ReportWire

Tag: us political parties

  • Why a historically small presidential primary field is possible in 2024 | CNN Politics

    Why a historically small presidential primary field is possible in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The 2020 presidential primary race was already in full motion at this point four years ago, with candidates jumping in left and right. The Democratic primary field, as well as the combined Democratic and Republican fields, were well on their way to being the largest in the modern primary era.

    We’re in a considerably different place today heading into the 2024 cycle. The only major candidate to declare is former President Donald Trump, and, while other candidates are entertaining bids, the field will almost certainly end up being much smaller than it was in 2020.

    Indeed, the 2024 primary field could be the smallest on record in the modern era – with an incumbent president running for reelection on the Democratic side and historically dominant front-runners on the Republican side.

    How small are we talking? The last time there was a combined primary field with fewer than 20 major candidates was 2012. The last time there was one with 10 or fewer was 1992. The record in the modern primary era (i.e., since 1972) is nine, in 1984.

    We could be heading toward 1984 or 1992 territory.

    Now, predicting who will and will not run for president in the early stages is somewhat of a fool’s errand. Two factors, though, suggest that many will pass on running.

    The first is that Democrats already have an incumbent in President Joe Biden, who seems geared to run for another term. Incumbents rarely face major primary challengers. Those who even get one do so because they’re not beloved within at least part of their party.

    Think of Trump’s biggest GOP challenger in 2020: William Weld. The former Massachusetts governor, who won a sole delegate in the primary and was polled many times, was a moderate, well-educated New England Republican. Trump’s approval rating among moderate or liberal Republicans with at least a college degree was only about 50% around the time Weld announced his candidacy.

    The last presidential incumbent to lose a state primary – Jimmy Carter in 1980 – had an approval rating south of 70% among Democrats overall. The same low overall approval rating was true for Gerald Ford among Republicans before Ronald Reagan took him all the way to the Republican National Convention in 1976.

    Biden doesn’t have any of those particular weaknesses in polling. His approval rating among Democrats in our most recent CNN/SSRS poll, for example, was 84%. There wasn’t a single segment that I could find within the Democratic electorate for whom Biden’s numbers were anywhere near where Trump was among moderate, college-educated Republicans at this point in the 2020 cycle. Biden polled well among younger and more liberal Democrats, who have traditionally been some of his weakest supporters.

    If Biden does end up running for reelection, I’m not sure there’s a single Democrat whom most would define as a major candidate who would try to take him on.

    The second factor that presages a smaller-than-usual 2024 field is the fact that most prominent politicians generally don’t run for president if they don’t think they can win. By winning, I mean earning the nomination and then the presidency itself. Biden, no doubt, is vulnerable in a general election, given that his overall approval rating is well below 50%.

    The problem for a lot of Republicans is they may ultimately decide that winning the nomination is going to be very difficult if your name isn’t Trump or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    Both Trump and DeSantis are each regularly polling above 30% among GOP primary voters. Trump, himself, is usually in the 40s if not 50s. No one else is close to 10%, with former Vice President Mike Pence leading this second tier of candidates.

    Trump and DeSantis combined are polling well into the 70s among Republicans nationally.

    A look at polling from years past reveals that this is the first time this early in the cycle that two presidential candidates in a primary without an incumbent were each polling above 30%, on average, at the same time.

    The only contest that looks anything like the Republican one right now is the 1980 Democratic primary, which featured an incumbent president, Carter. Then-Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts was his most prominent challenger. Both were polling above 30% at this point in the primary.

    Only four major Democrats – using the widest definition of “major” – ended up running for president in 1980.

    The 2024 Republican field will probably be larger than four candidates, though it’s not clear how much larger.

    I can think of only two other primary fields where the two leading candidates were combining for more than 70% of the primary vote this early on. Both were on the Democratic side: 2000 and 2016.

    Just five major Democrats ran in 2016, given how much Hillary Clinton looked like a juggernaut. The primary ended up being relatively competitive (with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders doing surprisingly well), but the result was never really in doubt.

    A mere two top Democrats ran in 2000, when Al Gore, the sitting vice president, was polling above 50%. His challenger, former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, didn’t win a single state.

    We obviously don’t know how many Republicans or Democrats will end up running in 2024. Right now, by my count, about 10 candidates, including Biden, are getting regularly polled.

    Given the history, that strikes me as a fairly decent (if not a little bit high) place to start. Whether this 2024 field ends up being truly historic will ultimately depend on whether Biden, DeSantis and Trump can keep up their strong polling.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Manchin says it’s a ‘mistake’ for White House to want Democrats to address debt ceiling without GOP | CNN Politics

    Manchin says it’s a ‘mistake’ for White House to want Democrats to address debt ceiling without GOP | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said Sunday that it’s a “mistake” for the White House to want Democrats to deal with the debt ceiling without negotiating with congressional Republicans.

    “I think it’s a mistake because we have to negotiate. This is a democracy that we have. We have a two-party system, if you will, and we should be able to talk and find out where our differences are. And if they are irreconcilable, then you have to move on from there and let people make their decisions,” Manchin, a key Senate moderate, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    “Using the debt ceiling and holding it hostage hasn’t worked in the past,” Manchin continued, adding that he “respectfully” disagrees with his party’s No. 2 Democrat in the chamber, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, on not negotiating with Republicans.

    “Every American has to live within a budget. If they don’t, they’re in trouble financially. Every business that’s successful has to live within a budget. Every state has to live within a budget. Shouldn’t the federal government have some guardrails that, say, ‘Hey, guys … you’re overreaching here and you’re overspending?’ But then pick your priorities. That’s all,” he added.

    The US hit the debt ceiling set by Congress on Thursday, forcing the Treasury Department to start taking “extraordinary measures” to keep the government paying its bills and escalating pressure on Capitol Hill to avoid a catastrophic default.

    The battle lines for the high-stakes fight have already been set. Hard-line Republicans, who have enormous sway in the House because of the party’s slim majority, have demanded that lifting the borrowing cap be tied to spending reductions. Manchin suggested Sunday he was open to spending cuts.

    The White House, however, has countered that it will not offer any concessions or negotiate on raising the debt ceiling. And with the solution to the debt ceiling drama squarely in lawmakers’ hands, fears are growing that the partisan brinksmanship could result in the nation defaulting on its debt for the first time ever – or come dangerously close to doing so.

    GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said Sunday on Fox News that the White House position against negotiating with House Republicans on spending cuts, in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, is “very irresponsible.” He said the first step in addressing the debt ceiling situation is for Speaker Kevin McCarthy to sit down with Biden.

    Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, said in the same interview that he believes the White House will ultimately sit down with McCarthy, which he called “a good thing.”

    Fitzpatrick and Gottheimer are the co-chairs of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in the House.

    As to whether Social Security and Medicare should be part of these negotiations, Manchin shared his interest in wanting to create a committee that would make the two programs “more financially secure and stable.” But he said no one who currently receives these benefits should receive any cuts.

    “No cuts to anybody that’s receiving their benefits, no adjustments to that. They’ve earned it. They paid into it. Take that off the table,” Manchin said. “But everyone’s using that as a leverage.”

    The senator indicated he was open to raising the income cap for Social Security taxes.

    “I’m open to basically raising – the easiest and quickest thing we can do is raise the cap,” he said.

    Meanwhile, Manchin on Sunday also offered support for fellow Senate moderate Krysten Sinema, calling her a “formidable candidate” for reelection in 2024.

    Sinema announced last month she was leaving the Democratic Party and registering as a political independent, fueling fresh interest from Arizona Democrats to challenge her next year.

    “I would think that she needs to be supported again, yes, because she brings that independent spirit,” Manchin said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida GOP congressman discharged from hospital after accident: ‘Grateful to be home’ | CNN Politics

    Florida GOP congressman discharged from hospital after accident: ‘Grateful to be home’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. Greg Steube was discharged from the hospital Saturday after being injured in an accident on his property in Sarasota, Florida, according to a tweet from the Republican congressman.

    “I’m grateful to be home and recovering after being discharged from the hospital today,” Steube said from his official Twitter account. “All praise and glory goes to God! Jen and I remain endlessly blessed by the prayers and support from our friends, family, and community.”

    On Wednesday, Steube “was knocked approximately 25 feet down off a ladder while cutting tree limbs,” and spent Wednesday evening in the intensive care unit, CNN previously reported.

    He was then moved out of the intensive care unit on Thursday, his office said in a statement.

    The Florida Republican on Saturday also thanked health care staff at Sarasota Memorial Hospital in a subsequent tweet, and said his office will provide updates next week on his recovery and his return to Washington, DC.

    Steube was first elected to the US House of Representatives in 2018. He comfortably won a third term in November representing Florida’s safely Republican 17th Congressional District.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP Rep. George Santos denies claims he performed as a drag queen | CNN Politics

    GOP Rep. George Santos denies claims he performed as a drag queen | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Embattled Republican Rep. George Santos is strongly denying claims that he once performed as a drag queen.

    “The most recent obsession from the media claiming that I am a drag Queen or ‘performed’ as a drag Queen is categorically false,” the New York congressman tweeted Thursday after a Brazilian drag performer posted a photo of herself with another individual dressed in drag that she claims is Santos.

    “The media continues to make outrageous claims about my life while I am working to deliver results. I will not be distracted nor fazed by this,” the tweet continued.

    Santos, who represents New York’s 3rd District, has been under immense scrutiny over the past month for lying and misrepresenting his educational, work and family history, including falsely claiming he was Jewish and the descendant of Holocaust survivors. He also faces federal and local investigations into his campaign finances. Santos has admitted to “embellishing” his resume but has maintained he is “not a criminal.”

    The congressman – an out gay man – was identified by a longtime local performer who says Santos went by the name Kitara Ravache. On January 12, performer Eula Rochards posted a picture of herself with another person in drag who she alleged was Santos at a Rio de Janeiro-area parade.

    The photo is from a newspaper clipping from 2008 and identifies the person Rochards says is Santos as Kitara Revache.

    Rochards also provided to CNN another, clearer image of the person she claims is Santos, in addition to the clipping.

    CNN has not independently verified the images.

    In an interview with CNN, Rochards said that it’s Santos in the pictures, adding that she knew him from LGBTQ events he attended in the town of Niterói, near Rio de Janeiro, where she said he was well known in the gay community.

    Rochards said she recognized Santos from a recent news report and dug up the old pictures but was surprised to learn that Santos was a Republican.

    “I don’t know him now, I only knew him then,” she said.

    “But if [Jair] Bolsonaro can win here, why wouldn’t Santos win there?” she added, referring to the former Brazilian president.

    Rochards said she wishes Santos would own up to this part of his past.

    “It’s marvelous work [to be a drag queen]. He can’t discriminate against what he himself did, and if he does he is discriminating against me,” she said.

    Santos has not replied to CNN’s request for comment. He told NBC News in a previous interview that he has “never experienced discrimination in the Republican Party.”

    Santos has voiced support in the past for policies seen as discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals. In April 2022, he posted a video on Facebook vocalizing his support for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ legislation in Florida banning certain teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms. In the video, he accused Democrats of “wanting to groom our kids” – a homophobic term that invokes an idea that LGBTQ people corrupt children.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump struggles with the new politics of abortion as a triumphant March for Life arrives in Washington | CNN Politics

    Trump struggles with the new politics of abortion as a triumphant March for Life arrives in Washington | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The anti-abortion “March for Life” for decades demonstrated to Republicans that they could not reach the Oval Office without the support of the anti-abortion movement.

    On Friday, marchers will gather in Washington with a decades-long mission accomplished, after the Supreme Court’s removal of a constitutional right to an abortion by overturning the Roe v. Wade decision last year.

    That means this year’s march will be a time for celebration but also of debate about where the movement goes next with some campaigners seeking to restrict the procedure everywhere. But such a refocused goal carries big risks. Democrats after all belatedly leveraged their own energy over abortion in the midterm elections in a backlash against the right-wing Supreme Court majority that helped stave off a big Republican midterm election wave.

    The March for Life also comes at an extraordinary moment when Donald Trump, the president who did more than any other to end Roe after a pact with social conservative voters that helped win him the 2016 GOP nomination, has launched an extraordinary attack on evangelical leaders he sees as insufficiently loyal, as CNN’s Gabby Orr, Kristen Holmes and Kaitlan Collins reported this week.

    “Nobody has ever done more for Right to Life than Donald Trump. I put three Supreme Court justices, who all voted, and they got something that they’ve been fighting for 64 years, for many, many years,” Trump said in an interview on Real America’s Voice Monday, referring to the overturning of federal abortion rights.

    “There’s great disloyalty in the world of politics and that’s a sign of disloyalty,” Trump told conservative journalist David Brody.

    The comment was a window into Trump’s psychology, revealing his transactional understanding of politics and his highly developed sense of fealty he sees owed to him.

    The former president is specifically angry over the failure to immediately endorse his 2024 White House bid by some evangelical leaders who remain influential figures in the conservative movement. Trump’s third White House run has so far failed to pick up significant energy.

    But Trump has also shown signs recently of questioning whether his purported greatest domestic achievement – the building of a generational conservative Supreme Court majority and its subsequent overturning of Roe – may end up hindering his hopes of a return to the White House in 2025. He wrote on his Truth Social platform earlier this month that the “abortion issue” had been poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those who insisted on no exceptions in the case or rape, incest or life of the mother, which he said “lost large numbers of voters.”

    The former president’s comments are backed by exit polls from November’s midterms that showed more than a quarter of voters listing abortion as a top issue. About 61% said they were unhappy with the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, and about 7 in 10 of those voters backed a Democratic House candidate.

    In his Truth Social comments, Trump appeared to be seeking to offload blame for the Republicans’ failure to win back the Senate and the party’s smaller-than-expected House majority. Trump took on waves of criticism after the election for promoting extreme, election denying candidates who often lost in swing states in the midterm elections.

    But it is notable seeing Trump navigate the shifting politics of abortion and apparently sizing up how it could affect his political prospects in future. After all, he was once unapologetically pro-choice before his foray into Republican politics dictated a shift in position and led to the bargain with evangelicals, which included an effective commitment to appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court in return for the crucial votes of social conservatives.

    In the past, Trump has been a fixture of the March for Life rally, and in 2020, he became the first sitting president to attend in person as he geared up for his reelection race. He told marchers that “unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.”

    There is no sign yet that he will call into Friday’s event, which will include a detour to the US Capitol on its usual route to the Supreme Court to underline how Congress is now a focus of the movement, as Democrats seek to codify Roe v. Wade protections into law.

    Trump’s comments on abortion and his feuding with evangelical leaders raise the question of whether the former president has made a tactical error and is harming his 2024 candidacy by targeting a critical GOP primary voting bloc at a time when there are growing questions over whether he is still the dominant force in Republican politics.

    Ralph Reed, the executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, told CNN that there is “no path to the nomination without winning the evangelical vote. Nobody knows that better than President Trump because, to the surprise of almost everyone, he won their support in 2016.”

    This question is especially acute in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucuses – for Republicans at least – in the 2024 primary season, which will be the first test of the ex-President’s hold over conservatives and evangelicals especially.

    Trump didn’t actually win in Iowa in 2016, coming second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and just beating out Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and the state has often not been a true barometer of how the GOP nominating contest will go.

    However, it will take on extra significance in 2024 and is likely to be seen as a strong indicator of Trump’s appeal to the conservative base. A loss there would create a painful narrative as he headed into subsequent contests – especially since he strongly carried the state in the general elections in 2016 and 2020.

    And it’s easy to come up with a list of potential GOP candidates that might have appeal in the state if they challenge Trump, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, former Vice President Mike Pence or Cruz once again. Only Trump so far is a declared 2024 Republican presidential candidate.

    Trump would be in an odd situation in 2024, in that he is in many ways effectively an incumbent given his strong support in the GOP and the fact that he didn’t go away after losing reelection. But at the same time, he’s not a sitting president and looks likely to face a contested primary and so may be more exposed in early contests.

    Still, while some conservative base voters might want to move on, there’s still strong goodwill among many toward Trump, gratitude for the change he brought during his term and admiration for his attitude.

    “Many people forgave him for his misstatements and his missteps because they generally liked his ability to fight, even if that became a cliché for some people, Trump’s detractors,” said Timothy Hagle, an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa who is an expert on the state’s politics.

    This gets to point often missed about Trump. For many of his supporters, he offered an emotional as much as a political connection. His willingness to say what many grassroots conservatives thought and to assail institutions they despised, like the media or Washington experts and other elites, were as important as many of his often-ill-defined individual political positions.

    And it’s also often forgotten that evangelical voters in places like Iowa do not necessarily vote as a bloc, or according to what their leaders or pastors recommend and may prioritize issues such as taxes over social questions if a candidate is deemed to be generally acceptable. That may give Trump more leeway than more conventional candidates in departing from traditional conservative orthodoxy even over abortion.

    Still, Hagle said, even small numbers of disaffected Iowa voters could make a difference to Trump’s chances in the state if they don’t show up for him, as could more mainstream GOP caucus voters who may be taking a look at other aspects of his candidacy and those of potential rivals.

    “Are they going to support Trump because he fights, or because of his economic position or his position on the border?” Hagle said. “The abortion stuff may not be as important to them, or will they go a different direction at this point?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Oversight Committee set for contentious 2 years with additions of controversial Republican members | CNN Politics

    House Oversight Committee set for contentious 2 years with additions of controversial Republican members | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Some of the most extreme voices in the Republican Party will play a central role in Congress’ efforts to investigate President Joe Biden, his family and his administration in the months ahead.

    Republicans on Wednesday unveiled the full roster of members who will serve on the House Oversight Committee, including several – such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan and Paul Gosar – who have denied the results of the 2020 presidential election and openly floated conspiracy theories.

    The presence of such members sets up inevitable high-profile clashes in the months ahead as Republicans move through their promised investigations. The oversight panel has often served as a place for controversial members of Congress to engage in fiery back-and-forths so as to attract attention to themselves and contentious topics.

    Jordan, Biggs and Gosar, for example, served on the committee in the previous Congress, while Rep. Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez, one of the most prominent progressive Democrats in the House, has served on the panel since joining Congress in 2019. (Democrats have yet to pick their slate of lawmakers to serve on the committee for this Congress).

    The White House on Wednesday slammed the appointments.

    Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, accused Republicans of “handing the keys of oversight to the most extreme MAGA members of the Republican caucus who promote violent rhetoric and dangerous conspiracy theories.”

    “As we have said before, the Biden administration stands ready to work in good faith to accommodate Congress’ legitimate oversight needs. However, with these members joining the Oversight Committee, it appears that House Republicans may be setting the stage for divorced-from-reality political stunts, instead of engaging in bipartisan work on behalf of the American people,” Sams said in a statement provided to CNN.

    The Anti-Defamation League also condemned the decision to restore Greene and Gosar to committees after they were stripped of such responsibilities in the last Congress following incendiary remarks.

    “We are deeply troubled by the decision to assign committees to @RepMTG and @RepGosar,” the group tweeted on Tuesday. “Supporters of anti-democratic violent conspiracy theories have no place in leadership – and especially not on committees with relevant jurisdiction.”

    The House voted in February 2021 to remove Greene from her committee assignments following incendiary and violent past statements including that she repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians before being elected to Congress.

    In November 2021, the House voted to censure Gosar and remove him from his committees after he posted a photoshopped anime video to social media showing him appearing to kill Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Joe Biden.

    This is the full list of Republicans who will serve on the committee:

    • Chairman James Comer of Kentucky
    • Jim Jordan of Ohio
    • Mike Turner of Ohio
    • Paul Gosar of Arizona
    • Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
    • Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin
    • Gary Palmer of Alabama
    • Clay Higgins of Louisiana
    • Andy Biggs of Arizona
    • Nancy Mace of South Carolina
    • Jake LaTurner of Kansas
    • Pat Fallon of Texas
    • Byron Donalds of Florida
    • Pete Sessions of Texas
    • Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota
    • Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
    • William Timmons of South Carolina
    • Tim Burchett of Tennessee
    • Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia
    • Lisa McClain of Michigan
    • Lauren Boebert of Colorado
    • Russell Fry of South Carolina
    • Anna Paulina Luna of Florida
    • Chuck Edwards of North Carolina
    • Nick Langworthy of New York
    • Eric Burlison of Missouri

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: The debt ceiling debate reveals how House Republicans are weaponizing the government | CNN

    Opinion: The debt ceiling debate reveals how House Republicans are weaponizing the government | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Julian Zelizer, a CNN political analyst, is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author and editor of 25 books, including the New York Times best-seller, “Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Lies and Legends About Our Past” (Basic Books). Follow him on Twitter @julianzelizer. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    At the same time that House Republicans are setting up a committee to investigate the “weaponization” of government, they are weaponizing the government.

    Under the leadership of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the GOP is warning President Biden that they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling when the US reaches its $31.4 trillion borrowing limit unless the administration agrees to draconian spending cuts.

    Never one to miss a good brawl, former President Donald Trump is urging his party to “play tough on the issue to use it as leverage.

    If the crisis is not resolved and House Republicans don’t vote to raise the debt ceiling, the government won’t be able to borrow the money it needs to pay for spending that Congress has already approved. The US could be forced to default on its debt, ruining the credit rating that has made Treasury bills and notes one of the safest investments in the world. The government might have to delay paying benefits such as social security and salaries for federal workers.

    Delivering a stern warning last week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated that, “failure to meet the government’s obligations would cause irreparable harm to the U.S. economy, the livelihoods of all Americans, and global financial stability.”

    Fearing that House Republicans are dead serious about deploying this budgetary missile – after all, the party is only a few years away from its concerted effort to overturn a presidential election – the US is expected to hit its ceiling as soon as Thursday, but the real crisis may not come until June. To keep things going, Treasury is investigating options such as shifting funds from one department to the other and temporarily stopping specific forms of federal investments.

    The fear running through Washington – and beyond – is that elected officials could prove unable to end the standoff, sending the country into default by this summer, creating global financial chaos and turmoil.

    The political battle that is unfolding is a result of Republicans becoming increasingly radicalized in what they are willing to do to achieve partisan power.

    The measure at the center of this dangerous game of chicken is not part of the Constitution. The federal debt ceiling was enacted by Congress in 1917 through the Second Liberty Bond Act, shortly before the US entered World War I, with the goal of granting the Department of Treasury increased flexibility in handling federal finances. Before, the department had to wait until Congress authorized more money every time that the government needed it.

    For decades, raising the federal debt limit remained a routine matter. Understanding that the government had to pay its bills, even when costs ballooned during times of war, Congress would pass the measure either on a temporary or permanent basis.

    To be sure, there were times when Congress came dangerously close to being too late, such as in April 1979 when the vote was not taken until the very last minute, although technical glitches resulted in about $120 million in debt payments being late.

    A few months later, the House adopted a rule – named after Rep. Richard Gephardt – which empowered the lower chamber to automatically raise the debt ceiling when they passed a budget resolution, tying the two issues together.

    In 1982, the federal debt ceiling was codified into law. The first time that the federal government was forced to take “extraordinary measures” to keep the money flowing was in September of 1985 when Democrats and Republicans could not reach agreement on a budget. Three months later, Congress permanently raised the debt limit to $2.1 billion.

    While there were votes taken against raising the debt ceiling between the 1980s and 2011, including by Democrats such as then-Senator Joe Biden in 2006, they were symbolic. Elected officials took this stand only after knowing that there were enough votes for passage. Expressing opposition to President George W. Bush’s spending on the war in Iraq was their goal—not grounding the economy to a halt.

    The truce against weaponizing this routine procedure ended in 2011. Tea Party Republicans, a radicalized version of Gingrich-era Republicans, were determined to vote against increasing the debt ceiling unless President Barack Obama agreed to massive spending cuts. The administration realized that the new generation of conservatives was not playing around. In this game of chicken, they resolved not to blink regardless of the fallout.

    In May 2011, the Department of Treasury undertook steps to keep paying for its obligations. A few days before funds were set to run out, the administration agreed to pay the ransom. The president signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 that would implement about $920 billion in spending cuts over 10 years and created a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to make recommendations for further cuts.

    The ratings agency S&P weren’t happy with how the negotiations had unfolded, downgrading the credit rating of the US. “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.”

    Since that confrontation, the Department of Treasury has continued to grapple with this issue, including in 2013 and 2014. Frustrated with having to navigate through these treacherous political waters, Obama warned that “the issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there’s a very simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills.”

    Now, President Biden might face his biggest challenge yet. The new Trumpian Republicans are determined to win their faceoff with the administration. Based on reports of how McCarthy won the speakership, the Californian was willing to make concessions to the most radical members about moving forward with this strategy and following it through until the end, if necessary.

    What makes this situation so tragic is that there is no reason for this crisis to happen. While vigorous debates about government spending are certainly a legitimate part of politics, forcing a situation that could create economic chaos after Congress has already reached deals over expenditures should not be a legitimate and normal part of politics.

    More than almost any other act, this embodies the willingness of the modern GOP to use virtually any procedure of democracy—from Supreme Court appointments to the budget to the Electoral College—as a partisan weapon. House Republicans seem to be making the bet that doing what is necessary to force spending reductions is worth the risk of the financial fallout.

    At some level, they must believe that should the crisis not be resolved, voters will blame the president and not them. But in the end the people who would suffer would be voters, living in states red and blue, who would face the consequences.

    If Speaker McCarthy wants to show that he is a serious political leader, he should form a coalition with the handful of moderate Republicans and Democrats to quickly enact an increase in the debt ceiling this measure regardless of what risk that might pose to his own future.

    All of this is more reason for Congress to consider serious long-term reform. If one of the two major parties is willing to normalize the weaponization of this process, it’s time to change the way that it works, to take away the weapon being used in partisan warfare.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FEC dismisses RNC complaint that Google’s spam filters were biased against conservatives | CNN Business

    FEC dismisses RNC complaint that Google’s spam filters were biased against conservatives | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Federal Election Commission has tossed out claims by the Republican National Committee that Google’s spam filters in Gmail are illegally biased against conservatives, according to an agency letter obtained by CNN.

    The decision resolves a joint FEC complaint filed last year spearheaded by the RNC that alleged Gmail’s automated filters had sent Republican fundraising emails to spam at a higher rate than for Democratic candidates during the 2020 election cycle. The RNC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The FEC decision to dismiss the complaint and close the case is the latest defeat for Republicans who have sought on multiple occasions to bring the agency’s powers to bear against tech platforms over allegations of anti-conservative bias. In 2021, the FEC dismissed a similar RNC claim against Twitter over the company’s decision to temporarily suppress the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop, saying the content moderation decision appeared to have been made “for a valid commercial reason.”

    The FEC took the same stance on the Gmail filtering issue in a letter to Google last week, and which the company provided to CNN on Wednesday.

    In the Jan. 11 letter, the FEC said its review “found no reason to believe that [Google] made prohibited in-kind corporate contributions” to Democrats in the form of more favorable email filtering treatment.

    In order to be considered a violation, the FEC wrote, “a contribution must be made for the purpose of influencing an election for federal office,” adding that Google’s public statements have made clear its spam filtering exists “for commercial, rather than electoral, purposes.”

    Even if it were true that Gmail spam filtering happened to favor Democratic campaigns over Republican ones, the FEC wrote — an allegation the commission neither explicitly endorsed nor rejected — that outcome would not necessarily make Gmail’s underlying conduct an illegal campaign contribution.

    In its letter, the FEC cited Google’s public statements claiming that its reasons for spam filtering include blocking malware, phishing attacks and scams.

    “In sum, Google has credibly supported its claim that its spam filter is in place for commercial reasons and thus did not constitute a contribution within the meaning of the [Federal Election Campaign Act],” it wrote.

    Documents related to the case will be made available to the public by Feb. 10, according to the letter.

    “The Commission’s bipartisan decision to dismiss this complaint reaffirms that Gmail does not filter emails for political purposes,” said José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson. “We’ll continue to invest in our Gmail industry-leading spam filters because, as the FEC notes, they’re important to protecting people’s inboxes from receiving unwanted, unsolicited, or dangerous messages.”

    While the FEC did not weigh in directly on Gmail’s practices, the letter highlighted the limitations and context surrounding a 2022 academic study that the RNC had leaned heavily upon in its initial complaint.

    The study by North Carolina State University researchers had involved an experiment testing the spam filters of Gmail, Microsoft Outlook and Yahoo! Mail. Its findings suggested that of the three email providers, Gmail was the likeliest to mark emails from Republican campaigns as spam.

    The RNC had cited the study’s findings as evidence of “illegal, corporate in-kind contributions” to Democratic candidates, including Joe Biden, and called for an FEC investigation.

    But the FEC’s letter cited several factors that cast doubt on the RNC’s interpretation of the research, including the study’s own statements of limitations and a Washington Post interview with one of the study’s lead authors, who had said Republicans were “mischaracterizing” the paper.

    The study itself acknowledged that it covered a short period of time, and that its findings could have been affected by campaigns’ own tactical decision-making as well as other variables the study did not account for, the FEC wrote, adding that in its response to the RNC allegations Google had said the researchers used a sample of 34 email addresses “when Gmail has 1.5 billion users.”

    “Though the NCSU Study appears to demonstrate a disparate impact from Google’s spam filter, it explicitly states that its authors have ‘no reason to believe that there were deliberate attempts from these email services to create these biases to influence the voters,’” the FEC added.

    Meanwhile, a separate RNC lawsuit against Google over the same Gmail filtering issue is still ongoing. And Google has continued with an FEC-approved pilot project that allows political campaigns to bypass Gmail’s spam filters. More than 100 political entities are participating in that program, a Google spokesperson told CNN on Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Santos named to two House committees even as he faces growing calls to resign | CNN Politics

    Santos named to two House committees even as he faces growing calls to resign | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Embattled freshman Rep. George Santos has been awarded seats on two low-level committees after House Republicans debated where to put the New York congressman, who is facing mounting legal issues and growing calls to resign for extensively lying about his resume.

    Several GOP sources told CNN that the House Republican Steering Committee, controlled by Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his top allies, tapped Santos to serve on two House panels: the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Santos had privately lobbied GOP leaders to serve on two more high-profile committees, one overseeing the financial sector and another on foreign policy, but top Republicans rejected that pitch as some chairmen balked at adding him to their panels.

    Still, Republican leaders for now have decided to treat Santos like any other member of the House, even as questions grow over his past and as some have raised security concerns about allowing him to have access to classified briefings.

    Rep. Roger Williams, a Texas Republican and the chairman of the House Small Business Committee for the 118th Congress, defended the decision to name Santos to his committee.

    “I don’t condone what he said, what he’s done. I don’t think anybody does. But that’s not my role. He was elected,” Williams told CNN.

    The controversy surrounding Santos presents an early test of McCarthy’s leadership as speaker, creating a distraction as the new GOP majority attempts to roll out its agenda. But McCarthy and GOP leaders know full well that if Santos were to resign, he’d vacate a seat in a district that President Joe Biden carried by eight points, giving Democrats a real shot at further tightening the Republicans’ razor-thin House majority.

    Despite refusing to call on Santos to resign, McCarthy told reporters he didn’t know about Santos embellishing his resume but he “always had a few questions about it.” McCarthy said that Santos should be subjected to a House ethics probe and that it’s up to voters in his district – not lawmakers – to decide his fate.

    Watch McCarthy acknowledge apprehension he had about George Santos’ resume

    Other top Republicans also aligned themselves with McCarthy’s position.

    Indeed, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise stopped short of calling on Santos to resign, saying on Tuesday he’s been “answering some very serious questions” and now he has “to focus on the things that he promised he would do.”

    Scalise added: “He ran on an agenda and he’s got to follow through – as well as answering questions that have been raised.”

    Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, who sits on the Steering Committee that names members to their spots, defended the plan to install Santos on a committees.

    “In this country you’re innocent until proven guilty,” Donalds said. “There have been members who issues have come up (for) in the past. They were allowed to be on their committees, be sat on committees. And then the legal process takes hold and we make adjustments. So that’s probably what’s going to happen.”

    Senior House Republicans have privately acknowledged there’s no easy way to handle the controversy surrounding Santos as they faced the decision of which committee assignments to give him. Their concern: If they were to deny him a spot now, it would set a precedent for other members who are facing intense scrutiny from the press, but have not been charged with a crime, two GOP sources said. Instead, they said, Republicans will follow the normal GOP conference procedures that would lead him to be booted from committees if he’s indicted. Yet in 2019, then-House Minority Leader McCarthy and his allies on the Steering Committee booted then-Rep. Steve King off of his committees after his racist comments came to light.

    But Republicans know that Santos’ problems could get worse and force them to take stronger action against him.

    Santos is already facing a federal probe led by prosecutors in New York who are investigating his finances.

    In a separate matter, CNN reported that law enforcement officials in Brazil will reinstate fraud charges against Santos. Prosecutors said they will seek a “formal response” from Santos related to a stolen checkbook in 2008, after police suspended an investigation into him because they were unable to find him for nearly a decade.

    In an interview last month with the New York Post, Santos denied being charged with any crime in Brazil, saying “I am not a criminal here – not here or in Brazil or any jurisdiction in the world. Absolutely not. That didn’t happen.”

    Santos admitted to stealing a man’s checkbook that was in his mother’s possession to purchase clothing and shoes in 2008, according to documents obtained by CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans shy away from calling on Santos to resign as Democrats renew push for more information | CNN Politics

    Republicans shy away from calling on Santos to resign as Democrats renew push for more information | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    More House Republicans on Sunday stopped short of calling on embattled New York Rep. George Santos to resign, while two Democrats made a fresh push for more information from GOP leaders.

    Republicans back home in the GOP freshman’s Long Island district, however, doubled down Sunday on calls for him to step down.

    Santos is facing growing pressure to resign after he lied and misrepresented his educational, work and family history, including falsely claiming he was Jewish and the descendant of Holocaust survivors. He also faces federal and local investigations into his campaign finances. Santos has admitted to “embellishing” his resume but has maintained he is “not a criminal.”

    House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer called Santos “a bad guy” in an interview Sunday with CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    “He’s not the first politician, unfortunately, to make it to Congress to lie,” the Kentucky Republican said. “But, look, George Santos was duly elected by the people. He’s going to be under strict ethics investigation, not necessarily for lying, but for his campaign finance potential violations. So I think that Santos is being examined thoroughly.”

    “It’s his decision whether or not he should resign. It’s not my decision. But, certainly, I don’t approve of how he made his way to Congress,” Comer said.

    GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said Sunday he would resign if he were in Santos’ position but said that was a decision for the New York Republican’s constituents.

    “If it was me, I would resign. I wouldn’t be able to face my voters after having gone through that,” Bacon told “This Week” on ABC. “But this is between him and his constituents, largely. They elected him in, and he’s going to have to deal with them on that. I don’t think his reelection chances will be that promising, depending on how he handles this.”

    Rep. Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican, also declined to say if Santos should resign from his Long Island seat.

    “He clearly lied to his constituents, and … it’s going to be very, very difficult for him to gain the trust of his colleagues,” Stewart said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “The reality is you can’t expel a member of Congress. At the end of the day, it really is up to the voters in Nassau County. I can tell you this – if I were in that situation, I don’t know how I could continue to serve and I suppose he needs to ask that same question.”

    Several House Republicans have called for Santos to resign, including five of his fellow New York Republican colleagues in the House. Leaders of the Nassau County GOP have also called for the congressman to step down.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told reporters Thursday that Santos has “a long way to go to earn trust” and that concerns could be investigated by the House Ethics Committee, but he emphasized that the congresman is a part of the House GOP Conference. Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, of New York, who chairs the House GOP Conference, told CNN on Thursday that the process “will play itself out.”

    “He’s a duly elected member of Congress. There have been members of Congress on the Democrat side who have faced investigations before,” she said.

    Meanwhile, two Democrats are calling on McCarthy and Stefanik to cooperate with any House Ethics Committee investigation into Santos.

    In a letter sent to the two Republican leaders and to Dan Conston, president of the Congressional Leadership Fund – the super PAC affiliated with House GOP leadership – New York Reps. Dan Goldman and Ritchie Torres cite new reporting “indicating that each of you had at least some knowledge of lies used by Congressman George Santos to deceive his voters long before they became public.”

    “We urge you to inform the American people about your knowledge of Mr. Santos’s web of deceit prior to the election so that the public understands whether and to what extent you were complicit in Mr. Santos’s fraud on his voters,” Goldman and Torres said in the letter.

    CNN has reported that Conston expressed concerns about Santos’ background prior to the election and contacted lawmakers and donors about those concerns. Goldman and Torres cite reporting by The New York Times in their letter, which also indicated that associates of Stefanik were made aware of issues regarding Santos’ background ahead of the election.

    In an interview with CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Goldman called Santos a “complete and total fraud” and pushed back on attempts by some Republicans to equate the allegations against him to ethics complaints against some Democrats.

    “This is a scheme to defraud the voters of the 3rd District in New York, and this needs to be investigated intensively,” he said.

    Goldman and Ritchie said last week that they were filing a formal complaint with the House Ethics Committee requesting an investigation related to Santos’s financial disclosure reports. A campaign watchdog group filed a complaint last week with the Federal Election Commission accusing Santos of concealing the source of more than $700,000 that he put into his successful 2022 bid.

    CNN’s KFILE also reported that Santos had said a company later accused of running a “Ponzi scheme” was “100% legitimate” when it was accused by a potential customer of fraud in 2020, more than a year before it was sued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Joseph Murray, an attorney for Santos, told CNN in an email that Santos was unaware of wrongdoing at that company.

    Murray also previously defended the Santos campaign’s actions, saying in a statement, “The suggestion that the Santos campaign engaged in any unlawful spending of campaign funds is irresponsible, at best.”

    Nassau County Republicans were ready Sunday in case Santos showed up at a morning fundraiser on Long Island.

    “Had he shown up, we were ready to greet him,” Nassau County GOP Chair Joseph Cairo said. “We would have said, ‘You’re really not welcome. You deceived us, you lied to us.’”

    Over 900 people turned out for the annual “kickoff brunch” featuring a who’s-who of Nassau County Republicans, with most wanting to distance themselves from the freshman lawmaker.

    “People say he should serve out his term,” Cairo said. “He didn’t get elected. The fictional character he created got elected.”

    Cairo said the topic of Santos came up at times during public speeches made by various Republicans at the fundraiser but not in a supportive way.

    “Virtually everyone is done with George Santos,” said Cairo. “We’ve told him he’s not welcome at our events. We don’t invite him to our meetings.”

    Former New York Rep. Peter King, who represented a different Long Island seat in Congress for nearly three decades, said no one had anything positive to say about Santos.

    “I made it a point to sort of mingle in the crowd beforehand. Everyone says we’ve got to get rid of this guy,” said King, a onetime chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. “He’s dangerous to the party and dangerous to the country.”

    King said local Republicans would now move to ostracize Santos as much as possible.

    “That’s not to punish him but to send the signal to everyone, including Washington, that he has to go,” the former congressman said. “They can’t be slow-walking it in Washington, waiting for something to happen in Washington.”

    Republican Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, a freshman lawmaker from a neighboring Long Island district, said Santos won’t have support from the party if he opts to stay put and run for reelection next year.

    “We’ve all called for George Santos’ resignation. If that’s not something that’s going to happen, then I think it’s clear … that we are ready to do what we need to do when it comes to the polls in two years,” he said.

    “One of the things that I think is really bothering people the most is the fact that he claimed he was of the Jewish faith and that his grandparents survived the Holocaust,” D’Esposito said. “In the district that I run in, we have a very large population of Orthodox and a large Jewish population. It’s not something that we could stand for.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Black voters are more important in Georgia than in any other state | CNN Politics

    Why Black voters are more important in Georgia than in any other state | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden is heading back to Georgia. On the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, he’s visiting Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where the civil rights pioneer once preached. The trip makes a lot of sense, not just to pay tribute to King, but also because King helped lead the drive for equal voting rights for Black Americans.

    The Peach State is in many ways the place where the political importance of Black voters is clearest. They are one of the biggest reasons Georgia has swung from a red state to a purple one.

    The current list of swing states in American politics mostly features places where Black voters don’t play an outsize role – states such as Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin. Even in swing states where Black voters make up at least 10% of the voting public (e.g., Michigan and Pennsylvania), the Black portion of the electorate in the 2020 election was comparable to what it was nationwide (12%).

    Georgia is the big exception. According to US Census data, 33% of 2020 presidential election voters in the state were Black. That ranked second nationally behind deep-red Mississippi. Georgia’s own records show that a slightly smaller 29% of 2020 voters whose race was known were Black (or 27% when we include voters for whom race was unknown). That’s still the highest percentage in any swing state by far.

    Not only that, but the Black portion of the electorate is growing in Georgia as their percentage of the population has risen. State records show that Black adults made up 23% of voters in the 2000 election – which indicates a 6-point increase in the Black portion of the presidential electorate (whose race was known) from 2000 to 2020. There was an uptick of 1 point nationally over the same time span.

    To put into perspective how important this shift has been to Democratic fortunes, consider this math of the 2020 election results. Black voters in Georgia favored Biden by 77 points, according to the exit polls. Non-Black voters as a group (led by White voters) backed then-President Donald Trump by about 30 points. If Black voters had made up the same 23% of presidential election voters they did in 2000, Trump would have won the state by 6 points.

    Instead, Biden won Georgia by less than a point and became the first Democrat to carry the state in a presidential election since Bill Clinton in 1992.

    (Keep in mind, other datasets suggest that Biden won Georgia’s Black voters by an even larger margin, so this math may, in fact, underestimate how important Black voters were to Biden’s win.)

    There are other factors as to why Biden won Georgia when Democrats before him had failed. The state’s Asian and Hispanic populations are also way up from where they were 20 years ago. At the same time, White voters with a college degree in Georgia have shifted well to the left, matching recent national trends.

    All that said, Black voters are a huge reason why only a handful of states have swung more Democratic in presidential elections since 2004 than Georgia, which has moved 17 points more Democratic. None of the seven states with bigger Democratic swings had elections that were anywhere as close as Georgia’s was in 2020.

    Of course, it’s not just in presidential elections where the voting power of Black Georgians is felt.

    Both of Georgia’s US senators are Democrats, including the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church himself, Raphael Warnock. Without Warnock and Sen. Jon Ossoff, Democrats would be in the Senate minority instead of holding 51 out of 100 seats.

    Neither Warnock nor Ossoff would be in the Senate without Black voters. I’m not only talking about the fact that Black Georgians overwhelmingly cast their ballots for Ossoff and Warnock in twin Senate runoffs in 2021 or about the rise in the percentage of Black voters in the state since the beginning of the century.

    I’m talking about factors unique to the 2021 runoffs. Historically, Black turnout had dropped in general election runoffs in Georgia. That was not the case in 2021, when both Ossoff and Warnock scored narrow wins.

    Black voter turnout (relative to voters as a whole) was actually up in the 2021 runoffs compared with the November 2020 general election. Moreover, those who turned out were more Democratic-leaning than Black voters who had voted in the general election.

    Many of these same Black voters backed Warnock in huge numbers again in his victorious bid for a full six-year term in December’s Senate runoff.

    With the 2024 election around the corner, Georgia’s electoral fate depends on Black voter turnout and whether Democrats continue to win them in large numbers more than any other state. Expect Biden to be back in the Peach State rallying Black voters, if he runs for a second term.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Concerns over Santos’ backstory were known prior to the election | CNN Politics

    Concerns over Santos’ backstory were known prior to the election | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Concerns over Rep. George Santos’ backstory became louder over the summer and into the fall campaign season, and issues surrounding the recently elected Republican congressman from New York had not been a secret, a GOP source told CNN on Friday.

    When it became clearer that Santos had a chance at winning his New York district, people talked more about how his backstory didn’t add up, the source said.

    There was trepidation among consultants, donors and other Republicans – including those in Washington – that what Santos was saying about himself wasn’t accurate and that his biography didn’t line up, the source said. There had also been an expectation that some kind of major story would drop in the press before the election, the source said. But that story never came.

    Among those who expressed concerns, according to a source, was Dan Conston, president of the Congressional Leadership Fund PAC and a close associate of now-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Conston contacted lawmakers and donors, sharing his concerns about Santos, the source said.

    A representative for the Congressional Leadership Fund declined to comment.

    Among potential donors, one person who went to a Santos fundraising event in March 2022 told CNN that he immediately could tell Santos was not being truthful. Santos, he said, boasted about his time at Goldman Sachs, promised to pressure China and planned to require the US to default on its debt to not pay China – something that anyone who worked in finance would know to be a catastrophic mistake.

    A separate donor who now feels conned said he gave substantial amounts of money to Santos, who he felt came across as “maybe” an embellisher. “He seemed like a novice but I believed his heart was in the right place,” the source said.

    The revelations come as the freshman congressman faces growing pressure to resign after he lied and misrepresented his educational, work and family history. CNN’s KFILE also reported that Santos had said a company later accused of running a “Ponzi scheme” was “100% legitimate” when it was accused by a potential customer of fraud in 2020, more than a year before it was sued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Joseph Murray, an attorney for Santos, told CNN in an email that Santos was unaware of wrongdoing at that company.

    Santos has admitted to “embellishing” his resume, but maintains he is “not a criminal.”

    The New York Times first reported details of what Republicans knew about Santos before the election.

    According to the Times, some of the GOP associates assisting Santos’ campaign were alarmed by the findings of a background study on Santos conducted by a Washington research firm, prompting them to advise him to end his bid. Santos had permitted his campaign to run the study in late 2021 as he prepped his run for New York’s 3rd Congressional District, the Times reported Friday.

    According to the Times, it remains unclear who else – if anyone – learned about the background study’s findings at the time, or whether party leaders were made aware of the information.

    Earlier this week, Nassau County GOP leaders insisted they had no indication that Santos had misled them before The New York Times broke the story after the election.

    CNN has reached out to Santos’ lawyer for comment on the Times reporting. Murray told the Times that “it would be inappropriate to respond due to ongoing investigations.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why there are more Republican women in Congress than ever before | CNN Politics

    Why there are more Republican women in Congress than ever before | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lori Chavez-DeRemer sat in the gallery of the House nearly two decades ago with her mom and her twin daughters – tourists peering down at lawmakers on the floor of the chamber.

    “I’d really love to be here someday,” the Oregon Republican recalled telling her mother, who encouraged her to think about a run. She’d recently been elected to her city council, but she had her doubts. “I said, ‘Everybody on the floor there probably has a law degree. I’m a stay-at-home mom.’”

    But Chavez-DeRemer flipped a Democratic seat in November, helping Republicans win a narrow House majority. She is now among a record 42 Republican women in Congress and one of the first two Latino members of Congress from Oregon.

    The trail she has blazed is emblematic of the progress that the Republican Party has made in electing women over the past decade – hard-fought milestones reached only after outside groups began playing a larger role in primaries.

    Still, GOP women are far from reaching parity with Democrats. Thirty-three of them will serve in the House alone this term, compared with 91 Democratic women. Though many women (and men who care about electing them) applaud a recent shift in attitude among GOP leadership and a segment of the donor class – for whom identity politics has often been anathema – long-term hurdles remain.

    Some leaders, including House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik and Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, want to see the party do more.

    That push is not just about statistics. It’s imperative as the party tries to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, including the many suburban women who abandoned the GOP after Donald Trump was elected in 2016.

    “Suburban women and independent women are going to continue to be the X factor in whether we win,” said Annie Dickerson, the founder and chair of Winning for Women, an outside group that helps elect female Republicans.

    When Erin Houchin first ran for the Indiana state Senate in 2014, she urged a few party leaders to support female candidates in primaries – especially in deep-red seats where the primary is the only competitive election.

    “The answer I got was, ‘Well, we don’t get involved in primaries. You should go see if other women will help you,’” Houchin recalled.

    After winning her race, she ran for Congress in 2016 – the only woman in a five-person primary for a safe Republican seat. The party officially stayed out; the National Republican Congressional Committee’s policy is to never take sides in primaries.

    Houchin had support from Republican women, including early backing from Value in Electing Women, or VIEW, PAC, which encouraged female members of Congress to write checks for her.

    Those checks, however, were no match for what Houchin was up against: an opponent who benefited from a big-spending super PAC that likely could have outspent her even if she had more institutional party support. Trey Hollingsworth won that primary and the general election and went on to represent the 9th District for three terms before retiring last year.

    Houchin was once again the only woman in the primary to succeed Hollingsworth out of a field of nine, but this time, she emerged the winner. She easily won the general election for a district that Trump would have carried by 27 points in 2020.

    “There were many more groups this time around that did engage,” Houchin said, praising VIEW PAC, Winning for Women and Stefanik’s leadership PAC, known as Elevate PAC or E-PAC. “That made a difference.”

    Republicans have long viewed supporting diverse candidates differently from Democrats, who were earlier to embrace building coalitions among specific demographics.

    “Some of the Republican men didn’t necessarily think that it ought to be a priority,” GOP strategist Parker Poling, the executive director of the NRCC for the 2020 cycle, said of the party’s prior attitude toward boosting female candidates.

    “I had to sell it very differently in the beginning, back in 2017,” Dickerson recalled. “And it was real work persuading donors that it wasn’t identity politics. It was really about identifying excellence.”

    Stefanik raised the alarm with House GOP leaders after the 2018 election, when, as the first female recruitment chair of the NRCC, she had enlisted more than 100 women to run. Just one of them won.

    Democrats flipped the House that year, buoyed in large part by the success of female candidates, but the number of GOP women in the chamber declined by nearly half. Even if Republican leaders didn’t immediately recognize the problem – then-NRCC Chairman Tom Emmer called Stefanik’s desire to get involved in primaries a “mistake” – they quickly came around in their public support for her mission.

    “I am very proud that our efforts have been pretty much embraced across the board,” Stefanik said last month when asked if leadership now understands the importance of supporting women.

    That commitment to changing those dynamics showed in 2020 – which some have called the “Year of the Republican Woman” – when a record-breaking number of nonincumbent House GOP female candidates won, helping flip several pivotal Democratic seats.

    “There’s an understanding now that Republican women candidates can be very successful in the general election and in many cases are stronger candidates than men,” said Cam Savage, a veteran Republican consultant who worked for Houchin. “It’s been true for a while; it just hasn’t been recognized.”

    McDaniel accepts a shirt from Rep. Michelle Steel at the congresswoman's campaign office in Buena Park, California, in September 2022.

    McDaniel also noted that the tenor of conversations with donors has changed.

    “Our investors – when I started, some of them would say to me candidly, ‘You have young kids. How can you be a mom and do this?’” she said. “I don’t have those conversations anymore. It’s more: ‘What other women candidates can we invest in?’ ‘Where can we support women in our party?’”

    After impressive gains in 2020, Republican women made more nominal progress in 2022. Just one GOP woman, Virginia’s Jen Kiggans, unseated a Democratic incumbent in a swing seat, while several others flipped open seats in Oregon, Florida and Texas.

    There’s excitement, however, about conservative women’s success in red districts and how that could help deepen and extend the longevity of the bench of female Republicans in Congress.

    “You can’t just focus on electing women Republicans in swing seats. That’s why we had, you know, such a historic loss in 2018, as most of our women members were in those swing seats,” Stefanik said.

    Of the seven nonincumbent Republican women elected last year, five represent districts Trump would have carried in 2020.

    “That allows those members to gain seniority over time and also to make investments in other candidates,” added Stefanik.

    In other words, electing women in safe seats means they’re more likely to stay there – although not always. Liz Cheney lost her deep-red Wyoming seat in a primary to another woman backed by Stefanik.

    And those very primaries in deeply conservative districts have sometimes been harder for women to win, even if – based on their policy positions and voting records – they are the most conservative candidates.

    Houchin, for example, said it was important for her to be very clear about where she stood on the issues because “it’s been easier to paint female candidates as more moderate or more liberal. That’s certainly not my profile.”

    Helping women get through primaries in safe red seats could become more difficult after a deal reached between two outside groups as part of the Republican negotiations over the House speaker’s election. Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC backed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, agreed to stay out of open-seat primaries in exchange for the anti-tax Club for Growth’s support for his speakership bid.

    Chavez-DeRemer — one of those Republican women to flip an open seat last year — now calls her self-doubts during that visit to the Capitol silly.

    Chavez-DeRemer is seen in Happy Valley in the Portland suburbs in September 2022.

    “Little did I know that, really, my whole life, I was probably preparing for this,” she said. “I needed to just be me.”

    The former mayor of Happy Valley, in suburban Portland, won a five-way primary in Oregon’s 5th District and went on to win the general election over a Democratic woman, who had defeated the incumbent in her primary.

    Her story speaks to the message pushed by potential White House aspirant Nikki Haley, who has channeled her energies into elevating female Republican candidates through her Stand for America PAC.

    “What we need to do is to tell women, ‘We need you. We need you at the table. We need you making the decisions. We need your experience. We need your ability to talk about families and budgets and crime, and all of those things,” the former South Carolina governor and onetime US ambassador to the United Nations said in a brief interview on the campaign trail in Nevada last year.

    Haley speaks at a campaign event for De La Cruz and Rep. Mayra Flores in McAllen, Texas, in October 2022.

    “Success begets success,” Poling added of female candidates’ track record. “When people see that this helped us win more seats, then they’re more likely to put the time and effort into recruiting and helping female candidates.”

    Party operatives credit strong recruitment – both in 2022 under NRCC recruitment chair Carol Miller of West Virginia and in 2020, under then-Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana.

    “That begins with the acknowledgment that the way you recruit women is different from men,” Savage said. “You don’t have to recruit men. They line up to tell you they’re the best fit.”

    But one of the major lessons from 2018 is the recognition that getting women to run isn’t enough: Helping them through the process is also critical.

    “I don’t look at women as a monolith – they come with different backgrounds and experience – but sometimes fundraising can be a challenge, or life balance,” said McDaniel, who was elected RNC chair in 2017.

    One part of addressing that is female candidates supporting each other. Monica De La Cruz was one of three Republican women running for South Texas swing districts along the southern border last year.

    “We had a support group of women who understood exactly what you were going through at that moment, so it was a very special time,” said De La Cruz, the only one of the three to win.

    And increasingly, there’s recognition that a female perspective can be a strength in the eyes of voters.

    “I had no political background. I’m a small-business owner, single mom of two teenage children. And people could relate to that,” said De La Cruz, who has been tapped to serve on the RNC’s advisory panel to examine how the party can continue broadening its appeal to women and more diverse voters.

    De La Cruz takes a selfie with supporters in McAllen, Texas, in October 2022.

    “They saw me at the Friday night football games, and the Saturday morning volleyball games,” she said. “They saw me in parent-teacher conferences at the school. My community saw themselves in me.”

    The GOP still has a lot of catching up to do. Even with leadership PACs and outside groups committed to boosting women in Republican primaries, the party lacks the firepower of a group like EMILY’s List, which has been helping elect Democratic women who support abortion rights since the mid-1980s.

    Some of the outside groups backing GOP women have diverged in primaries, either not engaging in the same races or even backing different women in the same primaries.

    To expand institutional support, McDaniel pointed to the example of programs such as League of Our Own, a campaign program she worked with in her home state of Michigan that has focused on training female candidates.

    “We talked about things like, ‘How do you raise money? How do you pick a campaign manager?’” McDaniel said. “You’d see these women who were graduates, going on to be state reps or state senators. It’s really, really impactful to see how even just that little bit of campaign school and that little bit of help can go a long way in bringing women into the conversation.”

    Chavez-DeRemer said the party must “keep reaching out” and “make sure that all women are running at a local level.”

    Stefanik echoed that sentiment, pointing to a robust state and local pipeline as a lynchpin to deepening the bench of Republican women in Congress in the years ahead.

    “It’s a long-term strategy,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Missouri lawmakers adopt stricter dress code for women in state House | CNN Politics

    Missouri lawmakers adopt stricter dress code for women in state House | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Lawmakers in the Missouri House of Representatives this week adopted a stricter dress code for women as part of a new rules package, and now requires them to cover their shoulders by wearing a jacket like a blazer, cardigan or knit blazer.

    The addition, which was proposed by Republican state Rep. Ann Kelley, sparked outrage from some Democrats who said the change was sexist because the dress code for men was not altered.

    Men in the Missouri House of Representatives are required to wear a jacket, shirt and a tie. The previous dress code for women required “dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots.”

    Kelley, speaking on the House floor, said she felt compelled to offer the change that “cleans up some of the language … by mirroring the language in the gentleman’s dress code.”

    “Men are required to wear a jacket, a shirt and a tie, correct? And if they walked in here without a tie, they would get gaveled down in a heartbeat. If they walked in without a jacket, they would get gaveled down in a heartbeat. So, we are so interested in being equal,” Kelley said on Wednesday during the floor debate.

    Women hold less than a third of the seats in the Missouri House, which is made up of 116 men and 43 women, according to the state House site.

    The dress code amendment was passed in a voice vote and the rules package was later adopted by the GOP-controlled legislature in a 105-51 vote, but not without pushback and debate from House Democrats.

    “Do you know what it feels like to have a bunch of men in this room looking at your top trying to determine if it’s appropriate or not?” Democratic state Rep. Ashley Aune proclaimed from the House floor.

    Republicans altered their amendment to include cardigans after Democratic state Rep. Raychel Proudie criticized the impact requiring blazers could have on pregnant women.

    Democratic state Rep. Peter Merideth refused to vote on the amendment, telling his colleagues on the floor, “I don’t think I’m qualified to say what’s appropriate or not appropriate for women and I think that is a really dangerous road for us all to go down.”

    “Y’all had a conniption fit the last two years when we talked about maybe, maybe wearing masks in a pandemic to keep each other safer. How dare the government tell you what you have to wear over your face? Well, I know some governments require women to wear things over their face, but here, oh, it’s OK because we’re just talking about how many layers they have to have over their shoulders,” Merideth added.

    In the US Congress, up until 2017, reporters and lawmakers were required to wear dresses and blouses with sleeves if they wanted to enter the House chamber. A group of bipartisan female lawmakers protested over their “right to bare arms,” prompting then-Speaker Paul Ryan’s office to concede that the dress code “could stand to be a bit modernized.” The US Senate later amended its rules as well, The New York Times reported.

    Aune told CNN Friday afternoon the change signals that Republicans in the state aren’t focused on “important issues.”

    “In 2019 House Republicans passed the abortion ban that went into effect this summer after the Dobbs decision came down, fully restricting a women’s right to choose in this state, and on day one in our legislature they’re doubling down on controlling women,” she said on “CNN Newsroom.”

    “It’s wild to me. I think it’s sending a message that the Republican Party, the Missouri GOP, doesn’t have the best interest in mind and (is) not focused on the important issues.”

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RNC braces for three-way chair race at winter meeting | CNN Politics

    RNC braces for three-way chair race at winter meeting | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A three-way race for chairman of the Republican National Committee could deal another setback to a party looking to enter the 2024 cycle with a unified front.

    Each of the three candidates running for chair – incumbent Ronna McDaniel, California-based attorney Harmeet Dhillon and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell – confirmed to CNN either themselves, or through allies, that they have qualified to be on the ballot. It will be the first time in more than a decade that a drawn-out balloting process – set to take place when the committee’s 168-member voting body gathers in Southern California later this month – is likely to occur, said multiple people familiar with the process. A spokesperson for the RNC declined to comment on the status of any candidate qualifications.

    According to an email sent to RNC members last week, candidates running in contested races had until 10 a.m. Friday to qualify for the ballot by submitting “written evidence” demonstrating their majority support from national committee members in at least three states. McDaniel, Dhillon and Lindell will each participate in candidate forums before committee members vote by secret ballot on January 27 to elect their next leader.

    “Yes 3 are in,” Lindell said in a text message Friday when asked if he had submitted his paperwork to qualify for the chairman race. The MyPillow founder, who is a prominent supporter of former President Donald Trump’s election fraud claims, declined to identify which committee members were backing his campaign.

    “I’ve told mine I want to be discreet because I don’t want the media to attack them,” he said.

    A person close to Dhillon also confirmed that the California committeewoman had submitted the necessary paperwork to qualify and plans to have “a full whip operation on the ground” at the winter meeting in two weeks. That operation will include nightly receptions for committee members and a handful of high-profile surrogates, who are flying in for the occasion, including defeated Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk, this person said.

    “We feel very, very good. As of yesterday, I’ve thought, ‘Good God, there is a very, very clear path to win this thing,’” the person close to Dhillon said.

    “Ronna McDaniel looks forward to participating in the candidate forum at winter meeting,” said Emma Vaughn, a spokesperson for McDaniel’s reelection campaign.

    The contested chair race will occur just weeks after House Republicans began their new majority with a dayslong struggle to elect their own leader following the party’s underwhelming performance in the midterm elections and amid furious objections to Kevin McCarthy – who was eventually elected speaker – by some of the most conservative members of the House GOP Conference. Another protracted leadership election inside the Republican Party’s governing body could deal a second blow to the GOP in its quest for party unity and exacerbate ongoing strategy debates across the party.

    The candidate forums, which have been held in years past, will allow candidates running for chairman and other contested positions – including co-chair and treasurer – to make their case to committee members in a format of their choosing, according to a person familiar with the planning. While each will be allotted the same amount of time, one candidate could choose to spend the duration speaking directly to members about their campaign or to field questions from members the entire time.

    “I don’t think it’s going to be raucous, per se, but I’m sure both of Ronna’s challengers will forcefully argue why she should go and why they should replace her,” said one committee member who plans to support Dhillon.

    Vaughn, the spokeswoman for McDaniel, said the current chairwoman will use the candidate forum “to continue her conversations with members of the 168, our party’s grassroots leaders who are eager to unite together to compete and win in 2023 and 2024.”

    McDaniel has declined to engage in a public debates with Dhillon and Lindell set to be hosted by radio personality John Fredericks and the right-wing outlet Real America’s Voice at the California resort in Dana Point where RNC members will huddle later this month. Vaughn cited the RNC-sanctioned candidate forum as McDaniel’s reason for not wanting to participate, adding that the incumbent chairwoman “will be overseeing party business during the remaining portion of the RNC meeting.”

    Had she agreed to participate in the Fredericks forum, however, it’s unlikely McDaniel would have been given a fair platform. The Virginia-based talk show host has previously called McDaniel, who is running for her fourth term, “a three-time loser” overseeing “the biggest disaster I’ve ever seen.”

    With two weeks left until RNC members huddle in California, the race for chair has taken a heated turn.

    A string of no-confidence votes against McDaniel by various state parties has further emboldened Dhillon and her allies, while some opponents of the California attorney have begun quietly raising questions about her Sikh faith, according to two people familiar with those conversations.

    “We must reject religious bigotry [within] our great party. Attacking Sikh faith of an Asian-American candidate 4 RNC chair has the optics of racism!” Oregon committeeman Solomon Yue, an early Dhillon supporter, wrote on Twitter earlier this week, alongside a screenshot of a text message from a fellow RNC member alleging that they had been approached by “a former RNC employee living in a southern state” trying to circulate a video of Dhillon delivering a Sikh prayer at the 2016 GOP convention in Cleveland.

    Following the allegations, McDaniel, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement to NBC News condemning “religious bigotry in any form.”

    “As a member of a minority faith myself, I would never condone such attacks. I have vowed to run a positive campaign and will continue to do so,” she said.

    While more than 100 RNC members signed on to a November letter endorsing McDaniel’s reelection as chair, allies of her opponents claim there have been cracks in her support in the weeks since. Several state executive committees have held no-confidence votes against McDaniel, with another vote set to occur in Florida.

    Both the Alabama and Louisiana Republican parties have approved resolutions or publicly urged RNC members to vote against McDaniel. In Arizona, Republican leaders late last year called on McDaniel to resign, while the Texas GOP executive committee has urged its three RNC committee members to back fresh leadership instead of supporting McDaniel. In Florida, two candidates running for chair of the state GOP party recently signed on to a petition to force a no-confidence vote against McDaniel, the fate of which remains unknown at this time.

    Still, Vaughn claimed in a statement that “member support for the Chairwoman has grown since her announcement” to seek reelection.

    While McDaniel allies continue to tout her early declared support from 100-plus members, it is unclear if that support will hold when committee members vote later this month. Because votes are cast by secret ballot, it is possible some signatories of the pro-McDaniel letter could defect without revealing their identities.

    CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the number of public debates for RNC chair that will be hosted by Real America’s Voice.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy stands by Santos despite growing calls for resignation from other GOP lawmakers | CNN Politics

    McCarthy stands by Santos despite growing calls for resignation from other GOP lawmakers | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. George Santos, the recently elected GOP congressman from New York who has admitted to lying about parts of his resume, is facing escalating backlash from his own party as a growing number of House Republican lawmakers call for him to resign or say he can’t serve effectively even as Speaker Kevin McCarthy has stood by the embattled congressman.

    Santos has so far been defiant, pushing back on calls for his resignation – and House GOP leadership has not called on him to do so. Instead, McCarthy, a Republican from California, has indicated he will not join demands from New York GOP leaders, and others, for Santos’ resignation – and has indicated that Santos is on track to still receive committee assignments.

    McCarthy told reporters on Thursday that Santos has “a long way to go to earn trust” and that concerns could be investigated by the House Ethics Committee, but emphasized that Santos is a part of the House GOP conference.

    “The voters of his district have elected him. He is seated. He is part of the Republican conference,” he said at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

    The controversy surrounding Santos is presenting an early test of McCarthy’s leadership as speaker and has created a major issue for the new GOP majority.

    Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, echoed McCarthy, saying, “Obviously, you know, we’re finding out more, but we also recognize that he was elected by his constituents.”

    House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican who endorsed Santos in his race, would not call on the embattled freshman to resign on Thursday.

    “It will play itself out,” she told CNN. “He’s a duly-elected member of Congress. There have been members of Congress on the Democrat side who have faced investigations before.”

    But the embattled congressman faces growing condemnation from rank-and-file Republicans as new and damaging revelations come out about his past.

    Two New York Republican lawmakers — US Reps. Marc Molinaro and Mike Lawler — told CNN on Thursday morning they don’t believe Santos can serve his district effectively.

    “There’s no way I believe he can fully fulfill his responsibilities,” Molinaro said.

    “I think it’s clear, like I said, he has lost the confidence of people in his own community, so I think he needs to seriously consider whether or not he can actually do his job effectively and right now it’s pretty clear he can’t,” Lawler told CNN.

    Lawler later said in a statement, “I believe he is unable to fulfill his duties and should resign.”

    Santos refused to address any of the allegations of lying about his resume or his colleagues’ calls for his immediate resignation on Thursday morning, saying only “I was elected by the people” before ducking into his office.

    Leaders of the Nassau County Republican Party on Wednesday called for Santos to resign from office over his lies to voters and fabrications about his personal life. Santos, however, swiftly rejected the calls to resign.

    “Today, on behalf of the Nassau County Republican Committee, I’m calling for his immediate resignation,” chairman Joseph G. Cairo said at a news conference on Long Island, adding that the congressman’s campaign was made up “of deceit, lies and fabrication.”

    Cairo was joined by a slate of local party officials and, remotely from Washington, DC, by Republican Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, who also called for Santos to step down. D’Esposito was joined later Wednesday in calling for Santos’ resignation by four more in the US House GOP conference: New York Reps. Nick LaLota, Nick Langworthy and Brandon Williams, as well as South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace.

    Santos has faced growing criticism from congressional Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans, after he admitted to fabricating sections of his resume – including his past work experience and education.

    CNN reported last month that federal prosecutors in New York are investigating Santos’s finances. Separately, CNN has reported that Santos’s campaign finances show dozens of expenses just below the FEC’s threshold to keep receipts.

    In a separate matter, CNN reported that law enforcement officials in Brazil will reinstate fraud charges against Santos. Prosecutors said they will seek a “formal response” from Santos related to a stolen checkbook in 2008, after police suspended an investigation into him because they were unable to find him for nearly a decade.

    Santos admitted to stealing a man’s checkbook that was in his mother’s possession to purchase clothing and shoes in 2008, according to documents obtained by CNN.

    CNN’s KFile uncovered even more falsehoods from Santos, including claims he was forced to leave a New York City private school when his family’s real estate assets took a downturn and stating he represented Goldman Sachs at a top financial conference.

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP leaders and McCarthy holdouts defend deals as some Republicans complain they’re in the dark | CNN Politics

    GOP leaders and McCarthy holdouts defend deals as some Republicans complain they’re in the dark | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House GOP leaders and key negotiators won’t commit to publicly releasing details about the side deals Kevin McCarthy cut in order to secure the speakership, undercutting the Republican pledge to run their chamber openly and transparently and as some rank-and-file members call for more information about the promises that were made.

    While some of the concessions were spelled out in the House rules package, which passed with support of all but one Republican on Monday night, other promises – such as adding more members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus to committees and putting conditions on raising the national debt ceiling – were made through a handshake deal, leaving some lawmakers in the dark about the full extent of what McCarthy agreed to.

    “Operating in a vacuum doesn’t feel good,” one GOP member told CNN. “We’ve been loyal and it’s a slap in the face.”

    Rep. Nancy Mace, who represents a swing district from South Carolina, said, “It is essential” that members and the public hear from the GOP leadership about what those promises were, expressing frustration about learning about some of the promises through the press.

    “We know that there were certain members of that faction that were trying to get committee chairmanships or special committee assignments. We won’t know how that shakes out until (the House GOP Steering Committee) does its thing,” Mace told reporters, referring to the panel that sets committee assignments and will make those decisions in the coming days. “There’s still some questions that I think many of us have about what side deals may or may not have been made, what promises are made, what handshakes are made.”

    Further adding to the frustration and confusion, there was another document flying around K Street listing out all the alleged McCarthy concessions even as House GOP Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota asserted that the document is not completely accurate.

    On Monday night, McCarthy didn’t say whether he planned to release more details of the deals when asked by CNN. On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana would not explicitly promise to divulge the information. And Texas Rep. Chip Roy – who spent hours negotiating the agreement with McCarthy – and helped bring along the votes to get him the speakership, told CNN that much of what has been revealed has been publicly reported, contending that “there is no official list.”

    “Everything in life is about – how do you come to terms and agree?” Roy said. “You look somebody in the eye and you shake their hands and you move forward, and that’s precisely what happened.”

    At a closed door meeting on Tuesday, GOP leaders walked members through a slide presentation, detailing some of their budget and spending priorities. According to a screenshot of the presentation, which was obtained by CNN, the spending agreement includes vague promises, such as “reforms” to the budget process and mandatory spending programs, which could potentially include Social Security and Medicare.

    Also, the other concessions include capping federal spending at fiscal 2022 levels, something defense hawks fear could slash Pentagon programs. Also, there’s a promise to reject “any negotiatons with the Senate” on government funding bills if they don’t meet the terms of the forthcoming House GOP budget resolution and don’t cut domestic spending. Those demands will almost certainly be a non-starter in the Democatic-led Senate, raising the prospects of a government shutdown in the fall or stop-gap measures to keep agencies funded.

    In one of the biggest concessions with major economic ramifications, the slide presentation said House Republicans “will not agree” to a raising the nation’s borrowing limit “without budget agreement or commensurate fiscal reforms.” That demand already has drawn sharp pushback from Senate Democrats and could prompt a huge fight with the White House with the prospect of a first-ever default looming sometime this year.

    In the Tuesday meeting, McCarthy walked members through the concessions that were included in the rules package, such as restoring the ability of any single member to call for a vote ousting the sitting speaker – a demand from the hard right and something that could threaten his speakership. But there are other deals, such as committee assignments for the holdouts and giving the hard right members more sway over the legislative process, that have yet to be publicly released. McCarthy has also agreed to hold votes on some of the Freedom Caucus’ legislative priorities, such as a border security bill, imposing term limits on members and a balanced budget amendment, according to lawmakers.

    Asked by CNN if the American people deserve to know the side-deals that were cut to secure the speakership for McCarthy, especially given the GOP’s claims of supporting transparent government, Scalise was non-committal.

    “The speaker talked about that today, and some of the things involved making sure that our committees are represented by a full swath of our membership,” Scalise said at a news conference. “It wasn’t any person was committed a committee.”

    The Louisiana Republican added that committee assignments have yet to be doled out, which are part of the agreement. “The committees have to produce bills that come out of committee that represent the full swath of our conference,” Scalise said. “And so that’s something the steering committee is going to take up, and those decisions haven’t been finalized yet.”

    But he still wouldn’t commit to releasing the information about McCarthy’s side deals after the committee assignments are set, which will happen over the next few weeks. Once the committees are populated, then the chairs get to pick their subcommittee chairs.

    McCarthy sought to quell some of the concerns of members, telling them during a closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday that there is no secret “three-page addendum” to the rules package, even as some lawmakers have said they have seen such a document, according to sources in the room.

    Roy insisted to reporters that all is on the up-and-up, pointing to a December proposal he and others released about their demands for more say in the legislative process. He was less clear on which of those proposals McCarthy has signed off on.

    “There’s no back room deals … there’s no three-page addendum … there’s no official list,” Roy said. “Do you ever write down notes? Do you ever sit down and talk through like, say, ‘Hey, what are we going to do to agree on spending?’”

    As McCarthy was laboring to get the votes last week and faced demands from 20 GOP holdouts, the negotiations happened behind closed doors and were spread out among multiple rooms, leaving some to wonder if it was done so by design as many have said they have not seen the full extent of the promises made.

    Roy defended their closed-door negotiations and said everything McCarthy agreed to has come out publicly, and he ticked off some of those items – including promises to vote on bills to impose congressional term limits, secure the border and balance the budget.

    “Of course you have to go sit down behind closed doors and not debate this stuff in front of the cameras,” Roy said. “There’s nothing, to the best of my knowledge, nothing that has been part of all that that isn’t very public – including, by the way, a commitment by the speaker to work with us about how the committees are represented.”

    Rep. Don Bacon, a moderate who represents a Biden-won district in Nebraska, said he has only been briefed verbally by one of the negotiators about the additional concessions, but said he feels comfortable with what he has heard.

    “They were at least verbally briefed to me,” Bacon said. “I feel comfortable with the rules that were presented.”

    Yet the rules package adopted by the House on Monday doesn’t include some of the other deals.

    Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, another one of the McCarthy holdouts, defended the handling of the situation, arguing that some of the deals McCarthy cut weren’t included in the House rules package because they don’t pertain to the rules, which specifically operates how the House governs.

    He told CNN, “There’s no secret deal,” but acknowledged he does not know the full extent of promises the speaker made in order to secure the gavel.

    “All of this stuff is a moving target and there’s nothing,” he said. “There’s nothing clandestine about it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how the House GOP majority will try to curb federal spending and taxes | CNN Politics

    Here’s how the House GOP majority will try to curb federal spending and taxes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In adopting their rules package Monday, the new House Republican majority has made it clear that they want to rein in federal government spending and keep a lid on taxes.

    The package, which governs how the chamber will operate for the next two years, lays out several measures aimed at making it harder to hike spending and to increase taxes to pay for it. Some of the provisions have been in effect previously when the GOP has controlled the House.

    The measures, several of which raised concerns even among cost-conscious Republican lawmakers, are sure to lead to battles later this year with the Democratic-led Senate and President Joe Biden that could have severe consequences for the nation.

    If the two parties can’t work out an agreement to fund the government for fiscal year 2024, which starts October 1, it could result in a shutdown. And if a war over spending cuts prevents Congress from raising the $31 trillion debt limit this summer or fall, it would risk a default on US debt that would roil the national and global economies.

    “I’m worried about the types of fiscal goals that they’re setting, that they’re not going to be achievable, and they’re setting themselves up for failure,” said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “I’m also worried that instead of both parties negotiating in good faith, we’ll be stuck in one of these dangerous standoffs.”

    The package swaps the pay-as-you-go rule for a cut-as-you-go requirement, as existed the last time the GOP ran the House.

    The former mandates that any new spending or tax cuts have to be paid for by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. But the latter requires only new spending be paid for, making it easier to cut taxes, said Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    Another provision would restore the requirement that tax rate increases be approved by a 60% supermajority vote, making such efforts harder to pass and limiting lawmakers’ options to reduce the deficit or raise spending.

    Plus, the package makes it harder for House members to game the system by proposing legislation that would not raise spending in the first decade, the typical time frame Congress considers, but would in subsequent years. It does so by establishing a point of order, or an objection, against consideration of such a bill.

    What may prompt even more chaos on Capitol Hill are the side deals that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy made with conservative members of his party last week to secure their support for his leadership. The details of those agreements have yet to be made public, which has annoyed more than a few GOP lawmakers.

    McCarthy signed off on a pledge that the Republican-led House would pair any debt ceiling increase to spending cuts, which would add even more complexity to what’s expected to be difficult negotiations within the GOP and between the two parties.

    What’s more, McCarthy agreed to approve a fiscal year 2024 budget capping discretionary spending at fiscal year 2022 levels. That would require cutting all domestic discretionary spending by roughly 25% in inflation-adjusted dollars if defense funding is protected, Akabas said.

    Just how wed to these measures conservative Republicans are will determine the depth of the dysfunction in Congress this year. McCarthy’s slim majority in the House means he needs the support of nearly everyone in the party to pass any legislation.

    “It has yet to be seen whether these are immovable policy positions or policy preferences that are the starting point for negotiations,” Akabas said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP leaders scramble to secure vote for House rules package | CNN Politics

    GOP leaders scramble to secure vote for House rules package | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The House is expected to vote Monday evening on the rules package for the 118th Congress, in what will mark the first test of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s slim Republican majority after he made key concessions to GOP hardliners to win the gavel.

    McCarthy’s concessions to the hardliners alienated some centrist House Republicans, and GOP leaders were racing Monday to alleviate those concerns. Sources told CNN that GOP leaders placed numerous calls and texts to Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who said Sunday she was “on the fence” over the House rules package.

    McCarthy’s allies have been fanning the airwaves to try to clarify what is and isn’t in the rules package, particularly as it relates to defense spending.

    Republican leadership is still confident they will have the votes for the rules package, but with such little margin for error – and this vote seen as McCarthy’s first test of whether he can govern – leaders are leaving little to chance.

    GOP leaders are hoping to quickly push past the rules and onto their legislative agenda, with a vote slated for Monday evening after the rules on a bill to roll back $80 billion funding to staff up the Internal Revenue Service that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, a massive social spending bill passed by Democrats in the last Congress.

    Still, the skirmish over the House rules underscores the herculean task McCarthy faces as the leader of a House with a slim four-vote Republican majority that gives a small bloc of members on either side of the Republican political spectrum outsized sway to stand in the way of legislation.

    In order to flip the 20 GOP holdouts last week, McCarthy agreed to a number of concessions. That included returning the House rules so that one member can move for a vote to oust the speaker. The California Republican agreed to expand the mandate of a new select committee investigating the “weaponization” of the federal government to include probing “ongoing criminal investigations,” setting up a showdown with the Biden administration and law enforcement agencies over their criminal probes, particularly those into former President Donald Trump.

    McCarthy also signed off on a pledge that the Republican-led House would pair any debt ceiling increase to spending cuts and would approve a budget capping discretionary spending at fiscal 2022 levels – which, if implemented, would roll back the fiscal 2023 spending increase for both defense and non-defense spending from last month’s $1.7 trillion omnibus package.

    Texas Rep. Tony Gonzalez was the first Republican to oppose the House rules on Friday. He said on Fox News Monday morning that he remained a no.

    “I’m against the rules for a couple different reasons. One is the cut in defense spending, I think that’s an absolutely terrible idea, the other is the vacate the chair. I mean I don’t want to see us every two months be in lockdown,” Gonzalez said.

    Mace said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” she was still “on the fence” about the rules package because she didn’t support “a small number of people trying to get a deal done or deals done for themselves in private.”

    Republicans expected to back the rules package are also coming to grips with the concessions that McCarthy had to make to secure the speakership.

    Rep. David Joyce, a moderate Ohio Republican, told CNN that McCarthy should be concerned that a single member can force that vote of no-confidence on the speakership.

    “I’m not the speaker. So it concerns Kevin more than it concerns me, but that just took it back the way it was originally. And I don’t think that is going to change the way we do business around here,” he said, adding it should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances.

    Asked if everyone agrees with that, Joyce told CNN: “Probably not.”

    Rep. Tom Cole, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, told CNN: “I’m willing to cut spending and we need to do that. I’m not willing to cut defense and that is half the discretionary budget.”

    Republican allies of McCarthy have sought to push back on the notion they will cut defense spending, saying it’s domestic spending that will be targeted.

    “There’s going to be good conversations, there already has been, that you can’t cut defense, right? It needs to go on a very predictable trajectory,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican. “We have massively increased spending on the non-defense programs, because that’s always the deal, right? There’s plenty to work with there, in my opinion.”

    House GOP leaders are planning to hold votes this week on a bevy of red-meat messaging bills on taxes, abortion and energy, starting with Monday’s vote to roll back the IRS funding increases.

    The bill is likely to pass the House on party lines but won’t be taken up by the Democratic-majority Senate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden struggles to confirm judges in the South and thwart Trump’s impact | CNN Politics

    Biden struggles to confirm judges in the South and thwart Trump’s impact | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats have moved quickly to appoint scores of judges during the past two years, outpacing former President Donald Trump, but they have stalled in the South.

    The dearth of nominees offered in southern states, notably where both US senators are Republican, threatens to undercut Biden’s large-scale effort to counteract Trump’s effect on the federal judiciary, particularly to bolster civil rights and ensure voter protections.

    The Biden team’s well-documented diversification of the courts – nominees have been overwhelmingly women and people of color, such as Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and offered professional diversity, including public defenders and civil rights lawyers – has withered when it comes to district courts in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Texas, where more than a dozen such court vacancies exist.

    “That is where the entrenchment of hyper-conservatism is real and difficult to uproot,” said Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

    The pattern of vacancies, particularly in the South, is not lost on the Biden selection team, led by political veterans with deep experience in judicial selection and confirmation. (Biden, himself, as a senator from Delaware, once led the Senate Judiciary Committee.)

    “All of these seats are deeply important to us. We care about all of these vacancies,” Paige Herwig, senior counsel to the President, told CNN. “It’s not a secret that a large number of vacancies are in states with two Republican senators. But we are always here in good faith. We are here to work with home state senators.”

    Many states beyond the South with two GOP senators, such as Idaho, Oklahoma and Utah, lack nominees for court vacancies, but the South is disproportionately affected because of its sheer population and number of open seats. The South also endures as a battleground for intense litigation over civil rights and liberties.

    Federal judges are appointed for life and can become a president’s most enduring legacy. Judges’ effect on American life is clear, from the top at the Supreme Court, down to district court judges who decide which litigants even get to trial.

    District courts are “the gateway to access to justice,” Nelson said.

    District court judges have also shown their muscle in recent years by blocking executive branch policy with nationwide injunctions. Biden’s early initiatives, notably over immigration and student-debt relief, were first thwarted in lower courts by Republican-appointed judges.

    During Biden’s first two years, the White House and Senate Democrats plainly prioritized judicial vacancies in blue states, where they could make swift and immediate progress.

    Overall, Biden won confirmations for 97 appointments to the US district courts, appellate bench and Supreme Court over the past two years.

    For the comparable two-year period, Trump, who set out to transform the federal courts the help of White House counsel Don McGahn and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, had named 85 judges. They scouted out likeminded conservative ideologues and then accelerated appointments in the following years by openly encouraging judges to retire to generate more vacancies.

    U.S. Supreme Court says Trump-era border policy to remain in effect while legal challenges play out


    10:08

    – Source:
    CNN

    Like other progressive leaders, Nelson praises the Biden focus on a more diverse bench. Yet she said the White House could step up the pace of nominations and the Senate can move faster on the nominees it has received.

    “Nancy Abudu is an excellent example of someone whose nomination has been stalled,” Nelson said. Abudu, a litigation director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, would, if confirmed, be the first Black woman on the US appeals court for the 11th Circuit, covering Alabama, Georgia and Florida. She was designated for an open Georgia seat and endorsed by the state’s two senators, both of whom are Democrats.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee, which had been evenly split between Democrats and Republicans last year, deadlocked in May on Abudu’s nomination, and she had been awaiting a procedural vote by the full Senate that then would have allowed an up-or-down vote on confirmation. Biden has renominated her for the new Congress.

    The question now is whether the White House will be able to ramp up negotiations with red-state senators and whether the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, will ease the practice of requiring district court nominees to have the backing of home-state senators.

    By the terms of the Constitution, a president seeks the “advice and consent” of the Senate judicial appointments. Senators traditionally have influenced the selection of nominations to district and appellate courts in their home states, even to the point of blocking a disfavored candidate. In recent years, however, presidents have been able to wield more latitude for appeals court nominations.

    The Judiciary Committee, however, will not hold a hearing on a district court nomination unless both home-state senators have signed off, in what’s referred to as the “blue slip” process. These blue slips of paper, as they are relayed to the committee, are intended to signify that a home-state senator has been consulted in the president’s choice. For Biden’s judicial selections, that process poses significant roadblocks.

    Herwig, overseeing the judicial selection machinery, stresses that Biden is trying to generate consensus and says appointments for a Louisiana-based seat on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (Judge Dana Douglas) and Indiana-based seat on the 7th Circuit (Judge Doris Pryor), which arose from some dealings with GOP senators, “demonstrate that there are possibilities to work together.” The Senate confirmed Douglas and Pryor, both former US magistrate judges, in December.

    A second seat on the powerful 5th Circuit appellate court, covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, is open with no nominee. Judge Gregg Costa, based in Texas, had announced about a year ago that he would be resigning in August 2022.

    While a good portion of the open seats can be chalked up to Democratic and Republican differences, another notable appellate vacancy – for a Maryland seat on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit – rests in Democratic hands.

    Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, announced her retirement more than a year ago, and made it effective in September 2022. But Biden and Sen. Ben Cardin, Maryland’s senior senator, have been at odds over a successor, and the White House apparently does not want to more forward without Cardin’s backing. Herwig would not comment on that vacancy, and a Cardin spokeswoman said the senator was awaiting word from the White House on his suggested nominees.

    In the meantime, the 4th Circuit, resolving appeals from Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia district courts, remains closely divided with seven Democratic and six Republican appointees.

    Biden’s team signaled from the start its priority for the judiciary, and White House chief of staff Ron Klain, a former Supreme Court law clerk, has been fixated on filling the bench. Klain worked with then-Sen. Biden on the Judiciary Committee and separately helped evaluate judicial candidates in the Clinton and Obama administrations.

    Herwig is a product of the Senate, too, previously serving two Democratic senators who sit on the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein and Amy Klobuchar.

    In the South, however, where voting rights and immigration disputes rage, change has been slow. Going forward, as Democrats gained one more seat in the November midterm elections toward their Senate majority, southern states are likely to become a critical arena for an administration determined to reshape the bench.

    The Administrative Office of the US Courts reports that as of January 6, there were 82 vacancies on federal district and appellate courts. Biden has designated nominees for only about half of those vacancies. (There are a total 677 authorized judgeships at the trial-level US district courts, 179 on the US courts of appeals and nine on the Supreme Court.)

    The South has a disproportionate share of those vacancies without nominations.

    Of all 50 states, Florida and Louisiana have the most openings with no nominees pending, 4 apiece. Texas has three vacancies with no nominees pending, and Alabama two (one dating to mid-2020) with no nominees offered.

    It is plain, given the number of vacancies and how long some have existed, that it will not be easy to fill them. And it is unclear whether the Democratic White House and Republican senators are truly talking to each other, or actually talking past each other.

    Press secretaries for Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, deeply invested in the ideology of the bench, and regularly opposing Biden appointees, said the senators were working with the administration on judges.

    In Louisiana, the communications director to Sen. John Kennedy, another member of the Judiciary Committee, said Kennedy’s office had no information to provide on possible appointments in Louisiana.

    Ryann DuRant, press secretary to Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, said the White House reached out to Tuberville soon after he became a senator in 2021 to address the courts, but that since then, “there has been radio silence from the White House.”

    “When the White House is ready to move forward on Alabama judicial nominees,” DuRant added in a statement, “Senator Tuberville welcomes the opportunity to discuss as a part of his role to provide advice and consent.”

    McKinley Lewis, communications director for Florida Sen. Rick Scott, said the senator welcomed “an open, good faith dialogue with the White House to ensure any nominees to serve on Florida’s federal courts will respect the limited role of the judiciary and will not legislate from the bench.”

    Herwig declined to detail any conservations yet stressed that there was no senator with whom her team would not work.

    It’s unclear whether the Senate Judiciary Committee will feel increased pressure, from its Democratic ranks or from outside liberal interests, to amend the “blue slip” process.

    Trump’s total appointments in four years reached 231, a figure that might be hard for Biden to match, if stalemates continue in Republican-dominated locales.

    There are at least another 20 vacancies expected in 2023, based on information gathered by the Administrative Office of the US Courts. About a third of those are in southern locales.

    At some point, judges weighing retirement, and equally concerned about whether Biden could successfully tap a replacement, may simply opt against stepping down during his remaining presidency.

    In the Trump years, his GOP allies openly encouraged judges thinking about retirement to just do it. It was a sign of how vigorously Republican leaders wanted to shape the courts.

    Speaking specifically of Supreme Court justices, former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said in a 2018 radio interview, “If you’re thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link