House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Finding George Santos’s Replacement Is Proving Difficult for Republicans

      by

      Party leaders have vowed not to repeat the vetting mistakes they made with the expelled congressman. But getting to yes is proving messy.If New York Republicans had hoped to quickly and cleanly turn the page on the embarrassing saga of George Santos, the week since his expulsion from Congress has not exactly gone as planned.While party leaders hunkered down in the Long Island suburbs to game out the critical special election to replace him, it emerged that one of their top candidates for the nomination, Mazi Melesa Pilip, was not technically a Republican at all, but a registered Democrat.Another Republican who had entered the race earlier this year was convicted of taking part in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.Word leaked that party officials were interviewing a more serious contender: a former state assemblyman known to have potentially damaging ties to Mr. Santos through a bizarre business proposition that one person involved said resembled the classic email scheme with a Nigerian prince.And records were unearthed in news reports showing that another front-runner, Mike Sapraicone, had not only been sued for suppressing evidence in a murder case as a New York City police officer but later made political contributions totaling $40,000 to an unexpected recipient: the race’s Democratic nominee, Tom Suozzi.The torrent of revelations washed away the message of order and unity that top Republicans sought to project in the wake of Mr. Santos’s hurricane. And suspicions that many of the unsavory disclosures about the candidates had been seeded in the press by rival Republican camps left some fretting that the party was playing straight into Democrats’ hands.“It definitely looks messy,” said Chapin Fay, a Republican political consultant advising some of the candidates. “Just let the Republicans kill themselves even before a candidate is chosen.”In many ways, the Republicans’ predicament is the result of their determination to avoid a repeat of Mr. Santos. The federally indicted serial fabulist slipped past Republican and Democratic vetters in 2020 and 2022, winning the seat connecting Queens and Nassau County last fall before his entire life story began to unravel as a series of fictions and outright frauds.Joseph G. Cairo Jr., the Nassau County Republican chairman leading the selection process, views Mr. Santos as a stain on his personal record. He said he would likely only select a candidate already well known to the party and has also retained outside help from research firms to identify major vulnerabilities before making the nomination.“There’s a personal thing to some people that, Hey, a mistake was made, this guy has blemished our party, this is our chance to correct it,” Mr. Cairo said in a recent interview, expressing confidence that the party would unite behind the best candidate.But that takes time, and as Mr. Cairo’s deliberations stretch into another week, candidates and their allies appear to have taken matters into their own hands, as they hunt for damaging information to boost their cause or hurt a rival’s. Property records have been checked. Old podcasts dug up. Voting records scrutinized.Even Mr. Santos took a break from recording lucrative videos on Cameo to stir the pot, urging his followers to call Mr. Cairo to insist that he not select “a Democrat in Republican skin” like Ms. Pilip or Mr. Sapraicone.Democrats have had their own awkwardness. On Monday, Gov. Kathy Hochul made Mr. Suozzi drive to Albany to all but grovel for her support. But there was never really any doubt that the well-known former congressman would be his party’s pick, and Democrats quickly united around his nomination.Mr. Fay, who began his career as an opposition researcher, argued that “mudslinging” now could actually help inoculate the eventual Republican nominee against key weaknesses by the time the Feb. 13 special election heated up.For Ms. Pilip in particular, who has become a top contender on the strength of a remarkable political biography, being outed as a registered Democrat may not be such a bad thing in a district that leans slightly left. In fact, crossover appeal has helped before: Ms. Pilip, a Black former member of the Israel Defense Forces, flipped a local legislative district in 2021 while running on the Republican Party ballot line.In a statement, Mr. Cairo indicated that Ms. Pilip’s registration, which was first reported by Politico, was known to party leaders. He said they had long supported her because she was “philosophically in sync with the Republican team.”In another reflection of her status as a formidable candidate, an unsigned, untraceable email was sent to multiple reporters Friday morning seeking to tarnish her name by including a link to a photograph on social media of Ms. Pilip embracing Mr. Santos.The hits on other Republican hopefuls may be more problematic.Take Mr. Sapraicone. On Monday, Politico reported on a 2021 lawsuit accusing him and other former New York Police Department detectives of having coerced a false confession and suppressed exonerating evidence that kept a man behind bars for two decades. (He denied knowing about the suit.)On Wednesday, an old news report resurfaced about his donations to Mr. Suozzi. And on Thursday, Politico ran another item reporting how on a podcast earlier this year, the Republican described once being afraid of a police officer because he was Black. The Sapraicone campaign said he had shared the story to show how he had grown to embrace “diverse communities” as a police officer.In an interview, Mr. Sapraicone said he was determined not to get rattled.“This is all new water to me,” he said. “I see these sharp elbows coming left and right here. I don’t think any of this stuff is productive no matter where it’s coming from.”Philip Sean Grillo, who declared his candidacy in May, certainly did not help the party’s cause when he was convicted in the Jan. 6 case. A wave of headlines tied him to Mr. Santos and the special election, though his candidacy has never been taken seriously.Party leaders also had to contend with sticky potential issues in private involving more serious candidates, like Michael LiPetri, the former Republican state assemblyman. Mr. LiPetri is well liked within Long Island Republican circles, but his nomination would almost certainly open the party to more Santos-tinged attacks.The New York Times reported last summer that Mr. LiPetri worked with Mr. Santos to approach a campaign donor with an unusual proposition. They asked the donor to create a limited liability company to help a wealthy unnamed Polish citizen buy cryptocurrency while his fortune was evidently frozen in a bank account. The deal never went through.Mr. LiPetri, who sought to play down his role when The Times initially disclosed his involvement, did not respond to requests for comment.Gleeful Democratic operatives said they could package any of the disclosures into general election ammunition if given the opportunity.“We wish the Grand Old Party the best in their flailing endeavors,” said Ellie Dougherty, a spokeswoman for House Democrats’ campaign arm, calling the other side “dysfunctional.”But not every Republican was worrying. One veteran of hard-fought campaigns on Long Island said his fellow Republicans should quit the hand-wringing.“All the sniping between the people who support X and Y and Z?” said the Republican, former Senator Alfonse D’Amato. “Doesn’t mean anything in the finals.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Who will step up in California politics as McCarthy exits and Pelosi steps back?

      by

      California has lost two towering figures in the US House of Representatives in the past two years, first with the decision by then House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to step back followed by Kevin McCarthy’s announcement he would be resigning from Congress altogether after being ejected from leadership by his own party.The two represent diametrically opposed politics. But in their home state, their exit from top congressional leadership has had ripple effects, upsetting a political infrastructure that they had each spent decades building up.After the recent death of Dianne Feinstein – one of the most senior members of the Senate – and the upcoming departures of a number of senior California representatives, the most populous US state, with a historically oversized influence on national policy, has found itself somewhat in a political morass.“It’s pretty uncommon to have back-to-back speakers from the same state,” said Marc Sandalow, associate director of the University of California Washington Center. “And then to lose two speakers in succession – that’s a huge turnover.”The upcoming retirements of the veteran representatives Anna Eshoo, Tony Cárdenas and Grace Napolitano have compounded the state’s losses. Moreover, three California representatives – Katie Porter, Barbara Lee and Adam Schiff – are vying for the Senate seat left vacant by the late Dianne Feinstein, contributing to a power vacuum in the House. Overall, the Californians leaving Congress have decades of seniority in the House, Sandalow noted. (However, with the former California senator Kamala Harris in the vice-president’s office, the state is still represented at the highest levels of the US government.)Both parties will probably see their fundraising efforts affected. But particularly for Republicans, McCarthy’s departure will leave a huge gap.“Kevin McCarthy was the last pulse pulsating in the body that is the California Republican party,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California Republican political consultant. In a state that overall leans Democratic, but with sizable conservative and moderate pockets, McCarthy’s sway for years helped boost his party’s candidates.“Kevin at least had the power of the speakership and the influence of national donors,” Madrid said. “And now that’s gone.” Perhaps gone too, he added, is the political goodwill and influence McCarthy spent decades building up in his home state.McCarthy, 58, has vowed “to support the next generation of leaders”, promising to elevate a new generation of Republicans in an opinion essay for the Wall Street Journal. But his spectacular ouster, and uneasy alliance with far-right members of his party who ultimately ran him out, has diminished his influence, said Madrid. “Kevin’s legacy has taken an extraordinarily big hit. His reputation during the Trump years dramatically lost a lot of lustre.”Such is not the case for Pelosi, 83, who stepped away from House leadership on good terms. She announced in September that she will be seeking re-election in 2024, and has been spending the past year continuing to fundraise for fellow Democrats while growing her own political war chest.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“She still has an immense amount of clout, but she’s now an important voice in the room, as opposed to the voice in the room,” said Dan Schnur, a lecturer at the UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies and a veteran Republican consultant. “Still, we’re seeing a generational shift with her stepping back.”It remains unclear who will step up. Along with Feinstein, Pelosi was part of a generation of Bay Area leaders that helped define Democratic politics and policy for decades. They have also been kingmakers, pulling up many state leaders, including California’s governor, Gavin Newsom.“And they have very much been part of the political establishment,” said Sandalow, “Their departure opens the door to potentially far more progressive candidates to emerge.”Still, at least until she retires, Pelosi is likely to remain a powerful influence. “Pelosi is probably the top fundraiser in the history of the US Congress,” said Sandalow, a longtime Washington correspondent for the San Francisco Chronicle who has written a biography of the former speaker.Both she and McCarthy, he added, “knew how to tap California’s deep pockets, and then distribute money to their candidates around the country to buy influence”. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats decry House censure vote as ‘attempt to silence’ Jamaal Bowman

      by

      Democrats accused Republicans of wasting time and pursuing “another attempt to silence a person of colour”, after the New York progressive Jamaal Bowman was formally censured for pulling a fire alarm in a congressional office building.“This censure of Representative Bowman is yet another attempt to silence a person of colour in this chamber,” the Michigan representative Rashida Tlaib said.“They are obsessed with attacking Black and brown members of Congress, but do nothing to help our families thrive. They need to get a grip.”The resolution introduced by the Michigan Republican Lisa McClain was adopted on Thursday by a vote of 214-191 with five voting present. Three Democrats – Jahana Hayes, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Chris Pappas – voted in favour.Bowman was seen on surveillance video pulling the alarm on 30 September, as a vote loomed during efforts to avoid a government shutdown. He said he did so accidentally. Critics claimed he was trying to delay the vote.Bowman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour and agreed to pay a $1,000 fine, the maximum applicable under Washington DC law.A prominent progressive, Bowman has long presented a target for rightwing anger. Last week, the New York Republican, fabulist and accused fraudster George Santos introduced a motion to expel Bowman, a parting shot as Santos became only the sixth representative ever expelled.The resolution to censure Bowman was introduced on Wednesday. McClain said: “While the House was working tirelessly to avert a government shutdown, Representative Bowman was working nefariously to prevent a vote.“It is reprehensible that a member of Congress would go to such lengths to prevent House Republicans from bringing forth a vote to keep the government operating and Americans receiving their paychecks. Especially from a former schoolteacher, who without a doubt understands the function and severity of pulling a fire alarm.”In response, Bowman said: “I immediately took responsibility and accountability for my actions and pled guilty … Republicans are trying to rehash an already litigated matter.”On Thursday, Pappas, the New Hampshire Democrat who voted for censure, said Bowman “broke the law … and has since ple[aded] guilty. The resolution was a straightforward condemnation of his actions.”But his was a rare Democratic voice in favour.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTlaib, censured herself last month for condemning Israel’s actions in its war with Hamas, said Republicans were “desperate to distract from the fact that [they have done] nothing … to improve the lives of the American people or end the ongoing genocide [in Gaza].“So now you’re trying to shift the focus by baselessly attacking Representative Bowman to score cheap political points, comparing him to the white supremacists on January 6 who were smashing windows in the Capitol … and screaming ‘Hang Mike Pence!’“Your inability to govern is so obvious to the American people. You all can’t even find enough Republicans to vote to pass a budget or keep a speaker. This is yet another attempt to silence a person of colour in this chamber.”Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic minority leader, said Republicans were “burying their heads in the sand with respect to unlawful or unacceptable conduct by their own members … and engaging in efforts to irresponsibly and illegitimately target President Joe Biden and his family”.In a statement, Bowman thanked Democratic colleagues and noted that the Republican-controlled ethics committee did not investigate his action.“I had hoped that we could devote our time and resources to doing our jobs and addressing the issues Americans care about,” he said, calling Republican “efforts to target me … a testament to the importance of my voice”. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden infuriated by Ukraine impasse but Republicans refuse to bend over border

      by

      It is an astonishing bit of horse-trading over Ukraine that has left Democrats infuriated, even baffled. After Senate Republicans blocked a supplemental funding package on Wednesday to aid the country in its fight against the Russian invasion, demanding tough new southern border controls in exchange, the chamber’s leading Democrat took to the floor.Calling it “a sad night in the history of the Senate”, Chuck Schumer bemoaned the vote as a disappointing reflection on the country, a step away from letting Vladimir Putin “walk right through Ukraine and right through Europe”.“Republicans just blocked a very much needed proposal to send funding for Ukraine, funding for Israel, humanitarian aid for innocent civilians in Gaza, and funding for the Indo-Pacific,” Schumer said.“If there is a word for what we most need now, it is to be serious.”The 49-51 vote reflected a growing trend in Congress that has become a source of distress for the White House. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in February 2022, aiding Kyiv was a bipartisan project. In May of that year, a $40bn Ukraine aid package sailed through the House with a vote of 368-57, and the Senate with a vote of 86 -11.But as the war has stretched on, more Republican lawmakers have turned against aid to Ukraine, embracing Donald Trump’s “America first” approach to foreign policy. When the House voted in September on a bill to provide $300m to train and equip Ukrainian fighters, a majority of Republicans – 117 members – opposed it.Republicans also now have more power in Congress than they did when the war in Ukraine began. Although Democrats previously controlled both chambers, Republicans now hold a narrow majority in the House. That new strength has emboldened them to insist that any supplemental funding for Ukraine also include robust border security measures, many of which are unpalatable to Democrats.The standoff comes at a dangerous point in Ukraine’s fight against Russia. The White House has warned that the US is “out of money and nearly out of time” to assist Ukraine, suggesting the Russian military will soon gain ground in the war without another infusion of funding for Kyiv.Democrats and Republicans have been negotiating over a potential compromise on border measures to get the aid package across the finish line, but those talks stalled out over the weekend. On Wednesday Joe Biden accused Republicans of negotiating in bad faith.“Republicans think they can get everything they want without any bipartisan compromise. That’s not the answer,” Biden said. “And now they’re willing to literally kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield and damage our national security in the process.”Despite the stark rhetoric, Republicans have presented a united front in their demands for more severe changes to immigration policy. Even Republican lawmakers who remain strongly supportive of additional Ukraine aid, such as the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, have embraced this stance. On Wednesday, McConnell joined his 48 Republican colleagues in opposing the motion to advance the aid package, and he rejected Schumer’s exhortation to “get serious” about threats to democracy.“It is profoundly unserious to pretend that national security priorities don’t include securing our nation’s borders, to warn about borders in jeopardy and not start with the one that’s being overrun here at home,” McConnell said on Thursday. “I’m not in need of any lectures about on the gravity of the challenges facing national security today.”The gridlock has angered and at times perplexed Democrats. In their minds, sending financial aid to US allies such as Ukraine benefits the entire country and thus should be an area of common ground between the two parties. But the recent negotiations appear to have reframed Ukraine aid as a Democratic priority that can only be achieved through concessions to Republicans, specifically on the issue of immigration. That shifting dynamic has not escaped the notice of some frustrated Democrats on Capitol Hill.“I think I’m going to demand that we pass an assault weapons ban or I won’t fund Ukraine,” Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut, told HuffPost. “I guess that’s how things get done around here.”Despite that frustration, Biden appeared open to continuing negotiations on Wednesday, saying he was willing to make “significant compromises on the border” to advance the aid package. McConnell similarly described Wednesday’s failed vote as “a new opportunity to make real progress on legislation that addresses urgent national security priorities”.Schumer also appeared prepared to reopen negotiations on Wednesday, even as he implored Republicans to “come up with something serious instead of the extreme policies they’ve presented thus far”.“This is a serious moment that will have lasting consequences for the 21st century. If Ukraine falls, Putin will not stop there. He will be emboldened,” Schumer said.“Western democracy will begin to enter an age of decline if we aren’t willing to defend it. This Senate – this Republican party – must get serious.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Man convicted in January 6 riots running for Santos seat in Congress

      by

      Of the 15-odd Republican candidates vying to replace George Santos in Congress, one stands out so far – not just because he has now been convicted for trying to obstruct the very body he wants to join, but because he claimed to have “no idea” Congress met at the Capitol building he stormed on January 6.Philip Grillo, a candidate in the special election for Santos’s vacant Long Island seat, was convicted this week of charges relating to the January 6 attack, when he entered and exited the building multiple times, at least once through a broken window.At one point during the protest Grillo, 49, was interviewed on camera about why he was there.“I’m here to stop the steal,” he said, according to the justice department. “It’s our fucking House!”He then made his way further into the Capitol. He also recorded videos of himself in the Capitol. “We fucking did it, you understand? We stormed the Capitol,” Grillo said in one. “We shut it down! We did it! We shut the mother..!”On his third entrance to the building, the justice department said, he could be seen in multiple instances pushing up against police officers and, in another recording, from his cell phone, smoking marijuana inside the building and high-fiving other rioters.Recently, during his trial, he testified that he had “no idea” Congress convened inside the Capitol.Grillo was found guilty this week of the felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, along with a series of misdemeanors, including entering restricted grounds and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.At trial, his attorney’s argued that their client had “was acting under actual or believed public authority at the time of the alleged offenses” and said “he was and believed he was authorized to engage in the conduct set forth in the indictment”.Grillo is one of the more than 1,230 people who have been charged with crimes related to the effort on January 6 to block certification of the 2020 election.In May, 10 days before Santos was indicted in New York on multiple charges of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements, Grillo registered as a candidate for New York’s third congressional district seat – the seat Santos, a Republican, held until his expulsion last week.A special election to replace Santos will be held on 13 February, the New York governor Kathy Hochul announced this week. Under electoral rules there is no primary, so Democrats and Republicans will each pick a candidate to go head-to-head.The candidates have not been announced, but Republicans are reported to be edging toward Jack Martins, a former state senator, and Democrats toward Tom Suozzi, who represented the third congressional district before it was redrawn.However, the Republican selection committee has said it is conducting a formal interview process. Committee chairman Joseph Cairo Jr has said the committee has “15 bona fide candidates” to review, including Grillo.The party will be hoping that mud from the Santos affair does not stick to their candidate, and Republicans in the state of New York have in recent years been more successful in leveraging wider turnout margins and courting independent voters than Democrats.For Democrats, the election will be a test of the party’s ability to flip districts in New York City’s suburbs and exurbs that turned red last year in a blow to the party’s majority in Congress.Veteran strategist Hank Sheinkopf told City & State that Santos’s expulsion would likely benefit Republicans because it made them “look like the defenders of the institution, of ethics, and of the courage to oust one of their own”.“Democrats might just for a moment pause and stop gloating. A gone Santos does not a Democrat replacement necessarily create,” Sheinkopf said.Since his disgrace and ouster, Santos has reportedly been making the equivalent of $174,000 a year by charging $400 for brief personalized video messages on the Cameo service.His profile on Cameo describes him as a “former congressional ‘Icon’!” along with a painted fingernail emoji and as “the expelled member of Congress from New York City”.The Cameo founder and chief executive, Steven Galanis, told CBS MoneyWatch this week that Santos has already booked enough Cameo videos to earn more than his congressional salary.“Assuming he can get through the videos, he will exceed what he made in Congress last year,” Galanis told the outlet. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      McCarthy’s Exit May Create Even More Headaches for the Tiny G.O.P. Majority

      by

      The former speaker’s decision to leave his seat a year early could affect control of the House, the legislative agenda and his party’s efforts to keep its majority in the 2024 election.Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement that he would leave Congress came as little surprise to his closest colleagues, but his decision to do so a year before the end of his term poses challenges for his party. It will shrink Republicans’ already razor-thin majority in the House as they face a number of issues in the coming months that will require near-unanimous party support.The departure of Mr. McCarthy, who was his party’s strongest fund-raiser in the House and spent two election cycles helping to build the Republican majority, also could put a dent in the G.O.P.’s ability to rake in campaign cash, although he has said he wants to continue to play a role in politics.Here’s how Mr. McCarthy’s departure could affect the House and his party.A slim majority will get even slimmer.Republicans started the year acknowledging that one of their biggest challenges would be keeping their party unified as their midterm victories delivered a tiny majority. They had 222 members while Democrats had 213, leaving little room for defectors and making it easier for a small number of disgruntled Republicans to influence policy and vote outcomes.They could afford to lose no more than four votes on any bill if all Democrats showed up and voted against them. Any more than that would doom G.O.P. legislation.With the expulsion last week of former Representative George Santos of New York, Republicans now have only 221 members, meaning their four-vote margin has shrunk to three. Any more defections than that would result in a 217-to-217 tie or give the Democratic side more votes than the Republican one.With Mr. McCarthy gone, Republicans will enter the new year with 220 votes, leaving the same margin since they could still lose three votes and be ahead of Democrats, 217 to 216.A special election for Mr. Santos’s seat is set for Feb. 13, and Democrats hope to recapture the politically competitive district, which President Biden won in 2020. That would further erode the Republicans’ edge.A winter shutdown showdown could become even more unmanageable.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California will have 14 days after Mr. McCarthy’s final day to call a special election, which must take place about four months later. The Bakersfield-anchored district is solidly Republican, meaning that a G.O.P. candidate is likely to win the race to serve out the remainder of his term. But that won’t happen before mid-January, when lawmakers face the first of two deadlines for funding the government.Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, has struggled to push critical legislation through the House, and a slimmer majority would probably empower the rebellious hard-right wing of his party to double down on its policy demands ahead of the deadlines, the second of which is in early February.The smaller majority could also affect the fight over an emergency national security spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine, along with help for Israel in its war against Hamas and border security funding.On Wednesday, Republicans blocked the measure in the Senate. The bill would face an uphill battle in the House, where Republican support for Ukraine’s war effort is dwindling.Republicans will lose their best House fund-raiser.For years, Mr. McCarthy has traveled to hundreds of districts across the country, bringing in millions of dollars in campaign cash for candidates and helping Republicans win control of the House in 2022. He has said he planned to remain engaged in Republican politics.“I will continue to recruit our country’s best and brightest to run for elected office,” Mr. McCarthy said in announcing his plans to leave the House in The Wall Street Journal. “The Republican Party is expanding every day, and I am committed to lending my experience to support the next generation of leaders.”During his time as speaker, Mr. McCarthy brought in $78 million for his colleagues’ re-election efforts, more than 100 times the amount of money Mr. Johnson had collected before becoming speaker.His support of new candidates will be aided by a campaign account with more than $10 million at his disposal. Even after leaving office, Mr. McCarthy can use the campaign funds to establish a political action committee or directly support other campaigns. He has signaled that he would like to play a substantial role, and many lawmakers and aides believe he may intervene in party primaries to target the far-right Republicans who led the push to oust him from the speakership.Republicans are holding their breath for more exits.More than three dozen incumbents from both parties in both chambers have said they will not seek re-election. If even a handful more House Republicans leave in the coming months, it could wipe away their majority before a single vote is cast in the 2024 election. Another Republican, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio, has announced that he will leave Congress in several months to become the president of Youngstown State University, though he has not said precisely when.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, and one of Mr. McCarthy’s strongest allies, expressed her frustration over the eroding majority in a post on social media, saying, “Hopefully no one dies.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans set to block advancement of Ukraine-Israel aid bill

      by

      The Senate will hold a key procedural vote on whether to advance a supplemental funding bill that includes financial aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as provisions aimed at bolstering border security.The vote, which will be held on Wednesday afternoon, is expected to fail due to opposition from Senate Republicans, who have demanded stricter border regulations in exchange for their support.The vote comes one day after Senate Democrats formally unveiled the $111bn supplemental security bill, reflecting the funding request that Joe Biden issued in October to provide assistance to the US’s allies abroad.Ahead of the vote, Biden delivered an address to urge Congress to pass the bill, warning that a failure to act would only benefit Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, in the war against Ukraine.“Who is prepared to walk away from holding Putin accountable for this behavior? Who among us is really prepared to do that?” Biden said. “I’m not prepared to walk away, and I don’t think the American people are either.”Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, addressed leaders of the G7 group of nations and called on them to confound Vladimir Putin by winning “the battle of motivations” and not showing weakness.The G7 leaders met by video at short notice in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian leader that included trying to breathe new life into the sanctions against Russia.Zelenskiy thanked G7 leaders for their support, and warned that Moscow was counting on collapse of western support for Ukraine. “Russia believes America and Europe will show weakness and will not maintain support for Ukraine at the proper level. Putin believes the free world will not fully enforce its own sanctions and the Russian elite mocks the world’s doubts about using Russian assets to compensate for damage from Russian aggression,” he said.“All these are part of a much broader issue – what can freedom do and what can dictatorships do. We must answer these questions together.”Although the bill includes a number of border security measures, Republicans in both chambers have insisted the legislation must go further in restricting migrants’ asylum and parole applications. Those proposals are a non-starter for many Democrats, making it unclear how a supplemental bill can pass the divided Congress.Biden said on Wednesday that he was willing to make “significant compromises on the border,” but he accused Republicans of taking an all-or-nothing approach to the immigration talks.“This has to be a negotiation,” Biden said. “Republicans think they can get everything they want without any bipartisan compromise. That’s not the answer.”Those tensions spilled over on Tuesday night, when a classified Senate briefing on Ukraine erupted into a shouting match. Zelenskiy was scheduled to speak at the briefing, but he was forced to cancel due to a “last-minute” issue, according to the Democratic Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer.The briefing still occurred despite Zelenskiy’s absence, but Schumer then accused Republicans of having “hijacked” the meeting to discuss border security. Republicans then criticized Schumer for refusing to address the crucial issues that created the current standoff.“Republicans are just walking out of the briefing because the people there are not willing to actually discuss what it takes to get a deal done,” Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican of Utah, said.With no resolution in sight, Senate Republicans are expected to successfully filibuster the supplemental security bill, blocking it from advancing. The impasse increases the likelihood that Congress will fail to approve more aid for Ukraine before the end of the year, as the White House has warned that Kyiv is desperately in need of more financial assistance.“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Shalanda Young, the director of the office of management and budget, wrote in a letter to congressional leaders on Monday.“There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money – and nearly out of time.”Even as Republicans have raised serious concerns about the border provisions of the bill, the $10bn allocated for aid to Israel has sparked criticism from Bernie Sanders . In a letter sent to his colleagues on Tuesday, the progressive Vermont senator warned against providing a “blank check” to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, as the death toll in Gaza continues to climb.“No, I do not think we should be appropriating $10.1bn for the right-wing, extremist Netanyahu government to continue its current military strategy,” Sanders wrote. “What the Netanyahu government is doing is immoral, it is in violation of international law, and the United States should not be complicit in those actions.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Is Latest House Democrat to Face a Primary Over Israel Stance

      by

      George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, told The New York Times he would run against Mr. Bowman, a rising star of the Democratic left, next year.After months of public deliberation and prodding from donors aligned with Israel, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, said on Wednesday that he would mount a Democratic primary challenge against Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York.The decision set the stage for a potentially explosive contest next year that promises to test not only the growing Democratic divide over the war in the Middle East but the durability of the party’s progressive wing.In an interview, Mr. Latimer drew sharp contrasts between himself and Mr. Bowman, one of left’s most vocal critics of Israel. He dismissed the incumbent’s calls for a cease-fire as premature and called a recent protest outside the White House, where the congressman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a political stunt.“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” said Mr. Latimer, who has deep ties to the Democratic establishment. “So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras.”He was expected to officially begin his campaign with a video announcement later on Wednesday, just days after returning from a wartime visit to the region.The nascent contest echoes primary fights breaking out from Pittsburgh to Detroit since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack, as pro-Israel Democrats try to oust members of the House “Squad” pushing for a cease-fire. Like the other challengers, Mr. Latimer is expected to benefit from millions of dollars in outside spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other special interest groups.The race in the New York City suburbs, though, may be uniquely complex. It pits a charismatic Black progressive with a growing national profile against an old-school white liberal with deep local support. And it will play out in a district that is both home to one of the country’s most influential Jewish communities and also nearly half Black or Latino.Mr. Latimer said he shared many of Mr. Bowman’s progressive priorities but would avoid the incumbent’s “showmanship.”Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesMr. Latimer tread carefully around many of those fault lines as he outlined his candidacy this week, insisting that he was preparing for a campaign that would go well beyond the issue of Israel.Mr. Latimer, in his second term as county executive, urged voters not to judge him on his age, 70, or the color of his skin. Citing his four decades in elected office, he said would continue many of the progressive priorities on housing, climate change and transportation that Mr. Bowman has championed. And he avoided outright attacks on the incumbent beyond charging that Mr. Bowman was more interested in making his name than tending to his district.“If you ignore that turf because you’re a national figure and more interested in being on the national stage, then you are neglecting the needs of that community,” Mr. Latimer said.The challenge comes at a moment of profound political vulnerability for Mr. Bowman, 47, and not just because of his stance on the war. The congressman is still dealing with the repercussions of pleading guilty in October to pulling a false fire alarm in a House office building. And he has just $185,000 in his campaign account, according to recent filings.AIPAC, which privately offered Mr. Latimer its support months ago, could easily swamp that amount on its own. Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the group, declined to discuss the group’s spending plans this week but denounced Mr. Bowman as a representative of “the anti-Israel extremist fringe.”Mr. Bowman’s advisers and allies say defeating him may be far more difficult than his foes anticipate. Some of the left’s most influential figures were already lining up to fight back, determined to show the staying power of their movement three years after they first helped Mr. Bowman, a former middle school principal, topple a powerful three-decade incumbent, Eliot L. Engel.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Mr. Bowman’s best-known ally, circulated a fund-raising appeal on his behalf. Left-leaning groups, including New York’s Working Families Party and Justice Democrats, have pledged resources. For now, each appear to see value in framing the primary as a conflict as one with pro-Israel special interests, not the county executive.“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican megadonors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz have recruited a candidate for this race,” said Emma Simon, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bowman’s campaign.The primary battle is one Democrats had wished to avoid. The party already hopes to flip six Republican-held swing seats in New York next year, which is key to taking back the House majority. Some Democrats have expressed concern that a pro-Israel advertising blitz against Mr. Bowman would inadvertently tarnish the party’s candidates in competitive races in neighboring districts to the north and west.Now that the matchup is underway, though, it poses a quandary for Democratic leaders, particularly Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Mr. Jeffries, the top House Democrat, has said he would continue the party’s longstanding policy of supporting incumbents like Mr. Bowman, even if his own views on Israel are more conservative. But Mr. Latimer said he had not received a call from Mr. Jeffries asking him not to run, and the House leader may soon have to decide how hard to fight to protect Mr. Bowman.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.His allies argue that there is good reason to believe many voters agree with his views, but that for many, Israel will not be a decisive issue when they cast their primary ballots next June.About half of voters in the district, which stretches from the north Bronx through many of Westchester’s liberal suburbs, are Black and Latino, according to census data. The figure is even higher among Democratic primary voters. By comparison, about 10 percent of all voters and about 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters are Jewish.Mr. Bowman has repeatedly said he is standing by his position on Israel for a simpler reason: He believes in it.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesHe summarized his views outside the White House last week, where he joined protesters calling on President Biden to support a bilateral cease-fire. He used terms that most Democrats have objected to, including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” in describing Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, which has killed some 15,000 people, according to the local health authorities. He accused the United States of “being complicit” in those deaths. But he also condemned those targeting Israelis or Jews and repeated his earlier denunciations of Hamas.“Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” he said. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”In the interview, Mr. Latimer said he, too, was eager to see the bloodshed in Gaza end, but only after Hamas returned the remaining Israeli hostages it abducted on Oct. 7 and agreed “to step aside from violence.” Anything short of that would amount to unilateral disarmament by Israel, he argued.Mr. Latimer said he did not “know enough” to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive had violated international law. “I’m not a secretary of state,” he said.He also rejected Mr. Bowman’s proposal for the United States to place conditions on the billions of military aid it provides to Israel. “That is a matter that I think is best left to the presidential administration,” Mr. Latimer said.He was more pointed about attempts by Mr. Bowman and his allies to build public pressure on Mr. Biden through protests and media appearances. Mr. Latimer called Mr. Bowman’s appearance outside the White House “the classic response of somebody who has been in government a couple of years.”“If you want to influence the policy of the president, you begin with the dialogue you have with your other members of Democratic Caucus,” he said. “When you have a consensus movement, that becomes more impressive to an executive.” More