Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US House votes to pause impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas

      by

      The US House of Representatives voted on Monday to pause the effort to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, halting a Republican campaign that alleges he has been derelict in his duty in managing the US-Mexico border.The articles of impeachment, introduced by Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican representative, on Thursday, contend that Mayorkas, an appointee of Joe Biden, violated his oath of office by failing to constrain the record numbers of migrants arriving at the border.The House voted to refer the articles back to the House homeland security committee, which is carrying out its own investigation of Mayorkas’s alleged dereliction of duty.The move comes as Congress has less than five days to extend funding or send the US into its fourth partial government shutdown in a decade.The impeachment comes after months of threats from Republicans, who blame Biden’s administration for rolling back harsh restrictions on accepting migrants and asylum seekers put in place under Donald Trump, a Republican.If the Republican-controlled House impeaches Mayorkas, he will almost definitely be found innocent after a trial in the Senate, which Democrats control by a slim margin.In response to the initial impeachment motion, a US Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said lawmakers should stop “their reckless impeachment charades and attacks on law enforcement” and instead “deliver desperately needed reforms for our broken immigration system”.Since Biden took office in 2021, US border agents have made more than 5 million arrests of migrants making irregular crossings – that is, not through a controlled border station – over the US-Mexico border. Migrants have arrived from around the world; large numbers have fled economic and political turmoil in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBoth Biden and Trump are seeking another term in office in 2024, with Trump the leading candidate for the Republican nomination.House Republicans have also launched an impeachment inquiry into Biden. The probe is focused on the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and the White House has denied any wrongdoing. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      House to consider Mike Johnson’s unconventional bill to avert shutdown

      by

      The House of Representatives will on Monday begin considering an unconventional proposal by the Republican speaker, Mike Johnson, to extend government funding into the new year and ward off a shutdown that would occur this weekend, but it’s unclear if the measure has the support to pass.Johnson’s bill is the latest attempt to resolve a complex standoff over funding the government that has pitted hardline Republicans against their moderate colleagues and the Democratic minority in Congress’s lower chamber, and also contributed to the chain of events that led to Kevin McCarthy’s overthrow as speaker of the House in October.The US government’s authorization to spend money expires at the end of the day on Friday, and Johnson, a rightwing lawmaker who the GOP elected as House speaker last month to replace McCarthy, unveiled over the weekend a proposal to keep some agencies functioning through 19 January and others through 2 February while long-term spending bills are negotiated.Congress has in recent decades enacted dozens of such short-term funding bills – known as continuing resolutions (CR) – but Johnson’s is unique because it proposes two different deadlines for the funding to run out.“This two-step continuing resolution is a necessary bill to place House Republicans in the best position to fight for conservative victories,” Johnson said in a statement.The White House immediately panned the proposal, which does not include funding for military assistance to Ukraine or Israel that Joe Biden is pushing Congress to approve – issues Johnson says he wants to handle in separate legislation.“This proposal is just a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns – full stop,” the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said. “With just days left before an extreme Republican shutdown – and after shutting down Congress for three weeks after they ousted their own leader – House Republicans are wasting precious time with an unserious proposal that has been panned by members of both parties.”The White House’s statement could also bode ill for the measure’s reception in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority their leader Chuck Schumer is moving forward tentatively with a bill to continue government funding through 19 January.But before it even lands there, Johnson’s proposal will have to make it through the House. The rules committee will hold a key procedural hearing on the bill on Monday afternoon, and, if they move it forward, a source familiar with the legislation says the full House is expected to vote on the bill on Tuesday.Already, it has run into opposition from some conservative lawmakers, who say Johnson has proposed a “clean” CR that lacks the deep spending cuts they want to see come with any such bill.“It’s a 100% clean. And I 100% oppose,” tweeted Texas Republican Chip Roy.Scott Perry, the chair of rightwing Freedom Caucus, is also against it, saying he would “not support a status quo that fails to acknowledge fiscal irresponsibility, and changes absolutely nothing while emboldening a do-nothing Senate and a fiscally illiterate president”.At their current numbers, Republicans can afford to lose only three of their own members before they will have to rely on Democratic support to get legislation passed. That is a perilous calculus for Johnson, as McCarthy was ousted days after Democrats helped him pass a measure he proposed to prevent a government shutdown through 17 November.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlready, powerful Democrats are signaling opposition to the speaker’s bill. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, objected to the lack of funding for Israel and Ukraine in the measure, and argued the Departments of Defense and State need long-term funding, not a two-month stopgap.“It is irresponsible to kick the can down the road for several months – keeping government services frozen – and hope that our challenges go away. We are nowhere closer to a full-year funding agreement than we were at the end of September,” DeLauro said. “Congress must avoid a shutdown and pass a CR that facilitates enacting full-year spending bills and emergency assistance as soon as possible.”More ominous for the bill were the comments by the Democratic minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, comments last week, when he called a continuing resolution that extended funding for different periods of time “another extreme rightwing policy joyride”.In an interview on Fox Business Network, the Florida Republican Carlos Giménez acknowledged “the dynamics are the same” for Johnson as they were for McCarthy, but predicted the speaker’s bill would receive support from both parties.“Even though you’ll get some Republicans not to vote for it, just like what happened under Kevin McCarthy where you had a bunch of Republicans not vote for a clean CR, most if not all, Democrats did vote for it, because the last thing we want to see is a government shutdown,” he said. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      ‘I’m more worried today than I was on January 6’: top conservative’s warning to America

      by

      Michael Luttig knows the eye of the storm. On the night of 4 January 2021, the retired federal judge advised Mike Pence, the vice-president, against trying to overturn the results of the presidential election. Last year on live television he delivered compelling testimony to the congressional panel investigating the January 6 insurrection.Now, with less than a year until the nation goes back to the polls, Luttig recognises that the battle to save the American republic from the demagoguery of Donald Trump is far from over – and he is more worried than ever before.“I am more worried for America today than I was on January 6,” he warns in a phone interview with the Guardian. “For all the reasons that we know, his election would be catastrophic for America’s democracy.”Luttig, 69, is an unlikely hero of the resistance. Born in Tyler, Texas, he was assistant counsel to the president under the Republican Ronald Reagan, and clerked for then judge Antonin Scalia and the supreme court justice Warren Burger. He served on the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit from 1991 to 2006 and was committed to an “originalist” interpretation of the constitution.He endorsed the George W Bush White House’s post-September 11 policy of declaring terrorism suspects “enemy combatants” so that they could be held by the military without charges. He was an advocate of the death penalty – including for the man who killed Luttig’s own 63-year-old father, John, in a carjacking outside his home.Luttig retired in 2006 and entered the private sector, working for Boeing and Coca-Cola before sliding into what seemed a quiet retirement. But at the dawn of 2021, America was on the brink of a constitutional crisis after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden and pressured Pence to reject the outcome.On the night of 4 January, Luttig received a call from old friend Richard Cullen, who was working as a lawyer for Pence. Cullen explained that John Eastman, who had previously clerked for Luttig, was making the claim that Pence had the constitutional authority to stop certification of the election results.Lutting told Cullen to advise Pence that this was flat wrong and further set out his views on Twitter: “The only responsibility and power of the Vice-President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast.”The vice-president duly stood his ground and spurned Trump, who reportedly branded Pence a “wimp” and complained: “I don’t want to be your friend any more if you don’t do this.” On January 6 a mob of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol and demanded that Pence be hanged, leaving a trail of death, destruction and excrement, but the results got certified all the same.Testifying to the House of Representatives’ January 6 committee in an almost painfully slow and deliberate manner, Luttig recalled: “On that day, America finally came face to face with the raging war that it had been waging against itself for years. So blood-chilling was that day for our democracy, that America could not believe her eyes and she turned them away in both fear and shame.”As Biden was sworn in, proclaiming that “democracy has prevailed”, and Trump slinked back to his Mar-a-Lago redoubt in Florida, there were hopes that the worst of the storm had passed. But it soon became apparent that Trump wasn’t going anywhere. He continued to hold rallies, call the shots in the Republican party and push the “big lie” that he, not Biden, was the true winner in 2020.Now, despite 91 criminal indictments in four jurisdictions, many of which relate to the attempted coup, he is running to regain the White House in 2024. He is the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination and, according to a recent New York Times and Siena College poll, leading Biden in five of the six most important battleground states.Should Trump win a second term, the Washington Post newspaper reported this week, he already has plans to use the federal government to investigate or prosecute perceived enemies including his former chief of staff John Kelly, former attorney general William Barr and Gen Mark Milley, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff.A presidency guided by such authoritarian impulses would be “ruinous” for democracy and the rule of law, Luttig predicts. “He did what he did on January 6. He’s continued to maintain for three years that the election was stolen from him. He’s done that with now complete and total support of the Republican party.“All that he has done beginning with January 6 has corrupted American democracy and corrupted American elections and laid waste to Americans’ faith and confidence in their democracy to the extent that today millions and millions and millions of Americans no longer have faith and confidence in their elections.“He’s the presumptive nominee of the Republican party in 2024 and indeed many people believe that he will be the next president.”Luttig, however, has a plan to stop him. In August he joined with the liberal constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe to publish an article in the Atlantic magazine under the headline “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again”.The pair argued that section 3 of the 14th amendment automatically excludes from future office anyone who swears an oath to uphold the constitution and then rebels against it. Irrespective of criminal proceedings or congressional sanctions, they contended, Trump’s efforts to overturn the election are sufficient to bar him for life.Luttig elaborates by phone: “The former president is disqualified from holding the presidency again because he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the United States when he attempted to remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted to confer the power of the presidency upon Joe Biden.“That constituted a rebellion against the executive vesting clause of the constitution, which limits the term of the president to four years unless he is re-elected by the American people. I cannot even begin to tell you how that is literally the most important two sentences in America today.”Luttig draws a fine but important legal distinction between a rebellion against the constitution, as described by the 14th amendment section 3, and rebellion against the United States. He claims that groups that filed lawsuits in Colorado and elsewhere to bar Trump from the ballot are confused on this issue.“They do not yet understand what disqualifies the former president, namely an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution. They have argued the cases as if he is disqualified because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.“That’s why they have, unfortunately, focused their efforts on establishing or not that the former president was responsible for the riot on the Capitol. The riot on the Capitol is incidental to the question of whether he engaged in a rebellion against the constitution.”But he adds: “All of these cases – and there’ll be others in the states – is the constitutional process by which the American people decide whether the former president is disqualified from the presidency in 2024. All of these cases are going to roll up to the supreme court of the United States and it will be decided by the supreme court whether Donald Trump is disqualified.”Even some Trump critics, however, have argued that a legal ruling banning him from the race from the White House would enflame America’s divisions, whereas beating him at the ballot box would be more satisfying. Luttig naturally takes a lawyerly view: “The constitution tells us that it is not disqualification that is anti-democratic. Rather, it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification that the constitution tells us is anti-democratic.”America’s founding document does not allow for second guessing about the political fallout, he adds. “It is the constitution that requires us to decide whether he is disqualified, whatever the consequences of that disqualification might be.”In the meantime Luttig this week helped form a new conservative legal movement, relaunching an organisation formerly known as Checks & Balances as the Society for the Rule of Law. The move was billed as a nationwide expansion aimed at protecting the constitution and defending the rule of law from Trump’s “Make America great again” movement. Its leadership includes Luttig, the lawyer George Conway and former Republican congresswoman Barbara Comstock.“We believe that the time has come for a new conservative legal movement that still holds the same allegiances to the constitution and the rule of law that the original conservative legal movement held but has abandoned,” Luttig explains. “There’s a split in the conservative legal movement that mirrors the split in the Republican party about Donald Trump.”On other side of that split is the Federalist Society, a group that for decades has played a crucial role in grooming conservative judges – its prominent figures have included Leonard Leo, who advised Trump on his supreme court picks – but has said little about the threat posed by the former president to the constitutional order.Luttig, who, unlike Conway, has never been a member of the Federalist Society, said: “We believe that the Federalist Society has failed to speak out in defence of the constitution and the rule of law and repudiate the constitutional and legal excesses of the former president and his administration and, most notably, failed to repudiate the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Tim Scott suspends presidential bid as Trump leads Republican pack

      by

      Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has suspended his presidential campaign, conceding that he does not see any path to the Republican nomination as Donald Trump maintains a significant lead in primary polling.Scott told Fox News in an interview on Sunday evening that he had suspended his campaign. His exit may provide a modest boost for other candidates trying to dislodge frontrunner Donald Trump from the top spot.“I think the voters, who are the most remarkable people on the planet, have been really clear that they’re telling me: ‘Not now Tim,’” he said.The news comes less than six months after Scott launched his White House bid with the promise of offering a more optimistic vision about America’s future, projecting the persona of a “happy warrior” ready to lead the Republican party into a new era. Scott, who is the only Black Republican serving in the Senate, used his own personal story as the child of a single mother to make an argument for America’s greatness, accusing Joe Biden and other Democrats of “attacking every rung of the ladder that helped me climb”.“We live in the land where it is absolutely possible for a kid raised in poverty in a single-parent household in a small apartment to one day serve in the people’s house and maybe even the White House,” Scott said as he announced his candidacy in May. “This is the greatest country on God’s green Earth.”But that positive messaging failed to sway Republican primary voters, and Scott struggled to gain traction with a party base that remains largely loyal to Trump, despite the 91 felony counts against the former president.In more recent months, Scott explored darker rhetoric on the campaign trial in an apparent attempt to bolster his dwindling hopes of capturing the nomination. During the second Republican primary debate in late September, Scott implied that slavery had been more bearable for Black Americans than the Great Society, President Lyndon Johnson’s anti-poverty program that led to the creation of social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The comment won praise from Fox News commentators and sparked outrage among Scott’s critics, who accused Scott of downplaying the atrocities of slavery.Weeks after that incident, Scott lambasted Biden over his response to the attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October, which killed more than 1,400 Israelis. Blasting Biden’s foreign policy agenda, Scott accused the president of inadvertently causing the violence.“While Hamas carried out these attacks, Joe Biden has blood on his hands,” Scott said. “His weakness invited the attack.”Scott later applauded the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for his “restraint” in his response to the Hamas attacks. At the time Scott made the comment, Israeli airstrikes in Gaza had already reportedly killed a large number of Palestinians.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDespite Scott’s pivot to more severe rhetoric, his level of support in national primary polls remained in the low single digits, leaving him with no path to the nomination. Scott announced in October that he would shift his campaign resources to Iowa, zeroing in on the first voting state in a last-ditch effort to revive his campaign.But that strategy failed to lift Scott’s polling numbers, and he has now formally suspended his campaign, as Trump cements his status as the clear frontrunner in the race. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Newsom 2024: could the California governor be a rival to Joe Biden?

      by

      One of the strongest candidates for US president in 2024 may be one who’s not yet in the race. There’s growing evidence that Gavin Newsom, the charismatic and energetic Democratic governor of California, is running something of a shadow campaign to Joe Biden and ready to step up if, or when, the incumbent is out of the running.Several developments in recent days suggest Newsom, who romped to re-election a year ago without really campaigning, is ready to bring forward what was already expected to be a strong run for the presidency in 2028.There are mounting concerns inside the Democratic party, matching polling among voters, that Biden is too old for a second term, the start of which in January 2025 would see him two months past his 82nd birthday if re-elected. Some want him to stand down.Newsom, 56, is among a generation of younger, prominent and popular Democrats expected to emerge from the shadow of the old guard, and has stolen a march on his peers with a series of bold moves many analysts see as strategic.Even movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself a Republican former two-term governor of California, thinks a Newsom run at the White House is inevitable.“I think it’s a no-brainer. Every governor from a big state wants to take that shot,” Schwarzenegger said earlier this year.But not all Democrats appear thrilled at the prospect. Pennsylvania US senator John Fetterman, at a dinner in Iowa, connected Newsom with Dean Philips, a congressman who said he is challenging Biden.“[There are two] running for president right now,” he said. “One is a congressman from Minnesota, the other is the governor of California, but only one has the guts to announce it.”This week, Newsom made a financial donation to a Democratic mayoral candidate in Charleston, South Carolina, 2,800 miles from his governor’s mansion in Sacramento. Reaching into political elections in other states is, experts say, a sure sign of a potential presidential candidate wishing to raise their profile on the national stage.“South Carolina is an early state in the primary process for Democrats, and doing well in the early states is seen as momentum for later ones,” said Eric Schickler, professor of political science at University of California, Berkeley, and co-director of its institute of governmental studies.“In fact, Biden’s win in South Carolina is really what propelled him to the top 2020, so building connections to important politicians in the state can certainly be seen by potential candidates as an important step.”Newsom has publicly denied that he has sights on Biden’s job.“I’m rooting for our president and I have great confidence in his leadership,” he told Fox News earlier this year.But while Schickler believes Newsom’s own thinking about the timing of any White House run probably hasn’t changed, he says circumstances have.“The Democratic party’s nervousness about Biden has certainly increased, and with him polling behind Donald Trump in many states, his low approval ratings, young voters being especially disenchanted with Biden, all of that has heightened interest among a lot of party supporters in an alternative,” he said.That alternative might not be Kamala Harris, who as vice-president would usually be assumed Biden’s heir apparent. Her public approval is currently as low as the president’s.So a rising, often progressive-leaning politician such as Newsom, with a wealth of executive and legislative experience, and a willingness to counter head-on Republican policies and personalities, makes for an attractive proposition.“It’s not a situation where there’s like 20, or 50, or 100 Democratic leaders who could be viewed as legitimate. If there were such a group, Newsom has positioned himself pretty well and would be on a very short list along with [Michigan governor] Gretchen Whitmer and a couple others,” Schickler said.“The problem is the party. There’s just a lot of different voices, a lot of different constituencies, and not really anybody or any group that could authoritatively say, ‘Oh, it’s Newsom’.“[But] he would certainly be one of the most serious people. The things he’s doing now, it helps him for 2028, which still is the most likely scenario, and certainly doesn’t eliminate him if something crazy or unexpected were to happen in the next six months.”Other not so subtle clues that Newsom has sights on higher office include his $10m (£8.2m) investment earlier this year in a new political action committee designed to spread the Democratic party’s message in Republican-held states he said have “authoritarian leaders directly attacking our freedoms”.Among the targets is Ron DeSantis, the hard-right Florida governor and faltering candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The pair will debate each other on 30 November in a highly anticipated nationally televised event once billed as a clash of two leading White House contenders.“The idea of debating DeSantis was probably a lot more appealing when it really did look like he might actually defeat Trump. In that scenario, showing you can debate him and score a lot of points helps Newsom’s visibility with the party and makes his case that he would be an effective candidate,” Shickler said.“With DeSantis not doing so well, the upside for Newson is less, but there are still Democrats who would be happy to see him debate and defeat him. He only stands to benefit, it’s just the benefit will be smaller.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      House speaker unveils Republican plan to avert government shutdown

      by

      US House speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a Republican stopgap spending measure late Saturday aimed at averting a government shutdown in a week, but the measure quickly ran into opposition from lawmakers from both parties in Congress.Unlike ordinary continuing resolutions that fund federal agencies for a specific period, the measure announced by Johnson would fund some parts of the government until 19 January and others until 2 February. House Republicans hope to pass the measure Tuesday.“This two-step continuing resolution is a necessary bill to place House Republicans in the best position to fight for conservative victories,” Johnson said in a statement after announcing the plan to House Republicans in a conference call.The House Republican stopgap contained no supplemental funding such as aid for Israel or Ukraine.The House and Democratic-led Senate must agree on a spending vehicle that President Joe Biden can sign into law by Friday. Otherwise, they risk a fourth partial government shutdown in a decade that would close national parks, disrupt pay for as many as 4 million federal workers and disrupt a swath of activities from financial oversight to scientific research.The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said in a release that the proposal was “just a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns”. She said: “House Republicans are wasting precious time with an unserious proposal that has been panned by members of both parties.“Johnson, the top Republican in Congress, unveiled his stopgap a day after Moody’s, the last major credit rating agency to maintain a top “AAA” rating on the US government, lowered its outlook on the nation’s credit to “negative” from “stable”. Moody’s cited political polarization in Congress on spending as a danger to the nation’s fiscal health.The Louisiana Republican appeared to be appealing to two warring House Republican factions: hardliners who wanted legislation with multiple end-dates; and centrists who had called for a “clean” stopgap measure free of spending cuts and conservative policy riders that Democrats reject.The legislation would extend funding for military construction, veterans benefits, transportation, housing, urban development, agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and energy and water programs through 19 January. Funding for all other federal operations would expire on 2 February.But members of both parties aimed political fire at the plan quickly.“My opposition to the clean [continuing resolution] just announced by the speaker … cannot be overstated,” Chip Roy, a member of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said on the social media platform X.The Republican Roy had called for the new measure to include spending cuts.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDemocratic senator Brian Schatz called Johnson’s measure “super convoluted”, adding that “all of this nonsense costs taxpayer money”.“We are going to pass a clean short term [resolution]. The only question is whether we do it stupidly and catastrophically or we do it like adults,” Schatz wrote on X.A stopgap measure would give lawmakers more time to implement full-scale appropriations bills to fund the government through 30 September.Johnson’s predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, was ousted from the House speakership by eight hardline fellow Republicans after he moved a bipartisan measure to avert a shutdown on 1 October. McCarthy opted for the bipartisan route after hardliners blocked a Republican stopgap measure with features intended to appease them. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Ohio Republicans move to exclude judges from interpreting enshrined abortion rights

      by

      Four Ohio Republican state lawmakers are seeking to strip judges of their power to interpret an abortion rights amendment after voters opted to enshrine those rights in the state’s constitution this week.Republican state house representatives Jennifer Gross, Bill Dean, Melanie Miller and Beth Lear said in a news release on Thursday that they will push to have Ohio’s legislature – not the courts – make any decisions about the amendment passed on Tuesday.“To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with [the amendment], Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative,” said the mix of fairly new and veteran lawmakers who are all vice-chairs of various house committees. “The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.”The statement also contained unsubstantiated references to “foreign election interference” by billionaires before voters enshrined abortion rights in Ohio’s constitution.It’s the latest development in the struggle over abortion rights between Ohio’s Republican-dominated legislature and the majority of the voters, who passed the amendment by a margin of 57% to 43%.Abortion rights advocates plan to ask the courts to repeal any remaining abortion bans and restrictions on the books in Ohio, including a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before abortion seekers can have the procedure and a ban on abortions after a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome.The house speaker, Jason Stephens, declined to comment on the release, according to his spokesperson, Aaron Mulvey. However, Stephens was among the dozens of legislative Republicans who have vowed to fight back against the new amendment.“The legislature has multiple paths that we will explore to continue to protect innocent life. This is not the end of the conversation,” Stephens previously said in a news release.If the amendment or any other abortion restrictions were to end up being challenged in the courts, it’s unclear how they would fare. The state supreme court has a conservative majority and has the final say over state constitutional issues.Guardian staff contributed reporting More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro-Israel groups target US lawmakers critical of Gaza war with attack ads

      by

      The pro-Israel lobby in the US is airing attack ads and beginning to back primary opponents to challenge Congress members who are not voting for or supporting Israel’s war on Gaza.During the last 10 days, groups that support Israel have launched ads in at least seven districts targeting those who have been particularly vocal in calling attention to the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, opposing Israeli military aid or criticizing Israel’s government.The groups will probably pump tens of millions of dollars into primaries this cycle to back its candidates. While most of the targets are members of the “Squad” of progressive Democrats, one of them is a libertarian Republican who opposes foreign spending. “I don’t think [the pro-Israel] lobby can beat me, and they definitely can’t beat me with this topic,” said the Republican Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie, referring to his recent vote against military aid for Israel.A group of Super Pacs and dark-money non-profits – most notably groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) – tied to Israeli interests contributed about $43m to US campaigns during the last cycle, according to Open Secrets, a campaign finance watchdog.Among its targets is the Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the House’s only Palestinian American, who co-sponsored a resolution urging Joe Biden to call for a ceasefire. She and other progressive Democrats later opposed a bipartisan resolution expressing support for Israel that failed to mention Palestinian victims, and have not supported US military funding for Israel.In response, the DMFI has launched a six-figure ad campaign in Tlaib’s district that opens with ominous music and an image of a narrator rattling off a list of grievances.“She’s one of only seven Democrats in Congress to vote against missile protection for Israel, one of only nine Democrats against condemning the brutal attack on Israel by Hamas,” the narrator says. “Tell Rashida Tlaib she’s on the wrong side of history and humanity.”Meanwhile, the Mainstream Democrats Pac, backed by the LinkedIn co-founder and billionaire Reid Hoffman, has voiced interest in supporting primary challenges against Tlaib and the progressive congresswoman Cori Bush of Missouri.The latest round of ads also mark a shift in strategy. Attacks from these groups have typically focused on domestic issues, but this time they are hitting US lawmakers for not supporting Israel’s war effort, a move political observers say represents a risk given the divide among Democrats over the war. Israel has killed more than 10,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for Hamas’s 7 October attacks in southern Israel, which killed more than 1,400 Israelis.“I don’t know which polls [the pro-Israel lobby] is reading, but I’m looking at polls and not seeing an issue that there’s a lot of consensus around on the Democratic side,” said James Zogby, a pollster and founder of the Arab American Institute. “There is not a lot of thinking going on about whether this is the hand they want to play or tactic to use.” A new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that nearly half of Democrats disapprove of how Joe Biden, who has been fiercely supportive of Israel, is handling the war.The ads are largely focused on progressive members of Congress who have been critical of Israel’s response to the 7 October Hamas attacks, especially those with the Squad, whose members have not shied away from condemning Israel’s ongoing airstrikes in Gaza.Critics accuse the groups of regularly misrepresenting their targets’ positions to paint them as supporters of Hamas.In Tlaib’s case, campaigns against her may not affect her chances of re-election in 2024. The third-term congresswoman has trounced Detroit political opponents by as much as 40 points in recent elections. She represents a sizable Arab American constituency, and in recent years has recorded a 75% approval rating in her district, which she previously told the Guardian stems from running a robust constituent services program in one of the nation’s poorest districts.Her criticism of Israel is unlikely to bother constituents, pollsters say.“She could withstand even a well-funded primary challenge, especially if there is more than one opponent,” the Michigan pollster Bernie Porn told the Guardian.In New York, George Latimer, a Westchester county executive who is planning a “solidarity mission” to Israel, is widely expected to announce his candidacy against the representative Jamaal Bowman, who also signed on to the ceasefire resolution. Bowman won his last challenge by more than 30 points.Much of the Republican party is in virtual lockstep with the pro-Israel lobby, but one member is not: Massie. He said he supports Israel’s right to defend itself and condemned Hamas’s “barbaric” attacks, but he is staunchly anti-foreign aid and voted against resolutions or legislation calling for billions in US military assistance.Aipac’s Super Pac, United Democracy Project, has spent nearly $90,000 on radio and television ads attacking Massie in his district in recent weeks. Aipac has unsuccessfully tried to unseat him in past cycles, Massie said, adding he was “not worried” about a promised primary challenge.“That’s just not something that motivates people in my district to vote, and [Aipac] knows that,” Massie said. He believes the pro-Israel groups may continue to invest in attack ads even if it probably cannot unseat him because it helps the groups raise money from donors and sends messages to others in Congress.Others might be more vulnerable. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar narrowly beat Don Samuels, a former Minneapolis city councilman who is expected to soon announce a rematch, while another challenger, attorney Sarah Gad, is attempting to turn the war into a campaign issue.In Pittsburgh, the United Democracy Project spent $2m in 2022 opposing the congresswoman Summer Lee in the primary, which she won by one point. Israeli interest groups are now backing her opponent, Bhavini Patel, a borough councilwoman in the Pittsburgh area. Patel is making Israel a central issue, and taking aim at Lee’s response to the Hamas attacks.“Our member of Congress waited to speak out, and then offered qualified remarks,” Patel said. “Her belated statement fell short on unequivocally condemning Hamas’s terrorist attack on innocent Israeli citizens, suggesting they not be allowed to defend themselves.”Lee issued a statement on X the day of the attack that read “I strongly condemn the horrifying attack”. She also mentioned Palestinian civilian victims.Earlier this month, she directly addressed efforts to unseat her.“We condemn Hamas. We mourn the killing of innocent Israelis. We continue demanding safe return of hostages,” Lee wrote on X. “Certain Super PACs & their friends wanna threaten my community’s votes for supporting peace … but my community is with me against war, for lasting peace, and against killing innocent people.”
      This article was amended on 11 November 2023 to clarify Thomas Massie’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict. More