US Politics

Georgia Senate voters have a moral choice. White Christians are choosing hypocrisySteve PhillipsEvangelicals show their true colors in voting for a Republican mired in unchristian scandal Why do we have such low expectations for white voters? The midterm elections brought into stark relief just how many white voters are willing to make a mockery of showing any pretense of concern for democracy, good governance or even the barest qualifications for our country’s highest offices. As unfortunate as that behavior is, what’s even more dangerous for the future of the country is how resigned the rest of the country has become to the anti-democratic and intellectually unjustifiable voting patterns of much of white America.How whiteness poses the greatest threat to US democracy | Steve PhillipsRead moreOn one level, we shouldn’t be surprised because white Americans have been voting against whatever political party is aligned with Black people for more than a century – the civil war itself began when seven slaveholding states, all dominated by the Democratic party, refused to accept the outcome of the 1860 election, seceded from the Union and launched a violent and bloody war. While many would like to believe that such whites-first electoral decision-making is a thing of the past, the most recent midterm elections reveal just how little progress has been made.The slew of inexperienced and unqualified candidates elevated by Donald Trump this year was markedly different from prior elections over the past several decades. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia and other states, Republicans put forward as nominees for the US Senate people who’d never held any elected office or expressed much interest in participating in government at all. And yet, in state after state, the majority of white voters opted to back the candidate with no demonstrable qualification for the office other than that they were endorsed by the former president, who sought and seeks to make America white again.The situation is most stark in Georgia, which has its Senate runoff election on 6 December. After the African American civil rights leader and minister Raphael Warnock was elected to the US Senate from Georgia in 2021, Trump recruited the former Georgia football player Herschel Walker – who lived and may still live in Texas – and persuaded him to throw his hat in Georgia’s 2022 Senate race. Beyond Walker’s blatant lack of qualifications – or for that matter even interest – in government, his candidacy has been repeatedly rocked by scandal. From alleged domestic violence and stalking (including allegedly holding a gun to his ex-wife’s head) to reportedly fathering at least four children he has not publicly acknowledged (while opining in the media about the ills of absentee fathers) to the rank hypocrisy of championing anti-abortion views while having allegedly paid for two abortions of women he impregnated, the scale of Walker’s previously disqualifying revelations is at a truly Trumpian level.The pretense that Georgia’s white voters were conducting a good-faith exercise in democracy is laid bare by looking at the behavior of the those who self-describe as “white born-again or evangelical Christians”. Georgia’s white Christians faced – and still face – a choice between a man who has zero qualifications for the office and a mountain of unchristian immorality and scandal on the one hand, and an incumbent senator who is a Christian minister and the successor to Martin Luther King Jr. (Warnock is the senior pastor at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, the faith-based home of Dr King.)The pastor v the football player: can Raphael Warnock tackle Herschel Walker?Read moreWalker’s melanin notwithstanding, he is nonetheless the handpicked errand boy of Trump and all who subscribe to his whites-first view of the world. As Georgia pastor Jamal Bryant put it, “When the Republican party of Georgia moved Herschel Walker from Texas to Georgia so that he could run for Senate, it was because change was taking too fast in the post-antebellum South, and there were some … who were not prepared for a Black man and a Jewish man to go to the Senate at the exact same time.”In deciding between the Christian church leader and the unrepentant and unqualified hypocrite, 88% of white born-again Christians voters chose against the church leader. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that it was not the Christian part of their identity that determined their political choice. It was their whiteness.Despite the absolute absurdity of this situation, the rest of the country has collectively shrugged its shoulders and moved on without any expressions of outrage or attempts to insist on some shred of fidelity to the notion that we’re supposed to be choosing responsible leaders to serve in our highest governing body. Where are the articles and stories interviewing Georgia’s white Christians about why they are voting for the decidedly unchristian Walker over the Christian pastor Warnock? Where are the calls, tweets and emails to reporters demanding that they ask such questions?The national silence brings to mind the words of Georgia native Dr King in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail: “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”Beyond the morality of the matter is a question of practical politics. We now know that ignoring white racial preference in elections is ineffective. Letting white people off the hook doesn’t work; what does work is holding the line, insisting on standards and challenging whites to rise above the race-based pandering they are offered by modern-day Republicans.America is built on a racist social contract. It’s time to tear it up and start anew | Steve PhillipsRead moreWhen Barack Obama’s opponents attempted to weaken his support among whites by endless and out-of-context repetition of seemingly controversial comments by his then pastor, Jeremiah Wright, he tackled the challenge head-on with his now-famous “race speech”: “In the white community,” Obama said, “the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that … the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed, not just with words, but with deeds.”Fears were calmed, and Obama went on to secure the highest percentage of the white vote of any Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976.Academic research has also affirmed the effectiveness of this approach. In her book The Race Card, Princeton professor Tali Mendelberg revealed how Republicans’ use of coded racial messages, and their impact on voters, lost power when the implicit was made explicit. She found that “when campaign discourse is clearly about race – when it is explicitly racial – it has the fewest racial consequences for white opinion”.Trump and his electoral success broke many norms of America’s fragile democracy, and we are still trying to pick up the pieces. One norm we should not and must not relinquish is outrage at obvious and unapologetic racist behavior in the electorate. It is imperative that we hold voters to a higher standard.
Steve Phillips is the founder of Democracy in Color and a Guardian US columnist. He is the author of How We Win the Civil War: Securing a Multiracial Democracy and Ending White Supremacy for Good
TopicsUS politicsOpinionRaceGeorgiaUS midterm elections 2022commentReuse this content More

Top US conservatives pushing Russia’s spin on Ukraine war, experts saySome of the Kremlin’s most blatant falsehoods aimed at undercutting US aid are promoted by major figures on the right Ever since Russia launched its brutal war in Ukraine the Kremlin has banked on American conservative political and media allies to weaken US support for Ukraine and deployed disinformation operations to falsify the horrors of the war for both US and Russian audiences, say disinformation experts.Some of the Kremlin’s most blatant falsehoods about the war aimed at undercutting US aid for Ukraine have been promoted by major figures on the American right, from Holocaust denier and white supremacist Nick Fuentes to ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon and Fox News star Tucker Carlson, whose audience of millions is deemed especially helpful to Russian objectives.On a more political track, House Republican Freedom Caucus members such as Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Scott Perry – who in May voted with 54 other Republican members against a $40bn aid package for Ukraine, and have raised other concerns about the war – have proved useful, though perhaps unwitting, Kremlin allies at times.Pro-Moscow video materials from the network RT (formerly Russia Today), which early this year shuttered its US operations, have been featured on Rumble, a video sharing platform popular with conservatives that last year received major financing from a venture capital firm co-founded by recently elected Republican Ohio senator JD Vance and backed by billionaire Peter Thiel.As Republicans will control the House in 2023, the influence of these Ukraine aid critics in Congress and Moscow-friendly media on the right led by Carlson is expected to increase. But analysts say they’re unlikely to block a Biden administration request to Congress in mid-November for over $37bn in emergency aid for Ukraine, although they may try to pare it back.Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, who looks poised to become speaker in January, threatened pre-election that if the GOP won the majority, it wouldn’t back a “blank check” for Ukraine.There are signs that the conservative wing of the Republican party and its media allies are already ratcheting up their criticism of US backing for Ukraine. For instance, Perry, the chair of the rightwing Freedom Caucus, in October floated the idea of Republicans using their anticipated control of the House to investigate the Biden administration’s efforts and policies involving Ukraine-Russia peace talks.Moscow’s political friends on the far right have also become more vocal in pushing falsehoods and have hosted some Freedom Caucus members to showcase their influence.Fuentes infamously dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last month despite his long record of cozying up to Putin and his antisemitic and white supremacist remarks. Back in March, Fuentes said on his podcast: “We continue to support czar Putin in the war effort.” Fuentes also falsely claimed the Russian war in Ukraine was “not aggression” and its goals were “not unreasonable”, repeating the Kremlin line that Moscow is trying to denazify Ukraine.In a similar, albeit somewhat less inflammatory vein, Carlson’s pro-Moscow spin and distortions about the war have been palpable since the start and seem to have increased in recent months. Russian media often rebroadcasts the Fox News host’s comments and praises Carlson. “We’ve entered a new phase, one in which the United States is directly at war with the largest nuclear power in the world,” Carlson with considerable hyperbolic license warned his audience in late September.Disinformation experts note that in the run-up to the US midterm elections, conservative media stars such as Carlson, as well as Greene and other far-right members of Congress, became more vocal about blocking Ukraine assistance, and calling for audits of American assistance.“Marjorie Taylor Green’s introduction of a resolution to audit aid to Ukraine is entirely unsurprising given the pervasively negative messaging about Ukraine coming from the right flank of the GOP over the past three months,” Bret Schafer, a senior fellow with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, said.Prior to the 8 November elections, he noted that “of the 100 most retweeted tweets about Ukraine posted by GOP candidates for the House since August, roughly 90% opposed continued support for Ukraine. Though much of that messaging plays to simple pocketbook concerns – essentially saying, ‘Why are we supporting Ukraine when Americans are struggling to pay their bills?’ – there is also a strain of anti-Ukrainian disinformation that colors some of their commentary.”Schafer added that “although most members of Congress support Ukraine, the loudest members do not, and their voices are dominating online spaces”.John Sipher, who served in the CIA’s national clandestine services for 28 years with a stint leading its Russia operations, said that Putin is using a playbook that he honed during his long career with the KGB to influence policy and Russian opinion.“I think Putin’s weakness is that he is not a strategic thinker but reverts to what he knows – using covert means to influence and undermine others,” Sipher said. “He cannot win on the battlefield so he uses threats and intimidations to influence and scare western leaders into backing down or pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table.”Sipher noted that historically Putin “has weaponized energy, information, refugees, food and nuclear threats to get his way. I think his nuclear threats are just a means to sow unease and dissension among supporters of Ukraine, and suspect that the discussion of a ‘dirty bomb’ is meant to signal to his domestic audience that Ukraine is a real threat, and the population should support Putin’s tough measures.”In the US the audiences receiving pro-Putin messages have been boosted by Rumble, the video sharing platform, which has featured RT content including an interview with two Americans captured in Ukraine who were badly beaten by Russians and later released, as the New York Times last month reported.One of the two American men in the video clip told his interviewer while he was in custody that he had been deceived to fight in Ukraine by “propaganda from the west” that reported that Russians soldiers were “indiscriminately killing civilians”.Megan Squire, a deputy director for data analytics with the Southern Poverty Law Center, noted that Rumble has also been busy recycling pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine material from multiple figures on the right.“Alt-tech platforms such as Rumble are actively peddling the anti-Ukraine talking points of their heavy users, many of whom have been deplatformed elsewhere,” Squire said. “A simple search for ‘Ukraine’ in Rumble today shows that the top search results are for a Steve Bannon video where he promotes Marjorie Taylor Greene’s demands for an audit of Ukrainian relief funds, and junk news site Post Millennial, which is using Rumble to promote clips from a similar story from Tucker Carlson.”But for overall influence with American audiences, veteran Russia experts say Carlson’s big Fox megaphone still dwarfs other propaganda tools favorable to Moscow.“The audience for Fox News commentators like Tucker Carlson, who frequently spreads pro-Russian narratives, is obviously orders of magnitude bigger than that of new niche players like Rumble that often carry Russian disinformation,” said Andrew Weiss, a vice-president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Such platforms are far more impactful than the more sneaky techniques that the Russian propaganda apparatus employs these days.”TopicsThe far rightRepublicansFox NewsUS politicsRussiaUkrainenewsReuse this content More

The biggest losers in the US midterm elections? Republican mega-donorsDonors like Peter Thiel poured millions into candidates that no amount of money could sell to voters while Mehmet Oz self-funded a failed run With the power balance in Congress at stake in this year’s midterm elections, the GOP money machine kicked into high gear. Spending on advertisements and drumming up votes was fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s mega-donors and Super Pacs. Many donors’ spending figures marked new records.Their return on investment, however, is probably not what they had hoped: some donors who spent eight figures notched zero wins in the Senate, while others spent far more money on losing candidates than winners. In the midterms, some of the biggest losers were Republican donors.‘Hatred has a great grip on the heart’: election denialism lives on in US battlegroundRead moreAmong the clearest of those losers is Mehmet Oz, who self-funded much of his own failed run for office – loaning his Pennsylvania US Senate campaign about $22m, or about 55% of the roughly $40m he raised.Meanwhile, candidates backed by Peter Thiel, the rightwing tech investor hyped pre-election as a new GOP “kingmaker”, lost in Arizona and Washington, calling into question his judgment and contributions’ value.Other mega-donors and Pacs came out behind despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars collectively on multiple candidates who lost, according to Open Secrets, a campaign finance watchdog, and federal campaign records. Among those is Mitch McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund Super Pac, which spent $239m; the billionaire financier Jeff Yass, who spent $47m; the hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, who spent $67m; the packaging giants Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein, who spent $77m; and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, who spent $34m.By contrast, Democratic candidates in high-profile Senate races generally had a larger share of small donations. GOP mega-donor and Super Pac money couldn’t overcome weak candidates that many swing voters viewed as extreme.The results highlight that “candidate strength matters”, said Gunner Ramer, political director at Longwell Associates, a conservative communication firm. “Voters have real concerns over crime, inflation, gas prices and the economy … but all these really poor candidates – these crazy, extreme Republicans – got beat up hard.”In Pennsylvania, Oz’s self-funding functioned as a double-edged sword that benefited him in the primaries and made him attractive to GOP base voters “who still think that you can buy a race”, said Sam Chen, a political strategist in Allentown. But once in the general election, Chen said, it meant that Oz received relatively few small donors in part because he was viewed as a self-funder.Still, he wasn’t alone: McConnell’s Pac put up $47m. That combined with Oz’s personal spending accounted for nearly half of the stunning $140m Oz forces spent in the campaign. Two largely billionaire-funded single-candidate Pacs also went all in on Oz: Honor Pennsylvania spent about $15m, and its largest donor was Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, who gave it at least $8.8m; and American Leadership Action Pac, funded by Wall Street tycoons or mega-donors like Susquehanna International Group CEO Jeff Yass, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Actua CEO Walter Buckley, dropped another $15m.Though the outside spending in Pennsylvania set a new record, Oz was a “uniquely weak candidate”, Chen noted, and his failure highlights how wealth and Super PAC money “is not the end all be all”.“Small dollar donations, the grandma who writes you a $5 check, they are locked in and voting for you … and they are probably the type of person who tells their neighborhood, their soccer mom group, their bible study that they gave you contributions,” Chen said. “Those contributions mean a lot more.”In Arizona, Thiel spent at least $17.5m backing Blake Masters’ failed US Senate bid, while Thiel’s Pac, Saving Arizona, which received significant funding from mega-donor Richard Uihlein, spent at least $21.5m.Thiel’s potential to become a powerbroker was the subject of intense media attention in part because he funded a breed of rightwing populist GOP candidate that broke with the party establishment. Voters, however, were “completely repelled” by Masters, Ramer said, and though Thiel had success in primary races across the country, his money couldn’t overcome swing voter skepticism in the Arizona general election.McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund ended with a mixed record, but spent far more on losing races. Data released just ahead of the election by a marketing industry analyst found McConnell had shelled out $178m for advertising in five states – New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia and Ohio.Campaign finance records show the Senate Leadership Fund spent nearly $140m in four of those five states in which GOP candidates did not win, though Georgia is yet to be decided.The Club For Growth Super Pac, one of the nation’s most prolific outside spenders, also fared poorly. Its primary funders were Uihlein and Yass, who put at least $46m into the Pac. It backed Masters with over $7m and spent $15m in Nevada attempting to unseat Democratic senator Catherine Cortez Masto. It also spent $12m total on winning campaigns in Ohio and North Carolina.Meanwhile, the Sentinel Action Fund spent over $10m in Nevada and New Hampshire, and didn’t put any money in winning Senate races. Its primary funder is Tim Mellon, grandson of banking tycoon Andrew Mellon, who spent about $40m during the election cycle.Focus groups run by Longwell Associates found Pacs’ ads were probably ineffective because voters didn’t like the Trump-backed, extreme GOP candidates that the Pacs supported – such as Adam Laxalt in Nevada, Don Buldoc in New Hampshire or Masters.“You can hit Catherine Cortez Masto on gas prices and tie it to Joe Biden, but at least a meaningful slice of voters just were not buying it,” Ramer said. “At the end of the day, if they don’t like the Republican candidate, and it becomes a lesser-of-two-evils thing, then it may not move the votes the way that Club for Growth was hoping, and that is a reflection on Adam Laxalt.”Many of the mega-donors’ spending totals come with a caveat. They may not include all the donors’ contributions, and Pac records may omit spending by some individuals altogether. Pacs are required by law to disclose their donors, but more are shielding their contributors’ identities by exploiting a loophole that allows donors to give to a Pac’s affiliated dark money nonprofit, which does not have to disclose its donors. The nonprofit then gives those donations to the Pac, circumventing disclosure laws.Pacs only “have the facade of being transparent”, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of Open Secrets, adding that the loophole adds another layer of uncertainty to the nation’s already murky campaign finance disclosure laws.Regardless, the money means little to the GOP if the party continues nominating extremist and Trump-backed candidates in swing states, Ramer said. “The gap between what it takes to win in a Republican primary and what it takes to win in November is continuing to grow, and that is a difficulty the party will be dealing with in future elections.”Whether the funders will have a change of heart is another matter. Republican mega-donors “clearly have money to burn and they may lose, and they may be dissatisfied with their return on investment, but they are also clearly risk takers – and it’s a low risk to them because of how much money they have”, said Krumholz. “It shows the limits of their money.”TopicsRepublicansUS midterm elections 2022US political financingUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Climate action is firmly on the political agenda in both Australia and the United States, following a recent change in government in both nations. As this year’s Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) get underway in Washington, the Albanese and Biden administrations appear keen for deeper bilateral cooperation on tackling climate change.

New research has found the political impetus for this cooperation is reflected in the views of Australians. It shows many Australians believe our defence alliance with the US should be extended to include greater collaboration on climate action.

In this respect, the US-Australia Alliance is seen by many Australians as an incomplete project. It’s now time for both the Australian and US governments to turn their rhetoric on climate cooperation into reality.

Many Australians believe our defence alliance with the US should be extended to include greater collaboration on climate action.
Evan Vucci/AP

The shifting sands of climate politics

In August, the Albanese government passed its Climate Change Bill, enshrining into law an emissions reduction target of 43% from 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero emissions by 2050.

On taking office, Albanese also announced a major review of security threats posed by the climate crisis.

The Biden administration has also passed a number of laws with significant climate provisions. They include new infrastructure laws, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act – the latter billed as the most significant climate legislation in US history.

The outcome of last month’s midterm US elections will, however, hamper Biden’s climate efforts. Republicans now narrowly control the US House of Representatives. This means climate policy will likely be targeted and piecemeal at least until the 2024 US presidential elections.

But the Democrats’ continued control of the Senate still leaves room for progress on climate action. This is most likely on issues with bipartisan consensus such as boosting US competitiveness with China and reducing dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Read more:
The US has finally passed a huge climate bill. Australia needs to keep up

Ohio Republican JD Vance declares electoral victory in the midterm elections last month. The Republicans gained control of the House, but the Democrats still control the Senate.
AP

Stronger together

Both the US and Australian governments have also recognised the need for deeper bilateral cooperation on climate action.

In opposition, Albanese said:

We should immediately deepen US-Australian cooperation on climate change security issues […] On coming to office, I will make comprehensive co-operation on climate change a hallmark of Alliance co-operation.

And in Washington in July this year, Defence Minister Richard Marles reiterated that climate change was “the single greatest threat” to the lives and livelihoods of Australia’s Pacific Island neighbours. He declared “Australia will lift its weight” in response – including by making climate change a pillar of the US-Australia alliance.

Senior Australian and US defence officials have also reaffirmed their commitment to “evolving” the alliance – including through better engagement on climate change – to support stability and security in the Indo-Pacific.

Read more:
COP27 was disappointing, but 2022 remains an historic year for international climate policy

What does the Australian public want?

Our research suggests the Australian community also wants to see greater collaboration with the US on the wicked climate change problem.

Polling conducted by the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre found climate change was the most important international issue for respondents (57%). It came ahead of security cooperation with the US and Japan (56%), increasing trade and investment in Asia (49%) and standing up to China (48%).

Some 77% of participants said fighting climate change with the US was important for Australia. This view was largely bipartisan: 87% of Labor voters and 73% of Coalition voters said this cooperation was very important or somewhat important.

Respondents aged 18 to 34 were the most likely to support climate action in concert with the US.

People aged 18 to 34 were most likely to support US-Australia cooperation on climate action.
James Ross/AAP

This data is backed by qualitative evidence gathered by myself and colleagues Andrew O’Neil and Caitlin Byrne (of Griffith University) and Stephan Fruhling (of the Australian National University). It involved community focus groups across all states and territories in Australia over the last 14 months.

We held 29 discussions with 232 community members to gauge their views on the Australia-US Alliance. The participants were drawn from wide-ranging backgrounds and recruited via a range of strategies to ensure diverse representation.

One key theme to emerge was that climate change is considered an important policy area for the future of the alliance. As one participant said:

There is an opportunity for Australia to use the Alliance for climate change and elaborate on how we define security. I think there’s a shared interest in climate policy and climate security and bringing that into AUKUS. There’s an opportunity to tie that more closely to the Alliance.

Participants broadly expressed the view that the alliance should adapt to new and emerging challenges to remain relevant in the 21st century. As one participant put it:

The Alliance is considered unbreakable so we should see how far it can be stretched.

Another participant observed:

The alliance needs to be repurposed to address real security threats rather than imagined ones — most significantly the impacts of climate change.

There is a real opportunity now to expand thinking around the alliance beyond binary questions of security and defence, to position Australia as an active peace-builder rather than a reactionary force. Climate action, and leveraging the alliance to pursue it, is central to that.

Many Australians believe cooperation with the US should extend far beyond defence. Pictured: Australian and US defence personnel fire a M777 Howitzer during a joint exercise last year.
Department of Defence

Climate collaboration is key to an enduring alliance

The Australian government — by itself and in partnership with US counterparts — should inject greater energy into deeper collaboration with the US on climate action.

In opposition, Albanese outlined what that cooperation should entail, saying:

We must develop operational plans to address the natural disasters and humanitarian outcomes. We must study and plan for how other states may seek to exploit its impacts on regional security.

We must develop capabilities and shared responsibilities to mitigate its worst impacts. We should cooperate on technological development to take advantage of the economic opportunity that comes from the shift to clean energy.

As our research shows, the Australian public sees such collaboration is a key to the alliance’s future.

Read more:
COP27: one big breakthrough but ultimately an inadequate response to the climate crisis More

Warnock v Walker: winner of Georgia midterm runoff will make history Whoever wins will be the first Black person elected from the state to a full Senate termThe winner of Tuesday’s midterm election runoff for one of Georgia’s two seats in the US Senate will make history.Raphael Warnock became the first Black senator from Georgia when he won the 2020 presidential election runoff that helped tip the upper chamber into Democratic control, boosting the party in its capture of the House, the Senate and the White House.Democrats aim to seize outright Senate majority in Georgia runoffRead moreNow, as Georgia heads for the last day of voting in the latest runoff, Warnock hopes to add another distinction – winning a full six-year term in the Senate.Standing in the way is another Black man, Republican challenger Herschel Walker. And whoever wins will be the first Black person elected from Georgia to a full Senate term.Black voters there say the choice is stark: Warnock, the senior minister of Martin Luther King’s Atlanta church, echoes traditional liberal notions of the Black experience; and Walker, a University of Georgia football icon, speaks the language of white cultural conservatism and mocks Warnock’s interpretations of King, among other matters.“Republicans seem to have thought they could put up Herschel Walker and confuse Black folks,” said Bryce Berry, president of Georgia’s Young Democrats chapter and a senior at Morehouse College, a historically Black campus from which both King and Warnock graduated.Standing beneath a campus statue of King, Berry continued: “We are not confused.”Other Black voters raised questions about Walker’s past – his false claims about his business and professional accomplishments, violence against his ex-wife, reports alleging that he paid for women to have abortions while now campaigning to ban the procedure – and the way he stumbles over some public policy discussions as a candidate.Some said they believe GOP leaders are taking advantage of Walker’s fame as a football star.“How can you let yourself be used that way as a Black person?” asked Angela Heard, a state employee from Jonesboro. “I think you should be better in touch with your people instead of being a crony for someone.”Even some Black conservatives who back Walker lament his candidacy as a missed opportunity to expand Republicans’ reach to a key part of the electorate that remains overwhelmingly Democratic.“I don’t think Herschel Walker has enough relatable life experience to the average Black American for them to identify with him,” said Avion Abreu, a 34-year-old realtor who lives in Marietta and has supported Walker since the GOP primary campaign.Warnock narrowly led Walker in the November general election, but neither crossed the 50% threshold, sending the race to a runoff on 6 December.AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 3,200 voters in the state, showed that Warnock won 90% of Black voters. Walker, meanwhile, won 68% of white voters.VoteCast data in the runoff from the 2020 election, which took place in early January 2021, suggested that Black voters helped fuel Warnock’s victory over then Senator Kelly Loeffler, comprising almost a third of that electorate, slightly more than the Black share of the 2020 general electorate.Georgia candidates’ starkly divergent views on race could be key in runoffRead moreThe senator’s campaign has said since then that he would have to assemble a multiracial coalition, including many moderate white voters, to win re-election in a midterm election year. But it has not disputed that a strong Black turnout would be necessary regardless.The Republican National Committee has answered with its own uptick in Black voter outreach, opening community centers in several heavily Black areas of the state.Walker and Warnock share their stories as Black men quite differently. Warnock doesn’t often use phrases like “the Black church” or “the Black experience”, but infuses those institutions and ideas into his arguments.The senator sometimes notes that others “like to introduce me and say I’m the first Black senator from Georgia.” He says Georgia voters “did an amazing thing” in 2021 but adds that it’s more about the policy results from a Democratic Senate.Born in 1969, he calls himself a “son of the civil rights movement” and talks about how policy affects Black Georgians. Walker, alternately, often uses humor to talk about his race to his audiences on the campaign trail that are often nearly all-white, with jovial lines such as: “You may have noticed I’m Black.”He then goes on to undermine discussions on race and racism and recast Warnock’s messaging.“My opponent says America ought to apologize for its whiteness,” Walker says in most campaign speeches, a claim based on some of Warnock’s sermons referencing institutional racism. Doyal Siddell, a 66-year-old Black retiree from Douglasville, said Walker’s pitch is disconnected from many Black voters. “Just because you’re from the community doesn’t mean you understand the community,” he said. At Morehouse, Berry said Walker could find some Black conservatives and nonpartisans but “has not even been to our campus”.He added: “He’s not running a campaign that suggests he wants to represent all Georgians.”TopicsGeorgiaUS midterm elections 2022US politicsUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

Texas’s top elections official quits after overseeing controversial new voting lawsSecretary of state navigated rocky launch of new voting laws that resulted in thousands of discarded mail ballots Texas’s top elections official resigned Monday after an intense year of trying to reassure election skeptics, navigating the rocky launch of new voting laws that resulted in thousands of discarded mail ballots and overseeing a limited audit of the 2020 election.Secretary of state John Scott, who was appointed by Republican governor Greg Abbott, came under immediate scrutiny from the moment he took the job in October 2021. He was briefly part of former president Donald Trump’s legal team that challenged the results of the 2020 election but said upon taking the job in Texas that he did not dispute that Joe Biden was the winner.Right away, Scott was tasked with trying to give Texas voters confidence in election results and the ability to cast a ballot after Republicans passed a sweeping new voting law just weeks before his appointment. But those efforts got off to a bumpy start during Texas’s first-in-the-nation primary as voters struggled to navigate new mail voting requirements, resulting in counties throwing out nearly 23,000 mail ballots.In the November elections, the rate of rejected ballots had returned to more normal levels, and Scott’s office said there were no major issues surrounding the election. “By listening directly to the concerns of local election officials, voters, and grassroots activists from across the political spectrum, I was able to understand how to better educate Texas voters about their most sacred civic duty,” Scott said in his resignation letter.Scott said he will return to private legal practice. His successor will be chosen by Abbott, who was re-elected to a third term in November.In September, ahead of this year’s midterm election, Scott told the Associated Press that his office regularly received threats and it had heard from many Texans concerned about election integrity and was in contact with local election officials receiving similar messages.Scott’s role also touched on border security this year as his office aided in the governor’s negotiations with neighboring Mexican states as part of Abbott’s efforts to curb immigration. This came after Abbott issued a directive earlier this year to inspect all commercial vehicles crossing through multiple checkpoints across the border, causing extended delays and the shutdown of some of the world’s busiest trade bridges.TopicsTexasUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Trump did not disclose $19.8m loan while president, documents showThe loan from Daewoo, a company with ties to North Korea, should have been reported in public financial disclosures Donald Trump failed to disclose a $19.8m loan from a company with historical ties to North Korea, while he was the US president, according to a new report.Documents obtained by the New York attorney general, and reported by Forbes, on Sunday indicate a previously unreported loan owed by Trump to Daewoo, the South Korean conglomerate.Jurors in Trump Organization tax fraud trial set to begin deliberationsRead moreDaewoo was the only South Korean company allowed to operate a business in North Korea during the mid-1990s.Forbes revealed that Trump’s relationship with Daewoo is at least 25 years old. At one point, Daewoo partnered with Trump on a development project near the United Nations headquarters in New York City, Trump World Tower. Trump and Daewoo continued to do business together, including using Trump’s name on six South Korea-based properties from 1999 to 2007, according to the magazine.The outlet reports that the debt in question “stems from an agreement Trump struck to share some of his licensing fees with Daewoo”.According to documents reviewed by Forbes, the $19.8m balance remained the same from 2011 to 2016. Five months into Trump’s presidency, the balance dropped to $4.3m, according to paperwork that showcased Trump’s finances as of 30 June 2017.Soon after, “Daewoo was bought out of its position on July 5, 2017,” the documents said, without disclosing who satisfied the debt.Forbes reports that even though the loan was reported on the Trump Organization’s internal documents, it was not disclosed on the former president’s public financial disclosure reports. Under disclosure laws, Trump was required to submit the documents to federal officials during his presidential campaign and after he became president.In 2016, Trump’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, said that Trump had disclosed all debts related to companies that Trump had a 100% stake in.Despite the apparent gap in disclosures, Trump may not have violated any laws, though the existence of the debt still could have posed a conflict of interest.While president, Trump bragged about his relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, saying in 2018: “He likes me, I like him. We get along” and that “we fell in love”.The two leaders met in person, but the relationship came to nought.Meanwhile, on Monday, jurors began deliberating in the Trump Organization tax fraud trial in New York, in which the company is accused of operating a criminal scheme that allegedly involved fraud and tax evasion.TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsNorth KoreanewsReuse this content More

Rudy Giuliani faces disciplinary hearing over election lawsuitsThe panel is considering charges that the former mayor’s actions after the 2020 election involved ethical violations Rudy Giuliani, who served as Donald Trump’s hard-charging attorney during failed legal efforts to overturn his presidential election defeat, was accused of “weaponizing” his law license, during a turbulent first hearing of a disciplinary panel in Washington DC mulling ethics charges against him.The former New York mayor became argumentative on Monday as Hamilton Fox, of the DC disciplinary counsel’s office, suggested Giuliani had insulted the US constitution with a series of “frivolous” and ultimately futile lawsuits on the former president’s behalf.Giuliani is facing charges of violating attorney conduct rules in what is expected to be a two-week hearing before the Washington DC board of professional responsibility. It is seen as an important first case that could lead to further steps against Trump’s team of election-result denying lawyers.“A constitutional democracy like ours does not work unless the loser honors the decision of the voters,” Fox said, referring to a blitz of post-election litigation that Trump tapped Giuliani to lead after he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.In at least one state, Fox said, Giuliani appeared personally, having put together the band of lawyers at short notice to try to keep the outgoing president in office.“Mr Giuliani was responsible for filing a frivolous action asking a court in Pennsylvania to deny millions of people the right to vote,” Fox said.The Pennsylvania lawsuit led to a bizarre and much mocked press conference that Giuliani hosted at the Four Seasons Landscaping company in Philadelphia. The venue, next to a sex shop, was close to the glitzy Four Seasons hotel that many assumed Giuliani had intended to book.Giuliani grew visibly angry and evasive during his testimony on Monday, leading to rebukes from board chair, Robert Bernius. He responded “not that day” to a question whether he had co-authored the Pennsylvania lawsuit.“I’m asking you what time it is, and you’re telling me how to make a watch,” Fox said.The exchange prompted an intervention from Bernius, who reminded Giuliani that his years of legal experience would make him aware he was required to answer questions honestly as a witness.Giuliani was charged in June with ethical misconduct, and lost his license to practice law in Washington DC, one year after his New York license was suspended as a state appeals court found he made “demonstrably false and misleading” statements that widespread voter fraud undermined the election.Giuliani has not been charged with any criminal misconduct in relation to election lawsuits.He also learned last month that he would not face charges after a federal investigation into his lobbying activities on Trump’s behalf in Ukraine. The FBI raided Giuliani’s New York apartment and office in May 2021, seizing multiple electronic devices.During Monday’s first session, Giuliani said: “I believe that I’ve been persecuted for three or four years, including false charges brought against me by the federal government,” he said. On the Pennsylvania lawsuit, Fox said that Giuliani wanted a federal judge to throw out almost 700,000 mail-in ballots, and had suggested that 7m ballots could ultimately be invalidated. But he noted no specific allegation of fraud was presented to that court, nor any proof offered that it had occurred.The lawsuit failed in district court, and an appeals court refused to hear a revised complaint.TopicsRudy GiulianiUS politicsReuse this content More