ReportWire

Tag: top priority

  • Democrats twist words on ballroom as Trump top ‘priority’

    [ad_1]

    As images of the White House’s demolished East Wing led the national news, top Democrats shared a video of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt seeming to say that construction of the new ballroom is President Donald Trump’s top priority.

    “At this moment in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president’s main priority,” Leavitt said in a five-second clip that leading Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., shared on X.

    Jeffries’ Oct. 23 post decried Leavitt’s comment: “The Trump administration just declared that erecting a ballroom is the President’s main priority. Meanwhile. The cost of living is way too high and the Republican health care crisis threatens millions of Americans.”

    Sharing the same clip, the House Democratic Caucus wrote Oct. 23 on X, “So, Trump’s MAIN priority is a $300 MILLION ballroom? Not lowering costs. Not saving health care. Not reopening the government. Got it.”

    And the Democratic National Committee’s X account shared a photo of Leavitt overlayed with a quote reading, “The ballroom is the president’s main priority.”

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    The clip of Leavitt’s statement is real, but Jeffries and the House Democratic Caucus clipped her comments in a misleading way that removes the context: Leavitt never said the ballroom is a more important priority for the president than inflation, health care or ending the federal government shutdown. 

    As one wing of the iconic white structure was being turned to rubble nearby, reporters at an Oct. 23 White House briefing questioned Leavitt about the project.

    In the clip Democrats shared, Leavitt was responding to a question about Trump’s priorities on White House construction, not about all policies.

    Here’s the question that prompted Leavitt’s answer, and her response:

    Reporter: In addition to the ballroom and the Rose Garden patio, is the president looking at any other renovations or significant kinds of projects here at the White House?

    Leavitt: Not to my knowledge, no, but he’s a builder at heart, clearly. And so, his heart and his mind is always churning about how to improve things here on the White House grounds. But at this moment in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president’s main priority.

    We contacted Jeffries’ office and the Democratic Caucus on Oct. 23 and Oct. 24 and received no replies. As of publication, the X posts by Jeffries and the caucus remained on the X platform.

    When we contacted the White House, the press office referred us to an Oct. 23  X post by an official White House account, Rapid Response 47.

    That post reshared an Oct. 23 X post by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that was similar to Jeffries’. The Rapid Response 47 account said Leavitt “was answering a question specifically about construction projects on the White House grounds.” The Rapid Response 47 post also included the transcript of the question to Leavitt and her answer.

    Schumer’s post had reshared a post by Acyn, an account that shares raw video on politics and is affiliated with the liberal MeidasTouch media company. The video shared by Acyn included the reporter’s full question and Leavitt’s full answer, but it summarized the exchange in a misleading manner, with a caption that read, “Leavitt: At this moment in time, the ballroom is really the president’s main priority.” 

    Our ruling

    Jeffries wrote, “The Trump administration just declared that erecting a ballroom is the President’s main priority,” rather than issues such as the cost of living and health care.

    This twists Leavitt’s words. She was asked about Trump’s top priorities for renovating parts of the White House campus. In that context, she said the top priority is the ballroom, not that the ballroom is Trump’s top priority among every policy.

    We rate the statement False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Please Stop Kissing Strangers’ Babies

    Please Stop Kissing Strangers’ Babies

    [ad_1]

    Barack Obama did it. Donald Trump did it. Joe Biden, of course, has done it too. But each of them was wrong: Kissing another person’s baby is just not a good idea.

    That rule of lip, experts told me, should be a top priority during the brisk fall and winter months, when flu, RSV, and other respiratory viruses tend to go hog wild (as they are doing right this very moment). “But actually, this is year-round advice,” says Tina Tan, a pediatrician at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. Rain, wind, or shine, outside of an infant’s nuclear family, people should just keep their mouths to themselves. Leave those soft, pillowy cheeks alone!

    A moratorium on infant smooching might feel like a bit of a downer—even counterintuitive, given how essential it is for infants and caregivers to touch. But kissing isn’t the only way to show affection to a newborn, and the rationale for cutting back on it specifically is one that most can get behind: keeping those same wee bebes safe. An infant’s immune system is still fragile and unlearned; it struggles to identify infectious threats and can’t marshal much of a defense even when it does. Annette Cameron, a pediatrician at Yale, told me she usually advises parents to avoid public places—church, buses, stores—until their baby is about six weeks old, and able to receive their first big round of immunizations. (And even then, shots take a couple of weeks to kick in.)

    The situation grows far less perilous once kids’ vaccine cards start to get more full; past, say, six months of age or so, they’re in much better shape. But risk remains a spectrum, especially when lips get involved. The mouth, I am sorry to tell you, is a weird and gross place, chock-full of saliva, half-chewed flecks of food, and microbes galore; all that schmutz is apt to drool and dribble onto whatever surfaces we drag our faces across. Flu, RSV, rhinovirus, SARS-CoV-2, and the coronaviruses that lead to common colds are among the many respiratory pathogens that hang out in and around our mouth. Although these viruses don’t usually make adults very sick, they can clobber young, unvaccinated kids, whose airways are still small. Health-care workers are seeing a lot of those illnesses now: Cameron recently treated a two-week-old who’d caught rhinovirus and ended up in the ICU.

    Also on the list of smoochable threats is herpes simplex 1, the virus responsible for cold sores. “That’s the one I worry about the most,” says Annabelle de St. Maurice, a pediatric-infectious-disease specialist at UCLA and the mother of a 1-year-old daughter. Most American adults harbor chronic HSV-1 infections in their mouth with no symptoms at all, save for maybe the occasional lesion. But the super-transmissible virus can spread throughout the body of an infant, triggering high fevers and seizures bad enough to require a visit to the hospital. For the first few weeks of a baby’s life, anyone with an active cold sore—blood relative, presidential candidate, or both—would do well to keep away. (Even a history of cold sores might warrant extra caution.)

    The lip-restraining guidance is most pertinent to people outside an infant’s household, experts told me, which can include extended family. Ideally, even grandparents “should not be kissing on the baby for at least the first few months,” Tan told me. Within a home, siblings attending day care and school—where it’s easy to pick up germs—might also want to sheathe their smackeroos at first. Years ago, Cameron’s own son had to be admitted to the hospital with RSV when he was six weeks old after catching the virus from his 4-year-old sister. Lakshmi Ganapathi, a pediatric-infectious-disease specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital, told me that she didn’t kiss her own two sons on the face before they hit the six-week mark—though experts told me that they don’t expect most parents to get this puritanical about puckering up.

    Baby-kissing—especially outside families and tight-knit social circles—isn’t a universal impulse: A few of my friends were rather shocked to hear that such a PSA was even necessary. But people’s threshold for instigating a loving lunge is far lower when it comes to babies than to older kids or adults. One colleague told me that strangers have reached into his daughter’s stroller to stroke her hair; another mentioned that randos have swooped in to tickle his son’s feet. When de St. Maurice takes strolls around her neighborhood with her daughter, she’s surprised by how often casual acquaintances will try to dive-bomb her baby with pursed lips.

    Then again, there is perhaps no lure more powerful than a tiny human. Babies snare us visually, with their wide eyes, round cheeks, and button noses; their scent wafts toward us like the heady perfume of a fresh cream scone. (One colleague with kids told me that inhaling that particular odor was, for him, “like huffing glue.”) Among primates, human infants are born especially vulnerable, in desperate need of help, and so we go into overdrive providing it, even to others’ babies, who—at least in our social species—might benefit from communal care. “It’s programmed into us,” Oriana Aragón, a social psychologist at the University of Cincinnati, told me. “I’m able to get really strong reactions out of people with just a photograph.” Even the urge to plant a wet one on someone else’s baby may have adaptive roots in kiss feeding, the practice of delivering pre-chewed meals to an infant lip to lip, says Shelly Volsche, an anthropologist at Boise State University. Kiss-feeding isn’t very popular in the United States today, but it’s still practiced by many groups around the globe.

    But as important as these acts are for babies, they can also be at odds with an infant’s health when a bunch of respiratory viruses are swirling about. Those costs aren’t always top of mind when a stranger locks eyes with a tiny human across the way, and it can be “a really awkward conversation,” de St. Maurice told me, to deter someone who just wants to shower affection on your child. Cameron recommends being frank: “I’m just trying to protect my baby.” Physical deterrents can help, too. “Put them in the stroller, put the canopy up, buckle the baby in, make it as difficult as possible,” she said. That’s a lot of barriers for even the most dedicated baby kissers to surmount. De St. Maurice also likes to point out that her little infant, as adorable as she is, “could also potentially transmit something to you.” Plus, by the time they’re six months old, babies may be experiencing their first whiffs of stranger danger and react negatively to unfamiliar hands and mouths. “That’s not particularly good for the baby, and the stranger wouldn’t get anything out of it either,” says Ann Bigelow, a developmental psychologist at St. Francis Xavier University, in Canada.

    Again, this advice isn’t meant to starve infants of tactile stimulation. Kids need to be exposed to the outside world and all of its good-germiness. More than that, they need a lot of physical touch. “The skin is our largest sense organ,” Bigelow told me. Skin-to-skin contact stimulates the release of oxytocin, and cements the bond between a caregiver and an infant. Kissing doesn’t have to be the means for giving that affection, though it certainly can be. “Heck, when I’m a grandparent, I’m going to be kissing my grandchild,” Cameron told me. “Just try and stop me.”

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • The Obama Nostalgia Show

    The Obama Nostalgia Show

    [ad_1]

    PHILADELPHIA—Outside the basketball arena at Temple University, a long line of anxious Democrats contemplated their party’s possibly bleak political future, as a brass band played Taylor Swift’s “Shake It Off.”

    That strange juxtaposition of dread and joy seemed to be the theme of Saturday afternoon’s rally at the Liacouras Center. Democrats were happy to hear a closing campaign message from President Joe Biden, and excited to show their support for Senate candidate John Fetterman, gubernatorial hopeful Josh Shapiro, and the rest of the Democratic slate. They were cautiously hopeful, in their Fetterman gear and Phillies hats. But they also see the present moment as an unusually perilous one—for the future of the party, and for democracy itself. So they were desperate, more than anything, for some last-minute reassurance and inspiration from their one-time party leader.

    “Obama has a gift for putting things in perspective, that makes [politics] accessible to just about everybody,” Barbara Pizzutillo, a physical therapist from the Philadelphia suburbs, told me before the rally. “To see the excitement in the crowd is what we need right now.” A Philly native named Kip Williams said he was excited just to be there, near the band. “This line inspires me. I got a real good hope for Tuesday!”

    When the 44th president came on stage, the crowd greeted him like a long lost friend—or a favorite teacher who’d returned after a series of varyingly unimpressive substitutes.

    “The kind of slash and burn politics that we’re seeing right now, that doesn’t have to be who we are. We can be better,” Barack Obama said, coming on stage after Biden, Shapiro, and Fetterman. “I believe things will be okay,” he assured the audience. “They’ll be okay if we make the effort … not just on Election Day but every day in between.”

    Polls have been tightening in recent weeks, especially in Pennsylvania, where the Republican candidate Mehmet Oz is now virtually tied with Fetterman in the race to replace Pat Toomey in the U.S. Senate. In Arizona, Republican Blake Masters is catching up to Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, and in Georgia, apparently no number of abortion-related scandals can keep the anti-abortion Republican Herschel Walker down in his race against the Democrat Raphael Warnock. And nationwide, a majority of Republican candidates on the midterms ballot maintain that Biden didn’t win the election in 2020.

    Which is why, three days before Election Day, Democrats have broken out their biggest gun of all. Pennsylvania was the latest stop on a swing-state tour that Obama began only about a week ago in a last-ditch effort to energize voters in Arizona and Wisconsin. Events like these are not meant to persuade undecideds; they’re to reward activists and volunteers, and help turn out the base—the people who will knock on doors and give rides to the polling station on Election Day.

    “Like Brad Lidge in 2008,” said Anthony Stevenson, likening the pitcher who helped Stevenson’s hometown Phillies win the World Series to the Democrat who gained the White House that same year. “He’s the closer!”

    How effective this rally will be, just 48 hours before Election Day, is hard to know. But the promise of hearing from Obama was enough for voters at Saturday night’s rally. They needed to hear from him, they told me, because they needed to remember what politics used to be like—and, they hoped, could be again.

    Biden opened the event, but Obama was the headliner. Right away, the former president was in his element, fluent with the gags and punchlines: “Don’t boo! Vote!” He teased Fetterman for being “just a dude” who wore shorts in the winter. (Fetterman had earlier tweeted how he’d “dressed up (wore pants)” to meet Obama on a previous occasion.) But there were serious moments, too.

    Obama dutifully bashed Oz’s “snake oil” peddling and GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano’s extremist beliefs. And he reminded the audience that the Democrats had been “shellacked” in the 2010 midterms when he was president, and took a drubbing again in 2014. The same would happen this year, he warned—if they didn’t turn up at the polls.

    “I understand that democracy might not seem like a top priority right now, especially when you’re worried about paying the bills,” Obama said, echoing Biden’s choice recently to focus message. But “when true democracy goes away, people get hurt. It has real consequences.”

    Voters last night seemed to feel the weight of his words. “It used to be that you were just voting on politics and ideology,” Jody Boches, from nearby Abington Township, told me. “Now the integrity of all these institutions and the right to vote and the wellbeing of our democracy” are under threat. When I asked about what it meant to see Obama, Boches gestured to her cell phone and laughed. “My daughter who’s at grad school at UVA has asked me to record him speaking, just so she can remember what it was like to hear him speak.”

    Some at the rally expressed a very qualified optimism. The main priority for everyone I spoke to was abortion—coupled with the hope that the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade could be what boosts Democratic turnout this year. Mary Halanan, from Doylestown, told me that she could envision a strong bloc of such voters emerging on Tuesday—“people like me,” she said. “I’m hoping I’m the silent majority.”

    Others were more nervous about what next week will bring. As once-promising Senate races have tightened, the prospects for the president’s party in the House are grim. Republicans need to pick up only five seats to take a majority; they seem poised to do much better than that. Even if the Democrats keep control of the Senate—at best, a tenuous proposition—the rest of Biden’s term in the White House seems certain to involve a barrage of investigations and impeachment attempts, rather than any effort toward bipartisan legislation.

    Again and again, the Democrats I spoke to in the crowd told me how much they missed Obama’s thoughtfulness and compassion. Their longing was all the more poignant for what it seemed to say about what they found missing from the Democratic leadership today: They don’t make ’em like that anymore.

    When the rally was over, Rosalin Franklin and Pam Parseghian stood side by side, waiting to cross the street. “We were just talking about how he brings people together,” Parseghian said, with a sigh. “Here he is talking about his wife, talking about the good.” And she reenacted his words: “Believe in science! Believe in the future!

    After Parseghian and Franklin finished explaining how delighted they’d been by Obama’s appearance, I asked whether they felt more confident about their party’s electoral outlook than they had before the rally. Both women paused. “Yes,” Parseghian said eventually. Franklin nodded slowly. “Yeah … still worried. But yeah.”

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link