Republicans
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Republican party signals plans to withdraw from US presidential debates
Republican party signals plans to withdraw from US presidential debatesMove comes after longstanding complaints from party that non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates favors Democrats
US politics – live coverage
The Republican party has signaled plans to withdraw from traditional US presidential debates, which it claims are biased against it.The New York Times first reported the move, citing a letter sent on Thursday by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).The commission was set up in 1987, as a non-partisan body “to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates between or among the leading candidates for the offices of president and vice-president … are a permanent part of the electoral process”.In the most recent election, in 2020, Donald Trump made headlines with an aggressive performance in the first debate, in Cleveland, Ohio.Make up with Trump or be a failure, Republican colleague warns McConnellRead moreThe second debate was cancelled after Trump was hospitalized with Covid-19 and the CPD sought to move the event online. Trump and Republicans protested that doing so would help Joe Biden.The final debate took place in Nashville, Tennessee as planned, with Biden widely adjudged the winner. A vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris also went ahead, in Salt Lake City.In December this year, the Guardian first revealed the stunning news that Trump tested positive for Covid before the first debate but concealed the result, potentially putting Biden’s life in danger.Trump said that was fake news. So did his former chief of staff Mark Meadows – who wrote the book which contained the bombshell.The Times said the Republican move against the CPD was born of longstanding complaints that it favors Democrats, “mirroring increasing rancor from conservatives toward Washington-based institutions”.Among Republican complaints in 2020 was that the first debate took place on 29 September, more than a month before election day but after nearly a million votes had been cast.Trump and Republicans also complained about supposed bias among debate moderators – even from Chris Wallace, then of the conservative Fox News network, in the first debate.Trump remains favorite to be the Republican nominee in 2024.The threatened withdrawal from CPD debates, the Times said, followed “months of discussions between the commission and party officials”.Trump tested positive for Covid few days before Biden debate, chief of staff says in new bookRead moreDavid Bossie, a longtime rightwing operative with strong links to Trump, was reported to be leading the RNC on the issue, seeking among other aims to insert political representatives in meetings of the CPD board.Withdrawal will have to be approved at the RNC’s winter meetings in Utah in February, the Times said.In her letter, according to the Times, the RNC chair, Ronna McDaniel, said: “So long as the CPD appears intent on stonewalling the meaningful reforms necessary to restore its credibility with the Republican party as a fair and nonpartisan actor, the RNC will take every step to ensure that future Republican presidential nominees are given that opportunity elsewhere.”In a statement, the CPD said it “deals directly with candidates for president and vice-president who qualify for participation”, and said “plans for 2024 will be based on fairness, neutrality and a firm commitment to help the American public learn about the candidates and the issues”.TopicsRepublicansUS politicsUS elections 2024newsReuse this content More - in US Politics
Chuck Schumer outlines loophole to open debate on voting rights bill
Chuck Schumer outlines loophole to open debate on voting rights billA strategy involving a ‘shell’ bill would allow Democrats to evade an initial filibuster from Republicans seeking to block the debate Lacking the votes to change the filibuster rules that have stalled their sweeping voting rights legislation, Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with a new strategy that would utilize an unusual loophole maneuver to open debate on the bills.Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer outlined the plan in a memo obtained by the Associated Press and others on Wednesday, on the eve of Joe Biden’s visit to meet privately with Senate Democrats about the path forward.Biden to meet Senate Democrats in bid to revive voting rights pushRead moreIn the memo, Schumer detailed a strategy wherein the House would amend an unrelated bill about Nasa to include provisions from two stalled voting reform bills: the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. After passing that bill, which they are calling a “shell” bill, the Democrats would swiftly send it to the Senate, where Democrats could start debate on it with a simple majority.This strategy would allow Democrats to evade an initial filibuster from Republicans seeking to block debate on the bill. Senate filibuster rules currently require 60 votes to advance legislation in most cases.Schumer’s maneuvering wouldn’t ultimately resolve the fact in an evenly split Senate, Republicans could still use the filibuster to block a final vote on passing the legislation, nor does it resolve the fact that two key senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, remain opposed to amending the filibuster.But the latest tactic could create an off-ramp from their initial approach, which was to force a vote by Monday on Senate filibuster changes as a way to pressure Manchin and Sinema to go along with the changes.“We will finally have an opportunity to debate voting rights legislation, something that Republicans have thus far denied,” Schumer wrote in the memo to his Democratic colleagues. “Senators can finally make clear to the American people where they stand on protecting our democracy and preserving the right of every eligible American to cast a ballot.”By setting up a debate, Schumer will achieve the Democrats’ goal of shining a spotlight that spurs senators to say where they stand. The floor debate could stretch for days and carry echoes of civil rights battles a generation ago that led to some of the most famous filibusters in Senate history.“I wouldn’t want to delude anybody into thinking this is easy,” Schumer told reporters Wednesday. He called the push an “uphill fight”.The move comes amid a significant week for the party’s push for voting rights. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris traveled to Georgia this week to speak out in support of the legislation. In a fiery speech, Biden called for changes to the filibuster and told senators they would each be “judged by history” if they failed to act.For Democrats and Biden, the legislation is a political imperative. Failure to pass it would break a major campaign promise to Black voters, who helped hand Democrats control of the White House and Congress, and would come just before midterm elections when slim Democratic majorities will be on the line.Schumer had set the Martin Luther King Jr holiday, on 17 January, as a deadline to either pass the voting legislation or consider revising the filibuster rules. It’s unclear if a vote on rule changes will still happen.Possibilities include setting a requirement that 41 senators be present in the chamber to sustain a filibuster.Manchin threw cold water on the hopes Tuesday, saying he believes any changes should be made with substantial Republican buy-in. And there aren’t any Republican senators willing to sign on.TopicsUS voting rightsDemocratsRepublicansUS SenateUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
- in Elections
US Capitol attack panel asks Kevin McCarthy to cooperate with inquiry
US Capitol attack panel asks Kevin McCarthy to cooperate with inquiryThe House committee chairman has written to the Republican minority leader, escalating pressure on Trump’s allies in Congress The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack formally asked the Republican House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, on Wednesday to cooperate with its inquiry into the January 6 insurrection, escalating the pressure on Donald Trump’s top allies in Congress.The committee said in a letter to McCarthy that the panel is seeking details about his conversations with the Trump White House and the former president in the days leading up to and during the Capitol attack, as well as discussions in its aftermath.“We also must learn about how the President’s plans for January 6th came together, and all the other ways he attempted to alter the results of the election,” Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said in the letter.Capitol attack panel closes in on Trump inner circle with three new subpoenasRead moreThompson said that McCarthy was of particular interest to investigators as he spoke to Trump directly as the former president’s supporters stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win.The select committee’s request to McCarthy marks a significant political moment for the investigation and demonstrates their resolve to pursue testimony from the highest-ranking Republican in Congress as they examine potential criminal conduct by the former president.It also set the stage for a bitter political showdown after McCarthy said late on Wednesday he would not cooperate with the investigation, accusing the panel of “an abuse of power” and of “not serving any legislative purpose” – an argument rejected by multiple federal courts.Thompson said in the letter that the committee is, in the first instance, interested in McCarthy’s phone call to Trump on 6 January during which he unsuccessfully begged the former president to call off the pro-Trump mob as it stormed the Capitol in his name.According to an account of that call presented at Trump’s second impeachment last year, the former president sided with the rioters and in refusing to take action, told McCarthy that they were evidently more upset about the election than the House Republican leader.“You have acknowledged speaking directly with the former President while the violence was underway on January 6,” Thompson wrote. “This information bears directly on President Trump’s state of mind during the January 6 attack as the violence was underway.”The chairman said that House investigators wanted to ask McCarthy about why he still objected to Biden’s election certification even after the Capitol attack took place, and even though he appeared to recognize that Trump was responsible for the insurrection.“The select committee wishes to question you regarding communications you may have had with President Trump, President Trump’s legal team, Representative [Jim] Jordan, and others at the time on that topic,” Thompson wrote.The select committee’s request to McCarthy about his contacts with Jordan comes days after Jordan, another of Trump’s top allies on Capitol Hill, suggested that he would ignore a request for an interview he received from the panel in December.Thompson said that the committee was also seeking details about McCarthy’s conversations with Trump and Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows before 6 January, suggesting an inquiry into what McCarthy knew of plans to stop Biden’s certification.“We also must learn about how the president’s plans for January 6 came together,” Thompson said in the letter. “You reportedly explained to Mark Meadows and the former president that objections to the certification of the electoral votes on January 6 ‘was doomed to fail.’”Having already established that McCarthy had informed Trump and Meadows before 6 January that the plan to stop Biden’s certification would not work, investigators want to learn why they were still “so confident the election result would be overturned”, Thompson said.The Guardian first reported last week that the committee has in its possession messages turned over by Meadows and others suggesting the Trump White House coordinated with Republican lawmakers to stop Biden’s certification, according to sources familiar with the matter.Thompson said that the committee was also interested in McCarthy’s communications with Trump in the week after the Capitol attack, including the possibility that Trump could have faced a censure resolution, impeachment and removal under the 25th amendment.Thompson added that the panel was not interested in McCarthy’s political conversations with Trump when he visited the former president at Mar-a-Lago on 28 January, but was taking an interest in why his characterization of Trump’s culpability changed so dramatically.“Did President Trump or his representatives discuss or suggest what you should say publicly, during the impeachment trial (if called as a witness), or in any later investigation about your conversations with him on January 6?” Thompson said in the letter.The chairman also revealed for the first time that the select committee has contemporaneous messages showing McCarthy talked to Trump about his immediate resignation, among a number of other potential consequences he may have faced for inciting the Capitol attack.“A full and accurate accounting of what happened on January 6th is critical to the select committee’s legislative recommendations. And the American people deserve to understand all the relevant details,” Thompson said, suggesting an interview in the first week of February.…TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsDonald TrumpUS CongressnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Why are US voting rights under threat and how is the filibuster related?
Why are US voting rights under threat and how is the filibuster related?After Republicans rammed through new restrictions, Biden and Senate Democrats are pushing back. Here’s how the fight unfolded
US politics – live coverage
The fight over voting rights in the US has arrived at a hugely consequential juncture. After watching Republicans ram through state bills that impose new voting restrictions, Joe Biden and Democrats in the Senate are set to make their most aggressive effort yet to push back. Georgia activists warn Biden against a ‘photo op’ visit that lacks voting rights planRead moreLater this week, the Senate will vote on legislation that would amount to the most significant expansion of voting rights protections since the civil rights era.Here’s a look at how the fight over voting rights has unfolded over the last year:Why are voting rights under threat?All of the data from the 2020 election points to it being one one of the most successful in American history. About two-thirds of eligible voters – 158 million people – cast a ballot, a record turnout. About a week after the election, a coalition of experts, including a top official in Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, described the election as “the most secure in American history”.Nonetheless, Republican state lawmakers fueled an unprecedented surge of legislation to impose new restrictions on voting. In total, more than 440 bills that included measures to restrict voting access were introduced in 49 states in 2021, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Thirty-four of those bills became law in 19 states.Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardian’s Fight to vote newsletterMany of the measures impose restrictions on mail-in voting, which was used in unprecedented numbers in 2020 amid the Covid pandemic.Republicans in Florida and Georgia, for example, limited or prohibited the use of mail-in ballot drop boxes, widely used in 2020 to ensure ballots made it back to election offices in time. Some states also imposed new identification requirements for voters both when they request and return a ballot, despite no evidence of widespread fraud. Lawmakers in Georgia passed measures that prohibit providing food or water to people standing in line to vote.Republicans have also taken up measures to exert control over who runs elections and counts. Election administration in the US has long been seen as a non-partisan job run by under-the-radar officials. But experts are concerned this new trend, which some call election subversion, could lead to partisan meddling.How do Republicans justify what they’re doing?Even though voter fraud is virtually non-existent, Republicans say their measures are needed to shore up confidence in elections. Polling shows significant numbers of Americans do not trust the results of the 2020 election. A recent UMass Amherst poll, for example, found that 33% do not believe the election was legitimate.That thinking belies reality. Much of the shaken confidence is because Trump continues to claim without evidence that the election was rigged. The Republican party has embraced his claims, ostracizing dissenters.Republicans also point to polling showing that voter ID is broadly supported, and to record high turnout as evidence voter suppression isn’t really a problem. Voting rights groups point out that while turnout was up in 2020, there are still persistent gaps between white and non-white voters. About 70.9% of white voters cast a ballot in 2020, compared with 58.4% of non-white, according to the Brennan Center.In Georgia, lawmakers have defended the ban on providing food and water to people in line by saying it’s needed to prevent unlawful electioneering.Will these new laws actually help Republicans?It’s not clear that new restrictions will benefit the GOP. A study from March 2021 found that vote-by-mail neither boosted turnout nor helped Democrats. That said, there is still deep concern that Republicans appear to be pushing restrictions in response to an election where more Americans than ever, including a high numbers of non-white people, cast a ballot.Republicans could benefit significantly from efforts to take over election administration. Election officials often wield tremendous power to set rules.What are Democrats doing to push back?The Democratic response is built around two pieces of federal legislation. One measure is the Freedom to Vote Act, which would overhaul rules for federal elections and set an expansive baseline for voter access. States would be required to offer 15 days of early voting, same-day voter registration and ballot drop boxes, among other measures. It also would prevent the removal without cause of elections officials.The second bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would restore a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, requiring places where there is repeated evidence of recent voting discrimination to get changes to elections approved by the federal government. The US supreme court gutted a similar requirement in 2013.What is the filibuster and how is it related to all of this?The filibuster is a longstanding rule in the Senate. It requires 60 votes to move legislation to a final vote. The Senate is currently split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats but Democrats control it via Vice-President Kamala Harris’s casting vote. Because there are not 10 Republicans who support the voting rights bills, Democrats have been unable to move either.There has been growing criticism of the filibuster from Democrats, who say Republicans have weaponized it into a tool of obstruction.How can Democrats change the filibuster?Democrats can change the filibuster with a majority vote. The problem is that two Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, staunchly support leaving the filibuster in place. They say it is an important way to forge bipartisanship. And they argue that getting rid of the rule would allow Republicans, when back in control, to exert unlimited power.There have been aggressive negotiations to get both senators to support tweaking but not eliminating the filibuster. Ideas for such changes include requiring senators to actually talk on the floor of the Senate to hold up legislation, or to require 41 senators to actively show up to block a vote, instead of requiring 60 votes to advance.Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, has pledged a vote on changes to the filibuster this week. It’s unclear what changes, if any, Manchin and Sinema support.TopicsUS voting rightsThe fight to voteUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansexplainersReuse this content More - in US Politics
GOP state senator walks back comments on Nazi history in schools
GOP state senator walks back comments on Nazi history in schoolsScott Baldwin faced backlash after his comments during a hearing on Senate Bill 167, which would ban ‘concepts that divide’ in schools An Indiana state senator has backtracked on his remarks that teachers must be impartial when discussing nazism in classrooms after he sparked widespread backlash.During a state senate committee hearing last week about Senate Bill 167, a proposed bill that would ban “concepts that divide”, Republican Senator Scott Baldwin, who co-wrote the bill, said teachers should remain unprejudiced when teaching lessons about fascism and nazism.“Marxism, nazism, fascism … I have no problem with the education system providing instruction on the existence of those ‘isms’,” Baldwin said, adding, “I believe we’ve gone too far when we take a position … We need to be impartial.” He went on to say that teachers should “just provide the facts” and that he is “not sure it’s right for us to determine how that child should think and that’s where I’m trying to provide the guardrails”.Texas school official says classrooms with books on Holocaust must offer ‘opposing’ viewsRead moreBaldwin has since walked back on his remarks. In an email to the Indianapolis Star last Thursday, he said that his intention with the bill was to make sure teachers are being impartial when discussing and teaching “legitimate political groups”.“When I was drafting this bill, my intent with regard to ‘political affiliation’ was to cover political parties within the legal American political system,” Baldwin said. “In my comments during committee, I was thinking more about the big picture and trying to say that we should not tell kids what to think about politics.”He went on to denounce the aforementioned ideologies, saying, “nazism, Marxism and fascism are a stain on our world history and should be regarded as such, and I failed to adequately articulate that in my comments during the meeting. I believe that kids should learn about these horrible events in history so that we don’t experience them again in humanity.”SB 167 was filed in recent weeks in response to the fierce debates that have emerged across Indiana and the rest of the country in the past year regarding the ways schools should teach children about racism, history and other subject matters.The bill prohibits kindergarten through 12th grade schools from teaching students that “any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation” is inherently superior, inferior, racist, sexist, oppressive. Teachers would also be prohibited from making individuals feel “discomfort, guilt, anguish, responsibility or any other form of psychological distress” when it comes to meritocracy and the notion that it was created by one group to oppress another.The bill also prohibits teachers and curriculums from teaching that Indiana and the United States was founded as a racist or sexist state or nation.The midwest chapter of the Anti-Defamation League has criticized Baldwin’s apology, arguing that it “doesn’t change the deep harms of using ‘impartiality’ or ‘neutrality’ as tools to sanitize history”.“This is part of the continued efforts by some to try and rewrite history and characterize extremism, racism, and genocide as somehow legitimate That is dangerous and despicable. It should be categorically, universally, and loudly rejected,” the organization added.The incident comes less than three months after a north Texas school official said that classrooms with books on Holocaust must offer “opposing” viewpoints.TopicsUS educationNazismRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
