Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Questions for Republican Debate: What Readers Want to Learn

      by

      More than 850 readers sent us their questions for the Republican candidates. Donald Trump was a hot topic, but not the only: “I don’t want to ask about the past,” one said.As the first Republican presidential debate nears on Wednesday night, we asked our readers a few simple things: What questions would you like to hear? What issues should be discussed? How will you judge the candidates?We heard from more than 850 readers, including devoted supporters of former President Donald J. Trump, Republicans who voted for him in the past but are now skeptical, die-hard Democrats and independents who said they were unsatisfied with all of their options in the 2024 race.Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump loomed large — even in his expected absence onstage. But many Republicans were also eager to hear how the candidates would handle policy issues including the war in Ukraine and migration at the nation’s southern border.Others were eager to hear what the candidates would do to bridge the country’s deep partisan divide. The responses have been lightly edited for clarity.Everyone wants to know about Trump.The former president has said he will not participate on Wednesday, but many readers wanted him — and his four criminal indictments — to be a major topic of conversation.For Democrats, the top concern was some version of the blunt question from Kerry Reardon in Fleming Island, Fla: “Yes or no, do you believe that the Democrats stole the 2020 election?”But Republican supporters had another question for Mr. Trump’s rivals: “What makes them able to defeat Trump, then Biden later on?” asked Austin Moon in Greenville, N.C.“What makes you think you are as tough as Trump?” asked Loretta Houdeshell, a Republican from Greenbrier, Tenn.Others wanted a simple yes-or-no answer to the following question: “Will you support the 2024 Republican nominee for president?”But skepticism about Mr. Trump also crept into Republicans’ questions. Kathryn Byrd, a Republican who voted for Mr. Trump in Missouri in 2020, wanted to know if the candidates thought that “those involved in the Jan. 6 riots should be held accountable, including but not limited to, former President Donald Trump?”Shannon Swindle, a Republican from Georgia, worried about the toll of nominating a candidate with legal baggage and wanted to hear candidates’ views.“How will they address the Trump indictments and what do they have to say if Trump is the Republican nominee, which I personally hope he is not. How do we move forward as a legitimate democracy when the Democratic Party is trying to imprison their main political opponent? What should we do to move forward?”Moving forward was a common theme for many voters, including Peter J. Cotch of Naples, Fla., who hoped the moderators would ask about the “impact of Trumpism on the public image of the Republican Party” and added that he was “a third-generation registered Republican” who had always supported the party’s nominee, but “couldn’t do it this time if it’s Trump.”Immigration and the war in UkraineRepublican readers had priorities beyond Mr. Trump. They often raised questions about the candidates’ positions on continuing to build a border wall and ending birthright citizenship (a change that would require a constitutional amendment).“How would you handle the border crisis moving forward and what would you do with the huge number of immigrants residing in the U.S. currently that arrived outside of our immigration laws?” asked Jane Roberts, a Republican in Florida.Asked what issues he would most like to hear about, Mark Greenstone of Winter Springs, Fla., wrote, “How will they specifically resolve preventing illegal immigrants from entering our country?”“Not just closing the border,” wrote Larry O’Neal of Tuscaloosa, Ala. “But actual changes to the immigration system.”Like many other voters, Mr. O’Neal was also eager to hear about the candidates’ views on the war in Ukraine, a conflict that has divided the G.O.P. between traditionalists and a new guard deeply skeptical of U.S. intervention overseas. Mr. O’Neal wanted to hear about “the risks and rewards by your position.”Josh Sacks, an independent voter in Falls Church, Va., said that he hoped to hear Republicans talk about the “limits of America’s commitment to Ukraine.”Can we all come together?A few Republican respondents asked what the candidates could do to bring their party together, but even more raised questions about national unity.“How are you going to help rebuild trust in our democratic system?” asked Nancy Parlette, a Republican in Maryland who said she wrote in the name of Larry Hogan, the state’s moderate G.O.P. governor at the time, for president in 2020 because she “couldn’t find anyone worth voting for.”“People are sick of all the hate, slander and backbiting,” Ms. Parlette added. “We want to be able to trust our president and our Congress to actually care about America more than about making themselves look great.”Susan Pichoff, a Republican from Alabama, said, “I don’t want to ask about the past.” Instead, she said: “I want to ask about, what are we doing to encourage people and unite this country? Because we are so divided and it’s sad.”George Adkins, an independent voter in Houston who voted for Mr. Trump, had a similar thought: “How do you plan to lessen the divide among Americans in both politics and race?”Ditch the talking pointsAnd, in what might be a perennial request, many voters said they wanted to be leveled with. Mr. Greenstone said he would judge candidates “by how direct and specific they answer questions as opposed to just providing answers that are scripted and vague.”“I will be turned off by a bombastic approach,” wrote Douglas Greenlee, of Huntersville, N.C. “I will respect a thoughtful approach even if the candidate says they do not have the plan developed as yet, but lay out parameters for what they would think about.”But few voters of any political stripe expressed high hopes for the night. Catherine O’Keefe of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., said she expected that “not a single candidate will say anything useful that is not a campaigned-approved talking point, nor will they provide an actual answer to any direct question.”Ms. O’Keefe, a Republican who voted for Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020, added, “Candidates will just try to score one-liners against each other.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Let’s Plant Wildflowers in the National Mall

      by

      More from our inbox:Indicted LawyersSununu’s ‘Wishful Thinking’End the Ukraine WarDeSantis and the IviesPain Patients Deserve Answers Evan CohenTo the Editor:Re “Fill the National Mall With Wildflowers,” by Alexander Nazaryan (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 11):What a timely and terrific idea Mr. Nazaryan proposes. Let’s replace the clipped, monotonous lawns of our National Mall with gardens of wildflowers, he writes. Create meadows! Variety and color! These fields would provide habitat for the bees, butterflies and other essential insects that are losing their homes to development and chemically maintained landscaping.And, incidentally, these 18 acres of gardens and meadows will pull tons of carbon from the atmosphere and bury it in the soil.What an opportunity to show visitors our national heritage of wildflowers. And what a chance to show young tourists how plants create a livable atmosphere for us.We can model our future on the National Mall. If millions of suburban gardeners and thousands of farmers follow suit in restoring lawns and fields to meadows of wildflowers and multi-crop fields, free of chemicals, we could be on our way to regenerate the earth and save ourselves a place in the future!Deborah Lake FortsonBrookline, Mass.The writer is a member of Brookline Pollinator Pathways.To the Editor:Alexander Nazaryan’s piece on wildflower lawns is wonderful to consider. A few photoshopped pictures of the National Mall full of wildflowers would have made it perfect.I am delighted with my wildflower lawn in Longmont, Colo., on a small residential lot. In 2022, my water bill was reduced by 25,000 gallons after I stopped watering my lawn, even though I maintained extensive flower and vegetable gardens. Mother Nature also helped kill the lawn by withholding any significant rain and snow for the first six months of 2022.This all followed a severe drought in late 2021, which contributed to a massive grassland fire in Boulder County that burned over 1,000 homes in December. I’d had enough of my lawn.Now I enjoy more colors, heights of vegetation and varied shades of green in our yard than I have ever had. The ground always seems damp, even with bright sun and low humidity, which is typical for our local climate. Birds and bees are all over it.We owe it to the planet for working its magic. Our monotonous and high maintenance green carpet was a poor substitute.David BishtonLongmont, Colo.To the Editor:I’m an ecologist in Washington, D.C., and I love low-water landscaping and wilding lawns — but the National Mall is land used for large events like concerts, Fourth of July fireworks, rallies, marches, protests, gatherings, sun bathing, soccer games, chasing kids around, kite festivals and more. And it’s used by hundreds of thousands of people for some of these events.It cannot be full of wildflowers and, no, wildflowers are not easy to maintain in this sort of scenario.There is a section by the Tidal Basin south of the Washington Monument where flowers are planted that the author may enjoy, though it’s a small lot. Wildflowers on the Mall, though, would remove space for us to play. And we do play!Yes, its maintenance is expensive — but the National Mall is not an ecological disaster. It’s an event space.K. SpainWashingtonIndicted LawyersClockwise from top left, attorneys, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark and Sidney Powell.Photographs by Jae C. Hong/Associated Press, Eduardo Munoz/Reuters, Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images and Jonathan Ernst/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Why Are So Many of Trump’s Alleged Co-Conspirators Lawyers?,” by Deborah Pearlstein (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 15):Reading Ms. Pearlstein’s excellent essay, I was reminded of Anne Applebaum’s observation in her book “Twilight of Democracy”: “Authoritarians need the people who will promote the riot or launch the coup. But they also need the people who can use sophisticated legal language, people who can argue that breaking the constitution or twisting the law is the right thing to do.”Stronger ethics rules and laws, bolstered by the prosecutions and bar expulsions we are witnessing, will help, but ultimately, the problem is more fundamental.What Ms. Pearlstein refers to as a root cause — increased polarization of the legal profession — may be better described as a lack of commitment to democratic principles and, in some cases, a simple lack of character.Michael CurryAustin, TexasTo the Editor:Deborah Pearlstein’s guest essay on the politicization of the legal profession is spot on and reflects the larger problem with the legal profession today: an erosion of ethics.An old joke claims that “legal ethics” is an oxymoron; it is not a joke today. I believe that this is the reason a decreasing number of lawyers are members of the American Bar Association; the ethics code of the A.B.A., and associated state bar associations, is not compatible with their practice of law.Thomas CoxRichmond, Va.Sununu’s ‘Wishful Thinking’Eric Thayer for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “If Republicans Narrow the Field, We Will Beat Trump,” by Gov. Christopher T. Sununu (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Aug. 21):Yes, narrowing the field would help Republicans beat Donald Trump for the nomination, but Mr. Sununu is engaging in wishful thinking when he says that at this week’s debate, the other leading candidates should “break free of Mr. Trump’s drama, step out of his shadow.”That’s not possible for these debate participants, every one of whom will have signed a pledge to support the nominee — even if it’s Mr. Trump and even if he’s a convicted felon by November 2024.Moreover, even candidates like Chris Christie and Mike Pence, who now criticize Mr. Trump’s actions regarding the last presidential election, supported him all through the prior four years of his disastrous presidency.Mr. Sununu says the Republican Party needs to refocus “on a nominee dedicated to saving America.” In fact, it’s the Republican Party that needs saving from its current crop of leaders and candidates.Jeff BurgerRidgewood, N.J.End the Ukraine War Shuran Huang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“Peace Activists Decide Ukraine Is an Exception” (front page, Aug. 15) correctly reports on how many progressive voices have been quiet on the war. But religious leaders, up to and including Pope Francis, as well as several faith groups like my own (Quakers), have been actively pressing to end the war and support the arduous work of peacemaking.Earlier this year, Pope Francis met with President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Vatican and called for a cease-fire and negotiations. Hundreds of religious leaders have now signed a letter in support of his call and are advocating an end to the war once and for all.You don’t have to be a pope or a pacifist to recognize the perils inherent in continued military escalation — for Ukrainians, Russians and the world. President Biden and Congress must invest much more in seeking a diplomatic path out of the conflict rather than relying on endless military aid. Peacemaking won’t be easy. It never is.But war is not the answer.Bridget MoixWashingtonThe writer is the general secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.DeSantis and the IviesHaiyun Jiang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Elites He Now Targets Gave DeSantis a Leg Up” (front page, Aug. 22):Ron DeSantis was so embittered by his exposure to elite liberalism at Yale that when he graduated, he went to Harvard Law School. You cannot make that up!Stephen T. SchreiberPrinceton, N.J.Pain Patients Deserve AnswersTo the Editor:Re “They Live in Constant Pain, but Their Doctors Won’t Help Them,” by Vishakha Darbha, Lucy King and Adam Westbrook (Opinion Video, Aug. 17):I’ve seen too many patients suffering from chronic pain who’ve been told it is in their heads or that nothing can be done. Believing that it’s acceptable to live with pain is unacceptable. If someone has pain, something is wrong. Ongoing pain after a previous trauma or surgical procedure may signal that a nerve is injured, which is an overlooked cause of chronic pain because it is hard to detect through imaging.Neuropathic pain, sometimes called the “invisible illness,” is the most common type of chronic pain, affecting one in 10 people. Yet many health care providers and patients don’t understand nerve injuries, how common they are, and the correlation to ongoing pain. It’s not unusual for people to see more than 20 providers before seeing a surgeon who specializes in nerves. This is not OK.People deserve to know that nerve injuries can often be surgically repaired. It’s time they get the answers and care they deserve.Adam B. StrohlPhiladelphiaThe writer is a surgeon at the Philadelphia Hand to Shoulder Center. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Defends ‘Listless Vessels’ Comments That Riled Trump Supporters

      by

      Mr. DeSantis brought a backlash over the weekend for comments that some of Donald Trump’s backers interpreted as insulting.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on Monday defended his remarks urging Republican voters not to be “listless vessels” that automatically support former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. DeSantis said in an interview with The Florida Standard, a conservative news outlet, last week that the conservative movement “can’t be about the personality of one individual.” “If you’re not rooted in principle, if all we are is listless vessels that’s just supposed to follow whatever happens to come down the pike on Truth Social every morning, that’s not going to be a durable movement,” Mr. DeSantis added.The comments quickly prompted backlash over the weekend from Mr. Trump’s campaign and supporters, who said the comments insulted his voters. Many likened Mr. DeSantis’s remarks to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 comments that half of Mr. Trump’s supporters fit into a “basket of deplorables.”A spokeswoman for MAGA Inc., Mr. Trump’s super PAC, Karoline Leavitt, said on Saturday in a statement posted online that “DeSantis must immediately apologize for his disgraceful insult.”Asked about the remarks during an appearance on Fox News on Monday afternoon, Mr. DeSantis said he was referring to members of Congress who had called him a “RINO,” or “Republican in Name Only.”“The people in Congress that I was referring to, that have attacked me and tried to say somehow that I was a RINO, they’re putting entertainment and personality over principle,” he said. “Our voters want us to stand on principle and fight for them.”Mr. DeSantis, who remains in a distant second place to Mr. Trump, has in recent weeks faced a series of campaign woes that included significant campaign staff cuts, stagnant polls and a leaked debate strategy memo. He has received frequent criticism from Mr. Trump and will most likely be the target of further attacks by others at the Republican National Committee debate Wednesday as the leading candidate onstage in Mr. Trump’s absence.“Looks like Ron DeSanctimonious just had his ‘Basket of Deplorables’ moment. Not good!” Jason Miller, an adviser to the Trump campaign, said Saturday on X, formerly known as Twitter.Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who has been critical of Mr. Trump but has defended him more frequently in recent months, told Fox News that Mr. DeSantis’s comments occurred “while his numbers were tanking” and helped explain why other candidates, such as the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, were “on the rise.”“I don’t know why anyone running for president would put down half of the electorate and identify them, call them listless vessels, because they support the former president,” she said.Others in the presidential race seized the opportunity to criticize Mr. DeSantis as well. Mr. Ramaswamy wrote on Sunday that “the real danger to our movement is the rise of ‘listless-vessel’ robot politicians who blindly follow the commands of their Super PACs,” an apparent reference to the Never Back Down super PAC that has effectively taken over Mr. DeSantis’s campaign. The New York Times reported last week about a trove of documents that a political consulting firm associated with the super PAC had posted online. The documents described key details about how Mr. DeSantis might approach the debate, including suggested language for attacking Mr. Ramaswamy.Bryan Griffin, a DeSantis spokesman, pushed back and said Saturday that Mr. DeSantis’s remarks were aimed at Mr. Trump and his “congressional endorsers.”“The dishonest media refuses to report the facts — Donald Trump and some congressional endorsers are ‘listless vessels.’ Why? Because Trump and D.C. insiders feel he is entitled to your vote,” Mr. Griffin wrote on X.“That’s why Ron DeSantis will be showing up on Wednesday night to debate, and Donald Trump will not,” he added.Mr. DeSantis said in his Monday interview on Fox News that he had intended to emphasize what he saw as “one of the big problems with our party for many, many years,” which is that people “say they’re going to do certain things and then don’t end up following through.”He called for a focus, instead, on “delivering for the people that have put us into office.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Allies May Be Kept Out of Fox News Spin Room After Trump Shuns Debate

      by

      Fox News, which is hosting the event, will allow aides only for the candidates on the stage.Former President Donald J. Trump’s plan to have prominent surrogates make his case in Milwaukee without attending the debate himself may already be hitting a snag as he clashes with Fox News.Mr. Trump’s campaign had previously arranged for prominent supporters to visit the “spin room,” where candidates and their allies interact with members of the media after the debate.But Fox News, which is hosting the matchup, will grant access to the spin room only to aides of candidates who are participating, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times. Aides of nonparticipating candidates will have access only if they are invited as guests of media organizations.“In addition to the (5) Spin Room credentials referenced in a previous email, we’ll also issue (1) Media Row credential to any participating candidate/campaigns,” the memo says. “Any non-participating candidate/campaign is welcome in the Spin Room or Media Row as a guest of one of the media organizations with positions in those locations, using one of their credentials.”The memo, which was first reported by Axios, does not mention Mr. Trump, and the restrictions apply to all candidates who aren’t participating — a category that also includes those who didn’t meet the donor and polling thresholds to qualify. In practice, though, it will affect Mr. Trump more significantly than anyone else, since he is the front-runner in the Republican primary and is actively trying to snub the debate while still getting its benefits.Mr. Trump’s decision to skip the first Republican National Committee-sanctioned debate of the 2024 race was a slap in the face to both the party and Fox News. Mr. Trump has frequently complained about Fox News’s coverage of him. He has recorded an interview with Tucker Carlson, who was fired from the network this year, that will post on X, formerly known as Twitter, during the debate.At least three senior members of Mr. Trump’s campaign — Chris LaCivita, Jason Miller and Steven Cheung — plan to attend the debate in person, The Times has reported.Among the prominent Trump backers planning to attend Wednesday’s debate are Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for governor in Arizona who lost last year and has loudly echoed Mr. Trump’s election lies; Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.; and Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Byron Donalds of Florida.“Kari Lake looks forward to attending the debate, and if Fox thinks otherwise, they’re welcome to call her,” a senior adviser to Ms. Lake, Caroline Wren, told NBC News on Monday.The Fox News memo does not describe any restrictions on audience members, however, only restricting access to the spin room where reporters will be doing the bulk of their post-debate interviews. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Challenges Rick Scott for Senate in Florida

      by

      Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, the first South American immigrant elected to the House, is one of several Democrats who have entered the 2024 race.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Democrat who represented Miami for one term in the House after immigrating to the United States from Ecuador, stepped forward on Tuesday to challenge the incumbent Republican, Rick Scott, for the Senate in 2024.Flipping the seat could be crucial for Democrats to keep their narrow majority in the Senate, but their path to victory in what was once a quintessential battleground state appears to be difficult, according to independent projections.Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, 52, is seeking to become only the second Latina elected to the Senate, after Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Democrat of Nevada.In 2018, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell upset Carlos Curbelo, a two-term Republican incumbent in Florida’s 26th District. She lost the seat in 2020 to Carlos Gimenez, who was mayor of Miami-Dade County.In a campaign introduction video posted on social media, she sought to cast Mr. Scott as a hard-line opponent of women’s reproductive rights who would seek to ban abortion nationally. She also criticized his past support for cutting Social Security and Medicare as a way to balance the federal budget and rein in the national debt. He later reversed that position.“Ya no más,” she said in Spanish in the video, meaning “no more,” and later added, “I’ve already fought guys like Rick Scott, and beat them.”Noting that she was the first South American immigrant elected to Congress and that she once worked for minimum wage at a doughnut shop, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell sought to draw an economic and cultural contrast to Mr. Scott.A former associate dean at Florida International University, she is the latest prominent Democrat to join the race, which includes Alan Grayson, a former representative, and Phil Ehr, a U.S. Navy veteran who unsuccessfully challenged Representative Matt Gaetz in 2020.Mr. Scott, 70, who is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, served two terms as governor before being elected to the Senate in 2018. Last year, he was the chairman of the Senate Republican campaign arm, but his long-shot bid to dislodge Senator Mitch McConnell as the minority leader fizzled.“We’d like to welcome yet another failed congressional candidate to the crowded Democrat primary,” Priscilla Ivasco, a spokeswoman for Mr. Scott’s campaign, said in a statement.Momentum in Florida has favored Republicans, who hold the governor’s office, the Legislature and both Senate seats. And in otherwise disappointing midterm elections for the G.O.P. last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis was re-elected in a landslide that laid the groundwork for his presidential candidacy. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Long-Shot Candidate Playbook: Make the Debate, Then See What Happens

      by

      The 2024 Republican field has a number of contenders who have almost no chance to take down Donald Trump. So why do they run?Donald J. Trump holds a commanding lead over his nearest rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. One or two might make a dent in the numbers at the first debate this week. But the rest of the field, featuring little-known candidates, is unlikely to make an impact.In fact, there is almost no plausible path for them to the nomination, especially in a race with Mr. Trump as the dominant force, which raises the key question: Why do they do it?Perhaps the biggest reason is the debate stage itself: National broadcasts have the potential to provide a biotech entrepreneur, a Miami mayor and a North Dakota governor the chance to become household names and position themselves for future success in politics — or whatever field they pursue.The longer-than-long-shot candidates — some have run in almost every cycle since cable news and social media became significant drivers in elections — are willing to endure the grueling schedule, the deep loss of privacy and the frequent humiliations of a campaign because there are so many consolation prizes.Candidates can raise their profiles and polish their résumés for a future bid for office. They can land lucrative commentator gigs on any number of platforms. A presidential run can lead to a high-paying job in the private sector or, of course, a big role in someone else’s administration.“There are always people who want to make a name for themselves,” said Curtis Loftis, who as the elected treasurer of South Carolina since 2010 has seen a parade of presidential aspirants roll through his early nominating state.“Some people have personal ambitions that allows them, or requires them, to run for higher office,” he said. “Politics is an industry. People have to keep their name fresh. By losing, they end up on highly paid corporate boards. It’s an industry — it’s not pretty.”But this campaign, especially, highlights the mixed motives of presidential hopefuls because there is such a large field, even though Mr. Trump overshadows the race like the de facto incumbent.The trend is somewhat new. Though newcomers have always pursued unlikely campaigns, they were mostly relegated to the sidelines. Even those whose candidacies were largely aspirational relied on their experience in elected office as a reason for running.The 2012 election was perhaps the tipping point, when Herman Cain, a successful chief executive of a pizza chain, at one point led the Republican primary polls. In 2016, Mr. Trump entered the race in what was seen as a vanity campaign.Herman Cain at a primary event in 2012 in Tampa, Fla.Marcus Yam for The New York TimesThe open field for Democrats in 2020 brought plenty of elected experience, but it also garnered attention for outsiders like Andrew Yang, another entrepreneur, and Marianne Williamson, a self-help author, who is running again in 2024. Both participated in the Democratic primary debates.Strategists of both parties who have worked for candidates with slim chances said it was unheard-of for them to admit privately that their goals were less than the winning the biggest prize. Yet, their behavior often betrays them, including on a debate stage when they decline to take on the front-runner, or, in the case of many of Mr. Trump’s rivals, even to say his name.“A lot of candidates approach campaigns with an ‘opportunity maximizing’ approach — if you don’t get to the moon, you can at least land among the stars,” said Sarah Isgur, who was a top aide to the long-shot Republican candidate Carly Fiorina in 2016. “They want to make sure not to shut any doors along the way — cabinet, TV contracts, whatever. That’s why you see some of these types of candidates pull so many punches on the stump or debate stage, because they don’t know who they’ll need as friends later on.”Carly Fiorina campaigning in 2016 in in Bedford, N.H.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesLike defense lawyers who never ask if a client is guilty, paid strategists mount the best campaign possible given a candidate’s skills, message and budget.Still, strategists’ gut instincts usually tell them how their clients have inwardly set their sights. “You can tell right away if they’re really running to lead or if they have other goals in mind,” said Gail Gitcho, a strategist who has worked for several Republican presidential candidates, including Vivek Ramaswamy, the conservative commentator, before she parted ways with him this spring.“Some candidates are running for president, others are running to replace Tucker Carlson,” Ms. Gitcho said.It goes without saying that getting candidates in the heat of campaign battle to admit to ulterior motives is a fruitless quest. Invariably, they cite outsiders like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and Mr. Trump himself who went all the way.But the rise of the wealthy, self-funded candidates brings in a whole new factor to a campaign. Perry Johnson, a Michigan businessman hovering around one percent in polls despite crisscrossing Iowa, said that raising his profile to increase his net worth was the furthest thing from his mind.“I am a very rich man, I don’t need any extra money,” Mr. Johnson said in an interview in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I expect to win this presidency. I am the one guy that the country truly needs.” He is one of a handful of multimillionaires seeking the nomination. (Egos, too, are rarely in short supply for the long shots running for president.)The rise of wealthy, self-funded candidates has given hope to a new type of candidate like Perry Johnson who is hovering around zero percent in polls.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesEven the longest of long shots — candidates with no electoral experience and limited political charisma — believe they might catch lightning in a bottle.And if not, perhaps they can capture the attention of the front-runner. Voters who attend events in Iowa or New Hampshire with Mr. Trump’s rivals openly say they are looking to see who could be a running mate — maybe Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, or the former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, or Mr. Ramaswamy.A New York Times/Siena College Poll last month showed Mr. Trump with 54 percent of the likely Republican primary vote, Mr. DeSantis with 17 percent and all others at 3 percent or less, including former Vice President Mike Pence, Mr. Scott, Ms. Haley and Mr. Ramaswamy.Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, little known outside his state until recently, made it into the debate partly by offering $20 gift cards for a $1 donation, helping him clear the threshold of 40,000 individual donors to participate.“We’re running for president, and we actually think we have an excellent chance,” Mr. Burgum said in an interview, speaking in the first-person plural as if his candidacy was a movement.He dismissed Mr. Trump’s utter dominance of early polls as a reason not to run.“You wouldn’t say so-and-so is going to win the Super Bowl next February, we’re just going to cancel the season,” he said. “No, you play the game. America loves competition. America loves an underdog story, too.” More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis, su educación y campaña política

      by

      El gobernador de Florida solía enfatizar su educación en Yale y Harvard, escuelas de élite. Ahora, como aspirante presidencial republicano, la utiliza para azuzar las guerras culturales. Esto halló un análisis del Times.El gobernador de Florida, Ron DeSantis, busca la nominación a la candidatura presidencial republicana y ha ido moldeando su campaña y su personaje político en torno a una guerra contra la supuesta clase dirigente del país: una élite incompetente e irresponsable de burócratas, periodistas, educadores y otros “expertos” cuya autoridad perniciosa e inmerecida ha jurado derrotar. A pesar de sus dificultades en la campaña electoral, DeSantis se ha convertido en el líder de una nueva vanguardia conservadora que ve las escuelas y universidades públicas como el principal campo de batalla de las guerras culturales y sus políticas educativas en Florida como un modelo para los estados republicanos de todo el país.Sin embargo, la clase dirigente que DeSantis critica es la misma a la que pertenece. Se educó en las escuelas de Derecho de las universidades de Yale y Harvard, pasó los primeros años de su edad adulta subiendo como la espuma en la élite estadounidense. Un análisis de The New York Times revela el modo en que DeSantis, aunque se sentía genuinamente decepcionado por su paso por las instituciones de élite, también fue muy astuto a la hora de entender cómo podía sacarles provecho. Ahora ofrece al electorado una historia revisionista de sus propios encuentros con la clase dirigente para reforzar sus argumentos a favor de desbancarla y de rehacer la educación pública misma.A continuación, las cinco conclusiones de nuestro artículo de The New York Times.Se benefició de recibir una educación de éliteDurante su campaña, DeSantis suele describir sus años en las escuelas de Derecho de Yale y Harvard como un periodo detrás de las filas enemigas y describe ambas instituciones como lugares donde los estudiantes y los profesores eran antiestadounideses. Pero su experiencia general fue más variada de lo que reconoce.En Yale, formó parte de St. Elmo, una de las “sociedades secretas” de la escuela, conocida históricamente por ser semillero de futuros senadores y presidentes. Aunque, según él, Harvard estaba dominada por los “estudios jurídicos críticos” de izquierdas, la doctrina estaba en decadencia cuando él llegó y la escuela le proporcionó acceso a los intermediarios del poder de la conservadora Sociedad Federalista.Cuando ingresó en la política, su currículo de élite lo ayudó a atraer a donantes adinerados, recaudar fondos y conseguir contactos con republicanos importantes. Como reconoció en una mesa redonda en Cambridge, Massachusetts, poco antes de presentarse por primera vez a la gobernación: “Harvard les abre muchas puertas” a los aspirantes a políticos.Sus hermanos de fraternidad recordaron rituales de novatadas y una temprana comodidad con el poderHaciendo eco del propio relato de DeSantis sobre el choque cultural en Yale, algunos antiguos compañeros de clase contaron que el futuro gobernador, procedente de Dunedin, ciudad suburbana de clase media en la costa del Golfo, quedó perplejo y muy pronto se sintió ajeno al campus de Yale, más cosmopolita y diverso que su comunidad.Encontró a su tribu en el equipo de béisbol y en la fraternidad Delta Kappa Epsilon, donde participó en los brutales rituales de novatadas del grupo, un ejemplo temprano, en opinión de algunos antiguos hermanos de fraternidad, de su comodidad con el poder y la intimidación.En una ocasión, DeSantis y otros hermanos hicieron una broma en la que había que poner en marcha una licuadora entre las piernas de un novato con los ojos vendados. Durante la “semana infernal” de la fraternidad, que se llevaba a cabo en invierno, DeSantis obligó a un aspirante a llevar un pantalón de béisbol sin la parte trasera y los muslos, dejando al descubierto nalgas y genitales, según declararon antiguos hermanos y novatos. DeSantis negó estas versiones a través de su vocero, quien las calificó de “afirmaciones ridículas y completamente falsas”.DeSantis llegó tarde a las guerras culturalesEn la actualidad, no se puede dejar de asociar a DeSantis con políticas que se enfrentan a lo que él considera ideología de izquierdas en las escuelas y universidades públicas de Florida. Estos son algunos ejemplos: su intervención en la escuela de artes liberales New College; las iniciativas que facilitan a los padres cuestionar los libros disponibles en las escuelas primarias y secundarias; una ley que prohíbe hablar en clase sobre orientación sexual e identidad de género de formas que no se consideren “adecuadas para la edad”, así como las prohibiciones contra la enseñanza de ideas como el “racismo sistémico” en las cátedras principales de las universidades públicas.Sin embargo, según averiguó el Times, su ascenso hasta ubicarse como el principal guerrero cultural de su partido no estuvo predeterminado. Durante gran parte de su carrera política, incluidos sus primeros años como gobernador de Florida, no se le identificaba como interesado en la política educativa ni en los debates sobre raza y género (cuando un legislador de Florida propuso por primera vez abolir por completo el New College, la universidad de artes liberales que ofrece una experiencia educativa de excelencia a precios de institución pública, DeSantis respondió: “¿Qué es el New College?”).Tuvo que pasar la pandemia de coronavirus (y las reacciones contra los mandatos de mascarillas, los cierres de escuelas y la difusión de planes de estudios “antirracistas” y de “equidad”) para que DeSantis se diera cuenta del poder político de los temas educativos y consolidara su desconfianza hacia los expertos académicos y científicos.Encontró una causa común con un nuevo grupo de académicos conservadoresMientras luchaba contra la teoría crítica de la raza y las élites burocráticas, DeSantis se vinculó con un movimiento creciente de académicos y activistas conservadores fuera de Florida, en particular en el Hillsdale College de Míchigan y el Claremont Institute de California.Hace poco, en un retiro de donantes, DeSantis incluyó un panel de Claremont destinado a “definir el ‘régimen’ que nos gobierna con ilegalidad” y exponer una estrategia para “hacer que los estados sean más autónomos del régimen woke al librarse de los intereses de izquierda”, según correos electrónicos de planificación obtenidos por el Times.En un informe en el que se pedía que Florida aboliera los programas de diversidad, uno de los expertos —que en 2021 argumentó en un discurso que el feminismo vuelve a las mujeres “más medicadas, entrometidas y pendencieras”— instaba a DeSantis a “ordenar investigaciones de derechos civiles en todas las unidades universitarias en las que las mujeres superen ampliamente en número a los hombres” y a erradicar “cualquier elemento en contra de los hombres del plan de estudios”.Sus políticas han cambiado de rumbo en materia de libertad de cátedraEn Florida, DeSantis se alejó por completo del compromiso que había hecho antes de mantener la libertad de cátedra. Incluso al pedir que se desmantele la ortodoxia woke, ha impuesto otra, con una prohibición radical de la enseñanza de la “política de identidad” en las clases obligatorias en los colegios y universidades públicas de Florida. En nombre de los “derechos de los padres”, las políticas respaldadas por DeSantis han dado a los floridanos conservadores un derecho de veto sobre los libros y planes de estudio favorecidos por sus vecinos más liberales.Una persona designada por DeSantis, el activista conservador Chris Rufo, ha argumentado que “el objetivo de la universidad no es la indagación libre”. En los tribunales, los abogados del gobierno de DeSantis han esgrimido que el concepto de libertad de cátedra no aplica a los maestros de las universidades públicas, cuya enseñanza es un mero “discurso gubernamental”, controlable por funcionarios debidamente electos.Nicholas Confessore es reportero político y de investigación radicado en Nueva York y miembro de la redacción del Times Magazine; cubre la intersección de la riqueza, el poder y la influencia en Washington y más allá. Se unió al Times en 2004. @nickconfessore • Facebook More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ramaswamy’s Foreign Policy Approach Offers Rivals a Line of Attack

      by

      As Vivek Ramaswamy rises in the polls, fellow Republican presidential candidates are keying in on a number of policy pronouncements that veer far from the G.O.P. mainstream.Republican presidential rivals, looking to blunt Vivek Ramaswamy’s rise in national primary polls ahead of the first primary debate on Wednesday, have seized on the political arena where the upstart entrepreneur has strayed far afield from his party’s thinkers: foreign policy.Opponents have attacked Mr. Ramaswamy for his assertions that he would leave Taiwan to the Chinese once the United States has sufficiently expanded its domestic semiconductor industry and that he would allow Russia to keep parts of eastern Ukraine in order to entice President Vladimir V. Putin away from his military alliance with China. Most recently, he said he would curtail military aid to Israel after stabilizing the Middle East, perhaps the politically riskiest position yet.“This is part of a concerning pattern with Vivek,” Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said Monday about Mr. Ramaswamy’s Israel comments. “Between abandoning Israel, abolishing the F.B.I., and giving Taiwan to China, his foreign policy proposals have a common theme: They make America less safe.”Candidates have also looked askance at peculiar statements Mr. Ramaswamy made this month suggesting a government cover-up behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; former Vice President Mike Pence said he was “deeply offended.”Mr. Ramaswamy, who has never held elected office or worked in government, expresses supreme confidence in his foreign policy views. He has cited as his models George F. Kennan, the architect of America’s Cold War global reach, and James A. Baker III, the American diplomat most credited for transitioning the world beyond the Cold War. He has vowed as president to go to Moscow the way Richard M. Nixon went to China.But in a political campaign, his positions may come off as naïve or bizarre — and easy to exploit. His tendency to answer any question posed to him has sent him down a rabbit hole of conspiratorial innuendo on Sept. 11. First, he told an interviewer, “I don’t believe the government has told us the truth” about the attacks. In a lengthy post on X, formerly known as Twitter, he subsequently explained that he was suggesting a deeper involvement in the attack by Saudi Arabia’s government.Then in an interview posted Monday in The Atlantic, he plunged deeper, asking, “how many police, how many federal agents, were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers?”His rivals’ criticisms in some cases have disregarded the broader context of Mr. Ramaswamy’s statements. His pledge to pull back military aid to Israel, made last week in an interview with the actor Russell Brand on the video platform Rumble that’s popular on the right, were part of a larger conversation on expanding Israel’s bilateral peace agreements with its neighbors that would make military aid less necessary.But caveats and context are often sacrificed on the campaign trail, and Mr. Ramaswamy said on Monday that he expected further foreign policy attacks on the debate stage Wednesday night in Milwaukee.“I personally think we should spend a lot of time on it,” he said in an interview, “instead of rehashing pre-canned lines on who is more anti-woke.”Mr. Ramaswamy on Monday framed the blowback from his critics as hostility from “a broken foreign policy establishment that is sanctimoniously steeped in the disastrous mistakes of the last four decades.”But his proposals are pushing the envelope, even for a Republican Party increasingly dominated by isolationism, and open to conspiracy theories.Among those proposals are a quid-pro-quo offer to Mr. Putin: He would promise to block Ukraine from joining NATO and freeze the battle lines in Ukraine, with Russia controlling Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine, in exchange for a Putin break with China.Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey and a fellow candidate for the Republican nomination, slammed that position from Ukraine in an interview with The Washington Post this month, calling it “a false choice” and “a ridiculous statement.”Even as Mr. Ramaswamy promises to isolate China, he told the conservative broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that the United States would continue to defend Taiwan through 2028, when a Ramaswamy administration will have rebuilt the domestic semiconductor industry. After that, Mr. Ramaswamy said, the U.S. commitment to Taiwan would change.“You are saying ‘I will go to war, including attacking the Chinese mainland, if you attack before semiconductor independence. And afterward, you can have Taiwan?’” Mr. Hewitt asked incredulously.“Well, Hugh, I’m running to be the next president, and so I expect to be the president inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2025,” Mr. Ramaswamy answered. “So I’m wearing that hat when I’m choosing my words very carefully right now. And I’m being very clear: Xi Jinping should not mess with Taiwan until we have achieved semiconductor independence, until the end of my first term when I will lead us there,” he added, referring to the Chinese president.But his comments on Israel, in the hands of his rivals, could threaten his rising star, considering the centrality of Israel to many conservative voters, especially evangelical Christians. After Jewish and Israeli publications played up his comments on pulling back military aid, the conservative radio host Mark Levin responded on the social media platform X, “Not good. Awful, actually,” adding, “He threw Taiwan under the bus too.”In a lengthy response, released publicly as an open letter to the candidate, Matthew Brooks, the longtime chief executive of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said that “this is not the time for the U.S. to take an action that would be universally perceived by Israel’s enemies as a weakening of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”On Monday, Mr. Ramaswamy said he was “not surprised at the foreign policy establishment’s anaphylactic response to anyone who challenges the orthodoxy.”“Friends help friends stand on their own feet,” he said of his Israel policy.But for Republican rivals looking for a target who isn’t the front-runner, Donald J. Trump, Mr. Ramaswamy could be an inviting one. Polling averages put him in third place, and gaining on Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who is in second. Other than Mr. Christie, Republican candidates have shied away from attacking Mr. Trump, convinced they will ultimately need the former president’s loyal followers.Foreign policy would be a safer line of attack against Mr. Ramaswamy than his domestic proposals, which align closely with Mr. Trump’s.“I’m not surprised they’re throwing the kitchen sink at me,” Mr. Ramaswamy said. “They’re threatened by my rise.” More