “Wherever you’re looking at the leader of our country, you don’t want him to be engaged in a personal vendetta. And when he talks about vengeance, he’s talking about his personal vendettas, and that’s not healthy for America. It’s certainly not healthy for our party.’

    One other potential anti-Trump GOP candidate, former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, however, announced on Sunday that he would pass on the 2024 race to avoid splintering the opposition to the ex-president.

    “Right now, you have Trump and DeSantis at the top of the field soaking up all the oxygen, getting all the attention, and then a whole lot of the rest of us in single digits. And the more of them you have, the less chance you have for somebody rising up,” Hogan told CBS News.

    If Hogan’s reluctant decision to bow out foreshadows similar decisions by other long-shot candidates, it could point to a Republican nominating race that does not replicate the fracturing of the anti-Trump vote that helped his remarkable rise to power in 2016. But that would also fuel the possibility of a long and bitter nominating race between Trump and DeSantis through a swathe of winner-take-all primaries – if the Florida governor decides to get into the race.

    Given his strong hold on the Republican base, Trump is likely to be seen as the favorite for the nomination, but he appears to recognize the potential threat he faces from DeSantis, and has already accused him of disloyalty after endorsing him in his first race for the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee.

    But DeSantis, in his new book published last week, puts his success in that first gubernatorial campaign down to a “massive swing” powered by a strong Republican primary debate performance that took place after he won Trump’s endorsement. And he is seeking to distinguish himself as a winner compared to Trump by citing his thumping reelection victory last fall, which stands in implicit contrast to the ex-president’s national reelection loss.

    “We went from winning by 32,000 votes in 2018 to winning by over 1.5 million votes in 2022. We earned the largest percentage of the vote that any Republican governor candidate received in Florida history,” DeSantis said on Sunday.

    Yet the events of the weekend also pointed to some of the potential liabilities for DeSantis in any attempt to take down Trump. While his speech at the Reagan Library demonstrated a talent for explaining policy and a conversational style, he lacked the showmanship skills that Trump has long used to dominate Republican politics. Trumpism has always been more of a visceral and emotional backlash than an exercise in actually implementing ideological conservatism.

    Perhaps GOP voters are so keen to win back the presidency that they will look for a change. But in his speech at CPAC, which echoed the “American Carnage” themes of his inaugural address, Trump gave notice to DeSantis and the rest of the country that he will fight with everything he has to win the White House again. He told reporters that even if he is indicted in federal or state investigations against him, he will still not drop out of the race.

    “At the end of the day, anyone else will be intimidated, bought off, blackmailed or ripped to shreds. I alone will never retreat,” Trump said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Begins His ‘Final Battle’

    Trump Begins His ‘Final Battle’

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump gripped the CPAC lectern as he workshopped a new sales pitch: “I stand here today, and I’m the only candidate who can make this promise: I will prevent—and very easily—World War III.” (Wild applause.) “And you’re gonna have World War III, by the way.” (Confused applause.)

    It was just one in a string of ominous sentences that the 45th president offered tonight during his nearly two-hour headlining speech at the annual conservative conference, which for years prided itself on its ties to Ronald Reagan, but is now wholly intertwined with Trumpism, if little else. Yet even amid cultish devotion, Trump seemed bored, listless, and unanimated as he spoke to a sprawling hotel ballroom that was only three-quarters full.

    For much of the speech, Trump’s voice took on more of a soft and haggard whisper than the booming, throaty scream that characterized his campaign rallies. His language, by contrast, was bellicose. Tonight’s address was among the darkest speeches he has given since his “American carnage” inauguration. Trump warned that the United States was becoming “a nation in decline” and a “crime-ridden filthy communist nightmare.” He spoke of an “epic battle” against “sinister forces” on the left. He repeatedly painted himself as a martyr, a tragic hero still hoping for redemption. “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in their way,” Trump told the room. He pulled out his best, half-hearted Patton: “We are going to finish what we started. We’re going to complete the mission. We’re going to see this battle through to ultimate victory.” He was heavy on adjectives, devastating with nouns. “We will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all,” he said.

    This was only Trump’s fourth public event since officially entering the 2024 race last fall. Rather than lay out his vision for America, he found a mess of topics about which to complain. The White House, Trump said, “wasn’t the easiest building to live in.” He opined that “illegal immigrants come in, and we house them in the Waldorf-Astoria.” He characterized Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a “China-loving politician” and sounded legitimately disappointed when saying, “My wonderful travel ban is gone.” He lamented the halcyon days before he knew the terms “subpoena” and “grand jury.” He called Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “racist” and griped about the “Department of Injustice.” Shortly before his speech, Trump told James Rosen of Newsmax that he intends to stay in the 2024 presidential race even if he is indicted in one (or more) criminal investigations. Relatedly, he promised to “totally obliterate the Deep State.”

    The audience, largely composed of Trump loyalists, hooted and repeatedly yelled “U-S-A!” A brief selection of the hats dotting the hallways outside the Potomac Ballroom: MAGA, ’MERICA, LET’S GO BRANDON, TRUMP WON, WE THE PEOPLE ARE PISSED. Trump’s solemn face was splashed across an array of comically dramatic acrylic paintings on display. (Kari Lake, the election denier who lost her race for Arizona governor last year, kissed one on stage Friday night.) Downstairs from the main stage, attendees could have their picture taken in a mock version of Trump’s Oval Office. Multiple people roamed the corridors in red, white, and blue “Trump 45” baseball jerseys. As the former president spoke, supporters waved bright red WE WANT TRUMP signs. But the man himself seemed only sort of into it, and very bitter.

    It was a strange and lackluster conference—more of a “1 a.m. at the party” vibe than “the greatest political movement in the history of our country” that Trump invoked tonight. Perhaps, years from now, 2023 will be remembered as “the last gasp of CPAC.” Gone was the FoxNation sponsorship; Newsmax hoped to fill the void. Attendees could also linger at pop-ups from The Epoch Times, Right Side Broadcasting News, America First News, OAN, Lindell TV, Proverbs Media Group LLC, and Patriot Mobile, which was pitching itself as a Christian cell-phone company.

    Aside from Trump, the CPAC lineup was missing many of its usual stars. And most of his potential 2024 challengers skipped the conference altogether this year, with several instead attending a rival Club for Growth event in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump spoke just a few hours after Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil, and Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow, who announced the formation of something called an “Election Crime Bureau.” Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado came next with a fire-and-brimstone speech peppered with Bible verses. “We must stand united in this battle against actual evil,” she told the room.

    On Friday, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gently distanced themselves from their old boss in their speeches. (Haley was met with chants of “Trump! Trump! Trump!” after she left the stage.) The businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, who is also running for the Republican nomination, paraphrased Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech before pledging to get rid of affirmative action, calling it a cancer. He took aim at the Georgia congresswoman and super Trump surrogate Marjorie Taylor Greene: “Do we want a national divorce, or do we want a national revival?” Trump, when rattling off thank yous and compliments early into his speech—Representative Matt Gaetz: “a great guy”; Dr. Ronny Jackson: “he’s a doctor!”—joked that Greene is a “low-key” person.

    The CPAC straw poll, once a pivotal moment in the GOP election cycle, wrapped up 10 minutes ahead of schedule tonight. (On cue, someone tried to start a “Let’s Go Brandon” chant during the unveiling of the results.) Unsurprisingly, Trump won with 62 percent of the vote, crushing his closest rival, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who received 20 percent. Curiously, Trump never mentioned DeSantis in his speech. (Tomorrow, DeSantis is scheduled to speak at the Reagan Presidential Library, and both candidates are soon headed to Iowa.)

    Steve Bannon, proud recipient of a Trump pardon, was among the biggest celebrities of the weekend. Late Friday afternoon, Bannon marched out to the stage in all black, three pens clipped to his shirt, and attacked Fox News for its alleged “soft-ban” of Trump. He referred to the Murdoch family as “a bunch of foreigners” and said, “Note to Fox senior management: When Donald J. Trump talks, it’s newsworthy.” He fired up the crowd: “We’re not looking for unity. We’re looking for victory!” He pounded his hand on the lectern, summing up the theme of the weekend: “MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!”

    As Trump spoke, another of the gathering’s many “Let’s Go Brandon!” chants broke out, and the former president thanked the crowd. At one point, he play-acted a scene between President Joe Biden and his son Hunter discussing the “laptop from hell” and received genuine laughs. Trump warned that Biden “is leading us into oblivion,” then promised to single-handedly end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Nearly every topic he touched—border security, foreign wars—had a way of coming back around to him, Trump. “NATO wouldn’t even exist if I didn’t get them to pay up,” he said. He then spoke hypothetically about Russia blowing up NATO’s headquarters.

    “You know, I had a beautiful life before I did this,” Trump said wistfully at one point. “I lived in luxury. I had everything.” As the speech crossed the 90-minute mark, Trump was clearly losing the audience. He returned to the wartime language: “We will not yield. We will press forward,” he promised. “We will finish what we started.”

    [ad_2]

    John Hendrickson

    Source link

  • A Rare Reprieve From the Permanent Presidential Campaign

    A Rare Reprieve From the Permanent Presidential Campaign

    [ad_1]

    Does anyone want to be president?

    Typically, by the time a president delivers the State of the Union address at the start of his third year in office, as Joe Biden will on Tuesday, at least half a dozen rivals are already gunning for his job. When Donald Trump began his annual speech to Congress in 2019, four of the Democrats staring back at him inside the House chamber had already declared their presidential candidacies.

    Not so this year. The only Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) officially trying to oust Biden is the former president he defeated in 2020. Trump announced his third White House run in November and then barely bothered to campaign for the next two months before holding relatively small-scale events in New Hampshire and South Carolina in January. Trump will finally get some company next week, when Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, plans to kick off her campaign in Charleston. More Republicans could soon jump into the presidential pool. But the 2024 campaign has gotten off to a decidedly slow start, and the first weeks of 2023 have brought a rare reprieve from what has become known—with some derision—as the permanent campaign. This pause is not the result of some collective cease-fire; it’s what happens when you have a former president who lost reelection but still inspires fear in his party, along with a Democratic incumbent—the oldest to ever serve—who is not exactly itching to campaign.

    Even New Hampshire—normally one of the first states to welcome would-be presidents—has been subdued. “Other than Trump, I can’t think of a leading person being here for the last couple of months,” Raymond Buckley, the longtime chair of the state’s Democratic Party, told me. He said he’s used the lull to prioritize party building, “instead of constantly focusing on one Republican senator or governor after another.”

    The same is true in Iowa, that other presidential proving ground with a year-round appetite for stump speeches. “It’s pretty quiet on the western front,” David Oman, a Republican strategist and former co-chair of the Iowa state GOP, told me. As my colleague McKay Coppins recently reported, most of the Republicans who want the party to nominate someone other than Trump are, once again, reluctant to actually do anything about it. Trump’s potential GOP rivals have been similarly shy about taking him on; until Haley put out word about her announcement last week, no one in the emerging field—which could include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, among others—was willing to be the first target of the barrage of insults and invective Trump would surely hurl their way.

    The momentary quietude has dampened any pressure for Biden to shift back into campaign mode, and he’s in no rush anyway. Tuesday’s State of the Union address will likely yield even more performance reviews than usual, as pundits and viewers alike judge the toll that Biden’s advancing age has taken on his oratory. As for the substance of his speech, White House officials told me Biden will continue the project he began months ago: promoting the accomplishments of his first two years in office, especially his bipartisan infrastructure law and the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act that he signed last summer.

    In the absence of a fully formed GOP presidential field, Biden has been content to use the new House Republican majority as a foil—adopting a strategy that Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama employed after Democrats lost power in Congress during their first terms. Biden has vowed to protect programs such as Medicare and Social Security from GOP budget cuts; refused to negotiate over the debt ceiling (although the White House said last week he’d entertain “separate” conversations on deficit reduction); and eagerly highlighted ill-fated GOP proposals to replace the federal income tax with a 30 percent national sales tax.

    Yet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy seated behind the president on the House rostrum for the first time, Biden is expected to stress conciliation over confrontation. “The president will once again amplify his belief that Democrats and Republicans can work together,” a White House official told me, speaking anonymously to preview a speech that hasn’t been finalized, “as they did in the last two years and as he is committed to doing with this new Congress to get big things done on behalf of the American people.”

    Biden allies expect the president to formally announce his reelection bid sometime after the State of the Union, but they note that could still be months away. Such a wait isn’t unusual for incumbents, who don’t need to introduce themselves to the electorate and generally want to be seen as focused on governing. But no president since Ronald Reagan has faced as much uncertainty about whether he would seek a second term. (Then the oldest president, Reagan was eight years younger in 1983 than the 80-year-old Biden is now.) Outgoing Chief of Staff Ron Klain pointedly referenced a reelection bid as he departed the White House last week, telling Biden he looked forward to supporting him “when you run for president in 2024.” But other White House officials routinely affix the qualifier “if he runs” to discussions about a potential campaign, suggesting it remains less than a sure thing.

    Aiding Biden is the fact that no Democrats of note (besides Marianne Williamson) have made any moves to challenge him for the nomination, and the president’s allies are operating under the assumption that he will have the field to himself. “I would be shocked at this point if this becomes a competitive primary,” Amanda Loveday, a senior adviser to the pro-Biden super PAC Unite the Country, told me.

    The bigger question is how many Republicans will challenge Biden knowing they’ll have to get through Trump first—and when they’ll see fit to jump in. GOP officials told me they expect Haley’s announcement to prompt others to enter the race soon. But Trump clearly froze the field for a while. All through 2021 and most of 2022, Buckley told me, “rarely a week went by without a major visit” to New Hampshire from a White House aspirant. “It all came to a grinding halt once Trump announced,” he said. Jeff Kaufmann, the Republican Party chair in Iowa, told me that the first months of 2021—the brief period after January 6 when Trump’s political future was in doubt—were busier for GOP hopefuls than this past January, just a year before the caucuses.

    For most of American history, the observation that barely anyone was campaigning more than a year and a half before the election would be entirely unremarkable. Only in this century has a two-year campaign for a four-year term in the White House become the norm. (As recently as 1992, the governor of a small southern state declared his candidacy only 14 months before the election, and he did just fine.)

    For most of the country, this respite from presidential politics is probably welcome, especially for voters who were inundated with nonstop campaign ads leading up to the midterm election. The view is a bit different, however, in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the quadrennial pilgrimage of politicos brings welcome attention and a sizable economic boost. Republicans in both states want to ensure that the GOP does not follow the Democrats in trying to leave them behind. Kaufmann told me he wasn’t worried; Senator Tim Scott would be coming out to Iowa in a few weeks, and others were calling to schedule events, perhaps preparing their launches. By March, he assured me, all would be back to normal. This extended presidential halftime will be over, and America’s never-ending campaign will resume in full.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Today in History: November 19, Lincoln speaks at Gettysburg

    Today in History: November 19, Lincoln speaks at Gettysburg

    [ad_1]

    Today in History

    Today is Saturday, Nov. 19, the 323rd day of 2022. There are 42 days left in the year.

    Today’s Highlight in History:

    On Nov. 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln dedicated a national cemetery at the site of the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania.

    On this date:

    In 1831, the 20th president of the United States, James Garfield, was born in Orange Township, Ohio.

    In 1919, the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles (vehr-SY’) by a vote of 55 in favor, 39 against, short of the two-thirds majority needed for ratification.

    In 1942, during World War II, Russian forces launched their winter offensive against the Germans along the Don front.

    In 1959, Ford Motor Co. announced it was halting production of the unpopular Edsel.

    In 1969, Apollo 12 astronauts Charles Conrad and Alan Bean made the second manned landing on the moon.

    In 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat became the first Arab leader to visit Israel.

    In 1985, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev met for the first time as they began their summit in Geneva.

    In 1997, Iowa seamstress Bobbi McCaughey (mihk-KOY’) gave birth to the world’s first set of surviving septuplets, four boys and three girls.

    In 2004, in one of the worst brawls in U.S. sports history, Ron Artest (now known as Metta Sandiford-Artest) and Stephen Jackson of the Indiana Pacers charged into the stands and fought with Detroit Pistons fans, forcing officials to end the Pacers’ 97-82 win with 45.9 seconds left.

    In 2007, in Pakistan, a Supreme Court hand-picked by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf (pur-VEHZ’ moo-SHAH’-ruhv) dismissed legal challenges to his continued rule.

    In 2010, President Barack Obama, attending a NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal, won an agreement to build a missile shield over Europe, a victory that risked further aggravating Russia.

    In 2020, Georgia’s top elections official released results of a hand tally of ballots that affirmed Democrat Joe Biden’s narrow lead over President Donald Trump in the state. With the coronavirus surging out of control, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pleaded with Americans not to travel for Thanksgiving and not to spend the holiday with people from outside their household.

    Ten years ago: President Barack Obama became the first U.S. chief executive to visit Myanmar, where he promised more American help if the Asian nation kept building its new democracy. Former U.S. Sen. Warren B. Rudman died at 82; the New Hampshire Republican co-authored a ground-breaking budget balancing law.

    Five years ago: Charles Manson, the hippie cult leader behind the gruesome murders of actress Sharon Tate and six others in Los Angeles in 1969, died in a California hospital at the age of 83 after nearly a half-century in prison. State media and a monitoring group in Syria reported that pro-government forces had defeated the Islamic State group in its last major stronghold in the country. Longtime country music star Mel Tillis died in Florida at the age of 85. Actor and singer Della Reese died at 86 in her Los Angeles area home.

    One year ago: Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges in the shooting deaths of two men and the wounding of a third during a night of protests over the shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, by a white police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the summer of 2020. The Denver suburb of Aurora agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the parents of Elijah McClain, a Black man who died after suburban Denver police stopped him on the street and put him in a neck hold.

    Today’s Birthdays: Talk show host Dick Cavett is 86. Broadcasting and sports mogul Ted Turner is 84. Former Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is 83. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson is 81. Fashion designer Calvin Klein is 80. Sportscaster Ahmad Rashad is 73. Actor Robert Beltran is 69. Actor Kathleen Quinlan is 68. Actor Glynnis O’Connor is 67. Broadcast journalist Ann Curry is 66. Former NASA astronaut Eileen Collins is 66. Actor Allison Janney is 63. Rock musician Matt Sorum (Guns N’ Roses, Velvet Revolver) is 62. Actor Meg Ryan is 61. Actor-director Jodie Foster is 60. Actor Terry Farrell is 59. TV chef Rocco DiSpirito is 56. Actor Jason Scott Lee is 56. Olympic gold medal runner Gail Devers is 56. Actor Erika Alexander is 53. Rock musician Travis McNabb is 53. Singer Tony Rich is 51. Actor Sandrine Holt is 50. Country singer Billy Currington is 49. Dancer-choreographer Savion Glover is 49. R&B singer Tamika Scott (Xscape) is 47. R&B singer Lil’ Mo is 45. Olympic gold medal gymnast Kerri Strug is 45. Actor Reid Scott is 45. Movie director Barry Jenkins (Film: “Moonlight”) is 43. Actor Katherine Kelly is 43. Actor Adam Driver is 39. Country singer Cam is 38. Actor Samantha Futerman is 35. NHL forward Patrick Kane is 34. Rapper Tyga is 33.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • It’s The End of the World As We Know It, And White Liberals Feel Like Shit: Armageddon Time

    It’s The End of the World As We Know It, And White Liberals Feel Like Shit: Armageddon Time

    [ad_1]

    When one is a child, the world is seen at its clearest—its most straightforward. Because of their innocence and a lack of understanding the “need” to cater to artifice, it is the child who, so often, sees things as they are and for what they are. Paul Graff (Banks Repeta), the sixth-grader at the center of James Gray’s autobiographical coming-of-age story, Armageddon Time, is just such a kid. And what he sees all around him at his Queens public school in 1980 is discrimination. Specifically against a Black classmate he befriends named Johnny Davis (Jaylin Webb). Because Johnny’s already been held back a year, their teacher, Mr. Turkeltaub (Andrew Polk)—a last name that gets plenty of comedic mileage—is even more blatantly prone to not caring about his academic growth. Plus, he’s Black, so what does his education really matter, right? Paul himself is Jewish, susceptible to racial discrimination in his own right (cough, cough—Ye), but still somewhat relishes the perk of having white skin.

    This is why, when Paul draws a picture of Turkeltaub’s face atop a turkey’s body and is forced to confess to it, he doesn’t really get in all that much trouble. Yet when Johnny is forced to join in the same punishment of wiping the blackboard in front of the class while Turkeltaub continues to teach, he’s the one automatically blamed for making the other students laugh behind Turkeltaub’s back when it is, in fact, Paul who does a whimsical, mocking dance to make them do so. It is subtle “nuances” like these (what are known as “microaggressions” in the present), building up slowly and cringingly, that all add up to one big racist shitshow throughout the film (and, of course, in life).

    In the backdrop of it all, the presidential election is imminent, with Ronald Reagan campaigning openly as an “evangelical Christian”—at least, per the interview he gives to Jim Bakker, one that Gray opts to include at a moment when Paul’s family is watching TV. During it, Reagan ominously warns of how ceding leadership in the 80s to Democrats a.k.a. “non-Christians” will result in all hell breaking loose. Thus, his wielding of a favorite keyword when he tells Bakker, “If we let this be another Sodom and Gomorrah… we might be the generation that sees Armageddon.” Bakker couldn’t be more in agreement when he adds, “This is the most important election ever to face the United States.”

    And, at that time, it was. For it would change the entire trajectory of American values for good. Where there might have been a chance to decelerate the coveting of all things material, the unabashed worship of capitalism. As Jimmy Carter tried to do in his famed “Crisis of Confidence” speech in July of 1979. Months before what he said was apparently too much for White America to hear when it opted to shift toward the other side of the political spectrum entirely.

    All because Carter “dared” to say, “It’s clear that the true problems of our nation are much deeper, deeper, than gasoline lines or energy shortages. Deeper even than inflation or recession… Some people have wasted energy, but others haven’t had anything to waste.” This referring to the phenomenon so overtly presented in Armageddon Time—that those without privileges to begin with never notice much difference when it all goes to shit for “the elite” (which, obviously, it never really can—what’s losing a few hundred thousand to a millionaire, or a couple million to a billionaire?). Carter went on to gently chastise the nation for what it was solidifying into as he favored the “no candy for you” approach to speech-giving by declaring, “Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning.”

    Evidently, though, owning and consuming things was satisfactory enough for Reagan supporters who then vindictively took America into what would become known as the Decade of Excess. At least for white yuppies. For average Americans, most especially the Black population, the system patently working against them would only worsen. Yet simultaneously be all the more accepted, especially by people like Paul’s family, who condemn it amid finding their own ways to profit from it.

    As Carter concluded the speech that would be too much for Americans who loved sugar-coating, it was plain to see that, like the Republicans and the evangelists they courted in the 1980 election, Carter believed, “We are at a turning point in our history.” An “Armageddon time,” if you will. Unlike the conservatives, however, Carter believed it was because “the path it leads to [is] fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom. It is a certain route to failure.” And here America is some forty-three years later fulfilling Carter’s all too real prophecy. One that Gray himself is highly aware of, and is certain to make his viewers comprehend that part of why the nation is where it’s at today is because of the past. Appropriately, Paul’s beloved grandfather, Aaron (Anthony Hopkins), is the one to remind him that you should never forget your past, because it always ends up haunting you in the present. Which is precisely what has happened to the United States politically. Paying for the sins of the Reagan Era as it continues to embrace them. Including the election of Donald Trump in 2016.

    On that note, while the Trump family is not as central to the story as certain reviews might lead one to believe, Fred Trump’s (John Diehl) peripheral presence at the private school where Paul ends up is a key aspect to absorbing the hypocrisy of an institution that calls its attendees future “leaders” because of all the “hard work” they’re doing and the ambition they have. Ambition that wouldn’t mean anything without the very privilege of their backgrounds. And clearly, Fred’s looming presence over the school had a pronounced effect on Gray, who incorporates a scene of Paul’s first day of school being vaguely tainted by Fred homing in on him in the hallway. As Gray recalled, “Fred was on the board of trustees of the school, and he would sort of stand in the halls, his arms folded. I walked in with my attaché case and he saw me as weird immediately. He had prospective parents to show the school to, and here was the little Jew with the suitcase.”

    The private school in Armageddon Time is called Forest Manor, while the real-life one is Kew-Forest School. Where, needless to say, Donald Trump was also an attendee (until his father put him in a military academy at thirteen after he threw a desk in the middle of Jackie Robinson Parkway, called Interboro Parkway when Donald decided to tamper with it). So was his older sister, Maryanne Trump (portrayed briefly but effectively by Jessica Chastain). The alumna who shows up to give a speech about success to the current students, an event that Gray can confirm actually transpired while he was attending the school (basing Chastain’s monologue off of memory). And while Gray might not have fully grasped what was happening around him as a child, he did confirm, “I’ll tell you what was obvious to me at the time. When Maryanne Trump came to give a speech at school, I remember very clearly being like, ‘What the fuck? What is she talking about?’ Because I was like, ‘You’re really rich, lady. What’s the problem?’ I remember thinking that. The [old] joke, ‘born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.’”

    Paul’s reluctance to attend the same private school as his brother, Ted (Ryan Sell), is, in large part, because of how much he values his friendship with Johnny. Yet, at the same time, he doesn’t value it enough to stick up for Johnny when he’s flagrantly treated “lesser than.” Even by people of his own race. An instance that occurs when Paul and Johnny are on the subway together and the latter talks of going to Florida to become an astronaut as he looks at the space-oriented collectibles he received from his stepbrother who lives there. Overhearing the conversation, a Black passenger leaving the train feels the need to inform Johnny of his NASA ambitions, “The won’t even your Black ass in through the back door.” But maybe he was only trying to spare Johnny the later pain of indulging in a dream. Dreams that only white kids get to have. This extending to Paul’s desire to become an artist.

    Although “discouraged” by his parents, Esther (Anne Hathaway) and Irving (Jeremy Strong), Paul’s grandfather urges him to follow through with that dream, even buying him a professional paint set. By the same token, the burden of knowing that Paul’s still just another “Jew boy,” likely to be excluded once a certain “quota” is met, prompts Aaron to contradictorily advocate for Paul’s enrollment at Forest Manor. Especially after being caught smoking weed in the bathroom with Johnny, of whom Esther regards with ostensibly racist sentiments. Something Paul calls her out for. She, in turn, incites Irving to beat the shit out of him as punishment for his illegal activity.

    At the core of the “unpleasantness” of it all is the fact that white liberals are as guilty as any conservative for allowing systemic racism to thrive. Benefitting from the “getting ahead” advantages of that system themselves. As Gray puts it, “…you can be both the oppressor and oppressed at the same time.” Paul becomes more than just “faintly” cognizant of that when he’s put in a position that finds him facing the ultimate moral dilemma by the end of the movie. And maybe, in his mind, he wouldn’t have been faced with that dilemma if he had evaded the clutches of Forest Manor. The first day he’s made to attend, he seethes to his father, “You just want me to be like you.” Irving responds, “No, I don’t want you to be like me. I want you to be so much better.” This is the very type of parental thinking that only perpetuates the system’s flourishment. For every generation of white liberals ends up succumbing to its seduction. The promise of, “Your kids can have what you never did. But you have to play the game.” And now, so do their children—permitting the cycle to persist.

    Somewhere between The Squid and the Whale and Triangle of Sadness, Armageddon Time is in the middle of the Venn diagram. With the former still being among the greatest New York-based coming-of-age films and the latter being a scathing diatribe on privilege. With Armageddon Time’s integration of race and the varying strata of whiteness that allows for “success,” it can readily be classified as a unique and vital addition to the coming-of-age canon.

    Moreover, it isn’t just Paul that comes of age (via a jaded comprehension of “how the world works”) by the end of the movie, but so does the America we know today. The one where “racism doesn’t exist” and “everyone is equal,” but the masses are tacitly attuned to the reality that it’s still a matter of working a broken and, yes, highly inequitable system if one wants to get that coveted “leg up.”

    Encapsulating the commingling of Paul’s coming of age with that of neoliberal capitalism’s in 1980s America, Gray noted, “You can’t monetize integrity, and it’s become a catastrophe, because you find that someone like Donald Trump is completely transactional, right? ‘What can you do for me? If you do this for me, I’ll do it for you.’ Everything’s about the brutality of the exchange of goods and services. At some point, life is more than that. And I saw this story as being representative of something bigger.” That it is, dear viewer, that it is.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link