Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Trump, the Man Most Responsible for Ending Roe, Worries It Could Hurt His Party

      by

      The end of the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling was the culmination of decades of work by Republicans and social conservatives — one that came to pass only after a former Democrat from New York who had once supported abortion rights helped muscle through three Supreme Court justices.Publicly, former President Donald J. Trump heralded the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday ending federal abortion protections as a victory. Yet, as he faces possible prosecution over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election and prepares for a likely 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump has privately told friends and advisers the ruling will be “bad for Republicans.”When a draft copy of the decision leaked in May, Mr. Trump began telling friends and advisers that it would anger suburban women, a group who helped tilt the 2020 race to President Biden, and would lead to a backlash against Republicans in the November midterm elections.In other conversations, Mr. Trump has told people that measures like the Texas state law banning most abortions after six weeks and allowing citizens to file lawsuits against people who enable abortions are “so stupid,” according to a person with direct knowledge of the discussions. The Supreme Court let the measure stand in December 2021.For the first hours after the decision was made public on Friday, Mr. Trump was muted in response, a striking contrast to the conservatives who worked in his administration, including former Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Pence issued a statement saying, “Life won,” as he called for abortion opponents to keep fighting “in every state in the land.”Former Vice President Mike Pence called for abortion opponents to keep fighting “in every state in the land.”Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesFor weeks in advance of the ruling, Mr. Trump had been just as muted. In an interview with The New York Times in May, Mr. Trump uttered an eyebrow-raising demurral in response to a question about the central role he had played in paving the way for the reversal of Roe v. Wade.“I never like to take credit for anything,” said Mr. Trump, who has spent his career affixing his name to almost anything he could.Pressed to describe his feelings about having helped assemble a court that was on the verge of erasing the 1973 ruling, Mr. Trump refused to engage the question and instead focused on the leak of the draft opinion.“I don’t know what the decision is,” he said. “We’ve been reading about something that was drawn months ago. Nobody knows what that decision is. A draft is a draft.”By early afternoon on Friday, Mr. Trump put out a statement taking a victory lap, including applauding himself for sticking by his choice of nominees. All three of Mr. Trump’s appointees to the court — whom he pushed through with help from Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader — were in the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling. He left unspoken the fact that he repeatedly attacked the court for not interceding on his behalf after he lost the 2020 election.Mr. Trump with the newest of his three Supreme Court nominees, Amy Coney Barrett, at the White House in 2020.Oliver Contreras for The New York Times“Today’s decision, which is the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation, along with other decisions that have been announced recently, were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump said.The former president also told Fox News, in an interview published after the decision on Friday, that the court was “following the Constitution, and giving rights back when they should have been given long ago.” He added, “I think, in the end, this is something that will work out for everybody.”Republicans are bracing for a fight: A memo in May from the National Republican Senate Committee, first reported by Axios, suggested that G.O.P. candidates deal with criticism from Democrats by highlighting “extreme and radical views” in support of late-term abortions and government funding for abortions, and suggesting that their own views are based “in compassion and reason.”While Mr. Trump had stayed quiet on the issue in recent weeks, people close to him anticipate he will become more vocal as he watches how clearly his right-wing base responds and how easily he can point to it as something that he made happen. His advisers believe he can highlight the issue as he faces potential Republican challengers and sees signs that his own political base has moved further to the right on vaccines and other issues.Other potential candidates have been far more vocal. Mr. Pence has spent months talking about his desire to see Roe v. Wade end and visiting pregnancy centers. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, another evangelical Christian considering a presidential campaign, wrote on Twitter after the draft opinion emerged: “I pray for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Every human being, born and unborn, has a fundamental right to life, and it is our calling to guard and secure it.”Most significantly from Mr. Trump’s perspective, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, the Republican whom a number of Mr. Trump’s former supporters have expressed interest in seeing as a 2024 candidate, signed a bill this spring banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader, a socially conservative political group based in Iowa, praised Mr. Trump before the ruling came down. “What he did as president is, he followed through on what he said he was going to do and appoint Supreme Court justices that were faithful to the Constitution,” Mr. Vander Plaats said.Asked about Mr. Trump’s private remarks that the ruling would hurt Republicans, Mr. Vander Plaats responded, “I would just vehemently disagree with that.”Indeed, while Republicans in competitive states and congressional districts have expressed some anxiousness about the sort of blowback Mr. Trump has told people he fears, many pollsters say it is too soon to tell how the issue will play out in the midterm elections.A Gallup survey this month found that the share of Americans identifying as “pro-choice” had jumped to 55 percent after hovering between 45 percent and 50 percent for a decade. That sentiment was “the highest Gallup has measured since 1995,” while the 39 percent who identified as “pro-life” was “the lowest since 1996,” the polling firm said.Advocates for and against abortion rights outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Friday after Roe v. Wade was overturned.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesA May survey conducted for CNN found that 66 percent of the people questioned said they believed Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.But anti-abortion activists who supported Mr. Trump as president insist the ruling will be a political boon to Republicans, and maintained that surveys in which voters are asked specific questions about the measure indicate that.“When pro-life Republicans go on offense to expose the abortion extremism of their opponents, life is a proven winning issue for the G.O.P.,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates.Voluble as he is, Mr. Trump has long seemed to have a special difficulty in grappling with the subject of abortion, which he supported for years as a right but said he personally abhorred. In 2011, as he considered a presidential campaign as a Republican, he announced he did not support abortion rights, but struggled to discuss the issue as a candidate four years later.“I know you’re opposed to abortion,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said to him in a June 2015 interview.“Right,” Trump replied. “I’m pro-choice.”Mr. Tapper furrowed a brow. “You’re pro-choice or pro-life?”“I’m pro-life,” Mr. Trump quickly corrected himself. “I’m sorry.”In March 2016, Mr. Trump said in an MSNBC town hall event that if the nation outlawed abortion — a change he supported — there would have to be “some form of punishment” for a woman seeking abortion. The remark set off a firestorm, which Mr. Trump tried to quell by issuing two statements that only added to the confusion.Two days later, on CBS, Mr. Trump said that he wished abortion were left up to the states, but that the federal laws were “set, and I think we have to leave it that way.”Officials with the Susan B. Anthony List said at the time that Mr. Trump had disqualified himself for the presidency. His campaign again issued a cleanup statement, saying he only meant that the laws must remain in place “until he is president.”Yet in his third and final debate against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, Mr. Trump laid out his belief that he would have two and as many as three Supreme Court seats to fill. And he explicitly promised, in a way other candidates never had, that when he chose jurists who shared his stated beliefs, Roe v. Wade would be overturned.As president, however, Mr. Trump often wanted little to do with the issue.Mr. Trump seemed to swing between fascination with and repulsion from the subject, remarking upon the thorniness of it and how divided the country was on abortion, and wringing his hands when it came time to make decisions.Participants in the March for Life in Washington in 2020 attended an address by Mr. Trump.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesAnd he often preferred to defer to Mr. Pence, even at one point expressing hope that Mr. Pence would cancel a trip to Rome, including an audience with the pope, and instead represent the administration at the March for Life in Washington.One of Mr. Trump’s supporters, Robert Jeffress, a Texas pastor, recalled having discussions with the former president about the “political complexities” of the issue, describing Mr. Trump as an opponent of abortion but also a “realist.”“I’ve heard him point out in the Oval Office that 60-plus percent of Americans are against a repeal of Roe, and that makes this a politically complex issue,” Mr. Jeffress said. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      No One Is Above the Law, and That Starts With Donald Trump

      by

      In a 2019 ruling requiring the former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify at a congressional hearing about former President Donald Trump’s alleged abuses of power, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson declared that “presidents are not kings.” If we take that admonition from our next Supreme Court justice seriously and look at the evidence amassed so far by the House select committee on the Jan. 6 attack, we can — and in fact must — conclude that the prosecution of Mr. Trump is not only permissible but required for the sake of American democracy.This week’s hearings showed us that Mr. Trump acted as if he thought he was a king, not a president subject to the same rules as the rest of us. The hearings featured extraordinary testimony about the relentless pressure to subvert the 2020 election that the former president and his allies brought against at least 31 state and local officials in states he lost, like Michigan, Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania. He or his allies twisted the arm of everyone from top personnel at the U.S. Department of Justice to lower-level election workers.The evidence and the testimony offered demonstrates why Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department should convene a grand jury now, if it hasn’t already, to consider indicting Mr. Trump for crimes related to his attempt to overturn the results of the election, before he declares his candidacy for president in 2024, perhaps as early as this summer.Although a Trump prosecution is far from certain to succeed, too much focus has been put on the risks of prosecuting him and too little on the risks of not doing so. The consequences of a failure to act for the future of democratic elections are enormous.There’s no denying that prosecuting Mr. Trump is fraught with legal difficulties. To the extent that charges like obstructing an official proceeding or conspiring to defraud the United States turn on Mr. Trump’s state of mind — an issue on which there is significant debate — it may be tough to get to the bottom of what he actually believed, given his history of lying and doubling down when confronted with contrary facts. And Mr. Trump could try to shift blame by claiming that he was relying on his lawyers — including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani — who amplified the phony claims of fraud and who concocted faulty legal arguments to overturn the results of the election. Mr. Trump could avoid conviction if there’s even one juror who believes his repeated lies about the 2020 election.And yes, there are political difficulties too. The “Lock her up!” chants against Hillary Clinton at 2016 Trump rallies for her use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state were so pernicious because threatening to jail political enemies can lead to a deterioration of democratic values. If each presidential administration is investigating and prosecuting the last, respect for both the electoral process and the legal process may be undermined.That concern is real, but if there has ever been a case extreme enough to warrant indicting a president, then this is the case, and Mr. Trump is the person. This is not just because of what he will do if he is elected again after not being indicted (and after not being convicted following a pair of impeachments, one for the very conduct under discussion), but also because of the message it sends for the future.Leaving Mr. Trump unprosecuted would be saying it was fine to call federal, state and local officials, including many who have sworn constitutional oaths, and ask or even demand of them that they do his personal and political bidding.The testimony from the hearings reveals a coordinated and extensive plot to overturn the will of the people and install Mr. Trump as president despite Joe Biden winning the election by 74 Electoral College votes (not to mention a margin of about seven million in the popular vote). There was political pressure, and sometimes threats of violence, across the board. Mr. Trump and his cronies hounded poll workers and election officials to admit to nonexistent fraud or to recount votes and change vote totals.Wandrea Moss, known as Shaye, a former Georgia election worker, testified Tuesday about the harassment and violent threats she faced after Trump allies accused her and her mother of election fraud. As The Associated Press reported, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Mr. Giuliani, pointed to surveillance video of the two women working on ballot counting and “said the footage showed the women ‘surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they are vials of heroin or cocaine.’” The “USB ports” turned out to be ginger mints.It is no wonder that election workers and election officials are leaving their offices in fear of violence and harassment.Former top Department of Justice officials in the Trump administration testified on Thursday about pressure from Mr. Trump, in collusion with a lower-level department official named Jeffrey Clark, to issue a letter falsely claiming evidence of significant fraud in the elections. We heard in Thursday’s hearing that Mr. Trump, in a meeting that echoed his earlier role as boss on the television show “The Apprentice,” almost fired the attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, to replace him with Mr. Clark, who had no experience in either criminal law or election law.The confirmation by the Department of Justice under Mr. Clark of this “fraud” would have served as a predicate for state legislators, also pressured by Mr. Trump and his allies, to “decertify” Biden electors and conjure up a new slate of electors supporting Mr. Trump.The pressure did not stop there. An earlier committee hearing recounted severe pressure from Mr. Trump on Vice President Mike Pence to manipulate the rules for Congress to count electoral votes, a plan that depended on members of Congress supporting spurious objections to the Electoral College votes in states that Mr. Biden won.Mr. Trump also whipped up the Jan. 6 crowd for “wild” protests and encouraged it to join him in pressuring Mr. Pence to violate his constitutional oath and manipulate the Electoral College count.In his testimony on Tuesday before the Jan. 6 committee, the speaker of the Arizona House, Rusty Bowers, described the intense barrage coming at him from calls from Mr. Trump and his allies, and from Trump supporters who protested outside his house and threatened his neighbor with violence. But Mr. Bowers compared the Trump crew to the book “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight” because they failed to come forward with a plausible plan to overturn the election results in Arizona or elsewhere.Seeing the group as bumbling, though, minimizes the danger of what Mr. Trump and his allies attempted and downplays how deadly serious this was: As Representative Adam Schiff, a member of the committee, noted, the country “barely” survived Mr. Trump’s attempt at election subversion, which could have worked despite the legal and factual weaknesses in the fraud claims.What if people of less fortitude than Mr. Bowers and others caved? Consider Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state in Georgia, who also testified on Tuesday about pressure from the Trump team. He described a direct phone call from a man who was then the sitting president prodding him to “find” 11,780 votes to flip Georgia from Mr. Biden to Mr. Trump. What if, instead of rebuffing Mr. Trump, Mr. Raffensperger declared that he felt there were enough questions about the vote count in Democratic counties in Georgia to warrant the legislature’s appointment of new electors, as Mr. Trump had urged?If even one of these officials had cooperated, the dikes could have broken, and claims in state after state could have proliferated.There’s no question that Mr. Trump tried to steal the election. Richard Donoghue, a top official at the Department of Justice serving during the postelection period, testified on Thursday that he knocked down with extensive evidence every cockamamie theory of voter fraud that Mr. Trump and his allies raised, but to no avail. He testified that there were nothing but “isolated” instances of fraud, the same conclusion reached by the former attorney general, Bill Barr.Mr. Bowers testified that when he demanded evidence from Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Giuliani said he had theories, but no evidence. The president appears to have known it too. According to Mr. Donoghue’s handwritten notes of his conversation with Mr. Trump, when confronted with the lack of evidence of fraud, the former president said, “Just say the election was corrupt” and “leave the rest to me” and the Republican congressmen. The president even talked about having the federal government seize voting machines, perhaps in an attempt to rerun the election.The longer Mr. Garland waits to bring charges against Mr. Trump, the harder it will be, especially if Mr. Trump has already declared for president and can say that the prosecution is politically motivated to help Democrats win in 2024. The fact that federal investigators conducted a search for evidence at the home of Mr. Clark shows that the department is working its way ever closer to the former president.What Mr. Trump did in its totality and in many individual instances was criminal. If Mr. Garland fails to act, it will only embolden Mr. Trump or someone like him to try again if he loses, this time aided by a brainwashed and cowered army of elected and election officials who stand ready to steal the election next time.Mr. Trump was the 45th president, not the first American king, but if we don’t deter conduct like this, the next head of state may come closer to claiming the kind of absolute power that is antithetical to everything the United States stands for.Richard L. Hasen (@rickhasen), who will join the University of California, Los Angeles, as a professor of law in July, is the author of “Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politics — and How to Cure It.” In 2020, he proposed a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to defend and expand voting rights.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Eric Greitens to Face New G.O.P. Attacks in Missouri Senate Race

      by

      The long-awaited effort to stop Eric Greitens from becoming the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri is finally getting underway.The big question is whether it’s too late to stop him.A robust, well-financed Republican campaign to highlight Greitens’s personal scandals — which include allegations of domestic and sexual abuse — is set to begin on Friday, starting with at least $1 million in paid television ads.Politico first reported the arrival of the new super PAC, Show Me Values, which is being led by Johnny DeStefano, a longtime aide to Representative John Boehner of Ohio who became a powerful figure inside the Trump White House.The leaders of the drive to halt Greitens, which is being spearheaded by a coalition of in-state donors, hope to fundamentally alter the dynamics of a race that has been stagnant for months by sounding a drumbeat of allegations about disturbing and erratic behavior by the former Missouri governor.But as they look to avoid jeopardizing what is most likely a safe Republican Senate seat, they face a tight timeline ahead of Missouri’s Aug. 2 primary, and it is unclear whether new details about Greitens’s alleged conduct will resonate with G.O.P. voters.The front-runner: Eric GreitensGreitens’s history has long been subject to scrutiny — and new accusations have steadily emerged.In 2018, he resigned as governor amid allegations that he had sexually abused a hair stylist with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Greitens denies the accusations, which the woman detailed in sworn testimony during an impeachment inquiry led by fellow Republicans in the state.His ex-wife, Sheena Greitens, a scholar of Asian geopolitics, left him after those allegations came to light and moved to Texas. The couple are now waging a bitter court battle over custody of their elementary-school-age children.Sheena Greitens, second from left, during a court session in her child custody case against her former husband on Thursday in Columbia, Mo.David A. Lieb/Associated PressIn a sworn affidavit released in April, Greitens accused her former husband of a pattern of abusive behavior, including allegedly “cuffing our then-3-year-old son across the face” and “yanking him around by his hair.”The former governor has denied all wrongdoing, and on Thursday his campaign pointed to a previous statement provided to The New York Times by Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for the candidate. The alleged abusive behavior “never happened,” Parlatore said.At a court hearing on Thursday, a lawyer for Sheena Greitens, Helen Wade, said that her client had received death threats this week after the former governor released a violent new political video that shows him armed with a shotgun and storming a home in search of “RINOs,” or Republicans in name only, along with what appears to be a SWAT team wielding military-style rifles. Wade did not respond to multiple messages seeking comment on Thursday.The kingmaker: Rex SinquefieldFor now, Greitens is ahead of his nearest opponent, Eric Schmitt, the Missouri attorney general, by about 3.5 percentage points, polling averages of the race show.Schmitt has the backing of Save Missouri Values, a super PAC bankrolled by Rex Sinquefield, a wealthy retired investor who is a dominant player in state politics.Sinquefield, who is also the primary funder of Show Me Values, the new anti-Greitens super PAC, is best known for his devotion to three “idiosyncratic passions,” according to a critical 2014 profile in Politico Magazine: “promoting chess, dismantling the traditional public school system and eliminating income taxes.”Until now in the Senate primary campaign, not one television ad has aired laying out Sheena Greitens’s most recent allegations. One of the new ads from Show Me Values will focus on her accusations, saying that Eric Greitens has faced “scandal after scandal,” according to two people familiar with its contents.The most effective knock on Greitens with likely Republican primary voters in Missouri, polling conducted by a rival campaign discovered, might sound a bit surprising.It involved informing them that he had previously identified as a Democrat and traveled to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 to hear a young, progressive senator named Barack Obama accept his party’s nomination for president.The X Factor: TrumpThe president’s endorsement could be decisive — and everybody knows it.Allies of both Schmitt and Representative Vicky Hartzler, another Senate candidate who is closely trailing Schmitt in most polling, have been cautioning Trump and his allies against backing Greitens.One argument that seems to resonate with the former president, according to people who have spoken with him: Don’t risk upsetting your pristine endorsement record in 2022 Senate races.On Wednesday, after Katie Britt defeated Representative Mo Brooks in a G.O.P. primary runoff for a Senate seat in Alabama, Trump boasted that his scorecard remained perfect in Senate primaries this year.“With the great ALABAMA win by Katie Britt tonight, I am pleased to announce that WE (MAGA!) are 12 WINS & ZERO LOSSES in U.S. Senate Primary races this cycle,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, his Twitter-like social media site. He made no mention of the fact that he had previously endorsed Brooks before souring on his candidacy.Eric Schmitt, left, the attorney general of Missouri, is hoping for a surge to win the Republican nomination for Senate.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesIn Missouri, Trump’s notoriously chaotic decision-making process is complicated by the fact that his son, Donald Trump Jr., and Kimberly Guilfoyle, Don Jr.’s fiancée, are backing Greitens.The younger Trump has advised his father to allow the primary to develop further before endorsing anyone, according to two people familiar with his thinking. A spokesman for Trump said that, to his knowledge, an endorsement was not “imminent,” and that he had not seen any draft announcements.Allies of Greitens are eager to link any effort to attack him to Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, who is a frequent target of Trump’s ire. McConnell’s team did not return phone calls on Thursday, but there is no evidence that his allies have any connection to the new super PAC.Republicans in Washington worry that if Greitens manages to win the primary, he might saddle their party with an embarrassing, and expensive, candidate who could throw the seat to Democrats.Guilfoyle is the national finance chair of Greitens’s campaign. Despite her help, his campaign has struggled to raise money, according to the most recent campaign finance reports, forcing him to rely almost exclusively on one Republican donor — the billionaire shipping magnate Richard Uihlein, who has given at least $2.5 million to a super PAC supporting Greitens’s candidacy.The potential sleeper: Josh HawleyAllies argue that Hartzler, a House lawmaker from western Missouri, has the best chance at beating Greitens. They are counting on the clout of Josh Hawley, the arch-conservative freshman senator who holds the state’s other Senate seat.Her campaign this week began airing a new ad promoting the endorsement of Hawley, who has capitalized on his opposition to the certification of the 2020 election results to earn Trump’s favor and build a nationwide grass-roots donor base.Polls show that Hawley is the state’s most popular politician, and the Hartzler campaign hopes to use his fund-raising prowess and omnipresence on Fox News to move voters in the state’s socially conservative hinterlands. Hawley raised about $400,000 for the campaign over a span of four days, his aides said.“There’s a lot of Republicans running for the Senate,” Hawley says in the ad. “I know all of them.”That’s an understatement: Hawley was the attorney general of Missouri while Greitens was governor, and the two men are not exactly friends.Josh Hawley, left, and Eric Greitens, right, with Steven Mnuchin at a Trump rally in St. Louis in 2017. Whitney Curtis/Getty ImagesIn 2018, Hawley accused Greitens of misusing the donor list of his veterans charity and called on him to resign over the allegations involving the hair stylist.The move helped sideline Greitens, a potential rival for Missouri’s other Senate seat, which Hawley assumed after defeating Claire McCaskill, the incumbent Democrat, in 2018.“Fortunately for Josh,” Greitens shot back at the time, “he’s better at press conferences than the law.”What to read tonightThe Jan. 6 committee revealed on Thursday that a White House lawyer told Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department attorney pushing a Trump-backed plan to subvert the 2020 election results, that he would be committing a felony if he helped to overturn the outcome. Catch up with our live coverage of the day’s big hearing here.In a separate development, federal investigators carried out a predawn search on Clark’s home in connection with the Justice Department’s sprawling inquiry into efforts to overturn the 2020 contest, Alan Feuer, Adam Goldman and Maggie Haberman report.The day’s other big political news: The Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun law, most likely limiting the ability of state and local governments to restrict guns outside the home. Hours later, the Senate advanced a bipartisan gun safety bill that responded to a spate of mass shootings.Thanks for reading. We’ll see you tomorrow.— BlakeIs there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Abandoned by Trump, Mo Brooks Is Now Open to Testifying About Jan. 6

      by

      Stinging from his resounding defeat in Alabama’s Republican runoff for the Senate on Tuesday and a snub from former President Donald J. Trump, Representative Mo Brooks now appears to be willing to testify as part of the Jan. 6 investigation.Mr. Brooks signaled on Wednesday that he would comply with an impending subpoena from the bipartisan House committee that is leading the inquiry into the attack on the Capitol — but only under certain conditions.His comments to the media, reported by CNN on Wednesday, came one day after he lost a bitter primary runoff to Katie Britt. Mr. Trump withdrew his endorsement of Mr. Brooks in March when he began slipping in the polls, and gave his support to Ms. Britt in the final weeks of the campaign.Mr. Brooks bemoaned his loss, telling a Politico reporter that the “bad guys won.”He hinged his willingness to testify before the House committee on being able to do so “in public so the public can see it — so they don’t get bits and pieces dribbled out,” Mr. Brooks said, according to CNN.The congressman added that he would only testify about matters related to Jan. 6, 2021, and that he wanted to see copies of documents that he might be asked about beforehand, the network reported.Mr. Brooks was not available for an interview on Thursday, and his office declined to elaborate on his comments.Mr. Brooks, a hard-right Republican and a once-fierce ally of Mr. Trump’s whom the former president has accused of becoming “woke,” has drawn intense scrutiny for his actions preceding the violence on Jan. 6.Outfitted in body armor at a rally before the siege, Mr. Brooks exhorted Mr. Trump’s election-denying supporters to start “kicking ass.”Investigators have also sought to question Mr. Brooks about his interactions with Mr. Trump in the aftermath of the attack. They zeroed in on Mr. Brooks’s comments in March, when he said that Mr. Trump had, since leaving office, repeatedly asked him to illegally “rescind” the 2020 election, remove President Biden and force a new special election.But as of Wednesday, Representative Bennie G. Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the head of the Jan. 6 committee, acknowledged that Mr. Brooks still had not been served with a subpoena. Mr. Thompson said that process servers in Washington had been unable to track down Mr. Brooks because he had been campaigning in Alabama.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 6Making a case against Trump. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Mayra Flores, a Latina Republican, Sends a Message to Democrats

      by

      Last week, Mayra Flores, a Republican candidate for Congress who was born in Mexico and immigrated to the United States at the age of 6, flipped a congressional seat in a region of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas that had voted Democrat for 150 years. Flores’s victory came with the usual bluster from the G.O.P. and all the head-scratching from the national media that accompanies rightward voting swings in any nonwhite population. “G.O.P. wins big in Rio Grande Valley district. Does it portend shift of Hispanic voters?” the Fort Worth Star-Telegram asked in a headline. The conservative National Review called Flores’s victory “An Earthquake in South Texas” and said that her win “portends a major shift in the major American political landscape.”Before I get into my own portending, let me offer up a bundle of caveats. This was an extremely low-turnout special election for a vacated congressional seat that will once again be up for grabs this November. The lines of the district will be significantly different in a few months — Flores won over an electorate that Joe Biden won by four points back in 2020. In November, Flores will be in the odd position of being a near-five-month incumbent running in a newly drawn district that, had it existed in 2020, Biden would have won by 15.5 points. This is presumably why Monica Robinson, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (D.C.C.C.), dismissed Flores’s victory as a “rental” seat.So we can and should throw some cold water on the grand claims about what this electoral result means for the future of the Republican Party. Flores’s campaign outraised that of her Democratic opponent Dan Sanchez by a 16-to-1 margin. It also spent more than $1 million on television ads. The imbalance in spending and resources was so extreme that after the results had come in, Sanchez’s campaign manager said in a statement, “The D.C.C.C., D.N.C. and other associated national committees have failed at their single purpose of existence: winning elections.”I think it’s perfectly fair to take Robinson and the D.C.C.C. at their word when they say that they did not think it was worth expending too much effort on a seat that will almost certainly swing back to Democrats at the start of 2023. What seems far more interesting to me is why the G.O.P. put so much effort into securing Flores’s victory. Why did they care?The simple answer is that since the 2020 general election showed surprising gains for the G.O.P. among Latino voters, especially in Florida and the Rio Grande Valley, Republicans have spent a considerable amount of time and money to turn what ultimately might have been an electoral blip into a national reality. They wanted Mayra Flores to win because it’s good for Republicans to show that they can win seats in districts like this one, with an 85 percent Latino population.Chuck Rocha, a political consultant and a former senior adviser for Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign, told me that even if Flores ultimately only serves for five months, her campaign is “a brilliant marketing strategy by the Republicans.” He believes Flores’s victory will result in a “fund-raising boom” that will allow G.O.P. operatives to go out and solicit funds for other races in places with significant Latino populations. Flores’s victory, then, will allow the G.O.P. to raise money and mobilize public opinion around the narrative that the Latino vote is swinging fast. Any close race with a large Latino population will now seem up for grabs.But a lot of the excitement around Flores has to do with Flores herself. She is a 36-year-old immigrant and a respiratory-care therapist who works with elders. She is married to a Border Patrol agent. In her own words, she is “Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, and Pro-Law Enforcement.” It’s hard to imagine a more perfect face for the future of the G.O.P. — a working Mexican American woman telling the public that everything the Democrats think and say about the people of South Texas is out of touch and wrong. In one television ad put out by the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC, which opens with a photo of Joe Biden smiling at a podium, an unidentified voice speaking in a mild Hispanic accent says, “From up there, he’ll never get us down here. Forty years in office and not one visit to the border. He’s left us behind. That is why Mayra Flores is running for Congress. She’s one of us.”“One of us” is the purest expression of identity politics, and while Republicans have long used this tactic to convince white voters to vote for white candidates, it’s rarely, if ever, been used by the party to endorse a Latina and underscore her connection to her working-class community. (The Flores campaign did not respond to a request for an interview.)Much has been made over the past five years about how the Democratic Party can reach the working class. These conversations, which invoke coal miners and factory workers, are almost invariably concerned with the white working class. What’s almost never discussed is whether the Democrats are losing the nonwhite working class as well.“The Democratic Party has walked away from blue-collar messaging, which is really aligned with the new immigrant community, mainly Latinos, and actually in some states A.A.P.I., because they’re working those jobs,” Rocha said.This has opened the door for politicians like Flores to reimagine what the politics of her community should be. This has a special power within immigrant groups — even those who have been in America for a few generations — because their political allegiances aren’t calcified. According to a January Gallup poll, 52 percent of Latinos identify as independent, which is 10 percent higher than the proportion of independents among the American population as a whole. While this is a crude way to measure voter flexibility, it’s also true that over the past 40 years, both major immigrant groups in America — Latinos and Asian Americans — have swung between the two parties at a rate that far outpaced Black and white Americans.So who does Flores imagine is “us”? Her messaging mostly centered around economic hardship, family and opportunity. In a flier titled “Mayra Flores Will Restore the American Dream,” Flores promises to “stop out-of-control spending to end inflation,” “secure the border” and “expand, not limit, access to health care.” In another, she promises to “get the economy back on track” and “stop inflation in its tracks, and keep more money in your pocket.” And in her acceptance speech last week, Flores said, “The policies that are being placed right now are hurting us. We cannot accept the increase of gas, of food, of medication, we cannot accept that. And we have to state the fact that under President Trump, we did not have this mess in this country.” Her messaging is clear: “Us” refers to the struggling, working-class families who grew up with socially conservative values. “Them” is everyone else.Flores, then, can act almost as a proof of concept for future Republican candidates. Her invocation of Trump might have caught the attention of headline writers, but her campaign only occasionally mentioned the former president and stayed on message about economic factors, family and what she said were the real values of the people of South Texas: border security, religion, affordable health care, well-funded police and the Second Amendment.It’s time for Democrats to ask a very simple question: What, exactly, does their party offer working-class immigrants? Note that here I am not talking about the broad, humanitarian ideal of immigration, wherein a government puts aside its nativist tendencies and welcomes people from around the world. I am talking about the millions of first- and second-generation immigrants who still identify strongly with their country of origin but who have mostly come to the United States seeking economic opportunity. They are largely apolitical or independent voters. They get their news from non-English sources far from the reach of things like this newsletter. Like everyone else in America, they tend to vote based on which party better reflects their self-interest.This is a question I’ve been turning over in my head for the past five or so years, since I noticed that many of the communities I was reporting on — mostly Asian American — did not seem all that concerned with the threat of Donald Trump. This wasn’t a surprise to me. I was not born in this country, grew up in an immigrant household and have spent much of my career reporting on immigrant communities. For many first- and second-generation immigrant families, racism and white supremacy are secondary political concerns. (A Pew poll in 2020 showed that “racial and ethnic inequality” was fourth on the list of Hispanic voter priorities. The economy and health care were at the top of the list. Immigration, for what it’s worth, was eighth, below Supreme Court appointments and climate change.)Most immigrant families, mine included, assume that racism will be a part of their lives. But because they still believe in American economic opportunity, economic and health care issues will always be more of a political priority than the squishier and sometimes more abstract competition between which party they think will be more racist than the other. This is especially true of working-class immigrants, many of whom come from the socially conservative, religious backgrounds that Flores defines as “us.”If Flores’s low-turnout, likely temporary victory “portends” anything, it’s that immigrant identity politics rooted in economic talk can work for the right just as well as it has worked in the past for the left. What many in these communities want is a voice that will talk about economic hardships while also invoking a type of identity politics that will allow them to feel like they are part of a community.For the past two years I have been writing about how the Democratic Party has taken immigrant votes for granted with the warning that if this continues, a new politics rooted in “us” will arise, paired with the grievance that liberals do not actually care about “our” issues. This is precisely what Flores did. In one of her many interviews after her victory, she said Democrats had taken South Texas “for granted” and that “they feel entitled to our vote.”“I’m their worst nightmare,” Flores said of the Democrats in an interview with Newsmax. “They claim to be for immigrants. I’m an immigrant. They claim to be for women. I’m a woman. They claim to be for people of color. I’m someone of color. Yet I don’t feel the love.”Jay Caspian Kang (@jaycaspiankang), a writer for Opinion and The New York Times Magazine, is the author of “The Loneliest Americans.” More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney Encourages Wyoming Democrats to Change Parties to Vote for Her

      by

      Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican of Wyoming whose polling remains far behind her Trump-endorsed primary challenger as her House committee’s Jan. 6 hearings continue, is urging Democrats in her home state to switch parties to support her in the Aug. 16 primary.In the last week, Wyoming Democrats have received mail from Ms. Cheney’s campaign with specific instructions on how to change their party affiliation to vote for her. Ms. Cheney’s campaign website now has a link to a form for changing parties.Ms. Cheney has begun mailing instructions to Democratic voters in Wyoming that explain how they can change their party status to vote for her in the upcoming Republican primary.Cheney for WyomingJoseph Barbuto, the chairman of the Wyoming Democratic Party, was among those who received Ms. Cheney’s instructions. Mr. Barbuto said that over the last week, his social media feeds have been flooded with Democrats — and only Democrats — posting about receiving mailers from the Cheney campaign.“I haven’t had any Republicans share online or tell me that they received it,” Mr. Barbuto said on Thursday.Recruiting Democratic support has been a sensitive topic for Ms. Cheney since she voted to impeach former President Donald J. Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. She has cast her August primary contest with Harriet Hageman, who is allied with and endorsed by Mr. Trump, as a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Recruiting Democrats to that fight could undermine those efforts.In a February interview in Cheyenne, Wyo., Ms. Cheney dismissed the possibility that she would make a concerted effort to reach out to Democrats asking them to change parties ahead of the primary.“That is not something that I have contemplated, that I have organized or that I will organize,” Ms. Cheney told The New York Times then, adding that she would “work hard for every single vote.”Her spokesman, Jeremy Adler, said on Thursday that Ms. Cheney was “proud to represent all Wyomingites and is working hard to earn every vote.”Ms. Hageman’s campaign said Ms. Cheney’s attempt to recruit Democrats represented a political flip-flop.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 6Making a case against Trump. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Year Later, Some Republicans Second-Guess Boycotting the Jan. 6 Panel

      by

      The decision by Representative Kevin McCarthy not to appoint Republicans to the committee has given Democrats the chance to set out an uninterrupted narrative.WASHINGTON — The four hearings held in the past few weeks by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, with their clear, uninterrupted narratives about President Donald J. Trump’s effort to undercut the peaceful transfer of power, have left some pro-Trump Republicans wringing their hands with regret about a decision made nearly a year ago.Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, chose last summer to withdraw all of his nominees to the committee — amid a dispute with Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her rejection of his first two choices — a turning point that left the nine-member investigative committee without a single ally of Mr. Trump.Mostly in private, Republicans loyal to Mr. Trump have complained for months that they have no insight into the inner workings of the committee as it has issued dozens of subpoenas and conducted interviews behind closed doors with hundreds of witnesses.But the public display this month of what the panel has learned — including damning evidence against Mr. Trump and his allies — left some Republicans wishing more vocally that Mr. Trump had strong defenders on the panel to try to counter the evidence its investigators dig up.“Would it have made for a totally different debate? Absolutely,” said Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida. “I would have defended the hell out of him.”Among those second-guessing Mr. McCarthy’s choice has been Mr. Trump.“Unfortunately, a bad decision was made,” Mr. Trump told the conservative radio host Wayne Allyn Root this week. He added: “It was a bad decision not to have representation on that committee. That was a very, very foolish decision.”The committee employed more than a dozen former federal prosecutors to investigate the actions of Mr. Trump and his allies in the buildup to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.With former television producers on staff, the committee has built a narrative told in chapters about the former president’s attempts to cling to power.As it has done so, the committee has not had to contend with speechifying from the dais about Mr. Trump’s conservative policy achievements. There has been no cross-examination of the panel’s witnesses. No derailing of the hearings with criticism of President Biden. No steering the investigation away from the former president. Ultimately, there has been no defense of Mr. Trump at all.The committee presented considerable evidence this month of Mr. Trump’s role, laying out how the former president pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to unilaterally overturn his election defeat even after he was told it was illegal.The Themes of the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsMaking a Case Against Trump: The committee appears to be laying out a road map for prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump. But the path to any trial is uncertain.Day One: During the first hearing, the panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Day Two: In its second hearing, the committee showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers in declaring victory prematurely and relentlessly pressing claims of fraud he was told were wrong.Day Three: Mr. Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing.Day Four: The committee used its fourth hearing to show how Mr. Trump was personally involved in a scheme to put forward fake electors and highlight the pressure that state officials faced to overturn the election.On Tuesday, the panel directly tied Mr. Trump to a scheme to put forward fake slates of pro-Trump electors and presented fresh details of how the former president sought to bully, cajole and bluff his way into invalidating his 2020 defeat in states around the country.The committee has also used prominent Republicans as witnesses to make its case, leaving Mr. Trump’s allies with an impossible task: How are they to defend him — even from the outside — when the evidence against him comes from Republican lawyers, a widely respected conservative judge, his campaign advisers and even his own daughter?The effectiveness of the hearings in putting Mr. Trump at the heart of the effort to overturn the election results has drawn the attention of, among others, Mr. Trump. He has made plain this week that he wants more Republicans defending him, and is displeased as the hearings play out on national television without pro-Trump voices.The only Republicans on the committee are two who have lined up squarely against Mr. Trump: Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. They were appointed by Ms. Pelosi, not Mr. McCarthy.Mr. McCarthy figured in July that it was better politically to bash the committee from the sidelines rather than appoint members of his party acceptable to Ms. Pelosi. He has said he had to take a stand after she rejected two of his top picks for the panel: Representatives Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio.Ms. Pelosi said she could not allow the pair to take part, based on their actions around the riot and comments they had made undercutting the investigation. (Mr. Jordan has subsequently been issued a subpoena by the committee because of his close dealings with Mr. Trump.) The speaker’s decision led directly to Mr. McCarthy’s announcement that Republicans would boycott the panel.“When Pelosi wrongfully didn’t allow them, we should’ve picked other people,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with Punchbowl News. “We have a lot of good people in the Republican Party.”Mr. Trump has grumbled openly about the makeup of the panel, according to a person familiar with his remarks. Some members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus have also privately complained about the lack of pro-Trump Republicans on the panel, the person said.Those close to Mr. McCarthy argue that the Democrats who control the committee would most likely not have allowed his nominees much power or influence over the panel’s work.The hearings will pick up again on Thursday with a session devoted to Mr. Trump’s effort to install a loyalist at the top of the Justice Department to carry out his demands for more investigations into baseless claims of election fraud.The panel is planning at least two more hearings for July, according to its chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi. Those hearings are expected to detail how a mob of violent extremists attacked the Capitol and how Mr. Trump did nothing to call off the violence for more than three hours.Asked on Tuesday about the former president’s comments about the Jan. 6 committee, Mr. McCarthy instead talked about inflation and gas prices.“They focused on an issue the public is not focused on,” he said of the committee. Mr. McCarthy added that he spoke with Mr. Trump this week.One of the Republicans whose nomination Mr. McCarthy withdrew from the committee, Representative Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, was a defense lawyer before being elected to Congress.Ms. Pelosi had approved of Mr. Armstrong serving on the panel, along with Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois and Representative Troy Nehls of Texas.Mr. Armstrong said he had watched the hearings as the committee laid out evidence in a “choreographed, well-scripted way.”Had he been allowed to serve on the committee, he would have tried to steer the investigation and its questions at public hearings into security failures at the Capitol, he said, echoing a line of criticism that many Republicans have tried to direct at Ms. Pelosi.“It would be a lot less scripted. We’d ask questions,” Mr. Armstrong said. “There are real questions to be answered. My heart goes out to the law enforcement officials. They needed more people down there.”Still, he said, he stands by the decision made by Mr. McCarthy, who is considered the leading candidate to become speaker if Republicans win control of the House in the midterm elections in November.“I was in the room when we made that decision, and I still think it was the right decision,” he said, arguing that House Republicans had to take a stand after Ms. Pelosi removed Mr. Jordan and Mr. Banks. “I think it was the only option.”Mr. Trump’s comments have sparked much discussion among House Republicans over whether it was the right decision.“Everybody’s got a different opinion on that,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. “Personally, I think the leader made the right call. The minute the speaker decides who the Republican members are, it turned against the legitimacy of it.”Representative Daniel Crenshaw, Republican of Texas, said he would have preferred to see an exchange of opposing views on the panel. “Let the public see how that debate goes,” he said. “That would have been better, of course.”But Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol and is retiring from Congress, said he saw nothing but hypocrisy and foolishness in Mr. Trump’s complaints. He noted that Mr. Trump made the strategic error of opposing a bipartisan commission, with no current lawmakers involved, to investigate the attack on the Capitol.That commission would have had to finish its work last year. Instead, Mr. Trump’s miscalculation led to the creation of the House Jan. 6 committee, which is continuing to investigate him, Mr. Upton said.“Trump opposed the bipartisan commission,” Mr. Upton said. “Once again, he’s rewriting history.”Stephanie Lai More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Your Summer Politics Quiz

      by

      .layout-medium .main{max-width:none}@media screen and (max-device-width:767px),screen and (max-width:767px){.main{margin:0;padding:0}}.ad.top-ad{overflow:hidden;width:100%;max-width:100%;margin-left:0;margin-right:0}.lede-container-ads{display:none;position:relative}.bottom-container-ads{text-align:center}.sharetools-story{display:none}.page-interactive-app .story-header{padding:0 16px}.comments-button.theme-kicker{display:none}#sharetools-interactive{top:-6px}.viewport-small-10 #sharetools-interactive{top:0}.story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-heading{line-height:1}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header{border:0;margin:0 auto;padding:0 16px}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta{margin-bottom:0}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .kicker-container{margin-bottom:10px}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .kicker-container #sharetools-interactive{left:auto;right:16px;bottom:auto;display:block}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-heading{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-size:42px;line-height:1.1;margin:0 auto;text-align:left}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-meta-footer .summary{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-size:18px;font-weight:100;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:0;line-height:1.3;color:#666}.video_container .nytd-player-container{margin-bottom:7px}.media.photo[data-media-action=modal]{pointer-events:none}.media-viewer-asset img{width:100%;display:block}.leadin-body{border-bottom:1px solid #ccc;padding:0 16px 20px}.marginalia{display:none;border-top:1px dotted #999;padding-top:7px;width:300px;float:right;clear:right;margin:5px 0 45px 30px;padding-top:10px}.marginalia .module-heading{font-size:11px;font-size:.6875rem;line-height:11px;line-height:.6875rem;font-weight:700;font-family:nyt-franklin,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:#000;text-transform:uppercase;margin-bottom:1em}.marginalia ul{margin:0}.marginalia ul li{margin-bottom:.75em}.marginalia ul li:last-child{margin-bottom:0}.marginalia .story .story-link{text-decoration:none}.story.theme-summary .thumb{float:left;clear:left;margin:0 10px 0 0;width:75px;height:75px}.marginalia .story .thumb{position:relative;max-width:65px;width:21.67%;height:auto;clear:none;margin-left:0}.marginalia .story .thumb img{height:auto;width:auto}.marginalia .story .story-heading{color:#333;font-size:13px;font-size:.8125rem;line-height:17px;line-height:1.0625rem;font-weight:400;font-family:nyt-cheltenham-sh,georgia,times new roman,times,serif}.marginalia .story .thumb+.story-heading{float:left;clear:left;margin:0;width:74.5%;clear:right}.marginalia .story .story-heading .story-heading-text{padding-right:.75em}.marginalia .story .story-link .story-heading-text,.marginalia .story .story-link:hover{color:#326891}.marginalia .story .story-link:active .story-heading-text,.marginalia .story .story-link:hover .story-heading-text{text-decoration:underline}.related-coverage-marginalia{top:100%;position:absolute;right:0}.related-coverage,.story.theme-main .story-footer{padding:0 16px}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-heading{font-size:41px;line-height:.97560975609756;text-align:center;font-weight:200}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-heading:after{content:””;display:block;width:180px;height:1px;border-bottom:1px solid #ccc;margin:20px auto 10px}.page-interactive .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-meta-footer .summary{font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:1.42857142857143;font-weight:500;color:#3f3f3f}.story.theme-main .dateline{font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:1.42857142857143;font-weight:500;color:#7f7f7f}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-header{padding:0}.viewport-medium-10 #sharetools-interactive{display:block}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .sharetools-story{clear:left;display:block;float:left;position:relative;width:65px}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .sharetools-story >ul{position:absolute}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .sharetools.sharetools-story .sharetool.show-all-sharetool{margin-left:0}.viewport-medium-10 .comments-button.theme-kicker{display:inline-block}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-header{margin-top:16px;max-width:auto}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta{margin-bottom:10px}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-heading{font-size:50px;line-height:1.1;text-align:center}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-meta-footer .byline-dateline{text-align:center}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-meta-footer .summary{text-align:center;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;margin-top:20px;max-width:720px;font-size:20px}.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-header:after{margin-top:48px}.viewport-medium-10 .leadin-body{margin-bottom:16px;margin-left:105px;padding:0 0 32px;width:510px}.viewport-medium-10 .media.photo[data-media-action=modal]{pointer-events:auto}.viewport-medium-10 .marginalia{margin-top:720px}.viewport-medium-10 .related-coverage,.viewport-medium-10 .story.theme-main .story-footer{padding:0}.viewport-medium-10 .bottom-container-ads{display:none}.viewport-medium-10 .lede-container-ads{clear:right;display:none;float:right;position:relative}.viewport-medium-10 .lede-container-ads .ad{position:absolute;margin:0 0 40px 7px;top:0;right:0}.viewport-large .story.theme-main .story-header{max-width:1020px;margin:0 auto}.viewport-large .story.theme-main .story-header .story-meta .story-heading{max-width:80%;font-weight:200}.fade{opacity:0;transition:opacity .8s}.fade.faded{opacity:1}.fill-in-blank{display:inline-block;border-bottom:1px solid #000;width:100px}#main .story-header.interactive-header{padding:0}#main .story-heading.interactive-headline{text-align:left;margin-left:0}#main .story-heading.interactive-headline:after{display:none}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){#main .story-heading.interactive-headline{text-align:center;margin:0 auto}}#main .story-meta-footer{max-width:600px;margin:0 auto}#main .story-meta-footer .summary{opacity:.7;font-family:nyt-cheltenham-sh,georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-size:16px}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){#main .story-meta-footer .summary{font-size:18px;margin-bottom:10px;max-width:80%;text-align:center;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto}}#main .story-meta-footer .dateline{font-family:nyt-cheltenham-sh,georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-size:.6875rem;color:#000;font-weight:300}.cascade,.one-at-a-time,.quiz{margin-top:30px}.cascade .media img,.one-at-a-time .media img,.quiz .media img{width:100%;display:block}.cascade h2,.one-at-a-time h2,.quiz h2{font-size:24px;margin-top:2em;margin-bottom:1em}.cascade p,.one-at-a-time p,.quiz p{font-size:16px;line-height:1.4;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-family:georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-size:18px;line-height:1.625rem}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.cascade p,.one-at-a-time p,.quiz p{font-size:17px;line-height:1.625rem;font-size:20px;line-height:1.5}}.cascade >.media,.cascade >.video,.one-at-a-time >.media,.one-at-a-time >.video,.quiz >.media,.quiz >.video{margin-bottom:45px;width:100%;max-width:1020px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto}.cascade >.text-block,.one-at-a-time >.text-block,.quiz >.text-block{border-bottom:1px solid #e2e2e2}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.cascade .conclusion,.cascade .response,.cascade >.text-block,.one-at-a-time .conclusion,.one-at-a-time .response,.one-at-a-time >.text-block,.quiz .conclusion,.quiz .response,.quiz >.text-block{max-width:600px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box}}.cascade .response,.one-at-a-time .response,.quiz .response{margin-top:2em}.cascade .conclusion >.text-block p:first-of-type,.one-at-a-time .conclusion >.text-block p:first-of-type,.quiz .conclusion >.text-block p:first-of-type{margin-top:1em}.done-button{display:block;text-align:center}.done-button >.text-block{display:inline-block;background-color:#fff;padding:10px 15px;border:1px solid #053e69;border-radius:3px;cursor:pointer;margin-top:10px;transition:all .35s ease-out;transition-property:padding,background-color}.done-button >.text-block p{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0}.answered .done-button{display:none!important}.reset-block{margin-top:20px}.cascade >.reset-block,.one-at-a-time >.reset-block,.quiz >.reset-block{text-align:center}.clear-saved{font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:1.5;cursor:pointer;background:#053e69;display:inline-block;border-radius:4px;padding:8px 20px;color:#fff}.clear-saved,.clear-saved:hover{text-decoration:none}.clear-saved p{margin-bottom:0}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.reset-block{margin-top:50px}}.media .credit{margin-top:5px;font-size:11px}.video.adventure-video{margin-bottom:25px}.video.adventure-video .credit{font-size:14px}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.step{max-width:600px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box}}.multiple-choice-question,.multiple-select-question{position:relative;border-bottom:1px solid #ccc;padding-top:23px;padding-bottom:34px}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question,.multiple-select-question{padding-top:47px;padding-bottom:39px}}.multiple-choice-question p,.multiple-select-question p{font-size:16px;line-height:1.4;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-family:georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-size:18px;line-height:1.625rem}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question p,.multiple-select-question p{font-size:17px;line-height:1.625rem;font-size:20px;line-height:1.5}}.multiple-choice-question .display-header p,.multiple-select-question .display-header p{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-weight:300;line-height:1.2;font-size:30px;letter-spacing:.01em}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question .display-header p,.multiple-select-question .display-header p{font-size:36px}}.multiple-choice-question .counter,.multiple-select-question .counter{line-height:1.4;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-family:georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-size:16px;line-height:1.5;color:#656565;margin-bottom:8px;opacity:.6}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question .counter,.multiple-select-question .counter{font-size:17px;line-height:1.625rem}}.multiple-choice-question .media,.multiple-select-question .media{margin-bottom:14px}.multiple-choice-question .media img,.multiple-select-question .media img{width:100%}.multiple-choice-question .response,.multiple-select-question .response{border-left:1px solid rgba(0,0,0,.15);padding-left:19px}.multiple-choice-question .response p,.multiple-select-question .response p{font-size:16px;line-height:1.4;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-family:georgia,times new roman,times,serif;color:#777}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question .response p,.multiple-select-question .response p{font-size:17px;line-height:1.625rem}}.multiple-choice-question.answering .done-button,.multiple-select-question.answering .done-button{display:block}.multiple-choice-question .answer,.multiple-select-question .answer{display:block;position:relative;padding:15px 20px;border-radius:3px;margin-top:10px;cursor:pointer;background:#eaf2f9;line-height:1.25;color:#053e69;transition:all .35s ease-out;transition-property:padding,background-color}.multiple-choice-question .answer p,.multiple-select-question .answer p{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0}.multiple-choice-question.answered .answer,.multiple-select-question.answered .answer{color:#656565;cursor:default;background-color:#f7f7f7}.multiple-choice-question.answered .answer.selected,.multiple-select-question.answered .answer.selected{background-color:#9b9078;color:#fff}.multiple-choice-question.unanswered .answer.selected,.multiple-select-question.unanswered .answer.selected{background-color:#053e69;color:#fff}.multiple-choice-question.has-correct-answers .answer,.multiple-select-question.has-correct-answers .answer{background-size:19px 19px;background-position:calc(100% – 20px) 20px;background-repeat:no-repeat}.multiple-choice-question.answered.has-correct-answers .answer.selected,.multiple-select-question.answered.has-correct-answers .answer.selected{background-image:url(“https://static01.nyt.com/inc/quiz-x_light.svg”);background-color:#e27676;color:#fff;padding-right:50px}.multiple-choice-question.answered.has-correct-answers .answer.correct,.multiple-select-question.answered.has-correct-answers .answer.correct{background-image:url(“https://int.nyt.com/assets/adventure/images/quiz-check_green.svg”)}.multiple-choice-question.answered.has-correct-answers .answer.selected.correct,.multiple-select-question.answered.has-correct-answers .answer.selected.correct{background-color:#95c198;background-image:url(“https://static01.nyt.com/inc/quiz-check_light.svg”);color:#fff}.multiple-choice-question .stats p,.multiple-select-question .stats p{font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-weight:500;color:#666;text-align:left;font-size:14px}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question .answer.question-unanswered:hover,.multiple-choice-question .done-button >.text-block:hover,.multiple-select-question .answer.question-unanswered:hover,.multiple-select-question .done-button >.text-block:hover{background-color:#053e69;color:#fff}}@media only screen and (min-width:800px){.multiple-choice-question .counter,.multiple-select-question .counter{border-bottom:0 solid #ccc;padding-top:23px;padding-bottom:34px;padding-bottom:0}}@media only screen and (min-width:800px) and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question .counter,.multiple-select-question .counter{padding-top:47px;padding-bottom:39px;padding-bottom:0;position:absolute;display:inline-block;width:180px;left:-210px;text-align:right;top:0;opacity:.6}}.multiple-choice-question .answered .done-button,.multiple-select-question .answered .done-button{display:none!important;background:red}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.multiple-choice-question,.multiple-select-question{max-width:600px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box}}.scorecard{margin-top:2em;font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,times new roman,times,serif}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.scorecard{max-width:600px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box}}.scorecard .scorecard-kicker{display:none}.scorecard .scorecard-inner{font-size:28px;line-height:1.66;font-weight:300;color:#323232;text-align:left}.stats{margin-top:2em}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.stats{max-width:600px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box}}.stats p{font-family:nyt-franklin,Arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-weight:500;color:#666;text-align:left;font-size:14px}.summary.response+.summary.response{margin-top:0;padding-bottom:0}.summary.response .text-block{padding-bottom:15px}.summary.response .text-block p:last-of-type{margin-bottom:0}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.scorecard .scorecard-kicker{display:none}.scorecard .scorecard-inner{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,times new roman,times,serif;font-weight:300;line-height:1.2;font-size:30px;letter-spacing:.01em}}@media only screen and (min-width:480px) and (min-width:480px){.scorecard .scorecard-inner{font-size:36px}}.lede-question-adventure .multiple-choice-question,.lede-question-adventure .multiple-select-question{border-bottom:none}.lede-question-adventure .multiple-choice-question .counter,.lede-question-adventure .multiple-select-question .counter{display:none}.lede-question-adventure .multiple-choice-question .response,.lede-question-adventure .multiple-select-question .response{border-left:none;padding-left:0}.lede-question-adventure .multiple-choice-question .response p,.lede-question-adventure .multiple-select-question .response p{font-size:16px;line-height:1.4;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-family:georgia,times new roman,times,serif;color:#000}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.lede-question-adventure .multiple-choice-question .response p,.lede-question-adventure .multiple-select-question .response p{font-size:17px;line-height:1.625rem}}.lede-question-adventure .multiple-choice-question .text-block.lede-question p,.lede-question-adventure .multiple-select-question .text-block.lede-question p{text-align:center;font-size:20px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto}@media only screen and (min-width:480px){.lede-question-adventure .multiple-choice-question .text-block.lede-question p,.lede-question-adventure .multiple-select-question .text-block.lede-question p{font-size:27px}}.quiz figcaption:first-of-type,.quiz figure:first-of-type img{max-width:600px;margin:0 auto} Thomas Barwick/Getty ImagesHey, people, it’s officially summer! Many Americans find it soothing to take a vacation from politics this time of year, but I know you just can’t let it go.
      Here’s a solstice quiz. Pick the best answer for each question:
      1 More