Elections

Sean DongI’ve been thinking about columns I’ve come to regret over the years. Hmm, lots of potential there. But let me go back to Mitt Romney.When Romney was running for president, I tried to see how many times I could find a way to mention that the candidate once drove to Canada with a dog strapped to the roof of his car.The result was sort of epic. People wound up counting and I used the story more than 80 times. Which was … kind of a lot.In my defense, I was supposed to be writing diverting columns about the 2012 presidential race, which featured Romney versus then-incumbent Barack Obama. Romney had gotten national attention as the Massachusetts moderate who pushed through a breakthrough state public health care plan that became a prelude to Obamacare, but he suddenly lost interest in that kind of thing and began referring to himself as “a severely conservative Republican governor.”This will give you an idea of both his politics and his verbal dexterity. Those of us who were around then also won’t forget his claim that as governor he pressed for more sexual balance in staff hiring and got himself “binders full of women.”Anyhow, those little breaks were few and far between. The campaign was extremely boring, and I really did have to stretch to find some fun ways to approach it. Obama was deeply, deeply offended when I hunted down an old Chicago associate who revealed he was a mediocre poker player.But Romney was the real challenge. The story about the dog on the roof came from a Boston Globe profile in which his son told a reporter about the time their pet pooped from his perch and messed up the car’s rear window.It was supposed to be an example of Romney’s sense of organization. Got that car and dog hosed down at a nearby service station.I’d probably have stopped mentioning it if Romney, when asked about the story, had said something like: “Yeah, it was back when my sons were little — nobody could possibly drive from Massachusetts to Canada with five boys and an Irish setter hopping around the back. And you know, he was in a really safe crate.”But no, he just bristled and retorted, “The dog likes fresh air.”The campaign progressed. And I was getting kind of desperate. I’m sure you’ve long since blocked it out of your memory banks, but Romney was a truly sleep-inducing candidate. It was sort of a high point when he mentioned that he cared desperately about “Americans” except, um, not “the very poor.”This was after a big primary win in Florida when he added that “there’s no question it’s not good being poor.”OK, that was a very long time ago. Since then, Donald Trump got elected president and those of us who make fun of politicians for a living moved into a land of perpetual opportunity. During which I got to point out nine million times that in an earlier stage of his career, Trump had sent me a copy of one of my columns, scribbling “a dog with the face of a pig” next to my picture and also managing to misspell the word “too.”He’s not president now, of course, but Trump is running still, claiming the election was stolen, dancing a happy dance for the N.R.A. conventioneers, bragging that on his watch Putin “would never, ever have gone into Ukraine.” Romney is now in the Senate, where he was the only Republican who voted to remove Trump from office during both of his impeachments and, recently, was the only Republican to vote against repealing Joe Biden’s mask mandate.He also, of course, supports Mitch McConnell and his party’s agenda. If you don’t agree with that, it’s hard to get all that nostalgic about what might have been. But the one lesson I take away from my Seamus period is that there are some things that are way worse than boring.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Sean DongThe worst line I ever wrote as a pundit — yes, I know, it’s a crowded field — was the first line I ever wrote about the man who would become the 45th president: “If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling.”This opening salvo, from August 2015, was the first in what would become dozens of columns denouncing Trump as a unique threat to American life, democratic ideals and the world itself. I regret almost nothing of what I said about the man and his close minions. But the broad swipe at his voters caricatured them and blinkered me.It also probably did more to help than hinder Trump’s candidacy. Telling voters they are moral ignoramuses is a bad way of getting them to change their minds.What were they seeing that I wasn’t?That ought to have been the first question to ask myself. When I looked at Trump, I saw a bigoted blowhard making one ignorant argument after another. What Trump’s supporters saw was a candidate whose entire being was a proudly raised middle finger at a self-satisfied elite that had produced a failing status quo.I was blind to this. Though I had spent the years of Barack Obama’s presidency denouncing his policies, my objections were more abstract than personal. I belonged to a social class that my friend Peggy Noonan called “the protected.” My family lived in a safe and pleasant neighborhood. Our kids went to an excellent public school. I was well paid, fully insured, insulated against life’s harsh edges.Trump’s appeal, according to Noonan, was largely to people she called “the unprotected.” Their neighborhoods weren’t so safe and pleasant. Their schools weren’t so excellent. Their livelihoods weren’t so secure. Their experience of America was often one of cultural and economic decline, sometimes felt in the most personal of ways.It was an experience compounded by the insult of being treated as losers and racists —clinging, in Obama’s notorious 2008 phrase, to “guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”No wonder they were angry.Anger can take dumb or dangerous turns, and with Trump they often took both. But that didn’t mean the anger was unfounded or illegitimate, or that it was aimed at the wrong target.Trump voters had a powerful case to make that they had been thrice betrayed by the nation’s elites. First, after 9/11, when they had borne much of the brunt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to see Washington fumble and then abandon the efforts. Second, after the financial crisis of 2008, when so many were being laid off, even as the financial class was being bailed out. Third, in the post-crisis recovery, in which years of ultralow interest rates were a bonanza for those with investable assets and brutal for those without.Oh, and then came the great American cultural revolution of the 2010s, in which traditional practices and beliefs — regarding same-sex marriage, sex-segregated bathrooms, personal pronouns, meritocratic ideals, race-blind rules, reverence for patriotic symbols, the rules of romance, the presumption of innocence and the distinction between equality of opportunity and outcome — became, more and more, not just passé, but taboo.It’s one thing for social mores to evolve over time, aided by respect for differences of opinion. It’s another for them to be abruptly imposed by one side on another, with little democratic input but a great deal of moral bullying.This was the climate in which Trump’s campaign flourished. I could have thought a little harder about the fact that, in my dripping condescension toward his supporters, I was also confirming their suspicions about people like me — people who talked a good game about the virtues of empathy but practice it only selectively; people unscathed by the country’s problems yet unembarrassed to propound solutions.I also could have given Trump voters more credit for nuance.For every in-your-face MAGA warrior there were plenty of ambivalent Trump supporters, doubtful of his ability and dismayed by his manner, who were willing to take their chances on him because he had the nerve to defy deeply flawed conventional pieties.Nor were they impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.A final question for myself: Would I be wrong to lambaste Trump’s current supporters, the ones who want him back in the White House despite his refusal to accept his electoral defeat and the historic outrage of Jan. 6?Morally speaking, no. It’s one thing to take a gamble on a candidate who promises a break with business as usual. It’s another to do that with an ex-president with a record of trying to break the Republic itself.But I would also approach these voters in a much different spirit than I did the last time. “A drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall,” noted Abraham Lincoln early in his political career. “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” Words to live by, particularly for those of us in the business of persuasion.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

January 6 hearings return to recount 187 minutes of chaos at the CapitolCapitol attack committee plans to provide detailed account of insurrection and suggests this will not be final hearing The January 6 committee is returning to primetime. The House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection will hold its eighth and final – for now, at least – public hearing on Thursday night.Like the first hearing, Thursday’s event will take place in the evening, as the panel seeks to capture the widest possible audience for its presentation. The first hearing, which was held last month, was watched by at least 20 million people.The eighth hearing will detail the 187 minutes that passed between the start and the end of the insurrection on that winter afternoon in 2021, as a mass of Donald Trump’s more extreme supporters overran the US Capitol in a vain attempt to disrupt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the November 2020 presidential election.Democrat Elaine Luria, who will co-lead the Thursday hearing with fellow panel member and Republican Adam Kinzinger, said the committee will provide a “minute-by-minute” account of the insurrection, as Trump failed to quell the violence that left several people dead.“He didn’t act. He had a duty to act. So we will address that in a lot of detail,” Luria said Sunday. “And from that, we will build on the information that we provided in the earlier hearings.”One central committee member, Democratic chair Bennie Thompson, will not be attending the hearing in person. Thompson tested positive for coronavirus on Monday, but will chair the hearing remotely, a committee aide said.Two former Trump White House aides who resigned shortly after January 6, Matthew Pottinger and Sarah Matthews, are expected to testify on Thursday.Pottinger served in the Trump administration for four years and resigned as a deputy national security adviser, while Matthews was a White House press aide.When she announced her resignation last year, Matthews expressed dismay about the events of January 6, and she has continued to criticize Trump.After former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson appeared before the select committee last month, Matthews came to her defense, even as some of Trump’s allies dismissed the shocking testimony as “hearsay”.“Anyone downplaying Cassidy Hutchinson’s role or her access in the West Wing either doesn’t understand how the Trump [White House] worked or is attempting to discredit her because they’re scared of how damning this testimony is,” Matthews said on Twitter at the time.Anyone downplaying Cassidy Hutchinson’s role or her access in the West Wing either doesn’t understand how the Trump WH worked or is attempting to discredit her because they’re scared of how damning this testimony is.— Sarah Matthews (@SarahAMatthews1) June 28, 2022
Hutchinson’s testimony is expected to feature prominently in the Thursday hearing. In her appearance before the committee, Hutchinson, a former adviser to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, painted a damning picture of an increasingly chaotic White House led by a president determined to hold on to power, even after he was repeatedly told he had fairly lost the election, including by his own attorney general, William Barr.According to Hutchinson, Trump was aware that some of his supporters were armed on January 6, yet he still encouraged them to march to the Capitol after he spoke at a rally near the White House.Hutchinson also provided a secondhand account of Trump grabbing for the steering wheel of a vehicle in a desperate attempt to go to the Capitol with his supporters, having said at the rally “I’ll be there with you”. Instead he returned to the White House.01:42Some of Hutchinson’s testimony relied on comments she heard from Pat Cipollone, Trump’s former White House counsel. Cipollone privately spoke to the January 6 investigators shortly after Hutchinson testified, and the committee is expected to show more of his interview during the Thursday hearing.The committee had also hoped to gather more information from the US Secret Service before the Thursday hearing, about Trump and Pence’s movements on the day, but that effort is proving far more difficult than anticipated. After receiving a subpoena for all agency communications on January 5 and 6, the Secret Service turned over just one text message to the select committee, an aide to the panel confirmed.The committee has promised to continue collecting information from important witnesses as it works to compile a comprehensive report on the Capitol attack by this fall, and additional hearings are still possible later in the summer.“There is no reason to think that this is going to be the select committee’s final hearing,” a committee aide said Wednesday. “The multi-step plan, overseen and directed by the former president, to overturn the results of the election and block the transfer of power couldn’t be clearer from the information that we’ve laid out. We expect that [the panel] is going to continue telling that story.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

new video loaded: More

The government, seeking to hold Mr. Bannon to account for defying a subpoena from Congress, wrapped up its case after calling just two witnesses.WASHINGTON — The prosecution rested its case on Wednesday in the trial of Stephen K. Bannon, a former top adviser to President Donald J. Trump, as government lawyers sought to show that Mr. Bannon had repeatedly ignored warnings that he risked facing criminal charges in flouting a subpoena.Mr. Bannon was indicted in November on two counts of contempt of Congress after he refused to provide information to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.The trial on Wednesday largely centered on the testimony of Kristin Amerling, the deputy staff director and chief counsel to the Jan. 6 committee, who offered a detailed accounting of the committee’s attempts to compel Mr. Bannon to testify last year.“There had been a number of public reports stating that Mr. Bannon had been in communication with White House officials, including former President Trump in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 events,” Ms. Amerling said. “We wanted to understand what he could tell us about the connection between any of these events.”Prosecutors continued to describe Mr. Bannon’s decision to stonewall the committee as a straightforward case of contempt. By declining to testify, Mr. Bannon not only “thumbed his nose” at the law, but he also may have withheld significant information about the coordinated effort to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election, Amanda Vaughn, a prosecutor, said.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 8Making a case against Trump. More

The changes outlined by the senators are intended to prevent a repeat of the effort on Jan. 6, 2021, to overturn the presidential election in Congress.WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators proposed new legislation on Wednesday to modernize the 135-year-old Electoral Count Act, working to overhaul a law that President Donald J. Trump tried to abuse on Jan. 6, 2021, to interfere with Congress’s certification of his election defeat.The legislation aims to guarantee a peaceful transition from one president to the next, after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol exposed how the current law could be manipulated to disrupt the process. One measure would make it more difficult for lawmakers to challenge a state’s electoral votes when Congress meets to count them. It would also clarify that the vice president has no discretion over the results, and it would set out the steps to begin a presidential transition.A second bill would increase penalties for threats and intimidation of election officials, seek to improve the Postal Service’s handling of mail-in ballots and renew for five years an independent federal agency that helps states administer and secure federal elections.While passage of the legislation cannot guarantee that a repeat of Jan. 6 will not occur in the future, its authors believe that a rewrite of the antiquated law, particularly the provisions related to the vice president’s role, could discourage such efforts and make it more difficult to disrupt the vote count.Alarmed at the events of Jan. 6 that showed longstanding flaws in the law governing the electoral count process, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, had been meeting for months to try to agree on the rewrite.“In four of the past six presidential elections, this process has been abused, with members of both parties raising frivolous objections to electoral votes,” Ms. Collins said on Wednesday. “But it took the violent breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6 of 2021 to really shine a spotlight on the urgent need for reform.”In a joint statement, the 16 senators involved in the talks said they had set out to “fix the flaws” of the Electoral Count Act, which they called “archaic and ambiguous.” The statement said the group believed that, in consultation with election law experts, it had “developed legislation that establishes clear guidelines for our system of certifying and counting electoral votes for president and vice president.”Though the authors are one short of the 10 Republican senators needed to guarantee that the electoral count bill could make it past a filibuster and to final passage if all Democrats support it, they said they hoped to round up sufficient backing for a vote later this year.Ms. Collins said she expected the Senate Rules Committee to convene a hearing on the measures before the August recess. Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chairwoman of the panel, was consulted in the drafting of the legislation.The bills were announced on the eve of a prime-time hearing by the House committee investigating the events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack, including Mr. Trump’s multilayered effort to invalidate his defeat. They also came as an investigation intensified into efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to have Georgia’s presidential election results reversed. A Georgia judge has ordered Rudolph W. Giuliani, who spearheaded a push to overturn election results on behalf of Mr. Trump, to appear before a special grand jury in Atlanta next month.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 8Making a case against Trump. More

Lt. Gov. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, the Democratic Senate nominee who has been off the campaign trail for more than two months after having a stroke in mid-May, told his hometown newspaper this week that he hopes to return to in-person campaigning “very soon” even as he acknowledged some persisting health effects.“I would never be in this if we were not absolutely, 100 percent able to run fully and to win — and we believe that we are,” Mr. Fetterman told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Wednesday, his first interview since falling ill.Mr. Fetterman ​​had a stroke days before the Democratic primary in May and had a pacemaker and defibrillator implanted on the day of the primary. At the time, his campaign described the move as a standard procedure that would address “the underlying cause of his stroke, atrial fibrillation.” In early June, his campaign acknowledged that he also had a heart condition called cardiomyopathy, which can lead to heart failure, and his doctor said he had appeared to have left other heart issues untreated for years.Mr. Fetterman said he “almost died” and vowed to focus on his recovery before returning to the trail.Since then, his campaign has kept up an aggressive and attention-grabbing social media and television presence, painting his Republican opponent, Mehmet Oz, as more at home in New Jersey than Pennsylvania. But the public has seen little from Mr. Fetterman, save for the occasional brief video.In the Post-Gazette interview, which was conducted by video — and Mr. Fetterman used closed captioning to ensure he did not miss words, the paper said — the candidate said he was walking four to five miles a day, participating in campaign strategy sessions and is now increasingly attending fund-raisers, with several scheduled for this week. He greeted volunteers in person recently, and he also said he was working with a speech therapist.“I might miss a word every now and then in a conversation, or I might slur two words. Even then, I think that’s infrequent,” Mr. Fetterman told the paper. “So I feel like we are ready to run.”He stressed that “physically, I have no limits,” though he also acknowledged that “my hearing is still a little bit not perfect.”Several people who attended a virtual fund-raiser with Mr. Fetterman recently said they were encouraged to see that he seemed to be improving, but also said that he did not sound quite like he did before the stroke — as Mr. Fetterman has implicitly acknowledged.“We saw a candidate whom we all support but who was still recovering,” said Phyllis Snyder, a board member of J Street, the liberal Israel-focused organization. J Street Pennsylvania and the organization’s political arm were listed as hosting the fund-raiser. “We hope that that will continue. But he was very engaged.”She added that Mr. Fetterman typically “speaks what’s on his mind. I’d say he was just a little more measured and careful.”Other attendees said it was occasionally evident when he was reaching for a word.“I don’t think he’s totally back yet,” said Ed Feinstein, a lawyer in Pittsburgh who also attended the event. “But he was animated, and he answered questions.”“He seemed to have energy,” he added, “which I’d been worried about.”Indeed, plenty of Pennsylvania Democrats have privately been anxious about when Mr. Fetterman will return to making public appearances. He has led a number of public polls over Dr. Oz, who faces challenges with his own base. But Pennsylvania is a highly competitive state, and may represent Democrats’ best chance to pick up a seat.Given the stakes of the election and the intense nature of running a statewide contest, Mr. Feinstein said that “I came away encouraged. But I’m still concerned.”“A lot of his appeal is when you see him,” he continued. “He needs to get out there and talk to people in small and larger groups. And that’s grueling, there’s no question about it.”In a statement, Mr. Fetterman’s spokesman, Joe Calvello, said Mr. Fetterman was “doing incredibly well for a guy who had a stroke two months ago and is well on his way to a full recovery.”Noting Mr. Fetterman’s own assessment of his health, he continued, “he will occasionally miss a word or slur a word now and then. This is all part of the recovery process.”And certainly, he is not the first politician to suffer a stroke or heart problems. Former Vice President Dick Cheney had a defibrillator implanted in 2001. He finished two terms in the White House, including a re-election battle in 2004.In a sign of accelerating activity, Mr. Fetterman is set to attend three in-person fund-raisers in Philadelphia on Thursday, Mr. Calvello confirmed. More

One in five adults in the United States would be willing to condone acts of political violence, a new national survey commissioned by public health experts found, revelations that they say capture the escalation in extremism that was on display during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.The online survey of more than 8,600 adults in the United States was conducted from mid-May to early June by the research firm Ipsos on behalf of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, which released the results on Tuesday.The group that said they would be willing to condone such violence amounted to 20.5 percent of those surveyed, with the majority of that group answering that “in general” the use of force was at least “sometimes justified” — the remaining 3 percent answered that such violence was “usually” or “always” justified.About 12 percent of survey respondents answered that they would be at least “somewhat willing” to resort to violence themselves to threaten or intimidate a person.And nearly 12 percent of respondents also thought it was at least “sometimes justified” to use violence if it meant returning Donald J. Trump to the presidency.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 8Making a case against Trump. More