US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Civil rights groups condemn senator’s questioning of Arab American witness

      by

      A congressional hearing on hate crimes drew charges of the bigotry it was meant to address after a Republican senator told the female Muslim head of a thinktank to “hide your head in a bag” and accused her of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.John Kennedy, the GOP senator for Louisiana, drew condemnation from Democrats as well as Muslim, Jewish and civil liberties groups for the remark, aimed at Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute, at a hearing staged by the Senate judiciary committee.The proceedings witnessed further disruption when Ted Cruz, the Republican senator for Texas, was interrupted by a spectator protesting the number of Palestinians killed in Israel’s assault on Gaza. “You talk about the fucking Jews and the Israelis. Talk about the 40,000. Talk about all these people. Why is it about antisemitism?” the protester shouted, before being ejected from the chamber.Cruz responded: “We now have a demonstration of antisemitism. We have a demonstration of the hate.”Republicans criticised the theme of Tuesday’s hearing – set by the committee’s Democratic chair, Dick Durbin – for conflating antisemitism with bigotry against Muslims, Arabs and other groups.“The goal was to have a hearing about why it’s so hard to go to school if you’re Jewish,” said Lindsey Graham, the Republican ranking member of the committee and the senator for South Carolina. “If you’re Jewish, you’re being knocked down. You’re being spat on. It is just completely out of control. This is not the hearing we’re getting, so we’ll work with what we’ve got.”A Republican-led subcommittee in the House of Representatives has already staged a series of highly charged hearings focused on the rise of antisemitism on university campuses following Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel last October, which saw around 1,200 people killed and 250 taken hostage, and which triggered a devastating ongoing Israeli military retaliation.The House hearings prompted the resignations of two university heads after they gave responses to questions about their institutions’ policies on calls for genocide against Jews that were deemed insufficiently condemnatory.Graham tried to enter similar territory when he asked Berry whether she believed that it was goal of Hamas, the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah or Iran to destroy the only Jewish state. Berry answered that “these are complicated questions”.That eventually led to Berry’s hostile exchange with Kennedy, who asked her: “You support Hamas, do you not?”“Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization that I do not support,” Berry replied. “But you asking the executive director of the Arab American Institute that question very much puts the focus on the issue of hate in our country.”When Kennedy followed up by asking whether she supported Hezbollah or Iran, Berry answered: “Again, I find this line of questioning extraordinarily disappointing.”Finishing his interrogation by expressing “disappointment” at Berry’s unwillingness to declare outright opposition to the three named entities, Kennedy declared: “You should hide your head in a bag.”Invited by Durbin to respond to the outburst, Berry said: “It’s regrettable that I, as I sit here, have experienced the very issue that we’re attempting to deal with today. This has been, regrettably, a real disappointment, but very much an indication of the danger to our democratic institutions that we’re in now. And I deeply regret that.”The judiciary committee – with Durbin’s approval – later endorsed Berry’s response by posting it on X, with accompanying commentary reading: “A Senate Republican told an Arab American civil rights leader that ‘you should hide your head in a bag.’ We will not amplify that horrible clip. But we WILL amplify the witness’s powerful response calling it out.”The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) accused Kennedy and other Republicans of treating Berry with hostility.“Maya Berry went before the committee to discuss hate crimes. Both Ms. Berry and the topic should have been treated with the respect and seriousness they deserve,” said Robert McCaw, Cair’s government affairs director. “Instead, Sen Kennedy and others chose to be an example of the bigotry Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims have faced in recent months and years.”Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned what he called a “discriminatory and vitriolic attack” on Kennedy.“To use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they’ve invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate,” he said.Sheila Katz, chief executive officer of the National Council of Jewish Women, called Berry’s treatment “heartbreaking”.“[T]he only Muslim witness faced biased questions about supporting Hamas & Hezbollah despite her clear condemnations,” she wrote on X. “This hearing should combat hate, not perpetuate it. The Senate must do better.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US House will vote on funding bill as shutdown deadline nears

      by

      The US House will vote Wednesday on a government funding bill that appears doomed to fail, with less than two weeks left to prevent a partial shutdown starting 1 October.The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, announced Tuesday that the chamber would move forward with the vote, despite vocal opposition from members of his own conference. The announcement came one week after that opposition forced Johnson to delay a planned vote on his bill, and the speaker has only faced more resistance in the days since.Donald Trump has increased pressure on Johnson to reject any funding measure unless it includes “election security” provisions, a stance that the former president doubled down on hours before the vote.Johnson’s proposed bill combines a six-month stopgap funding measure, known as a continuing resolution, with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, a controversial proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote.“It’s very, very serious stuff, and that’s why we’re going to do the right thing,” Johnson said Wednesday. “We’re going to responsibly fund the government and we’re going to stop non-citizens voting in elections.”Critics of the Save Act note that it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote, and they fear such a law would hinder legitimate voters’ efforts to cast their ballots. House Democrats remain overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal, and only a few of them are expected to support Johnson’s bill on Wednesday.“Speaker Johnson must reject the most extreme voices in his party and quick move toward a four corners agreement so we can avoid a costly Republican-led shutdown,” said Pete Aguilar, the House Democratic caucus chair, on Wednesday. “The American people want to see an end to the chaos and division.”Given Republicans’ narrow House majority and Democrats’ widespread opposition to the bill, Johnson can only afford a handful of defections within his conference on Wednesday. But a number of hard-right Republicans have already indicated they will vote against the bill, as many of them have rejected any kind of continuing resolution amid demands for more budget cuts.Hard-right Republicans worry that, once the vote fails on Wednesday, Johnson will turn his attention to passing a more straightforward continuing resolution without the Save Act attached, although the speaker has dismissed those concerns. Asked on Wednesday about his next steps if the bill failed, Johnson deflected.“Let’s see what happens with the bill,” Johnson told reporters. “We’re on the field in the middle of the game. The quarterback is calling the play. We’re going to run the play.”Marjorie Taylor Greene, a hard-right Republican congresswoman from Georgia, attacked Johnson’s strategy as a “classic bait and switch that will enrage the base.“Johnson is leading a fake fight that he has no intention of actually fighting,” Greene said Tuesday on X. “I refuse to lie to anyone that this plan will work and it’s already [dead on arrival] this week. Speaker Johnson needs to go to the Democrats, who he has worked with the entire time, to get the votes he needs to do what he is already planning to do.”Trump, who has championed baseless claims of widespread non-citizen voting, has has similarly insisted that the SAVE Act must be congressional Republicans’ top priority before election day.He said Wednesday on his social media platform, Truth Social: “If Republicans don’t get the SAVE Act, and every ounce of it, they should not agree to a Continuing Resolution in any way, shape, or form.”But even if Johnson could get his bill across the finish line in the House, the Democratic Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, has made clear that the proposal faces no chance of passage in the upper chamber. In a floor speech delivered Wednesday, Schumer reiterated that only “bipartisan, bicameral cooperation” would prevent a shutdown next month.“For the last two weeks, Speaker Johnson and House Republican leaders have wasted precious time on a proposal that everyone knows can’t become law. His own Republican Conference cannot unite around his proposal,” Schumer said. “I hope that, once the speaker’s [continuing resolution] fails, he moves on to a strategy that will actually work: bipartisan cooperation. It’s the only thing that has kept the government open every time we have faced a funding deadline.”At a press conference on Tuesday, McConnell issued a severe warning to House Republicans that a shutdown so close to election day could jeopardize the party’s standing with voters and thus cost them seats in Congress.“The one thing you cannot have is a government shutdown,” McConnell said. “It would be, politically, beyond stupid for us to do that.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Teamsters decline to endorse election candidate – but claim majority backs Trump

      by

      The Teamsters International, which represents over 1.3 million workers, declined to endorse a candidate ahead of November’s presidential election – but released data suggesting most of its members backed Donald Trump over Kamala Harris.The union’s decision to not make an election endorsement, for the first time in almost three decades, comes in the wake of scrutiny of its president, Sean O’Brien, becoming the first Teamsters leader to address the the Republican national convention in July. John Palmer, vice-president at large at the Teamsters, called the decision to appear at the convention, “unconscionable” given Trump’s record opposing labor unions.Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, met with the Teamsters this week for a roundtable discussion prior to the decision. Trump and Joe Biden attended roundtable with the union earlier this year.“Unfortunately, neither major candidate was able to make serious commitments to our union to ensure the interests of working people are always put before big business,” O’Brien said in a statement on Wednesday. “We sought commitments from both Trump and Harris not to interfere in critical union campaigns or core Teamsters industries – and to honor our members’ right to strike – but were unable to secure those pledges.”Polling data released by the union ahead of the announcement showed that its members supported Biden over Trump, though more recent surveys conduct by the union revealed membership supported Trump over Harris.The Teamsters National Black Caucus endorsed Harris last month.In response to the non-endorsement, Teamsters against Trump, a grassroots group of Teamster members and retirees, announced they will expand campaigning efforts to elect Vice President Kamala Harris.The California Teamsters also came out on 18 September to endorse Harris in response to the Teamsters International’s lack of endorsement.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“When it comes to my vote for President, as a proud Teamster there’s no contest. Donald Trump doesn’t give a damn about the working class. As President, Trump didn’t lift a finger to help Teamsters whose pensions were in danger. Instead, he installed his billionaire friends in the White House and did everything he could to stop workers from organizing into unions,” said James Larkin, a member of Teamsters Local 299 in Detroit, Michigan and member of the group, in a statement. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Israel’s booby-trap war: illegal and unacceptable | Editorial

      by

      In the second world war, guerrilla forces scattered large quantities of booby-trapped objects likely to be attractive to civilians. The idea was to cause widescale and indiscriminate death. The Japanese manufactured a tobacco pipe with a charge detonated by a spring-loaded striker. The Italians produced a headset that blew up when it was plugged in. More than half a century later, a global treaty came into force which “prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects that are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material”. Has anyone told Israel and its jubilant supporters that, as Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group points out, it is a signatory to the protocol?On Tuesday, pagers used by hundreds of members of the militant group Hezbollah exploded almost simultaneously in Lebanon and Syria, killing at least 12 people – including two children and four hospital workers – and wounding thousands more. This situation is directly analogous to the historical practices that current global arms treaties explicitly prohibit. US media say Israel was behind the attack, and the country has the motive and the means to target its Iran-backed enemies. Israel’s leaders have a long history of carrying out sophisticated remote operations, ranging from cyber-attacks, suicide drone attacks and remote-controlled weapons to assassinate Iranian scientists. On Wednesday it was reported that Israel blew up thousands of two-way personal radios used by Hezbollah members in Lebanon, killing nine and wounding hundreds.This week’s attacks were not, as Israel’s defenders claimed, “surgical” or a “precisely targeted anti-terrorist operation”. Israel and Hezbollah are sworn enemies. The current round of fighting has seen tens of thousands of Israelis displaced from the Israel-Lebanon border because of the Shia militant group’s rocket and artillery attacks.However, the pager bombs were clearly intended to target individual civilians – diplomats and politicians – who were not directly participating in hostilities. The plan appeared to produce what lawyers might call “excessive incidental civilian harm”. Both these arguments have been levelled at Russia to claim Moscow was committing war crimes in Ukraine. It’s hard to say why the same reasoning is not applied to Israel – apart from that it is a western ally.Such disproportionate attacks, which seem illegal, are not only unprecedented but may also become normalised. If that is the case, the door is opened for other states to lethally test the laws of war. The US should step in and restrain its friend, but Joe Biden shows no sign of intervening to stop the bloodshed. The road to peace runs through Gaza, but Mr Biden’s ceasefire plan – and the release of hostages – has not found favour with either Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, or Hamas.The worry is that Israel’s actions lead to a disastrous all-out conflict that would pull the US into a regional fight. The world stands on the edge of chaos because Mr Netanyahu’s continuing hold on power and consequent insulation from corruption charges depend largely on his nation being at war. None of this is possible without US complicity and assistance. Perhaps it is only after its presidential election that the US will be able to say that the price of saving Mr Netanyahu’s skin should not be paid in the streets of Lebanon or by Palestinians in the occupied territories. Until then, the rules-based international order will continue to be undermined by the very countries that created the system. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      More than 100 ex-Republican officials call Trump ‘unfit to serve’ and endorse Harris

      by

      More than 100 Republican former national security and foreign policy officials on Wednesday endorsed Kamala Harris for president in a joint letter, calling Donald Trump “unfit to serve” another term in the White House.Former officials from the presidential administrations of Republicans Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, George W Bush and Donald Trump, as well as Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama voiced their support for Harris, the Democratic nominee for president in this November’s election. They were joined by some former GOP members of Congress.The letter said: “We believe that the president of the United States must be a principled, serious, and steady leader.”It went on: “We expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues, but we believe that she possesses the essential qualities to serve as president and Donald Trump does not. We therefore support her election to be president.”Among the signees were former defense secretaries William Cohen and Chuck Hagel, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, respectively. Others include William Webster, a former CIA and FBI director under the Reagan and first Bush administrations, as well as Michael Hayden, a former CIA and NSA director under the younger Bush and the Obama administrations.“We firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump. As president, he promoted daily chaos in government, praised our enemies and undermined our allies, politicized the military and disparaged our veterans, prioritized his personal interest above American interests, and betrayed our values, democracy, and this country’s founding document,” the letter added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPointing to Trump’s involvement in the 6 January 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol, his “susceptibility to flattery and manipulation” by authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China, and “chaotic national security decision-making”, the former officials called Trump unfit to serve again as president or in “any office of public trust”.The former officials also pointed to Harris’s support for Nato and Israel, as well as her commitment to signing the bipartisan border security package that Republicans blocked, and her pledge to appoint a Republican to her administration as reasons for their endorsement.Several former Trump officials who signed the letter include Mark Harvey, a former special assistant to the president, and Elizabeth Neumann, a former assistant secretary of Homeland Security.In recent weeks, a handful of Republicans have crossed party lines to endorse Harris, including the former Virginia representative Barbara Comstock. In an interview with CNN, Comstock explained her decision, saying: “After January 6, after Donald Trump has refused for four years to acknowledge that he lost [the 2020 election], and his threats against democracy, I think it’s important to turn the page.”Other Republicans who have endorsed Harris include Alberto Gonzales, a Republican attorney general who served under the W Bush administration, the former Illinois representative Adam Kinzinger, as well as Trump’s former press secretary Stephanie Grisham and communications director Anthony Scaramucci. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Suspicious packages sent to election offices in 16 US states as threats mount

      by

      An investigation has been launched after suspicious packages, some containing white powder, were sent to election officials in 16 states, intensifying fears of disruption to the forthcoming US presidential election.Election offices in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Indiana, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado and Connecticut all confirmed receiving suspect mail, triggering a joint investigation by the FBI and the US Postal Service (USPS).In one case, a package from a sender purporting to be “the United States Elimination Army” and marked with a return address in Maryland was sent to officials in the Nebraska elections division, according to the Washington Post.In a joint statement issued with the USPS, the FBI said it was collecting packages from what the agencies called “a series of suspicious mailings sent to election officials in several states.“We are also working with our partners to determine how many letters were sent, the individual or individuals responsible for the letters, and the motive behind the letters,” the statement said.The substance in some cases turned out, on inspection by local authorities, to be flour.Dispatch of the packages was disclosed two days after a suspected second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, in two months. It comes amid a febrile and increasingly toxic political atmosphere, punctuated by violence and threats and reports from several fronts of the specter of Russian interference, as well as rising fears among election officials and others that the outcome of the 5 November election could be subject to multiple challenges from committed partisans unwilling to accept the result and ready to intimidate election workers.The National Association of Secretaries of State, a nonpartisan body of public officials responsible for administering elections and voting procedures, said the packages were part of “a disturbing trend”.“With less than 50 days until the … [election] we are seeing a disturbing trend continue – the second assassination attempt of a presidential candidate, and threatening and intimidating actions towards election officials,” the association said. “This must stop, period. Our democracy has no place for political violence, threats or intimidation of any kind.”It is the second time in the past year that suspicious mail has been sent to election officials in multiple states. The latest episode came to light after postal voting – which has been labelled as corrupt by Trump and his supporters, who disparaged the practice to bolster their false accusations that the 2020 election was stolen – has already begun in several states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe development comes after Microsoft published a report citing evidence of increased evidence of attempted Russian interference in November’s poll. It identified attempts to denigrate the character of Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, with fake videos.In one instance, researchers found that a Russian covert disinformation operation created a video featuring a paid actor who falsely claimed that Harris had inflicted injuries on her in a 2011 hit-and-run incident.The fictitious claim was disseminated by a fake website for a nonexistent San Francisco news outlet named KBSF-TV. The Russian group responsible, which Microsoft called Storm-1516, is described as a Kremlin-aligned troll farm. More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Abortion rights are on 10 state ballots in November − Democrats can’t count on this to win elections for them

      by

      Ten states will vote on ballot initiatives on abortion this November: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Nevada and South Dakota.

      Many political analysts and pundits view abortion as a partisan issue, fueling speculation that direct votes on abortion rights will boost Democrats’ chances up and down the ballot in November. Some Democratic strategists are hoping that turnout from the ballot initiatives will swing elections away from Republican candidates in key states such as Arizona, Nevada and Florida.

      But the effects that ballot measures have on which candidates win or lose is rarely so straightforward.

      For the past three years, my work as a political sociologist has been cataloging and studying ballot initiatives. Based on state-level data and recent trends, I believe it is highly likely that many of November’s ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights will pass. But that will not necessarily translate into broader Democratic candidate victories.

      An attendee wears a ‘vote for life’ shirt during a rally in Kentucky ahead of the abortion ballot vote in October 2022.
      Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

      The wave of abortion rights votes

      The U.S. Supreme Court overturned half a century of federal abortion protections in June 2022, sending the question of whether and when people can get an abortion back to individual states to decide. Republican legislators in Kansas quickly seized the opportunity and rushed a referendum enabling them to ban abortion onto the August 2022 primary ballot.

      It backfired. Despite being majority Republican, almost 60% of Kansas voters rejected the abortion ban.

      In 2022 and 2023, voters in six more states protected abortion rights with ballot initiatives. Kentucky and Montana voters rejected abortion bans, while California, Michigan, Ohio and Vermont voted to codify abortion rights in their state constitutions, all through ballot measures.

      Ballot initiatives are nonpartisan

      Ballot initiatives – also called propositions, measures, referendums and more – refer to votes on a policy instead of a politician. In some states, voters can put initiatives on the ballot by gathering signatures. In all states except one – Delaware – state legislators can put issues directly before voters in the form of a referendum. In other instances, such as amending most state constitutions, decisions must go to a popular vote.

      The media often portrays U.S. politics through a polarized, two-party lens. Ballot initiatives do not necessarily fit the mold. Ballot initiative votes on topics such as the minimum wage and Medicaid expansion show that some policies are popular across Democratic and Republican party affiliations. For example, raising the minimum wage is undefeated in 24 ballot initiatives at the state level since 1996, including in traditionally conservative, liberal and swing states.

      The state ballots that wound up serving wins on abortion rights since 2022 reflect a similar dynamic. The issue is polarizing, but not down the middle and not strictly along party lines. Nationwide polls show long-standing majority support for abortion rights, including among many Republicans.

      Inconclusive at best

      There is research indicating that ballot initiatives can increase voter turnout. However, most studies show mixed results and limited effects.

      Looking at turnout numbers in the 2022 and 2023 state elections that had votes on abortion rights, and comparing them with those same states’ previous election numbers, we don’t see compelling evidence for the ballot measures bringing out more voters.

      Michigan and Vermont had increased turnout in 2022, while voter numbers decreased in California, Kentucky and Montana.

      Kansas in 2022 and Ohio in 2023 both saw voter gains, but those votes are poor comparisons, because they took place in a primary and an odd-year election, respectively, when turnout tends to be low.

      Ballot initiatives on abortion rights, whether to codify or ban them, also appear to have little impact on partisan elections. After defeating the abortion ban in August 2022, Kansas voters went on to reelect both the Democratic incumbent governor and a Republican incumbent senator that November. Kansas House seats remained unchanged, with Republicans holding a supermajority.

      In Kentucky and Montana, a majority of voters rejected abortion bans in 2022 and continued to elect Republicans to state office. In Michigan, Democrats took control of the state Legislature in 2022 alongside the state’s vote for abortion rights.

      It is possible that Michigan’s “blue wave” in 2022 got a boost from the state’s ballot initiative to protect abortion rights that year. However, it likely had more to do with direct legislation from the previous election. In 2018, Michigan voters passed a ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting commission that undid years of gerrymandering that had benefited Republicans. These redrawn maps were first used in 2022.

      Most importantly, just because a voter cares deeply about abortion rights does not necessarily mean they will vote for Democrats. Republican women voters overwhelmingly support the right to abortion in all states.

      Meanwhile, about 6% of voters chose “uncommitted” in Nevada’s 2024 Democratic primary, in line with the national uncommitted movement in solidarity with Palestinians. This political movement advocates withholding support for Democrats over the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Those voters are highly likely to support the state’s abortion initiative in November but may not be persuaded to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris or other Democrats.

      Signs supporting the upcoming abortion ballot initiative in Montana are displayed during a rally in Bozeman on Sept. 5, 2024.
      William Campbell/Getty Images

      Democrats can’t rely on abortion ballot initiatives

      Ballot initiatives are about specific issues, not political candidates. In this case, the issue of abortion rights has more nationwide support than the Democratic Party does.

      If Democratic politicians want to win in November – from Harris and Tim Walz to state and local candidates – they will need to persuade voters based on their merits compared with their Republican counterparts. They can’t count on abortion initiatives to win the 2024 election for them. More