ReportWire

Tag: Senate

  • “It’s About Controlling Women”: Veterans Reject Tommy Tuberville’s Antiabortion Crusade

    “It’s About Controlling Women”: Veterans Reject Tommy Tuberville’s Antiabortion Crusade

    [ad_1]

    Tuberville, who never served in any branch of the US military, has drawn criticism from his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and some argue that he is hamstringing the US military by sending a message of disarray and unreadiness to enemies. Amid the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East, calls for him to abandon his stance have only grown louder in recent weeks, including a push this week led by Republicans Dan Sullivan, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Todd Young, and Mitt Romney. Tuberville, meanwhile, has shown no signs of backing off. In a remarkable scene on the Senate floor on Wednesday night, Republican senators went toe to toe with Tuberville and proposed individual votes on 61 officers, presented by name. Over the course of more than four hours, Tuberville denied each one. “Xi Jinping is loving this. So is [Vladimir] Putin,” Sullivan reportedly said during the standoff, a reference to the leaders of China and Russia, respectively. “How dumb can we be, man?”

    “I’m trying to keep the White House from playing dictator along with the Pentagon,” Tuberville previously told Fox News Digital. “Abortion is the number one issue in our country in our lifetime when it comes to social issues, and the American people need to have a say so now.” Tuberville insists that Democrats need to introduce their own bill on the Pentagon policy and hold a vote, but Democrats say the ball is in the GOP’s court. “The onus is on Republican senators to prevail on Senator Tuberville and get him to back off his reckless pursuit,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

    The daughter of an airman, Sweatt was eager to serve. But reflecting on her experience—which she said included harassment, assault, and discrimination—she isn’t sure if she would be so eager to serve today. “Women came into the service because we needed to fill a gap, and we filled those gaps very well and efficiently, and we earned our place…. It’s really sad because the United States military would not be as strong, as great as it is, as advanced as it is today had it not been for the women that flooded the ranks—and we’re constantly being shat upon and slapped in the face for it,” she told me. “It feels a lot like just being used.”

    When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced that all service members would have access to reproductive care. Under the policy, the Department of Defense does not fund abortion care; its facilities will only perform abortions in instances of rape or incest and if the mother’s life is at risk. Rather, the policy allows service members “the ability to request an administrative absence from their normal duty station to access non-covered reproductive health care without being charged leave.” Additionally, “travel and transportation allowances may be authorized for service members and dependents to travel to access non-covered reproductive health care.” 

    It is this policy that Tuberville takes issue with.

    In the post-Roe landscape, accessing reproductive care has become a challenge to countless individuals who reside in states where conservative lawmakers have imposed abortion bans. In many cases, people who are pregnant must take time off work and travel extensive distances across state lines to find care. For military service members the challenges can be even steeper. With little say in where they are stationed, individuals seeking reproductive care can find themselves in states where it is limited at best, entirely unavailable at worst.

    Courtesy of Carrie Frail.

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy

    Source link

  • Kevin McCarthy Finally Defies the Right

    Kevin McCarthy Finally Defies the Right

    [ad_1]

    The speaker made a last-minute reversal to avert a government shutdown. It could cost him his job.

    Anna Moneymaker / Getty

    Updated at 9:02 p.m. ET on September 30, 2023

    For weeks, Speaker Kevin McCarthy seemed to face an impossible choice as he haggled over spending bills with his party’s most hard-line members: He could keep the government open, or he could keep his job. At every turn, McCarthy’s behavior suggested that he favored the latter option. He continued accepting the demands of far-right Republicans to deepen spending cuts and dig in against the Democrats, making a shutdown at tonight’s midnight deadline all but a certainty.

    With just hours to go, however, the speaker abruptly changed course, defying his conservative tormentors and partnering with Democrats to avert a shutdown. The House this afternoon overwhelmingly approved a temporary extension of federal funding. The Senate passed the bill in the evening, putting off a shutdown for at least 45 days and buying both parties more time to negotiate spending for the next fiscal year.

    The question now is whether McCarthy’s pivot will end his nine-month tenure as speaker. By folding—for now—on the shutdown fight, he is effectively daring Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida and other hard-line Republicans to make good on their threats to depose him. “If somebody wants to remove [me] because I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy told reporters before the vote. “But I think this country is too important.”

    The stopgap bill includes disaster-relief money sought by both parties, but McCarthy refused to add $6 billion in Ukraine aid that the Biden administration and a bipartisan majority of senators wanted. The Senate had been on the verge of passing its own extension that included the Ukraine money, but after the House vote it was expected to accept McCarthy’s proposal instead. Whether House Republicans agree to include Ukraine assistance in the next major spending bill is unclear, but Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are likely to make an aggressive push for it.

    McCarthy’s surprising about-face set off a wild few hours in the Capitol. Democrats were caught off guard and stalled for time to read the new bill, unsure if Republicans were trying to sneak conservative policy priorities into the legislation without anyone noticing. (In the end, only a single Democrat voted against it.) Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, a second-term Democrat, caused the evacuation of an entire House office building when he pulled a fire alarm just before the vote, in what Republicans said was a deliberate—and possibly criminal—effort to delay the proceedings. (Bowman’s chief of staff said that the representative “did not realize he would trigger a building alarm as he was rushing to make an urgent vote. The Congressman regrets any confusion.”)

    On the right, the criticism of McCarthy was predictable and immediate. “Should he remain Speaker of the House?” one of his Republican opponents, Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, tweeted after the vote, seemingly rhetorically. Yet to more moderate Republicans, the speaker’s decision was a long time coming. McCarthy’s months-long kowtowing to the right had frustrated more pragmatic and politically vulnerable House Republicans, a few of whom threatened to join Democratic efforts to avert, or end, a shutdown. But many Republicans are even more furious at Gaetz and his allies. “Why live in fear of these guys? If they want to have the fight, have the fight,” former Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, a moderate who served in the House with McCarthy for 12 years, told me. “I don’t understand why you would appease people who are doing nothing but trying to hurt and humiliate you.”

    This morning, the speaker finally came to the same conclusion. His move to relent on a shutdown only kicks the stalemate over federal spending to another day. Now it’s up to House Republicans to decide if McCarthy gets to stick around to resolve it.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • A Final Chapter Unbefitting an Extraordinary Legacy

    A Final Chapter Unbefitting an Extraordinary Legacy

    [ad_1]

    Senator Dianne Feinstein, who died last night at 90, braved one of the most remarkable political expeditions in American history—and also one of the grimmer spectacles at the end of her life and career.

    Is it too soon to point this out? Yes, perhaps. With the official notice of her death today, Feinstein received her just and proper tributes, hitting all the key markers: How Di-Fi, as she is known in Washington shorthand, had stepped in as mayor of San Francisco after her predecessor was assassinated in 1978. How she was a fervent proponent of gun safety, the longest-serving woman in the Senate, and the chamber’s oldest member. How, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she presided over the preparation of an incriminating report describing the CIA’s torture of suspected terrorists in secret prisons around the world. How she was a trailblazer, stateswoman, powerhouse, force, grande dame, etc. Give her her due. She deserves it.

    But Congress can be a tough and ghoulish place, with its zero-sum math and unforgiving partisanship. Over her last year, Feinstein’s declining health became a bleak sideshow—her absences and hospitalizations, shingles, encephalitis, and bad falls; the lawsuits over her late husband’s estate and the cost of her medical bills and long-term care.

    Feinstein’s insistence on remaining in the Senate—and the uncertainty of her schedule—complicated life for Democrats, making it harder for them to hold votes, set strategy, and confirm judges. Her colleagues and White House officials whispered their frustration. And she became the latest exemplar of a basic, egalitarian principle in lawmaking: Even the most legendary figures ultimately amount to a vote. Often your most important job is simply to be available, show up, be counted.

    When that is in doubt, patience can wear fast. Questions about “fitness” arise. Such is the price of continued residency in the senior center of the Capitol. Feinstein resisted quitting for years, and only grudgingly said she wouldn’t seek reelection in 2024, leaving the race to succeed her in a kind of morbid suspension.

    Politics, of course, runs on its own schedules and follows its own rules. A few weeks ago, I asked Adam Schiff, one of the California House Democrats running to succeed Feinstein in the Senate, whether she should step down. In other words, was she fit to serve? Again, maybe this was harsh, but it had become a standard question around Washington and California, and perfectly germane, given the tight split in the Senate. “It’s her decision to make,” Schiff said, a classic duck, but also practical. “I would be very concerned,” he continued, “that the Republicans would not fill her seat on the Judiciary Committee, and that would be the end of Joe Biden’s judicial appointments.” (Politico reported today that Republican Whip John Thune, of South Dakota, said he expects that his party will not resist efforts to fill committee seats left vacant by Feinstein’s death.)

    Schiff added that he had continued to have a productive working relationship with Feinstein’s office, despite her health struggles. He was a proponent of business as usual, for as long it lasted, and Feinstein was still there. The pageant continued, the government heading for another shutdown, House Republicans tripping toward an impeachment and over themselves.

    In the hours after Feinstein’s death was announced, Washington took a brief and deferential pause. Statements and obituaries were dispatched, most prepared in advance. Then it was on to the next. Who would California Governor Gavin Newsom pick to serve out Feinstein’s term? How would that affect the race to succeed her next year? Who would replace Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee, and when would they be seated?

    The hushed questions about how long the nonagenarian senator could hang on finally had their resolution. Far too many people in power resist the option of a restful denouement. The stakes can be high, even harrowing, for the country. These sagas can be distressing to follow, but there’s no shortage of dark fascination. Stick around too long, and you risk losing control of the finale. It can happen to the best, and at the end of the most extraordinary careers.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • Tributes pour in for Sen. Dianne Feinstein after death in office at 90

    Tributes pour in for Sen. Dianne Feinstein after death in office at 90

    [ad_1]

    Tributes poured in Friday for late Sen. Dianne Feinstein after she died overnight at 90, cutting short a trailblazing career as longest-serving female senator.

    Political figures from both sides of the aisle weighed in on Feinstein’s three-decade career in the Senate, which took her to the heights of leadership in the male-dominated chamber.

    “She was smart. She was strong. She was brave. She was compassionate,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor on Friday. “But maybe the trait that stood out most of all was her integrity. It shone like a beacon for all to see and hopefully emulate.”

    Choking back tears, Schumer pointed to Feinstein’s empty desk in the chamber where a vase of white roses paid somber tribute.

    “America is a better place because of Senator Dianne Feinstein,” Schumer said.

    Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, praised Feinstein as a close personal friend, a “steady hand” and trailblazer in the upper chamber where they often found themselves on opposite sides of votes.

    President Biden said she was proud to have worked with Feinstein in the Senate when he named her as the first woman to serve on the Judiciary Committee that he chaired at the time.

    “Dianne Feinstein was a pioneering American, a true trailblazer and a dear friend,” Biden said. “I had a front row seat to what Dianne accomplished.”

    Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand called Feinstein a “role model, mentor and dear friend.”

    “She was one of the most powerful voices in the Senate, and she blazed a trail for generations of women who followed her into elected office,” Gillibrand tweeted.

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker, recalled Feinstein as a towering daughter of their shared hometown of San Francisco.

    “Feinstein was a pillar of public service in California, from San Francisco City Hall to the U.S. Capitol,” Pelosi said, adding she “made a magnificent difference.”

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was three months older than Feinstein and is now the oldest sitting senator at 90.

    “Dianne Feinstein did an outstanding job representing the people of California,” Grassley said. “She was a wonderful public servant.”

    [ad_2]

    Dave Goldiner

    Source link

  • Dianne Feinstein Dead at 90

    Dianne Feinstein Dead at 90

    [ad_1]

    As mayor, Feinstein proposed a ban on handguns after the assassinations of Moscone and Milk, sparking immediate backlash. The White Panthers, a political collective that opposed Feinstein’s gun control measure, launched a recall campaign to remove her from office in 1983 and amassed enough petitions for a vote. Feinstein overwhelmingly won the election. “I don’t think this will stop anyone from filing against me, but I think anyone who does is going to be creamed,” she boasted to The New York Times after her victory.

    During her time as mayor—a position she held until 1988—Feinstein enacted a handgun ban, traveled to China to nurture trade relations, and steered San Francisco through the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “Mayor Feinstein’s AIDS budget for San Francisco was bigger than President Ronald Reagan’s AIDS budget was for the entire country.” In 1987, City & State magazine named Feinstein the country’s most effective mayor.

    In 1990, Feinstein won the Democratic nomination for governor of California—the first woman in the state’s history to win a major party’s nomination for governor—but lost the race. Later, she won a bid for the US Senate in 1992, which was declared “Year of the Woman” after four female senators, including Barbara Boxer, were voted into the Senate in the same election year.

    As a senator, her first coup was passing a ban on the production of semiautomatic assault weapons. Apart from that, she has advocated for protecting deserts; championed LGBTQ+ rights; crusaded for assault weapons bans; introduced and helped passed a law that created the nationwide AMBER Alert network; ordered the declassification of a report into the CIA’s post-9/11 use of torture in interrogations; served as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and served as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee—the first woman in US history to ever hold such a position.

    Feinstein has ruffled a few feathers along the way. As the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, she was criticized for the handling of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing in 2020—particularly when she hugged South Carolina Republican senator Lindsey Graham for a job well done after the hearing came to a close. Democrats were so incensed that Feinstein even faced calls for resignation; she stepped down from her role on the Judiciary Committee at the end of that year. In 2022, Feinstein also faced suggestions from colleagues that she was too old to serve following interactions in which they noted she wasn’t as sharp as she once was.

    In November 2022, when Feinstein officially became the longest-serving woman senator, she said in a statement that it was an “incredible honor,” adding, “It has been a great pleasure to watch more and more women walk the halls of the Senate. We went from two women senators when I ran for office in 1992 to 24 today–and I know that number will keep climbing.”

    Feinstein, whose health had been declining, was absent from the senate for months earlier this year, but resisted calls to resign before her current term is up. She announced her plans to retire from the Senate in 2024 after a number of candidates, including Representatives Adam Schiff and Katie Porter, jumped into the race to vie for her seat.

    Feinstein married three times. She married Jack Berman in 1956, but they divorce in 1959; she was married to Bertram Feinstein from 1962 until his death in 1978; in 1980, she married Richard Blum, who she was with for more than 40 years until his death in 2022

    Though Feinstein herself has passed, her legacy in both state and federal politics will no doubt continue to live on, as Senator Alex Padilla said last month: “It would be impossible to write the history of California politics, it would be impossible to write the history of American politics without acknowledging the trailblazing career of Senator Dianne Feinstein.”

    [ad_2]

    Kelly Rissman

    Source link

  • Sen. Bob Menendez “Not Going Anywhere” Despite Growing Calls from Top Democrats to Resign

    Sen. Bob Menendez “Not Going Anywhere” Despite Growing Calls from Top Democrats to Resign

    [ad_1]

    A growing chorus of prominent Democrats—including New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy—are calling on Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to resign in the wake of Friday’s shocking indictment in Manhattan federal court, despite his insistence that he’s “not going anywhere.”

    The indictment is chock full of lurid details, including allegations that Menendez accepted envelopes stuffed with thousands of dollars in cash and gold bars in exchange for using his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to benefit the Egyptian government.

    “The allegations in the indictment against Senator Menendez and four other defendants are deeply disturbing. These are serious charges that implicate national security and the integrity of our criminal justice system,” Murphy said in a statement Friday. “The alleged facts are so serious that they compromise the ability of Senator Menendez to effectively represent the people of our state. Therefore, I am calling for his immediate resignation.”

    It is the senator’s second criminal indictment in eight years. His previous corruption charges filed in 2015 were dismissed after a jury could not reach a verdict in 2017.

    Due to Senate bylaws, Menendez was forced to step down from leadership since he was charged with a felony but has actively rejected calls for his resignation.

    “For years, forces behind the scenes have repeatedly attempted to silence my voice and dig my political grave,” the 69-year-old said in a statement. “Since this investigation was leaked nearly a year ago, there has been an active smear campaign of anonymous sources … It is not lost on me how quickly some are rushing to judge a Latino and push him out of his seat. I am not going anywhere.”

    In addition to Murphy, five Democratic representatives have called for the senator’s resignation as of Saturday morning, including three—Andy Kim, Mikie Sherrill, and Donald Norcross—widely expected to run for Menendez’s Senate seat in 2024. New Jersey Globe editor David Wildstein noted Saturday morning that Norcross’s call for resignation is especially indicative of the mood among Democrats, as Menendez “has been close to the Norcross family for decades.”

    Several state and local officials have also joined the chorus. Both New Jersey State Senate President Nick Scutari and State Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin called on Menendez to resign, with Coughlin arguing that the charges “go against everything we should believe as public servants.” “We are given the public’s trust, and once that trust is broken, we cannot continue,” he added. New Jersey Democratic Party Chair LeRoy Jones cited next year’s election as the main reason for Menendez to step down.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, however, declined to say whether his colleague should resign. “Bob Menendez has been a dedicated public servant and is always fighting hard for the people of New Jersey,” Schumer said in a brief statement. “He has a right to due process and a fair trial.”

    And Menendez’s fellow New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has also been silent so far about the indictments. As a young politician, Booker was mentored by Menendez, whom he has called “ “one of the greatest advocates for justice on the planet Earth.” Booker also testified at Menendez’s 2017 trial, where he called Menendez “trustworthy and honest.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • Risk of government shutdown soars as House Republicans leave town in disarray amid hard-right revolt

    Risk of government shutdown soars as House Republicans leave town in disarray amid hard-right revolt

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — With House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s latest funding plan in ruins and lawmakers leaving town for the weekend, there’s no endgame in sight as hard-right Republicans push closer to a federal government shutdown.

    The White House will tell federal agencies on Friday to prepare for a shutdown, according to an official with the Office of Management and Budget who insisted on anonymity to discuss the upcoming instructions.

    That’s a standard seven days out from a federal disruption.

    ‘This is a whole new concept of individuals who just want to burn the whole place down.’


    — Kevin McCarthy on his intraparty Republican critics

    McCarthy, the Republican speaker whose narrow majority and intraparty detractors meant it took 15 votes in January before he secured the gavel, has repeatedly tried to appease his hard-right flank by agreeing to the steep spending cuts they are demanding to keep government open. But, cheered on by Donald Trump, the former Republican president who is the current frontrunner for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination, the right wingers are flexing their outsize influence.

    In a crushing defeat for McCarthy on Thursday, a handful of Republican hardliners blocked a typically popular defense bill from advancing — the second time this week it was set back, an unheard-of loss for a House speaker.

    Even a stopgap bill to keep government funding past the Sept. 30 deadline, called a continuing resolution, or CR, is a nonstarter for some on the right flank who have essentially seized control of the House.

    Read on: How a partial government shutdown would affect you

    “This is a whole new concept of individuals who just want to burn the whole place down,” McCarthy said after Thursday’s vote, acknowledging he was frustrated. “It doesn’t work.”

    The open revolt was further evidence that McCarthy’s strategy of repeatedly giving in to the conservatives — in evidence as early as January when McCarthy is believed to have made undisclosed concessions to secure holdout GOP votes for his long-desired speakership — is seemingly only emboldening them, allowing them to run roughshod over their own House majority. Their far-right bills have almost no chances in the Senate.

    See: Gaetz threatens to oust McCarthy from House speaker post

    Trump urged the hardliners to hold the line against the higher funding levels McCarthy had agreed to with President Joe Biden earlier this year and to end the federal criminal indictments against him.

    “This is also the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me and other Patriots,” Trump wrote on social media.

    “They failed on the debt limit, but they must not fail now. Use the power of the purse and defend the Country!” the former president wrote.

    The White House and Democrats, along with some Republicans, warn that a shutdown would be devastating for people who rely on their government for everyday services and would undermine America’s standing in the world.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, observed Friday on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe” that investigations into, and prosecutions of, Trump are funded by continuing, indefinite appropriations and thus would be unaffected by a federal government shutdown.

    Also see: Government shutdown: Analysts warn of ‘perhaps a long one lasting into the winter’

    Raskin went on to voice a hope that Republicans ultimately would honor the government-funding agreement McCarthy struck in May with the Biden White House — but conceded Democrats are aware operating in a bipartisan fashion could cost McCarthy the speakership.

    “We need the extreme MAGA Republicans to get their act together,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

    “End the civil war,” Jeffries urged the Republicans. “Get your act together.”

    But one of Trump’s top allies, Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, who is leading the hard-right flank in the current skirmish, said the House Republicans now have almost no choices left but to spend the time it takes to pass each of the 12 spending bills needed to fund the government — typically a laborious process — even if it means going into a shutdown.

    Or they can join with Democrats to pass a CR, putting McCarthy at risk.

    What Gaetz said he, and several others, would not do is vote for a continuing resolution that fails to slash spending. “I’m giving a eulogy for the CR right now,” Gaetz told reporters after a late afternoon meeting Thursday at the Capitol.

    “I represent Florida’s First Congressional District, where, during the shutdown, tens of thousands of people will go without a paycheck, and so I know the impact of a shutdown,” Gaetz said. “So it may get worse before it gets better, and I have little to offer but blood, sweat, toil and tears, but that may be what it takes.”

    A government closure is increasingly likely as time runs out for Congress to act.

    McCarthy’s bid to move ahead with a traditionally popular defense funding bill as a first step toward keeping the government running was shattered, on a vote of 216-212. Five Republicans refused to vote with the increasingly endangered speaker. A sixth Republican voted no on procedural grounds so the bill could be reconsidered.

    Moving forward with the defense bill was supposed to be a way for McCarthy to build goodwill among the GOP House majority as he tries to pass a temporary measure just to keep government running for another month. It, too, had catered to other hard-right priorities, such as slashing spending by 8% from many services and earmarking further funds for security at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Many on the right flank opposed the deal McCarthy struck with Biden this year over the spending levels and are trying to dismantle it now. They want to see progress on the individual appropriations bills that would fund the various federal departments at the lower levels these lawmakers are demanding.

    From the archives (May 2023): How Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy got to yes on their debt-ceiling compromise

    The morning test vote on Thursday shattered a McCarthy strategy that had emerged just the night before. Republicans had appeared on track, in a tight roll call, to advancing the measure. Then the Democrats who had not yet voted began rushing into the chamber.

    New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow Democrats yelled out to hold open the vote. She was a “no.” A few others came in behind her and tipped the tally toward defeat.

    The Democrats oppose the military bill on many fronts, including Republican provisions that would gut diversity programs at the Pentagon.

    As passage appeared doomed, attention turned to the five Republican holdouts to switch their votes.

    GOP leaders spent more than an hour on the floor trying to recruit one of them, Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina, to vote “yes.”

    “Every time there’s the slightest relief of the pressure, the movement goes away from completing the work,” Bishop said.

    When asked what it would take to gain his vote, Bishop said, “I think a schedule of appropriations bills over Kevin McCarthy signature would be meaningful to you, to me.”

    Others were dug in, including some who had supported advancing the defense bill just two days ago when it first failed.

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and a clamorous opponent of more aid for Ukraine in its defense against the unprovoked Russian invasion, said she voted against the defense bill this time because her party’s leadership refused to separate out war money.

    Her stand came as Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was at the Capitol during a high-profile visit to Washington.

    McCarthy had pledged to keep House lawmakers in session this weekend for as long as it took to finish their work. But they were sent home and told they could be called back on ample notice.

    Many Republicans were starting to speak up more forcefully against their hard-right colleagues.

    Mike Lawler, who represents a swing district in New York carried handily by Joe Biden in 2020, said he would not “be party to a shutdown.”

    “There needs to be a realization that you’re not going to get everything you want,” he said. “Just throwing a temper tantrum and stomping your feet — frankly, not only is it wrong — it’s just pathetic.”

    Lawler had said in an interview with CNN earlier in the week that barreling toward a shutdown was not Republican conservatism but “stupidity.”

    MarketWatch contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Blake Masters Might Be Getting Cold Feet About A Second Run for Senate in Arizona: Report

    Blake Masters Might Be Getting Cold Feet About A Second Run for Senate in Arizona: Report

    [ad_1]

    Blake Masters, the far-right venture capitalist who ran and lost in a 2022 Senate election in Arizona, is having second thoughts about trying and potentially failing for a second time, The Daily Beast reported Sunday.

    Toward the end of August, multiple outlets reported that Masters was virtually guaranteed to enter the race. An Arizona-based GOP strategist who’d spoken to Masters told Politico that he was “pretty decisively in.” Now—not so much.

    “Sources close to Masters are doubting whether he will go through with a campaign,” especially if it pits him against former Arizona gubernatorial candidate and election fabulist Kari Lake, who is also close to throwing her hat into the ring, according to the Daily Beast. “The consensus within Arizona GOP circles was that Masters is a lot further from jumping in than it may have seemed,” according to the report.

    Lake and Masters ran on far-right “Make America Great Again” platforms in 2022, often appearing together at events. Though both lost their elections, Lake significantly outperformed Masters, garnering nearly 100,000 more votes.

    Masters’ reluctance may have something to do with the tepid response news of a possible run has gotten in GOP circles. On Friday, The New York Times reported on a phone call between Masters and former President Donald Trump on September 1, just days after The Wall Street Journal reported that Masters was planning on entering the race. The MAGA leader reportedly told Masters he didn’t think he could win a primary matchup against Lake.

    Masters campaigned hard to get Trump’s endorsement in 2022, but Trump lashed out when Masters failed to embrace the former president’s election lies during an October 2022 debate. Trump called him and told him he needed “to go stronger on that one thing” before comparing him unfavorably with Lake. “And if they say, ‘How is your family?’ [Lake] says, ‘The election was rigged and stolen,’” Trump said.

    Trump, who is currently leading in the GOP race for the White House, isn’t the only prominent GOP figure who’s appeared lukewarm about a second Masters Senate bid.

    Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, whom Masters has described as the senator he most agrees with, told Business Insider last week that he would be “really surprised” if the MAGA defender jumped into the race. Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, a fellow beneficiary of campaign funding from far-right billionaire Peter Thiel in 2022, also declined to say whether he’d endorse Masters, as did Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, who both campaigned for Masters during the 2022 election cycle.

    “Seems like a nice guy” was about as much as Graham could muster.

    Whether Lake and Masters enter the race will have significant implications for the swing-state election to unseat current Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the formerly-Democratic-turned-independent politician who is deeply unpopular in her home state.

    Sinema has not yet announced whether she’ll be running for reelection, though she has filed paperwork to do so and has been fundraising aggressively. Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego announced his bid in January, while Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb announced in April that he was running for the Republican nomination.

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • Mitch McConnell’s Health Scare and the Future of the GOP

    Mitch McConnell’s Health Scare and the Future of the GOP

    [ad_1]

    Inside the Hive host Brian Stelter talked to Politico senior political columnist Jonathan Martin about Mitch McConnell’s refusal to step down despite a couple on-camera freeze-ups—and how Republican senators (for now, at least) are standing by him. Martin describes McConnell as “one of these rare modern American senators who never had an appetite to run for president,” explaining how “it is extraordinarily difficult for somebody like that to walk away from the pinnacle of their career in public life.”

    Stelter and Martin also discuss the state of America’s political gerontocracy, as well as the 81-year-old minority leader’s relationship with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, his response to Trumpism, and his support for Ukraine. McConnell’s “last big public fight,” Martin says, is “the effort to keep the Republican Party away from the temptation of isolationism and away from kind of what he views as the most virulent strain of Trumpism.” That’s McConnell’s “mission at this point,” he says, and perhaps “his final battle.”

    [ad_2]

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Mitch McConnell’s Freeze-Ups Haven’t Fractured Senate Republicans—Yet

    Mitch McConnell’s Freeze-Ups Haven’t Fractured Senate Republicans—Yet

    [ad_1]

    Even some former McConnell dissidents have thrown their lot in with the Kentucky senator after last week’s incident. In a twist, Florida senator Rick Scott—who unsuccessfully challenged McConnell for party leader and is a frequent critic—responded “absolutely” when asked whether he would continue to support McConnell as leader. “I’m sure he will continue to do his job.” Even when pressed and asked whether McConnell should step aside at the end of this Congress, Scott held firm. “No,” he said, adding that if McConnell “feels comfortable” he should continue serving.

    That isn’t to say there aren’t detractors in the mix. Fellow Kentucky senator Rand Paul called on McConnell to “be more forthcoming with what’s going on,” and was dismissive of the explanation that the freezes could be explained away by dehydration; he later sought to clarify that his remarks were regarding the medical explanation—not necessarily a comment on McConnell’s fitness. But Senator Josh Hawley, who didn’t back McConnell in the last leadership race, has been vocal about his concerns, which he said are shared by his constituents. “I just got back from a month at home where I was asked about this constantly,” the Missouri lawmaker told reporters. “This is just where we are. So is that a good thing? No. So am I concerned? Yeah.” 

    Hawley fears that McConnell’s issues have become a distraction—and could continue to be as the 2024 election cycle ramps up. “That’s an important election cycle for Republicans in this body,” he said. “I just hope that we are 100% focused on that.”

    Late Tuesday evening, the Kentucky senator sought to quash the chatter. In his first public remarks since the second freeze, he briefly addressed the incident on the Senate floor. Running through an inventory of events he participated in during the recess, McConnell expressed chagrin: “One particular moment of my time back home has received its fair share of attention in the press over the past week, but I assure you August was a busy and productive month for me and my staff back in the commonwealth.”

    Within hours, McConnell’s team released the letter from Monahan, the Senate physician. Monahan wrote, “There is no evidence that you have a seizure disorder or that you experienced a stroke, TIA or movement disorder such as Parkinson’s disease.” He noted that there are “no changes recommended in treatment protocols” for McConnell following his fall in March, during which he suffered a concussion. On Wednesday, McConnell took the floor once again, but avoided his health entirely, instead largely focusing on taking shots at the Biden administration’s foreign policy and urging for continued support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. “This is not the time to ease up,” he said. “It’s not the time for America to step back.”

    But as McConnell and his allies maintain there is nothing to see here, massive legislative battles loom.

    In the final days before lawmakers departed the Beltway for the August recess, tensions had reached a fever pitch among lawmakers when House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called it quits early as a number of key spending bills stalled out amid growing fissures within his caucus. Faced with the looming September 30 deadline to fund the government, it was a troubling portent. As House Democrat Suzan DelBene told Vanity Fair at the time, Congress was, “On a fast track to a shutdown.” Speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer made a plea for both sides of the aisle to work together to fund the government. “If both sides work in good faith, embrace bipartisanship … then there will be no shutdown.” But that is hard to imagine.

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy

    Source link

  • Falls and a Freeze-Up: Mitch McConnell’s Health Scares Prompt Succession Chatter

    Falls and a Freeze-Up: Mitch McConnell’s Health Scares Prompt Succession Chatter

    [ad_1]

    “Maybe he’s slowed down a half step over the last couple years, but I don’t see any gross changes,” Senator Marshall told Vanity Fair. McConnell “just had a bad day” at the lectern on Wednesday, said Senator Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, adding, “I’ve had a lot of bad days myself,” with a laugh.

    Tuberville also noted, generally, “We all gotta know when enough’s enough…. He’s fine. He’ll make his own decision on that.”

    Mitch McConnell’s staff was quick to swat down any chatter about the leader’s ability to serve. “Leader McConnell appreciates the continued support of his colleagues, and plans to serve his full term in the job they overwhelmingly elected him to do,” his office put out in a statement to the press.

    But those in his conference are already thinking about who is next. “If and when the time comes, I’m interested,” says Thune, who currently serves as the Republican whip and led the conference when McConnell was absent for around five weeks after his fall in March. Thune was the first to step up to deliver remarks when McConnell was briefly taken away from the lectern last week.

    It’s no secret who is in the running for McConnell’s successorship. “I think people who would be interested in his position are people who are in leadership today,” said Senator Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, name-dropping Thune, Barrasso, and Ernst. Texas Republican John Cornyn, who served as GOP whip from 2013 to 2019 and as a loyal McConnell ally, is also in the mix.

    “The three Johns,” though, dominate the chatter of any post-McConnell order more than the two women on the leadership team—Ernst and conference vice chairman Shelley Moore Capito—or any possibility of a wild card in the conference, assumptions that bristle some Senate Republicans. “Wouldn’t it be great if it were a woman?” mused a senior GOP senator on the condition of anonymity. “I don’t think it’ll happen, but that would really be something if it were a woman,” the senator continued, a preference broadly echoed by at least two other women in the conference. “It’s all about who is interested in throwing their ideas into the mix and taking votes,” Senator Cynthia Lummis, a Wyoming Republican, told Politico.

    Last November, 10 Senate Republicans presented the first challenge to McConnell’s grip as Senate GOP leader by voting for Rick Scott of Florida who, along with Mike Lee of Utah, were reportedly stripped of their preferred committee assignments when McConnell eventually prevailed by a vote of 37 to 10. No one had ever voted against McConnell in leadership elections before. But the internal mutiny was more about politics than a belief McConnell was no longer fit to serve.

    After failing to retake the Senate majority in last year’s midterm election, some Republican senators had seen enough. McConnell, who has carefully navigated Donald Trump’s insurgency in his own party, suddenly had challengers. “My criticisms following the last election loss are well known,” said Josh Hawley of Missouri, one of the 10 Senate Republicans who voted for Scott. “I think we need a different approach…but I don’t want that to be taken as a dig against his health, at all.” For now—at least publicly—most of McConnell’s possible successors demure at the idea. “I’m happy to wait,” Cornyn said when asked if the conference should be making plans for when McConnell is no longer leader. “I don’t know how much longer he will want to serve, but I support him as long as he wants the job.”

    “McConnell is our leader,” laughed Barrasso, the senior senator from Wyoming, a seat he has held since 2007, when asked about the GOP leader’s eventual secession.

    When I asked McConnell directly if he had anyone in mind to replace him some day, he laughed out loud. It was the last question during the now infamous Wednesday presser where McConnell froze live on air.

    “I’m fine,” he said—a line he repeated until the Senate left Capitol Hill until September for a five-week recess. 

    The American political memory is short, but McConnell’s not up for reelection until 2026—plenty of time for him to become another Senate prizefighter who played the long game, maybe too long.

    [ad_2]

    Pablo Manríquez

    Source link

  • This Democrat Thinks He Can Do What Beto O’Rourke Couldn’t: Take Down Ted Cruz

    This Democrat Thinks He Can Do What Beto O’Rourke Couldn’t: Take Down Ted Cruz

    [ad_1]

    The January 6 rioters were closing in fast. Texas congressman Colin Allred could hear them coming, breaking glass and pounding on doors. He thought about his toddler son; Allred thought about the possibility he could be killed on the House floor and never meet his second son, due to be born in two months. He sent a text to his wife: Whatever happens, I love you. Then Allred took off his suit jacket and braced himself to use the skills he’d learned as an NFL linebacker, “putting people on the ground.”

    Meanwhile, Texas senator Ted Cruz, who had helped stoke the insurrection, was hiding in a supply closet.

    In the Hollywood version, the moment Allred learned about Cruz cowering is the moment the Democratic congressman decided to run against the Republican senator in 2024. The reality isn’t that melodramatic, but as Allred underscores the contrast between their responses during the insurrection, it’s clear that he is prepared to make a sharp and compelling case against Cruz. “There’s been no accountability for his actions,” Allred tells me. “For being on vacation in Cancun when Texas was freezing, for using the border as a political backdrop but not passing any legislation, for being one of the most divisive figures in the country, whipping up the mob in the weeks prior to January 6. But that accountability comes in this election.”

    Allred still needs to win his party’s nomination next March, and he will face a spirited Democratic primary opponent in Roland Gutierrez, a state senator whose district includes San Antonio and Uvalde and who is making reducing gun violence a priority. But one reason Allred is considered the front-runner, and why he could be a serious general election threat to Cruz, is his campaign’s theory of the case. (Allred has been within single digits of Cruz in, admittedly, very early head-to-head polls; he’s also outraising the incumbent out of the gate.)

    His camp believes the biggest lesson from Beto O’Rourke’s narrow loss to Cruz in 2018 isn’t simply that the Republican is vulnerable, but that the race was too much about O’Rourke and not enough about Cruz. The charismatic O’Rourke became a celebrity and a cause, which was enough to get him within 2.6% of victory; Allred believes that to defeat Cruz the focus needs to be squarely on the incumbent. “Oh, Ted Cruz is unlikable. But he’s also not doing the job. And that’s the biggest thing,” Allred says. “He has become mostly a media figure. He’s podcasting three times a week. He’s a constant presence on Fox News. He’s a content machine, but he’s not a legislative machine. He votes against our interests time and time again, because he’s an ideologue, pursuing an ideological viewpoint and a media viewpoint, not what’s best for Texas.”

    There would be other significant differences between O’Rourke and Allred as Cruz challengers. O’Rourke was staunchly left of center; Allred, who currently represents a suburban Dallas district, is modestly moderate. Allred supports red flag laws and universal background checks, but he will not be declaring, as O’Rourke did during a brief presidential run, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Allred believes climate change is a crisis, but he is pragmatic when it comes to one of Texas’s most powerful industries. “It isn’t realistic to think that we’re going to be able to immediately transition away from fossil fuels,” he says. “I’ve been supportive of an all-of-the-above energy approach.”

    His personal story should have broad appeal. Allred, 40, says he has never met his father, who was Black; he was raised in Dallas by his mother, a white public school teacher, and went to Baylor on a football scholarship, then spent four seasons playing for the Tennessee Titans. Lying on the field, injured, Allred decided to go to law school; he later worked on housing issues in the Obama administration. In 2018 Allred, in his first run for office, knocked off 11-term Republican congressman Pete Sessions. “He is genuinely concerned with making a difference for other people,” says Julian Castro, the former San Antonio mayor who, as HUD secretary, was Allred’s boss (and who is now an MSNBC contributor and emphasizes that he can’t endorse candidates). “Colin hasn’t forgotten where he came from.”

    None of which will keep Cruz from hammering Allred, if he’s the nominee, on culture-war issues, by trying to portray his opponent as a drag queen-loving socialist Democrat, playing to partisan advantage: Democrats haven’t won a statewide election in Texas since 1994. “Even in the most liberal places in Texas, we’re pretty much a center-right kind of people. You know, even Democrats like their guns here,” says Vinny Minchillo, a Republican strategist in Dallas. “But the political map of Texas is always very tricky, because every two years there’s a whole new crop of people coming from out of state. So I would never say never about Cruz being vulnerable. I’m just surprised because Allred is leaving a really safe, nice seat, and this might be a suicide mission for him.” To pull off an upset, Allred will need the same perverse help with Democratic turnout motivation that President Joe Biden is looking for: “If Trump is at the top of the Republican ticket,” Texas political analyst Harvey Kronberg says, “then Ted Cruz is beatable.”

    Allred shrugs at all the speculation and triangulation. He is wisely keeping things as simple, and as local, as possible. “This is not about the broader trends in the country. It’s not about the other races that we’ve had at the statewide level. This isn’t about whether Texas is going to turn blue,” he says. “It’s about a particular senator who has not been doing the job and who should not be reelected. This is about beating Ted Cruz and getting 30 million Texans the kind of leadership they deserve.”

    [ad_2]

    Chris Smith

    Source link

  • Mitch McConnell’s Freeze-Up Presents Stark Questions for Senate Republicans

    Mitch McConnell’s Freeze-Up Presents Stark Questions for Senate Republicans

    [ad_1]

    During a routine Wednesday press conference, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, 81, left tongues wagging after he froze mid-sentence for nearly thirty seconds before aides escorted him away from the microphones.

    It was just the latest in a string of health-related incidents the senator has suffered this year, which marked the longest-ever tenure of a Senate leader. In March, after McConnell tripped and fell at the Waldorf Astoria in Washington, he spent five days in the hospital and more than a week in a rehab facility dealing with a concussion and broken rib. All in all, he spent nearly six weeks away from the Senate.

    Also of note: Just days before the March incident, McConnell stumbled and fell in the snow on his way to a meeting with the Finnish President in Helsinki, CNN reported Thursday. And late Wednesday night, NBC News reported that McConnell tripped and fell again earlier this month while disembarking from a plane in DC. Both of these stumbles had previously gone unreported.

    When McConnell returned to the podium Wednesday, he dodged a question about whether the most recent episode was related to his concussion, simply saying he was “fine” and that he was able to continue fulfilling his duties. His reticence on the subject of his own health is hardly surprising: One Republican senator, speaking anonymously to NBC News, said that McConnell “doesn’t address” his medical issues even in closed-door GOP meetings.

    But there’s reason to believe the incident might point to something more serious. Two neurologists who spoke to The New York Times after the incident said the two most likely causes of the episode were a partial seizure or a kind of mini-stroke called a “transient ischemic attack.” McConnell aides have declined to say whether he’d been examined by a doctor.

    McConnell’s health issues underscore the challenges faced by a rapidly aging Senate. This spring, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who last month celebrated her 90th birthday, spent over two months away from her duties while recovering from a bout of shingles. At times, she has shown significant signs of possible cognitive impairment, leading to calls for her resignation.

    The median age in the Senate is currently 65.3, up from 62.4 in 2017 and over seven years older than the median House age, which has fallen in recent years. More than half of the Senate’s Republicans are older than 65, compared to 46 percent of Senate Democrats. In the United States, the full retirement age is 67.

    As for McConnell, a number of pro-Trump conservative media figures and activists, who have long despised the Senate minority leader, called for his immediate resignation Wednesday. But the Kentucky Senator laughed off a question about his potential replacement.

    Still, the senator’s obvious frailty means that a retirement or retreat from Senate leadership is certainly a possibility. That scenario would likely touch off a three-way succession race between Senate Republican Whip John Thune, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, and former Senate GOP whip John Cornyn. Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon who helped escort McConnell back to his office on Wednesday, said the Senate GOP leader is “doing a great job leading our conference and was able to answer every question the press asked him today.” Cornyn likewise said Wednesday that he’d support McConnell “as long as he wants to remain as leader.”

    Succession would be fairly simple in McConnell’s home state. In 2021, the GOP-dominated Kentucky legislature overrode Democratic Governor Andy Beshear’s veto to pass a law mandating that McConnell’s replacement would have to come from his own party. McConnell publicly supported the bill, which prompted speculation that he was planning on leaving the Senate before the end of his current term, which runs until 2027.

    “I’m not going anywhere. I just got elected to a six-year term, and I’m still the leader of my party in the Senate,” McConnell said at the time. “So, this is a hypothetical. But I had watched this over the years in the Senate, as various vacancies were filled, and I thought this was the best way to go.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • Lashrecse Aird Defeats Anti-Choice Democrat Joe Morrissey In Virginia Senate Primary

    Lashrecse Aird Defeats Anti-Choice Democrat Joe Morrissey In Virginia Senate Primary

    [ad_1]

    Lashrecse Aird defeated the lone anti-abortion Democrat in the Virginia state Senate on Tuesday night in a closely-watched Democratic primary race, cementing a Democratic majority in the narrowly held chamber.

    “I want to thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your support. It is truly a testament to our community and to our Commonwealth that I am standing here on this stage,” Aird said during her victory speech on Tuesday evening.

    “As we set our sights beyond our victory tonight, I’m ready to hit the ground running,” she added. “In Richmond, I’ll be a firewall for our reproductive rights in the face of Republican extremists who think they have the right to make decisions about our own bodies.”

    Abortion rights were a major issue in the Democratic primary race for Virginia’s 13th Senate District, as Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin pushes a 15-week abortion ban in the state. Aird, a former member of the House of Delegates, is openly pro-choice and spent much of her time on the campaign trail criticizing her opponent, incumbent Joe Morrissey, on his anti-abortion voting record.

    Morrissey has said he would support a 15-week abortion ban ― although he walked back those statements to HuffPost ahead of the election ― and has a history of breaking with his party on abortion legislation.

    Morrissey, once a self-described “pro-life” Democrat, has repeatedly voted against abortion rights legislation. Last year, he co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban with one of his Republican colleagues, and earlier this year, he abstained from voting on a bill that would codify reproductive rights into the state constitution. Neither bill passed.

    “Lashrecse Aird made this race about protecting abortion rights ― something the majority of Americans overwhelmingly agree on,” Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said in a statement.

    “Aird was unapologetically pro-abortion rights and campaigned on stopping Gov. Youngkin from enacting an abortion ban in Virginia. The voters of SD-13 were loud and clear: They demand to be represented by an outspoken advocate for reproductive rights. This is a victory for SD-13 residents, for Virginians, and for health care access in our entire southeast region.”

    The Democrats’ majority in the state Senate has been slim, 22-18, including Morrissey ― who often broke with his party to vote against abortion rights. Earlier this year, Virginia Democrats won a critical state Senate seat in a special election, giving Democrats the numbers to defeat Youngkin’s proposed 15-week ban last session successfully. Aird’s win solidifies that Democratic majority and likely ensures abortion care will remain protected in Virginia.

    Since Roe v. Wade fell nearly a year ago, most of the Southeast has become an abortion care desert ― making Virginia one of the last abortion rights strongholds. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and more have all enacted near-total abortion bans in the Southeast. North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida will likely enact restrictions in the coming weeks. Virginia currently allows abortion through the second trimester and into the third if the pregnant person’s life is at risk. If Youngkin were to enact a 15-week abortion ban, it would have devastating consequences for the people of Virginia and those traveling from out of state to get care.

    The primary race made national headlines ahead of Tuesday evening due to its outsize impact on abortion access in the Southeast. It also divided the Democratic Party in Virginia, with the six Democratic women serving in the state Senate endorsing Aird ― and sharply criticizing their colleague Morrissey ― in a March 29 statement. Aird also secured endorsements from Democrats in the Senate and the House of Delegates. Some Democrats did endorse Morrissey.

    Aird will face off with Republican challenger Eric Ditri in the general election in November.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Case for Debt-Ceiling Optimism

    The Case for Debt-Ceiling Optimism

    [ad_1]

    As the government careens toward the brink of default without a deal to lift the debt limit, an unlikely source of reassurance has emerged.

    “I think everyone needs to relax,” Mitch McConnell told reporters on Tuesday in his home state of Kentucky. “The country will not default.” The longtime Republican leader, who once boasted of being the Senate’s “grim reaper,” isn’t known for his soothing bedside manner. His equanimity was hard to reconcile with the vibes emanating from the Capitol on that particular day, where House Republican negotiators were accusing their Democratic counterparts in the White House of intransigence and insisting that the sides remained far apart.

    The Treasury Department has said that if Congress does not raise the nation’s borrowing limit, the government could, as early as June 1, default on its debt for the first time. The economic repercussions could be catastrophic—first a market crash, then, economists believe, a recession. Because the House and Senate would need at least a few days to approve any agreement that President Joe Biden strikes with Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the real deadline could be even sooner.

    But McConnell, who has spent nearly half of his 81 years on Earth in the Senate, has seen more than a few difficult negotiations. Despite all the histrionics—the censorious sound bites, the “red lines” each side has drawn, the breakdowns and “pauses”—the talks thus far haven’t looked all that different from past Washington deadline dances, which tend to end with a deal. “This is not that unusual,” McConnell said.

    The public feuding is actually a good sign, and so, in a way, is the delay. “They need this to run to the very last minute,” Brendan Buck, a former aide to Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan, told me. As Buck sees it, the theatrics between GOP and Democratic leaders is a necessary precursor to a deal, because it shows partisans on their respective sides that they fought as hard as they could before reaching a compromise.

    Biden and McCarthy are trying to find a solution that can pass both a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate. A quick-and-tidy agreement is likely to be viewed suspiciously by both parties, and particularly the GOP’s hard-right faction, which made McCarthy sweat out 15 votes to become speaker. “There’s no way McCarthy could have walked in two weeks ago, had a one-hour meeting with the president, and come out and said, ‘We have a deal,’” Matt Glassman, a former congressional aide who is now a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, told me. “That would be just deadly for him with his conference.”

    Today’s impasse has drawn comparisons to the debt-ceiling negotiations in 2011 between Boehner and then-President Barack Obama. Those talks featured even more drama, including the sudden collapse of a “grand bargain” and, later, a worried prime-time address to the nation from Obama. Even though the two parties have since drifted further apart (mostly thanks to the GOP’s move rightward), the gap between them in these negotiations is much smaller.

    Back then, Obama was pushing aggressively for tax increases, while Boehner wanted several trillion dollars in spending cuts, including major changes to entitlement programs. Biden initially took a harder line this time, refusing for months to engage McCarthy in negotiations over the debt ceiling. But since backing off that position, he’s made only half-hearted—and swiftly rejected—attempts to get McCarthy to raise taxes or make any kind of policy concession. To the frustration of progressives, he’s even seemed willing to tighten work requirements for people receiving federal safety-net benefits. Republicans, for their part, have agreed not to seek cuts to Medicare or Social Security. “I don’t actually think this is that difficult of a deal to reach,” Buck said. Getting that deal through the House and the Senate, he said, will be more difficult, which is why both Biden and McCarthy will need to save the biggest deadline pressure for the votes themselves.

    By most accounts, the parties are haggling chiefly over whether to freeze government spending at current levels—Biden’s latest offer—or cut as much as $130 billion by reverting to 2022 spending, as Republicans have proposed. Republicans want to exempt the Defense Department from any cuts, which is a sticking point for Democrats.

    Considering the yawning philosophical differences between the parties, that’s not much of a gap. “Compromising over numbers isn’t that hard,” Glassman said. “It’s not like compromising over abortion.”

    Look closer and there are other reasons for optimism. Although some of McCarthy’s members are urging him to hold fast to the conservative provisions of the debt-ceiling bill Republicans narrowly passed last month, the speaker has moved off those demands. Even the blowups have been timed, either intentionally or coincidentally, to avoid spooking investors and causing stock markets to slide. The White House meetings between McCarthy and Biden, for example, have all occurred after the markets closed, and the biggest breakdown in the talks (so far) happened over the weekend before negotiations resumed on Monday.

    Republicans have many reasons for not causing a stock-market crash; the simplest is that they and many of their constituents would stand to lose a lot of money. Another possible reason is that party leaders, and McConnell especially, seem to recognize that a panic over the debt ceiling is not in their political interest and could undermine their negotiating position.

    McConnell is not a soothsayer—his prediction that Donald Trump’s grip on the GOP would loosen, for example, has not exactly panned out. Nor is his confidence that the country will avert default merely a forecast from a disinterested observer. If McConnell is saying it, he must think it benefits Republicans for him to do so.

    But even a self-interested assurance is one more indication of hope, a sign that Republicans want to prevent economic disaster. A debt-ceiling deal between Biden and McCarthy remains more likely than not. It might just take a few more days of posturing and setbacks before it happens.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Video: Senators Grill Ex-C.E.O. of Silicon Valley Bank

    Video: Senators Grill Ex-C.E.O. of Silicon Valley Bank

    [ad_1]

    Lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee derided claims by the former chief executive of Silicon Valley Bank, Gregory Becker, that unforeseeable circumstances led to the bank’s failure.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Marijuana legalization effort could be hitting roadblock again in New Hampshire Senate – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    Marijuana legalization effort could be hitting roadblock again in New Hampshire Senate – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    [ad_1]

    Marijuana legalization effort could be hitting roadblock again in New Hampshire Senate



    FIGHT COULD BE COULD SPILL OVER TO THE STATE BUDGET IN 2022. THE STATE SENATE ADDED SEVERAL FORMER STATE REPS WHO EITHER SUPPORTED MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION OR DIDN’T REFLEXIVELY OPPOSE IT. BUT THE WINDOW THAT MIGHT HAVE OPENED TO GET A LEGALIZATION BILL THROUGH THE UPPER BODY AT THE STATEHOUSE THIS YEAR APPEARS TO BE RAPIDLY CLOSING. YEAH, THERE’S SOMETHING PECULIAR THAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY LEAVE THE PEOPLE’S HOUSE AND HEAD OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL. HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER JASON OSBORNE SAYS HE’S AWARE OF AN EFFORT TO, QUOTE, KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON CANNABIS AND LEGALIZATION. ADVOCATES SAY THERE’S BEEN A SHIFT RECENTLY AS THEY SPEAK WITH STATE SENATORS ALL IN THE LAST WEEK OR TWO. THERE SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF A TURN OF ATTENTION FROM MY REPUBLICAN SENATE SUPPORTERS THAT THIS BILL NOW HAS ISSUES. HOUSE BILL 639 WOULD LEGALIZE MARIJUANA IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR ADULTS 21 AND OLDER, WHILE IMPOSING A. 12.5% TAX ON SALES OF THE PRODUCT. STATE REPS BACKED THE LEGISLATION WITH BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. BUT IN RECENT YEARS, THE HOUSE’S GROWING ENTHUSIASM FOR LEGALIZATION HAS BEEN BLOCKED BY THE…

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    [ad_2]

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • It’s Time for Dianne Feinstein to Resign

    It’s Time for Dianne Feinstein to Resign

    [ad_1]

    We should not hold a United States senator to a lower standard than that to which we hold all other Americans. We should expect that a senator would, at minimum, perform the basic duties of their job, like casting votes, rather than clench power at the public’s expense (after all, it’s not like they’re Supreme Court justices, who are apparently allowed to do whatever they want). But right now, we’re watching Dianne Feinstein, the 89-year-old California senator on medical leave since February, do the latter by refusing to step down. 

    California congressman Ro Khanna, one of the few Democrats loudly calling for Feinstein’s resignation, told me that her “stepping down from her position on the Judiciary Committee is a start, but the practical reality is that Republicans are already saying that they will stop Senator [Chuck] Schumer from filling her spot with another Democrat.” Khanna added, “With a Republican House blocking legislation, it is so critically important to confirm judges that will stand up against the ongoing assault on women’s reproductive rights. While I have a lot of respect for Senator Feinstein’s long career in public service, she is clearly unable to do her job and that puts millions of Americans at risk of losing fundamental rights.”

     Feinstein has been a trailblazer for women in politics, with an impressive legacy of service spanning decades. In the late 1970s, as president of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, Feinstein helped lead the city through the hideous murders of city supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone (whom she would later succeed). She is the longest-serving female senator ever, having now spent three decades in the upper chamber. These days, however, Feinstein isn’t in Washington, but at home in San Francisco convalescing from shingles. “I intend to return as soon as possible once my medical team advises that it’s safe for me to travel,” Feinstein said in a statement last week, though as of now, there’s been no immediate plan to do just that.

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed confidence Tuesday that Feinstein would return, though “it’s just a matter of when.” Pelosi has suggested sexism is at play in the calls to resign. “I don’t know what political agendas are at work that are going after Senator Feinstein in that way,” she said last week. “I’ve never seen them go after a man who was sick in the Senate in that way.” Sure, men like the late Strom Thurmond didn’t retire before turning 100, and current Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who won reelection in November at age 89, will be 95 when his term ends. But here’s the thing: “They” should have gone after men too, if the men weren’t able to do their jobs. (Grassley seems fine; Thurmond surely could have retired at, say, 92.) This is not about ageism or about feminism; this is about holding public servants to the same standards we hold everyone else to.

    When someone is unable or unwilling to do their job, they resign—or can be expected to be fired. This is the way of life in America. It’s grim, but it’s what we do here. Imagine a world where we “hold” jobs for people who are likely never going to get back to them anyway. Your bus has no driver, your coffee place has no cashier, you go to your doctor appointment and the doctor is not there. It’s one of the harsh realities of life that we tend not to keep people in jobs when they can no longer do them. 

    Of course, public servants should be allowed to recover from health issues, and return, as Senator John Fetterman did this week following treatment for clinical depression. In the case of Feinstein, however, her current medical condition, and the uncertainty about when she could return, follows years of questions about her fitness to serve. Here’s how one unnamed lawmaker put it last year to the San Francisco Chronicle: “I have worked with her for a long time and long enough to know what she was like just a few years ago: always in command, always in charge, on top of the details, basically couldn’t resist a conversation where she was driving some bill or some idea. All of that is gone. She was an intellectual and political force not that long ago, and that’s why my encounter with her was so jarring. Because there was just no trace of that.”

    But even two years prior, in 2020, The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer told NPR’s All Things Considered: “Really, for the last couple of years, I’ve been hearing that Dianne Feinstein has been struggling, particularly with short-term memory issues, so that her staff will brief her and then she’ll forget what she’s been told or that she’s been briefed at all.” This isn’t about age, this is about ability to do the job one was elected to do. 

    The problem with letting Feinstein take her time is that the math is not on Democrats’ side. Republicans have refused to let Feinstein sub someone else into her Judiciary Committee slot, with every day of her not serving being another day Democrats are not confirming federal judges. And right now, America is in the middle of a judicial crisis. We have a Supreme Court which is ruled by Republicans, of which three were installed by Donald Trump—the last being Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed shortly after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. (Democrats reportedly feared Feinstein playing a lead role in that confirmation hearing, for which she came under withering criticism after.) In June, those Trump-appointed justices overturned Roe, taking away a constitutional right women had for 50 years, the right to bodily autonomy. These right-wing justices have continued reshaping the country. According to NPR’s Nina Totenberg, it’s the most conservative Court in 90 years and conservatives have prevailed in “62% of the decisions.” These are not normal times. We are a country in the middle of a judicial emergency.

    As Khanna said this past weekend on Fox News, California governor Gavin Newsom has the opportunity to appoint a caretaker to this Senate seat, thus not putting his finger on scale for the 2024 California Democratic senate primary, which already has representatives Barbara Lee, Adam Schiff, and Katie Porter vying for Feinstein’s seat. “This has nothing to do with the current race, because a caretaker would solve that,” he said. “This has to do with someone who is just not showing up.” 

    [ad_2]

    Molly Jong-Fast

    Source link

  • ‘Window Into History’: Tapes Detail LBJ’s Stolen Election

    ‘Window Into History’: Tapes Detail LBJ’s Stolen Election

    [ad_1]

    DALLAS (AP) — The story was a blockbuster: A former Texas voting official was on the record detailing how nearly three decades earlier, votes were falsified to give then-congressman Lyndon B. Johnson a win that propelled the future president into the U.S. Senate.

    The audio recordings from Associated Press reporter James W. Mangan’s interviews for the 1977 story were posted this week on the LBJ Presidential Library and Museum’s archival website, Discover LBJ. After Mangan’s death in 2015 at the age of 87, his family found the labeled cassette tapes at his San Antonio home and donated them last summer to the library on the campus of the University at Texas at Austin.

    Luis Salas, the former South Texas election judge, told Mangan for the story: “Johnson did not win that election; It was stolen for him. And I know exactly how it was done.”

    The story, which made front pages across the country, pulled back the curtain on the razor-thin victory that had drawn suspicions ever since election officials in rural Jim Wells County announced the discovery of uncounted votes in a ballot box known as Box 13 in the days after the 1948 Democratic primary Senate runoff. And now, at a time when election fraud is rare but former President Donald Trump and his allies amplify baseless allegations blaming it for his 2020 loss, the tapes and story show what compelling evidence of actual fraud looks like.

    Peter Mangan shows a box containing tapes at the Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidential library, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2022, in Austin, Texas. The family of the late Associated Press reporter James W. Mangan has donated to the library cassette tapes containing interviews the reporter did that led to a 1977 story in which a Texas voting official detailed how three decades earlier, votes were falsified to give Johnson a slim victory in a U.S. Senate primary. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

    Mangan’s son, Peter, said listening the tapes was like getting “a little window into history.”

    On one cassette, he said, it sounds like his father is in his car, reciting what he’d just been told.

    “You can hear cars going by and he’s kind of, you can tell he’s a little excited, because I think he finally got the goods,” Peter Mangan said.

    Mark Lawrence, the library’s director, said the recordings are “deeply connected to one of the big mysteries and controversies that’s hung around LBJ for decades.” In a 1984 oral history that Salas gave to the library, he said one of the reasons he finally decided to talk was because he had been quite ill.

    Mangan said in a 2008 AP story that as he worked to convince Salas to go on the record, he told him: “If you die, history will never know what happened.”

    Lawrence said much is now known about Box 13, thanks to both Mangan’s 1977 story and research done later by LBJ biographer Robert Caro, who “essentially reaffirmed” Mangan’s story and built on it.

    A box containing tapes from interviews rests on a table at the Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential library, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2022, in Austin, Texas. The family of the late Associated Press reporter James W. Mangan has donated to the library cassette tapes containing interviews the reporter did that led to a 1977 story in which a Texas voting official detailed how three decades earlier, votes were falsified to give Johnson a slim victory in a U.S. Senate primary. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
    A box containing tapes from interviews rests on a table at the Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidential library, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2022, in Austin, Texas. The family of the late Associated Press reporter James W. Mangan has donated to the library cassette tapes containing interviews the reporter did that led to a 1977 story in which a Texas voting official detailed how three decades earlier, votes were falsified to give Johnson a slim victory in a U.S. Senate primary. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

    “The kinds of irregularities we can see were at work in the 1948 Senate race in Texas were, I think it’s fair to say, pretty widespread across American history and all regions of the country to one extent or another but certainly in the South and along the Mexican borderlands, as recently as the 1940s,” Lawrence said.

    Salas told Mangan that the powerful South Texas political boss George B. Parr — who wielded control with favors and coercion — ordered that some 200 votes be added to Box 13. Salas said he then watched as the fraudulent votes were added in alphabetical order, with the names coming from people who hadn’t voted in the election.

    The new votes gave Johnson the primary victory over then-Gov. Coke Stevenson by an 87-vote margin. Johnson — subsequently bestowed with the nickname “Landslide Lyndon” — went on to easily defeat the Republican in the general election, long before the GOP became the dominant force in Texas politics.

    Johnson, elected to the U.S. House in 1937, had run for U.S. Senate in 1941 and lost to then-Gov. Wilbert Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel in an election widely accepted by historians to have been corrupt, Lawrence said.

    “The standard story that gets told, and I think there’s an awful lot to it, is that when LBJ’s second chance comes along in 1948, he’s determined not to have the election stolen from him again,” Lawrence said.

    Peter Mangan flips through a large folder of newspaper clippings at the Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential library as he prepares to make a donation to the library, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2022, in Austin, Texas. The family of the late Associated Press reporter James W. Mangan has donated to the library cassette tapes containing interviews the reporter did that led to a 1977 story in which a Texas voting official detailed how three decades earlier, votes were falsified to give Johnson a slim victory in a U.S. Senate primary. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
    Peter Mangan flips through a large folder of newspaper clippings at the Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidential library as he prepares to make a donation to the library, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2022, in Austin, Texas. The family of the late Associated Press reporter James W. Mangan has donated to the library cassette tapes containing interviews the reporter did that led to a 1977 story in which a Texas voting official detailed how three decades earlier, votes were falsified to give Johnson a slim victory in a U.S. Senate primary. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

    Lawrence said the 1948 Senate victory “catapults” Johnson to national attention. Johnson became then-President John F. Kennedy’s vice president and was sworn in as president Nov. 22, 1963, after Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Johnson was elected president in 1964. He decided not to run again in 1968 and died of a heart attack in 1973 at the age of 64.

    Lawrence said that while the Box 13 incident shows that “LBJ was willing to do what he had to do to maintain political power,” he was also a man who, “when he had the opportunity, he was more inclined to act on principle.” Lawrence noted Johnson’s efforts to “ensure that people were able to vote in fair and equitable elections.”

    In 1965, Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed practices designed to disenfranchise Black voters by banning literary tests and poll taxes. The act also gave the federal government the authority to take over voter registration in counties with a pattern of persistent racial discrimination, although that is no longer the case after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the requirement in 2013.

    James Mangan retired from AP on Jan. 1, 1989, after a 36-year career with the company that took him to cities across the U.S. and to Europe. With each move, Peter Mangan said, his father held on to the Box 13 tapes.

    “He always kept these,” he said, “so I know they must have been important to him.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Sherrod Brown: American consumers losing power over their savings and paychecks is an emergency, too.

    Sen. Sherrod Brown: American consumers losing power over their savings and paychecks is an emergency, too.

    [ad_1]

    The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank sent shockwaves through the global economy and had the makings of another crisis. Depositors raced to withdraw money. Banks worried about the risk of contagion. I spent that weekend on the phone with small business owners in Ohio who didn’t know whether they’d be able to make payroll the next week. One woman was in tears, worried about whether she’d be able to pay her workers. 

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve responded quickly, took control of the bank, and contained the fallout. Consumers’ and small businesses’ money was safe. That Ohio small business was able to get paychecks out.

    The regulators were able to protect Americans’ money from incompetent bank executives because when Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the FDIC in 1933, it ensured that their funding structures would remain independent from politicians in Congress and free from political whims. 

    But now, as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case of Community Financial Services Association v. CFPB, these independent watchdogs’ ability to keep our financial system stable faces an existential threat.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the only agency solely dedicated to protecting the paychecks and savings of ordinary Americans, not Wall Street executives or venture capitalists. Corporate interests have armies of lobbyists fighting for every tax break, every exemption, every opportunity to be let off the hook for scamming customers and preying on families.

    The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC.

    Ordinary Americans don’t have those lobbyists. They don’t have that kind of power. The CFPB is supposed to be their voice — to fight for them. The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC. Otherwise, its ability to do the job would be subject to political whims and special interests — interests that we know are far too often at odds with what’s best for consumers.

    Since its creation, the CFPB has returned $16 billion to more than 192 million consumers. It’s held Wall Street and big banks accountable for breaking the law and wronging their customers. It’s given working families more power to fight back when banks and shady lenders scam them out of their hard-earned money. 

    The CFPB can do this good work because it’s funded independently and protected from partisan attacks, just as the Fed and the FDIC are. So why, then, does Wall Street claim that only the CFPB’s funding structure is unconstitutional?

    Make no mistake — the only reason that Wall Street, its Republican allies in Congress, and overreaching courts have singled out the CFPB is because the agency doesn’t do their bidding. The CFPB doesn’t help Wall Street executives when they fail. It doesn’t extend them credit in favorable terms or offer them deposit insurance like the other regulators do. The CFPB’s funding structure isn’t unconstitutional — it just doesn’t work in Wall Street’s favor.

    If the Supreme Court rules against the CFPB, the $16 billion returned to consumers could be clawed back. What would happen then — will America’s banks really go back to the customers they’ve wronged with a collection tin?

    Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk.

    Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk. For more than a decade, the CFPB has set rules of the road for mortgages and credit cards and so much else, and given tools to help industry follow them. If these rules and the regulator that interprets them disappear, markets will come to a standstill. 

    By attacking the CFPB’s funding structure and putting consumers’ money at risk, Wall Street is putting the other financial regulators in danger, too. 

    The Fifth Circuit’s faulty ruling against the CFPB is astounding in its absurdity — the court ruled that the authorities that other financial agencies, like the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, have over the economy do not compare to the CFPB’s authorities. In other words, the court is claiming that the CFPB supposedly has more power in the economy than the Fed.

    That’s ridiculous. Look at the extraordinary steps taken to contain the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the idea that the CFPB could take action even close to as sweeping is laughable.

    But we know why the Fifth Circuit put that absurd assertion in there — they recognize the damage this case could do to these other vital agencies, and to our whole economy.

    Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading.

    The FDIC’s own Inspector General has stated that the Fifth Circuit ruling could be applied to their agency. If that happens, the FDIC and other regulators could be subject to congressional budget deliberations, which we all know are far too partisan and have resulted in shutdowns. Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading, or the Deposit Insurance Fund to protect depositors’ money. Imagine if politicians caused a shutdown, and we were without a Federal Reserve. 

    U.S. financial regulators are independently funded so that they can respond quickly when crises happen. It’s telling, though, that plenty of people in Washington don’t seem to consider the CFPB’s issues in the same category. Washington and Wall Street expect the government to spring into action when businesses’ money is put at risk. But when workers are scammed out of their paychecks, that’s not an emergency — it’s business as usual. 

    When Wall Street’s abusive practices put consumers in crisis, the CFPB must have the funding and strength it needs to carry out its mission — to protect consumers’ hard-earned money. 

    U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

    More: Supreme Court to hear case that will decide the future of consumer financial protection

    Also read: Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown sees bipartisan support for changes to deposit insurance

    [ad_2]

    Source link