Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Iowa presidential poll may contain warning for Biden’s re-election – but it’s still early – as it happened

      by

      Donald Trump has a big lead over Joe Biden in Iowa, according to a survey of the state conducted by authoritative pollster Ann Selzer for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom.Fifty percent of Iowa voters who responded to the survey say they will vote for Trump, against 32% who say they’ll support Biden, the poll finds, which is not much of a surprise, since Iowa has become increasingly Republican in recent cycles.The former president’s big lead could nonetheless be a bad sign for Biden’s support in other midwestern states he must win in order to secure a second term. While Iowa is not considered a swing state, there has in the past been some correlation between Trump’s lead there, and his support in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan – all states that Biden is targeting to win.Trump’s 18-point lead in Iowa could signal a significant loss in support for Biden elsewhere in the midwest, but there is a big caveat: we are still a ways away from the November election, and though Selzer is considered the best pollster in the Hawkeye state, there’s plenty of time for voters’ sentiments to change.Are the voters who could matter most in determining the November election souring on Donald Trump over his felony convictions? A newly released poll showed a drop off in support for the former president among independents, who may prove crucial in tipping a race that other polls indicate is currently too close to call. However, the same survey shows a sizable segment of voters wondering whether Trump’s conviction was politically motivated, while a poll of red state Iowa indicates Trump has an 18-point lead, potentially a sign of low support for Biden elsewhere in the midwest. The big caveat with all these polls is that it’s still early, and a lot could change between now and the 5 November vote.Here’s what else happened today:
      Senate Democrats will on Tuesday attempt to pass a bill banning “bump stocks”, which allow semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly. Majority leader Chuck Schumer pleaded with Republicans not to block the legislation.
      The Biden campaign is spending big to remind voters of Trump’s felony conviction ahead of next week’s presidential debate.
      Tim Scott, the Republican senator and potential vice-presidential pick for Trump, said he stood behind his decision to certify Biden’s 2020 election win.
      The Mountain Valley Pipeline is in operation, after overcoming years of protests and lawsuits by activists concerned about the natural gas conduit’s effect on the climate and environment.
      Joe Biden may on Tuesday announce a new program to shield from deportation undocumented spouses of US citizens.
      Immigration advocates are cautiously optimistic Joe Biden will unveil a new program on Tuesday that would shield from deportation the undocumented spouses of US citizens in what some say will be the largest relief program since Daca.Biden is expected to make the announcement on Tuesday during an event marking the 12th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program, which shields from deportation nearly 530,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children.On a call with reporters, advocates said they were still waiting for the formal announcement, but felt confident Biden would deliver the relief many have sought for so many years.Among those who will be listening closely on Tuesday is Ashley de Azevedo, the president of American Families United. She met her husband, Sergio, an immigrant from Brazil, on a train to New York City. When they married in 2012, she assumed he would be eligible for a green card. But under US law, he would have to return to Brazil for 10 years before he could apply for permanent residency because he had entered the US illegally.“The system doesn’t work like it does in the movies,” Azevedo told reporters. “You don’t marry an American and automatically get a green card. There are laws in place that make it impossible for so many.”The expected announcement will come after Biden moved forward with an aggressive asylum crackdown that infuriated immigration advocacy groups and some Latino leaders, who compared the action to Trump-era border policies.“A positive, effective announcement like the one we expect tomorrow can be a game changer for many of the voters in our communities who need to see the bright line, clear contract between the parties on immigration,” said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director of the pro-immigration group, America’s Voice.It could also help Biden win back support among Hispanic voters, as polling shows Trump making significant inroads with this key constituency.“We anticipate that immigrants and Latino voters will express their gratitude at the ballot box in November, rewarding the president,” said Gustavo Torres, president of CASA in Action.Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would attempt to pass legislation to ban “bump stocks”, the device that allows semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly which the supreme court last week allowed to remain available to the public.Schumer said Martin Heinrich, the Democratic senator of New Mexico, will propose the ban, and urged Republicans not to block it.“This week, the Senate will step in to try and fix the chaos the Maga court just unleashed,” Schumer said. “As soon as tomorrow, Democrats will seek passage of a federal ban on bump stocks, and I urge my Republican colleagues not to block Senator Heinrich when he comes to the floor.”Schumer continued:
      Passing a bill banning bump stocks should be the work of five minutes. Most Americans support this step. Poll after poll show that a majority of people, including independents, support restrictions on AR-15 style rifles, which is what ‘bump stocks’ are designed to emulate.
      I understand that the issue of gun safety provokes intense disagreement in Congress, but shouldn’t we all agree that preventing another tragedy like Las Vegas is just plain common sense and a good thing. Banning bump stocks will go a long way to making it harder for murderers to carry out large shootings. So I hope our Republican colleagues join us.
      At her briefing to reporters today, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Biden administration disagreed with the supreme court’s ruling last week allowing “bump stocks” to remain available, and urged Congress to ban the modifications, as well as assault weapons.The devices allow semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly, and one was used in the 2017 shooting in Las Vegas that killed 60 people.“Weapons of war have no place in our streets,” Jean-Pierre said. “Unfortunately, the court’s ruling strikes down an important, common-sense regulation on devices that convert semiautomatic rifles into weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets per minute, also known as bump stocks.”She reiterated that Joe Biden would sign legislation banning bump stocks and assault weapons if Congress passes it. Left unsaid was the fact that Republicans mostly oppose such efforts.“We want to see that happen. And so, this is a legislative priority for this president,” Jean-Pierre said.Here’s more from last week, on the ruling by the supreme court’s conservative supermajority:Donald Trump and Joe Biden are right now scheduled to debate twice before the November election, with their first encounter scheduled for 27 June. Over the weekend, CNN, the host of the first debate, made public their rules for the parlay, the Guardian’s Edward Helmore reports:The first US presidential debate between incumbent Joe Biden and Republican rival Donald Trump on 27 June will include two commercial breaks, no props and muted microphones except when recognized to speak, CNN said on Saturday.The rules, agreed outside the Commission on Presidential Debates, are designed to reduce fractious interruptions and cross-talk that have often marred TV encounters in recent presidential election cycles.CNN, a division of Warner Bros Discovery, said debate moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash “will use all tools at their disposal to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion” during the 90-minute broadcast from Atlanta.Another Biden-Trump face-off will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis in September. The traditional October debate will not take place as part of the agreement between the two campaigns and television networks that cut out the commission following years of complaints and perceived slights.A big change is coming to the way Oklahoma courts handle the sentencing for domestic violence survivors found guilty of crimes, the Guardian’s Olivia Empson reports:Oklahoma’s governor, Kevin Stitt, signed Senate Bill 1835 at the end of last month – marking a radical change for incarcerated domestic violence survivors in the state.Also known as Oklahoma’s Survivors Act, the law will be signed into effect on 1 September and will grant hundreds of people who experienced abuse the opportunity to be resentenced with more leniency in what is one of the most extensive reforms to the state’s justice system following years of advocacy.Incarcerated people in Oklahoma, like Shari McDonald and April Wilkens, whose crimes were motivated by domestic violence, can file for resentencing when the law is signed. Going forward, courts can impose lesser sentences under certain circumstances if abuse is substantiated, and survivors can be considered for a lesser prison range than they were initially eligible for.Crucially, the legislation will also ensure that future survivors are not judged so harshly by the justice system for acting in self-defense.Wilkins was 25 years old when she killed her fiance. She alleged he raped, threatened and abused her for years, and that behavior had been happening on the night of the murder. She claims that pulling the trigger had been an act of retaliatory self-defense and never imagined it would be repudiated by the police who arrested her. Over the years, Wilkens had three past protective orders against her fiance and had filed 14 police reports.“What use is a piece of paper, though,” she said, “if you’re dead.”Norcross attended the press conference announcing his own indictment, according to several outlets.Norcross sat front row as the New Jersey attorney general gave additional insight into the corruption charges Norcross and five other defendants face.A powerful Democratic broker from New Jersey has been charged with racketeering, the New Jersey attorney general announced on Monday.George E Norcross III, a former member of the Democratic National Committee, along with five defendants face several corruption charges, according to a 13-count indictment that was unsealed on Monday.Norcross and others allegedly obtained properties throughout the city of Camden, unlawfully collecting millions in tax credits and influencing New Jersey politicians to continue their scheme, NJ.com reported.New Jersey attorney general Matthew J Platkin alleged that Norcross and others had been “running [the] criminal enterprise in this state for at least the last 12 years,” the New York Times reported.“On full display in this indictment is how a group of unelected, private businessmen used their power and influence to get government to aid their criminal enterprise and further its interests,” Platkin added.Read the full NJ.com article here.Read the full Times article here (paywall).Maryland governor Wes Moore signed an executive order Monday morning that pardons more than 175,000 people with marijuana-related convictions.The pardon by Moore is the largest state pardon to date. Moore told the Washington Post that he signed the pardon to coincide with the Juneteenth holiday, which commemorates the emancipation of enslaved African Americans.Historically, Black people are more than three times more likely than white people to be arrested on marijuana-related charges despite similar rates of drug use.“I’m ecstatic that we have a real opportunity with what I’m signing to right a lot of historical wrongs,” Moore said to the Post. “If you want to be able to create inclusive economic growth, it means you have to start removing these barriers that continue to disproportionately sit on communities of colour.”The pardon will not release anyone from prison, the Post reported, but will forgive low-level marijuana possession charges for some 100,000 people.Are the voters who could matter most in determining the November election souring on Donald Trump over his felony convictions? A newly released poll showed a drop off in support for Trump among independents, who may prove crucial in tipping a race that other polls indicate is currently too close to call. However, the same survey shows a sizable segment of voters wondering whether Trump’s conviction was politically motivated, while a poll of Iowa indicates the former president has an 18-point lead in the red state, which could be a sign of low support for Biden elsewhere in the midwest. The big caveat with all these polls is that it’s still early, and lots could change between now and the 5 November election.Here’s what else has happened so far today:
      The Biden campaign is spending big to remind voters of Trump’s felony conviction ahead of next week’s presidential debate.
      Tim Scott, the Republican senator and potential vice-presidential pick for Trump, said he stood behind his decision to certify Biden’s 2020 election win.
      The Mountain Valley Pipeline is in operation, after overcoming years of protests and lawsuits by activists concerned about the natural gas conduit’s effect on the climate and environment.
      Reuters reports that lawyers for the president’s son, Hunter Biden, withdrew a motion requesting a new trial after he was convicted on federal gun charges last week.Biden is considering whether to appeal his conviction, and is also scheduled to face trial in September on federal tax charges.Here’s more from last week, when a jury in Delaware returned guilty verdicts on the gun charges:Donald Trump has a big lead over Joe Biden in Iowa, according to a survey of the state conducted by authoritative pollster Ann Selzer for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom.Fifty percent of Iowa voters who responded to the survey say they will vote for Trump, against 32% who say they’ll support Biden, the poll finds, which is not much of a surprise, since Iowa has become increasingly Republican in recent cycles.The former president’s big lead could nonetheless be a bad sign for Biden’s support in other midwestern states he must win in order to secure a second term. While Iowa is not considered a swing state, there has in the past been some correlation between Trump’s lead there, and his support in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan – all states that Biden is targeting to win.Trump’s 18-point lead in Iowa could signal a significant loss in support for Biden elsewhere in the midwest, but there is a big caveat: we are still a ways away from the November election, and though Selzer is considered the best pollster in the Hawkeye state, there’s plenty of time for voters’ sentiments to change. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden ad blitz targets Trump’s criminal conviction in pitch to swing voters

      by

      Joe Biden is seeking to exploit Donald Trump’s recent felony conviction in a television advertising blitz, amid polling evidence that the presumptive Republican nominee’s criminal status is hurting him with independent voters.A new 30-second advert released on Monday homes in on Trump’s 31 May conviction in a Manhattan court on 34 counts of falsifying documents to conceal the payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels, an adult actor, who testified that the pair had sex.The ad – featuring black-and-white courtroom images of Trump – also highlights his losses in two civil court cases, one from the writer E Jean Carroll, who said the former president raped and defamed her, and a $355m fraud ruling against his businesses.“We see Donald Trump for who he is,” the ad’s narrator says. “He’s been convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual assault and he committed financial fraud.“Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s been working,” the narrative continues in a calculated comparison between Trump and his successor in the Oval Office. “This election is between a convicted criminal who is only out for himself and a president who is fighting for you and your family.”The ad will run in key battleground states and is the Biden campaign’s most aggressive commentary yet on Trump’s criminal status after a muted initial response.It is part of a $50m advertising onslaught as the Biden election machine seeks to make Trump’s character a central issue in the run-up to the first scheduled televised debate between the pair on CNN on 27 June.In the immediate aftermath of the verdict – which Trump has appealed – the president appeared to play it down, saying: “There’s only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: At the ballot box.”The apparent change of course follows polling indicators that the conviction may sway potential swing voters, widely deemed crucial in a close race. A fresh poll for Politico shows 21% of independent voters saying it makes them less likely to vote for him in November – a potentially decisive factor in a contest in which opinion surveys have shown the two candidates running neck-and-neck, with Trump leading narrowly in many instances.The poll also recorded 43% of voters as believing that the verdict was intended to help Biden.One of Trump’s leading surrogates, the Florida congressman Byron Donalds, who has been tipped as a potential vice-presidential contender, called on the US supreme court – which has a six-to-three conservative majority, largely because of Trump’s nomination of conservative justices while he was president – to reverse the conviction, despite it having no jurisdiction over state cases.“In New York, the only ability for this to be overturned … is going to be happening two or three years from now,” he told NBC’s Meet The Press.“That’s why what happened in lower Manhattan was to interfere with an election, which is why Speaker [Mike] Johnson, myself included, and many Americans believe the supreme court should step in to this matter.”At a fundraising event in Los Angeles, attended by former president Barack Obama, and actors George Clooney and Julia Roberts, Biden told the comedian Jimmy Kimmel that a Trump victory would result in at least two more conservative justices being appointed to the supreme court, which he said would be “very negative in terms of the rights of individuals”. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump looking for ‘fighter’ as Republican running mate

      by

      Donald Trump is looking for a “fighter” as his running mate in this year’s presidential election and regards factors such as their gender or race as irrelevant, according to sources close to the former US president.Conventional wisdom used to hold that Trump was likely to choose a woman or a person of color as his potential vice-president in an effort to broaden his appeal. But aides close to the presumptive Republican nominee currently say he will not take so-called identity politics into account.Instead, Trump, who is still trying to make up his mind, wants a candidate who is media-savvy and will fight for him on adversarial TV networks. “In short,” a Trump ally said, “he wants someone who is everything Mike Pence wasn’t.”Former vice-president was a valuable asset during the 2016 and 2020 campaigns – the Christian conservative who shored up support among Republicans suspicious of the thrice-married reality TV star. But Pence’s refusal to comply with Trump’s demand to overturn the 2020 election led to a falling out and made Pence a target of the January 6 rioters.Trump is seeking a “Goldilocks” running mate this time: strong but loyal, in tune with Maga but not over-rehearsed, telegenic but not likely to outshine him. His choice will go up against Kamala Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice-president.But his campaign does not regard having a Black candidate – such as Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina – as intrinsically helpful, preferring to reach voters of color through community outreach and policy plans. A source said the campaign hears from Black voters that identity politics matter less to them than the economy and community safety.Biden is 81 while Trump turned 78 on Friday. Both candidates have already served one term, putting more focus on the vice-presidency than in a typical election year. Fifteen vice-presidents have gone on to be president, eight of whom succeeded to the office upon the death of the incumbent.View image in fullscreenJim McLaughlin, a former pollster for Trump, said: “It’s got to be somebody that he knows can be the president of the United States because – he hasn’t said this but other people are saying this – this could be a person that’s in the White House for the next 12 years, so he understands the importance of that.”Speaking on a panel in Washington organised by polling firm JL Partners, McLaughlin added: “I think it’s also somebody who definitely believes in his agenda. I don’t think he’s going to go for somebody to have some sort of an ideological or necessarily political balance.“He’s going to want an ‘America first’ Republican to be his nominee. I get calls a lot of times from candidates: ‘Can you help me with the Trump endorsement?’ My first question to them is: what kind of relationship do you have with him? Because loyalty is huge with him. It’s got to be somebody he is comfortable with as a person.”Earlier this month, ABC News reported that Trump’s campaign had started a process of formally requesting information from a small handful of potential running mates. It named Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota; JD Vance, a senator for Ohio; and Marco Rubio, a senator for Florida.Speculation around Burgum, a 67-year-old multimillionaire businessman, has been gathering momentum in recent weeks, culminating in an 1,800-word profile in the New York Times. The article included details such as Burgum having worked as a chimney sweep in college, wearing a black-top hat and tails to evoke Dick Van Dyke’s character in the film Mary Poppins.View image in fullscreenRubio, 53, a son of Cuban immigrants, could potentially help the former president peel away Latino voters from Biden and, as the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, brings foreign policy experience. The US constitution poses a headache, however, since it bans electors from selecting a president and vice-president from the same state – and both Trump and Rubio call Florida home.Vance, 39, rose to fame in 2016 with his memoir Hillbilly Elegy about growing up poor in Appalachia. That year, he was a fierce critic of Trump, at one point calling him “cultural heroin”. Since 2018, however, he has embraced the 45th president and befriended his son, Don Jr. Vance is seen as an intellectual standard bearer for the ‘America first’ ideology with a connection to blue-collar voters.Reed Galen, a co-founder of the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, said: “Vance tends to make the most sense. There’s the anti-Trump video that will be played a million times, but everyone’s got something like that now probably except for Ben Carson. But Vance seems to me to be the person who can bring youth to the ticket. He can lay back on that Hillbilly Elegy bootstraps bullshit that Republicans love.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe added: “Trump is certainly more dynamic on stage because he’s nuts – he’s a coked-up Tasmanian devil – but I would venture to say that, for a lot of Republicans, Vance reminds them of a Republican party that they want. Burgum’s boring but he’s got money. He’s not going to hurt you. He’ll do whatever he’s told. I think Vance would, too.”Other contenders include former housing secretary Ben Carson, the senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the representative Byron Donalds of Florida, the former Democratic representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, the Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and the representative Elise Stefanik of New York. Scott, of South Carolina, who is African American, challenged Trump in the Republican primary race but is now a staunch advocate.View image in fullscreenAsked by the Newsmax network recently whether he is close to choosing a running mate, Trump replied: “I thought Tim Scott didn’t run as good of a race as he’s capable of running for himself, but as a surrogate for me, he’s unbelievable. He’s been incredible. Governor Burgum from North Dakota has been incredible. Marco Rubio has been great. JD Vance has been great. We’ve had so many great people out there.”Trump has ruled out Nikki Haley, his former US ambassador to the UN, who eviscerated him during the primaries but now says she will vote for him. Another potential pick, Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, is widely seen has having disqualified herself after writing in a memoir that she shot dead an “untrainable” dog that she “hated” on her family farm.Trump is expected to make the announcement at next month’s Republican national convention in Milwaukee. Given his mercurial nature and flair for theatricality, anything is possible. The names circulated by Trump, his campaign and the media might yet be upstaged by an entirely unexpected nominee.Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington, said: “It would not at all surprise me if Trump were to pull a name out of left and right field that he’s really been looking at and this is an entire misdirection.”Will it matter? Not much, if history is any guide. Olsen added: “If somebody is going to move the needle for Trump, it’s going to be somebody like a woman or a Black person. I guess I just won’t predict that because it’s quite clear going back decades that the identity of a vice-presidential nominee has a very limited and regional effect, if it has an effect at all.“You can be somebody who is callow and unprepared for office, like Dan Quayle, and George Herbert Walker Bush still comes from 17 points behind to win a comfortable seven-point victory. You can be somebody who clearly is out of her depth, like Sarah Palin – John McCain still rises or falls on his own merits, not Palin’s problems.” More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump always returns to his folly. And his Republican acolytes always return to him | Richard Wolffe

      by

      Anyone can rat, as Winston Churchill once supposedly said. But it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.Say what you like about Donald Trump, but there’s no shortage of rodent-like ingenuity around his dealings with the sewer life that populates today’s Republican party.On Thursday, the convicted felon who now leads the party of law and order paid a very special visit to his closest friends on Capitol Hill.This is the same convicted felon who bravely whipped a mob into attacking the same friends, in the same place, along with the police officers paid to protect them, all of three years ago. Which, as it happens, is the average life of a domesticated rat.Back in the mists of time of 2021, all of 10 House Republicans and seven Senate Republicans voted to impeach the soon-to-be-ex-president for inciting insurrection.Most of those brave and principled supporters of the blindingly obvious are no longer with us: either retired or defeated, they long abandoned the sinking ship of sedition. The rest decided to normalize an unhinged insurrectionist whom they all disdain while speaking to reporters in the fetal position of their own fears.For those left scurrying below deck, Thursday’s royal visit from the king of bling was a dizzying display of dubious electioneering. The felonious future nominee managed to rat on the city of Milwaukee that will host his party’s convention next month, around the time he gets sentenced for his very many crimes of paying hush money to a former porn actor.“Milwaukee, where we’re having our convention,” he proclaimed, “is a horrible city.” It also happens to be the largest city in the swing state of Wisconsin, where – until last week – the polls suggested Trump was running neck-and-neck with Joe Biden.Instead of triggering a round of second-guessing about their presumptive nominee, the rat pack of Republicans proceeded to dump on the fine news outlet, Punchbowl, that reported on their friend in low places.According to them, either Trump didn’t say any such thing, or he was talking about the city’s crime rates, or possibly its administration of elections, or its position on public protests against the party’s convention.That’s the thing about re-ratting: it’s all a bit confusing. It’s almost like Trump and his enablers are making it up as they go along.Of course he didn’t stop at Milwaukee. Why would he?Trump has read the polls, or at least had the polls read to him. He knows that the greatest single achievement of his presidency – not peace in the Middle East, but stacking the supreme court with anti-abortion activist justices – is now one of the greatest motivators of votes against him and his hapless party.So he had some choice words of advice for the party that opposes choice. Stop talking about abortion. Or at least talk about abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.There’s just one tiny problem with this position: his own party and his own supreme court justices don’t agree with him.Anyone can rat on any issue. But it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to rat on your signature issue and expect your party to rat alongside you. It’s almost like Trump is expecting his enablers to make it up as they go along.For someone who built his fragile fortune on branding, these ratty moments are something of a challenge to the core Trump-y brand.Yes, the chaos is constant. But you’re supposed to know what you’re getting with Trump. He’s supposed to speak his mind, to mean what he says, even if you think he’s plain old bonkers.Clearly and sadly, this election cycle is dominated, much like the last two presidential contests, by The Trump Question. He drives people to the polls both for and against him, in seemingly equal measure. The president certainly isn’t driving anyone to the polls.However, The Trump Question is not what it used to be. Beyond the issue of whether he should ever walk inside the White House again, there’s an un-Trumpy confusion about what he stands for.Is he for or against the anti-abortion movement? For or against TikTok under Chinese ownership? For or against Milwaukee, for heaven’s sake?Even as he pandered recently to the nation’s richest CEOs, at the Business Roundtable, Trump promised to cut corporate taxes by a less-than-whopping one percentage point, from 21 to 20%. “It’s a nice round number,” he said.At this point, Trump is in danger of flubbing the famous Roger Mudd question that Ted Kennedy fumbled so badly in 1979: Why do you want to be president?It wasn’t that Kennedy couldn’t answer the question. He desperately wanted to say it was his turn to carry the Kennedy flame. He just wouldn’t say it in public.Why does Trump want to be president? To stay out of jail? To seek revenge on his opponents? To pretend like he’s not the loser who lost the 2020 election?They don’t really fit on a red baseball cap. Or a gold pair of sneakers.So the tongue-tied populist returned to Capitol Hill to fire up his troops with a confusing set of ratty statements. Or, as Nancy Pelosi put it so memorably, he returned to the scene of his biggest crime: campaigning for election at the very place where he wanted to stop an election.The writers of the Book of Proverbs might have recognized this story back in biblical times. Like a dog returning to his vomit, Trump can’t help but return to his folly. And his Republican supporters can’t help but return to him.
      Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Muted mics, no props: CNN details rules for Biden and Trump debate

      by

      The first US presidential debate between incumbent Joe Biden and Republican rival Donald Trump on 27 June will include two commercial breaks, no props and muted microphones except when recognized to speak, CNN said Saturday.The rules, agreed outside the Commission on Presidential Debates, are designed to reduce fractious interruptions and cross-talk that have often marred TV encounters in recent presidential election cycles.CNN, a division of Warner Bros Discovery, said debate moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash “will use all tools at their disposal to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion” during the 90-minute broadcast from Atlanta.Another Biden-Trump face-off will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis in September. The traditional October debate will not take place as part of the agreement between the two campaigns and television networks that cut out the commission following years of complaints and perceived slights.CNN said both candidates will appear at a uniform podium during the 90-minute debate, podium positions will be determined by a coin flip and candidates will be given a pen, a pad of paper and a bottle of water but cannot use props.“Microphones will be muted throughout the debate except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak,” CNN said.The network also said that during the two commercial breaks, campaign staff will not be permitted to interact with their candidate, and unlike previous debates there will be no studio audience.Biden and Trump, the two oldest candidates ever to run for US president, will be seeking the support of an uncommonly large swathe of undecided voters who may only begin to pay close attention to the contest closer to the 5 November election day.But with polls already narrowing in crucial swing states, the debates come with risks for both candidates with markedly different styles of governance – on a seasoned senator who relies on an extensive staff for policy positions, and a New York developer-turned-reality TV star who shoots from the hip.According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll earlier this month, Biden is losing support among voters without college degrees, a large group that includes Black people, Hispanic women, young voters and suburban women.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe essence of the argument – Biden accuses his predecessor of being unhinged and a danger to democracy, while Trump accuses Biden of being senile and corrupt – has so far left many voters cool to the prospect of a 2024 rematch between two political candidates who, at 81 and 78, are twice the US median age.According to a campaign memo viewed by Reuters, Biden has three preferred debate topics: abortion rights, the state of democracy and the economy. Trump’s team has indicated that immigration, public safety and inflation are his key issues.The hosting networks will be keen to ensure that the twin debates will run more smoothly than in 2020, when the discussion focused on Trump’s pandemic response and moderator Chris Wallace had to step in to remind the candidates he was asking the questions.The second scheduled debate set for October did not take place due to Trump’s Covid-19 diagnosis and his refusal to appear remotely rather than in person. In this election cycle, both candidates have refused to refused to debate rivals for their party’s nomination.CNN said that candidates eligible to participate must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold needed to win and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls.It said it was “not impossible” that independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr, could still qualify, saying he has received at least 15% in three qualifying polls to date and has qualified for the ballot in six states, making him eligible for 89 electoral college votes.The Kennedy campaign said Saturday that its polling showed he was now in second place alongside Biden in Utah, but behind Trump, and that he outpaces Biden and Trump among independents nationally.Reuters contributed to this story More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats agree Biden had to act on immigration – but they’re split over his asylum order

      by

      Democratic mayors, governors and members of Congress from the south-west to the north-east stood beside Joe Biden at the White House, when he unveiled an executive order temporarily sealing the US-Mexico border to most asylum seekers – the most restrictive immigration policy of his presidency.“We must face a simple truth,” the US president said. “To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.”Those around him agreed, applauding the directive as a welcome, if belated, step. Yet for many Democrats not in attendance, the moment marked an astonishing retreat from just four years ago, when the president campaigned on dismantling the incendiary immigration policies of Donald Trump.Most Democrats accept that Biden had to do something to address an issue that has become one of his biggest political vulnerabilities. But the party, once united in furious opposition to Trump’s asylum clampdown, now finds itself divided over his course of action, split on both the substance of the policy and the wisdom politics.Biden is once again campaigning for the presidency against Trump, but the political climate has changed demonstrably.Unprecedented levels of migration at the south-west border, fueled by poverty, political upheaval, climate change and violence and amplified by incendiary Republican rhetoric, have rattled Americans. Polls show border security is a top – sometimes the top – concern among US voters this election season.The action, designed to deter illegal border crossings, was an attempt by the Biden administration to confront those concerns. But it also invited unwelcome comparisons to his predecessor, whose policies he was accused of “reviving” in a legal challenge brought last week by the American Civil Liberties Union.“It violates fundamental American values of who we say we are – and puts people in danger,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, the executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization. “It’s part of a trap that the Democrats are falling into – they’re buying the narrative the right is pushing on immigration.”For three years, Republicans have accused Biden of ignoring mounting concern over the south-west border, which they falsely claim is under “invasion”. But as the humanitarian situation has worsened, he has also been confronted by criticism from Democratic mayors and governors pleading for more federal help managing the record number of people arriving in their cities and states, especially during peaks in 2022 and 2023.Biden moved to act unilaterally after Republicans blocked – at Trump’s behest – an attempt to pass a bipartisan bill to restrict asylum. Congress also rejected a multibillion-dollar budget request from the White House for additional resources to manage the situation, raising questions about how authorities will enforce the new rule.Supporters of Biden’s latest policy, including border-state and swing-state Democrats, say the action will deter illegal immigration by encouraging people to seek asylum in an “orderly” manner at legal ports of entry. Even if the rule is blocked by the courts, they are ready to make the case to voters that Biden took decisive action when Republicans would not.“We all want order at the border,” said New York representative Tom Suozzi, a Democrat who flipped a House seat in a special election earlier this year after campaigning on more border security. “The American people want us to deal with immigration.”But progressives, immigration-rights advocates and some Hispanic leaders say that the new order not only suspends long-standing guarantees that anyone who reaches US soil has the right to seek asylum, it undermines American values. The president’s embrace of punitive policies, they argue, risks losing the support of key parts of his coalition.Biden knew the order would infuriate corners of his party – he addressed them directly in his White House remarks earlier this month, saying the goodwill of the American people was “wearing thin”.“Doing nothing is not an option,” he said. “We have to act.”But advocates and progressives say he can do more to protect undocumented immigrants who have lived in the country for decades, some for nearly their entire lives.They are urging Biden to use his bully pulpit to move the immigration fight beyond the border by using his presidential authority to shield more immigrants from deportation and create avenues for them to work legally. The White House is reportedly considering a future action that would protect undocumented spouses of American citizens from deportation.Last week the Biden campaign released a new ad marking the 12th anniversary of Daca – the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program established by the Obama White House in 2012 – as the Democrat runs for re-election and looks for ways to shore up support from Latino voters.The program provides temporary work permits and reprieves from deportation for hundreds of thousands of Dreamers, people brought without permission to the US as children.In the “Spanglish” ad, Dreamers tout a recent move by the Biden administration to extend health care coverage to Daca recipients while warning that Trump has threatened to end the program.“Ultimately, Congress needs to act to reform our immigration system,” Cárdenas said. “But until then, we need Biden doing everything he can to show that he still believes what he promised he would do when he came into office.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiden’s policy, which took effect immediately, seeks to deter illegal immigration by temporarily blocking people who cross the US border outside lawful ports of entry from claiming asylum, with some exceptions. The order lifts when daily arrests for illegal crossing from Mexico fall to 1,500 per day across a seven-day average. The last time crossings fell below that threshold was in 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic halted migration.The number of illegal border crossings has fallen in recent months, due in part to stepped-up Mexican enforcement and seasonal trends. But officials say the level is still elevated, and worry the trend could reverse as the weather cools and a new Mexican president takes power weeks before the November election.Despite its failure, the bipartisan border security deal, negotiated with the blessing of the White House, underscored just how far to the right the immigration debate in Washington has shifted.The legislation included a wishlist of Republican border security demands aimed at keeping people out. Absent were any long-sought Democratic aspirations of expanding pathways to citizenship and work visas for the millions of undocumented people living in the US. Instead, Democrats tied the border deal to a foreign aid package opposed by conservatives.“That changed the contours of what had been a widely understood immigration framework,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, immigration policy director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, adding: “I’m not sure what the consensus or compromise border solution is anymore.”On the campaign trail, Democrats hope to capitalize on Republican resistance to the border deal by casting Trump as unserious about addressing illegal immigration at the border, his signature issue. But it may prove difficult for Biden to make inroads on what has long been one of the country’s most polarizing political issues.Polls consistently show deep public disapproval of how Biden has handled the border, with voters giving Trump, who has also faced sharp criticism for his immigration plans, a wide advantage.A CBS News poll found broad public support for the president’s executive order, including among Republicans, but they also believed illegal border crossings were more likely to fall under Trump than Biden.And a new Monmouth University poll last week found Biden’s standing practically unchanged by the action, with roughly half of Americans – 46% – saying it did not go far enough, compared with 31% who said it was about right. Just 17% said the order went too far.On Wednesday, a coalition of immigrant-advocacy groups led by the ACLU sued the Biden administration over the directive.“By enacting an asylum ban that is legally indistinguishable from the Trump ban we successfully blocked, we were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU.The administration anticipated legal challenges. “We stand by the legality of what we have done,” the secretary of homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas, said in a Sunday interview with ABC, adding that he would have preferred for Congress to act.Last week, a group of 18 progressive members of Congress sent a letter to Mayorkas asking the administration to reconsider the asylum rule on the grounds that it “puts asylum seekers at grave risk of unlawful removal and return to harm”.Despite their disappointment, Biden’s Democratic critics say Trump – who has said undocumented immigrants “poison the blood of our country” and is planning a sweeping mass-deportation campaign in a potential second term – would be far more dangerous.“The more American voters focus on the anti-immigrant, extremist policies that the right is pushing, the more they’re going to reject that vision,” Cárdenas said. But, she added: “Americans want to know, what’s the plan? What’s the strategy? What’s the vision? And I think it will serve Biden and Democrats better if they have an answer to the question of what it is they are for.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Wisconsin Republicans block PFAS cleanup until polluters are granted immunity

      by

      Wisconsin Republicans are withholding $125m designated for cleanup of widespread PFAS contamination in drinking water and have said they will only release the funds in exchange for immunity for polluters.The move is part of a broader effort by Republicans in the state to steal power from the Democratic governor, Tony Evers, the funding’s supporters say, alleging such “political games” are putting residents’ health at risk.“People really feel like they’re being held hostage,” said Lee Donahue, mayor of Campbell, which is part of the La Crosse metropolitan area and has drinking water contaminated with astronomical levels of PFAS. “It’s ridiculous, and some would argue that it’s criminal, that they are withholding money from communities in dire need of clean drinking water.”PFAS are a class of chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products water-, stain- and heat-resistant. They are called “forever chemicals” because they don’t naturally break down, and they persist in the environment and accumulate in humans’ and animals’ bodies. The compounds are linked to cancer, decreased immunity, thyroid problems, birth defects, kidney disease, liver problems and a range of other serious illnesses.The Environmental Protection Agency this year established limits for several of the most common PFAS, including levels at four parts per trillion (ppt) for the most dangerous. PFAS are contaminating water for more than 350,000 Wisconsin public water system users, often at levels far exceeding the limits. Many more private wells have contaminated water. In Madison, the state capital, levels in water sources were found as high as 180,000ppt.In Campbell, where more than 500 wells have tested positive for PFAS at levels up to thousands of times above federal limits, many suspect high rates of cancer and other serious ailments that have plagued the town’s residents stem from the dangerous chemicals.In the face of the crisis, bipartisan budget legislation that created the $125m pot of money for cleanup was approved by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by the governor in mid-2023. The funds are supposed to go to the Wisconsin department of natural resources.Previously, money approved during budgeting processes was released to the state agency. Since Evers ousted the Republican Scott Walker in 2018, the GOP-controlled legislature has claimed the joint finance committee (JFC) it controls can add stipulations to how the money is spent, or refuse to release money approved in the budget.That gives Republican leadership more control over how Evers’s administration spends and governs, and the GOP is using that legal theory to withhold the PFAS-cleanup funding.“It is definitely a power grab,” said Erik Kanter, president of Clean Wisconsin, which is lobbying on PFAS issues.Meanwhile, Republicans separately floated a piece of legislation that provided a framework for how the $125m would be spent on PFAS cleanup, but it included what Kanter called a “poison pill”: it exempted PFAS polluters from the state’s spill laws that are designed to hold industry accountable for the contamination it causes.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEvers vetoed the legislation because of the spill law exemption. The department of natural resources then proposed to GOP legislators that it would spend the $125m as outlined in the Republican legislation, but industry would not be exempt from the spill laws. The legislature has so far rejected that proposal, and it is now on break for the rest of 2024.“At this point in time it looks like the JFC is not going to release those dollars,” Kanter said. “That money has been sitting there for almost a year and nobody has gotten any help because of political games in the legislature.”The Evers administration announced in late May that it would sue the committee for withholding the funds and make a constitutional separation of powers claim. It charges the JFC’s withholding is “an unconstitutional legislative veto”. Republican leadership did not immediately return a request for comment.In the meantime, communities such as La Crosse continue to struggle, Donahue said. The city and county have so far spent nearly $1m trying to determine the feasibility of tapping into a neighboring aquifer and continue to monitor it to ensure the PFAS plume contaminating their drinking water source does not migrate.“What do we do?” Donahue asked. “We can’t afford to wait another year for help.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      How the US supreme court could be a key election issue: ‘They’ve grown too powerful’

      by

      “Look at me, look at me,” said Martha-Ann Alito. “I’m German, from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you.”It was a bizarre outburst from the wife of a justice on America’s highest court. Secretly recorded by a liberal activist, Martha-Ann Alito complained about a neighbour’s gay pride flag and expressed a desire to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag in protest.This, along with audio clips of Justice Samuel Alito himself and a stream of ethics violations, have deepened public concerns that the supreme court is playing by its own rules. The Democratic representative Jamie Raskin has described a “national clamour over this crisis of legitimacy” at the court.A poll last month for the progressive advocacy organisation Stand Up America suggests that the supreme court will now play a crucial role in voters’ choices in the 2024 election. Nearly three in four voters said the selection and confirmation of justices will be an important consideration for them in voting for both president and senator in November.Reed Galen, a co-founder of the Lincoln Project, a pro-democracy group, said: “The idea that these guys act as if they are kings ruling from above, to me, should absolutely be an issue. It was always Republicans who said we hate unelected judges legislating from the bench and we hate judicial activism. That’s all this stuff is.”View image in fullscreenPublic trust in the court is at an all-time low amid concerns over bias and corruption. Alito has rejected demands that he recuse himself from a case considering presidential immunity after flags similar to those carried by 6 January 2021 rioters flew over his homes in Virginia and New Jersey. Justice Clarence Thomas has ignored calls to step aside because of the role his wife, Ginni, played in supporting efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in 2020.Ethical standards have been under scrutiny following revelations that some justices failed to report luxury trips, including on private jets, and property deals. Last week Thomas, who has come under criticism for failing to disclose gifts from the businessman and Republican donor Harlan Crow, revised his 2019 form to acknowledge he accepted “food and lodging” at a Bali hotel and at a California club.These controversies have been compounded by historic and hugely divisive decisions. The fall of Roe v Wade, ending the nationwide right to abortion after half a century, was seen by many Democrats as a gamechanger in terms of people making a connection between the court and their everyday lives.There are further signs of the debate moving beyond the Washington bubble. Last week, the editorial board of the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper argued that, since the court’s own ethics code proved toothless, Congress should enact legislation that holds supreme court justices to higher ethical standards. The paper called for the local senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who is chair of the Senate judiciary committee, to hold a hearing on the issue.Maggie Jo Buchanan, managing director of the pressure group Demand Justice, said: “It’s important to keep in mind that, even though debate among members of Congress would lead you to believe that court reform is a polarising issue, it really isn’t. For years we have seen broad bipartisan support for basic supreme court reforms such as ethics.“A broad bipartisan consensus exists that they’ve grown too powerful, that they have too much power over laws and regulations. That’s shared among nearly three-fourths of Americans, including 80% of independents, so the demand is there and this isn’t something where it’s Democrats versus Republicans in the sense of real people. The American people want change and want to check the judiciary.”Congressional Democrats have introduced various bills including one to create an independent ethics office and internal investigations counsel within the supreme court. Broader progressive ideas include expanding the number of seats on the court or limiting the justices to 18-year terms rather than lifetime appointments.But such efforts have been repeatedly thwarted by Republicans, who over decades impressed on their base the importance of the court, ultimately leading to a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees.This week Senate Republicans blocked the ​​Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, legislation that would require the court to adopt a binding code of conduct for all justices, establish procedures to investigate complaints of judicial misconduct and adopt rules to disclose gifts, travel and income received by them that are at least as rigorous as congressional disclosure rules.In response, Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, said its “nearly 2 million members are fired up and ready to continue advocating for supreme court reform – in Congress and at the ballot box”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut Galen of the Lincoln Project worries that Democrats lack the necessary aggression to capitalise on the issue. “[Senate majority leader Chuck] Schumer and Durbin are not change agents. They consider themselves institutionalists and they continue to call themselves that. They’re in a place where they can’t possibly conceive of something like that. Democrats are just afraid of their own shadow.”That principle might apply to the US president himself. The 81-year-old, who served in the Senate for 36 years, is reluctant to call out justices by name or call for sweeping reforms of the court, although he is making its decision to end the constitutional right to abortion a centrepiece of his campaign.Ed Fallone, an associate law professor at Marquette University Law School said: “I don’t know that Joe Biden is the politician to try and benefit from this issue. Biden has always presented himself as an institutionalist and more of a centrist than many segments of the Democratic party.“There’s a real risk here for Biden because, if he does try to get political advantage from the public’s growing concern about the supreme court, it seems to conflict with his message that we should all respect the court system and the judicial system and the Trump prosecutions and the various legal problems of former Trump advisers. It seems difficult to reconcile telling the public to respect the judicial system with also embracing the idea that the very top of the system is flawed and needs reform.”Fallone added: “You will see other Democrats seize on this issue and start to push it, in particular those who are are going to try to energise the left side of the base, maybe not necessarily for this election, but maybe anticipating Biden might lose and starting already to look ahead to the following election.”Other argue that, competing for voter attention with the cost of living, immigration and other issues, the supreme court will ultimately fade into background noise.Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington DC, said: “The middle of the country, the independents and the swing voters do not care about the supreme court, and I don’t think any effort by Democrats or the media bringing up these things about Alito or Thomas is going to register or motivate those people. It motivates partisans. It doesn’t motivate swing voters on either side.”Read more: The supreme court’s decisions this week
      US supreme court strikes down federal ban on ‘bump stock’ devices for guns
      US supreme court unanimously upholds access to abortion pill mifepristone
      US supreme court sides with Starbucks in union case over fired employees More