Kerry, John

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares99 Views

    The Volodymyr Zelensky-Donald Trump Divide Looms at Davos

    by

    Ukraine’s leader and the potential re-election of Donald Trump as president are dominating discussion at the World Economic Forum. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, tried to tamp down worries about Donald Trump, and whether his potential re-election would lead to a drop in support for his country.Radek Pietruszka/EPA, via ShutterstockZelensky and Trump loom over Davos Two people are having an outsize impact at the World Economic Forum, and one of them isn’t even there.One is Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, who put on a full-court press of business and global leaders at the forum in Davos, Switzerland. The other is Donald Trump, whose potential re-election is dominating the discussion among attendees.Zelensky used an expletive to describe a Trump claim about containing Vladimir Putin. At a Q. and A. with journalists that Andrew moderated, Zelensky dismissed the idea that Trump could stop the Russian president from going after other parts of Europe. Putin, he added, “will not stop — but the question is what will the U.S. and Trump do after this point, because in this case it will mean that Europe lost the most useful and most strong army in Europe because we lost Ukraine.”Zelensky initially sought to tamp down worries about Trump, and whether his potential re-election would lead to a drop in support for Ukraine. But he also appeared somewhat fearful about the prospect. “One man cannot change the whole nation,” Zelensky said in the Q. and A., adding that deciding on the next president is “a choice for the American nation and only the American nation.”The Ukrainian leader acknowledged that a win for Trump, who has opposed U.S. aid to Ukraine, could affect his country’s military campaign or settlement talks. “Radical voices from the Republican Party” have created tension and pain for the Ukrainian people, he said.Zelensky isn’t the only leader at Davos worried about Trump. Multiple attendees have told DealBook that the outcome of the election is a potential risk for business, particularly after the former president thumped his Republican rivals in the Iowa caucuses.The Ukrainian leader has sought to shore up global business support. He spoke at a private gathering of executives organized by JPMorgan Chase, which is advising Ukraine on its reconstruction efforts.In the audience at the Congress Center for the talk were Steve Schwarzman of Blackstone, Ray Dalio of Bridgewater, David Rubenstein of Carlyle and Michael Dell of Dell, DealBook hears.Zelensky also spoke about how U.S.-China tensions are affecting Ukraine. Bringing Beijing on board with the country’s reconstruction is important, given China’s size and influence on Russia, he told the C.E.O.s. But Ukraine is seen as an American concern, not a global one.Seen and heard around town: The traffic on the main street was so bad that John Kerry, President Biden’s climate envoy, hoofed it to a meeting. And the annual wine tasting hosted by Anthony Scaramucci, the financier and former Trump official, well, ran out of wine.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING Rate-cut concerns rattle the markets. European stocks and bonds are down this morning, after Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank president, warned that interest rates may not fall until the summer, and inflation in Britain rose unexpectedly. U.S. futures are also down after Christopher Waller, a Fed governor, signaled yesterday that it was premature to consider a rate cut in the first quarter.Disney formally rejected Nelson Peltz’s board nominees. The entertainment giant has submitted a slate of directors — including James Gorman of Morgan Stanley and Mary Barra of General Motors — and snubbed the activist investor, who has criticized Disney over strategy and succession planning. Separately, compensation for Bob Iger, Disney’s C.E.O., for fiscal 2023 topped $31 million.BP appoints a new C.E.O. The energy giant today named as its new chief Murray Auchincloss. The former C.F.O. stepped in as interim chief four months ago after his predecessor, Bernard Looney resigned for failing to disclose relationships with employees. Auchincloss has indicated that he will follow Looney’s strategy to build up the company’s renewables business and cut back its oil and gas production by the end of the decade.China’s conundrum China delivered a double dose of bad news this morning, pushing down markets in Asia. Official data shows that the economy grew last year at its slowest pace in decades and that the country’s population declined again.The readings are another sign of deeper problems in the world’s second-largest economy, as it grapples with a property crisis, weak consumer confidence, falling exports, deflationary pressures and big demographic challenges.The economy grew 5.2 percent last year, up from 3 percent in 2022 when strict coronavirus restrictions were in place. That was better than the official target of about 5 percent but 2024 is expected to be tougher, with a Reuters poll of analysts forecasting growth that will probably slow to 4.6 percent.The population decline points to bigger challenges. The country recorded more deaths than births for a second straight year. Beijing is worried because fewer people means fewer consumers, and it needs working-age people to fuel growth. Retail sales in December were lower than expectations, too, while industrial output barely surpassed them.A post-Covid boost hasn’t materialized. “Chinese authorities and some international economists believed that China’s economic downturn in the past few years was caused by the “zero Covid” policy,” Yi Fuxian, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on Chinese demographics, told DealBook. “But China’s economic recovery was much weaker than expected last year, as the core drivers of the downturn were aging and a declining work force.”Structural reforms are needed to address these new realities. But for the short term, China will continue to rely on export-led growth at a time when many Western companies are already looking to move parts of their supply chains elsewhere.A federal judge has struck down JetBlue’s proposed $3.8 billion deal to buy Spirit Airlines, which would have been the biggest such tie-up in a decade.Allison Dinner/EPA, via ShutterstockAn airline deal hits turbulence The Biden administration scored a major victory yesterday after a federal judge struck down JetBlue’s proposed $3.8 billion acquisition of Spirit Airlines, a low-cost rival, ruling that the merger would harm competition.The decision blocks the airline sector’s biggest attempted tie-up in the U.S. in over a decade, and throws into question the industry’s efforts to consolidate. President Biden hailed the ruling as “a victory for consumers everywhere who want lower prices and more choices.”The Biden administration says airline mergers have made travel more costly. Last year, the Justice Department won a lawsuit that forced JetBlue and American Airlines to end a regional code-sharing alliance.The Justice Department argued that a JetBlue-Spirit combination would remove a low-cost competitor from the market, messing with the economics of airfares. The judge, William Young, agreed, saying that combining forces would “likely incentivize JetBlue further to abandon its roots as a maverick, low-cost carrier.”Shares in Spirit plunged after the decision. Stock in the budget airline, which received bailout funding during the coronavirus pandemic’s early days and is known for its yellow planes and no-frills service, sank 47 percent yesterday. The companies have not yet said whether they will appeal.What next? Alaska Airlines’s $1.9 billion deal to acquire Hawaiian Airlines could also face tough scrutiny.Big fish to fry at the Supreme Court The Supreme Court justices will hear a case today that started with commercial herring fishermen challenging a rule about paying the regulators who oversaw them. The legal fight is hugely consequential, and could ultimately limit the powers of federal agencies.The case challenges the power of administrative law. Courts today must defer to the hundreds of agencies that interpret a mountain of federal rules in regulating industry. Critics say this doctrine — known as Chevron deference — handcuffs judges, robbing them of the power to review and reverse agency actions.Lawyers for the fishermen are expected to argue that the principle should be overruled, or at least simplified. The arguments won’t fall on deaf ears. Justice Neil Gorsuch has written that the Chevron deference doctrine “deserves a tombstone.”The death of the principle could hobble regulators because their decisions could be overturned in court. Such a prospect is key to conservatives seeking a weaker administrative state. Court records show that the fishermen’s lawyers have links to Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch, The Times’s Hiroko Tabuchi reports. Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries, is a longtime supporter of anti-regulatory causes.This case is part of a larger conservative campaign. A 2022 Supreme Court decision that constrained the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority on emissions regulation bolstered right-leaning activists. That case has helped opened the door to further legal challenges to regulators’ powers, including one this term involving the S.E.C.What to watch for in 2024 The Atlantic Council, an international affairs research organization, gave DealBook a first look at its annual list of the top risks, opportunities and under-the-radar phenomena to watch this year.Geopolitical conflict is a big focus. There is a “medium to high” probability that the Israel-Hamas war widens, according to the analysis, and that is underscored by intensifying U.S.-led strikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels who are attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea corridor.Other hot spots include Ukraine and Taiwan. The West could pull back funding for Ukraine, the report’s authors write, making a Russian victory more likely. Meanwhile, China could choke off Taiwanese ports with a naval blockade rather than risking an invasion of the self-governed island nation.“Smartifacts” may be an opportunity. Cars, appliances and personal electronics will increasingly be equipped with artificial intelligence to better interact with the physical world, the analysts write. They predict that “2024 will be the year when A.I. goes mainstream, and not just on our screens,” potentially yielding an “entirely new class of devices.”Could white paint be an under-the-radar opportunity? The Atlantic Council also compiles an annual list of underappreciated risks and opportunities that it calls “snow leopards,” named for the well-camouflaged mountain cats.This year, the list includes super reflective white paint that can help reduce emissions and reliance on energy by reflecting 98 percent of the sun’s rays. “It’s one of those things that seems pretty simple, but it could have an outsize impact,” said Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the organization.THE SPEED READ DealsUber is shutting Drizly, the alcohol-delivery business it bought in 2021 for $1.1 billion. (WSJ)Investors are raising billions to buy discounted stakes in venture capital-backed tech start-ups. (FT)Synopsys, a supplier to the chips sector, has agreed to buy Ansys, a software firm, for $35 billion. (NYT)PolicyThe Supreme Court denied a request to hear an antitrust case between Epic Games and Apple, leaving a lower-court ruling that was seen as a win for Apple in place. (Axios)Congressional leaders agreed a $78 billion deal to expand the child tax credit and other popular expired business tax breaks. (NYT)Best of the restHarvard is trying to smooth relations with Silicon Valley after turmoil over antisemitism on campus. (WSJ)“Airbus Is Pulling Ahead as Boeing’s Troubles Mount” (NYT)Hockey die-hards are building snazzy new rinks in their backyards. (WSJ)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Climate is on the Ballot Around the World

      by

      About half of the world’s population will be electing leaders this year.More than 40 countries that are home to about half of the world’s population — including the United States, India and South Africa — will be electing their leaders this year.My colleagues at The Times report that it’s “one of the largest and most consequential democratic exercises in living memory,” which “will affect how the world is run for decades to come.”Climate is front and center on many of the ballots. The leaders chosen in this year’s elections will face daunting challenges laid out in global climate commitments for the end of the decade, such as ending deforestation, tripling renewable energy capacity and sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.Here are the issues and races to watch closely:Major climate policies at stakeClimate change is one of the issues on which Republicans and Democrats are farthest apart.President Biden signed what many called the most powerful climate legislation in the country’s history. Former President Trump, who is likely to be the Republican presidential candidate — especially after his victory in the Iowa caucuses — withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the 2015 treaty that guided much of the world’s progress in curbing climate change.Republicans have also prepared a sweeping strategy called Project 2025 if Trump wins back the White House. As my colleague Lisa Friedman wrote last year, “the plan calls for shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, is expected to seek re-election.Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockEuropean Union incumbents will also be defending their climate policies, known as the Green Deal, in elections for the European Parliament in June. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president who is expected to seek re-election by the European Parliament, kicked off a series of policies designed to ensure the bloc achieves carbon neutrality by 2050. But opposition to these policies is growing. Farmers in several countries have tried to block measures to restore natural ecosystems, while homeowners have grown increasingly worried about the cost of the green energy transition.Opinion polls analyzed by Reuters in a commentary piece suggest far-right lawmakers, who oppose Green Deal policies, will grow in number but remain a minority. Climate may also play a role in elections in Britain, which may happen in the second half of the year. They became a key point of disagreement between the Labour Party and the governing Conservative Party, which are trailing in the polls, after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rolled back some of the country’s most ambitious climate policies.The future of coalCountries that rely heavily on coal as a source of energy, such as India, Indonesia and South Africa, are also going to the polls this year. In South Africa, elections could influence how fast the country is able to switch to renewables. Any shake up to the ruling African National Congress’ hold on power could boost the shift to renewables, my colleague Lynsey Chutel, who covers South Africa, told me.Environmental activists demonstrated outside of Standard Bank South Africa in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September.Kim Ludbrook/EPA, via ShutterstockRight now, one of the party’s most powerful leaders is an energy minister who has fiercely defended the country’s continued use of coal. Many voters are angry at the A.N.C. for its inability to address an energy crisis partially created by aging coal plants.There seems to be less room for a shift in the elections in Indonesia and India. My colleague Suhasini Raj, who is based in India, told me that, despite high rates of pollution and the pressure on India to let go of coal, the current prime minister Narendra Modi is likely to be re-elected and continue his pro-coal policies.In Indonesia none of the candidates running for president have put forward a concrete plan to transition to clean energy, Mongabay, an environmental news service, reported. The country is by far the world’s biggest exporter of coal. Oil on the ballotFor leaders in oil producing nations around the world, balancing climate policies and drilling has been a delicate act that will be tested on the ballot.President Biden risked losing the support of many climate-conscious voters when he approved Willow, an $8 billion oil drilling project on pristine federal land in Alaska. But Biden’s support for more drilling has been, at least in part, an effort to curb inflation, which angers many more voters.Claudia Sheinbaum’s presidential campaign in Mexico is also balancing climate proposals with her country’s dependence on oil. A climate scientist who is now the mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum is a protégé of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whose administration has tried to boost the oil sector’s role in the country’s economy.Claudia Sheinbaum, running for president in Mexico.Carlos Lopez/EPA, via ShutterstockSheinbaum, a favorite to win in June, has vowed to act to protect the climate. But it’s unclear how much Obrador’s oil legacy will color her policies. “We are going to keep advancing with renewable energies and with the protection of the environment, but without betraying the people of Mexico,” she told voters, according to Bloomberg.The oil industry is also on the ballot in Venezuela and Russia, where it lends strength to authoritarian leaders.Vladimir Putin’s re-election — and his disregard for the climate — seems to be a foregone conclusion. But, in Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, there is tiny window for change, though it seems to be closing fast.Venezuela freed five political prisoners in October after the United States vowed to lift some sanctions to its oil industry if it holds free and fair elections. But the main opposition candidate is still banned from running.It may sound contradictory, but some investment in Venezuela’s oil sector could help clean it up. As my colleagues reported last year, government dysfunction has left the industry unable to maintain minimum safeguards, with devastating consequences to the environment.We will report back with key developments on these races throughout the year. When it comes to the climate crisis, even far-off elections have implications for us all. Plaintiffs in the Loper Bright Enterprises case, from left, William Bright, Wayne Reichle and Stefan Axelsson, in Cape May, N.J.Rachel Wisniewski for The New York TimesA Supreme Court case could dismantle federal regulationThe Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday for a case that could severely curb the federal government’s regulatory power, with potentially drastic repercussions for the climate.The case is about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee designed to help prevent overfishing. But a victory for the fishermen could achieve a long-sought goal of the conservative legal movement: undermining a longstanding legal doctrine known as the Chevron deference.That could have implications for the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other sectors, legal experts told my colleague Hiroko Tabuchi.“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”The Chevron deference was created by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling involving the oil and gas giant. It empowers federal agencies to interpret ambiguities in laws passed by Congress. Weakening or eliminating the Chevron deference would limit the agencies’s ability to interpret the laws they administer. A victory for the fishermen would also shift power from agencies to judges, my colleague Adam Liptak wrote.The lawyers who have helped to propel the case to the nation’s highest court have a powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch. Court records show that the lawyers who represent the New Jersey-based fishermen also work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by Koch, who is a champion of anti-regulatory causes.In their briefs, the groups supporting the fishermen pointed out that the Chevron deference has fallen out of favor at the Supreme Court in recent years, and several justices have criticized it.Justice Clarence Thomas was initially a backer of the Chevron deference, writing the concurring opinion in 2005 that expanded its protections. But Thomas, who has close ties to the Koch’s political network, has since renounced his earlier ruling. Other climate newsNearly a quarter of humanity were living under drought in 2022 and 2023, the United Nations estimates.The Biden administration announced a plan to charge oil and gas companies a steep fee for emitting methane.John Kerry, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, plans to step down in the spring.A U.S. government map that show extreme weather threats now frequently covers almost the whole country.Chevron, the oil giant, and other companies are building an underground hydrogen battery in Utah.Denial about climate change is on the rise, according to an analysis of 12,000 disinformation videos by U.K. researchers, Grist reports.Colombia created its newest national park by befriending the traditional ranches that surround it.The Crochet Coral Reef, a long-running craft-science collaborative artwork, is the environmental version of the AIDS quilt. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis Confront a Ticking Clock

      by

      The holiday season is upon us. Which means that while Americans are recovering from an orgy of overeating and Black Friday shopping, the political world is easing into the next phase of the presidential election: primary crunchtime.The period between Thanksgiving and the first presidential primaries and caucuses in January and February is typically full of flux and ferment. The contenders sharpen their messages. The campaigns flood Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-going states with additional money and people and ads. So many ads. More voters start paying attention. Watching candidates surge and fizzle, focus and fold, you often can get a sense of how they respond under pressure. And if there’s one thing a president needs to be able to handle, it’s pressure.In a normal election, these early contests can bring all kinds of surprises. In 2000, John McCain’s maverick run upset George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, jolting the Republican nomination race. In 2004, during the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses that January, a floundering John Kerry loosened up, warmed up and crisped up his message (“The real deal”!) in the Democratic race, crushing the dreams of the anti-establishment darling Howard Dean. (Remember the Dean scream? Good times.) In the 2008 election, Team Obama started working Iowa early and just kept turning the heat up as caucus night approached, driving a stake through Hillary Clinton’s aura of inevitability. And so on.This time, obviously, the state of play is different. With Donald Trump, the Republican contest includes a de facto incumbent whose dominance looks all but insurmountable. Some players have already left the field. Others need to leave A.S.A.P. (Looking at you, Asa and Doug.)But this race is not over. In fact, not a single vote has been cast. And for all Mr. Trump’s advantages, he’s lugging around some heavy baggage that gives the primary a tremor of instability.Damon Winter/The New York TimesHe is up to his wattle in criminal indictments, and even if none land him in prison, the grinding stress and his advanced age look to be taking a toll on his mental acuity. Watching his increasingly disjointed rants, one cannot help but think, “Something ain’t right.” He seems as likely as President Biden to suffer a serious health event — maybe more if you factor in all those burgers. As the primaries grind on, any number of developments could convince soft Trump voters that the MAGA king is a bad bet.All of which is to say that the Republican primary fight remains vital. And as we head into this crucial stretch, it is time for the most promising Trump challengers — who at this point appear to be Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley — to hunker down and show us what they are made of.Both of these aspiring Trump slayers have the same core aim: to convince primary voters that the former president is no longer the right man for the job — that he is America’s past, while they are its future. Think of it as this year’s version of Obama’s “change” theme.They are coming at this from dramatically different places. Iowa is make or break for Mr. DeSantis, who has gone all in on the state. This makes it especially unsettling for his team that Ms. Haley has caught up with him there in recent polling. Mr. DeSantis has long benefited from the belief by many in the G.O.P. establishment that he is the party’s most electable option: Trump but competent, as the sales pitch goes. If he places behind both Mr. Trump and Ms. Haley, then limps to a second defeat in New Hampshire — where recent polling shows him in fourth place, at best — that electability argument goes splat.The next several weeks are basically Mr. DeSantis’s last shot at breaking through, and it’s increasingly hard to see how he does so. He has tried to walk that fine messaging line of presenting himself as the MAGA choice for a new generation. But selling Trump Lite to a base still drunk on the original has proved difficult. More problematic, early signs are that the recent consolidation of the non-MAGA part of the field, especially Senator Tim Scott’s departure, will benefit Ms. Haley more than Mr. DeSantis. Then there’s the cold reality that Meatball Ron is a lousy retail politician, a real handicap in early-voting states, where people take their face-to-face schmoozing with candidates very seriously.That said, Team DeSantis is determined not to get outworked — which is also something Iowans take very seriously. “In Iowa,” Tom Vilsack, the state’s 40th governor, once observed, “it is not the message; it is the relationship.” In October the campaign announced it was shipping about a third of its Florida-based staff to Iowa until the caucuses. In mid-November, three top players were dispatched: the deputy campaign manager, the national political director and the communications chief, according to Politico. Additional offices are being opened across the state, and more aides are expected to be dispatched in December. He scored the endorsement of Iowa’s governor, Kim Reynolds. If Mr. DeSantis is smart, he’ll be shaking hands and smooching babies in the state every waking moment between now and caucus night on Jan. 15.Ms. Haley has sought to strike more of a balance between Iowa and New Hampshire. This makes a certain sense, seeing as how the quirky Granite State, with a large number of independents who vote in the primaries, seems more fertile ground for her brand of politics than does Iowa, whose Republican base is heavy on religious conservatives. (White evangelicals do love them some Trump.) She has been toggling between events in both places, and last month her campaign announced that starting in December, it would be running an additional $10 million in ads across the two states. She recently rolled out a list of 72 endorsements from prominent political and business figures in Iowa. Her campaign has not been scrambling to flood the zone with staff members, à la Team DeSantis, perhaps because it isn’t feeling the heat quite as much.Ms. Haley is going hard with the message that she is the face of a new generation, unburdened by Trumpian drama and, unlike Mr. DeSantis, able to unite rather than divide Americans to get things done. (Pragmatism has been a central theme in her strong debate showings.) Playing to the coalition of Trump-skeptical Republicans and independents, she is walking a clearer, cleaner path than Mr. DeSantis.Whether she can get many Republicans to follow her is the billion-dollar question. She too needs to plant herself in Iowa and New Hampshire for the rest of this year and loudly tout her presence there to avoid looking as though she cares less than Mr. DeSantis. (Early state voters are so sensitive.) And she could use a few more breakout moments. She has been a star of the Republican debates, for instance, but she has spent more time carving up Vivek Ramaswamy — which, to be clear, has been glorious to behold — than raising doubts about Mr. Trump or even Mr. DeSantis. In January 2004, Mr. Kerry used a debate to devastating effect against Mr. Dean, confronting him with comments he had made about how he could not prejudge the guilt of Osama bin Laden for Sept. 11. “What in the world were you thinking?” Mr. Kerry asked. Mr. Dean had some lame reply about being “obligated to stand for the rule of law.” Ms. Haley has maybe two debates pre-Iowa to strike a memorable blow. While she has the disadvantage of Mr. Trump not being on the debate stage, she is nimble enough to make the most of lines like “If Donald Trump were here, I would ask him ….”“Pressure. It changes everything,” observed Al Pacino in the deliciously cheesy horror flick “The Devil’s Advocate.” For Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis, the window for disrupting this race and making their mark is closing soon. ’Tis the season to go big or go home.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Las lecciones de las campañas de Bush y Obama para Biden

      by

      En manos de un candidato hábil, las encuestas preliminares pueden ser un mapa de ruta para darle un giro total a una campaña en dificultades.Mucho antes del día de las elecciones en 2004, algunos estrategas le advirtieron al presidente George W. Bush que tendría una campaña difícil porque los electores estaban angustiados por la guerra en Irak y la economía, dos temas que esperaba sortear para llegar a un segundo mandato.Los asesores de Bush se apresuraron a restructurar la campaña. Su meta fue evitar que el público centrara su atención en el presidente y su historial y lograr, más bien, presentar al opositor demócrata más probable, el senador de Massachusetts, John Kerry, veterano de la guerra de Vietnam, como alguien que cambiaba de opinión con facilidad, que no era de fiar en temas de seguridad nacional y que no podía guiar a la nación, que todavía estaba recuperándose de los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre.“Identificamos una debilidad que sin duda podríamos explotar en nuestro beneficio en unas elecciones que se esperaba que fueran cerradas”, explicó Karl Rove, asesor político sénior de Bush durante mucho tiempo.Ocho años después, los asesores de otro presidente en funciones, Barack Obama, gracias a su análisis de varias encuestas públicas y privadas, llegaron a la conclusión de que las inquietudes de los votantes en torno a los efectos persistentes de la Gran Recesión y la dirección de la nación podrían arruinar sus posibilidades de llegar a un segundo mandato.Siguiendo el ejemplo de Bush, Obama ajustó su campaña y, en vez de poner énfasis en los logros obtenidos durante su primer mandato, se concentró en desacreditar a su opositor, el exgobernador de Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, presentándolo como un empresario adinerado totalmente desconectado de los estadounidenses de clase trabajadora.En esta era de división y polarización, el presidente Joe Biden no es el primero en recibir datos que parecen indicar que su reelección está en riesgo. El problema es que las campañas de reelección de Bush y Obama, quienes lograron ganar un segundo mandato en la Casa Blanca, ahora más bien son prueba de que las encuestas realizadas con tanta anticipación no pueden predecir lo que ocurrirá el día de las elecciones. En manos de un candidato hábil, incluso pueden ser un mapa de ruta para darle un giro total a una campaña en dificultades.Bush y Obama eran candidatos diferentes y enfrentaban obstáculos distintos: en el caso de Bush, el embrollo de una guerra; en el de Obama, una economía nacional sacudida por la crisis financiera global de 2008. Sin embargo, ambos decidieron transformar su campana de reelección de un referendo sobre el presidente en funciones a una operación para resaltar cuánto contrastaban con un opositor que ellos mismos definieron, con anuncios televisivos fulminantes, meses antes de que Romney o Kerry fueran nominados en las convenciones de sus partidos.En el caso contrario, un presidente republicano de la era moderna que perdió las elecciones para un segundo mandato, George H.W. Bush en 1992, cometió el error de ignorar los datos mostrados por las encuestas sobre la angustia de los electores en el tema de la economía y su avidez de un cambio tras 12 años de republicanos en la Casa Blanca.Bush padre, según dijeron sus asesores en entrevistas recientes, se confió por el reconocimiento del que fue objeto por su papel al frente de la coalición que expulsó a Saddam Hussein e Irak de Kuwait, además del desdén que sentía por su opositor, un joven gobernador demócrata que había evitado el reclutamiento militar y tenía un historial de relaciones extramaritales.El expresidente Barack Obama reformuló su campaña para centrarse en desacreditar a su oponente, Mitt Romney, y mostrarlo como un empresario adinerado totalmente desconectado de los estadounidenses de clase trabajadora.Doug Mills/The New York Times“Biden tiene grandes dificultades, pero creo que es posible ganar la contienda”, aseveró David Plouffe, antiguo asesor sénior en la campaña de reelección de Obama. “Claro que comprendo que un presidente o gobernador en funciones piense que las personas deban saber más sobre sus logros. Es cierto, pero, a fin de cuentas, esto es un ejercicio comparativo. Eso fue lo que descubrimos”.La Casa Blanca de Biden ha desestimado las encuestas —incluida una realizada por The New York Times en colaboración con el Siena College que se dio a conocer recientemente— por considerarlas poco significativas tanto tiempo antes de las elecciones. Los asesores del presidente indicaron que las victorias demócratas en las elecciones de este mes demuestran que el partido y su abanderado están en una buena posición.Sin embargo, después de meses de una campaña basada en sus logros económicos con pocas señales de éxito, Biden ha comenzado a centrar su atención en Donald Trump, el expresidente republicano que probablemente sea su opositor, en particular en sus políticas de inmigración y derecho al aborto. Por este motivo ahora se transmite un anuncio en el que el expresidente aparece caminando por un campo de golf mientras se escucha al anunciante decir que Trump apoyó los recortes fiscales “para sus amigos ricos”, mientras que las empresas estadounidenses fabricantes de automóviles tuvieron que cerrar plantas.“Por supuesto que estamos considerando opciones para propiciar conversaciones en torno a Trump y MAGA (sigla del eslogan “Hagamos a Estados Unidos grandioso de nuevo”) lo más que se pueda”, comentó Kevin Munoz, vocero para la campaña de Biden. No obstante, Munoz añadió: “Estamos en una posición diferente a la de Obama y Bush. Tuvimos excelentes resultados en las elecciones de medio mandato. Hemos tenido elecciones especiales muy exitosas. Nuestra teoría se demostró de nuevo el martes pasado”.Cambiar drásticamente la dinámica de la contienda puede resultar menos fructífero para Biden que para sus predecesores. Obama y George W. Bush lograron desacreditar a Romney y Kerry porque los electores, en esa etapa temprana de la campaña para las elecciones generales, no sabían mucho de ellos.En cambio, no hay mucho que la campaña de Biden pueda decirles a los electores acerca de Trump que no sepan ya (de hecho, tampoco pueden decirles mucho sobre Biden que no sepan ya). Además, al menos hasta ahora, Trump no ha pagado ningún costo político por el tipo de declaraciones (como cuando se refirió a sus críticos como “alimañas”) que en el pasado podrían haber estropeado las probabilidades de un candidato más convencional. Hasta ahora, el hecho de que se hayan presentado acusaciones formales en su contra por 91 delitos del ámbito penal en cuatro casos solo ha afianzado su apoyo.Cuando la campaña de Bush comenzó a planificar su reelección, se enfrentó a cifras de encuestas que, si bien no eran tan inquietantes para el presidente como algunas que han salido a la luz en las últimas semanas sobre Biden, sí eran motivo de preocupación. Una encuesta realizada por el Centro de Investigaciones Pew reveló que el 46 por ciento de los encuestados dijo que las políticas económicas de Bush habían empeorado la economía y el 39 por ciento dijo que las tropas estadounidenses debían regresar de Irak lo antes posible; frente al 32 por ciento del mes anterior.“Decidimos desde el principio que queríamos que las elecciones giraran en torno a la seguridad nacional, aunque la economía fuera el tema número uno”, dijo Matthew Dowd, el principal estratega de la campaña de Bush en 2004. “Estábamos en desventaja respecto a los demócratas en materia económica. Y como parte de esa estrategia, deseábamos definir a Kerry negativamente en materia de seguridad nacional desde el principio, y como un líder débil e inseguro para poder posicionar a Bush como un líder fuerte y sólido en materia de seguridad nacional”.Al poco tiempo, la campaña de Bush estaba al aire con anuncios que atacaban a Kerry por comprometerse a revertir la Ley Patriota, la cual le otorgaba al gobierno federal mayores poderes para perseguir a terroristas. Esa ley fue aprobada poco después de los ataques del 11 de septiembre con un apoyo abrumador en el Congreso, incluido Kerry.“John Kerry. Jugando a la política con la seguridad nacional”, decía un locutor.El expresidente George W. Bush se enfrentó a cifras de encuestas que, si bien no eran tan inquietantes para el presidente como algunas que han salido a la luz en las últimas semanas sobre Biden, sí eran motivo de preocupación.Doug Mills/The New York TimesOcho años más tarde, mientras Obama preparaba su campaña de reelección, muchos estadounidenses le dijeron a los encuestadores que el país iba en la dirección equivocada y que su situación financiera era peor que antes de que Obama asumiera el cargo. Por ejemplo, una encuesta del Washington Post/ABC News encontró que tres cuartas partes de los estadounidenses decían que el país iba en la dirección equivocada.Los asesores de Obama estudiaron las campañas de reelección de otros presidentes en funciones en problemas. “Sabíamos que la mayoría de las campañas de reelección eran un referéndum”, dijo Joel Benenson, quien fue el encuestador del equipo de Obama.“También sabíamos que teníamos una crisis económica masiva que no fue en absoluto culpa de Obama. Pero también sabíamos que era el presidente en funciones y no podía culpar a su predecesor por ello. No podíamos convencerlos de que la economía estaba mejorando”.Pero Romney, dijo, “no estaba completamente formado entre los votantes”, lo que presentó una oportunidad para resaltar su riqueza y retratarlo como alguien cuyas políticas favorecerían a los ricos.Por el contrario, George H.W. Bush, dijeron sus asesores, ignoró las advertencias, confiando en que el índice de aprobación de los votantes cercano al 90 por ciento que registró después de la guerra en Kuwait hacía que su reelección estuviera casi garantizada. “La adulación de la guerra de alguna manera silenció los instintos políticos normales de muchas personas cercanas al presidente”, dijo Ron Kaufman, quien fue asesor principal de esa campaña.Rove subrayó que la posición de Biden está más deteriorada en este momento que la de Bush padre en 1992. “Bush parecía no tener ideas para el futuro, pero la gente lo consideraba un ser humano admirable”, explicó Rove. “El problema de Biden es que la gente ha llegado a la conclusión de que no puede desempeñar el trabajo, pues es demasiado viejo y no tiene ni el vigor ni la agudeza mental necesarios para hacerlo”.En encuestas recientes conducidas por el Times y el Siena College en cinco estados clave, el 71 por ciento de los participantes respondió que Biden era “demasiado viejo” para ser un presidente efectivo.Plouffe afirmó que la campaña de Biden debería aprovechar la lección que aprendió el equipo de Obama después de estudiar la campaña perdedora de Bush padre. “La gente de Bush intentó convencer a los ciudadanos de que la economía estaba en mejores condiciones de lo que pensaban”, indicó. “Algo que he aprendido es que no puedes decirles a las personas qué pensar de la economía. Ellos te dirán lo que piensan de la economía”.“Yo empezaría cada discurso con la frase: ‘Estados Unidos tiene una decisión frente a sí, ambos somos hombres blancos mayores’”, afirmó Plouffe. “‘Pero hasta ahí llegan las similitudes’”.Adam Nagourney cubre política nacional para el Times, en especial la campaña de 2024. Más de Adam Nagourney More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Bush-Obama Blueprint That Gives Biden Hope for ’24

      by

      President Biden isn’t the first incumbent to face grim polling a year out from Election Day.Well before Election Day in 2004, President George W. Bush was warned by strategists that he would face a tough campaign battle because of voter distress over the war in Iraq and over the economy — two issues he had once hoped to ride to a second term.Mr. Bush’s aides moved quickly to retool the campaign. They turned attention away from the president and his record and set out to portray his likely Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Vietnam War veteran, as a flip-flopper, unreliable on national security and unfit to lead a nation still reeling from the terror attacks of Sept. 11.“We saw a weakness we knew we could exploit to our advantage in what was going to be a close election,” said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s longtime senior political adviser.Eight years later, aides to another sitting president, Barack Obama, reviewing public and private polls, concluded that concern among voters about the lingering effects of the Great Recession and the direction of the nation could derail his hopes for a second term.Taking a lesson from Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama recast his campaign away from his first-term record and set out to discredit his opponent, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, as a wealthy businessman unsympathetic to working-class Americans.President Biden is hardly the first president during this era of division and polarization to be confronted with polling data suggesting his re-election was at risk. But the re-election campaigns rolled out by Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, who both returned to second terms in the White House, stand today as reminders that polls this early are not predictions of what will happen on Election Day. In the hands of a nimble candidate, they can even be a road map for turning around a struggling campaign.Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama were different candidates facing different obstacles: a quagmire of a war for Mr. Bush, a domestic economy shaken by the global financial crisis of 2008 for Mr. Obama. But both moved to transform their re-election campaigns from a referendum on the incumbent into a contrast with an opponent they defined, with slashing television advertisements, months before either Mr. Romney or Mr. Kerry were nominated at their party conventions.By contrast, a modern-day Republican president who lost a bid for a second term, George H.W. Bush in 1992, failed to heed polls showing voters distressed about the economy and ready for a change after 12 years of Republicans in the White House.The elder Mr. Bush, his aides said in recent interviews, was lulled by the accolades for leading the coalition that repelled Saddam Hussein and Iraq out of Kuwait, and contempt for his opponent, a young Democratic governor who had avoided the draft and had a history of extramarital liaisons.Former President Barack Obama recast his campaign to discredit his opponent, Mitt Romney, as a wealthy businessman unsympathetic to working-class Americans.Doug Mills/The New York Times“Biden has a very high degree of difficulty but I think the race is winnable,” said David Plouffe, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. “Listen, I have sympathy for an incumbent president or governor who says, ‘people need to know more about my accomplishments.’ That is true, but at the end of the day this is a comparative exercise. That’s the one thing we learned.”The Biden White House has dismissed polls — including a New York Times/Siena College poll released last week — as meaningless this far before Election Day. The president’s advisers pointed to Democratic gains in this month’s elections as evidence that the party and its standard-bearer are in fine shape.Yet, after months of trying to run on his economic record with little sign of success, Mr. Biden has begun turning his attention more to Donald J. Trump, the Republican former president and his likely opponent, particularly his policies on immigration and abortion rights. That includes an advertisement that shows Mr. Trump plodding through a golf course as the announcer said that Mr. Trump pushed through tax cuts “for his rich friends” while U.S. automakers shut down plants.“We are absolutely looking at ways that we can help drive the conversation around Trump and MAGA as much as we can,” said Kevin Munoz, the Biden campaign spokesman. But, Mr. Munoz added, “We are in a different position than Obama and Bush. We had very strong midterms. We have had very strong special elections. Our theory of the case was proved again last Tuesday.”Upending the race dynamics might prove more daunting for Mr. Biden than for his predecessors. Mr. Obama and George W. Bush were able to discredit Mr. Romney and Mr. Kerry because voters, at this early stage of the general election campaign, did not know much about them.But there is not much the Biden campaign can tell voters about Mr. Trump that they don’t already know. (Or for that matter, not much Mr. Biden can tell voters about Mr. Biden that they don’t already know.) And Mr. Trump has, so far at least, not paid a political cost for the kind of statements — such as when he described his critics as “vermin” — that might have previously derailed a more conventional candidate. Being indicted on 91 criminal counts in four cases has, so far, only solidified his support.When Mr. Bush’s campaign began planning for his re-election, they confronted polling numbers that — while not as unnerving for the president as some that have come out in recent weeks about Mr. Biden — were cause for concern. A poll by the Pew Research Group found that 46 percent of respondents said Mr. Bush’s economic policies had made the economy worse and 39 percent said American troops should be brought back from Iraq as soon as possible; up from 32 percent the month before.“We decided early on that we wanted to make the election about national security even though the economy was the No. 1 issue,” said Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign. “We were at a disadvantage to Dems on the economy. And as part of that strategy, we desired to define Kerry negatively on national security early on, and as a weak flip-flopping leader so we could position Bush as a strong leader and strong on national security.”Before long, the Bush campaign was on the air with advertisements assailing Mr. Kerry for pledging to roll back the Patriot Act, giving the federal government expanded powers to go after terrorists. The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks with overwhelming support in Congress — including Mr. Kerry.“John Kerry. Playing politics with national security,” an announcer said.Former President George W. Bush confronted polling numbers that — while not as unnerving for the president as some that have come out in recent weeks about Mr. Biden — were cause for concern.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEight years later, as Mr. Obama mounted his re-election campaign, many Americans were telling pollsters that the country was heading in the wrong direction and that they were worse off financially than they had been before Mr. Obama took office. For instance, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found three-quarters of Americans saying the country was heading in the wrong direction.Mr. Obama’s advisers studied the re-election campaigns of other embattled sitting presidents. “We knew that most re-elect campaigns were a referendum,” said Joel Benenson, who was the pollster for Mr. Obama’s team. “We also knew we had this massive economic crisis which absolutely was not all of Obama’s making. But we also knew you are the incumbent president, and you can’t blame it on your predecessor. We couldn’t convince them that the economy was getting better.”But Mr. Romney, he said, “was not fully formed with voters,” which was an opportunity to spotlight his wealth and portray him as someone whose policies would favor the rich.By contrast, George H.W. Bush, aides said, disregarded the warnings, confident the near 90 percent voter approval rating he registered after the war in Kuwait made his re-election all but certain. “The adulation from the war somehow muted the normal political instincts of a lot of people around the president,” said Ron Kaufman, who was a senior adviser to that campaign.Mr. Rove said Mr. Biden was in worse shape today than the elder Mr. Bush had been in 1992. “Bush seemed bereft of ideas for the future, but people saw him as an admirable human being,” Mr. Rove said. “The problem for Biden is that people have concluded he’s not up to the job — too old and lacking the necessary stamina and mental acuity.”In recent polls conducted in five battleground states by The New York Times and Siena College, 71 percent of respondents said Mr. Biden was “too old” to be an effective president.Mr. Plouffe said the Biden campaign should embrace the lesson the Obama campaign learned studying the losing campaign of the elder Mr. Bush. “The Bush people tried to convince people that the economy was better than they thought it was,” he said. “One thing I’ve learned is you can’t tell people what they think about the economy. They’ll tell you what they think about the economy.”“I’d start every speech saying, ‘America is faced with a choice, we are both old white men,’” Mr. Plouffe said. “‘But that’s where the similarities end.’” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Not Possible to ‘Win’ an Argument With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

      by

      In the summer of 2006, I jumped into the ring for a few rounds of debate with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was peddling reckless claims about an important issue on which he lacked expertise. It wasn’t vaccines. It was the 2004 presidential race. In an article for Rolling Stone, Kennedy suggested that the election had been stolen from John Kerry — a suggestion that, after thorough reporting, didn’t hold up.But now I see where I went wrong. Not on the merits; there’s still no case that Kerry actually won in 2004. My mistake was attempting to debate and debunk Kennedy in the first place. At best, the effort was a waste of time and energy; at worst, a big bow-wrapped gift of the thing a conspiracy theorist desires most — recognition that his arguments are important enough to merit serious debate.After getting in the mud with Kennedy all those years ago, I realized something important that we’d do well to remember now, as Kennedy mounts a long-shot run against Joe Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination: You can come armed with all the facts in the world, but when you’re dealing with a conspiracist, there’s no real way to “win” an argument. For people whose views aren’t anchored to facts, winning is simply getting attention — and when you publicly argue with someone like Kennedy, you’ve already lost.I got to thinking about all of this last week, when Kennedy went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and served up a helping of misinformation on the issue for which he is best known, his conviction that several common, widely-used vaccines are harmful.When Peter Hotez, a well-known vaccine researcher, tweeted a link to a Vice story critical of Rogan’s anti-vaccine statements and Kennedy’s appearance on the show, Rogan offered a $100,000 charitable donation if Hotez would come on the podcast to debate Kennedy. Not long after, Elon Musk chimed in, and soon an avalanche of Twitterati were pledging money for a debate; according to one Twitter user who claims to have been tracking the pledges, the pot is now over $2 million.So far, Hotez has courageously refused to take the bait, rejecting, as a physician and scientist, an effort to goad him into defending his work from a skeptic who has for years resisted evidence on vaccines. A back-and-forth between Kennedy and Hotez or another vaccine expert wouldn’t prove anything. And that’s not scientists’ method, anyway. They have established ways of assessing empirical questions — you know, things like lab experiments and clinical trials — and none of them involve owning an interlocutor on a popular podcast.And what would winning a debate with Kennedy even mean? As I learned when I argued with him about the 2004 election, trying to fight misinformation with facts is a tricky business. One side is bound by clearly documented evidence; the other side is free to cherry pick factoids from anywhere, to assert that establishment institutions are inherently suspect and that efforts to fact-check their claims amount to nit-picking, and that anyone who doesn’t see a bigger narrative in a collection of loosely related stories is, in effect, a naïf.I was a reporter at Salon during the 2004 election cycle. I’d spent several months before Election Day covering the ways America had been changing its voting systems since the fiasco of 2000, including the adoption in some places of electronic voting machines that could be vulnerable to hackers or other security lapses. Throughout that time I’d cultivated many sources in the insular, nerdy world of election administration and I’d become familiar with the minutiae of how elections are run.This left me well-prepared for what happened after Election Day — a barrage of theories from people on the left that, due to the electronic voting machines or other problems, the election had been stolen. In his Rolling Stone piece, referring to George W. Bush, Kennedy wrote that he’d “become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004.” He argued that in Ohio, where Bush’s victory put him over the top in the Electoral College, enough Kerry votes were uncounted, flipped or otherwise kept out of the race to cast doubt on Bush’s roughly 118,000-vote margin in that state.I investigated many of these theories, often by consulting the sources I’d cultivated. Kennedy was right that the 2004 election had been rife with irregularities and efforts at disenfranchising voters, particularly in Ohio, where a partisan secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, had overseen several divisive voting measures and obstacles. But pretty much every expert I talked to said that none of the issues were likely big enough to have undone Bush’s win. An investigation by the Democratic National Committee which looked at precinct level voting counts found that the data “does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.”And so: I wrote a point-by-point debunking of Kennedy’s breathless claims. Then Kennedy wrote a rebuttal to my rebuttal, which I, again, rebutted.For a week or two this dust-up took over my life. Salon, a generally liberal-leaning publication, was deluged by letters from readers angry that I was defending Bush’s win. Thankfully, my editors supported me, and I remember coming away from the episode feeling bruised but journalistically vindicated: A man with a famous political name was wrong on the internet, and, armed with the facts, I had stepped in to correct the record.Looking back, though, I cringe. The other day I went back and listened to a debate I had with Kennedy on public radio’s “The Brian Lehrer Show.” Lehrer opened the program by asking Kennedy for his big-picture case. But whether Kennedy is talking about vaccines, elections or other out-there topics (he told Rogan he is “aware” that he could be assassinated by the American government) he tends to present his theories in a particular way. He starts with a few sprinkles of truth — Ohio’s vote was run by a partisan official, some vaccines have serious side effects — and then swirls them up with enough exaggerations, omissions and leaps of logic to create a veritable McFlurry of doubt.Such was his effort when we met on Lehrer: Kennedy offered an assortment of claims about the election that, in big and small ways, were unsubstantiated. So when Lehrer turned to me, I felt I had no choice but to start out by correcting Kennedy’s misstatements. I did so pretty handily, but because I had to point to sources and tease out the nuances Kennedy had elided, I couldn’t help but sound like the boring, persnickety nerd stuck in the weeds. After a few rounds of this back-and-forth, I can’t imagine that much of anything had been clarified for the audience. Instead, the impression was one of earnest complexity: One side says X, the other says Y, but whoever is right, it sure seems like this is a debate we should be having.At one point, Kennedy even made this plain: “You’ll be able to dispute the numbers till the end of time,” he told Lehrer of the faults I found in his case. “Mr. Manjoo,” he continued, “has made a cottage industry of reciting the Republican talking points” by bringing up “arcane disputes of each of these numbers.” “The numbers are correct,” Kennedy claimed, but the arguments over facts were “almost a side issue.” The real story, he said, is that Republicans tried to suppress Democratic votes and “they probably succeeded or may or may not have succeeded in shifting the vote to President Bush, but they certainly tried, and the press has not covered this issue.”In other words: Each side has their own numbers. We’ll never know what actually happened. This guy sounds like a Republican. My story could be right. And isn’t it suspicious that no one is talking about it?Office Hours With Farhad ManjooFarhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Ex-U.S. Attorney’s Book Addresses Pressure to Help Trump Causes

      by

      Geoffrey S. Berman, who headed the Manhattan office, says in a book the Justice Department pushed cases, against John Kerry and others, to help Mr. Trump.A book by a former top federal prosecutor offers new details about how the Justice Department under President Donald J. Trump sought to use the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan to support Mr. Trump politically and pursue his critics — even pushing the office to open a criminal investigation of former secretary of state John Kerry.The prosecutor, Geoffrey S. Berman, was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for two and a half years until June 2020, when Mr. Trump fired him after he refused a request to resign by Attorney General William P. Barr, who sought to replace him with an administration ally.A copy of Mr. Berman’s book, “Holding the Line,” was obtained by The New York Times before its scheduled publication Tuesday.The book paints a picture of Justice Department officials motivated by partisan concerns in pursuing investigations or blocking them; in weighing how forthright to be in court filings; and in shopping investigations to other prosecutors’ offices when the Southern District declined to act.The book contains accounts of how department officials tried to have allusions to Mr. Trump scrubbed from charging papers for Michael D. Cohen, his former personal lawyer, and how the attorney general later tried to have his conviction reversed. It tells of pressure to pursue Mr. Kerry, who had angered Mr. Trump by attempting to preserve the nuclear deal he had negotiated with Iran.And in September 2018, Mr. Berman writes, two months before the November midterms, a senior department official called Mr. Berman’s deputy, cited the Southern District’s recent prosecutions of two prominent Trump loyalists, and bluntly asserted that the office, which had been investigating Gregory B. Craig, a powerful Democratic lawyer, should charge him — and should do so before Election Day.“It’s time for you guys to even things out,” the official said, according to Mr. Berman.The book comes as Mr. Trump and his supporters have accused the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland of using the Justice Department as a weapon after a judge authorized FBI agents to search his Florida house for missing classified records. Mr. Trump, who is a likely presidential candidate in 2024, has suggested without evidence that President Biden is playing a role in that investigation.However, Mr. Berman’s book says that during Mr. Trump’s presidency, department officials made “overtly political” demands, choosing targets that would directly further Mr. Trump’s desires for revenge and advantage. Mr. Berman wrote that the pressure was clearly inspired by the president’s openly professed wants.In the book, Mr. Berman, who as U.S. attorney did not give news interviews, offers new details about the high-profile prosecutions of defendants like Mr. Cohen; Chris Collins, a Republican congressman from New York; Michael Avenatti, the celebrity attorney and Trump antagonist; and Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier.He says there were cases his office pursued without pressure from Washington, but in others, he makes clear his greatest challenges did not always have to do with the law.“Throughout my tenure as U.S. attorney,” Mr. Berman, 62, writes, “Trump’s Justice Department kept demanding that I use my office to aid them politically, and I kept declining — in ways just tactful enough to keep me from being fired.”“I walked this tightrope for two and a half years,” writes Mr. Berman, who is now in private practice. “Eventually, the rope snapped.”Geoffrey S. Berman, fired as U.S. attorney, said he was naïve about President Trump’s fierce desire to pursue his critics. Johannes Eisele/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Berman, who in the book describes himself as a Rockefeller Republican, had been a federal prosecutor in the Manhattan office from 1990 to 1994, and went on to become a co-managing partner of the New Jersey office of the law firm Greenberg Traurig.What to Know About the Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6What to Know About the Trump InvestigationsNumerous inquiries. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Iowa Bus Tour Is Headed for a D.C. Reunion

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential TransitionLatest UpdatesFormal Transition BeginsBiden’s CabinetDefense SecretaryElection ResultsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPolitical MemoBiden’s Iowa Bus Tour Is Headed for a D.C. ReunionA year ago, Joe Biden was on a grim bus tour through Iowa, joined by many old friends, including Tom Vilsack and John Kerry. Now Mr. Biden wants to bring some of the crew back to Washington with him.Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry traveled through Iowa on a bus tour in December 2019. Last month, Mr. Biden, as president-elect, named Mr. Kerry to a top climate post.Credit…Calla Kessler/The New York TimesSydney Ember and Dec. 12, 2020, 10:01 a.m. ETJoseph R. Biden Jr. wasn’t the main event, and he knew it.As he trudged from one small Iowa town to the next on a cold, grim bus tour last winter, trying and failing to generate even a spark of enthusiasm for his presidential candidacy in the leadoff caucus state, he had a habit of quietly delivering his stump speech and then welcoming a more formidable closer.“Thank you for listening,” Mr. Biden said at a campaign stop in Storm Lake last December before ceding the spotlight to Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa.“I’m going to turn this over to a guy who’s forgotten more about farm and rural policy than I know about foreign policy,” he quipped.It was a lonely road for Joe Biden in Iowa a year ago. As his rivals enjoyed big crowds and splashy surrogates, friends of Mr. Biden’s who had retired from elected office — including Mr. Vilsack and John Kerry, the former secretary of state — suited up once more to lend their support in what looked at times like a last hurrah as Mr. Biden plummeted toward a fourth-place finish.Yet those frosty days in Iowa have now led somewhere more glamorous: Mr. Biden’s administration, or so he hopes.In recent weeks, Mr. Biden — now the president-elect and unquestionably the next main event in Washington — rewarded Mr. Vilsack and Mr. Kerry with nods for prominent roles, alongside others who championed Mr. Biden during the roughest stretches of the primary campaign. The early Iowa surrogates embraced his comparatively modest pledge of a return to normalcy — and his relentless focus on the fuzzy concept of electability — when party activists in the leadoff caucus state seemed more captivated by new faces like Pete Buttigieg or the ambitious ideas of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.One year later, Mr. Biden is again facing skepticism from activists and officials alike. This time, it is around whether the administration he is assembling reflects the racial and generational diversity of the party and the nation — something he has promised to achieve. And Mr. Biden’s elevation of Mr. Vilsack has sparked considerable backlash from progressives and from some civil rights leaders.The expected nominations, however, are a vivid illustration of how central personal relationships are to Mr. Biden’s view of governing. Selections including his chief of staff and his nominee for secretary of state are people who have known the former vice president for decades and often bear extensive Washington credentials.Not to mention, in some cases, extensive Iowa credentials.For Mr. Vilsack, Mr. Kerry and other former politicians who braved the frigid expanse of Iowa before Mr. Biden’s bid caught fire with the support of Black voters in South Carolina, the possibility of a significant role in the incoming Biden administration is a vindication of their efforts during the bleakest days of the caucuses, when their alliance with Mr. Biden was viewed by other teams more as a vestige of long-ago politics than as a winning strategy.Mr. Biden’s winter bus tour failed to generate even a spark of enthusiasm for his presidential candidacy in the leadoff caucus state.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesEven Mr. Biden’s friends realized his campaign was not doing well at the time.“When I got there, we were going door to door in a blizzard,” said State Senator Dick Harpootlian of South Carolina, joking that he had developed post-traumatic stress disorder “as a result of my experience in Iowa,” where he volunteered and where he recalled running into Biden allies like Mr. Vilsack. “Those folks that were there in Iowa and stuck with it, those are the folks who basically bought into Joe Biden,” he said. “The politics of it at that point were not particularly bright.”None of that dampened their zeal for the task at hand. For some of his surrogates, campaigning for Mr. Biden back then meant advocacy for a man who, they believed, could defeat President Trump. It also meant a return to the campaign trail — and perhaps renewed political relevance.Several top surrogates had run for president themselves, including Mr. Vilsack and Mr. Kerry, and their enduring support for Mr. Biden afforded them another turn in the spotlight, complete with rallies in school gyms and coaxing of voters at coffee shops. Other allies (and former candidates) like former Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Bob Kerrey were also on-hand sometimes.They had staff members shepherding them again. They received news media requests. They hobnobbed with friends and ran into rival candidates at Des Moines hot spots.Mr. Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, joined a diverse, rotating slate of other Biden endorsers on a seven-day bus tour across Iowa 16 years after he had won the state’s caucuses.As the tour’s headliner, Mr. Kerry’s moves and snack cravings were captured by the Biden campaign on Instagram as he attested to Mr. Biden’s foreign policy experience.The Presidential TransitionLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 11, 2020, 9:07 p.m. ETCongress might ban surprise medical billing, and that’s a surprise.Biden is considering Cuomo for attorney general.‘Our institutions held’: Democrats (and some Republicans) cheer Supreme Court ruling on election suit.There was some occasional rust, and some anxiety, too.At an event in Des Moines last November as he promoted his endorsement of Mr. Biden, Mr. Vilsack admitted that he “woke up at 4:30 this morning pretty nervous about this speech.”And Mr. Kerry, on the day before the caucuses, tweeted and then deleted a profane message rebutting a news report about his own presidential ambitions — and reaffirming his support for his friend.Mr. Biden visited a farm with Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, in November 2019. Mr. Biden nominated Mr. Vilsack to be his agriculture secretary this week.Credit…Ruth Fremson/The New York TimesMr. Vilsack in particular was viewed as an important endorsement in the state at the time. But some of Mr. Biden’s rivals, including Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren and Mr. Buttigieg, were enjoying boosts from celebrities like Mandy Moore and young progressives like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — which contributed to the sense that Mr. Biden, with his stable of silver-haired white men, was out of date.“Circulating in Iowa at the time was ‘Biden’s too old,’” said Mr. Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska who was among the friends who campaigned for Mr. Biden during the primary race. “That was the conversation that was going on — he’s yesterday’s business. He’s too moderate.”Mr. Kerrey allowed that the Biden lineup might not have been the most dynamic.“If you think Vilsack was boring, you should have been with me!” said Mr. Kerrey, who is in his 70s. (He did, however, bristle at the suggestion from a reporter that Mr. Biden’s supporters were not seen to be quite as youthful or hip as those of his now-vanquished opponents. “You are suffering from ageism,” he said. “I called you out. I’ve become woke!”)As it turned out, traditionally conservative-leaning senior citizens would help propel Mr. Biden to the presidency, and he had stronger appeal in the primary campaign among Black voters than any of his rivals did.Now on the verge of entering the White House, Mr. Biden has signaled his intent to gather his faithful squad together again with the alacrity of a coach rallying his team for one last game. This past week, he named Mr. Vilsack as his choice for agriculture secretary. He has picked Mr. Kerry for a top climate post. And Antony J. Blinken, a longtime top aide to Mr. Biden who was spotted in Iowa with him, is now his choice for secretary of state.If Mr. Biden’s selections so far underscore his experience and his deep bench of long-lasting relationships, it is also a stark reminder of his roots in an older, whiter generation that has at times seemed at odds with the energy in the current Democratic Party.He may not have won over youthful crowds a year ago, but he is, his team insists, committed to empowering the next generation of Democratic leaders.At a briefing with the news media on Friday, the incoming White House press secretary, Jennifer Psaki, made a point of highlighting younger members of Mr. Biden’s team. Mr. Biden has also named a number of people of color to major cabinet positions, including helming the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department, even as he faces intense pressure from some in his own party who believe he needs more people of color in senior positions.Not everyone who assisted him, even in Iowa, is so far an administration choice, including Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta, who joined Mr. Kerry on the bus tour.Mr. Kerrey also said he was not on Mr. Biden’s list.“There are a lot of people that have endorsed Joe Biden that aren’t going to be in his cabinet,” he said. “You’re talking to one.”Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Team of Rivals? Biden’s Cabinet Looks More Like a Team of Buddies

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential TransitionLatest UpdatesFormal Transition BeginsBiden’s CabinetDefense SecretaryElection ResultsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTeam of Rivals? Biden’s Cabinet Looks More Like a Team of BuddiesIn making his picks for the new administration, the president-elect has put a premium on personal relationships.Some Democratic allies say they worry that President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s reliance on the same people threatens to undermine his ability to find new solutions to the country’s problems.Credit…Hilary Swift for The New York TimesMichael D. Shear and Dec. 9, 2020, 7:36 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has worked with the former aide he wants to be secretary of state since their time at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 1990s. His nominee for agriculture secretary endorsed his first presidential bid more than 30 years ago. And he knows his choice for Pentagon chief from the retired general’s time in Iraq, where Mr. Biden’s son Beau, a military lawyer, also served on the general’s staff.For all the talk that Mr. Biden is abiding by a complicated formula of ethnicity, gender and experience as he builds his administration — and he is — perhaps the most important criteria for landing a cabinet post or a top White House job appears to be having a longstanding relationship with the president-elect himself.His chief of staff, Ron Klain, goes back with him to the days of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas when Mr. Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Mr. Klain was on his staff. John Kerry, his climate envoy, is an old Senate buddy. Even Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who is not a longtime confidante and ran an aggressive campaign against Mr. Biden, had a close relationship with Beau Biden before he died — a personal credential that is like gold with the man about to move into the Oval Office.In accepting Mr. Biden’s nomination to be the first Black man to run the Defense Department, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III on Wednesday called Beau a “great American” and recalled the time he spent with him in Iraq, and their conversations after he returned home, before his death from a brain tumor in 2015.“As you, too, can attest, madam vice president-elect, Beau was a very special person and a true patriot, and a good friend to all who knew him,” General Austin said.It is a sharp contrast to President Trump, who assembled a dysfunctional collection of cabinet members he barely knew and after an initial honeymoon spent their time constantly at risk of being fired. With nearly half of Mr. Biden’s cabinet and many key White House jobs announced, his administration looks more like a close-knit family.But there are risks in Mr. Biden’s approach, which departs sharply from Abraham Lincoln’s famous desire for a “team of rivals” in his cabinet who could challenge one another — and the president. And while every president brings in a coterie of longtime advisers, few have had the longevity of Mr. Biden’s nearly five decades in Washington, and prized so much the relationships he developed along the way.Relying on advisers and cabinet officials steeped in old Washington — and Mr. Biden’s own worldview — lends an air of insularity to his still-forming presidency at a time when many Americans are expecting fresh ideas to confront a world that is very different from the one that the president-elect and his friends got to know when they were younger.Even some allies in the Democratic Party say they worry that Mr. Biden’s reliance on the same people threatens to undermine his ability to find solutions to the country’s problems that go beyond the usual ones embraced by the establishment in Washington.Representative-elect Mondaire Jones of New York, 33, who will serve as the freshman representative to the House Democratic leadership, praised Mr. Biden’s choices so far as “highly competent” but added that “competency alone is insufficient for purposes of building back better.”“One risk of Joe Biden nominating or otherwise appointing only people with whom he has close relationships is he may miss the moment,” he said.Faiz Shakir, who served as Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager and negotiated with the Biden team over the summer as part of a unity task force, said the biggest bias he has seen from the Biden transition team has been in favor of “credentialing” — both in terms of Washington experience, often with the president-elect, and education.He said he worried the team was leaning “so much on technocratic competence based on credentialing that it misses the opportunity to introduce fresh blood and new thinking more closely associated with the struggles of the working class.”And Representative Adriano Espaillat, Democrat of New York, urged Mr. Biden to embrace “a little bit more competitiveness inside” a team that so far appears mostly like-minded. Tackling the big problems in American in the wake of the pandemic “is going to require a lively debate,” Mr. Espaillat said. “It doesn’t have to be a room full of people you like.” But Mr. Biden has not been shy about describing what is important to him as he builds his team.“I’ve seen him in action,” Mr. Biden said of Antony J. Blinken, his incoming secretary of state and a longtime adviser.“I’ve worked with her for over a decade,” Mr. Biden said of his new director of national intelligence, Avril D. Haines.“One of my closest friends,” Mr. Biden hailed Mr. Kerry when he announced the former secretary of state’s new climate role.And in an article published in The Atlantic on Tuesday, the president-elect explained one of the key reasons he chose General Austin.Retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III on Wednesday accepting Mr. Biden’s nomination to run the Defense Department.Credit…Hilary Swift for The New York Times“I’ve spent countless hours with him, in the field and in the White House Situation Room,” Mr. Biden wrote. “I’ve sought his advice, seen his command, and admired his calm and his character.”Those who know Mr. Biden say he is confident of his own ability as a judge of character and has leaned on some of the same team of counselors for decades. His longtime Senate chief of staff and brief successor in the Senate, Ted Kaufman, is helping to lead the transition. Among his top incoming White House advisers, his counselor, Steve Ricchetti, and senior adviser, Mike Donilon, are longtime loyalists.Other aides are reprising roles they held in Mr. Biden’s vice-presidential office — only now at the White House itself. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, held that post for Mr. Biden, and Jared Bernstein, who was an economic adviser, is now a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.“He’s got this wonderful team — not of rivals but of talented people that he’s either worked with or observed over the years,” said Joseph Riley, the former mayor of Charleston, S.C., and a man Mr. Biden once called “America’s mayor.”“He has amassed a collection of talented people who he has watched, listened to, leaned on over the years, and he is a quick study,” Mr. Riley said.Not every appointee is a Biden intimate. This week, Mr. Biden rolled out his health care team and badly bungled the name of his incoming secretary of health and human services — Xavier Becerra — before correcting himself.Turning to people close to him to run with long experience in government may be an advantage during confirmation battles in the deeply divided Senate. Many of his picks — like Tom Vilsack, who served for eight years as secretary of agriculture under President Barack Obama and has been nominated for the same job again — are well known to Republicans. “I think he did an outstanding job for eight years and he’ll do an outstanding job for no more than four years,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters when asked about Mr. Biden’s decision to nominate Mr. Vilsack.But a bigger test for Mr. Biden will be his decision on who should be attorney general and run the Justice Department at a time when racial tensions have roiled the country.On Tuesday, a group of activists met with Mr. Biden to press him on nominating a Black person who will focus on civil rights and social justice issues. But with an African-American now ready to lead the Defense Department — ensuring that the State, Treasury, Justice and Defense Departments will not all be led by white people — a number of prominent Democrats believe the president-elect may turn to Senator Doug Jones of Alabama, who is white.Mr. Jones would most likely prove easy to confirm in a closely divided Senate given his warm relationships with senators in both parties, including Alabama’s senior senator, Richard C. Shelby, a Republican.But Mr. Jones has something else working in his favor: a long history with Mr. Biden.As a young law student in Birmingham, Ala., Mr. Jones was wowed by a visit from a freshman senator from Delaware and introduced himself to Mr. Biden. They grew closer when Mr. Jones moved to Washington to work on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And in 1987, Mr. Jones served as Alabama co-chair on Mr. Biden’s first campaign for president.Jonathan Martin More