Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares74 Views

      in Elections

      Is Mamdani Really a Gift to Trump and the G.O.P.?

      by

      Republicans have gleefully seized on Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, as a fresh boogeyman. The reality could be more complicated.The votes were still being tallied last night when Representative Elise Stefanik, the New York Republican, sought to blame a potential political rival for Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani’s all-but-official upset victory in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City.“Make no mistake, it is BECAUSE OF Kathy Hochul and the NY Democrat Party’s inept weakness and sheer incompetence that this has happened,” Stefanik wrote on X, referring to Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York.Never mind that Hochul didn’t so much as endorse Mamdani. Stefanik, who is contemplating a run for governor next year after President Trump pulled her nomination to be his United Nations ambassador, saw an obvious target.So has much of her party.In the hours since Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, opened up a healthy lead over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the first round of the city’s ranked-choice voting, Republicans have gleefully seized on a fresh new boogeyman for 2025. They’ve denigrated Mamdani’s age, his criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and his progressive politics. Some on the right have directly vilified his Muslim faith.“We’ve had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous,” the president wrote on his social media site a few hours into his flight from Amsterdam to Washington today, adding that Mamdani “looks TERRIBLE.”Representative Mike Lawler, a moderate Republican from the Hudson Valley, said New York Democrats would “pay the price for this insanity.” The National Republican Congressional Committee called Mamdani “proudly antisemitic” — a charge he has forcefully rejected — and demanded that moderate Democrats like Representatives Tom Suozzi and Laura Gillen of New York say whether or not they support him.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares82 Views

      in Elections

      Why Democrats Need Their Own Trump

      by

      We are more than 1,200 days away from the 2028 presidential election, but the Democratic presidential primary is already well underway. The likely candidates are fund-raising, hosting campaign rallies, starting podcasts and staking out ideological lanes.Candidates will try to carve out distinct political identities, but one challenge unites them all: Their party is historically unpopular. The Democratic Party’s favorability rating is 22 percentage points underwater — 60 percent of respondents view it unfavorably, 38 favorably. Apart from the waning days of Joe Biden’s presidency, that is by far the lowest it’s been during the more than 30 years Pew Research has collected data.The presidential hopefuls are likely to divide into two camps, moderates and progressives. But these paths misunderstand Democrats’ predicament and will fail to win over a meaningful majority in the long term. If the next Democratic nominee wants to build a majority coalition — one that doesn’t rely on Republicans running poor-quality candidates to eke out presidential wins and that doesn’t write off the Senate as a lost cause — the candidate should attack the Democratic Party itself and offer positions that outflank it from both the right and the left.It may seem like an audacious gambit, but a successful candidate has provided them a blueprint: Donald Trump.To be clear, the blueprint I refer to is not the one Mr. Trump has used to violate democratic norms and destabilize American institutions, but rather the one for resetting how Americans view a party and its leaders.In January 2013, at the time of Barack Obama’s second inauguration, Republicans were deeply unpopular. Conservative thought leaders like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove advocated comprehensive immigration reform as a pathway back to a majority. By the summer, the base’s backlash to the idea was itself so comprehensive that many of them were forced to retreat.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares105 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Can’t Include Limits on Trump Lawsuits in Megabill, Senate Parliamentarian Rules

      by

      The Senate parliamentarian rejected a measure in Republicans’ domestic policy bill that could limit lawsuits seeking to block presidential orders.A Senate official rejected on Sunday a measure in Republicans’ sweeping domestic policy bill that could limit lawsuits seeking to block President Trump’s executive actions.The measure would target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges on Mr. Trump’s directives. Those rulings have halted or delayed orders on a host of policies, including efforts to carry out mass firings of federal workers and to withhold funds from states that do not comply with demands on immigration enforcement.The G.O.P. proposal would require parties suing over federal policies to post a bond covering the government’s potential costs and damages from an injunction if the judge’s order were found later to have been wrongly granted.“Individual district judges — who don’t even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts — are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,” Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March.Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out President Trump’s agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits.The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Lawmakers Cheer Strike on Iran as Top Democrats Condemn It

      by

      Republicans in Congress praised President Trump’s decision to hit Iran. Many Democrats and some G.O.P. lawmakers said he should have consulted Congress.Top Republicans in Congress swiftly rallied behind President Trump on Saturday after he ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, even as senior Democrats and some G.O.P. lawmakers condemned it as an unconstitutional move that could drag the United States into a broader war in the Middle East.In separate statements, the leading Republicans in Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, commended the military operation, calling it a necessary check on Iran’s ambitions of developing a nuclear weapon. Both men had been briefed on the military action before the strike was carried out, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly.Mr. Johnson and Mr. Thune both argued that the airstrikes were necessary after Iran had rejected diplomatic overtures to curb its nuclear program.“The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace,” Mr. Thune said.Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said that Iran rejected pathways to peace.Tierney L. Cross/The New York TimesMr. Johnson argued that the military action was consistent with Mr. Trump’s muscular foreign policy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares81 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Official Rejects Food Aid Cuts Proposed by Republicans in Megabill

      by

      The ruling by the parliamentarian sent G.O.P. lawmakers back to the drawing board to cover the costs of President Trump’s domestic policy bill.A top Senate official on Friday night rejected a bid by Republicans to slash federal food aid payments as part of their sweeping legislation carrying President Trump’s domestic agenda, sending party leaders scrambling to find another way to help offset the massive cost of the bill.The measure passed by the House last month and on track to be considered in the Senate next week would cover part of the cost of extending and expanding large tax cuts by cutting social safety net programs including Medicaid and nutrition programs, including SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.Republicans are moving the bill through Congress using special rules that shield it from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must comply with a rigorous set of budgetary restrictions meant to ensure that it will not add to the deficit. And the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber’s leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, must evaluate such measures to ensure that every provision meets those requirements.Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, ruled that the SNAP measure, which would push some of the costs of nutrition assistance onto the states, did not. That sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill’s cost.She also said Republicans could not include a provision that would bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving SNAP benefits, according to Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee.The House-passed bill would require all states to pay at least 5 percent of SNAP benefit costs, and more if they reported a high rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. That provision was estimated to save roughly $128 billion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares87 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Proposal Ends Tax Cuts for Clean Energy, Disappointing Climate Advocates

      by

      A Senate tax package softens some blows imposed on renewables by a House version of the bill. But it still terminates many credits for clean power.Climate advocates, Democrats, and even some House Republicans who last month had supported a tax package that gutted federal support for clean energy were hoping the Senate would make fixes to protect energy manufacturing and jobs.But on Monday, Senate Republicans disappointed them, proposing to quickly end most tax breaks for wind and solar power, electric vehicles and other clean energy.Draft legislation released by the Senate Finance Committee would terminate or scale back most of the major tax incentives for clean energy contained in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Biden administration’s signature climate law.The plan would eliminate within six months a $7,500 consumer tax credit for purchases of electric vehicles as well as home energy rebates for things like electric heat pumps and induction stoves. A tax credit for homeowners who install solar panels on rooftops would end within 180 days. A subsidy for making hydrogen fuels would expire this year.Federal tax credits for wind and solar power, which have been in place for decades but were made more lucrative under the Inflation Reduction Act, would be rapidly phased out. Wind and solar companies could qualify for the full tax break only if they began construction in the next six months. They would receive 60 percent of the tax break if they began construction in 2026, and 20 percent of the tax credit if they began construction in 2027. Projects built after that would get nothing.That’s a slightly longer runway for renewable energy than is in the House version of the bill, which would have ended those tax breaks almost immediately.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Choice on Israel-Iran: Help Destroy Nuclear Facility or Continue to Negotiate

      by

      Iranian officials have warned that U.S. participation in an attack on its facilities will imperil any chance of the nuclear disarmament deal the president insists he is still interested in pursuing.President Trump is weighing a critical decision in the four-day-old war between Israel and Iran: whether to enter the fray by helping Israel destroy the deeply buried nuclear enrichment facility at Fordo, which only America’s biggest “bunker buster,” dropped by American B-2 bombers, can reach.If he decides to go ahead, the United States will become a direct participant in a new conflict in the Middle East, taking on Iran in exactly the kind of war Mr. Trump has sworn, in two campaigns, he would avoid. Iranian officials have already warned that U.S. participation in an attack on its facilities will imperil any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal that Mr. Trump insists he is still interested in pursuing.Mr. Trump had at one point encouraged his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, and possibly Vice President JD Vance, to offer to meet the Iranians, according to a U.S. official. But on Monday Mr. Trump posted on social media that “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran,” hardly a sign of diplomatic progress.Mr. Trump also said on Monday that “I think Iran basically is at the negotiating table, they want to make a deal.” The urgency appeared to be rising. The White House announced late on Monday that Mr. Trump was leaving the Group of 7 summit early because of the situation in the Middle East.“As soon as I leave here, we’re going to be doing something,” Mr. Trump said. “But I have to leave here.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares90 Views

      in Elections

      A Daunting Task for Democrats

      by

      More from our inbox:A Loyalty Oath for Federal Workers?Principled Republicans Mark Peterson/ReduxTo the Editor:In “The Democrats’ Problems Are Bigger Than You Think” (column, June 6), David Brooks challenges the Democrats to do two things: define the central problem of our time and come up with a new grand national narrative.The first is easy: The central problem of our time is the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed longstanding campaign finance regulations. There is no way our government can become a government of the people when wealthy elites can buy representation.And the Democrats can ignore the second suggestion. No political party needs to create a new grand narrative. What it needs to do is to listen to the people and encourage and help those people voice their concerns and needs. Then the party needs to figure out how to best meet and pay for those concerns and needs.If money’s role in our elections can be addressed quickly, then a centrist and realistic narrative can be forged — and it should include an equitable tax policy. We are more in need of a reform of brackets and deductions in our tax system than we are of a new grand narrative.Elizabeth BjorkmanLexington, Mass.To the Editor:I agree with the view articulated by David Brooks that nothing short of a revolution in consciousness will allow us to wrest control of our future from the MAGA movement. What we need right now is a vision of the future that doesn’t involve just dismantling structures and undoing what’s been done (much of which is good), but also creating new belief systems.This will involve coming to terms with the fact that capitalism has failed the world in very serious and fundamental ways, producing a planet that is being torn apart by migration caused by civil war, climate disaster, inequality and starvation. These problems cannot be rejiggered from what already exists, because the system itself no longer recognizes the needs of the vast majority of its inhabitants.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More