House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Donate This Holiday Season: The Rising Seas Institute Needs Your Help

      by

      Bret Stephens: Gail, I hope you had a lovely and restful Thanksgiving weekend. At the risk of turning the meaning of the holiday on its head, I wanted to ask you what you don’t feel grateful for, at least politically speaking.Gail Collins: Well, before we go there, let me start by saying I am very grateful I didn’t have a dinner date at Mar-a-Lago. Which I guess goes without saying. But gee, Donald Trump broke bread with Kanye West and Nick Fuentes, who is both a Holocaust denier and a white supremacist? Good lord.Bret: What’s shocking is that people are shocked. Still, it’s pretty nauseating to me that the Republican Jewish Coalition — whose unofficial motto should be “Hit me baby, one more time” — could not bring itself to condemn the former president by name.For my part, I’m emphatically not grateful to live in a country where there was a mass shooting last week at a Walmart in Virginia, which was preceded by a mass shooting at a gay club in Colorado, which was preceded by a mass shooting at the University of Virginia, which occurred the same weekend that four students at the University of Idaho were stabbed to death, which came just a few days after four people were shot dead in a home in Maryland. And I’m just scratching the surface here.Gail: The Idaho tragedy expands the story beyond shootings, and I hope you’ve got thoughts on the nation’s overall pathology about violence.Bret: I know the research hasn’t proved this, but I suspect violent video games also have a lot to do with both socially isolating and numbing the minds of troubled teenage boys. If I ever get to be king of a small island, I’d probably ban them all — except, of course, Pac-Man and Donkey Kong.Gail: OK, am loving the idea of you as an anti-game crusader.But the bottom line in the vast majority of these terrible tragedies is guns. Easy access to firearms turns everyday psychopaths into mass murderers, and I can’t understand why the nation doesn’t rise up in outrage.People are talking about using red flag laws to report gun owners who might be dangerous, but I just don’t buy that as an answer. The stories we hear after these tragedies suggest most of them involve shooters whose families would never pursue such an effortful, seeking-outside-help approach.Bret: We’re in total accord. Any sane society would raise the legal age to buy guns to at least 21, even 25, limit magazine sizes, impose draconian penalties on illegal weapons traffic and possession and restore stop-question-frisk as a legitimate police tactic so long as it isn’t used in a racially discriminatory manner.Gail: Well, we’ve finally coasted to a disagreement there at the end. Try convincing law-abiding young Black men that if police are encouraged to stop and frisk, they won’t misuse the go-ahead.But please, let’s get back to guns.Bret: I’m reminded of Justice Robert Jackson’s line about how the Bill of Rights shouldn’t be turned into a suicide pact. We need to bring that idea back to life when it comes to the Second Amendment.Gail: President Biden just called for a ban on assault weapons, but it’s not gonna happen. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the leader on this issue, says he doesn’t have the votes now, and it sure isn’t going to pass once Kevin McCarthy takes over.Bret: Democrats and moderate Republicans need to get smarter about the gun debate. Calling for blanket bans just won’t work in this political climate. But I bet most Americans can be won over to the idea that if you can’t buy a beer, you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. Not that it will sway House Republicans this term, but I’m thinking longer term.Gail: We’ll see. But to digress, tell me who you’re rooting for on the political front now.Bret: You mean Congress? Well, let me start by rooting for Herschel Walker’s defeat in Georgia’s runoff election. And I say that as someone who isn’t exactly sympathetic to his opponent.Gail: Yeah, Walker’s accidental announcement on Fox that “this erection is about the people” was certainly a comment that launched a thousand memes.And, of course, a reminder of why he’s such a disaster as a candidate for a partial term, let alone a full one.Bret: If his entire campaign has made one thing clear, it is that we would all be better off if he were to lose both.As for the House, the most I can hope for is that they do as little harm as possible. Couldn’t the 118th Congress just take a very long nap?Gail: Well, they certainly have stuff to do. Like, um, keeping the government in operation. Which would require raising the debt limit.Could be tricky even with the current competent Democratic leadership. Are you onboard?Bret: Yes. I’m all for curbing government spending, but the debt limit is the dumbest way to achieve it. It’s like trying to keep an alcoholic sober by locking up his liquor stash in a glass box.Gail: We’re certainly in the holiday spirit. Love your analogy.Bret: I also think Congress can do some good if it pushes the administration to give Ukraine the kinds of arms it needs to defeat Russia and Taiwan the weapons it needs to deter China. That’s why I’m glad Mike Rogers of Alabama will be head of the Armed Services Committee, and Michael McCaul of Texas will be head of foreign affairs. They’re serious men.Gail: Well, as you know, I try not to talk about foreign affairs …Bret: On the other hand, having Ohio’s Jim Jordan as head of the Judiciary Committee is about as enticing as a pimple-popping video on YouTube: You’ll watch in horrified fascination and then you’ll want to throw up.Gail: Ha! Happy to just say: Your party.Bret: Not any longer.Speaking of Congress, Gail, any thoughts on Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York as House minority leader?Gail: First, I should say again how great it was that Nancy Pelosi was ready to let some new folks have a turn in charge.And Jeffries seems like a fine pick. Well past time for a Black member of the House to take the top job for the Democrats, and in Jeffries you have a congressman with a long track record of progressive leadership combined with the skill to go moderate when the need arises.You have any thoughts? And how would you compare him with McCarthy on the Republican side?Bret: Jeffries was impressive as one of the House managers last year in Trump’s second impeachment. And he’s pro-Israel, which is a relief given the anti-Israel drift of some of his more progressive colleagues. I would probably disagree with him on most issues, but he seems like a good choice. And as for any comparison with McCarthy: I generally prefer vertebrates to invertebrates.Gail: Hehehehe.Bret: Gail, can I switch to something a bit more positive? In the spirit of the season, our bosses have asked us to suggest some charities we think are especially worthy of support. Last year, I endorsed the Hunts Point Alliance for Children, which provides educational opportunities for kids in one of New York’s most impoverished neighborhoods; Compass to Care, which helps defray the transportation costs of families with children who have cancer; and Minds Matter, which does amazing work helping gifted kids from underprivileged homes prepare academically for college.I continue to admire all of these organizations. This year I’ll add another: the Rising Seas Institute, which organized the trip I took last summer to Greenland and helped reorient my thinking about climate change. Its leader, John Englander, is one of the most thoughtful and gracious people I’ve ever met — even if we still disagree about a thing or three.What about you? More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Republican Party and the Scourge of Extremist Violence

      by

      .g-seriestitle-wrapper {
      width: 600px;
      margin: 0px auto;
      max-width: 100%;
      font-family: nyt-imperial;
      font-size: 16px;
      color: #696969;
      font-weight: 100;
      font-style: italic;
      line-height: 23px;
      border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc;
      padding-bottom: 15px;
      }

      section#violentextremism-seriestext {
      margin: 0px auto 15px;
      }

      .g-seriestitle-wrapper a:link, .g-seriestitle-wrapper a:visited {
      color: inherit;
      text-decoration: underline;
      text-decoration-thickness: 1px;
      text-underline-offset: 2px;
      text-decoration-color: #bbb;
      }

      This editorial is the fourth in a series, The Danger Within, urging readers to understand the danger of extremist violence — and offering possible solutions. Read more about the series in a note from Kathleen Kingsbury, the Times Opinion editor.

      On Oct. 12, 2018, a crowd of Proud Boys arrived at the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan. They had come to the Upper East Side club from around the country for a speech by the group’s founder, Gavin McInnes. It was a high point for the Proud Boys — which until that point had been known best as an all-male right-wing street-fighting group — in their embrace by mainstream politics.The Metropolitan Republican Club is an emblem of the Republican establishment. It was founded in 1902 by supporters of Theodore Roosevelt, and it’s where New York City Republicans such as Fiorello La Guardia and Rudy Giuliani announced their campaigns. But the presidency of Donald Trump whipped a faction of the Metropolitan Republican Club into “an ecstatic frenzy,” said John William Schiffbauer, a Republican consultant who used to work for the state G.O.P. on the second floor of the club.The McInnes invitation was controversial, even before a group of Proud Boys left the building and violently confronted protesters who had gathered outside. Two of the Proud Boys were later convicted of attempted assault and riot and given four years in prison. The judge who sentenced them explained the relatively long prison term: “I know enough about history to know what happened in Europe in the ’30s when political street brawls were allowed to go ahead without any type of check from the criminal justice system,” he said. Seven others pleaded guilty in the episode.And yet Republicans at the New York club have not distanced themselves from the Proud Boys. Soon after the incident, a candidate named Ian Reilly, who, former club members say, had a lead role in planning the speech, won the next club presidency. He did so in part by recruiting followers of far-right figures, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, to pack the club’s ranks at the last minute. A similar group of men repeated the strategy at the New York Young Republicans Club, filling it with far-right members, too.Many moderate Republicans have quit the clubs in disgust. Looking back, Mr. Schiffbauer said, Oct. 12, 2018, was a “proto” Jan. 6.In conflicts like this one —  not all of them played out so publicly — there is a fight underway for the soul of the Republican Party. On one side are Mr. Trump and his followers, including extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. On the other side stand those in the party who remain committed to the principle that politics, even the most contentious politics, must operate within the constraints of peaceful democracy. It is vital that this pro-democracy faction win out over the extremists and push the fringes back to the fringes.It has happened before. The Republican Party successfully drove the paranoid extremists of the John Birch Society out of public life in the 1960s. Party leaders could do so again for the current crop of conspiracy peddlers. Voters may do it for them, as they did in so many races in this year’s midterm elections. But this internal Republican Party struggle is important for reasons far greater than the tally in a win/loss column. A healthy democracy requires both political parties to be fully committed to the rule of law and not to entertain or even tacitly encourage violence or violent speech. A large faction of one party in our country fails that test, and that has consequences for all of us.Extremist violence is the country’s top domestic terrorist threat, according to a three-year investigation by the Democratic staff members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which reported its findings last week. “Over the past two decades, acts of domestic terrorism have dramatically increased,” the committee said in its report. “National security agencies now identify domestic terrorism as the most persistent and lethal terrorist threat to the homeland. This increase in domestic terror attacks has been predominantly perpetrated by white supremacist and anti-government extremist individuals and groups.” While there have been recent episodes of violent left-wing extremism, for the past few years, political violence has come primarily from the right.This year has been marked by several high-profile acts of political violence: an attempted break-in at an F.B.I. office in Ohio; the attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of the speaker of the House; the mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo by a white supremacist; an armed threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh; a foiled plan to attack a synagogue in New York. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      What can Democrats push through Congress in the lame-duck session?

      by

      AnalysisWhat can Democrats push through Congress in the lame-duck session?Lauren Gambinoin WashingtonLegislation on the debt ceiling, civil liberties and elections is still possible before Republican House majority kicks in As a new era of divided government looms in the US, Democrats are rushing to complete a lengthy legislative to-do list that includes landmark civil liberties legislation, a routine but critical spending package and a bill to prevent another January 6.Trump is now effectively in control of the US House of Representatives | Sidney BlumenthalRead moreThere are only a handful of working days left before the balance of power in Congress shifts and Democrats’ unified control of government in Washington ends. In January, Republicans will claim the gavel in the House, giving them veto power over much of Joe Biden’s agenda.Meanwhile, Democrats will retain – and possibly expand, depending on the outcome of a runoff election in Georgia – their majority in the Senate, allowing them to continue confirming Biden’s judicial and administrative nominees.With a narrowing window to act, Democrats intend to use the end-of-year “lame duck” session to leave a legislative mark while they still control all the levers of power in Washington. But they are also under mounting pressure to act to raise the statutory debt limit, staving off a partisan showdown next year that many fear could lead to economic calamity.“We are going to try to have as productive a lame-duck session as possible,” the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said at a post-election press conference. “It’s going to be heavy work, long hours to try and get much done.”Among the unfinished business is enacting legislation to keep the federal government funded past a 16 December deadline. Failure to do so would result in a government shutdown. Lawmakers must also reauthorize the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a must-pass bill that sets US military policy for the coming year.Democrats must also decide whether to confront the debt limit. House Republicans have threatened to use the debt ceiling as leverage to extract deep spending cuts, a prospect that has raised alarm among economists and policymakers who are pleading with Democrats to defuse a dangerous fiscal standoff.In an interview with CNN, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, who is poised to succeed Nancy Pelosi when she steps down as the House Democratic leader in January, said raising the debt ceiling before Republicans take control of the House was probably “the right thing to do” as a way to prevent conservatives “from being able to hold the American economy hostage”.The debt ceiling now stands at $31.4tn, a level that will need to be addressed by the third quarter of 2023, according to projections.Yet Democratic leaders have suggested that it is unlikely Congress will address the borrowing limit in the next few weeks.Schumer said last week that he would like to “get a debt ceiling done in this work period” but insisted that it would require Republican support, effectively ruling out a go-it-alone approach that would allow Democrats to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Speaking to reporters on the same day, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he didn’t think Congress would take up the issue until “sometime next year”.In a Washington Post op-ed, Peter Orszag, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, implored Democrats to prioritize the issue, even if it takes up precious floor time to accomplish.“Any Democrats averse to taking such a painful vote now should consider how much leverage their party will lose once Republicans control the House – and how much higher the risk of default will be then,” he wrote. “It’s generally not a good idea to enter a negotiation with a ticking timebomb and a counter-party willing to let it go off.”While fiscal matters are at the center of negotiations on Capitol Hill, there are many more legislative items on the agenda.Schumer said the Senate will take a final vote on legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages when the chamber returns after the Thanksgiving recess. Earlier this month, 12 Republicans joined all Democrats to clear a major procedural hurdle that put the historic measure on track to passage.“Passing the Respect for Marriage Act is no longer a matter of if but only of when,” he said in recent remarks. A version of the bill passed the House earlier this year, with support from dozens of Republicans.Meanwhile, the Senate also hopes to enact reforms to a 19th-century elections law that Donald Trump attempted to exploit to reverse his defeat in 2020, which led to the insurrection at the Capitol.A bipartisan proposal would overhaul the Electoral Count Act, clarifying that the role of the vice-president, who presides over the certification of the electoral votes as president of the Senate, is purely ceremonial. That means the vice-president could not unilaterally throw out electoral votes, as Trump and his allies pressured his vice-president, Mike Pence, to do. If the bill passes, it would be the most substantive legislative response to the events of January 6.The White House is also eager for Congress to approve additional financial support for Ukraine, as the nation defends itself against a Russian invasion. The House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, who could be the next speaker if he can survive a revolt among hardline conservatives in his caucus, signaled that Republicans would use their majority to limit – or possibly oppose – future spending on the war.Previous aid packages to Ukraine have been approved with overwhelming bipartisan support, and the president and Democratic leaders are hopeful that a new package can be achieved. Fears that Republicans could cut off aid just as Ukraine forces Russia into retreat with the assistance of US weaponry may motivate lawmakers to authorize vast new spending for Ukraine. The White House has also asked for additional funding to prepare for a possible winter surge of coronavirus infections, though Republicans are unlikely to back the request.Constrained by the calendar and their narrow majorities, a host of other Democratic priorities will probably remain out of reach as the sun sets on their power in Washington.A group of Democrats is urging Congress to pass immigration reform and ensure legal protections for Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, while efforts are under way to reach an agreement on cannabis-related legislation. Senator Raphael Warnock, whose Georgia runoff election will determine the margin of Democrats’ control next year, has continued his push to cap the cost of insulin.TopicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS SenateUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsUS domestic policyanalysisReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      College Athletes and Ideals for Women’s Body Image

      by

      More from our inbox:Elizabeth Warren’s Election Analysis: We DisagreeEric Adams and the MidtermsSue Republican LiarsA Matter of SpaceAudra Koopman, who ran track and field at Penn State, said she felt pressured to avoid sweets and to trim down. But even as she did, she didn’t feel like she performed better.Rachel Woolf for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Women in College Sports Feel Pressure to Be Lean at Any Cost” (Sports, Nov. 14):Thank you for raising awareness about the risks of scrutinizing body composition in college athletes. I am a clinical psychologist specializing in eating disorders, and the highlighted profiles echo stories I have heard many times over.No evidence suggests that participating in a sport causes eating disorders, but rates of these illnesses among athletes are higher than the national average. Athletes who participate in endurance, weight-class or aesthetic-based sports are at heightened risk.A focus on metrics like body fat percentage and body weight may breed an unhelpful hypervigilance on restrictive eating, body size and burning calories. College-age men and women are often still maturing physically, and by taking drastic measures to change their bodies risk their physical and psychological well-being.They also risk missing out on the greatest pleasures of sports: being a good teammate and finding joy in competition even while competing at a high personal level.Deborah R. GlasoferNew YorkThe writer is an associate professor of clinical medical psychology, Columbia Center for Eating Disorders, New York State Psychiatric Institute.To the Editor:Women in college sports are simply the tip of the spear when it comes to our affluent culture’s widely promoted ideal of thinness for women. I lived in Nigeria for many years, and there plumpness in a woman is seen as a desirable signifier of affluence. So this ideal for women’s bodies is anything but universal or timeless.Athletes and dancers perform in public, and the moves that make up their routines are easier when there is less body fat to contend with.This fact extends into other areas of daily life. But though men perform these activities too, and can also have eating disorders, the fact that women are the focal point of this discussion, as they were when I was a professor of women’s studies at Rutgers, says something about the larger issue of gender ideals in our culture.Katherine EllisNew YorkElizabeth Warren’s Election Analysis: We Disagree Kenny Holston for The New York TimesTo the Editor:In “Democrats, Let’s Seize This Moment” (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 14), Senator Elizabeth Warren claims, “The so-called experts who called Democrats’ messaging incoherent were just plain wrong — and candidates who ignored their advice won.”I beg to differ. Surveys show that a large majority of Americans favor most Democratic policies — legal access to abortion, a fair and progressive tax structure, strong environmental regulations and worker protection, a reasonable minimum wage, not cutting Social Security or Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. Yet many Democratic candidates barely squeaked by, and the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives.It’s easy to know what Republicans stand for — even if it’s based on lies. It’s all over the media. I’m not sure that most Americans can say what Democrats stand for, although a large minority of Americans seem to think that we steal elections, and want to curtail the police, open the borders and hand out large sums of money to people who refuse to work. Why? Because the Republican message (often lies) is getting through.Democratic politicians may have great ideas, but they’re terrible at communicating them. Otherwise they’d have a much bigger majority in government.Shaun BreidbartPelham, N.Y.To the Editor:Democrats squeaking by in the midterms is not an overwhelming endorsement of President Biden’s spending and other policies. In many cases it’s voting for the least worst candidate.Has Elizabeth Warren not seen the polls about dissatisfaction with both former President Donald Trump and President Biden? If “none of the above” were a choice, it would likely have won on many ballots.As a centrist, I want elected officials to stop talking and writing about how great they are and how bad their opposition is. Rather, focus on what you will accomplish, bipartisan cooperation and problem solving.Many of my moderate Democratic friends would vote for Liz Cheney if she were a presidential candidate. Sure, she is more conservative, but she has demonstrated integrity, bipartisanship and intelligence. That would be a refreshing change.Gail MacLeodLexington, Va.Eric Adams and the MidtermsMayor Eric Adams views the Democrats’ poor performance in New York as validation of his messaging about crime and his brand of moderate politics.Sarah Blesener for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Democrats See Adams at Root of State Losses” (front page, Nov. 18):Mayor Eric Adams did not lose four New York congressional seats. Asserting that he is to blame says, in essence, that the majority of voters who elected Republicans in swing districts chose poorly and that if voters had not been told crime was a problem, the Democratic candidates in those districts would have won.Mr. Adams has identified crime as a priority for his administration. By virtue of winning election, he is entitled to set his agenda. Whether the current increase in crime is a surge or a blip can be debated, certainly, but the idea that he should soft-pedal concerns about public safety to help other Democratic candidates is inappropriate.On the other hand, the fact that Republicans exploited perceptions about crime for electoral gain may be deplorable, but it is well within the rules of the game.The Democrats’ loss of New York congressional seats resulted from hubris around redistricting and willful ignorance about public perception of issues like bail reform. Eric Adams had nothing to do with either.Rob AbbotCroton-on-Hudson, N.Y.Sue Republican LiarsTo the Editor:Re “Misinformation on Pelosi Attack Spread by G.O.P.” (front page, Nov. 6):The notion seems firmly rooted among Democratic political leaders that since politics is rough and tumble, they should rise above it when the G.O.P.’s fabrication machine spews ominous conspiracy theories and baseless slurs to obscure reality.But since Republican politicians aren’t restrained by shame, common decency or respect for the truth, tolerating their falsehoods only encourages the right wing to wallow in fact-free filth. Instead, the victims of right-wing slanders owe it to themselves — and to us — to seek money damages for defamation from reckless Republican liars.First Amendment law protects scorching invective. But there’s a limit. Under the constitutional principles that govern defamation law, a political speaker is not free to knowingly utter falsehoods or to speak with reckless indifference to truth or falsity.That principle plainly applies to unfounded Republican claims about Paul Pelosi. It likewise applies to Newt Gingrich’s assertion that John Fetterman has “ties to the crips gang,” and to Donald Trump’s lies about a voting machine maker.Multimillion-dollar damage awards might deter Republicans from fouling the political landscape with lies designed to conceal their lack of answers to America’s problems.Mitchell ZimmermanPalo Alto, Calif.The writer is an attorney.A Matter of Space Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Dimming Hope Office Buildings Will Ever Refill” (front page, Nov. 18):Not enough housing? Too much office space? Go figure.Deborah BayerRichmond, Calif. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Five new members of the House of Representatives to watch

      by

      Five new members of the House of Representatives to watchMaxwell Frost, Becca Balint, Monica De La Cruz, Mike Lawler and Max Miller are standouts among the 2022 midterms intake Roughly 80 new members will join the House of Representatives when the 118th Congress convenes in January.How Democratic wins in key toss-up seats helped stave off the ‘red wave’Read moreAlong with their more seasoned colleagues, they will have to navigate the potentially tricky terrain of a narrow Republican majority in the House as Democrats control the White House and the Senate.The new members come from every part of the county, and they vary dramatically in terms of political ideology. Some are progressives who have demanded universal healthcare coverage, while others have embraced Donald Trump and his lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.As the final ballots are counted and Americans prepare for another significant shift in the political landscape, here are five new members of the House to keep an eye on:Maxwell Frost, a Democrat of FloridaMaxwell Frost will become the first Gen Z member of Congress when he takes the oath of office in January. Just 25 years old, Frost won his Orlando-area seat by campaigning on implementing Medicare for all and reforming America’s gun laws.Frost, a March for Our Lives organizer who first became involved in politics after the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, has made it clear that he will be aggressive in addressing gun violence. After the recent shooting at an LGBTQ night club in Colorado Springs, Frost has repeated his call for Congress to advance an assault weapons ban.The House passed an assault weapons ban in July, but the bill stalled in the Senate. With Republicans now in control of the House, it will be nearly impossible to resuscitate the proposal, but Frost is undeterred.“I think it’s important to put it up for a vote even if it doesn’t pass because it gets people on the record,” Frost told NBC News on Monday. “We have to show the American people that this is a problem that our government is working on and we’re going to solve.”Frost’s determination to take action on his top policy priorities could ruffle some feathers within the House, but his persistence could also help keep Democrats motivated in the face of Republican obstruction.Becca Balint, a Democrat of VermontOne of Frost’s new colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus will be Becca Balint, a Democrat of Vermont. Balint’s victory earlier this month made history; she will be the first woman and the first openly LGBTQ person to represent Vermont in Congress. Once Balint is sworn in, all 50 US states will have sent a woman to Congress, as Vermont was previously the sole outlier on that metric.Balint has described herself as “a scrappy little queer lady” who was initially written off in Vermont’s crowded Democratic congressional primary because of her lack of widespread name recognition or political connections.“What I did have was an amazing team that believed that I could do this if I got in front of enough Vermonters and spread a message of courage and strength and hope,” Balint said at a press conference earlier this month.“We did it because we tapped into the courage of working people across Vermont, regular people who want to have a voice again. That’s who I am. That’s who I will be in Congress.”Frost and Balint are just two members of an expanded progressive caucus that may be able to exert more influence over Democratic leaders starting in January.Monica De La Cruz, a Republican of TexasDe La Cruz’s win was a bright spot for Republicans on a generally disappointing election night. De La Cruz will be the first Republican to represent the 15th congressional district in southern Texas, where the party has been trying to make gains among Latino voters.Party leaders had hoped to win two other south Texas districts with Latina Republicans, reflecting their broader strategy this year of attempting to flip seats by running a more diverse slate of candidates. Mayra Flores ran in the 34th district, while Cassy Garcia competed in the 28th district. Together with De La Cruz, the three women were often dubbed the “Triple Threat” in conservative media, but of that group, only De La Cruz won her race.Overall, De La Cruz will be one of at least 45 Latino lawmakers serving in the 118th Congress, marking a new record for the US. Several newly elected members – including Democrat Yadira Caraveo in Colorado and Democrat Delia Ramirez in Illinois – will be the first Latinas to represent their states in Congress.Despite Republicans’ efforts to diversify their House caucus, they still trail Democrats on that front. At least 34 Latino Democrats will serve in the House starting in January, compared with at least 11 Latino Republicans. With the victories of John James in Michigan and Wesley Hunt in Texas, the number of Black Republicans in the House will also double in January – from two to four. In comparison, 58 Black Democrats are currently serving in the House.Mike Lawler, a Republican of New YorkMike Lawler’s victory made national headlines, as he defeated the incumbent congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, who served as the chair of House Democrats’ campaign arm this election cycle.Lawler was one of four Republicans who flipped House seats in New York, and those wins ultimately proved crucial in determining control of the lower chamber. When the “red wave” that many Republicans had expected failed to materialize on election day, the success of Lawler’s group helped them win back a narrow majority.Because of that slim majority, the incoming Republican speaker will be able to afford only a few defections within the party when trying to pass legislation. There are already signs of tension and disagreement within the House Republican caucus, and Lawler is one example of this. While most House Republicans continue to wholeheartedly embrace Trump and his divisive brand, Lawler has suggested that it may be time to move on from the former president, particularly after his endorsed candidates fared so poorly on election day.“I would like to see the party move forward,” Lawler told CNN earlier this month. “I think more focus needs to be on the issues and the substance of those issues than on personalities.”But many of Lawler’s new colleagues may not be ready to start a new chapter for the Republican party.Max Miller, a Republican of OhioMax Miller, who won the race to represent a newly reconfigured House district in Ohio, personifies Trump’s enduring hold on the Republican party and the House Republican caucus in particular.Most of Miller’s district is currently represented by Anthony Gonzalez, a lawmaker who was once considered a rising star in the Republican party but became a target of scorn after he voted to impeach Trump for inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Following that vote, Miller received Trump’s endorsement to launch a primary challenge against Gonzalez, and the incumbent congressman later announced he would not seek re-election.Miller has his own connection to the January 6 insurrection, as he appeared before the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack over the summer. According to the committee, Miller participated in a meeting two days before the attack to discuss the rally that Trump held on the Ellipse immediately before a group of his supporters stormed the Capitol.Miller won his seat in Congress partly thanks to Trump’s endorsement, and he will probably be quite hesitant to distance himself from the former president. That hesitation could put him and his allies on a collision course with colleagues like Lawler, who say they want to chart a new course for the Republican party.The incoming Republican speaker will need to keep all factions of the caucus unified to get anything done. That task already appears immense.TopicsHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsUS midterm elections 2022featuresReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mary Peltola Wins Bid to Serve Full Term in the House for Alaska

      by

      Ms. Peltola became the first Alaska Native woman elected to Congress earlier this year when she won a special election in the state.Representative Mary Peltola, Democrat of Alaska and the first Alaska Native woman to serve in Congress, on Wednesday won a full term in the House, according to The Associated Press, holding back three conservative challengers.Ms. Peltola first won the seat in an August special election to finish the term of Representative Don Young, a Republican who died in March. Her victory, which flipped the seat for Democrats for the first time in 50 years, was considered an upset against Sarah Palin, the former governor and vice-presidential candidate. With her latest success, Ms. Peltola has secured a full two-year term as the lone representative for the state of Alaska. The loss for Republicans in the state ensures that they will hold 220 seats in the House — a razor-thin margin with just two races yet to be called — when leaders had hoped to pad that majority with as many additional seats as possible.“WE DID IT,” Ms. Peltola exulted on social media, posting a video of a dancing crab. With 136,893 votes after two rounds of tabulation, Ms. Peltola secured 54.9 percent of the vote, The Alaska Division of Elections said. Ms. Peltola defeated two of her Republican rivals from the special election — Ms. Palin and Nick Begich III, who is part of a prominent liberal political family in Alaska — as well as Chris Bye, a libertarian.Ms. Palin received 45.1 percent support, with a total of 112,255 votes. Mr. Begich received a total of 64,392 votes before being eliminated in the second round, while Mr. Bye was eliminated in the first round with 4,986 votes.State law allows absentee ballots to be counted up to 15 days after Election Day if postmarked by then and sent from outside the United States. Election officials decided to wait to tabulate rounds of ranked-choice voting until all ballots were counted.Because none of the candidates appeared to have secured more than 50 percent of the votes by Nov. 23 — 15 days after Election Day — Alaskan election officials tabulated the next round of votes once all ballots were counted.With the establishment of an open primary system ahead of Mr. Young’s death in which the top four candidates could advance regardless of party, four dozen candidates jumped into the race to replace him. Ms. Peltola was able to secure a spot in the general election, along with Ms. Palin and Mr. Begich.While Ms. Palin and Mr. Begich split the conservative vote, Ms. Peltola assembled a coalition of Democrats, centrists and Alaska Natives behind her “pro-family, pro-fish” platform. A Democrat had not held the seat in half a century, since Mr. Young had replaced Mr. Begich’s grandfather, a Democrat.“Our nation faces a number of challenges in the coming years, and our representatives will need wisdom and discernment as they work to put America on a more sound path,” Mr. Begich said in a statement congratulating Ms. Peltola on her victory. While the majority of his supporters voted for Ms. Palin, 7,460 of them ranked Ms. Peltola and helped push her over the majority threshold.Ms. Peltola worked to highlight her bipartisan credentials, often speaking openly about her friendship with Ms. Palin on the campaign trail. With just a couple of seats determining which party controls the House, she could potentially play a critical role should Republicans seek to win over Democratic votes for must-pass legislation and any effort to approve bipartisan measures.While Ms. Peltola took office only in September, shortly before the midterm elections, she quickly took over pushing for legislation Mr. Young had introduced and hired multiple Republican aides on his staff.Ms. Peltola has also allied herself with her state’s two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, to pressure the Biden administration to reconsider a key drilling project in Alaska and ensure more federal support was granted to the state after the remnants of a typhoon damaged some communities.She received an emotional and warm reception at the Alaska Federation of Natives convention last month, where attendees waved cutouts of her face and endorsed her candidacy. Mr. Young’s family also endorsed her and filmed an ad for her, bestowing her with one of his signature bolo ties. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Why House Democrats Have Fallen in Line and Republicans Haven’t

      by

      We spoke with Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor at The Times, about the latest maneuvering and drama in Washington.In the expectations game that is American politics, losing is the new winning.Republicans are putting their would-be House speaker, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, through a grueling series of public tests, with his ultimate fate uncertain. So far, at least five Republicans have said they will oppose McCarthy’s bid when it comes up for a vote of the full House in January. He needs 218 votes.By contrast, House Democrats have all but anointed their new leaders, a triumvirate of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California.By the end of a process that took place largely in private, over the course of months, the three lawmakers quietly secured overwhelming support and boxed out possible rivals, like Representatives Adam Schiff of California and Pramila Jayapal of Washington. If the election or the leadership transition exposed any major ideological cracks in the Democratic firmament of the House, they are not evident yet.Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped aside, as did her lieutenants, Steny Hoyer of Maryland and James Clyburn of South Carolina. Assuming all goes as planned, the average age of the Democrats’ House leadership trio will plummet from 82 to 51 years old.To unpack why Democrats have fallen in line while Republicans have not, I chatted with Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor at The New York Times. Here is what she said:Democrats seem to have stage-managed their transition to new House leaders with as little drama as possible, while Republicans may be in for a rocky few weeks. What explains the difference?You have to look at how different the personalities and political situations of the two parties are right now.Republicans are coming off a historically disappointing midterm election that delivered them a very slim majority and only one chamber of Congress, so they are in finger-pointing and recrimination mode, and that always exacerbates divisions.The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More