Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Rivals Trade Insults in Chaotic N.Y.C. Mayoral Debate

      by

      Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and Fernando Mateo, a restaurateur, yelled at each other repeatedly during the free-wheeling virtual debate.They fought over almost everything, hurled insults back and forth and caused so much general chaos that both had their microphones cut off at different times.And if that wasn’t enough, the two Republicans running for mayor of New York City even brought props — a photograph and a stuffed bear — to their first major debate on Wednesday.It wasn’t as if the two candidates, Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and Fernando Mateo, a local businessman, lacked common ground: They agreed that public safety was the most critical issue facing the city and have pledged to “re-fund the police” and to add officers to the department, instead of defunding the police as some Democrats want to do.But for the most part, the men avoided policy discussion in favor of unveiled criticisms of each other. It began with Mr. Sliwa criticizing Mr. Mateo for his fund-raising efforts for Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat.“Bill de Blasio single-handedly destroyed this city,” Mr. Sliwa said, before holding up a photo of Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Mateo together.“Along with you,” Mr. Mateo, a restaurateur, shouted back, repeatedly.They continued to yell during the virtual debate even while muted, pointing their fingers toward their cameras.The candidates were once friends, but the race has turned bitter ahead of the Republican primary on June 22. Mr. Mateo called Mr. Sliwa, who joined the Republican Party last year, a “compulsive liar” and a comedian.“Curtis, you’re a clown, and you’re making a mockery of this very important primary,” Mr. Mateo said.The crowded Democratic primary has received far more attention and is likely to decide the next mayor in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than six to one. Still, Mr. Sliwa and Mr. Mateo are fighting hard to become the face of the Republican Party in the general election in November.There were some brief agreement on policy issues: Both want to raise the cap on charter schools and get rid of speed cameras. Both said police officers should not have to live in the city, and both want to keep the Specialized High School Admissions Test as the only criteria for entry to elite high schools.Mr. Sliwa repeatedly accused Mr. Mateo of not riding the subway — “there is no subway stop in Irvington,” he said, referring to the village in Westchester County where Mr. Mateo owns a home.Mr. Mateo, oddly, accused Mr. Sliwa of being a subway rider as if that were an insult in a city that had nearly six million daily subway riders before the pandemic took a toll on ridership.They disagreed over whether President Donald J. Trump won the 2020 election. Mr. Mateo said he did; Mr. Sliwa said he did not. Mr. Mateo voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020; Mr. Sliwa did not.“I have had a love-hate relationship with former President Donald Trump going back 30 years,” Mr. Sliwa said.Both candidates said they supported a decision by Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican from Staten Island, to vote to not certify the 2020 presidential election results.Mr. Sliwa and Mr. Mateo are first-time candidates and publicity hounds who have appeared in the tabloids for years. Mr. Sliwa, 67, became a celebrity in the 1980s as the founder of the Guardian Angels and was a radio host known for outrageous comments. He has staged a series of attention-grabbing events — including a mask-burning ceremony as members of the Trammps sang their 1976 disco hit, “Disco Inferno,” and a 24-hour subway tour where he visited the site of a bloody stabbing.Mr. Mateo, 63, was born in the Dominican Republic and wants to be the city’s first Hispanic mayor. He is perhaps best known for his “Toys for Guns” program in the 1990s, and he ran a carpet business and led groups that advocated for livery drivers and bodega owners..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}An earlier debate hosted by WABC-AM this spring turned nasty when Mr. Sliwa brought up the fund-raising issue. Mr. Mateo claimed that he had damaging information on Mr. Sliwa.“I have enough dirt to cover your body 18 feet over,” Mr. Mateo said.At the debate on Wednesday, Mr. Mateo said he had bundled money for Mr. de Blasio, but that he did nothing illegal. He compared it to other Republicans who had donated to Democrats in the past, like Mr. Trump, who gave money to Hillary Clinton, and the billionaire John Catsimatidis, who gave to Mr. de Blasio.“That’s what we do when we’re in business,” he said.Mr. Mateo and Mr. Sliwa had been friends for 40 years, and Mr. Mateo once installed carpet in Mr. Sliwa’s home. But the feud began when they both entered the race.The Republican Party has been weakened in the city in recent years, and its leaders are split between the two candidates. The Manhattan, Queens and Bronx parties endorsed Mr. Mateo. The Staten Island and Brooklyn parties backed Mr. Sliwa.Mr. Mateo has raised more money — about $520,000 — and says he will qualify for public matching funds soon. Mr. Sliwa has raised about $315,000.The top Democratic candidates have raised far more. Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, has collected more than $9 million through private and public funds.With less money for television advertising, the Republicans have been trying to get in front of news cameras as much as possible. Mr. Sliwa is “pure showbiz, and he’s awfully good at it,” said Kenneth Sherrill, a professor emeritus of political science at Hunter College.“The name of the game in the Republican primary is going to be name recognition,” he said, “and that generates pressure to be more and more outrageous to get more and more free publicity.”Near the end of the hourlong debate, Mr. Mateo suddenly introduced his own prop: “Trumpy Bear” — a stuffed animal wearing a red tie and featuring Trump-like hair. Then he criticized Mr. Sliwa’s living arrangements.“He lives in a 320-square-foot apartment with 13 cats,” Mr. Mateo said.“Fifteen rescue cats,” Mr. Sliwa corrected him. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      NYC Mayoral Debate: Republican Rivals Trade Insults

      by

      Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and Fernando Mateo, a restaurateur, yelled at each other repeatedly during the free-wheeling virtual debate.They fought over almost everything, hurled insults back and forth and caused so much general chaos that both had their microphones cut off at different times.And if that wasn’t enough, the two Republicans running for mayor of New York City even brought props — a photograph and a stuffed bear — to their first major debate on Wednesday.It wasn’t as if the two candidates, Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and Fernando Mateo, a local businessman, lacked common ground: They agreed that public safety was the most critical issue facing the city and have pledged to “re-fund the police” and to add officers to the department, instead of defunding the police as some Democrats want to do.But for the most part, the men avoided policy discussion in favor of unveiled criticisms of each other. It began with Mr. Sliwa criticizing Mr. Mateo for his fund-raising efforts for Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat.“Bill de Blasio single-handedly destroyed this city,” Mr. Sliwa said, before holding up a photo of Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Mateo together.“Along with you,” Mr. Mateo, a restaurateur, shouted back, repeatedly.They continued to yell during the virtual debate even while muted, pointing their fingers toward their cameras.The candidates were once friends, but the race has turned bitter ahead of the Republican primary on June 22. Mr. Mateo called Mr. Sliwa, who joined the Republican Party last year, a “compulsive liar” and a comedian.“Curtis, you’re a clown, and you’re making a mockery of this very important primary,” Mr. Mateo said.The crowded Democratic primary has received far more attention and is likely to decide the next mayor in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than six to one. Still, Mr. Sliwa and Mr. Mateo are fighting hard to become the face of the Republican Party in the general election in November.There were some brief agreement on policy issues: Both want to raise the cap on charter schools and get rid of speed cameras. Both said police officers should not have to live in the city, and both want to keep the Specialized High School Admissions Test as the only criteria for entry to elite high schools.Mr. Sliwa repeatedly accused Mr. Mateo of not riding the subway — “there is no subway stop in Irvington,” he said, referring to the village in Westchester County where Mr. Mateo owns a home.Mr. Mateo, oddly, accused Mr. Sliwa of being a subway rider as if that were an insult in a city that had nearly six million daily subway riders before the pandemic took a toll on ridership.They disagreed over whether President Donald J. Trump won the 2020 election. Mr. Mateo said he did; Mr. Sliwa said he did not. Mr. Mateo voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020; Mr. Sliwa did not.“I have had a love-hate relationship with former President Donald Trump going back 30 years,” Mr. Sliwa said.Both candidates said they supported a decision by Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican from Staten Island, to vote to not certify the 2020 presidential election results.Mr. Sliwa and Mr. Mateo are first-time candidates and publicity hounds who have appeared in the tabloids for years. Mr. Sliwa, 67, became a celebrity in the 1980s as the founder of the Guardian Angels and was a radio host known for outrageous comments. He has staged a series of attention-grabbing events — including a mask-burning ceremony as members of the Trammps sang their 1976 disco hit, “Disco Inferno,” and a 24-hour subway tour where he visited the site of a bloody stabbing.Mr. Mateo, 63, was born in the Dominican Republic and wants to be the city’s first Hispanic mayor. He is perhaps best known for his “Toys for Guns” program in the 1990s, and he ran a carpet business and led groups that advocated for livery drivers and bodega owners..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}An earlier debate hosted by WABC-AM this spring turned nasty when Mr. Sliwa brought up the fund-raising issue. Mr. Mateo claimed that he had damaging information on Mr. Sliwa.“I have enough dirt to cover your body 18 feet over,” Mr. Mateo said.At the debate on Wednesday, Mr. Mateo said he had bundled money for Mr. de Blasio, but that he did nothing illegal. He compared it to other Republicans who had donated to Democrats in the past, like Mr. Trump, who gave money to Hillary Clinton, and the billionaire John Catsimatidis, who gave to Mr. de Blasio.“That’s what we do when we’re in business,” he said.Mr. Mateo and Mr. Sliwa had been friends for 40 years, and Mr. Mateo once installed carpet in Mr. Sliwa’s home. But the feud began when they both entered the race.The Republican Party has been weakened in the city in recent years, and its leaders are split between the two candidates. The Manhattan, Queens and Bronx parties endorsed Mr. Mateo. The Staten Island and Brooklyn parties backed Mr. Sliwa.Mr. Mateo has raised more money — about $520,000 — and says he will qualify for public matching funds soon. Mr. Sliwa has raised about $315,000.The top Democratic candidates have raised far more. Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, has collected more than $9 million through private and public funds.With less money for television advertising, the Republicans have been trying to get in front of news cameras as much as possible. Mr. Sliwa is “pure showbiz, and he’s awfully good at it,” said Kenneth Sherrill, a professor emeritus of political science at Hunter College.“The name of the game in the Republican primary is going to be name recognition,” he said, “and that generates pressure to be more and more outrageous to get more and more free publicity.”Near the end of the hourlong debate, Mr. Mateo suddenly introduced his own prop: “Trumpy Bear” — a stuffed animal wearing a red tie and featuring Trump-like hair. Then he criticized Mr. Sliwa’s living arrangements.“He lives in a 320-square-foot apartment with 13 cats,” Mr. Mateo said.“Fifteen rescue cats,” Mr. Sliwa corrected him. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      He Fought Trump’s 2020 Lies. He Also Backs New Scrutiny of Ballots.

      by

      Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, told The Times that a new, disinformation-driven attempt to inspect 2020 ballots wouldn’t unearth wrongdoing, and would help restore voter confidence.Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, earned widespread praise for his staunch defense of the election results in his state last year in the face of growing threats and pressure from former President Donald J. Trump.As Mr. Trump spread falsehoods about the election, Mr. Raffensperger vocally debunked them, culminating in a 10-page letter addressed to Congress on Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol riot, in which he refuted, point by point, Mr. Trump’s false claims about election fraud in Georgia.But after a Georgia judge ruled late last week that a group of voters must be allowed to view copies of all 147,000 absentee ballots cast in the state’s largest county, in yet another disinformation-driven campaign, Mr. Raffensperger voiced his support for the effort, saying that inspecting the ballots would provide “another layer of transparency and citizen engagement.”As Mr. Trump’s election falsehoods continue to hold sway over many lawmakers and voters, with efforts to review ballots still underway in states across the country, we spoke with Mr. Raffensperger about why he supported the new review ordered by the judge and how he thinks about public trust, or mistrust, in the electoral process. The interview has been lightly edited and condensed.At the risk of asking you to repeat yourself: Was there any widespread fraud in Georgia in the 2020 election?No, there was no widespread fraud. We had, and we still do have, several hundred investigations that we’ve opened up. Many of those are procedural, but none would be significant enough to overturn the election results.So why support this most recent order to inspect ballots?So from Day 1, I’ve encouraged Georgians who have concerns about the elections in their counties to pursue those claims through legal avenues. Frankly, Fulton County has a longstanding history of election mismanagement that has weakened voter faith in the system.And I’m very grateful that S.B. 202 [the state’s new voting law] strengthens the ability of the secretary of state’s office to hold counties accountable. I think that’s a good thing.But in a letter you wrote to Congress in January, you refuted the false allegations regarding absentee ballots in Fulton County, nearly the very same claims that are a part of this lawsuit that led to the judge’s order. So what has changed?Unfortunately, the No. 1 issue that we’re facing right now in elections nationwide is voter confidence. Now, in Georgia, it goes back to the 2018 governor’s race, when Stacey Abrams did not concede, and then in 2016, days after President Trump won, the other camp talks about Russian collusion. And so we had those aspersions cast on Trump’s victory.But what happens each time is that voter confidence takes a hit. So whenever we can restore, or have a process that will help restore, voter confidence, I think that’s a good thing — if you have an open and transparent process in which everyone can objectively agree that this is due process that they’re doing, that they’re making sure they’re following the law.At the end of the day, they’re going to get the same results we got after November. And then we can hopefully put this to bed.So even though you know that the allegations in this most recent lawsuit aren’t going to come to fruition, going through another public process will help build confidence?It’s really the process of civic engagement. Let the citizens have an open, transparent process in which other sets of eyeballs can verify what’s already been verified.We’ve already done a 100 percent hand recount of every single absentee ballot, every single early-vote ballot and every date-of-election ballot. So all three forms of voting have been counted in Georgia. Every single one of those paper ballots has been hand-counted.So I know the results aren’t going to change, but it just helps increase voter confidence and it helps our entire nation to move off this issue and really get back to a more stable society.Democrats and voting rights groups have said that these repeated recounts and relitigations of the 2020 presidential contest actually undermine confidence in the election. So I’m wondering how you weigh that.Well, at the end of the day, a Superior Court judge makes a ruling, and we follow the law in Georgia. Many Republican voters, and especially former President Donald Trump, have continued to reject the multiple audits and recounts already carried out in Georgia and demand new investigations. What makes you think this Fulton County inspection will satisfy those who claim that there was widespread fraud?Well, let’s follow this rabbit trail, and get the answers, and then we’ll get answers that will be very similar to what we had back when this election was carried out and we did the audit process. And we can put this to rest and we can move forward.Georgia’s new voting law gives more power over elections to state lawmakers. Do you have any worries that this new inspection of ballots could prompt the Legislature to exert even more control over election administration?All Georgians should take great comfort at the end of the day that we have a fair election process. We have 159 counties that are running these elections, we have 159 county election directors who have personal integrity. People need to understand that the people who are running these elections at the precinct level — those are your friends, those are your neighbors, those are your friends at church, those are your friends from Pilates, Rotary. Your kids could be on the same youth league baseball or soccer team.The glue that holds the process together is the individual personal integrity of local Georgians, plus our office, and what I will stand for is fair and honest elections.I wanted to ask you a little bit about your re-election bid next year. You’re running against Representative Jody Hice, a Republican congressman whom Mr. Trump has endorsed. Are you worried about Donald Trump attacking you and actively working to ensure your defeat?No. We’re going to run our campaign on issues. At the end of the day, we believe that integrity counts. And we’ve done an awful lot to improve the election process in Georgia.The first thing we did was pass House Bill 316, which allowed us to procure new voting machines that use verifiable paper ballots. For 18 years, people were talking about needing a system with paper ballots; I accomplished that.Also, we made progress toward joining the Electronic Registration Information Center [a nonpartisan, nonprofit multistate voter roll database]. So as we updated our voter rolls, we could do it objectively. We also outlawed ballot harvesting. So we’ve been working on election integrity for a long time.Congressman Hice, though, he’s been up in D.C. for over six years, and he has never introduced a single piece of electoral reform legislation. He’s never done anything on election integrity, ever. And now he thinks it’s somehow an interesting issue for him to run on? That’s the challenge sometimes with congressmen. Some of them don’t do much when they get up there.One of the things Mr. Hice did do was vote in Congress to overturn the election results. Do you have any concern that someone who had previously taken steps to overturn a free and fair election could one day run elections in Georgia?Well, if you’re honest with yourself, he’s a double-minded person. In Georgia, he accepted the results for his race, but he didn’t accept the results for President Trump’s race. How can you hold two opposing views at one time? So he’s going to have to live with his vote on Jan. 6.Echoing Mr. Trump’s election lies has almost become a litmus test in Republican primaries. How do you run in this environment?I’m going to run on integrity, and I’m going to run on the truth.When was the last time you spoke with Mr. Trump? Was it the call in January in which he urged you to “find” him votes that became public soon afterward?Yes.Have any of his allies contacted you or other Republicans in Georgia in the last few months to urge you to conduct a recount or review along the lines of Arizona’s?Not that I’m aware of.OK. Last question. We spent a lot of time earlier talking about how faith in elections is damaged. How do you think we restore bipartisan, national faith in elections?I think perhaps we need to have a national dialogue, or a bipartisan meeting of the minds. Because S. 1 and H.R. 1 [two versions of congressional Democrats’ major voting rights bill] are a top-down, federal takeover of elections, and of course you’re going to see pushback from the Republicans, and rightly so. And I’ve spoken out against those.We really need to look at what can we accomplish that makes sure that we restore the trust of all voters from both sides of the aisle, make sure that we have honest and fair elections, that results are accurate.Candidates need to understand their job is to turn out voters, and if they don’t turn out enough voters, they will lose the election, and they have to accept the will of the people. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How the G.O.P. Primary for Mayor Turned 2 Friends Into Bitter Rivals

      by

      Two long-shots, Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, and Fernando Mateo, a restaurateur, are in a heated fight to be their party’s nominee.The two Republicans running for mayor of New York City used to be friends. They are both first-time candidates, long shots for the job and tabloid fixtures who perk up when they see a news camera.And now they are at war.At an in-person debate this spring, Fernando Mateo, a restaurateur, threatened his old friend Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, for what he said were attacks on his character and warned that he had damaging information about his opponent.“I have enough dirt to cover your body 18 feet over,” Mr. Mateo said.Mr. Sliwa had called Mr. Mateo a “de Blasio Republican” and accused him of breaking the law in his fund-raising efforts for Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat.“Shame on you,” Mr. Mateo responded, calling the allegations “fake news.”They will meet again on Wednesday, this time virtually, at the first official Republican debate, which will be broadcast on NY1.The Democratic primary for mayor has grown increasingly negative, with Andrew Yang, the former presidential hopeful, and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, calling for investigations into each other’s fund-raising. But they have nothing on the Republicans, who despite their slim chance of winning City Hall seem intent on destroying each other in a scorched-earth primary campaign.It can be easy to forget that not that long ago, New York City elected back-to-back Republican mayors — Rudolph W. Giuliani and Michael R. Bloomberg — and that the Republican Party held its own in large sections of the city outside Manhattan. Today the party’s political power has weakened to the point where the Democratic primary, not the general election, will almost certainly decide who will be the next mayor.But the Republicans are still battling each other to become the face of the party. Mr. Sliwa, whose menacing crime-fighting squads made him a celebrity in the 1980s, is hoping that his public profile and law-and-order message, coming at a time of rising crime, can give him the edge both in the June 22 Republican primary and in the general election in November.Mr. Sliwa rode the subway for 24 hours straight last week, wearing his signature red beret and calling for 5,000 more police officers to stem violence in the system. Instead of defunding the police, he said, he wants to “re-fund the police.”In the 168th Street station in Manhattan, he greeted two officers.“You might be our savior,” one officer told him.Mr. Sliwa, who joined the Republican Party only a year ago, has brought a showman’s zest to the race. He was trailed by cameras as he brought a cake with a giant meatball on top of it to Gracie Mansion to taunt Mr. de Blasio on his 60th birthday — he was protesting the city’s decision to remove Columbus Day from the school calendar — and he hosted a mask-burning ceremony while a disco band sang “Burn Baby Burn.”Mr. Mateo, who was born in the Dominican Republic, is focusing on his story as an immigrant. He wants to become the city’s first Hispanic mayor and has called for overturning bail reform and keeping the jail at Rikers Island open.Republican leaders are split between the candidates. The Manhattan, Queens and Bronx parties endorsed Mr. Mateo. The Staten Island and Brooklyn parties backed Mr. Sliwa.Mr. Mateo is leading in fund-raising: He has raised about $520,000 and says he will qualify for public matching funds soon. (A candidate must raise at least $250,000 in contributions of $250 or less from at least 1,000 city residents to qualify.). Mr. Sliwa has raised about $315,000.There is little polling to know where the candidates stand. Mr. Sliwa was leading among older registered Republican voters with 40 percent, compared to 6 percent for Mr. Mateo, in an AARP-Siena poll in April. But about 44 percent of voters were undecided.Mr. Sliwa rode the subways for 24 hours recently.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesBoth face an uphill battle in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than six to one. Republicans have lost influence in the city since Mr. Giuliani was elected in 1993 and Mr. Bloomberg in 2001. Today the party has only a handful of elected officials in the city, with most from Staten Island, including James S. Oddo, the borough president, and Representative Nicole Malliotakis.Even Joseph J. Lhota, the Republican candidate for mayor who lost to Mr. de Blasio in 2013, left the party. He is supporting Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner and a Democrat, for mayor.Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat who is in his second term, said this week that the Republicans had no chance of succeeding him.“It’s a side show honestly,” he said. “They don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a general election, so God bless them.”But some Republicans see an opportunity. Joseph Borelli, a Republican city councilman from Staten Island, said the atmosphere in the city resembles the early 1990s, when Mr. Giuliani won City Hall amid rising crime and concerns over quality of life.“Just look at how the Democrats made a 180-degree turn on policing the minute there was a horrific shooting in Times Square,” he said. “They went from defund the police to ‘of course the police are part of the solution’ in less time than it takes to drive down Broadway.”Mr. Sliwa, 67, founded the Guardian Angels in 1979 after working as a night manager at a McDonald’s in the Bronx. The Angels’ patrols grabbed headlines, though Mr. Sliwa later confessed that they faked crimes for publicity..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Mr. Sliwa was shot five times in the 1990s, arrested at least 77 times, testified at the federal trial for John A. Gotti, a Mafia boss, and married four times. He had two children with Melinda Katz, now the Queens district attorney, before marrying his current wife, Nancy, who is a member of the Guardian Angels.He was a radio host and led the Reform Party of New York State before officially becoming a Republican last year. He has received criticism for many of his public comments over the years, including saying in 2015 that he wanted to have sex with the speaker of the City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito.His main campaign issue, beyond public safety, is property tax reform — a pressing issue for many homeowners outside Manhattan. Mr. Sliwa said he also wants voters to know that he has a compassionate side, rescuing cats that he keeps in his home on the Upper West Side.“I live in a 320-square-foot studio apartment with one toilet and 15 rescue cats,” he said in an interview. “There’s a lot of litter changing.”Mr. Mateo, 63, moved to New York City as a child, dropped out of school at 14 and started a carpet business. He later got involved in civic issues, creating groups to advocate for livery drivers and bodega owners, and he became a major political donor.Mr. Mateo advocated for livery drivers and bodega owners.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesHe is perhaps best known for his “Toys for Guns” program in the 1990s, when he offered toy store gift certificates in exchange for guns. It got 3,000 guns off New York streets, was replicated in other cities and made him a hero in the national news media.In 2018, he faced negative headlines over his waterfront restaurant La Marina, in the Inwood neighborhood in Manhattan, where there were complaints about drugs and noise, and he was linked to a scandal involving fund-raising by Mr. de Blasio.Mr. Mateo now runs another restaurant, Zona de Cuba in the Bronx, and says he works there in the evenings after long days on the campaign trail — a point of pride.“I’m making a living or I’m campaigning — I’m the only candidate that does that,” he said in an interview. “I know what it’s like to meet payroll.”His main proposal is a teen jobs program, which he calls “Alpha Track,” to keep students out of trouble.But for all of his positive talk about his life story and giving young New Yorkers the same opportunities, he is also taking aim at Mr. Sliwa, who has said he did not vote for President Donald J. Trump in 2020.“I’m the only true Republican in this race,” Mr. Mateo said. “I voted for Trump twice.”He said their feud began when he entered the race, and Mr. Sliwa began to attack him.“I thought that Curtis was my friend,” he said. “I carpeted his first apartment.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Arkansas Is a Test Case for a Post-Trump Republican Party

      by

      Sarah Huckabee Sanders seems likely to bring the Trump brand to Arkansas politics in a big way. But the state is a testing ground for different possible futures for the party.LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — For decades, Arkansas punched above its weight in politics and business.In the 1990s, it was home to the president and the world’s wealthiest family. In the 2000s, three onetime Arkansans ran for president. A decade later, the state claimed its sixth company on the Fortune 500 list.But Arkansas may be entering its most consequential period yet, as a test case for the future of the Republican Party.Having undergone a lightning-quick transformation in the last decade from Democratic dominance to Republican rule, how closely the state clings to former President Donald J. Trump and his style of politics will offer insights about the party he still dominates.Arkansas represents the full spectrum of today’s G.O.P.There are Trump devotees fully behind his false claims of a stolen election and his brand of grievance-oriented politics. That faction is now led by the former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the daughter of Mike Huckabee, the state’s onetime governor. More ideological, and less Trump-centric, conservatives include Senator Tom Cotton.And then there are pre-Trump Republicans, like Gov. Asa Hutchinson, hoping against hope the moment will pass and they can return the party to its Reaganite roots. Finally, some Republicans are so appalled by Trumpism, they have left or are considering leaving the party.Perhaps most significant, each of these factions are bunched together in a state powered by a handful of corporations that are increasingly uneasy with the culture-war politics that define Trump Republicanism. In a meeting of Walmart’s Arkansas-based executives last month, a number of officials cited state measures limiting transgender rights to express concern about how such bills could hamper their ability to recruit a diverse work force, according to a business leader familiar with the discussion.Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas at the state Capitol in Little Rock.Liz Sanders for The New York Times“They’ve got to recruit people to this state, and this makes it harder for them,” said Mr. Hutchinson, alluding to transgender measures that he opposed in this year’s legislative session. “And there’s many in the base of the party that just don’t care,” he said. “They would rather fight the cultural war and pay the price in terms of growth.”In the next year and a half, Ms. Sanders will road-test Trumpism in state politics as she runs for governor in a state the former president carried by 27 points last year. She will initially face a longtime friend and former aide to her father, the state’s Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who unsuccessfully pleaded with Mr. Trump not to endorse Ms. Sanders.Then, if Ms. Sanders prevails, she may prompt a long-shot challenge in the general election from a Republican-turned-independent who left the party in disgust with Mr. Trump, and just happens to be Mr. Hutchinson’s nephew.At the same time, Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hutchinson will be circling one another, perhaps in Iowa as often as in Arkansas, as they both eye 2024 presidential bids with very different bets about the future of the party.“There will be a lot of complicated relationships,” State Senator Jonathan Dismang, an influential lawmaker, said with maximum delicacy.For many veterans of Arkansas politics, the intra-Republican competition is a full-circle moment, reflecting the state’s rapid shift from an overwhelmingly Democratic state to an overwhelmingly Republican one. This period is also eerily familiar to an earlier era when it was Democrats like then-Governor Bill Clinton and former Senators Dale Bumpers and David Pryor who were vying for supremacy. What’s different about today is how much politics in a small, mostly rural state at the intersection of the Deep South, Midwest and Southwest is shaped by a figure who has almost certainly never let the phrase “Woo Pig Sooie” slip from his lips.“Arkansas Republicanism is defined by President Trump right now,” said Trent Garner, a south Arkansas state lawmaker who defeated one of the remaining rural white Democrats when Mr. Trump was first elected.If there was any doubt about that after Mr. Trump’s romp in the state last year, it was erased in February when Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin abruptly pulled out of the 2022 governor’s race. A longtime political operative and former House member, Mr. Griffin had been collecting chits for what many here assumed was an inevitable run for the state’s top job after returning home from Congress in 2014 to serve as lieutenant governor.Former President Donald J. Trump with the former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in June 2019.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThen Ms. Sanders, who has never served in elective office, made clear she would run for governor, and Mr. Trump quickly endorsed his former spokeswoman.The combination of her connection to Mr. Trump, her father’s legacy and her own celebrity from being a Fox News regular made her seemingly unbeatable, according to a private survey Mr. Griffin took, Republicans familiar with the findings said.Now running for attorney general, Mr. Griffin, an Army Reserve colonel, sought to put the best face on his climb-down. “If bio and résumé was key to politics, then George H.W. Bush would’ve been re-elected, Bob Dole would’ve won and John McCain would’ve won,” he said.Mr. Hutchinson put a finer point on how Ms. Sanders had derailed Mr. Griffin. “It shows you the power of media and personality,” he said.Ms. Sanders does still have competition for governor, particularly from Ms. Rutledge, a conservative who, in the friends-and-neighbors world of Arkansas politics, served as Mr. Huckabee’s general counsel as governor and in the same capacity when he ran for president in 2008.“She’s never made decisions,” Ms. Rutledge said of Ms. Sanders. “It’s a big difference answering questions behind a podium versus making decisions behind a desk.”She insisted primary voters would ultimately value her experience, and dismissed State Capitol speculation that she would eventually follow Mr. Griffin to the exits, perhaps to run for lieutenant governor or the state Supreme Court.Asked about Ms. Rutledge’s criticism, Ms. Sanders ignored her rival and trumpeted her own record-setting early fund-raising. “I take nothing for granted,” she said via text message.Ms. Sanders will initially face a longtime friend and former aide to her father, the state’s Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, in the Republican primary for governor.Liz Sanders for The New York TimesShould Ms. Sanders emerge as the Republican standard-bearer, she may face a third-party opponent from well outside the pro-Trump orbit. State Senator Jim Hendren, who left the G.O.P. after the Jan. 6 riot, and Davy Carter, a former state House speaker, are both considering bids.In separate interviews, they said they would not compete with one another in the same race. “I’m convinced that even in Arkansas, Trump and Trumpism is a slow-sinking ship,” said Mr. Carter, who as speaker helped push through Medicaid expansion. He said that a successful challenge to Trumpism would not happen unless liberals, moderates and anti-Trump Republicans “organize in one lane.”Asked who he’d ultimately back in the governor’s race, Mr. Hutchinson said, “I expect to support the Republican nominee.”But he acknowledged talking extensively with his nephew, Mr. Hendren, saying they share “the same frustrations” about the party, except that Mr. Hutchinson is determined to fight from within the tent. Offering some barely veiled advice for Ms. Sanders, he said: “Leadership is about bringing people along and not giving in to a lie.”The governor, and most observers, are deeply skeptical that an independent could win statewide. Indeed, more than a year and a half before Ms. Sanders would even take office, many insiders have moved on to discussing what sort of governor she would be.Would she repurpose Mr. Trump’s media-bashing and grievance-oriented politics to stay in the national headlines, and perhaps propel a presidential run of her own, or would she mirror her father’s more pragmatic approach to the office? While he is now known for his own Fox News and social media profile, Mr. Huckabee governed in the political center, even incurring the wrath of the far right, whom he labeled “Shiite conservatives.”“I think she’s going to be very eager to prove that she’s a competent executive who cares about the state,” said John Burris, a state legislator-turned-lobbyist.While shunning the state media and declining an interview for this story, Ms. Sanders has quietly reached out to state Republican lawmakers to discuss state policy and convey her desire to work with them, according to Mr. Garner.Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas at a Trump campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., last year. Christopher Lee for The New York TimesFew in the state will be watching as closely as the business titans at companies like Walmart, Tyson Foods and J.B. Hunt, the transportation and logistics giant, which are headquartered in the Northwest corner of the state. Once the only Republican region of Arkansas — even Bill Clinton couldn’t win a House seat there in the aftermath of Watergate — it is now the state’s economic engine.The area is booming, will gain about a half-dozen new state legislative seats in redistricting, and is becoming more diverse. As the local business alliance, the Northwest Arkansas Council, notes, from 1990 and 2019, the nonwhite population of the region grew from less than 5 percent to over 28 percent.To lure more transplants, the business giants have showered the region with money, helping develop local attractions like the Crystal Bridges art museum, which was founded by Alice Walton, daughter of the Walmart founder Sam Walton.But this transformation is coming into conflict with the state’s shift right.At the height of the transgender legislation debate this spring, Tom Walton, a grandson of Sam Walton, issued a statement decrying “policy targeting L.G.B.T.Q. people in Arkansas” and spoke directly to what he saw as the threat presented. “This trend is harmful and sends the wrong message to those willing to invest in or visit our state.”Mr. Hendren, who represents a swath of the region in the State Senate, said the business community would have to do far more to slow Arkansas’s sprint right.“Continuing to do the same thing is going to lead to the same results,” he said, dismissing the companies’ strategy of sending the maximum allowable donations to candidates “and thinking that’s going buy you any loyalty.”As for the Arkansans eying 2024, neither is willing to expound on their ambitions before the midterm elections. But both are attempting to carve out space for their potential bids.Mr. Cotton is quick to jump on issues he knows will animate core Republicans — from introducing legislation to address anti-Semitic hate crimes, to lambasting what he calls “woke corporations” — while Mr. Hutchinson has become a frequent presence on the national television circuit.“I don’t want to sit back idly and let the division grow greater and let our party just become more angry,” Mr. Hutchinson said. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Florida Republican Byron Donalds on Election Integrity and Trump’s Fraud Claims

      by

      Byron Donalds, a newly elected congressman, says Republicans are trying to secure elections, not suppress votes. And he disputes Donald Trump’s influence on trust.In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, Republicans have pushed sweeping changes to voting laws across the country, using false claims of voter fraud as their justification. Even in Florida, a state Donald J. Trump won easily, Republicans enacted a more targeted overhaul of elections law in lock step with Mr. Trump’s allegations. Several voting rights groups have sued the state, claiming that the new measures disenfranchise voters in the name of appeasing the former president.Representative Byron Donalds, a newly elected Florida Republican, believes the reaction to the new law is misguided and overblown. In an interview with The New York Times, he sought to explain Republican actions as distinct from Mr. Trump’s false claims, and in line with voter concerns. He argued that his state’s new law, and similar ones across the country, would inspire renewed confidence in the election process.Mr. Donalds won his House seat after serving in the Florida Legislature. He grew up in Brooklyn and worked in finance and banking before entering politics.The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.What did you think of how the 2020 election went in Florida? Did you think it was administered properly, with no evidence of fraud?It was administered very properly. We had the best election laws in the country. Our secretary of state or local officials follow the law, as you know, as it’s written, to a T, and we were pretty much done by 10 o’clock that night.Do you believe the false claims by former President Trump that the 2020 election was rigged?I think what happened is that in several key counties and key states, election law was not followed. That’s clear. It’s crystal clear. You have a federal judge in Michigan that said as much. You have two counties in Wisconsin where the local election officials chose not to follow election laws and cited Covid-19 as the reason. You have a State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that did not follow election law written by the state legislature there. You had the issues in Arizona, you had the consent decree in Georgia — that’s clear violations of the Constitution.Do you think, as former President Trump states, this amounts to widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election?When you violate election law, and you have other bodies or other positions in our governmental apparatus that do not follow the written law, that leads to problems.So I just want to make sure I have this straight. You think that those problems happened elsewhere in the country, but not in Florida?Because in Florida, we followed our law.The Florida Legislature, where you once served, just passed an election reform measure. Why was that necessary if there was no fraud?The right to vote is sacrosanct. We all believe that. And the security of that ballot is also sacrosanct.And there should not be some other party that comes in between the voter casting their ballot and the election officer receiving that ballot and counting it. So I think getting rid of ballot harvesting is a great thing that we did. The other thing was that we tightened up the process of our people getting mail-in ballots.You know, I think the process we have now going forward in our state is actually a good one. Everybody’s free to request their ballot. They prove who they are, that’s a good thing. They receive their ballot, they vote. It’s all about security.Ballot harvesting was already outlawed in parts of the state. And new lawsuits claim that the real impact of the identification measures will be another barrier suppressing Black and Latino voters. What’s your response to that?I don’t pay any attention to those claims. I think the state will win in court. Voter ID claims — about how it disenfranchises minority communities — have been widely debunked. It is actually quite simple to get an ID. You’re talking to somebody who’s had a photo ID since he was 13 years old, when I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. It’s not the issue that it’s always made up to be, you know, by my friends on the other side of the aisle.In Florida, Republicans have taken advantage of things like ballot harvesting. They’ve made inroads with Black and Latino voters to win elections. Is there any risk this new law hurts your own party?No, I haven’t heard that.It was Republicans who brought back ballot harvesting in Florida under former Governor Bush and embraced widespread mail-in voting. What changed from then to now?I mean, OK, but that doesn’t mean I have to support it.I understand. I’m interested in what you think changed in the party from then to now, for a whole community of Republicans to say that’s something that they don’t support?I think the premise of your question is wrong. It’s not about what changed in the party. Political parties are made up of people, individuals who vote and politicians and candidates who run for office. That’s the basis of a political party. There’s no monolithic line of thinking that shifts every two to four years. That’s not the case. I can’t speak to what happened when former people were elected. I can speak to myself and what I’ve done..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Do you think that those laws would have happened without the false claims from former President Trump about a rigged election? It does seem to stretch belief to say none of these new laws are related to politics and Trump. Is that what we’re saying?Looking at our election process is something, specifically in Florida, we continuously do. We passed an election law before 2020. We passed it in 2018 and 2019. We have reforms, I believe, in 2014 or 2015. So Florida, we’ve always been looking at our election laws, doing everything we can to make sure it’s a better law going forward.So as the supposition of your question, that we anticipated what Donald Trump might say, in the winter of 2020. And that’s why we made election law changes in 2019 and 2018. Come on, seriously?Have you followed any of the new election laws in other states?Yes, I think Georgia actually has a very good law. And frankly, it’s sad and, in my view, disgusting that the president referred to it as Jim Crow. It cheapens the history in our country with respect to actual Jim Crow, a disgusting relic of our past. And to try to equate that to what Georgia did, to me, is just completely illogical. It reeks of just the nastiest politics that you could ever want to bring up, to try to divide Americans and divide Georgians.How can you be so sure that these laws are strong enough to stop voter fraud but weak enough to not create new barriers for communities who have had it hard to vote?Those are not on the same playing field, they simply are not.When it comes to these extended lines that have happened in the past in Georgia — I’ve watched the news, too — you have to go look at the local official, what did they do and what did they not do to prepare for people wanting to cast ballots. The one thing we have to acknowledge, and you have to be honest about this, you have seen a rise in Black voting in our country in the last 15 years. And that is a great thing — as a Black man, I’m 100 percent behind that. But it is the responsibility of local officials to make sure that they have the additional polling places they need or that their equipment is sound. And I will tell you, Georgia’s law, or Florida’s law, provides so much access to the ballots, far more than in the state of New York, far more than the state of Delaware.You’re framing these new measures as a way to restore confidence in the democratic process and system. But what I don’t hear you saying — or any Republican, really — is that they think the former president impacted trust in that system. Do you think that his words have negatively impacted trust in the democratic system?No. No, I don’t. I think if you look at what the president has talked about, the president has talked about wanting to make sure that the elections are secure. That’s what he’s talked about more than anything else.I think we both know the former president has said a lot more than that.Four years ago, this time, what were we talking about? About how the Russians tamper with our elections, and that went on for two and a half years. I don’t have a problem with these political debates. Let’s have them. That’s great. But all I’m saying is, let’s — let’s understand the entire history.I was asking about Trump’s impact on trust.All that matters: Is it easier for white people or Black people, whether they are rich, middle income or poor, to cast ballots in the state of Georgia? And Florida? Yes or no? Is it easier? The answer is yes. Is it less easy for them to cast the same ballot in Delaware or New York? The answer is yes.Last question: Do you see the former president’s rhetoric as at least connected to the events that happened on January 6, even if you don’t see them affecting trust in the democratic system overall?No, I don’t. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Anthony Bouchard Says He Impregnated 14-Year-Old When He Was 18

      by

      A Wyoming state senator who is challenging Representative Liz Cheney in the 2022 Republican primary acknowledged this week that when he was 18, he had sex with a 14-year-old girl — which is statutory rape in many states — and that she became pregnant.The state senator, Anthony Bouchard, made the disclosure in a Facebook Live video posted on Thursday and in a subsequent interview with The Casper Star-Tribune, saying that the girl gave birth to a son “more than 40 years ago” in Florida and that he married the girl after she turned 15.She died by suicide a few years later, after they had divorced and she had entered another relationship, Mr. Bouchard said.Mr. Bouchard sought to downplay his actions, saying in his video, “She was a little younger than me, so it’s like the Romeo and Juliet story.” But under current Florida law, his actions would be illegal.Because he did not specify the year he impregnated the girl, it is not clear what Florida’s laws were at the time.Mr. Bouchard said he went public with the story after a newspaper reached out to him. In the Star-Tribune interview, he blamed a “political opposition research company” for spreading it.He used his video to highlight his stance against abortion, saying he and the girl had resisted pressure to terminate the pregnancy.There was “a lot of pressure, pressure to abort a baby, I got to tell you,” he said in the 13-minute video. “I wasn’t going to do it, and neither was she. And there was pressure to have her banished from their family. Just pressure. Pressure to go hide somewhere. And the only thing I could see as the right thing to do was to get married and take care of him.”Mr. Bouchard is one of several Republicans who have said they will challenge Ms. Cheney, who was kicked out of her House leadership position this month for criticizing former President Donald J. Trump and saying she would do everything possible to ensure he was not the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2024.Mr. Bouchard was first elected to the State Senate in 2017 to represent the Laramie County area. He is a gun-rights activist who owns a septic system cleaning business with his wife, according to his official biography. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Oppose Jan.6 Panel With Elections in Mind

      by

      Republicans see an independent inquiry into the attack on the Capitol as a threat to their push to regain control of the Senate and the House.WASHINGTON — Leading congressional Republicans offer multiple justifications for why they oppose an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, but there is really one overriding reason: They fear it will hurt their party’s image and hinder their attempts to regain power in next year’s midterm elections.Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican, was unusually candid about his party’s predicament, which he said was “weighing on people’s minds” as they contemplated the prospect of an inquiry into the deadliest attack on the Capitol in two centuries.Republicans, he said, wondered “whether or not this can be, in the end, a fair process that fully examines the facts around Jan. 6 in an objective way, and doesn’t become a political weapon in the hands of the Democrats.”Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, as is his style, was much more circumspect. But in a closed-door luncheon this week, Mr. McConnell, the minority leader, warned fellow Republican senators that the proposed panel — the product of a deal between a top Democrat and a top Republican in the House — was not as bipartisan as it appeared. He said he believed that Democrats had partisan motives in moving to set up the commission and would try to extend the investigation into 2022 and the midterm election season, tarnishing Republicans and complicating Mr. McConnell’s drive to return as majority leader.A day later, Mr. McConnell joined Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, in flat-out opposing the creation of the 10-member commission. Four months after the deadly assault that targeted them and their institution, the two minority leaders in Congress had united against a bipartisan inquiry that would provide a full accounting for the riot.Like Mr. McConnell, Mr. McCarthy is determined to put Republicans in the House majority next year and himself in the speakership, and he regards an investigation into what happened on Jan. 6 as an obstacle in his path.Given that the commission would be likely to delve into the details of Donald J. Trump’s role in stoking the riot with lies about a stolen election — and that of his party in spreading those false claims and seeking to invalidate President Biden’s victory — it stands to reason that any investigation could be damaging to Republicans. The testimony of Mr. McCarthy, who was in contact with Mr. Trump by phone on Jan. 6, would undoubtedly be sought.Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, archly referred to potential Republican culpability during a House debate on Wednesday, saying the inquiry was needed to get to the bottom of what took place.“Why did that happen?” he asked. “How did it happen? How can we stop it from happening again? What are the resources that we need? And yes, who was responsible? Some, perhaps, are going to vote against this because that’s what they fear.”Capitol Police officers aiming their guns at a barricaded door as rioters tried to enter the House chamber on Jan. 6.Andrew Harnik/Associated PressThe political dynamic was a stark difference from the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, when lawmakers, despite months of disagreement and negotiation, finally came together around the idea of forming an outside inquiry. The independent commission they created has become the gold standard for such efforts, and was heralded for its work in unraveling the origins of the terrorist attacks and making recommendations to prevent a recurrence. Just three House members opposed the formation of that commission on the final vote in November 2002, and the proposal was approved on a voice vote in the Senate.But there was no hope for a similar consensus outcome in the House on Wednesday — and most likely none in the Senate in the future — at a time when many Republicans have been working to deflect any close examination of the riot, and some have tried to downplay or deny its crucial facts.Republican leaders have dug in against the commission even though one of their own members negotiated its details with Democrats, who acceded to their initial demands about its structure. The Jan. 6 proposal was modeled very closely on the Sept. 11 commission. But times have changed, and the Capitol riot has become just another partisan dividing line in a divided capital.Political risks were a very real consideration in 2002 as well. The Bush administration, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, quietly hindered the drive to set up the bipartisan commission even as the White House professed to be fully supportive of the effort. President George W. Bush and members of his administration knew that the disclosure of intelligence lapses leading up to Sept. 11 and other aspects of the investigation could be severely damaging, and they were in no rush to back an inquiry that could haunt the president’s re-election in 2004. But the pressure built to the point where Congress was finally able to proceed.Many of the objections being raised now were also aired during the debate surrounding the Sept. 11 commission. Mr. McConnell and others have said that congressional committee inquiries can get the job done while the Justice Department is deep into its own criminal investigations.“It’s not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could lay on top of the existing efforts by law enforcement and Congress,” Mr. McConnell said.But to Democrats and others supporting the commission, that is the point: A bipartisan inquiry could find facts and developments that other, more narrowly focused investigations might miss, and then be able to deliver a more comprehensive picture of what happened on Jan. 6. The Sept. 11 commission went to work after numerous congressional inquiries, including an in-depth, joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, and there was still plenty of room for the panel to expand on that and other work.Republicans have also raised concerns that the inquiry could complicate the criminal prosecution of those being charged in the assault — a common critique of congressional investigations that parallel criminal inquiries. And they objected that Democrats would appoint the chair of the panel and control the hiring of staff members, suggesting that even with Republicans able to appoint half of the commission members, Democrats would really be in control.“It will be up to the commission to decide how far they want to go,” said Representative John Katko, Republican of New York, who helped negotiate the bipartisan committee agreement.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesRepresentative John Katko of New York, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, who negotiated the agreement with Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee, sought to dispel those concerns and others, calling them unwarranted.“The commission creates the rules as a team,” Mr. Katko said. He also dismissed complaints from Republicans that the scope of the panel was too narrow given civil unrest around the nation, including by left-leaning activists, saying there was no reason the commission could not examine such episodes.“It will be up to the commission to decide how far they want to go,” he said.Such assurances are unlikely to move Mr. McConnell and Mr. McCarthy, who have other reasons for opposing the commission. They believe that Democrats have a vested interest in calling attention to the horrors of Jan. 6, and saw the efforts by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to maintain fencing around the Capitol and keep National Guard troops present as ways to remind Americans of the assault by pro-Trump forces. Given all of that, it is not clear whether the proposal can draw the 10 Republicans whose votes would be needed to advance the bill creating the inquiry past a filibuster in the Senate.But 35 Republicans in the House broke from the leadership and supported the commission. They said it was time for others in their party to do the same in the pursuit of truth.“We need the answers, not political rhetoric,” said Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, one of the 35. “That’s what this bipartisan commission can provide for all of us, for our country. Let the truth shine in.” More