Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Kristi Noem’s story of killing her dog points to class two misdemeanor

      by

      Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor and Republican vice-presidential hopeful, may have committed a class two misdemeanor offence when her fated dog Cricket, a 14-month-old wirehair pointer Noem deemed “untrainable” for hunting pheasant, killed a neighbor’s chickens.Under South Dakota law, “any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog that chases, worries, injures, or kills any poultry or domestic animal is guilty of a class two misdemeanor and is liable for damages to the owner thereof for any injury caused by the dog to any such poultry or animal.”Though Cricket’s chicken attack has made headlines in recent days, however, it was not the main subject of such reports.Instead, Noem’s startling description of her decision to kill Cricket – and also an unnamed, un-castrated and unruly goat – has pitched her into an unprecedented political storm.The story is included in Noem’s new book, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong With Politics and How We Move America Forward.The book will be released next month. Last week, the Guardian obtained a copy and reported the passage in which Noem describes killing Cricket and the goat after Cricket first ruined a pheasant hunt, then killed the chickens.“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, before describing how she shot Cricket and the goat in the same gravel pit, the goat having to be shot twice, the second shotgun blast after Noem left the goat to fetch more shells from her truck.Noem says what she thought she had to do was not “pleasant”, and describes how her actions startled a construction crew and confused her young daughter.She also seems to acknowledge the possible effects of including the story in her book, writing: “I guess if I were a better politician I wouldn’t tell the story here.”News of Noem’s tale did indeed set off a political firestorm, with observers suggesting she had irrevocably damaged her chances of being named running mate to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president who faces 88 felony charges of his own and was adjudicated a rapist but nonetheless maintains his grip on his party.Noem twice defended her account of killing Cricket and the goat, saying as she does in the book that such actions are sometimes necessary in farming, and show her willingness to do difficult things in life as well as in politics.But each defense added to her problems.In the first statement, Noem both referred to recently putting down three horses and advertised her book, promising “more real, honest and politically incorrect stories that’ll have the media gasping”. That drew accusations of insensitivity.In her second statement, Noem said she could “understand why some people are upset about a 20-year-old story of Cricket” but added: “The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down.“Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them” – Noem says the dog “whipped around to bite me” after killing the chickens – “I decided what I did.”In a separate section of South Dakota’s codified laws, the definition of livestock makes no mention of poultry, which would have meant the law did not apply to Noem.But asked about a South Dakota legislature definition that says livestock “means cattle, sheep, horses, mules, swine, goats, and buffalo”, omitting chickens or poultry in general, Ian Fury, Noem’s communications chief, advised the Guardian to “take a look at SDCL 40-34-1 and 40-34-2.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhen the Guardian did, questions arose.Section 40-34-1 of the South Dakota codified laws – Killing of dog lawful when disturbing domestic animals – says: “It shall be lawful for any person to kill any dog found chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals except on the premises of the owners of said dog or dogs.”Noem writes that she killed Cricket on her own property.The following section – 40-34-2, Liability of owner for damages by dog disturbing domestic animals – seems to contain greater potential legal jeopardy.It says: “Any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog that chases, worries, injures, or kills any poultry or domestic animal is guilty of a class two misdemeanor and is liable for damages to the owner thereof.”In her book, Noem writes that she apologised to the family that owned the chickens Cricket killed, “wrote them a check for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime”.Asked if SDCL 40-34-2 indicated that Noem might have committed a class two misdemeanor, Fury did not immediately comment.The South Dakota laws apparently applicable to the case of Noem and Cricket were passed before the dog’s death.In her weekend statement, Noem said her story was 20 years old. That would place it in 2004, when she was in her early 30s, three years before she entered South Dakota state politics and six years before she won a seat in Congress as part of the hard-right Tea Party wave. Noem was elected governor of South Dakota in 2018.South Dakota was the last of the 50 states to make animal cruelty a felony, passing legislation in 2014. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Marjorie Taylor Greene will not drop threat to oust House speaker, aide says

      by

      Anyone who thinks Marjorie Taylor Greene will drop her threat to force the removal of the Republican US House speaker, Mike Johnson, is “high, drunk, or simply out of their mind”, a senior aide to the far-right Georgia congresswoman said.“That’s absurd,” her deputy chief of staff Nick Dyer told Politico, adding that Greene was “not going to tell the press” her plans for activating the motion to vacate she filed more than a month ago.“Anyone who is saying she is backing down is high, drunk, or simply out of their mind.”Congress returned to Washington on Monday with Greene’s threat hanging over the speaker, her fellow Republican.Greene filed the motion after Johnson oversaw passage of a government spending bill with Democratic support.Since then, the speaker has angered far-right Republicans further by overseeing passage of aid to Ukraine, the reauthorisation of government surveillance powers and other moves reliant on Democratic support or seen as too civil to the other party.Johnson must govern with a tiny majority after his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, became the first speaker ejected by his own party when extreme-right Republicans rebelled last October.But though Johnson has a hard-right record himself, and was involved in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, he retains support from the former president and from Democrats set to vote to keep him in his post if Greene decides to strike. Whether Johnson could survive being seen as reliant on Democrats is an open question.On Sunday, Jared Moskowitz, a Florida Democrat, told MSNBC: “The idea of allowing Marjorie Taylor Greene, someone who literally, you know, would let the world burn, you know, with her isolationist foreign policy who has talked about states seceding from the union …“The idea of letting [Greene] sit in the people’s House and the well of Congress, giving a speech, removing any speaker and having that powerful moment, there is just no way Democrats are going to let her do that. I’m not going to let her do that. We won’t even let her name a post office. We’re not going to let her take out the speaker.”But it does seem likely Greene will make her move, if only to avoid climbing down.“Permanent funding for Ukraine is exactly what they want and Mike Johnson will give it to them,” she said in a post to X, appearing to refer to Democrats and/or the so-called “deep state”, the supposed permanent government of operatives and bureaucrats that conspiracy theorists say exists to thwart populist leaders.“Peace is not an option for them because it doesn’t fit the government appropriations war business and economic model, which is vile and disgusting,” Greene said.“They’re [sic] plan is keep funding the proxy war with Russia in Ukraine and when that doesn’t work, after all the Ukrainian men have been slaughtered, next they will put American troops on the ground.“Johnson will do whatever [Joe] Biden/[Senate majority leader Chuck] Schumer want in order to keep the speaker’s gavel in his hand, but he has completely sold out the Republican voters who gave us the majority. His days as speaker are numbered.”Greene is backed by Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Paul Gosar of Arizona.Massie said: “Speaker Johnson enlisted a majority of Democrats to override a majority of Republicans so he could: 1) pass an omnibus that spends more than [former speaker Nancy] Pelosi did, including a new FBI building. 2) reauthorise warrantless spying on Americans 3) send $60bn to Ukraine.“Unforgivable.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kristi Noem defends killing dog: ‘Cricket had shown aggressive behavior’

      by

      Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor and Republican vice-presidential hopeful, on Sunday again defended killing a family dog and goat on her farm, two days after the Guardian revealed how she describes those actions in a forthcoming book.“I can understand why some people are upset about a 20-year-old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch, in my upcoming book – No Going Back,” Noem wrote on Twitter/X.“The book is filled with many honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenges, painful decisions, and lessons learned.”Noem’s book comes out in May. The Guardian obtained a copy and reported how Noem recounts the story of Cricket – a 14-month-old, wire-haired pointer – ruining a pheasant hunt and killing a neighbour’s chickens.“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket tried to bite her, proving herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.“At that moment,” says Noem, “I realised I had to put her down.”The governor describes taking Cricket to a gravel pit and killing her – then deciding to mete out the same fate to the unruly, uncastrated goat. The second killing took two shots, says Noem, adding that when it was all over her daughter Kennedy came home from school and asked: “Hey, where’s Cricket?”Kennedy Noem is now 27 years old, making her, by the governor’s statement, just seven at the time of her mother’s decision to shoot Cricket and the unnamed goat.Amid widespread disbelief that a contender to be selected as Donald Trump’s running mate would commit such a tale to paper, many observers deemed Noem’s hopes of national office as dead as Cricket and the unnamed goat.Noem defended her story on Friday, saying it demonstrated the harsh realities of rural life that only recently saw her family put down three horses too.But animal rights groups condemned Noem.“There’s no rational and plausible excuse for Noem shooting a juvenile dog for normal puppy-like behavior,” said a statement from Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy. “If she is unable to handle an animal, ask a family member or a neighbor to help. If training and socializing the dog doesn’t work, then give the dog to a more caring family or to a shelter for adoption.“Raising and caring for a dog takes patience and kindness. Tens of millions of Americans who know and love dogs have to wonder about a person who expresses hatred for a young female dog and kills her.”Meanwhile, one South Dakotan wrote to police Friday asking them “to ascertain whether all the legal and ethical guidelines were followed, given the high-profile nature of the incident”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Governor Kristi Noem … has publicly stated that she shot and killed her own dog,” said the missive that Chaz Stevens, the chief executive officer of ESADoggy, sent to police. “This incident raises significant concerns about animal welfare and the circumstances that led to such a drastic action.In her Sunday post, Noem said: “What I learned from my years of public service, especially leading South Dakota through Covid, is people are looking for leaders who are authentic, willing to learn from the past, and don’t shy away from tough challenges.“My hope is anyone reading this book will have an understanding that I always work to make the best decisions I can for the people in my life.“The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did.”According to the South Dakota legislature, livestock “means cattle, sheep, horses, mules, swine, goats, and buffalo”.A spokesperson for Noem did not immediately respond to a request for comment about how chickens are not mentioned in the state’s definition of livestock.The governor’s post Sunday did not mention her decision to kill the goat.Ramon Antonio Vargas contributed reporting More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Mitch McConnell refuses to say whether he supports a US national abortion ban

      by

      Asked whether he supports a federal abortion ban, US Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday that he is “not advocating anything at this level”.The Republican, during remarks in a new interview published by NBC’s Meet the Press, stopped short of saying whether or not he supported a 15-week federal ban on abortion with exceptions, but he instead portrayed the issue as “a practical matter” that was too divisive among federal lawmakers to result in a consensus among them.Alluding to comments from 2022 in which he said a national ban was “possible”, McConnell said, “I said it was possible. I didn’t say that was my view. I just said it was possible.”Meet the Press host Kristen Welker pressed McConnell to explain if he supported a federal ban, prompting the Kentucky senator to reply: “The reason I said it was possible is because the supreme court has put this back into the legislative arena. And we’re seeing it play out all across the country. And I think in the end, it’ll reflect the views of these individual states. But I said: ‘Possible’. I didn’t say that was my view.“I don’t think we’ll get 60 votes in the Senate for any kind of national legislation,” he continued, referring to the number of votes needed to end the debate on bills in the Senate and get a vote on them. “I think it’s a practical matter. It’s gonna be sorted out at the state level.”McConnell went on to reaffirm that he believes the issue of abortion access is one that should be decided by individual states after the US supreme court’s decision in 2022 to eliminate the federal abortion rights once established by the Roe v Wade case.“I’m not advocating anything at this level,” he said. “It seems to me views about this issue at the state level vary depending where you are. And we get elected by states. And my members are smart enough to figure out how they want to deal with this very divisive issue based upon the people who actually send them here.”McConnell said he also does not think legislation seeking to federalize abortion rights would get the 60 votes it would need to be voted on in the Senate either.In 2022, South Carolina Republican senator Lindsey Graham proposed a federal ban that would prohibit abortions after 15 weeks. Following Graham’s proposal at the time, McConnell told reporters: “With regard to his bill, you’ll have to ask him about it. In terms of scheduling, I think most of the members of my conference prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMcConnell’s latest interview comes after the supreme court recently heard an abortion rights case centering on how states can decide when to permit emergency abortions. The case involves Idaho, which has one of the country’s strictest abortion bans and only permits doctors to perform an abortion to save the patient’s life. However, under federal law, doctors are required to stabilize patients’ health if either their life or limb is threatened.The conservative-majority US supreme court, which appeared divided as of Wednesday, is expected to rule on the case in June. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson’s busy week: Ukraine aid and threats to protesters – what next?

      by

      Democrat Nancy Pelosi cited his “integrity” and described him as “courageous”. Republican Michael McCaul called him a “profile in courage”. CNN hailed him as “an unlikely Churchill”.Mike Johnson, speaker of the House of Representatives, began the week showered in plaudits for leading the House in approving $95bn in urgently needed wartime aid for Ukraine, Israel and other US allies.It was widely noted that Johnson had done his homework, changed his mind, prayed for guidance and risked his job by facing down far-right extremists in his own party including Marjorie Taylor Greene, who had threatened to oust him if he helped Ukraine.But the chorus of praise-singers echoed past renditions when the likes of William Barr, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney were valorised for doing the bare minimum by denouncing the serial liar and election denier Donald Trump. (Barr, incidentally, now says he will support Trump in November.) That is how low the bar is now set.Any liberals tempted to celebrate the anti-abortion climate sceptic Johnson as moderate adjacent – perhaps even a secret member of the anti-Trump resistance – received a wake-up call on Wednesday when he staged a performative press conference at Columbia University in New York, telling protesters against Israel’s war in Gaza to “go back to class” and threatening to cut federal funding for colleges.The speaker followed up with an interview on CNN in which he pushed the widely debunked claim that Hamas placed babies in ovens and cooked them alive during the 7 October attack, and the sweeping generalisation that students were waving flags to celebrate the perpetrators – thereby dismissing honest concerns for the lives of innocent Palestinian men, women and children.It was a blatant attempt to play to the Fox News audience, whipping up hysteria about student demonstrations spiralling out of control, just as Republicans did about the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. Johnson and others sense what a difficult wedge issue this is for Joe Biden and Democrats.Ilhan Omar, a Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, told MSNBC: “This is a man who is holding on to his speakership. He knows he might be on the chopping block. And it is not surprising that he would go out to Columbia University and stir up really more anger and hate and endanger the lives of young people who are at the encampment at Columbia.”Indeed, Johnson’s position remains precarious in the House as Greene of Georgia, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Thomas Massie of Kentucky threaten to move to oust him. Rightwing media personalities have turned against him: Steve Bannon, host of the influential War Room podcast, called the Ukraine aid package “a desecration” and called for Johnson to be fired.That is because, not quite six months on the job as speaker, Johnson appeared to heed the advice of the CIA and others that leaving Ukraine to fend for itself as it loses ground against the Russian invasion would be catastrophic for Europe and the world. He moved past the populist far-right flank, relying on Democrats to push the package forward, a highly unusual move in the bitterly polarised House.Johnson, who helped lead Trump’s failed legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, told colleagues: “I want to be on the right side of history.” He added to reporters that he would “let the chips fall where they may” regarding his own job. It appeared to be a principled conversion, a noble sacrifice by the Christian conservative.But there were other factors at play. Johnson had displayed his loyalty to Trump by joining him at Mar-a-Lago and proclaiming he could be the “most consequential president yet” if he is returned to the White House. The ever transactional former president expressed support for a plan to structure some Ukraine aid as a loan by way of compromise and said, “I stand by the speaker,” distancing himself from Greene’s effort to remove Johnson.Back in Washington, Johnson disclosed that his son was heading to the Naval Academy this autumn. “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys,” he told reporters. “This is a live-fire exercise for me, as it is so many American families. This is not a game. This is not a joke.”As so often in history, the political and personal had converged to make the answer obvious. Michael Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, says: “His son is going into the Naval Academy this fall and he recognises, oh, yeah, if I don’t get this right now, my son could be shipped off to Ukraine in four years. When it becomes personal for all these people, it is amazing how their tune changes, and the same is true with other issues like abortion and military service.“But in the main he looked at it objectively and realised that he was in a no-win. They [the far right] weren’t going to give him the latitude he needed to secure the right solution that would appease the hardliners, because what they were asking for no one in Congress would agree to. How do we know that? Just look at the margins by which the measures passed.”Johnson seems likely to stagger on as speaker until November’s elections, having given Democrats cause to prop him up if Greene pulls the trigger. They did not trust his ill-fated predecessor, Kevin McCarthy; they do trust Johnson a little more. But his crude interventions in the Gaza protests could soon call that bargain into question, forcing some to re-examine whether his motives on Ukraine were quite so heroic.Comedian Ronny Chieng observed on Comedy Central’s Daily Show: “I salute you, Mike Johnson. I mean, not now. But six months from now I’ll work up the courage to do it.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The culture war in North Carolina is playing out in the race for governor

      by

      In front of a conservative talkshow host two weeks ago, Mark Robinson, North Carolina’s Republican candidate for governor, was grousing a bit about being snubbed by the state’s Democratic governor on a matter of race.“He talks a lot about diversity, equity and inclusion, but apparently the line for diversity, equity and inclusion stops at the Republican party,” Robinson told Lockwood Phillips. “Roy Cooper has had several chances to congratulate me on the accomplishment of being the first Black lieutenant governor, and he has never taken it.”Phillips, who is white, chuckled, then re-introduced Robinson to the audience, “who by the way is African American, Black, whatever. But, frankly, you don’t wear that. You really do not wear that in our entire conversation.”For a conservative speaking to a Black candidate, this is a compliment. For others, it is a jarring illustration of Robinson’s comfort with accommodating the racial anxieties of white Republicans and with the problematic – and at times inflammatory – rhetoric of the far right.But sitting for interviews and being perceived at all as a Black candidate is a different universe compared to the relative obscurity of Robinson’s life six years ago, before a viral video created his fateful star turn into the conservative cosmos. The former factory worker is now a national name, and drawing national attention, for his flame-throwing slurs against the LGBTQ+ community, antisemitic remarks and derision of other Black people.“The same people who support Robinson are the people who support Trump,” said Shelly Willingham, a Black state legislator from Rocky Mount. “It’s a cult. It’s not necessarily citizens supporting a candidate but following a cult leader.”Robinson’s political career began in an inspired four-minute flash in 2018 in front of the Greensboro city council, as he argued against the city’s effort to cancel a gun show in the wake of the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting in Parkland, Florida.“I’ve heard a whole lot of people in here talking tonight about this group, that group, domestic violence, Blacks, these minorities, that minority. What I want to know is, when are you going to start standing up for the majority? Here’s who the majority is. I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen and I’ve never shot anybody,” he said.Robinson, now 55, invoked images of gang members terrorizing people who have given up their weapons under gun-control laws. He said he was there to “raise hell just like these loonies on the left do”.The speech became a social media hit after being shared by Mark Walker, the former North Carolina representative. Robinson drew the attention of the NRA, which was under fire for its callous response to the Parkland shooting and looking for champions.Born into poverty and working in a furniture factory while attending college, Robinson quit his job and dropped out of school to begin speaking at conservative events. (Robinson, if he wins, would be the first North Carolina governor without a college degree elected since 1937.)Robinson beat a host of competitors for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor in 2020, winning about a third of the primary vote. He faced the state representative Yvonne Holley, an African American Democrat from Raleigh. Holley’s campaign focused on North Carolina’s urban territory while largely ignoring rural areas of the state, while Robinson barnstormed through each of the state’s 100 counties. He won narrowly but outperformed Trump’s margin over Biden by about 100,000 votes.View image in fullscreenAt a rally in Greensboro in March before the state’s primary election this year, Trump endorsed Robinson, referring to Robinson as “Martin Luther King on steroids”. But try to imagine King saying something like: “Racism is a tool used by the evil, to build up the ignorant, to try and tear down the strong,” as Robinson wrote in 2017.That sentiment helps explain his initial appeal to white conservatives in a political moment in which rolling back racial justice initiatives has become central to the Republican brand. The right had found the face of a man who could not be easily accused of bigotry, at least not until people began to pay attention to what he said.“He should not be governor of North Carolina or any other place,” said Shirl Mason, who was attending a Black fraternity invocation and scholarship ceremony by Omega Psi Phi for her grandson in Rocky Mount. Her nose wrinkled and her posture shifted at the thought, as she fought for composure in a way people conversant in the manners of church folks would recognize.“He really should not be a politician. Anybody who can say that race did not play a part in the political arena, they should not be in politics at all,” Mason said.Like Trump, Robinson has a litany of provocative outrages in speeches and on social media that have been resurfacing, from referring to school shooting survivors advocating for gun control reforms as “prosti-tots” and “spoiled little bastards”, to describing gay and transgender people as “filth”.Robinson has shared conspiracist comments about the moon landing and 9/11. He has attacked the idea of women in positions of leadership. His swipes at Black culture and public figures are talk-radio fodder, describing Barack Obama as a “worthless anti-American atheist” and suggesting Michelle Obama is a man.“Half of black Democrats don’t realize they are slaves and don’t know who their masters are. The other half don’t care,” he wrote in one Facebook post. He described the movie Black Panther in another as the product of “an agnostic Jew and put to film by satanic marxist”, and wrote: “How can this trash, that was only created to pull the shekels out of your schvartze pockets, invoke any pride?”, using a derogatory Yiddish word to refer to Black people.View image in fullscreenThe antisemitism of that comment is not singular. He has repeated common antisemitic tropes about Jewish banking, posted Hitler quotes on Facebook and suggested the Holocaust was a hoax. “There is a REASON the liberal media fills the airwaves with programs about the NAZI and the ‘6 million Jews’ they murdered,” wrote Robinson, with scare quotes around the figure.Robinson’s campaign has pushed back on accusations of antisemitism, citing his support for Israel and criticism of protests against the war in Gaza. But his past comments are likely to be revisited throughout the campaign in no small part because his opponent, Josh Stein, could be the first Jewish governor of North Carolina.The two present a sharp contrast in policy, temperament and experience. After graduating from both Harvard Law and the Harvard Kennedy school of government, Stein managed John Edwards’ successful Senate campaign. Stein then served in the statehouse before winning the attorney general’s race in 2016, becoming the first Jewish person elected to statewide office in North Carolina.Stein, 57, is running as a conventional center-left Democrat. At a stump speech in pastoral Scotland county near the South Carolina line, Stein focused on fighting the opioid-addiction epidemic, the state’s backlog of untested rape kits, clean drinking water and early childhood education. But he had some words about Robinson’s rhetoric.“The voters of North Carolina have an unbelievably stark choice before them this November, between two competing visions,” Stein said in an interview. “Mine is forward and it’s inclusive. It’s about tapping the potential of every person so that they have a chance to succeed where we have a thriving economy, safe neighborhoods, strong schools.“My opponent’s vision is divisive and hateful, and would be job-killing. I mean, he mocks school-shooting survivors. He questions the Holocaust. He wants to defund public education. He wants to completely ban abortion. And he speaks in a way that, frankly, is unfitting of any person, let alone a statewide elected leader.”Is Robinson an antisemite? “There are certainly people who are Jewish who feel that he does not like them,” Stein replied.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“He says vile things. He agreed that Jews were one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. It’s unfathomable to me that someone would hold those beliefs and then feel comfortable saying them out loud.”North Carolina has a relationship with bilious conservatives; this is the state that produced Jesse Helms and Madison Cawthorn. But voters here have a temperamentally moderate streak and a long history of split-ticket voting that also produces the occasional John Edwards or Roy Cooper.In six of the last eight general elections, voters here chose a Democratic governor and a Republican president. Though every lieutenant governor in the last 60 years has run for governor, only three of 11 have won, each a Democrat. The last two attorneys general of North Carolina also have subsequently been elected governor, also both Democrats.But the margins are always maddeningly close. Stein won his first race for attorney general in 2016 – a Trump year – by about 25,000 votes. He won re-election four years later by about half that margin.Cooper, a Democratic moderate, has been a political fixture in North Carolina politics for a generation, and has been able to fend off some of the more radical impulses of Republicans over the years with a combination of veto power and moral suasion.But while Democrats hold the North Carolina governor’s mansion today, Republicans achieved a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers in 2022 after Tricia Cotham, the newly elected state representative, switched parties shortly after winning an otherwise safely Democratic seat. Since that political shock, Cooper’s vetoes have been routinely overcome by a Republican supermajority.North Carolina’s political maps are also notoriously gerrymandered – manipulated in favor of Republicans – but winning two-thirds of house seats in the legislature is an open question in a year where abortion rights are emerging as a driving political issue. As of 1 May, North Carolina will be the only southern state remaining where an abortion can be obtained after six weeks of pregnancy.Given the stakes, Stein’s campaign hopes to avoid the pratfall of tradecraft that led to Robinson’s victory in the lieutenant governor’s race four years ago. For the moment, the tables have turned on the campaign trail in their favor.In one of Robinson’s three bankruptcy filings, reporters discovered that he had failed to file income taxes between 1998 and 2002. Questions have been raised about personal expenses charged to campaign funds from the 2020 race.His wife shuttered a nutrition non-profit after a conservative blogger began to raise questions about the Robinson family’s financial dependence on government contracts. Reporters later learned that the North Carolina department of health and human services is investigating the firm for questionable accounting.In the hothouse of abortion politics this year, video also surfaced of Robinson at a rally in February calling for an eventual ban on abortion. “We got to do it the same way they rolled it forward,” Robinson said. “We got to do it the same way with rolling it back. We’ve got it down to 12 weeks. The next goal is to get it down to six, and then just keep moving from there.”His campaign spokesperson later re-characterized those remarks as support for a ban beyond the six-week “heartbeat” stage of a pregnancy.Robinson acknowledged in 2022 paying for an abortion for his wife 33 years earlier.The question is whether Robinson’s full-throated anti-abortion stance hinders not just his own candidacy but that of Trump. Planned Parenthood plans to double its spending in North Carolina, to $10m, with an eye on defending the governorship and ending a veto-proof Republican legislative majority. Trump, meanwhile, has backed away from publicly endorsing the most extreme abortion bans.Down in the polls, Robinson has until this week apparently kept a light campaign schedule and stayed away from places where a reporter might pick up yet another unscripted comment. With the exception of an appearance at the Carteret County Speedway on 3 April and the radio interview on 9 April, there is scant evidence that Robinson has been campaigning at all since the March primary. A request to his campaign for a list of his recent campaign stops went unanswered, as did requests for an interview or comment for this story.Stein, meanwhile, has been averaging a campaign stop every two days – 22 events since the March primary – showing up in small towns and rural counties across the state. Stein’s father founded North Carolina’s first integrated law firm, and he spent many years in consumer protection and racial equity roles as a lawyer, a point he raises in rural Black communities.“I think his coming here alone says that he understands that he needs rural communities in order to be successful,” said Darrel “BJ” Gibson, vice-chair of the board of commissioners in Scotland county. “And I say it because so many times we get left out of these gatherings, and state candidates don’t understand that.”The question for both Stein and Robinson is whether the bombast of Robinson’s life as a self-described social media influencer will overshadow substantive policy discussions.When Phillips, the conservative talkshow host, asked Robinson in April about how his approach has changed over time, he described Robinson as more Trumpian than Trump.“My message has not changed,” Robinson replied. “Now, I can tell you clearly that my methods have, because I’ve switched buckets. I’ve gone from social media influencer to advocate, to now elected official. But my heart is still in the same place.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Kristi Noem dogged by poor polling amid fallout from tale of killing puppy

      by

      Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor and Republican vice-presidential hopeful, saw polling numbers plummet after the Guardian revealed that she writes in a new book about the day she shot dead a hunting dog and an un-castrated goat, a revelation that ignited a political storm.Announcing what it called its “Noem Puppy Murder Poll Findings”, New River Strategies, a Democratic firm, said 81% of Americans disapproved of Noem’s decision to shoot Cricket, a 14-month-old wire-haired pointer who Noem says ruined a pheasant hunt and killed a neighbour’s chickens, thereby earning a trip to a gravel pit to die.According to Noem’s account, the goat, which Noem did not name, followed Cricket to the pit because Noem deemed his odour and behaviour unacceptable on her farm. By Noem’s own detailed admission, it took two blasts from a shotgun, separated by a walk back to her truck for more shells, to finish the goat off.Noem’s book – No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward – will be published in May. The Guardian obtained a copy.The governor’s extraordinary admission made news because she has long been seen to be auditioning to be picked for vice-president by Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.On Friday, amid widespread disbelief that Noem chose to tell such a horrific story in such detail in a campaign book, most observers thought her chances of winning the Trump veepstakes were over.Wrote Meghan McCain, a conservative pundit whose father, John McCain, in 2008 made one of the most disastrous vice-presidential picks of all time, in the form of extremist Sarah Palin: “You can recover from a lot of things in politics, change the narrative etc – but not from killing a dog.“All I will distinctly think about Kristi Noem now is that she murdered a puppy who was ‘acting up’ – which is obviously cruel and insane. Good luck with that VP pick[,] lady.”According to New River Strategies: “While 37% of Republicans are still not sure if [Noem] would be a good choice, 84% of them report liking or loving dogs – not a promising sign.”Fourteen percent of respondents to the poll still thought Noem would be a good choice for vice-president to Trump. Among Republicans, 21% thought Noem would be a good pick, to 42% who did not.Among self-identified “very conservative voters”, 28% said Noem would be a good choice, against 32% who said she would not.New River noted: “A plurality of Americans who do not like dogs still disapprove of the governor’s action. While 87% of Americans who love dogs disapprove of what the governor did, so too do 48% of Americans who do not care for the animals.”Politico, which reported the New River poll, also noted Noem had fallen in a ranking of potential Trump running mates offered by PredictIt, an online betting firm.By Saturday, Noem had fallen from second, behind Tim Scott, the South Carolina senator, to fourth, also behind Elise Stefanik, the New York representative, and Tulsi Gabbard, a former representative and Democratic presidential hopeful whose own campaign book, out on Tuesday, does not contain any scenes of shooting puppies.Noem responded to reports about her book by saying: “We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm.” She added that her family recently put down three horses.Her communications director, Ian Fury, cited polling showing Noem as the only potential Trump vice-presidential pick with a positive favourability rating in four battleground states: Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.“This is why the liberal media is so eager to attack Kristi Noem,” Fury said. “She’s the potential running mate they fear most.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe poll from Kaplan Strategies, which describes itself as bipartisan, was conducted the previous weekend but released on Friday, the day the Guardian broke the story of Noem, Cricket the dog and the unnamed goat.On Saturday, the Guardian attempted to contact public figures whose glowing recommendations of Noem’s book are printed on its jacket and introductory pages.In his blurb, Trump calls Noem “a tremendous leader, one of the best”, adding: “This book, it’s a winner … you’ve got to read it!”Asked whether Trump had read the whole book before recommending it, and whether he had comment about the controversy over Noem’s tale of killing domestic animals, the former president’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, did not immediately respond.Fox News spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Rachel Campos-Duffy, a host whose quote on Noem’s book salutes her “common sense and fearless fight for freedom”, adding: “Get ready to be inspired!”No Going Back is also blurbed by Chaya Raichik, creator of the trolling Libs of TikTok social media account; James Golden, also known as Bo Snerdley, formerly sidekick to the late rightwing shock jock Rush Limbaugh; and Riley Gaines, a former college swimmer who campaigns against transgender participation in women’s sports.By Saturday, Raichik had not commented about Noem’s dog-killing confession. Snerdley had reposted a Daily Mail version of the Guardian report.Gaines, who calls Noem’s book “the perfect blueprint for young Americans on how to move our nation forward”, did not comment on the controversy over Noem’s decision to kill a 14-month-old dog. She did, however, post a video of eight puppies sleeping in a pile on a pink rug.“The pups have arrived!” she wrote. “Be still my heart.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      How the Trump trial is playing in Maga world: sublime indifference, collective shrug

      by

      In one America, he cuts a diminished, humbled figure during coverage that runs from morn till night. “He seems considerably older and he seems annoyed, resigned, maybe angry,” said broadcaster Rachel Maddow after seeing Donald Trump up close in court. “He seems like a man who is miserable to be here.”But in the other America – that of Fox News, far-right podcasts and the Make America Great Again (Maga) base – the trial of the former president over a case involving a hush-money payment to an adult film performer is playing out very differently.Here, anger at what is seen as political persecution meets with another emotion: sublime indifference. Barely a handful of Trump supporters bother to protest each day outside the court in New York, a Democratic stronghold. The trial receives less prominence in conservative media, which prefers to devote airtime to other national news including protests on university campuses against the war in Gaza.The divergence ensures that, with TV cameras not permitted in court, two rival narratives are forming around the first criminal trial of an ex-US president. In one telling, Trump is a philander who falsified business records to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election. In the other, he is the victim of a justice department conspiracy designed to rob the Republican nominee of victory in 2024.Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee, said: “The minds in those orbits are already made up. If you’re listening to [far-right podcaster] Steve Bannon, you’re not going to be convinced by any other outcome except not guilty. If you are hyperventilating over coverage that speaks to Donald Trump’s guilt, then you’re not going to be happy unless he’s found guilty.”The trial, which began in earnest this week with prosecution and defence arguments, would already be devastating for any conventional politician. The former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified about his tabloid’s efforts to protect Trump from stories that could hurt his electoral chances using a “catch-and-kill” scheme. The capricious defendant is also awaiting a ruling on whether he will be held in contempt for violating a gag order, an offence he has been accused of 14 times.View image in fullscreenThe trial has dominated cable news networks such as CNN and MSNBC to the extent that they have faced criticism for obsessing over details such as Trump’s daily commute to court and his demeanour once inside. But in the Maga universe, there is a collective shrug.Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at the watchdog Media Matters for America, said: “The rightwing media very much does not want to be talking about this week. You see both CNN and MSNBC covering the trial pretty much throughout as it plays out, whereas over on Fox it’s one of many stories that they’re covering and not a particularly prominent one at that.”Fox News, America’s most watched cable television network, has similarly played down past Trump dramas such as the impeachment trials and the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack, Gertz noted. “You see a similar situation where news outlets are providing constant coverage of big breaking news events and Fox News is feeding its audience its typical culture war mix and avoiding talking about what is quite clearly bad news for their candidate of choice.”When Trump-friendly networks do turn to the trial, they give viewers an alternative narrative from the one dominating CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post. After a hearing has wrapped for the day, Fox News regularly carries live coverage of Trump’s diatribes against the judge, Biden and the cold temperature of the courtroom.It has also amplified his narrative of martyrdom. Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, told Fox News: “This is literally like some of the civil rights workers in Mississippi in the 1960s.” Jesse Watters, a co-host on The Five on the same network, worried that it is unfair to make a man who is almost 80 sit for hour after hour. “It’s not healthy,” he said. “He needs sunlight. He needs activity. He needs to be walking around. He needs action. It is really cruel and unusual punishment to make a man do that, and any time he moves, they threaten to throw him in prison.”They have even defended Trump – who regularly mocks Biden as “Sleepy Joe” – for falling asleep in court. Sean Hannity, a Fox News host, said on his radio show: “By the way, I think I’d fall asleep if I was there.” His colleague Laura Ingraham added: “I’d be falling asleep at that trial, too.”Gertz observed: “They’re basically making the case that actually it’s good to be unable to not nod off in the middle of your own trial. These are people who have spent the last several years attacking Joe Biden for supposedly being too old, too enfeebled to be president. They understand that their viewers, to the extent that they are interested in the trial at all, want to hear full-throated support for Donald Trump, and so they are finding ways to provide that.”The trial has provoked fury on the far right and vows of retribution. Mike Davis, a lawyer and Trump ally, told Bannon’s War Room podcast that Democrats are “running a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of President Trump” and promised to “rain hell on these Biden Democrats”. Davis warned: “I would say to these guys, lawyer up.”View image in fullscreenInterviews with longstanding Trump supporters found the media-coverage split screen translates to one’s view of the trial. There is no sign that the airing of the charges that Trump falsified business records to cover up a hush-money payment is shifting opinions.Steve Robinson, 75, an engineer and contractor from Leesburg, Virginia, is following the trial via the rightwing channels One America News Network and Newsmax and, occasionally, Fox News. “No CNN,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRobinson commented: “The charges are made up and it’s a travesty of justice. It’s embarrassing for us as a country that’s happening when there is no evidence and there is no damage to anyone and it’s obviously a political witch-hunt. The leftists are enjoying it.”Lynette Kennedy McQuain, 63, an insurance salesperson from Lost Creek, West Virginia, said: “New York should spend their tax dollars on criminal behaviour, things that are going on in the city rather than trying to take down a former president. It’s not illegal to pay money to quiet something if you want to.”The current trial is seen as potentially the least serious of the four criminal cases against Trump but is likely to be the only one completed before the election. McQuain added: “It’s gotten to the place now where there’s so many trials that you wonder where it’s going to end.“How many more trials are we going to put Donald Trump through? He’s a presidential candidate again. Come on, that’s a little crazy to me. The whole country sees it that way except a few left-leaning people who just want to get Trump. Judicially we’ve got a whole bunch of other things we could be fighting.”Michael Sheppard, 42, a home builder from Canton, North Carolina, who has been following the trial “passingly” via the social media platform X, said: “I know the trial exists. I know the basics behind it but I really don’t care what they say.”Sheppard believes that it is common practice to pay someone off out of court if the alternative would be more costly. He intends to vote for Trump in November but added: “I wish we had somebody right of Trump. Trump’s a centrist.”Opinion polls have tightened in recent weeks with Biden closing the gap on Trump. It is uncertain what impact the trial will have on the election. The former president himself is thought unlikely to testify, but the court is likely to hear lurid, sordid details that even Trump’s allies in the media might find hard to resist. He is not out of danger yet.Charlie Sykes, a political columnist and author of How the Right Lost Its Mind, said: “The danger of this trial for Trump and for the rightwing media is that many of the details are going to be quite salacious, quite dramatic and easily understood.“People are going to understand a Playboy model saying ‘I had an affair’ as opposed to some of the more arcane things. It’s going to be interesting to see how the rightwing media covers it. Fox News are going to be torn between ‘this is pretty compelling material’ versus ‘it’s also pretty damaging’.”But the experience of the past eight years suggest that Trump’s base understand who he is and are willing to accept it, sexual peccadilloes and all. Sean Spicer, his first White House press secretary, said: “I would argue that after four years of Trump in office and almost four years of Biden, people have pretty much made up their mind who they’re with and this is largely going to be a get-out-the-vote-operation election.“I don’t think anyone seeing anything right now on television or reading it online is somehow going to learn something new about Donald Trump.” More