Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democracy Awakening review: Heather Cox Richardson’s necessary US history

      by

      In a media landscape so polluted by politicians addicted to cheap thrills (Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Orange Monster) and the pundits addicted to them (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Steve Bannon), the success of Heather Cox Richardson is much more than a blast of fresh air. It’s a bona fide miracle.The Boston College history professor started writing her newsletter, Letters from an American, almost four years ago. Today her daily dose of common sense about the day’s news, wrapped in an elegant package of American history, has a remarkable 1.2 million subscribers, making her the most popular writer on Substack. Not since Edward P Morgan captivated the liberal elite with his nightly 15-minute broadcasts in the 1960s has one pundit been so important to so many progressive Americans at once.In the age of social media, Richardson’s success is counterintuitive. When she was profiled by Ben Smith in the New York Times a couple of years ago, Smith confessed he was so addicted to Twitter he rarely found the time to open her “rich summaries” of the news. When he told Bill Moyers, one of Richardson’s earliest promoters, the same thing, the great commentator explained: “You live in a world of thunderstorms, and she watches the waves come in.”Richardson’s latest book shares all the intelligence of her newsletter. It doesn’t have the news value of her internet contributions but it is an excellent primer for anyone who needs the important facts of the last 150 years of American history – and how they got us to the sorry place we inhabit today.Like other recent books, including The Destructionists by Dana Milbank, Richardson’s new volume reminds us that far from being an outlier, Donald Trump was inevitable after 70 years of Republican pandering to big business, racism and Christian nationalism.So many direct lines can be drawn from the dawn of modern conservatism to the insanity of the Freedom Caucus today. It was William F Buckley Jr, the most famous conservative pundit of his era, who in 1951 attacked universities for teaching “secularism and collectivism” and promoted the canard that liberals were basically communists. Among Buckley’s mortal enemies, Richardson writes, were everyone “who believed that the government should regulate business, protect social welfare, promote infrastructure and protect civil rights” – and who “believed in fact-based argument”.In place of the liberal consensus that emerged with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, Buckley and his henchmen wanted a new “orthodoxy of religion and the ideology of free markets”. A few years later, the Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater ran on a platform opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Four years after that, Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy included promises to slow down the desegregation the supreme court had ordered 14 years before.In one of the most notorious dog whistles of all time, Ronald Reagan began his 1980 presidential campaign by declaring his love for states’ rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi – made infamous by the murders of the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner in 1964.Since the 1950s, Richardson writes, conservatives have fought to destroy “the active government of the liberal consensus, and since the 1980s, Republican politicians [have] hacked away at it” but still “left much of the government intact”. With Trump’s election in 2016, the nation had finally “put into office a president who would use his power to destroy it”. Republicans fought for 50 years for an “end to business regulation and social services and the taxes they required”. Trump went even further by “making the leap from oligarchy to authoritarianism”.Richardson is refreshingly direct about the importance of the fascist example to Trump and his Maga movement. When he used the White House to host the Republican convention in 2020, the first lady, Melania Trump, wore a “dress that evoked a Nazi uniform”. And, Richardson writes, the big lie was a “key propaganda tool” for the Nazis, which Hitler himself explained in Mein Kampf, the book Trump may have kept on his night table at Trump Tower (or maybe it was a collection of Hitler’s speeches).Richardson even uses the psychological profile of Hitler by the Office of Strategic Services, the US intelligence agency during the second world war, to remind us of similarities to Trump. The OSS said Hitler’s “primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy … never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong”.But Richardson’s book isn’t just a recitation of the evil of Republicans. It is also a celebration of progressive successes. She reminds us that before Vietnam ruined his presidency, Lyndon Johnson compiled an incredible record. In one session, Congress passed an astonishing 84 laws. Johnson’s “Great Society” included the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provided federal aid for public schools; launched Head Start for the early education of low-income children; the social security amendments that created Medicare; increased welfare payments; rent subsidies; the Water Quality Act of 1965; and the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.These laws had a measurable impact. “Forty million Americans were poor in 1960”; by 1969, that had dropped to 24 million.Addressing graduates of the University of Michigan in 1964, Johnson used words that are apt today:“For better or worse, your generation has been appointed by history to … lead America toward a new age … You can help build a society where the demands of morality, and the needs of the spirit, can be realized in the life of the nation.”Johnson rejected the “timid souls” who believed “we are condemned to a soulless wealth. We have the power to shape the civilization that we want. But we need your will, your labor, your hearts, if we are to build that kind of society.”
      Democracy Awakening is published in the US by Viking More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘He loves this’: Trump takes 2024 campaign to the courtroom

      by

      The blue suit, white shirt, red tie and American flag pin looked familiar. So did the TV cameras following every move and reporters hanging on every word. So did the wild hand gestures as he unleashed a torrent of incendiary rhetoric about the elites supposedly out to get him.But this was not Donald Trump at one of his rollicking campaign rallies in middle America. This was the former US president standing outside a New York courtroom, with uniformed officers looking on, during a civil fraud trial accusing him of grossly inflating the value of his businesses.The incongruous spectacle was proof, if any more were needed, that Trump’s court appearances and White House campaign woes have essentially merged. The legal woes that would distract or destroy most candidacies have now become a defining feature of his 2024 presidential run.“Every time he’s in a courtroom, he’s campaigning,” said Joe Walsh, a former Illinois congressman who challenged Trump in the 2020 Republican primary. “The courtroom has replaced his rallies and that’s what the next 14 months are going to look like. He’s a showman; he loves this shit. This will be his campaign and it could work.”Trump is facing 91 criminal charges in Atlanta, Miami, New York and Washington. But first this week he had to deal with a civil fraud case brought by the New York attorney general Letitia James that accuses Trump and his company of deceiving banks, insurers and others by overstating his wealth by as much as $3.6bn.Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump committed fraud. If upheld on appeal, the case could possibly cost the ex-president control of some of his crown jewels including Trump Tower, a Wall Street office building and golf courses. James is also seeking $250m in penalties and a ban on Trump doing business in New York.Trump was under no obligation to appear in court but seized his chance to grandstand and further his narrative that has been martyred by a politically biased justice system. He had good reason based on how his previous, mandatory court appearances this year have played to his advantage in the Republican primary race which he now dominates.Just as on those occasions, reporters queued overnight to get a seat in court, TV helicopters followed his motorcade and his pronouncements were assured more extensive coverage on cable news than his rallies, which many outlets now make a conscious effort to ignore.Trump sat at the defense table observing the proceedings, at times looking sullen or leaning to confer with his lawyers. But not for him the humiliation of slipping into court while trying to hide his face under a jacket or blanket. He addressed the media assembled in the courtroom hallway several times each day, railing against the case with anger and insults familiar to his followers.“It’s a scam, it’s a sham,” he said on Monday. “It’s a witch-hunt and a disgrace.” He described James as “incompetent” and part of a broader Democratic conspiracy to weaken his election chances. After the former president posted a picture of the judge’s clerk on his social media network, Truth Social, the judge slapped a gag order barring Trump from talking about his staff.The performance may give his lawyers nightmares but it comes with financial rewards. One fundraising email from the Trump campaign was headed: “President Donald J Trump is appearing in a New York courtroom RIGHT NOW, we are calling on YOU to condemn the witch hunt.” The message said: “It’s now clear: The Liberal Mob will stop at nothing to SILENCE him and every last freedom-loving Conservative who supports our Conservative movement.”The strategy has proved effective after Trump’s four indictments over efforts to stay in power following the 2020 election, his handling of classified documents and hush money paid to an adult film star. This week his campaign announced that it raised more than $45.5m in the third quarter of the year – far surpassing Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor once seen as his principal rival. The campaign said it made $3m by selling coffee mugs, t-shirts and posters of the mugshot taken of Trump in Atlanta, where he faces state racketeering charges.Trump continues to hold massive opinion poll leads over DeSantis, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley and other candidates in the Republican primary, where many voters – even those who oppose him – dismiss the legal cases as politically motivated. His decision to skip the primary debates appears to have paid off. He now frequently quips at his rallies that he is the only person who goes up in the polls each time he is indicted.Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, said: “This next election cycle will be historic in so many ways but the idea that the overwhelming leader of the Republican primary for president is a twice impeached, four-times indicted scofflaw boggles the mind.”Setmayer, a senior adviser to the Lincoln Project, a pro-democracy group opposed to Trump, raised concerns that mainstream media could be unwitting accomplices. “They cannot cover this as if it’s a conventional election because it’s not and what we’ve seen already is people have become almost desensitised to it. It’s no longer shocking, and it should be.“I blame the US mainstream media partially for that because they have normalised this, with the OJ Simpson, Bronco-style camera angles of him driving to the courthouses four times, from when he leaves his golf course to when he arrives at the courthouse.“This is our democracy on the line and we should not be covering it as if it is some third-rate reality show … that’s where Trump thrives the most, because it desensitises people to how extraordinarily detrimental to our democracy this actually is.”She is not alone in fearing a repeat of the 2016 election, in which Trump’s antics received billions of dollars worth of free advertising.Marty Baron, a former Washington Post editor, said at a Washington Post Live event on Friday: “I do think people are still struggling with how to cover him. I think there have been some recent really big mistakes; the interview on CNN, terrible mistake. I think the more recent one with Meet the Press, I think that’s a mistake. It’s just doing an interview with him like that is just giving him a platform.”Baron, author of a new book, Collision of Power, added: “He controls the conversation, and more and more what we ought to be doing is saying, ‘What would this second Trump administration actually look like? Who would he appoint to be members of his cabinet? What kinds of policies would he implement at the beginning?’Clearly, it would be a vengeance tour. He would be targeting the Department of Justice, the FBI, the press, courts, you name it.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democratic unity strikes contrast to Republican chaos as McCarthy exits

      by

      “Democrats in disarray” has been an oft-repeated joke in Washington in recent years, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the tensions that repeatedly flared up between the progressives and the centrists of Joe Biden’s party. But on Tuesday, House Democrats presented a united front as their Republican counterparts turned against each other and ultimately ousted one of their own in a historic defeat.The entire House Democratic caucus voted unanimously to remove the Republican Kevin McCarthy as speaker on Tuesday, joining eight mostly hard-right lawmakers in supporting a motion to vacate the chair. Refusing to intervene in a mess of Republicans’ own making, Democrats looked on as McCarthy was unseated, making him the first House speaker in US history to be removed from office.Under the oversight of their new leader, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, House Democrats have marched in lockstep to challenge Republicans’ policy agenda, offering a stark contrast to the fractious conference that McCarthy tried and failed to unify. As they look to take back the House next year, Democrats hope to use the instability displayed this week to make a broader argument about the extremism that they say has come to define the modern Republican party.Heading into the Tuesday vote, speculation abounded over whether McCarthy might offer Democrats some kind of deal to help save his speakership. But McCarthy chose not to, telling CNBC on Tuesday: “They haven’t asked for anything, and I’m not going to provide anything.”Instead, McCarthy tried to appeal to members’ faith in the integrity of the House to keep his gavel, arguing that a removal of a speaker would represent an irreversible black mark on the institution.But that argument struck many Democrats as hypocritical coming from McCarthy, particularly given the speaker’s stunning flip-flop regarding the deadly insurrection at the Capitol on 6 January 2021. In the days after the attack, McCarthy said Donald Trump “bears responsibility” for the violence carried out by a group of the former president’s supporters. But just two weeks later, McCarthy flew to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to make amends, and he later denounced the work of the House select committee investigating the insurrection.McCarthy “went to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring and voted not to impeach Donald Trump for inciting a violent insurrection against the 2020 presidential election and our government”, Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the select committee, said Tuesday. “This is a somber day for America as the chickens come home to roost for Kevin McCarthy.”The final self-inflicted nail in McCarthy’s coffin came on Sunday, the day after the House passed a continuing resolution to extend government funding through 17 November and avert a federal shutdown. House Democrats overwhelmingly supported the stopgap funding bill, with just one member voting against it, but 90 House Republicans opposed the legislation.And yet, when McCarthy appeared on CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, he attempted to blame Democrats for the last-minute scramble.“I wasn’t sure it was going to pass. You want to know why? Because the Democrats tried to do everything they can not to let it pass,” McCarthy said. “They did not want the bill. They were willing to let government shut down, for our military not to be paid.”House Democratic leaders played a clip of McCarthy’s interview during their Tuesday morning caucus meeting, just hours before the chamber’s vote on removing the speaker. McCarthy’s comments outraged Democrats, fortifying the caucus’s resolve to support the motion to vacate.“It goes in political 101 textbooks going forward as maybe one of the most … stupid things somebody could do on the eve of your survival vote,” Gerry Connolly, a Democratic Virginia congressman, told NBC News.In the end, every present House Democrat voted to oust McCarthy, ensuring the end of his speakership. Democrats commended Jeffries on keeping his members unified on Tuesday, mirroring the caucus’s unanimous support for Jeffries through 15 rounds of voting during the speakership election in January.“Yesterday was a pure demonstration of the type of leadership and continuity that [Jeffries] brings to the table and how inclusive he is,” said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic strategist. “He has, I think, been extra intentional about keeping all four corners of the House Democratic caucus square together and living out what diversity and inclusion means when it comes to House Democrats.”Jeffries has now called on more centrist members of the House Republican conference to join Democrats in forming a “bipartisan governing coalition”.“At this point, we simply need Republican partners willing to break with Maga extremism, reform the highly partisan House rules that were adopted at the beginning of this Congress and join us in finding common ground for the people,” he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published on Friday.So far, Republican partners have been difficult to find. Some of McCarthy’s allies blamed House Democrats for the speaker’s removal, accusing them of prioritizing their political goals over the good of the country. Democrats have scoffed at that argument, asserting that McCarthy brought about his own downfall by trying to appease the hard-right members who ultimately ousted him. McCarthy only won the speakership in January by making concessions to hard-right lawmakers, including a rule allowing any single member to introduce a motion to vacate the chair. That decision came back to haunt McCarthy this week.“The same rightwing extremism that gave McCarthy the speakership was the same rightwing extremism that took away his speakership,” Seawright said. “House Democrats should continue to draw the contrast with extremism that has hijacked and pretty much taken over the Republican conference with the comparison and the contrast of what was able to be done” when the Democrats had the House majority.Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, suggested the speakership debacle could be a launchpad for Democrats to engage in a fuller discussion about rightwing extremism. With government funding due to run out in just a month, Green said it was urgent for Democrats to make a policy-based pitch against Republicans’ legislative agenda.“Extremism doesn’t just mean they can’t rally their caucus on the House floor. Extremism means they would actually cut social security benefits for millions of current and future seniors,” Green said. “The extremists within an already extreme Republican party that are in charge are the same ones who would be most likely to use their leverage to cut programs like social security.”As the House prepares for another speakership election, much of the conversation in Washington has focused on who might replace McCarthy. But for Green, the more important conversation involves how the new Republican speaker will govern with a newly emboldened hard-right faction in his conference. Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan, two speaker candidates, have also backed drastic government funding cuts, voting in favor of McCarthy’s recent failed proposal to temporarily reduce most government agencies’ budgets by up to 30%.“I think it’s important to connect the dots between the chaos and extremism we’ve seen playing out in this leadership fight and what those same forces will attempt to do in the upcoming government funding fight,” Green said. “It’s very possible that members of the public perceive these as two very different stories, as opposed to two chapters in the same story.” More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden pledges to work with next House speaker as Jim Jordan welcomes Trump endorsement – as it happened

      by

      From 4h agoIn remarks at the White House, Joe Biden declined to comment on conservative stalwart Jim Jordan’s bid for speaker of the House, but said he would try to find ways to cooperate with whoever is chosen.“Whomever the House speaker is, I’m going to try to work with,” Biden said. “They control … half the Congress and I’m going to try to work with them. Some people, I imagine, it could be easier to work with than others, but whoever the speaker is I’ll try to work with.”Donald Trump has endorsed Jim Jordan, a prominent House conservative, to serve as the chamber’s next speaker. He made the decision public on social media, but only after a congressman’s indiscretion reportedly torpedoed a plan to do so in a far more public fashion. Trump is certainly influential, but the race is far from decided, and at the White House, Joe Biden said he would try to “work with” whoever sits in the speaker’s chair next.Here’s what else is happening today:
      Kevin McCarthy is considering resigning from Congress once the House elects a new speaker, Politico scoops.
      Top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries called on Republicans to work with his party to reform Congress’s lower chamber, but any such efforts’ prospects are unlikely.
      The US economy added far more jobs than expected last month, a sign that the labor market remains robust.
      Hunter Biden’s attorney has filed to dismiss the charges against the president’s son, arguing a plea deal that collapsed over the summer remains in effect.
      Two far-right Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy also reportedly believe the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden is not worth doing.
      Politico reports that Kevin McCarthy told House Republicans he may resign after they elect a new speaker.“I’m going to spend time with my family,” he told GOP lawmakers in a closed-door meeting, according to people familiar with what took place. “I might have been given a bad break, but I’m still the luckiest man alive.”However, later, KGET-TV reporter Eytan Wallace said on X – formerly Twitter – that he spoke directly to McCarthy and the congressman denied having any intentions of resigning. In fact, Wallace said McCarthy expressed an intention to run for re-election.McCarthy represents a California district centered on the city of Bakersfield and extending into the southern Sierra Nevada mountains and out into the Central Valley, where oil and gas and agriculture are major industries. He has been in office since 2007, representing a district considered the most-Republican leaning in the state.The Washington Post took a close look at the prospect of some kind of bipartisan coalition filling the power vacuum caused by Kevin McCarthy’s ouster.Their conclusion: not going to happen.While there’s only a four-seat difference in the chamber between Democratic and Republican control, existing ill will between the two parties doomed attempts by moderate GOP lawmakers to convince their counterparts on the other side of the aisle to save McCarthy. With many Republicans now furious at Democrats for their role in his ouster and the party’s right wing on the ascent, moderates have few incentives to attempt to build the sort of coalition that could get one of their own into the speaker’s chair, or carry out the sorts of reforms Jeffries envisioned in his op-ed.Here’s more, from the Post:
      As GOP lawmakers ducked in and out of meetings this week, making pitches to one another in initial bids to garner support for the top job, rank-and-file members ruled out the imminent possibility of a bipartisan effort to save them from their latest state of chaos.
      “I think the Republican conference will be stronger when we first work with ourselves,” Rep. August Pfluger (R-Tex.) said Wednesday on his way to a lunch with the Texas delegation where prospective speakers sounded out potential allies.
      Compromise, even among pragmatic members in swing districts, is a tall order in this political environment. Moderate Democrats and Republicans face the constant threat of primaries, and many live in fear of being targeted by powerful conservative media. Even members who represent swing districts fret about being punished by extreme voters in primary elections, a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus said.
      House rules adopted in a compromise that allowed McCarthy to win the job in January — after days of strife and 15 ballots — have also empowered individual members with outsize influence over the House GOP conference, exacerbating the party’s partisan polarization. A motion to vacate, for example, is a congressional procedure to remove a presiding officer from a position that can be triggered by just one House member. Once initiated, it takes priority on the House floor ahead of all other business. This week, the motion was moved by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a Trump ally.
      In a column published in the Washington Post, the Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries called on the GOP to work with his party to reform the rules of the House and encourage more bipartisanship:
      House Republicans have lashed out at historic public servants and tried to shift blame for the failed Republican strategy of appeasement. But what if they pursued a different path and confronted the extremism that has spread unchecked on the Republican side of the aisle? When that step has been taken in good faith, we can proceed together to reform the rules of the House in a manner that permits us to govern in a pragmatic fashion.
      The details would be subject to negotiation, though the principles are no secret: The House should be restructured to promote governance by consensus and facilitate up-or-down votes on bills that have strong bipartisan support. Under the current procedural landscape, a small handful of extreme members on the Rules Committee or in the House Republican conference can prevent common-sense legislation from ever seeing the light of day. That must change — perhaps in a manner consistent with bipartisan recommendations from the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.
      In short, the rules of the House should reflect the inescapable reality that Republicans are reliant on Democratic support to do the basic work of governing. A small band of extremists should not be capable of obstructing that cooperation.
      By all indications, leading House Republicans are furious at Democrats who voted to remove Kevin McCarthy, even though his overthrow was orchestrated by a small number of far-right GOP lawmakers. The acting speaker, Patrick McHenry, ordered Democratic veterans Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer out of their Capitol building offices hours after taking his post, while the two leading contenders to replace McCarthy are majority leader Steve Scalise and judiciary committee chair Jim Jordan, both deeply conservative.If the GOP is to take Jeffries up on his suggestions, it would probably happen at the behest of the party’s moderates – but unlike the party’s right wing, they have yet to show signs of uniting and making demands of the leadership.Democrats have scored a win in New Mexico, where a state judge turned down a challenge from Republicans to its congressional map, the Associated Press reports.The map is friendly to Democrats and will likely allow them to win all of the state’s three districts, as the Cook Political Report makes clear:Republicans had, in particular, taken issue with Democratic state lawmakers’ decision to split up an oil-producing region that skews conservative, according to the AP.Earlier in the day, Joe Biden provided more details on why his administration decided to begin building new border wall.His predecessor Donald Trump had made fortifying the frontier with Mexico a top priority, but Biden repudiated that in his first days in office. Yesterday, it was revealed his administration was building new barriers on the southern border, angering environmentalist, Indigenous rights and other activist groups who characterized the decision as a betrayal.Biden had previously said federal law obliged him to start the construction and, in response to a request for more details from a reporter today, elaborated on how that happened:United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain is scheduled to say soon whether recent intensified bargaining with the Detroit Three automakers has produced enough progress to forestall more walkouts, Reuters writes.A video address by Fain is scheduled for 2pm ET and will cover substantive bargaining updates, people familiar with the UAW’s plans said earlier.’That timing is a departure from the previous two Fridays in which Fain addressed union members at about 10am and ordered walkouts at additional factories to start at noon.Fain kept automakers Ford, GM and Stellantis, the maker of Chrysler and Jeep, guessing on Thursday.People familiar with the bargaining said talks have heated up this week after days of little movement.Ford, GM and Stellantis have made new proposals in an effort to end the escalating cycle of walkouts that threaten to undercut profits and cripple smaller suppliers already strained from months of production cuts forced by semiconductor shortages.The pressure is rising on the three automakers as EV market leader Tesla cut US prices of its Model 3 sedan and Model Y SUV, ratcheting up its price war and further pressuring profits on all EV models that are forced to match CEO Elon Musk’s aggression.Deutsche Bank estimated in a research note on Friday that the hit to operating earnings at GM, Ford and Stellantis from lost production has been $408 million, $250 million and $230 million, respectively.Meanwhile, Republican freshman Senator JD Vance swung by an Ohio picket line, only to get a dry burn from Toledo congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who’s served the district for 40 years.Why is Joe Biden campaigning for Donald Trump? The US president is helping to build Trump’s border wall. What is he thinking?The question sounds ludicrous, but how else would you characterize Biden’s latest pronouncement to build 20 new miles of Trump’s border wall along the southern border? This is like throwing red meat to Trump’s base, who will chomp and salivate over what they will portray as an admission of defeat by the Democrats on securing the border.And why wouldn’t they? Back when he was campaigning for president, Joe Biden promised “not another foot” of Trump’s border wall would be built. He halted construction of the wall on his first day in office with a proclamation stating that “building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border is not a serious policy solution. It is a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security.”Now, the government is poised to spend nearly $200m on 20 miles of border wall in the Rio Grande Valley. The administration says it has been forced into this situation because Congress appropriated $1.375bn for such border barriers in 2019, and the funds that remain must be disbursed by the end of the fiscal year. But Democrats had control over Congress for the first two years of the Biden administration. They could have reallocated those funds. Instead, this Democratic administration is now sounding very Trump-like. “There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries,” reads the notice in the Federal Register.This is a political failure by the Democrats on one of the most important issues of the looming 2024 election. And it’s a massive policy failure as well.The full op-ed will be published by Guardian US shortly.Donald Trump has endorsed Jim Jordan, a prominent House conservative, to serve as the chamber’s next speaker. He made the decision public on social media, but only after a congressman’s indiscretion reportedly torpedoed a plan to do so in a far more public fashion. Trump is certainly influential, but the race is far from decided, and at the White House, Joe Biden said he would try to “work with” whoever sits in the speaker’s chair next.Here’s what else is happening today:
      The US economy added far more jobs than expected last month, a sign that the labor market remains robust.
      Hunter Biden’s attorney has filed to dismiss the charges against the president’s son, arguing a plea deal that collapsed over the summer remains in effect.
      Two far-right Republicans who voted to oust Kevin McCarthy also reportedly believe the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden is not worth doing.
      In remarks at the White House, Joe Biden declined to comment on conservative stalwart Jim Jordan’s bid for speaker of the House, but said he would try to find ways to cooperate with whoever is chosen.“Whomever the House speaker is, I’m going to try to work with,” Biden said. “They control … half the Congress and I’m going to try to work with them. Some people, I imagine, it could be easier to work with than others, but whoever the speaker is I’ll try to work with.”Donald Trump’s plan to endorse Jim Jordan as speaker of the House was supposed to be done in a far more dramatic fashion, but a congressman’s announcement of the ex-president’s intentions torpedoed that plan, the Messenger reports.Trump was considering traveling to the Capitol where he would engage in something of a stunt intended to unite the fractious Republican conference around Jordan. That plan is now off, the Messenger reports:
      When House Republicans ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy earlier this week, Donald Trump began toying with the idea of heading to Washington, D.C. in a high-profile visit, briefly standing as a candidate for the post before dramatically delivering his support and his votes to an ally, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan.
      Trump outlined the spotlight-grabbing plan in calls to Republicans on Wednesday night, four sources familiar with the discussions tell The Messenger, which first reported Trump’s initial interest in visiting the paralyzed U.S. House.
      But Trump had one ask: “Keep this quiet.”
      Texas Congressman Troy Nehls either didn’t heed or didn’t hear that Trump request, blabbing about the once-private call on the social media platform X at 9:32 p.m.
      “Just had a great conversation with President Trump about the Speaker’s race. He is endorsing Jim Jordan, and I believe Congress should listen to the leader of our party. I fully support Jim Jordan for Speaker of the House,” Nehls wrote.
      The Nehls post appeared just as a Trump adviser was discussing the effort with a Messenger reporter about Trump’s idea of flirting with the speakership and then elevating Jordan instead.
      “Nehls just totally f—-d this up,” the adviser said, hanging up the phone. The four sources who described Trump’s thinking for this story all spoke with The Messenger on condition of anonymity over the past three days to describe private conversations.
      Less than three hours later, at 12:13 a.m., Trump publicly endorsed Jordan on his Truth Social media platform, saying the Ohio Republican, who is the chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, would be “a great speaker of the House and has my complete and total endorsement.”
      Now Trump’s congressional travel plans are in doubt.
      Trump’s allies are discussing the utility of going at all because, for Trump, the plan revolved around secrecy. He wanted to stoke the coals of speculation about what he would do, thereby heightening the drama and attention, advisers said. His appearance and speech would have made a splash on Capitol Hill and sucked up all the media attention in the presidential primary, where he’s already leading by a forbidding margin.
      No travel decision has been made, advisers say, noting it’s up to Trump, who can change his mind on a whim – along with the flight plans for his Trump-branded 757 private aircraft.
      But everyone in his orbit agrees about one aspect of Trump’s mind.
      “Trump is pretty annoyed at Nehls,” said another Trump adviser.
      Mike Pence, the former vice-president who spent more than a decade representing an Indiana district in the House, again condemned the far-right revolt that remove Kevin McCarthy: More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Former aide to Republican fabulist George Santos pleads guilty to fraud

      by

      The ex-treasurer for US congressman George Santos pleaded guilty Thursday to a fraud conspiracy charge and implicated the indicted New York Republican in a scheme to embellish his campaign finance reports with a fake loan and fake donors.Nancy Marks, who was a close aide to Santos during his two congressional bids, entered the plea at a federal courthouse on Long Island, where she was a longtime political operative and bookkeeper for multiple candidates.Speaking to the judge, Marks said that among other things, she and Santos had submitted bogus campaign finance reports falsely saying he had loaned his campaign $500,000 – even though in reality he did not have that kind of money and the loan did not exist. She said the purpose of the fake loan was to make it look as if he was richer than he really was, which might attract other donors, including a Republican committee.Reading from a prepared statement, Marks also said she had provided the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) with a fake list of people who had supposedly given money to the campaign.“The donors, who are real people, didn’t give me permission to use their names,” Marks said in court.Her plea agreement comes with a recommendation that she serve three and a half to four years in prison.Outside the courthouse, Marks’s lawyer said that while his client had not formally entered into a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, she would be willing to testify against him if asked.“If we get a subpoena we’ll do the right thing,” said the attorney, Ray Perini. He said Santos had “mentally seduced” his client.“There’s a manipulation involved that had to do with her family and the death of her husband,” Perini said, declining to elaborate. “There were lies told.”Any such testimony could be a severe blow to the congressman, who faces separate charges that he embezzled money from his campaign, lied in financial disclosures submitted to Congress and received unemployment funds when he wasn’t eligible.An attorney for Santos, Joseph Murray, attended the court hearing and said afterward that he expected Marks was cooperating with the government. A congressional spokesperson for Santos declined to comment.Marks resigned as Santos’s treasurer amid growing questions about his campaign finances and revelations that the Republican had fabricated much of his life story.After his election, news reporters revealed that Santos had made up stories about where he went to college and where he worked, telling people he was a Wall Street dealmaker with a real estate portfolio when he was actually struggling financially had had faced eviction from multiple apartments. Santos also lied about his heritage, saying he was Jewish, when he wasn’t.Santos has acknowledged embellishing his resume but has accused people of overreacting.Santos faces a 13-count federal indictment centered on charges of money laundering and lying to Congress about his wealth in a financial disclosure.Marks had not previously been charged. Thursday marked her first appearance in court. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump backs hard-right loyalist Jim Jordan for House speaker

      by

      Donald Trump is officially backing the brash, longtime loyalist and founding member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, the Ohio congressman Jim Jordan, to succeed Kevin McCarthy as House speaker when voting takes place next week.“Congressman Jim Jordan has been a STAR long before making his very successful journey to Washington, DC, representing Ohio’s 4th Congressional District,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social social media platform, with his some of his signature inflammatory flourishes, early on Friday.He added: “He will be a GREAT Speaker of the House & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!”The announcement came hours after the Texas congressman Troy Nehls said on Thursday night that the former US president had decided to back Jordan’s bid and after Trump said he would be open to serving as interim leader himself if Republicans could not settle on a successor following McCarthy’s stunning ouster.Trump, the current Republican presidential frontrunner for the 2024 election, has used the leadership vacuum on Capitol Hill to further demonstrate his control over his party and drag it further to the right.House Republicans are deeply fractured and some have been asking him to lead them in the lower congressional chamber, a seemingly fanciful suggestion that he also promoted after inflaming the divisions that forced out McCarthy as speaker.“Just had a great conversation with President Trump about the Speaker’s race. He is endorsing Jim Jordan, and I believe Congress should listen to the leader of our party,” Nehls wrote late on Thursday on X, formerly known as Twitter.In an interview later with the Associated Press, Nehls, who had been encouraging Trump to run for the post himself, said the ex-president instead wanted Jordan.“After him thinking about it and this and that … he said he really is in favor of getting behind Jim Jordan,” Nehls said.Jordan is one of two leading candidates maneuvering for speaker along with the congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Both are trying to lock in the 218 votes required to win the job and need the support of both the far-right and moderate factions of the party. It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement will force Scalise, the current GOP majority leader, out of the race, or if either can reach the threshold.Indeed, Nehls said that if no current candidate succeeds in earning the support needed to win, he would once again turn to Trump. “Our conference is divided. Our country is broken. I don’t know who can get to 218,” he said in the interview.Trump earlier in the day had been in talks to visit Capitol Hill next week ahead of a speakership vote that could happen as soon as Wednesday, according to three people familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of an official announcement. Trump confirmed the trip to Fox News Digital and said he would travel on Tuesday to meet with Republicans.The trip would have been Trump’s first to the Capitol since leaving office and since his supporters attacked the building in a bid to halt the peaceful transition of power on 6 January 2021. Trump has been indicted in both Washington DC and Georgia over his efforts to overturn the results of the election, which he lost to his Democratic party challenger, Joe Biden.Jordan is one of Trump’s biggest champions in Washington DC and has been leading spurious investigations into prosecutors who have charged the former president. He was also part of a group of Republicans who worked with Trump to overturn his defeat, ahead of January 6. Scalise has also worked closely with Trump over the years.Others are waiting in the wings potentially to contest for the speakership, including the Oklahoma representative Kevin Hern, who as chair of the Republican study committee leads the largest faction of Republicans in the chamber.The Associated Press contributed reporting. More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why do eight radicals hold power over the entire US House of Representatives? | David Daley

      by

      It’s simple math: when the score reads 210 to 8, the side with the much tinier number should lose.Yet that’s not how it works in the US House of Representatives.On Tuesday, a mutiny led by eight hardline conservatives toppled speaker Kevin McCarthy and plunged the House into chaos. Rattled financial markets declined steeply and the prospects for a government shutdown six weeks from now rose dramatically. The 15-round, days-long speaker battle that McCarthy finally won in January might seem like a short dash compared to the marathon to come.The unforgivable sin that led Representative Matt Gaetz and a small band of Republican insurgents to move on McCarthy now? The six-week, bipartisan compromise that the speaker brokered this weekend to prevent a government shutdown that would have further shaken markets, made air travel more dangerous, and halted paychecks for millions of workers, including in the military.Eight members shouldn’t have this outsized power. Leaders who recognize the reality of compromise under divided government shouldn’t be ousted for working toward an accord. Yet our system incentivizes extremism and anti-majoritarianism. It will only get worse until we change the rules and stop punishing what a functional democracy would reward.It’s true that McCarthy all but sealed his fate when he agreed to allow just one member of his caucus – in this case, Gaetz – to call a vote to vacate the chair. This condition of earning the Gaetz faction’s support back in January contained the seeds of his demise; as the principle of Chekhov’s Gun holds, a weapon introduced in the first act always returns before the end of the play.It’s also true that Democrats – every one of whom voted against the speaker – provided the bulk of the votes that deposed McCarthy, as more reasonable voices within both parties failed to chart a path together that did not empower extremists.“Now what?” cried one frustrated Republican after the vote. It’s a great question. There’s obviously no bipartisan consensus candidate. But which Republican could gain the trust and support of the majority of the caucus, and also the victorious far right? Who would take the job under the conditions forced on McCarthy? Why would Gaetz and his allies now settle for anything less? The entire incentive structure has gone berserk.There’s more than enough blame to go around. Yet none of the partisan finger-pointing will solve the problem. Anti-majoritarian rules brought us to this ungovernable place. Fixing them is the only way out.The good news is that’s actually not so hard. If the House elected leaders with ranked-choice voting (RCV), this debacle could have been avoided from the beginning. Imagine how different this would have been. The Democratic minority leader Hakeem Jeffries would have led after the first round. McCarthy would have been second. And the Republican Freedom Caucus protest candidate would have finished a distant third. No one would have earned a majority, so an instant runoff would have kicked in.The Republican rebels would have been forced to make up their minds. When the options came down to McCarthy or Jeffries, they’d have to make a choice. Rather than being obstructionist kingmakers and winning concessions disproportionate to their numbers, Gaetz and his crew would have been heard – and that’s it. Under RCV, a gaggle of Gaetzes don’t get to run the show. They have a voice in line with their actual numbers. And then majorities prevail.If the House used ranked-choice voting, McCarthy would not have been forced into a deal that allowed any one member to call for a vote to vacate the chair. Gaetz and his allies might have been furious that the Republican speaker went around them to win overwhelming bipartisan majorities to keep the government open. But they would not have had the power to destabilize the entire institution. Eight renegades could have criticized the deal all they wanted. They wouldn’t get to win.Now what, indeed. By early November, the House will need to pass a funding package that keeps the government open. The deal this past weekend reflected the reality of a divided government. Cooler heads found a way toward an imperfect deal that reflected the best winnable compromise. That’s how divided government works.The cost of compromise cannot be that the furthest extreme gets to manipulate the game to bring down those who dare make a deal. That’s a recipe for permanent dysfunction – and deepening minority rule.After all, Matt Gaetz didn’t even win office with a majority. Gaetz won his seat in Congress in 2016 with just 36% of the vote – and merely 35,689 votes – in a crowded Republican primary. He has won re-election since then thanks to the power of incumbency and a district wildly gerrymandered to ensure a Republican victor.Gaetz, in other words, represents the fringe of the fringe – a plurality winner in a district rigged to be uncompetitive from the get-go. This is yet another problem that a ranked-choice election would solve. The Gaetz Caucus wouldn’t be able to win election simply by appealing to a far fringe that values confrontation and chaos without any concern for the consequences. We have a Congress filled with members responsive only to a radical minority. If we want a different Congress, one responsive to majorities, one where the people rule and not the far fringe, we need to remake the rules.In that Congress, the fairer one America deserves, forging consensus that Americans desire would be rewarded, not repudiated. Matt Gaetz might be one of 435 members, but his caucus of eight wouldn’t hold power over the rest of us. And those 36,000 primary voters who cast a ballot for Gaetz seven years ago wouldn’t get to call the shots for all 300 million of us.
      David Daley is the author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count and Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy. He is a senior fellow at FairVote More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The McCarthy debacle barely scrapes the surface of how dysfunctional Congress is | Osita Nwanevu

      by

      While those who follow politics closely are busy parsing what the ouster of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker might mean for Congress, those who don’t ⁠– meaning the bulk of the American people ⁠– could be forgiven for tuning much of the drama of the last few weeks out. Ordinary Americans have little faith in Congress as it stands: as substantively or strategically consequential as they might be, the battles between members of our most reviled class, politicians, seem to most like juvenile squabbles.Here’s a detail that might incense them further. For generations, members of the US Senate have carved and scrawled their names into their desks. This rite, the stuff of summer camp and grade school, is, to the peculiar mind of a US senator, something more profound ⁠– yet another tradition, as though they needed another, signifying their membership in an august and noble fraternity.The same can be said of the Senate’s dress code, which was unanimously rescued and formalized this past week after Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer relaxed the chamber’s rules, seemingly to accommodate the defiantly casual Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman. Men will be asked to wear full business attire from now on ⁠– a requirement that has its practical advantages. As Robert Menendez, the New Jersey senator, may allegedly know, a suit jacket is a fine place to stow wads of cash in a pinch and useful, in the abstract, for another reason ⁠– disguising, through costumes of respectability, how grubby, venal and unremarkable many of our politicians are.A group letter written in the defense of the dress code described the Senate as “a place of honor and tradition”. “The world watches us on that floor,” it reads, “and we must protect the sanctity of that place at all costs.” Of course, the world usually has better things to do than keep up with congressional proceedings on C-SPAN, but there are embarrassing exceptions, the latest dramas among Republicans in the House among them, though the fact that they’re taking place in the opposite chamber shouldn’t flatter the Senate and its defenders ⁠– “the world’s greatest deliberative body” is nothing more than the geriatric wing of one of the world’s most unserious legislatures.And while much due attention is given to the problem of money in politics and more and more conversations are being had about Congress’s structural defects ⁠– once the late Dianne Feinstein is replaced and California regains its full complement of senators, each of the state’s voters will still have just over one-sixtieth the representation in the chamber of a voter in Wyoming ⁠– we ought to have a conversation, too, about the culture of the place.The inescapable fact uniting so much that grates about Congress right now ⁠– Republican shenanigans in the House, the Democratic party’s sluggishness in handling an obviously corrupt, compromised and distracted Menendez, gerontocracy within both parties ⁠– is that we ask very little of our representatives. Being a member of Congress simply isn’t substantively demanding enough.The irony of all the talk about how elderly our leaders are, and the reality that, in fact, has allowed obviously infirm politicians like Feinstein and Mitch McConnell to retain their positions even as they go catatonic in public view, is that the halls and offices of the Capitol are absolutely teeming with unelected and invisible young staffers ⁠– many of whom are in their 20s and 30s, some of whom are constitutionally incapable of occupying the offices they serve ⁠– who do much of the actual work Americans believe our elected officials do themselves.Policy research, drafting and reviewing legislative language, authoring speeches, drawing up the questions senators and congressmen ask at hearings, writing tweets and statements that go out under their bosses’ names, preparing talking points for media appearances, relaying directives from party leaders about how to vote and why ⁠– as a practical matter, the average politician in Washington today needn’t be more than a warm body with a pulse ready to cast a given vote.Of course, the late Senator Feinstein did her level best to test even that. But the fact that she, as one New York Times headline put it, “[Relied] Heavily on Staff to Function” was only partially a function of her age ⁠– the same is true of all but a relatively small and wonky contingent of unusually hard-working legislators.That’s not to say the rest don’t have concrete and vital responsibilities of their own ⁠– in 2013, the Huffington Post obtained documents from Democratic congressional campaign committee recommending that freshmen members of the caucus spend at least four hours every day calling donors for campaign contributions, more than the total amount of time recommended for visits with constituents and working in committees or voting on the House floor combined, a figure probably comparable to the number of hours spent dialing for dollars on the other side of the aisle.“After votes in the House, a stream of congressmen and women can be seen filing out of the Capitol and, rather than returning to their offices, heading to rowhouses nearby on First Street for call time, or directly to the parties’ headquarters,” Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui wrote. “The rowhouses […] are typically owned by lobbyists, fundraisers or members themselves, and are used for call time because it’s illegal to solicit campaign cash from the official congressional office.”Once call time is done, we might find our representatives making canned speeches prepared by dutiful staffers before a mostly empty chamber, some of which might find their way into campaign ads and materials later.It can’t really be a surprise, given this, that Congress attracts so many who have little fundamental interest in doing the work of governing themselves ⁠– or that it sustains the careers of even those who do well after they’re personally capable of doing it. In either case, the legislator is little more than a cog in a vast machine influenced variously by donors, interest groups, major leaders and figures in both parties, the media, primary voters, and, yes, somewhere in the mix voters in the general electorate, though it should be said that most legislators don’t have to sweat much for their approval come election time.In the 2022 midterms, 84% of House seats were either uncontested or decided in races where the victor won by more than 10 points, with the average margin of victory in all races working out to about 28 points. Nearly 95% of incumbents won reelection. On the Senate side, Cook Political Reports rated nine of the 35 races as potentially competitive; ultimately, all incumbents won their seats back.Congress, all told, isn’t a place most are ultimately forced to leave either by elections or as a matter of their age. Term limits and age limits have been floated as solutions to all this, but another complementary remedy, if we dare to dream, might be party leaders taking it upon themselves to work our representatives harder.The tasks of legislating are now well beyond the capacities of individual legislators alone, yes, but setting the expectation that they should shoulder more of the burdens now foisted upon their staffers would discourage older legislators and incumbents from sticking around too long ⁠– Feinstein might have retired long ago if she’d actually had to do more of her job herself ⁠– and help dissuade layabouts and grifters from seeking office.We’ll never be fully rid of them, of course, and we’d scarcely recognize Congress without them. But making the work of politics feel like work seems worth a try.
      Osita Nwanevu is a Guardian US columnist More